Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Polyethylene Exports from USA Delayed on Rising Logistic Issues
Apr 20, 2015 | Plastemart.com
A considerable slowdown has been noticed in polyethylene exports amid a series of constraints throughout the logistical chain, making it increasingly difficult for traders to secure resin from producers, as per market sources in Platts. -
(ACC Mentioned) EWG’s #FightForChemicalSafety Campaign
Apr 20, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
The fight for chemical safety is on! -
There Are Big Flaws in Our Main Chemical Safety Law. The Shimkus Bill Won’t Fix Them.
Apr 20, 2015 | The Center for Effective Government
By Katie Weatherford
Every day, we are exposed to chemicals in our shampoo, body wash, hand sanitizer, toothpaste, lotion, and much more. We expect our government to ensure that the chemicals in products have been tested and are safe for us and our families. -
Fix Chemical Safety Bill to Honor Lautenberg, Protect the Public: Editorial
Apr 19, 2015 | The Star-Ledger
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Few people realize that while pharmaceuticals have to go through rigorous testing before being introduced to the public, that's not true of the chemicals in your household cleaners, furniture and baby toys. -
TSCA Reform Legislation: How Chemicals are Selected for Safety Evaluations
Apr 20, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
This is the third in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Housing Group Says TSCA Bill Would Hamper EPA Formaldehyde Air Rule
Apr 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
A healthy housing group is arguing a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill would undermine a forthcoming EPA air rule setting nationwide standards for formaldehyde emissions from wood products by weakening a provision that backs rules enacted under existing law and that requires importers to comply with those rules. -
EU, US Researchers Develop New Chemical Representation Language
Apr 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Scientists in the US and Europe have developed a new publicly available language that enables chemical query specifications to be adopted by other chemical structure knowledge systems. -
'Great Concern' Over Growing Cyberthreat to Energy Infrastructure -- DHS Report
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The number of cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure fell by 9 percent last year compared with 2013, according to recent data from the Department of Homeland Security. -
Lessons from the BP Oil Spill on the Fifth Anniversary
Apr 20, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joel Achenbach
An unhappy anniversary, this: Eleven people were killed in an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon five years ago in the Gulf of Mexico. -
House Set to Approve 'Mini' Shaheen-Portman Bill
Apr 20, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)
The House is poised to pass the "mini" Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency bill tomorrow night under a process used for the quick passage of uncontroversial legislation. -
House Expected to Send Water Heater Fix to White House
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
The House tomorrow is expected to send President Obama legislation aimed at preserving demand response programs popular among rural utilities and establishing a new voluntary endeavor to encourage energy savings in leased buildings. -
EPA Seems Well Positioned to Weather Early Legal Challenge
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Federal judges wasted no time last week showing their skepticism about the first court challenge to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that seeks to block the draft rule before it's finalized. -
Analysts Urge FERC Role in Ensuring States Comply with Clean Power Plan
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Jean Chemnick
Consultants and analysts who believe the electric industry is well-equipped to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take on a larger role in ensuring states tackle problems in a timely manner. -
Harvard Law's Lazarus and Freeman Discuss Federal Court Power Plan Hearing, Tribe Arguments
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - TV
How could constitutional scholar and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe's involvement in last week's U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing on the Clean Power Plan affect the future of the rule? -
Carbon Emissions Grew in 2014
Apr 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Carbon emissions grew last year, according to government figures, although slower than the economy did as a whole. -
Texas Vote on Oil and Gas Rules May Presage More Industry Influence
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Texas oil industry flexed its muscle Friday in a legislative vote that could limit city regulation of drilling operations. -
DOT Emergency Actions Tackle 'Serious Threat' of Crude by Rail
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators unveiled new safety requirements Friday for railroads hauling crude oil in the latest response to a series of fiery derailments.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Polyethylene Exports from USA Delayed on Rising Logistic Issues
Apr 20, 2015 | Plastemart.com
A considerable slowdown has been noticed in polyethylene exports amid a series of constraints throughout the logistical chain, making it increasingly difficult for traders to secure resin from producers, as per market sources in Platts. This slowdown that has come at a time when rising global prices and limited supply in Asia and Europe have opened arbitrage windows for US PE, could persist till the end of next month.
The biggest issue has been a lack of available warehouse space in the Houston area, which sources said stems from a significant amount of buying by exporters in late March and early April. Preliminary data released this week by the American Chemistry Council showed a 32.6% uptick in export resin sales for March compared to February, partially due to efforts to lower high US inventory levels before the end of Q1. Bulk resin arrivals flowed into warehouses by rail car and storage levels quickly neared capacity, putting increased pressure on bagging operations. A shortage of trucks to transport the resin to the ports for loading onto ships has further slowed the process, coupled with the inability to secure shipping containers. As a result, inventory levels continued to swell as new cars arrived at a faster pace than bags were leaving. Earlier this month, a number of warehouses stopped receiving new rail car shipments, sources said in Platts. Though traders are buying, the warehouses are returning the carloads, resulting in an embargo on six or seven warehouses. Rail companies have now stopped delivering polyethylene shipments to some Houston area zip codes as a result of the rejected deliveries.
Multiple industry sources said it could take another six weeks to work the resin through the system, meaning activity might not return to normal until the end of May. The latest round of logistical issues comes on the heels of shipping delays in early March, which were the result of several lost days of activity due to heavy fog and a collision between two vessels. A dispatcher with the Houston Pilots said operations were normal Friday, and ships were being loaded and unloaded at regular rates. -
(ACC Mentioned) EWG’s #FightForChemicalSafety Campaign
Apr 20, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
The fight for chemical safety is on!
Toxic chemicals affect all our lives and the health of our families – we come in contact with loosely regulated chemicals every day and through many different products.
The U.S. chemical safety law is broken, but some of the proposed “reforms” are no better. In fact, the American Chemistry Council, the leading trade organization and lobbying arm of the industry, is behind a bill that would be worse than current law.
The industry bill wouldn’t ensure that chemicals are safe and it would deny states the ability to enforce their own laws to protect public health and the environment.
It’s time for Congress to hear from you – that you’re fighting for real reform and your family’s health. Take a stand today and join EWG’s #FightForChemicalSafety campaign! All you have to do is post a photo on social media of you or someone or something in your life that you’re fighting for.Make sure you say who it is you’re fighting for – and why – and use the hashtag #FightForChemicalSafety in your post so we can find it and share it with our social media audience.
Please make sure your post is public and that you own the rights to the image.
Check out the gallery below for more ideas on how to tell your story!
-
There Are Big Flaws in Our Main Chemical Safety Law. The Shimkus Bill Won’t Fix Them.
Apr 20, 2015 | The Center for Effective Government
By Katie Weatherford
Every day, we are exposed to chemicals in our shampoo, body wash, hand sanitizer, toothpaste, lotion, and much more. We expect our government to ensure that the chemicals in products have been tested and are safe for us and our families.
The truth is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only tested about 250 of the 84,000 chemicals registered for use in the U.S. Of those, it has imposed restrictions on only nine.
This is due to significant shortcomings in our country’s main chemical control law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
This law is vastly out of date and needs to be updated and strengthened to protect our families, friends, and communities from toxic chemicals. Legislators on both sides of the aisle agree, but they have far different approaches to revising the law.Draft TSCA “reform” legislation released by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) fails to make critical improvements necessary to keep families safe from harmful chemicals.
The Shimkus bill, released on April 7, addresses flaws in the current law by removing some of the hurdles EPA must clear before it can act to protect us against dangerous chemicals. However, ambiguous language in the bill opens the door for potential court challenges.
Under TSCA, EPA cannot restrict or ban a chemical unless the agency finds that it presents an “unreasonable risk” of harm to public health or the environment. The agency’s finding must take into consideration the benefits of the substance, the availability of substitute chemicals, and the costs and benefits of imposing restrictions on the chemical.The Shimkus draft retains the “unreasonable risk” and “substantial evidence” standards despite long-standing concerns by public interest advocates that these standards undermine the fundamental purpose of TSCA.
EPA must then assess possible regulatory alternatives and select the “least burdensome” requirement, which means the agency must propose the least costly rule for the chemical industry, even if a slightly more expensive approach would provide greater benefits to public health and the environment. TSCA also subjects EPA decisions to judicial review under a strict “substantial evidence” standard, which led a court to overturn EPA’s 1989 rule banning cancer-causing asbestos. This means judges are reviewing scientific evidence to rule on whether to allow toxic chemicals to remain on the market.
The Shimkus draft retains the “unreasonable risk” and “substantial evidence” standards despite long-standing concerns by public interest advocates that these standards undermine the fundamental purpose of TSCA. The Shimkus draft does, however, remove the requirements that EPA consider costs or other non-risk related factors in evaluating a chemical’s risk and choose the least burdensome option. The bill also prohibits EPA from finding “no unreasonable risk” if the chemical poses a risk to only certain very vulnerable or highly exposed populations like children.
While these changes are a step forward, “the discussion draft is ambiguous on how EPA is to incorporate cost and other factors into a risk management rule,” James Jones, Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, testified at an April 14 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. He explained that requiring EPA to weigh costs and benefits when selecting rules is problematic. Costs can be easily expressed in dollars and cents, but this isn't always the case with benefits. This can result in a bias against public protections.
Amplifying Jones’ concerns, Andy Igrejas, Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, told the committee that “cost considerations should be reserved for the question of how to mitigate the risk, not whether to mitigate it.” However, the discussion draft “would allow a major risk – such as a chemical that causes cancer or birth defects – to remain unmitigated if it was deemed too expensive to do so,” Igrejas explained. “This is a very different outcome than mitigating the risk in a cost-effective way.”The chemical industry demands could dominate the risk evaluation process.
Another concern with the Shimkus bill is that it imposes completely different procedures for prioritizing risk evaluations based on whether the process is initiated by EPA or by a chemical manufacturer.
EPA can only begin to evaluate a chemical’s risks if the agency finds that the combination of a chemical’s hazard and exposure presents “an unreasonable risk” of injury to health or the environment. This means EPA could find itself in a catch-22 situation of having to find a potential for risk before it even begins to do a risk evaluation, Jones told the subcommittee.
On the other hand, if a manufacturer requests that EPA conduct a risk evaluation, the agency cannot deny the request. The bill lacks any mechanism to prevent industry from requesting an endless number of evaluations of chemicals that it knows present little risk, draining resources from other potential investigations of substances with the potential to cause the most harm.The Shimkus bill would override many of the 250+ actions taken by states to protect citizens from chemicals.Even if a state had previously determined that a chemical is dangerous, it would still be barred from restricting that chemical.
The Shimkus bill would undo many state actions taken over the past 40 years to fill the gaps in federal protections and prohibit states from taking many future actions.
If EPA concludes that a chemical does not present an “unreasonable risk” and decides not to restrict the chemical, the bill would ban a state from taking action.
Even if a state had previously determined that the chemical is dangerous, or that the chemical presents a greater risk to its residents’ health than to the nation as a whole, the state would still be barred from restricting the chemical.
If EPA finds that a chemical is unsafe and chooses to restrict it, states could only adopt or enforce policies that are identical to those set by EPA.
Furthermore, the Shimkus bill would override state actions even if EPA’s evaluation only addressed risks from one source or hazard. As Igrejas explained in his testimony to the subcommittee, “the draft would prohibit a state from taking action on a chemical in a toy, for example, if EPA only examined the use of the chemical in furniture or looked only at acute health effects and not at chronic effects like cancer or reproductive toxicity.”The Shimkus bill fails to specify where EPA will get funding to carry out the law.
Adding to concerns over the draft, the Shimkus bill fails to provide EPA with a dedicated source of funding for carrying out the law. Instead, fees from industry-initiated risk evaluations would go to the U.S. Treasury without any assurance they would be allocated to EPA for this work. The lack of dedicated funding for EPA undercuts efforts to update the law since the agency would lack the resources needed to implement the changes.The Boxer-Markey Bill remains the model of meaningful TSCA reform.
The new draft Shimkus bill updates his previous discussion draft, which he circulated in the last session of Congress. It also follows two TSCA reform bills introduced in the Senate last month, one introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), and another introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). While Shimkus’ latest draft is an improvement over his previous version, as well as the Vitter-Udall bill, the Boxer-Markey legislation still stands as the model for meaningful TSCA reform.
Rep. Shimkus should work to update his bill before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment markup tentatively scheduled for May 14. The subcommittee must ensure that the major concerns with the bill are addressed before sending it to the floor for a vote.
-
Fix Chemical Safety Bill to Honor Lautenberg, Protect the Public: Editorial
Apr 19, 2015 | The Star-Ledger
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Few people realize that while pharmaceuticals have to go through rigorous testing before being introduced to the public, that's not true of the chemicals in your household cleaners, furniture and baby toys.
They're not even tested to make sure they don't cause cancer or birth defects before they're released into your home. That's why it's essential that we pass a stronger federal law to protect the public.
Everyone agrees the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 has been a failure and desperately needs an update. Currently, the burden of proof is so high that the government has only succeeded in banning a handful of industrial chemicals on the market.
The late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) was a real champion of this issue, but the "compromise" bill now being peddled in his absence by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) is still too deeply flawed to honor his legacy.
In some respects, the latest version does strengthen federal law. It makes it easier for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require companies to conduct testing on their chemicals. It requires the EPA to decide whether a chemical needs to be regulated by looking solely at its impact on health and the environment -- not cost considerations. And the agency will now have to examine the effect on particularly vulnerable populations like kids or pregnant women. All good.
But for states like New Jersey, which are already proactive about safety standards, this bill would actually be harmful, because it takes away our existing authority to protect ourselves from dangerous chemicals.
Under this draft, if the EPA has said a chemical merits further analysis because it could be dangerous, but hasn't actually done that research yet, a state can't take its own regulatory precautions. It might take years before any restrictions are imposed by the EPA, and in the meantime, the public is protected by no one.
That's unacceptable, and one of several ways this bill in its current form is worse than existing law.
Another problem is that it allows EPA to say chemicals are relatively safe without doing any full analysis, and there's almost no way to challenge that decision. If industry is able to sue over EPA decisions to declare a chemical unsafe, why shouldn't public health groups be able to do the same if a chemical is declared safe without a full review?
Suspiciously, the bill also makes it harder to regulate imports containing chemicals that EPA has decided are dangerous. Considering how many of our toys and products come from China, that's clearly not in the public's best interest.
Sen. Cory Booker, who sits on the Environment and Public Works committee, ispart of an effort to improve this bill, and neither he nor Sen. Bob Menendez should sign on to it until its major problems are fixed. Yes, imperfect legislationthat has a chance of passing is better than a perfect bill that won't.
But this proposal is worse than imperfect -- it could actually put people at greater risk.
-
TSCA Reform Legislation: How Chemicals are Selected for Safety Evaluations
Apr 20, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
This is the third in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This post deals with how EPA would select which chemicals would undergo safety evaluations.
Under current TSCA, EPA has no mandate to review the safety of existing chemicals. There are no pacing requirements, such as specifying minimum numbers of chemicals to be examined. The law provides no criteria for EPA to use in identifying chemicals that may pose risks. There are no requirements for EPA to establish goals for reviews or schedules for any reviews it does undertake.
Safety reviews are rarely undertaken, and often consume many years (or even decades) – in large part because there are no mandates or deadlines. As a result of these aspects of the current law, only about 2% of the chemicals that were on the market at the time TSCA was enacted have undergone any sort of safety review.
In 2012, EPA on its own initiative undertook a prioritization process that has led to identification of about 90 so-called “work plan” chemicals, for which EPA is conducting or intends to conduct risk assessments; five have been completed to date.
How would TSCA reform legislation identify chemicals to be subjected to safety reviews?
The Lautenberg Act establishes a risk-based prioritization process through which EPA would identify chemicals to be subject to safety assessments and safety determinations. EPA is mandated to prioritize allchemicals in active commerce. Specific findings and criteria to be used to identify low- and high-priority chemicals are described in the bill, with details to be developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
EPA is to conduct safety assessments and safety determinations for all high-priority chemicals, and to set schedules for doing so. The bill specifies concrete judicially enforceable deadlines for each major step: prioritization, safety assessments and determinations, and promulgation of regulations for chemicals found not to meet the bill’s safety standard.
Under the bill, EPA can designate any of its current “work plan chemicals” as high-priority chemicals; indeed, the bill specifies that at least half of all high-priority chemicals EPA identifies are to be drawn from the work plan list until all of them have been so designated. EPA can continue or initiate assessments on any of these chemicals while the bill’s new prioritization and assessment procedures are put in place.
With respect to pace, EPA must include at least 10 chemicals on the initial high-priority list, as well as at least 10 on the low-priority list. By three years after enactment, at least 20 high-priority and 20-low-priority chemicals must have been listed. By five years after enactment, at least 25 high-priority and 25-low-priority chemicals must have been listed.
More generally, EPA is to prioritize chemicals at a pace commensurate with available resources, publish an annual goal for the number of chemicals to be prioritized, and subject all chemicals to prioritization in a “timely manner.” An annual plan and schedule for the completion of safety assessments and determinations must be made public. As final action is taken on a high-priority chemical, at least one new substance must replace it on the high-priority list.
In addition to chemicals that EPA designates as high-priority, the bill provides for companies to request that EPA assess a chemical it has not so designated; at its discretion EPA can grant a limited number of such requests (not to exceed 15% of the total number of chemicals EPA is assessing), but cannot give them preference over high-priority chemicals. Companies are to pay fees to cover the full costs of these assessments. Unlike high-priority chemicals, initiation of assessments on these company-requested chemicals does not trigger preemption of new state requirements.
The House discussion draft does not include a prioritization process, nor does it contain any mandate for EPA to review existing chemicals, which appears to perpetuate the situation created under the original law whereby thousands of chemicals needing safety assessments can stay in commerce without any such review.
As with current TSCA, EPA does have authority to review existing chemicals; and while the draft calls on EPA to conduct a “risk evaluation” for any chemical it determines has the potential to present an unreasonable risk, there is no process or means by which such chemicals are to be identified. The draft does not address the pace, number of chemicals, or timelines for identifying chemicals to undergo risk evaluations, nor does it set goals to guide or direct EPA in undertaking risk evaluations of existing chemicals.
While there is an absence under the draft of any chemical identification or forcing mechanism for EPA-initiated risk evaluations, EPA would be required to conduct a risk evaluation of any chemical that any manufacturer requests it conduct. Unlike the provision for industry-requested assessments of the Lautenberg Act described above, this process under the House draft is unbounded. No limit is set on the number of such requests, all of which EPA would have to grant. The full costs of such risk evaluations would be borne by the manufacturer, although those revenues would not go directly to EPA but rather into the general treasury. As with the Lautenberg Act, EPA’s initiation of an industry-requested risk evaluation would not preempt states from taking new actions.
With respect to deadlines, the House draft requires that any risk evaluation EPA conducts at the request of a manufacturer must be completed within six months, whereas any risk evaluation of a chemical EPA initiates based on finding it may present an unreasonable risk is to be completed within three years (the latter is same deadline as in the Lautenberg Act for both EPA-initiated and company-requested safety assessments).
Under the House draft, if the risk evaluation were to find a chemical presented an unreasonable risk, EPA would have six more months to promulgate a final risk management rule. To my knowledge EPA under TSCA hasnever completed a full risk assessment or even the simplest of rulemakings (which by law require taking public comment) in such a short period of time.
These mandates likely mean that EPA would spend virtually all of its effort evaluating those chemicals industry requested it evaluate (which could be sought for non-risk-related reasons, ranging from seeking a competitive advantage to seeking permanent relief from state regulation), rather than those EPA would identify as posing the greatest potential risk.
Next up: Confidential business information.
-
Housing Group Says TSCA Bill Would Hamper EPA Formaldehyde Air Rule
Apr 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
A healthy housing group is arguing a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill would undermine a forthcoming EPA air rule setting nationwide standards for formaldehyde emissions from wood products by weakening a provision that backs rules enacted under existing law and that requires importers to comply with those rules.
EPA is working to finalize a rule, proposed in June 2013, that would require all wood products sold nationwide to meet the same formaldehyde emissions limits as standards the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set in 2008 for pressed wood products produced or sold in that state.
Advocates for reducing harmful environmental exposures in housing and some domestic producers of wood products have backed the rule, arguing it would reduce health risks from formaldehyde emissions and set a level playing field by requiring foreign producers to comply with the California standard, which has been widely adopted by domestic producers.
But in an April 6 blog on the National Center for Healthy Housing's website, Tom Neltner argues the bipartisan Senate TSCA reform bill introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) would weaken language in section 13 of TSCA regarding compliance with federal rules enacted under the law, thereby limiting protections for domestic producers against lower-cost imports that may not meet the standard.
"Instead of guaranteeing compliance, importers would only need to make a 'reasonable inquiry' and certify compliance to their 'best knowledge and belief,'" Neltner says, citing language in section 13(b) of the reform bill. "The proposed import certification provision would make it much more difficult for EPA to ensure that imported products comply with the law and that U.S. manufacturers share equal footing."
The Vitter-Udall bill is one of two proposals pending in the Senate to reform the decades-old TSCA, which many argue gives EPA insufficient oversight of chemicals that were already on the market when the law was enacted in 1976.
Another draft reform bill has also been floated in the House for discussion.
In the April 6 blog, Neltner says section 13 is an aspect of the existing TSCA that works and should not be weakened. According to EPA's website, rules enacted under TSCA section 13 by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection require chemical importers to certify whether imported chemicals or mixtures are subject to TSCA. For products subject to TSCA, the importer must "certify that all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA."
Neltner argues rules enacted under TSCA section 13, requiring importers to guarantee compliance, have "provided a strong incentive for the importer to be vigilant in selecting trustworthy suppliers and verifying compliance" using test methods incorporated into the CARB's formaldehyde standard.
When EPA finalizes the rule setting a nationwide standard, ensuring that importers comply will be critical, Neltner says, arguing that proposed changes to section 13 in the Vitter-Udall bill would make that provision "a paper tiger."
Under the bill's language on section 13, importers of chemicals or mixtures would have to certify compliance to their "best knowledge and belief" following "reasonable inquiry." The bill's section on articles containing a chemical substance or mixture, which Neltner says would cover wood products containing formaldehyde, says reasonable inquiry "shall include good faith reliance by an importer on a certification by the supplier that the imported article satisfies the applicable certification requirements."
Neltner opposes the change, saying other provisions of TSCA could be strengthened without weakening section 13.
A competing TSCA reform proposal introduced by Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA) and Ed Markey (MA) requires that importers certify "that the chemical substance or mixture is in compliance with any applicable rule, consent agreement, or order."
-
EU, US Researchers Develop New Chemical Representation Language
Apr 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Scientists in the US and Europe have developed a new publicly available language that enables chemical query specifications to be adopted by other chemical structure knowledge systems.
Chemotypes can be used for representing molecules, chemical substructures and patterns, reaction rules and reactions beyond what is currently possible.
They are expressed in the XML-based chemical subgraphs and reactions markup language (CSRML), and can be encoded not only with connectivity and topology, but also with properties of atoms, bonds, electronic systems, or molecules.
The paper is published in the Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, a publication of the American Chemical Society.
-
'Great Concern' Over Growing Cyberthreat to Energy Infrastructure -- DHS Report
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The number of cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure fell by 9 percent last year compared with 2013, according to recent data from the Department of Homeland Security.
But a government report released Friday concludes that the cyberthreat to power grids, oil pipelines and other key systems is still growing.
In fiscal 2014, DHS's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team "tracked and responded to multiple newly discovered cyber campaigns that had been ongoing for several years," the group's annual report said. "The delayed time to discovery, coupled with the tactics of the threat actors, was of great concern to ICS-CERT, particularly when considering the potential for a large victim footprint across the nation's critical infrastructure sectors."
Of the 16 areas deemed "critical" by DHS, energy companies reported the most cyber events last year -- accounting for 79 of the 245 security incidents shared with ICS-CERT.
Those cases ranged from simple phishing email attacks to a monthslong hacking effort that hijacked software updates for equipment used in the energy and manufacturing industries.
The BlackEnergy and Havex "families" of malware -- which many analysts suggest were part of a Russian cyber espionage campaign -- caught ICS-CERT's attention toward the end of the year due to their unusual focus on industrial control systems (EnergyWire, Oct. 31, 2014).
ICS-CERT also said 2014 brought "exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in control system devices," a reference to software flaws known only by the hacker at the time of an attack. "Zero-day" vulnerabilities are normally among the most prized assets in a hacker's arsenal, although researchers say they are easier to find in ICS components than in widely used platforms such as Microsoft Windows.
Other tools, including search engines such as Shodan and Google, have broadened the availability of ICS-specific knowledge in the past year, Marty Edwards, ICS-CERT's director, said in an introduction to the report.
"As these tools and the capabilities of adversaries advance, we expect that exposed systems will be more effectively discovered and targeted by adversaries," he said.
The publication of ICS-CERT's 2014 year in review arrived the day researchers at cybersecurity firm Norse Corp. and the conservative American Enterprise Institute unveiled evidence of a broad-based Iranian cyberthreat to U.S. companies and infrastructure (EnergyWire, April 17).
But both the Iran report and ICS-CERT's latest figures have faced criticism from skeptics in the ICS security community.
Dale Peterson, founder of the cybersecurity consulting firm Digital Bond and a longtime critic of ICS-CERT's activities, dismissed the team's latest report as more "busywork stats."
When DHS shared data earlier this month showing the 245 security incidents in 2014, Peterson said in a blog post that the number is "meaningless."
"This work and related reported numbers feign useful activity and avoid the reality that DHS/ICS-CERT is not taking the leadership role in providing technical expertise to help in developing secure ICS protocols and standards, accurately informing government and industry, analyzing ICS attack code, and performing the role that ICS-CERT was created to do," he said.
-
Lessons from the BP Oil Spill on the Fifth Anniversary
Apr 20, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joel Achenbach
An unhappy anniversary, this: Eleven people were killed in an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon five years ago in the Gulf of Mexico. That blowout immolated the huge offshore drilling rig, which sank two days later on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, leading to the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
In some ways it was a prototype disaster of the future, one involving complex technology that failed in unexpected ways. This will happen again — count on it. Maybe it’ll be another oil spill, but more likely it’ll be something else. We’re unprepared for catastrophes that break the patterns of previous disasters, that pose exotic challenges and involve technological systems that are not easily repaired.
The BP oil spill five years ago was horrifying for many reasons, starting with the loss of the 11 lives and the polluting of the Gulf. But it also was disturbing in the way it exposed our collective inability to fix a seemingly simple technological problem: a hole at the bottom of the sea. It took nearly three months to plug the Macondo well. The spillcam showed the oil gushing into the Gulf, but no one seemed able to put an end to it. That kind of powerlessness is unsettling to those of us who like to think that experts can fix anything.
One example of the next Big One would be a massive grid outage as a result of a powerful solar flare. Our technological systems, on land and in space and in the cloud, are increasingly complex, and are vulnerable to accidents, sabotage, unanticipated design flaws, network outages, corrosion, bad luck, X-factors, hiccups and the shenanigans of gremlins.
You know the people who run the government are liberal arts majors, right? Big technological disaster hits, the president looks around and says: Is there anyone here who understands this stuff? The default move is to send in the military, the repository of technical competence in the U.S. government, but guess what, even the military doesn’t know anything about deepwater drilling.
President Obama tapped Steve Chu to fix the oil spill, as if he’d go in there and plug the well with his Nobel Prize in physics. My book gives sufficient credit to Chu and others in the government for doing their best to help solve the problem, but ultimately this was a disaster created by the oil and gas industry and it would have to be solved by the oil and gas industry. Specifically, BP. The company discovered that it wasn’t prepared for a deepwater blowout. It hadn’t ever happened, anywhere. The deep is different. A mile down, all rules change. You can’t get there except robotically and strange forces of chemistry and physics are working against you.
[Here’s what was really going on behind the scenes at the White House during the oil spill.]
BP ended up plugging the well after 87 days, using a piece of hardware that was sitting on a dock all along in southern Louisiana — the 3-ram capping stack. This was after multiple failed efforts (blind shear rams that didn’t work, containment domes that floated away, a “top kill” with mud that was a huge disappointment) and much consternation about what exactly was going on in the blown-out well.
Only much later did we learn a key feature of the accident: When gas surged up the well after an inadequate cement job, the violent kick bent the drillpipe that had been threaded through the blowout preventer. Thus when the blind shear rams closed, to cut the pipe, they couldn’t get a clean bite on the drillpipe and it remained open, allowing the gas to reach the rig. You don’t have to understand the mechanics of this to grasp the central concept that there was a single-point failure lurking in the drilling protocol. The initial loss of well control — when gas from the deep reservoir infiltrated the supposedly cemented well — quickly disabled the machinery designed to react to just that kind of a gas kick. The backup plan wasn’t truly a backup: It was in the line of fire. For nearly two weeks, BP’s engineers thought they could use ROVs (robotic submarines) to make the blind shear rams close in the well, but they didn’t know that those cutting blades had already tried and failed and were never going to succeed. And the oil continued to gush.
I exchanged e-mails the other day with SkyTruth’s John Amos, who monitors oil spills and other disasters with satellite images.
“I think another major spill is actually more likely to happen as we go farther offshore drilling deeper, higher pressure wells,” Amos tells me.
There have been some regulatory changes designed to make blowout preventers more robust, and to have capping-stack hardware in place that’s ready to be deployed in case of a deepwater blowout, Amos says. But every blowout has novel features; what would happen, for example, if a rig like the Deepwater Horizon were to sink directly on top of the well, rather than (as was the case April 22, 2010) 1,500 feet away? You couldn’t get to the wellhead to cap it.
Amos writes:
[T]here are fast-moving catastrophes like the BP spill that are tailor-made to get our attention: sudden, spectacular and lethal. And then there are the slow-moving disasters, like the chronic “day to day” pollution that accompanies offshore drilling, that are all too easy to ignore. This chronic pollution threat to economies based on tourism and fishing should be as big a concern for coastal communities (Virginia Beach, Nags Head, Ocracoke) as the rare catastrophic spill. But it’s very difficult to get a handle on the severity of this chronic problem. We are still in the ridiculous position of relying on pollution reports that are generated by the polluters themselves, even though those reports are demonstrably incomplete and systematically inaccurate.
A few more lessons learned, directly from the last chapter of my book on the spill:
When doing something risky, remember that risk builds like plaque.
Make sure that your backup plan is really in back and won’t get blown up out front along with your plan A.
Remember that low-probability, high-consequence events become more likely given enough time and opportunity. This is why you tell your teenager that you don’t want her running around the party district at 2 in the morning. Sure, she’ll probably stay out of trouble tonight, but it’s her entireadolescence that you have to worry about.
Measure your misery. Don’t shy away from knowing precisely how badly you’re screwed.
Keep your wits about you. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the disaster you are dealing with is qualitatively worse than the many calamities that humans have survived to this point.
[From Science News, here’s a report on long-term ecological consequences of the spill (sperm whales are going nowhere near the wellhead — they’re not stupid).]
[Here’s a story I did on complex technologies failing in complex ways.]
-
House Set to Approve 'Mini' Shaheen-Portman Bill
Apr 20, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)
The House is poised to pass the "mini" Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency bill tomorrow night under a process used for the quick passage of uncontroversial legislation. S. 535, which cleared the Senate during a 4 a.m. voice vote before the chamber broke for its spring break last month, contains several provisions on building efficiency, but the most anticipated section exempts large grid-enabled electric resistance water heaters from a DOE efficiency regulation that took effect last week. The exemption — backed by efficiency groups, environmentalists and electric co-ops — will allow manufacturers to continue making a type of water heater frequently used in rural demand response programs. House leaders last week started to move their own version of the bill that contained just the water heater provision, but have added the Senate bill to tomorrow’s scheduled votes.
-
House Expected to Send Water Heater Fix to White House
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
The House tomorrow is expected to send President Obama legislation aimed at preserving demand response programs popular among rural utilities and establishing a new voluntary endeavor to encourage energy savings in leased buildings.
The expected vote would end a yearslong effort by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and other stakeholders to tweak an efficiency standard the Department of Energy finalized in 2010 that required manufacturers to halve the amount of energy used by large residential water heaters. The rule, which took effect April 15, would have effectively banned large "electric resistance" water heaters, which rural utilities use to help balance the grid and integrate wind energy.
Tomorrow, the House plans to vote on S. 535, which passed the Senate last month on a voice vote. The bill would adjust the DOE rule to allow continued manufacture of electric resistance water heaters so long as they are deployed in a certified demand response program. It also would establish a voluntary Tenant Star program to promote efficiency in apartments and office buildings, a proposal that efficiency advocates have long sought through various pieces of legislation.
The vote will come under suspension of the House rules, a procedure that requires two-thirds support for success. Similar legislation passed last year 375-36, and the Senate voted 94-5 for the language when it was offered as an amendment to the Keystone XL bill in January.
NRECA, other utilities, appliance manufacturers, environmentalists and efficiency advocates have been pushing the legislation since not long after the rule was finalized. In 2013, stakeholders on all sides of the issue agreed on a legislative compromise, which became the basis for this bill, to protect the demand response programs without losing the bulk of the efficiency gains the rule is designed to achieve (E&E Daily, Feb. 12).
-
EPA Seems Well Positioned to Weather Early Legal Challenge
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Federal judges wasted no time last week showing their skepticism about the first court challenge to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that seeks to block the draft rule before it's finalized.
Coal company Murray Energy Corp., along with 15 predominantly Republican-led states and other potentially regulated parties are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an "extraordinary writ," an unusual move that would set precedent for future challenges of unfinished regulations.
In the opening minutes of oral arguments at the D.C. Circuit, Republican-appointed Judge Thomas Griffith emphatically asked West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin: "Why in theworld would we resort to an extraordinary writ -- which we have never used before?"
This week, E&E Publishing will have several reporters at IHS Energy's annual CERAWeekin Houston. EPA chief Gina McCarthy will provide the keynote address Thursday.
Also on Thursday, the American Council on Renewable Energy will hold its policy forum, which includes a 4 p.m. EDT session on how regulations for power plants will bring state politics even more into the renewable energy debate.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
Analysts Urge FERC Role in Ensuring States Comply with Clean Power Plan
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Jean Chemnick
Consultants and analysts who believe the electric industry is well-equipped to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take on a larger role in ensuring states tackle problems in a timely manner.
Sue Tierney, a senior adviser for the Analysis Group, a Boston, Mass.-based consulting firm; Brian Parsons, director of the Western Grid Group; and Eric Svenson, a senior adviser with MJ Bradley & Associates, asked FERC Chairman Norman Bay to release an order requiring grid operators and reliability authorities to provide the commission with assessments -- using common assumptions and formulas -- of their states' draft plans for complying with the EPA rule.
Doing so would give states time to tackle reliability problems should they arise, and issuing such an order is "within the clear bounds of FERC's jurisdiction," they explained in a reportattached to the letter.
Each state could build into its plans methods or "next best" proposals for tackling reliability problems, such as building a new generating unit or adding an interconnection. FERC could then provide guidance for states on an ongoing basis, adding value to reviews that the North American Electric Reliability Corp. already conducts, according to the group.
"This will also allow states to address more minor reliability concerns identified in previous assessments without needing to stop compliance activities; only in the most severe -- and, in our view, unlikely -- case should a reliability assessment of this type result in a request to EPA to temporarily relieve compliance obligations," they wrote.
FERC has for months been mulling whether to craft a proposal for how EPA could structure a "safety valve" mechanism to ensure that the marquee climate rule doesn't interfere with electric reliability.
Tierney and the Analysis Group have argued consistently that it's not necessary to add such a mechanism into the final rule EPA is crafting for a summer release, because the proposal offers enough flexibility to allow states to avoid reliability problems if they plan carefully. Tierney praised FERC's "proactive efforts" to assess the implications of the EPA rule for the grid and argued that the power sector has accommodated changes in dispatch before without facing reliability problems.
"We are confident that we can achieve a lower-emissions electricity grid while maintaining reliability," Tierney, Svenson and Parsons wrote. "Our electric system is designed to maintain reliable, dependable service through both typical, steady-state conditions and uncommon, unanticipated events."
But the industry, grid operators and some FERC commissioners have signaled support for a safety valve.
The Edison Electric Institute, for example, wants FERC to develop -- in coordination with EPA -- both reliability assessments before states submit their plans to EPA and a safety valve (EnergyWire, April 8).
FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller in March said the commission should provide EPA with a detailed proposal that ensures FERC a formal role in making decisions (Greenwire, March 20).
More granular effects of the EPA rule on the electric grid will be clarified tomorrow when NERC releases its final study on the Clean Power Plan. NERC in a press release today announced it had completed an assessment of the potential risks to reliability resulting from the rule, focusing on generation and transmission adequacy.
NERC President and CEO Gerry Cauley said during an interview earlier this month that the report could offer details on how to design a mechanism to prevent electricity generating capacity from being jeopardized when states move to comply with the EPA rule (EnergyWire, April 6). Cauley said the report has a section "that deals with how the reliability assurance mechanism could work from a practical viewpoint."
But Tierney during an interview today noted that NERC does not provide assessments as a way to solve problems and that the study will likely include "red flags," but quickly added that the marketplace will respond to those signals to protect reliability.
Tierney also told a House Energy and Commerce Committee subpanel last week that the changes wrought by the Clean Power Plan would not be more disruptive to supply than those that followed other market and regulatory shifts. She noted that the grid has already changed to accommodate more natural gas-fired generation and less coal.
"Given the significant shifts already underway in the electrical system, the industry is already needing to adjust its operational and planning practices to accommodate changes even if EPA had not proposed this regulation," she said.
-
Harvard Law's Lazarus and Freeman Discuss Federal Court Power Plan Hearing, Tribe Arguments
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - TV
How could constitutional scholar and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe's involvement in last week's U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing on the Clean Power Plan affect the future of the rule? During today's OnPoint, Richard Lazarus and Jody Freeman, professors at Harvard Law, explain why they believe the government came out ahead during last week's federal court hearing. They also rebut Tribe's arguments against the constitutionality of the Power Plan.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint, I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today are Richard Lazarus and Jody Freeman, both are professors at Harvard Law School. Professors, thank you for joining me.
Jody Freeman: Thank you.
Richard Lazarus: Yeah, great to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: So you were both present at the D.C. Circuit Court's hearing of arguments on EPA's Clean Power Plan. Professor Freeman, what were your impressions of how the arguments went and what sort of stood out to you?
Jody Freeman: I think it was a pretty good day for the government and not a particularly good day for industry. There were pretty strong signs from the bench. Certainly from Judge Griffith, and I think to not quite the same extent, but still from Judge Kavanaugh that they're really not too happy about hearing the case this early. That is, it may be premature. EPA hasn't had a chance to finish its rulemaking and you could just see from them these questions like Judge Griffith opened up very early with, is there any case that you can cite to us, to the petitioners' counsel, any case that you can cite to us where we have halted a rulemaking?
And he couldn't. And he said, this is extraordinary, and you just kept hearing it from the bench, this would be extraordinary and throw a wrench into normal typical agency process.
Monica Trauzzi: Same impression? I mean, there is this question about whether or not this is premature.
Richard Lazarus: No, very much the same impression. What was I think striking about it, this was a potentially sympathetic panel in some respects. I think industry was pretty pleased when they heard the announcement. The panel, the way the D.C. Circuit works, there are a lot of judges on the D.C. Circuit, but any three will hear a motion like this and it's a lottery and the three included three judges who are sort of known to be more conservative. But that turned out to sort of work against them here in a certain respect because the conservative judges, Judge Griffith and Judge Kavanaugh, they both took a very traditional conservative position and that is, it's too soon. It's not time for the court to come in yet. The normal course of these things, you wait till there is a final rule.
Why in the world should we do something now when we can do something later? So it doesn't tell us, necessarily, what they will do on the merits in the future, this court. But it certainly was a very good day for the government in the sense that there was very little interest, except maybe Judge Henderson.
Jody Freeman: Yes.
Richard Lazarus: But Judge Henderson did seem to have some interest in addressing the merits now, reaching it, but the other two did not. Judge Griffith was quite, I think, well-prepared and very demanding of the petitioners here.
Jody Freeman: Just one word on Judge Henderson. She said some really clear things that indicated her position, she said, basically, the EPA has made a decision, that it has legal authority and she said, nothing will make them stop unless the court tells them to stop, so she made her views quite clear.
Monica Trauzzi: So, how did your colleague, Laurence Tribe, do?
Richard Lazarus: I think Larry had a good day before the court. I think that judges enjoyed having him there, that was quite clear. They were sort of smiling when he was arguing before the court. Larry Tribe is obviously a grand figure in constitutional law, perhaps some of the judges had him when they were students, I'm not sure. They were smiling when he argued. I also noticed they gave him a lot more time than he was supposed to get under the court's rules. I think they gave him very liberal.
But I don't think that has any particular impact on the merits. I think it's certainly clear they enjoyed having them there. He's a very skilled advocate.
Jody Freeman: And let me just say about this, we are colleagues and friends of Larry's, but on the merits of the argument, he was continuing to use this rather overheated rhetoric about the commandeering of the states that would result from this rule and he used analogies in references to things like the sword of Damocles. And to all these terrible things that would befall the states, and it didn't sound terribly persuasive. It sounded somewhat extreme. I am not sure anybody was quite buying that argument.
Richard Lazarus: But I think they enjoy the skilled advocate who is making allusions to sort of the Lindbergh kidnapping case and the rest, he's a very well-read person, on the other hand, I thought, during his argument there were a couple telling moments that even though they were very respectful enjoying watching the real ... advocate. There was the point that was made by Judge Griffith where he seemed to be of the view that the constitutional arguments that professor Tribe later were making, actually cut against their jurisdictional arguments that if there was some reason here to not act, in other words, if you are worried that the EPA might be doing something unconstitutional, then that's the very reason why you wait until the EPA acts. You don't anticipate it. So he took Larry's constitutional avoidance argument and he says, well actually, I hear you, but I think that's inconsistent with your argument that we should hear the case now.
And Judge Kavanaugh did some of the some things when Larry was arguing about sort of the commandeering problem. Kavanaugh was sort of intimating, but we don't know what the rule is yet. And so, I think they listened, but they know he's a lawyer and a very good lawyer.
Monica Trauzzi: And you have both have this sort of ongoing back and forth with professor Tribe over the things that he said about the Clean Power Plan. I mean, he's gone as far as to say that Obama is burning the Constitution, which is relatively significant. Why do you think your opinions differ so much on this regulation?
Jody Freeman: So let me just say this, it's fair to say about this case there are hard statutory arguments about the extent of EPA's authority here and the choices it's making about how to regulate, it's fair enough to battle over those and there are some pretty plausible arguments on both sides. What we responded to was the assertion that the rule is somehow unconstitutional. That it violates the Fifth Amendment. That it takes the private property of the coal industry, that it commandeers the states as Larry argued today, when in fact, there is precedent only and exclusively on the side that says, nothing here is unconstitutional.
So we were responding because we think that there is just not any legal basis to say that an industry is forever free from regulation for its harmful pollution or to say that it commandeers the states when they have a choice to say we don't want to follow the plan and the EPA can come in with its own plan. There is just case law building on case law that says, this is perfectly constitutional.
Richard Lazarus: And the way we try to be pretty clear about this as Jody said, there are some issues which are harder and some issues which are easier. We are not just being peer advocates here. And we are willing to acknowledge when issues are harder. But the constitutional argument, it's not hard. There is really nothing to it at all. So the best way I look at the arguments that Larry is making here is they are the kind of arguments that I really expect a really gifted zealous industry lawyer to give on behalf of their client. That's what they sound like to me. They are interesting to hear. But it's not the same thing as an detached neutral observer.
Monica Trauzzi: So is there a financial motivation here, do you think?
Jody Freeman: We're not speaking to that, that's not our concern. There's just some special deference and respect you get to being a very well-known, well-established constitutional law professor and when you are not speaking in that voice, when you are speaking as an advocate, it's important that people understand that's the position you are taking and then they can assess your arguments in that light.
Richard Lazarus: Right. Right, it's not a question of whether one is being paid or not, or how much, that's irrelevant. You are a lawyer for a client. And when you are a lawyer for a client, you have fiduciary responsibility to give the best and most zealous possible argument in favor of that client. And that's part of our profession. There is nothing wrong with that. But that's, I think, the best way to view what Larry is doing here. He's representing his client in a very zealous way.
Monica Trauzzi: So how significant is the outcome of this case, many have called it historic. Do you think it's in fact historic?
Jody Freeman: I think it will be. But it's going to take a while to find out the outcome. This was just the opening salvo, and it looks pretty good for the government on this question of is it too early to review the rule. But of course the minute that rule is final, they'll be running to file again to challenge it on these issues that the court won't reach right now, so the question of the EPA's legal authority and the question of how stringent the standard could be, that's all going to be litigated.
So it will, no matter what happens, ultimately be a blockbuster case, but it's going to take us some time to get there.
Richard Lazarus: In fact, add just one more point because I thought it was really interesting what Sean Donahue in his argument before the court today, he is representing the environmental, nongovernment organizations. He made a very interesting point. He did a very effective rebuttal on the merits, on jurisdiction. But then he said, notice who is not here on the other side. Notice that Texas and a whole bunch of other industry petitioners who normally challenge these things, they are not here. And the reason they are not there and he knows it and he knows the court knows it. Is they know there is nothing to this. That this is too soon. The show is yet to come. The show will come when the final rule is done and this is a completely premature exercise.
Jody Freeman: But what this means, of course, is industry has another at-bat. You know, if they lose on this issue, they say, OK, we lost on the issue. It was a long shot anyway, we will be back, see you later. So we were also looking for clues to see, what was this panel thinking about the merits argument. They may not hear that argument, but it's sort of, this was a road test in a way of the merits arguments and it was interesting to watch the interaction on that.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, it was a fascinating discussion. We could keep going on for an hour talking about this. I appreciate both of you coming in.
Richard Lazarus: Well, thanks a lot. Thank you.
Jody Freeman: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for joining me. And thanks for watching. We will see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Apr 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Carbon emissions grew last year, according to government figures, although slower than the economy did as a whole.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported Monday that energy-related carbon emissions increased 0.7 percent in 2014. It's the second straight year emissions have grown, but EIA noted that the increase was slower than the overall expansion of the economy, at 2.7 percent.
Changes in carbon emissions generally reflect other economic and energy-related factors. Two other indicators — energy intensity, a measure of energy used per unit of GDP, and carbon intensity, the amount of carbon dioxide released per unit of energy consumed — improved slightly in 2014, according to the EIA.
The Obama administration is pursuing a plan to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent over 2005 levels within a decade. EIA projects energy-related emissions to increase slightly over the next two years, and, "future energy consumption and related emission levels will depend largely on a mix of weather, energy sources, and economic factors—as well as potential changes in national and state policies." -
Texas Vote on Oil and Gas Rules May Presage More Industry Influence
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Texas oil industry flexed its muscle Friday in a legislative vote that could limit city regulation of drilling operations.
It could be a sign of things to come as state lawmakers consider a raft of bills on environmental issues. Texas' Republican leaders won wider majorities in both the House and Senate this year and have promised to push for a conservative agenda (EnergyWire, Jan. 9).
H.B. 40, which passed the lower chamber 122-18 on Friday, would prevent cities from regulating oil and gas drilling or any associated activities, except for "commercially reasonable" rules on surface impacts such as noise, dust, lights and truck traffic.
"Clearly, the vote counts show just how much power the oil and gas industry has," said Luke Metzger, director of the nonprofit group Environment Texas.
Still to come at the Capitol in Austin are bills that would make it harder for residents to request a public hearing to contest permits for industrial plants, rolling back the state's renewable energy standard and limiting local governments' ability to collect civil damages in pollution cases. Even modest reforms -- such as renaming the Texas Railroad Commission to reflect its actual work as the state's oil and gas regulator -- have proved controversial.
The state Senate hasn't taken a final vote on its version of the local control bill. In the past, controversial bills often died in the upper chamber because of rules allowing the Democratic minority to block legislation.
The rules were weakened by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a conservative firebrand who said they didn't reflect the state's conservative voters (EnergyWire , Feb. 27, 2014).
H.B. 40 was intended as a response to the city of Denton's ban on hydraulic fracturing that voters adopted in a Nov. 4 referendum. Critics, including representatives from the state's biggest urban areas, said it goes even further, rolling back important safeguards that their cities have adopted, including local bans on wastewater disposal, and bringing drilling closer to parks, schools and churches.
The Texas Oil and Gas Association praised the bill, saying it would prevent cities from adopting a patchwork of local regulations that could slow down the state's drilling boom and threaten its energy-reliant economy.
Legislators from urban areas asked for amendments allowing cities more authority to regulate drilling near parks and to stipulate that they had power to protect public health. They all died by wide margins.
Rep. Sylvester Turner, a Democrat who is running for mayor of Houston, argued that it was a local ordinance that prevented oil drilling in Houston's 1,500-acre Memorial Park in the 1970s.
"If H.B. 40 is giving a green light to drill in Memorial Park, for example, H.B. 40 creates major problem for me," he said.
Rep. Drew Darby, the Republican chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said most local ordinances would still be allowed to continue, since the bill has a "safe harbor" clause intended to protect existing local regulations.
"It was intended to allow for -- in fact encourages -- operators and cities sitting down together and planning and coordinating the orderly development of minerals," he said.
It's not a symbolic issue in Texas, the largest oil-and-gas-producing state. The onset of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing allowed oil and gas development to push into cities. Tarrant County, which encompasses the western half of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area, has a population of 1.9 million and is also the biggest gas-producing county in the state, thanks to thousands of wells dotted throughout suburban neighborhoods.
Earlier this month, an accident at a well pad in Arlington, a suburb of Dallas, sent thousands of barrels of fracking fluid into a city storm drain and forced the evacuation of about 50 homes (EnergyWire, April 14).
Darby initially brushed off discussion of the Arlington accident as an example of cooperation between the oil industry and the city. However, the Fort Worth Star-Telegramreported Wednesday that the city may impose a fine on the company that owns the well, because crews at the site waited two hours before calling the fire department.
"I want to put it on the record the operator was in violation of the [local] code," Rep. Chris Turner, a Democrat whose district includes Arlington, said during the debate.
-
DOT Emergency Actions Tackle 'Serious Threat' of Crude by Rail
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators unveiled new safety requirements Friday for railroads hauling crude oil in the latest response to a series of fiery derailments.
The Department of Transportation issued an emergency order curbing oil trains' speed limit to 40 mph through major cities, in addition to actions that would shore up wheel and track inspections and collect new accident data from railroads.
"The boom in crude oil production, and transportation of that crude, poses a serious threat to public safety," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. "The measures we are announcing today are a result of lessons learned from recent accidents and are steps we are able to take today to improve safety."
He added that "we are not done yet." DOT is scheduled to release a more far-reaching rule next month addressing oil-by-rail operating procedures and specifications for tank cars hauling crude.
The bulk of DOT's moves Friday were aimed at collecting "critical information" from shippers and railroads in the event of a crude or ethanol accident. The Federal Railroad Administration asked carriers to develop a plan to share key details within 90 minutes of initial contact after a derailment, including the type of flammable liquid involved in the incident, the point of origin and destination of the rail cars, and results from the most recent chemical tests of the cargo.
FRA is also seeking to change the way it gathers information for its accident databases by adding the number of rail cars carrying crude oil in each derailed train, the number of damaged or derailed cars, and the number of cars that spilled oil.
"Taking the opportunity to review safety steps and to refresh information before moving forward is a standard safety practice in many industries, and we expect the shipping and carrier industries to do the same," acting FRA Administrator Sarah Weinberg said.
The freight rail industry offered a muted response to Friday's actions in a statement from a leading trade group.
Though the 40 mph restriction took effect immediately Friday, railroads had already been adhering to that speed limit in "high-threat urban areas" under a voluntary agreement with Foxx established last year.
Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said the industry "shares the belief that there is no greater priority than safety" but pointed to some "problematic" portions of the new requirements, including measures seeking data not normally collected by railroads.
"Overall, these federal provisions reflect the fact that moving crude by rail is a shared responsibility, involving a safety system of prevention, mitigation and response," Hamberger said.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle offered a slightly warmer response.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said the measures "should help improve crude by rail safety," although he added that the Obama administration "has been slow to address the increased movement of crude by rail."
Earlier in the week, Shuster and his colleagues lambasted DOT for the slow pace of several hazardous materials rulemakings at a hearing on pipeline and crude-by-rail standards (EnergyWire, April 15).
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), ranking member of the T&I Committee, said many of DOT's announcements Friday were "long overdue and just common sense."
"The advisories that recommend railroads lower the threshold for requiring wheel repairs and reduce speeds in certain areas are a good start," he said, adding, "ultimately, we also need the final rail tank car safety rule."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested