ACC PM 3/23

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Women's Work at EPA -- 'about Every Job you can Imagine'

   Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Robin Bravender
   
   
   Most U.S. EPA employees are women. Of the agency's 15,000 workers, about 51 percent are women, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) Your BPA-Free Water Bottle May Be Toxic, Too

   Mar 23, 2015 | Money Talks News

   By Jim Gold
   
   
   Just when you thought it was safe to drink from your BPA-free water bottle, a slew of scientific studies makes it hard to swallow the idea that your replacement plastic bottle is harmless.
3. Sen. Udall is a True Champion for Environment

   Mar 23, 2015 | Albuquerque Journal

   By Fred Krupp
   
   
   In Washington, the real heroes are those willing to do the hard work necessary to help American families. That’s why I admire New Mexico’s Sen. Tom Udall so much.
4. Hormone-Mimicking Chemicals Found throughout Great Lakes

   Mar 23, 2015 | Scientific American

   By Brian Bienkowski
   
   
   Larry Barber spent ten years testing water and fish in the Great Lakes region. But he wasn’t looking for the pollutants everyone’s heard of.
5. Adidas Sets Targets for Dyes and Process Chemicals

   Mar 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer
   
   
   Adidas has announced chemical management targets for the dyes used in its apparel, as well as for chemicals used to support its production processes. The targets have been set following a full screening of the chemicals used in the manufacturing of its apparel materials.
6. European Trade Bodies Criticise Endocrine Society Research

   Mar 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Carmen Paun
   
   
   Claims by the Endocrine Society that the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals are costing Europe €157bn/year are "highly speculative, say trade bodies representing the pesticides and chemicals industries (CW 9 March 2015).

Chemical Security News

7. (ACC Mentioned) Clashing Chemical Safety Bills: Industry vs. Consumers

   Mar 23, 2015 | AllGov

   By Steve Straehley
   
   
   The U.S. Senate shortly faces a choice between two views of chemical regulation—one backed by industry, the other with stronger consumer protections.

Energy and Environment News

8. Interior Poised to Push Ahead with Shell's Drilling Plan

   Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Margaret Kriz Hobson
   
   
   Royal Dutch Shell PLC's chance of drilling for oil this summer in the American Arctic could soon take a giant leap forward as the Obama administration seeks to end the legal battle that blocked energy development in the Chukchi Sea.
9. With Only a Sliver of Drilling on Federal Land, what does BLM Rule Mean?

   Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Mike Soraghan
   
   
   The real effect of the new federal rules for drilling and hydraulic fracturing announced last week could be less what they do than what they may mean.
10. New Fracking Rules Deliver Progress and Controversy

    Mar 23, 2015 | Scientific American

    By Abrahm Lustgarten
    
    
    The new rules announced Friday by the Obama administration governing how energy companies frack for oil and gas on federal lands managed to anger environmentalists and the industry alike, but represent a significant step toward protecting drinking water resources in some of the most heavily drilled parts of the country.
11. New Rule Puts Interior in a Position to Monitor Leaks from Fracking on Federal and Indian Lands

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Gayathri Vaidyanathan
    
    
    Oil and gas wells are a technological marvel. The ones drilled these days plunge thousands of feet vertically into the ground, and then turn sharply to become a horizontal well bore -- a tunnel running parallel to the Earth's surface.
12. New Regs for Tuesday: Hydraulic Fracturing, Air Pollution, Chemicals

    Mar 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Tim Devaney
    
    
    Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register contains new rules for hydraulic fracturing activities on Indian lands, endangered species, and emissions reporting requirements for hazardous air pollution.
13. Controversial La. Drilling Project Moves Forward

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    A proposed oil and drilling project located in Louisiana's St. Tammany Parish clinched a water quality certification Thursday from the state's Department of Environmental Quality, pushing the project forward.
14. Proposed Marcellus Shale Project Pushes Forward

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC can now access properties that it seeks to condemn in Susquehanna County, Pa., to build its new pipeline to New York, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
15. Industry Steps up Criticism of Pa. Gas Regulations

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Lee
    
    
    Gas industry groups sharpened their attacks on a package of regulations being developed by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's administration, while state environmental regulators said they may change some of the rules in response to input from drillers and other parties.
16. Stage Set for Supreme Court Showdown over EPA Toxics Rule

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jeremy P. Jacobs
    
    
    The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit targeting President Obama's landmark air standards for mercury and other toxins.
17. Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Obama’s Green Legacy?

    Mar 23, 2015 | National Journal

    By Clare Foran
    
    
    The Supreme Court could play an outsized role in determining the president's environmental legacy. On Wednesday, the high court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate mercury and other "air toxics" from power plants.
18. Capito to Host W.Va. Field Hearing on Clean Power Plan

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    After years of protesting U.S. EPA not holding hearings on climate regulations in coal-mining areas, West Virginia's junior senator will hold a field hearing today on the Clean Power Plan in Beckley, W.Va.
19. For States, Efficiency May Provide Answer -- and Political Roadblocks -- to Clean Power Plan

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Scott Detrow
    
    
    As the debate over the Clean Power Plan has heated up in recent months, it has seemed at times like energy efficiency is the forgotten building block.
20. Groups Say Reports Bolster Calls For Formaldehyde Testing In EPA Air Rule

    Mar 23, 2015 | Inside EPA

    By Dave Reynolds
    
    
    Healthy housing advocates and some domestic producers are reiterating long-standing calls for testing requirements in EPA's forthcoming EPA air rule for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, arguing that recent media reports showing high levels of formaldehyde in laminated flooring imported from China bolster their calls for testing.
21. Harvard Law Professors Fight over EPA’s Climate Rule

    Mar 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    A Harvard Law School professor who taught President Obama is debating with his colleagues on a school blog over the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants.
22. Tenn. Environment Commissioner Martineau Talks Power Plan's Jurisdictional Challenges

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E TV

    What jurisdictional challenges exist within states between air agencies and public utility commissions in determining how best to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan? During today's OnPoint, Bob Martineau, president of the Environmental Council of the States and a commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, explains how states are working behind the scenes to figure out next steps on the power plan.
23. Republicans Take another Stab at Cap-and-Trade Gas Exemption

    Mar 23, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee

    By Alexei Koseff
    
    
    Efforts last year to delay bringing transportation fuels under California’s cap-and-trade program were a bust. Despite concerns raised by industry groups and moderate Democrats, the new regulation went into effect on Jan. 1, part of the state’s sweeping 2006 law aimed at reducing carbon emissions blamed for climate change.

Transportation News

24. Federal Regulators Saw 'No Need' to Perform Crash Test on Newer Oil Tank Cars

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    Federal railroad authorities never performed a crash test on an industry-developed crude-hauling tank car that has been involved in several recent accidents and fires.
25. Panel to Consider Flexible Ways to Monitor Projects' Success

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    As Congress grindingly gears up to draft a new highway and transit funding bill, a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee hearing will focus as much on approach as on particular programs.
26. Coal, Solvent Spill in 2 Derailments this Weekend

    |
27. Bill to Revamp Surface Transportation Board in Line for Swift Committee OK

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    Last September, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee whisked through a bill to overhaul the Surface Transportation Board for the first time since the 1990s.
28. Doomed Request for DOT Boosts to Undergo Round 3 with House Appropriators

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    The Obama administration's transportation spending plan for next year is already headed for a dead end on Capitol Hill, but the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee will nonetheless holds its third hearing on the proposal this Wednesday.

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Women's Work at EPA -- 'about Every Job you can Imagine'

   Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   By Robin Bravender

   Most U.S. EPA employees are women.

   Of the agency's 15,000 workers, about 51 percent are women, according to the Office of Personnel Management. That includes some of the agency's top political brass, like EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, enforcement boss Cynthia Giles and acting air chief Janet McCabe. Women also occupy many of the career leadership positions and rank-and-file posts across the agency.

   Not all environmental and energy agencies are as heavily staffed by female workers.

   At the Department of Energy, about 37 percent of the workforce is female. At the Department of the Interior, about 40 percent of workers are women, according to data compiled by the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.

   Overall, women were only about 44 percent of the federal workforce in 2011, according to the most recent data available from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

   This month, EPA is marking Women's History Month by applauding the work of its female staffers. That includes recognition from EPA's boss and top female employee.

   "Women at EPA serve in a range of leadership positions and do just about every job you can imagine, from running major research efforts to analyzing data to steering our legal work to protect clean air and water. I'm proud of the women here who are doing incredible work," McCarthy said. "I'm eager and excited to support them, and to keep bringing on and cultivating more women as leaders."

   Here's a look at some of the women working in career EPA posts on everything from climate change adaptation resources to chemical safety:

   Tina Bahadori, national program director, Office of Research and Development's Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program

   A degree in French literature has helped Tina Bahadori do her job as the head of an EPA chemical safety research program.

   "It has turned out to be a very crucial skill," Bahadori said of the humanities degree she earned from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has a handful of science degrees, too -- bachelor's and master's degrees in chemical engineering and a doctorate in environmental science and engineering.

   But studying French literature taught her another way to think.

   "You read very differently when you read analytically for literature; you write very differently," she said. Being trained to read and write that way "takes you out of that equation mode when you do strictly engineering," she added.

   Bahadori has been on the job at EPA for nearly three years. She was recruited after spending more than a decade at the American Chemistry Council, where she managed the group's long-range research initiative, a program that researches the health and safety of chemicals.

   At EPA, her job involves working with other offices in the agency and across government to look for new ways to evaluate chemicals and their risks. Of the roughly 50,000 chemicals likely being used in commerce in the United States, "only maybe 300 of those chemicals have ever been formally evaluated for their safety," Bahadori said. "If we go at this one chemical at a time, we're never going to get there." The concept behind the program, set up under an Obama administration reorganization, is to "basically think about chemicals more holistically," she said.

   Bahadori is a native of Tehran, Iran, who moved to the United States when she was a junior in high school. She now travels to Iran frequently with her husband and children to visit family.

   Her EPA job involves some international travel, too. She recently returned from a meeting in Venice, Italy. Venice is "utterly a beautiful place" but perhaps wasn't the best venue for a complicated international meeting, she said. "The meeting was in a palace where there was only one functioning toilet," she said. "You had to go to another palace to use a toilet."

   Marianne Bailey, senior adviser, Office of International and Tribal Affairs' Office of Global Affairs and Policy

   Before joining EPA's international office, Marianne Bailey worked on community gardens in West African villages.

   Fresh out of graduate school in the late 1980s with a master's degree in public administration, Bailey joined the Peace Corps and shipped off to Mali to work on an agro-forestry team. "I say team really loosely," she said. She was the agriculture person, and her forestry counterpart was in another village about 10 miles away; her water counterpart was 15 miles away.

   "Theoretically, we kind of planned interventions together," she said. "I mainly worked on women's community gardens."

   Prior to joining the Peace Corps, Bailey had worked on Capitol Hill on what is now the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Rep. John Dingell (R-Mich.) was chairman of the committee, and New York Democrat Dick Ottinger headed the subpanel at the time. Bailey already knew she wanted to do international work, but her stint as a House staffer "kind of made me sure that I wanted to focus on energy- and environment-type issues," she said.

   She started at EPA about 25 years ago when she returned from Mali. She started in the policy office and moved into the international shop as a detailee when the office was trying to strengthen its relationship with the Peace Corps.

   Now, Bailey leads a team that works on global chemical and waste health risks. "Basically, if there is kind of international or multilateral interest in a particular chemical or waste issue where we can deploy programs or develop policies or even binding international conventions, we kind of are the EPA intersect with that effort," she said.

   The office also tackles international marine pollution issues. One topic it is working on now is looking at how to combat marine plastic pollution.

   "There's kind of astronomical levels of plastics that are entering the ocean, and while they break apart, they don't go away," she said. "So there's a lot of concern about those being risks not only to marine life, but to communities that depend on fisheries or coastal resources."

   Marva King, senior policy adviser, Office of Environmental Justice

   When Marva King found out about EPA's fledgling environmental justice shop in the mid-1990s, she hounded the office's director for two months to let her sign up to work for free.

   King called Clarice Gaylord, the first director of the Environmental Justice Office, and said, "You can put me anywhere -- in a corner." When Gaylord told her she didn't have anywhere to put her, King offered to sit in a corner.

   Eventually, Gaylord relented, and King joined EPA in 1994 as a detailee from her job at the Navy in Philadelphia, where she was working at the time. "She brought me in for a month, and she extended my detail and she kept me," King said.

   She even got a desk, King said, although it wasn't a full-sized desk. And Gaylord became her mentor. "I followed her around like a puppy dog," King said.

   King got interested in environmental justice while she was working on her master's degree at the University of Delaware. She took a class on environmental policy and found a chapter in her textbook about environmental racism. "I started investigating it and researching it, and one day I was at the Delaware law library in the microfilm room doing my research and I discovered the National Law Journal's expose on environmental justice and I started crying in the law library," she said. She went home, called her mother and said, "I found my passion."

   Her mother's response: "OK, well, go ahead and do it."

   King has been at EPA for more than two decades. After 10 years in the Environmental Justice Office and another 10 in the air office, she returned this year to the EJ office. She spends about half her time advising the director of the EJ office, Matthew Tejada, and his deputy, Sheila Lewis. The other half of King's job involves advising Mustafa Ali, McCarthy's senior adviser for environmental justice.

   Since she started at the agency more than 20 years ago, King said, "we've come a long way" on environmental justice issues, "but we still have a long way to go. ... People are still hurting, they're still dying, the vulnerable populations are still suffering, we haven't addressed cumulative risk. We still have a long way to go, but these conditions did not happen overnight, so we're not going to solve them overnight."

   Leanne Nurse, environmental protection specialist, Office of Policy

   Social justice is what first drove Leanne Nurse, a 26-year EPA employee, into environmental protection work.

   "I had an environmental interest specifically because when we think about what is the way of making social change, a lot of laws and rules which relate to economic and social policy are not necessarily effective," she said. "There's such disparities in terms of environmental conditions for people. So my concern was both about the science, but also about social justice."

   In the 1960s, the Philadelphia native did volunteer work for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the Mid-Atlantic region, where she helped people organize and file legal briefs and did work with student and neighborhood groups. Now, she's active in her faith community. She's a Buddhist and works with other religious denominations on environmental and social justice issues.

   By day, she works in EPA's policy shop, one of a wide variety of posts she has held since joining the agency in 1989.

   Nurse got started at EPA in the agency's Philadelphia office, where she worked on issues like community involvement in Superfund sites, environmental justice policy and Chesapeake Bay programs. She arrived at EPA's headquarters in Washington, D.C., to work in the public engagement office doing outreach and communications policy.

   Now, much of her job entails developing training programs about climate change. She recently helped develop a training program for EPA staff about climate change adaptation and another about solid waste issues like Superfund sites and brownfields. She's now working on a climate adaptation training program for local governments.

   "We're talking about helping people move from 'Good grief, climate change is something so bad,' to 'What can I do about it at my scale?'"

   Jini Ryan, executive video producer, Office of Public Affairs' Office of Multimedia

   Jini Ryan helped EPA to win its first Emmy Award by lying in a heap of ants.

   A few years ago, her colleague Ray Flores called her to help shoot video for a public service announcement about the perils of pollution. Ryan trekked into the woods one weekend with Flores and his family to get footage.

   "He was tossing his daughter up in the air just to get her to giggle, and I said, 'That would be a perfect shot; don't move.' ... I'm shooting footage up in the air and got up off the ground covered in ants," she said.

   The video won an Emmy in 2012 from the National Capital Chesapeake Bay Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences in the public service announcement category.

   Making public service announcements is just part of Ryan's job in EPA's Multimedia Office. She also helps produce training videos and covers live events, like EPA's rollout last summer of a proposed rule to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. Those live events can be broadcast on an internal EPA television station that runs in EPA headquarters and regional offices.

   "The interesting thing that a lot of people don't realize is that EPA is not just scientists," Ryan said. "The challenge of our job is to take what they do and the science behind it and make that accessible to the American public."

   Before joining EPA in 2010, Ryan did radio and television work for the Army and was a news reporter for the D.C.-area NewsChannel 8 television station.

   She was born in Minnesota and lived in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., before her father retired and decided to move the family back to his native India. Ryan returned to the United States to get her master's degree at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. She got a job out of school working as a videographer for Medill's news service in D.C. and has worked in the capital ever since.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) Your BPA-Free Water Bottle May Be Toxic, Too

   Mar 23, 2015 | Money Talks News

   By Jim Gold

   Just when you thought it was safe to drink from your BPA-free water bottle, a slew of scientific studies makes it hard to swallow the idea that your replacement plastic bottle is harmless.

   For years, we heard reports that estrogen-mimicking bisphenol-a (BPA) increased our risks of certain cancers, fertility reduction, birth defects and diabetes.

   The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2012 banned BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups and, in 2013, from infant formula packaging — all practices already phased out by manufacturers.

   While the FDA as late as November 2014 called BPA levels in other food containers and packaging safe, many manufacturers heeding consumer sensitivities churned out “BPA-free” bottles.

   Many replaced BPA with BPS, or bisphenol-s, a similar chemical.

   Recent scientific studies rebut claims that BPS is safe — and at least one researcher called for removal of all bisphenols from consumer products.

   A University of Calgary study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found zebrafish embryos exposed to very low doses of BPA and BPS had altered brain development leading to hyperactivity.

   The chemical exposure changed the timing when neurons were formed in the zebrafish brains.

   “These findings are important because they support that the prenatal period is a particularly sensitive stage, and reveals previously unexplored avenues of research into how early exposure to chemicals may alter brain development,” Cassandra Kinch, a doctoral student and research leader at the university’s Cumming School of Medicine, told the university.

   The findings add weight to other studies suggesting pregnant women should try to limit their exposure to items containing bisphenols, said Deborah Kurrasch, Ph.D., a Cumming researcher and corresponding author on the paper. The evidence also supports removing all bisphenols and structurally similar chemicals from consumer products, she said.

   The American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing companies using chemicals, disagrees.

   “The relevance of this limited study on zebrafish, as asserted by the authors, is not at all clear, and it would not be scientifically appropriate to draw any conclusions about human health based on this limited experiment,” said Steven Hentges, of the council’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group. “Many government bodies around the world have evaluated the scientific evidence on BPA and have clearly stated that BPA is safe as used in food contact materials.”

   Hong-Sheng Wang, a pharmacologist at the University of Cincinnati, recently led a study that found the heart rates of female rats sped up and went into arrhythmias when exposed BPA and BPS. Male rats were not affected the same way, said the study published Feb. 26 in Environmental Health Perspectives. In people, Wang said, BPS might lead to heart damage or put those with pre-existing heart conditions or stressful lives at risk for heart disease.

   French researchers exposed small pieces of tissue taken from developing mouse and human testes to BPA, BPS and bisphenol-F (BPF). All the chemicals lowered the production of testosterone in these tissues, and BPS proved to be a more potent testosterone-blocker than BPA.

   The chemistry council says don’t worry about BPA, let alone BPS, based on FDA and other studies.

   “Because of the way BPA is processed in the body, it is very unlikely that BPA could cause health effects at any realistic exposure level,” the council says.

   The FDA did report that studies found that primates, including humans, of all ages effectively metabolize and excrete BPA much more rapidly and efficiently than rodents.

   A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found detectable levels of BPA in 93 percent of 2,517 urine samples from people age 6 and older.

   BPA can leach into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products like polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers and water bottles, the National Institutes of Health says.

   Other ways include cash register receipts, air, water and dust. Some dental sealants and composites may also contribute to BPA exposure, the NIH says.

   To avoid BPA exposure, the NIH suggests: Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from overuse at high temperatures.Plastic containers have recycle codes on the bottom. Some, but not all, plastics that are marked with recycle codes 3 or 7 may be made with BPA.Reduce your use of canned foods.When possible, opt for glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.

   If you’re buying a plastic water bottle, check the label. Some manufacturers show their products are made with neither BPA or BPS.

   What’s your approach to plastics? Let us know in the comments section below or on our Facebook page.

   
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Sen. Udall is a True Champion for Environment

   Mar 23, 2015 | Albuquerque Journal

   By Fred Krupp

   In Washington, the real heroes are those willing to do the hard work necessary to help American families. That’s why I admire New Mexico’s Sen. Tom Udall so much.

   Udall has spent his career doing battle to defend our environment. His leadership has protected and expanded our public lands, supported responsible solutions to climate change and kept our air and water clean.

   Now Udall is taking on one of the toughest and most important fights of his life. He’s leading the effort to fix America’s broken chemical safety law, which has become a national disgrace.

   Most people assume that the chemicals in products we buy in the supermarket are tested for safety. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the current Toxic Substances Control Act – passed almost 40 years ago – no one has the authority to require testing and, if necessary, block dangerous chemicals in the products we buy.

   Toxic chemicals in household cleaners, plastic containers and other consumer goods flow freely into the marketplace. EPA is even unable to ban known carcinogens, like asbestos, which still kills 10,000 Americans a year. And our broken system means that babies are born with industrial chemicals already in their bodies, and that wildlife like bald eagles and polar bears are heavily contaminated.

   As a lifelong champion of the environment, this situation is intolerable for Udall. So he is working with environmental organizations like ours to pass a tough and effective system to protect American families. And he’s shown a willingness to do the hard work, and make the tough decisions, to really get something done.

   Lots of politicians make speeches, but Udall is doing what’s necessary to change things. That means engaging in hard negotiations with the chemical industry – because, especially in this current Congress, nothing will get done otherwise.

   It would be easier for Udall – and, frankly, politically smarter – if he stood back and simply called for the ideal reform, even if he knew it could never pass Congress. It would certainly allow him to avoid the attacks he’s heard from interests groups on both sides. But that would leave the American people unprotected.

   The good news is that pressure from regulations in some states and action by some retailers has forced powerful industry groups to make major concessions. Udall took up the mantle of reform from the late progressive stalwart Sen. Frank Lautenberg and has negotiated with Sen. David Vitter to improve upon their original legislation to make it even stronger for the environment.

   It is now significantly better than current law, preserving all existing state chemical regulations, making companies pay EPA to assess the safety of their products, and – most importantly – finally giving EPA the power to block market access to chemicals proven to be dangerous.

   In Washington, words are never in short supply. But real courage – the willingness to suffer political attacks in order to help American families – is a rare quality. That’s what makes Tom Udall a true environmental champion.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Hormone-Mimicking Chemicals Found throughout Great Lakes

   Mar 23, 2015 | Scientific American

   By Brian Bienkowski

   Larry Barber spent ten years testing water and fish in the Great Lakes region. But he wasn’t looking for the pollutants everyone’s heard of.

   Mercury … PCBs … these are still problems. But there’s a lesser-known class of contaminants, which have insidious and concerning health impacts on aquatic creatures.

   Barber, a research geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, was looking for, and found, hormone-disrupting compounds – called alkylphenols - making it through wastewater treatment plants and contaminating rivers and fish in the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi River regions.

   The compounds pervade the Great Lakes basin waterways that receive wastewater treatment plant effluent.

   “It doesn’t matter if it’s a large urban wastewater plant, a mid-size city wastewater plant or individual septic tanks,” Barber said. “These chemicals are present.”

   Wastewater treatment plants were not originally designed to handle these compounds, widely used both commercially and residentially in products such as detergents, cleaning products and adhesives. Operators are scrambling to keep up with the hormone-mimickers gushing into their plants.

   Meanwhile, scientists fear the biologically active contaminants and their metabolites may alter the hormones of fish and other aquatic creatures, leading to reproductive, behavioral and developmental problems.

   “In terms of effects, these alkylphenols are just one subset of compounds that add up to produce adverse effects,” said Alan Vajda, an assistant professor of biology at the University of Colorado. “A little alkylphenol, a little estrogenic birth control … they all add up.”

   Nearly ubiquitous
   From 1999 to 2009 Barber and colleagues looked for nine compounds and their metabolites, many of which are known to disrupt the endocrine system, in the effluent from wastewater treatment plants in Duluth and St. Paul, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis and Akron, Ohio. They found all nine compounds in every plant's effluent.

   Over the study timeframe the amount discharged was fairly constant, Barber said.

   This isn’t the first time researchers have found the compounds in the Great Lakes. In 2007 Environment Canada reported that the compounds were in sediment of a Great Lakes coastal wetland in Ontario and were accumulating in the tissue of local invertebrates. 

   Another Canadian study from 2009 tested 28 sites in lakes Erie, Huron and Ontario, and found alkylphenols distributed widely in sediments in the lower Great Lakes, with concentrations higher in sediments near larger cities. 

   Alkyphenols are “nearly ubiquitous,” Vajda said. “There are so many sources of these compounds in consumer products and in industrial uses and agriculture.”

   It’s not always the parent compound that researchers are looking for. The compounds are partially broken down when they go through wastewater treatment plants.

   However, they break down into metabolites that persist and still exhibit endocrine disrupting properties.

   “They go down the drain, through the sewers, through the wastewater treatment plant, back into stream, and many are converted into more biologically active forms than what they started as,” Barber said.

   Estrogenic impacts to fish
   Alkyphenols disrupt endocrine systems, acting estrogenic in fish, birds and mammals. 

   Estrogenic compounds act through the estrogen receptor – and the common health impact people think of is reproduction, Vajda said. “But the roles much more diverse than that – estrogens are important to the brain, metabolism, cardiovascular health,” he said.

   Barber and colleagues tested some fish in the Great Lakes region for indications of endocrine disruption. They found that a protein – called plasma vitellogenin, which is predominantly in female fish – was mostly reduced in female fish and present in males.

   Responses from both sexes are indicative of endocrine disruption, Barber said.

   “A lot of endocrine disruption is creating imbalances in these biological feedback systems. After exposure, females’ machinery will kind of shut down since it's estrogen driven,” Barber said. “Male fish exposed to estrogen will produce this protein in their blood.”

   When asked to comment on Barber’s findings, Tara Johnson, a spokesperson with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said via email: “None of the actual results are particularly remarkable or unexpected based on past studies of this type with alkylphenols.”

   Scientists have linked alkyphenols to a number of health impacts in fish.

   Most of the research has been from laboratory studies, said Reynaldo Patiño, a USGS scientist and leader of the Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

   “Studies suggest behavior problems, impaired reproduction, development of immune system, disease resistance,” Patiño said. “These are all important functions.”

   For example, Barber, Vajda and colleagues in 2010 found that minnows exposed to hormone- and alkylphenol-contaminated wastewater effluent from Boulder, Colorado, were demasculinized within 14 days.

   During the research period, Boulder water officials took steps to limit alkyphenols prompting a “dramatic decrease in the compounds showing up in effluent,” Vajda said.

   “And with it, we saw a dramatic decrease in health impacts in fish,” he said, adding that this relationship suggested the alkyphenols were largely to blame for initial demasculinization.

   Michigan researchers found that crayfish had severe developmental problems when exposed and concluded that the compounds pose a “serious risk to future crayfish populations and consequently food webs.” 

   In trout, four common alkylphenols stimulate gene expression and the growth of breast cancer cell lines, according to research from the UK’s Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 

   Vajda said that all of these studies are relevant for the Great Lakes fish since endocrine disrupting compounds should act similarly across fish species. He added it’s hard to pin any specific health impacts on any group of compounds since fish are exposed to a mixture of so many.

   The ultimate concern is that compounds could affect fish populations. This, too, would be quite difficult to pin down, Patiño said, but it’s not a stretch to think there could be population level impacts.

   “Wastewater effluent impacts individual fish. It’s not unreasonable to think if individuals are affected, including these reproductive endpoints, to expand that and project that populations are likely to be affected,” Patiño said.

   All exposures count
   It’s difficult to quantify the risk alkyphenolic-contaminated fish are to humans, said Dr. Ana Soto, a Tufts University professor and biologist, adding that what and how many fish eaten would determine exposure.

   However, both contaminated fish and water represent yet another route of estrogen exposure for people.

   “We’re already affected by estrogens like BPA, and we know the effects are additive,” Soto said. “In a nutshell, I can’t tell you how much endocrine disruption [in people] will increase from eating the fish in the river. But I can say there is potential, and all exposures count."

   “And we already have estrogens, now there are potentially more provided to the body from the water … and fish.”

   Stopping them at the source
   Alkylphenols are widespread in wastewater effluent because wastewater treatment plants simply were not designed to handle such compounds.

   “The basic concept of plants was conceptualized 70 or 80 years ago when someone said ‘hey could we take natural biodegradation process in the environment, and speed it up,” said Chris Hornback, senior director of regulatory affairs with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA).

   “These plants were designed to get the stuff when you think of sewage out of water, get it cleaned and return it to environment, “ he said. “Nothing in the realm of our imagination when these processes were first conceptualized envisioned triclosan, estrogen from birth control pills, or alkyphenolics.”

   There is some research into bolstering removal rates of such compounds. Hornback said that reverse osmosis, which cleans water by pushing it through membranes, seems to work best at removing emerging contaminants like alkyphenols. However, reverse osmosis is prohibitively expensive for most plants.

   Other researchers have had some success at slowing down the sludge retention time, which keeps the wastewater in the portion of the treatment process where organisms are consuming organic matter. A longer holding period seems to remove more contaminants such as alkyphenols. But that’s not without problems either, Hornback said.

   “Slowing everything down really impacts the overall treatment process, and changes how much capacity you can put through. There isn’t a treatment technology you can slap on and say ‘remove contaminant X or Y,” he said.

   Another option to bolster removal is activated carbon filters, said Larry Rogacki, district general manager of support services at Minnesota’s Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, which operates the wastewater treatment plants for the St. Paul, Minneapolis region.

   But it, too, would be “extremely expensive,” Rogacki said. “We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars.” Rather than make such an investment, Rogacki said it makes much more sense to keep these compounds out of the sanitary system in the first place.

   “If alkyphenolic compounds are causing problems in the environment, we should be working to keep them out of the sewer,” Hornback said. “The sewer is not a trash can.”

   City officials at Boulder, Colorado, for example, worked with Barber and others to monitor local waterways for alkyphenols and then reach out to industries near high concentrations to educate them about potential impacts and alternative options. 

   Hornback said the major concern is that the EPA approves compounds and then, after environmental impacts are confirmed, will force wastewater treatments plants to deal with them

   The EPA’s Johnson said the agency does not have any human or aquatic water quality standards for any of the chemicals that Barber and colleagues monitored.

   Nor are there “imminent plans to develop” any standards, she added.

   But voluntary reductions in chemicals can reduce their presence in the environment, Barber said.

   “It’s good to get the word out. If people realize ‘Oh, I’m using products that are having an unsavory environmental impact’, and realize they have alternatives, they’ll usually turn to the alternatives.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Adidas Sets Targets for Dyes and Process Chemicals

   Mar 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer

   Adidas has announced chemical management targets for the dyes used in its apparel, as well as for chemicals used to support its production processes. The targets have been set following a full screening of the chemicals used in the manufacturing of its apparel materials.

   By the end of 2015: 50% of all dyes used in apparel will be approved by Bluesign, a Switzerland-based certification company that applies standards for textile product manufacture and use of hazardous substances (GBB May 2009); and10% of all auxiliary chemicals used in apparel will be Bluesign approved. Auxiliaries are substances used to support the production process, but which do not add a function to the product.

   Adidas says the auxiliaries target is only 10% at this stage because such chemicals are often supplied by local suppliers that have only just started work on meeting the Bluesign criteria, and the process will take a long time.

   Dyestuffs, by contrast, are supplied by global players, most of whom have been Bluesign system partners for years and can provide suppliers with approved dyes, says Adidas.

   The sports goods brand says that through its partnership with Bluesign it has increased its focus on "chemical input", checking the chemicals that are used by suppliers in the manufacturing process. Adidas’s material suppliers were asked to provide detailed information regarding the chemicals they use to produce their materials. While it did not disclose what information was asked for, or provided, due to the confidentiality of the information, it did say suppliers have been very responsive.

   “To be able to advise our suppliers with regard to smarter choices about the chemicals used in making our products, we first needed to have full visibility on which chemicals are currently being used by our suppliers,” says Adidas’ vice president of social and environmental affairs, Franke Henke.

   This information will pave the way for a successful target-setting strategy aimed at achieving sustainable textile chemistry in the future, says Mr Henke

   Last year Adidas said it had phased out the use of long-chain PFCs – the so-called C8 group of chemicals – and promised to switch to 99% poly- and perfluorinated chemical (PFC)-free products by 31 December 2017 (CW 11 June 2014).

   The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) group, to which Adidas belongs, also released its list of manufacturing restricted substances (MRSL) for the apparel and footwear industry (CW 5 June 2014) in 2014. The group, which also includes Nike, Puma and H&M, hopes to eliminate hazardous chemicals from its members' supply chains by 2020 (GBB September 2013).
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. European Trade Bodies Criticise Endocrine Society Research

   Mar 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Carmen Paun

   Claims by the Endocrine Society that the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals are costing Europe €157bn/year are "highly speculative, say trade bodies representing the pesticides and chemicals industries (CW 9 March 2015).

   The society – a professional medical organisation – said chemicals such as phthalates, bisphenol A, pesticides and flame retardants, contributed to causing conditions and diseases such as autism, childhood obesity, adult diabetes, testicular cancer and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

   “The estimated human health costs are based on an assumption of chemicals contributing to endocrine-related diseases, which is not supported by the weight of currently available scientific evidence”, a spokesman for the European Crop Protection Association (Ecpa) told Chemical Watch.

   The study authors did not apply a weight-of-evidence approach to the epidemiological evidence used in their underlying assumptions, said the spokesman, failing, for example, to include studies which found no link between pesticides and neuro-behavioural effects. Nor, he said, is the connection between the two supported by an expert report on pesticides and health commissioned by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) in 2013.

   “Overall, considering the unbalanced and questionable scientific basis upon which the reports are based, the estimated costs of the human diseases should be viewed as highly speculative and treated with caution,” he said.

   The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) agrees, saying the Endocrine Society studies do not provide any new evidence about the EDC effects and assume that these effects exist. “In short," it says, "they are an attempt to estimate the costs of an assumed effect.”

   “We can all engage in informed speculation, but it is for the competent regulatory authorities to undertake an objective and independent evaluation of all the available evidence, and to judge whether and in what circumstance substances can be used safely,” Cefic added.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

7. (ACC Mentioned) Clashing Chemical Safety Bills: Industry vs. Consumers

   Mar 23, 2015 | AllGov

   By Steve Straehley

   The U.S. Senate shortly faces a choice between two views of chemical regulation—one backed by industry, the other with stronger consumer protections.

   The first, with heavy support from the chemical industry, got its first hearing Wednesday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, co-sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), is touted as a “common-sense” update to the current regulatory legislation. However, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) called the proposal “actually worse than the existing Toxic Substances Control Act.” The organization cites the failure to specifically address asbestos, deadlines for chemical review pushed far into the future, not allowing states to set tougher standards for chemical safety, and several other issues. In addition EWG says the bill would actually weaken the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to intercept imported unsafe chemicals.

   The chemical industry has made sure those who co-sponsored the Lautenberg bill are well taken care of financially. Vitter received $14,000 from the industry in the 2014 election cycle, topping off the nearly $60,000 the industry has handed him during the past six years. He also received a $150,000 donation from the American Chemistry Council to the super PAC supporting his Louisiana gubernatorial bid, according to Maplight. The industry donated $15,000 to Udall during the 2014 cycle and sponsored a television commercial in support of his leadership.

   Additionally, during that same election cycle, all 17 senators who sponsored or co-sponsored the Vitter-Udall bill were among the current members of the Senate who received more than $1 million in donations from the nation’s top 10 chemical companies. The total amount spent by those organizations on lobbying during that period was more than $76 million, Maplight reported. The industry’s spending on lobbying immediately after the legislation was introduced hit a record high for those companies. More than $4 million was spent by the Chemistry Council alone to pay for TV and radio ads supporting the campaigns of those in Congress who backed the bill.

   “I’ve been around the Senate for a long time, but I have never before seen so much heavy-handed, big-spending lobbying on any issue,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) told The New York Times. “To me it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.”

   Boxer even tracked the bill’s origins to the industry’s lobbying arm. “Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I do not believe that a regulated industry should be so intimately involved in writing a bill that regulates them,” she added.

   In response to what she viewed as deficiencies in the Lautenberg bill, Boxer and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) have introduced the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act. That legislation, named for two victims of chemical pollution, would go much farther in protecting Americans from chemical dangers. It would require faster review of chemicals, specifically address the threat from asbestos, allow states to impose more restrictions and enforce a stricter standard of what is hazardous.

   “This legislation will preserve vital protections like a state’s ability to clamp down on dangerous chemicals, while ensuring that known chemical threats to public health are acted on quickly,” Markey said in a statement. “This bill will help ensure that communities are protected from chemical spills and clusters of disease that are related to toxic exposures.”

   There’s currently no timetable for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, run by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), to take up Boxer and Markey’s bill.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

8. Interior Poised to Push Ahead with Shell's Drilling Plan

   Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Margaret Kriz Hobson

   Royal Dutch Shell PLC's chance of drilling for oil this summer in the American Arctic could soon take a giant leap forward as the Obama administration seeks to end the legal battle that blocked energy development in the Chukchi Sea.

   As soon as today, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell is expected to sign off on a revised environmental impact statement for the government's 2008 oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi.

   The new assessment was mandated last year when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found serious flaws in the original report.

   The court's ruling forced federal regulators to suspend those leases and prevented Shell from drilling last summer off Alaska's northern coast.

   Now the Obama administration appears ready to pave the way for the company to determine just how much oil is available on its Chukchi Sea leases purchased seven years ago for $2.1 billion.

   The federal government estimates that the entire Chukchi region holds an impressive 15.4 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil.

   However, while the prospects for Shell's Arctic drill plan appear to be improving in Washington, D.C., the environmental community is mobilizing to challenge Chukchi exploration.

   Environmental groups continue to file a steady stream of lawsuits challenging federal protections for Arctic wildlife and oversight of the oil industry.

   Now, an increasing number of drilling opponents are rallying around climate change as a powerful issue to stop Arctic development. Activists predict that Shell's Arctic oil operation could become as intense a political issue as the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

   "This issue is fast becoming very similar to Keystone XL in the sense that people are saying, 'Look, we've got to stop these fossil fuel projects,'" observed John Deans, Arctic campaign specialist for Greenpeace.

   "We're talking about an area that's being changed more rapidly by climate change than any other place in the world," Deans said. "The oil companies are looking to exploit that, and the administration is seemingly cheerleading on the sidelines." Getting ready to move

   Before beginning this year's drilling operation, Shell had spent more than $6 billion on unsuccessful efforts to characterize the oil and gas resources at its leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

   The oil giant's most notorious opportunity came in 2012, when Shell launched drill teams to both Arctic offshore regions.

   However, after suffering devastating equipment, management and weather problems, the oil giant was never able to secure the permits needed to sink a single drill bit into the hydrocarbon zones at the sites.

   The aftermath was equally brutal. In late 2012, Shell's Kulluk drill rig ran aground and was eventually scrapped.

   After an exhaustive federal investigation, a company hired to operate Shell's two drilling vessels pleaded guilty to eight felony charges and agreed to pay $12.2 million in fines in connection with its 2012 Arctic drilling operations.

   Shell itself paid a $1.1 million fine for Clean Air Act permit violations (EnergyWire, Dec. 9, 2014).

   Despite the headaches of 2012, Shell began 2014 determined to open a second drilling campaign last summer. But those hopes were dashed when the 9th Circuit rejected the environmental assessment that the Interior Department had used to back up its Chukchi Sea leases.

   This year, while the federal government sorted out the lawsuit, Shell submitted a new blueprint to explore in the Chukchi (EnergyWire, Sept. 17, 2014).

   The court has allowed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to hold informal talks with Shell experts on the company's Arctic drilling proposal.

   Now BOEM is poised to publish a new supplemental environmental impact statement to replace the original assessment.

   At that point, the government would be in position to formally accept Shell's exploration plan for Chukchi drilling, a step that would trigger a 30-day timeline for approving or rejecting the proposal.

   By late April, the multinational oil company could secure a conditional drilling permit for the Arctic operation, although several other federal and state permits would be required before drilling could actually begin.

   At the company's January investor meeting, Shell executives said they anticipate spending $1 billion for this year's Arctic venture, even if the company isn't able to drill in the Chukchi.

   Shell has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars amassing a new drill fleet, and is moving personnel and equipment to staging areas in Seattle and Alaska.

   Environmental activists protest that the Obama administration is speeding through the regulatory approval process without fully examining the potential safety and wildlife impacts of Shell's exploration project.

   "The rush significantly increases the risk to both our oceans and Shell's shareholders' money," said Michael LeVine of Oceana. "We need a full and fair evaluation of the risks and benefits -- by the company and the government."

   But at a recent Senate hearing, Interior's Jewell noted that Shell's Arctic drilling proposal has been a top priority for her department.

   "Our team has been working very, very hard to address the supplemental EIS that was required of us by the courts to support Shell's activities potentially this summer," Jewell said.

   "[W]e took our resources and focused them as we were requested to do on helping Shell move forward for this drilling season." More legal challenges to settle

   Ever since Shell acquired its first leases in the Beaufort Sea in 2005 and in the Chukchi in 2008, state and national environmental groups have looked to the courts to help them stop the company's Arctic exploration plans.

   Today, even as BOEM seeks to clear the legal challenge to its 2008 Chukchi leases, the government faces other lawsuits that could potentially affect Shell's summer drilling program.

   One case focuses on the process that the Interior Department used in approving oil spill response plans for Shell's 2012 exploration operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

   In that 2013 case, a coalition of environmentalists charged that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement failed to examine whether the company spill plans "actually provide for an effective cleanup of a worst case spill and prevents and minimizes environmental harm."

   The plaintiffs argue that the government should have consulted with federal fish and wildlife agencies and conducted an environmental review before approving the plans.

   The lawsuit was argued in August and is still pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

   In a separate lawsuit, environmental groups challenged an Interior rule that allows energy companies to disturb walruses while exploring for oil in the Arctic Ocean (E&ENews PM, Nov. 10, 2014).

   The lawsuit, filed in November, warns that oil drilling operations could chase walruses away from critical feeding areas such as Hanna Shoal, located near Shell's Chukchi oil leases.

   Environmentalists also assert that oil spills would be difficult to clean up, causing long-term damage to walrus habitat.

   In addition to the federal lawsuits, Shell is also in the middle of another legal case, this one concerning the company's use of the Port of Seattle as the home base for its Arctic drilling operations.

   Early this month, environmentalists went to King County Superior Court seeking to overturn the Seattle Port commissioners' decision to allow Foss Maritime to convert a cargo terminal into a home port for Shell.

   Despite those legal challenges, the Obama administration appears determined to quickly end the legal challenge to its 2008 lease sale and to meet a tight regulatory schedule necessary to pave the way for Shell to drill this summer in the Chukchi Sea.

   At the same time, Shell is preparing to sink drill bits into its Chukchi leases by late summer. Shell's international reputation and billions of dollars in investments will be at stake as the oil giant strives to avoid the failures that doomed its 2012 operations.

   But this time around, both Shell and the Obama administration will also face intensified attacks by environmental opponents.

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. With Only a Sliver of Drilling on Federal Land, what does BLM Rule Mean?

   Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

   By Mike Soraghan

   The real effect of the new federal rules for drilling and hydraulic fracturing announced last week could be less what they do than what they may mean.

   After all, they apply to development on only federal land, where a mere 8 percent of drilling in the country occurs.

   But they signal a continued willingness after President Obama's last election to set aside oil industry lobbying points, even if his administration also ignored some pleas from green groups.

   And by sitting federal land managers in judgment of state rules, it may come close to being a national standard for all drilling rules to be measured against.

   For example, analyst Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners suggests it might serve as a "template" for future decisions beyond the jurisdiction of the federal Bureau of Land Management.

   "The BLM rule could establish a model for how federal agencies such as the EPA want states to regulate water management, well integrity and fluids disclosure," Book said.

   Among the commenting class, the rule served as a Rorschach test of the debate about hydraulic fracturing and domestic production. Depending on your perspective, the rules were an overreach by an imperious Democratic White House, a "seal of approval" on "fracking" from the Obama administration, or yet another capitulation to Big Oil.

   The rule triggered a near-instantaneous lawsuit from trade groups representing independent drillers (Greenwire, March 20). Disappointed environmental groups could mount their own legal challenge.

   But the litigation and overheated rhetoric belies the limited impact the rules themselves will have on the national shale drilling boom that has driven domestic production to new heights.

   Oil and gas companies drilled nearly 37,000 wells across the country in 2013 as the fracking-driven shale boom rose to its peak. Interior Department officials said about 2,800 wells were on federal land. Texas alone can see that many wells drilled in a month.

   So about 92 percent of drilling activity occurs outside the jurisdiction of federal land managers. Banning pits for wastewater storage and imposing new well construction standards might crimp some small companies but not most of them.

   The big shale plays haven't been in federal land states. The high-profile action has been in Texas, Pennsylvania and North Dakota. That has spurred chicken-or-egg-style debates: Does red tape ward off exploration on federal lands, or are companies just not that interested?

   "The energy renaissance is largely a story about state and private land, but vast resources remain inaccessible and untapped in federal areas, particularly in the West," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), in complaining about what she called an "anti-development approach" by the administration.

   But shale drillers' interest in Wyoming and California fizzled because of geology, not politics.

   Beyond that, disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals on the FracFocus.org website -- the best-known provision of the rule -- is already required in most drilling states. Variance questions

   Still, the political impact of an action by a presidential administration cannot be discounted, especially when it reaches across many states.

   The real reach of the rule may be felt most in the "variance" process included in 395-page document issued Friday.

   The process was added to the rule to address industry complaints that the administration's proposal was duplicative of rules administered by state agencies, the primary regulators of drilling. If a state or tribe has rules that are at least as protective as the BLM rule, that provision of the BLM rule can be essentially waived.

   It was intended as a means to provide flexibility to states. But there's little guidance about how such variances might be granted. It could lead to BLM officials essentially sitting in judgment of a state's standards.

   House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) complained that the variance process "will create an entanglement of bureaucracy previously unseen in our nation's energy history."

   The positive aspect of this for state regulators and industry may be that it is BLM and not EPA overseeing the process.

   The oil and gas industry is deeply suspicious of EPA. It prefers regulation by the states, whose regulators have a dual mission to promote development. EPA, by contrast, has a mission to protect the environment, with no obligation to promote business. BLM, though, falls somewhere in the middle, with a "multiple use" mission to balance competing interests of preservation, recreation and exploitation of minerals. For many years, environmentalists complained that BLM stood for "Bureau of Livestock and Mining."

   What companies fear, and environmentalists likely hope, is that as states consider new rules, residents and activists can use those federal judgments to grill state officials on whether their rules are weaker than the federal rules -- and why.

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. New Fracking Rules Deliver Progress and Controversy

    Mar 23, 2015 | Scientific American

    By Abrahm Lustgarten

    The new rules announced Friday by the Obama administration governing how energy companies frack for oil and gas on federal lands managed to anger environmentalists and the industry alike, but represent a significant step toward protecting drinking water resources in some of the most heavily drilled parts of the country.

    The rules mark the first time the federal government has stepped in to enact protections to limit risks posed by a technology that has been both criticized for causing environmental harm and credited with making the nation one of the leading producers of oil and gas.

    Fracking involves injecting large volumes of water, sand and toxic chemicals underground with explosive force that fractures the rock and helps it release trapped hydrocarbons. It has been associated with water and air pollution almost every place that it is practiced, and become a lighting rod for environmental opposition to domestic energy production. ProPublica has been covering issues related to fracking since 2008, including the gaps in federal oversight and the government’s consideration of ways to address it.

    The rules exclude drilling on private land and apply only to lands or mineral resources directly managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, including tribal lands, which make up a relative minority of all the wells drilled in the United States. They fall short of some of the most stringent fracking regulations already in place in some states, but establish a baseline of best practices and update arcane federal drilling rules almost three decades old.

    “Many of the regulations on the books at the Interior Department have not kept pace with advances in technology and modern drilling methods,” said Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior and a former petroleum engineer, in her statement announcing the new policy. “Our decades-old regulations do not contemplate current techniques in which hydraulic fracturing is increasingly complex.”

    The new rules promise to improve basic protections for drinking water by requiring drilling procedures that have long been standard on waste injection wells used by the drilling industry, but which have not been applied to new oil and gas wells used to extract resources.

    They are lengthy and complicated, but an initial review of documents released by the Interior Department shows they address four important areas: They will require drilling companies to encase their wells in cement through vulnerable areas where they could leak into groundwater, and will require testing of that cement to ensure it is properly in place.Pressure tests, called mechanical integrity tests, will be required in order to confirm that the wells can contain the extraordinary forces of fracking, before the fracking process itself can be performed.A geological analysis of a well site will be required before fracking takes place, so that the reach of those fractures and their potential to intersect with water sources or other wells can be predicted.The temporary use of open waste pits – large ponds containing water and pollutants removed from the wells after fracking – will be prohibited except in rare circumstances.  

    These core requirements directly address many of the known causes of water pollution associated with new drilling efforts and fracking across the country. Where methane and other pollutants have escaped wells into water supplies, it has often been because the cement encapsulation of the wells was incomplete, or the pressure of fracking caused them to fail. Waste pits have been documented sources of drinking water contamination in hundreds of cases.

    There are other components to the rules as well. They will enhance transparency by establishing a record of tests and making public details about which wells are fracked and what condition those wells are in. Drillers will also be required to release more information about what chemicals they inject underground.

    Still, the rules are unlikely to satisfy some of the industry’s most ardent critics, in large part because they are less stringent than versions that the government had been considering earlier in its drafting process, and they fall short of what several states already do to oversee fracking. Among other issues, they continue to allow drilling companies to protect trade secrets and not disclose all of the chemicals they use to the public or to doctors.

    Some see the rules as both a welcome acknowledgement that the environmental risks of fracking need to be addressed and as a missed opportunity.

    “The bottom line is: these rules fail to protect the nation’s public lands—home to our last wild places, and sources of drinking water for millions of people—from the risks of fracking,” said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “More than ever, this underscores the urgent need to get better protections in place around the country.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. New Rule Puts Interior in a Position to Monitor Leaks from Fracking on Federal and Indian Lands

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Gayathri Vaidyanathan

    Oil and gas wells are a technological marvel. The ones drilled these days plunge thousands of feet vertically into the ground, and then turn sharply to become a horizontal well bore -- a tunnel running parallel to the Earth's surface. Into this well bore, operators inject millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals at extremely high pressures to split apart nearly impermeable rock. Oil and gas in the reservoir, then flow through the cracks, into the well bore and up to the surface, where they are captured by operators.

    The process -- called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- is safe, industry says.

    But sometimes, when operators frack, the fractures travel to and communicate with older wells that are thousands of feet away. And through this conduit, fracking chemicals surge at high pressures to nearby wells, rush up the well bores and spill. The spills can happen on the surface -- imagine a geyser of fracking fluids, oil and methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. The mess can also go into groundwater aquifers.

    In industry lingo, the phenomenon is called "frack hits" or "downhole communication," and the Obama administration issued regulations to monitor this process last week. The regulations were part of the first major fracking rule by the White House almost a decade after the shale oil and gas boom began in the United States (Greenwire, March 20).

    "I've personally fracked wells, so I understand the risks as well as the rewards," Sally Jewell, U.S. secretary of the Interior, said in a press conference. "Many of the regulations on the books today haven't kept place with advances in technology. In fact, some are the same ones as when I was working on drilling and fracking operations in Oklahoma over 30 years ago."

    The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees fossil fuel extraction on federal and tribal lands, where about 11 percent of the nations's fracking occurs. The rest of the nation's fracking happens on private and state land and is regulated by states. BLM's fracking rules are expected to set a bar that states can choose to meet or exceed in crafting their own rules.

    The agency is also expected to update its rules on the leakage of methane through flaring. Proactive approach to spills gets underway

    The agency justified its fracking regulation in part by citing frack hits. Industry often says that there has not been a single case of groundwater contamination from fracking, BLM wrote.

    "But no law requires the BLM to wait for a significant pollution event before promulgating common-sense preventative regulations," the agency wrote in the final rule.

    There have been numerous official reports of frack hits, which show that industry needs to be regulated to protect both surface and subsurface "resources," BLM wrote.

    An investigation by EnergyWire in 2013 documented numerous frack hits that have led to significant spills. The events were cited in comments to the BLM, which then modified its final rule (EnergyWire, Aug. 5, 2013).

    BLM said that frack hits have caused spills on federal and nonfederal lands but have not yet contaminated aquifers. To prevent the issue from developing into a problem, the rules would require operators to document the minutiae of what happens underground before they drill and frack.

    Companies must now report the trajectory of their well bore. They must also pinpoint all well bores within 0.5 mile (2,600 feet) that could suffer a frack hit. They are also required to inform BLM about how deep the wells are and the pressures at which they frack. High pressures usually cause frack hits.

    Typically, fracking exerts pressure of about 10,000 pounds per square inch; in comparison, the pressure that pops the cork from a bottle of Champagne is about 100 psi. Industry set for court challenge

    BLM's frack hit rules are less stringent than those instituted by Alberta. Following major spills there, regulators required companies to do 3-D fracture modeling before fracking. Companies also have to check nearby "offset" wells and ensure that they are in good order. Older wells may have cracked well bores and cement barriers through which migrating fracking fluid, oil and gas could enter groundwater aquifers.

    If the wells are old, companies have to monitor them to ensure a frack hit does not happen.

    Some environmental groups disparaged BLM's fracking rules as toothless.

    "These rules put the interests of big oil and gas above people's health, and America's natural heritage," Amy Mall, senior fracking policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. "The bottom line is: these rules fail to protect the nation's public lands -- home to our last wild places, and sources of drinking water for millions of people -- from the risks of fracking."

    Other reasons for discontent included the reliance by BLM on an industry-run website, FracFocus, to document the chemicals used by industry during fracking.

    Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry described the regulations as red tape, and within hours of BLM's announcement, industry groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming.

    They would prefer regulations to be crafted by state regulators. One set of rules could not possibly apply for extraction in multiple basins, each with its own geology and set of challenges, they argue. Yet only 13 out of 32 states where BLM has oil and gas leasing even have regulations in place, according to administration officials.

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. New Regs for Tuesday: Hydraulic Fracturing, Air Pollution, Chemicals

    Mar 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Tim Devaney

    Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register contains new rules for hydraulic fracturing activities on Indian lands, endangered species, and emissions reporting requirements for hazardous air pollution.

    Here's what is happening:

    Fracking: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is moving forward with new regulations for hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands.

    The BLM's hydraulic fracturing regulations are intended to protect local water supplies and disclose to the public which chemicals are used in the process, the agency said.

    The hydraulic fracturing regulations were originally proposed in May 2012 and are now being finalized. 

    The rule goes into effect in 90 days.

    Residual interest: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is moving forward with new residual interest regulations for merchants.

    The CFTC will continue to use a phased-in compliance schedule for futures commission merchants, the agency said.

    The rule goes into effect in 60 days.

    Emissions: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with emissions reporting requirements.

    The EPA is changing the way that coal- and oil-fired units must report hazardous air pollution to the agency.

    The changes go into effect immediately.

    Chemicals: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is easing the restrictions on two chemical substances.

    The chemical substances were metal salts. The EPA is removing the requirement for manufacturers to notify the agency in advance of using of these chemicals.

    The changes go into effect in 60 days.

    Endangered: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is reconsidering a plan to loosen the protections for certain woodland caribou.

    The FWS proposed last May to downgrade woodland caribou in the southern Selkirk Mountains from endangered to threatened, but said Monday it is reopening the comment period to give the public more time to discuss the potential changes.

    The public has 30 days to comment.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Controversial La. Drilling Project Moves Forward

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    A proposed oil and drilling project located in Louisiana's St. Tammany Parish clinched a water quality certification Thursday from the state's Department of Environmental Quality, pushing the project forward.

    After reviewing Helis Oil & Gas Co.'s plans, the DEQ ruled that the project doesn't violate state water quality standards and adheres to all applicalble laws and regulations.

    "The evaluation concluded there are no significant water quality issues associated with the exploratory vertical well project as proposed," the DEQ wrote.

    The project, which has been challenged in court, still needs a wetlands permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

    The St. Tammany Parish government and the town of Abita Springs have filed lawsuits in the state district court, hoping to block drilling, motivated by concerns over health and property values.

    The New Orleans-based company wants to drill a vertical well on undeveloped land; if the well proves promising, the company plans to seek approval for horizontal drilling permits and use hydraulic fracturing to release the oil from the shale formation (Robert Rhoden, New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 19). -- KS

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Proposed Marcellus Shale Project Pushes Forward

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC can now access properties that it seeks to condemn in Susquehanna County, Pa., to build its new pipeline to New York, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

    The New York-based pipeline company pushed to obtain access to seven properties crossing four Susquehanna County townships that it failed to gain during negotiations with property owners.

    The company is in a time crunch to snag necessary permits, finish surveys and begin work as soon as possible to comply with time-sensitive regulations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which approved it last December. The company hopes to have the pipeline up and running by December 2016.

    The 124-mile pipeline, which is being built by a joint partnership with three other companies, will move 650 million cubic feet of gas per day.

    Now that the company has gained access to the Susquehanna County properties, pending a $1.6 million bond for just compensation to property owners, the only remaining hurdles are a handful of environmental permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corps of Engineers (Brendan Gibbons, Scranton Times-Tribune, March 19). -- KS

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Industry Steps up Criticism of Pa. Gas Regulations

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Mike Lee

    Gas industry groups sharpened their attacks on a package of regulations being developed by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's administration, while state environmental regulators said they may change some of the rules in response to input from drillers and other parties.

    The rules, known collectively as Chapter 78, are intended to control aboveground effects of drilling, such as storage tanks, noise and the distance between gas sites and water sources. Trade groups said Friday that the Department of Environmental Protection has exceeded its authority on some of the regulations and is unfairly imposing mandates on their industry.

    "We strongly encourage you to proceed with caution," Jim Welty, vice president of government affairs at the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said during a meeting of the state Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board. The rules are, "in our view, designed to increase costs to threaten continued development of this industry, the tens of thousands of associated jobs and the countless downstream benefits that can be derived including clear environmental benefits from using more clean-burning natural gas."

    Wolf, a Democrat, took office in January after promising during his campaign to tighten regulation of shale drilling. The rules have been under consideration since 2011 but have been on hold since 2013, when the DEP received more than 24,000 comments on them.

    The noise restrictions and other proposals have been added since Wolf took office, in response to the comments. The DEP plans to publish the final version of the rules in April and hold a 30-day comment period, and it may alter some of the proposals before they go into effect in 2016.

    Environmental groups have generally responded positively, although some of them want the DEP to do more.

    "We're encouraged the DEP is looking at noise mitigation," Aaron Jacobs-Smith, an attorney with the Clean Air Council, said during the meeting. "We look forward to further DEP rulemakings -- particularly on gas leaks."

    Some of the advisory board members also questioned parts of the proposal. The requirement for drillers to measure and mitigate the noise caused by their operations is "fraught with peril" because people have varying ideas of what constitutes offensive noise, according to one board member, who wasn't identified during a webcast of the meeting.

    Another board member said it might not be feasible for operators to close down centralized wastewater pits, which the new regulations abolish, in the nine-month period that the rules require.

    Kurt Klapkowski, director of the DEP's Bureau of Oil and Gas Planning, said the pit-removal timeline is one of several areas that could be changed as the rules are finalized.

    "A comment that it's too aggressive for this type of facility, I think, would be something we could receive and work with," he said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Stage Set for Supreme Court Showdown over EPA Toxics Rule

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Jeremy P. Jacobs

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit targeting President Obama's landmark air standards for mercury and other toxins.

    At issue: Should U.S. EPA have considered compliance costs before proceeding with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)?

    Finalized in 2011, the rule requires power plants to cut emissions of mercury, lead, cadmium and other toxics by installing emission control technologies or retiring outdated plants. The goal is to reduce smokestack pollutants that make their way into rivers, streams and aquatic ecosystems.

    EPA says the regulations, which have a long and contested history dating to the Clinton administration, will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and protect particularly vulnerable populations, such as pregnant and nursing women.

    But the standards -- set to take effect this spring -- come at a big cost: $9.6 billion per year, according to EPA. It's one of the agency's most expensive rules.

    The justices will hear 90 minutes of arguments Wednesday that EPA should have considered that cost before it determined that it was "appropriate and necessary" to go forward with the regulations.

    In three consolidated cases -- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, National Mining Association v. EPA and Michigan v. EPA -- the justices agreed to consider one of the questions presented by the utilities, industry groups and 21 states: "Whether [EPA] unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities."

    Under the Clean Air Act, EPA had to first determine whether mercury and air toxics emissions met the "appropriate and necessary" standard before setting out to craft the emission limits under Section 112.

    That preliminary hurdle has controversial. In the waning days of the Clinton administration in 2000, EPA decided power plants met that standard, allowing the regulations to go forward.

    Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch recalled the lobbying effort that opposed that determination.

    "There was a tremendous fight at the end of the Clinton administration about whether the power industry would be listed as a source of toxic air pollution," he said.

    In 2005, during George W. Bush's administration, EPA reversed itself and removed power plants from the program. Environmental groups successfully challenged that decision in court.

    Little change occurred until Obama took office. EPA then returned to the 2000 finding and moved forward with the regulations. It finalized them in December 2011, claiming the regulations would provide $90 billion in health benefits annually.

    The rules have been touted by environmentalists as some of the most important of Obama's administration.

    "This is fundamental to the regulation of power plants under the Clean Air Act," O'Donnell said. "The power industry skated for several decades without any significant regulation until EPA determined it was appropriate and necessary to clean up the mercury from power plants."

    He added, "The rule goes to the very heart to the whole issue of power plant emissions." Possible precedent

    The states and industry groups disagree with EPA's reliance on health and environmental factors in the "appropriate and necessary" finding.

    "EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act is wrong," they wrote in asking the court to review the case. "[I]t rests on the premise that its decision to regulate ... electric utility emissions can be based solely on health or environmental risks, with absolutely no consideration of costs, even though the statute requires both a study to evaluate health risks (not environmental ones) and a separate consideration of whether the regulation would be 'appropriate and necessary.'"

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with that reasoning, but the challengers found a supporter in an influential conservative judge.

    Last April, it ruled 2-1 that, "on its face," the Clean Air Act "neither requires EPA to consider costs not prohibited EPA from doing so. Indeed, the world 'costs' appears nowhere" in the relevant section of the law.

    The ruling was backed by two Democrat-appointed judges. But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a leading conservative, dissented, writing that the consideration of costs is "no trivial matter" and is "common sense and sound government practice" (Greenwire, April 15).

    The case could set a far-reaching and important precedent for whether EPA's consideration of cost in setting rules is generally afforded deference by the Supreme Court.

    EPA is on a winning streak on the issue. A year ago, the court upheld EPA's decision to include costs in setting emissions limits for states as part of its air program for pollution that drifts across state lines.

    In a 6-2 decision, the court held that it should defer to EPA under the seminal 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that if a statute's language is ambiguous, courts must defer to an agency's interpretation.

    "Under Chevron, we read Congress' silence as a delegation of authority to EPA to select from among reasonable options," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote (Greenwire, April 29, 2014).

    The case this week also raises issues similar to those in a 2009 Clean Water Act case, Entergy v. Riverkeeper. The case concerned a challenge from environmentalists on EPA's decision to conduct a cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for cooling water intakes for power plants.

    In siding with the agency, the court's four conservatives -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy -- said a cost-benefit analysis was appropriate. They were joined in the ruling by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who issued a separate opinion.

    That ruling could cut against EPA. The court has historically been ambiguous about when cost consideration is appropriate. The case this week could offer conservatives the opportunity to mandate such an analysis when issuing regulations that could significantly affect the economy (Greenwire, Dec. 1, 2014).

    But EPA, which will be represented by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, may counter nearly two-thirds of the power sector that is already complying with the mercury rule. According to the independent Energy Information Administration, almost 64 percent of coal-fired generation is already in compliance. Another 10 percent of the sector is planning to retire coal plants, and only 20 percent has yet to decide how it will meet the standards.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Obama’s Green Legacy?

    Mar 23, 2015 | National Journal

    By Clare Foran

    The Supreme Court could play an outsized role in determining the president's environmental legacy.

    On Wednesday, the high court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate mercury and other "air toxics" from power plants. The rule is slated to take effect this spring, but coal-plant operators have said it is already responsible for shutting down a number of plants.

    At stake is whether EPA properly considered the cost of the rule. Industry argues that it did not and that the regulation would be an excessive burden to power-plant owners. EPA contends, however, that the rule would ultimately save billions of dollars, largely in health benefits.

    If the Court sides with industry, what are the implications for the rest of Obama's environmental regulations that are poised for scrutiny in the courts? And, more broadly, what will it mean for public health and the environment? If the Court backs EPA, what will it mean for industry and the future of power generation in the U.S.?

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Capito to Host W.Va. Field Hearing on Clean Power Plan

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Jean Chemnick

    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}

    After years of protesting U.S. EPA not holding hearings on climate regulations in coal-mining areas, West Virginia's junior senator will hold a field hearing today on the Clean Power Plan in Beckley, W.Va.

    "In West Virginia, our electricity generation and economic success is closely linked to the health of the coal industry," said Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, the new chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. "While there is no question that we must take steps to protect our environment, it simply cannot be at West Virginia's expense."

    Capito and other Appalachian politicians frequently complain that EPA didn't hold listening sessions on its climate change rules in coal-producing states, favoring metropolitan areas far from coal fields. EPA's explanation: The meeting locations were linked to the agency's regional headquarters, all of which are in or near major cities.

    Capito said today's hearing will "give West Virginians the opportunity to stand up for our jobs and our vital coal industry."

    She devoted much of her maiden speech on the Senate floor this month to decrying EPA's carbon rules, which she said would put unbearable pressure on the coal industry.

    "The administration's overreach has contributed to thousands of coal miners losing their jobs in West Virginia and our neighboring states -- devastating local economies and families," she said in the March 10 speech, pledging to use her subcommittee gavel to "lead the fight against excessive government regulation that has been devastating to my state."

    EPA and others also note that coal industry woes have more to do with historically inexpensive and abundant natural gas than with regulatory activities.

    The Republican strategy to combat EPA's power plant carbon rules is still in the works, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a recent op-ed that House and Senate majorities are "devising" it. Likely vehicles include riders on spending or budget measures, but Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) has said he will announce details as soon as this week on his own stand-alone measure to contain the Clean Power Plan.

    Three of the five witnesses who will address Capito's subcommittee today are drawn from the coal industry or sectors that support it: Eugene Trisko, top lawyer for the United Mine Workers of America; Charles Patton, president of Appalachian Power; and Charles Farmer, president of Rouster Wire, Rope and Rigging.

    James Van Nostrand, who directs the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at West Virginia University College of Law, and Jeremy Richardson, senior analyst for the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, round out the hearing.

    Van Nostrand has spoken of the need to invest in clean coal technology, while Richardson has done research on ways his native West Virginia can diversify its economy, according to UCS's website.

    Schedule: The hearing is Monday, March 23, at 9:30 a.m. in Burnside Ceremonial Courtroom, Raleigh County Judicial Center, Second Floor, 215 Main St., Beckley, W.Va.

    Witnesses: Charles Farmer, president, Rouster Wire, Rope and Rigging; Eugene Trisko, counsel, United Mine Workers of America; Charles Patton, president and chief operating officer, Appalachian Power; James Van Nostrand, associate professor, director, Center for Energy and Sustainable Development, West Virginia University College of Law; Jeremy Richardson, senior energy analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. For States, Efficiency May Provide Answer -- and Political Roadblocks -- to Clean Power Plan

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Scott Detrow

    As the debate over the Clean Power Plan has heated up in recent months, it has seemed at times like energy efficiency is the forgotten building block.

    U.S. EPA's proposal to cut the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years is divided into four building blocks. EPA suggested that states achieve their emissions-reduction goals through a combination of making coal-fired power plants more efficient; transitioning energy production to natural gas-powered plants; increasing the footprint of renewable energy sources like wind and solar; and finally, lowering overall energy consumption 1.5 percent per year through improved efficiency efforts.

    And while energy efficiency can have its political critics -- just look at the long fight over a 2007 law phasing out incandescent light bulbs -- Clean Power Plan opponents like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) have tended to focus their ire and concerns on the shift from coal to lower-carbon alternatives, warning that the shift would destabilize power grids and drive up energy prices, among other worries.

    "A lot of the message opposing the Clean Power Plan is silent on efficiency, but a lot of these challenges raised -- reliability, cost -- they are all answered by energy efficiency," said Sara Hayes, a senior manager and researcher at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. "If you wanted to use efficiency as your first option for how far it could get you [to carbon reduction goals], some states, it could get you all the way there."

    ACEEE recently released a white paper aimed at helping states incorporate improved efficiency-minded building codes into their eventual implementation plans. Noting that buildings consume about 70 percent of the country's electricity, the group estimated that if every state updated its building codes to cut down on energy waste, up to 232 megawatt-hours of electricity could be saved by the Clean Power Plan's 2030 deadline.

    The document addressed questions like how to calculate emission-reduction targets tied to efficiency, how to best track and enforce efficiency goals, and what information to include in the documents that states eventually submit to EPA.

    Hayes said the paper is an attempt to "fill the gap" on what EPA would accept as a viable efficiency program. "Our hope is either EPA would comment -- give it a stamp of approval. ... If they don't and they're silent, then at least states will have our best thoughts on how this could work."

    Enforceability is a key question for building codes -- as well as other efficiency efforts, like combined heat and power. EPA has not clarified exactly what states would need to do for their efficiency programs to be adequately enforceable. ACEEE tells states this "might include authority to levy penalties or force corrective action, or [obligate] the state to make up any shortfall."

    "A key to enforceability is having a responsible party that will face penalties or find additional emissions reductions to compensate for a shortfall," the paper adds.

    Hayes argued that building code overhauls -- requirements for certain insulation levels or window types to cut down on wasted electricity -- can be easier to achieve than other efficiency efforts. "It's actually less complicated ... because there's national model codes that bodies of experts develop on cycle, periodically updating, and the states just have to adopt them. More than 40 states have already done so," she said. Pa. efficiency troubles stem from sprinkler fight

    But in one major energy-producing state, the process of updating building codes has gotten much more complicated in recent years. Environmental and energy efficiency advocates are worried that a 2011 Pennsylvania law is putting the state further and further behind on the energy efficiency front, at a time when the state needs to figure out how to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent.

    The measure changed the way Pennsylvania adopts new building codes. It was initially a fight over sprinklers. Every three years, a governor-appointed board reviews model construction codes proposed by the International Code Council. The language represents the consensus "best practices" on energy efficiency, fire protection, plumbing and other aspects of construction.

    The codes approved in 2009 included a provision mandating sprinkler systems in all new residential homes. The construction community rebelled, and when Republican Tom Corbett replaced Democrat Ed Rendell in the Pennsylvania governor's mansion in 2011, the first bill he signed into law repealed the sprinkler requirement.

    But an amendment added late in the legislative process went much further, and changed requirements so that Pennsylvania's Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council would need a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, to adopt any new codes.

    While most of the attention was on the sprinkler debate, environmental groups warned that the new supermajority requirement could block future code improvements. One year later, that's exactly what happened -- the 19-member board declined to adopt any of the ICC's code suggestions.

    This was particularly frustrating for environmental groups, because in their opinion, the 2012 energy codes represented a substantial improvement over the 2009 language when it came to energy efficiency. Stricter standards for air ducts, insulation and piping, as well as advanced testing against leaks and various other requirements, could have led to efficiency improvements of up to 30 percent, according to one manufacturing group.

    "They've set up a system that essentially will lock us into place in terms of 2009 standards, and not allow us to move forward," said Joe Minott, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council.

    The construction codes board is currently considering its latest round of updates, but according to the board's reading of the rules, it is barred from taking up the 2012 language, as the council already has considered and rejected the language.

    Minott called energy efficiency "the low-hanging fruit that most states are going to move forward on" when it comes to meeting Clean Power Plan requirements. "That is, except Pennsylvania -- they have this not well-thought-out approach to building code," he said.

    Other environmental groups are hopeful that the impending EPA mandates could lead to a new law making coding updates easier to adopt and implement. PennEnvironment's David Masur thinks the Clean Power Plan could sway the opinion of manufacturing groups that would otherwise oppose new code changes as burdensome and expensive. "We want to get these codes back in place," he said, "because they'll make a [carbon] reduction, and that will make all of this less painful for Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania businesses." @scottdetrow | Email: sdetrow@eenews.net ClimateWire headlines — Monday, March 23, 2015  SPOTLIGHT 1. SCIENCE: How political football over climate change rattles the windows of an ivory tower 2. FOOD SECURITY: Impacts of severe storm may result in weeks of hunger for Vanuatu TODAY'S STORIES 3. REGULATION: For states, efficiency may provide answer -- and political roadblocks -- to Clean Power Plan 4. EMISSIONS: New rule puts Interior in a position to monitor leaks from fracking on federal and Indian lands 5. SECURITY: Military experts to Congress: Don't cut Defense climate funding 6. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Utility-scale offshore wind proposal floated for Hawaii 7. ECONOMICS: Climate change has a multibillion-dollar impact on China's development, says the country's top weather expert 8. RESEARCH: Sewage -- a waste, or a tool to mine gold and cut agriculture emissions? 9. BUSINESS: Exxon shareholders cannot vote on risky fossil fuel investments, SEC rules 10. FOSSIL FUELS: Germany cracks down on coal plants with new emission limits 11. POLICY: Oil sands province considers carbon tax overhaul 12. BIOFUELS: Mexican oil company unveils plan to reduce emissions by 35% E&E Interactive 13. CLEAN POWER PLAN: EPA meets with utility CEOs; Moeller says time is ticking for FERC to weigh in on climate rule E&ETV's OnPoint 14. REGULATION: Tenn. environment Commissioner Martineau talks power plan's jurisdictional challenges

    Advertisement Latest Selected Headlines EnergyWire&nbsp Monday, March 23, 2015 —  8:52 AM GRID: An 'extension cord' remedy for coal plant retirements ARCTIC: Interior poised to push ahead with Shell's drilling plan REFINING: Safety culture still 'problematic' 10 years after deadly Texas City blast POLITICS: Fla. solar ballot measure pits conservatives against conservatives More headlines&nbspMore headlines E&E Daily&nbsp Monday, March 23, 2015 —  7:24 AM BUDGET: Senators gear up for 'vote-a-rama' as amendments pile up CLIMATE: Capito to host W.Va. field hearing on Clean Power Plan EPA: GOP to probe agency's 'destruction of records' YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Fight hits closer to home as new GOP House member, Reid clash More headlines&nbspMore headlines E&ENews PM&nbsp Friday, March 20, 2015 —  4:01 PM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: BLM rule draws industry fire, tepid praise from greens GRID: Industry groups ask Supreme Court to pass on demand response case WILDFIRE: Western governors urge Congress to end 'fire borrowing' BIOFUELS: Navy program shows how to achieve carbon cuts -- Obama adviser More headlines&nbspMore headlines Greenwire&nbsp Friday, March 20, 2015 —  1:36 PM PUBLIC LANDS: Interior unveils BLM frack rule -- FracFocus in, waste pits out WHITE HOUSE: McConnell climate campaign 'way outside the bounds' -- top Obama aide CHESAPEAKE BAY: Farmer-enviro deal sparks bid to clean up poultry waste DOE: Radioactive buildings rot waiting for cleanup -- GAO More headlines&nbspMore headlines

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Groups Say Reports Bolster Calls For Formaldehyde Testing In EPA Air Rule

    Mar 23, 2015 | Inside EPA

    By Dave Reynolds

    Healthy housing advocates and some domestic producers are reiterating long-standing calls for testing requirements in EPA's forthcoming EPA air rule for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, arguing that recent media reports showing high levels of formaldehyde in laminated flooring imported from China bolster their calls for testing.

    The renewed push for testing requirements in EPA's long-delayed Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products comes after media reports drew congressional attention to levels of formaldehyde in some laminated wood flooring that exceeds a California standard that forms the basis of EPA's forthcoming national standard.

    "Our recent history with these unscrupulous Chinese companies shows that we should be prepared for more cheating," the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) says in a March 5 blog post, referring to both a March 1 news report from "60 Minutes," and a pair of congressional letters to federal regulators, including EPA, that followed the report.

    "EPA must promote mechanisms to catch these cheaters," NCHH says. "This includes third-party verifiably independent testing and certification, as well as a means to randomly deconstruct and test wood products sold in the U.S. consumer market."

    A source who represents North American producers of engineered component parts also says the recent media reports and the congressional response that followed bolster calls for testing requirements to ensure companies comply with EPA's future national standard.

    "You have to have a level playing field," the source says, adding that to accomplish that goal "you have to have enforceable regulations."

    The March 1 report from "60 Minutes" found laminated wood flooring imported from China and sold by Lumber Liquidators contained levels of formaldehyde that exceeded a 2008 California Air Resources Board (CARB) standard, despite being labeled as compliant with the CARB standard.

    Congress in 2010, through an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), required EPA to incorporate the 2008 CARB standard into a federal rule, but EPA's effort to complete that rule has been hindered by questions of how to narrow requirements for laminated wood products.

    EPA's Proposal

    In June 2013, EPA proposed a rule that would set the same limits as California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure but also subjects laminated products, rather than simply their component parts, to emissions requirements and testing, which some industry groups have argued Congress never intended. Some industry officials also said the proposal includes unwieldy testing requirements on fabricators of laminated wood products.

    In addition to the push from advocates, recent news reports also prompted a pair of congressional letters to EPA and other federal agencies urging EPA to complete the final rule and also to work with other federal agencies to test laminated wood products and ensure consumers are not at risk.

    In a March 3 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) urge the agency to swiftly finalize a rule setting "clear, enforceable standards" for formaldehyde in composite wood products. The lawmakers' letter also calls for EPA to give Congress a time line for finalizing the rule and a reason for the delay.

    Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), in a March 4 letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission, argues that failure to promote final rules setting formaldehyde standards for composite wood products may put consumers at risk.

    Nelson urges the three federal agencies to work with EPA to test "specific Chinese wood laminate products to determine if they present a risk to the public."

    Even before news reports brought renewed attention to the stalled EPA rule, Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) Feb. 25 questioned McCarthy on the rule's progress during a House hearing on EPA's budget. McCarthy told the hearing that EPA has struggled to craft testing requirements for laminated wood products that are both protective and feasible for industry.

    "We are looking very hard at how we can resolve that issue so that this rule can come out," McCarthy testified. "We continue to look for a testing method that will work and is cost effective for industry, but it remains a challenge."

    While not giving a time line for completion, McCarthy said she would push staff to finalize the rule.

    EPA sought to address the concerns over testing of laminated wood products last spring. The agency reopened the comment period on its June 2013 proposed rule and took comment during April 28 public meeting in Washington, DC, on how or whether to include laminated products in the forthcoming rule.

    Emission Standard

    During the meeting an official with EPA's Lead, Heavy Metals and Inorganics Branch of the agency's National Program Chemicals Division said EPA was considering a CARB proposal that would set an emission standard for laminated products but not require fabricators of finished goods to obtain third-party certification to ensure compliance, as well as several other possibilities.

    Options under consideration included a reduced testing program for laminated products, an exemption from testing and certification requirements either for all laminated products or only those made by low-volume producers, as well as a self-certification program for laminated products, the official said.

    A CARB official told the April 28 meeting that California is not seeking, in a proposed amendment to its rule, to require fabricators of finished goods to obtain third-party certification to ensure compliance because there are insufficient testing labs for the thousands of laminators who would be affected by the state's proposal so requiring third-party certification would likely not be feasible.

    An official with the Composite Panel Association told the meeting that Congress intended the formaldehyde emission standard to apply only to raw products and not finished products, and that EPA's June 2013 proposal would impose unwieldy testing requirements on numerous companies, and make enforcement by either CARB or EPA impossible.

    But the healthy housing group, along with the Environmental Defense Fund and the Healthy Schools Campaign told EPA staff that an emissions limit for laminated wood products without a testing to ensure compliance is insufficient. In comments to the agency, the groups proposed a self-certification program for laminated products that would require laminators to self-certify that their final products, the products components and the product as a whole, after lamination, met the standard.

    Now advocates argue the recent media reports of a company selling imported wood flooring that exceeds the CARB standard bolster their calls for EPA to include testing requirements in its final rule.

    An NCHH source tells Inside EPA that the "60 Minutes" report also shows a method of randomly deconstructing and testing wood products that EPA should consider requiring in its forthcoming rule. "The final product needs to be tested using this method," the NCHH source says. "It needs to be in the rule that that is the method to verify compliance with the standard in the final product."

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Harvard Law Professors Fight over EPA’s Climate Rule

    Mar 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    A Harvard Law School professor who taught President Obama is debating with his colleagues on a school blog over the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants.

    Laurence Tribe, who also used to work in the Justice Department under Obama, is arguing on the blog, in congressional testimony and elsewhere that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon limits for power plants are unconstitutional and prohibited specifically by law.

    The arguments — and their source — have become a top talking point for Republicans and other opponents of the plan, who hold Tribe as a liberal figurehead who broke with the Democratic Party.

    Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus are saying Tribe’s interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t recognize the efforts the EPA took to let states decide how they comply with the rule and the complexities of the law.

    “There is no flexibility in the rigid numerical emissions limits EPA has already set for each state,” Tribe wrote in a March 20 post, days after delivering similar testimony to a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Tenn. Environment Commissioner Martineau Talks Power Plan's Jurisdictional Challenges

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E TV

    What jurisdictional challenges exist within states between air agencies and public utility commissions in determining how best to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan? During today's OnPoint, Bob Martineau, president of the Environmental Council of the States and a commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, explains how states are working behind the scenes to figure out next steps on the power plan.

    
    Transcript

    Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Bob Martineau, president of the Environmental Council of the States and a commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Bob, thank you for coming on the show.

    Robert Martineau: Thank you. Glad to be here, Monica.

    Monica Trauzzi: Bob, you head up ECOS, which represents state end environmental agency leaders. I'd imagine the conversations have been quite rich recently with talk of EPA's Clean Power Plan. How do you balance the competing interests and opinions of a variety of states, specifically on the Clean Power Plan?

    Robert Martineau: Well, I think that with an organization like ECOS, what we try to do is ensure the state's voice is heard at EPA, and we recognize particularly on an issue like the Clean Power Plan, there's a huge divergence of opinions on the particular policy decisions and the extent of the proposal, but we have -- one of the things we really worked with EPA as a voice where we were consistent among the states is to encourage early outreach, even prior to the proposal, to seek stakeholder input and particularly the states who would have to develop and implement these plans, and because this is a little bit different, when they used 111(d), that the states play an even greater role than other regulatory standards. The other thing was to ensure that the timing and the flexibility, and as you've seen the Clean Power Plan set a state-by-state proposed guideline, now you could agree or disagree with it, but that was a clear voice the states said to EPA prior to the proposal is we're not all starting in the same place, so one uniform number of a reduction target won't work, given the different states' unique characteristics.

    Monica Trauzzi: So would you say that that early outreach was effective?

    Robert Martineau: Well, I think certainly on some issues, and I commend EPA for the amount of outreach they did prior to drafting the proposal and putting it out for comment, and during the comment period, they held a number of outreach sessions with stakeholders as well as the regular public meetings and hearings. So it was effective in some of those things like to recognize the difference in where the states were starting with their energy portfolio and what their realistic targets would be. You couldn't have a one state or uniform number across the country. There's obviously vast difference of opinion on different aspects of the building blocks and the deadlines of 2030 and the interim goals that states have, and the extent of the comments that the states filed reflects that as well.

    Monica Trauzzi: I recently interviewed California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, and she said that EPA's Clean Power Plan is putting EPA agencies, the air agencies in most states, in a position where they have the lead in complying with something that their public utility commissions have traditionally thought was their turf. How challenging is it within states to figure out how to proceed with compliance because of the jurisdictional hurdles?

    Robert Martineau: I think for many states it is posing great challenges because you have a traditional regulatory development program at EPA, and then in most states that have Public Service Commissions that are used to setting rates and that set renewable portfolio standards and work with utilities and set utilities, planning for the future, these two have dovetailed. It's forced a lot of discussions that haven't taken place, even at the state level, between those PSCs and the environmental regulatory agencies. In my case, Tennessee's a little bit different. Because of TVA, we don't have a public service commission that regulates the utility there because of the unique relationship, but in most states, that dialog has started, and it does create a huge challenge, and I think that is one of the controversial issues is this primarily an environmental pollution control regulation or an energy policy initiative where -- which is traditionally more FERC's turf, or the state PSCs.

    Monica Trauzzi: And so what does EPA need to do, then, to address some of these challenges, or should they be addressing these challenges in their final rule?

    Robert Martineau: Well, I think that a lot of the comments went to transmission, reliability of the grid system and cost impacts because, obviously those public service commissions are very concerned about their cost of the rates to their utility rate payers, in particular low-income folks. So that dialog, and I know EPA and those state energy agencies, the PSCs have been talking, but it makes that job of developing a rule much more complex in this 111(d) plan because you're not just looking at sort of what's best technology. You have all these other concerns about making sure that we can maintain a safe and reliable energy -- electricity delivery system in this country.

    Monica Trauzzi: And do you think that the Clean Power Plan as written would affect reliability?

    Robert Martineau: Well, I think that's going to be a state and region by region, and I think EPA has gotten a lot of comments on that. In fact, I haven't looked at all of the states or the different regions, but it also, again, beyond just a state-by-state issue, many of those transmission and reliability issues are regional, so it's forcing not just the state energy environmental agencies and the state PSCs to talk together. It's having states talking among their areas regionally because many of the investor-owned utilities cross state lines, and the grid systems and the transmission systems cross state lines, so that makes it even more complicated to figure out what the impacts might be.

    Monica Trauzzi: In Tennessee, will reliability be affected?

    Robert Martineau: We're talking extensively with TVA about that. I think for us, in terms of hitting the target goals, Tennessee and South Carolina and Georgia were sort of three unique states that have under-construction nuclear facilities, and that is built in as a big part -- in the proposed rule, a big part of our compliance target. If those -- if there are delays which we can't control of getting the NRDC license for that facility or anything, then we'll have some potential reliability issues if we're having to assume we can do that. It may impact the ability of TVA and others to pursue other efforts to convert facilities from coal and natural gas or to shut them down.

    Monica Trauzzi: So specifically on nuclear, what changes are you looking for from the agency on how it's handling nuclear in the power plan?

    Robert Martineau: In our comments, what we said to EPA about the under-construction nuclear is that it really shouldn't be built into the determination of what constitutes best system of emission reduction. That for other sources of renewable or wind power, for example, maybe in other states that are under construction, those would be compliance options for them. They weren't baked into what target you have to hit by 2030, so from a simple equity standpoint, and then really the uncertainty of whether those nuclear plants come online on the time that they are anticipated to come online because, with an averaging period, it's not just 2030. You really have to be coming into compliance, and it's such a large portion of the state's reduction target is -- over 30 percent is based on the assumption that that nuclear plant is coming online.

    Monica Trauzzi: And Tennessee has a proposed emissions rate reduction of 39 percent. What is your compliance mechanism shaping up to look like?

    Robert Martineau: Well, and that's another one of the issues the president, when they announced the proposed rule, they said the overall target for reductions was 30 percent decrease as a result of the proposal based on 2005 emissions. Well, TVA had already been moving, as many other utilities had, in making the greenhouse gas and other reductions prior to EPA's proposal and had already, in fact, made a 30 percent reduction prior -- between 2005 and the proposal, so one of our concerns is inequity that we didn't get credit for those sort of reductions and now we're essentially being asked to make another 39 percent reduction, which is way more significant than the original overall goal of 30 percent. So getting credit for some of those early actions that states took in -- or utilities or states took in anticipation of potential greenhouse gas or other pollutants of concern, conversion to natural gas, shutting down or retiring coal-fired units or finding other renewable sources. There needs to be some credit for that as well so they're not sort of investments that utilities made and are recovering those costs are not just sort of lost in terms of getting credit for it.

    Monica Trauzzi: And what conversations are you having with other states about a potential multistate or regional plan?

    Robert Martineau: We really haven't had extensive discussions at this point. We're still trying to -- well, we don't know what the final rule's going to look like, and so we're trying to get our head around various compliance options just within the state so that we can anticipate then -- one of the things we may look to do is, because TVA has service areas in multiple states, is look at the TVA service area. Maybe we don't have a total multistate plan, but we would have some kind of overall TVA reduction that could get -- they can get allocated among the states where they have power generation. Another issue for many states, including ours, will be if you're investing or trying to get renewable energy, but you're buying it -- it's being generated out of state because states like Tennessee don't have a lot of wind power, for example, but may purchase that from Midwestern state, how do you credit that? Is it where the -- source of generation or where it's going to be consumed and who gets credit for that reduction in their renewable power goals.

    Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it there. A lot to look forward to and a lot to watch as that final rule comes out later this year. Thanks for coming on the show.

    Robert Martineau: Thank you very much.

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

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Republicans Take another Stab at Cap-and-Trade Gas Exemption

    Mar 23, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee

    By Alexei Koseff

    Efforts last year to delay bringing transportation fuels under California’s cap-and-trade program were a bust. Despite concerns raised by industry groups and moderate Democrats, the new regulation went into effect on Jan. 1, part of the state’s sweeping 2006 law aimed at reducing carbon emissions blamed for climate change.

    As gas prices soar across the state, however, Republicans lawmakers are trying to revive the issue. Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, has introduced legislation that would exempt oil and gas from cap-and-trade entirely.

    Several Assembly members, as well as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business/California, will join Patterson in support of his AB 23, 10:30 a.m. on the west steps of the Capitol. The bill is set to appear before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee today, where it will likely die.

    JUSTICE IN THE HOUSE: As the budget process winds on, few recipients of state funding will have as direct a line to those who hold the purse strings as the judicial branch does today. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye will deliver her annual State of the Judiciary address before a joint session of the Legislature, 4 p.m. in the Assembly chambers. Last year, she warned that California faces a “civil rights crisis” because of cuts to the courts.

    BACK TO THE FUTURE: California is already a leader in efforts to address climate change, but Gov. Jerry Brown is challenging the state to take things even further. After being sworn in for his fourth term in January, he proposed an ambitious plan to reduce petroleum use in cars by as much as 50 percent within 15 years and increase the proportion of electricity California derives from renewable sources to one-half from one-third. Can the state reach these goals? And how will it impact life in California? The Public Policy Institute of California hosts a panel discussion, noon at the Sheraton Grand Hotel on J Street, featuring San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Ken Alex, director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

    SINKING SHIP: Looking for the latest news on California’s most recent technology disaster? The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee and the Assembly Business and Professions Committee are due for an update on the Department of Consumer Affairs’ BreEZe system, 9 a.m. in Room 4203 of the Capitol. The hearing also includes sunset reviews of several department licensing boards, including the troubled Board of Registered Nursing, which may be on the bubble.

    GOV EMERITUS: We haven’t heard much from former Gov. Pete Wilson lately, but he pops up in San Jose tonight for the Santa Clara County Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Dinner, 6 p.m. at Club Auto Sport, where he will offer his thoughts on the future of the state.

    CELEBRATIONS: Happy belated birthday to state Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Modesto, who turned 46 yesterday, and Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who turned 42.
    
    

    
    
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

24. Federal Regulators Saw 'No Need' to Perform Crash Test on Newer Oil Tank Cars

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    Federal railroad authorities never performed a crash test on an industry-developed crude-hauling tank car that has been involved in several recent accidents and fires.

    The Federal Railroad Administration saw "no need" to field-test tank cars built to the so-called CPC-1232 standard in place since 2011, according to a response to Congress last year prepared on behalf of then-Administrator Joseph Szabo.

    Dozens of the same type of tank car have breached or exploded in four oil train derailments over the past two months across North America, causing independent transportation safety experts in the United States and Canada to question the design's integrity.

    "To date, cars constructed to the CPC-1232 standards have not been full-scale crash-tested, and FRA does not believe that such full-scale testing is necessary," the regulator said in a written response to questions from then-Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine).

    The FRA pointed out that it had "recently" funded puncture tests for two similar tank car models, providing enough data to extrapolate the performance of the CPC-1232.

    "While the Department's model is focused on the puncture resistance of the tank, existing performance standards applicable to other components of the tank car ... provide an understanding of the expected performance of the CPC-1232 cars, further reducing the need to field test the design," the FRA noted.

    But the CPC-1232 hasn't held up as well as regulators or the rail industry hoped it would during recent derailments, based on comments from investigators.

    Canada's independent Transportation Safety Board said the more than three dozen CPC-1232 cars that jumped the tracks earlier this month near Gogama, Ontario, weren't safe for hauling oil, despite featuring several improvements over a previous design. The TSB concluded that the new cars "performed similarly" to older ones that catastrophically failed during a 2013 accident in the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.

    The National Transportation Safety Board in the United States has reached similar conclusions. NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart said in a recent blog post that the CPC-1232 design was only "marginally improved" over its predecessor, citing derailments and fires in Virginia and Illinois.

    The federal government is currently putting the finishing touches on a set of new tank car requirements for moving crude oil and ethanol by rail.

    The FRA noted in its response to Michaud that the CPC-1232 was not crafted by the Department of Transportation.

    Instead, the tank car was engineered by the railroad industry as a way to stay ahead of expected regulations following a deadly ethanol train crash in 2009.

    Though the design was completed in 2011, CPC-1232 cars weren't used in bulk until two years later due to manufacturing backlogs.

    More than 50,000 of the tank cars are expected to be in crude or ethanol service by the end of this year, a development that could weaken the impact of tougher construction standards, according to Hart.

    The FRA did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

    Return to headline | Return to top

25. Panel to Consider Flexible Ways to Monitor Projects' Success

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Sean Reilly

    As Congress grindingly gears up to draft a new highway and transit funding bill, a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee hearing will focus as much on approach as on particular programs.

    Under the heading of "performance, not prescription," tomorrow's hearing of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security will examine the use of targets in hitting regulatory goals, with more flexibility allowed for "compliance strategies" in place of hard and fast rules, according to a short preview posted on the panel's website.

    Although the emphasis will be on transportation safety policy in the truck, hazardous materials and pipeline arenas, lawmakers will also hear about the use of performance measures in evaluating the TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant program. The program, launched six years ago under the 2009 stimulus law, has proved to be wildly popular, with applications dwarfing the amount of available money. But Transportation Department officials have come under fire for failing to fully explain how they decide which projects deserve funding (E&E Daily, May 29, 2014).

    The witnesses will include the head of DOT's policy shop, a Missouri transportation official who has a leading role in national performance management efforts and risk analysis expert John Graham, who served as White House regulatory chief during part of President George W. Bush's administration. This will mark Graham's second appearance on Capitol Hill in less than a week; he testified Thursday before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subpanel (E&E Daily, March 20).

    The Commerce Committee, one of three Senate panels involved in cobbling together a long-term reauthorization bill, has responsibility for rail and safety programs. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is drafting the highway provisions, while the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee plans two hearings next month on transit programs, according to aides on their respective panels. An extension of the current authorization law expires at the end of May; another stopgap measure appears likely after that.

    Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, May 24, at 10 a.m. in 253 Russell.

    Witnesses: Peter Rogoff, undersecretary for policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; David Nichols, director, Missouri Department of Transportation, and acting chairman, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Performance Management; John Graham, dean, Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and former administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget; and Peter Sweatman, director, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

    Return to headline | Return to top

26. Coal, Solvent Spill in 2 Derailments this Weekend

    |

    Return to headline | Return to top

27. Bill to Revamp Surface Transportation Board in Line for Swift Committee OK

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Sean Reilly

    Last September, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee whisked through a bill to overhaul the Surface Transportation Board for the first time since the 1990s. The committee's then-chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), didn't try to advance the measure further, but fast-track treatment is again expected Wednesday when the panel marks up a similar measure introduced last week by its new chairman, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

    Like its predecessor, S. 808 seeks to both bolster the authority of the freight rail industry's main regulator and prod it to resolve cases more quickly. The number of board members would grow from three to five, and at least two would have to have professional or business experience, a category that would include a background in agriculture.

    The board would get new authority to launch investigations on its own, although rate cases would still require a complaint. The bill would also require the agency to report to Congress every three months on each "unfinished regulatory proceeding" and expand voluntary arbitration procedures to allow for quicker settlements of disputes between freight railroads and shippers.

    As the freight rail industry has become increasingly consolidated among a handful of large carriers, shippers' organizations have voiced frustration with what they describe as a lack of competition and the board's slow pace in handling complaints.

    The five-year bill would authorize a $33 million budget for the board next year, followed by small increases through 2020. The legislation would also allow a majority of the board to meet behind closed doors for what the legislation calls "nonpublic collaborative discussions." No votes could be taken during the private sessions, and the board's general counsel would have to be present. Within two business days of the meeting, the board would have to make public a list of participants and a summary of the issues discussed, with the exception of what may "properly" be withheld under the federal open meetings act.

    More than a half-dozen other bills and nominations are also on the agenda, including S. 650, the "Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act," to push back the legal deadline for implementation of the anti-crash technology known as "positive train control" from the end of this year until 2020.

    Also on the agenda are: an unnumbered bill, "the Sport Fish Restoration and Recreational Boating Safety Act of 2015"; S. 764, a bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act; and S. 766, the "Driver Privacy Act."

    The panel will also vote on some nominations: Willie May to become undersecretary of Commerce for standards and technology and director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; Dava Newman to be NASA deputy administrator; and Patricia Cahill to be reappointed a board member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

    Schedule: The markup is Wednesday, March 25, at 2:30 p.m. in 253 Russell.

    Return to headline | Return to top

28. Doomed Request for DOT Boosts to Undergo Round 3 with House Appropriators

    Mar 23, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Sean Reilly

    The Obama administration's transportation spending plan for next year is already headed for a dead end on Capitol Hill, but the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee will nonetheless holds its third hearing on the proposal this Wednesday.

    Perhaps by design, the session will assemble the acting heads of three Department of Transportation branches grappling with hot-button regulatory issues. The Federal Railroad Administration and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are under increasing pressure to wrap up work on new standards to make crude-by-rail shipments safer, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's efforts to toughen regulations on truckers' work hours were blocked by lawmakers in last year's omnibus appropriations bill.

    Overall, the White House wants to bump up DOT's budget by almost a third next year to about $95 billion, an objective that the subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), has dismissed as "borderline fantasy."

    Within that framework, the railroad administration's budget would more than triple to about $5 billion. Spending on the motor carrier safety administration would rise about 9 percent to $1.2 billion, while the pipeline agency's budget would get an 18 percent boost to $289 million.

    For the agency, the budget includes money for about 20 employees to ramp up regular hazardous materials inspections while also addressing the safe shipment of oil and other energy products, according to the request. About half of the proposed funding for the railroad administration would go to Amtrak. The 2016 request would be the kickoff for a six-year, $28.6 billion reauthorization proposal to give rail the same predictable annual funding that highways and transit already receive.

    Schedule: The hearing of the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee will be Wednesday, March 25, at 9 a.m. in 2358-A Rayburn.

    Witnesses: Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator, Federal Railroad Administration; Timothy Butters, acting administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; and T.F. Scott Darling, acting administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below