Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Ap 23
-
(ACC Mentioned) This Company Does Something Cool With Something Most of Us Recycle
Apr 22, 2015 | The Huffington Post
By Chris Barnes
Most of us see old milk jugs as something for the recycle bin (or, in the case of one blogger, the makings of a D.I.Y. Storm Trooper helmet). But for toy maker Green Toys, the plastic jugs become the start of something fun: toys. -
(ACC Mentioned) FHFA House Price Index Gains In February, Existing Housing Sales Expected To Increase
Apr 22, 2015 | Benzinga
By Kevin Riley
Housing data was scheduled to be reported on Wednesday, beginning with the FHFA House Price Index at 9am. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industrial Investors Eye Niche Markets
Apr 23, 2015 | Globest
By Kelsi Maree Borland
Ecommerce may be the most talked about driver in the industrial sector, but it certainly isn’t the only driver. Outside of the ecommerce world, the industrial sector is booming with niche markets sprouting up and creating new opportunities for investors, according to Erik Foster, principal and practice leader of industrial capital markets at Avison Young. -
Boxer Pursuing Compromise ‘Fixes' To TSCA Reform Bill Ahead of Markup
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Several Democratic senators are working on compromise “fixes” to legislation aimed at reforming the nation's chemical safety law ahead of an expected markup April 28, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA April 22. -
Peer Review Set for Toxicity Data on Flame Retardant
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Draft toxicity conclusions about a mixture of pentabromodiphenyl ether and related chemicals will be peer reviewed by scientists -
US Bill Requires FDA Review of Personal Care Product Ingredients
Apr 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A bipartisan bill in the US Senate would require the FDA to evaluate the safety of at least five ingredients per year in personal care products. -
US EPA Releases Initial Assessment for 1,4-dioxane
Apr 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has released a problem formulation and initial assessment document for 1,4-dioxane, the first step in the risk assessment process under its workplan chemicals programme. -
2 Studies Link Controversial Chemicals to Bee Declines
Apr 22, 2015 | E&E PM
By Tiffany Stecker
Two papers published online today suggest that neonicotinoid pesticides play a significant role in the decline of bees. -
How to Avoid Being a Human Guinea Pig
Apr 22, 2015 | Care2
By Diane MacEachern
As this powerful documentary points out, all of us have become human guinea pigs for the 80,000+ chemicals circulating our environment whose effects on our health and wellbeing haven’t been fully tested. -
Two Years After West Explosion, ‘Very Little Progress has been Made’
Apr 22, 2015 | The Dallas Morning News
By Michael Lindenberger
One of the leading voices in the Senate for safety reforms in the wake of the massive explosion in West, Texas today said she’s concerned that very little has been accomplished in the year since the fatal blast to make workplaces safer from chemical disasters. -
Nominee for CSB Chair Pledges Bold Action, Cooperation With Other Board Members
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The nominee to lead the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board told a Senate panel April 22 that she is willing to fire personnel and reconsider fundamental governance issues in an effort to address the management woes that have destabilized the agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plant Flares Could Pump Out More Pollution than Previously Thought
Apr 23, 2015 | Public Integrity
By Jamie Smith Hopkins
A new method of estimating air pollution from flares at refineries and chemical plants, released under court order by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week, could mean that earlier tallies substantially undercounted the tons of chemicals pumped into communities. -
Bill to Ban Fracking on Federal Lands Reintroduced by House Democrats
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Democrats have reintroduced legislation to ban the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques to extract oil and natural gas on federal lands, including national parks, in what the authors are touting as the most restrictive approach currently before Congress. -
Oklahoma Acknowledges Link Between Earthquakes, Wastewater Injection in Wells
| BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Oklahoma has acknowledged that underground injection of wastewater from oil and gas activities is the most likely source of a roughly 600-fold increase in earthquakes in recent years compared to the historical rate of such events. -
Senate Dems Take on Obama on Atlantic Drilling
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Six Senate Democrats from the Northeast are taking on the Obama administration with a bill to prevent offshore oil and natural gas drilling on the Atlantic Coast. -
New Balance of Power
Apr 23, 2015 | New York Times
By Clifford Klauss
For the better part of the last century, crude oil prices have swung like a pendulum, pushing and pulling the fortunes of nations. -
US to Announce Plans to Reduce Agricultural Carbon Emissions
Apr 23, 2015 | AP (In ABC News)
By Jeff Karoub
Federal agricultural officials are planning to announce voluntary programs and initiatives for farmers, ranchers and foresters meant to build on President Barack Obama's efforts to combat global warming — and don't require congressional approval. -
DOJ Touts Settlement's Precedent On 'Basin-Wide' Gas Emission Controls
Apr 22, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget diCosmo
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is touting a settlement with a natural gas company over alleged Clean Air Act violations as setting a precedent for a “basin-wide” approach to curbing emissions from energy extraction, saying the controls that cover the entire drilling exploration area is a model for “systematic” pollution controls. -
California's Truck GHG Targets May Create Stricter Rules Than EPA's Plan
Apr 22, 2015 | Inside EPA
California's stringent long-term targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the transportation sector may lead the state's air board to pursue next-generation GHG rules for medium- and heavy-duty trucks that are more stringent than forthcoming EPA rules for the vehicles, sources and documents indicate. -
EPA Preparing for Development, Processing Of State Clean Power Plan Submissions
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is taking various steps in preparation of the final Clean Power Plan that would allow the agency to better process state compliance plans, including working to identify which staffers will actually review the plans, agency officials said.Juan Santiago, associate director of the air quality policy division within the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said April 22 that the 10 EPA regional offices will serve as the “primary point of contact” for states which submit plans describing how they intend to meet their state-specific carbon dioxide emissions reduction target for existing power plants. -
House Subcommittee Moves Bill to Give States Ways to Opt Out of Clean Power Plan
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved a draft bill that would give states several ways to opt out of or delay compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan. -
Council Lacks Consensus on How to Protect Vulnerable Communities Under Power Plan
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan has sparked debate within a federal environmental justice council on how to appropriately protect vulnerable communities, an area environmental justice advocates and environmental groups have said the EPA has inadequately addressed. -
Bipartisan Support for a Carbon Tax will Emerge -- Congressman
Apr 22, 2015 | E&E PM
By Jean Chemnick
A bipartisan duo agreed today that eventual enactment of a carbon tax is all but inevitable but that it will require the support of both Democrats and Republicans. -
Liberals Target 'Absurd' Tax Breaks for Fossil Fuels
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
Two liberal lawmakers are marking Earth Day by calling for an end to tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry. -
Inhofe: Obama wants Legacy of Eliminating Fossil Fuels
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) says President Obama wants to "do away with fossil fuels" as his presidential legacy. -
Presidential Hopefuls Tell Bloomberg Where They Stand on Environment, Energy Issues
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem
Bloomberg asked candidates who are running or considering a run for president to answer five questions about environmental and energy issues, including whether humans contribute to climate change and whether they support the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants.Some responded directly. -
Obama on Climate Change: ‘This is a Problem Now’
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
President Obama traveled to the Florida Everglades Wednesday to Highlight the Effects of Climate Change on Earth Day. -
Earth Day Brings Flurry of Mostly Messaging Bills on Capitol Hill
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
Nowhere in the rules of the House or Senate is a requirement that any legislation related to the environment wait until Earth Day to be introduced, but you wouldn't know that from the torrent of bills floated yesterday proposing everything from a tax on carbon emissions to a program to make mail trucks more efficient. -
Virginia Utility to Close Coal Ash Ponds; Power Stations Converted to Greener Fuels
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Dominion Virginia Power announced that it will close all four of the company's coal ash ponds in the state.Three of the four coal ash ponds to be closed are at facilities that have been converted to cleaner fuels, Virginia's largest electrical utility said in an April 17 press release. -
A Challenge From Climate Change Regulations
Apr 22, 2015 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
As President Obama prepares to unveil his climate change regulations on coal-fired power plants, the nation’s electric utilities are preparing to transform the system that keeps the lights on in America. But some companies fear that in the process, the lights may go out. -
In Fla., President Skewers National GOP but Calls for Bipartisanship on Warming
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama talked bipartisanship in his Earth Day remarks yesterday in Florida, but he also took aim at climate change-dismissing Republicans for seeking to keep "denial" alive. -
Hal Rogers Tries for Delicate Balance on Spending
Apr 22, 2015 | Politico Pro
By David Rogers
The House Appropriations Committee adopted a spending blueprint Wednesday that demands deep cuts from President Barack Obama’s domestic budget but keeps alive the hope that the panel can still move its bills through Congress this summer while the two political parties look for some compromise. -
House Cuts $246M from Interior-EPA Spending Pot
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Phil Taylor
The House Appropriations Committee yesterday announced a spending plan that provides $30.17 billion for the bill that funds the Interior Department, the Forest Service and U.S. EPA, a $246 million cut below current funding levels that will force appropriators to do more with less to maintain a bevy of energy, environment and conservation programs. -
EPA Unlikely to Issue Ozone Implementation Rule With Final Standards, McCabe Says
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is unlikely to grant a request by state air regulators to issue proposed implementation rules and guidance with an upcoming final decision on national ozone standards, the agency's top air official said April 22. -
Maryland Governor's Withdrawal of Rules On Nitrogen Oxides Draws Threat of Lawsuit
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
wo organizations have challenged Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) move—just hours after he took office—that halted the publication of regulations that would have affected certain coal-fired power plants. -
Top Policies to Help Americans Breathe Easier, and What you Can Do
Apr 22, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund Blog
By Lucía Oliva Hennelly
A year ago, we joined our partners at the League of United Latin American Citizens on Twitter to ask U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy about the impacts of air pollution on our health. -
Foxx Vows to Fill Agency Vacancies, Pushes for Long-term Spending Bill
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The Obama administration is striving to fill a spate of top-level vacancies at the Department of Transportation as soon as possible, DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx told a Senate panel yesterday. -
Senators Press Foxx on ‘Unrealistic' GROW America Act, Tank Cars, Vacancies
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephanie Beasley
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said at a hearing April 22 that she was concerned that the Transportation Department had yet to finalize a rule creating new safety standards for crude-by-rail tank cars or to issue regulations that would require comprehensive oil spill response plans for rail tank cars. -
Crude-by-Rail Notices Set for Federal Register
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Two Transportation Department notices on flammable liquids transportation by rail safety that were announced alongside an emergency order April 17 will be published April 23 in the Federal Register. -
State Sets Meetings on Oil Train Rules
Apr 22, 2015 | Portland Tribune
The Oregon Department of Transportation has announced four public meetings on proposed rule changes that will enable emergency services agencies to improve planning for and response to spills of hazardous materials, including crude oil.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) This Company Does Something Cool With Something Most of Us Recycle
Apr 22, 2015 | The Huffington Post
By Chris Barnes
Most of us see old milk jugs as something for the recycle bin (or, in the case of one blogger, the makings of a D.I.Y. Storm Trooper helmet). But for toy maker Green Toys, the plastic jugs become the start of something fun: toys.
Green Toys' line -- which ranges from kitchen sets to vehicles piloted by little bears -- is made completely from recycled milk jugs. To date, the company has recycled over 24,000,000 jugs. The plastic that milk jugs are made out of is called high-density polyethylene. Since this type of plastic is used for food storage, it is also safe for children. Green Toys products pass several safety tests, including the FDA regulation for food contact.
Additionally, the products are in packaging made from recycled cardboard without any plastic or wires (one of the most annoying elements of toy product packaging). This makes the packaging completely recyclable. The toys themselves are also recyclable.
"While the major toy companies market licensed characters, Green Toys focuses on issues parents are more passionate about, including open play, safety and respect for the environment," said Robert von Goeben, President and Chief Creative Officer of Green Toys.
This follows a trend of an increase in HDPE plastic recycling. According to theAmerican Chemistry Council, the amount of plastic bottles recycled has increased every year since 1990. They estimate that over 1 billion pounds of HDPE plastic was recycled in 2013.
-
Apr 22, 2015 | Benzinga
By Kevin Riley
Housing data was scheduled to be reported on Wednesday, beginning with the FHFA House Price Index at 9am.
The FHFA House Price Index for February came in at 0.70 percent and was in line with the consensus estimates. The print was also above the prior reading of 0.30 percent.
At 10am on Wednesday, the NAR will report Existing Home Sales for March.
Consensus estimates expected sales of 5.04 million on a seasonally adjusted annual rate, according to Bloomberg, up from 4.88 million in the February report.
Another indicator that may be useful in forecasting economic activity and, by extension, housing sales is the Chemical Activity Barometer.
According to the American Chemistry Council, the Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) is a leading economic indicator created and was up 0.1 percent in April, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA).
The index reached 98.1, last seen in January 2008, and the CAB remained up 2.6 percent over a year ago, which suggested “gains in business activity will continue into the fourth quarter,” according to the ACC.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industrial Investors Eye Niche Markets
Apr 23, 2015 | Globest
By Kelsi Maree Borland
Ecommerce may be the most talked about driver in the industrial sector, but it certainly isn’t the only driver. Outside of the ecommerce world, the industrial sector is booming with niche markets sprouting up and creating new opportunities for investors, according to Erik Foster, principal and practice leader of industrial capital markets at Avison Young. Foster is speaking on the trends to watch panel at the upcoming NAIOP I.CON conference on June 10 and 11, along with Owen Kean, senior director at American Chemistry Council;Luis Gutierrez, president of Prologis Latin America; andThomas Tunstall, Ph.D., research director at University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development. While preparing for the panel, Foster sat down with us to share his insights on emerging market trends, explaining that there is a lot happening outside of the ecommerce movement.
“Everybody wants to talk about big buildings and big distribution markets, but there are other things that are presenting themselves in the marketplace,” he tells GlobeSt.com. “From a capital markets and investment perspective, we really need to grasp the fact that industrial assets are one of the mainstays of investors’ portfolios, and with that, it is not just your grandfather’s warehouse. It is food-grade buildings; it is freezer-cooler buildings; it is data centers; it is truck terminals. There are many facets and many different kinds of assets that are being combined to make investment portfolios for the modern industrial investor.”
Foster explains that industrial investors’ portfolios are becoming more and more targeted to niche markets, noting an example of a European investor for which he recently transacted almost 2 million square feet of manufacturing buildings in secondary markets in the United States. Foster says it is a deal that would never have happened even five years ago, but is happening today because demand is so strong across industrial niches that investors outside of the US are willing to risk the potential downside. “Because of the growth that has gone on in the US, the on-shoring of manufacturing, and the macro trend on the US being the safe place to invest, investors are really looking at all asset classes within the industrial sector,” adds Foster.
This, of course, isn’t to say that investors aren’t still scrambling to get ahold of top-tier assets in top-tier markets, but that the industrial investment class is broadening. “The capital is always going to be there for the best buildings in the best locations, but now we are finding that there is capital that wants a greater return and is willing to go out a little further, and consequently are looking at different asset classes,” Foster adds. “We are seeing tangible rent growth all across the spectrum. That leads a lot of investors to be bullish in their outlook of the different asset classes.”
And, Foster expects to see this broad demand continue through 2015, even as interest rates rise, which he sees happening in the next three to six months. “We think the market will continue to be strong, although I don’t know how much it is going to increase,” he explains. “For the remainder of 2015, I think it will be a steady and strong investment market.”
Foster lending his market expertise to the trends to watch panel on June 11 at NAIOP’s I.Con conference. Join us in Long Beach to hear more insights from Foster and his fellow panelists on these industrial trends.
-
Boxer Pursuing Compromise ‘Fixes' To TSCA Reform Bill Ahead of Markup
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Several Democratic senators are working on compromise “fixes”to legislation aimed at reforming the nation's chemical safety law ahead of an expected markup April 28, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA April 22.The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee intends to mark up on April 28 the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), which would reform the Toxic Substances Reform Act, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the panel, told Bloomberg BNA.“We've just got to fix it, and this is an opportunity to fix it,” Boxer said, referring to the markup. “I've already asked three colleagues to work on fixes, and they're making some progress so we'll see what happens.”Boxer said she remained “optimistic” a path forward on the bill could be found, while Inhofe said he was “enthused” about the legislation.Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) introduced S. 697 with significant bipartisan support March 10. The committee doesn't currently plan to examine a rival TSCA reform bill (S. 725) from Boxer and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) during its markup, Inhofe said.“I think [our] bill has significant support, and we're hoping to gain additional support, and we're gaining a lot more support outside the committee,” Udall said. “We're working with all the EPW members to see if we can come up with something that will bring them aboard.”21 Co-Sponsors Sign Up for Udall-VitterVitter and Udall's bill enjoys significant bipartisan support with 10 Democrats and 11 Republicans currently signed on as co-sponsors. But some—led by Boxer and Markey—warn the proposal is too favorable to the chemical industry and allows preemption of state laws and regulations that could endanger human health and the environment.Bill proponents said Udall and Vitter have already made significant concessions to address the concerns of advocates and have said S. 697 is the only viable path forward to revamp the 1976 chemical safety law that all agree needs reform (53 DEN A-16, 3/19/15).On March 12, Boxer and Markey introduced their own reform bill—the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act (S. 725)—to address some of the concerns raised by more than 450 environmental and health organizations, unions and nearly a dozen attorneys general.Preemption remains a crucial sticking point but senators are continuing to discuss possible paths forward, Markey told Bloomberg BNA.“One of the keys, right at the top of the list, is ensuring states and attorneys general are not preempted moving forward,” Markey said. “I'm talking to other people [about it].” -
Peer Review Set for Toxicity Data on Flame Retardant
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Draft toxicity conclusions about a mixture of pentabromodiphenyl ether and related chemicals will be peer reviewed by scientists June 25, according to a Federal Register notice the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is scheduled to publish April 23. A draft technical report summarizing results from NTP's carcinogenicity and related studies will be released by May 14, the notice said. Public comments on the draft are due June 11. Information about the meeting, registration and a copy of the draft technical report will be available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/36051. A prepublication copy of the Federal Register notice is available athttp://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=prio-9vtlxj.
-
US Bill Requires FDA Review of Personal Care Product Ingredients
Apr 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A bipartisan bill in the US Senate would require the FDA to evaluate the safety of at least five ingredients per year in personal care products.
The Personal Care Product Safety Act was introduced, this week, by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). While the personal care product industry's revenue is expected to gross $60bn this year, federal regulations on these products have not been updated in 75 years, the lawmakers said.
The first set of chemicals for review include:
lead acetate, used as a colour additive in hair dyes;
methylene glycol/formaldehyde, used in hair treatments;
propyl paraben, used as a preservative in products, including shampoo, conditioner and lotion;
quaternium-15, used as a preservative in products, including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers; and
diazolidinyl urea, used as a preservative in products, including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotion.
The review process, stipulated in the bill, would provide companies with clear guidance about whether certain ingredients should continue to be used and if so, at what concentration levels, and whether consumer warnings are needed.
The measure would also give the FDA the authority to recall certain products that harm consumers, and require labelling of articles that have inappropriate ingredients for children and those that should be professionally administered.
It is supported by industry and NGOs, including the Personal Care Products Council, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever and the Environmental Working Group.
Manufactures would be required to register annually with the agency, with information on ingredients in their personal care products.
“From shampoo to lotion, the use of personal care products is widespread. However, there are very few protections in place to ensure their safety,” said Ms Feinstein. “Europe has a robust system, which includes consumer protections like product registration and ingredient reviews.”
She said there is broad support from consumer groups and companies alike for the Senate bill that will require the FDA to review chemicals used in the products and provide clear guidance on safety.
-
US EPA Releases Initial Assessment for 1,4-dioxane
Apr 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has released a problem formulation and initial assessment document for 1,4-dioxane, the first step in the risk assessment process under its workplan chemicals programme.
The chemical is an industrial solvent, used in a variety of products and as a laboratory reagent and chemical intermediate.
The agency concluded after the initial assessment, which looked at likely exposure and hazard scenarios for workers and consumers, that it will assess further potential risks to workers, exposed during product formulation and its use as a cleaning agent and also to workers and consumers, exposed during use of products that contain the chemical as a contaminant, such as paints, varnishes, adhesives, cleaners and detergents.
It also determined that risk to the general population, through inhalation exposure, is low and that an assessment of exposure through drinking water is not needed because the chemical is now being monitored.
1,4-dioxane is the first chemical under its workplan, for which the agency is releasing a problem formulation and initial assessment document.
The EPA plans to repeat the exercise for the rest of the 90 workplan chemicals (CW 23 October 2014). So far, it has released final assessments for five.
-
2 Studies Link Controversial Chemicals to Bee Declines
Apr 22, 2015 | E&E PM
By Tiffany Stecker
Two papers published online today suggest that neonicotinoid pesticides play a significant role in the decline of bees.
The studies were published in the science journal Nature. One paper, authored by Swedish ecologists, finds that neonicotinoid coatings on seeds can lead to decreased population levels, changed behavioral patterns and reproductive disruptions in wild bees. Wild bees -- like bumblebees -- do not produce honey but are often important for the pollination of crops.
While it's not clear to what extent neonicotinoid seed treatments affect honeybees, the "reported pesticide effects on honeybees cannot always be extrapolated to wild bees," states the study.
The Swedish paper joins a British study out today that finds that neonicotinoids stimulate receptors in bee brains -- much like nicotine does in human ones -- and drives the insects to collect more pollen containing imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, three neonicotinoids currently banned in the European Union.
Environmental groups quickly seized on the studies to call for similar restrictions in the United States.
"With 50 years of understanding of how pesticides affect the environment and studies like this one that continue to raise red flags, [U.S.] EPA should take steps now to protect honeybees and wild pollinators from widespread use of pesticide-coated seeds," said Emily Marquez, staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network.
In the United States, a White House task force headed by the Agriculture Department and EPA is soon expected to release a comprehensive report on the factors affecting bee health in the country. In addition to pesticides, loss of plentiful, nutritious forage plants and parasites have been linked to poor health.
The pest control industry group CropLife America said it would comment only after a full review of the studies.
-
How to Avoid Being a Human Guinea Pig
Apr 22, 2015 | Care2
By Diane MacEachern
As this powerful documentary points out, all of us have become human guinea pigs for the 80,000+ chemicals circulating our environment whose effects on our health and wellbeing haven’t been fully tested. Of course, chemicals are everywhere: our water is made up of chemicals, and so are we. But when a company manufactures or processes a new chemical for their product, they should ensure that chemical is safe for consumers to use, right? Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
The Human Experiment, produced and narrated by Academy Award-winner Sean Penn and co-directed by Emmy-award winning journalists Dana Nachman and Don Hardy, examines what we know (and don’t know) about the connection between skyrocketing rates of cancer, autism, infertility, asthma and other diseases with the chemicals we encounter in such common household items as plastic baby and water bottles, fragrances in perfumes and cosmetics, and chemicals in shampoos, deodorant and cleaning products.
The film follows the stories of three people who believe unregulated chemicals have played a central role in the health traumas they’ve faced. They include a young woman who has been diagnosed with breast cancer; a woman whose nonverbal brother has autism; and a third woman who struggles to conceive, then gives birth to premature twins, only one of which survives.
Each story is heartbreaking, but particularly that of Jennifer Canvasser. She looks like the picture of health: young, vibrant, physically fit. Yet it takes many fertility treatments for her and her husband to conceive. When they do, her pregnancy is fraught with complications. One of her twins is so fragile, he simply can’t survive.
No one knows for sure, of course, which manufactured chemicals, if any, are responsible for the cancers and birth defects people suffer. But as The Human Experiment asks, how much evidence do we need to enact stronger laws and to use our consumer clout to encourage companies to eliminate toxic chemicals from their products?
Why are people the guinea pigs here? Blame “Toothless TSCA.”
Shockingly, companies that produce and use toxic chemicals do not need to prove that they don’t pose a human health risk. The burden of proof is on the consumer, not the company producing the product.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, whose TSCA acronym is pronounced “TOSCA,” was passed into law in 1976. It was supposed to enable the U.S. EPA to protect the public and the environment from risks resulting from the manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal of chemical substances.
However, as former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged during her tenure, TSCA actually does not require industry to test a new chemical for human health and environmental safety before producing and using it. As a result, all chemicals are presumed to be safe unless proven otherwise.
In fact, TSCA forces EPA to demonstrate that a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk” to people and the environment. EPA simply doesn’t have the administrative or financial means to do this, so the burden of proof usually falls on consumers.
Of the 83,000 chemicals manufactured or processed in the U.S. circulating our homes and bodies today, 62,000 were defined as “existing” when TSCA was passed and therefor exempt from safety testing. Of those, only 5 were regulated. As ridiculous as that is, since 1976, 20,000 more chemicals have been produced. Of those, only four are regulated under TSCA.
Reports the Washington Post, TSCA “has created so many hoops for regulators to jump through that it has often rendered them powerless.”
“The problem is that we’re living in a society where we believe we are being taken care of, where we believe agencies have the ability to legislate on our behalf,” says executive producer Sean Penn. ”But there’s virtually no control on the testing.”
Adds co-director Don Hardy, “We just don’t know if these products are safe. Many leading scientists that we spoke with believe there is a link and more testing needs to be done.” Meanwhile, he notes, the incidence of disease continues to rise. “It is hard to determine what the causality is for the link between chemicals and their effects on human health. But the worst thing we can do is nothing at all.”
Says the film’s Jennifer Canvasser, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”
How Can You Avoid Being a Human Guinea Pig? #SwitchtoSafer
First and foremost, people can protect themselves by switching to safer products – hence the #switchtosafer hashtag The Human Experiment is using on social media to get its message out. You can find a list of seven toxic chemicals to avoid in everyday products on Care2 here, or visit the Switch to Safer page of the film’s website for specific product recommendations.
Also, cut back on the number of products you use overall. This is especially true for personal care products like cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, body lotions, and fragrances. Most of these products contain chemicals that have been linked to developmental disabilities, infertility and cancer. Even though the amount any individual product contains is very small, we apply so many products to our bodies day after day that cumulatively, they can have a big impact. Use less, and use the safest products available when you do use them. (Or try making your own.)
Finally, it is absolutely critical to support passage of new legislation that replaces the toothless TSCA with stronger regulations that will actually rein in the explosion of toxic chemicals we’re exposed to. A non-profit organization called Safer Chemicals, Health Families is working with a coalition of environmental, consumer, and public health organizations to pass a new and strong Safer Chemicals Act
-
Two Years After West Explosion, ‘Very Little Progress has been Made’
Apr 22, 2015 | The Dallas Morning News
By Michael Lindenberger
One of the leading voices in the Senate for safety reforms in the wake of the massive explosion in West, Texas today said she’s concerned that very little has been accomplished in the year since the fatal blast to make workplaces safer from chemical disasters.
The explosion at West Fertilizer plant two years ago this month killed 15 people.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is ranking member (and former chairman) of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and said this morning that despite President Obama naming a high-level inter-agency task force to recommend changes for handling of dangerous materials, little progress has been made.
“After the disaster in West, Texas, President Obama issued an Executive Order establishing a Working Group to conduct a comprehensive review of our chemical safety and security programs and develop recommendations for improving these programs. However, I am very concerned that despite the clear risks posed by our nation’s chemical facilities, very little progress has been made to improve safety.”
Boxer’s statement came as the committee, now chaired by Republican Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, welcomed testimony by Vanessa Sutherland, the president’s nominee to be chairman of the Chemical Safety Board. (An archived video of this morning’s hearing is here.)
Sutherland has been nominated to replace Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned under pressure from the committee and others late last month. (See Inhofe’s opening remarks.)
-
Nominee for CSB Chair Pledges Bold Action, Cooperation With Other Board Members
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The nominee to lead the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board told a Senate panel April 22 that she is willing to fire personnel and reconsider fundamental governance issues in an effort to address the management woes that have destabilized the agency.Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, spoke cautiously yet forcefully during a hearing by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how she would attempt to fix the ailing Chemical Safety Board.While emphasizing her readiness to take bold action, Sutherland also spoke about the need for cooperation with her colleagues on the board.“I absolutely commit to being collaborative and understanding what we do is as important as how we do it,” Sutherland said. “Chairs do not have unilateral authority to make all decisions for the board, and I would absolutely collaborate and be collegial in making decisions that affect the future and the efficiency of the agency.”The Senate committee took up Sutherland's nomination for CSB chairwoman as the agency is going through transitions in management. Former Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso resigned his post under White House pressure on March 26.In a separate hearing in the House, lawmakers probed the findings of survey documenting low employee morale at the CSB (see related story).Temporary Power-Sharing DealIn the absence of a sitting chairman, the board has moved forward with a power-sharing arrangement to guide operations. On a 3-0 vote, the board gave executive and administrative authorities to board member Mark Griffon.The delegation of authority will last until June 24—the last day of Griffon's five-year term—or when the agency gets a new chairman, whichever comes first.The board action granting Griffon chairman-like powers seems to nullify, albeit temporarily, significant parts of the controversial board order from Jan. 28 that overruled 18 pervious governance orders and consolidated authority in the chairman's office.During her nomination hearing, Sutherland faced several questions about board governance in general and the Jan. 28 board order in particular.Sutherland said she had no knowledge of that board order prior to its approval. She said board governance is a top priority.“Boards and commissions work in a very complex legal and regulatory space, and orders over orders over orders can create a lot of confusion and ambiguity,” Sutherland testified. “If confirmed as chairperson, I think the first thing to do would be for the board as a whole to take a look at all of those board orders and determine collectively the best way to move forward.”Failure to reach an understanding about board governance could allow distrust and discord on the board to continue, Sutherland said.Moure-Eraso's LieutenantsIn addition to board governance, the panel was interested in the fate of CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb, two staffers closely linked with Moure-Eraso's leadership problems.A bipartisan group of members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked the White House to remove Horowitz and Loeb, while the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general found that the pair illegally used private e-mail to conduct agency business (55 DEN A-8, 3/23/15).Senate Environment Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked Sutherland whether she would terminate Horowitz and Loeb if they had indeed broken federal law by using private e-mail for official business.‘Willing to Take Action.'Employees' illegal behavior is serious and could warrant termination, Sutherland said. She said she “would have no trouble making hard decisions”about firing personnel, but she wouldn't want to hurt the agency by not having institutional knowledge transferred from outgoing staffers.“I think certainly as a chair, I would also consult my board members on that decision,” Sutherland said. “But on certain types of personnel and employment matters, I certainly think that as a chair I would be willing to take action up to termination if, upon data and consultation, that turned out to be the right decision to make.”Sutherland said she had met with Horowitz and Loeb about five times, but hadn't discussed their job status with them.Future Committee Action on CSBThe Senate Environment Committee doesn't appear to have a clear date for voting on Sutherland's nomination. Committee members have two weeks to submit written questions to Sutherland, and the panel won't move forward until it has reviewed her responses, said Kristina Baum, spokeswoman for the committee's Republican majority.Similarly, the committee doesn't seem to have specific plans for holding a hearing on the nomination of Kristen Kulinowski to join the CSB as a member. The White House tapped Kulinowski, a researcher at the Science and Technology Policy Institute, on Jan. 8, about two months before it nominated Sutherland.“We are still reviewing Ms. Kulinowski's qualifications and how she would fit in a hopefully reformed and revitalized Chemical Safety Board,” Baum told Bloomberg BNA April 22. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plant Flares Could Pump Out More Pollution than Previously Thought
Apr 23, 2015 | Public Integrity
By Jamie Smith Hopkins
A new method of estimating air pollution from flares at refineries and chemical plants, released under court order by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week, could mean that earlier tallies substantially undercounted the tons of chemicals pumped into communities.
Flares are used to burn off gas, a process that releases some volatile organic compounds — VOCs, which can harm health and contribute to lung-damaging smog. The Environmental Integrity Project, an environmental law group that sued to press the EPA to reconsider its emissions figures, said the new calculations suggest that factory flares likely belch four times more VOCs than previously thought.
The EPA did not release an analysis of how the new guideline changes the pollution picture. Officials there cautioned that previous national tallies included numbers from firms that used their own estimation methods, not just those that used the EPA calculation. But the new guideline is about four times higher than the old one, the agency confirmed — and because the old method also counted some non-VOC substances, the real gap is even larger.
Environmental advocates say they hope the change will yield information that more accurately reflects what’s going into the air. Many companies estimate their emissions rather than measuring them directly, the Environmental Integrity Project said.
The group said it calculated that the annual health costs imposed by refinery flare emissions alone likely tops $120 million in medical bills and other expenses — most of which comes from additional pollutants that had not been previously accounted for.
“By recognizing that there are much higher emissions and health impacts from flares, I think there will be much more priority put to finding ways to reduce these emissions,” said Sparsh Khandeshi, an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project.
The group’s lawsuit — on behalf of several Texas and Louisiana organizations — prompted a court-ordered deadline of April 20 for the EPA to reconsider its decades-old emission guidelines. The updated figures, issued late that evening, suggest that flares from U.S. refineries alone are likely sending about 50,000 tons of VOCs into the air each year, rather than the approximately 13,000 tons the EPA calculated last year, the Environmental Integrity Project said in an analysis released Tuesday.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, declined to comment on the new guidelines or their implications. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, another trade group, did not respond to requests for comment.
Advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit over the calculations hope the end result will be reduced emissions. Companies could recycle more gas, putting it to use instead of flaring it, they say.
“Members of industry have a saying: ‘What gets measured gets improved,’” Adrian Shelley, executive director of Air Alliance Houston, said in a statement. “Only by accurately measuring emissions can we reduce pollution and protect public health.”
-
Bill to Ban Fracking on Federal Lands Reintroduced by House Democrats
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Democrats have reintroduced legislation to ban the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques to extract oil and natural gas on federal lands, including national parks, in what the authors are touting as the most restrictive approach currently before Congress.The bill (H.R. 1902), introduced by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) April 21, comes a month after the Interior Department released final regulations that for the first time cover hydraulic fracturing on public lands.Interior's Bureau of Land Management rule (RIN 1004-AE26), which includes requirements for wellbore integrity, public disclosure of fracking chemicals and wastewater handling and disposal, were immediately hit with an industry court challenge (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15).Under the bill, any lease issued, renewed or amended for natural gas extraction on federal lands would specifically prohibit hydraulic fracturing, including the use of fracking fluid and acidization processes for the extraction of oil and gas on public lands.The provisions in the Pocan-Schakowsky bill, the Protecting Public Lands Act, are virtually the same as the bill introduced in 2014.The bill was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee, but there is little appetite in the Republican-controlled House for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, let alone bills that would ban the practice.The bill introduced April 21 has eight co-sponsors, including Schakowsky and the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). -
Oklahoma Acknowledges Link Between Earthquakes, Wastewater Injection in Wells
| BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Oklahoma has acknowledged that underground injection of wastewater from oil and gas activities is the most likely source of a roughly 600-fold increase in earthquakes in recent years compared to the historical rate of such events.The Oklahoma Geological Survey said in an April 21 statement it is “very likely that the majority of earthquakes, particularly those in central and north-central Oklahoma, are triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal wells.”The survey's statement coincided with Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin's (R) launch of a new website resource dedicated to sharing research, regulations, updates and news items related to the state's recent earthquakes.“This website will help provide Oklahomans with up-to-date and timely information about our ongoing earthquake response,” said Fallin, who in September 2014 created a council to address the recent increase in seismic events.While many landowners and environmental groups have expressed concerns that hydraulic fracturing may be the cause of the earthquakes, the geological survey said fracking wasn't the primary source of the triggered seismicity but rather the injection of wastewater associated with oil and gas production. Most of the water is produced water.Produced water is naturally occurring, high-saline content water from deep within the earth that co-exists with oil and gas in tight shale formations. It comes to the surface during the extraction process and is often re-injected into disposal wells at a greater depth than from which it was produced, the survey said.The volume of “flow-back water”from fracking represents a small percentage of the total wastewater injected into disposal wells in Oklahoma, the survey said.On average Oklahoma recorded about 1.5 earthquakes of greater than 3 in magnitude annually through 2008, the survey said. Since then the rate of earthquakes has risen to 2.5 a day.Industry: ‘More Study’ NeededThe Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association issued a statement saying “further study is necessary” despite the survey's saying there is a link between wastewater injection and earthquakes.“There may be a link between earthquakes and disposal wells, but we—industry, regulators, researchers, lawmakers or state residents—still don't know enough about how wastewater injection impacts Oklahoma's underground faults,”he said.Oil and natural gas producers in the state have provided valuable, proprietary seismic data to researchers to improve fault maps, he said.Johnson Bridgwater, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA April 22 the survey's announcement was long overdue.Time for Action“It is nice to see the State of Oklahoma is making some attempt to educate the public,” he said. “However, we are now at a point where we need actions on this issue—we are past the point where just informing the public is enough to solve the problem.”He said the governor should direct the state's Legislature to take up the issue. “We applaud the action of Representative Cory Williams, who put forward a call for a moratorium on underground injection in the 17 counties central to the concerns”of the survey, he said.Fallin said state agencies have already begun to implement new policies to address increases in seismicity.Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment Michael Teague said as the research continues into the “unprecedented”increase in earthquakes, the state's regulatory framework will continue to evolve.Joint Efforts Under Way to Address Problem“The cooperation between the Oklahoma Geologic Survey, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, our universities, and the industry has been great and will continue as we work together to address this problem,” Teague told Bloomberg BNA April 22. -
Senate Dems Take on Obama on Atlantic Drilling
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Six Senate Democrats from the Northeast are taking on the Obama administration with a bill to prevent offshore oil and natural gas drilling on the Atlantic Coast.
The senators introduced their bill on Earth Day, saying that although the Interior Department has only proposed drilling somewhere between Virginia and Georgia, a disastrous spill could spread to their states in a way similar to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.
“Five years later, Big Oil wants to bring Deepwater Horizon to the Atlantic,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) told reporters Wednesday.
“We refuse to jeopardize the livelihood of our fishermen and everyone whose well-being depends on keeping the Atlantic and our coasts clean and safe.”
The bill’s other original sponsors are Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ben Cardon (D-Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).
“We know that when an incident happens off the coast of one state, it affects the entire region, as we saw in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, all from one oil spill accident in the Gulf,” Booker said.
“And so, the thought of opening up the Atlantic Ocean to this drilling puts an immediate threat to the Atlantic Coast as a whole,” he said.
Their bill, called the Clean Ocean and Safety Tourism (COAST) Anti-Drilling Act, mirrors legislation introduced Monday — the fifth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion that kicked off an 87-day oil spill — by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
The legislation is a direct response to Interior’s proposal, released in January, to conduct one lease sale in the Atlantic at some point between 2017 and 2022.
“The administration has, in effect, prompted this legislation by issuing its plan,” Blumenthal said.
“The administration rationalizes this decision, saying it was about balance. But the cost of this balance falls inappropriately on our environmental values.”
Menendez said he hopes that introducing the bill would spur the Obama administration to discuss the plan with Senate Democrats and reconsider Atlantic drilling.
“I hope the administration changes course, and I think hearing a collective voice here of a lot of senators were very key assignments on different committees that can make the very crystal clear to the administration changes their course as we move forward,” he said.
-
Apr 23, 2015 | New York Times
By Clifford Klauss
For the better part of the last century, crude oil prices have swung like a pendulum, pushing and pulling the fortunes of nations. More often than not, global supplies of the volatile commodity were controlled by the rulers of desert domains who would otherwise have been powerless had it not been for the oil that bubbled beneath their thrones.
That pendulum is on the move again, sending the price of oil cascading to less than $45 this winter from more than $100 a barrel last June, and it may fall further in the months ahead. On the surface, this latest oil boom gone bust may feel like history repeating itself, but there is a vital difference this time: The center of the oil world has spun from the sands of Saudi Arabia to the shale oil fields of Texas and North Dakota, a giant new oil patch some wildcatters have begun to call “Cowboyistan.”
Put another way, the United States is overtaking the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries as the vital global swing producer that determines prices. That remarkable change has been building since 2008, as American shale fields accounted for roughly half of the world’s oil production growth while American petroleum output nearly doubled. And shale production methods have proven highly adaptable to market conditions.
Not coincidentally, nearly all the advantages of the price swing are moving in Washington’s direction. Most American consumers and industries have benefited from a sharp drop in gasoline prices and other energy costs. And abroad, the economies of oil-producing adversaries like Russia and Venezuela are reeling.
Rene G. Ortiz, a former Ecuadorean oil minister who also once served as OPEC’s secretary general, noted that as recently as late 2008 and 2009, the last time oil prices slumped, OPEC cut oil production by four million barrels a day to support prices, and the move stabilized the market in a relatively short time.
“Why doesn’t Saudi Arabia think that couldn’t work again today?” Mr. Ortiz asked. “Because of the soaring U.S. production. Today’s OPEC is thinking about market fundamentals rather than manipulating the market because it doesn’t have the same power it once had.”
A Colorado oil well developed by hydraulic fracturing, the blasting of oil and gas out of shale rock with water and chemicals.Special Section: Energy
The Nest thermostat can be controlled from a smartphone.Homes Try to Reach Smart SwitchAPRIL 22, 2015
London Array, in the Thames Estuary off Kent, England, is a joint wind power project of Dong Energy of Denmark, E.ON of Germany and Masdar of Abu Dhabi.Europe Looks Offshore for Wind PowerAPRIL 22, 2015
Ernesto Soto, left, and Edgar Colclough, machine operators for Aramark, sort compostable trash from bins at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., before it goes into a composter on the site.Recycling Peanuts and Cracker Jack APRIL 22, 2015
Last Nov. 27 was a turning point for OPEC at its meeting in Vienna. It was a turbulent session, though behind closed doors, where the firebrand oil ministers of Venezuela and Iran faced off with the dour Saudis and their Persian Gulf allies. The Venezuelans and Iranians, backed by Algeria, Nigeria and a few other countries that need every cent they can get from their oil exports, argued that OPEC should slash production to strengthen prices exactly as the cartel did when the crude price tumbled during the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, and again after the tech bubble popped in the early 2000s, and finally as it did again just six years ago.
Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, before an OPEC meeting last year. Credit Heinz-Peter Bader/Reuters
But the Saudis and their Gulf allies said no. They argued that if they cut production, they would merely lose market share to the surging American producers who were increasing daily production by a million barrels year in and year out with no end in sight. The decision effectively forfeited the cartel’s traditional role as the global oil swing producer — the one and only supplier with the volume of production to raise and lower prices by managing the cartel’s output.
The decision came as a shock to the oil market. From the moment OPEC decided to keep its production constant at 30 million barrels a day, a fairly gradual price retreat that began in July morphed into a nose dive as commodity traders dumped their oil positions. Many independent American producers saw the move as a direct attack on them, but it was really a throwing in the towel to the new reality of growing American oil output.
The demise of OPEC as the price manipulator is what virtually every American president since Richard Nixon had in mind when they promised to find a way to make the United States energy independent, not chained to Middle East or OPEC oil, after the oil embargoes of the 1960s and 1970s.
Hydraulic fracturing, the blasting of oil and gas out of shale rock with water and chemicals, is the single most important factor of change in global markets in more than a decade, with an environmental outcry commensurate to its magnitude.
As soon as railroads connected North Dakota’s Bakken shale field to East Coast refineries the last couple of years, imports from the Middle East and Africa dried up, forcing various OPEC producers to redirect their product to China and other Asian markets. There, they battled it out for market share by slashing prices. That is just one example of how shale drilling not only transformed the United States from dependent consumer to a robust producer, but is also transforming the price dynamics of the global market.
Shale fields differ in several ways from conventional fields. Shale is not hard to find, but drilling is expensive because wells decline precipitously — by 60 to 70 percent in their first year. That means companies are obliged to drill well after well to keep production and revenue up.
That is not always good for individual producers, especially small ones, when prices fall. But those characteristics give shale producers collectively more power to influence the market because it condenses the amount of time companies have to respond to the inevitable cycles of boom and bust. Oil producers operating in the United States have the ability to rapidly accelerate or tap the brakes — much as Saudi Arabia and its OPEC partners have turned on and off their spare capacity in the past — depending on market conditions.
Jack Gerard, chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, noted that the United States, which produces roughly the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia and is poised to surpass the kingdom, is positioned to become the new OPEC but without the overt manipulation.
“The only difference is our position as swing producer will be managed by the free market,” he said, noting that a few all-powerful sheikhs are being replaced by hundreds of executives serving competing companies deciding when, where and how to drill in the new shale fields.
“With the technological advantages we have, we have the ability to adjust to the market,” Mr. Gerard added.
The Saudis, in comparison, are in an increasingly weaker position. Last year, their exports declined not only to the United States, but to Asia as well. Still, as one of the lowest-price producers with an expanding refinery capacity, it remains an important player on the world stage.
With Saudi Arabia leading, OPEC still controls roughly 30 percent of world oil production, but that is down from more than 40 percent in the 1970s. A reversal of that trend is not likely. (United States production now represents roughly 10 percent of global production.)
Jason Bordoff, a former energy adviser to President Obama and now the director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, noted that Saudi Arabia’s 2.5 million barrels of spare production capacity (over and above its roughly 10 million barrels a day of production) would continue to give it major influence on world markets, especially when prices are rocketing up as demand outstrips supply. It can still pump more to ease prices when it wants. But now with a global glut and prices cratering, he said, the United States was in the driver’s seat.
“The nature of U.S. shale production, which turns on and off so quickly and has the potential to provide a floor for the world oil price, can have pretty fundamental historic implications for how we think of the role of OPEC and Saudi Arabia versus the role of the U.S.,” Mr. Bordoff said.
A hydraulic fracturing site owned by Anadarko in Colorado. The Saudis and their Persian Gulf allies have resisted cutting supplies to raise prices, out of fear of losing market share. Credit RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post, via Getty Images
Since the drop in crude prices began last year, the American oil industry has responded with remarkable speed, dropping more than half its oil rigs, from just over 1,600 late last year to fewer than 800 by April.
The transformation has not been without its share of pain. Oil companies have announced layoffs of more than 100,000 workers since November. But as large companies take advantage of bargain basement prices to gobble up the assets of weaker companies, the industry is likely to be better capitalized to expand production in the future.
The oil price has edged up in April but a full rebound could take years. In the short term, the West Texas Intermediate oil price benchmark may fall again as American storage facilities reach their space limit this spring. But the decelerating rate of American production growth is bolstering the hopes of commodity traders that the glut will dissipate faster than some extended price collapses of the past.
“The shale industry is now revealing itself as a nimble and price-responsive producer at a time when OPEC member-states have refused to squelch their own production, thereby rejecting their customary market-balancing role,” according to a recent study by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
The Energy Department has predicted that current United States oil production of 9.4 million barrels a day will decline by 210,000 barrels a day in the third quarter. Energy experts expect further declines into 2016 (accompanied by reduced production in some conventional foreign oil fields), and many executives are predicting that prices will stabilize at $70 to $80 a barrel over the next few years, a sweet spot where consumers get a break but companies can still profit because technology is making drilling cheaper.
The nation’s new ability to influence supplies and prices could only have been a dream in the Nixon and Carter days. Ample United States supplies in recent years protected the American economy while the Middle East and North Africa have been in turmoil, and it enabled Washington to spearhead sanctions on Iran without causing a price increase.
But just as the end of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not usher in an era of peace and harmony, the new American energy security has not brought with it perfect stability. Analysts who suggested that energy independence would end the need for United States intervention in the Middle East did not see the coming of Islamist terrorism nor the spreading turmoil that has moved from Syria to Iraq and potentially beyond.
Foreign foes like Venezuela and Russia have been weakened by the falling price of oil, which dominate their economies. Iran may be willing to negotiate a deal to curtail its nuclear program to escape sanctions. But there is no sign that the Kremlin is less aggressive or dangerous. Falling oil prices should help the global economy, but deflation could be a risk in some nations.
Environmentalists argue that the worst thing about low prices for oil and other hydrocarbons is that they encourage more consumption. Lower gasoline prices have pushed up sales of sport utility vehicles and other large cars. Lower oil and natural gas prices are directly tied to the expanded production made possible by hydraulic fracturing, which is still considered risky by many environmentalists because of the escape of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during exploration, production and transport, along with potential seepage of toxic fluids into water supplies.
“Having prices that reflect the environmental damage are better than low prices that don’t reflect that damage,” said Sonia Aggarwal, director of strategy at Energy Innovation, an environmental consulting firm in San Francisco. But, she added, “the advancement of technologies and the efficiency standards that the Obama administration has put in place for cars and trucks should make the lower oil prices less damaging than they would have been 10 years ago.”
President Obama has applauded the drop in gasoline prices, but he still straddles the interests of environmentalists with those of the oil companies when it comes to hot-button issues like offshore drilling and expanding exports of United States oil and natural gas. Nevertheless, he can be expected to use lower energy prices and the abundant domestic oil supplies as a reason for finally rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline intended to bring Canadian oil sands production to American refineries.
There is a strong chance, energy experts say, that this could be the beginning of decades of United States dominance in the oil markets, and that dominance will be accompanied by relatively inexpensive energy. The shale fields around the country are plentiful, and there is much more to be drilled. Lower prices have already driven down drilling and other service company costs by more than 15 percent.
But more important, the drilling and fracking technology that has made the shale revolution possible is rapidly improving, bringing production costs even lower and raising the yield of each well. For instance, more powerful computers are improving multidimensional geological modeling for well planning. And production output is improving through experimentation in the mixing and use of proppants like sand and ceramics to keep fractures in shale open to release more oil.
A recent Citi Research report noted that even when the rig count for natural gas collapsed in 2008 and 2009, production increased anyway, because companies cut costs while bolstering their yields.
Even if oil doesn’t exactly follow gas, United States oil production may still increase in coming years even as prices stay well below the $100 a barrel level of recent years. That could marginalize OPEC, and potentially make the United States a major oil exporter for the first time in more than half a century if Washington finally overturns some decades-old regulatory hurdles. Those memories of long car lines at the pump in the 1970s are becoming fainter. They may soon be forgotten.
“The Saudis are facing very challenging conditions as they face the future of the global oil market in part because shale does work at far lower prices than many people thought,” Mr. Bordoff said, “and U.S. shale production is going to keep growing as prices rebound.”
-
US to Announce Plans to Reduce Agricultural Carbon Emissions
Apr 23, 2015 | AP (In ABC News)
By Jeff Karoub
Federal agricultural officials are planning to announce voluntary programs and initiatives for farmers, ranchers and foresters meant to build on President Barack Obama's efforts to combat global warming — and don't require congressional approval.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is expected to unveil plans Thursday at Michigan State University, where Obama signed the sweeping farm bill into law last year. The efforts, many of which have their roots in that law, aim to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, boost carbon capture and storage and come with various enticements, including grants, low-interest loans and technical assistance.
Vilsack said the agriculture industry accounts for about 9 percent of U.S. emissions, adding that compares favorably with the rest of the globe but can be improved.
"We want to do this in a way that will help not only environment but also improve agricultural productivity with improved yields and we can also improve bottom line of producers with greater efficiency," he said.
Obama administration aides have said the issue of climate change became even more attractive after the November election, because the Democrat has considerable leverage to act without Congress. Such actions, though, have drawn fierce objections from Republicans and the energy industry.
Specific actions to be announced Thursday include reducing the unnecessary use of fertilizer and methane emissions from cattle and swine, reforesting areas damaged by wildfire and disease and encouraging tree planting in urban areas. For methane reduction in particular, the federal program promotes installing more anaerobic digesters, which use naturally occurring bacteria to break down organic waste to produce biogas, a fuel similar to natural gas.
Vilsack's department estimates that if all steps are followed, it would reduce emissions and enhance carbon sequestration by roughly 120 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent — akin to taking 25 million cars off the road a year.
Already, Obama has moved to cut U.S. emissions through tougher fuel economy standards and has set a target of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent below its 2005 level by 2025.
Last year's landmark agreement that commits the U.S. and China — the No. 1 and No. 2 greenhouse gas emitters — to dramatic action on carbon emissions in the coming years drew sharp criticism. Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma who's the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called that agreement "hollow and not believable," and has previously vowed to block Obama's moves.
White House senior adviser Brian Deese said although there's "a lot of focus on climate change here in Washington," the issue becomes less rancorous and political elsewhere.
"One of the things that is striking when you get out into different parts of America and you talk to people about their business, communities and how a changing climate is affecting the way they do business, the issue is not partisan, it's practical," he said, adding that the many of the steps being taken by the USDA stem from the farm bill passed with bipartisan support.
-
DOJ Touts Settlement's Precedent On 'Basin-Wide' Gas Emission Controls
Apr 22, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget diCosmo
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is touting a settlement with a natural gas company over alleged Clean Air Act violations as setting a precedent for a “basin-wide” approach to curbing emissions from energy extraction, saying the controls that cover the entire drilling exploration area is a model for “systematic” pollution controls.
John Cruden, assistant attorney general for the department's environment and natural resources division, said that DOJ expects that the settlement with Noble Energy, announced April 22 on Earth Day, would result in reduction of several thousand tons per year of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Noble will spend $60 million on system upgrades, monitoring and inspections to cut VOCs, as well as penalties and funding other projects.
EPA is gearing up to this summer propose new source performance standards (NSPS) for cutting VOCs and to set first-time limits on the greenhouse gas methane from new and modified oil and natural gas sources -- a rule that could potentially rely on some of the controls in the pact, such as infrared cameras to detect emission leaks.
“This settlement is the first of its kind to take a basin-wide, systematic approach to air pollution from these kinds of sources anywhere in the country and will provide a framework for future settlements resolving issues stemming from energy extraction activities,” Cruden said at an Earth Day event held in Washington, D.C., according to a press release.
Cruden also touted the public health benefits of the administration’s approach to the settlement, saying it serves as a model for how DOJ and EPA can work closely with states on energy development enforcement cases.
The settlement resolves Noble's alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and Colorado state air regulations due to the company's failure to adequately design, size, operate and maintain vapor control systems on its controlled condensate storage tanks mandated in Colorado's state implementation plan, which led to high VOC emissions.
Under the proposed pact, the company would be required to spend an estimated $60 million on system upgrades, monitoring and inspections to reduce emissions, in addition to $4.5 million to fund environmental mitigation projects, $4 million on supplemental environmental projects and a $4.95 million civil penalty.
Emissions Controls
The company agreed as part of the consent decree to evaluate vapor control system engineering designs; make necessary modifications to reduce VOC emissions; and use an infrared camera to inspect these systems, both initially to confirm capture and control of VOCs and periodically to verify proper upkeep and operation.
Noble will also install monitors at certain storage tanks to detect tank pressure increases that may indicate possible emission releases, and to inspect pressure relief valves, thief hatches and mountings and gaskets and other equipment on each storage tank and address any evidence of VOC emissions from those devices, DOJ says.
Despite Cruden's touting of the pact, one environmentalist disagrees that the conditions of the settlement are precedent-setting. For example, the source says the mandate for Noble to properly design its vapor control systems for tanks consistent with the manufacturer's recommendation seems “pretty straightforward.”
The environmentalist says that, “The innovation seems to be with requiring infrared camera surveying after the redesign to ensure that the tanks are and continue to be properly controlled,” and EPA could consider such a requirement for leak detection and repair provisions in its forthcoming NSPS proposal for the sector.
The environmentalist also says that Cruden's remarks reflecting a novel “basin-wide” approach may be more directed toward the fact that EPA and states have rarely found violations of this nature to be common across a basin, but that it may be due to lack of comprehensive inspections rather than a lack of such flaws.
Cruden in his remaks also highlighted a separate settlement unveiled April 22 that resolve a suit, United States of America and State of Arkansas v. Exxonmobil Pipeline Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division over ExxonMobil's alleged Clean Water Act violations stemming from a pipeline spill in Arkansas in 2013. ExxonMobil will pay $3.19 million in federal civil penalties and take steps to address pipeline safety issues and oil spill response capability under the terms of the proposed settlement.
Fracking Legislation
Meanwhile, House Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) have introduced legislation to outright prohibit hydraulic fracturing on public lands, just weeks after the Interior Department recently issued its final rule governing fracking on federal lands. The lawmakers said in an April 22 press release that the bill, H.R. 1902, would represent the “strongest anti-fracking” legislative measure to date.
And separately, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy recently told the Huffington Post in defense of EPA's pending study of fracking's potential impacts on drinking water, "I think EPA will really add to this dialogue." McCarthy was responding to press reports indicating that the study may not have broader regulatory impacts.
“We have people already working with states to make sure that when we lay this study out, that they’ll be able to absorb what it says, learn from it, and move forward to ensure that they can continue to protect their drinking water supplies and all of their other water resources they rely on,” she said.
-
California's Truck GHG Targets May Create Stricter Rules Than EPA's Plan
Apr 22, 2015 | Inside EPA
California's stringent long-term targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the transportation sector may lead the state's air board to pursue next-generation GHG rules for medium- and heavy-duty trucks that are more stringent than forthcoming EPA rules for the vehicles, sources and documents indicate.
Environmentalists and others following the rulemakings say that landmark California GHG-reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 -- in addition to a new call by Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) to halve the state's petroleum consumption by 2030 -- could prompt the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to propose Phase 2 GHG rules affecting trucks for model-year 2018 and later that are more stringent -- and with longer horizons -- than pending federal rules.
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently sent for White House interagency review their pre-publication next round of medium- and heavy-duty truck GHG rules.
If CARB does eventually propose stronger standards than the federal government, it likely would spur industry representatives to call on California officials to work with the Obama administration to broker an agreement similar to those that govern GHG standards for passenger vehicles and the Phase 1 rules for heavy-duty vehicles.
EPA and NHTSA plan to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for their Phase 2 rules later this spring with a final rule coming in spring 2016. The agencies late last month submitted a joint draft proposal to the White House for interagency review. The rule is expected to strengthen vehicle and engine efficiency standards and will, for the first time, regulate trailers.
The agencies' draft proposal governs 2018-2027 model-year vehicles, a period that is longer than what the agencies had originally intended after trucking industry officials lobbied for additional production certainty, industry sources say.
CARB's website says that upon EPA's adoption of its Phase 2 rules, "[CARB] staff plan to bring a proposed California Phase 2 program before the board, most likely in late 2016 or 2017."
Sources indicate any measure California develops is likely to go beyond federal requirements. "California has air pollution and petroleum reduction goals that go beyond 2027," says an environmentalist. "Therefore, I expect that [CARB] is starting to think about how they reach those goals."
The board is already indicating it plans to use development of its Phase 2 rule to attain targets out to 2030 and beyond and is discussing the issue at an April 22 symposium in the South Coast city of Diamond Bar.
In a notice announcing the symposium, CARB says that heavy-duty vehicles "remain major contributors to statewide emissions of NOx, GHGs and diesel particulate matter (PM)." Compared with 2010 levels, an approximate 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions by 2031 will be necessary in the South Coast Air Basin to achieve compliance with the current federal ozone standards, the notice says.
Statewide, an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 will be necessary to meet California's climate goals, CARB notes.
In addition, "significant improvements in efficiency and the use of renewable fuels are also needed to meet Gov. Brown's 2030 petroleum reduction target of 50 percent." Further, "continued reductions in diesel PM and air toxics are necessary to reduce localized health risks and protect public health."
Stricter Standards
In another sign the board is weighing stricter standards than EPA, CARB recently issued a draft report, "Heavy-Duty Technology and Fuels Assessment: Overview," which says that depending on the stringency and scope of the federal Phase 2 program, "there may be a need to pursue emissions reductions beyond the federal program for California to achieve its goals."
The report adds that there are opportunities to lessen heavy-duty trucks' impact on climate change by using lower global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants. "There may be opportunities in the Phase 2 program to incentivize use of low GWP refrigerants, which are currently available for light-duty sector," the report says.
While seeking significant GHG emission reductions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the Phase 2 rule, CARB also wants to minimize any potential unwanted NOx emission impacts as some GHG-reduction technologies and processes have been shown to increase NOx emissions from engines, sources say.
Sharp decreases in overall NOx emissions are crucial for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air districts to meet long-term federal air quality standards, which are required in the 2031-2036 range.
While California has been "cooperatively working with both federal agencies in the development of the federal Phase 2 standards," CARB says a critical issue at the state level "is the need to ensure that California maintains its progress in reducing NOx emissions while further reducing GHG emissions," the notice says.
CARB planned to use today's symposium to begin a discussion on the issue. "Representatives from environmental government agencies, engine manufacturers, component suppliers, environmental policy and technical research organizations, and trucking fleets will participate in panel discussions to present the latest information on technology options, including their associated emission reduction potential and costs, expected for use in the post-2020 time frame to reduce fuel consumption, improve tractor-trailer efficiency, and assist efforts to achieve California's climate goals," states a recent CARB notice for the symposium.
"The symposium will include an assessment of technology options, their emission reduction potentials, and their associated costs. Information presented at the symposium will help to inform California's consideration of its Phase 2 program, expected in late 2016 or 2017, and how that program, along with other strategies, can assist California in meeting its near- and long-term emission and petroleum reduction goals."
Last fall, CARB circulated a review of current and future heavy-duty diesel truck emissions control technologies that may have provided hints at the potential scope of EPA's pending Phase 2 rules, which will include for the first time rules requirements for reducing truck trailer drag that California implemented several years ago.
For example, state officials said in the review that they believe new technologies can help manufacturers cut GHG emissions an additional 35 percent compared with an assumed 2017 baseline vehicle, on top of emissions that will be reduced by an estimated 6-23 percent under EPA's phase 1 GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles, which cover 2014-18 model years. However, the officials did not specify by what year a 35 percent cut could be achieved.
Future Regulations
In December 2013, CARB adopted EPA's Phase 1 GHG standards for heavy-duty trucks but included a statement in the rulemaking that emphasized the state's right to tighten the future Phase 2 regulations beyond federal requirements that are established for 2018 and later model-year vehicles.
A trucking industry source says that CARB's adoption in 2013 of the EPA rules preserved a "50-state" standard for the industry, something that companies will be pressing for again with the new Phase 2 rules.
"We would hope that EPA and [CARB] can come to a consensus on both national GHG and NOx standards," the industry source says. "Single state standards increase costs of equipment to California operators, decrease reliability and do not address the 25 percent of travel and related emissions which occur in California by out-of-state trucks."
A CARB spokesman says that board officials are "waiting to see" EPA's Phase 2 proposal, "and then we will look at what our response to that proposal should be depending on how the proposal is structured and the estimated benefits that proposal will provide."
-
EPA Preparing for Development, Processing Of State Clean Power Plan Submissions
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is taking various steps in preparation of the final Clean Power Plan that would allow the agency to better process state compliance plans, including working to identify which staffers will actually review the plans, agency officials said.Juan Santiago, associate director of the air quality policy division within the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said April 22 that the 10 EPA regional offices will serve as the “primary point of contact” for states which submit plans describing how they intend to meet their state-specific carbon dioxide emissions reduction target for existing power plants.In addition to identifying the staff who will be assigned to process the plans, the EPA also is developing an online submission system for the state plans and working on a training program for both EPA staff and state environmental officials, Santiago said.The states and EPA regional offices already work together in a similar fashion on the development and approval of state implementation plans for national ambient air quality standards, Santiago said.The EPA is expected in the summer of 2015 to finalize the Clean Power Plan, which applies to existing power plants, alongside other regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants and power plants on tribal lands.The proposed version of the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), released in June 2014, would require states to submit compliance plans describing how they will meet their emissions targets by summer 2016, though extensions will be available if needed (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14).Santiago, speaking at the spring meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, said the EPA is working internally to ensure that the agency has the necessary infrastructure to review and approve the state plans in a timely and consistent manner.Agency ‘Tapping Into Experience.'The agency is “tapping into experience”from the state implementation plan process for national ambient air quality standards and the implementation of other environmental programs to identify what tools and resources are needed to process the state compliance plans for power plant emissions, Santiago said.The EPA is developing an online system that will allow for states to submit their state plans electronically, Santiago said.Santiago said the goal of the system is both to provide a mechanism for states to submit their plans and to serve as a “centralized storage location” for state plans and supporting information. The system will allow for the submission of multi-state compliance plans, Santiago said.The agency also intends to include a Web portal that would allow members of the public to access the submitted state plans, as well as information on the status of the submittals, he said.EPA Developing Comprehensive Training EffortJulie Rosenberg, branch chief for state and local climate and energy programs in the EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs, said the EPA also is developing a “pretty comprehensive training program” for EPA staffers, as well as state and tribal environmental and energy officials.Rosenberg said that to implement the Clean Power Plan, environmental officials will need to know more about energy issues and energy officials will need to know more about environmental regulations.The training program includes webinars, videos, question-and-answer sessions that will be recorded and workshops, all of which will be available through the EPA's website, Rosenberg said.Rosenberg said the EPA already has a lot of background information on energy strategy but urged members of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to suggest other topic areas for training that could be useful. -
House Subcommittee Moves Bill to Give States Ways to Opt Out of Clean Power Plan
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved a draft bill that would give states several ways to opt out of or delay compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan.The Subcommittee on Energy and Power April 22 advanced Rep. Ed Whitfield's (R-Ky.) Ratepayer Protection Act on a 17-12 vote, after voting down three amendments from Democrats. The bill has not yet been formally introduced.The Whitfield bill would allow states to opt out of the EPA rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants if complying with it would increase utility rates or jeopardize reliability. It also would allow states to delay submitting compliance plans until all litigation on the regulation has been completed.“The law for the EPA is weak,” Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said. “The threat to the states is great.”Whitfield previously told Bloomberg BNA he hoped to move the bill through the committee process quickly and pass the legislation before the EPA issues the final Clean Power Plan this summer (74 DEN A-2, 4/17/15).Democrats Lament LegislationDemocrats lamented the bill, saying it would indefinitely delay action needed to address climate change. Several said it was especially ironic given the markup occurred on Earth Day.“This legislation is not only dangerous, but also premature, unnecessary and poorly conceived,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in prepared remarks. “The purpose of this bill is to appease the climate deniers and give aid and comfort to those states who want to ‘just say no' to addressing unchecked carbon pollution from the largest sources in the United States.”Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), ranking member of the subcommittee, offered two amendments to place additional conditions on governors opting out of the proposed rules.One amendment would have required a governor to certify that opting out of the rule would produce savings greater than the cost of responding to extreme weather events. The other would have required governors to certify that opting out would not have significant adverse impacts on human health. Both amendments were defeated.Pallone offered an amendment stating the U.S. should address human contributions to climate change. All Republicans on the subcommittee, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), voted against it.No ‘Serious Plan' From Either PartyRep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) criticized both Democrats and Republicans for failing to offer a “serious plan” to address climate change while also promoting affordable energy supplies.“I've been on this committee 15 years and this is like Groundhog Day every time we talk about climate change here. It's the same old arguments on both sides,” Doyle said. “Technology is the answer to every one of these things. ... Let's develop the technology to save the entire world and let's sell that technology and make a bunch of money in the process.”Republicans Build ‘Castle of Denial.'Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) criticized Republican intransigence on addressing climate change in a call with reporters April 22. He accused Republicans and the coal industry of erecting a “castle of denial” about the changing climate.Whitehouse predicted Republicans would target the final EPA rule through the Congressional Review Act. After that attempt is vetoed, Whitehouse said some Republicans could become more amenable to taking action in Congress to address climate change.“I think we'll actually shift into a new phase in which some Republicans will have to get serious and we'll start making progress,” he said.Whitehouse also criticized attempts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to rally states to boycott submitting compliance plans for the Clean Power Plan. That would instead force the EPA to issue federal plans for those states that are expected to be more restrictive and more costly (54 DEN A-16, 3/20/15).Whitehouse noted that McConnell's own state of Kentucky, which relies almost exclusively on coal for its electricity, has already said it intends to submit a compliance plan to the EPA.“If he's not having any affect in his own home state, I don't see this as anything more than a statement of fealty to the coal industry,” Whitehouse said. -
Council Lacks Consensus on How to Protect Vulnerable Communities Under Power Plan
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan has sparked debate within a federal environmental justice council on how to appropriately protect vulnerable communities, an area environmental justice advocates and environmental groups have said the EPA has inadequately addressed.In comments and meetings, environmental justice advocates and others have criticized the EPA proposal for promoting “building blocks”that could increase pollution in vulnerable communities, lacking an adequate federal environmental justice analysis and not requiring states to conduct EJ analyses of their respective state plans.However, as of April 22 the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council has twice discussed and delayed sending EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy advice on the proposal. And it seems likely to remain silent on certain key concerns about the rule that advocates have highlighted—such as cap-and-trade issues—due to a lack of consensus by advocates, members of industry, academia and others on the council.“This letter wasn't mainly aimed at carbon trading, so I didn't want carbon trading to de-rail this letter,” Nicky Sheats, a council member in charge of drafting the recommendations to McCarthy, said on an April 22 council teleconference.The NEJAC will work together for three weeks via e-mail to finalize the letter. The EPA told Bloomberg BNA that it is reviewing options for helping states examine environmental justice issues in state planning processes.Clean Power Plan ProposalUnder the EPA Clean Power Plan proposal (RIN 2060-AR33), the agency would set state-specific carbon dioxide limits for each state's power industry. States would determine how to meet the EPA-set carbon dioxide limits using any combination of four “building blocks” offered by the agency, such as making coal plants more efficient or increasing end-user energy efficiency.The agency estimates that by 2030, its proposal could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels.However, while the EPA concluded in the proposed rule and regulatory impact analysis that the proposal would lead to regional and national reductions in pollution, there probably also would be some communities that receive more pollution due to the rule.“The EPA cannot exactly predict how emissions from specific EGUs [electric generating units] would change as an outcome of the proposed rule due to the state-led implementation,” the EPA said in the proposed rule. “Therefore, the EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations from this proposed rule.”States' ConsiderationOne of the biggest concerns of environmental justice and environmental advocates is ensuring that states address environmental justice in their own plans.Some of the building blocks proposed by the EPA could shift even more pollution burden onto disadvantaged communities without adequate language or direction for states to consider environmental justice, several groups said.For example, WE ACT for Environmental Justice highlighted that cap-and-trade programs, “as witnessed in California's program,” often allow the companies that pollute the most to “ ‘buy their way out' of compliance” and therefore doesn't “eliminate”pollution in the most affected areas.“While the language in the proposed CPP [Clean Power Plan] describes how the investments of both RGGI [Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] and California's cap and trade program have been used to support energy efficiency programs and provide general benefits to energy customers, to our knowledge, there has been no analysis to examine if the dividends actually reached ‘disadvantaged communities,’and targeted at specific communities to provide technology and resources to improve public health,” the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change said.Advocates Criticize Some Energy SourcesEnvironmental justice advocates also said certain energy sources and energy technologies promoted by the EPA under its building blocks approach aren't clean energy solutions, and they discouraged use or promotion of them.For example, the forum said that nuclear energy produces a significantly toxic waste product and so, until previous pollution from nuclear facilities is addressed, “no new nuclear generation should be expanded, and no EJ communities should be the host of waste sites.”The first draft letter from the council, which was discussed in March, would have addressed several of the environmental justice concerns raised by the rulemaking, such as barring states from using a cap-and-trade approach to achieve their emissions reductions.A paragraph that would have recommended that the EPA explicitly prohibit “use of carbon trading, carbon capture and sequestration or new nuclear electricity generation, or by extending the life of nuclear plants that are scheduled to close” in state plans was taken out of the second letter due to concerns by council members (54 DEN A-7, 3/20/15).Lack of Consensus on IssuesSheats, who is also director of the Center for the Urban Environment at the John S. Watson Institute for Public Policy of Thomas Edison State College, said he took out the paragraph because he heard from environmental justice advocates that they would prefer silence on the issue rather than lack of consensus written in the recommendations.Environmental justice advocates and the council are largely in sync on certain other areas about protecting environmental justice communities from worsening pollution.For example, both environmental justice groups and the advisory council seem to be calling for states to conduct environmental justice analyses of their state plans to meet emissions requirements.A recommendation to have states conduct this analysis has been included in both the first and second NEJAC draft recommendations and hasn't been widely debated at meetings.‘Absolute Reductions' of Some Pollutants UrgedAdditionally, the environmental justice forum, which represents more than 20 environmental justice leaders, including some who are on the NEJAC, said there should be “absolute reductions”of greenhouse gases and co-pollutant emissions in environmental justice communities.The advisory council's draft letter recommended “Absolute carbon dioxide emissions reductions in and near EJ communities, preferably with the intentional maximization of co-pollutant emissions reduction.”States also should prioritize incorporating renewable energy sources into disadvantaged or low income communities, NEJAC's letter and the forum's comments to the EPA said.Environmental justice and environmental groups go further, seeking to address economic justice. Several groups, such as WE ACT, said that there also should be clean energy job training for vulnerable communities.Additionally, states should ensure that low-income and disadvantaged communities aren't subject to increased energy rates and should protect energy assistance for these populations, WE ACT said.Federal EJ AnalysisWhile the NEJAC addresses a state environmental justice analysis, many environmental and environmental justice groups also are calling for a more thorough federal environmental justice analysis and say it is “practicable.”WE ACT said the EPA could use existing data and tools such as EJSCREEN to offer a “proximity analysis of all of the affected facilities”that identifies current emissions, community demographics, prevalence of asthma and other variables.The analysis should account for both the costs to environmental justice communities of potential increased emissions in their areas and the benefits to the communities, such as clean energy implemented and potential related jobs created for disadvantaged or low-income communities, Alejandra Nunez, a staff attorney for the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA.“Just follow the methodology that you've already followed for other rules, such as the Definition of Solid Waste rule,” Nunez said. “Other, more specific information that you don't know yet, ask states to supply it in their plan.”EPA Can't Predict ImpactsIn response to Bloomberg BNA's message requesting comment, Liz Purchia, an EPA spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA the agency isn't able to predict environmental justice impacts due to the state-led implementation of the rule.However, Purchia said the EPA has taken into account input received on the issue and is “considering options to help states as they examine environmental justice issues in the state planning process.”“The flexibility they have to choose how to meet their Clean Power Plan goals means there will continue to be opportunities to work with states to ensure EJ issues are considered as part of this decision-making process,” Purchia said in an e-mail. “We will continue to engage with stakeholders about the types of guidance that would be useful when implementing the final rule.”Council Working on Final ChangesThe council will now work via e-mail to make final changes to the letter—debating aspects such as whether environmental justice communities are entitled to equal protection from negative impacts or also equal benefits from the proposed rule.“If the benefits are the result of private enterprise, investment or innovation, then the EPA is not in a position to direct private ‘benefits' to EJ communities,” Deidre Sanders, a NEJAC member and environmental justice program manager at Pacific Gas & Electric, said.Meanwhile, Nunez remains hopeful that the EPA will further consider environmental justice in its final rule.“EPA is very interested in listening to the concerns of the communities, so we don't believe that there will be nothing at all,”Nunez told Bloomberg BNA. “EPA will address the environmental justice dimension of the final rule in some way.” -
Bipartisan Support for a Carbon Tax will Emerge -- Congressman
Apr 22, 2015 | E&E PM
By Jean Chemnick
bipartisan duo agreed today that eventual enactment of a carbon tax is all but inevitable but that it will require the support of both Democrats and Republicans.
Speaking at a forum hosted by the center-right American Enterprise Institute, Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) and former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) touted a levy on carbon as one way to break through the congressional impasse on climate change, especially if it comes attached to a reduction in the corporate tax rate.
Both said they expected Congress to embrace it someday.
"I really believe in my heart that we will be here," Delaney said.
The Maryland congressman praised Inglis for supporting climate action, saying that "every one Republican who steps forward on this is worth 10,000 Democrats."
Delaney said while his Democratic colleagues sometimes pepper their rhetoric with pot shots at corporations, his own years in business have taught him that a free-enterprise approach can be more effective at bringing about change. And a carbon levy could help lower taxes on corporate earnings from 35 to 28 percent, or lower, he said.
Inglis applauded Delaney's pitch for a lower corporate tax rate, adding that it is a long-sought goal Republicans will struggle to achieve on their own.
The willingness of Democrats to consider lowering business taxes in the context of climate change policy is one reason conservatives should embrace a carbon tax, Inglis said.
"This is pretty doggone exciting if you're a conservative," he said. And Republicans should convert on climate change in large numbers when they realize that there are policy models that don't conflict with their free-market values, he said.
Inglis, who lost his bid for re-election in 2010 in part due to his support for climate action, now heads the Energy & Enterprise Institute, which aims to drum up conservative grass-roots support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. He recently received the Profiles in Courage Award from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation for his work (Greenwire, April 13).
Delaney marked Earth Day by pledging to introduce a new carbon tax bill that would direct revenue to protect coal miners and low-income ratepayers who would be adversely affected and would roll back the corporate income tax rate.
The new version will differ from the measure he floated last year, his office said.
At the AEI forum he said the bill would provide "billions and billions of dollars for retraining, relocation, but quite frankly for early retirement" of miners, effectively neutralizing the Republican argument that constraints on carbon will create suffering in coal country.
Inglis has said any carbon tax model he would support must be entirely revenue-neutral, but the Delaney model does not seem to meet that criteria because it would create programs for miners and low-income households.
Inglis and other conservative backers of a carbon tax at think tanks like AEI insist that the policy would pre-empt U.S. EPA's Clean Air Act greenhouse gas rules. Delaney said his bill will not weigh in on that, but noted that even the administration has said existing law is not the most efficient way to address warming.
-
Liberals Target 'Absurd' Tax Breaks for Fossil Fuels
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
Two liberal lawmakers are marking Earth Day by calling for an end to tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on Wednesday introduced legislation that would end tax preferences for oil, natural gas and coal companies. They say their bills could save $135 billion over 10 years.
"At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies’ already enormous profits," Sanders said in a statement.
Ellison said the companies "don't need any more tax giveaways."
The bill would also encourage government research into clean energy and update royalty rates for oil drilling in public waters and on federal land. The Obama administration announced last week that it was considering raising the royalty rates on federal lands, something the oil industry opposes.
Ending tax breaks for fossil fuel companies is a common proposal from liberals and environment-friendly lawmakers. Republicans oppose the idea, arguing the industry already faces a heavy tax burden.
-
Inhofe: Obama wants Legacy of Eliminating Fossil Fuels
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) says President Obama wants to "do away with fossil fuels" as his presidential legacy. Inhofe spoke with The Hill on Earth Day about Obama's carbon emissions efforts. "I think we're looking at a president right now who, now that he can't run for president anymore — he's already been reelected — that he's looking at his legacy and what is his legacy?" Inhofe said in an on-camera interview. "He wants total gun control, he wants to close Gitmo, and then of course, this is the big thing, he wants to do away with fossil fuels." Watch the video clip above to see his full comments. -
Presidential Hopefuls Tell Bloomberg Where They Stand on Environment, Energy Issues
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem
Bloomberg asked candidates who are running or considering a run for president to answer five questions about environmental and energy issues, including whether humans contribute to climate change and whether they support the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants.Some responded directly. Some responded selectively. In other cases, Bloomberg reporters were able to research candidates' positions from earlier remarks and votes. Some candidates did not respond, and two—Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio)—declined through spokesmen to answer the questions.1. Human Activity and Climate Change.Do you accept the science that human activity is contributing to the changing climate?Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “At this point, it's hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand that human activity is causing climate change,”Adrienne Elrod, spokeswoman for the Clinton campaign, told Bloomberg. “Hillary Clinton has called it one of the greatest threats to our future.”Business Executive Carly Fiorina: “There is a lot of consensus among scientists that climate change is real, that human activity contributes to it.”Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.): He said last year that he's “not sure anybody exactly knows why”climate change occurs. This year, he voted against an amendment offered by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) that said “climate change is real and human activity significantly contributes” to it (14 DEN A-17, 1/22/15).Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): He voted for the Schatz amendment, agreeing that “human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” He has criticized Democrats for turning climate science “into a religion”but in the context of wanting the Republican Party to come up with its own realistic policy.Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.): “I'm sure human activity has an effect on our environment—and always has.”Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.): Christie said in 2011 that following talks with experts he had come to accept that “climate change is real,” and “we are at least part of the problem.” But he subsequently announced he would pull New Jersey out of a 10-state cap-and-trade program known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on the theory that his state can reduce carbon emissions without what he described as hidden taxes (103 DEN A-1, 5/27/11). And when asked if he believed that Hurricane Sandy's devastation to his state was caused by climate change, he assailed his questioner as an emissary of “liberal public radio.”Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “There has never been a moment where the climate is not changing,”Rubio said in an interview on CBS's Face the Nation. “If we do the things they want us to do, cap and trade, you name it, how much will that change the pace of climate's change versus how much will it cost to our economy? Scientists can't tell us what impact it would have on reversing these changes. But I can tell you with certainty it would have a devastating impact on our economy.”2. U.S.-China Agreement.Do you see the U.S.-China pact to reduce carbon emissions as a step forward in reducing global warming? (219 DEN A-8, 11/13/14)Fiorina: “China is not prepared to follow our lead. They will never follow our lead on this issue. The Chinese have foremost in their policy agenda their economic self-interest which requires them to grow their economy at a certain rate. So we need to accept that and understand what it will take innovation. We are disabling our economy and making no impact on climate change. We will never have a harmonized regulatory regime, especially with China behaving the way it is.”Graham: He was one of the first Republicans that Secretary of State John Kerry reached out to after the deal was cut and has done nothing to oppose it, while asking whether it could hurt economic growth. “The administration is going to have their work cut out for them convincing the Congress that going to a low-carbon economy will be good for our economy,”he said after the deal. “I think there's a case to be made that a low-carbon economy, implemented over time, is not inconsistent with a robust economy.”Jindal: “No. This is a bad deal for America. It requires America to do everything and China to do nothing for 15 years. This agreement is going to hurt our economy and put American jobs in jeopardy. Once again, the president has put his global ideology ahead of people here at home. America is blessed with an abundance of natural resources—and they've put us on the precipice of an energy and manufacturing revolution. With a still sputtering economy, the president should be taking advantage of this. He should be clearing a lane for job creation in the energy and manufacturing sector, not putting up roadblocks.”Rubio: Rubio believes this will hurt the U.S. economically, while allowing China to continue to emit, his campaign said in an e-mail.3. EPA Clean Power Plan.Do you support the proposed EPA Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants? (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14)Clinton: Elrod said Clinton is “committed to enforcing limits on power plants spewing carbon pollution into the air.”Fiorina: “I do not support regulations at the federal level because the science tells us that no country acting alone make a difference. This will take a decades-long, global effort costing trillions of dollars. The only way out is to innovate. When we over-regulate, we're crushing people's opportunities.”Paul: He opposes the plan, in line with the politics of his coal-producing state. “The excessive rule is an illegal use of executive power,” he said in 2014, “and I will force a vote to repeal it.” He said on Bill Maher's HBO show that “the environment has been cleaned up dramatically through regulations on emissions as well as clean water over the last 40 or 50 years,” but the senator has not specified what regulations are acceptable.Graham: He opposes the plan and pledges to “take it down,” as it is “going to drive up the power costs and hurt our economy.” He contrasts it with the cap-and-trade legislation he pushed in 2011, which, he argues, would not have been so painful.Former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas):“Governor Perry … opposes the proposed EPA regulations affecting power plants, which would increase the cost of energy for Americans,”Travis Considine, a Perry spokesman, said in an e-mail.Jindal: “No. The President's Clean Power Plan undermines the role of states in the federal Clean Air Act in an effort to realize a radical, liberal agenda that will lead to increased energy costs.”Rubio: “This is yet another harmful measure being taken—for the purpose of setting an example, is what they're saying—‘We need to go on the global stage. We have this big conference in 2015. We want the U.S. to be able to lead by example on all these climate change measures,'”the senator said in a radio interview the day the proposals were announced. “What they don't understand, or seem to want to ignore is that the largest contributors of carbon to the atmosphere today are developing countries like China and India. This notion that, ‘Somehow, if we destroy our economy by raising utility prices for Americans, they're going to follow our example,' is silly.”4. Keystone XL Pipeline.Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?Clinton: The Democratic hopeful has avoided taking a position on the issue, which splits two of her party's key constituencies: environmentalists and labor. Her campaign ignored this question on Bloomberg's list.Fiorina: “Yes. The American people widely support the Keystone XL pipeline and what we're doing today is actually worse for greenhouse gas emissions than what the pipeline would be.”Perry: “Governor Perry believes the most profound way to boost the country's economy and enhance our national security is to aggressively market American energy around the globe and approve the Keystone XL pipeline,”Considine wrote.Paul: Yes. “The Keystone pipeline would instantly create thousands of jobs without costing the taxpayers a dime,” he said in 2013.Graham: Yes. “I was one of the first members of the United States Senate to visit the Canadian oil sands to see first-hand how this resource could benefit our country,” he said in January.Jindal: “Yes. Approving this project should be a no-brainer. It's safe and it will create good-paying construction jobs. Government should get out of the way of job creation. The opposition to Keystone is not based on science or reason and it's holding our country back.”Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.): “Governor Walker believes that a balance must be struck in our efforts to protect the environment and protect our economy. The Obama administration has continually pandered to far left environmentalists at the expense of American workers, job creators, and the economy. From rejecting the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline to pushing backdoor energy taxes, the president's radical environmental policies have been disastrous for America,” wrote AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Walker's political committee, Our American Revival.Christie: In a speech to energy executives at the Vancouver Petroleum Club, Christie said the delay in approving Keystone XL is “no way to treat a friend”and said the pipeline would create jobs and grow the economy on both sides of the border.Rubio: “President Obama's decision not to move forward on the Keystone pipeline is a mistake,” Rubio wrote in a January 2012 blog post. “This decision offers even more appalling evidence that this administration is hopelessly rudder-less in its jobs and energy policies. By not acting on Keystone, the President is depriving America of a means to create jobs, take a step towards energy independence, and bolster our national security by tapping into our energy resources and those of our friends in Canada instead of tyrannical governments.”5. Government Incentives and Energy.Do you support government incentives, such as tax breaks or credits, to support alternative forms of energy production? If so, which?Clinton: Clinton has “pushed for investments in alternative energy that will limit pollution and create the jobs of tomorrow,” Elrod said.Fiorina: “Innovation is the key to answering climate change. However, I think that our tax code needs to be simplified, so that would not include tax breaks or credits.”Jindal: “I think wind energy, along with other renewables, need to get to a place where they can stand on their own alongside other forms of energy. What we really need to do is lower the tax rate for everyone, so we have a completely level playing field and a more conducive environment for new energy technologies to get off the ground and thrive. Emerging energy technologies can increasingly compete with conventional sources without subsidies. Instead of utilizing explicit taxpayer subsidies and credits for specific sectors and industries, federal policy should instead work to expand innovative, sound financing options for all forms of energy.”Walker: “Under Governor Walker, the state of Wisconsin joined a federal lawsuit challenging new limits on carbon emissions from power plants,” Strong wrote.Christie: In response to Bloomberg's questions, Christie's political action committee, Leadership Matters for America, pointed out that New Jersey has 14,529 solar energy project installed statewide. In July 2012, Christie signed legislation to strengthen and grow the solar industry.Rubio: Rubio supports innovation as an alternative, his campaign wrote in an e-mail, noting that he sponsored legislation in 2014 designed to bolster cooperation between government research labs and the private sector. -
Obama on Climate Change: ‘This is a Problem Now’
Apr 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
President Obama traveled to the Florida Everglades Wednesday to highlight the effects of climate change on Earth Day.
“This is a not a problem for another generation. Not anymore,” Obama said. “This is a problem now. It has serious implications for the way we live right now.”
Obama also touted the steps taken by his administration.
“The steps we’ve taken over the last several years are already making a difference,” he said, outlining efforts in renewable energy, international climate agreements and energy efficiency.
“These steps can help us avoid some of the worst effects of climate change down the road.”
-
Earth Day Brings Flurry of Mostly Messaging Bills on Capitol Hill
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
Nowhere in the rules of the House or Senate is a requirement that any legislation related to the environment wait until Earth Day to be introduced, but you wouldn't know that from the torrent of bills floated yesterday proposing everything from a tax on carbon emissions to a program to make mail trucks more efficient.
It was mostly Democrats who used yesterday to highlight their various legislative proposals demonstrating a commitment to saving the planet. A handful of Republicans took the opportunity to float some ideas of their own, few of which were in line with those of the most boisterous Earth Day celebrators.
More than a dozen bills were introduced yesterday related to climate change, environmental regulations or energy production, according to a search of congressional statements in the online database Legistorm. Since Monday, House and Senate lawmakers put out more than 50 statements mentioning Earth Day; by comparison, nearly twice as many statements mentioned "tax day" over the same period leading up to April 15 last week.
Neither Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) nor House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) released statements commemorating Earth Day yesterday. Boehner did post a video on Twitter commemorating National Jellybean Day, which apparently also was yesterday. Boehner said he preferred the green jellybeans.
The flurry of legislative activity yesterday included numerous longshot proposals from Democrats that stand little chance of success in a Republican Congress, along with a few ideas that could garner more bipartisan support as lawmakers continue to assemble energy legislation this year.
The day started with a rally outside the Capitol with Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who were reintroducing their bill (H.R. 1902) to ban hydraulic fracturing on public lands -- an approach that is at odds even with the Obama administration and unlikely to gain traction in the near future. Schakowsky said she appreciated the Bureau of Land Management's efforts to strengthen its regulation of fracking in a recently proposed rule, "but the rule allows fracking to continue, and that's what our bill would stop."
Yesterday evening, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a leading efficiency advocate, introduced the "Smart Manufacturing Leadership Act." The bill would direct the Department of Energy to identify applications for new technologies that can make manufacturing more efficient and provide assistance to small and midsized manufactures to implement the technology, although Shaheen did not mention Earth Day in introducing the bill.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced two bills, one aimed at promoting geothermal energy and another to promote marine hydrokinetic energy.
"Finding new ways to produce clean energy, create good-paying U.S. jobs and reduce carbon emissions is critical to protecting the environment and American consumers," Wyden said in a statement. "This 45th anniversary of Earth Day puts a spotlight on the importance of protecting our environment. I'm going to keep working on ways to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change not just on Earth Day, but every day of the year."
A group of 10 New England and Mid-Atlantic Democrats, led by New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, introduced a bill to block offshore drilling anywhere along the Atlantic Coast. The bill puts the group at odds with President Obama, who proposed opening part of the East Coast to exploration in his latest proposed five-year drilling plan.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) introduced a nonbinding resolution honoring author and activist Rachel Carson, whose seminal book "Silent Spring" is credited with helping to bring about the environmental movement.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) reintroduced their bill to eliminate a variety of tax breaks for traditional energy sources, increase royalties for drilling on public lands and direct federal research dollars toward clean energy.
Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) said he would be introducing a bill to establish a $30-per-ton carbon tax and use the proceeds to lower the corporate tax-rate to 28 percent and provide rebates to low-income families to offset higher energy bills. The bill also would direct the Department of Labor to assist those in the coal industry who lose their jobs as a result of the carbon tax.
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) introduced two bills timed to yesterday's festivities. The "Climate Change Education Act" would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a program to promote education related to the causes and effects of climate change. The "Land Based Marine Debris Reduction Act" would direct U.S. EPA to identify ways to keep trash from reaching lakes, rivers and oceans.
Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) introduced the "Veterans Conservation Corps Act," a version of which had been offered in the last session of Congress, as well. The bill would train veterans for careers in conservation-related fields such as water management, construction or becoming park rangers, according to a press release. Separately, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) introduced the "21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps Act," a more broadly targeted effort to encourage jobs in conservation fields.
Reps. Mark Takai (D-Hawaii), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) reintroduced the "Federal Leadership in Energy Efficient Transportation Act" (FLEET). The bill would direct the U.S. Postal Service to reduce its petroleum consumption 2 percent per year over the next decade, strengthen efficiency standards for new postal trucks and direct the Postal Service to find ways to make their routes more efficient.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the "Targeted Use of Sanctions for Killing Elephants and Rhinoceros Act" (TUSKER), which would impose sanctions on countries that facilitate poaching.
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) announced he would introduce the "Great Lakes Nutrient Removal Assistance Act." The bill would establish a $500 million program within EPA to help cities and towns upgrade wastewater treatment systems to remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, which can cause algal blooms like the one that made Toledo's water supply undrinkable for several days last year.
While much of the day's messaging focused on traditional environmentalist concerns such as climate change or clean water, District of Columbia Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) used the occasion to reintroduce her "Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act," the latest version of a bill she has introduced for more than 20 years.
"Earth Day has come into its own with the urgency of climate change, which could destroy the earth but was unknown when Earth Day was established in 1970," Norton said in a statement. "At the same time, there is no greater threat to the future of our planet than nuclear war. As the United States seeks to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran, our country, with the world's largest nuclear arsenal, should lead by example by reducing our already unnecessarily high number of warheads, and move toward realizing a world without nuclear weapons."
A handful of Republicans got into the act yesterday, too, although not all of them explicitly tied their efforts to Earth Day. Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) introduced a nonbinding resolution encouraging an "all of the above" energy policy that would preserve a role for abundant fossil fuels and nuclear power alongside renewables and energy efficiency.
Reps. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) and Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) introduced a new bill taking aim at one of their longstanding targets: the wind production tax credit. Their bill would reduce the credit's value by eliminating inflation adjustments that have been made since its initial enactment in 1992, tighten eligibility requirements and strike the relevant section of the tax code to prevent further extensions of the credit, which was briefly renewed and then expired at the end of last year.
Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) -- both of whom are among the most endangered GOP incumbents ahead of the 2016 election -- more forcefully embraced the spirit of Earth Day. They introduced the "Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act," which would reauthorize a popular program to address threats to the lakes' ecosystems. A bipartisan companion was introduced in the House earlier this year.
"Last year I celebrated the contamination cleanup of Waukegan Harbor and the removal of more than 150,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment, which was made possible because of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative," Kirk said in a statement. "As the source of clean drinking water for more than 30 million Americans, it is crucial that we keep the Lakes our nation's most precious natural resource, free from toxins, sewage and the continued threat of invasive species in order to keep the Lakes the crown jewel of the Midwest."
Some took an opportunity yesterday not to introduce new bills but to tout previous successes such as Congress passing earlier this week a modest energy efficiency bill aimed at preserving utility demand-response programs and encouraging efficiency in buildings (E&E Daily, April 22).
"Earth Day serves as a reminder that each and every day we can do our part to protect our land and water and conserve our resources," said Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who co-sponsored the "Better Buildings Act," which was included in the just-passed bill. "By supporting earth-friendly policies and industries, we can not only help combat climate change, but create good-paying jobs and strengthen our local communities."
-
Virginia Utility to Close Coal Ash Ponds; Power Stations Converted to Greener Fuels
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Dominion Virginia Power announced that it will close all four of the company's coal ash ponds in the state.Three of the four coal ash ponds to be closed are at facilities that have been converted to cleaner fuels, Virginia's largest electrical utility said in an April 17 press release.Dominion said the closures would comply with land and water protection standards established by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency. The closures will comply with the EPA's new Coal Combustion Residuals rule, the company said.Coal ash ponds are present at four Dominion power stations in Virginia, DEQ spokesman Bill Hayden told Bloomberg BNA April 22. The sites are the Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County; the Chesapeake Energy Center in Chesapeake, Va.; the Chesterfield Power Station in Chesterfield County; and the Possum Point Power Station in Prince William County.Dominion said three of the power plants have been converted to cleaner fuels. While it didn't specify the fuels, the company said that nearly two-thirds of the electricity produced by Dominion for Virginia comes from nuclear generation, natural gas and renewable fuels.The Chesterfield power station remains coal-fired, Hayden said. He added that coal ash produced at the company's remaining Virginia coal-fired power plants is dry ash disposed of in landfills.Ponds Will be Drained, CoveredDominion said that, in general, the coal ash ponds will be drained and covered by a rugged, impermeable liner, then topped with 24 inches of soil. Either grass or sod will be planted on top of the soil. The specifics of the closure plans will be determined by the DEQ, the company said.The company didn't reveal what it intends to do with the liquid drained from the ponds. The company declined to respond to Bloomberg BNA questions about the plan.Dominion said the actual work will begin after DEQ, other agencies and local jurisdictions issue the necessary permits. -
A Challenge From Climate Change Regulations
Apr 22, 2015 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
As President Obama prepares to unveil his climate change regulations on coal-fired power plants, the nation’s electric utilities are preparing to transform the system that keeps the lights on in America. But some companies fear that in the process, the lights may go out.
This summer, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release a final set of rules aimed at forcing electric power companies — the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions — to cut them 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The Obama administration has consistently used 2005 as a baseline year for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The ambitious rules hope to remake the nation’s electricity system by closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal plants while rapidly expanding the use of natural gas plants, wind and solar power. Officials at electric utilities say that as they make that transition — taking the nation’s largest but dirtiest source of electricity offline and replacing it with a mix of cleaner power sources — they may face power failures.
“If the proposed rule stands the way it is, there will be blackouts,” said Nick Akins, the chief executive of American Electric Power, an electric utility that supplies power in 11 Midwestern states.
This week, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a utility industry group, issued a report concluding that, as written, the proposed climate change rules could pose “a significant reliability challenge” to the nation’s power supply.
The challenge facing utilities is steep: As they close coal plants that light millions of homes, they will need to quickly build new sources of electricity. Much of that will come from new power plants fueled by natural gas, which produces half the carbon pollution of coal. But they will also build vast new wind and solar farms. Turbines built on windswept plains and solar panels built in sunny deserts will need new power lines to connect them to the grid, but siting, permitting and building such lines can take up to a decade. In some parts of the country, electric utilities may choose to build new nuclear plants. Nuclear power produces no carbon pollution, but creates many controversies about storing nuclear waste. Companies also plan to invest in energy-efficient technology to help move and store the new power on the grid.
A Colorado oil well developed by hydraulic fracturing, the blasting of oil and gas out of shale rock with water and chemicals.Special Section: Energy
The Nest thermostat can be controlled from a smartphone.Homes Try to Reach Smart SwitchAPRIL 22, 2015
London Array, in the Thames Estuary off Kent, England, is a joint wind power project of Dong Energy of Denmark, E.ON of Germany and Masdar of Abu Dhabi.Europe Looks Offshore for Wind PowerAPRIL 22, 2015
Ernesto Soto, left, and Edgar Colclough, machine operators for Aramark, sort compostable trash from bins at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., before it goes into a composter on the site.Recycling Peanuts and Cracker Jack APRIL 22, 2015
In the long run, Mr. Akins and officials from other electric utilities say that they do expect to meet the requirements of the regulation by 2030. The hard part, they say, will be maintaining reliable power during the transition. In particular, they note that the E.P.A.’s draft proposal requires states to start demonstrating significant emissions cuts as early as 2020.
“This is going to be a major transition of the electricity system. All these things can be done, but not in that time range,” said Gerry Cauley, president of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
States and coal companies are already challenging the rules in federal court, and if they are successful, the Obama regulations, as written, could fall apart. But that would not remove the legal requirement for the E.P.A. to regulate greenhouse gases, even under a future president.
Across the country, the burden will be unequally spread, with states that depend most heavily on coal-fired power facing the biggest lift. Today, coal-fired power accounts for about 40 percent of the nation’s electricity over all, but for some states, coal supplies much of the power, while others use very little. In Kentucky, for example, 92 percent of electricity comes from coal. Coal powers 83 percent of Missouri’s needs and 67 percent of Ohio’s. But the West Coast states, which rely heavily on hydroelectric power and other low-carbon sources, get less than 10 percent of their power from coal.
In California, which has already enacted an ambitious state-level cap-and-trade law to reduce carbon pollution, on top of another state law requiring generation of renewable electricity, utilities anticipate that meeting the federal regulation will simply be a continuation of business as usual.
“California is already on track to achieve the reductions in the rule,” said Melissa Lavinson, vice president for federal affairs at Pacific Gas and Electric. “The way we’re moving forward under the California law, we’ve reduced emissions, increased renewables, and we haven’t had a problem with reliability.”
E.P.A. officials say they are aware of the concerns about reliability, particularly in the coal-dependent Midwest.
“There is no way that E.P.A. is going to finalize this rule without being assured that the system will be reliable and cost-effective,” said Gina McCarthy, the E.P.A. administrator. “We are working with utilities on what needs to be tweaked.”
A report issued in February by the Analysis Group, a consulting firm based in Boston, concluded that there were ways for states to avoid blackouts and brownouts during the power transition. The report found, if states were to adopt interstate cap-and-trade plans, along the lines of the program in place in California, they could cut pollution while keeping the lights on.
Under such a program, a cap would be set on total pollution over a region of states, and owners of polluting power plants would pay for permits to pollute. If such programs were spread across some states with many polluting coal plants, and some states with none, it could ease the burden on heavily polluting states. Such an interstate program is already in place in the Northeast.
“That would be a way to have it work from a reliability and a carbon pollution point of view,” said Susan Tierney, an author of the study. “But if a state goes it alone and doesn’t want to join, it could be harder.”
But that proposal faces political hurdles. Republicans fought fiercely and successfully to kill Mr. Obama’s effort to enact a national cap-and-trade policy, which Republicans have labeled “cap and tax.” Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who is considering a run for president in 2016, withdrew his state from the New England regional cap-and-trade program.
States and electric utilities are continuing to urge the E.P.A. to loosen the plan, either by extending the regulation’s timetable or by offering some sort of stopgap provision, allowing states at risk of blackouts to continue to pollute until new sources of clean power are in place.
-
In Fla., President Skewers National GOP but Calls for Bipartisanship on Warming
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama talked bipartisanship in his Earth Day remarks yesterday in Florida, but he also took aim at climate change-dismissing Republicans for seeking to keep "denial" alive.
Speaking in Everglades National Park to highlight how warming-driven sea-level rise is affecting the tropical wetlands, Obama praised past GOP presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to George H.W. Bush for their contributions to conservation. Roosevelt initiated the national park system, he noted, while the elder Bush did not deny climate change.
"This is not something that historically should be a partisan issue," he said.
He also gave a shout-out to the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, a collaboration among four counties aimed at hardening infrastructure and curbing emissions. The counties are led by both Democratic and Republican officials, he noted, and "it's become a model not just for the country, but for the world."
But he derided today's national-brand Republicans for their stances on climate change.
In a message that appeared tailored to Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), who declined Obama's invitation to meet him on the tarmac in Miami, Obama said that warming can't "be denied," "be edited out" or "omitted from the conversation."
Scott has recently come under fire for allegedly banning state officials from using the words "climate change" and "global warming." Though Scott denies this, he is vocal in disputing man-made climate change.
Speaking to reporters aboard the plane to Florida, deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said that if Scott hasn't ordered his administration to avoid discussion of climate change, "we look forward to them contributing to the discussion on one of the greatest threats that we face."
The president also leveled a shot at Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the most vocal disputers of climate science in Washington, D.C. Obama reminded his audience of the Environment and Public Works Committee chairman's February stunt highlighting his disbelief in warming.
"Yes, this winter was cold in parts of our country, including Washington," said Obama. "Some people in Washington helpfully used a snowball to illustrate that fact."
But global temperatures showed last winter to be the warmest on record, he noted.
Inhofe also had some choice words about Obama yesterday, though they came attached to rare comments applauding U.S. EPA. In his own message, the committee chairman noted the federal government's success since the first Earth Day 45 years ago in improving the quality of air and drinking water.
"Unfortunately, the Obama administration continues to downplay these successes, instead focusing its rhetoric and resources towards trying to solve the theory of man-made global warming with extremely costly regulations," said Inhofe. Obama's climate actions "would expand the size of government," cost the economy money and jobs, and compromise the power grid, he said.
Obama also made an appeal to everyday Floridians, noting that they stand to lose a state treasure to climate change. Salt water from the adjacent ocean is already infiltrating the freshwater Everglades wetlands, he noted, which provide water to the southern part of the state.
"And if we don't act, there may not be an Everglades as we know it," he said.
Florida could see as much as 2 more feet of sea-level rise by 2060. Saltwater intrusion could undermine Floridians' access to drinking water, harm their infrastructure and threaten their property.
Obama used the speech to highlight his Climate Action Plan, now nearly two years old and under general assault from Capitol Hill Republicans. He offered it as a boon to the economy, with successes already emerging in wind and solar energy and other sectors.
"This is not some impossible problem that we cannot solve," he said. "We can solve it if we've got some political will."
At least one Florida Republican embraced Obama's message that sea-level rise is endangering the Sunshine State.
Freshman Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) said Obama's visit highlights "the threat climate change poses to our community and natural resources."
"I am committed to finding common ground to mitigate the effects of climate change," he said, stating a position that is very rare among House Republicans. He praised Obama for his commitment to the Everglades and noted that last week, the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee voted to fully fund Obama's fiscal 2016 request for South Florida ecosystem restoration.
Curbelo also applauded Scott's pledge of $5 billion for Everglades restoration.
-
Hal Rogers Tries for Delicate Balance on Spending
Apr 22, 2015 | Politico Pro
By David Rogers
The House Appropriations Committee adopted a spending blueprint Wednesday that demands deep cuts from President Barack Obama’s domestic budget but keeps alive the hope that the panel can still move its bills through Congress this summer while the two political parties look for some compromise.
The path ahead will not be easy: More than $20 billion must be cut from Obama’s requests for just three of the 12 annual bills covering major departments for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) appears determined to avoid the pitfalls of the past and will try to give each of his subcommittees enough money to have a realistic chance of bringing a bill to the House floor.
It’s a difficult balancing act as illustrated by the first two bills out of the box Wednesday: a $35.4 billion measure covering energy and water programs followed by a $76.6 billion package funding both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the military construction budget inside Defense.
Each would grow, albeit not as much as Obama would like. But each also consumes what few extra dollars Rogers has available to him under the strict spending caps set by the Budget Control Act.
By the end of the day, then, the chairman was already in the hole — not just in terms of Obama’s requests but also current spending levels for domestic programs important to swing moderates in his party.
Learning from past mistakes, Rogers is taking care to add money to protect transportation and housing programs, a giant bill that famously undid the whole appropriations process two summers ago. But even here, he knows he is just treading water given an almost equal drop in receipts for the Federal Housing Administration.
Elsewhere, to stay under the caps, real cuts of about $5.8 billion are needed from domestic accounts, most notably from bills funding education, labor and health programs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Treasury and important Wall Street regulators.
For example, Rogers’ $153 billion allocation for the annual labor, health and human services bill amounts to a $3.7 billion cut from 2015 spending and $14.6 billion from Obama’s 2016 request. A natural resources and Western lands bill covering the EPA and Interior Department would be held to $30.17 billion, $246 million below 2015 and nearly $1.9 billion below Obama.
Both the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission are again vulnerable to Republican-backed cuts, as is the Internal Revenue Service. Altogether, the financial services and general government subcommittee is allocated just $20.25 billion, a $1.28 billion cut from current funding and nearly $4 billion below Obama’s requests.
“With these numbers, we’re making the most of a tough situation,” Rogers told the committee. “The fact of the matter is that the topline budget caps are indeed the law of the land. … If we want to get the ball rolling on our appropriations work, if we want the chance of getting this done on time and under regular order, we must make the best of what we have.”
With Republicans now in control of the Senate, Rogers has a better chance than in the past. And much will depend on the success of Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who has been charged to take over the subcommittee responsible for the labor, health and education budget bill in this Congress.
For years now, the House GOP has failed to bring this bill to the floor, but if Cole can pull together a measure from the money allotted to him, it will make the whole budget strategy more meaningful.
But for all the talk of law and realism, Republicans know too that the plan rests on what is a legal and political illusion: the wholesale use of war-related overseas contingency funds — better known as OCO — to bail out the Defense Department from having to live under the same caps as domestic programs.
Following the lead of the House and Senate Budget resolutions, Rogers’ road map for the coming summer and fall assumes $96 billion will be available in OCO money, not counted against the caps. That’s $38 billion more than Obama’s own $58 billion OCO request for 2016, enough to placate GOP hawks. But under the terms of the BCA, the president must specifically sign off on every dollar for it to be exempt from the caps.
This gives Obama precious leverage down the road and sets up a situation when his veto power over domestic spending cuts will be paired with OCO as part of final spending talks.
The president has made no secret of his desire for some mutual adjustment of defense and nondefense caps — akin to what Congress enacted in December 2013. And Rogers himself appears open to this outcome, even as he feels compelled to make what progress he can while the higher-ups in his leadership and the White House jockey for position.
Having seen this movie before, Democrats on the committee Wednesday appeared willing to give him some leeway even though they argued the allocations were “insufficient and fundamentally flawed,” in the words of the ranking member, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.).
Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), who will help manage the $55.2 billion transportation and housing bill this summer, said the end result would be “self-inflicted damage.”
“We’re starving our country of critical investments,” Price said. “That will mean another year of decay and deferred maintenance for our communities.”
A Democratic alternative set of allocations — crafted by Lowey to largely mirror Obama’s requests — failed on a 29-20 party-line vote. But the debate had less of the “march through Georgia” tone of past battles over Republican spending cuts.
Indeed, the New York Democrat opened the session with a spirited blast at the GOP for using the energy and water bill to reopen fights over riders affecting the EPA’s regulatory powers and national ocean policy. And all on Earth Day.
“I should not have to remind my majority colleagues that similar provisions have imperiled passage of this bill in the past,” Lowey said. “I’m truly amazed that you would frankly, willfully go down this path again when we have enough problems working out funding levels, such as your insufficient investments in renewable energy.”
“Strong letter to follow?” Rogers quipped.
-
House Cuts $246M from Interior-EPA Spending Pot
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Phil Taylor
The House Appropriations Committee yesterday announced a spending plan that provides $30.17 billion for the bill that funds the Interior Department, the Forest Service and U.S. EPA, a $246 million cut below current funding levels that will force appropriators to do more with less to maintain a bevy of energy, environment and conservation programs.
The funding pot for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, known as a 302(b) allocation, is about 1 percent below current funding levels.
It is part of an overall $1.017 trillion Republican spending plan that hews to sequestration levels set in 2011 and that has sparked a major spending battle with Democrats and the White House.
Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the top Democrat on the committee, said the spending allocations for the 12 appropriations subpanels are "insufficient and fundamentally flawed."
"We will still have to cover the increased costs to combat deadly wildfires, provide contract support costs in the Indian Health Services and prepare for the centennial anniversary of the National Park Service, all from an allocation below last year," she said.
The funding level will further squeeze a host of conservation programs, clean water grants, and climate change and habitat restoration work that are funded under the Interior-EPA bill.
"It's a disappointing number," said Alan Rowsome, a public lands lobbyist for the Wilderness Society. "It's not a number that gives you a huge amount to play with."
The funding level will be particularly challenging considering the rising costs of wildfires and Congress' inability to find a mandatory funding source for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), Rowsome said. PILT, which provides more than $400 million annually to compensate counties with large tracts of non-taxable federal lands, was funded with mostly discretionary dollars last year, putting a strain on other Interior-EPA programs.
The House's 2016 allocation for the Interior-EPA panel is not going to be enough to meet the needs of programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund and national parks maintenance funding, Rowsome said.
The Obama administration budget is $74 billion, or 7 percent above the sequestration levels set by the Budget Control Act for defense and nondefense programs.
The gap between White House and Republicans' funding plans threatens another government shutdown this fall.
"The president has been clear that he is not willing to lock in sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to defense without also fixing non-defense," Shaun Donovan, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) in a letter this week.
-
EPA Unlikely to Issue Ozone Implementation Rule With Final Standards, McCabe Says
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency is unlikely to grant a request by state air regulators to issue proposed implementation rules and guidance with an upcoming final decision on national ozone standards, the agency's top air official said April 22.Janet McCabe, EPA acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, said it is “not going to be realistic” for the agency to release the supporting guidance and implementation rules with the final ozone rule, which must be signed by Oct. 1. The agency has proposed to revise the current 75 parts per billion standard to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb.The National Association of Clean Air Agencies, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management and several individual state environmental agencies all used the public comment period on the ozone proposal (RIN 2060-AP38) to ask the EPA to propose its implementation rule and release guidance documents when the rule is finalized. The state agencies said timely guidance is needed to provide sufficient time to meet regulatory obligations under a more stringent standard (52 DEN A-19, 3/18/15).McCabe, speaking during the spring meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, said there are “a lot of reasons why that is just very, very difficult and maybe not even appropriate to do,” given that the agency doesn't yet know what its final decision on the ozone standard will be.However, McCabe said the agency hopes to issue the implementation rules and guidance—which would address new source review permitting, how states would demonstrate attainment with a new standard and other issues—in “as timely”a manner as possible.EPA Sought Input on ImplementationMcCabe said the EPA and states have gotten “a jump” on addressing implementation issues because the proposed rule to revise the ozone standards includes specific requests for comment on various issues. States raised several issues during the comment period concerning how the EPA will implement a more stringent ozone standard, including how the agency will treat states with high levels of background ozone that contribute to violations of the revised standard.When asked if the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee could set up a workgroup on implementation issues to aid the EPA before the final rule is issued, McCabe said that was a “good suggestion.”The agency has taken several years to finalize implementation rules for past national ambient air quality standards. For example, the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standards was not finalized until 2015.Air pollution control agencies and industry groups support the faster development of implementation rules and guidance, which could allow agencies to more readily process preconstruction permits under the EPA's new source review program for new and modified industrial facilities (125 DEN B-1, 6/30/14). -
Maryland Governor's Withdrawal of Rules On Nitrogen Oxides Draws Threat of Lawsuit
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
Two organizations have challenged Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) move—just hours after he took office—that halted the publication of regulations that would have affected certain coal-fired power plants.The Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club and Chesapeake Physicians for Responsibility filed notice April 22 that they intend to sue if the regulations aimed at reducing nitrogen oxide emissions during peak demand aren't published and implemented within 30 days.According to the 14-page filing, the former head of the Maryland Department of the Environment had signed a “notice of final action” Jan. 16 stating that the nitrogen oxide regulations were “adopted.”That notice was slated to be published Jan. 23 in the next issue of the Maryland Register, but Hogan, who was sworn in on Jan. 21, instructed the Division of State Documents not to publish any regulations that had been scheduled for final publication in that edition (15 DEN A-8, 1/23/15).The groups maintain it was unlawful under the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act to interfere with the publication of duly approved regulations, which would have taken effect Feb. 2 had Hogan not intervened. MDE spokesman Jay Apperson told Bloomberg BNA April 22 in an e-mail that the state would respond at the appropriate time to any legal action that might transpire.The rulemaking at issue would have targeted units generally used only during peak demand, as most larger baseload units already have been fitted with controls to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions under Maryland's Healthy Air Act of 2006.On April 17, Hogan proposed emergency regulations that mirror some of the disputed provisions by calling for reduced nitrogen oxide emissions during the summer ozone season (76 DEN A-5, 4/21/15).More Stringent Language in Earlier PlanThat proposal didn't include the earlier plan's more stringent language that would have given owners a June 1, 2020, deadline to install selective catalytic reduction technology, to switch from coal to natural gas or to close the noncompliant units for good.MDE's Apperson noted in the April 22 e-mail that the proposed emergency regulations “are the same as the earlier proposal in terms of requirements for the power plants for 2015, and they provide the immediate public health benefits of protecting Marylanders from breathing unhealthy levels of ozone air pollution.”He encouraged the two filing organizations “and any party interested in the public health benefits of clean air to work with us on longer-term pollution reductions,” which he said “will be equal to or greater than those in the previously proposed regulations.”Josh Tulkin, executive director of the Maryland Sierra Club, criticized “Hogan's attempt to circumvent public opinion and a public process” that included more than 15 months of negotiations to hammer out the earlier plan.“Ramming through weakened ‘emergency’regulations while blocking lawfully enacted public health protections is unlawful and a disservice to Marylanders,” he said in a news release. -
Top Policies to Help Americans Breathe Easier, and What you Can Do
Apr 22, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund Blog
By Lucía Oliva Hennelly
A year ago, we joined our partners at the League of United Latin American Citizens on Twitter to ask U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy about the impacts of air pollution on our health.
Many of the questions participants raised focused on the connection between air quality and asthma.
In a follow-up to the event, McCarthy reminded us that while there’s no known cure for asthma, “understanding how indoor and outdoor air pollutants can trigger an asthma attack or episode is an important step in managing this condition.”
Fortunately, decision-makers are now considering several new policies that would decrease the number of asthma attacks and the severity of symptoms.
Cutting climate and air pollution
As global temperatures rise, more ground-level ozone, a key component of smog, builds up. This, in turn, leads to more frequent and intense asthma attacks.
To address these problems, the EPA is working on several measures to limit the pollution that causes climate change, worsens air quality and threatens our health. The agency is:
finalizing a rule to reduce emissions from power plants, the largest source of climate pollution in the United States.
working on a rule to limit climate pollution from oil and gas production. It would also reduce toxic chemical releases during the energy extraction process.
proposing a stronger ozone standard to reduce smog pollution and restore healthy air.
Many chemicals found indoors are also known or suspected “asthmagens,” environmental agents that cause or exacerbate asthma. These chemicals can affect us in our homes – or in any of the indoor areas where Americans spend about 90 percent of their time.
Today, we’re exposed to chemicals in everyday household products in large part because of a 40-year old chemical safety law that has failed to protect us. The law is so weak, in fact, that EPA can’t even regulate chemicals known to cause cancer.
Congress is therefore considering reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act. If a new bill passes, we will have better safeguards against many asthmagens.
Asthma affects nearly 26 million people in the U.S., including 1 in 10 Latino children who currently suffer from asthma. An even higher proportion of Latino kids, 14 percent, have been diagnosed with asthma at some point in their lives. Unfortunately, this illness presents a particular concern for Latinos in our country.
Studies have also shown that Latino-Americans are less likely than non-Latino whites to be diagnosed with asthma, have an asthma management plan, or use a controller medication. As a result, Latino children are 40 percent more likely than non-Latino white children to die from this condition.
If you’d like to hear more about these topics, you can join us for our Latino Health and the Environment Twitter Town Hall Series.
First up is an Earth Day Twitter Town Hall, where McCarthy will be answering questions about environmental issues and human health, why the Latino community is disproportionately affected by climate change, and what we can all do to protect ourselves.
Then stay tuned in May for our second Twitter Town Hall, which will focus on the health impacts of toxic chemicals.
-
Foxx Vows to Fill Agency Vacancies, Pushes for Long-term Spending Bill
Apr 23, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The Obama administration is striving to fill a spate of top-level vacancies at the Department of Transportation as soon as possible, DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx told a Senate panel yesterday.
"Just know this: I'm moving as quickly as we can, and we look forward to getting those nominations up to you," Foxx said at a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. But a confirmation process that can leave nominees in limbo for months doesn't make recruitment any easier, he added when Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) asked why the administration is taking so long.
Qualified people "look at what they have to go through," Foxx said, and decide that "serving the public will have to come later."
Out of 10 DOT branches, five currently have acting leadership, according to the department's website: the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration.
While President Obama nominated acting FTA chief Therese McMillan in January to become the transit administration's permanent head, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee has yet to act on the proposed appointment. The White House has so far not sought to permanently fill any of the other four posts.
Although it's not unusual for a second-term administration to struggle to find willing and able applicants for senior jobs, the vacancies at PHMSA and the railroad administration have been a particular concern for Congress. The two agencies are collaborating on regulations that will set new standards for rail cars used in moving crude oil; after several fiery derailments of oil trains in the United States and Canada in the past few years, lawmakers' impatience is mounting.
Those two positions "are critical to the safety of our country," said Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, during a separate hearing last week.
It is unclear, however, how close the White House is to naming permanent leaders for either agency. Asked by Denham whether they have begun the background vetting that is a key milestone on the path to nomination, both acting FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg and Tim Butters, the acting head of PHMSA, answered "no."
After yesterday's hearing, Foxx declined to comment on their status, saying that the answer rests with Obama. A follow-up call to the Office of Presidential Personnel yesterday was not returned.
The hearing, ostensibly dedicated to the Transportation Department's fiscal 2016 budget request, gave lawmakers the opportunity to quiz Foxx about department policy on issues ranging from Amtrak funding to aerial drones.
For next year, the administration is seeking about $95 billion for the Transportation Department, part of which would be wrapped into a six-year, $478 billion reauthorization of road, rail and transit programs. About half of the reauthorization's cost would be financed through a one-time 14 percent tax on earnings held overseas by U.S. multinationals.
At the hearing's outset, subcommittee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she is open to using some money from "repatriation" for infrastructure but added that the White House is returning to a "Band-Aid" approach that doesn't stabilize transportation funding for the long term.
Foxx responded by pointing to the string of short-term spending bills and authorization measures that have been a recurrent feature of transportation funding since 2009. Having six years of stability ahead, he said, "is a far cry from where we've been over the last six years."
-
Senators Press Foxx on ‘Unrealistic' GROW America Act, Tank Cars, Vacancies
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephanie Beasley
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said at a hearing April 22 that she was concerned that the Transportation Department had yet to finalize a rule creating new safety standards for crude-by-rail tank cars or to issue regulations that would require comprehensive oil spill response plans for rail tank cars.Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said DOT “has been working feverishly”on a final tank car rule, but said he could not provide a specific date or time for when that rule would be released. The rule is expected to be released within a number of weeks.The agency is planning to propose regulations regarding the oil spill plans this summer, possibly as soon as June, Foxx has said.“I will point out that one of the challenges of doing this rule is that we are talking not only about retrospective risks but the fact that this industry is continuing to grow,” Foxx said. “And so there's a lot of focus on prospective risks.”These actions by the Transportation Department were sparked by a string of recent high-profile derailments of trains carrying crude oil, accidents that have led to a range of environmental harms, property damage and, in one case, several human deaths. Transportation of crude oil by rail has become a more common practice in recent years, as inadequate pipeline infrastructure in areas with increased oil production has pushed more oil to be shipped by rail.Collins chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Department of Transportation.DOT, OMB Working TogetherFoxx also said the DOT is working closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget on a “comprehensive rule” that won't only address tank car standards but also issues like speed that can impact mitigation, prevention and emergency response.Foxx also noted that the agency recently took additional steps to address the issue. On April 17, DOT issued an emergency order on the transport of flammable liquid by rail (75 DEN A-10, 4/20/15).Further, Foxx said the agency is working to hire more safety inspectors. DOT is having to compete with industry for the most talented inspectors but is pushing to significantly increase its inspection staff by the end of the year, he said.Agency VacanciesSen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) also pressed Foxx about vacancies at the top of five transportation agencies: the Federal Railroad Administration (FTA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), as well as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).Those positions are being filled with interim administrators.“What is the disconnect here?” Daines said. “And why hasn't the administration nominated anyone for these positions?”The president renominated FTA Acting Administrator Therese McMillan after her nomination failed to get a full Senate vote last year, and Foxx said he hopes the Senate will take up that nomination soon. -
Crude-by-Rail Notices Set for Federal Register
Apr 22, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Two Transportation Department notices on flammable liquids transportation by rail safety that were announced alongside an emergency order April 17 will be published April 23 in the Federal Register. One notice of a safety advisory by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reminds railroads and shippers for certain trains to ensure that certain information is immediately available, if there is a derailment, for FRA and PHMSA investigators. The second PHMSA notice reminds hazmat shippers and carriers that they must have specific information such as the basic description and technical name of the hazardous material being transported and the personnel involved in offering or shipping materials accessible for emergency responders (75 DEN A-10, 4/20/15). The FRA and PHMSA notice and the PHMSA-only notice are available, respectively, at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-09437.pdf and https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-09436.pdf.
-
State Sets Meetings on Oil Train Rules
Apr 22, 2015 | Portland Tribune
The Oregon Department of Transportation has announced four public meetings on proposed rule changes that will enable emergency services agencies to improve planning for and response to spills of hazardous materials, including crude oil.
The changes will be to state administrative rules, which also propose some limited disclosure of information to the public. The current rules date back to 1997.
The changes were prompted by the growing traffic in crude oil pumped from the Bakken basin in North Dakota and shipped through Oregon, where it is loaded onto barges bound for refineries in other states.
However, the state rule changes do not deal with the question of rail shipments of oil or other hazardous materials, which are pre-empted by federal laws and regulations.
“The object is to clarify what the intent of our rulemaking is,” says Hal Gard, Rail Division administrator for the Oregon Department of Transportation. “It also gives us an opportunity to say what this is not about, which I think is just as important.”
The Oregon Transportation Commission will consider the changes at its meeting June 18 in Salem.
Among the changes are required reports by the railroads to ODOT, filed quarterly instead of annually, on actual shipments of hazardous materials. ODOT will make this information available to emergency services agencies on a secure website for their planning purposes.
Advance-notice requirements for shipments are pre-empted by federal rules.
Another change will specify what information railroads will provide to emergency services agencies that respond to an incident, and to the Oregon Emergency Response System, which serves state agencies.
Under another proposed change, ODOT will compile some of the information it gathers for quarterly reports.
But they will not be automatically released to the public; someone must say why the case for public disclosure outweighs the need for confidentiality under Oregon’s public records law.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested