Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Who Do You Trust on REAL Reform: The Chemical Industry or 450 Environmental and Public Health Orgs?
Apr 2, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Jeanne Rizzo
In 1989, a 42-year-old woman with a 6-year-old daughter was diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer -- a tumor missed on a mammogram a few months earlier. She was told to go home and put her affairs in order. -
(ACC Mentioned) Vitter-Udall Chemical Bill a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ Say Advocacy Groups
Apr 2, 2015 | EcoWatch
By Lorraine Chow
The bipartisan chemical safety reform bill introduced by senators David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-NM) has been overwhelmingly opposed by more than 50 environmental justice, health, sustainable business and community organizations -
How State Chemical Safety Policy Shapes The Consumer Market
Apr 2, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh and Chris Hill
States have been leading the way when it comes to protecting people from dangerous chemicals. -
EPA Rejects Industry Push To Reevaluate Cardiac Defects Risk From TCE
Apr 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has rejected an industry request to reevaluate its controversial conclusion that the solvent trichloroetheylene (TCE) causes cardiac birth defects and says multiple studies and agency science advisors back the risk, but one industry source says other advisors have opposed EPA's use of a controversial study supporting the conclusion. -
NGO Confronts US FDA, Echa and Efsa Over BPA
Apr 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A Brussels-based NGO has challenged the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Agency (Efsa) and Echa to respond to "faults" in a 2008 study which is widely used to support the safety of bisphenol A (BPA). -
Fire Kills 4 on Gulf of Mexico Oil Platform
Apr 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A massive fire on an oil platform in Mexico’s portion of the Gulf of Mexico killed four workers, but did not cause a significant oil spill. -
Greens Rank Frackers with Most Violations
Apr 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Chesapeake Energy Corp. has racked up the most regulatory violations for hydraulic fracturing in the three states that make data available, a pair of environmental groups said. -
States Lack Robust Oil and Gas Spill Data, Waste Management Policies -- Enviro Reports
Apr 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King
Just three of 36 states with active oil and gas wells offer public access to data on spills and legal violations, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council and FracTracker Alliance. -
How Much U.S. Oil and Gas Comes From Fracking?
Apr 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Marcelo Prince and Carlos A. Tovar
Hydraulic fracturing has unleashed vast new quantities of crude oil and natural gas. The percentage of fuel flowing from shale-rock compared with traditional oil and gas fields has been steadily rising. -
Why Cheap Oil Won’t Kill Alternative Energy
Apr 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jeffrey Ball
The price of oil is plummeting, bestowing a bonanza on drivers and upending the geopolitical order. That’s good for the U.S. Will it kill the drive toward alternative energy sources? -
How Will Clean Power Plan Compliance be Tracked?
Apr 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Critics of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan frequently argue that requiring states to reduce carbon emissions will threaten the grid's reliability and drive up utility bills. -
State Regulators Plead for Break on Clean Power Plan Rules Until Court Challenges End
Apr 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy may be so certain of the Clean Power Plan's legal footing that she doesn't need to develop a Plan B, as she said this week. -
GOP Senators Question McCarthy On Climate Models' Efficacy
Apr 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
Top Senate environment committee Republicans are renewing their effort to press EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to answer questions over computer models' ability to accurately predict temperature increases and other adverse climate change effects compared to observed data, their latest effort to challenge the science underlying the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) policies. -
Arizona Offers Novel Plan To Shield 'Stranded' Coal Plants From ESPS Cuts
Apr 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Encouraged by EPA, an Arizona regulator is pitching a proposal to shield the most up-to-date coal facilities from being replaced with gas generation under EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, while still maintaining virtually all of the emission cuts envisioned in the proposed rule, an approach that could address concerns from utilities over stranded assets and from environmentalists over inadequate emissions cuts. -
Republicans Try to Stoke Doubts About U.S. Climate Efforts
Apr 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen and Andrew Restuccia
Republican attacks on President Barack Obama’s climate policies are seeking to capitalize on one of the biggest obstacles to reaching an international pact on global warming — skepticism among other countries that the U.S. is seriously committed to doing its part.
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
-
Apr 2, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Jeanne Rizzo
In 1989, a 42-year-old woman with a 6-year-old daughter was diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer -- a tumor missed on a mammogram a few months earlier. She was told to go home and put her affairs in order.
For Andrea Martin that meant changing the world in the time she had left and leaving a legacy of reduced odds of breast cancer for her daughter. She passed the Breast Cancer Fund to me in 2001 and passed away two years later.
Andrea asked a key question in her decade of work: What is causing the dramatic increase in breast cancer incidence? She dared to question the role of the environment -- beyond all the known, traditional risk factors -- and she honed in on toxic chemicals and radiation. I inherited her question and dedicated my service to answering it on behalf of the quarter of a million women and men who will be diagnosed with breast cancer and the 40,000 families who will lose someone to this devastating disease this year.
We now know that the answer to Andrea's question is unequivocal: Exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation has a huge impact in increasing breast cancer incidence and recurrence. And while there are things each of us can do every day to reduce our personal breast cancer risk, we know that individual action is not enough. We need systemic change.
That's why the Breast Cancer Fund has been working to reform our failed federal chemical safety law and to create a system that will protect the health and safety of our families.
Most Americans are shocked to learn that the federal government does not ensure that the chemicals we are exposed to every day, all day are safe.
The current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the law responsible for regulating all industrial chemicals in commerce, with the exception of those uses regulated by the FDA, such as cosmetics and food packaging. Passed in 1976, the law has completely failed to protect the American public from toxic chemicals, even those as dangerous as asbestos. While there are more than 85,000 chemicals currently registered for use, only five have been banned or regulated in the past 39 years.
Consumer demand for safer products has led Congress into a heated debate about how to reform and update the TSCA. That debate has reached a critical juncture: Will Congress move forward with a bill that does more to protect the chemical industry or a bill that will truly put the health of the American public first?Two Bills, Two Priorities
Numerous bills have been written purporting to reform TSCA, including two bills introduced just last week. One bill, which was literally drafted by the chemical industry would make a bad situation even worse when it comes to TSCA. This bill, introduced by Senators Tom Udall, D-N.M., and David Vitter, R-La., undermines what few health protections from toxic chemicals now exist, and disregards years of work by health care professionals, scientists, public health advocates and state legislators to enact meaningful reform and to prevent diseases linked to chemical exposure. We have learned that this bill was not only deeply influenced by the chemical industry, but reporters at the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered that the document was actually written and created by the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's main lobbying group.
Who do you trust? Consumers demanding safe products or the American chemical industry lobby? Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., hit the nail on the head: "Call me old-fashioned, but a bill to protect the public from harmful chemicals should not be written by chemical industry lobbyists."
Congress needs to put the health of Americans ahead of chemical industry interests.
One of the biggest flaws in the Udall-Vitter bill is that it prohibits states from passing and enforcing policies protecting the public from chemicals. In other words, it ties the hands of states that have been active on chemical safety. States have taken the lead in regulating chemicals, passing 169 laws in 35 states. These laws play a critical role in protecting the health and welfare of citizens, and not just in their own states. Since companies don't want to make different products for different markets, state laws impact the market nationwide, providing benefits to all Americans.
This infringement on the states' ability to act is why attorneys general from nine states have written the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in opposition to the Udall-Vitter bill. In addition to infringing on states' rights, the bill would make it even harder for the EPA to regulate consumer products, a major source of exposure to chemicals and concern for parents. The bill would also impede the ability of the EPA to implement safeguards to stop toxic chemicals coming into the country in products made in China and other countries.
An alternative bill, introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., represents real reform that honors the millions of people who have faced breast cancer and other serious diseases linked to chemical exposures. This bill would require rapid review of high concern toxic chemicals, preserve the EPA's authority to regulate consumer products and protect the right of states to more fully protect their citizens from unsafe chemical exposures linked to increasing rates of breast cancer and other diseases. Chemical companies would be held responsibility for the costs associated with testing chemicals for health safety, as opposed to American taxpayers who currently pay for the billions of dollars in health spending associated with chemical exposures. More than 450 environment, public health and social justice groups support the Boxer-Markey bill and oppose the Udall/Vitter bill.
Time for REAL Reform
If you know someone with a learning disability, if you know someone with autism, if you know someone with infertility, if you know someone with breast cancer, if you know someone with any number of other diseases linked to chemical exposures -- you should oppose the Udall/Vitter bill and support the Boxer/Markey bill. Your lawmakers need to hear from you. It's time for REAL reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act that prioritizes the health of the American public over the interests of the chemical industry.
Act now to make 2015 the year Congress fixes the nation's broken system for managing the safety of chemicals.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Vitter-Udall Chemical Bill a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ Say Advocacy Groups
Apr 2, 2015 | EcoWatch
By Lorraine Chow
The bipartisan chemical safety reform bill introduced by senators David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-NM) has been overwhelmingly opposed by more than 50 environmental justice, health, sustainable business and community organizations. The groups have composed several letters to the U.S. Senate pointing out some of the major flaws in the bill, which would stymie states from taking new actions to protect consumers and communities from exposure to toxic chemicals.The Vitter-Udall bill would not explicitly protect communities affected by legacy chemical contamination or chemical disasters, such as the 2014 Elk River spill in West Virginia that contaminated the drinking water for 300,000 people. Photo credit: Shutterstock
Senate bill 697 is named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act and is meant to update the nation’s outdated chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is nearly 40 years old. The legislation would give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate the safety of chemicals in the marketplace.
However, advocacy organizations claim that the Vitter-Udall bill would actually be worse than the current law, as it not only fails to reform the country’s toxic chemical safety program, it would also delay EPA reviews up to seven years with no deadline for restricting even the most dangerous chemicals.
The proposed bill would also undermine states that already have tougher chemical safety laws than the federal government, critics of the bill have noted. States would be blocked from regulating any chemical that the EPA has designated as “high priority,” which means the agency is already assessing it for safety. Additionally, state regulations on chemicals would only stand if they were enacted before Jan. 1. (This tactic of “preemption” is a favorite of the chemical lobby group, and may explain why it rushed to endorse the Vitter-Udall bill, Tony Iallonardo of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families pointed out).
“This isn’t chemical safety reform; this bill is an attack on state’s ability to protect the health of our families,” said Juan Parras, the founder of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services. “While this bill pretends to be chemical safety reform, it really just blocks states from taking action while allowing the chemical industry to continue exposing us to untested and potentially dangerous substances.”
Kathy Curtis, executive director of Clean and Healthy New York, said that “S. 697 is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing.’” She added, “While purporting to update our nation’s chemical safety laws, the bill actually guts current protections which are largely held at the state level. States, responding to the very real harm caused by toxic chemicals in our products, workplaces and homes, have taken action to protect the public, especially children. Now, this vaguely worded law could undermine some of the 250 laws in 38 states that reduce exposure to dangerous substances.”
Particularly troubling is when the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that a draft of the law was authored by the American Chemistry Council, a leading trade organization and lobbyist for the chemical industry.
“It is no surprise that a bill written and backed by the chemical industry is bad for consumers and bad for public health,” said Ken Cook, president and cofounder of the Environmental Working Group. “What is truly disturbing is that Congress is actually considering it. Americans deserve more from their elected leaders. We need a chemical law that strengthens safety reviews and preserves the roles of states to help protect them and their families from toxic and potentially harmful substances.”
Sustainable businesses have also banded together to oppose the bill.Companies for Safer Chemicals—a coalition of 3,000 consumer brands led by American Sustainable Business Council including Seventh Generation—have also expressed “serious reservations” about the Vitter-Udall bill.
John Replogle, president and CEO of Seventh Generation, said federal legislation should not “tie the hands of states which have shown leadership in protecting their citizens, restricting the worst chemicals and, ultimately, driving the marketplace towards safer alternatives.” The group is advocating for amendments to the current bill.
Community advocacy groups are speaking out too, particularly on how the bill would still not protect people of color and low-income communities who are most at risk to chemical exposure. “Our indigenous peoples in Alaska and the Arctic have some of the highest exposures to persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) of any population on the planet and we suffer disproportionate health harms including cancers, birth defects and learning and developmental disabilities,” said Vi Waghiyi, Health and Justice program director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
Public health and safety advocates have described numerous other concerns with S. 697, including:S. 697 would not explicitly protect communities affected by legacy chemical contamination, or by chemical disasters such as the 2014Elk River spill in West Virginia that contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people.S. 697 would not explicitly require EPA to consider the cumulative burden of chemical pollution—which is essential for people who live near highly contaminated industrial and military sites or are disproportionately exposed to chemicals through food or at their workplace.S. 697 lacks strict deadlines that ensure that EPA can make meaningful progress reviewing and regulating the hundreds of chemicals of concern. It would require only that EPA start the review of 25 chemicals within five years and would allow the agency up to seven years to review each substance. There is no clear deadline for implementing restrictions or phase-outs of even the most toxic chemicals.S. 697 will deny states the ability to take new actions to regulate any “high priority” chemicals for which EPA has initiated a safety review, despite the several-year gap in protections before EPA takes action. Only state actions taken by Jan. 1, 2015 are explicitly grandfathered in, creating further ambiguity about state-level protections remaining in place until EPA acts to restrict a chemical of concern.S. 697 would allow manufacturers to receive expedited review of their favored chemicals, but it would not require expedited review of toxic chemicals most clearly needed with regard to the public interest, such as asbestos and other persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative substances.S. 697 would add yet another hurdle to the process of regulating products containing toxic chemicals. The bill would require EPA to show that people have “significant exposure” to the chemical in the product before taking regulatory action, which provides another avenue for challenges from industry.S. 697 does not ensure that EPA’s chemical safety review program is adequately funded. It in fact limits industry sources of funding, effectively hobbling EPA’s ability to effectively safeguard public health from toxic chemicals. S. 697 requires that industry contribute only 25 percent of the total cost to EPA, with a cap of $18 million per year total for all chemicals under review.
“In January 2014, 300,000 West Virginians learned the severe inadequacies in our nation’s chemical classification laws and how little they adequately reflect human and environmental risk,” said Maya Nye, executive director of People Concerned About Chemical Safety. “When a chemical used in energy development contaminated the state’s largest drinking water supply, public health officials didn’t have toxicity data needed to base their public health decisions.”
To read more responses from health and community advocacy organizations against the Vitter-Udall bill, click here.
-
How State Chemical Safety Policy Shapes The Consumer Market
Apr 2, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh and Chris Hill
States have been leading the way when it comes to protecting people from dangerous chemicals. The result –- a systematic shift in the consumer products market nationwide.
Early last month, with data complied from the Safer States Bill Tracker, EWG released a series of maps that showed state government actions to protect people’s health from various hazardous chemicals. The benefits of these state actions are not confined to those states only. Rather, state actions can have a national impact by moving the consumer products market throughout the country. Where one state discloses or restricts a hazardous chemical in a product, all states feel the positive effect when manufacturers change their practices.
Here are some examples of how this can work:Twelve states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin) have regulated bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that can disrupt the endocrine system and has been linked to a wide variety of illnesses, including infertility and breast and reproductive system cancer, in some products. Due in part to these state regulations, BPA is no longer in baby bottles or baby formula. Every state in the nation has benefited from these state actions.
California banned PBDEs, toxic flame retardant chemicals, in 2004. Later that year, there was a voluntary national phase-out. A recent sharp declinein the presence of these chemicals in patients tested at San Francisco General Hospital was attributed to the state ban and national phase-out.
California, Vermont and Washington banned phthalates in a number of children’s products in 2007 and 2008. These state actions, helped inspire a federal ban on phthalates in toys and children’s articles mandated by the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act. Major companies likeJohnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart phased out phthalates from their products, as well.
Last year Illinois banned microbeads, and several other states are now considering regulatory action against them. Several major corporations, including Unilever (2013), L’Oreal (2014), Johnson & Johnson (2013),Procter & Gamble (2013) and Target (2014), have committed to phasing out microbeads from their products. While one could argue that these companies began to reformulate their products before state action, it is likely that the state action and pending legislation has spurred and sped up the market reaction.
Minnesota banned formaldehyde in some products in 2013 and triclosan in some products last year. Several other states are now considering restrictions on both chemicals. Johnson & Johnson took action in 2012 to stop adding formaldehyde and triclosan to its products. Procter & Gamble began phasing out triclosan from most of its products in 2013. Last year Avonannounced that it would phase out triclosan from its products. At least one reporter has attributed the reformulations in Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble, to anticipated regulations under California’s 2008 Green Chemistry Initiative law.Despite all this progress, the industry-backed bill being offered by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) would radically reduce states’ rights to take actions to restrict chemicals and continue moving the market. Among other things, the proposed bill would: Restrict states from taking new actions to regulate any “high priority” chemical for which the Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a safety review. This could create a long delay, during which there would be neither federal nor state regulation of that chemical.
States would be blocked from adopting and co-enforcing EPA restrictions on those chemicals.
States could be blocked from using their own clean air and water laws to control those chemicals.Proponents of the industry-backed bill get a lot wrong about the role states play to protect consumers from toxic chemicals like BPA and mercury in everyday products. They argue that because not all states have taken actions on toxic chemicals, it is better to have strong federal regulations that would apply everywhere. This argument clearly ignores how successful state action has generated the pressure necessary to move national consumer markets.
-
EPA Rejects Industry Push To Reevaluate Cardiac Defects Risk From TCE
Apr 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has rejected an industry request to reevaluate its controversial conclusion that the solvent trichloroetheylene (TCE) causes cardiac birth defects and says multiple studies and agency science advisors back the risk, but one industry source says other advisors have opposed EPA's use of a controversial study supporting the conclusion.
In a March 19 letter to the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc., (HSIA), which represents producers and users of TCE, EPA denies HSIA's November 2013 request for correction under the Information Quality Act (IQA), which allows groups to challenge the quality of federal data. The denial ends for now the industry's long-standing push for reconsideration of the novel risk in its September 2011 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of TCE.
EPA "disagrees with a number of your assertions on a factual basis and believes that your information quality concerns were addressed through the IRIS assessment development process, which was used to develop and review the Toxicological Review of TCE," according to the agency's March 19 letter.
Lek Kadeli, EPA's acting assistant administrator in the Office of Research and Development, in the letter to HSIA Executive Director Faye Graul says that the group's IQA request for correction reiterates old arguments and incorrectly asserts that a birth defects risk from TCE exposure is based on a single study.
The IRIS program reviewed more than 100 studies, including more than a dozen developmental studies, and that the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) backed including the risk, the letter says.
"Taken together, the epidemiological and animal study evidence raise sufficient concern regarding the potential for developmental toxicity (increased incidence of cardiac defects) with in utero TCE exposures."
EPA gives HSIA 90 days to file a request for reconsideration of the agency's decision. However, while the IQA allows groups to petition EPA over alleged data quality flaws, judges have denied suits over petition responses under the Administrative Procedure Act on the grounds that the challenged agency actions are not "final" -- and so if industry files a reconsideration request and EPA denies it, it could end their fight over the data.
HSIA filed the November 2013 IQA petition opposing the IRIS assessment's inclusion of a 2003 toxicology study by Paula D. Johnson, which industry says is flawed and unreproducible. HSIA says the agency's use of the study in determining TCE poses a risks of cardiac birth defects, as well as in setting a reference dose (RfD) and reference concentration (RfC) risk values, constitute erroneous information under the IQA.
In the request, HSIA pointed to others who have also questioned the Johnson study and EPA's use of it, including the National Academy of Sciences committee that wrote a 2006 report on how to assess TCE's risks and a panel of experts who last summer peer-reviewed the agency's risk assessment of certain applications of TCE.
HSIA's IQA petition built on long-standing opposition from industry and some Republican lawmakers who have argued in letters to and meetings with agency officials that the Johnson study drove overly stringent RfD and RfC values that are leading to unnecessarily strict cleanup goals at contaminated sites.
Industry has also argued that the IRIS risk values for TCE forced EPA to regulate industrial wipes and towels contaminated with TCE, while exempting most others from federal hazardous waste requirements.
Additionally, late last year, EPA began exploring possible rules to limit TCE, including a rare Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6 ban on certain uses of the solvent, despite objections from the chemical sector, which claims that EPA is overstating the health risks of the chemical.
On March 30, the agency announced it is seeking input from certain small entities to inform reviews of how rules restricting TCE and several other substances might affect small businesses.
IQA Guidelines
In the March 19 letter to HSIA, Kadeli writes that EPA's IQA guidelines emphasize peer review, and that the IRIS assessment was based on peer reviewed studies and the full document was also peer-reviewed by the SAB. HSIA's request for correction reiterates arguments from the group's public comments on the 2009 draft of the IRIS assessment, Kadeli says, adding that both EPA and SAB carefully considered those arguments.
Before finalizing the 2011 assessment, the agency specifically asked an SAB panel to consider EPA's use of the Johnson study. The "SAB panel supported EPA's approach to deriving the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration based on multiple studies and EPA's inclusion of fetal heart defects as a critical endpoint," the letter says.
While HSIA's request asserts that EPA based the birth defects risk entirely on the Johnson study, Kadeli says IRIS reviewed more than 100 toxicological studies of TCE hazards, including dozens of developmental toxicity studies in animals and humans. The 21 developmental cardiac studies the agency considered, included studies reporting both positive and negative findings, though IRIS and SAB found that the weight of the evidence raised sufficient concern for an increased risk of cardiac birth defects.
EPA relied on a smaller pool of studies to calculate the IRIS risk values. IRIS used three studies to calculate the RfD, with two others supporting the numerical value, while the RfC was based on two studies, and supported by one additional study, the letter says.
While Kadeli says IRIS adequately considered HSIA's opposition to the Johnson study, he also says a team of EPA scientists further considered TCE's fetal cardiac effects in an update to the IRIS assessment, and that the subsequent review affirmed the birth defects risk. Agency scientists involved in the update systematically evaluated study quality, reexamined the dose response for cardiac defects, reevaluated the risk in light of studies that did not find a risk of birth defects, and considered objections that have been raised regarding interpretations of epidemiological data for cardiac defects associated with TCE exposures, according to the letter.
Kadeli's response also addresses a pair of letters HSIA submitted in 2014, while the request for correction was pending. One of the industry letters regarded an erratum filed on the Johnson study that HSIA contends supports its assertions the study is unfit for use in regulation. The EPA letter says the agency's review of the erratum contradicted HSIA assertions and found that the study included a control group of test animals.
But the industry source rejects EPA's claim that IRIS considered only peer reviewed studies, noting that some journals require rigorous reviews while others' reviews are essentially conducted in name only. The source also disagrees with EPA's assertion that multiple studies support the birth defects risk, saying only the Johnson study found it. "We are not aware of any other laboratory that has made an association in a study between TCE and cardiac defects," the source says, adding that additional studies following appropriate guidelines have not found the effect.
And while EPA's letter emphasizes the importance of peer review and notes the SAB's backing of EPA's use of the Johnson study in the IRIS assessment, the industry source says the agency's response ignores criticism from other peer reviewers who have opposed inclusion of a birth defects risk in an agency risk assessment.
"They're pointing to their reliance on one peer review, but another agency peer review said not to rely on Johnson," the source says, noting that several peer reviewers in the summer of 2013 questioned EPA's use of the Johnson study in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) assessment of TCE exposure during degreasing and spot cleaning in small commercial operations and by hobbyists.
Risk Assessment
The OPPT assessment, conducted as part of an agency program designed to use EPA's existing authority under TSCA to more strictly regulate chemicals already on the market, identified risks to workers using TCE in degreasing in small shops and in dry cleaners when used as a stain remover.
The review prompted calls from environmentalists for EPA to invoke its rarely used TSCA section 6 authority to ban certain uses of TCE, arguing that they pose health risks and that safer alternatives are available.
In recent months, EPA has said it is weighing TSCA rules to restrict uses of TCE as well as of two other chemicals commonly used in paint and paint-stripping, N-Methylpyrrolidone and methylene chloride. The reviews will focus on the agency's development of proposed rules to reduce risks from the three substances, according to agency statements.
On March 30, EPA announced it is seeking nominations for a Small Business Advocacy Review panel -- required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act -- that will review risk reduction in the use of TCE. "This panel will focus on the agency's development of a proposed rule to reduce the risks resulting from the use of TCE as a commercial degreaser, as a spotting agent in dry cleaning, and in certain consumer products as appropriate to reduce risks posed from its commercial and consumer use," according to EPA.
-
NGO Confronts US FDA, Echa and Efsa Over BPA
Apr 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A Brussels-based NGO has challenged the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Agency (Efsa) and Echa to respond to "faults" in a 2008 study which is widely used to support the safety of bisphenol A (BPA).
The group Rebutting Industry’s Science with Knowledge (RISK) maintains that a 2008 two-generation study of mice, which claimed to show no low-dose reproductive effects of BPA, is flawed. The study – Tyl et al 2008 – was conducted by contract research laboratory RTI International and sponsored by the chemical industry. It is a key piece of research supporting the continuing use of BPA.
The claimed faults aired by RISK echo those raised by 36 endocrine scientists, particularly Professor Fred vom Saal and John Peterson Myers, in the pages of Environmental Health Perspectives in 2009 and 2010. The papers (referenced below) involved a major debate about the OECD’s Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standard and whether it is suited to modern laboratory methods (GBB March 2012).
But the key reason for revisiting these disagreements is that Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) is currently considering whether restrictions are needed on the use of BPA in thermal paper (CW 19 March 2015). Rac must also decide whether it can support Efsa’s recent position on the safety of BPA (CW 22 January 2015).
A key factor in the Tyl et al 2008 study is the size of the prostate glands in the control mice used in the experiment. Professor vom Saal and Dr Myers find that the glands were abnormally large, suggesting either that the dissection might have been done improperly, that the control animals might have been exposed to oestrogens, or that the prostates might have been diseased. They maintain that the results are invalid and indicate why the experiment did not demonstrate adverse effects of BPA at low doses.
The two scientists also claimed that the dose of the oestrogen positive control used in the experiment was very high. If these claims were correct, it would suggest the animals in the RTI laboratory were insensitive to oestrogen, perhaps because they were exposed to other oestrogens through food, or even from a former fire involving plastics at the laboratory.
Tyl responded on two occasions to the critique, referring back to GLP and defending the methods used. She answered 11 points, including material evidence of low rates of prostate disease and no dissection failures in microscope slides of the experimental animal tissues. She also claimed that the oestrogen levels used were not excessive.
However, critics still question the reliability and sensitivity of the 2008 study.
RTI International did not respond to Chemical Watch's request for comment on RISK’s criticisms by the time of publishing. Echa says it will not comment on BPA while it is still under consideration by Rac.
The FDA says: “We note that the same claims mentioned in the press release were made in 2008 and 2009, when FDA released its 2008 draft assessment on BPA. In 2009 FDA audited the Tyl lab at the Research Triangle Institute. That audit came out clean.”
Efsa acknowledges the debate surrounding the Tyl study, but says it had been found to be robust by the FDA and it had never been questioned by any regulatory agency including the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN and the World Health Organization (FAO-WHO), the French food, environmental and occupational health agency Anses and the Danish Technical University. These last two organisations do, however, differ from Efsa on their assessments of the safety of BPA.
In a statement Efsa said that it has "held discussions with Anses on our respective assessments of BPA and agreed that most differences concern the interpretation of uncertainties regarding potential human health effects of BPA.” It also published the minutes of its discussions on BPA with Anses in December 2014.
-
Fire Kills 4 on Gulf of Mexico Oil Platform
Apr 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A massive fire on an oil platform in Mexico’s portion of the Gulf of Mexico killed four workers, but did not cause a significant oil spill.
Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil company, owned the shallow-water platform, The Associated Press reported.
Pemex said the fire injured another 16 workers, two seriously, and forced the evacuation of 300.
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto pledged to “find whoever is responsible” for the incident and work to ensure that it does not happen again.
Firefighters and emergency workers on 10 boats were still battling the fire late into Wednesday, the AP said.
The cause of the blast was still being investigated as of Wednesday night, Pemex head Emilio Lozoya told journalists.
Pemex said in a statement that only a small amount of oil seeped into the sea, and specialized boats were deployed to contain it, according to the AP.
The platform was used to process oil and natural gas and separate various products from drilling rigs before they go to onshore refineries.
Roger Arias Sanchez, an employee of the contractor operating the rig, told the AP that workers jumped into the water to escape the flames.
-
Greens Rank Frackers with Most Violations
Apr 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Chesapeake Energy Corp. has racked up the most regulatory violations for hydraulic fracturing in the three states that make data available, a pair of environmental groups said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and FracTracker Alliance said Chesapeake had 669 violations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Colorado between 2008 and 2013, the most of any company.
The findings were part of an analysis the groups released Thursday aimed at publicizing violation data and highlighting the fact that the 33 other states where fracking occurs do not provide information on violations.
“People deserve to know what’s happening in their own backyards, but too often homeowners aren’t even informed if there’s a threat to their health,” Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the NRDC and the report’s co-author, said in a statement.
“Our representatives have a responsibility to protect the people who elect them, not help keep a dangerous industry shrouded in secrecy,” she said. “States are falling down on their responsibility to be a watchdog for the people who live there.”
Among the other companies with the most violations were Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., Talisman Energy Inc. and Range Resources Corp.
Pennsylvania had the majority of the more than 4,600 violations the groups tracked, accounting for more than 4,000 of them.
-
States Lack Robust Oil and Gas Spill Data, Waste Management Policies -- Enviro Reports
Apr 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King
Just three of 36 states with active oil and gas wells offer public access to data on spills and legal violations, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council and FracTracker Alliance.
The groups investigated energy-rich states to find whether incident data are available online and in a downloadable format; whether they included dates, locations and operator names; whether they offered a comment or text description of the violation; and whether they cited the violated regulation or code. Even the three states with readily accessible information -- Colorado, Pennsylvania and West Virginia -- lacked complete data sets, NRDC and FracTracker wrote in a paper published today.
"People deserve to know what's happening in their own backyards, but too often, homeowners aren't even informed if there's a threat to their health," said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at NRDC and a co-author of the report. "Our representatives have a responsibility to protect the people who elect them, not help keep a dangerous industry shrouded in secrecy. States are falling down on their responsibility to be a watchdog for the people who live there."
The report commends Pennsylvania and Colorado for inclusion of complaints and inspection reports alongside violation notices, West Virginia and Colorado for maintaining separate spill databases, and Pennsylvania for its narrative incident descriptions.
In the three states analyzed, Chesapeake Energy Corp., Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. and Talisman Energy Inc. notched the most violations.
Inconsistencies in states' reporting practices are problematic, the paper says.
"In some states, only one agency issues violations to the oil and gas industry, while in others, a citizen interested in finding violation data would have to search multiple databases," according to the report.
From the available data, NRDC and FracTracker concluded that state regulators are failing to inform landowners of violations near their property and are allowing oil and gas operators to continue working, even after repeated violations.
FracTracker -- which publishes maps, information and analyses to show the impact of energy development -- has called on groups like FracFocus.org, the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry, to adopt more rigorous standards for data analysis and aggregation (EnergyWire, May 2, 2014).
"The limited information that is actually available is eye-opening, both in terms of frequency and the sometimes shocking nature of the impacts when things go wrong," said Matt Kelso, manager of data and technology for FracTracker. "This industry is already immense and rapidly growing. It develops in residential communities, sensitive ecological areas and everywhere in between. Our research shows the need for increased transparency about the compliance record of the industry, especially given those vulnerable areas and populations."
Public access to oil and gas data is particularly important because the industry is widely dispersed and close to residential areas, the paper says. NRDC and FracTracker have recommended several policy solutions to address the problem.
First, state and federal regulators should disclose essential information to the public, hold violators accountable and keep repeat offenders out of communities.
"With oil and gas activities occurring in residential areas, it is essential that the public have access to enforcement information to hold companies and regulators accountable," according to the report.Fracking waste
In a separate report published this morning, environmental group Earthworks investigated four states' management of oil field waste from Marcellus and Utica shale operations.
Earthworks criticized the exemption of oil and gas industry activities from waste disposal regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It found that Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York have "at least implicitly acknowledged the inadequacy" of waste management in their states.
"Across the Marcellus and Utica shale region, a 'create now, figure it out later' view has guided the regulatory and policy response to a growing stream of drilling waste," the paper says. "This process reflects the norm of regulatory and policy change, which generally occurs in response to existing problems and only when public concern and pressure to take action mount."
In Ohio, for example, Earthworks found that the state is having a difficult time keeping pace with the rapid expansion of fracking activity. The report cites a FracTracker analysis that found a single solid waste management district in the Buckeye State increased its annual intake by about 13,000 to 19,000 tons between 2011 and 2014.
Several state agencies share oversight of fracking debris in Ohio, which can complicate the process for operators trying to follow regulations, advocates seeking stronger protections, and members of the public researching waste-related pollution and actions, according to the paper.
Earthworks recommends application of state hazardous waste policies to fracking wastes, implementation of "cradle-to-grave" waste tracking and reporting systems, and other steps to strengthen disposal practices.
-
How Much U.S. Oil and Gas Comes From Fracking?
Apr 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Marcelo Prince and Carlos A. Tovar
Hydraulic fracturing has unleashed vast new quantities of crude oil and natural gas. The percentage of fuel flowing from shale-rock compared with traditional oil and gas fields has been steadily rising. But lackluster energy demand and low prices are expected to curb growth later this year. Here’s a graphic that helps explain fracking:
-
Why Cheap Oil Won’t Kill Alternative Energy
Apr 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jeffrey Ball
The price of oil is plummeting, bestowing a bonanza on drivers and upending the geopolitical order. That’s good for the U.S. Will it kill the drive toward alternative energy sources?
Almost certainly not.
In the past, interest in energy options has risen and fallen with the price of oil. When oil prices rose, so did the rush toward nuclear, solar, wind and other fossil-fuel alternatives. When oil prices fell, interest in kicking the oil habit waned too. The upshot of this roller-coaster history: In most of the world, alternative energy sources never got the chance to take root; fossil fuels remain overwhelmingly dominant.
But this time there are powerful reasons to believe things are different.
A bevy of non-fossil energy sources have experienced big technological gains over roughly the past decade, a time when oil prices were high. Those advances—from cheaper solar panels to more-efficient wind turbines to smaller nuclear reactors—mean these alternatives are more economically competitive than they were in prior oil-price plunges.
Moreover, the advances in alternative sources have come primarily in a swath of the energy world that’s largely unaffected by the price of oil. Nuclear, solar and wind power are sources of electricity—the juice that comes out of the wall. In all but a few countries, oil ceased decades ago to be burned to produce electricity, replaced mostly by coal and natural gas. Today, oil is overwhelmingly a fuel for transportation—and few alternatives to it have gained much traction.
The oil-price drop may induce policy makers to roll back subsidies for renewable energy, given that popular demand for energy diversity of any sort tends to wane absent pain at the pump. And a recent rise in sales of gas-guzzlers suggests that, with oil cheaper, motorists are burning more of it. But several fossil-fuel alternatives have zoomed ahead in recent years, and there’s little reason to think they’ll make a U-turn now.
Jeffrey Ball (@jeff_ball), formerly The Wall Street Journal’s environment editor and a longtime energy reporter at the paper, is scholar-in-residence at Stanford University’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, a joint initiative of Stanford’s law and business schools. He writes about energy and heads a project exploring the relationships among countries in the globalizing clean-energy industry.
-
How Will Clean Power Plan Compliance be Tracked?
Apr 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Kristi E. Swartz
Critics of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan frequently argue that requiring states to reduce carbon emissions will threaten the grid's reliability and drive up utility bills.
Those are the big-ticket items to worry about, said Brenda Brickhouse, environment vice president for the Tennessee Valley Authority. She's also uneasy about something else: creating an inexpensive, uncomplicated compliance program to keep track of emission reduction data.
"I'm concerned about the compliance infrastructure that may be required for counting for all of these various factors and building blocks and translating it, and all of the verification monitoring and reporting," Brickhouse told EnergyWire after speaking on a panel about ways utilities can work with states to meet EPA's carbon reduction goals.
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.
Each state has its own goal, and there are four main target areas, including adding nuclear energy and reducing demand through energy efficiency, to get there. EPA laid out those four building blocks as a road map that states can follow.
If states choose to use those building blocks, figuring out what kind of data to collect and keeping track of that information could be difficult, she said.
"If you try to translate that into a rule and a compliance obligation, then we have to start doing the accounting and math and the reporting and the certification and the verification for all of the numbers," Brickhouse said. "There's a compliance expense with the infrastructure and the people and the system and the reports."Challenges for multi-state plans
TVA is the nation's largest public utility and serves 9 million people in seven Southeastern states. The utility's widespread region intersects with regulated energy giants Duke Energy Corp. and Southern Co.
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.
TVA has discussed working with several states as one way to comply with EPA's proposed regulation that targets carbon emissions, but will wait until the final rule comes out before making any decisions, CEO Bill Johnson said in February (EnergyWire, Feb. 5).
For the utility, that could mean working with the states where it supplies electricity. TVA serves most of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia.
Serving parts of multiple states highlights one challenge that larger utilities have when determining how to help each individual state meet emission targets. Many of TVA's large, centralized power plants serve more than just the state where they are located.
For example, TVA is shutting down two coal-fired units in Kentucky. Brickhouse said it's unclear whether those emissions reductions would be used to help other utilities in Kentucky meet that state's target, or whether TVA can use them elsewhere across its system.
The utility also has long-term agreements to buy wind from other states. As the rule is written, the states that have those wind turbines get credit for the emission-free electricity, but Brickhouse has a counterargument.
"I bought that wind, I want the credit," she said. "So it goes both ways. And there are winners and losers," she said.Enforcing efficiency
Energy efficiency is another example where it's difficult to effectively track compliance, Brickhouse and other panelists said during the second day of a conference on how states can meet targets of EPA's Clean Power Plan.
"It's very complicated on how this gets enforced," said Danny Herrin, environmental affairs director at Southern Co.
This is in part because each state in Southern's territory has regulated utilities, independent power producers and municipal-owned electric companies. State public service commissions have authority over regulated utilities only, for the most part.
Incorporating energy efficiency adds another level of complication into long-term planning, he said.
"You can plan for reduced load," he said. "As a result of that, will it happen, how much will it happen, who gets dinged if it doesn't happen?"
Atlanta-based Southern and its four regulated utilities operate a dispatch system based on economics. Because the Clean Power Plan's goal is to reduce carbon emissions, utilities now have to lean more heavily on other fuel options regardless of cost.
"We tried to explain to [state regulators] the whole concept of how this redoes the whole energy system," Herrin said.
Southern has been working with state environmental and energy offices as well as utility regulators in the four states where it operates. Chief among the energy giant's concerns is whether those agencies are trying to do the most prudent thing when it comes to meeting EPA's targets, he said.
"There's a real concern here about how they do this," Herrin said.
-
State Regulators Plead for Break on Clean Power Plan Rules Until Court Challenges End
Apr 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy may be so certain of the Clean Power Plan's legal footing that she doesn't need to develop a Plan B, as she said this week. But many state regulators are worried that they will devote time, finances and resources to the challenge of lowering their power sectors' greenhouse gas emissions, only to see the unprecedented EPA rule thrown out by federal courts.
"I've been through it before," John Evans, general counsel for North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources, told an Atlanta energy conference yesterday.
Referencing EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule, which was vacated by a federal court in 2008, Evans said states had to "go out and start making rules, changing laws, implementing [their plans] -- and a year or two down the road, a court comes around and says, 'Wait, EPA, you got it wrong.' All that work that I've done, I've now got to put in the trash and start over again."
North Carolina is urging EPA to include a "legal trigger approach" in its final Clean Power Plan rule, which is expected to be released this summer. Under a proposal first suggested by the state in January 2014, states would not be required to submit an implementation plan until the federal courts have made a final ruling on whether the proposal falls within the scope of the Clean Air Act.
The Obama administration is clearly eager to get the Clean Power Plan up and running -- the initiative plays a key role in the plan the White House submitted to the United Nations on Tuesday for climate negotiations in Paris. Still, Evans insisted that he's confident North Carolina's proposal will be heard. "We're actually advocating for a legal trigger approach, and I'm convinced that EPA is going to listen to us," he said.
While an EPA spokeswoman did not rule out "legal trigger" language, saying "we are reviewing all of the input we've received as we work to finalize the rule this summer," it's unlikely the agency would go along with the idea.
"We are not interested in staying any of the rules," Administrator Gina McCarthy told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last month, when asked whether she would consider allowing states to hold off on submitting proposals until the legal challenges are settled. "We don't think there is a reason for it."ALEC pushes other anti-EPA strategy
On Monday, McCarthy expressed confidence that courts will uphold the rule, telling aPolitico interviewer, "I don't need a Plan B if I'm solid in my Plan A."
"I would be extremely surprised if EPA were taking this suggestion seriously," said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. "The agency gets sued on almost every regulation they develop, and litigation can take years to move through the courts."
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.
Regardless, concerns about the Clean Power Plan's legal footing have been a mainstay since the agency first announced it would use existing Clean Air Act authority to mandate a 30 percent reduction in the power sector's carbon footprint. A possible court repeal is one of the reasons Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is urging states to simply ignore the rule and refuse to submit implementation plans to the agency.
The influential conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, which writes "model" bills for state legislatures, considered endorsing a measure to block states from spending money on implementation plans until legal challenges have been exhausted, but ultimately voted to approve a different measure aimed at undercutting the Clean Power Plan by giving state legislatures veto power over their states' plans. Still, similar bills have been introduced in several statehouses this year (ClimateWire, Dec. 9, 2014).
McCarthy and other EPA officials have hinted that they will likely relax the rule's interim 2020 goals when the language is finalized this summer, but Evans said his concerns aren't based on the calendar (ClimateWire, Feb. 12).
"It's legal certainty," he said. "Once we have legal certainty on what it is we have to do, give us a reasonable time to do it and we'll do it. States have proven that time and time again."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments later this month in the first round of lawsuits challenging the rule (E&ENews PM, March 17).
-
GOP Senators Question McCarthy On Climate Models' Efficacy
Apr 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
Top Senate environment committee Republicans are renewing their effort to press EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to answer questions over computer models' ability to accurately predict temperature increases and other adverse climate change effects compared to observed data, their latest effort to challenge the science underlying the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) policies.
In an April 1 letter, the senators ask McCarthy whether she agrees that EPA “has a duty to review and verify the accuracy of climate projections which have served as the basis for the agency's regulatory and policy agenda?” They note that the accuracy of climate models is “of great importance” at a time when President Obama and EPA are using them “as a basis to justify the imposition of onerous energy restrictions as part of an international climate deal.”
The senators say they are giving McCarthy “one more chance” to answer their questions after they found her responses at a March 4 hearing lacking.
At the hearing, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-MS), one of the signers of the letter, asked McCarthy a series of questions -- that the letter notes she was unable to answer -- on whether her past statements and climate model predictions were proven reliable, compared to observed data.
The senators included a link to a recording of McCarthy testifying on the matter before the committee and promising to provide written answers.
The letter says her answers at the hearing were not “direct” while “many responses contained caveats and conditions. We write today to emphasize that these questions were not posed lightly or in passing. . . . [I]t is imperative that the agency be candid and forthright in assessing the reality of this projection.”
The Republican senators signing the letter include committee chairman James Inhofe (OK), Sessions and Sens. Roger Wicker (MI) and John Barrasso (WY).
The letter asks McCarthy to answer specific questions about whether she agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) conclusion that there is not enough evidence to link drought to climate change, and ask her to explain her hearing statement that droughts are becoming more extreme and frequent.
The letter also asks for similar information about links between global warming and IPCC data on hurricanes and temperature.
It also asks for information on what portion of EPA's budget request for fiscal year 2016 will be used to monitor and verify the accuracy of its climate projections.
The senators seek a response by April 21.
-
Arizona Offers Novel Plan To Shield 'Stranded' Coal Plants From ESPS Cuts
Apr 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Encouraged by EPA, an Arizona regulator is pitching a proposal to shield the most up-to-date coal facilities from being replaced with gas generation under EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, while still maintaining virtually all of the emission cuts envisioned in the proposed rule, an approach that could address concerns from utilities over stranded assets and from environmentalists over inadequate emissions cuts.
If approved by the agency, the Arizona plan could also help states such as Florida and Indiana -- two other states that may also face the prospect of stranded coal assets because EPA assumes they too will greatly increase their use of existing natural gas plants to displace coal generation as a way to comply with the rule.
EPA's proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS) set state-specific rate-based GHG targets, measured in pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour based on the use of four “building blocks,” or compliance strategies, that states could use to displace generation at high-emitting coal plants.
The building blocks include heat-rate improvements at coal plants, increased dispatch of natural gas and greater use of renewable energy and energy efficiency, though EPA also says it would approve other approaches if states can demonstrate their efficacy.
But many states and the coal sector are concerned that EPA's building block 2, which assumes gas plants would run up to 70 percent of their capacity to displace coal generation, would force many existing coal plants to shutter, leaving generators with “stranded assets,” in which ratepayers would have to effectively pay twice for power -- once to pay off the earlier coal investments and again for replacement generation or efficiency programs.
The issue of stranded assets is of particular concern for public power and rural cooperative groups that generally have smaller customer bases from which to recoup their investments. “If our units are shut down, our consumer-owners will still have to pay off the outstanding debt we have on our power plants, they’re called stranded assets,” an official with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association said last fall.
“They’ll also have to pay for the replacement power, and maybe for replacement generation if replacement power is not available.”
The change being proposed by Arizona would alter EPA’s formula under building block 2 by shielding coal plants that have not yet reached their 40-year book life, as well as those that recently installed expensive pollution control equipment, from being displaced by gas generation.
To offset the softer targets from that change, the agency could assume a greater reliance on renewables and energy efficiency in the later years of the program.
Speaking during an April 1 panel discussion here at a summit on the ESPS hosted by Infocast, Eric Massey, the air director for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, said the change would help his state in particular because it has one of the country’s biggest block 2 goals.
As such, he said, it would put Arizona on a more level playing field in the West and help facilitate some version of regional collaboration.
Other States
Massey added that other states, such as Florida and Indiana, are in a similar situation as Arizona in which EPA’s block 2 assumptions would shutter much of their coal fleets. Under the state’s proposal, he said, “suddenly we could have a solution that could work for Arizona. There are still some coal retirements that are going to occur, but we’d actually be able to recover the costs with a lot of the investments that have been made.”
Massey said EPA officials have urged affected states and utilities to craft a mechanism that they can agree on to solve their stranded asset concern.
He added that Arizona’s proposal could be constructed so that on a national level EPA achieves virtually all of the GHG cuts required by the proposed ESPS. He said the proposal could be set up to achieve a 29 percent cut in the power sector’s GHG emissions, relative to a 2005 baseline, compared with EPA’s estimate of a 30 percent cut from the proposal.
EPA should “take this and run with it,” Massey said, noting it would allow the administration to still meet its international climate goals and that it “solves all kinds of problems” raised by ESPS critics. “We’re not talking about massive changes to the integrity of the program,” he said.
Further, he said the building block 2 change would help “prevent construction of tomorrow’s stranded assets today” by avoiding an over-reliance on building new gas plants, given that some observers assume that EPA in several years would strengthen GHG standards on such plants.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, under which the agency is crafting the ESPS, requires the agency to take into account stranded assets when setting state targets. And Massey said he does not believe the agency is seeking to shutter the newest coal plants with the ESPS, saying it would set a “bad precedent” regarding plants that have recently agreed to comply with past environmental standards.
Legal Concerns
Massey’s comments came during a panel discussion where an official from another GOP-led state offered more strident legal concerns over the ESPS.
John Evans, general counsel for the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said he has “very serious concern about the legality” of states using cap-and-trade programs to comply with the rule.
He noted that in legal briefs over EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule, major environmental groups argued against such trading programs, saying that the Clean Air Act requires individual sources to demonstrate continuous compliance with standards.
“Can I allow a source to build without installing [an air act] requirement on an emission unit, provided it can get a reduction somewhere else?” he said. “It exposes my sources to litigation, and it opens up me to litigation.”
He added that it “could open a Pandora's box” in terms of other air act rules by allowing sources to avoid source-specific requirements.
Evans also sounded optimistic that EPA would include the state’s concept of a “legal trigger,” in which it would postpone implementation until the rule has survived legal challenges. He said that “respects the state’s resources” by preventing the state from crafting a plan that would later be scrapped if the rule were vacated.
“I’m convinced EPA is going to listen to us and put a legal trigger in there,” he said.
However, EPA officials have publicly dismissed the notion that the rule should be postponed. For example, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said recently that states should not withhold their plans for complying with the ESPS, saying the agency will issue the rule this summer and states should not “put their heads in the sand."
Asked later what gives him such a high level of confidence on the issue, Evans said EPA has acknowledged the proposal could face legal challenges, but that “maybe I’m a little Pollyannaish.”
-
Republicans Try to Stoke Doubts About U.S. Climate Efforts
Apr 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen and Andrew Restuccia
Republican attacks on President Barack Obama’s climate policies are seeking to capitalize on one of the biggest obstacles to reaching an international pact on global warming — skepticism among other countries that the U.S. is seriously committed to doing its part.
Some who follow the issue worry that the GOP strategy could work.
The White House and environmentalists dismiss Republicans’ influence on the negotiations, saying other world leaders understand that Obama calls the shots on U.S. climate policy. But some involved in the climate effort say the GOP assault, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, could undermine progress in getting major polluters like China to agree to serious actions before this year’s summit in Paris.
“How do the Republicans think the U.S. can persuade China and other big developing economies to deliver their fair share in Paris, if Congress questions the credibility of the U.S. delivery?” asked Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s former top climate change official. “Already now there is nervousness in many countries on how and whether the second-largest emitter in the world, the U.S., will lift its responsibility and deliver on its pledge.”
In an email to POLITICO, Hedegaard said it’s “hard to understand how it could be in the national interest of the United States” to stir those doubts.
“When McConnell and others say things like this that undermine the likelihood that the U.S. can deliver on its commitment, that impacts the entire negotiation,” said John Coequyt, director of the Sierra Club’s federal and international climate programs, who said the administration needs to assuage other nation’s worries. “This is purposefully being done to undermine the process.”
McConnell warned Tuesday that the U.S. cannot meet Obama’s just-released carbon dioxide targets and said other countries should “proceed with caution” before trusting them. His comments came right after the administrationsubmitted a plan to the United Nations that pledges to cut U.S. greenhouse emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade, using EPA regulations and other executive branch actions.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) vowed that Obama’s pledge “will not see the light of day with the 114th Congress.”
Nick Mabey, founding director of the European environmental think tank E3G, said McConnell’s statement runs counter to Republicans’ previous arguments that the U.S. shouldn’t take meaningful climate action unless China and India act too. “Perversely these comments will mainly weaken pressure on China as the largest carbon polluter to sign up to the transparent and strong commitments Mr McConnell says he wants to see,” he said.
For now, though, Mabey doubts McConnell’s words will have much impact. “In the EU and other developed countries the rhetoric from the Republican Party is highly discounted due to their weak domestic position and low probability of gaining the White House,” he said.
Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ climate chief from 2006 to 2010, agreed that the GOP’s message will probably have little immediate impact on the Paris talks scheduled for December — especially since the U.S., a powerful country and the world’s second-largest carbon polluter, is an indispensable part of any effort to rein in climate change.
“I think people in the negotiations will listen to the warning, but they will continue to negotiate with the U.S. delegation as the representative of the United States, if only because they have no choice,” de Boer said.
Still, he said the GOP’s gambit is yet another example of the divided political system that has made the United States “a very difficult negotiating partner.”
“If you make concessions to another party at the negotiations, you expect the deal to be respected at the end of the day. And history shows that for the United States that’s not always the case,” said de Boer, who heads the Global Green Growth Institute in Seoul. “So negotiating a Paris deal with a presidency that you know does not have the necessary majority in the Senate is more risky than negotiating an agreement with a national representative that you know has full backing back home.”
To most other nations, de Boer said, the idea of an opposition party trying to derail a climate plan negotiated by the president is a “strange and unfamiliar notion.”
International doubts about American climate efforts have been especially rife since the U.S. failed to ratify the 1997 agreement that the Clinton administration negotiated in Kyoto, Japan. The Senate repudiated the pact in a symbolic 95-0 vote, and then the George W. Bush administration refused to take part, even though other nations had agreed to major compromises with the goal of getting the U.S. on board.
Inhofe later flew to Copenhagen, Denmark, in late 2009 to undermine the interim climate agreement that Obama was trying to work out at that year’s summit. Even in the sweeping agreement that the U.S. and nearly 200 other nations will seek to reach this year in Paris, the administration will have to bow to domestic political reality by seeking a pact that doesn’t require ratification by the Senate — which will limit its enforceability and make it easier for a future president to reject it.
In his comments this week, McConnell said the administration’s proposed climate regulations face court challenges and vocal political opposition, along with resistance from several states — something he himself has been trying to promote.
“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,” the Kentucky Republican said.
Environmentalists said McConnell’s words paralleled the message that 47 Senate Republicans led by Arkansas’ Tom Cotton had sent to Iranian leaders last month, in which they warned that any agreement reached with the U.S. over the nation’s nuclear program could be revoked by a future president “with the stroke of a pen” unless the Senate ratifies it.
Coequyt said this week that McConnell “has evidently stolen Tom Cotton’s playbook for undermining American leadership in the face of international crises.”
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart fired back that the administration is wrongly locking Congress out of the room by signing onto an international climate deal. “Like their Iran negotiations, the White House is making a partisan attempt to disregard Congress, where they know there is bipartisan opposition,” he said in an email.
The White House and its green allies say the GOP opposition is a temporary distraction at worst, because Republicans have few paths for dismantling the administration’s climate actions.
“Well, these are individuals who — many of whom, at least, deny the fact that climate change even exists,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday. “So I’m not sure they would be in the best position to decide whether or not a climate change agreement is one that is worth entering into.”
Top U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern told reporters he frequently reassures foreign diplomats that the administration’s centerpiece climate actions, including fuel economy standards and the EPA carbon rules, would be “very tough” for Congress or a Republican successor to undo since they were accomplished using existing authority.
Pete Ogden, a former White House aide who heads international energy and climate policy at the Center for American Progress, said he doubts the GOP comments will rattle international negotiators. “I think negotiators understand that there are people who, for various reasons, don’t want the U.S. to reduce its emissions, but I think they’ve seen over the last six years that those voices have not won the debate,” he said.
“We sort of see it as more of a desperate attempt to undercut this agreement, and I don’t think it’s resonating with countries around the world,” said Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program.
Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, said by email that “we have seen this movie before.” Other nations are “very aware” of Congress’ stance, added Huq, who also advises the so-called Least Developed Countries Group on the climate negotiations.
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