Preview Newsletter
ACC AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Growth Seen Slower Amid Dollar Headwinds
Apr 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kathleen Madigan
For anyone hoping the dollar’s surge is done, the latest Wall Street Journal survey of economists has some bad news: The ride ain’t over yet. -
Furniture Makers Getting Rid of Flame Retardants in Their Products
Apr 9, 2015 | Michigan Radio
By Rebecca Williams
This week, we’re bringing you a series of stories about firefighters and cancer. Firefighters say they’re worried about getting exposed to certain kinds of toxic flame retardant chemicals. -
It’s Time to Get Flame Retardants out of Our Couches
Apr 9, 2015 | Winthrop Transcript
By Laura Spark
Eight years ago, my 4-year old daughter and I gave blood samples for an Environmental Working Group study on Flame Retardants in Mothers and Their Toddlers. -
House Foreign Affairs Panel Plans April 14 Hearing on Crude Oil Export Ban
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A House Foreign Affairs subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on the 40-year-old ban on the export of U.S. crude oil, according to a committee posting. -
Rise of Deadly Radon Gas in Pennsylvania Buildings Linked to Fracking Industry
Apr 10, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
A new study published Thursday reported a disturbing correlation between unusually high levels of radon gas in mostly residences and an oil and gas production technique known as fracking that has become the industry standard over the past decade. -
Study Finds Correlation Between Radon Levels, Gas Development in Pennsylvania
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Pennsylvania's environmental regulators are reviewing a new study that reports rising levels of radon gas in the state and suggests it may be associated with natural gas development, a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA April 9. -
Study: Possible Link Between Fracking and Increased Radon
Apr 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Buildings near natural gas wells that use hydraulic fracturing have higher levels of radon gas, new research has found. -
EPA to Propose Federal Plan in August To Guide State Clean Power Plan Compliance
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to propose in August a federal plan to guide states as they prepare to comply with carbon dioxide emissions limits proposed for existing power plants. -
FERC Commissioner Concerned About State Implementation of Clean Power Plan
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Philip Moeller says he's concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for state implementation of the Clean Power Plan. -
A Pitch to Conservatives for a Carbon Tax—With a Twist
Apr 10, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Neil King Jr.
Jerry Taylor has a very big ambition: He wants conservatives to embrace a carbon tax. -
Don’t Bet the Planet on Carbon Taxes
Apr 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Peter Barnes
Last month, the Obama administration pledged that, by 2025, the U.S. will cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels — the same commitment it made in its deal with China last fall. -
Environmentalists' Suit Aims To Force Updates For EPA Air Toxics Rules
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists have followed through on their threat to sue EPA to force issuance of “residual risk” air toxics regulations updating emissions controls requirements for a host of industrial sectors, though the suit appears to scale back the push to 21 industries compared to the 33 sectors listed in an earlier notice of intent to sue (NOI). -
House to Consider Energy, Water Spending Bill Later This Month, McCarthy Memo Says
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House will consider an energy and water appropriations bill the week of April 28, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a memorandum April 9. -
Action Expected on Energy, Water Approps, Cybersecurity Legislation in Coming Weeks -- McCarthy
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E PM
By Nick Juliano
The annual energy and water spending bill will be the second to hit the House floor this year and likely will pass the lower chamber by the beginning of next month, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told his members in a memo today laying out the agenda for the upcoming work period.
Industry and Association News
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Growth Seen Slower Amid Dollar Headwinds
Apr 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kathleen Madigan
For anyone hoping the dollar’s surge is done, the latest Wall Street Journal survey of economists has some bad news: The ride ain’t over yet.
Over the past year, the U.S. dollar has strengthened 29% against the euro and 18% versus the Japanese yen. The currency shift is causing trouble for American exporters, whose products are now more expensive in global markets. It also has hurt overseas profits that are converted back to dollars by U.S. multinational corporations.
Factoring in the dollar strength, a West Coast ports slowdown and a rough winter in parts of the country, the forecasters ratcheted down their first-quarter growth forecast. The thinking in the April survey of 62 economists—not all of whom answered each question—is that the economy grew just 1.4%. In January, the group expected gross domestic product would grow at a 3% pace in the first quarter. The Commerce Department will release its initial look at first-quarter GDP on April 29.ENLARGE
On the whole, the economists expect the U.S. economy to weather the dollar’s drag and to perform well this year. The average forecast expects gross domestic product will grow at an inflation-adjusted rate of 2.7% for all of 2015. That pace is below the 3% pace projected at the start of 2015, but the downgrade reflects the lower estimates of first-quarter activity.
When asked whether the dollar’s rise was complete, a majority of the economists said it was on a multiyear uptrend or would continue climbing for six to 12 months. Only 20% of the economists thought the dollar had peaked.
“I can’t give a time, but I think the dollar will reach parity with the euro at some point,” said Kevin Swift of the American Chemistry Council.
The average forecast expects the dollar to rise an additional 1.7% versus the euro and 1.6% against the yen by the end of June. One reason, said many forecasters, is the expected move by the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, although most economists surveyed now expect the first increase to come in September rather than June.
The dollar’s surge, however, isn’t seen as a big negative for the U.S. In the poll, 56% of the economists said the strong dollar is a good or neutral factor for growth.
“It shows the U.S. economy is stronger than other nations’ and global investors are confident about the U.S. economy,” said Michael Moran at Daiwa Capital Markets. “The stronger dollar has kept our interest rates lower than they otherwise would be.” Foreign investors are buying up U.S. Treasurys, which is pushing up the dollar while pulling down rates.
Aside from the headwinds presented by the strengthening dollar, several economists pointed to temporary drags caused by the weather and the West Coast ports slowdown to explain why the economy decelerated over the winter. The economy is expected to rebound strongly in the spring, as it did last year, with the average forecast calling for growth to hit a 3.1% pace in this year’s second quarter.
“The fundamentals look very good,” said Stephen Stanley at Amherst Pierpont Securities. He pointed to a better pace of hiring, still-low gasoline prices and his expectations that wage growth will soon pick up. He also expects a strong spring selling season for housing.
The forecasters have reset their expectations on Fed policy. That follows a recent spate of weak data, including the March employment report that showed only 126,000 new jobs added last month. The survey was conducted April 3 through 7.
Nearly two-thirds—65%—of the forecasters think the Fed will wait until September to raise interest rates, and only 18% see a June increase. In the March survey, almost half of the economists—48%—said the first rate increase would occur at the Fed’s June policy meeting, and 38% thought the first increase wouldn’t happen until September.
-
Furniture Makers Getting Rid of Flame Retardants in Their Products
Apr 9, 2015 | Michigan Radio
By Rebecca Williams
This week, we’re bringing you a series of stories about firefighters and cancer. Firefighters say they’re worried about getting exposed to certain kinds of toxic flame retardant chemicals. These chemicals are everywhere. They’re called polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. Firefighters are exposed to these chemicals in the line of duty, but they aren’t the only ones exposed.
For decades, these chemicals have been added to the foam in our couches, our chairs, and the padding underneath our carpets.
But they don’t stay put.
Arlene Blum is a chemist, and the executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, California.
“These chemicals are continuously migrating out of the foam in our furniture, going into dust and we’re exposed by getting dust on our hands and then eating something,” she says."These chemicals are continuously migrating out of the foam in our furniture ..."
She says hundreds of studies link these chemicals with serious health problems. Things like cancer, hormonal changes, fertility problems and reduced IQ in kids.
“If you bought your couch between 1975 and 2005 when it was globally banned, unfortunately you probably have a chemical called penta brominated diphenyl ether and it’s a chemical that’s halfway in structure between a PCB and a dioxin,” Blum says.
She says these chemicals are bad for us and they stick around in our bodies for a long time.
Blum says the main replacement for penta-BDE is a chemical called chlorinated tris.
"Which was the same chemical our research contributed to getting removed from kids' pajamas in the '70s, and that is also known to be cancer-causing and neurotoxic and has a number of harmful properties. The other main flame retardant is called Firemaster 550. There haven't been many studies because the manufacturer usually doesn't give samples to scientists," she says.
Turning off the tap
But there’s been a huge change recently in the furniture industry. An updated flammability standard (Technical Bulletin 117-2013) in California allows furniture makers to meet a flammability test without using flame retardants in the foam. This means you can now buy furniture without any flame retardants in the foam.
Gabe Wing directs safety and sustainability at Herman Miller in Holland, Michigan. He says they were already moving away from PBDEs for years before the California law changed. But now, he says, they can get rid of flame retardant chemicals altogether in the foam of their seating products.
“We’ve been able to work with our suppliers to pull it out of our foam products, and we’re in process and we expect to have that done within the next couple weeks,” says Wing.
He says the change in TB 117 is a step in the right direction.
"If there's a way we can work towards some type of national standard that clears this up for manufacturers and keeps people safe without using these harmful flame retardants, that's the position we want to be in as a company," says Wing.
An entire industry shifts
These changes are happening in factories across the country.
Andy Counts is the CEO of the American Home Furnishings Alliance. He says the new California law does not prohibit the use of flame retardants, but he says he’s not aware of any furniture companies that are still using them in foam.
“As long as you’re using smolder-approved fabric, or a smolder-proof barrier underneath the fabric to keep any flame assault from getting down into the foam, you’re going to have a safe product, and that’s what that standard focuses on, and no flame retardants are required to do that,” he says.
But you still have to do your homeworkIf you see the old label on the left, the piece of upholstered furniture likely contains flame retardants. If you see the new label on the right, it will tell you for sure whether it contains flame retardants.CREDIT MARK BRUSH AND ARLENE BLUM
Retailers are still selling off older inventory. So when you go to the store, you’ve got to look at the label that’s under the cushions. If it says it meets TB 117, it probably has flame retardants in it.
If the label says TB 117-2013, then the furniture meets the new standard. And you’ll see a checkbox on that label. It’ll say whether or not there are flame retardants in the chair or couch.
Arlene Blum says we're in the messy transition period right now.
"All my friends say, 'when can I buy that new couch?' And I say my answer continues to be: probably wait a few more months. But I really think we're getting there. Most furniture looks like it will not contain added flame retardants in the next few months," she says.
Mattresses are not subject to TB 117
Mattresses are another animal altogether.
Ryan Trainer is president of the International Sleep Products Association. He says the mattress industry has to meet more stringent federal standards. Trainer says they meet those standards by using a fabric barrier, like cotton that’s treated with boric acid, but he says they do not use flame retardants in the foam.
"Adding fire retardants to foam adds cost and also tends to reduce the comfort value of the product," says Trainer. "We don’t need them, we don’t want them and they would degrade the comfort of our products."
One caveat: bassinet and baby play yard mattresses were subject to TB 117 in the past, so those baby products that contain polyurethane foam are likely to contain flame retardants.
The FAQs from the Green Science Policy Institute say this about baby products:
Baby mattresses with a TB117 label are likely to contain flame retardant chemicals and should be avoided. Mattresses produced after January 1, 2014 without a TB117 label are less likely to contain the chemicals, but it is prudent to verify with the retailer to make sure. A report on crib/ infant mattresses from Clean & Healthy New York provides information on some manufacturers.
What do we do with our old furniture?
This is a tricky one.
Arlene Blum says there's not a great solution yet.
"That is a really tough question, because you really don't want them in landfills, if possible. You don't want them in your home and you really don't want to pass them on to the Goodwill in low-income communities," she says.
She says one answer is to swap out the foam in your couch with new foam that doesn't have flame retardants in it. You can check out the Safer Sofa Foam Exchange site to get some guidance on how to do this at a foam/upholstery shop.
Why have these chemicals remained in household products for so long?
The research showing potential harm has been around for a long time, but the chemical industry had products to sell. A Chicago Tribune investigation uncovered how the industry kept its critics at bay and kept the market open for its products:
From their 2012 report:
The industry has twisted research results, ignored findings that run counter to its aims and passed off biased, industry-funded reports as rigorous science.
As a result, the chemical industry successfully distorted the basic knowledge about toxic chemicals that are used in consumer products and linked to serious health problems, including cancer, developmental problems, neurological deficits and impaired fertility.
You can learn about PBDE's from our 2010 five part series.
-
It’s Time to Get Flame Retardants out of Our Couches
Apr 9, 2015 | Winthrop Transcript
By Laura Spark
Eight years ago, my 4-year old daughter and I gave blood samples for an Environmental Working Group study on Flame Retardants in Mothers and Their Toddlers. When our results came back from the lab, both of us had chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers– or PBDEs– in our blood, substances so toxic that they are now banned in Europe and no longer allowed to be made in the United States. The concentration in my daughter’s blood was six times higher than mine.
What happened? How did these chemicals get into our blood? Unfortunately, the same way they have probably gotten into yours. We sat on the couch.
This month, Senator Cynthia Creem, D-Newton, introduced S-627 An Act to Prevent Children and Families from Harmful Flame Retardants. If enacted, the Bill will ban several types of flame retardants from children’s products and home furniture. Massachusetts residents, especially parents of young children, should support this ban.
Since 1975, furniture manufacturers have put chemical flame retardants into practically every piece of upholstered furniture and foam baby product in America. According to Arlene Blum, Executive Director of the Green Science Policy Institute, thousands of scientific studies have linked flame retardant chemicals to long term health problems, including lowered IQ, attention deficit disorder, thyroid problems, impaired fertility, and cancer.
Increased health risk might be a worthwhile tradeoff if flame retardants actually reduced the risk of fire, but a 2012 Chicago Tribune expose found that, in addition to being toxic, flame retardant chemicals don’t slow the spread of fire. According to Elizabeth Saunders, Massachusetts Director for Clean Water Action, “We have all been duped into thinking that we were being protected from fires by having these toxic chemicals in our furniture, but just isn’t true.”
Even worse, commonly used flame retardants become more toxic when burned, increasing risk for fire fighters. Rich Paris, President of Boston Firefighters Local 718, says that Massachusetts fire fighters have cancer rates three times higher than the general public and adds, “These chemicals are causing cancer in our firefighters, and, I think we will find, in civilians as well.”
Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst at the Environmental Working Group, explains that flame remain in the foam for the life of the product and are emitted as the foam disintegrates over time. Chemicals migrate into house dust and are inhaled, showing up in the blood or urine of every subject tested, with children almost always having levels much higher than their parents.
Up until January 1 of this year, it was almost impossible to buy furniture without flame retardants. That’s because a California regulation called Technical Bulletin 117 required polyurethane foam used in furniture and children’s products to be treated with chemicals so that the foam could resist an open flame for 12 seconds. Because California has a large consumer market, the state rule became the de facto national standard. After a major push by environmentalists, public health advocates, and fire fighters, California legislators changed the law. The new regulation, TB-117 2013, no longer requires chemical flame retardants– but it doesn’t ban their use either.
That’s where Creem’s Bill comes in.
The bill bans polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), chlorinated tris, and other “chemicals of high concern” from furniture and children’s products manufactured or sold in Massachusetts.
PBDEs are the flame retardants used in foam from 1975 to 2004. The Environmental Protection Agency no longer allows penta or deca-BDE to be manufactured and restricts their import; therefore, a Massachusetts ban on these chemicals would mostly be a statement of support.
Since 2005, manufacturers have used other flame retardants, such as chlorinated tris (TDCPP). But, chlorinated tris is a carcinogen that can damage DNA and affect brain development. In 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned chlorinated tris from use in children’s pajamas.
While it might seem obvious that a chemical too toxic for children’s pajamas is also too toxic for crib mattresses, changing mats, nursing pillows, and strollers, tests conducted by Duke University researcher Heather Stapleton show that chlorinated tris has been the most widely used flame retardant since 2005.
Other newly introduced flame retardants, such as Firemaster 550, have also been linked to health problems, but the body of research is more limited.
If passed, the ban on flame retardants would not take effect until 2016.
Until then, people who want to know what chemicals are in their polyurethane foam products can send samples to http://foam.pratt.duke.edu/ for testing. Several furniture makers now offer chemical-free replacement cushions.
For those shopping for new furniture, Room and Board on Newbury Street says it no longer has flame retardants in any of its furniture. Crate and Barrel and Circle Furniture advertise the availability of some flame retardant-free options. Zimmans in Lynn does not add chemicals to its residential upholstery, because, as Mike Zimman notes, “I wouldn’t want those chemicals in my house.”
But many stores and furniture makers, especially those serving discount markets, only tell customers that their furniture “meets federal standards”, a statement that doesn’t provide any real information. Or store personnel admit that they don’t have any information about flame retardants.
Meanwhile, Richard Paris of the Boston Firefighters Union, says of Creem’s Bill to ban harmful flame retardants, “I support it one hundred percent.”
Laura Spark is a member of the Governing Board for the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a coalition coordinated by Clean Water Action that advocates for restrictions on the use of toxic chemicals in Massachusetts. She and her daughter, Naomi Carrigg, participated in a 2004 Environmental Working Group study on flame retardants in the blood of American women and their toddlers.
-
House Foreign Affairs Panel Plans April 14 Hearing on Crude Oil Export Ban
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A House Foreign Affairs subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on the 40-year-old ban on the export of U.S. crude oil, according to a committee posting.
The April 14 hearing will feature testimony from Michèle Flournoy, co-founder and chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security; Jason Grumet, founder and president of the Bipartisan Policy Center; and Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, according to the hearing notice.
The Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee canceled a March markup on legislation (H.R. 702) by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) that would repeal the ban. The repeal is favored by big oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and opposed by refiners such as Monroe Energy, who worry that changing the law would boost domestic oil prices and increase competition for exported refined products.
Subcommittee Chairman Ted Poe (R-Texas) is one of the 15 lawmakers who are co-sponsoring, the bill, which would also bar the federal government from imposing or enforcing any similar restrictions and would require an Energy Department report on the appropriate size and makeup of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The subcommittee markup, which had been scheduled for March 25, would have taken place before the subcommittee held a legislative hearing on the bill and would have taken place before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the bill, marked up the legislation.
Enacted in 1975 following the Arab oil embargo, the law allows the export of refined products such as gasoline and diesel fuel but largely bans the export of crude oil, though exceptions such as exports to Canada have been made.
But the ban has been getting a second look on Capitol Hill and elsewhere as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have led U.S. oil production to soar to more than 9.2 million barrels per day in January.
-
Rise of Deadly Radon Gas in Pennsylvania Buildings Linked to Fracking Industry
Apr 10, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
A new study published Thursday reported a disturbing correlation between unusually high levels of radon gas in mostly residences and an oil and gas production technique known as fracking that has become the industry standard over the past decade.
Writing in the journal Environmental Health Perspective, researchers analyzed levels of radon — a colorless, odorless gas that is radioactive and has been linked to lung cancer — in 860,000 buildings from 1989 to 2013. They found that those in the same areas of the state as the fracking operations generally showed higher readings of radon. About 42 percent of the readings were higher than what is considered safe by federal standards. Moreover, the researchers discovered that radon levels spiked overall in 2004, at about the same time fracking activity began to pick up.
Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" involves drilling 6,500 to 10,000 feet below the surface, and scientists theorize that radon trapped in rocks there is releasedinto the atmosphere.
"By drilling 7,000 holes in the ground, the fracking industry may have changed the geology and created new pathways for radon to rise to the surface," one of the authors, Joan A. Casey from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, warned.
Researchers have also reported concerns about similar radon releases in parts of Colorado where fracking is also booming. In a study published by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2012, government researchers found that the radiation in water in the Appalachian Basin in parts of New York and Pennsylvania near fracking work in the Marcellus Shale was unusually high.
The natural gas industry has pointed out that fracking has been conducted safely for years. In response to the Pennsylvania study, Energy in Depth, a program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America issued a statement pointing out issues with the research. It noted that the state's own department of environmental protection has reported that there is "little potential for additional radiation exposure to the public due to the use of natural gas extracted from geological formations" in Pennsylvania, that the state has had issues with naturally occurring radon long before shale development, and that some of the highest radon readings were in counties in where there are no wells.
"In other words, the authors want to remind readers to look at this as an exploratory analysis because they were missing a few key items to make their claims. But that didn’t stop them from blaming fracking as if they did," Energy in Depth's Nicole Jacobs wrote in a blog post published Thursday afternoon.
-
Study Finds Correlation Between Radon Levels, Gas Development in Pennsylvania
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Pennsylvania's environmental regulators are reviewing a new study that reports rising levels of radon gas in the state and suggests it may be associated with natural gas development, a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA April 9.
The study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore analyzed about 2 million indoor radon tests from 806,469 buildings in 67 counties in Pennsylvania from 1987 to 2013. Radon is an odorless, radioactive gas that occurs naturally and is widespread in Pennsylvania.
The authors found that levels of radon gas throughout Pennsylvania had increased overall since 2004, with a “high correlation” between radon levels in basements and proximity to natural gas wells. The study found higher levels of radon gas on the first floor of homes within 20 kilometers of a gas well than those farther away, and said there was a “statistically significant” increase of radon in counties with more than 100 unconventional natural gas wells.
“At this point we're not willing to definitively conclude that this industry is affecting radon levels in Pennsylvania,” the study's lead author, Brian S. Schwartz, told Bloomberg BNA in a phone call April 9. “All we're saying is that there's a bit of a concerning signal.”
Some of the study's data do not appear to correlate radon levels with drilling activity. For example, the study showed that the state's highest levels of radon by far occurred in Reading Prong, an area in the eastern part of the state where there is no natural gas drilling at all. The study also showed radon levels increasing in all counties, including Philadelphia. Schwartz told Bloomberg BNA that the study did not take into account certain variables such as home construction, remediation efforts or the use of gas heat.
A January 2015 report commissioned by the DEP to study radioactive materials near drilling sites concluded that “there is little potential for additional radon exposure to the public due to the use of natural gas extracted from geologic formations located in Pennsylvania.”
Two Different Studies
In a phone call with Bloomberg BNA April 9, DEP spokeswoman Susan Rickens said the two studies are very different because the DEP study measured ambient air radon levels from outdoor air samples near natural gas wells, while the Johns Hopkins study analyzed indoor radon measurements taken from inside buildings and basements.
“Radon is a significant problem in Pennsylvania. We've known that for the past 30 years,” Rickens said. “We want to promote the understanding of radon…, but we also know that while it's trending up, it also trended up in areas that had no drilling… and we've had peaks in the high levels before the drilling occurred.”
Rickens said the DEP is reviewing the Johns Hopkins study to see if it signals areas for more research.
In a statement on its website, the Marcellus Shale Coalition panned the study and called it “a classic display of advocacy-driven ‘research’ ” and highlighted the lead author's connection to the Post Carbon Institute. The Marcellus Shale Coalition is the largest oil and gas industry trade group Pennsylvania. The Post Carbon Institute is a think tank that researches renewable energy and questions the value of the shale gas development.
-
Study: Possible Link Between Fracking and Increased Radon
Apr 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Buildings near natural gas wells that use hydraulic fracturing have higher levels of radon gas, new research has found.
The Johns Hopkins University research focused on Pennsylvania and found the carcinogenic gas in concentrations 39 percent higher near unconventional gas drilling than in other buildings. Researchers looked at about 860,000 buildings, mostly homes.
If a building used well water, it had a 21 percent higher radon concentration on average than others.
The study released Thursday did not conclude whether there is a causative link between fracking and radon levels, but it did find that radon levels rose significantly when gas drilling took off in Pennsylvania.
“One plausible explanation for elevated radon levels in people’s homes is the development of thousands of unconventional natural gas wells in Pennsylvania over the past 10 years,” study leader Brian Schwartz said in a statement. “These findings worry us.”
While the research used data from Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, it contradicts research that agency released in January.
That study found that there was little to no potential harm to workers and residents from radiation from drilling waste.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry-backed group, took issue with the research and said it had many flaws, like Schwartz’s undisclosed connection to the anti-fracking Post Carbon Institute.
The group said the study uses “questionable, incomplete methodology,” does not definitively link fracking to radon and does not mention that high radon levels are a longstanding issue in Pennsylvania, even before fracking.
“It’s unfortunate, yet not unexpected, that some anti-shale activists continue to make claims based purely on hypothetic and perhaps pre-determined narrative-driven ‘cause and effect’ conclusions,” the group said. “Thankfully, however, unbiased data and independent scientific findings are readily available,” it continued, pointing to the state regulator’s study.
-
EPA to Propose Federal Plan in August To Guide State Clean Power Plan Compliance
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to propose in August a federal plan to guide states as they prepare to comply with carbon dioxide emissions limits proposed for existing power plants.
The EPA updated its regulatory tracker April 9 to say that a federal plan for implementing the Clean Power Plan will be proposed in August. States regulators said the plan should provide them with indications of what measures the EPA would favor in a compliance plan.
“It's a wide open question what would be approvable by EPA,” Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA April 9. “States are definitely looking at that.”
The federal plan could provide states with key guidance on how to address significant issues such as calculating carbon dioxide emissions avoided by energy efficiency programs or apportioning credit for renewable energy generation between states that produce and consume that power.
The proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. The EPA rule would be implemented by states, which would determine how best to achieve the emissions targets using four “building blocks” to achieve reductions: heat rate improvements at power plants, shifting dispatch from coal to natural gas, investment in renewable or nuclear generation and energy efficiency programs. The EPA would issue a federal plan for states that chose not to submit their own.
States have been asking the EPA for additional guidance on how to develop their own compliance plans, but some observers think many questions may remain unanswered even after the rule is finalized (68 DEN A-17, 4/9/15).
The final Clean Power Plan is expected in July, according to the EPA regulatory tracker.
States Ready Own Guidance
Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said his group is already developing draft regulatory language states will be able use when developing their compliance plans.
“We will be examining a number of different pathways ranging from demand side energy efficiency to improved heat rate to renewable portfolio standards to multi-state planning that will make hopefully the transition from EPA's final rule to the beginning of development of these state plans as seamless as possibly could be,” Becker said.
Though EPA's federal plan is expected to provide states with key guidance as they develop their own plans, no state is likely to adopt the EPA approach wholesale, Becker said.
Some opponents of the Clean Power Plan, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have urged states not to develop their own compliance plans, which would force the EPA to issue federal plans to implement the rule, a strategy dubbed “just say no.” Though the EPA has proposed a range of measures states can use to comply with the Clean Power Plan, the agency would likely only have the authority to mandate heat rate improvements at power plants themselves, making a federal plan more restrictive and more expensive.
“I can't tell you of any state who is anxious to see the [federal implementation plan] with the sole reason that it's waiting to adopt the FIP,” Becker said. “They may be anxious to see the FIP to see how EPA is going to resolve these issues.”
Section 111(d) has rarely been invoked and has never been used as broadly as is being proposed by the EPA, Woods said. That means state regulators have little experience with implementing its provisions as envisioned by the EPA.
“You've got a portion of the act that hasn't been used this way before, so there's always going to be a certain amount of confusion and question marks,” Woods said.
Timing a Concern
The EPA plans to propose its draft federal plan in August and subject it to a notice and comment period, but states are required to begin submitting their Clean Power Plan compliance measures one year after the rule is finalized. That means the EPA could be finalizing its guidance as states are required to submit their plans.
“The timeline is certainly difficult and made even more difficult by some of the short term targets,” Woods said.
As part of the proposed Clean Power Plan, states must meet an interim emissions rate target between 2020 and 2029 with a final goal to be achieved in 2030. However, the EPA has strongly indicated those interim goals could be revised in the final rule in response to criticism brought by states (32 DEN A-1, 2/18/15).
-
FERC Commissioner Concerned About State Implementation of Clean Power Plan
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Philip Moeller says he's concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for state implementation of the Clean Power Plan.
“The wholesale markets that we now take for granted have delivered incredible environmental benefits across the nation,” the commissioner said April 9 at the Public Utilities Fortnightly Conference in Washington.
“I'm just very fearful that state implementation plans for the Clean Power Plan can disrupt the markets in ways that actually do more harm than good from the environmental perspective,” he said.
Moeller said the EPA would have to be extraordinarily careful not to dramatically alter the wholesale markets “that, for the most part, deliver immense benefits to the consumers of the United States.”
Moeller said state-by-state approaches would be “much less efficient and much more costly” than the wholesale, competitive market route.
Moeller raised similar concerns about the Clean Power Plan in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in December, when he said it could cost billions of dollars and affect grid reliability (232 DEN A-10, 12/3/14).
The proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would establish carbon dioxide emission rates for the power sector in each state. The EPA rule would be implemented by states, which would determine how to meet emissions targets using four building blocks: heat rate improvements at power plants, shifting from coal to natural gas, investment in renewable or nuclear generation and energy efficiency programs (68 DEN A-17, 4/9/15).
The EPA plans to issue the final rule in July. Separately, EPA plans to release a proposed rule in August for a federal plan to implement greenhouse gas emission guidelines.
Growth of Wholesale Energy Markets
“Wholesale markets continue to evolve and grow,” Moeller said.
To illustrate this growth, he referred to new members, including government-owned entities, joining the northern part of the Southwest Power Pool and cooperatives joining PJM Interconnection LLC. He also highlighted the expansion of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc., which has a larger footprint in the southeastern region now.
“The market forces are out there, and the markets are expanding in really profound ways,” he said. “This has a really positive impact for reliability and the environmental benefits of a larger dispatch footprint. Yet, we have to make sure that [wholesale markets] are maintained and they aren't obstructed.”
More Power Lines, Pipelines Needed
He also said, in order to meet the energy expansion needs under the Clean Power Plan, more power lines and gas pipelines will have to be built, which he said could take longer than the tight deadlines set in the proposed rule.
“It's already extremely challenging to get those built,” he said.
Moeller said the government has to “ensure there's more accountability and efficiency in the siting process, adding “it needs to be a process that works better than it does now.”
-
A Pitch to Conservatives for a Carbon Tax—With a Twist
Apr 10, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Neil King Jr.
Jerry Taylor has a very big ambition: He wants conservatives to embrace a carbon tax.
A longtime energy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, Mr. Taylor has moved on to form a new organization in part to champion what he sees as a grand bargain. Republican lawmakers would embrace a sweeping set of taxes on carbon emissions in exchange for liberals agreeing to cut other corporate taxes and eliminate federal fuel standards and greenhouse-gas regulations.
The idea may sound outlandish, but its roots run deep—back to the 1970s—and its supporters spring from all sides of the political spectrum. Even its loudest proponents, though, say a tax-for-regulations swap won’t be feasible until after the 2016 election, at the earliest.
“There is no doubt this idea still has a great degree of novelty about it,” says Mr. Taylor, whose libertarian-leaning Niskansen Center includes advisers such as the notable tax skeptic Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
The idea of a carbon-tax swap is particularly intriguing because serious policy discussions on the climate front have all but withered in Washington since the defeat in 2009 of the Democratic-led cap-and-trade legislation. It would also represent an audacious act of bipartisan derring-do–on tax and environmental policy, of all hot-button areas–when even the most incremental moments of cross-aisle cooperation have vanished from the landscape.More In Climate ChangeWealthy Jeb Bush Supporter Aims to Push Him to Combat Climate ChangeLibertarian Group Aims to Influence Immigration, Climate-Change PoliciesKeystone Debate: Senate Votes on Dueling Climate Change AmendmentsAnti-Keystone Alliance Got Start in D.C. Dive BarAmericans Foggy on Climate Change Steps -- WSJ/NBC Poll
Mr. Taylor fashions his case explicitly to appeal even to confirmed climate skeptics on the right. “Better to let market actors decide (in response to price signals) where, when, and how greenhouse-gas emissions are controlled than have government bureaucrats do the same via regulation,”he writes in one of his many posts defending the plan.
“You can be an absolute denialist and still embrace the logic of swapping out regulations for taxes,” he said in an interview.
The rough parameters of the swap would appear to challenge orthodoxies on both sides, and perhaps even more so on the left. A new set of carbon taxes would be imposed at the point of production, hitting mainly power plants. The proceeds would go to offset other tax cuts to keep the legislation revenue-neutral.
But here’s the twist: In exchange for the carbon tax, environmentalists would agree to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency‘s authority over greenhouse-gas emissions as well as all federal energy-efficiency standards and fuel-economy standards, regulations that in some cases go back to the mid-1970s.
Mr. Taylor’s pitch has stirred debate among libertarians, conservatives and economists of all stripes. (Mr. Norquist, for the record, opposes the idea “for strategic reasons,” he said in an email. “Any new taxes are likely to become add-ons, not replacements.”)
The Taylor proposal also borrows heavily, with due credit, from Adele Morris, an environmental economist at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, who has written extensively about her own version of a carbon-tax plan that would also eliminate a raft of environmental rules.
Ms. Morris says her proposal–which wouldn’t be overtly revenue-neutral–would spur a needed overhaul in the corporate tax code and help reduce the deficit. At the same time, it would introduce market forces to limit carbon emissions in place of the blunter force of federal regulations. “It would unleash the ultimate American creativity to avoid taxes,” she said.
Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, an influential voice among liberal environmentalists, applauds the idea of a tax-for-regulation swap but says it faces long political odds in the short term. “This will take a long time to hatch, and it will definitely have to start from the right,” he said. “We’re at least two years from anything gelling, with many rivers to cross in gelling in between.”
-
Don’t Bet the Planet on Carbon Taxes
Apr 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Peter Barnes
Last month, the Obama administration pledged that, by 2025, the U.S. will cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels — the same commitment it made in its deal with China last fall. The pledge is both heartening because it keeps the international negotiating process moving, and depressing because, even if we achieve it, it is (according to most scientists) far too little to avert climate catastrophe.
So the question remains: is there any imaginable way that U.S. political action could go further? Or are we betting the planet on a potpourri of rules and regulations may not even be fully implemented?
Many economists argue that a tax on carbon is the ultimate climate solution. In this view, the failure of markets to charge appropriate prices for carbon causes everyone to burn too much of it. Let government add a tax — ideally a steadily rising one — and the problem is solved.
The argument certainly has a logic to it. And a carbon tax has the advantage of being both economy-wide and simple to enforce. But in the real world, would it actually save us from climate catastrophe? There are good reasons to believe that it wouldn’t.
The first is that a carbon tax would be only one factor in the total prices of fossil fuels, and in the case of oil, a small one. As a rule of thumb, each dollar per ton of a carbon tax adds about a penny per gallon to the price of gas at the pump. So a carbon tax that rises $15 a ton per year (as has been pro-posed by Rep. Jim McDermott) would raise gasoline prices by about 15 cents a gallon per year, a modest fraction of the current price.
For at least the next decade, the signal from such a tax would be lost in the volatility of other, larger components of the pump price. And after that, its impact would likely be limited. Even if there were no political backlash, as there was recently in Australia, the cumulative tax rise over thirty years would be around $4.50 a gallon, meaning that (other things being equal) the price of gas in the U.S. in 2045 would be below the average price in Europe today. That might nudge Americans out of their Jeep Wranglers, but not out of their Mini-Coopers.
Even if fuel prices went higher than that, a look at the last twenty years suggests that price signals alone aren’t a wise climate bet for the next twenty. Between 1994 and 2014, the global price of oil tripled, yet U.S. oil burning barely budged. While higher prices spurred efficiency and reduced per capita consumption, they didn’t cut aggregate use because our population and economy steadily grew. And now that oil prices have plummeted, and whatever impact higher prices made in the past could easily be wiped out.
Cutting aggregate use of fossil fuels is, of course, what’s required. Indeed, the math says that aggregate use has to verge toward zero by mid-century. So there’s little time to lose in installing an effective and reliable carbon reduction tool.
If a carbon tax is a bad bet, is there a better one? Fortunately, there is: a declining carbon supply limit, with allocation driven by the market. Permits would be sold not to emitters, but to companies that bring carbon into our economy. To avoid leakage, there’d be no offsets or trading. And to avert political backlash, the money raised by selling permits would be returned equally to every American with a Social Security number.
Unlike a carbon tax, a declining carbon supply limit would send two messages to the market rather than one. A carbon tax says to the market, “Fossil fuels will get more expensive.” Many polluters can live with that, knowing they can shift higher costs to consumers or use fossil fuels more efficiently. By contrast, a declining supply cap sends a price signal and a physical one: “In the not-too-distant future, fossil fuels won’t be available at any price.” That makes everyone get serious about carbon reduction and substitution.
This brings us to the bill introduced recently by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) of Maryland. Called the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act, the 27-page measure combines a descending supply limit with dividends. Van Hollen introduced a similar bill in 2009, but it was lost in the battle over cap-and-trade. Now it stands alone as the only bill that would physically limit carbon burning while retaining broad popular support.
In the present political climate Van Hollen’s proposal won’t get very far, but it merits our attention nonetheless. It reminds us that, when nature’s voice is finally heard, there is a way to kick our carbon habit that’s guaranteed to work. Let’s remember that when hurricanes and heat waves strike, droughts linger and forest fires rage.
Barnes is the author of With Liberty and Dividends For All.
-
Environmentalists' Suit Aims To Force Updates For EPA Air Toxics Rules
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists have followed through on their threat to sue EPA to force issuance of “residual risk” air toxics regulations updating emissions controls requirements for a host of industrial sectors, though the suit appears to scale back the push to 21 industries compared to the 33 sectors listed in an earlier notice of intent to sue (NOI).
The suit, filed April 8 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a coalition of advocacy groups, could if successful add new burdens to EPA's already resource-limited air toxics program. If successful, it would force the agency to meet a Clean Air Act mandate to assess a suite of existing emissions rules to determine whether they need to be updated based on either lingering health threats or availability of better pollution controls.
EPA's air toxics program has fallen years behind schedule in conducting risk and technology reviews (RTRs) for various industry sectors due to resource limits. Environmentalists have previously filed litigation to force RTRs and have won settlements that committed the agency to pursuing the rules for certain industries.
The new litigation targets sectors not covered under prior suits, including iron and steel production, plastics production, surface coating operations of various types including automotive coating, semiconductors manufacturing and asphalt roofing manufacturing, among others for a total of 21 industrial sectors.
Nine environmental groups represented by law firm Earthjustice, including California Communities Against Toxics and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, ask the court to set EPA deadlines to issue the RTRs.
RTRs are required under the Clean Air Act eight years after air toxics standards are issued, in order to determine whether “residual” risks persist and whether new technology exists to further reduce pollution. If risks remain, or if new technology is available to abate emissions, EPA must tighten the toxics rules.
The suit is scaled back from that threatened in the groups' Feb. 3 NOI to sue the agency, in which the same groups said they intended to filed suit over missing RTR rules for 33 industry sectors.
Among the 12 sectors that environmentalists appear to have dropped from the litigation are coke ovens, primary copper smelting, rubber tire manufacturing, lime manufacturing plants, and others.
An Earthjustice source did not return a call for comment on why California Communities Against Toxics and its allied groups are now suing over only 21 sectors compared to the original 33 in the NOI.
Among environmentalists' prior litigation successes with residual risk rules is a Sept. 27, 2010, settlement agreement, in which EPA agreed to deadlines for completion of RTRs for 28 source categories over three years.
EPA also entered a similar deadline pact with California Communities Against Toxics for updating its refinery sector air toxics rule. The California group further signed a letter giving EPA an NOI to sue the the agency Aug. 23, 2013, along with Sierra Club. The 2013 letter cited the agency's alleged failure to issue rules in 46 industry sectors, including some of the same sectors targeted by the Feb. 3 NOI filed by the nine environmental groups.
-
House to Consider Energy, Water Spending Bill Later This Month, McCarthy Memo Says
Apr 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House will consider an energy and water appropriations bill the week of April 28, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a memorandum April 9.
The legislation, which hasn't been unveiled yet, would appropriate funds for fiscal year 2016 for the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, programs within the Interior Department and independent agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“The ‘power of the purse' is one of Congress’ most fundamental responsibilities and our appropriations process has been instrumental in curbing wasteful Washington spending in recent years,” McCarthy wrote in the memo, which was sent to House Republicans and spelled out the legislative agenda for the remainder of April. “We will continue to force Washington to live within its means through the appropriations process this year.”
The Obama administration requested $29.9 billion for the Energy Department for fiscal 2016, but Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), chairman of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, has said the administration's request is “unrealistic” and previously told Bloomberg BNA that the funding bill likely to emerge by mid-April “probably” would be about $2.5 billion lower than the amount requested by the administration (39 DEN A-4, 2/27/15).
The $34 billion FY 2015 energy and water appropriations bill approved by the full Appropriations Committee in 2014 would have provided $27.3 billion for the Energy Department, $5.5 billion for the Corps of Engineers and $1 billion for Interior Department programs. The measure was never voted on, and lawmakers opted to move forward with an omnibus spending package instead.
Will be Second Spending Bill Considered
According to the memo, the energy and water appropriations legislation will be the second spending bill the House will consider. The first will be the military construction and veterans affairs spending bill.
The legislation is expected to be considered under an open rule, which would allow lawmakers to offer amendments to the bill on the House floor.
-
Action Expected on Energy, Water Approps, Cybersecurity Legislation in Coming Weeks -- McCarthy
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E PM
By Nick Juliano
The annual energy and water spending bill will be the second to hit the House floor this year and likely will pass the lower chamber by the beginning of next month, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told his members in a memo today laying out the agenda for the upcoming work period.
Congress reconvenes Monday, and the House will be in through May 1 before its next extended recess. Next week, lawmakers will consider numerous bills related to individual tax incentives, Internal Revenue Service oversight and repealing the estate tax.
The week of April 21 shifts the focus to cybersecurity and consideration of bills being drafted within several committees, including Energy and Commerce, to address the threat of cyberattacks on public and private computer systems and key pieces of infrastructure such as the electric grid.
"To address this growing threat, several committees are working on legislation to secure cyber networks and prevent data breaches," McCarthy wrote. "These bills will facilitate greater information-sharing about cyber-threat information between the private sector and government while protecting civil liberties and promoting best practices. These reforms are critical to protecting our national computer networks and ensuring that America can meet the growing cyber challenges that are likely to arise in the coming years."
The final week of this month will kick appropriations season into high gear. The first appropriations bill to hit the floor will be for military construction and veterans affairs, typically one of the least controversial considered each year.
Next up will be energy and water development, which funds the Department of Energy, Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers, among others.
With the takeover of the Senate last November, this will be the first year of President Obama's tenure that Republicans have controlled both chambers of Congress, giving them greater control over the annual appropriations process. Up until now, Senate Democrats managed to beat back most policy riders House Republicans inserted into their spending bills and to protect funding for priorities like renewable energy development and climate change policies.
Key issues to watch in the energy and water debate will include the funding balance among DOE's renewable energy and efficiency, fossil and nuclear offices; whether funding is included for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository; and riders targeting DOE efficiency rules and the Army Corps' joint rulemaking with U.S. EPA to determine what constitutes a "water of the United States" that is subject to federal regulation.
Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) after this year's spending bill passed listed dealing with nuclear waste as among his top priorities for the next bill -- an issue also being considered by House and Senate authorizing committees. He further said including a policy rider to block the clean water rule was a key priority but said he was open to considering dropping an existing rider from the bill blocking DOE from enforcing light bulb efficiency standards (E&E Daily, Dec. 11, 2014).
The Senate's budget debate last month delivered some more troubling signs for the WOTUS rule when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) for the first time joined critics of the rule in backing a nonbinding amendment widely seen as a referendum on the rule. While Klobuchar brings to 60 the number of senators on record in opposition to the rule, she said she would examine an appropriations rider on its own merits and has not committed to voting to block the rule (E&E Daily, March 27).
Industry and Association News
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