Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) Taking a Complete View of Preemption and TSCA Reform
Apr 24, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
As support grows for the bipartisan effort to reform our nation’s chemical regulatory system, it’s important that we take an objective and honest look at the role of federal preemption can play when it comes to successfully updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/04/taking-a-complete-view-of-preemption-and-tsca-reform/ -
(ACC Mentioned) California May Require More Recycled Content in Bottles
Apr 24, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
California lawmakers are considering a pair of bills that would bump up the required recycled content in plastic bottles for beverage companies to keep getting a break on state fees. -
Eight Steps To Real Chemical Reform
Apr 24, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
As two Congressional committees develop legislation to update the nation’s broken toxic chemicals law, it’s good toremember what real reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 would look like:Chemicals should be safe – Real reform of TSCA would protect vulnerable populations and be based solely on considerations of health and safety. -
President’s Pick To Lead Chemical Safety Board Pledges To Examine Struggling Agency
Apr 24, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Andrea Widener
President Barack Obama’s pick to head the embattled Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) fielded some tough questions from Congress this week about the small independent agency that investigates chemical plant accidents. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Sends Energy Efficiency Bill To White House For President’s Signature
Apr 24, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
The House of Representatives gave final approval this week to a bill to boost energy efficiency, sending the measure to the White House after a marathon three-year push by the chemical industry and other advocates. -
West Virginia Natural-Gas Complex Is Put on Hold
Apr 22, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
Two Brazilian companies are putting on hold plans to build a multibillion-dollar natural-gas refining complex in West Virginia, a project that was supposed to give an economic boost to a state reeling from the faltering coal industry. -
W.Va. Cracker Plant Delayed By Low Crude Oil Prices
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Two Brazilian companies have delayed plans to build a multibillion-dollar natural gas refining complex in West Virginia that was previously touted to revive the state's beleaguered economy as coal continued on its downward spiral. -
EPA's McCarthy Tells Industry to Ignore 'Doomsday' Talk, Focus on Innovation
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By EPA's McCarthy tells industry to ignore 'doomsday' talk, focus on innovation
As Gina McCarthy spoke for a second straight year at one of the world's top energy gatherings, the U.S. EPA administrator defended a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions and told the power industry to focus on its ability to innovate. -
Obama and the Environment: Clean Power or Power Play?
Apr 24, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Richard O. Faulk
Recently, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals heard one of the strangest cases ever argued in a federal appellate court – a seemingly esoteric controversy that, in any other context, might be relegated to obscurity. -
House Hearing on Fracking Bans Veers Into Induced Earthquakes
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
As a Californian, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher doesn't think much of Oklahoma's earthquakes. -
Renewable Energy, the Best Investment of the 21st Century
Apr 24, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Joshua Reichert
On Tuesday, just hours before the start of Earth Day, Congress showed there is bipartisan support for smart energy policy. By voice vote, the House of Representatives passed the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, which mandates energy efficiency improvements through stronger residential and commercial building codes and other means. -
Cap and Trade is Hiding a Gas Tax Increase
Apr 24, 2015 | Sacramento Bee
By Jim Patterson and James Gallagher
Why is gas so much more expensive in California than the rest of the United States?
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Blog) Taking a Complete View of Preemption and TSCA Reform
Apr 24, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
As support grows for the bipartisan effort to reform our nation’s chemical regulatory system, it’s important that we take an objective and honest look at the role of federal preemption can play when it comes to successfully updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In a four-page article published in the American Bar Association’s Natural Resources & Environment journal, ACC Assistant General Counsel Judah Prero examines the questions concerning preemption and TSCA reform.
He takes on several assumptions and misinterpretations by explaining that TSCA is not like traditional environmental statutes, “TSCA regulates the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of chemicals in products. Because most products are distributed nationally, product regulation may significantly impact interstate commerce. A logical regulation method would be to take a national approach to regulating chemicals in products that are distributed nationwide, or chemicals in commerce.”
Prero’s article drives the most important point home – that without effective federal preemption, confidence in our nation’s chemical management system would only further erode. “Without federal preemption,” Prero writes, “a modernized TSCA would create more uncertainty than it would resolve.”
He leaves readers with one last important observation, “When the discussion of TSCA modernization moves from the political to the practical, perhaps significant advancement of the proposals will occur.”
Fortunately, we do have a practical solution before us today that would establish a strong, balanced national system for managing the safe use of chemicals. Thanks to years of negotiations and input from Democrats, Republicans, businesses, environment and public health groups, scientists, doctors, and public officials, bipartisan proposals have been introduced in Congress to bring chemical oversight up to date.
We encourage anyone with a shared interest in being a constructive part of efforts to reform our nation’s chemical management system to support the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” S.697, in the U.S. Senate and ongoing work around the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015” in the U.S. House.
-
(ACC Mentioned) California May Require More Recycled Content in Bottles
Apr 24, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
California lawmakers are considering a pair of bills that would bump up the required recycled content in plastic bottles for beverage companies to keep getting a break on state fees.
State senators are considering SB 732, which would require a minimum of 10 percent recycled content for all plastic beverage bottles sold in California starting in 2017. In the Assembly version of the bill, the 10 percent content requirement applies to PET bottles and food containers. It also would extend the current 35 percent minimum recycled content requirement on glass to all glass bottles filled in California, not just those made in California.
Last week, a Senate committee voted 1-0 in favor of the bill but at least four votes in favor are required to move it forward.
Bottle bills in other states charge consumers a deposit that is refunded by the retailer when the containers are returned. But California’s system requires beverage distributors to pay a recycling processing fee to CalRecycle.
A processing fee also is assessed on beverage manufacturers whose containers cost more to recycle than they are worth as scrap value. However, if predetermined container diversion rates are achieved, the state reduces the amount manufacturers must pay. It then dips into state funds from unclaimed deposits to make up the difference when it cuts checks to recycling companies.
However, years of widespread fraud has left the California Redemption Value program strapped for cash. The new bills up for consideration could help staunch the cash hemorrhage, says Californians Against Waste, the bills’ sponsor, though it is a bit of a Catch-22.
“On one hand we need more money,” said CAW Executive Director Mark Murray. “On the other hand, we want people to use recycled content. The truth is we want just enough people to use recycled content. Because we do need more money.”
Some beverage companies would be impacted more than others under the legislation. Analysis accompanying the bills says Coca-Cola Co. averages about 6 percent recycled content in its PET bottles, PepsiCo reports using 10 percent for beverage containers and Nestle states that five of its brands use a range from 50 percent to 100 percent recycled PET.
If the bills pass, the changes would not necessarily solve the longer term problems of the state’s bottle program, Murray said, but it would be a start, as well as a push for more recycled content in bottles. He also acknowledged that is a big “if.”
“But we have no analysis on the resin side,” Murray said. “So we have no idea how many manufactures could meet 10 percent on the plastic side or 35 percent on the glass side. If we can’t answer that question then that bill is dead.”
The measures also face considerable opposition from the plastics and glass industries, though Murray said plastics industry trade groups the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. and the American Chemistry Council are misreading the bills.
In an April 10 letter, ACC expressed concern that the bills could “unnecessarily distort the existing recycling marketplace without justification.
“Currently, plastic material collected for recycling is used as feedstock for a variety of end use markets — for example containers, textile products, pipe, strapping and carpet manufacturing. Imposing an artificial mandate would divert this material away from these established markets that have already invested heavily in the recycling infrastructure,” the letter said. “Furthermore, it is not clear whether there is sufficient reclamation capacity available to meet this mandate. In other words, there may not be enough [post consumer recycled material] in the marketplace to meet the requirements of this bill.”
CalRecycles representatives said they could not comment on pending legislation.
The state Senate’s Committee on Environmental Quality will meet again on SB 732 the first full week of May.
-
Eight Steps To Real Chemical Reform
Apr 24, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
As two Congressional committees develop legislation to update the nation’s broken toxic chemicals law, it’s good toremember what real reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 would look like:Chemicals should be safe – Real reform of TSCA would protect vulnerable populations and be based solely on considerations of health and safety. It would exclude cost considerations from the decision on whether to regulate a chemical.
Expedited review of asbestos and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals – Real reform of TSCA would create a pathway to quickly review and regulate asbestos and dangerous chemicals that persist in the environment and build up in our bodies.
Tough deadlines – Real reform would set tough, enforceable deadlines for action by the Environmental Protection Agency, including deadlines for implementing chemical restrictions and bans.
Judicial deference – Real reform would require judges to grant deference to EPA’s expertise unless they are persuaded that an agency action was “arbitrary and capricious."
Products should be regulated – Real reform would allow EPA to regulate chemicals as well as products that contain them and make the decision on how to regulate both of them part of a single inquiry.
Adequate funding – Real reform would require that EPA have the resourcesto quickly review the most dangerous chemicals.
Safe list review – Real reform would ensure that any designation of “low priority” chemicals is subject to judicial review.
Preserve state role – Real reform would preserve a role for the states by allowing them to take action during EPA’s review of a chemical, allowing states to enforce federal rules and set tougher standards in some cases, and by protecting states’ clean air and water laws. -
President’s Pick To Lead Chemical Safety Board Pledges To Examine Struggling Agency
Apr 24, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Andrea Widener
President Barack Obama’s pick to head the embattled Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) fielded some tough questions from Congress this week about the small independent agency that investigates chemical plant accidents.
But with her kindergarten-age daughter watching, Vanessa Allen Sutherland breezed through her nomination hearing with little pushback from lawmakers.
Most of the tough questions focused on the actions of the former CSB chair, Rafael Moure-Eraso. He stepped down in late March under intense pressure from both Democrats and Republicans over allegations that he mismanaged the agency.
“I think we all agree that CSB needs a fresh start under new leadership,” said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.
Sutherland, currently chief counsel for the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, said she wants the recommendations CSB makes after investigating the root causes of accidents to have a broader impact. “I believe CSB’s work is a tremendous and often untapped resource,” she said.
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the committee’s top Democrat, pressed Sutherland on the long lag time before CSB reports are released to the public. Sutherland pledged to examine ways to get the board’s findings out more quickly.
Boxer said she hoped the Senate would quickly confirm Sutherland and chemist Kristen M. Kulinowski, of the federally funded Science & Technology Policy Institute, to the five-member board.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Sends Energy Efficiency Bill To White House For President’s Signature
Apr 24, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
The House of Representatives gave final approval this week to a bill to boost energy efficiency, sending the measure to the White House after a marathon three-year push by the chemical industry and other advocates.
President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation into law. The bill, S. 535, which was approved by the Senate last month, includes incentives to cut energy use in federal, commercial, manufacturing, school, and residential buildings.
Authored by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Robert J. Portman (R-Ohio), the measure received strong bipartisan support and cleared each chamber by voice vote.
Shaheen said the bill’s merits were “never a tough sell,” but noted that she and Portman worked hard to convince lawmakers to not “play politics with a good idea.”
Portman said the bill will boost the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers while protecting the environment.
Industry advocates say the manufacturing energy efficiency program will help energy-intensive industries in the chemistry and other sectors become more competitive in global markets.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade association, joined a wide variety of stakeholders in urging lawmakers to pass the legislation.
“The business sector, state and local governments, consumer, environmental, efficiency and other interest groups—who often have as divergent positions on issues as do Members of Congress—have all united in their firm belief that energy efficiency legislation represents sound energy policy for our country,” ACC said in a letter to Congress.
The group, which represents major chemical manufacturers, also noted that markets for energy-efficient products are growing as “chemistry companies invent and make products used in building insulation, appliances, lightweight plastic vehicle parts, windows, engine lubricants, compact fluorescent light bulbs, energy storage systems, thermal coatings, and many others.”
The legislation requires federal agencies to document energy use benchmarks and develop best efficient practices.
-
West Virginia Natural-Gas Complex Is Put on Hold
Apr 22, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
Two Brazilian companies are putting on hold plans to build a multibillion-dollar natural-gas refining complex in West Virginia, a project that was supposed to give an economic boost to a state reeling from the faltering coal industry.
The project, announced in November 2013, would include a plant known as an ethane cracker, where natural gas is turned into ethylene, which is used in chemical manufacturing. It also would include three plants to produce polyethylene, which is used to make numerous products, from plastic bags to pipes.
Construction firm Odebrecht SA and petrochemical company Braskem SA, both of São Paulo, said Tuesday that “under current energy scenarios” more analysis is needed before the project moves forward. A spokesman for both companies declined to comment further Wednesday.
When the project, known as the Appalachian Shale Cracker Enterprise, or ASCENT, was first announced, Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin called it a “game changer” for the state and “a defining moment in our region’s history.”
At the time, state officials said the project on the Ohio border in Parkersburg, W.Va., would create hundreds of construction and permanent skilled positions, sparking a burst of economic development to a state that has lost hundreds of coal mining jobs recently. The state’s mines are closing in part because natural gas, which is cheaper and burns more cleanly, is generating more of the nation’s electricity.
Chris Stadelman, a spokesman for Mr. Tomblin, said Thursday that the governor met with company officials this week and the two sides remain committed to working on the project.
“With an investment of this magnitude and the changes in the world-wide energy markets, re-evaluating the best configuration for the project is understandable and consistent with the company’s overall approach,” Mr. Stadelman said.
Tumbling crude oil prices, which have fallen more than 50% since the summer, are partly to blame for recent delays of several ethane cracker projects, experts say. That’s because the drop in crude prices makes plants using ethane less advantageous compared with crackers that use naphtha derived from crude oil. Plants using ethane from Appalachia also are viewed as higher risk because the region is more isolated from markets than the Gulf region, experts contend.
At least five such projects are under construction in the U.S. and about 10 others have been proposed.
“The advantage they had six months ago is not as big, so that’s why crackers are being delayed,” said Maria Mejia, a Houston-based energy analyst with Bentek Energy.
Meanwhile, the growth in natural-gas production, including in the Marcellus Shale that extends beneath parts of Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, also has spurred pipeline and other refining projects that have increased labor costs and made building cracker plants more expensive.
West Virginia officials are hoping that the ASCENT project will help the state catch up to the boom in natural-gas development in Pennsylvania.
But even in Pennsylvania, a petrochemical cracker project proposed north of Pittsburgh has been proceeding slowly.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC announced the project in 2012, but the company has said it plans to make a final decision later this year or next year. A Shell spokesman said Thursday the company continues to evaluate the situation.
-
W.Va. Cracker Plant Delayed By Low Crude Oil Prices
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Two Brazilian companies have delayed plans to build a multibillion-dollar natural gas refining complex in West Virginia that was previously touted to revive the state's beleaguered economy as coal continued on its downward spiral.
State officials said the project, first proposed in 2013, would bring in hundreds of construction and permanent skilled jobs for the area near the Ohio border as West Virginia plays catch-up to its neighboring states riding the current natural gas boom.
But plummeting oil prices have pushed back the construction date indefinitely, state and industry officials have said.
"With an investment of this magnitude and the changes in the worldwide energy markets, re-evaluating the best configuration for the project is understandable and consistent with the company's overall approach," said Chris Stadelman, spokesman for West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) (Kris Maher, Wall Street Journal, April 22). -- KS
-
EPA's McCarthy Tells Industry to Ignore 'Doomsday' Talk, Focus on Innovation
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By EPA's McCarthy tells industry to ignore 'doomsday' talk, focus on innovation
As Gina McCarthy spoke for a second straight year at one of the world's top energy gatherings, the U.S. EPA administrator defended a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions and told the power industry to focus on its ability to innovate.
McCarthy made a point at IHS CERAWeek here to outline the thinking behind EPA's Clean Power Plan, saying a low-carbon future is an "inevitability." She dismissed "doomsday" scenarios she said won't happen because of the plan, which aims to use Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to seek carbon emissions reductions from power plants.
"There is absolutely no scenario, no standard, no compliance strategy that I will accept where reliability comes into question. Period. End of statement," McCarthy said. "EPA is considering all your comments that relate to stringency, timing, phasing in, looking at the glide path, and as we finalize this rule, we will continue to look at those comments and make appropriate adjustments."
McCarthy said that if something not predicted arises on a unit-by-unit basis, reliability issues could be addressed. The final rule "will give you the time and the space you need to take a reliability-first approach," she said, while providing latitude to adapt to market demands.
The proposed Clean Power Plan would cut carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels, with targets varying by state. Interim standards could start in 2020. McCarthy said the plan will have "no constitutional defect" and will be delivered this summer.
EPA has been going through some 3.9 million comments on the carbon plan, according to McCarthy. She said a number of comments indicated that the proposal was too aggressive in seeking that, by 2020, states and companies would be ready for an interim goal.
During a news conference, McCarthy said she wouldn't tip her hand on the final rule, but she said "we have certainly paid attention to the comments that came in."
McCarthy sought to put the plan in context during her speech, saying it will help create a market signal for investments that are being made. She said it's not accurate to look at compliance with the Clean Power Plan as a liability or a cost.
"Why am I so confident that this makes economic sense? Because you're already making those investments," McCarthy said. "I see you. I know where you are investing."Looking for changes
Before McCarthy spoke, a panel of power executives suggested EPA has been thoughtful in its approach to carbon while calling for some changes in the proposal.
Pat Vincent-Collawn, CEO of PNM Resources Inc., said EPA had been responsive to legitimate concerns raised by the industry, even if the Clean Air Act might not be the best tool to reduce carbon emissions. She said the 2020 timeline would be tough for potential reductions in states such as New Mexico, as closing or building a plant can take time.
"I think when the rule comes out, we'll see some changes" and flexibility, she said. "But the question is: Over what period of time, and how quickly can we do this?"
Vincent-Collawn mentioned the possibilities of a reliability mechanism and reliability safety valve.
Leo Denault, CEO of Entergy Corp., said difference in markets must be kept in mind, as his company operates in utility and restructured areas. He said nuclear doesn't get the sort of credit seen with other non-emitting resources.
"It seems that EPA has tried to stay within the context of what they can and cannot do, [and] may not have not been able to stay there completely," he said. "It's going to come under a lot of pressure. The timelines are difficult."
At Calpine Corp., a power producer with substantial gas-fired generation, there is support for what EPA is trying to do, according to CEO Thad Hill. He said, broadly speaking, reliability shouldn't be a challenge because of the rule. He said there are some market design issues to watch.
But Robert Flexon, CEO of Dynegy Inc., which owns plants fueled by coal and natural gas, said it's important to remember other leaders would be "talking their own book." In an interview, he said there's a role for coal in the generation mix, adding that the Clean Power Plan must recognize that.
Flexon said a national energy policy would be more effective on carbon than a state-by-state approach, which he said could pick winners and losers.
"I think there's a lot of fundamental design issues around it, and hopefully, through the review process, some of those things can be addressed," Flexon said, such as potentially having carbon offsets as a way to comply.
Among the issues cited by Flexon was the possible need to build natural gas pipeline infrastructure, which intervenors could slow down. The CEO said Dynegy already looks for heat rate improvements at coal plants, so more of that may be tough.Knowing how to innovate
During her talk, McCarthy took on unnamed studies she said didn't use the best data or ignored economic benefits of cutting air pollution. McCarthy said she hadn't seen support for claims of massive job losses from lowering pollution, and said that environmental protection is a foundation for strong economic growth.
"You need to give yourselves more credit, because this sector knows how to innovate when they're facing pollution challenges," McCarthy said. "Frankly, regardless of snappy soundbites, underneath it all, industry is right now investing in clean energy because it's the marketable thing to do."
She said spending from 2000 to 2010 on electric and gas utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs more than doubled, while money for utility efficiency programs quadrupled between 2006 and 2013. McCarthy said that, in 2013, investor-owned utilities spent almost $17 billion on transmission.
FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable, speaking on a separate panel, said her agency's role will be to assist state utility regulators in implementing the Clean Power Plan and modernizing the grid as the country moves to a heavier reliance on natural gas and renewable power.
State and federal power regulators are in discussion on using FERC as the "protector of reliability," she said. Honorable said talks are underway toward developing a "reliability assurance mechanism."
In an interview, PNM's Vincent-Collawn said her company uses a good deal of coal, and she understands her customers want the company to transition its fleet. She said she has sought to be involved in the carbon discussion.
"When you're constructive about it, I think you have much more say into how the final rule comes out," she said. "If people know you're trying to solve a problem, they're going to listen to you, as opposed to if people just think you're throwing rocks at it, they're not going to listen to it."Role for coal
Stephen Whitley, CEO of the New York Independent System Operator, said a rising share of natural gas in the generation mix worries him. He pointed to New York's experience during the "polar vortex" event, when natural gas supplies were constrained, forcing the state to turn to oil for power.
Whitley said assuming the gas will be there leaves "too many eggs in one basket" and poses a great risk.
McCarthy said every fuel will have an opportunity to have a place in the market. She said that by 2030, an analysis shows coal will be a significant part of the energy supply.
Still, Gregory Boyce, CEO of Peabody Energy Corp., a coal producer, said in prepared remarks yesterday that the United States is moving ahead on a carbon plan with little regard for possible consequences. He said studies suggest power costs could rise, while reliability could suffer.
During a press conference, Boyce said the coal industry is suffering not just from government regulations. It's also losing market share to low-cost natural gas as a power plant fuel, he said.
Peabody and other coal companies are trying to get policymakers to focus on what they see as the benefits of coal-fired generation -- price and reliability -- ahead of talks on a global climate accord scheduled for December in Paris.
McCarthy said energy sense and economic sense can go together. While the challenge related to climate change may be large, she said it's dwarfed by the opportunities ahead. And with forecasts of flattening demand amid economic activity, she said the old model for power is out of step.
McCarthy also took on the idea that EPA actions are aimed at choosing winners or losers in a race to a future with clean energy.
"It's about the United States of America choosing to lead that race," she said.
-
Obama and the Environment: Clean Power or Power Play?
Apr 24, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Richard O. Faulk
Recently, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals heard one of the strangest cases ever argued in a federal appellate court – a seemingly esoteric controversy that, in any other context, might be relegated to obscurity. But since winning this case is the linchpin President Obama needs to win the “War Against Coal,” the EPA has staked everything on pulling an oversized rabbit out of a very small hat.
Cue State of West Virginia v. EPA and Murray Energy v. EPA, two joined cases comprising the first challenge to the president’s recent efforts to cement his climate change legacy. Fifteen states, along with select coal companies, have sued for an “extraordinary writ” to prevent the EPA from promulgating new carbon regulations set to be finalized this summer.
This legal imbroglio began with the president’s desire to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal-fired electrical power plants. CO2 is the principal “greenhouse gas” blamed for global warming. As such, it is now the focus of the most aggressive EPA action under the Clean Air Act since its passage decades ago.
Last year, as part of the president’s proposed Clean Power Plan, the EPA began drafting rules expected to force states to curb emissions within a year – an onerous burden, as the states involved in Thursday’s challenge will likely agree. But it is also dubious from a federalism standpoint. The EPA claims the right to regulate emission concentrations “beyond the fence line” – without restricting its inquiries to amounts actually emitted from power plants. Thus, its authority would extend beyond power generators to consider dispatch and retail demand, areas historically regulated by the states, and not the federal government.
Beyond this unprecedented regulatory preemption of state authority lies an even greater and more dangerous overreach. The EPA’s argument confidently hinges on convincing the courts that the Clean Air Act doesn’t mean what it says. By its plain language, the bill prohibits the EPA from regulating the power plants from which these emissions derive. Moreover, coal plants are already addressed under an entirely different section of the bill than the one EPA insists justifies its new powers.
Under a less ambitious administration, that would be the end of the controversy. Instead, the EPA identified one of the most unusual Congressional oversights in American history to prove its position.
As the result of a “drafting error,” Congress actually passed two versions of the provision at issue, 111(d) – one which prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants, and one which permits such regulation. The prohibitive version was published in the United States Code, while the permissive one was printed elsewhere. With a regulatory “sleight of hand,” the EPA now claims its right to a “deferential” interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and argues that the more permissive section should be applied.
If the EPA’s argument prevails, the consequences cannot be overstated. In spite of a lack of clear statutory authorization, this unelected body could take complete command of energy production and the manner by which it is used throughout the United States. Major components of our economy that have never before been affected by EPA regulation or the Clean Air Act may be subjected to its regulatory authority.
At least the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress. Here, this vast new scheme has sprung full-grown from the president’s imagination.
Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit, and ultimately the Supreme Court, can still prevent this imperial power grab. Less than a year ago, in reviewing the scope of the EPA’s regulatory capabilities on greenhouse gases, the High Court expressed a “measure of skepticism” when the EPA discovered an “unheralded power to regulate” a “significant portion of the American economy.” The Court warned that it “expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance.’” To say the least, Congress has not done so here.
Obama, through his EPA, is acting beyond the scope of his authority – a persistent symptom that threatens the Constitutional separation and balance of powers that has protected our liberties since our Republic was founded. It is time, indeed past time, for our nation’s courts to pay heed and, echoing Chief Justice Marshall, once again stress “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Such a rebuke will remind the President that, despite his immense power, he cannot govern our democracy with imaginative strokes of his pen.
Faulk is a trial, appellate, energy and environmental lawyer. He is senior director for Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment for the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law and a partner with Hollingsworth, LLP, in Washington, DC.
-
House Hearing on Fracking Bans Veers Into Induced Earthquakes
Apr 24, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
As a Californian, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher doesn't think much of Oklahoma's earthquakes.
"What dollar damage was done?" he asked of a witness at a hearing yesterday. The witness did not know. "My guess is not very much. My guess is it's like a truck going by."
Oklahoma had 585 earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater in 2014, according to U.S. Geological Survey records. That's three times as many as California.
Rohrabacher, a senior member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, was speaking at a hearing of the science committee. Republicans billed it as an opportunity to demonstrate why it is a bad idea for cities in Texas to ban hydraulic fracturing, as happened in Denton, Texas, last year. The title for the hearing was "Hydraulic Fracturing: Banning Proven Technologies on Possibilities instead of Probabilities."
But with news out of Texas and Oklahoma about scientists determining that wastewater disposal from oil and gas operations cause earthquakes, the hearing often drifted toward a rumination on "induced seismicity" (EnergyWire, April 22).
The star witness of the hearing was Christi Craddick, chairwoman of the Texas Railroad Commission, which is in charge of overseeing oil and gas in Texas and has nothing to do with trains. She's a rising figure in Texas politics and a leader in the effort to beat back local bans.
She's also dealing with earthquakes. A research team led by Southern Methodist University this week released a report attributing an outbreak of quakes last winter to injection wells around Azle, northwest of Fort Worth (EnergyWire, April 22).
The commission's seismologist, hired amid the public uproar about the quakes, has questioned the SMU report's methods and assumptions. The commission has invited the researchers to provide a briefing on their findings.
"We take seismicity very, very seriously," Craddick said. "What these studies do is rule out issues, but I'm not sure they can ever tell you for certain what is causing them."
The top Democrat on the committee, Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, said she felt an earthquake recently on the sixth floor of an office building in Dallas. She accused Republicans and those fighting the local bans of dismissing people's legitimate worries about industrial activity in their neighborhoods.
"This frightens people, we're not accustomed to earthquakes," Johnson said. "Is the answer to keep them from expressing their concerns?"
There's been a rash of quakes nearby in Irving for the past few months, but there are not any disposal wells nearby, and seismologists have not linked them to oil and gas activity.
"Irving is the earthquake capital of Texas," Craddick said, "but there's not a lot of oil and gas there."
In Texas, an effort to quash local fracking bans is moving swiftly. The Texas House last week passed H.B. 40, a bill to prevent cities from regulating oil and gas drilling or any associated activities, with an overwhelming 122-18 vote.
"Without clearly defined regulatory roles for cities, oil and gas development -- and its ability to anchor the Texas economy -- is in jeopardy," Craddick said.
-
Renewable Energy, the Best Investment of the 21st Century
Apr 24, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Joshua Reichert
On Tuesday, just hours before the start of Earth Day, Congress showed there is bipartisan support for smart energy policy. By voice vote, the House of Representatives passed the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, which mandates energy efficiency improvements through stronger residential and commercial building codes and other means. The Senate passed the measure in March and it now goes to President Obama for his signature.
Passing the bill is a promising sign, but it should be the beginning of a new congressional approach to clean energy, not a laurel upon which Congress can rest. A significant number of the world's most respected economists believe that renewable energy will be one of the most dynamic and profitable sectors of the global economy in the next 100 years. Nations that provide either mandates or private-sector incentives to develop and commercialize renewable energy technologies through tax credits, loans and innovation funding will have a significant economic advantage over those that do not.
Given that, you might think that Congress would want to help position U.S. companies to attain and maintain a competitive advantage in the critically important global energy race.
To date, that has not been the case. The renewable energy industry has had to fight to gain even a fraction of the federal funding support that traditional energy companies have enjoyed for decades.
That's why it's critical that Congress approve President Obama's budget request of $2.7 billion in clean energy funding for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2016. These resources would help advance initiatives from sustainable transportation and renewable power to energy efficiency.
Hundreds of companies are developing exciting new technologies ranging from a lightweight, solar-powered pack for soldiers that recharges batteries and purifies water to microgrids—cart-size units that generate and deliver electricity independent of the main power grid. Such units hold immense promise for hospitals, first-responder stations and other critical operations.
Many game-changing technologies were launched with federal funding through the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), an agency within the Department of Energy, and many more are waiting in the wings.
History shows that such federal investments pay huge dividends. U.S. government support for oil, gas and coal helped kick-start and sustain energy production, affordable electricity and the design, development and proliferation of the internal combustion engine. These industries were once themselves composed of scrappy start-ups, formed to power our economy with what were then emerging technologies. Congress enacted policies and appropriated money to give these companies the boost they needed to get off the ground; our 21st-century energy entrepreneurs deserve the same.
When Congress has passed favorable tax policies for clean energy innovators, the investments have paid off handsomely: Thanks in large part to a federal tax credit, solar power capacity in the United States more than doubled between 2008 and 2012. Since the third quarter of 2010, the average price of a solar panel has dropped 63 percent. At the end of 2014, the sector employed 174,000 people. By the end of this year, solar companies said they expect to add another 36,000 jobs. Much of this might not have happened without government support.
Solar has not been the only renewable energy source to benefit from federal investment. In 1975, Congress authorized a research and development initiative for wind energy, and the Department of Energy's Wind Program was born. In 2011, buoyed by $25 million in Department of Energy funding, the Wind Technology Testing Center opened in Boston as the first facility in the world capable of testing wind blades up to 295 feet long — important because longer wind turbine blades capture more energy than do smaller blades.
Today, because of investments in federal programs and facilities like these, the United States leads the world in wind energy patents. U.S. wind farms generate enough power to supply more than 15 million homes, while supporting 550 domestic manufacturing facilities and some 50,000 full-time jobs. Looking ahead, the Department of Energy projects that wind and solar will account for well over half of the new generating capacity installed in 2015.
These impressive achievements have reduced greenhouse gas emissions while adding jobs to the U.S. economy. And they've been built on partnerships among researchers, industry and government agencies that have played a critical role in fostering breakthroughs in technology maturation and deployment. In fact, a key part of the White House clean energy strategy is to use federal programs to attract $2 billion of expanded private-sector investment in solutions to climate change.
However, if Congress fails to appropriate adequate funding to the Department of Energy's clean energy budget, our entrepreneurs will not get the support they need— which in turn could seriously threaten our competitive advantage.
It would be foolhardy to stanch federal investment in the research, development and commercialization of clean and renewable sources of energy. There is huge money to be made in this sector, which can bolster regional economies, rejuvenate the tax base, enhance our global competitiveness, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change. If we fail to seize these opportunities, others will do so.
We are a nation of entrepreneurs, and today's energy entrepreneurs — just like the energy entrepreneurs of a century ago — need encouragement and support. Without it, we ultimately will be buying from others what they should be buying from us.
We have led the world in the energy field since our birth as a nation. Now, with the world competing to remake how we produce and consume energy, we must not cede our leadership role. On the contrary, it is time to reassert ourselves in the global energy race.
The bipartisan passage of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act should mark the first step in that quest. We must now build on that by committing to even more significant government support for the design, development and deployment of renewable energy sources.
Reichert is an executive vice president at the Pew Charitable Trusts and directs its environmental work.
-
Cap and Trade is Hiding a Gas Tax Increase
Apr 24, 2015 | Sacramento Bee
By Jim Patterson and James Gallagher
Why is gas so much more expensive in California than the rest of the United States?
It’s not because of a new law passed by the Legislature. Rather, it is the result of new regulations imposed by the California Air Resources Board, a group of unelected bureaucrats who are unfazed by public opposition and cannot be voted out of office.
The Legislature bestowed this unchecked power to the CARB, and people are starting to realize how dangerous this abdication of duty is to our state’s economy.
When Democrats approved cap and trade in 2006, they also gave the CARB the unfettered authority to expand this controversial program to include fuels. With that power, CARB devised a scheme to create a new gas tax by selling “carbon credits” to oil and gas producers.
Since this hidden gas tax went into effect on Jan. 1, it has generated more than $1 billion for a greenhouse gas reduction slush fund for bureaucrats’ untested, unproven projects and resulted in a 13-cent-a-gallon increase in gas prices. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates this program will likely add 13 to 20 cents per gallon by 2020, though the price hike could top 50 cents. Others say it could be as much as 76 cents.
To repeal these harmful regulations and restore power to the people’s elected representatives, we introduced two important pieces of legislation. TheAffordable Gas for Families Act would have repealed the cap-and-trade gas tax, and Assembly Bill 239 would have required that the CARB regulations be approved by the Legislature first.
Regrettably, both our bills were blocked in committee by Assembly Democrats who seem unconcerned by the impacts of the CARB’s new regulations on our constituents.
The hidden gas tax is hurting California families, small businesses and school districts. The National Federation of Independent Businesses estimates that the state’s small businesses will lose $2.6 billion in economic output. Farmers, who are struggling to cope with severe drought, will see the costs of harvesting and shipping their products skyrocket, and consumers will pay higher prices as a result. If left unchecked, the CARB’s reckless policies will result in the loss of countless manufacturing jobs as well.
The governing process we learned and teach our children has been flipped upside down. Instead of elected officials making laws, unelected bureaucrats now do so. We urgeDemocrats to join us and take back the vital lawmaking power of our democracy. This dangerous trend must be reversed to restore accountability to government.
Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, represents the 23rd Assembly District. Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Nicolaus, represents the 3rd Assembly District.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article19360350.html#storylink=cpy
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested