Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Group Wants Improvements in EPA's Risk Assessments
Apr 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA needs to make further improvements to how chemical risk assessments are conducted, “particularly as they relate to identifying accurately the real world exposures and hazards presented from the chemicals evaluated,” says the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Groups Seek Ban on Organohalogen Flame Retardant Products
Apr 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A coalition of public interest groups has petitioned the US Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban four categories of consumer products if they contain any flame retardant in the chemical class known asorganohalogens. -
Toxicologists Push For EPA To Define 'Unreasonable Risk' In TSCA Reform
Apr 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is recommending that pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) legislation be revised to include language requiring EPA to define a safety standard for the agency to review chemicals, saying there is longstanding confusion about the "no unreasonable risk" standard in current TSCA reform efforts. -
EPA Study Finds Increase In Scientific Integrity Activities, Investigations
Apr 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA in a new report says efforts to bolster the integrity of science underpinning the agency's rulemakings and other work has increased even as allegations and investigations into a loss of integrity have also risen, as EPA works to implement the White House's push for agencies to improve the credibility of data that they use. -
Obama Declares Cyberattacks a 'National Emergency'
Apr 1, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett and Elise Viebeck
President Obama declared Wednesday that the rising number of cyberattacks against the United States is a national emergency and issued an executive order that would sanction those behind the attacks. -
Texas Lawmakers Unsure if Safety Measures Needed 2 Years After Blast
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
It's been nearly two years since the explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. plant in West, Texas, and state businesses face no new safety requirements for their storage of ammonium nitrate, the chemical that exploded in the fatal blast. -
18 Attorneys General Slam EPA in Letter Calling for End to Clean Power Plan
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
After U.S. EPA missed a deadline for adopting regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell (R) called for the EPA regulations to be scrapped. -
Throw out EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rule Because of Missed Deadline, Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell Demands
Mar 30, 2015 | The Times-Picayune
By Mark Schleifstein
The federal Environmental Protection Agency missed a key deadline in adopting regulations requiring power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and should be thrown out, Attorney Gen. Buddy Caldwell said in a Wednesday (Mar. 25) letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. -
Diverse Central States Echo Reliability Concerns at Final Clean Power Plan Conference
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
The changes in power plant fleets that will be required by U.S. EPA's Clean Power plan are too much, too fast, and threaten electric affordability and reliability, a group of utilities and state regulators from up and down the nation's central corridor said here yesterday. -
'A Lot of Benefit' Seen on Regional Approach to EPA Climate Rule
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
The chances are likely of seeing states take a regional, collaborative approach to meeting the goals set by U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, a former board member of the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) said yesterday. -
Analysis Group's Tierney Discusses Existing State Tools for Ensuring Reliability Under Clean Power Plan
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - TV
As the voices of concern over the Clean Power Plan's impact on grid reliability grow louder, do states have the ability to ensure reliability in their compliance plans by using tools currently at their disposal? -
4 Questions from the White House Climate Goals
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
The United States and Russia yesterday joined Norway, Mexico, Switzerland and the European Union in becoming the first governments to set new targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and explain to the world how they plan to meet those goals. -
Shell’s Arctic Drilling Plans on Track as Obama Administration OKs Lease Sale
Mar 31, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Obama administration reaffirmed a 2008 government auction of Arctic drilling rights on Tuesday, delivering a major victory to Shell Oil Co. as it aims to resume exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea this summer. -
Shell Looks to 'Next Chapter' as Interior Clears Way for Next Steps in Summer Drilling
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Interior Department yesterday ended a legal battle that blocked oil drilling in the American Arctic, clearing the decks for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to begin formally reviewing Royal Dutch Shell PLC's application to explore this summer in the Chukchi Sea. -
A World Remade by Fracking
Mar 31, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
If not for fracking, oil would probably be $200 a barrel and gasoline $6.50 in the U.S. -
EPA Releases Analysis of Fracking Ingredients
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Kerosene, methanol and hydrochloric acid are the three most widely used additives in hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, according to a U.S. EPA analysis of FracFocus reports. -
Obama Administration, Citing Climate Risks, Plans Steep Cuts in Greenhouse-Gas Pollution
Mar 31, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The Obama administration on Tuesday outlined an ambitious plan for slashing U.S. greenhouse-gas pollution over the next decade, calling for accelerating the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy to stave off the worst effects of climate change. -
President Obama’s Emissions-Cutting Plan Sets an Example for the World
Mar 31, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S climate plan is no longer just at the center of a domestic debate about coal country and the Environmental Protection Agency. -
What to Do About Climate Change?
Apr 1, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Former Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio)
Of the many pressing issues that confront Washington these days, few pose a larger dilemma than what to do about climate change. -
Fuel Refiners’ Group Names New President
Apr 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) group has named an energy attorney and former Environmental Protection Agency official as its new president.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Group Wants Improvements in EPA's Risk Assessments
Apr 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA needs to make further improvements to how chemical risk assessments are conducted, “particularly as they relate to identifying accurately the real world exposures and hazards presented from the chemicals evaluated,” says the American Chemistry Council.
The ACC was reacting to the agency's plans to propose rules to ban or restrict the use of trichloroethylene (TCE), n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride in certain applications. The EPA is seeking input on the possible impact of the proposed rules on small businesses (CW 31 March 2015).
“No one benefits from regulatory actions that do not actually mitigate real risks,” the group says, adding that the EPA “should also be clear on those substances that do not warrant full assessments, for example where problem formulation demonstrates a human health or environmental concern does not exist.”
Saying it appreciates the EPA's willingness to discuss risk management measures with stakeholders before settling on regulatory action, the ACC says it supports the creation of small businesses panels to get more input for reducing potential risks. “This input, as well as refining how the assessments identify and address exposures, is vital to create a more effective approach to manage chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act.”
Meanwhile, Faye Graul, executive director of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) says it has been working with methylene chloride formulators and the Consumer Product Safety Commission on making “some changes in labelling that might address some of the concerns about risks for that application [that the EPA is targeting]”.
Methylene chloride is the most effective paint removing substance, and although the HSIA offered to demonstrate it to the EPA at a meeting last December, Ms Graul says "they haven't taken us up on that opportunity yet.” As for the other two substances: HSIA members only sell TCE to industrial customers and do not make NMP, she says.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Groups Seek Ban on Organohalogen Flame Retardant Products
Apr 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A coalition of public interest groups has petitioned the US Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban four categories of consumer products if they contain any flame retardant in the chemical class known asorganohalogens.
The categories are:children's products;furniture;mattresses; andcasings around electronics.
The group says that this entire class of flame retardant chemicals has been associated with serious human health problems, including cancer, reduced sperm count, increased time to pregnancy, decreased IQ in children and impaired memory. “Nevertheless," they add, "the chemicals continue to be used at high levels in consumer products.”
The petitioners are:American Academy of Pediatrics;National Hispanic Medical Association;International Association of Fire Fighters;Learning Disabilities Association of America;Consumers Union;Consumer Federation of America;League of United Latin American Citizens;Kids in Danger;American Medical Women's Association;Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., M.P.H.Worksafe; andGreen Science Policy Institute.
The American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance responded by saying that it is “unfortunate that these petitioners are presenting families with the false choice between chemical safety and fire safety when we can have both. Families should know that flame retardants can help provide strong protection against potentially devastating situations. They have been proven to be a critical component of fire safety and can help save lives.”
-
Toxicologists Push For EPA To Define 'Unreasonable Risk' In TSCA Reform
Apr 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is recommending that pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) legislation be revised to include language requiring EPA to define a safety standard for the agency to review chemicals, saying there is longstanding confusion about the "no unreasonable risk" standard in current TSCA reform efforts.
There is minimal difference between the safety standards in a bipartisan Senate toxics law reform bill from Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) and a competing measure introduced by Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), says a member of an SOT panel reviewing draft TSCA reform bills.
Both bills adopt language on safety standards from existing statutes, with the Vitter-Udall measure adapting the "no unreasonable risk" of harm from the existing TSCA enacted in 1976, and the Boxer-Markey bill adopting the "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard found in the Food Quality Protection Act, the source says.
"Frankly, there's not much difference," between the two standards "because of the way that they're applied," the source says. "Right now the two are being contrasted as if they are very different, and they're not."
The source explains that the existing statutory standards have been interpreted and applied by the agencies using their authorities, resulting in what the source views as little difference between the two standards.
By contrast, the source says, "by the letter of the standard, 'reasonable certainty of no harm' is not really achievable," citing the Boxer-Markey approach. But the idea of an unreasonable risk standard can be articulated by scientific and political [measures]. It's a risk that some portion of the population would consider unreasonable."
Given confusion over the safety standard to include in any TSCA reform effort, SOT is suggesting that senators revise the pending Vitter-Udall toxics law reform legislation to allow EPA to define the safety standard.
The SOT committee received the Boxer-Markey TSCA reform bill for review last week, and will provide a similar letter of advice on that proposed legislation once it has reviewed it, the source says. The committee also plans to write such a letter when similar TSCA legislation is released in the House, the source says.
In a March 18 letter to Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Boxer reviewing the Vitter-Udall bill, the SOT committee writes that even without the cost or other non-risk factors included with "unreasonable risk" in the existing TSCA, "we continue to have concern for how 'unreasonable risk' will be defined."
Such a definition "has been an issue with TSCA since its enactment and will require further guidance by the [EPA] Administrator to support the standard," according to the panel of SOT, which is an organization of toxicologists from academic institutions, government, and industry.
The letter is signed by William Farland, a professor at Colorado State University and a former top science official in EPA's research office, and Mark Lafranconi, a toxicology consultant with the firm Tox Horizons.
Safety Standard
The letter goes on to suggest that further guidance from EPA on the definition of the "unreasonable risk" safety standard be added to Section 3A of the Vitter-Udall bill, which outlines policies, procedures and guidance. Specifically, the toxicologists suggest adding such language where Section 3A requires the EPA Administrator to "establish, by rule, policies and procedures regarding the manner in which the Administrator shall carry out section 6."
"There has always been a discussion around what is 'unreasonable risk?' Is it [one in one million or one in ten thousand] cancer probability? Is it a worst case situation for most sensitive individuals?" the SOT source explains. "If they are going to continue to use the standard, it would be a good idea [for the EPA] administrator to define what 'unreasonable risk' is."
Asked whether Congress should be more specific in its safety standard, the source indicates that EPA would be the better author for the standard's definition. "The definition of a standard like that shouldn't really be written into the language of the bill," the source says. "It should evolve with science and the evolution of policies."
The SOT panel's letter is the latest review of a TSCA reform bill it has sent members of Congress. In the 113th Congress, the committee reviewed a draft TSCA reform bill that Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) released for comments, and also met with staff and members in both houses to discuss the science of toxicology and how to best articulate it in TSCA reform bills.
The new letter is largely positive, finding many aspects of the Vitter-Udall bill to commend. "We've been very pleased with the evolution of the bill and the balanced focus on hazard and exposure," the SOT source says.
The SOT committee's letter lays out the professional organization's three goals for a TSCA reform bill: providing flexibility in EPA's selection of best available science for performing risk assessments, protecting EPA's authority to determine when and how to use new methods and ensuring the concepts in the bill are "consistent, accurate and unambiguous."
SOT in its letter supports "the clear definition used to describe susceptible populations and the recognition that there are numerous factors, such as differences in potential exposure or increased susceptibility to adverse health consequences that can influence the evaluation of risk to those populations." The letter adds that there are other susceptible populations beyond those listed in the bill.
"It is important to reaffirm that the underlying factors, such as genetics, pre-existing health conditions, nutritional status, and others, can also influence the susceptibility of other populations as well, in addition to those listed -- infants, children, pregnant women, workers, and the elderly. The law should enable this type of analysis as a necessary part of determining susceptibility," the letter says.
Chemical Testing
The bill goes on to voice support for the "approach proposed for conducting chemical testing and assessment," and the "flexibility in timing needed . . . for scientifically sound evaluations of chemicals." Still, the letter contains further suggestions to improve the bill, such as adding other scientific advisory groups to language in the bill acknowledging the National Academy of Sciences as an advisory body to EPA. The letter suggests adding EPA's Scientific Advisory Boards, the World Health Organization and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The letter also suggests that the bill be expanded to direct EPA to analyze not only aggregate exposures but also cumulative exposures in its risk assessments, in its comments on Section 4 of the bill. Aggregate exposures refers to assessing all the exposure pathways of a particular chemical, such as ingestion and inhalation. Cumulative exposure refers assessments considering multiple chemicals that act through the same biological mechansim, and can be even broader, considering all chemicals acting on the same health endpoint, or can even include non-chemicals stressors.
"The suggestion we're giving here [is that] it would be worthwhile to address aggregate and cumulative exposures," the source says. "If you had a series of drinking water contaminants that are not the same chemical but … the toxicities seemed to work the same way, you wouldn't want to assess [the contaminants] separately."
The issue is not a new one for EPA, the source adds, noting that EPA's pesticides and water offices already perform such assessments.
-
EPA Study Finds Increase In Scientific Integrity Activities, Investigations
Apr 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA in a new report says efforts to bolster the integrity of science underpinning the agency's rulemakings and other work has increased even as allegations and investigations into a loss of integrity have also risen, as EPA works to implement the White House's push for agencies to improve the credibility of data that they use.
The recently released "Scientific Integrity Annual Report -- [Fiscal Year] 2014" follows the agency's hiring last year of its first Scientific Integrity Official (ScIO) Francesca Grifo, who chairs a scientific integrity committee including representatives from each EPA program and region. "The Agency's ability to pursue its mission to protect human health and the environment depends upon the integrity of the science on which it relies," the report says.
The report analyzed information since the release of the agency's 2012 Scientific Integrity Policy, which was in response to a December 2010 White House Office of Science & Technology Policy memo directing federal agencies to develop plans for ensuring the integrity of the science that they use in their activities.
EPA's new report -- the second since release of the agency's 2012 policy -- shows that in the last three years there were 43 "allegations of a loss of scientific integrity," with 40 of those in FY14.
The report says, "It is important to remember that the allegations represent less than 0.3% of EPA employees and an even smaller percentage if one includes the contractors, grantees and volunteers who are also covered by the Policy."
"The increase in the reporting of allegations in fiscal year 2014 coincides with both the arrival of the Agency's first full-time Scientific Integrity Official and significant increases in outreach about the Policy and hence is probably not as notable as it might seem," according to the report.
Of the 40 integrity allegations made in 2014, 17 were made officially, where the complainant identifies him or herself. The other 23 allegations are informal. Where the person making the allegation is not identified to anyone but the scientific integrity official, the "ScIO is still interested in obtaining information about these allegations and can take some steps to resolve them," according to the report.
The report adds that "[o]f the 17 formal allegations received in FY2014, three are closed, three are being investigated by the Inspector General [OIG], one is being resolved in the affected region and the other 10 are in the inquiry phase," the report says.
Informal Allegations
The report does not appear to detail the outcomes of the 23 informal allegations. Instead it says, "[t]he number of informal allegations is larger than the number of formal allegations and this disparity has grown recently. Increasing outreach could reduce the hesitancy of these employees to report issues formally."
The report outlines a subset of scientific integrity allegation, called "scientific misconduct, which includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or misrepresentation in proposing, performing or reviewing scientific or research activities," and notes that these allegations are handled by OIG. "In 2014, five allegations were received through the OIG hotline and referred to the ScIO and three allegations of scientific misconduct came to the ScIO and were referred to the OIG," the report says, but it is unclear how or if these allegations were resolved.
The report also outlines the work that scientific integrity staff undertook in FY2014, and provides plans for 2015 activities. In FY14, staff focused on activities including "developing procedures to implement the Scientific Integrity Policy; initiating an evaluation of the content, implementation and impact of the Policy; consulting with the EPA unions and other outreach; and updating the EPA Peer Review Handbook."
The report goes on to explain that there was no formal process for implementing the scientific integrity policy, so Grifo and her staff set about creating one. The Scientific Integrity Committee "developed draft procedures for reporting and resolving allegations of lapses of scientific integrity at the Agency." These draft procedures are being used and finalized by the committee, the report says.
For upcoming activities this fiscal year and beyond, the report says that "six priority issues present opportunities for improvement," including "Reporting and resolving allegations of a loss of scientific integrity"; "Reducing confusion about designation of publication authorship"; "Increasing transparency"; "Addressing constraints to full implementation of the Policy"; "Defining the timely release of agency science and scientific products" and "Enhancing peer review."
-
Obama Declares Cyberattacks a 'National Emergency'
Apr 1, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett and Elise Viebeck
President Obama declared Wednesday that the rising number of cyberattacks against the United States is a national emergency and issued an executive order that would sanction those behind the attacks.
“Targeted sanctions, used judiciously, will give us a new and powerful way to go after the worst of the worst,” he said in a post on Medium.
The president's order will give the Treasury Department the authority to impose sanctions on individuals or entities behind cyberattacks and cyber espionage. In effect, it would freeze targets' assets when they pass through the U.S. financial system and prohibit them from transacting with American companies.
The move by the White House responds to mounting cyber threats to U.S. companies, government agencies and critical infrastructure.
The number of data breaches in the headlines attests to the need for stronger countermeasures against hackers, said White House cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel.
"We very much need the full range of tools across the spectrum in order to actually confront the cyber threats that we face," said Daniel, a special assistant to Obama, on a call with reporters.
Daniel argued that the sanctions regime will discourage hackers worldwide and those who hire them to do harm.
"Keep in mind that some of our view here is that we want to have this tool available as a deterrent to some of those who would consider carrying out these activities," he said.
"We would also hope that some of our allies and aligned countries would join us," raising the financial stakes for bad actors, he added.
To be designated for sanctions, an individual or entity would have to carry out significant and malicious cyber activity against the United States.
Foreign governments have been suspected in many recent high-profile hacks across the public and private sector. The FBI accused North Korea of organizing an attack on Sony Pictures in retaliation for "The Interview," which depicts the assassination of Kim Jong Un.
In response, the White House imposed a new round of economic sanctions on North Korea, mostly targeting weapons companies selling to the reclusive East Asian nation.
The new executive order gives the Treasury Department authority to impose sanctions outside of country-specific frameworks.
"This joins the ranks of our counterterrorism authorities and our narcotics authorities that allow us to go after activity that threatens the United States," said John Smith, acting director for the Office of Foreign Assets Control.Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the executive order would allow his department to “financially isolate those who hide in the shadows of the Internet.”
“This authority is a powerful new tool to help protect our security and economy against those who would exploit the free, open, and global nature of the Internet to cause harm,” Lew said.
The White House said the order applies to several types of cyber crimes that have ravaged the U.S. over the last two years, though Daniels declined to give examples.
"Speculating how we would have used this tool in the past is very difficult," he said.
Treasury will have the authority to impose sanctions against those who pilfer large troves of credit card data or sensitive information, for example.
"Our primary focus will be on cyber threats from overseas," Obama said on Medium.
The Treasury Department will have the authority to impose sanctions against those who pilfer large troves of credit card data or sensitive information, for example.
Major hacks at retailers like Home Depot and Target exposed more than 100 million Americans’ credit card data in the last 18 months, while a data breach at JPMorgan Chase last fall compromised 76 million households’ personal information.
The administration also clarified that the order will cover cyberattacks that “significantly disrupt” the availability of a computer network.
That includes distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDOS), the calling card of hacktivist groups like Anonymous and many foreign countries like Iran and China.
Just in the last two weeks, Internet free speech activists have accused China of waging a major DDOS campaign against the popular U.S. coding site GitHub.
Whether the Treasury Department will use its new authority to respond to these type of attacks remains to be seen.
“We intend to use this authority carefully and judiciously against the most serious cyber threats to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure,” Lew said.
Wednesday’s move is the next phase of the White House’s 2015 cybersecurity agenda.
The administration in January unveiled a series of legislative proposals meant to enhance public-private cybersecurity information sharing. Obama traveled to Silicon Valley in February to promote his platform at an all-day cyber summit. During the event, he signed an executive order to encourage Congress to take up his proposals.
In his Medium post, Obama vowed that this new tool would not lie dormant.
“We will use it,” he said.
Officials declined to give a timetable for when they will announce the first round of sanctions.
-
Texas Lawmakers Unsure if Safety Measures Needed 2 Years After Blast
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
It's been nearly two years since the explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. plant in West, Texas, and state businesses face no new safety requirements for their storage of ammonium nitrate, the chemical that exploded in the fatal blast.
Texas lawmakers are expected to complete their biennial legislative session in June, and two bills that would address ammonium nitrate storage face unclear prospects.
One bill, by state Rep. Joe Pickett (D), would allow the State Fire Marshal's Office to create regulations governing the proper storage and handling of ammonium nitrate. The bill would also let the State Fire Marshal's Office inspect ammonium nitrate facilities and let local fire departments enter the sites to perform planning activities. While the bill has not been heard by a committee, it's expected to be taken up next week, Pickett said.
A similar bill by state Rep. Kyle Kacal (R) would incorporate existing ammonium nitrate storage rules from the Office of the State Chemist instead of allowing the Fire Marshal's Office to write new ones.
Pickett's bill faces opposition from agriculture interests, which want to avoid being mandated to replace wooden storage facilities, which would cost money but make it harder for a fire to spread.
"If it doesn't pass in this session, we won't be addressing it until we have another explosion," Pickett said. "It won't be a problem until it is" (J.B. Smith, Waco Tribune, March 31). -- SP
-
18 Attorneys General Slam EPA in Letter Calling for End to Clean Power Plan
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
After U.S. EPA missed a deadline for adopting regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell (R) called for the EPA regulations to be scrapped.
"Considering all of the grounds upon which this rule is likely to be overturned, and because the rule making threatens the citizens of the states, we as the chief legal officers of the states are notifying your agency that this proposed rule has expired," he wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, signed by 18 other state attorneys general. "It therefore must be withdrawn."
Caldwell argued that the agency did not produce a final version of the rule within one year after it was proposed, and thus did not comply with the Clean Air Act.
EPA officials responded that the agency was not required to withdraw the regulations on account of a missed deadline. The regulations, developed as part of President Obama's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have been opposed by Louisiana on the grounds they will raise costs for state industries and residents.
Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming signed Caldwell's letter (Mark Schleifstein, New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 30). -- MV
-
Mar 30, 2015 | The Times-Picayune
By Mark Schleifstein
The federal Environmental Protection Agency missed a key deadline in adopting regulations requiring power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and should be thrown out, Attorney Gen. Buddy Caldwell said in a Wednesday (Mar. 25) letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
But EPA officials said in a statement Monday afternoon that the agency isn't required to withdraw the rule because of a missed deadline.
The letter written by Caldwell was signed by 18 other state attorneys general.
The new rules are part of President Barack Obama's strategies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which have been linked to human-caused climate change, including increased levels of sea level rise and unusual weather patterns that are expected to increase over the next century.
The rules have been opposed by Louisiana and other states because of their potential costs to industries, including the electric utilities that would be required to reduce their emissions and companies and individuals that the utilities and states contend are likely to see increased electricity costs because of the reductions.
In his letter, the latest in a series of communications between state attorneys general and EPA over the rules, Caldwell contends that a provision of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to publish its final version of the rule "no later than one year following publication of the proposed rule," which occurred on Jan. 8, 2014.
That time limit exists, in part, to assure that businesses considering construction of new plants aren't "left in a state of uncertainty" with respect to the proposed rules, he said.
"Considering all of the grounds upon which this rule is likely to be overturned, and because the rule making threatens the citizens of the states, we as the chief legal officers of the states are notifying your agency that this proposed rule has expired," he wrote. "It therefore must be withdrawn."
In its statement, EPA said "It is incorrect that the consequences of EPA missing a deadline for finalizing a proposed rule is that EPA must withdraw the proposal. EPA remains obligated to finalize the rule."
"In January, we said there are cross-cutting topics that affect the standards for new sources, for modified sources and for existing sources," the statement said. "We believe it is essential to consider these overlapping issues in a coordinated fashion. To do so requires us to finalize all three rules--the new source standards, the standards for modified and reconstructed source and the Clean Power Plan -- in a similar timeframe."
Caldwell's letter was also signed by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
-
Diverse Central States Echo Reliability Concerns at Final Clean Power Plan Conference
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
The changes in power plant fleets that will be required by U.S. EPA's Clean Power plan are too much, too fast, and threaten electric affordability and reliability, a group of utilities and state regulators from up and down the nation's central corridor said here yesterday.
The comments came during the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's final regional hearing on implementation of the proposed rule, which calls for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent over the next 15 years.
Most concerns aired during the all-day meeting echo those made in formal comments to EPA and in previous FERC sessions. Regulators from Texas, Indiana and North Dakota -- all of which are plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the rule -- reiterated their sharp disagreement with the Obama administration's plan to slash power plant greenhouse gas emissions.
Donna Nelson of the Texas Public Utilities Commission said the rule will lead to significant coal plant retirements and doesn't credit the state for huge investments in wind energy over the past decade.
"I see the Clean Power Plan as the biggest challenge facing Texas' ability to deliver power to Texans at affordable rates," Nelson said.
FERC's focus yesterday was the central region of the country, a diverse area stretching from the Gulf Coast to the upper Great Plains. It's a region that includes some of the nation's windiest states and some that rely heavily on coal for electricity production. It includes several key petroleum-producing areas and spans three electric reliability organizations.
Steve Stoll, a Missouri Public Service Commission member, said the grid was built out over decades. Utility investments -- including those in emissions controls to meet other environmental regulations -- are depreciated over decades. And there isn't enough time to meet interim compliance requirements proposed by EPA.
"The ship, quite literally, cannot turn on a dime," he said.
Other speakers said the plan to slash carbon emissions will carry a steep cost.
Warner Baxter, CEO of St. Louis-based utility Ameren Corp., told the commission that compliance would have a $4 billion price tag. It could be done much more easily, and at a much lower cost, if the interim compliance deadlines are relaxed.
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
Baxter and other panelists also said mechanisms to ensure reliability should be formally included in EPA's final rule this summer, and FERC should receive state compliance plans for review at the same time they're submitted to EPA for approval.
Commissioner Philip Moeller asked panelists more specifically what FERC's role should be regarding compliance plans.
"If FERC is put in a position to be second-guessing what a state puts together ... I sense that it could add to our state-federal tension," he said.
In an interview after the hearing, FERC Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur said she's more concerned about whether a reliability mechanism works than about whether it's written into the final rule.
But she does see a continued role for the commission in helping with Clean Power Plan implementation.
"I think some sort of role for FERC between submission of a plan and when it goes final, as long as our review sticks within the jurisdictional work, makes sense," LaFleur said.Ideas for -- and against -- multistate plans
Another key theme yesterday was the potential for cooperation among states (see related story).
The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the grid operator for 15 U.S. states and one Canadian province reaching from Manitoba to the Gulf Coast, said savings from a regional compliance effort could be $3 billion annually. But grid operators, utility officials and state regulators said developing those multi-state plans won't be easy.
Many of the states, including Illinois, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana and Michigan, participate in more than one reliability organization. Individual CO2 reduction targets vary widely. And some states may benefit from rate-based versus mass-based compliance strategies as allowed under the proposed rule.
Utility and environmental regulations from 14 MISO states have been meeting for months in search of a way to cooperate on Clean Power Plan compliance (EnergyWire, Dec. 3, 2014).
Members of the Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators (MSEER) had their fifth in-person meeting in St. Louis on Monday ahead of the FERC hearing.
"We couldn't figure out any viable way to trade between a rate-based and a mass-based state," said Thomas Easterly, commissioner at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
Nancy Lange, a member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, said regional cooperation for Clean Power Plan compliance makes sense "in theory." But differences in carbon dioxide reduction goals among states complicate those efforts.
"We've spent a lot of time in the MSEER group gnashing our teeth about our differences in goals," she said.
The need for additional transmission and natural gas infrastructure was also a concern raised by utilities, regulators and grid operators -- specifically whether there's enough time to develop additional infrastructure before the interim guidelines.
Lanny Nickell, vice president of operations for the Southwest Power Pool, said it can take as long as 8 ½ years to develop new high-voltage transmission lines.
But Lauren Azar, a former Wisconsin utility regulator and former Department of Energy official, said the need for new transmission can be accommodated more quickly and done through the planning processes already used by regional transmission organizations (RTOs).
"If the states go tell the RTOs they want this infrastructure, the RTOs are going to jump on it," she said in an interview. "It's a matter of will."
-
'A Lot of Benefit' Seen on Regional Approach to EPA Climate Rule
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
The chances are likely of seeing states take a regional, collaborative approach to meeting the goals set by U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, a former board member of the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) said yesterday.
Justin Johnson, now Vermont's administration secretary, said he thinks given the wide parameters EPA has set for states to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, regional collaborations make sense.
"I think there could be a lot of benefit," Johnson told EnergyWire after speaking on a panel about state carbon programs.
When it comes to the Southeast, the region has plenty of options, he said.
"You could catch up relatively quickly in one sense because there's a lot of opportunity in energy efficiency," for example, he said. "I think that one of the challenges is to get everyone, sort of like-minded folks or people who are used to talking to each other, together."
Broadly, EPA has asked states to reduce their carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2012 levels by 2030. The agency issued a proposed rule last June and expects to release a final one this summer.
States then have until 2016 to submit plans to EPA. Those that choose to do a regional compliance strategy have an additional year.
The groundwork for forming a regional carbon market in the Southeast is there. The major utilities share the same parent companies, are interconnected by the same power lines and cooperate with regional planning.
Digging deeper, however, often the push to form a regional market comes from environmental advocates and not from utilities (EnergyWire, Oct. 2, 2014).
In Georgia, regulators are at least considering the option, but state officials and utility executives also have said there's likely not enough time.RGGI model 'works really well'
At the first day of a conference on how states can meet targets of EPA's Clean Power Plan, panelists pointed to the Northeast's carbon market, more commonly known as RGGI, as one model to follow. This is in part because when state officials, regulators and utilities started to form RGGI 10 year ago, they had the same concerns as many critics of the proposed EPA rule.
"You have a group of states, they are close to each other and have a natural sort of interaction, that's important," Johnson said. "But it's also important to know they are very different, they have different political flavors, different governors that have changed over time."
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
Each state had to take the model rule for RGGI and approve it through its own lawmaking and regulatory process, for example, he said. States also have different fuel mixes.
"It's true there are winners and losers. It's true that how you set the cap and where you set the cap is important," Johnson said. "At the end of the day, RGGI works. It works very well."
A group of environmental regulators and utility commissioners from 14 Midwestern states are working on a regional cooperation plan to meet EPA's proposal (EnergyWire, Dec. 3, 2014). The group calls itself the Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators.
Minnesota utilities and nongovernmental organizations such as the Great Plains Institute and George Washington University also are working on the e21 Initiative, an effort to realign the utility business model with customer interests and new technology.
Those are just two examples of statewide and regional collaboration in the Midwest, said Phyllis Reha, a former Minnesota utility regulator. She said the state historically has used a long-term integrated resource planning process to meet state mandates for renewable energy, energy efficiency and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"We feel we have a leg up on the Clean Power Plan," said Reha, now an energy policy and regulatory consultant for Par Energy Solutions.
The Midwest is supportive of a collaborative approach to meeting EPA's targets, Reha said. She also noted barriers. These include whether states have enough common issues to work together.
Politics are also a factor, she said, noting that Minnesota is a progressive state essentially surrounded by conservative ones. Reha remains optimistic, however.
"There are many opportunities to try to find some dialogue where we can all meet the various requirements of the states without stepping on each other's toes," she said.
-
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - TV
As the voices of concern over the Clean Power Plan's impact on grid reliability grow louder, do states have the ability to ensure reliability in their compliance plans by using tools currently at their disposal? During today's OnPoint, Susan Tierney, senior adviser at the Analysis Group, explains why she believes reliability issues will be solved as stakeholders proceed "in parallel" with compliance. She also discusses the growing support for states to employ the "just say no" option for power plan compliance.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Sue Tierney, a senior adviser at the Analysis Group. Sue, great to have you back on the show.
Susan Tierney: So nice to see you.
Monica Trauzzi: Sue, there have been many concerns raised from a wide range of stakeholders on the impact of EPA's Clean Power Plan on reliability. As the voices of concern grow louder, is this debate a constructive one?
Susan Tierney: If -- it can be if people remember the reason why reliability organizations say, "Oh, we're looking ahead. We see there's going to be a problem." Usually what that does is get the industry focused on solving the problem. That's the way it always works, and so if that's how we think about it, I think it's a constructive thing.
Monica Trauzzi: Is that what the NERC report did? Did it get people focused on it or did it sort of stir things up a bit and cause even greater concern?
Susan Tierney: Well, I do think it stirred things up, but I'm thinking back to a couple years ago when NERC came up with a study that looked at the effect of the mercury and air toxics rule, and they identified that there'll be a lot of problems associated with the industry implementing that rule, but in fact, what we found was that it got people's attention. People solved the places where there would be problems, and that's where it's continuing to go, so I see it very similarly.
Monica Trauzzi: In a recent report, you say reliability issues will be solved by the dynamic interplay of actions by regulators, entities responsible for reliability and market participants with many solutions proceeding in parallel. This is assuming, though, that all of these stakeholders are on the same page. That does not seem to be the case right now on the state level within states, so how do states overcome that challenge of not being on the same page and getting to the point where they are truly moving in parallel?
Susan Tierney: That's a really good question, but in some sense, that isn't different than what we've seen in the past, except the fact that there are these state plans that have to be built. So the reason I say that is we've seen a lot of prior environmental regulations in the past where either the states who represented the companies in their state felt like they didn't really like the fact that they had to do something that the federal government was doing, but at the end of the day, when push came to shove, they got their act together and the industry did what it needed to do. What I see right now is there's certainly a lot of jockeying that is always the case when there's a rule that's in proposal form. And we will see a final rule at some point in time. I do hear a lot of people who own power plants saying, really, let's just figure out what we need to do rather than keeping this level of uncertainty going for many, many years. And we actually see market participants who see this as an opportunity coming forth with a lot of proposals. In places like PJM, where we studied, there's just about as much responding to the market signals and coming forth with proposals to build new power plants than there are power plants being retired.
Monica Trauzzi: So you think that the PJM, it's a unique example, and you think that they will not face reliability challenges?
Susan Tierney: The part that's unique or similar to other places that are heavily dependent on coal-fired power plants, that puts it almost in, you know, the most active place where somebody has to respond to these new rules. At the same time, PJM has done a lot of work to analyze what if the rules look like this, what if the states propose plans that are multistate as opposed to single state, and I think the thing that's a clear takeaway from that process is that, if the states honor, in some sense, the fact that they've got an interstate electricity market and try to follow that construct in their state plans, they're much more likely to have a wider set of reliability tools and a cheaper response to the rule in the end.
Monica Trauzzi: So what current tools can you point to that exist for states to ensure reliability as they work towards their compliance mechanisms?
Susan Tierney: Well, a perfect example exists, again, in the PJM place, but it's not unique to PJM. Right now, if a power plant wants to retire, they have to get approval from the balancing authority or the grid operator to say that it's OK if you take that offline, and the power flows will still be OK after that without violating reliability requirements. So in PJM right now, there are several hundred requests for small units and large units that are going to be retired or deactivated. PJM has identified reliability problems and solved them. So they've been solved with either reliability must-run contracts for a limited period of time or some kind of transmission solution or rejiggering of conductors or something or another. A lot of things are going on that allow for a reliable response.
Monica Trauzzi: Going back to the NERC report, NERC had raised initial concerns with reliability, and they sort of talked about the need for transmission upgrades as a key element. Could the U.S. find itself in a position, though, where we have these regulations in place and the infrastructure is not in line?
Susan Tierney: Hypothetically, of course. But in fact, one -- the experience is that if there are transmission lines that are needed for reliability purposes, they have a much easier track record, so to speak, of getting their permits and approvals in a timely way. Harder sometimes for what we call economic transmission upgrades. Somebody's advantage economically is viewed as a disadvantage to somebody else, but the ones that are identified as needing to be done for reliability purposes, those move forward.
Monica Trauzzi: A growing number of voices are calling for states to just say no to the Clean Power Plan. We're hearing that phrase a lot. The plan, the way it's structured, it only works if states comply, so if enough states just say no, could they derail the Clean Power Plan?
Susan Tierney: Well, you're probably going to get lots of answers from lawyers on that question. I'm not even a lawyer, so I understand that there will be a proposed, almost default federal implementation plan proposed by EPA as part of what we might see this summer. Ironically, what I hear from industry people is that it may not serve them well to have their state just say no. That makes their situation much more difficult. They may be held responsible at the end of the day for making sure that there is compliance with emissions reductions. So I see a lot of counterpressures, plus I hear some of those states that are gearing up to file suit also having a lot of meetings to talk about a Plan B.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We're going to end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show. Nice to see you again.
Susan Tierney: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
4 Questions from the White House Climate Goals
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
The United States and Russia yesterday joined Norway, Mexico, Switzerland and the European Union in becoming the first governments to set new targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and explain to the world how they plan to meet those goals.
The Obama administration's promise to cut economywide emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 held almost no surprises. The target and the route to getting there -- a combination of Obama using his executive authority under the Clean Air Act with a raft of regulations on everything from heavy-duty trucks to buildings -- were charted months earlier.
But the formal submission to the United Nations of that plan now sets off what many leaders hope will be a race among developed and developing nations alike to step up to the plate. Collectively, the targets will form the core of a new global accord that will be signed in Paris in December.
"Now it's time for other nations [to] come forward with their own targets to help ensure we can reach a global agreement at the U.N. Climate Conference in Paris later this year," Secretary of State John Kerry said.
"We know there is no way the United States -- nor any other country -- could possibly address climate change alone. This is a global challenge, and an effective solution will require countries around the world to do their part to reduce emissions and bring about a global clean-energy future. That's the only way we'll meet this challenge, and it's the only way we'll honor our shared responsibility to future generations," he said.
But observers said the U.S. proposal, as well as the other "intended nationally determined contributions," or INDCs, also raises some early questions about how the Paris deal is shaping up. Among them:
1. How will countries address the fact that the collective targets are clearly not adding up to enough to meet the climate stabilization goal of keeping temperatures below a 2-degree-Celsius rise?
According to Bill Hare, founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, which oversees the Climate Action Tracker to monitor countries' measures, all of the INDCs released so far, which account for about a third of global emissions, are in what he calls the "medium" ambition range.
That is, he said, "They are not yet sufficient to [keep] warming below 2 degrees unless other countries take quite significant action."
But where that extra ambition will come from is unclear. China has already made its plan to curb emissions by 2030 known, and once that offer is formalized, the vast majority of global emissions will have been accounted for.
Hare insists that countries' INDCs are not their final offer, and that some might wind up boosting their targets by Paris. In the case of the United States, the White House might commit to the upper end of its 26 to 28 percent range, which could in turn prompt other countries to bump up their goals.
"Every percentage point from the U.S. will encourage others to go a bit further," Hare said. He said he believes the United States is open to the possibility. "Otherwise, why would they put this range on the table? It's informally clear that it is a negotiating position."
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, countries representing 58 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector have announce targets for cutting them in the post-2020 era. Data courtesy of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Others disagreed. A country choosing to shift its numbers at the eleventh hour, said Peter Ogden, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is "hard for me to imagine, given the amount of time and work that countries have put into coming up with their targets."
And Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), said he thinks the U.S. range is unlikely to be negotiated away.
"I wouldn't expect it. Part of the reason that's there is to provide some flexibility," he said. "There are a lot of unpredictable factors that affect where your emissions land in a given year, so that flexibility matters."
One way or another, leaders from the world's poorest and most vulnerable nations said, countries will have to find a way to bridge the gigaton gap.
"Our hope is that all countries will come forward with their national goals and [collectively cut emissions] 40 percent by 2025," said A.K. Abdul Momen, permanent representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations.
"Otherwise, it will be a problem for all of us," Momen said. "We are the No. 1 victim of climate change, of course through no fault of us. We believe today we are suffering and tomorrow others will suffer."
2. Who decides what is "fair and ambitious"?
Governments have promised to explain as part of their INDCs why their carbon-cutting plans are "fair and ambitious." That's a point that developing nations are particularly keen to see from wealthy ones, given that the emissions cuts for the Paris deal will be voluntary and self-determined by each government.
Some environmental groups have called on rich nations to assess how much carbon the world can continue to emit while still having a shot of keeping temperatures below 2 C above preindustrial levels, and then make the case for using up whatever it cites as a "fair share" of those gigatons.
So far, no one is taking that approach. In fact, the current batch of INDCs shows that countries are essentially making the case that their target is fair by saying that it is.
The Russian Federation described a vague plan of limiting emissions 70 to 75 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 "subject to the maximum possible account" of including forests in the cuts as fair. It argued that its economy has grown over the past decade, while its emissions have fallen. The target, it argued, "does not create any obstacles for social and economic development and corresponds to general objectives of the land-use and sustainable forest management policies, raising the level of energy efficiency, reducing energy intensity of the economy and increasing share of renewables in the Russian energy balance."
Most environmental groups say they disagree. Alexey Kokorin, a spokesman for World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Russia, noted that the country will pass its emissions peak in 2020s and said "Russia can, and should, do significantly more."
Meanwhile, the United States asserted of its offering, "The target is fair and ambitious."
Noting that the United States is already on a path to cutting emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, the plan argues that additional action "represents a substantial acceleration of the current pace of greenhouse gas reductions." Achieving the 2025 target will require the United States to double the pace of carbon cuts for the years between 2020 and 2025, it says.
Assessment of the "fairness" of the U.S. plan, unsurprisingly, varies. Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, called the upper end of the U.S. target "credible, comprehensive and highly achievable."
But Friends of the Earth Climate and Energy Program Director Benjamin Schreiber decried it as one that "moves us closer to the brink of global catastrophe."
"The world has a rapidly shrinking carbon budget, and President Obama demonstrated a belief that 'American exceptionalism' entitles us to the lion's share of it," he said.
At the Climate Action Tracker, Hare and fellow researchers are using more than 40 studies on effort-sharing to help set a standard for what is and isn't fair. But look for that to be a continuing source of disagreement among nations.
Niklas Höhne with the NewClimate Institute, who is part of the CAT team, said: "Everybody has a different way of deciding what is a "fair" effort on climate change. Some consider it fair that those who have made a bigger contribution to the problem, or have a higher capability to act, should do more. But even if that were agreed, how much more should they do?"
3. What will the future hold for carbon markets?
The United States in its plan wrote that it "does not intend" to utilize any international carbon markets to help it achieve its emissions cuts.
That won the United States praise in some quarters. Isabel Cavelier Adarve, a senior adviser to a group of progressive Latin American countries in the climate negotiations, called it one of the "positive highlights" of the White House plan.
Robert Stavins, an economist at Harvard University who has written extensively on carbon markets, noted that during the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the United States insisted, over European objections, on inserting market mechanisms into global climate policy.
Turning its back on those mechanisms now, he said, "is an irony."
His concern, Stavins said, is that the language might encourage opponents of carbon markets to insert language into the Paris deal killing them altogether. In fact, Stavins said, he is hoping to see language that "affirmatively" allows countries to receive credit toward achieving parts of their INDCs by using market-based instruments.
4. Can the United States convince the rest of the world that its target won't unravel after 2016?
With no chance of Congress enacting legislation to make these targets into actual U.S. law, the White House is depending on using existing authority under the Clean Air Act and other laws to set regulations in place on power plant emissions, heavy-duty vehicles and more.
But countries have been openly worried about Republican threats to undo the proposed regulations and skeptical that the United States will continue to follow through on its promised target if a Republican is elected president next November.
White House senior adviser Brian Deese pushed back against those concerns yesterday, describing the plan as one that can be achieved "using legal authority that exists today, and that will be locked in before we leave." State Department Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern insisted that Republicans will have a difficult time reversing Obama's efforts.
"The undoing of the kind of regulations that we are putting in place is something that is very tough to do," Stern said. "The kind of regulation we are putting in place does not get easily undone."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), meanwhile, said he and other Republicans intend to ensure that the Paris deal never becomes a reality and that Stern's negotiating counterparts know it.
"Even if the job-killing and likely illegal Clean Power Plan were fully implemented, the United States could not meet the targets laid out in this proposed new plan," McConnell said. "Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn't even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal."
Stavins said whether the United States is doing enough to allay concerns is going to be "the big question" in the coming months.
"What happens if the next president is of the other party? That's a question that [other nations] are going to continue to ask," he said. "It's going to be an open question, but it's the reality of democracy."
-
Shell’s Arctic Drilling Plans on Track as Obama Administration OKs Lease Sale
Mar 31, 2015 | Fuel Fix
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Obama administration reaffirmed a 2008 government auction of Arctic drilling rights on Tuesday, delivering a major victory to Shell Oil Co. as it aims to resume exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea this summer.
In validating the seven-year-old auction, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stressed that the Arctic “is an important component of the administration’s national energy strategy.”
“We remain committed to taking a thoughtful and balanced approach to oil and gas leasing and exploration offshore Alaska,” Jewell said in a statement. “This unique, sensitive and often challenging environment requires effective oversight to ensure all activities are conducted safely and responsibly.”
Related story: Feds propose Arctic drilling mandates
The move illustrated anew the balancing act the Obama administration has taken toward oil and gas development amid steep environmental opposition, coming the same day the White House formally pledged greenhouse gas emission cuts ahead of international climate talks. It also marked the second time the Obama administration has affirmed the Chukchi Sea lease sale in response to a court order and a long-running legal challenge that began even before the auction took place in February 2008.
The decision keeps the door open for Shell to return to the Chukchi Sea this summer and drill wells into its Burger Prospect about 70 miles from Alaska’s shoreline.
It is far from the final regulatory step for Shell, which still must secure individual drilling permits and win the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of its broad exploration plan.
It is far from the final regulatory step for Shell, which still must secure individual drilling permits and win the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of its broad exploration plan. But Jewell’s formal “record of decision” affirming the disputed lease sale was a critical hurdle for Shell’s 2015 Arctic ambitions.
Most immediately, it allows the ocean energy bureau to begin formally reviewing Shell’s Arctic exploration plan as soon as a new version is filed with the agency. Once the bureau deems the plan complete, it has 30 days to decide on the drilling blueprint.
“Above all, it means we can continue making plans to drill this summer,” said Shell spokesman Curtis Smith, though he noted that the company’s planned exploration program “remains contingent on achieving the necessary permits, legal certainty and our own determination that we are prepared to explore safely and responsibly.”
The company’s previous Arctic venture, in 2012, was marred by mishaps, including higher-than-permitted air pollution from a drillship while in the Chukchi Sea and the beaching of its Kulluk drilling unit on an Alaskan island weeks after exploration ended for the year.
Shell has already begun moving its two contracted drilling units to the United States in anticipation of operations this summer.
Read more: As Obama administration weighs Arctic drilling, Shell moves rigs to region
The company also just conducted drills of its emergency containment system for the Arctic, demonstrating the equipment in waters off Washington state for officials with the Interior Department and U.S. Coast Guard.
A Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement spokesperson confirmed agency officials witnessed the successful deployment of the system.
“BSEE continues to work with Shell during its preparations for possible exploration activities to ensure that all activities meet safety standards and are in compliance with federal regulations,” the spokesperson said.
Read more: Shell conducts drills with Arctic oil spill response system
Although Tuesday’s decision was widely expected, it still disappointed environmentalists who have pushed the Obama administration to rule out Arctic drilling and have long questioned the validity of the 2008 auction.
“The Obama administration has steadfastly refused to fully and fairly evaluate the risks of selling leases in the Chukchi Sea and, instead, treats the leases sold in 2008 as if they’re set in stone,” said Susan Murray, Oceana’s deputy vice president for the Pacific. “Rather than once again committing to a risky, poorly justified decision to sell leases in the Chukchi Sea, the government should wipe the slate clean and start over.”
The Chukchi Sea lease sale has long been under a legal cloud. The Interior Department previously was ordered to redo its environmental analysis in 2010 after an Alaska-based federal district court found deficiencies with the review. The Interior Department issued a new environmental impact statement and validated the auction a year later, paving the way for Shell’s 2012 Arctic drilling campaign.
But the sale entered legal jeopardy again after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year faulted the Interior Department’s initial calculation of how much crude would be extracted from the Chukchi Sea leases.
Previously, regulators had said up to 1 billion barrels of oil were economically recoverable from the available leases.
In a final environmental impact statement unveiled in March — as well as a draft released last October — the bureau produced a new estimate: 4.3 billion barrels of oil and 2.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The agency said the new, higher prediction is based on better information about where oil companies’ interests lie and a deeper understanding about geologic structures in the region. In revising its estimate, the bureau also relied on actual bidding data from the disputed 2008 auction, which brought in a record $2.6 billion in high bids. Most of them — $2.1 billion worth — came from Shell, which joined six other companies in nabbing Chukchi Sea drilling rights.
The new analysis also says there is a 75 percent chance of at least one large spill that releases more than 1,000 barrels of oil over 77 years of drilling and development on those Chukchi Sea leases.
The plaintiffs — including more than a dozen conservation organizations and Alaska native groups — did not say Tuesday whether they planned to keep fighting the lease sale in federal court.
They broadly faulted the Interior Department for issuing a final environmental impact statement less than two months after receiving hundreds of thousands of comments on the earlier draft — a timeline they said showed the administration was catering to Shell Oil’s drilling desires.
“We are disappointed in Interior’s rushed lease sale decision,” said Erik Grafe, a staff attorney with Earthjustice, which filed the lawsuit. “Interior still has time to make a better decision when evaluating Shell’s drilling plan, and we sincerely hope it says no to Shell’s louder, bigger, and dirtier tactics, loaded with potential environmental harm.”
-
Shell Looks to 'Next Chapter' as Interior Clears Way for Next Steps in Summer Drilling
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Interior Department yesterday ended a legal battle that blocked oil drilling in the American Arctic, clearing the decks for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to begin formally reviewing Royal Dutch Shell PLC's application to explore this summer in the Chukchi Sea.
In a move that was immediately attacked by national environmental groups, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell issued a record of decision reaffirming the government's 2008 decision to sell oil and gas leases in Alaska's Chukchi Sea (E&ENews PM, March 31).
The lease sale was suspended last year after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government's 2007 environmental review vastly underestimated how much oil could be developed as a result of auctioning the offshore region.
Since then, BOEM has followed a breakneck schedule to revise its flawed supplemental environmental impact statement in time for Shell to drill during this summer's open water season (EnergyWire, March 23).
Interior's record of decision acknowledged that "environmental resources could be adversely impacted to varying degrees by routine activities resulting from [leasing] and by potential accidental events, such as oil spills."
But the final report concluded that the leasing plan includes "adequate environmental safeguards and is consistent with the maintenance of competition and national energy needs."
With the lawsuit behind them, federal regulators are now free to formally accept Shell's application to explore on the company's Chukchi leases. The oil giant submitted the drill proposal in August and was allowed by the court to hold informal talks with federal regulators while the lawsuit was pending.
An Interior Department spokeswoman said that Shell's exploration plan could be "deemed submitted" in the near future, a step that would give BOEM 30 days to review the proposal.
Shell officials were heartened by Interior's decision. Company spokesman Curtis Smith said the step "means we can continue making plans to drill this summer."
The company's final decision on moving forward in the Arctic, he said, will be "contingent on achieving the necessary permits, legal certainty and our own determination that we are prepared to explore safely and responsibly."
Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, applauded Jewell's action, calling it "a step in the right direction."
"The Arctic offshore is the next chapter of Alaska's oil and gas success story, and today's decision clears another significant hurdle," she said.
The industry-backed Consumer Energy Alliance praised the Obama administration's decision as "an important milestone for consumers across Alaska and the nation at large."
"The federal government must move forward in a timely manner to grant the remaining approvals and permits necessary to access these resources," alliance President David Holt said in a statement.Activists cite climate, Arctic ambitions
However, environmental activists charge that the action undermines President Obama's promise to address climate change and to transition to clean sources of energy.
They noted that Jewell signed off on the Arctic leasing environmental report on the same day that the White House promised to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025, and "to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28 percent" (Greenwire, March 31).
"As the U.S. prepares to take over the Arctic Council, it's more important than ever to show leadership in keeping dirty fuels in the ground, especially in the Arctic," argued Dan Ritzman, Alaska program director for the Sierra Club.
Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the Center for Biological Diversity, noted that "the industrial oil development that Interior hopes will flow from its decision to approve the Chukchi lease sale gives us a 75 percent chance of a large oil spill and a 100 percent chance of worsening the climate crisis. I don't like those odds."
Margaret Williams, managing director of U.S. Arctic programs for the World Wildlife Fund, expressed disappointment that leasing will continue "at a time when there are no proven ways to safely drill in this remote region and no viable means for cleaning up potential spills."
Meanwhile, Greenpeace officials predicted that Shell's plan to drill in the American Arctic will attract international resistance.
"While this decision is deeply disappointing, it will also energize people around the world to oppose Shell at every turn," argued Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard. "Shell's Arctic oil rigs are now infamous, and all eyes will be looking north this summer."
-
Mar 31, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
If not for fracking, oil would probably be $200 a barrel and gasoline $6.50 in the U.S.
Western economies would likely be in free fall. The grudging U.S. recovery would be in retreat. The modest and possibly illusory green shoots seen in Europe, largely a function of cheap oil and a strong dollar, would wither. Japan would be even more of a write-off than it already is.
Russia would be even more emboldened in its geopolitical predations.Vladimir Putin would be raking in vaster bucks, rather than vastly diminished bucks, for his oil. Europe and the U.S., feeling broke and bedraggled, would be even less eager for confrontation.
Speculating about counterfactuals can be a foolish exercise, but oil traders usually take fright at geopolitical upsets that threaten supplies out of the Middle East. Yemen sits at the narrow Bab el-Mandeb chokepoint through which 3.8 million barrels a day flow from Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea terminals and elsewhere to the world. Yemen’s upheaval comes at the hands of Houthi tribalists backed by Iran, whose military already threatens another key Mideast oil chokepoint, at the exit of the Persian Gulf.
To register panic about all this and drive up prices, however, oil buyers have to be able to hoard oil. That’s becoming all but impossible. A huge amount of surplus production is already sloshing around the world, mostly as a result of U.S. fracking. As a consequence, storage tanks are full to overflowing. Panickers and speculators may well be physically unable to drive up prices significantly if they wanted to.
Even with the world increasingly clear-eyed about the consequences of the fracking revolution, if not the unprecedentedly sharp episodic growth in U.S. output last year, oil still topped $100 a barrel as recently as eight months ago.
To belabor what was once obvious, instability in the Middle East typically has been bullish for oil prices, as witnessed by various Arab-Israeli wars and Iraq’s wars with its neighbors. Saudi jets have already entered the fight to stop Iran’s allies in Yemen. If necessary, Saudi troops will likely intervene on the ground, waging a fight that would also be a fight for the interests of global oil consumers.
A direct confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia over Yemen could be shaping up. Iran is on the march in Iraq and Syria. Much of the Middle East is in chaos. That all this could be happening and yet oil pundits are more concerned about oil dropping to $20 a barrel, because of a lack of storage to accommodate our abundance, testifies to a geopolitical somersault the world is still trying to make sense of.
Fracking overnight has relieved Saudi Arabia of its swing-producer dominance. Fracking overnight has relegated the Middle East to a sideshow, albeit a still-important sideshow, in the world economy.
Things change fast and could change back. A sizable share of the world’s oil still flows from the Persian Gulf and so far production has not been disrupted. Prices would shoot up—they’re already creeping up. But a weight on U.S. fracking would also be lifted. At prices below $50, much fracking becomes long-term unprofitable. But then there’s the flip-side: the flexibility exhibited by the U.S. wildcat sector, allowing drilling to ramp up quickly in response to higher prices, helping to counteract any damage to global growth.
Naturally we come to the potentially least important piece of today’s mélange: the Obama administration’s negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
In its saner moments, the administration allows that the U.S. cannot secure Iranian sanctions for the long run unless it’s also prepared to negotiate over the concerns that led to sanctions being imposed in the first place. Iran wants sanctions lifted and doesn’t intend to abandon its pursuit of nuclear capability. Banish any other thought from your head. Not only are potent swaths of the Iranian elite getting rich directly and indirectly off the nuclear program. The regime would likely fatally discredit itself if it now disavowed a nuclear quest for which it has inflicted so much suffering and penury on the Iranian people.
Not going to happen. So unless the purpose is simply to let Team Obama get out of town without Iran calling its bluff on Iran’s nuclear effort, a useful deal would be one that legitimizes the continuation of sanctions, despite the clamor of the Europeans, Russians and Chinese to resume business with Tehran, once it becomes clear the Iranians aren’t going to deliver.
Such a deal could make sense, but from Israel and Saudi Arabia you hear a different fear. By design or by default, the deal being negotiated would end up formalizing a U.S. tendency to cede its Mideast power broker role to Iran. Why? Because, thanks to fracking, the U.S. just doesn’t care that much about the Middle East anymore.
-
EPA Releases Analysis of Fracking Ingredients
Apr 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Kerosene, methanol and hydrochloric acid are the three most widely used additives in hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, according to a U.S. EPA analysis of FracFocus reports.
But more than 1 in 10 ingredients were withheld from FracFocus reports as trade secrets. Reports on more than 70 percent of wells had at least one chemical ingredient withheld.
The EPA analysis, released Friday, is part of the agency's study of the safety of hydraulic fracturing, slated for release this spring.
The fracking study, which aims to assess the effect of fracking on water, was commissioned by House Democrats in 2010. It immediately became a point of contention between supporters and opponents of expanded domestic oil and gas production.
The final draft is to synthesize research and sampling from the past several years and then be open for public comment and peer review.
EPA analyzed data on about 39,000 wells given to it by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), which manages the FracFocus site, in March 2013. At that point, FracFocus had been running for nearly two years and many states had already required or allowed disclosure through the site.
FracFocus has come under fire because the Obama administration decided to use the registry for disclosure of fracturing chemicals used in wells on public lands. Environmental and government transparency groups say the privately run site is error-prone and needlessly difficult to use. GWPC has promised changes to address the criticism (EnergyWire, Feb. 27).
The study identified 692 unique ingredients reported for additives, base fluids and proppants. Kerosene, methanol and hydrochloric acid were listed in the highest number of well reports.
Kerosene is used as a friction reducer, gelling agent and crosslinker, according to the study. Kerosene was listed as "hydrotreated light petroleum distillates." But chemical data at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website list its unique identifying number as "deodorized kerosene."
Methanol is used as a corrosion inhibitor, surfactant, non-emulsifier, scale inhibitor, biocide and crosslinker. Hydrochloric acid is used as an acidizer, solvent and scale dissolver and for perforation breakdown.
The study also reportedly looked at how much water was used for "frack jobs." The amounts ranged from 30,000 to 7.2 million gallons, with a median of 1.5 million gallons per job.
-
Obama Administration, Citing Climate Risks, Plans Steep Cuts in Greenhouse-Gas Pollution
Mar 31, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The Obama administration on Tuesday outlined an ambitious plan for slashing U.S. greenhouse-gas pollution over the next decade, calling for accelerating the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
Documents filed with the United Nations formally committed the United States to lowering total U.S. carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, compared with 2005 levels. White House officials called the plan “ambitious and achievable,” and said the pollution cuts could be made without hampering economic growth.
Congressional Republicans immediately attacked the proposal. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a statement cautioning other countries against entering an “unattainable” climate deal with the United States, given Congress’s intention to block the White House’s pollution-cutting initiatives.
Administration officials said most of the reductions would come from regulations already approved or proposed, including tougher fuel-economy standards for vehicles and a proposed curb on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“We have the tools we need to meet this goal and to take action on climate pollution,” Brian Deese, a senior adviser to President Obama on climate change, told reporters. “And we know that this is good for our economy, good for our health, and good for our future.”
The documents filled in the details of a pledge made in November, when the United States and China jointly announced commitments to dramatically reduce carbon pollution. Altogether, 30 countries, representing nearly 60 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have submitted pledges to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and scores of others are expected to do so over the next seven months in preparation for international talks in Paris late this year on a proposed climate treaty.
Infographic: Where carbon emissions are greatest. (Kennedy Elliott)The details of the U.S. commitments come less than a week after Mexico vowed to cut its greenhouse gases by 22 percent, becoming the first emerging-market country to announce a commitment leading up to the Paris talks. Mexico also said it would make 2026 its peak year for emissions, promising that pollution levels would decline after that.
[Related: Where carbon emissions are greatest]
Negotiators are hoping to use the individual pledges as a basis for a historic pact intended to gradually halt the growth of heat-trapping carbon in the Earth atmosphere. Scientists warn that some effects of global warming — such as melting ice sheets and rising sea levels — are now unstoppable, but an ambitious global pact could still prevent the worst impacts.
White House officials said the pollution cuts would reduce the threat of climate-related disruptions while also delivering tangible improvements in air quality and energy efficiency. Improved fuel-economy standards will allow Americans to spend less money at the gasoline pump, and reductions in smog and soot from coal-fired power plants will improve air quality and prevent thousands of premature deaths each year from respiratory diseases, Deese said.
“Carbon will cost far more in the long run,” Deese said. ” So we think this is an economically sound, ambitious, but achievable goal. And our hope is that by submitting our [plan] we can continue to encourage countries to follow the lead of countries like China and Mexico and the European Union to make commitments in advance of Paris. ”
Republican Congressional leaders have already vowed to block the administration’s pollution measures, and several key Republicans repeated the threat on Tuesday. McConnell, in his statement, said other countries shouldn’t count on the United States meeting the White House’s targets.
“Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the clean-power plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal,” McConnell said.
Environmental groups applauded the president’s pollution-cutting-plan. Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate-change program at the World Resources Institute, said the U.S. pledges showed that the administration was prepared to “lead by example on the climate crisis.”
“This is a serious and achievable commitment,” Morgan said.
But other activists said the United States should be doing much more. Lou Leonard, vice president for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, said the 28-percent goal “must be a floor, not a ceiling.”
“As the largest contributor to climate impacts already here today, the United States has a responsibility to lead and do its fair share,” Leonard said. “When compared to what scientists warn us is needed to avoid the worst impacts to our cities, our food systems and water supplies, the U.S. pledge falls short.”
-
President Obama’s Emissions-Cutting Plan Sets an Example for the World
Mar 31, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S climate plan is no longer just at the center of a domestic debate about coal country and the Environmental Protection Agency. On Tuesday, the Obama administration made the president’s greenhouse-gas emissions strategy an official international commitment, staking the good faith and reputation of the United States on its fulfillment. It’s an important step that should prod other nations to follow suit.
The components of Mr. Obama’s plan were largely known before Tuesday. The EPA will demand a 30 percent cut in greenhouse emissions by 2030from the carbon-heavy electricity sector, an effort that will contribute to the closure of old coal-fired power plants the country should have retired years ago. The plan also calls for efficiency improvements in commercial buildings and appliances, vehicles that burn less fuel, the phaseout of harmful refrigerants and a reduction of methane leaks from natural gas operations. Administration officials say the plan can be implemented under existing law — and will be before Mr. Obama leaves office. They say it can achieve an economy-wide emissions cut of 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025.
Proof that this sort of U.S. leadership matters came in November, when the emerging U.S. carbon dioxide plan helped persuade China — the world’s largest greenhouse-gas emitter but traditionally a reluctant partner in anti-emissions efforts — to commit to an ambitious greenhouse-gas control plan of its own. Critics who insisted that American effort wouldn’t do any good because no one would follow were proved wrong. Mexico since has submitted a serious emissions commitment, as well. The major nations of the world must respond to scientists’ warnings, and U.S. leadership is a necessary prerequisite.
The Obama administration’s commitment represents a more realistic approach to climate diplomacy than past efforts. Instead of attempting to impose emissions cuts via a legally binding treaty, the United Nations is asking governments to submit voluntary commitments based on assessments of their own circumstances. Climate negotiators will collect and certify these national submissions at a conference in Paris this year.
Such commitments aren’t as certain as treaty obligations. In the United States, for example, a Republican president could all too easily curb or cancel the U.S. commitment. But Mr. Obama is taking achievable steps, and we can hope that continuing progress, along with the urgency of the problem, will create a logic of its own.
There is plenty of room for responsible criticism of the president’s plan. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), for example, said Tuesday that it puts too much emphasis on wind power and too little on nuclear. But Mr. Alexander properly did not counter with inaction as a viable plan. His fellow Republicans could learn something from his example.
-
What to Do About Climate Change?
Apr 1, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Former Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio)
Of the many pressing issues that confront Washington these days, few pose a larger dilemma than what to do about climate change. Intractable positions on global warming, staked out by rural members of Congress, have been driven by the sentiments of their voters. In coal country, representatives must answer to a constituency that rightly believes that it is they who will be required to shoulder the largest burden of the federal government's aggressive climate change policy.
Some regions of this country can afford to be worried about climate change, and sadly, there are others that cannot. I hail from a congressional district that cannot. I also happen to believe that human activity is warming the earth, and left unchecked, portends unimaginable implications. Perhaps that is one reason my constituents chose to replace me in 2010. In retrospect, my support for "cap and trade" sent a subtle message to my voters that I did not have their backs. Of course that is not how I saw it, but I can certainly understand the lack of trust my vote engendered.
Warnings and admonitions about the dangers of global warming fall upon the ears of many rural Americans who simply cannot afford to care. My progressive friends, with whom I share sentiments on this issue, should be mindful of the extraordinary pressure exerted on their colleagues from coal country. Natural predispositions against wide-scale energy reform in rural areas are amply reinforced by well-organized industry-sponsored public relations campaigns. The catchphrase "War on Coal" strikes directly at the heart of a culture that has, for generations, made a living off coal. Moreover, to lose the advantage of affordable energy would cripple regional economies perpetually set reeling from depressed wages, high poverty and crumbling infrastructure.
Beyond matters of self-preservation or cultural bias, there are indeed sound arguments that can be leveled against the rapid transition to wind and solar generation. The wholesale movement away from fossil fuels would drive energy prices skyward, propagate poverty in rural and urban areas, and place our nation at a severe competitive disadvantage in the world economy. Compounding all this is the realization that even the most aggressive efforts to promote the build-out of advanced energy would have a negligible effect on global carbon emissions. Given current world affairs, many rural Americans, understandably, find laughable the notion that if we lead on this issue, other countries will follow. And underscoring all this is the technical reality that it is virtually impossible — now and into the foreseeable future — to meet our nation's enormous demand for power without utilizing our abundant coal reserves.
At the very heart of our national dilemma is the sense that the clear and present danger of aggressive climate change action seems, to many here in coal country, every bit as disturbing as the distant specter of climate change itself.
So, what are we to do about climate change? For starters, Congress can begin looking to coal country as a part of the solution, rather than as the problem. This requires an acknowledgement of the inherent unfairness in demanding that poor, rural regions bear the brunt of reform, and a realization that coal must necessarily be a major component of a diverse energy policy. Federal investments in advanced power projects could include incentives tailored to promote manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels in coal regions to help offset the economic impact of reform. In addition, promising new technological advances make carbon capture and sequestration viable, particularly given that most of our nation's shale reserves overlay coal country. This coincidence of nature presents an opportunity for sustainable business models that reduce overall emissions and promote our energy independence by using captured carbon to enhance natural gas production.
The science, and frightening consequences, of global warming are impossible for me to ignore. But neither can I ignore the fact that current measures proposed to confront this problem fall inordinately on some of the poorest regions of our country. Bending the curve of carbon emissions to acceptable levels will necessarily require policies that address the injustices — both perceived and real — that currently cloud the debate.
I understand that not all objections to climate change action are founded in regional inequities. There are those whose ideological underpinnings — or those of their constituents — cannot tolerate what is perceived as obtrusive governmental interference in market conditions. Some simply do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. While others cannot justify unilateral efforts without assurances of reciprocal action in other countries.
However, Congress can still achieve the critical mass necessary to affect reform by confronting the impact of that reform on those who can least afford it. Entrust rural Americans as partners in combating global warming and account for the economic implications that energy transformation will impose on coal country. In short, empower us with the tools we need to bear the weight that change will inescapably bring.
Space served in the House from 2007 to 2011. He is a principal for Vorys Advisors LLC, a wholly owned affiliate of the law firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP in Ohio. He is also a director of the CoalBlue Project, a nationwide coalition of Democratic leaders dedicated to a vibrant economy and a healthy environment.
-
Fuel Refiners’ Group Names New President
Apr 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) group has named an energy attorney and former Environmental Protection Agency official as its new president.
Chet Thompson will take over the helm at AFPM in May when Charles Drevna, its current president, retires, the association said Wednesday.
“The refining and petrochemical industries are important contributors to the nation’s economic outlook and while we face extraordinary regulatory challenges, Chet Thompson brings more than 20 years of experience in the energy and environment sector to his new role as president,” Greg Goff, chairman of AFPM’s board, said in a statement.
“We are confident in Chet’s ability to lead AFPM as the voice and vision of the refining and petrochemical industries throughout the coming years,” Goff said.
Thompson is a partner at Crowell & Moring, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
Thompson has represented AFPM in various matters for nine years, the group said, and has also represented various other companies and groups in energy and environmental matters with the federal government.
He worked at the EPA from 2004 to 2006 in legal positions.
“Mr. Thompson will help to amplify the importance of the refining and petrochemical industries and their positive impact on U.S. manufacturing, jobs growth, energy independence and national security,” AFPM said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested