Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Minn. Regulator Opposes TSCA Bill Over 'Extraordinary' State Exclusions
Apr 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A bipartisan bill under consideration in Congress to reform the nation's chemical management system could harm Minnesota's interests, the state's environmental agency said recently. -
Will This Be the Nail in the Coffin of Toxic Flame Retardants?
Apr 3, 2015 | Mother Jones
By Allie Gross
Flame retardant chemicals are in millions of products, from mattresses and couches to car seats to electronics. In 2011, Environmental Science & Technology published a study that found that 80 percent of 100 randomly tested children's products were covered in fire-retardant chemical. -
Arizona Lawmakers Vote to Block Plastic Bag Bans
Apr 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Arizona’s legislature has passed a bill that would prohibit localities from banning disposable plastic bags. -
Oregon Lawmakers Consider Banning Plastic Beads in Cosmetics
Apr 3, 2015 | Reuters
By Shelby Sebens
Oregon lawmakers are considering a bill to ban tiny plastic beads that show up in everything from toothpaste to facial scrubs and end up in waterways, harming fish that mistake them for food, environmentalists and lawmakers said on Thursday. -
The Mathematics of Life-Saving Regulation
Apr 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jason A. Schwartz
The fate of 11,000 American lives each year may hinge on whether the Supreme Court Justices understand that fractions can’t be calculated without knowing the denominator. -
U.S. Sets Emission Targets In Preparation For Climate Change Talks
Apr 3, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
The Obama Administration this week committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 in preparation for upcoming international climate talks in Paris. -
Graham: The GOP’s Climate Anti-Cruz
Apr 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Lindsey Graham may paint some green onto the 2016 Republican presidential platform. Just don’t call him a moderate. -
Voters Want Next President to Favor Climate Policies, Poll Finds
Apr 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Most voters want the next president to favor policies to fight climate change, outnumbering those who want a president who opposes such policies by nearly 2-to-1. -
EPA Says Congressional Scrutiny Shows Need For Definitive 'Waters' Rule
Apr 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's top water official says Congress' recent focus on whether and how to craft legislation to restrict the agency's pending rule to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction underscores broad consensus on the need for the Obama administration to issue a final rule that definitively resolves confusion about the water law's reach. -
Steyer Group Forecasts Rising Tide of Natural, Economic Misery in Calif.
Apr 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California faces extreme heat, repeated droughts, wildfires and sea-level rise that could submerge $10 billion in property by 2050 because of climate change impacts, a report from billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer's Risky Business Project said yesterday.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
Minn. Regulator Opposes TSCA Bill Over 'Extraordinary' State Exclusions
Apr 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A bipartisan bill under consideration in Congress to reform the nation's chemical management system could harm Minnesota's interests, the state's environmental agency said recently.
John Linc Stine, the commissioner of Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency, said his state has "closely tracked" S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," as well as past attempts to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 in light of potential effects on the state.
"Unfortunately, we cannot support S. 697 in its current form due to the extraordinary and possibly unprecedented degree to which states are excluded from having any role relating to chemicals of concern within their borders," the letter said.
Stine said Minnesota businesses and advocacy groups across the political spectrum agree that TSCA needs to be fixed, but his agency is deeply skeptical that the bill by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is the way to do it.
He said the agency was particularly concerned that new state restrictions could be precluded when U.S. EPA begins a chemical assessment, rather than when it takes a final regulatory action. In addition, the Udall-Vitter bill's ban on state enforcement of rules identical to federal restrictions, a practice known as co-enforcement, was troublesome, Stine said.
His agency was also worried about "vague and non-specific" language that he said could affect air and water quality as well as waste disposal rules in states if the actions are "inconsistent with the action of the [EPA] Administrator."
Proponents of the bill have said that its intent is not to affect state regulations that stem from non-TSCA environmental laws. But Stine said his agency "is concerned that such broad and poorly defined restrictions ... could interrupt important toxics reduction and pollution prevention work."
Stine's letter was sent to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), its ranking member, on March 23. Boxer's office released it today.
Democratic senators opposed to the bill raised many of the same concerns at an EPW panel hearing last month (E&E Daily, March 19).
Boxer's office has released a steady stream of letters from state officials in recent weeks touting their opposition to the TSCA bill under consideration, even as its advocates continue to add co-sponsors. Since a committee hearing March 18, Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and John Thune (R-S.D.) have signed on as co-sponsors. Minnesota's two Democratic senators have so far declined to publicly support the proposal.
Brown's addition gives the bill 10 Democratic co-sponsors, meaning that if all Republicans vote for it on the Senate floor, it could receive at least 64 votes, which would be enough to break a filibuster.
Udall, the lead Democrat who crafted the bill with Vitter, has defended his proposal as a fair compromise, but lawmakers and advocates of the bill have said that some of its details may be finessed during negotiations prior to future committee action (E&E Daily, March 24).
-
Will This Be the Nail in the Coffin of Toxic Flame Retardants?
Apr 3, 2015 | Mother Jones
By Allie Gross
Flame retardant chemicals are in millions of products, from mattresses and couches to car seats to electronics. In 2011, Environmental Science & Technology published a study that found that 80 percent of 100 randomly tested children's products were covered in fire-retardant chemical. But there's a growing consensus that these chemicals don't belong in our homes: They've been linked to cancer, hormone deficiencies, and neurological and developmental problems.Research has found that manufacturers are simply replacing the old flame retardants with just-as-toxic chemicals.
Between 2009 and 2013, the chemical industry agreed to phase out a particularly harmful flame retardant known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)—but further research from scientists at the Environmental Working Group and Duke University has found that manufacturers are simply replacing PBDEs with just-as-toxic, structurally similar chemicals.
Now, a diverse group of organizations—including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the Consumer Federation of America—is calling for the ban of any children's products, furniture, mattresses and electronics that have traces of any of the chemicals associated with flame retardants.
"It's time to stop moving from one harmful flame retardant to its chemical cousin," said Arlene Blum, founder and executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute, in a statement about the petition that she and nine other organizations filed with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
If the ban catches on, it will come as a major blow to the chemical manufacturers, who, for decades, have been downplaying concerns about flame retardants' toxicity. The companies' strategies have been compared to those used by Big Tobacco: They cleverly confuse the public into believing scientific findings are a matter of opinion and up for debate.Another problem with flame retardants: It's not even clear that they work.
The similarities between the two industries shouldn't come as a surprise, given their interconnected past. In an explosive 2012 investigative series, the Chicago Tribune reported that tobacco companies played a major role in the promotion of flame retardants. After a slew of apartment fires caused by lit cigarettes, the tobacco companies looked for a scapegoat and found one in furniture. Suddenly the media was focusing on flammable dangers we live around everyday—instead of the actual cause of many of these household fires: cigarettes.
The chemical companies, too, quickly realized how lucrative fire retardants could be—in 2012, the value of the market for the chemicals was estimated at $5.1 billion. Part of the reason for the companies' success was a subtle astroturf campaign: In 2007, Albemarle Corporation, a leading flame retardant manufacturer, teamed up with two other chemical conglomerates to create Citizens for Fire Safety, an organization that advocates for increased use of flame retardants. The organization, which marketed itself as a neutral source of information for consumers, folded in 2012 after the Tribune exposed the real players involved.
Another problem with flame retardants: It's not even clear that they work. Accordingto the Tribune, in 2009 government scientists lit two couches on fire, one with fire retardant chemicals in its foam and one with out them. Within four minutes "both were engulfed in flames."
"We did not find flame retardants in foam to provide any significant protection," Dale Ray, a project manager with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and overseer of the study told the Tribune.
Despite this finding, flame retardants have stuck around—in products, and in people's bodies. The chemicals, considered persistent organic pollutants, show up in dust particles, which we (and our food) absorb. Particularly vulnerable groups are firefighters, who are exposed to immense doses when extinguishing fires in products that are covered in the chemicals, and children, who are exposed when they play on the floor near dust and stick their hands in their mouths.
Last year, scientists from Duke University and the Environmental Working Grouptested the urine of 22 mothers and 26 children. All the samples came back positive for exposure to Tris(1,3-dichloroisopropyl)phosphate (TDCIPP), one of the fire retardant chemicals that was developed to replace PBDEs. The children's average TDCIPP concentration levels were fives times that of the mothers. TDCIPP caused the growth of tumors when tested on animals and has been labeled as carcinogenic by the state of California under Proposition 65.
"The science is in on this class of flame retardant chemicals," said Nancie Payne, president of the Learning Disabilities Association of America, which also signed the Consumer Product Safety Commission petition. "They harm brain development, and have no business being in consumer goods."
-
Arizona Lawmakers Vote to Block Plastic Bag Bans
Apr 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Arizona’s legislature has passed a bill that would prohibit localities from banning disposable plastic bags.
The measure approved Thursday is targeted at Tempe, which is considering banning one-time-use bags in grocery stores and elsewhere, the Phoenix Business Journal reports. It would also block prohibitions on foam food containers.
The bill would also prohibit towns, cities and counties from requiring businesses to report their energy consumption, as has been proposed in Phoenix, the Business Journal said.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) now must consider whether to enact the legislation.
Multiple cities across the country have enacted bag bans or energy disclosure rules, including San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
Supporters of the measure argue that it would protect businesses from overly burdensome rules that could cost them greatly.
The League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposes the bill, as do environmental groups.
-
Oregon Lawmakers Consider Banning Plastic Beads in Cosmetics
Apr 3, 2015 | Reuters
By Shelby Sebens
Oregon lawmakers are considering a bill to ban tiny plastic beads that show up in everything from toothpaste to facial scrubs and end up in waterways, harming fish that mistake them for food, environmentalists and lawmakers said on Thursday.
A handful of other states, including Washington and California, are also considering banning the tiny pieces of plastic known as microbeads. Illinois became the first state to ban them last year.
“It's really about the environment, and they’re non-biodegradable,” said the Oregon bill's chief sponsor, Democratic state Representative Carla Piluso. Lawmakers will hold a public hearing on the bill in Salem on Tuesday.
The microbeads, often used as a skin exfoliant, are so small they often slip through wastewater treatment systems and end up in nearby waterways, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.
The Illinois ban came after a team of researchers with 5 Gyres Institute, a California-based environmental group, found high levels of beads in 2012 from samples taken at Lakes Erie, Superior and Huron. Scientists have also found beads in the ocean.
“Those toxins can transfer from the plastic and concentrate up the food chain,” said Anna Cummins, executive director of 5 Gyres. “By extension, the concern is both for the health of our marine ecosystem and our marine wildlife but also to humans that are at the top of the food chain and consume seafood.”
Oregon's bill would ban the manufacture and sale of microbeads in personal care products. The Personal Care Products Council, a trade association representing the cosmetics and personal care products industry, supports the bill.
“The industry shares a common interest with other stakeholders in protecting the environment and the industry takes questions regarding the presence of microbeads in our waterways very seriously,” Karin Ross, director of government affairs for the council, said in a statement.
Some manufacturers have already pledged to phase microbeads out of their products. The Oregon legislation, if passed, would take effect in December 2019 to give companies time to comply.
Cummins complained the language leaves room for a loophole because it defines the plastic as non-biodegradable, potentially allowing the industry to use biodegradable plastic that breaks down only at high heat facilities.
Personal Care Products Council officials said it is not the industry's intent to use biodegradable plastic available today, such as polylactic acid.
-
The Mathematics of Life-Saving Regulation
Apr 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jason A. Schwartz
The fate of 11,000 American lives each year may hinge on whether the Supreme Court Justices understand that fractions can’t be calculated without knowing the denominator.
This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards—a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), designed to reduce mercury, arsenic, and other harmful pollution emitted by power plants. The rule dramatically improves public health and welfare, especially by reducing premature mortality from heart attacks and respiratory disease induced by exposure to air pollution. EPA has calculated that the standards’ benefits vastly outweigh the compliance costs: the quantified benefits are as much as $90 billion, versus $9.6 billion in costs. Yet a coalition of coal-dependent industries and states has challenged the standards, arguing that EPA didn’t consider costs early enough in the regulatory process.
The life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards cap a multi-step regulatory process initiated back in 2000, when EPA first determined it was “appropriate and necessary,” under the Clean Air Act to list power plants as a category of sources of carcinogenic and neurologically toxic air pollution. Once a category is listed, EPA then has authority to subcategorize, distinguishing plants by size or type. EPA next develops emission standards, typically based on the pollution controls already in place at the cleanest 12 percent of sources in a given subcategory, thus prodding dirtier stragglers to catch up. EPA’s final regulatory choices include the timeline for compliance and the flexibility of the regulatory scheme.
Nobody denies that, by the end of this process, EPA had calculated the costs of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (and found them overwhelmingly justified by the benefits). Nevertheless, opponents of the regulation insist that EPA was also required, and failed, to consider costs at the very beginning, upon first determining that regulating the toxic pollution of power plants would be “appropriate.”
During last Wednesday’s oral arguments, several Supreme Court Justices reflected on whether EPA needn’t—perhaps couldn’t meaningfully—have considered costs upon listing power plants as a source category, because costs inextricably depend on subsequent regulatory design choices. Justice Breyer wondered: Couldn’t costs be extremely different if, rather than requiring every plant to match the performance of the cleanest 12 percent of the entire electricity sector, EPA instead subcategorized specific plants facing unusually high compliance costs and set a more achievable standard for that subcategory? Justice Kagan elaborated: If so, would it even be possible for EPA to calculate costs before subcategorization choices are made? As the Institute for Policy Integrity argued in its friend-of-the-court brief, if standards are set at the 12 percent level, costs can’t be calculated until the denominator is defined—12 percent of what? Because subcategorization changes the denominator and adjusts the regulatory stringency, it can have a dramatic impact on compliance costs.
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial attacking EPA claimed that this line of thinking was a “surprise,” unmentioned prior to the Supreme Court hearing. But the subcategorization issue is discussed in the brief mentioned above as well as in two past D.C. Circuit court rulings (the 2014ruling for this case and the 2007 concurrence by Judge Williams in Sierra Club v. EPA). More notably, EPA articulated this reasoning when it first explored regulating plants in 2000.
In determining that power plants are an “appropriate” source category, EPA noted that simply listing power plants as a category for future regulation “does not impose regulatory requirements or costs.” Instead, EPA thought it more reasonable to consider the “effectiveness and cost of controls” later, “as a part of developing regulation.” In particular, EPA planned to “consider subcategorization” when developing regulation. In short, EPA knew that subsequent regulatory design choices could substantially decrease costs, and no accurate method of predicting costs existed until such choices were made.
In 2011, EPA finally proposed the standards. The agency initially created five subcategories, recognizing that applying the same standards to different types of plants would result in expensive retrofits and could “reduce the capacity and efficiency” of the plants. For instance, plants burning lignite were given much less stringent mercury standards. EPA also asked for comments on whether additional subcategories were warranted.
In the final rule, EPA adopted several changes to make the standards “more flexible and cost-effective.” The agency extended the compliance timeline for many sources, and allowed some contiguous plants to average their emissions to meet the standards more cheaply.
Another change involved adding new subcategories. Some industry segments called for new subcategories on the grounds of cost differences alone; EPA declined, reasonably noting that those plants were technologically capable of achieving tighter emissions reductions. However, EPA did add new categories when distinct sets of plants could not achieve the proposed standards due to technological and economic infeasibility. For example, “non-continental” oil plants—namely, power plants in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam—face unique fuel limitations and cost issues, and EPA determined that those island plants warranted a distinct subcategory.
By subcategorizing and changing the denominator, EPA adjusted the stringency of its standards and mitigated costs. The opponents of the rule completely and willfully overlook the clear evidence both that EPA used subcategorization and other tools to control costs, and that EPA could not meaningfully estimate costs until it had finished subcategorizing. You can’t estimate a fraction unless you know the denominator.
—Jason A. Schwartz is an adjunct professor and legal director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law. He contributed to Policy Integrity’s amicus brief in the current litigation over the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
-
U.S. Sets Emission Targets In Preparation For Climate Change Talks
Apr 3, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
The Obama Administration this week committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 in preparation for upcoming international climate talks in Paris. The announcement in part is aimed at spurring other governments involved in ongoing United Nations talks on a new climate treaty to unveil their emissions targets.
White House and State Department officials say EPA’s controversial proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as well as ongoing federal efforts are all that’s needed to meet the new commitment.
But the independent European-based science and policy group Climate Action Tracker says the U.S. will need to take additional steps to meet the Administration’s new goal. The organization estimates that if EPA’s power plant regulations survive attacks in Congress and federal court, the U.S. will reach emissions levels of greenhouse gases equivalent to 6.86 billion to 6.96 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2025. That would be about 5% below 2005 levels.
Some experts say a crucial component of the White House plan is its ongoing effort to cut releases of short-lived climate pollutants. “The U.S. inclusion of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and other short-lived climate pollutants in its announcement is a clear signal that climate protection cannot succeed from CO2 reductions alone,” says Paul Bledsoe, a former climate adviser for the Clinton Adminstration.
The White House’s climate change efforts continue to draw congressional criticism. “This plan may benefit the United Nations, but it doesn’t benefit the United States,” says Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House of Representatives Science, Space & Technology Committee.
-
Graham: The GOP’s Climate Anti-Cruz
Apr 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Lindsey Graham may paint some green onto the 2016 Republican presidential platform. Just don’t call him a moderate.
The South Carolina senator and potential GOP presidential contender is one of the few Republicans left on Capitol Hill to embrace the idea that humans play a sizable role in warming the planet. He spent months negotiating with Democrats on an attempt at major climate legislation during President Barack Obama’s first two years, and he’s received both praise and fundraising help from the Environmental Defense Fund, a centrist voice in the green movement.
That could offer a big contrast between Graham and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who opened his own long-shot White House bid last week with a message of unabashed conservatism. Cruz later said in an interview that climate activists — or as he called them, “global warming alarmists” — are “the equivalent of the flat-Earthers.”
But Graham, who bases his climate views as much on Scripture as on science, balked when asked whether the GOP needs a moderating voice — akin to the pro-science, pro-climate-action role that former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman played in the 2012 Republican primaries.
Graham’s label for himself is “solid conservative.”
“From a biblical point of view, we were counseled by God to be good stewards of the environment,” he said in an interview.
His question for the GOP on climate change is almost an existential quandary: What exactly does the party stand for?
“As we’re going to the 2016 cycle, what is the Republican Party’s plank when it comes to the environment?” Graham asked, echoing a speech he gave last week at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I think we would do ourselves some good if we come up with an environmental position that is good for business, that would make sense to the people who are concerned about the environment.”
But he also vows to stop Obama’s biggest climate regulation, an upcoming EPA power plant rule that Graham calls the economic “nightmare” his own legislative efforts aimed to prevent. He says that “the global warming debate has gotten off track” largely because Democrats like Al Gore have created a “religion” around the climate issue.
“Democrats portray it as a religion,” he said. “I portray it as a problem.”
And unlike Huntsman, Graham isn’t about to lecture people who disagree with him or aren’t willing to join the cause publicly.
“I’m OK with the science behind climate change. But if you’re not, that’s OK with me,” Graham said. “But what is our position about the emissions? What’s our position about the Clean Air Act? What would we do as Republicans to ensure that the next generation enjoys a healthy environment, being good stewards of God’s green earth?”
If he runs for the White House, Graham’s balancing act would be to appeal to many of the same evangelical and conservative voters that Cruz is courting without shying away from his own climate views. He said he expects to decide on a presidential bid in May.
One Republican oil industry titan, former Mitt Romney adviser Harold Hamm, said Graham may have a tough time explaining his past climate deal-making with former Democratic Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. “People have a long memory in this industry and certainly they can look way back,” Hamm said in an interview. “And so I think that’s going to give mixed signals.”
A spokesman for the American Energy Alliance, a group affiliated with industrialist billionaires Charles and David Koch, suggested that Graham serves mostly as an example of what Republican presidential hopefuls should avoid doing.
“I don’t think anyone is taking Lindsey Graham’s presidential bid too seriously,” AEA spokesman Chris Warren said. “And from our standpoint, other candidates would do well to stand in contrast to him on energy and environment issues at least as far as his record has shown.”
But former South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson, a close friend, said Graham’s attention to climate change and the environment is simply an example of his desire be a problem solver. He says it could play a positive role in the party, appealing to younger voters and forcing other Republican candidates to spell out their positions.
“There’s a whole wave of young people entering the political spectrum … and the environment matters,” Dawson said. (Dawson is supporting former Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president, a commitment he says he made before Graham grew serious about running.)
Current South Carolina GOP Chairman Matt Moore said Graham’s climate stance may help him in his native state’s early primary and might not hurt in New Hampshire, home of close Graham ally Sen. Kelly Ayotte. In January, Graham and Ayotte were among just five Republican senators to vote for a Democrat-backed amendment declaring that humans “significantly” contribute to climate change. Both also voted a few days ago for similar language in a budget amendment from Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“Particularly here in South Carolina, we have supported politicians who have led on the environment,” Moore said. But he deflected using the term moderate to describe the senator’s views. “By definition, conservatives believe in protecting the environment,” he said.
While the conventional wisdom holds that the right dominates the GOP primaries, Graham might need to appeal to other segments of the party if he wants to be a viable candidate.
“It’s a good strategy on his part,” conservative energy consultant Mike McKenna said. “It’s an area in which he can kind of highlight, ‘Hey, I’m the moderate here’ without actually saying, ‘I’m the moderate here.’ It distinguishes himself from the right side of the race.”
And some liberals are welcoming Graham to try.
“There’s an opportunity for a presidential candidate to appeal to the nearly 50 percent of Republicans who believe that we ought to act to address climate change,” said Daniel Weiss, senior vice president for campaigns at the League of Conservation Voters. “The vast majority of the potential Republican candidates are on record as climate-science deniers, thereby catering to a small but vocal part of the Republican electorate.”
Liberal Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), sponsor of the January climate amendment that Graham supported, joked this week that “I don’t want to get him in trouble by praising him.” But Schatz said Graham’s vote “was very encouraging, and I think it’s about time for real conservative Republican leadership on this.”
Some of Graham’s evolution on climate change may be at least partially tied to the influence of Christian Coalition of America President Roberta Combs and her daughter Michele, who is the coalition’s spokeswoman and co-founder of the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform. “This is not a Democrat, this is not a liberal issue, this is a family issue,” Michele Combs has said regarding climate change and clean energy.
Graham wasn’t always so outspoken on the issue. In 2003, his first year in the Senate, he voted against a bill from Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that is widely seen as the chamber’s first serious climate bill.
But since then, he has shown a pattern of departing from the reigning GOP orthodoxy on climate change. He supported a 2005 bill from McCain and Lieberman, an early sign of camaraderie for a Senate trio that Gen. David Petraeus would later dub the “Three Amigos.” But unlike McCain, Graham has stayed consistent in calling for action on climate change. In an October 2009 op-ed in The New York Times, he and Kerry called global warming “an urgent crisis facing the world” and promised to seek a bipartisan deal.
In 2009 and 2010, he worked with Kerry and Lieberman on legislation that would have created an economy-wide market system, similar to cap and trade, to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The talks fell apart in 2010, partly because the disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico derailed prospects for Graham to lure other Republicans with language promoting energy production.
Not only doesn’t Graham distance himself from those efforts, but he says history has proven him right.
The purpose of the legislation was to “create an emissions control standard working with industry,” he said this week, adding that the bill would also have helped nuclear power and allowed expanded offshore drilling. “See, what people forget is that the oil companies and power companies were all supportive of this. This would have been a congressional standard that they could live with versus an EPA standard.”
Instead, the legislative attempt failed, leaving Obama’s EPA to deal with the problem through regulations such as its clampdown on the power industry.
“So the worst nightmare’s come true,” Graham said. “We’re now going to have an EPA regulation that’s going to drive up the power costs and hurt our economy. That’s what I was trying to avoid.”
He promises to “take the EPA regulation down.”
Graham compliments some of his potential Republican rivals, saying they could also contribute to the debate. “I think you need a solid conservative, like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush,” he said, notably leaving Cruz off the list. “People who are really good conservatives, fiscal and social conservatives, to lay out an environmental platform that can connect with people.”
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a darling of the GOP’s libertarian wing, has also “been good” on the issue, Graham said. “He’s showing some sensitivity.”
Dawson, the former South Carolina GOP chairman, said Graham can have an impact on the climate debate if he runs. “I think Republicans are going to appreciate him forcing that discussion.”
And if it doesn’t work? “The worst thing Lindsey Graham is at the end of this,” Dawson said, “is a very powerful United States senator.”
-
Voters Want Next President to Favor Climate Policies, Poll Finds
Apr 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Most voters want the next president to favor policies to fight climate change, outnumbering those who want a president who opposes such policies by nearly 2-to-1.
The Washington Post-ABC News poll said that 59 percent want a president who “favors government action to address climate change,” compared with 31 percent who want someone who opposes government action.
The poll matches other recent surveys showing that voters care about fighting climate change and want the government to do something about it.
But it might also show that climate is a growing priority for voters, because so many are naming it as an issue they will care about in the 2016 race.
Climate change has consistently ranked among the lowest priorities among voters. Only 28 percent of voters in last year’s midterm elections said climate change was a top priority, according to a Pew Research Center survey at the time.
Among those who want a climate-focused president in the Post-ABC poll, nearly all of them — 97 percent — said it is an issue that is at least somewhat important to them for the election.
Opponents of a climate-focused president didn’t feel nearly as strong, with only 67 percent saying it is important.
-
EPA Says Congressional Scrutiny Shows Need For Definitive 'Waters' Rule
Apr 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's top water official says Congress' recent focus on whether and how to craft legislation to restrict the agency's pending rule to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction underscores broad consensus on the need for the Obama administration to issue a final rule that definitively resolves confusion about the water law's reach.
"It shows people want to make sure we get the rule right -- everybody's looking to us to do a better job as to what [waters] are and are not covered under the Clean Water Act," said Ken Kopocis, de facto EPA water chief, in an exclusive March 31 interview with Inside EPA. He noted the "high level of interest" that lawmakers have shown in the rule.
That interest includes two riders added to the Senate fiscal year 2016 budget resolution to establish "bright lines" for the rule, which some sources say indicate critics of the rule might be nearing the necessary 60 votes in support of some type of legislation to revise the rule that would be necessary to end a filibuster on such a bill.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), chair of the Environment & Public Works Committee's (EPW) water panel, is also planning to hold an April 6 subcommittee field hearing in Anchorage, AK, to hear from witnesses on the CWA rule's potential impacts on state and local governments and stakeholders. The subcommittee will then hold a second field hearing on the issue April 8 in Fairbanks, AK, according to EPW's website.
In the House, Republicans are urging EPA to provide documentation of its consultation with other federal agencies on the rule, citing Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's concerns about the rule's definitions and an Inside EPA articleindicating limited consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers. EPA proposed the rule jointly with the Corps.
Kopocis suggested that the growing interest in Congress reflects wide-ranging calls for EPA to issue a clear final rule, though he is not taking a position on any legislative efforts regarding the rulemaking.
EPA officials have acknowledged that they are planning several revisions to clarify the rule, which the agency proposed in April 2014 and is slated to finalize this spring. The rule as proposed aims to resolve uncertainty about the water law's reach following a Supreme Court ruling that created competing tests for jurisdiction.
Regulatory Revisions
The revisions include expanding exclusions from the law to include stormwater infrastructure and other features, and rewriting the definition of a "tributary" subject to the CWA to end uncertainty over it.
The revisions aim to address the more than 1 million public comments received on the proposed rule, which called for clarity on the various terms in the rule, such as "tributary," "floodplain" and "uplands," and cited concerns that the proposal was developed without proper consultation with state and local governments.
While states, industry and other stakeholders seek to win changes in the final rule through their comments, some lawmakers are weighing legislative efforts to address their concerns with the rule. They are weighing how to balance criticism of the pending rule with wide-ranging, long-running calls for the agency to issue a final regulation in order to replace criticized guidance on the CWA's scope and case-by-case jurisdiction determinations.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) on Jan. 28 introduced H.R. 594 to the administration from finalizing or implementing the proposed water rule or an earlier contested federal guidance on CWA jurisdiction.
Other House lawmakers have expressed interest in a measure to force the administration to re-propose the regulation. For example, GOP lawmakers during a March 18 hearing of the House Transportation & Infrastructure water resources and environment subcommittee, said that a re-proposal of the rule and new comment period is necessary in light of the more than one million comments that the agency received.
"A decision needs to be made," says a source tracking the issue, on whether to focus on existing legislation such as the Gosar bill or draft a new measure that would compel EPA to issue a re-proposal.
In the Senate, EPW Chief Counsel Susan Bodine told the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies during the group's annual spring meeting in Washington, D.C., March 24, that EPW Republicans believe legislation requiring a re-proposal and new comment period on the rule by the administration is necessary.
EPW's effort, led by the panel's Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), appears to be progressing. "I think there's a broad cross-section of folks saying EPA needs to hit the reset button," says one industry source.
A second industry source saying that Inhofe is reportedly "working on something" addressing the CWA jurisdiction rule, but notes they have not seen any legislative language.
Budget Amendment
Meanwhile, the Senate's recent budget resolution debate could serve as a gauge as to whether GOP lawmakers will be able to secure the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster on any legislation addressing the CWA rule.
The Senate last week approved in a 59-40 vote a budget resolution amendment that seeks to limit the scope of the rule by establishing "bright lines" for determining when smaller waters are considered subject to the water law. S. Amdt. 347, by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), is a signal on future potential legislative efforts and has no direct impact on EPA policy, though the fact that it won support from 59 senators is significant as it suggests that opponents of the CWA proposal have enough votes to overcome the 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster on a bill.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was absent from voting, but the senator has criticized the jurisdiction proposal and warned of massive costs to businesses from the regulation. Therefore Cruz would be expected to join the 59 senators -- five Democrats and 54 Republicans -- making 60 votes in opposition to the rule.
The five Democratic senators that voted in favor of S. Amdt. 347 are Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Joe Manchin III (WV).
Barrasso's amendment, agreed to in a March 25 floor vote, would create a spending-neutral reserve fund to ensure that the CWA rule will "establish bright lines for Federal jurisdiction, and to create clear and unambiguous exemptions for features" that the administration has stated it is not seeking to regulate under the CWA.
While bipartisan support for the amendment is not necessarily a guaranteed indicator of support for future CWA legislation, sources say, they believe that it is a positive signal.
For example, the second industry source suggests that Inhofe in his pending legislation should try to "replicate" the language in the Barrasso amendment as much as possible to secure Democratic support. The Barrasso budget rider signals "strong, serious opposition" to the rule, but the fate of such a bill will hinge on the extent Democrats are willing to "push back" on the administration, the source says.
The first industry source says that none of the Democratic signatures on the amendment were a "surprise," and that they "thought we might get a few more" votes from Democrats.
That source adds that while there seems to be a recognition in Congress that EPA needs guidance on the contours of the rulemaking, the issue has become so murky that there is also acknowledgment that "we need a rule, just not this rule," indicating that Congress is likely to favor a push for re-proposal.
"Everybody's talking about how much deference to give EPA," the source says, but adds, "I don't think Congress will get that prescriptive," and is more likely to focus on forcing a more thorough consultation process for EPA and the Corps to hold when developing a revised version of the rule.
Final Regulation
Environmentalists, who opposed the Barrasso rider, hope lawmakers will hold off on efforts to force withdraw of the rule until after the agency releases the final regulation this spring.
"Do not be fooled, Senator Barrasso's Dirty Water amendment inserts overly broad and misleading language that attempts to set the stage for subsequent legislation to deny the protections of the Clean Water Act for much of the nation's water bodies," said Earthjustice, the BlueGreen Alliance, Clean Water Action, the Natural Resources Defense Council and nine other groups in a March 24 letter to senators urging them to oppose the amendment.
One environmentalist was surprised to see some senators, including Sens. Angus King (I-ME) and Klobuchar, vote in favor of the amendment. The source adds that they hope lawmakers will allow EPA a chance to put out a final CWA jurisdiction rule before seeking to block it, saying, "it's quite silly to try to block a rule before seeing it," and that there are legislative options for taking action even after the rule is final.
-
Steyer Group Forecasts Rising Tide of Natural, Economic Misery in Calif.
Apr 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California faces extreme heat, repeated droughts, wildfires and sea-level rise that could submerge $10 billion in property by 2050 because of climate change impacts, a report from billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer's Risky Business Project said yesterday.
Steyer, along with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and past Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, issued the 65-page analysis on California as the third in a series of studies calculating the costs of inaction on climate.
"From Boom to Bust? Climate Risk in the Golden State" looked at warming's effects on major businesses that include agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. California crops, which are shipped nationwide and overseas, could see production declines because of heat and drought, the report said.
Californians by the end of the century will live in a much hotter place, it said. There likely will be two to three times as many days with temperatures exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit than have occurred annually over the past 30 years. That could contribute to nearly 7,700 additional heat-related deaths per year by late in the century, more than twice the average number of traffic deaths annually in the state today, it said.
"Climate change is an urgent threat -- one which the people of California are already experiencing firsthand," Steyer said in a statement. "The Risky Business report puts the costs of inaction on climate change in a framework that our state's businesses can understand and utilize to mitigate risk and make good choices for California's communities and economy."
The report follows last year's 56-page "Economic Risks of Climate Change to the United States" and a report in January called "Heat in the Heartland," which looked at threats to the Midwest.
Although it's focused on California, the report noted that there are broader implications from events in the Golden State. In 2012, it said, California produced one-fifth of the nation's supply of dairy, nearly two-thirds of its fruits and nuts, and over a third of its vegetables. The state is the sole U.S. grower of almonds, artichokes, dates, grapes, pistachios, plums, pomegranates and walnuts.
"Overall, the state's 80,500 farms directly employed roughly half a million people at harvest time and generated nearly $45 billion in output in 2012, as well as supporting at least $100 billion in related economic activity," it said. "California's agricultural productivity is inextricably tied to climate conditions, and the industry's success is of critical importance to the state, the nation, and the world."
California houses more Standard & Poor's 500 index companies than any other state, the report said, leads the nation in venture capital and has the world's eighth-largest economy.
"Climate change -- and the resulting high temperatures, volatile precipitation patterns, and rising sea levels -- may put California's competitiveness at risk," the report said.
The Risky Business group in a statement said that although there are potentially large costs from climate impacts, the state "can significantly reduce these risks if policymakers and business leaders act now to reduce emissions and adapt to a changing climate. While state action alone will not be sufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, California can be a model of climate leadership for the nation and the world."
Steyer, who is worth an estimated $1.6 billion, last year spent $74 million of his money to support candidates across the country who agreed with his environmental positions and to oppose those who didn't. The San Francisco Bay Area resident briefly considered but decided against running for the seat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) will leave in 2016.
Putting out the California-focused report could help Steyer if he wants to run for California governor in 2016, said David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University and an expert on state elections. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has said he's exploring running for that office (Greenwire, March 6).
"The fact that they are more California-centered tells me he is a more credible alternative to Gavin Newsom moving forward," McCuan said.
Matt James, executive director at nonprofit Next Generation and a Steyer adviser, didn't immediately respond to an inquiry about whether Steyer would be interested in the 2018 gubernatorial race.
Kristina Moore, managing director at FTI Consulting, which represents fossil fuel interests, said that "Steyer's anti-fossil-fuel agenda failed spectacularly in the last election. This report is just politics dressed up as facts."
She said "there's no coincidence" that the report has come out at the same time that Steyer's Next Generation is winding down and moving into another Steyer group focused on climate change (see related story).Rising seas threaten San Diego
The report includes overall projections for the state that carry large price tags. If the world stays on its current emissions path, it said, between $8 billion and $10 billion of existing property in California will likely be underwater by midcentury. An additional $6 billion to $10 billion will be susceptible to flooding at high tide.
"By 2100, the value of property below mean sea level will likely grow to $19 billion, with $33 billion more at risk at high tide," it said. "There is a 1-in-100 chance that more than $26 billion worth of California's coastal property will be underwater with more than an additional $68 billion vulnerable at high tide."
The analysis also includes regional data. San Diego is among the most vulnerable areas of the state to increased sea-level rise, it said.
"Our analysis suggests likely sea-level rise of 1.9 to 3.4 feet along the city's coast by 2100," it said, "with a 1-in-20 chance of more than 4.1 feet and a 1-in-100 chance of more than 5.5 feet."
The report noted that San Diego has "significant strategic importance to the U.S. military: the city is home to three Marine installations, including Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton; three naval bases; and a Coast Guard station. All have significant coastal assets."
In San Francisco and nearby Monterey and Point Reyes, sea-level rise of 0.7 to 1.1 feet by midcentury and 1.8 to 3.3 feet by next century is likely.
"There is a 1-in-100 chance that San Francisco could see sea-level rise of more than 5.4 feet by 2100," the report added. "Extensive development along San Francisco Bay places billions of dollars of property and infrastructure at risk, including the headquarters of numerous technology companies in the South Bay area, along with the San Francisco and Oakland airports."
The state, known for its beautiful weather, could see that weather change, the report said. By the end of the century, it said, summers in California likely will be hotter than summers in Texas and Louisiana today, with a doubling or tripling in the average number of days per year hotter than 95 F.
Residents in some parts of the state could live with scorching heat for half the year by 2100, it said. The area it called the "Inland South" -- roughly the southeastern quarter of the state -- already has an average of about four full months each year of days above 95 F. That could increase by an additional month by midcentury, and to six months a year by 2100.
"There is a 1-in-20 chance that the region will experience more than seven full months (214 days) of extremely hot days by end of century," the report said.
The analysis didn't take into account potential adaptation strategies that California's industries and policymakers "will surely pursue in the face of shifting climate impacts," the report said. "These potential responses are frankly too varied and speculative to model with any certainty; they also may depend on policies and technologies not yet commercialized."Getting businesses on board
The numbers in the Risky Business report sound reasonable, said Jeffery Greenblatt, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He had not seen the report ahead of its release yesterday but was told the basic concepts in it.
California already is a leader on efforts to limit climate change, he said. Existing and planned policies will significantly cut the state's greenhouse gas emissions through 2030, though more is needed to propel reductions through the middle of the century, according to a study he published in January (ClimateWire, Jan. 23).
"We are taking action," Greenblatt said. "There's a whole slate of policies that are on the books that are being implemented. The governor in January announced more ambitious climate targets."
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in his inaugural speech said he wanted half of California's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030, wanted to cut petroleum use by as much as half and wanted to double the efficiency of existing buildings by 2030.
"There's a lot of positive momentum that is moving us in this direction," Greenblatt said.
But Kirsten James, senior manager for California policy at Ceres, a nonprofit working to mobilize businesses behind an environmentally sustainable economy, said the specifics in the latest Risky Business report could help motivate further action.
"When you start looking at it at the regional level, then people can really relate to it," James said. "It really hits home more and hopefully will open eyes."
California is looking to extend its climate policies with S.B. 32, legislation that would have the state's air regulators develop interim targets to get the state's greenhouse emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Having businesses aware of and supporting the need for climate action is crucial, she said.
"We're definitely setting the stage in leadership on climate, but it's still a tough fight," James said. "It is going to be a fight in Sacramento. Nothing is a slam-dunk up there."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested