Preview Newsletter
ACC AM ap30
-
(ACC Mentioned) 12th Edition of IdentiPlast Addresses Vital Questions
Apr 30, 2015 | Packaging Europe News
These and other equally important questions were raised at the 12th edition of IdentiPlast, PlasticsEurope’s international conference on the Recycling and Recovery of Plastics. The event gathered more than 200 guests including high-level representatives from European municipalities, policy and decision makers, waste management ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Reform Bill Moves Forward In Senate
Apr 30, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken a major step toward overhauling the nation’s outdated law governing commercial chemicals. A Senate committee on April 28 approved bipartisan, compromise legislation to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Because a handful of Democrats support the measure, the legislation... -
(ACC Mentioned) The American Chemistry Council Has Awarded Linde With a Responsible Care Certificate
Apr 29, 2015 | Gasworld
By Stuart Radnedge
Linde LLC has received certification of its Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, electronics gases plant under the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care® program. Terrance Caldwell, RTP plant manager, said, ”The personnel at the RTP plant are very proud to have achieved Responsible Care certification. As Linde has been ... -
(ACC Mentioned) 150 Workers Will Die Today
Apr 29, 2015 | AFL-CIO
By Mike Hall
Despite significant advancements in workplace health and safety in the 44 years since the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) become law, today and every day 150 people will be killed on the job or die from job-related illnesses and diseases. That and other sobering statistics about the preventable deaths and injuries workers face ... -
Democrats, Republicans Express Optimism TSCA Reform Will Pass Senate This Congress
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senators from both political parties are optimistic they can get legislation to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time in nearly 40 years across the finish line this Congress, lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA April 29. Those optimists included several Democrats who didn't support the bill (S. 697) reforming the chemical safety... -
Asbestos Could Be High-Priority Substance Under Udall Bill -- EPA Chief
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA would be able to designate asbestos as a high-priority chemical under a chemical safety bill that was recently approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, agency Administrator Gina McCarthy told a Senate subcommittee yesterday. McCarthy said in response to a question from Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) at a ... -
US EPA Seeks Renewed New Chemical Substance Authorities
Apr 30, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The USA EPA is asking the Office of Management and Budget to renew its information collection authority for pre-manufacture review reporting and exemption requirements for new chemical substances and significant new use reporting requirements for chemical substances. -
The Work Plan: California Safer Consumer Product Program's 3 Year Playbook
Apr 29, 2015 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Andrea Spacht
The Mount Everest of toxic chemicals in everything with which we interact can be petrifying. What are all those ingredients in every product I use in the shower every morning? How toxic is the bathroom cleaner I used? What's keeping my wrinkle-resistant dress shirts such bright colors? When I ride the Ferry to work in the morning, I wonder ... -
EU Chemicals Agency Calls for Information On Four Phthalates, Envisages Total Ban
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union could be moving toward a total ban on four phthalates in products, according to a background document from the European Chemicals Agency, which was published alongside a call for evidence about the substances. The four substances already are subject to a usage ban in the EU under the bloc's REACH law... -
Measure Giving Prior Chair Broad Power Could Be Overturned at May 6 CSB Meeting
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In the new-look Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's first public meeting May 6, the members could vote to undo changes to board governance that have roiled the agency in recent months and sped the resignation of its chairman. The meeting will cover the controversial governance motion that nullified 18 previous board orders... -
Effects Of Gulf Spill, Future Disasters Still Unknown -- Scientists
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
The ecological harm wrought by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 is still largely unknown and there is still no silver-bullet technology for responding to oil that escapes into open water, scientists told a Senate panel yesterday. Witnesses who testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee urged Congress to ... -
House Committee Moves Bill Allowing States To Opt Out of Clean Power Plan Compliance
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a bill to the House floor April 29 that would allow states to opt out or defer compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan. The committee approved the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 2042) on a 28-22 vote after defeating five attempts by Democrats... -
House Panel Passes Opt-Out Bill For Clean Power Plan
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved legislation today that would give governors the last say on whether their states will comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The panel voted 28-22 along party lines to send H.R. 2042 to the House floor, after rejecting Democratic amendments aimed at making a point about the cost of... -
House Panel Passes Bill To Delay, Weaken EPA Climate Rule
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Wednesday to delay the Obama administration’s landmark climate rule for power plants and let states opt out of complying with it. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), represents House Republicans’ first attempt to directly target and change the Environmental Protection... -
Mcconnell Confronts EPA Chief On Climate Rules
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took advantage of a rare opportunity Wednesday to attack the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over her agency's main climate change rule. McConnell grilled Gina McCarthy during a hearing of the Senate Appropriations subpanel in charge of the EPA’s budget. -
McConnell: States Need My Approval To Collaborate On Carbon Rule
Apr 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leveled a new challenge at the EPA ‘s plan to curb carbon emissions on Wednesday: his power to block states from working together. At an appropriations subcommittee hearing with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, McConnell raised legal questions about whether states can collaborate on their ... -
McConnell Confronts McCarthy Over EPA's ESPS Enforcement Power
Apr 29, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is directly confronting EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, charging that the agency may not ultimately be able to enforce the rules in his state. The majority leader, one of the most high-profile critics of EPA's rule, added during... -
House to Begin Consideration of Energy, Water Legislation as Veto Threat Looms
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House was expected to begin consideration of a $35.4 billion energy and water appropriations bill the night of April 29, despite opposition from the White House and congressional Democrats over policy riders, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said April 29. The bill (H.R. 2028), which would appropriate $29 billion for the Energy Department... -
Dual-Pronged Focus On Efficiency Could Be Key To Energy Bill's Success
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Nick Juliano
For lawmakers crafting an energy bill this year, "efficiency" means more than just reducing energy use. It also means cutting back the burdens imposed by the federal government in trying to achieve those reductions. That dual focus on energy efficiency and what key lawmakers have termed "accountability" will be on display today at ... -
House Lawmakers Seek Surprise Compromise On GOP Bill Curbing ESPS
Apr 29, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
House Democrats and Republicans say they will work on compromise language to amend a controversial bill that would block implementation of EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants pending judicial review, while also giving states an opportunity to opt out of the rule. -
Questions to McCarthy Show Power Plant, Water Rules Trouble Senate Appropriators
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Senate Appropriations Committee members posed pointed questions to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy on soon-to-be-final regulations on carbon emissions and Clean Water Act jurisdiction at an April 29 hearing. The senators on the Appropriations subcommittee that allocates funding to the EPA also asked... -
California Governor Establishes Interim 2030 Goal for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) April 29 directed relevant state agencies to develop measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The California Air Resources Board will spearhead the effort to develop a strategy to meet the new interim emissions reduction goal, Brown said at the Climate Action Reserve's... -
California Sets Ambitious Emissions Target
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed an executive order Wednesday calling for a 40 percent reduction in the state's greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. The order builds on a 2006 state law meant to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal the state is on track to meet. Brown’s office called the new order the “most... -
Brown Bypasses California Legislature In Setting Landmark 2030 GHG Goal
Apr 29, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Curt Barry
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has set landmark new greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals that will require the state to curb emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a move that appears likely to bolster Obama administration efforts ahead of international climate talks but essentially bypasses expected debate in the legislature ... -
California Gov. Brown Orders Major Cut in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Apr 30, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alejandro Lazo
California will develop North America’s most stringent greenhouse gas–reduction standards over the next 15 years under an executive order signed on Wednesday by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. Mr. Brown ordered that, by 2030, greenhouse-gas emissions be 40% below 1990 levels. The targets align the nation’s largest state with standards set... -
Requests to Reconsider Mercury, Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants Denied by EPA
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency denied all remaining petitions to reconsider the agency's 2012 mercury and air toxics standards for power plants, a step that the agency said affirms its approach to regulating emissions from the plants. The agency, in a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register April 30, denied requests from ... -
Billionaire Environmentalist To Host Clinton Fundraiser
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer is hosting a fundraiser next week for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Steyer made waves last year, spending $74 million in the midterm election to help candidates who want to fight climate change and oppose the Keystone XL oil pipeline. He plans to spend “whatever it takes" in the 2016... -
New York Plan to Save Energy May Mean a Dimmer Skyline
Apr 29, 2015 | The New York Times
By Matt Flegenheimer
The Manhattan skyline — glimmering, grand but not always environmentally efficient — may need to go darker to go green. Amid a far-reaching push to reduce New York’s environmental footprint, city officials on Wednesday weighed a City Council bill to limit internal and external light use in many commercial buildings when empty at night, a change... -
Lung Association Highlights High Pollution Levels
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Air quality is improving in many areas of the U.S., but about 138.5 million people live in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone or particulate matter, the American Lung Association found. The association's annual State of the Air report, released April 29, found that there has been a continued reduction of year-round particle pollution across the eastern... -
Release of Crude-by-Rail Safety Rule Scheduled for May 1, Observers Say
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal safety rule to make railroad tank cars that haul oil and other flammable liquids less prone to rupture will be released May 1, according to two people familiar with the issue. The highly anticipated rule probably will require that tank cars have thicker walls and stronger valves, along with other safety features. The Obama administration is ... -
DOT Prepping Final Oil Train Rule This Week
Apr 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kathryn St. John & Heather Caygle
The DOT is gearing up to release on Friday the final version of a much-anticipated rule strengthening tank car and operating standards for trains carrying crude oil. Federal officials wouldn’t comment for the record about the rule’s anticipated roll-out, but sources from Capitol Hill to K Street were girding for a Friday reveal, possibly in conjunction... -
New Jersey Delegates Introduce Hazmat-Rail Bill
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Two members of the New Jersey congressional delegation introduced April 28 bills to improve the safety of hazardous materials rail transportation, following a 2012 freight derailment and resulting chemical spill in Paulsboro, N.J. The Toxics by Rail Accountability and Community Knowledge (TRACK) Act, introduced by Sen. Bob Menendez...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) 12th Edition of IdentiPlast Addresses Vital Questions
Apr 30, 2015 | Packaging Europe News
These and other equally important questions were raised at the 12th edition of IdentiPlast, PlasticsEurope’s international conference on the Recycling and Recovery of Plastics. The event gathered more than 200 guests including high-level representatives from European municipalities, policy and decision makers, waste management organisations, manufacturers, academics and NGOs in Rome on 29 and 30 April.
In the opening speech, Daniele Ferrari, President of PlasticsEurope Italia and CEO of Versalis, highlighted how the end of life of plastics is central for a sustainable development of the industry. “Our prime duty is to have a constructive dialogue with institutions and regulators in order to create the right conditions to reach environmental and societal objectives without compromising competitiveness” he said. “The European plastics industry undertook a major action since 2011, with the Zero Plastics to Landfill initiative, and we need to continue working in the right direction. A better implementation and enforcement of existing waste legislation has the potential to increase recycling and recovery rates while creating jobs in Europe,” he added.
Prof Dr Helmut Maurer, European Commission, DG Environment, underlined some key aspects of the Commission’s ambitious Circular Economy Package to be released this autumn. “We should focus on implementation; we need to have a measured approach with a legislation that effectively triggers investments into green economy and creates jobs. We also will have to concentrate on products to close the circle towards a sustainable economy," Mr Maurer said.
This years’ edition was organised by PlasticsEurope in partnership with Versalis, American Chemistry Council (ACC), Plastic Waste Management Institute, Tokyo (PWMI), Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA), the European Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations (epro); National Consortium for the collection, recycling and recovery of plastics packaging (COREPLA) and Consortium for the recycling of packaging (CONAI).
Organised since 1997, IdentiPlast was born from the idea that plastics are too valuable to be thrown away. It consists of discussion panels and keynote speeches on identification, sorting, collection, recycling and energy recovery technologies and markets for plastic waste. IdentiPlast initially was held in Brussels but now travels to European capitals. After London, Madrid, Warsaw and Paris; this time it was held in Rome. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Reform Bill Moves Forward In Senate
Apr 30, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken a major step toward overhauling the nation’s outdated law governing commercial chemicals. A Senate committee on April 28 approved bipartisan, compromise legislation to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Because a handful of Democrats support the measure, the legislation, S. 697, stands a solid chance of passage by the Republican-controlled Senate.
Both the chemical industry and advocacy groups for years have pressed Congress to modernize TSCA, though they don’t see eye to eye on S. 697.
Environmental and health activists say the measure, which the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee approved 15-5, is an improvement over previous congressional attempts to update that law. They say the reform bill still falls short in some provisions. For instance, Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, says S. 697 would “roll back EPA’s authority to restrict significant new uses of a chemical.”
The chemical sector, on the other hand, is applauding lawmakers for hammering out a bipartisan deal. Calvin M. Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, says the compromise bill “reflects a carefully balanced approach that incorporates interests of several Democratic senators and maintains important priorities for manufacturers.”
“Updating the outdated, inefficient TSCA will better protect the safety of our families and also advance innovation in our economy,” says Sen. David B. Vitter (R-La.), who introduced S. 697 with Sen. Tom S. Udall (D-N.M.) in March.
Initially, the bill didn’t sit well with other Democrats. But Sens. Jeff A. Merkley (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.) negotiated a compromise with Republicans that addresses a number of concerns activists and some state officials raised about state laws on chemicals. In particular, the newly approved bill would allow states, in certain circumstances, to regulate chemicals while EPA is evaluating the safety of those substances.
“This bipartisan agreement greatly strengthens the ability of states to protect citizens from toxic chemicals when the federal government has failed to do so,” Merkley says.
Senate leaders have yet to decide when to bring the bill to the chamber’s floor for a vote.
-
(ACC Mentioned) The American Chemistry Council Has Awarded Linde With a Responsible Care Certificate
Apr 29, 2015 | Gasworld
By Stuart Radnedge
Linde LLC has received certification of its Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, electronics gases plant under the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care® program.
Terrance Caldwell, RTP plant manager, said, ”The personnel at the RTP plant are very proud to have achieved Responsible Care certification. As Linde has been a member of the American Chemistry Council for over 60 years, this recent certification demonstrates a continued commitment to safety, community awareness and regulatory compliance.”
“Association with the ACC and the Responsible Care management system program, along with established Linde standards, provide meaningful structure to our business practices and demonstrates the level of our commitment to the pledge that The Linde Group will avoid harm to its people, society and the environment.”
The RTP plant has been operating since 1986 producing semiconductor materials, high purity inert gases (argon, helium and nitrogen), nitrous oxide and isotopes for high-tech companies and semiconductor manufacturers around the world. RTP is also responsible for managing gases inventories in Ireland and China for a major semiconductor manufacturer. Linde employs 50 people at the plant.
Holly Jerdi, head of Health, Safety and Environment for Linde North America, said, “Our colleagues at RTP are to be congratulated for meeting the very challenging criteria for this prestigious certification. Their expertise, hard work and diligence fall right in line with our goals as a high performance organization and our vision to be the leading gases and engineering company.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) 150 Workers Will Die Today
Apr 29, 2015 | AFL-CIO
By Mike Hall
Despite significant advancements in workplace health and safety in the 44 years since the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) become law, today and every day 150 people will be killed on the job or die from job-related illnesses and diseases. That and other sobering statistics about the preventable deaths and injuries workers face each day are in the 2015 edition of the AFL-CIO’s annual Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect released today.
In 2013 (the latest figures available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) 4,585 workers were killed on the job, and some 53,000 died from occupational diseases. Also, nearly 3.8 million work-related injuries and illnesses were reported. The true toll is likely two to three times greater or 7.6 million to 11.4 million injuries a year. Said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:
No worker should be exposed to fatal injuries and illnesses at work, yet every day 150 men and women die from a work injury or occupational disease. Their deaths remind us that Americans still—in 2015—face too many dangers at the workplace.
The report includes state-by-state profiles of workers’ safety and health and features state and national information on workplace fatalities, injuries, illnesses, the number and frequency of workplace inspections, penalties, funding, staffing and public employee coverage under the OSH Act.
Here are some key facts from Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect:
North Dakota remains the most dangerous state for workers, with an average of 14.9 fatalities per 100,000 workers, more than four times the national average of 3.2 deaths per 100,000 workers. The next deadliest states for workers are Wyoming (9.5), West Virginia (8.6), Alaska (7.9) and New Mexico (6.7).
On the other hand (see graphic above), states with the highest union density are among the safest for workers, with 13 states ranked in the top 20 for both union density and lowest rates of workplace fatalities.
Death on the Job also finds that Latino and immigrant worker deaths, injuries and occupational illnesses are on the rise. In 2013, 817 Latinos died on the job—a rate 18% greater than the national average—and 66% of Latinos killed on the job were immigrants.
In the area of job safety enforcement to ensure employers are not violating workplace safety laws, the report says the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) remain underfunded and understaffed.
In addition, penalties for employers who are found to be lawbreakers are weak. The average federal OSHA penalty for serious violations is just $1,972 and the median federal OSHA penalty for worker deaths is only $5,050. Of the 390,000 worker deaths since 1970, only 88 cases have been criminally prosecuted.
Also many important workplace and mine safety rules remain stalled, some due to administration inaction but mainly because of congressional Republican and corporate opposition. For example, in 2013, OSHA issued a rule that would reduce silica dust exposures and strengthen worker protections against silica, which causes lung cancer, kidney disease, autoimmune diseases and silicosis, a debilitating and irreversible lung disease. It is estimated the rule would save some 700 lives a year and prevent 1,600 cases of silicosis annually. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Construction Industry Safety Coalition, the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups are lobbying against finalizing this commonsense rule.
-
Democrats, Republicans Express Optimism TSCA Reform Will Pass Senate This Congress
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senators from both political parties are optimistic they can get legislation to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time in nearly 40 years across the finish line this Congress, lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA April 29.
Those optimists included several Democrats who didn't support the bill (S. 697) reforming the chemical safety statute in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee April 28 but who believe the legislation can be sufficiently improved through additional amendments and discussion.
“I was extremely pleased with the progress that's been made—I still have concerns, as you know, and I hope we can get some more changes—but I think it's on line that it could get done this year,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who voted against the bill in committee, told Bloomberg BNA. “TSCA doesn't work today, so to get a bill that works would be a huge accomplishment for this Congress.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA he was working with Senate leadership to secure floor time for the legislation and believed it could secure consideration “soon.” An aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill hadn't yet been scheduled for floor time.
Inhofe's committee cleared legislation (S. 697) reforming the outdated chemical safety law a day earlier by a 15-5 vote. Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Tom Carper (Del.) joined with the panel's Republicans to advance the bill to full Senate consideration (82 DEN A-9, 4/29/15).
Due to complexities in TSCA, the Environmental Protection Agency has regulated only a handful of the thousands of chemicals in commerce. That has prompted states to start regulating chemicals and has spurred calls for TSCA reform.
Luke Bolar, an aide to Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who spearheaded efforts on TSCA reform along with Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), said the Louisiana Republican was optimistic the Senate would consider and pass the bill this Congress.
Boxer Remains Open Question
Whether any Senate measure could be sufficiently altered to gain the support of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, remains an open question.
The California Democrat told Bloomberg BNA she was “very optimistic” the bill could be significantly improved through amendments on the Senate floor but didn't say whether the bill would ultimately gain her support.
“If McConnell puts it on the floor, I'm very optimistic that we can continue to make it better,” Boxer said. “It needs to be fixed, so I'm optimistic that we can fix it and make it better.”
Boxer noted significant improvements to the legislation during the April 28 markup, but she said additional requirements for chemicals near drinking water sources, state rights protections and other changes were needed to earn her support.
State Officials Share Democrats' Hopes
A state organization shared Democrats' hopes for continued improvements to S. 697.
“We are encouraged with the bipartisan manner in which revisions were made to the bill,” Mick Bullock, spokesman for the National Conference of State Legislatures, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “While the bill that passed out of committee is an improvement on previous versions, we continue to have concerns about preemption language and will continue to work with staff to make sure citizens are protected from harmful chemicals in the least burdensome way to states as possible.”
Several senators said the work on TSCA reform could serve as a model for future environmental efforts and said additional change to the legislation could strengthen it further.
Provides Predictability to Chemical Sector
“The benefit of the legislation that we put out of committee is it does strengthen the economic recovery by providing certain predictability to an important sector of our economy—the chemical industry—but at the same time it strengthens our goals for a clean environment, and it also ensures better health,” Carper told Bloomberg BNA. “We've communicated, we have compromised and we've had a great collaboration. And those traits could be used in all sorts of legislative initiatives.”
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) attributed the success in committee to “impressive efforts” from Inhofe and others to allow an open amendment process.
“When you get [four] Democrats and all the Republicans voting for something with that kind of bipartisan support, I think that's important and that's what we promised during the election last year,” Barrasso told Bloomberg BNA.
-
Asbestos Could Be High-Priority Substance Under Udall Bill -- EPA Chief
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA would be able to designate asbestos as a high-priority chemical under a chemical safety bill that was recently approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, agency Administrator Gina McCarthy told a Senate subcommittee yesterday.
McCarthy said in response to a question from Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) at a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies that under S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," EPA would be able to list the chemical, although she didn't speculate about what would happen next.
EPA's legal power to take action on the cancer-causing mineral has been a point of great concern among opponents of the Udall chemicals legislation, which is co-sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), and McCarthy's words carry great weight in the chemical safety community, especially because she doesn't often comment on the issue.
Udall had asked McCarthy if she was encouraged by the committee's taking action on the bill, which was only the second time that a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 has left a congressional committee. He also asked McCarthy if she thought the bill met EPA's principles for TSCA reform, a document the agency published in 2009 outlining parameters it would like to see in a new law.
McCarthy replied that Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, had "identified a couple of areas where the bill fell short of the administration's principles, but I also am pleased that the most recent amendments really addressed those issues, and I am encouraged that we're moving forward with a bipartisan bill."
McCarthy was referring to a manager's amendment adopted by the Environment and Public Works Committee Tuesday, which was the product of negotiations between Udall, Vitter and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) (E&E Daily, April 28).
Udall also asked McCarthy if his bill would "give EPA the tools it needs to act on asbestos, and if a law is enacted, would EPA consider asbestos a strong candidate for early action?"
McCarthy didn't wade into the legal implications of an asbestos assessment, which has been the subject of dispute at the committee.
"EPA would have the authority to make asbestos what we call now a high-priority chemical," McCarthy said, "and with that, the agency would be on a schedule for assessing and making regulatory determinations for asbestos."
Supporters of the legislation said McCarthy's comments showed that it would be possible for EPA to address the issue of asbestos under the bill, although opponents point to legal analyses that they say raise concerns that asbestos restrictions could face trouble in court.
"Despite the fact that the word 'asbestos' doesn't appear in the bill, which has been a talking point, there's no reason to expect anything other than asbestos would be one of the early chemicals," said Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the few environmental and public health organizations that support the Udall-Vitter proposal.
Asbestos health advocates, such as the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, have been some of the most visible opponents of Udall's legislation.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a vocal foe of the Udall-Vitter bill, has pointed to legal analyses as proof that EPA will face steep legal barriers for asbestos regulations to stand up in court. At issue is whether federal judges will interpret a new law with the same tougher standards that led to the agency's losing in the 1991 Corrision Proof Fittings v. EPA federal court decision, which found it had not provided sufficient evidence of the need for an asbestos ban, or if the agency will be granted more latitude in court.
Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown University law professor and former EPA counsel, wrote recently that the bill's use of the term "unreasonable risk" and the use of a "substantial evidence" standard of judicial review make EPA's task of defending an asbestos ban more difficult.
"Ambiguity will encourage time- and resource-consuming litigation, and the outcome of such litigation is not assured," Heinzerling wrote.
-
US EPA Seeks Renewed New Chemical Substance Authorities
Apr 30, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The USA EPA is asking the Office of Management and Budget to renew its information collection authority for pre-manufacture review reporting and exemption requirements for new chemical substances and significant new use reporting requirements for chemical substances.
The current information collection request (ICR) is due to expire on 31 December.
Comments to be submitted by 29 June.
-
The Work Plan: California Safer Consumer Product Program's 3 Year Playbook
Apr 29, 2015 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Andrea Spacht
The Mount Everest of toxic chemicals in everything with which we interact can be petrifying. What are all those ingredients in every product I use in the shower every morning? How toxic is the bathroom cleaner I used? What's keeping my wrinkle-resistant dress shirts such bright colors? When I ride the Ferry to work in the morning, I wonder what those beautiful Brown Pelicans are eating from the Bay. What is on the receipt I get with my morning coffee? What am I exposed to all those hours I spend in my cubicle at work? While we can use our purchasing power and small adjustments in our behavior (like skipping the receipt) to reduce our exposure to some toxic chemicals, the problem is bigger than individual shopping decisions. We need a regulatory agency to identify the most harmful chemicals that we all deal with (or some of us are exposed to in excess), to remove them from the market, and to replace them with safer alternatives. Fortunately, California's response to the problem is starting to make progress on toxic chemical reform.
In October 2013, California launched the Safer Consumer Products Program (SCP) - run by California's Department of Toxic Substances Control - with an aim to reduce toxic chemicals in the products we buy and use in our homes and at work. The Program selected three Initial Priority Products during its roll-out, and SCP has been slowly making progress on its four-step process to assess the necessity of and safer alternatives to the chemicals of concern. On April 16, 2015 the Program released a Three-year Work Plan setting the stage for what the Program will tackle through the end of 2017. The Priority Product Work Plan is a menu of options from which the Program will select products to undergo alternatives analysis and regulatory response over the next three years. The Work Plan
The Work Plan includes seven categories of varying complexity and scope from which upcoming products can be chosen. 1. Beauty, Personal Care, and Hygiene Products
Nearly all of products you use to get ready in the morning - soap, shampoo, body lotion, deodorant, hair products, and cosmetics - are covered in this category. The Work Plan explains how vast of an undertaking reforming this group of products could be. For example, the California Department of Public Health's Safe Cosmetic Program has a database of over 45,000 products that contain one or more chemicals listed as a carcinogen or reproductive or developmental toxicant on California's Proposition 65 list, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), or by U.S. EPA (Page 17). 63 different chemicals in these products are on one of those lists. More than four hundred companies manufacture these products. And that only covers makeup! Because many of these products are applied directly to the body, and chemicals can be absorbed through the skin or be inhaled, there is high exposure for users. Furthermore, as the products are washed off the body they may pass through wastewater treatment plants and expose wildlife in the environment. Any beauty, personal care, or hygiene product used on the body that contains a chemical on the Candidate Chemical list is a possible target for upcoming regulation under the Work Plan. 2a. Building Products: Painting Products, Adhesives, Sealants, and Flooring
2b. Household, Office Furniture and FurnishingsThese two categories combined cover the built space of our homes and workplaces. The authors of the Work Plan articulate the need for these two categories as follows:
"According to the Air Resources Board, Californians spend 87 percent of their time indoors. Consequently, products used to build and furnish indoor working and living spaces have a high potential to cause ongoing exposure to any Candidate Chemicals they contain. Exposure can occur as we breathe chemicals that are emitted from products into the air, or when we absorb chemicals through the skin from direct contact with buildings and their furnishings. Normal wear and tear can degrade building materials and furnishings and create dust. Young children often touch floors or furniture and then put their hands in their mouths, resulting in direct ingestion of dust and the many chemical contaminants that dust has been documented to contain. Flame retardants, stain repellants, plasticizers, phenols and metals have been found in indoor dust studies." (Page 20)
In addition to the hazards to young children as described, workers are characterized as another population who are at increased risk for exposure to hazardous chemicals in building products. This category is more limited in scope than some of the others - only painting products, adhesives, sealants and flooring are covered in the Building Product category; only household and office furnishing products that are treated with flame retardants or stain resistant chemicals (or both) will be considered for regulatory action in this next phase. 3. Cleaning Products
Another broad category: air fresheners, detergents, deodorizers and cleaners designed for ovens, windows, bathrooms, surfaces, scouring, carpets, spots, floors, and general-purpose are covered in this category. Often times, the chemical formulation that improves the performance of cleaning products also makes it harmful to people or the environment. While custodial workers are a particularly vulnerable population, the Work Plan also indicates that people may be exposed to chemicals in these products after use when the volatile chemicals affect indoor air quality or pass through wastewater treatment plants after being washed down the drain. Many cleaning product chemicals are highly persistent, they don't breakdown into less harmful components, and contaminate our environment for a long time to come. The Work Plan highlights the need for further investigation of the hazard traits of the many thousands of chemical compounds used in fragrances especially. 4. Clothing
Increasingly, manufacturers have been responding to consumer demand for clothing that is color fast, wrinkle resistant, stain resistant, and water repellant among other qualities, by adding a variety of chemicals - many of which appear on the Candidate Chemical list because they are toxic, bioaccumulative or environmentally persistent. There is concern about these chemicals causing harm to people or the environment at all stages of the clothing's production and use from manufacturing, daily wearing, laundering, and disposal. 5. Fishing and Angling Equipment
When recreational anglers lose fishing equipment into the lakes, rivers, streams, bays and oceans where they fish, any hazardous chemicals in that equipment can potentially harm birds and other wildlife. The Safer Consumer Product Program is particularly concerned with small, dense fishing weights and gear. Similar products have been shown to cause lead poisoning in a variety of bird and animal species around the world that have ingested them. 6. Consumable Products used in Office Machinery
Did you know many cashier register receipts contain BPA? The Program has listed consumable and refillable components of office machinery products like thermal paper, ink and toner cartridges that contain Candidate Chemicals like bisphenols, azo dyes, phthalates and volatile organic compounds as possible Priority Products for upcoming years. Workers who use office machinery continuously throughout the day have the highest potential for chemical exposure from these consumable office products. What Comes Next?
Later this year, the Program is expected to announce another three (or so) Priority Products containing a particular chemical, or class of chemicals, that will undergo the process of assessing if the chemical of concern is necessary and if there is a safer alternative to replace it with. Before DTSC finalizes the next Priority Products from the categories in the Work Plan, there will be public workshops and a formal chance for public comments. DTSC has made a significant effort to engage all stakeholders in the process including manufacturers, industry groups, academic researchers, workers' rights proponents, environmental advocates, health scientists, and the general public.
Simultaneously, DTSC expects to begin the rulemaking on the Initial Priority Products in the next couple months. California's rulemaking law (the Administrative Procedure Act) includes a 45-day public notice and comment period. Stay tuned for a chance to show your support for the agency's work to eliminate toxic chemicals from consumer products.
-
EU Chemicals Agency Calls for Information On Four Phthalates, Envisages Total Ban
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union could be moving toward a total ban on four phthalates in products, according to a background document from the European Chemicals Agency, which was published alongside a call for evidence about the substances.
The four substances already are subject to a usage ban in the EU under the bloc's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).
The four substances are:
• bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP);
• benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP);
• dibutyl phthalate (DBP); and,
• diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP).
In the call for evidence on the phthalates, which was published April 24, ECHA said it was considering a general restriction on the substances in products, which could affect a range of imported goods.
The usage ban, which came into force Feb. 21, permits companies to continue to use the substances if they apply for specific authorizations under REACH.
Products imported into the EU can continue to contain the substances as long as the companies supplying the products notify ECHA if the substances are present in a concentration of more than 0.1 percent by weight.
The agency said it was “approaching the restriction with a view to ban all uses of the four phthalates” in products, though it also would use information provided in response to the call “to assess where derogations are required.”
Present in Range of Goods
According to the background document, the phthalates are present in a range of goods, including furniture, footwear, plastic components, construction products, vinyl floorings and wall coverings, and cabling.
Phthalates are widely used as plasticizers, in particular in polyvinyl chloride (PVC). They are classified as “substances of very high concern” under REACH because of their reprotoxic properties.
ECHA published the call for evidence, which runs through June 24, jointly with the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Denmark has used various channels to push for more comprehensive EU controls on the phthalates.
In July 2014, Denmark abandoned a planned national ban on the substances in products in the wake of an EU Court of Justice ruling that found that such a ban would likely contravene EU rules where substances are subject to harmonized EU controls (131 DEN A-7, 7/9/14).
Denmark said at the time it would work instead for an EU-wide ban on the phthalates in products, alongside the REACH usage ban.
-
Measure Giving Prior Chair Broad Power Could Be Overturned at May 6 CSB Meeting
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In the new-look Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's first public meeting May 6, the members could vote to undo changes to board governance that have roiled the agency in recent months and sped the resignation of its chairman.
The meeting will cover the controversial governance motion that nullified 18 previous board orders, consolidated power in the Chemical Safety Board chairman's office and canceled three investigations before their completion, according to a Sunshine Act notice published April 28 (80 Fed. Reg. 23,498).
The meeting agenda also includes board orders on investigations and scoping, a 2015 action plan, an overall investigation plan, a process for updating investigation protocol and scheduling regular public meetings.
“I think the agenda looks appropriate, and I'm glad the meeting is being held,” Mike Wright, the United Steelworkers' director of health, safety and environment, told Bloomberg BNA April 27. “As to the actual outcome of the meeting, one can only hope. But it's a good first step.”
The agenda seems to harken back to the transparency of the CSB's early years, when the board regularly gathered in public to discuss the agency's budget, status of ongoing work and other administrative matters. The public meeting could be the first since June 2003 that isn't focused on specific investigations or board recommendations, according to a Bloomberg BNA review of more than 70 CSB Sunshine Act notices.
Moving Beyond Moure-Eraso Era?
The meeting provides the board an opportunity to make a break from the contentious tenure of former Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned his leadership post under White House pressure March 26 and left the agency April 10 (73 DEN A-9, 4/16/15).
Criticism of Moure-Eraso's leadership built to a crescendo in the weeks following the passage of the controversial governance motion at a Jan. 28 public meeting. The motion was introduced by board member Manuel Ehrlich Jr., supported by Moure-Eraso, and opposed by board member Mark Griffon.
The vote on the governance motion wasn't announced in that meeting's Sunshine Act notice and was held just days before Richard Engler—who had already been confirmed by the Senate—formally joined the board.
Streamlining or Hijacking?
Ehrlich said the motion was intended to streamline agency operations. But in the wake of the motion's passage, former board member William Wright told Bloomberg BNA that Moure-Eraso and Ehlrich “basically hijacked the agency.”
Both Griffon and Engler testified during a March 4 House hearing that the motion should be rescinded.
All three sitting members must attend the May 6 meeting to have a quorum. Without a quorum, the board would be unable to vote on anything.
Griffon is expected to lead the meeting, as the board voted to temporarily give him executive and administrative authority in the absence of a Senate-confirmed chairman.
The White House nominated Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, as the next CSB chairwoman. Sutherland testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee April 22 (78 DEN A-4, 4/23/15).
-
Effects Of Gulf Spill, Future Disasters Still Unknown -- Scientists
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
The ecological harm wrought by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 is still largely unknown and there is still no silver-bullet technology for responding to oil that escapes into open water, scientists told a Senate panel yesterday.
Witnesses who testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee urged Congress to provide more funding to study base-line conditions in federal waters, endorse a comprehensive study into the pros and cons of oil dispersants, and improve communication between academics and federal responders so that damage from future oil spills can be minimized.
It was the latest congressional hearing to take stock of safety improvements since the April 2010 disaster that killed 11 people and discharged millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf.
So far, research into the environmental effects of the spill has been "compartmentalized and localized," and is hindered by a lack of base-line studies of the Gulf, said Christopher Reddy, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
"Today, I can't say how much oil is still on the Gulf of Mexico floor. I can't say how toxic it is. And I can't say whether or not it's negatively affecting the Gulf," he said. "So how is the Gulf today? It's far from a graveyard predicted by some experts in the throes of the spill. But it's not a picture of health."
While numerous studies have been completed since the spill, Reddy urged the committee to "read the fine print" and understand the limitations of those studies, such as where they were conducted and the uncertainties involved.
Samantha Joye, a professor of marine science at the University of Georgia, said the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management needs more funding from Congress to support base-line studies of ecosystems in the Gulf and particularly the Arctic Ocean, a frontier region that industry and the Obama administration are eyeing for future drilling.
Joye said BOEM's environmental sciences program is funded at $35 million annually, not nearly enough to cover the research needs. Industry should also pitch in with funding, she said.
Witnesses said there's a dearth of research into the use and effectiveness of dispersants, which are used to speed the biodegradation of oil.
Almost 2 million gallons of the dispersant Corexit 9500A was used in the BP PLC spill -- almost half underwater -- and studies have unearthed harm to wildlife such as microscopic organisms and coral.
But Reddy said the media coverage of dispersants so far has been "lopsided" and has tended to accentuate its negative impacts.
While "there is certainly no doubt there are negatives with the use of dispersants," he said, "the pressing need is to perform objective, thorough analysis on the net benefits of using dispersants -- was it good or was it bad?"
Congress ought to endorse such a study to be performed by the National Academy of Sciences, he said. There's anecdotal evidence that the air quality for responders near the BP well was better when dispersants were used underwater, and without their use, killing the Macondo well may have taken longer, Reddy said.
Nancy Kinner, director of the Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, said dozens of "renowned" scientists agreed during the BP spill that the use of dispersants and the effects of dispersing the oil was "generally less harmful than allowing the oil to migrate into sensitive wetlands and near-shore habitats."
But Kinner warned that, despite funding for increased research into oil spill response, scientists still have too few interactions with federal incident responders. She recommended closer communication between scientists and federal incident commanders before the next spill occurs.
Kinner warned of impediments to studying oil spills, namely that it's difficult to simulate oil spill conditions in a laboratory and that scientific journals rarely publish papers where experiments do not show measurable changes.
Such research can be helpful, she said. For example, if oil is added to cold sea water containing naturally occurring micro-organisms, and oil concentrations don't change over time, those who respond to a future oil spill in the Arctic might want to know that, she said.
Scientists know a significant amount about how oil behaves in the Gulf, but much less is known about oil behavior and response tools for oil spilled on land or in fresh water like the Great Lakes.
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said he is concerned about the safety of an aging pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac in his home state. The Great Lakes, despite their role providing recreation and drinking water, lack some of the microbes that exist in the Gulf to degrade oil, which could make an oil spill there even more harmful, he said.
Dispersants are also not functional in the Great Lakes, where heavy waves and wind can also reduce the effectiveness of mechanically removing oil, Kinner said.
While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Coast Guard are "battle hardened" to respond to the next marine spill, "the future of oil spill science" lies outside the Gulf in areas, including the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota and Montana and in "dilbit," Reddy said.
Dilbit refers to diluted bitumen, which involves diluting thick, peanut butter-like bitumen, such as the oil mined from Canadian oil sands, to allow it to move via pipeline.
While the overall effects of the Gulf spill remain unknown, some oil continues to harm birds along the coastline, Joye said.
"In the marshes of Louisiana, there are still some fairly devastating impacts of the Deepwater Horizon," including fresh oil that continues to wash up today, she said. "Coastal Louisiana took a very, very hard hit, and it's going to take a very long, long time for that oil to get completely out of the system."
-
House Committee Moves Bill Allowing States To Opt Out of Clean Power Plan Compliance
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a bill to the House floor April 29 that would allow states to opt out or defer compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan.
The committee approved the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 2042) on a 28-22 vote after defeating five attempts by Democrats to amend the bill.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), the bill's sponsor, has said he would like to see the House vote on the measure before the EPA finalizes its Clean Power Plan, which is expected this summer.
The bill would allow states to defer compliance with the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) until after legal challenges to the rule are exhausted. The bill would also allow state governors to opt out of compliance with the rule if doing so would increase electricity rates or jeopardize reliability.
The Clean Power Plan, proposed under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. States would be required to meet interim targets between 2020 and 2029, with a final emissions rate to be achieved in 2030, but would have flexibility to determine how best to achieve that target (138 DEN A-1, 7/18/14).
Only 13 Months to Develop Strategies
Whitfield said his bill is necessary because the EPA typically provides states with three years to develop compliance plans for other Clean Air Act regulations, but states would only have 13 months to develop strategies to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
“We're not even trying to repeal this regulation,” Whitfield said. “We're simply saying it's so outside the bounds of expectations that we should allow the courts to render a decision before states are put in this position.”
Allowing states to decide for themselves when to comply with Clean Air Act requirements would set a dangerous precedent that could cripple efforts to reduce air pollution, 88 environmental groups said in an April 28 letter.
“This bill strikes at the heart of the federal Clean Air Act by letting each state simply walk away from national clean air requirements, giving polluters free rein to continue to dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air,” the letter said. “The legislation sets a dangerous precedent by allowing any state to decide that meeting national clean air standards is merely optional. It would destroy the national guarantee that makes the Clean Air Act work: the assurance that EPA will directly regulate the big polluters if a state cannot, or will not do so.”
Environmental groups signing the letter include the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club.
Democratic Amendments Defeated
The Energy and Commerce Committee advanced the bill after voting down five amendments offered by Democrats.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, offered two amendments to the bill. The amendments would have required governors to show that the anticipated electricity rate increases from complying with the Clean Power Plan were greater than either the public health impacts of climate change or the cost of responding to extreme weather events caused by a warming atmosphere.
He offered similar measures that were defeated when the bill was marked up by the subcommittee April 22 (78 DEN A-4, 4/23/15).
Review of Decision to Opt Out
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment that would have subjected a governor's decision to opt out of the Clean Power Plan to judicial review in a federal court.
An amendment offered by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) would have required the decision to opt out be approved by the state legislature. A second amendment from Pallone would have established the sense of Congress that energy efficiency and clean energy investments are vital to improving the environment, economy and national security.
Though all of the amendments were defeated, Whitfield said he's open to revising his bill to provide additional relief to states such as additional time to develop their compliance plans.
“I do believe it is a major concern,” he said.
-
House Panel Passes Opt-Out Bill For Clean Power Plan
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved legislation today that would give governors the last say on whether their states will comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The panel voted 28-22 along party lines to send H.R. 2042 to the House floor, after rejecting Democratic amendments aimed at making a point about the cost of failing to address climate change.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), the measure's sponsor and the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, said Democrats were willfully trying to confuse the issue. Republicans don't dispute global warming, he said, they just think economic opportunity is more important.
"This markup isn't about climate change, this markup is about EPA trying to take direct, revolutionary control of the way electricity is produced in the United States of America," he said.
His bill is needed, he said, because EPA's bid to curb power plants' greenhouse gas emissions is "extreme," "unprecedented" and likely to be overturned in court.
The Whitfield measure would grant all states a reprieve from complying with the rule until judicial review has concluded and would allow governors to opt out even after that if they certify the rule would hurt ratepayers or undermine grid reliability.
Co-sponsor Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said the EPA rule threatened to place coal-dependent states like his own under a heavy regulatory burden that would translate to higher energy costs.
"The threat to the ratepayer is great, and we need to give the ratepayer some protection here," he said.
In five amendments -- all defeated in party-line votes -- Democrats argued that the Republican strike at EPA rules ignored the science of warming and the need to control emissions.
Rather than disarming executive action to address warming, said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), the committee should take this opportunity to enact a new carbon law.
"And I have to say, I think we're squandering it," she said.
If Republicans believe climate change is real, the committee should create task forces to find areas of cooperation to address warming instead of "shouting past each other," she added.
The panel this afternoon rejected three Democratic amendments during its afternoon session, including a sense of the Congress bid by Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) that Congress should address warming in the context of national security. The panel also dismissed another Pallone amendment that would add hurdles for states that wish to opt out of the rule and one by Energy and Power ranking member Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) that would require governors to certify that disarming the rule would not hurt public health in their state.
This morning, the committee defeated amendments by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Rush (Greenwire, April 29).
Whitfield has said he hopes the bill will come to the House floor quickly, but it remains unclear who will offer a companion in the Senate.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) introduced substantially similar language as an amendment to the fiscal 2016 budget resolution but has said he has no plans to introduce a stand-alone bill. The Pallone amendment fell on a 22-28 vote, and the Rush amendment was defeated 20-28.
-
House Panel Passes Bill To Delay, Weaken EPA Climate Rule
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Wednesday to delay the Obama administration’s landmark climate rule for power plants and let states opt out of complying with it.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), represents House Republicans’ first attempt to directly target and change the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule, proposed last June.
The panel voted 28-23 to send the bill to the full House for a vote.
Whitfield, who first unveiled the draft of his Ratepayer Protection Act just over a month ago, said the legislation responds to various concerns about the EPA’s rule brought forth by states, utilities, experts and other stakeholders.
“We know that rates will go dramatically in many states. [The North American Electric Reliability Corp.] and others have indicated that reliability is going to be affected,” he said at the Wednesday meeting to vote on the bill.
Whitfield called the regulation “a federal takeover of the electric generating and distribution system, which has never occurred before.”
Under the bill, the rule would not be able to take effect until all court challenges to it have been exhausted.
The EPA hopes to finalize the regulation this summer.
Additionally, a state government could veto any compliance plan, whether from the state or federal government, if he believes it would bring about various harms, such increased electric rates or decreased reliability.
Democrats slammed the bill.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) called it an “irresponsible proposal that would undermine the EPA’s clear authority to protect public health and the environment.” Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said it was “a thinly veiled excuse for states to do nothing about climate change.”
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he has problems with the EPA’s rule, but he could not support the GOP’s bill.
“I prefer that we sit down and craft a bill that addresses the many challenges we face, not only domestically, but as a world leader,” Green said.
“Allowing for endless legal challenges or partisan political discussions is not the proper way to handle an issue that affects the entire scope of the environment and the economy.”
The committee voted, largely along party lines, to reject numerous Democratic amendments. They included amendments that would have required that state governors certify that rejecting compliance plans would not hurt public health or that the effects of climate change would not cost more than complying with the rule.
-
Mcconnell Confronts EPA Chief On Climate Rules
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took advantage of a rare opportunity Wednesday to attack the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over her agency's main climate change rule.
McConnell grilled Gina McCarthy during a hearing of the Senate Appropriations subpanel in charge of the EPA’s budget.
McConnell is one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of the EPA’s carbon limits for power plants. He argues the rules would destroy Kentucky’s coal sector, which he called a “treasure.”
“My constituents want their dignity restored, they want to be able to work, they want to be able to provide for their families,” McConnell said after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the panel’s chairwoman, let him have the first round of questions.
“You cannot guarantee your carbon regulations won’t cost my constituents jobs,” he said. “You cannot guarantee your carbon regulations won’t raise their utility bills.”
The EPA’s climate rule has been one of McConnell’s top targets as leader of the Senate. He pledged the day after last year’s election that he would make it a top priority to “get the EPA reined in.”
Since then, McConnell has focused instead on trying to convince states not to comply with the rule. Working with the EPA, he argued, would help a regulation that he says is illegal and would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs.
That strategy has been criticized by Democrats, McCarthy and others who say that the EPA will write its own compliance plans for states if they do not.
McConnell castigated McCarthy for her refusal to come to Kentucky for a public hearing on the carbon limits, which aim to slash the power sector’s carbon dioxide output 30 percent by 2030.
He also said that although the EPA is working with Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) to help the state write a plan to comply with the climate rule, Beshear will leave office in December, and all gubernatorial candidates have promised not to cooperate with the agency.
“How in the world do you intend to force my state to comply with a federal plan? What are you going to require Kentucky to do?” he said.
McCarthy defended her agency’s rules and the EPA’s cooperation with states.
“I believe that EPA has designed this plan in a way that we are respecting the current situation in states and their energy mixes, designing our standards to accommodate the reasonable benefits in terms of reducing carbon pollution, and what those states can do,” she said, adding that the rule is extremely flexible for states.
“I am more than happy to take comments and to work with any governor of any state at any time whether they’re here or governing in the future.”
McConnell boasted in February about putting himself on the EPA spending panel, saying it would help him “continue to fight back against this administration’s anti-coal jobs regulations on behalf of the Kentuckians I represent in the U.S. Senate.”
At the hearing, McConnell presented a new legal argument against the rule to McCarthy.
He said that under the Clean Air Act, any multi-state agreements to comply with the climate rule would need congressional approval, which he pledged to block.
McCarthy responded that the rule is on firm legal ground.
“I believe that we are acting under the authority that Congress gave us under the Clean Air Act and we are going to be producing a rule that is going to withstand the test of time in the courts,” she said.
The EPA is planning to make the regulation final this summer and require states to submit plans just over a year later.
-
McConnell: States Need My Approval To Collaborate On Carbon Rule
Apr 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leveled a new challenge at the EPA ‘s plan to curb carbon emissions on Wednesday: his power to block states from working together.
At an appropriations subcommittee hearing with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, McConnell raised legal questions about whether states can collaborate on their compliance plans for EPA’s upcoming carbon rule for power plants without first getting Congress’ approval.
Neither McConnell nor McCarthy directly discussed the senator’s controversial call in March for states to refuse to comply with the rule in order to give Republicans more time to hone their challenges to the regulation.
But the hearing grew tense as McConnell launched into what at times felt more like a monologue directed at McCarthy, and as he floated a new legal argument that states seeking to create multistate compliance plans — an option often raised by the rule’s supporters as perhaps the easiest and cheapest way to comply — would have to get across his own desk first.
He read aloud from section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act, which says that such agreements between states won’t be “binding or obligatory … unless and until it has been approved by Congress.”
And McConnell has no plans to allow that.
“I can assure you that as long as I’m majority leader of the Senate, this body’s not going to be signing off on any backdoor energy tax,” McConnell said.
McCarthy didn’t directly respond to McConnell’s newest roadblock, but reiterated that she expected the rule due out this summer would survive any legal challenges.
“I believe that we’re acting under the authority that Congress gave us under the Clean Air Act, and we are going to be producing a rule that will stand its test of time in the courts,” she said.
Despite McConnell’s assertion, it’s not clear that states would need to seek formal congressional approval in order to work together.
A 2014 report from the Analysis Group, which has also concluded that EPA’s rule will not threaten reliability, noted that the member states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative avoided creating a multistate compact because RGGI wrote a “model rule,” and each state adopted its own version to participate. States may be able to create a similar framework to comply with EPA’s rules — or possibly even simply join RGGI itself.
But Denver law firm Wilkinson Barker Knauer argued in a 2014 white paper that any enforcement mechanisms that the multistate plans would need to satisfy EPA rules may indeed require congressional approval.
EPA’s proposed rule made it clear that state strategies must have solid enforcement plans, Jeff Holmstead, who led EPA’s air office during the George W. Bush administration, told POLITICO in an email. He said McConnell’s 102(c) argument is “a big problem that EPA hasn’t addressed.”
A voluntary multistate agreement would present another problem, he added, since a future governor could simply withdraw the state from the agreement if the deal wasn’t binding — as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did when he withdrew from RGGI in 2011.
McCarthy never addressed the legal question raised by McConnell, and she left the hearing without speaking to reporters.
McConnell took several other tacks to slam EPA’s climate rules.
He pointed out that Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear’s efforts to comply with the eventual rule — a fact frequently touted by the Obama administration — will likely be for naught. All of the candidates from both parties running to replace Beshear this December have vowed not to submit a state plan to EPA.
“How in the world do you intend to force my state to comply with a federal plan?” McConnell said, peppering McCarthy with a litany of questions about shuttering coal plants or erecting wind turbines or solar panels.
“I believe that EPA has designed this plan in a way that we are respecting the current situation in states and their energy mix, designing our standards to accommodate reasonable benefits in terms of reducing carbon pollution and what those states can do, and leaving tremendous flexibility to the individual states in the most respectful way that we can,” she said.
“To the extent that we can continue to work with future governors, I would love that opportunity,” McCarthy added, tacitly acknowledging that Kentucky’s next governor may be more hostile to EPA’s climate rules.
Supporters of EPA’s rule argue the states that resist the regulation for too long will face fewer, more costly compliance options for cutting their emissions. If states refuse to submit an emissions strategy, they will cede that power to EPA, and anything written by the federal government would offer less flexibility than what that state officials could propose.
McConnell also reiterated his previous warning to the international community that EPA’s climate rules may still be defeated. McCarthy said this week that foreign officials frequently ask her about the future of the regulation.
The senator argued that the failure of the Democratic-controlled Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation in 2010 was essentially a rejection by the legislative branch of major action on climate change.
“The failure of Congress to sign off should signal to other countries that they should proceed with caution into the December 2015 climate talks in Paris,” he said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the Interior-EPA appropriations subcommittee, joined in the criticism of EPA’s carbon rule, arguing that her state’s immense size and far-flung settlements make complying with EPA’s rule essentially impossible.
“You use the word flexibility quite a lot. The concern, of course, is there is no level of flexibility that will make a proposal like this work in a state like Alaska,” Murkowski said.
McCarthy replied that EPA is weighing Alaska’s request for exemption from the rule, something she said should “hearten” Murkowski.
The EPA administrator’s defense of the carbon rule came just hours after the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill on a party-line vote that would allow governors to opt out of complying with the rule.
-
McConnell Confronts McCarthy Over EPA's ESPS Enforcement Power
Apr 29, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is directly confronting EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, charging that the agency may not ultimately be able to enforce the rules in his state.
The majority leader, one of the most high-profile critics of EPA's rule, added during an April 29 Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing on EPA's fiscal year 2016 budget that the Clean Air Act presents a hurdle for multi-state plans to comply with the rule, arguing that Congress would have to approve such plans, and that the Senate under his leadership would do no such thing.
Further, he urged other countries to “proceed with caution” on international climate talks because Congress has not signed off on EPA's rule, and said that he believes the next Kentucky governor will refuse to submit a compliance plan under the rule.
“All the major candidates for governor this year, one of whom will take office in December of this year, say” they will not submit a plan, McConnell said. “The current governor who's working with you will be gone. None -- the Democrat and multiple Republican candidates -- none of them are going to submit a plan.”
Given that he believes the state ultimately will not submit a compliance plan, McConnell questioned what limits EPA could enforce in a federal plan.
“How in the world do you intend to force my state to comply?” he said, asking if EPA can order coal plants to run less or tell the state to build gas plants, wind facilities or new pipelines. “Do you think you can really require these things under the Clean Air Act?”
In response, McCarthy said EPA is “respecting the current situation in states and their energy mix,” though she did not directly address the question regarding EPA's ability to enforce the GHG standards.
The exchange highlighted the tensions between the coal industry and its supporters in Congress such as McConnell and EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS), which observers say will make coal-fired generation less competitive.
Asked by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) about the ESPS' impact on the coal sector, McCarthy said EPA “recognizes that every fuel has an opportunity to continue. My rule just needs to be reasonable about making a path forward. I'm not going to make a choice between what fuel is best.”
Under the ESPS, EPA sets state-specific GHG reduction targets, while giving states wide flexibility to design plans to comply. EPA has said it is crafting a proposed federal implementation plan for states that do not submit an approvable compliance plan.
McConnell has also been a major supporter of the campaign for states to “just say no” to the ESPS, and convincing his home-state governor to go along would be a key win in that effort.
To date however, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) has been working with EPA on the rule. A Beshear appointee recently said state officials hope to craft a compliance plan that is roughly 80 percent complete so the new administration is not starting from scratch when it takes office in early 2016.
In addition to working with Beshear, McCarthy said she would “love the opportunity” to work with Kentucky's next governor.
International Talks
McConnell also sought to throw cold water on whether the U.S. ultimately can follow through on its pledge to cut GHG emissions by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, in an effort to undermine pending talks to secure an international climate agreement through the United Nations later this year in Paris.
“The executive branch is only one third of the U.S. government,” he said. “The failure of Congress to sign off [on a GHG policy] should signal to other countries that they should proceed with caution.”
In response, the EPA chief said the agency is “acting under the authority Congress gave us. We are producing a rule that will stand the test of time in the courts.”
McConnell also argued that one section of the Clean Air Act could prohibit multi-state pacts as envisioned in the proposed ESPS.
Quoting language in air act section 102(c), he said “no such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory on any state unless and until it's been approved by Congress. It doesn't seem ambivalent to me.”
He added that as long as he is majority leader, the Senate is “not going to be signing off on any back-door energy tax.”
His argument appears to be similar to an earlier argument from a group of energy lawyers that multi-state plans would need Capitol Hill approval under the Constitution's compact clause in order to meet EPA's proposed enforceability requirements under the ESPS.
When that argument was raised previously, EPA officials, a legal source and an environmentalist lawyer all argued that states would be on solid ground in developing regional agreements, given that the air act contemplates multi-state cooperation.
The legal source earlier pointed to the same section as McConnell, but argued that multi-state pacts don't necessarily have to be “binding or obligatory,” with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as an example.
In that group of nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states -- as evidenced by New Jersey's withdrawal in 2011 -- states are free to leave the pact, or “they have an out,” the source said. McCarthy did not directly respond to McConnell's argument on section 102(c), and she declined to answer reporters' questions following the hearing.
-
House to Begin Consideration of Energy, Water Legislation as Veto Threat Looms
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House was expected to begin consideration of a $35.4 billion energy and water appropriations bill the night of April 29, despite opposition from the White House and congressional Democrats over policy riders, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said April 29.
The bill (H.R. 2028), which would appropriate $29 billion for the Energy Department, drew a veto threat April 28 from the White House, which said in a Statement of Administration Policy the bill contained “highly problematic ideological riders” and underfunded the DOE's clean energy programs (82 DEN A-11, 4/29/15).
“To be real honest, I don't care what the White House says; that's not my job,” Simpson, the chair of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development, told Bloomberg BNA. “My job is to pass an energy bill that can pass the House, that meets the priorities of the members of Congress and is going to be different than what the president puts out there. We do our job, and then he'll do his.”
The bill, which also would appropriate $5.6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation, is being considered under a modified open rule, which will allow members to offer germane amendments on the floor. No votes were expected to occur on amendments April 29.
Clean Power Plant Amendment Possible
Possible amendments could include measures that would roll back the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants, Simpson said.
The bill also would bar the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from making changes to the types of waters considered to be under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and block funds from being used to develop the Obama administration's National Ocean Policy, established by executive order in 2010 to protect U.S. oceans, coasts and the Great Lakes, among other policy riders.
The legislation also includes language that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from enforcing its ban on firearms at a water resources development project, according to the Obama administration's statement of administration policy, which said that provision was among the objections it had to the bill.
Administration Objects to Energy Efficiency Cuts
In addition, the administration said it “strongly objects” to the $1.6 billion the bill would provide to the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a $1.1 billion reduction from the administration's fiscal year 2016 budget request and $266 million below current funding levels.
“Relative to the FY 2016 Budget request, the bill reduces funding for renewable energy by 49 percent, sustainable transportation by 35 percent, and energy efficiency by 40 percent,” the statement of administration policy said. “The proposed reductions significantly underfund critical activities that support the development and commercialization of clean energy technologies.”
-
Dual-Pronged Focus On Efficiency Could Be Key To Energy Bill's Success
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Nick Juliano
For lawmakers crafting an energy bill this year, "efficiency" means more than just reducing energy use. It also means cutting back the burdens imposed by the federal government in trying to achieve those reductions.
That dual focus on energy efficiency and what key lawmakers have termed "accountability" will be on display today at a pair of hearings focused on refining part of the broader, bipartisan energy bill lawmakers hope to unveil later this year. The coinciding sessions in a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee could provide some key signals about the extent to which the two parties and the two chambers are going to be able to work together over the course of this year.
Both hearings will present similar legislative agendas -- featuring proposals to create new efficiency programs, adjust existing or proposed rules and cut red tape at DOE -- and a mix of witnesses from the Department of Energy, regulated industries and advocacy groups.
The focus on proposals to cut red tape or adjust existing standards is part of an overarching Republican effort to continue promoting a regulatory reform agenda in a way that could be more amenable to Democrats. And it indicates a potential willingness to back away from previous, more controversial proposals -- such as the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act," which would require Congress to approve any major new rule but has been unable to gain traction in the Senate and would be vetoed by the president.
"We're trying to cut the regulatory burden, and we have to find ways to do that where we can get 60 votes, so that's the challenge," said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who has two bills on today's agenda. "REINS Act? I'm all for that. There's a lot of those things I'd like to do. The issue is whether we can get help on the other side to get to the 60 votes to pass it."
Several regulatory reforms are on both committees' agendas, but several outside observers see the House taking a more industry-friendly approach. For example, the House discussion draft includes legislation initially introduced by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) that would limit DOE's involvement in the development of building codes by limiting its advocacy for particular technologies and requiring any standards DOE endorses to deliver energy savings sufficient to offset their costs within 10 years. That language is an alternative to a provision included in the Senate's long-standing Shaheen-Portman efficiency bill that has more support from efficiency advocates.
The House bill would also repeal Section 433 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which requires federal agencies to phase out fossil fuel energy in all new federal buildings by 2030, but it does not include strengthened efficiency targets that were offered as a compromise in earlier Senate proposals to repeal 433.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, which is convening the House hearing, said he hoped to address the costs and burdens imposed on industry by some DOE efficiency rules.
"We want to improve efficiency, but I'm fed up with government bureaucrats dictating what it's going to be all the time," Whitfield said in a brief interview this week.
Democrats are expected to defend the DOE rulemaking process by pointing out, in part, that letting the department set a single national standard saves regulated industries from having to comply with a patchwork of different state rules, in addition to touting the overall benefits of energy efficiency to lowering utility bills and reducing carbon emissions.
The Senate committee will not be considering a specific discussion draft, but its agenda includes more than 20 bills that could eventually become the efficiency title of its energy bill. Among the items on the Senate agenda include Sen. John Hoeven's (R-N.D.) compromise bill, S. 869, to repeal the fossil phaseout; Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake's bill, S. 939, ordering an audit to identify duplicative green building programs; and a bill from Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), S. 1047, to direct DOE to review other agencies' regulations that could interfere with achieving efficiency standards.
One of the most controversial issues expected to come up is DOE's recently proposed rule for residential furnaces, which would be delayed in legislation under consideration in both chambers, although industry groups and advocates are split over the proposed legislation, thereby raising questions about its prospects (E&E Daily, April 29).
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) stressed that the streamlining ideas being considered for inclusion in a Senate bill are "nothing revolutionary," but she said the focus on government accountability and streamlining would be repeated in other aspects of the bill.
"It's something that while we're treating it in its own title; it actually permeates all aspects of what we're going to do in this updated energy architecture," Murkowski told reporters yesterday. "So accountability is a big deal. It's not just coming up with a new area of energy efficiency. Let's make sure it's there for the right reasons."
Efficiency is one of the easiest subjects that will be considered in assembling the energy bill. The toughest will be when it comes time to find ways to streamline the permitting and siting processes that critics say delay construction of vital new infrastructure, such as new natural gas pipelines or expansions of the electric grid.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz's appearance before the ENR Committee to defend the Quadrennial Energy Review earlier this week acknowledged the need to address those concerns, but much work remains to see whether it's possible to arrive at a bipartisan compromise.
"I don't think there's anybody on our committee -- probably nobody in the Congress -- that would disagree that we've got to deal with our permitting issues because it causes uncertainty, it causes delay, it causes expense, it's duplicative, it's burdensome -- you pick the word," Murkowski said. "And so we're all in agreement, but again, the devil's always in the details, so how we accomplish what we all agree to is important."
Efficiency advocates and environmentalists are wary of some of the changes to DOE's efficiency procedures currently under discussion. Expanding that approach to the permitting process -- which could require reopening laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act that environmentalists view as sacrosanct -- is going to be much more difficult, aides involved in the process acknowledge.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) has a staffer working full-time on the energy bill and said he is aware of the balance that must be struck when it comes to promoting efficiency.
"I'm going to be watching out for the extent to which it goes from fostering innovation to too much regulation and a possible stifling of innovation," he said. "I think that's a thin line, but it is something I'm aware of. In the name of promoting efficiency, you can create a bureaucratic structure that's slow and that locks in old technologies and makes it difficult for new technologies to come online."
-
House Lawmakers Seek Surprise Compromise On GOP Bill Curbing ESPS
Apr 29, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lee Logan
House Democrats and Republicans say they will work on compromise language to amend a controversial bill that would block implementation of EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants pending judicial review, while also giving states an opportunity to opt out of the rule.
Even as the House Energy & Commerce Committee April 29 approved the bill, H.R. 2042, sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), on a 28-22 party-line vote, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) offered to work with Republicans on new language giving states additional time to craft compliance plans if the GOP agrees to drop the bill's other provision that would allow a governor to opt out of the rule's requirements if he or she determines the rule would adversely impact utility rates or grid reliability.
The opt-out provision is “really what's giving us a lot of heartburn,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA). “The time extension might be something we could work with Republicans on, as a suggestion.”
But if the GOP insists on the opt-out provision, “We're just retreating to entrenched positions. To us, it seems like you're trying to kill the [rule] with the opt out,” McNerney said.
In response, Whitfield noted that “many members on my side of the aisle are very much concerned about these timelines. . . . I'd be happy to work with you . . . if we can come together with an amendment that would focus on extending the time for states in some way.”
He added that “maybe you don't like the way we did it here,” but the two parties might be able to “come up with some language” on the issue.
The lawmakers' effort to seek a compromise came after majority Republicans rejected five Democratic amendments that would have eliminated or weakened the bill's two main provisions. Previously, the House Energy & Commerce power subcommittee approved the bill on a party-line vote April 22, where three Democratic amendments were also rejected.
If the lawmakers can reach agreement, it could resolve significant contention over the bill, which currently faces an almost certain veto, as well as procedural hurdles in the Senate.
Under EPA's proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS), states would have one year after the rule is finalized to submit an initial compliance plan. States can also request a one-year extension if they would require legislation to comply, and they would get two extra years if they pledge to cooperate with other states.
But Whitfield, chairman of the committee's energy and power subcommittee, and other critics have long sought to ease states' compliance burdens without blocking the rule.
In its current form, however, the measure appears likely to draw a presidential veto if it ultimately passes both chambers. The administration has not yet taken a formal position on the legislation, but EPA's top air official told Whitfield in recent testimony that the measure is “premature, unnecessary and ultimately harmful.”
Similarly, committee Democrats charged that the bill is a thinly veiled excuse for states to avoid mitigating GHG emissions. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, said that legitimate concerns concerning grid reliability “will be worked out well in advance” of any problems.
“Governors should not be given unbridled authority to reject the requirements of a federal law,” he said.
Likely Veto
After the Senate's failure to override President Obama's veto of legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline, Whitfield acknowledged that Republicans likely lack the votes to overcome similar presidential vetoes of bills to scale back the ESPS, making it unlikely that this legislation will ever be enacted.
In addition to opposition from the administration, Senate Republicans recently dropped efforts that could have allowed them to consider companion legislation without being subject to the upper chamber's usual 60-vote threshold.But House Republicans say a battle over one or more spending bill riders attacking EPA's GHG rules for power plants is inevitable.
Whitfield has also said the bill would serve to increase awareness of the ESPS' negative reliability and cost impacts. “The whole purpose of this bill is to provide checks and balance against the very extreme, radical action by EPA,” he said during the recent markup.
He added that Republicans are “not even in this legislation trying to repeal this regulation.” But he argued that the rule is “so outside the bounds” of EPA's traditional authority “that we should allows the courts to render a decision before states are put in the position” of complying.
As McNerney indicated, each of the Democrats' proposed amendments focused on the bill's provision allowing governor's to opt out of the ESPS' requirements.
For example, an amendment offered by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) would have required that a governor's determination be subject to judicial review.
Under the legislation, “a governor is given the absolute power to decide the state does not have to comply with the requirements of the Clean Power Plan,” he said. “Any governor can declare that he or she just doesn't have to follow federal law. What kind of precedent does that set?”
Tonko argued that, “judicial review would guarantee that this is not [done on a] whim, and its based on analytical review.”
Republicans argued that the bill requires governors to consult with various state agencies before making a determination. Tonko's amendment was rejected on a voice vote.
The committee also rejected two amendments from Rush to require governors to weigh the ESPS implementation costs with projected costs to respond to climate-related extreme weather events, as well as certify that opting out would not have significant adverse impacts on various public health inputs.
And, the committee rejected on a voice vote an amendment from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the full committee's ranking Democrat, to require state legislatures to approve a governor's decision to opt out of the rule.
GOP lawmakers on a party-line vote also rejected another Pallone amendment that offered a non-binding resolution that seeks to respond to the “economic and natural security threats posed by human-induced climate change.” That language was adopted from a similar resolution that Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) attached to the Senate's budget blueprint with support from seven GOP senators. Earlier this month, Senate Republicans agreed to preserve the resolution in upcoming budget talks with the House.
-
Questions to McCarthy Show Power Plant, Water Rules Trouble Senate Appropriators
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Senate Appropriations Committee members posed pointed questions to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy on soon-to-be-final regulations on carbon emissions and Clean Water Act jurisdiction at an April 29 hearing.
The senators on the Appropriations subcommittee that allocates funding to the EPA also asked McCarthy about proposed legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, as well as the EPA's recent rules on wood-burning stoves.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chair of the subcommittee, told McCarthy that the EPA's recent attempts at rulemaking have not had their intended effect of clarifying environmental laws for businesses and individuals.
“For so many people, it's not clarifying,” she said. “It's confusing and confounding and making people very angry at their government.”
Power Plant Rule
The first senator to question McCarthy at the hearing was Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who focused his questions on the agency's proposed Clean Power Plan rule and its potential effects on the coal industry in his state.
“You can't guarantee your carbon regulations won't cost my constituents jobs and raise their utility bills,” McConnell told McCarthy.
He also noted that Kentucky's current governor, Steve Beshear (D), has said he won't be able submit an emissions plan to the EPA before he leaves office and that all of the candidates currently running to succeed him have said they will refuse to comply with the EPA's power plant regulations.
In addition, McConnell said the EPA would not be able to sign off on any carbon reduction agreements entered into together by multiple states because an obscure provision in Section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act requires congressional approval for any such agreement.
“As long as I'm Majority Leader, this body will not be signing off on any back-door energy tax,” he said.
Waters of the U.S
Murkowski and other senators told McCarthy that their constituents are “scared to death,” as she put it, about the EPA's proposed Waters of the U.S. rule, which would clarify which bodies of water fall under Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Especially in Murkowski's state of Alaska, where wetlands make up more than half of the state, the rule could have a huge impact on where development can and cannot occur, she said.
“I'm hearing from too many different sectors saying this is not a clarification [of Clean Water Act jurisdiction], this is a limitation on our ability not only to move but to breathe,” Murkowski said.
McCarthy responded by saying that the rule is vital because several court cases have revealed vagueness in the Clean Water Act's provisions on what constitutes a water body subject to regulation.
“I have just as many constituents, if not more, telling us we need to do something because of the lack of clarity,” McCarthy said.
Toxic Chemical Reform
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) asked McCarthy about her thoughts on a TSCA reform bill he's been shepherding through the Senate. The bill cleared the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee April 28 on a 15-5 vote (82 DEN A-9, 4/29/15).
McCarthy said there were some areas of the bill that fell short of what the EPA would have liked, but that many of those areas were addressed in amendments that were added during the committee markup.
She also confirmed that the bill would give the EPA authority to regulate asbestos, which Udall called “the poster child for TSCA reform.”
Udall later told Bloomberg BNA that he feels optimistic about his bill's chances for passage, but stopped short of predicting that it would pass.
He also said that the amendments that were added onto the bill addressed many of the federalism concerns of his colleagues who had been reluctant to support it.
“It's an issue of state versus federal jurisdiction and I think we got the right balance,” Udall said. “Senators look at their state and worry it will impact them.”
Wood-Burning Stoves
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked McCarthy about the EPA's recently finalized standards for wood-burning home heating stoves (24 DEN A-20, 2/5/15).
Leahy, whose state has the highest percentage of homes using wood-burning stoves as their main source of heat, and who also has a wood-burning stove in his own home, said he agreed with the agency that pollution from these stoves is a problem and needs to be reined in.
However, he expressed concern that the small businesses that manufacture these stoves will have a difficult time meeting the EPA's Step 2 standards by its 2020 deadline.
Leahy suggested that an alternative way to reduce air pollution from wood-burning stoves would be to set up a stove trade-in program, much like the automobile industry's government-subsidized “Cash for Clunkers” program.
“We see wood stoves used far longer than the 20-year lifespan assumed in the rule,” he said.
McCarthy seemed intrigued by his suggestion. She acknowledged that a Cash for Clunkers program to help swap out older, dirtier wood stoves for newer, cleaner models might be a good idea, but she questioned whether her agency had sufficient funding to launch it.
“We'll look into that,” McCarthy told Leahy.
-
California Governor Establishes Interim 2030 Goal for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) April 29 directed relevant state agencies to develop measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
The California Air Resources Board will spearhead the effort to develop a strategy to meet the new interim emissions reduction goal, Brown said at the Climate Action Reserve's annual conference in Los Angeles.
“This is a very high bar,” Brown said. “We're sending the signal to the private economy to innovate. We can do it. It's going to be difficult, but we'll go about it safely” to ensure the economy continues to prosper, he said.
The directive came in an executive order (B-30-15) that Brown said sets the most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal in the nation and aligns California's emissions target with the European Union's 2030 goal.
California is on track to achieving its 2020 goal of reducing emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels, as required under the state's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (A.B. 32).
Brown's 2030 target represents the cut in emissions needed to ensure the state can achieve its larger 2050 goal of reducing greenhouses 80 percent below 1990 levels. The need for these reductions is supported by the latest science on climate change, CARB said in a written statement.
“With this bold action by the Governor California extends its leadership role and joins the community of states and nations that are committed to slash carbon pollution through 2030 and beyond,” CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols said. “Building on our existing climate programs, the 40 percent reduction will drive and accelerate innovation, generate new jobs, improve air quality and hasten California's transition to a clean energy economy.”
Report Cites Job, Economic Growth
The 40 percent target has the potential to generate about 1 million new jobs and add 6 percent to the gross state product—$338 billion—to the state's economy by 2050, according to a report, “California Climate Policy to 2050: Pathways for Sustained Prosperity,” released April 28 by the independent, nonpartisan group Next 10.
“The Legislature will now create the framework to reach these goals,” State Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin De Leon (D) said in a written statement.
State lawmakers are considering a variety of climate-related measures, including two bills to implement the governor's call in January to increase over the next 15 years the amount of electricity derived from renewable power and cut the use petroleum in cars and trucks by 50 percent.
The order also calls for state agencies to incorporate climate change impacts into the state's five-year infrastructure plan and factor climate change into planning and investment decisions. The California Natural Resources Agency also must update the state's climate adaptation plan to identify climate change impacts to infrastructure and industry.
Carbon Goal Praised
Dozens of organizations issued statements applauding the governor's executive order.
Tom Darin, the western state policy senior director at the American Wind Energy Association, said the industry will work with the state to “produce reliable and cost-effective clean energy” and attract new economic investments in the state.
“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, executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a written statement released by the governor's office. “It is yet another reason for optimism in advance of the UN climate conference in Paris in December.”
Lauren Faber, the West Coast political director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the governor's announcement “demonstrates that California leaders can continue to set the pace for the rest of the world when it comes to tackling the urgent climate crisis and stepping up efforts to adapt to its already-harmful effects.”
-
California Sets Ambitious Emissions Target
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed an executive order Wednesday calling for a 40 percent reduction in the state's greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.
The order builds on a 2006 state law meant to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal the state is on track to meet. Brown’s office called the new order the “most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target in North America.”
“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 for generations to come,” Brown said in a statement.
The order directs the state to consider climate change in its infrastructure plans and to determine how to reduce risks associated with it. It says the government should “implement measures under existing agency and departmental authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
In his inaugural address this year, Brown said that in the next 15 years, California should increase its share of electricity from renewable sources to 50 percent and cut petroleum use in cars and trucks in half, as well as increase energy efficiency standards for buildings and reduce the state’s air pollution.
The new order is meant to put the state on pace to hit an overall emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, something Brown’s office said “is in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius,” a key climate change metric.
-
Brown Bypasses California Legislature In Setting Landmark 2030 GHG Goal
Apr 29, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Curt Barry
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has set landmark new greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals that will require the state to curb emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a move that appears likely to bolster Obama administration efforts ahead of international climate talks but essentially bypasses expected debate in the legislature over the state's future targets and timetables.
In a surprise move, Brown April 29 issued an executive order setting an “interim” target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 “in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,” the order states.
All state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions “shall implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets,” the order adds.
The new goal extends the state's current emissions reduction requirement to reach 1990 levels by the end of 2020, which was established by AB 32, the landmark 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32's target represents about a 15 percent reduction from the time the program started.
The new 2030 target appears to require a steeper decline in emission levels than currently being pursued to reach the AB 32 goal, based on statements by California officials that the state would have to roughly double the rate of emission reductions to meet its longer-term goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2050 goal was set through a 2005 executive order by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).
State officials have said the state is on track to meet or exceed its current 2020 target.
A spokesman for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) says staff is still working to quantify the new goal in accord with language in the order that requires the board to update its GHG regulatory “scoping plan” to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The order is likely to bolster Obama administration efforts as it heads into major climate negotiations in Paris later this year, where officials have already committed to achieving a 26-28 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2025.
“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,” said Brown said in a written statement.
Brown administration officials say that the new 2030 goal aligns California’s GHG gas reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year. The 28-nation European Union, for instance, set the same target for 2030 last October, the administration says.
Ultimately achieving a reduction of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is “in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius -- the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels,” Brown adds in the statement.
Legislative Debate
While the order may have important national and international significance, it appears to short-circuit an ongoing debate in the California legislature over how much discretion lawmakers should grant CARB in setting the goals.
But Brown and key legislators suggested the order may aid related efforts to craft legislation for attaining the goals, such as pending measures to codify the governor's earlier goals for achieving 50 percent renewable electricity generation by 2030, reducing petroleum use 50 percent by 2030 and doubling building energy efficiency by 2030.
The executive order “sets the stage for the important work being done on climate change by the Legislature,” Brown said in the statement.
State lawmakers in December and earlier this year introduced several bills that would have directed the board to make recommendations to the governor and legislature for a 2030 target. It was expected that under these measures, the legislature would ultimately be responsible for setting the target in statute.
However, Sen. Fran Pavley (D), who authored AB 32, is carrying a bill this year -- SB 32 -- that authorizes CARB to approve GHG emission targets to be achieved by 2030 and 2040 without consent from the legislature on what those numbers would be.
Pavley's measure appeared to take a stand on a long-running dispute about whether the legislature should set 2030 or 2040 GHG targets or leave it up to CARB by giving the board the decision-making power.
CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols has said she prefers that lawmakers provide the board with generic authority to set future targets and timetables.
Brown's new executive order appears to enshrine Nichols' preference and Pavley's SB 32 approach.
Echoing this, State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D) said in an April 29 written statement that the legislature “will now create the framework to reach these goals,” citing SB 32 and his own SB 350 -- a bill codifying Brown's renewable energy, oil consumption and energy efficiency goals.
De Leon said Brown's order will move forward “the innovation and investment that will get us there.”
The governor's action would appear to doom pending bills in the state legislature to set 2030 or 2040 statewide GHG emission targets. For example, AB 21 by Assemblyman Henry Perea (D) requires CARB by Jan. 1, 2018, to make recommendations to the governor and legislature for a 2030 target "to be accomplished in a cost-effective manner," including by "ways that are affordable for California residents."
Perea's bill appears to take the opposite approach as Pavley's by giving the legislature final say over what the 2030 goal should be.
In addition, AB 33 by Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D) also sought to establish longer-term GHG targets while ensuring state officials consider economic impacts and the ability of policies and programs to be duplicated by regulators around the world. The bill required CARB, by July 1, 2016, to propose 2030, 2040 and 2050 GHG targets.
For the 2030 target, AB 33 required CARB to complete an evaluation based on "what policies and technologies can be scaled to the rest of the country and the world;” and an "economic assessment using the best available economic models and data of the various GHG emissions-reduction strategies required to achieve the 2030 goal," including a marginal cost analysis.
CARB must also establish "consistent metrics to accurately quantify reductions in GHG emissions, quantify public health benefits, and measure the cost-effectiveness of various policies and technologies," according to AB 33. But even before Brown issued the order, there were indications Quirk and others may have conceded the issue. Quirk earlier this week agreed in an Assembly policy committee to essentially gut the entire bill and replace its provisions with a requirement that the state set up a climate change policy council to provide advice on the implementation of the state's GHG-reduction strategies.
-
California Gov. Brown Orders Major Cut in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Apr 30, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alejandro Lazo
California will develop North America’s most stringent greenhouse gas–reduction standards over the next 15 years under an executive order signed on Wednesday by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.
Mr. Brown ordered that, by 2030, greenhouse-gas emissions be 40% below 1990 levels. The targets align the nation’s largest state with standards set by the European Union last October and come ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year.
Mr. Brown’s goals won praise from foreign dignitaries, including World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“California’s announcement is a realization and a determination that will gladly resonate with other inspiring actions within the U.S. and around the globe,” Ms. Figueres said. “It is yet another reason for optimism in advance of the U.N. climate conference in Paris in December.”
The new order comes as Mr. Brown has aimed to make climate change a signature issue of his administration, while also dealing with an extreme drought.
Business leaders in the state cautioned of the order’s potential economic impacts.
“As California continues its leadership role in addressing climate change, costs on business and impacts on jobs and competitiveness cannot be ignored,” said Allan Zaremberg, president and chief executive of the California Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Brown’s order requires state agencies to devise plans to carry out the new targets. Currently, the state is set to meet a goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal established through the implementation of 2006 legislation signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“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.
California’s new goal is being set as a milepost toward reducing emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. State agencies have already begun devising various plans to meet the 2050 reduction ambitions.
The firm Energy, Environment, Economics, for instance, partnered with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to develop various models showing how the state might reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions, relative to 1990, by 26% to 38%.
All of the scenarios developed would include doubling the amount of energy efficiency achieved in buildings and industry, as well as requiring 50% to 60% of electricity sales be supplied with renewable electricity by 2030, including a “relatively diverse renewable portfolio of wind and solar across geographies.”
A rapid increase in near-zero and zero-emissions vehicles also would be needed, as well as more efficient water-heating and HVAC systems in new buildings. The scenarios also call for a major increase in the use of biofuels and a big reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions other than carbon, including methane and fluorinated gases, or f-gases.
Reducing the 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 38% would result in an average cost of $39 per household per month under one scenario.
“It is a dramatic step, it is a very strong stake in the ground, but it’s part of a bigger process of subnational governments taking a strong stand, in fact taking a stronger stand than our national government has been able to take,” said Jim Sweeney, a professor and director of the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency at Stanford University.
-
Requests to Reconsider Mercury, Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants Denied by EPA
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency denied all remaining petitions to reconsider the agency's 2012 mercury and air toxics standards for power plants, a step that the agency said affirms its approach to regulating emissions from the plants.
The agency, in a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register April 30, denied requests from the Utility Air Regulatory Group, Southern Co., Earthjustice and other groups to change aspects of the MATS rule.
The petitions raised dozens of issues with MATS, including the adequacy of the EPA's technical analysis supporting the rule and the agency's selection of surrogate pollutants.
The rule set emissions limits for mercury, filterable particulate matter as a surrogate for toxic metals and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gases. Most U.S. power plants were required to come into compliance with the rule by April 16, but more than 170 coal-fired power plants received an extension of up to one year to install required pollution controls or cease operations (71 DEN A-1, 4/14/15).
The agency said its decision to reject the remaining requests for reconsideration would offer certainty to power plants and other interested parties. However, the Supreme Court is still considering the legality of the rule. By June, the court will decide whether the EPA adequately considered the costs of regulating emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants when it decided it was “appropriate and necessary” to do regulate the plants (Michigan v. EPA, U.S., No. 14-46, argued 3/25/15; 58 DEN A-1, 3/26/15).
Various Requests Rejected
The EPA issued a technical document outlining the requests for reconsideration and the agency's rationale for rejecting those requests.
The EPA rejected various issues raised by the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a power plant trade group that is one of the petitioners to the Supreme Court in Michigan v. EPA. Those issues include:
• an allegation that the agency's mercury risk technical support documents did not provide a reliable scientific basis to determine it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions;
• a request that the agency conduct an additional sensitivity analysis to address mercury emissions from China in modeling; and
• an allegation that the EPA did not adequately consider the effect of the MATS rule on electricity reliability.
The EPA also rejected an argument by Earthjustice that filterable particulate matter is not a valid surrogate for toxic metals.
The EPA previously reconsidered aspects of MATS, including changes to provisions covering startup and shutdown periods for electricity generating units (220 DEN A-5, 11/14/14).
Judicial Review Available
The denial of the petitions for reconsideration constitutes a final agency action, which can be challenged in a federal appeals court. The groups that petitioned the EPA can file a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the agency's decision by June 29.
The agency cautioned against lawsuits in the notice, noting that a “significant majority” of the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration were or could have been raised during the public comment period on the proposed MATS rule. Many of those issues were raised before the D.C. Circuit and rejected in the decision that the Supreme Court is reviewing, the agency said (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222, 2014 BL 103957 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
Additionally, many of the other issues raised in the reconsideration petitions could have been raised in that litigation, the EPA said.
“Parties may not use this final action denying reconsideration as a basis to litigate issues that could have been raised in the initial litigation,” the EPA said.
-
Billionaire Environmentalist To Host Clinton Fundraiser
Apr 29, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer is hosting a fundraiser next week for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Steyer made waves last year, spending $74 million in the midterm election to help candidates who want to fight climate change and oppose the Keystone XL oil pipeline. He plans to spend “whatever it takes" in the 2016 election, an adviser has said, toward similar goals.
Clinton’s refusal thus far to take a public position on Keystone seems not to have put off Steyer enough to oppose her.
He and his wife, Kat, will host the lunch fundraiser May 6 at their San Francisco home, according to a Steyer ally. Politico first reported the fundraiser.
The “Conversation with Hillary” will come as part of a day of Clinton events in the San Francisco Bay Area. She’ll head to Los Angeles the following day for fundraisers, including one at the home of Esprit Holdings co-founder and big-time liberal donor Susie Tompkins Buell, and then travel to Silicon Valley the next day, according to The Associated Press.
Apart from avoiding Keystone, Clinton’s platform largely aligns with liberal environmentalists.
She supports efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, including the Obama administration’s landmark carbon limits for power plants, and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, said “tackling climate change” will be at the top of the campaign’s agenda. Podesta, who was a top Obama adviser before joining the Clinton campaign, helped formulate the climate rule.
Steyer’s NextGen Climate group said earlier this month that its strategy for 2016 will focus on shaming Republican candidates for connections to the billionaire Conservative donors Charles and David Koch, and for their skepticism of climate change.
But the group expressed support for Clinton and said it would announce efforts regarding her later in the campaign process.
-
New York Plan to Save Energy May Mean a Dimmer Skyline
Apr 29, 2015 | The New York Times
By Matt Flegenheimer
The Manhattan skyline — glimmering, grand but not always environmentally efficient — may need to go darker to go green.
Amid a far-reaching push to reduce New York’s environmental footprint, city officials on Wednesday weighed a City Council bill to limit internal and external light use in many commercial buildings when empty at night, a change that could affect some 40,000 structures and rethink the shape, or at least the hue, of what residents see when they look up.
The environmental considerations are clear: reducing potentially wasteful energy use as part of the city’s bid to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. The administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed support for passing a version of the bill, calling light pollution a citywide scourge for migratory birds and sedentary New Yorkers.
The hearing, accordingly, cast a wide net, touching on amphibious mating activity, the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and even the very definition of nighttime. And it hinted at a host of complications in the proposed legislation, among them an exception for buildings found to be “a significant part of the city’s skyline.”
City officials expressed misgivings about playing favorites with cherished destinations, potentially empowering government workers to decide which structures were notable enough to stay lit.
“The mandate to curate, if you will, the skyline of the city of New York is not something the commission does currently,” said Mark Silberman, general counsel for the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission.
The proposal, he added, “does put the commission in a slightly uncomfortable position, perhaps, of choosing between landmarks.”
Councilman Donovan Richards Jr., the bill’s lead sponsor, joked that the change would “add excitement” to the lives of city regulators.
“We’re not looking for excitement,” Mr. Silberman said.
Some critics, including food industry and real estate leaders, worried that reduced lighting could affect safety.
“Security cameras would be useless in the dark, and police officers would no longer peek into darkened stores at night,” said Jay M. Peltz, general counsel for the Food Industry Alliance of New York State.
Administration officials said they shared concerns about maintaining adequate lighting to deter crime, suggesting that they would move to tweak the bill. It was not immediately clear how.
The bill does exempt buildings “where individuals are inside” at night, which would seem to apply to the many large office buildings that maintain a limited security presence or bring in cleaners overnight.
Other exemptions in the bill include a provision allowing “temporary seasonal displays” to remain illuminated in storefront windows.
Offending building operators could be fined $1,000 for violating the lighting standards, according to the bill.
A few advocates said the bill was not strong enough, wondering if skyscrapers like the Empire State Building really needed to stay bright all night. (Officials suggested that the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building, among several others, would appear likely candidates for an exemption.)
“Many of us have felt a sense of pride in its beauty,” one public speaker, Catherine Skopic, said of the skyline. “However, now that we are in this climate crisis, we see these lights as something else. We see them as wasteful of energy.”
The Real Estate Board of New York, which opposes the bill as written but says it shares many of its goals, argued that energy code changes had already ensured improved efficiency standards for skyscrapers in the coming years.
At times, the hearing veered into the stuff of middle school science textbooks — “animal activities that are regulated by the length of day include migration, hibernation and procreation,” Mr. Richards reported during an extended lament on light pollution’s effect on wildlife.
Artificial light can deter nesting female sea turtles, Mr. Richards noted, and interfere with the habits of hatchlings. Monarch butterflies grow disoriented. Male blackbirds fail to develop reproductive organs.
“Frogs stopped mating activity,” Mr. Richards said grimly at one point, “during night football games when lights from a nearby stadium increased sky glow.”
The hearing included a call-in from a former French environment minister, who required an in-house translator. Preliminary data, Mr. Richards said, showed a 9 percent reduction in energy use in France as a result of changes akin to his proposal.
Mr. Richards, a Queens Democrat, had seen the fruits of the French effort during a recent visit, he said, casting himself as an atypical tourist in the City of Light — the traveler eager to see less of it. “I traveled to Paris last year,” he said, “and I got to see lights off myself.”
-
Lung Association Highlights High Pollution Levels
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Air quality is improving in many areas of the U.S., but about 138.5 million people live in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone or particulate matter, the American Lung Association found. The association's annual State of the Air report, released April 29, found that there has been a continued reduction of year-round particle pollution across the eastern U.S. and many cities, including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, had fewer days with high levels of ozone than in previous years. The report, based on ozone and particulate monitoring data from 2011 to 2013, also found that many areas in the western U.S. reported increased instances of short-term particle pollution, partly due to drought and wildfires. The association also used the monitoring data to rank the air quality in U.S. metropolitan areas, with Los Angeles ranked as the most ozone-polluted city for the 15th time in the 16 years the association has issued the State of the Air report. However, the Los Angeles area reported its fewest high ozone days and lowest average measurement of year-round particulate matter since the report was first issued. The report is available at http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/assets/ALA_State_of_the_Air_2015.pdf.
-
Release of Crude-by-Rail Safety Rule Scheduled for May 1, Observers Say
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal safety rule to make railroad tank cars that haul oil and other flammable liquids less prone to rupture will be released May 1, according to two people familiar with the issue.
The highly anticipated rule probably will require that tank cars have thicker walls and stronger valves, along with other safety features. The Obama administration is issuing the regulation after a series of fiery accidents, including a July 2013 wreck in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people (143 DEN A-12, 7/25/13).
The U.S. Transportation Department has taken some steps, including on April 17 announcing that trains must travel at 40 miles per hour (64 kilometers per hour) or slower in densely populated areas. U.S. lawmakers have pressed regulators to take further steps.
The people familiar requested anonymity because the timetable hadn't yet been announced.
Safety investigators have for years said older cars used to haul oil, known as DOT-111s, are prone to rupture in derailments. Recent accidents and spills in the U.S. and Canada also raised concern about newer, stronger models called CPC-1232s that the industry voluntarily agreed to build in 2011.
The National Transportation Safety Board said earlier this month that CPC-1232s can overheat and explode in a fire. The NTSB recommended oil tank cars be upgraded or replaced within five years (66 DEN A-9, 4/7/15).
Industry groups, including the Railway Supply Institute, which represents companies that own the tank cars, have said that deadline can't be met.
-
DOT Prepping Final Oil Train Rule This Week
Apr 29, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kathryn St. John & Heather Caygle
The DOT is gearing up to release on Friday the final version of a much-anticipated rule strengthening tank car and operating standards for trains carrying crude oil.
Federal officials wouldn’t comment for the record about the rule’s anticipated roll-out, but sources from Capitol Hill to K Street were girding for a Friday reveal, possibly in conjunction with Transport Canada. Reuters had earlier reported that the rule is expected Friday.
The stars appear to be aligning: Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and his Canadian counterparts are due to meet in Washington that day, and Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg has canceled travel plans previously scheduled for then, according to a railroad lobbyist.
Transport Canada declined to comment, and a DOT spokeswoman would not confirm the Friday rumors. A spokesman for FRA could not immediately be reached for comment on Feinberg’s travel plans.
The rule is inspired by growing concern over a series of explosive derailments of oil trains across North America, including a July 2013 disaster that killed 47 people in a small town in Quebec.
While the rule has been pending, DOT has taken several interim and emergency steps to strengthen oil train safety, including requiring trains to travel no greater than 40 mph in highly urbanized areas, pressing energy companies for more information about the contents of their fuel and requiring railroads to provide state emergency managers with more data about their shipments. But lawmakers have agitated for DOT to work faster, particularly since several recent derailments have involved a newer tank car model that has been billed as an improvement for safety.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he hasn’t seen the final rule, but he’s been pressing DOT to finish the regulations as quickly as possible.
“I’m anxious to see it,” Durbin said in an interview. “I met with the secretary and told him that we’ve got to deal with this and deal quickly. This generation of tank cars is not safe enough.”
Both Durbin and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), whose state has seen its share of oil train controversy, said they’re pleased DOT is finishing the rule but said attention should now turn toward oil volatility, a complicated issue that is unlikely to be addressed in the tank car regulation.
“I think it’s time to open that subject. [Sen. Cantwell] has encouraged them to do it, and I have too,” Durbin said. Cantwell introduced a sweeping bill in March that would take on many crude-by-rail issues, including oil volatility.
“There’s a lot still to be done on studying that issue,” Foxx told reporters Tuesday when asked about volatility issues.
“The Department of Energy is looking to do a study on this,” Foxx said, adding he hopes DOT can play a supporting role.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told POLITICO last week that the Energy Department and DOT are “very active collaborators” on research aimed at gauging whether the light shale oil predominantly shipped by rail out of lucrative Bakken fields in North Dakota is more volatile than its conventional counterparts. It is unclear whether that research will inform future regulations.
-
New Jersey Delegates Introduce Hazmat-Rail Bill
Apr 30, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Two members of the New Jersey congressional delegation introduced April 28 bills to improve the safety of hazardous materials rail transportation, following a 2012 freight derailment and resulting chemical spill in Paulsboro, N.J. The Toxics by Rail Accountability and Community Knowledge (TRACK) Act, introduced by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) in their respective chambers, would require federal agencies to implement certain recommendations offered by the National Transportation Safety Board in response to the Consolidated Rail Corp. derailment. The derailment caused more than 20,000 gallons of vinyl chloride to leak into a stream and caused millions in equipment and environmental damage. The bills—numbered S. 1114 and H.R. 2074—would implement strong penalties for railroad safety violations, require that first responders and emergency officials have access to accurate and up-to-date information regarding the shipped hazardous materials and add safety procedures for making moveable bridge crossing safer, among other steps. Menendez introduced the same bill in September of the last year, but the bill didn't receive a hearing (184 DEN A-7, 9/23/14). The text of the bill is available at http://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MDM15600.pdf.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested