Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
How Does the Government Decide What Is — and What Is Not — ‘Toxic’?
Apr 29, 2015 | National Review
By Henry I. Miller & Angela Logomasini
An increasingly frequent and worrisome phenomenon that unnecessarily threatens human health and the natural environment is “regrettable substitutions,” which refers to bans or limitations on certain products, even though the alternatives might pose risks that are uncertain or greater. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Senate Panel Passes Udall-Vitter Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has passed a modified version of the bipartisan Udall-Vitter bill. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Reform Bill Moves Forward In Senate
|
-
Senate Committee Fails to Fix Flawed Chemical Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Katie Weatherford
On April 28, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reviewed proposed legislation from Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation's primary chemical safety law. -
US EPA Seeks Renewed Lead Paint Hazard Authorities
Apr 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The USA EPA is asking the Office of Management and Budget to renew its information collection authority for residential lead-based paint hazard disclosure requirements and also for lead-based paint pre-renovation information dissemination. -
The Concerted Campaign Needed on Cybersecurity
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Todd Rosenblum and Mieke Eoyang
Any legislation passed during Congress’ cyber week won’t be the end of cyber security debate. It isn’t even the beginning of the end. -
State to Make Fracking Ban Official, Not Permanent
Apr 29, 2015 | Capital New York
By Scott Waldman
Governor Andrew Cuomo's fracking ban may be more of a freeze. -
'Findings Document' May be Avenue for Legal Assault on N.Y. Fracking Ban
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Colin Sullivan
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is under pressure to make his prohibition against hydraulic fracturing permanent but appears likely to not set the ban in stone when his administration releases its environmental impact statement along with a legal findings document. -
Bill Getting Committee Vote Today Would Topple 'Extreme Regulation' -- Whitfield
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) last night kicked off a two-day House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of his newly introduced "Ratepayer Protection Act" by painting his bill as a moderate check on a rogue U.S. EPA that is attempting to circumvent the will of Congress. -
Committee Rejects Dem Amendments to EPA Opt-Out Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning voted down the first two amendments from Democrats who say a Republican bill to declaw U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will have harmful effects. -
Energy Taking 'Prudent' Steps in Case Clean Power Plan Survives
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Make no mistake. New Orleans-based utility giant Entergy Corp. is no fan of U.S. EPA's proposed rule to curb carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030. -
EPRI's Manning Discusses Role of Transmission Improvements in Power Plan Compliance
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E TV
How can utilities manage the challenges of integrating distributed energy? -
States Will Benefit From Regional Approach to EPA Carbon Rule -- Analysis
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
States face wide variations in Clean Power Plan compliance costs and outcomes depending on the paths they choose and how much time U.S. EPA allows them for writing compliance strategies, according to an analysis released yesterday by the Bipartisan Policy Center. -
EPA 'Hopeful' About Hydropower's Role in Clean Power Plan
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A top U.S. EPA official yesterday reassured the hydropower industry that states will be able to use the power source to cut carbon under the agency's Clean Power Plan, even though a draft rule was largely silent on the option. -
We Need Energy Technology, Not Ideology
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Charles McConnell
Let's keep burning coal; after all, it is a "way of life," therefore we must continue. No, wait: Let's eliminate fossil fuels altogether right now and make the world a better place. -
California Governor Orders New Target for Emissions Cuts
Apr 29, 2015 | The New York Times
By Adam Nagourney
Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order Wednesday dramatically ramping up this state’s already ambitious program aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, saying it was critical to address what he called “an ever-growing threat” posed by global warming to the state’s economy and well-being. -
California Governor Orders Country’s Most Aggressive Emission Cut Goals
Apr 29, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Reid Wilson
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is ordering his state to cut harmful carbon emission levels more aggressively than any other government in North America, as an historic drought grips the Western United States. -
California's Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets are Getting Tougher
Apr 29, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
Gov. Jerry Brown ramped up his efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, issuing an executive order Wednesday morning with more ambitious targets. -
Calif. Governor Orders State to Slash Emissions 40% by 2030
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Debra Kahn
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) today ordered the state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, calling it the most ambitious climate target in North America. -
(ACC Mentioned) Economists at NTTC Predict Solid Year for Trucking in 2015
Apr 29, 2015 | Transport Topics News
By Jonathan S. Reiskin
The nation’s tank truck industry will not grow as rapidly this year as it did from 2011 to 2013, but volumes hauled will remain strong, especially as gross domestic product recovers from a flat first quarter. -
In Safety Debate, Oil Companies’ Arguments as Brittle as Their Tank Cars
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jim Hall
April 30 marks the one-year anniversary of an oil train derailment in downtown Lynchburg, Va. – a near disaster that should have reminded Washington and the oil industry that basic safety features of the crude-by-rail business remain profoundly inadequate.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
How Does the Government Decide What Is — and What Is Not — ‘Toxic’?
Apr 29, 2015 | National Review
By Henry I. Miller & Angela Logomasini
An increasingly frequent and worrisome phenomenon that unnecessarily threatens human health and the natural environment is “regrettable substitutions,” which refers to bans or limitations on certain products, even though the alternatives might pose risks that are uncertain or greater. It calls to mind the old saying “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
Today, members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are marking up legislation to reform the nation’s law on chemicals — the Toxic Substances Control Act. As they work, they should heed the lessons related to regrettable substitutions.
A recent academic study demonstrates how product manufacturers themselves may perpetuate spurious product concerns and drive consumers to take greater health risks. Entitled “The Psychology of ‘Regrettable Substitutions’: Examining Consumer Judgments of Bisphenol A and Its Alternatives,” the study examines how product labeling affects people’s evaluation of the risks of BPA (a chemical that is a component of many plastics and that is used in the resins that line food cans to prevent bacterial contamination) compared with alternatives to BPA. Consumers “may be guided less by what people know and more by the order in which they learn it,” the study reported. “Notably, it appears that people evaluate a situation in which scientific evidence is tempered by controversy similarly to a situation in which there is no scientific evidence at all.”
The safety of BPA continues to be debated, although arguably controversy should have been put to rest long ago. Years of ongoing research and repeated assessments conducted by the FDA have concluded that BPA is, in fact, safe in normal use. A just-released report from Europe’s food regulator, the European Food Safety Authority, reached the same conclusion:
EFSA’s comprehensive reevaluation of bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and toxicity concludes that BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants, and adolescents) at current exposure levels. Exposure from the diet or from a combination of sources (diet, dust, cosmetics, and thermal paper) is considerably under the safe level.
The title of the article refers to the fact that BPA is often replaced with other, less-studied chemicals whose health implications are more uncertain. Thus, there is the prospect that replacement products might be inferior. In the case of BPA, if the replacement resins that line metal cans fail to perform as well, we could see more people getting sick from deadly bacteria, such as the bacteria that cause botulism.
This would be a regrettable substitution, because the substitute material might prove worse than the material that it replaces. The conclusion of the study is striking: “Our findings indicate that such [“BPA-free”] labels are misleading and cause some people to accept a substitute chemical that they might otherwise reject.”
General Mills and Post Foods give us another example of “regrettable substitutions.” These food-production behemoths capitulated to demands from activists to reformulate their iconic Cheerios and Grape Nuts cereals, respectively, so they can label them as free of “genetically engineered” ingredients. Their regrettable substitution is the elimination of certain added vitamins from their products, because they cannot obtain them from sources certified to be non-genetically engineered.
We have food producers trying to meet a perceived consumer demand but supplying products that are more expensive and inferior.
Thus, we have food producers trying to meet a perceived consumer demand but supplying products that are more expensive and inferior — inferior in having reduced nutrients.
Similarly, two of the United States’ largest producers of baby food, Heinz and Gerber, bowed to intimidation by anti-technology activists and shifted to non-genetically engineered ingredients for their products — even if those ingredients are nutritionally inferior or less safe than those made from genetically engineered plants.
How could they be less safe? Consider the example of “Bt-corn,” crafted by splicing into commercial corn varieties a bacterial gene that codes for a protein toxic to corn-borer pests but not to mammals. As it fends off the insect pests, the genetically engineered corn also reduces the levels of Fusarium, a toxic fungus often carried into the plants by the insects. That, in turn, reduces the levels of fumonisin, a potent and dangerous fungal toxin that can lead to fatal diseases in horses and swine that ingest infected corn and that can cause miscarriages and esophageal cancer in humans.
Using genetically engineered corn for food processing therefore lowers the probability that harmful levels of fumonisin will be in the final product. But simply because anti-biotechnology extremists have demanded it, Heinz, Gerber, and other companies — including, just this week, Chipotle — have chosen to forgo such genetically improved sources of foods that could yield healthier and safer products. Even worse, Gerber has announced it will use mostly organic corn, which is especially prone to insect and bacterial infestations. But raising corn without insecticides and other chemicals is labor-intensive and produces lower per-acre yields, so production costs will increase. Organic corn will probably have far greater amounts of fumonisin and bacterial contamination.
When manufacturers capitulate to demands that are based on irrational fears, consumers can be lured into dubious choices — they evaluate products after reading labels that are strictly accurate but fail to tell the whole story.
Sometimes the dubious choices are made by “institutional consumers,” rather than individuals. Consider DEHP, a chemical in a category called phthalates. In 2008, Congress banned DEHP in toys in amounts greater than 0.1 percent. Hype from activists about DEHP risks has also led the medical community to seek alternatives in such vital products as blood bags, although the chemical is very valuable in medical applications and the risks from such exposures are negligible. As researchers in one medical journal observed, “For RBCs [red blood cells], however, there are few convincing alternatives offering RBC the same protecting qualities of DEHP and allowing their long-term storage with equal qualities.” The sad reality is that our blood supply could be placed in jeopardy because of misinformation and hype about the risks of these valuable chemicals. Regulators should not contribute to such alarmism by acting on weak science and unsubstantiated claims about risk.
At times the regrettable substitutions result more directly from hasty, wrong-headed decisions by government. The EU for instance buckled under political pressure and placed a two-year ban starting in December 2013 on a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. Forced to resort to older, more toxic, less effective pesticides — primarily pyrethroids, which had been largely phased out — farmers in Europe are seeing a resurgence of insect predation. As a result, insect infestations could lead to a 15 percent drop in this year’s European harvest of canola, the continent’s primary source of vegetable oil used in food ingredients and as biodiesel.
Congress might produce more such outcomes if they pass misguided reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is one of the few laws on the books that requires regulators to consider the impact of substitutions. Under TSCA’s “unreasonable risk” standard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may regulate when a chemical poses “an unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. That includes the requirement that the EPA apply the “least burdensome requirements” to meet its objectives. To determine the “least burdensome” approach, the EPA must consider the effects and exposure of the substance on humans and the environment, benefits of the product being regulated, availability of adequate substitutes, and economic consequences.
This reasonable standard has prevented the EPA from making some regrettable decisions. In one case, a federal court stopped a 1989 TSCA regulation that banned the use of asbestos in automobile brakes and other products. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA explained:
What we cannot ignore is that the EPA failed to study the effect of non-asbestos brakes on automotive safety, despite credible evidence that non-asbestos brakes could increase significantly the number of highway fatalities, and that the EPA failed to evaluate the toxicity of likely brake substitutes. . . . The EPA, in its zeal to ban asbestos, cannot overlook, with only cursory study, credible contentions that substitute products actually might increase fatalities.
Not only did the EPA ban possibly increase road fatalities; it was also unlikely to yield benefits. During the 1980s, exposure and use of asbestos were already well regulated by Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other EPA rules were in place to ensure safe management of these substances. In addition, as an American Council on Science and Health study details, the type of asbestos used in the brakes (chrysotile fibers) poses negligible risks when managed properly. Occupational illnesses caused by asbestos result from amphibole fibers, which are not used in brakes.
Lawmakers should understand that it’s a good idea to make sure that the EPA avoids passing rules that might kill people. But rather than praise TSCA’s unreasonable-risk standard, many lawmakers lamented it during recent congressional hearings. Instead, they seem to advocate TSCA “reforms” that would eliminate the requirement for EPA to apply the “least burdensome” regulations, opening a door to more shortsighted and potentially dangerous regulations.
Lawmakers should understand that it’s a good idea to make sure that the EPA avoids passing rules that might kill people.
Among the potential targets discussed at the TSCA hearings are life-saving flame-retardant chemicals, such as those used on furniture. While the risks associated with these products are largely theoretical, fire risks are real and substantial. In 2013, there were more than 1.2 million fires in the United States, causing 3,240 deaths, nearly 16,000 injuries, and $11.5 billion in damage, according to the National Fire Protection Association. And there is plenty of evidence that flame retardants can prevent and slow fires, giving people more time to escape. The regrettable result here could well be more fire-related deaths and injuries as manufactures are forced to abandon the most effective flame retardants.
There are important lessons in these examples. Decisions by governments should be driven by data, and manufacturers and retailers should resist the demands of activists and rely instead on scientific evidence, lest they stumble into a morass of eventual customer dissatisfaction, damage to their brand, and potential product liability. (In product-liability law, according to the Legal Information Institute, “a design defect exists when a defect is inherent in the design of the product itself . . . [and] a plaintiff can only establish a design defect exists when he proves there is hypothetical alternative design that would be safer that the original design, as economically feasible as the original design, and as practical as the original design.”)
While scholars recognize the potential risks associated with product substitution, activists’ efforts to undermine certain technologies continue to gain a foothold in both the marketplace and government. But unless we maintain a healthy skepticism about the claims of these self-interested, self-styled “consumer advocates,” we’ll continue to suffer from regrettable outcomes.
— Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Angela Logomasini, Ph.D., is the Senior Fellow in Environmental Risk, Regulation, and Consumer Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Senate Panel Passes Udall-Vitter Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has passed a modified version of the bipartisan Udall-Vitter bill.
Voted through 15-5, the move is a major step forward in congressional efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (CW 10 March 2015).
Four of the nine Democrats on the panel joined their Republican colleagues to support the measure, which underwent several changes, especially on the contentious issue of state preemption. The bill's co-authors, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and David Vitter (R-Louisiana) incorporated compromise language offered by three Democrats – Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island), Jeff Merkly (Oregon) and Cory Booker (New Jersey).
The committee's ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-California), who has co-authored an alternative bill that would allow states to retain more powers, acknowledged that the revised version of Udall-Vitter was an improvement over the original, but voted against it, saying that it needed further improvements to preserve states' rights and also ban asbestos.
Key changes to the preemption language include:once the EPA begins evaluating a chemical, limitations on state actions will start after the “scope of uses of the chemical is defined" and end "when the safety determination is made”;if the deadline for safety determination is missed, states are automatically granted a waiver from the “pause”;the EPA will grant a state request for waiver during the safety assessment if the state requirement does not violate federal law, or unduly burden interstate commerce, and if the state's concern about the chemical substance, or its use, is based on peer-reviewed science. If the agency fails to make a decision on a waiver request within 90 days, it is deemed approved;states will be allowed to co-enforce the federal law;all state laws on chemicals disclosure are not subject to preemption; andall state laws enacted before 1 August 2015 are exempt from preemption. Previously the grandfather date was 1 January, 2015.
Other changes from the original bill include that it lowers the bar for when a chemical can be designated as “high priority” to a “significant” rather than a “high” health and safety threat. The agency must give preference to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (PBTs) in its work plan for selecting chemicals on the initial high-priority list.
In addition to high-priority chemicals designated by the EPA, industry can petition the agency to designate additional chemicals, but would have to pay the full cost of the assessment. And for TSCA submissions to the EPA, industry must explore scientifically reliable alternatives first before conducting new animal testing.
All amendments proposed by Democrats at the markup were rejected. They include one by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) that would incorporate language in the House TSCA discussion draft (CW 15 April 2015) that stipulates that preemption would kick in only after the EPA makes a final assessment of a chemical.
Voicing disappointment that Republicans “blocked every amendment to strengthen this bill”, Ms Boxer said that they instead “chose to move a bill forward that preempts our states from acting to protect their people from the most toxic chemicals for at least five years” [the time it might take the EPA to complete a chemical assessment].
American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley said the compromise amendment “maintains important priorities for manufacturers”.
NGOs generally agreed that the substituted version of the bill was an improvement over the original, but wanted further changes.
The committee's passage of the measure “should lock in place the significant improvements in the bill,” said Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “NRDC will continue to work to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process, including by eliminating the remaining rollbacks from current law, increasing public health protections, and further ensuring that no EPA could use the bill to weaken chemical safety.”
“The revised bill represents a strong, bipartisan compromise that fixes the major flaws in current law and addresses each of the key concerns raised by [senators] at the March hearing,” said Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, said the revised substitute bill addressed many of the coalition's concerns but further improvement is needed. Despite changes, the bill still represents an “unprecedented level of preemption,” he said. Also, a new provision in the substitute would make it harder for the EPA to implement significant new use rules for chemicals in products, he added.
The Udall-Vitter bill now moves to the Senate floor for a vote that has to be scheduled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). If it passes the Senate it will go to a joint conference committee where differences with any passed House version of the TSCA reform bill would have to be reconciled. The conference report would then go back to both chambers for passage, after which it would head to the President's desk.
Meanwhile, a vote on a bill text of the draft measure in the House is scheduled in the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy for the week of 11 May.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Reform Bill Moves Forward In Senate
|
-
Senate Committee Fails to Fix Flawed Chemical Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Katie Weatherford
On April 28, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reviewed proposed legislation from Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation's primary chemical safety law. Despite numerous attempts to constructively amend the flawed bill, the committee failed to fix the legislation and sent it on to the Senate floor.The Vitter-Udall bill was flawed from the start.
When Vitter and Udall introduced their so-called TSCA "reform" bill in March, they claimed it would improve current law by eliminating some of the analytical requirements that TSCA imposes on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and allowing the agency to move faster to restrict dangerous chemicals. However, when combined with damaging provisions that would weaken the existing law and override strong state protections, the proposal represented a step backward, not meaningful reform.Revisions to the bill still block states from protecting their residents from toxic chemicals and don't do enough to improve federal law.
In yesterday's committee session, Vitter offered up a new version of the bill, which addresses some of the problems with the prior version. But the updated proposal still threatens to override state and local policies that restrict or ban the most dangerous chemicals and fails to establish deadlines for EPA to issue enforceable chemical safety rules.
The Vitter revisions prohibit states from adopting or enforcing a new chemical restriction or ban once EPA issues a plan to review a specific chemical of concern. This provision would apply to state actions taken after Aug. 1, 2015. States are also banned from taking any action on the chemical during this multi-year review process.
If EPA determines that the chemical is "safe," states are blocked – indefinitely – from restricting or banning the chemical, even if they have evidence that the chemical poses a risk to their residents. If EPA finds that the chemical is unsafe, states could take action, but only until EPA issues its own rule on the substance. While states can request a waiver from EPA so they can act to protect their residents, the Vitter revisions retain extremely stringent waiver requirements, and state requests are unlikely to succeed.The committee voted down a number of critical amendments that would have strengthened the bill.
During yesterday's committee review, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Edward Markey (D-MA) offered several amendments that would have corrected the troubling state policy override provisions, established firm deadlines for EPA to adopt chemical restrictions, and required swift action on extremely dangerous chemicals. Vitter opposed each of these amendments, and none of them passed a committee vote.
After defeating the critical amendments, the committee approved the bill and sent it to the full Senate for consideration. Boxer said that she will continue to push for improvements to the bill and will introduce 27 amendments when the legislation comes to the Senate floor in the coming weeks.
If the Senate passes the bill, it will move to the House. Its fate there is uncertain because Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) is poised to introduce his own version of TSCA legislation, which would also override many state chemical policies and fail to provide EPA the tools it needs to effectively safeguard the public from toxic substances. The House could choose to act on the Shimkus bill, take up the Senate bill instead, or somehow combine the two. Congress can improve our toxic chemical law, but only if it protects people and the states.
No matter how the legislative wrangling plays out, one thing is clear: neither bill represents real reform of our nation's chemical safety law, and the American people and the public interest community should continue to oppose the legislation until state policies are protected and EPA has the ability to take meaningful action to protect us all from toxic chemicals.
-
US EPA Seeks Renewed Lead Paint Hazard Authorities
Apr 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The USA EPA is asking the Office of Management and Budget to renew its information collection authority for residential lead-based paint hazard disclosure requirements and also for lead-based paint pre-renovation information dissemination.
The current information collection requests (ICR) for both expired on 30 April. However, under OMB regulations, the agency can continue to conduct, or sponsor, the collection and dissemination of information while the renewal submission is pending.
-
The Concerted Campaign Needed on Cybersecurity
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Todd Rosenblum and Mieke Eoyang
Any legislation passed during Congress’ cyber week won’t be the end of cyber security debate. It isn’t even the beginning of the end.
The House and Senate are adopting legislation to provide liability protection to companies that share cyber incident information with the government. While everyone agrees that government and industry need to be able to share information about the threat, creating the cyber equivalent of an all-points bulletin isn’t nearly enough to address the threat. When it comes to cybersecurity, far more needs to be done to protect networks against those who would take them down.
The threats against networks are legion. Nation-states like North Korea and China launch cyber attacks against private companies and non-profits to silence speech they don’t like. Non-state actors like ISIS’s Cyber Caliphate attack the systems of U.S. and international government agencies and media outlets. Cyber-criminals have stolen financial information from major retailers and health care information from insurers, and even the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
The Obama administration is moving forward to address the threat—issuing an executive order to allow targeted sanctions against cyber bad actors; coordinating intelligence within the government on cyber threats; and establishing standards for cybersecurity, resiliency, and response. But many of the challenges are too big for the executive branch to address alone.
So what should Congress do next?
Make government more coherent. As the companies who have suffered major cyber breaches discovered, government doesn’t speak with one voice when it comes to incident response. Depending on the circumstances of the breach, dozens of government agencies can descend on a company with each conducting its own investigation for different purposes. And the more federal agencies involved, the more Congressional committees are engaged. Bad organizational structure is worsening the sclerosis on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Rationalizing cyber response in the executive branch and Congress could eliminate redundancy and streamline the process.
Make government more transparent. The secrecy surrounding the U.S. government’s responses to cyber threats and surveillance undermine both our offense and defense. On defense, cyber threat indicators sent by companies to the government come back stamped classified, making them hard to discuss. Secrecy surrounding privacy safeguards in the cyber and surveillance agencies prevents an open dialogue that could ease persistent suspicion about the government’s intentions and allow for accurate comparisons between the behavior of the U.S. and other countries on the Internet. Congress can play a vital role in pushing executive branch declassification of legal opinions and rules for cooperation. There will be circumstances when rules must stay secret, but the over classification of documents puts American companies on the defensive. Opening up the U.S. legal framework for mandatory cooperation with government can stand the test of sunshine, and help level the international playing field for companies doing business abroad.
Align State, Federal and International Law. Much like the jurisdictional mess for oversight and implementation of cyber security policy, confusion between federal, state, and international law is harming our cyber economy. U.S. multinational companies need predictable and consistent global rules to thrive. Today, we have neither. The patchwork of state laws on matters like privacy and standards for cyber hygiene, resiliency, and recovery makes it difficult for companies to conduct business in the U.S. Similarly, privacy rules and government access for national security must be a level playing field if we are to avoid a patchwork of “cooperation free zones” that undermines reasonable, approved rules. And in order to function internationally, these rules must be written with reciprocity principles in mind.
Incentivize good cyber hygiene. Government could offer tax breaks to promote best practices in cyber security. Industrial cyber security is vital for business reputation, and for the nation. Congress can accelerate private sector investment in cyber security by lowering the cost of necessary measures, especially for small and medium size companies that operate with little margin. The faster we recognize that cyber security is an interdependent task that requires participation by all, the sooner we will reduce the back doors into our critical nodes and networks.
Making headway on these core issues is both critical and fundamental to taking even more meaningful steps to lower our cyber risk. We have a long way to go from here. Congress needs to stay on task for the sake of our security and economic growth.
Rosenblum is visiting fellow for Cybersecurity at the centrist think tank Third Way and Eoyang is director of its National Security Program.
-
State to Make Fracking Ban Official, Not Permanent
Apr 29, 2015 | Capital New York
By Scott Waldman
Governor Andrew Cuomo's fracking ban may be more of a freeze.
The state is soon to release its final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for fracking and, shortly after that, a findings statement that will lay out the reasons for the state's decision to prohibit it in New York.
Since Cuomo announced the decision in December, he has resisted environmentalists' calls to change the law and make the ban permanent. That's why some lawmakers who oppose fracking still plan to push bills that restrict fracking in New York.
The environmental impact and findings statements that represent the administration's opinion on fracking aren't just technical documents, but political ones: They will be used by anti-fracking advocates in other states to push for more bans, and will also form the basis of the industry's legal challenge to the state ban. (A recent industry-backed research paper found that the state's initial fracking report, released in December, drew heavily on research from scientists who were avowed fracking opponents, including some financed by groups that funded the anti-fracking movement.)
As things stand, New York's ban is effective as long as Cuomo keeps it in place, but could be revisited and changed by a future administration.
State Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner Joe Martens recently acknowledged that the ban could be lifted. He said it would largely depend on the outcome of ongoing, long-term studies on the health effects of fracking.
“It's permanent until the information changes,” he said in a recent interview on "The Capitol Pressroom." “I don't think there's anything in the environmental world that's permanent.”
Cuomo administration officials declined further comment on Tuesday.
Demand for natural gas is increasing, particularly in the Northeast, and New York sits on one of the nation's major gas formations. The state's natural gas formations are also located in the one of the poorest regions of New York, the Southern Tier, which has little economic promise from any other industry. New York is the only state out of 30 with significant shale gas or oil formations to ban fracking.
Some state lawmakers see the December announcement as the end of New York's almost seven-year fracking debate. Republican senator Ken LaValle of Long Island, who sponsored a 5-year fracking moratorium bill in previous years, said Tuesday that he does not plan to re-introduce any legislation that would restrict fracking.
“I'm from the school that believes dead means dead, unless you're Lazarus,” he said.
Some lawmakers think otherwise.
Democratic assemblyman Steven Englebright of Long Island, chairman of the environmental conservation committee, said he still is pushing for a bill that would place a five-year ban on fracking, and he'll also explore other fracking-related legislation after the environmental impact statement is released.
“The reality is nothing is permanent—the devil is in the details,” he said. “My hope is that they'll finalize it in the strongest way possible. Until it's actually law, it can come back at any time.”
Business groups are counting on the ban to be temporary. They'll first use the courts to test the ban, but will lobby New York's next governor to lift it, if necessary.
“The facts are clear—high-volume hydraulic fracturing is safe and would provide a much needed economic boost to an area of the state that desperately needs a lifeline,” said Darren Suarez, director of government affairs for the Business Council of New York State. “Many of our members will certainly be exploring their legal options and we look forward to the day this misguided policy is overturned.”
-
'Findings Document' May be Avenue for Legal Assault on N.Y. Fracking Ban
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Colin Sullivan
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is under pressure to make his prohibition against hydraulic fracturing permanent but appears likely to not set the ban in stone when his administration releases its environmental impact statement along with a legal findings document.
The Democrat through his Department of Environmental Conservation is all set to release what's known as the supplemental generic environmental impact statement, possibly as soon as today. That document is the result of nearly seven years of work and will be several thousand pages thick, but it will not necessarily advance a permanent ban.
On a WCNY radio program last week, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens said the SGEIS "is being printed" and will be unveiled to the public "very shortly." He also reiterated his belief that Cuomo did the right thing, citing evidence of earthquakes in Oklahoma being related to fracking waste disposal.
But when asked whether the prohibition will be made permanent, Martens was clear in saying the DEC does not have the authority to write that sort of measure into state law.
"It's permanent until the information changes," he said. "I don't think there's any such thing in the environmental world as permanent. Information changes."
Martens went on to explain that technology could advance so that gas and oil deposits could be extracted without use of fracking techniques. He added that health studies on fracking that continue nationwide may help to guide permanent legislative bans.
"I'm hoping in the future there is a movement away from fossil fuels, period," he said.
Martens also explained that a quick 10-day comment period will follow release of the SGEIS, after which a legal findings document will be unveiled along with the final prohibition. This document will likely set the stage for lawsuits against the prohibition.
Landowners and the natural gas industry have said all along that they may sue the state, but they need the state's legal rationale for the prohibition before proceeding.
Environmentalists and their allies in Albany, meanwhile, have been pressing Cuomo to make the ban permanent, but several sources indicated they assume the state Legislature would have to act to codify the prohibition.
Given that reality, activists close to the process said they expect extraordinarily tight legal language designed to withstand any legal challenges. They also expect a legal assault to not result in legalization of fracking, but it could restart the environmental review process.
Some have called on Cuomo to extend the 10-day comment period to account for the intense public interest. In a letter, Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton (D) last week asked Cuomo to make the final SGEIS available before final adoption, to address public feedback.
"We have been awaiting the release of the findings document which creates a timeline for potential legal action," said Karen Moreau, executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute. "We look forward to completing this long-overdue process which has meant lost opportunity for many struggling New Yorkers as well as our companies."
-
Bill Getting Committee Vote Today Would Topple 'Extreme Regulation' -- Whitfield
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) last night kicked off a two-day House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of his newly introduced "Ratepayer Protection Act" by painting his bill as a moderate check on a rogue U.S. EPA that is attempting to circumvent the will of Congress.
The panel will vote today on the bill, H.R. 2042.
Whitfield said in his opening remarks last night that in crafting its Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, EPA had overstepped the legislative bounds of the Clean Air Act -- which was never intended, he said, to regulate carbon.
"EPA is not a legislative body and is doing it because of a court decision; we in the legislative branch have every right and obligation and responsibility to move forward with a common-sense approach to deal with this extreme regulation," said Whitfield, who chairs the House Energy and Power Subcommittee.
The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the landmark environmental statute provides for the regulation of CO2, and the agency says it is required by law to move forward with the rule it will finalize this summer.
Whitfield's bill would bar EPA from implementing a federal plan to regulate power plant carbon dioxide in states that do not choose to comply with the existing power plant rule. It also would grant all states a reprieve from requirements to submit implementation plans until judicial review of the rule concludes. The bill picked up two Democratic co-sponsors yesterday when it was formally introduced: Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.).
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said in one of the only other opening remarks made last night that he would not vote for the Whitfield measure, despite his reservations about EPA's regulatory approach. While Green said it was important to recognize that human emissions are driving climate change, "that doesn't mean regulating sectors of our economy out of existence."
Green represents a Houston district that features a number of oil refineries. He was instrumental in inserting concessions for the U.S. refining industry into a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade bill in 2009.
Green called for a bipartisan compromise to address "justifiable concerns," and Whitfield said he was open to suggestions.
-
Committee Rejects Dem Amendments to EPA Opt-Out Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning voted down the first two amendments from Democrats who say a Republican bill to declaw U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will have harmful effects.
The committee rejected along party lines amendments by Reps. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) to the "Ratepayer Protection Act" (H.R. 2042) before adjourning to listen to an address by visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The panel will take up several other amendments this afternoon before it is expected to approve the bill.
The Democratic measures were both calculated to show that the bill -- which would allow states to opt out of the EPA rule for carbon emissions from existing power plants -- would do more harm than good.
The bill by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) would grant states a reprieve from complying with the rule until judicial review has concluded and allow governors to opt-out even then if the rule is deemed to cost their states' ratepayers or hurt reliability.
But Tonko's amendment, rejected on a voice vote, would have required the governor's determination to be subject to judicial review. The co-chairman of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition said the Whitfield measure essentially would give governors the last say in whether the EPA rule moves forward.
"What kind of precedent, I would ask, does that send?" he said.
But Whitfield said the bill is needed to ensure EPA doesn't overstep its authority in mandating state energy plans.
"The whole purpose of this bill is to provide checks and balances against a very extreme and radical EPA," he said. State governors also have scientists and other experts who can help them make a determination about whether the rule jeopardizes their states' interests, he said.
The amendment by Rush, the top Democrat on the Energy and Power subpanel, would have required governors to look at the costs of inaction on climate change when determining whether or not the federal rule would be a net cost to their states. Among other things, it would have required an assessment of the cost of responding to extreme weather events, including more frequent storms and droughts. It was voted down 19-26.
-
Energy Taking 'Prudent' Steps in Case Clean Power Plan Survives
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Make no mistake. New Orleans-based utility giant Entergy Corp. is no fan of U.S. EPA's proposed rule to curb carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030.
"Our point of view hasn't changed. We still are not supportive of the rule as promulgated," Executive Vice President Rod West said last week.
Nevertheless, the company is puzzling out how it would respond should the proposed Clean Power Plan survive legal challenges. "We don't have the luxury to sit idly by," West said during an interview in his conference room on the 28th floor of the Entergy Tower in New Orleans.
There is a "a practical reality that's grounded in, one, experience, and, two, what I would consider to be prudency on behalf of our stakeholders," West said.
"There is a chance, whether you handicap it at less than 50 percent or greater than 50 percent, that either some or all of that rule may survive legal challenge. It's just a practical reality. We think it's prudent for us to travel the parallel paths," he said.
West is no stranger to tackling a challenge as complex as devising ways to comply with the Clean Power Plan in the four states where it operates electric utilities -- Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas -- and in the Northeast where it runs a fleet of merchant nuclear plants.
Before assuming his current job in 2010, West was president and CEO of Entergy New Orleans, where he led the utility out of bankruptcy after Hurricane Katrina wiped out the utility's infrastructure. As part of that task, he oversaw the industry's largest natural gas rebuild effort in history -- the replacement of approximately 860 miles of underground pipe.
Now he is helping the utility navigate what he calls the "political tightrope" of potential compliance with the Clean Power Plan in a way that Entergy's customers, regulators and shareholders can live with, West said.EPA 'listened'
Entergy CEO Leo Denault has met with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on more than one occasion, and Chuck Barlow, Entergy vice president of environmental strategy and policy, "is on speed dial" with EPA staff, West said.
"I tip my hat to the administrator in this regard: They've listened. We have had an audience. I no longer question whether or not our issues are on the table," West said.
Entergy Corp. Executive Vice President Rod West. Photo courtesy of Entergy.
But like other leaders in the utility industry, West awaits to see to what extent EPA might alter in a significant way its proposed rule in respond to a litany of like-minded comments from the industry. "There's a political reality that the administrator has been given a charge or a mandate, or however she articulates it, by the president" that the Clean Power Plan is the leading tool in U.S. efforts to reduce global carbon emissions.
Last June, McCarthy made an unadvertised visit to Las Vegas for the Edison Electric Institute's annual meeting to discuss the just-released Clean Power Plan proposal and assuage industry concerns.
West does not expect a similar visit early this June when EEI meets in his hometown of New Orleans.
"The rule will be ready to drop, and any and all conversations, comments or negotiations would be done," he said. "And, in fact, we may already be at a point where the conversations cease. I believe today that the EPA knows exactly what it is going to ultimately promulgate and issue in that rule; I don't expect there to be any changes to their point of view from here on out.
"So we've spoken our piece. I think the real question for the initial reaction to the rules is going to be what do we see out of [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] and their concerns about reliability and ancillary concerns about impacts on markets," he said.
"The real answer" to cutting emissions "in our view still remains some definitive price on carbon that winds up working its way through some type of exchange program where you can monetize credits if you are an emitter or trade them if not," West said.'Broader' approach
As a large participant in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Entergy has championed a so-called mass-based approach to accounting for carbon emissions "where we actually benefit from a regional approach to energy delivery to customers," he said.
The regional approach, "which assimilates this trading," provides an opportunity "to reduce emissions that doesn't necessarily penalize one state that might have a certain concentration of generating resources versus another."
Entergy's perspective is "broader" because of its operations in multiple regions and states, West said.
"From a policy perspective, greenhouse gases really don't recognize geopolitical boundaries. We get that. And climate change is not a state-by-state issue. We get that, as well. But our approach to this broad national policy is manifested on a state-by-state basis, and that's the challenge."
Trying to devise approaches to meeting a sweeping national goal one state at a time "makes it fun, candidly. It is intellectually one of the more challenging issues we have faced in my career."
"But when I think about the gravity of the problem we're trying to solve, and the problem is not just a question of climate change -- we're pretty clear on that -- but what is America's national policy -- it's interesting, fascinating stuff," West said.
-
EPRI's Manning Discusses Role of Transmission Improvements in Power Plan Compliance
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E TV
How can utilities manage the challenges of integrating distributed energy? During today's OnPoint, Robin Manning, vice president of transmission for the Electric Power Research Institute's Power Delivery and Utilization Research Sector, discusses EPRI's latest model for assessing the costs and benefits of integrating rooftop solar, microgrids and other technologies. He also talks about the critical role transmission improvements will play in Clean Power Plan compliance.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Rob Manning, vice president of transmission for the Electric Power Research Institute's Power Delivery and Utilization Research Sector. Rob, it's nice to have you here.
Robin Manning: Thank you. It's good to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: Rob, you recently left the Tennessee Valley Authority and are now working on transmission research at EPRI. As you consider EPA's Clean Power Plan, how critical will transmission improvements be to the success of the plan?
Robin Manning: Well, transmission improvements are essential I think to the success of the plan. Transmission is really the anchor of the grid of tomorrow, to the future grid. With the transmission system in place you're able to move energy longer distances. You could take energy that's created in renewable centers of the United States, for example, and move that long distances. And today we don't have as much -- I'll start that again. And today we just don't have all the transmission that we could have -- that we need in order to move the energy all around the United States.
Monica Trauzzi: Is there enough of an acknowledgement among utility executives, among the electric power sector of the necessity for infrastructure improvements? And is there also forward planning from a financial standpoint?
Robin Manning: Oh, absolutely. I think all around the country, in fact all around the world people recognize the need for investment in infrastructure, particularly as we look at all the many changes that are going on in our industry. The changes that we face today in the energy industry are tremendous, and in order to address those changes we will need investment in infrastructure to make that happen.
Monica Trauzzi: So EPRI recently released a new model for assessing costs and benefits of rooftop solar, microgrids, other technologies. How big is this trend?
Robin Manning: You know, you're referring to the integrated grid, and the integrated grid for EPRI is the future of the grid. In order to really operate with a variety of distributed, variable energy resources on the grid, we really need to understand the grid fully. We need to know what's happening in all places along the grid. We need to know what to do about what's happening, and that means we need a free flow of information from all the various components that are interconnected to the grid.
Monica Trauzzi: Distributed energy is -- it's a challenge. It's a point of debate and discussion among many utilities. Is there an approach that works across all regions, or do we see a need for it to be tailored based on what's happening in a specific region?
Robin Manning: Well, distributed energy creates a challenge because it's quite a bit different from what we have historically done in our industry. Historically we generated in large blocks in central locations, and we delivered it at the speed of light and used it almost instantaneously at the sites where customers use their electricity. So when we began to put distributed energy resources out along the grid, then we have this issue of integrating all of that together so we understand what's happening in real time. So every situation is really unique, so you do have to have a system that's smart enough to understand how each implication, each change is making an impact on the grid.
Monica Trauzzi: What should utility executives be looking at as the biggest areas for growth?
Robin Manning: Well, certainly right now the biggest areas -- one of the biggest areas for growth is communications and IT infrastructure, to create information -- free flow of information from utility components and from customer components. For example, if you bought a refrigerator lately, refrigerators and appliances have Wi-Fi in them these days. So the ability to integrate all the individual resources within a home is going to be important in the future. So how do you take that information, how do you bring that information to a single point, and how do you manipulate and use that information to create value for the public at large?
Monica Trauzzi: You've been working in the industry for many, many years. What are the biggest lessons you've learned up until this point that you're really looking to apply to your new work at EPRI?
Robin Manning: Well, one of the reasons I really wanted to come to EPRI is because we focus so much on collaboration. And one of my greatest lessons learned over 36 years in the industry is you can't go it alone. I've experienced that over time, and every time you do things out on your own you end up with a product that's less effective than it could be when you collaborate. So the biggest lesson learned I think we can apply here is how do we collaborate with each other? How do we work together? How do we bring industry but also scientists and academia together and we learn how to deal with the issues and the challenges that we face and create something that's better for everyone?
Monica Trauzzi: All right, Rob. Thank you. Thanks for coming on the show.
Robin Manning: Thank you very much, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
States Will Benefit From Regional Approach to EPA Carbon Rule -- Analysis
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
States face wide variations in Clean Power Plan compliance costs and outcomes depending on the paths they choose and how much time U.S. EPA allows them for writing compliance strategies, according to an analysis released yesterday by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
The Washington, D.C., nonprofit's modeling explores options the draft rule offers to states, projecting outcomes based on whether states choose regional or individual emission plans and weighing variables that include the cost of natural gas.
The modeling projects that the EPA rule will cost $9.7 billion in 2020 and $15.7 billion in 2030 annually before savings from demand-side efficiency are factored in.
The center found that nearly every state would benefit by choosing regional cooperation. The exception: Texas, which is served by grid operator Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and is assumed to go it alone.
How much the regional approach will save on compliance costs varies by region. The report sees the vast "Midcontenental" region that sprawls from Montana to Michigan to Louisiana as saving more than $1.5 billion a year between 2020 and 2030 by banding together.
Regional approaches would also keep more coal-fired power plants online because emissions reductions could be averaged across a broader swath of states, taking advantage of least-cost options.
The center says regional approaches could prevent the retirement of 7 gigawatts of coal capacity between 2016 and 2030.
In addition to bringing down the cost of overall compliance, state plans that encourage energy efficiency can act to safeguard the current power mix, including coal.
If less power is used, the report says, more of it can come from higher-emitting sources while still allowing states to meet their targets. Five Southeastern states stand to keep nearly 10 GW of coal-fired capacity from being retired if the region maximizes new and additional demand-side efficiency, it says.
A state's choice to comply using a rate-based standard -- which sets a carbon limit per kilowatt -- or a mass-based "carbon budget" is also important, according to the analysis. Most states will save compliance costs by going the mass-based route, the report says.
On a call with reporters yesterday, analyst Jennifer Macedonia said states could erode the EPA rule's overall carbon-reduction benefits if they all used the most generous assumptions the agency provides for when converting their rate-based targets to mass-based targets.
If all states did so, the power sector could exceed EPA's projected emissions levels by as much as 17 percent, she said.
It also matters whether states choose to include their new combined-cycle natural gas power plants under the draft rule, she said.
That approach would ensure those units make ongoing emissions reductions, she said, as the existing fleet is required to do rather than simply complying with EPA's separate standard for new facilities and then operating outside the cap of regulations.
"There's kind of a level playing field between new and existing gas," Macedonia said.
So including new units under the Clean Power Plan compliance strategy will keep more existing power plants online, she said, again lowering overall compliance costs. It would also address concerns some utilities have raised about the rule's potential to require them to shutter power plants before they have finished paying for them.
The center's study is the latest of many analyses that show states would benefit from a regional rather than a state approach to Clean Power Plan compliance.
But many states say the draft rule provides them too little time to construct a regional compact. And green groups warn that political pressure in some states to "just say no" to compliance with the rule could slow their implementation process further, putting more time-consuming compliance options out of reach and making enforcement of a federal plan more likely.
-
EPA 'Hopeful' About Hydropower's Role in Clean Power Plan
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A top U.S. EPA official yesterday reassured the hydropower industry that states will be able to use the power source to cut carbon under the agency's Clean Power Plan, even though a draft rule was largely silent on the option.
Speaking at the National Hydropower Association conference in Washington, D.C., EPA senior counsel Joe Goffman told industry leaders he wants to leave them with the same "hopefulness" the agency has that "when we finalize this rule, the logical flexibility, the promise of broad choices in terms of compliances options, including the choice of relying on zero-emitting hydropower, can become a reality for states and utilities."
Goffman said one observation that became "more vivid" in the course of the comment review and in many discussions is "the not quite fully tapped potential of existing [hydropower] infrastructure."
Hydropower accounts for about half of U.S. renewable energy generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A Department of Energy reportlast year estimated new hydropower development could nearly double that existing 65 gigawatts of electricity. An earlier study found that existing non-powered dams could generate 12 GW more hydropower.
"When we launched the proposal, we had a fairly terse and easy-to-miss couple sentences about how new or incremental hydropower could be considered as a compliance option," Goffman said. "We based that on, let's just say, the internal logic of our proposal, of how we defined the best system of emissions reduction and what counts as compliance."
Since then, Goffman said, commenters have opened EPA's eyes to hydropower's potential contributions to carbon reductions. "We're definitely putting that on the very good news side of the ledger."
The draft rule consists of four building blocks, or carbon-reducing measures, that EPA examined to set individual state goals. One of the building blocks addresses renewable energy, but it focuses on wind and solar power.
NHA has encouraged EPA to more explicitly list hydropower as an accepted compliance option, to give the industry more certainty and spur development of new resources. The trade association also wants EPA to credit states for existing hydropower resources, but the agency has widely expressed that only new action to reduce emissions since 2012 will count.Making the 'promise of flexibility' a reality
Reinforcing recent comments by EPA chief Gina McCarthy, Goffman also addressed complaints that EPA's overall timeline for reductions, especially in the interim term between 2020 and 2029, would hamstring flexibility (E&ENews PM, April 23).
He said EPA heard that "while we allowed flexibility across different compliance choices and over the 10-year period, we had also included features in the requirements that undercut, as a practical matter, that flexibility."
"So we're really focusing on taking those comments on board intellectually and treating as a problem statement for ourselves how do we really turn the promise of flexibility and the promise of latitude into reality," he said.
Marc Gerken, CEO of Ohio-based public utility American Municipal Power, commended EPA on its outreach on the Clean Power Plan.
"We don't always agree with what they're doing, but I will tell you they have an open door, and they're trying their best. This is not an easy thing to solve," he said. "I believe that hydro has gotten better awareness with EPA through this process. I think they've understood us a little bit better."
Roger Ballentine, president of Green Strategies and a former senior staffer on climate change for former President Clinton, said hydropower has not historically done a good job of marketing itself as a solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And the energy source once had an "overwhelmingly antagonistic" relationship with environmentalists concerned about the ecosystem impacts of dams and reservoirs, but he said that has largely changed.
"If you really care about climate change, you do not have the luxury of pushing this entire sector aside," Ballentine said.
The bigger problem may be that hydropower has simply been overlooked, said Jose Zayas, director of the wind and water power technologies office at DOE.
"Every individual I react with at the agency level gets it and sees the value of hydro," Zayas said. "Collectively, we have lost track of it because it's been this reliable source producing power for almost a hundred years, and it's almost like a given."Canadian credit conundrum
Many states along the Canadian border are considering whether they could receive credit for reducing carbon emissions by importing hydropower from America's northern neighbor. But EPA still must clarify whether international imports will count in its final rule.
Jonathan Pershing, principal deputy director for DOE's Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, said that in talks with Canadian officials, he has been surprised by the potential for the United States to increase its use of Canadian hydropower.
"I was struck by how much available resource there was, frankly, on the Canadian side," he said. "We've had extended conversations with a number of the Canadian premiers. We went up there and did a series of meetings. The capacity there seemed untapped and available."
Pershing said Canadians seem willing to engage, but state and local constraints on the U.S. side, especially for siting infrastructure to move the power, pose the biggest difficulty to importing more hydropower across the border.
A report from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) this week also touted the role of Canadian hydropower in achieving state Clean Power Plan goals.
"Canada's hydropower capacity has been growing in recent years, and that growth is projected to continue," the report said. "New Canadian hydropower imports could have a significant impact on the emission rates of importing states."
For example, if Massachusetts added 250 megawatts of imported hydropower, the state could reduce its emissions rate 10 percent, moving it nearly a third of the way toward its proposed 2030 target, the study says.
C2ES points out that of the dozens of sets of public comments the think tank reviewed, no stakeholder wanted to exclude international hydropower as a compliance method.
-
We Need Energy Technology, Not Ideology
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Charles McConnell
Let's keep burning coal; after all, it is a "way of life," therefore we must continue. No, wait: Let's eliminate fossil fuels altogether right now and make the world a better place.
These two perspectives could not be more opposite, and yet both are the same. They are uninformed. We are not using coal the way we were even 30 years ago and have advanced power production efficiency enormously — but we are still emitting carbon dioxide. Can we simply eliminate carbon dioxide overnight and declare war on energy affordability and security? We can't do that and be truly responsible to people that require affordable energy. Our world does require us to face carbon dioxide emissions as a threat to our global climate, and yet both sides of the argument are misguided about the facts and how to address the future. There is technology that can be deployed and solve problems, but we're too busy arguing without the facts and wallowing in ideology.
The U.S. has over 600 coal-fired power plants today, providing nearly 40 percent of our nation's electricity. We've closed 150 plants over the past two years as the natural gas miracle of supply and affordability has swept our country and enabled the transformation. Globally, however, Europe's coal growth is nearly 20 percent year over year and there are nearly 800 new coal-fired power plants planned in China and India alone. Coal is by no means dead; it is alive and growing. Is this because these societies "love" coal? Of course not! These countries are driven by the needs of their demanding and growing populations as they strive to escape energy poverty. Any society that does not have energy seeks to gain access through the most affordable means, and it changes their lives. If a society is blessed with available energy that is secure, then there is a clear responsibility to produce and provide that energy in an affordable and environmentally responsible manner. It is a time-honored fact that energy sustainability (secure, affordable and environmentally responsible) can only be accomplished through transformative technology advancements.
The U.S. is blessed with energy abundance and we take it for granted. We judge the choices and behaviors of others in the world far less fortunate. We could shut down every coal-fired power plant in our country tomorrow and impact the global carbon dioxide footprint by a whopping 2 percent — and there are those who would declare victory. This "victory" would increase the average cost to U.S. ratepayers by nearly two times in certain geographies, and that is at today's very low natural gas costs, so imagine the impact with more expensive gas! We have been able to shut down old, inefficient coal because of natural gas — not through a significant deployment of renewables. But natural-gas-fired power emits carbon dioxide as well, and is that really okay? Or is it simply that we wish to demonize coal and ignore that environmental reality to create a convenient, easy-to-identify enemy?
A recent New York Times article stated that the rooftop solar expansion in Hawaii is the template for our global future. The article fails to address the cost to the average ratepayer in Hawaii (the ones who do not have government-subsidized solar panels on their individual beach-view family homes). The average people that rely on power produced from the utility will be required to pay more to support such a special interest set of customers because those "special" customers will also demand a system that provides supply to "everyone" 24/7. Such a program benefits the few at the expense of the many.
Actually, it would be great if we were all living in an island paradise, receiving subsidized power and consuming less energy than the average U.S. citizen not living in such a temperate climate. I can't imagine any of us who would not fully embrace a future with no fossil fuels, zero emissions and with the same affordability and reliability of energy as we have today. Great imagination with zero reality is not a sustainable formula. If we want it all, then we can achieve it, but it takes technology investment and we need to get on with that now.
What technology can provide a real bridge for our real world? A technology that enables energy security and affordability and environmental responsibility can be deployed. It is carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS). Capture the carbon dioxide from the emissions of fossil-fired power plants before it enters the earth's atmosphere, utilize the carbon dioxide (it is a gas, not a poison; we drink it every day in carbonated beverages) and then safely and permanently store it in geological formations. The carbon dioxide capture technology we deploy today can be transformed over the next 10 years to be 50 percent more cost-effective than today's options. This was the Department of Energy (DOE) road map three years ago before the administration began to defund the Office of Fossil Technology. (Sadly, the support from the administration continues to lessen, but the House and Senate have recently begun to debate the shortfall and address the need.)
The carbon dioxide can be utilized to make chemicals and support the food industry, and most importantly, can be used in enhanced oil recovery or to enable fracking without water! It accomplishes energy productivity and enables affordability and produces an environmentally advanced solution by actually eliminating carbon dioxide emissions. The International Energy Agency has already published numerous reports stating that achievement of carbon dioxide emissions targets "requires" capturing the carbon dioxide from fossil usage. This is not a subsidy for oil and gas industries; it is a sensible way to promote environmental technology. To not promote and catalyze deployment of CCUS is to be disingenuous to any real carbon dioxide emissions environmental effort.
So why do both sides keep fighting? Industry claims that CCUS would make coal and fossil fuels too expensive and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the demon. That's too simple and unimaginative. Emitting carbon dioxide is not sustainable. But just as misguided is that some environmentalists would proclaim that the CCUS technology is a "waste of taxpayer money" and simply perpetuates our continued reliance on fossil fuels. (Let us not debate continued wasteful government subsidies of technologies well past development such as wind, solar or even the renewable ethanol mandate that do not make our energy more secure, affordable or responsible.) As a society, we cannot make the transition to a fossil-less society overnight as the International Energy Agency projects that 80 percent of the world's energy will still be produced by fossil in 2050. So we must make fossil fuels more environmentally responsible.
So politics and arguments have not provided any leadership to date. What we need is advanced transformative technology. There are leading nongovernmental organizations, such as the Clean Air Task Force, that see CCUS as a solution and embrace reality. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) heard from me about CCUS at my Senate Energy Committee confirmation hearing in 2012 that "CCUS was the most important technology DOE had to develop and realize if we were serious about CO2 and energy security." To make this bipartisan is not to be a bad or good party member — it's called leadership and we need it. It has not been coming from the EPA or the administration. Make an energy policy that promotes security, ensures affordability and is environmentally responsible. Drive for harmony and not opposition.
We are going to be consuming fossil fuels for the next 50 to 100 years, so the question is not if, it's how! We need what technology can deliver, and ideology cannot. Let's get busy and get real.
McConnell is executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University and a former assistant secretary of energy at the Department of Energy from 2011 to 2013.
-
California Governor Orders New Target for Emissions Cuts
Apr 29, 2015 | The New York Times
By Adam Nagourney
Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order Wednesday dramatically ramping up this state’s already ambitious program aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, saying it was critical to address what he called “an ever-growing threat” posed by global warming to the state’s economy and well-being.
Under Mr. Brown’s order, emissions would have to be reduced by 40 percent over 1990 levels by 2030. Under existing state law, emissions are supposed to be cut back by 80 percent over 1990 levels by 2050, and Mr. Brown said this tough new interim target was essential to helping the state make investment and regulatory decisions that will assure that goal is reached.
Mr. Brown’s order marks an aggressive turn in what had already been among the toughest programs in the nation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under the law put into place by Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state was required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 on the way to reach the 2050 target; California is already well on its way to meeting the 2020 goal, and may exceed it, officials said Wednesday.
“With this order, California sets a very high bar for itself and other states and nations, but it’s one that must be reached — for this generation and generations to come,” Mr. Brown said.
The order is the latest effort by Mr. Brown to position California as a leading force in the world’s effort to address climate change. In his State of the State address in January, the governor called for reducing gas consumption by cars and trucks by up to 50 percent over the next 15 years.Continue reading the main storyInteractive Graphic: How Water Cuts Could Affect Every Community in California
It comes as this state has been struggling with a drought that Mr. Brown has said is, at least in part, the result of a warming of the earth’s temperatures.
“Climate change poses an ever-growing threat to the well-being, public health, natural resources, economy and the environment of California, including loss of snowpack, drought, sea level rise, more frequent and intense wildfires, heat waves, more severe smog and harm to natural and working lands, and these effects are already being felt in the state,” Mr. Brown said in his executive order.
The governor’s order did not explain exactly how the state would reach the goals he was setting.
California’s target reflects those set by other governments — including the European Union — in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year.
-
California Governor Orders Country’s Most Aggressive Emission Cut Goals
Apr 29, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Reid Wilson
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is ordering his state to cut harmful carbon emission levels more aggressively than any other government in North America, as an historic drought grips the Western United States.
In an executive order issued Wednesday morning, Brown set a goal of cutting carbon emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, matching a target set by the European Union in October. Those targets are stricter than ones implemented under Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who aimed to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 and then cut emissions a further 20 percent by 2050.
Brown said the state is already on track to meet or exceed Schwarzenegger’s goals. The new targets are far more ambitious.
“With this order, California sets a very high bar for itself and other states and nations, but it’s one that must be reached — for this generation and generations to come,” Brown said in a statement announcing the new goals.
The order will incorporate planning for the impacts of climate change into California’s long-term infrastructure and financial planning. It also orders state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of greenhouse gas emissions to limit those emissions to hit the new targets.
Brown has made a response to climate change a cornerstone of his fourth and final term in office. In his inaugural address in January, Brown said California will derive half its electricity from renewable sources in the next 15 years. He also aims to reduce current use of petroleum in cars and trucks on state roads by half.
“We must demonstrate that reducing carbon is compatible with an abundant economy and human well-being,” Brown said in his inaugural address. “Taking significant amounts of carbon out of our economy without harming its vibrancy is exactly the sort of challenge at which California excels. This is exciting, it is bold and it is absolutely necessary if we are to have any chance of stopping potentially catastrophic changes to our climate system.”
California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia have signed a regional agreement to reduce carbon emissions, and Brown has signed separate accords with leaders in Mexico, China, Japan, Israel and Peru. Brown has argued those agreements could help force national governments — including the United States — to come to an agreement when the United Nations convenes a climate change conference in Paris later this year.
“California’s announcement is a realisation and a determination that will gladly resonate with other inspiring actions within the United States and around the globe,” Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat who serves as executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a statement released by Brown’s office.
The governor’s office also released supportive statements from World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and prominent environmentalists, such as former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and billionaire liberal philanthropist Tom Steyer.
Brown is scheduled to discuss his executive order at events Thursday morning in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills.
-
California's Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets are Getting Tougher
Apr 29, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
Gov. Jerry Brown ramped up his efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, issuing an executive order Wednesday morning with more ambitious targets.
The governor's order aims to cutemissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Previous goals, which were set during former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, were to reach 1990 levels by 2020, then 80% below that standard by 2050.
“With this order, California sets a very high bar for itself and other states and nations, but it’s one that must be reached -- for this generation and generations to come,” Brown said in a statement.
In the order, the governor added: "Climate change poses an ever-growing threat to the well-being, public health, natural resources, economy and the environment of California, including loss of snowpack, drought, sea level rise, more frequent and intense wildfires, heat waves, more severe smog and harm to natural and working lands."
The governor is scheduled to discuss the issue at two events in Los Angeles on Wednesday.
His executive order aligns California's goals with those set by the European Union and is intended to keep the state on track to meeting its 2050 target.
"California's announcement is a realization and a determination that will gladly resonate with other inspiring actions within the United States and around the globe," Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a statement.
The United Nations has scheduled a major international summit on the issue for later this year in Paris.
More work on climate change is being done by lawmakers in California's Capitol. Legislation under consideration -- first suggested by Brown in his inaugural address in January -- would increase the use of renewable energy, boost energy efficiency in outdated buildings and reduce gasoline use on state roads.
All of those proposals are intended to help California curb greenhouse gas emissions to 80% under 1990 levels by 2050, a target originally set through executive order by Schwarzenegger.
Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) has already authored legislation, SB 32, to codify the 2050 target. On Wednesday morning, she said the bill would be modified to incorporate Brown's new executive order.
"It fits perfectly," she said. "It’s consistent with all the goals."
Putting the executive order into law, Pavley said, would help it "stand the test of time from one administration to the next."
Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), who has been pushing climate change legislation and will appear with the governor today in Los Angeles, also praised Brown's announcement.
"Today’s executive order from Gov. Brown sets new carbon reduction goals that exemplify California’s global leadership on climate change," he said in a statement. "As with our state’s landmark cap-and-trade system, the Legislature will now create the framework to reach these goals."
-
Calif. Governor Orders State to Slash Emissions 40% by 2030
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Debra Kahn
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) today ordered the state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, calling it the most ambitious climate target in North America.
The executive order comes as state lawmakers are already considering a 2030 target and follows an inaugural pledge Brown made in January to halve petroleum consumption and achieve 50 percent renewable energy by that date.
Brown said the goal, which is based on a 1990 emissions base line, is aimed at aligning California with "leading international governments" ahead of the U.N. climate talks in Paris this December. The European Union set a 2030 target in October, he noted.
"With this order, California sets a very high bar for itself and other states and nations, but it's one that must be reached -- for this generation and generations to come," he said.
California is on track to meet its current target of 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and has an existing executive order by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to reach 80 percent below that by 2050.
State lawmakers are currently considering bills to achieve Brown's goals, including one from state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D) that would cut petroleum use, double the efficiency of existing buildings and raise the state's renewables portfolio standard to 50 percent, up from 30 percent by 2020 currently (ClimateWire, April 8). A hearing on Sen. Fran Pavley's (D) S.B. 32, which would instruct the state Air Resources Board to set targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050, is scheduled for later today in the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
The executive order charges the Air Resources Board with setting a 2030 target expressed in millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and instructs "all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of greenhouse gas emissions" to implement emissions cuts, as well, in service of both the 2030 and 2050 goals.
The order also focuses on adaptation to climate change, instructing state agencies to incorporate its effects into infrastructure planning, investment decisions and a wide swath of other sectors, including water, energy, transportation, public health and agriculture. The state Natural Resources Agency will take the lead, with an initial report due by September.
Brown also released endorsements from U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and political financier Tom Steyer.
"California's announcement is a realization and a determination that will gladly resonate with other inspiring actions within the United States and around the globe," Figueres said. "It is yet another reason for optimism in advance of the U.N. climate conference in Paris in December."
Steyer emphasized in-state job creation. "When it comes to climate change, California has emerged as a global leader -- proving that we don't have to choose between a healthy environment and a strong economy," he said. "Today Governor Brown took that leadership to the next level."
Brown is scheduled to speak later today at the Navigating the American Carbon World conference and at the Milken Institute Global Conference, both in Los Angeles.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Economists at NTTC Predict Solid Year for Trucking in 2015
Apr 29, 2015 | Transport Topics News
By Jonathan S. Reiskin
The nation’s tank truck industry will not grow as rapidly this year as it did from 2011 to 2013, but volumes hauled will remain strong, especially as gross domestic product recovers from a flat first quarter.
Three business economists presenting information at the National Tank Truck Carriers annual conference here April 28 said first-quarter growth of 0.2% per year was due to harsh weather and the West Coast ports slowdown and not a fundamentally poor economy.
Trucking, they said, should continue to enjoy another year of strong growth, in part because two major shipper groups — petroleum and chemical production — will continue to grow, the economists said.
“There is a virtuous cycle in place,” said Martha Moore of the American Chemistry Council, suggesting that recent economic growth is begetting more of same for the near future.
Despite the lackluster first quarter, American Trucking Associations Chief Economist Bob Costello said he expects annual GDP growth of about 2.8% this year.
“We’re even starting to see wage acceleration — which we have not seen yet during this [business cycle],” he said, adding that the strong U.S. dollar should help keep inflation low, although the exchange rate can hurt exports.
First-quarter tank truck loads grew by an unremarkable 2.8%, year-over-year, Costello said. In contrast, refrigerated loads grew by an eye-popping 12.7%, while flatbed loads hauled contracted by 4% for the quarter, he said.
The current moderate growth at tank carriers, though, should be placed in the context of the sector’s surge since the sector hit bottom in 2009 during the recession. Growth in tank loads was 6.3% in 2013, and the slow, recent expansion still keeps the tank industry near historic highs, Costello said.
Tank trucks, which usually move very heavy loads, are a key part of overall truck tonnage, Costello said. The sector moved about 25.6% of total truck tonnage in 2013 with only about 10% of the industry’s tractors.
Crude oil and refined petroleum make up nearly half of the tank loads. John Felmy of the American Petroleum Institute said the boom in domestic oil production has helped tank truck carriers and led to falling oil prices in much of 2014.
The falling prices have caused the oil industry to pull back, Felmy said, but some activities must continue.
“If you have a lease, for instance, you have to keep drilling or you’ll lose it,” Felmy said. He drew a distinction between oil exploration, which continues, and production, which has been curtailed.
Felmy said truck drivers have tended not to be among those laid off by oil companies. Oil-field service providers, such as Halliburton Co. and Schlumberger Ltd., are in less demand though, he said.
-
In Safety Debate, Oil Companies’ Arguments as Brittle as Their Tank Cars
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jim Hall
April 30 marks the one-year anniversary of an oil train derailment in downtown Lynchburg, Va. – a near disaster that should have reminded Washington and the oil industry that basic safety features of the crude-by-rail business remain profoundly inadequate. The accident forced the evacuation of hundreds of people, sent three tanker cars into the James River, and shot flames and black smoke into the air.
Yet a year later - and despite multiple subsequent accidents - the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has yet to act on its own proposal to mandate safety improvements to rail cars used to carry oil and other hazardous materials through communities like Lynchburg. Meanwhile, the oil industry is lobbying the White House to weaken the DOT’s proposal, despite warnings from federal accident investigators that the cars currently in service represent “an unacceptable safety risk” and need to be phased out.
How is this possible?
First, some background is in order. Since 2005, transportation of oil by rail has increased 400 percent. The rapid growth of oil by rail has caught safety regulators at DOT flat-footed. It also has revealed glaring weaknesses in the design and performance of the cars, which are typically owned or leased by oil companies.
What is frustrating is that the government’s own accident investigation agency – the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) - has repeatedly warned the DOT for more than two decades that the oldest cars – which were designed decades ago to haul ethanol and are known as DOT 111s - are prone to puncture and cannot withstand derailments that involve pileups or multiple car-to-car impacts. In 1991, the NTSB issued a safety study on the problems with the DOT-111, yet the crashworthiness issues continue today
To its credit, the rail industry – which is required by law to accept whatever cars their customers use, as long as they meet federal standards – has long acknowledged the need to update rail tank car standards. In 2011, at the rail industry’s urging and after the DOT failed to act, rail-car manufacturers began voluntarily producing cars with thicker steel shells and enhanced protection.
But even these cars have failed in crashes. Ten of the 13 cars that derailed in Lynchburg, Va., for example, were built after 2011, including one that ruptured.
Meanwhile, the accidents keep piling up – along with more urgent NTSB warnings. Earlier this month, the NTSB for the first time endorsed a five-year timeline for retrofitting or replacing the tank cars, including the goal that 20 percent of the fleet be upgraded per year with new safety features, such as ceramic thermal blankets on the cars. In making this recommendation, the NTSB cited the “unacceptable performance” of tank cars in four recent oil train derailments - two in the U.S. and two in Canada - where fire exposure weakened the steel tank vessels and increased the pressure inside the cars beyond what they were designed to withstand.
As evidence for action has increased, so too has the oil industry’s lobbying. While acknowledging its tank cars should be made safer, the industry has urged the White House and DOT to extend the timeframe for phasing in such improvements to 10 years. The industry claims a shorter timeframe could stifle America’s oil-and-gas renaissance, by requiring cars to be taken out of service faster than rail-car makers are capable of replacing or retrofitting them.
But this argument is as brittle as the tank cars themselves. As noted in a new study by the transportation consulting firm Cambridge Systematics for the railcar maker The Greenbrier Companies, several railcar manufacturers have already announced plans for new railcar manufacturing capacity. At full capacity, the study concluded, the industry’s ability to conduct retrofits is between 8,400 and 19,600 cars per year – a much faster rate than the projection of 6,400 tank cars per year estimated by the railcar manufacturers’ main trade group.
Falling oil prices are also denting the industry’s argument that it can’t spare to take cars out of service. With crude prices down more than 40 percent since reaching about $110 last June, oil-train traffic is slowing, giving the industry time to make the needed changes. In March, oil-train traffic was down 7 percent on a year-over-year basis, according to the Association of American Railroads.
''We can't wait a decade for safer rail cars,'' Christopher A. Hart, the NTSB’s chairman, says. “The industry needs to make this issue a priority and expedite the safety enhancements, otherwise, we continue to put our communities at risk.''He’s right. Americans don’t have to choose between protecting our communities and our energy renaissance. All that’s needed is for the DOT to withstand the oil industry’s pressure and require a rapid phase-out of unsafe tank cars – before another accident anniversary comes and goes.
Hall is a transportation consultant and was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 until 2001.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested