Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) Nanotechnology Could Be the Next Big Thing in Medical Care
Apr 30, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
A recent article on CNN.com notes how important the role of nanotechnology could be to the future of medicine. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/04/nanotechnology-could-be-the-next-big-thing-in-medical-care/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Not So Pretty: The High Health Cost of Women's Products
Apr 30, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
Between cosmetics, perfumes, personal care products and feminine hygiene products, women in the US apply an average of 168 chemicals to their faces and bodies every day, according to new research by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. -
How Stricter Chemical Regulations Will Be Good for the Industry
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kelly Vlahakis-Hanks
Most people probably don’t check the labels of chemical products they use, or go online to do research about how dangerous certain chemicals are. -
Senate Environmental Champions: Making The Best Of Bad Chemistry
Apr 30, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Ken Cook
Much more than a long memory is needed these days to recall the golden age of GOP environmentalism. A feat of imagination is required. -
McCarthy, McConnell Spar Over Clean Power Plan at Hearing
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy came face-to-face yesterday afternoon with the most prominent critic of her agency's ambitious plan to cut the power sector's carbon emissions by 30 percent. -
McConnell Has New Argument for EPA Climate Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Opponents of the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants have unearthed what they believe to be a significant new legal argument against the regulation. -
Okla. Governor Signs Order in Opposition to EPA Carbon Plan
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) issued an executive order this week to prevent her state from submitting a plan to implement U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. -
States, Greens Defend EPA Against Latest Push to Block Carbon Regs
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Eleven states and environmental groups yesterday pushed back on assertions from challengers to U.S. EPA's proposed greenhouse gas power plant standards that recent comments by Administrator Gina McCarthy warrant blocking the rule from finalization. -
This Isn’t Your Normal Bill to Gut the EPA
Apr 30, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Plenty of Republicans hate the Environmental Protection Agency and want to gut its climate change programs and regulatory offices. -
Sanders Launches White House Bid, Vows to 'Transform Our Energy System'
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) declared his bid today for the Democratic presidential nomination, calling for a "political revolution" as he kicks off a longshot bid for the White House. -
Pass the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act | Commentary
Apr 30, 2015 | Roll Cal
By Nathan J. Diament and Kent Johnson
As the East Coast recovers from a brutally cold winter and turns the corner toward summer, families naturally think of the costs they had to bear to heat their homes and will again face as the mercury rises. -
Senators Target Obama’s Water Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Thursday to force the Obama administration to try again in its regulatory effort to define the federal government’s power over streams, wetlands and other waterways. -
Senate Bill Aims to Lure Dems Unhappy with Obama Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
Senate critics of President Obama's hot-button water rule unveiled legislation today that would send U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers back to the drawing board. -
Gov. Brown Prepares State to Cut Greenhouse Gases by 40% by 2030; Oil Industry Vows a Fight
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern and Debra Kahn
Climate change is a severe threat that transcends day-to-day political issues and must be tackled aggressively, California Gov. Jerry Brown said here yesterday as he promoted his executive order seeking a 40 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2030.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Blog) Nanotechnology Could Be the Next Big Thing in Medical Care
Apr 30, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Jay West
A recent article on CNN.com notes how important the role of nanotechnology could be to the future of medicine. Currently, scientists in the U.S. are researching how nanotechnology and nanoparticles may be used to fight many diseases, including cancer and Ebola.
Researchers hope that nanoparticles have the ability to attach to medications and then bind directly to viruses or cancer cells. This would allow the medicines to target the viruses or cancer cells without harming nearby healthy cells.
In conducting research on nanotechnology use to fight disease, scientists also continue to study how organs, such as the liver and kidney, respond, absorb and expel nanoparticles.
The American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel promotes the responsible development of nanotechnology by advancing good product stewardship practices among nanomaterial producers and users. Panel members have the opportunity to help shape the industry’s positions on nanotechnology regulation, research, and stewardship practices and build relationships with other leaders in the field.
Reach out to me at Jay_West@americanchemistry.com to learn more about the Panel and how its activities can benefit you and your company.
- See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/04/nanotechnology-could-be-the-next-big-thing-in-medical-care/#sthash.afZiaMqA.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) Not So Pretty: The High Health Cost of Women's Products
Apr 30, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
Between cosmetics, perfumes, personal care products and feminine hygiene products, women in the US apply an average of 168 chemicals to their faces and bodies every day, according to new research by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.
Some of these chemicals are completely harmless, but others are endocrine disruptors, carcinogens and neurotoxins, most of which have not been independently reviewed for safety before hitting store shelves. And there is growing concern that the combined chemical burden from these products may be directly related to increased rates of reproductive issues and cancer among women.The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote in a 2013 report that there is “robust” evidence linking “toxic environmental agents” to “adverse reproductive and developmental health outcomes”.
Joining other leading scientific organizations, the College called for “timely action to identify and reduce exposure to toxic environmental agents while addressing the consequences of such exposure”.
But “timely action” may be a problem. Nancy Buermeyer, senior policy strategist for the nonprofit Breast Cancer Fund, says that there is insufficient research on the effects of consumer chemicals. “We don’t know enough about chemicals on any front and certainly not about how they impact women because we haven’t spent the time or energy to look at it,” she says.Unreasonable risk
Unlike most consumables, which fall under the purview of the US Food and Drug Administration, personal care products are governed by the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which requires no government review of products before they go to market. Instead, the act puts companies in charge of ensuring consumer safety.
If a customer registers a complaint about the safety of a product, the FDA can review it. But, until that point, it cannot step in. “A manufacturer or distributor of a cosmetic is legally responsible for ensuring that a marketed product is safe when consumers use it according to the directions in the labeling or in the customary or expected way,” an administration official told Guardian via email.
Another protection, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate some consumer chemicals. However, the EPA can only step in if a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk” to public health or the environment. But this is a hard line to prove: in the 30 years since TSCA passed, the EPA has only tested about 200 of the 84,000 chemicals on the market. It has regulated five.
To make matters worse, the laws governing toxic substances may also be outdated: the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act has not been updated since it was passed in 1938, and the TSCA hasn’t been updated since 1976.
Even if the tangled and outdated regulatory structure around consumer chemicals were reformed, consumer safety might still be at risk. The US chemical lobby is fighting hard to maintain industry self-regulation; among other things, it pushes politicians to pass TSCA reforms that would undercut stricter state regulations.
Current regulations evaluate chemicals on a per-product basis, setting acceptable limits for each chemical based on the assumption that consumers will only use one product, and will use it as directed. Unfortunately, this doesn’t reflect how consumers actually use products. The average man uses five to seven personal care products per day. The average woman uses nine to 12, and the average teenage girl uses 17, according to the Environmental Working Group study.Gender-blind regulations
Even when consumers know which chemicals they want to avoid, they may not be able to do so because of labeling rules. For example, the FDA classifies feminine hygiene products like tampons and pads as “medical devices”, which means the companies making them do not have to disclose any of their ingredients on labels.
In 2014, nonprofit environmental health organization Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) commissioned independent lab testing of four types of Always pads. They found a number of chemicals – including styrene, chloroform and acetone – that have been identified as either carcinogens or reproductive and developmental toxins.
When the group analyzed a host of douches, wipes, sprays and creams, they discovered phthalates, dioxins, parabens and other potentially hazardous chemicals. Studies from Columbia University have linked phthalates to asthma and low IQ, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) haslinked dioxin to reproductive and developmental issues, as well as increased risk of cancer and heart disease. Other studies have correlated douching to a host of problems, including bacterial vaginosis, cervical cancer, and HIV transmission.
While some view many of these feminine hygiene products as unnecessary, their usage is deeply ingrained in US culture, particularly among minority women. “We hear from some women, ‘Telling me not to douche is like telling me not to shower.’ There’s no fighting that,” says Alex Scranton, WVE’s executive director.
With elimination of these products off the table, Scranton argues that adaptation is vital. “We have to make them as safe as possible to use, especially because it’s well known that the vaginal ecosystem is more sensitive and more absorbent than skin.”
But when Scranton and her team looked for information on what the chemicals in these products do to the female body when they’re vaginally applied, they found a stunning lack of information. “There’s hardly any research,” she says. “It’s incredible.”
The lack of information is not surprising: until 1992, the NIH didn’t have a vaginal health research program. In fact, it wasn’t until two women were promoted into top positions – Penny Hitchcock at the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Branch at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Nancy Alexander at the Contraceptive Development Branch in the NIH Center for Population Research – that such a program was started. “They got promoted and then it was like ‘wait a minute, we don’t have that?’” Scranton said.
The 1994 NIH Revitalization Act was a step in the right direction. It required that women and minorities be included in research samples for any NIH-funded studies. These days, the NIH conducts research on vaginal health and on women’s health in general, but there is still a major research gap. This year, the NIH announced plans to draft a new policy that will require any preclinical research it funds to include both male and female subjects. The FDA also announced intentions to draft guidelines around sex differences in drug dosing recommendations.Closing the gender gap in health
There are efforts underway to reform the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act and TSCA. Currently, two competing TSCA bills are making their way through the Senate, one authored by Senators Tom Udall and David Vitter, and the other by Senators Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey.
Competition between the two bills is fierce, and even nonprofits appear to be divided in their support. The Environmental Defense Fund backs Udall-Vitter, while public health nonprofits like EWG, Breast Cancer Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council claim that the bill is too heavily influenced by the chemistry industry. According to them, it attempts to preempt state laws that regulate chemicals.
The consumer chemicals industry is equally divided: the American Chemistry Council backs Udall-Vitter, while the Personal Care Products Council backs Boxer-Markey. Both industry groups have issued strong statements in favor of reform, but their critics have accused them of backing federal initiatives in an effort to weaken state regulations.
As the debate rages, it highlights a lack of public knowledge – and sometimes sexism – surrounding regulations.
Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, says that 10 years ago, a debate over phthalates – one class of chemicals of concern – focused on the impact that they have on young boys. “People would say ‘oh well, it affects boys, so why do we have to regulate it for women?’” she says.
“And I had to explain over and over again – and still do – that boys spend their first months in women’s bodies, and that’s when they’re most vulnerable.”
-
How Stricter Chemical Regulations Will Be Good for the Industry
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kelly Vlahakis-Hanks
Most people probably don’t check the labels of chemical products they use, or go online to do research about how dangerous certain chemicals are. That’s understandable, but it’s also a shame, because there are a lot of scary chemicals out there.
Take 1,4-Dioxane. If you haven’t heard of it, I’m not surprised. It’s a chemical used in some cosmetics, detergents, and shampoos.
It has also been classified as a possible carcinogen. And the agency that’s supposed to test chemicals for toxicity – the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – hasn’t. The law that’s supposed to regulate toxic chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), has failed on this and many other chemicals currently used in commerce.
Earth Friendly Products doesn’t use 1,4-Dioxane in any of our products. Our business model relies on using safer alternatives to existing chemicals. This is important to us because we want to make sure we’re not putting the people who buy our products at risk. And for our customers, it’s equally important to make sure that they’re buying things that won’t make them or their families sick.
But let’s be realistic: As long as currently used chemicals – including potentially toxic ones – aren’t being regulated, and there’s no signal to the market that safer alternatives will have the chance to compete, a lot of consumers will buy cheaper alternatives. That’s risky – not just for them, but for the companies that market those products and will have to deal with hits to consumer confidence.
We believe that successful TSCA reform must allow for a full review of chemicals currently in commerce, and regulatory action against the ones judged to be dangerous to human health. Innovators with safer alternatives will have the chance to compete, and companies won’t have to deal with consumer concerns. Unfortunately, a bill recently proposed in Congress by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would fall well short of these priorities.
There’s a lot about this proposal that concerns us, but most worrisome is the glacial pace at which this bill would require EPA to review chemicals. Under this bill, EPA would have to review 10 per year for the first year, 10 more in the third year, and five in the fifth year after the bill’s enactment. While it’s good to see a floor rather than a ceiling, practically speaking, they are one and the same – especially if the EPA does not have the resources needed to review more chemicals.
What makes matters worse is a one off/one on provision. Basically, the EPA could only begin the review process for a new chemical when one of the initial group has gone through the entire review process, something that could take as much as seven years. To put all this in perspective, 62,000 chemicals have never been tested under TSCA because they were grandfathered in when the bill was originally passed. To say there’s a bit of a backlog is putting it mildly.
We joined the American Sustainable Business Council and the Companies for Safer Chemicals Coalition in calling for improvements to the Vitter-Udall bill because this kind of schedule is simply not sufficient. There are far too many chemicals that are known, or at least highly suspected, of being toxic – far from protecting consumers from those chemicals, this bill would impose a regulatory roadblock on the EPA. Any meaningful TSCA reform must allow EPA to review as many chemicals as needed, give them the resources to do so, and not impose unnecessary barriers to get the most dangerous chemicals out of the marketplace.
We believe the public should have access to information regarding the safety of the chemicals they use in products every day, that there should be a minimum safety requirement for those chemicals, and that safer alternatives should be incentivized. That’s what real, meaningful TSCA reform would do.
The Companies for Safer Chemicals Coalition and the BizNGO Working Group are in Washington this week to make this case loud and clear to the Senate.
TSCA hasn’t been updated since it was passed in 1976. Nobody questions that it’s in desperate need of reform. But companies like mine need reform that actually addresses current flaws in chemical oversight. Right now, the Vitter-Udall bill doesn’t.
Vlahakis-Hanks is CEO of Earth Friendly Products, a family-owned company that manufacturers environmentally friendly cleaning products.
-
Senate Environmental Champions: Making The Best Of Bad Chemistry
Apr 30, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Ken Cook
Much more than a long memory is needed these days to recall the golden age of GOP environmentalism. A feat of imagination is required.
From the moment Republican leaders gaveled the 114th Congress into session, virtually every tenet of environmental law and policy, including the money to pay for it, has been under assault. Most of those tenets were established in bipartisan fashion during the decades between 1970 and 1996, when the conservative instinct to save and preserve the best of America still extended, sensibly, to the protection of cherished places, the stewardship of natural resources, and safeguards on the health of people and communities.
Today a Republican of Nixon’s environmental stripe, or perhaps even Reagan’s, would be lucky to survive a primary.
As a result, environmental champions on the Democratic side of the aisle spend most of their time playing defense, standing up for public health and the environment and fending off one destructive Republican attack after another on clean air, clean water and green everything.
So it was this past Tuesday, when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee took up a toxic chemical control bill that originated in the very industry it purported to regulate. No one on the minority side would have written the proposal, which catered much more to chemical company profits than to public health. Then again, even worse legislation could have passed the committee on a party line Republican vote. Yet it didn’t.
Why? We can thank Senators Barbara Boxer, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Cardin, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker and others.
They fought tirelessly and resourcefully—in public, behind the scenes and in the mark-up session via amendments—to make whatever improvements they could manage to the deeply flawed legislation that landed in their midst. As has been the case since the first, outrageously bad version of this bill was introduced in 2013, the pressure Democrats applied these past few weeks made a bad industry bill better.
They made the best of some very bad chemistry, and EWG applauds their efforts. What would it have taken to pass legislation truly protective of public health that the environmental community could support? A couple of Nixons, Reagans, Chaffees or Jeffords on the opposite side of the dais would have done the trick.
-
McCarthy, McConnell Spar Over Clean Power Plan at Hearing
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy came face-to-face yesterday afternoon with the most prominent critic of her agency's ambitious plan to cut the power sector's carbon emissions by 30 percent.
While the seven-minute back-and-forth with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing included some harsh criticism of the agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, the exchange was not exactly a preview of this weekend's much-anticipated boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather.
"Things are not well in the commonwealth of Kentucky. We have a depression in eastern Kentucky," McConnell told McCarthy during a question-and-answer session. "Your agency's proposed budget request, if approved, would facilitate the EPA's plan to shutter coal plants in my state, put countless more of my constituents out of work. All in service of a regulatory agenda, the actual benefits of which neither you nor anyone else can seem to explain."
The Clean Power Plan aims to lower the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years. While the draft regulation allows states to draft their own proposals for meeting their goals, EPA's proposed building blocks shift power production away from coal-fired plants, and toward low- and zero-carbon alternatives like natural gas, wind and solar power.
Only Wyoming and West Virginia produce more coal than Kentucky.'New level of antagonism' toward EPA?
McConnell has emerged as perhaps the Clean Power Plan's most high-profile critic. He generated headlines earlier this year by urging governors to "just say no" to the regulation and refuse to submit implementation plans to EPA.
"This proposed plan is already on shaky legal grounds, will be extremely burdensome and costly, and will not seriously address the global environmental concerns that are frequently raised to justify it," he wrote to the nation's governors in March. "Moreover, declining to go along with the administration's legally dubious plan will give the other two branches of government time to address the proposal and will not put your state at risk in the interim."
That antagonistic stance generated plenty of criticism. "That's a new level of antagonism to the agency," said William Reilly, who headed EPA during the George H.W. Bush administration. "I didn't get the kind of pressure that he's exerting, and actually I don't recall anyone recommending simply not implementing the state implementation plans" (Greenwire, April 7).
The GOP leader's push has also been dismissed as political theater. Air regulators and utilities in both Republican- and Democratic-controlled states have consistently argued it makes more sense for states to take an active role in shaping their own implementation plans rather than sit around and wait for the federal government to design a policy for them.
That includes McConnell's home state. "The overwhelming majority of our stakeholders are telling us to make preparations to submit a plan," the Energy and Environment Cabinet of Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) said in a statement shortly after McConnell made his pitch to states. "Failing to follow through with creation of that plan means Kentucky would most likely have to abide by a Federal Implementation Plan that would cause harm to Kentucky's economic future and burden the next administration with challenges not of its making" (ClimateWire, March 9).
But as McConnell pointed out at the hearing, Beshear will leave office at the end of the year, before his administration would be able to submit a complete plan. "You may be interested to know," McConnell told McCarthy, "all the major candidates for governor this year -- one of whom will take office in December in this year -- have said they're not going to submit a plan.
"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?"
McCarthy did not directly answer the question. "I believe that EPA has designed this plan in a way that we are respecting the current situation in states and their energy mix," she said. "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."McConnell to countries: 'Proceed with caution' in Paris climate talks
In the past, McCarthy has said EPA does not have the power to withhold federal transportation funding, as it can when states do not meet other environmental standards (ClimateWire, March 30).
When asked similar questions, McCarthy and other EPA officials have simply said the agency would develop a federal implementation plan for states that don't submit their own proposals for meeting the carbon reduction goals. Draft language for those federal model rules is expected to be released this summer.
EPA is urging states to consider submitting multi-state, regional compliance plans, but McConnell threatened to block those efforts.
Pointing out that states need congressional consent to enter into "binding or obligatory" agreements with each other, McConnell said, "I can assure you that as long as I'm majority leader in the Senate, this body's not going to be signing off on backdoor energy taxes."
A full-fledged interstate compact, however, may not be necessary for Clean Power Plan compliance. The only existing multi-state cap-and-trade program, the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, never submitted any document to Congress.
Instead, the nine-state coalition organized itself around a voluntary memorandum of understanding, along with model rules that every member state implemented through its own legislative or rulemaking process.
But voluntary agreements have their shortcomings -- chief among them, states can leave them at any time. That's exactly what happened to RGGI in 2011, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) withdrew the state from the memorandum of understanding.
McConnell ended his questioning with one more warning, this time to a broader audience. Noting that the Clean Power Plan serves as the cornerstone of the proposal the United States will bring to U.N. climate negotiations later this year, McConnell pointed out that the Obama administration had tried, and failed, to pass a similar carbon-reduction bill in 2009 and 2010.
"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.
With that, McConnell left to go meet the prime minister of Japan.
-
McConnell Has New Argument for EPA Climate Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Opponents of the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants have unearthed what they believe to be a significant new legal argument against the regulation.
They say that the Clean Air Act restricts states from entering into multi-state agreements to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, unless Congress approves each agreement.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) brought up the argument at a Wednesday congressional hearing with EPA head Gina McCarthy, saying Section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act will hamper the EPA’s ability to encourage states to enter into multi-state agreements.
EPA officials, including McCarthy, have said that multi-state agreements will allow states to comply with the rule at a lower cost while achieving better emissions cuts than they could alone. They’ve called it a “significant” part of their strategy to reduce emissions.
But McConnell argues that the multi-state agreements would require congressional consent — and that’s not coming.
“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,” he said.
McCarthy didn’t directly answer McConnell’s objection, saying only that she believes “we’re acting under the authority that Congress gave us under the Clean Air Act,” and that the rule will stand up in court.
The energy sector thinks McConnell’s argument could be a hurdle for the Obama administration, but supporters of the EPA argue it won’t go anywhere.
McConnell’s legal argument is his latest strategy aimed at undermining the rule through means other than legislation. Earlier this year, he encouraged states to ignore the rule and not submitcompliance plans at all, forcing the EPA to write its own plans for the states.
The strategy regarding multi-state agreements is the brainchild of Neil Chatterjee, a top adviser to McConnell for energy and environmental policy.
Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA assistant administration for air pollution, said he had not heard an argument regarding the multi-state provision of the law.
“It looks like they’re kind of blindsided by this,” he said of the EPA. “And I do think it creates some big problems for EPA.”
Holmstead, who now represents energy companies as a partner at Bracewell and Giuliani, said the EPA “didn’t seem to have given any thought to this provision,” since it wasn’t mentioned in the proposed rule.
While McConnell’s argument had not received high-profile attention before, it is not new. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality brought it up in comments it sent to the EPA last year, and the Clean Air Task Force refuted it in its own arguments.
Jamie Van Nostrand, an environmental law professor at the West Virginia University College of Law, said McConnell’s point has no merit.
He cited the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an existing agreement among Northeastern states to cut their carbon pollution.
Those states work together voluntarily on individual states plans, which is allowed under the Clean Air Act, not a federally binding compact.
“I don’t think states voluntarily proceeding under a multi-state compliance strategy by collectively adopting model statutes/regulations, as the RGGI states did, would run afoul of Section 120(c),” he said.
David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, cited the same group of states to refute McConnell.
“They did not make a compact and thus would not need any congressional approval when they submit plans to EPA,” he said.
But Holmstead said that would be problematic, because the EPA’s climate rule — as it was proposed last year — would require that states’ compliance plans be binding and enforceable by the federal government.
“EPA might try to come up with some way to get around 102(c), but I think that just creates more legal problems, because they said all along that it has to be federally enforceable,” Holmstead said.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said that the agency is working to figure out in its final rule this summer how it can enable and encourage multi-state agreements.
“Thanks in part to comments we received on the proposal, we are considering a variety of ways that states and utilities can realize flexibility through multi-state compliance strategies,” she said.
-
Okla. Governor Signs Order in Opposition to EPA Carbon Plan
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) issued an executive order this week to prevent her state from submitting a plan to implement U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Fallin, in a Tuesday news release, said her order was intended to show that "Oklahoma has no intention of implementing new regulations that run directly contrary to the interests of our citizens and our state." She said efforts against "bad policy" would be fought in court.
"President Obama and the EPA are fighting a politically charged war against utility consumers across the country," Fallin said in a statement. "While the environmental benefits of these regulations will be minimal, the economic devastation of these overreaching and unrealistic regulations will be very real."
The Clean Power Plan, which still is being finalized, seeks a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Targets vary by state, and certain interim goals could begin in 2020.
EPA is following its mission in seeking to protect communities from harmful pollution, according to an emailed statement yesterday from Johnson Bridgwater, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club. He took aim at Fallin's order, saying Oklahoma could seize its energy future and touting the potential of renewable options such as wind.
Yet, "without a state implementation plan, Governor Fallin will force the EPA to swoop in and create a federal solution for our state," Bridgwater said. "And while Oklahoma and some other states are pushing back against the EPA, it is important to note that many states are fully backing what the EPA is doing at the state level."
Oklahoma lawmakers also have advanced legislation -- S.B. 676 -- that would, among other items, require that the state's attorney general review any proposed state plan to see whether it meets state and federal laws.
Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, this week praised the state Senate's passage of the bill, saying it would help ensure decisions about generating electricity are made by state officials. He said he looked forward to the governor's signature on the legislation.
"With the passage of this bill, the state of Oklahoma is sending a clear signal that we will not comply with the EPA's unlawful Clean Power Plan," Pruitt said in a statement. "That proposed rule is an attempt by the federal government to take control over electric power systems in the states. States should not be forced to comply with this unlawful rule, which is already being challenged in court by Oklahoma and other states."
In her executive order, Fallin said she previously directed the state to submit comments opposing EPA's plan. She said attorneys general in multiple states have discussed potential legal defects that could invalidate the carbon proposal.
"If the Clean Power Plan is adopted in 2015, and Attorneys General are correct in their legal analysis, the EPA has exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide," Fallin said in her order.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, speaking last week at IHS CERAWeek in Houston, defended the carbon plan and said the rule would be delivered this summer and have "no constitutional defect." She also said EPA had been reviewing comments about the proposal, including on interim goals that some have said are too aggressive (EnergyWire, April 24).
In an emailed statement yesterday, EPA said the Clean Power Plan was built on a "state-federal partnership" set up by Congress decades ago, citing the Clean Air Act. EPA talked of giving "states important flexibility to design plans that meet their individual and unique needs."
Fallin's executive order indicated she prohibited the Department of Environmental Quality from starting efforts to develop a state implementation plan on carbon emissions in response to a finalization of the Clean Power Plan. Such a plan could take "untold" amounts of time and finances, she said in the order.
Developing a plan could happen only if it's found to be necessary by the state's attorney general or a "court of competent jurisdiction," according to the document. Fallin said there would need to be written authority of the governor.
If EPA's plan is finalized, Fallin said the attorney general is to review it and publish a white paper on the legal efficacy of the regulation. She also requested the attorney general take necessary action in enforcing the rights of Oklahoma in relation to federal action that may affect the "freedoms of its people."
The Texas Public Policy Foundation applauded Fallin's order in an emailed statement yesterday, saying the carbon proposal could increase costs and hurt state economies.
"Oklahoma recognizes the EPA's Clean Power Plan edict for what it is: a power grab," said Doug Domenech, director of the Fueling Freedom Project at the foundation.
-
States, Greens Defend EPA Against Latest Push to Block Carbon Regs
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Eleven states and environmental groups yesterday pushed back on assertions from challengers to U.S. EPA's proposed greenhouse gas power plant standards that recent comments by Administrator Gina McCarthy warrant blocking the rule from finalization.
Led by New York, the coalition was responding to a letter sent by more than a dozen states and industry groups last Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit highlighting recent remarks by McCarthy, including some on Twitter.
The challengers -- more than a dozen states and several industry parties -- are asking the D.C. Circuit to issue an "extraordinary writ" to block EPA from finalizing the Clean Power Plan this summer. The proposed rule would cut the country's carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 and dramatically shift the country away from coal-based electricity.
Courts typically don't entertain challenges to rules before they are finalized. A main contention of the challengers in this case, however, is that EPA has already made up its mind about its legal footing to promulgate the final rule.
McCarthy's recent remark on Twitter that EPA is "committed to reducing carbon pollution," the challengers said, is an example of "unprecedented and audacious behavior" (Greenwire, April 27).
Eleven states, the District of Columbia, New York City and groups like the Environmental Defense Fund supporting EPA said the challengers' arguments are "erroneous" and provide no basis for the court to take the "unprecedented judicial action of halting an ongoing rule making."
The challengers, they said, "provide no precedent for disregarding the governing statute, which authorizes rule makings only after the administrative process is completed."
"Until then, no lawful basis exists for judicial intervention."
At oral arguments in the case earlier this month, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel appeared reluctant to step in before the rule is finalized. But two judges did appear concerned about whether EPA's legal underpinnings for the rule had already crystallized and, consequently, the agency was turning the ongoing public comment period into a "sham" (Greenwire, April 16).
Click here for the letter.
-
This Isn’t Your Normal Bill to Gut the EPA
Apr 30, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Plenty of Republicans hate the Environmental Protection Agency and want to gut its climate change programs and regulatory offices. Texas Republican Rep. Sam Johnson doesn't want to stop there. He's introduced a bill to wipe out the whole agency.
Johnson's bill introduced this week would eliminate funding for the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from power plants, the centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate plan, plus the regulation of emissions from vehicles. It would also wipe out the greenhouse gas reporting program. And the agency's environmental justice work. And climate research, regulation of ozone, the clean diesel campaign and all EPA grant programs.
That's on top of closing all of the EPA's 10 regional field offices and leasing or selling all of the agency's underutilized properties.
"As a fiscal conservative, I believe Washington should be respectful of taxpayers' dollars and live within its means," Johnson said in a statement. "American taxpayers certainly don't need to be paying for the EPA's empty and unused buildings and its wasteful programs."
Citing the Heritage Foundation, Johnson said the "Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act" would save taxpayers more than $7.5 billion over the next decade.
Although House Republicans are expected to chip away at funding for the agency's power plant rule and other climate efforts, Johnson's bill isn't a likely framework they'll follow. The House Appropriations Committee has proposed a more modest $246 million cut in the top-line budget figures for the EPA and Department of Interior, setting aside $30.17 billion for its interior and environment bill.
An EPA spokesman declined to comment on the potential impact of the bill.
-
Sanders Launches White House Bid, Vows to 'Transform Our Energy System'
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) declared his bid today for the Democratic presidential nomination, calling for a "political revolution" as he kicks off a longshot bid for the White House.
Sanders, 73, joined a race already dominated by expected front-runner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and which could include a handful of other contenders.
The independent lawmaker, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, confirmed his plans to run in interviews yesterday with the Associated Press and other news outlets, before issuing a statement today and hosting a press conference on Capitol Hill.
"I am running for President of the United States because America needs a political revolution," Sanders said in his statement. "We need a government which represents all of us, and not just a handful of billionaires. In this campaign we won't have the support of the big-money interests, Wall Street or the military-industrial complex. That's why I need you to join me in an unprecedented grass-roots effort."
During his afternoon press conference, Sanders -- who acknowledged his "unusual political history" as Congress' longest-serving independent -- addressed the fact that he enters the race as a likely underdog against Clinton, even as he sets up a fight for the party's liberal wing.
"We are in this race to win," said Sanders, disputing whether his goal is merely to highlight issues that he has worked on for much of his congressional career.
"The question is if you raise the issues that are on the hearts and minds of the American people, if you try to put together a movement which says we have got to stand together as a people and say that this Capitol, this beautiful Capitol, our country belongs to all of us and not the billionaire class, that's not raising an issue, that is winning elections," Sanders said. "That's where the American people are."
He also spent much of his time criticizing the influence of millionaire donors like the GOP backers David and Charles Koch, and the requirement for candidates to raise millions of dollars to win bids for office.
"I wonder now in this day and age whether it is possible for any candidate who is not beholden to the billionaire class to run successful campaigns," Sanders said.
Echoing his tenure in the Senate and eight terms in the House, Sanders revealed he will continue to rail against corporations and the wealthy in his presidential bid, while focusing his campaign on how to improve standards for the middle class and address the nation's growing income inequality.
"The American people must demand that Congress and the White House start protecting the interests of working families, not just wealthy campaign contributors," Sanders said in a statement posted to his campaign website, BernieSanders.com. "We need federal legislation to put the unemployed back to work, to raise wages and make certain that all Americans have the health care and education they need for healthy and productive lives."
Sanders' campaign said it will focus on 12 initiatives targeting areas, including infrastructure, climate change policy, tax reform, health care, trade policies, the minimum wage, union growth and expanding entitlement programs.
"The United States must lead the world in tackling climate change and make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren," Sanders wrote about his plans for addressing climate change policies. "We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient and we need to greatly accelerate the progress we are already seeing in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other forms of sustainable energy."
In addition to Sanders and Clinton, the Democratic field could also include former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who announced an exploratory committee earlier this month, as well as former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.
Republicans are expected to host a more contentious primary and have already drawn a trio of candidates, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is expected to wade into the campaign later this summer, and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson is expected to launch his bid next week. Many others are also likely to join the fray.
-
Pass the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act | Commentary
Apr 30, 2015 | Roll Cal
By Nathan J. Diament and Kent Johnson
As the East Coast recovers from a brutally cold winter and turns the corner toward summer, families naturally think of the costs they had to bear to heat their homes and will again face as the mercury rises. And, while most people don’t think about this, the same cost consideration is true for many nonprofit organizations throughout the country. These organizations serve our communities on lean budgets – always striving to keep administrative costs to a bare minimum. But one persistent drain that always seems to divert resources away from their missions is the cost of energy. There is bipartisan legislation in the Senate and introduced in the House to aid nonprofits in making their buildings more energy efficient and thus reduce their operating costs.
Nonprofit organizations play a large role in our communities, providing social welfare, educational, recreational, and communal services, among other things. Think of our nation’s nonprofit hospitals, museums, YMCAs and houses of worship. Despite the diversity of services provided and populations served, the one common denominator they all (or most) share is the use of a physical building. And besides keeping the lights on, these buildings must be warmed in the winter and cooled in the summer. Unfortunately, many of our nonprofit buildings are old, drafty, and poorly insulated, or just use energy-guzzling heating and cooling systems, leading to unnecessarily high operational costs.
According to the EPA, nonresidential buildings in the United States consume more than $200 billion annually in energy costs. Among those many buildings are this country’s 2,700 YMCAs, 2,900 nonprofit hospitals, 17,000 museums and more than 370,000 houses of worship. Looking just at the houses of worship–the EPA, based on its “Green Congregations” project, estimates that these entities could cut their energy use – and costs – by one third through energy efficiency improvements. If America’s houses of worship cut their energy use by just 10 percent, the EPA estimates that would save 1.8 billion kWh of electricity and 1.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to the emissions of 240,000 cars.
While the long-term gain is clear, finding the resources to fund these capital improvements is not. Aside from slashing costs across the board, community charities have little wiggle room to update their heating and cooling systems—projects that can cost in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. For charities, the hurdle of these front end costs can be hard, to nearly impossible, to surmount. Since community charities provide services, they cannot just raise the prices of the latest widget—nor can they take on this level of debt—to finance these projects.
A corporate enterprise would enjoy tax credits for making a smart capital improvement to save energy costs. Under the current tax structure, however, nonprofits are ineligible to receive similar benefits.
Thankfully, Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Hoeven, R-N.D., have stepped in to help solve this dilemma. Together with four of their colleagues representing both parties, they introduced a bill that would help nonprofits make building upgrades that improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs – Senate Bill 600, the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act of 2015.
Klobuchar rightfully noted that nonprofits are tax-exempt entities and therefore cannot benefit from many energy support programs because the programs are often structured in the form of tax credits. “The Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act would create a grant program to assist nonprofit organizations, including schools, hospitals, faith-based organizations, and youth centers, improve the energy efficiency of their buildings and generate renewable energy,” she explained.
The Act will enable America’s schools, youth centers, houses of worship, hospitals, YMCAs, museums, etc. to reduce their operating costs, lessen the impact on the environment and bolster America’s energy independence. Under the proposal, nonprofits could apply for grants for up to 50 percent of the total cost of the energy efficiency program for their buildings, up to a cap of $200,000.
Right here in Washington, D.C., Kesher Israel Congregation, an Orthodox synagogue, faced an emergency situation when its 80-year-old heating system broke down in August without warning. The community was forced to raise $100,000 to replace the heating system immediately, or face the possibility of closing its doors for the winter. While the synagogue’s members and supporters rallied to raise this money, think of the larger costs—beyond the financial – that synagogues and all houses of worship encounter when examining their decades-old heating and cooling systems. The notion that a failing heating system could cause a synagogue, church, mosque, etc. to close its doors is simply unacceptable. If passed, the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act would help houses of worship address this problem before it escalates anywhere near that level of concern.
YMCAs are also a good example of how this bill will benefit not only nonprofits, but the communities they serve. Currently, a Y in Norfolk, Nebraska, is launching a capital campaign to improve its facility. A majority of these funds will be allocated to replacing the Y’s aging infrastructure, including decades-old air-handling equipment. Conversion to new, energy efficient units, systems and controls–such as those this bill will promote – will reduce utility consumption by an estimated 50 percent. By reducing its cost for fuel, the Y can instead use these funds for much-needed programs and services for youth and families. Of the nation’s 2,700 YMCAs, newer facilities, or older ones that have retro-fitted energy systems, are able to allocate 50 percent fewer dollars of their budgets to operating costs and put that money right back into their mission work – a win for the Y and a win for the community.
Put another way, imagine all the amazing benefits communities and families could reap if our country’s hospitals, museums, youth centers, YMCAs, houses of worship—this list could go on and on—could invest 50 percent more of their available funds to programs, education, services, etc.
By helping nonprofits become energy efficient, the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act would not only benefit the environment and the economy, but would help communities throughout the country in many other ways as well. We applaud Klobuchar and Hoeven for their leadership on this issue and urge the Senate, and subsequently the House, to pass this important legislation.
Nathan J. Diament is executive director for public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; Kent Johnson is chief operating officer of YMCA of the USA.
-
Senators Target Obama’s Water Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Thursday to force the Obama administration to try again in its regulatory effort to define the federal government’s power over streams, wetlands and other waterways.
The legislative effort goes further than previous Republican-led attempts to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waters of the United States rule, giving the agency specific instructions and a deadline for how it should write a new rule.
Republicans and centrist Democrats backing the bill by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said it would strike the right balance in defining the federal government’s jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
“The legislation basically gives the EPA the direction that I believe it needs to write a reasonable rule that will truly protect America’s navigable waterways and adjacent wetlands,” Barrasso said at a Thursday news conference unveiling the bill.
“By striking the right balance, we’re going to keep our waterways safe and pristine, and allow them to be used as natural resources,” he said.
Barrasso was joined by Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.).
A staffer for Heitkamp said the bill was the result of months of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans.
The EPA’s rule, which it plans to make final this spring, aims to establish the agency’s authority after two Supreme Court cases made it unclear which waterways are covered. The Army Corps of Engineers, which is also responsible for the Clean Water Act, is working with the EPA.
While the agencies say the rule would not significantly add to their jurisdiction, Republicans, some Democrats, farmers and other businesses have called it a massive land grab that would include ditches, puddles, isolated ponds and dry creek beds.
Landowners could have to get permits for a variety of activities if their waters are under EPA authority.
“There is not one single federal regulation in the entire country that has caused more concern in the state of North Dakota than this Waters of the United States proposed regulation,” Heitkamp said. “There is incredible uncertainty out there.”
The legislation acknowledges that although the Clean Water Act instructs the federal government to protect “navigable” waters, its authority has to extend to tributary streams, wetlands and other areas.
But the senators accused the EPA of trying to protect wildlife habitats with its rule, along with other provisions that have no connection to stopping water pollution.
“Instead of focusing on water pollution, they claim they have jurisdiction through providing habitat to bird, animals and insects,” Inhofe said.
An aide to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Inhofe chairs, said the sponsors did not estimate how much more or less water would be covered under the bill because it is not a comprehensive plan.
It also requires the EPA to consult with certain stakeholders and local officials.
“This is something that both parties can get behind, by focusing on common-sense principles to shape a final rule and requiring straightforward procedures the EPA skipped the first time,” Donnelly said.
“It isn’t designed to destroy or delay the rule indefinitely,” he said. “In fact, our bill asks the EPA not to put off this important work, to complete it by Dec. 31, 2016.”
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia declined to comment on the bill.
Green groups, though, immediately blasted the proposal and said it would be a major step backward in protecting water.
“These precious bodies of water filter pollution, prevent flooding, feed prized fishing grounds and help supply the drinking water systems of one in three Americans,” Jon Devine, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Such critical resources need more protection — not less.
Devine also accused the senators of prematurely passing judgment on the EPA’s rule, because it hasn’t been released publicly yet.
“It is simply unacceptable that certain members of Congress are trying to stop the EPA from issuing science-based protections for our water,” said Madeleine Foote, a lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters.
“Americans have shown that clean water is one of their top environmental concerns and that they trust the EPA, not Congress, to protect the health of their families.”
Updated at 12:38 p.m.
-
Senate Bill Aims to Lure Dems Unhappy with Obama Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
Senate critics of President Obama's hot-button water rule unveiled legislation today that would send U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers back to the drawing board.
The bipartisan "Federal Water Quality Protection Act" was crafted with hopes of wooing moderate Democrats who've been getting an earful on the rule back home but are reluctant to oppose the president.
Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) filed S. 1140 with the backing of Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia and eight Republican co-sponsors, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
The bill would require the agencies to propose a new rule defining which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. The law's reach has been muddled for 15 years by two confusing Supreme Court decisions.
Under the legislation, the new rule would have to adhere to a series of principles relating to what types of waters can and cannot be covered, and what types of factors can be used to justify federal oversight. The measure would also require that the proposal be subject to a broader range of regulatory reviews than the current rule went through, including ones for impacts on small businesses and unfunded mandates.
"We've been working together for months on dealing with this, and we've introduced a bill that we believe is a strong and a bipartisan bill that's going to protect American waterways and American farmers, ranchers and landowners," Barrasso said at a Capitol Hill press conference.
He said the bill will go through committee consideration and markup but that he did not know if floor time had yet been secured.
Democratic co-sponsors of the bill emphasized that they did not think the issue should be partisan.
"I believe that this is an effort for Congress to do what Congress ought to do when we have this kind of controversy, which is step in, provide guidance, be respectful in terms of where the boundaries are, but do our job in helping contain and define where regulation should go and where regulation shouldn't go," Heitkamp said.
Groups opposing the current rule came out in force for the new Senate measure this morning. More than 80 agricultural groups signed onto a letter of support, and American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman thanked lawmakers in a statement for "paving the way to safeguard both farmers and their land."
The Waters Advocacy Coalition -- a coalition of a wide array of industries opposing the rule -- also back the new bill, as do groups of local leaders that have been concerned by the regulatory proposal, including the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Conservation groups staunchly oppose the bill.
"After nearly 15 years of Clean Water Act confusion, and just weeks away from a final rule that could put this issue to rest, Congress continues to look for every way to snatch this opportunity away from sportsmen at the eleventh hour," said Jimmy Hague with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership by email. "Kicking the can further down the road is unnecessary and counterproductive, yet that's just what the Senate bill does."
The agencies sent the final rule to the White House earlier this month for interagency review and are hoping to release it before summer.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has acknowledged that the proposed rule's rollout was rocky but has said that the final rule contains changes that will address stakeholders' top concerns. She and groups backing the rule have urged lawmakers to wait to act until they see the final rule.
But co-sponsors of the new bill say it would not delay efforts to clear up confusion over Clean Water Act jurisdiction and point to language in the bill that says agency leaders "shall use best efforts" to publish a final rule by the end of 2016.
Backers of the current rule say those deadlines would be nearly impossible to meet, though, and once presidential campaigns hit full swing later this year, substantive regulatory work is likely to grind to a halt. A rule proposed at the end of the Obama term could also be more vulnerable to Congressional Review Act disapproval.Can they get to 67?
The new Senate measure is the latest and leading of a number of percolating legislative efforts on the water rule.
The House voted last year for legislation to kill the current rule and is slated to vote tomorrow on its energy and water spending bill, which contains a provision to block it. The lower chamber could also vote before the end of the week on a measure from authorizers to send the federal agencies back to the drawing board on the water rule.
Both measures are expected to pass.
But in the Senate, voting margins are tighter. A test vote on an amendment to the Senate's budget resolution in March signaled that the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster could be within reach, but Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who made what could have been the 60th vote on that vaguely worded resolution has not committed either way on the overall issue.
Opponents of the rule hope that the fact that the new Senate measure has two original Democratic co-sponsors and encourages a new regulation to be issued within the Obama administration could woo Klobuchar and potentially other moderate Democrats.
But even if the legislation were to pass, the Obama administration has signaled that the president would veto it. Donnelly said this morning that the 67 votes to overcome a presidential veto may not be too far to stretch.
"When you look at this, when you see that this is an effort not to zing anybody, but an effort to make the lives of the community better, sure, there's no reason we can't hit that number," he said.
Many expect the appropriations process will be the most likely avenue for opponents of the rule, though. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is leading efforts on that front.
While the Obama administration called out the provision to block the water rule in its veto threat for the House spending measure currently on the floor, priorities could become more complicated in negotiations over a full appropriations package. If opponents of the water rule were to deliver a strong vote on the Senate measure introduced today, that could offer powerful leverage in later appropriations negotiations.
-
Gov. Brown Prepares State to Cut Greenhouse Gases by 40% by 2030; Oil Industry Vows a Fight
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern and Debra Kahn
Climate change is a severe threat that transcends day-to-day political issues and must be tackled aggressively, California Gov. Jerry Brown said here yesterday as he promoted his executive order seeking a 40 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2030.
"There's nothing as serious as the possibility of fundamentally and radically altering the conditions of human existence in a profoundly detrimental way," the Democrat told people gathered at the Navigating the American Carbon World conference. "That's the stakes. They couldn't be bigger."
Brown yesterday morning ordered the cut in heat-trapping pollution to a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels within 15 years. That would put the state halfway to its goal of by 2050 getting carbon levels 80 percent below 1990's point.
Environmentalists and renewable energy advocates lavished praise on Brown's move. Some analysts said it would create the certainty needed for investments in new energy technologies, including more power storage. An oil industry trade group said the governor's action prompted many questions. It noted that in January, Brown said he wanted to halve the state's petroleum consumption and achieve 50 percent renewable energy by 2030.
"What do you do, take 23 million cars" now driving on California roads "and cut that in half?" said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of oil industry trade group Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Even if half the drivers switch to electric vehicles, she questioned whether there will be enough charging infrastructure.
Ken Alex, director of the state's Office of Planning and Research and a senior policy adviser to Brown, said major changes would be needed to accomplish the governor's goal.
"Look, this is 40 percent," Alex said while speaking on a panel at the Navigating the American Carbon World conference. "Think about your day and the greenhouse gas emissions that are related to things that you do." It will affect "pretty much every sector," he said, although as 75 percent of emissions come from the transportation and energy worlds, that would be a focus.Setting a 'high bar' ahead of Paris talks
The machinery needed to put the order into action is already gearing up. California agencies with jurisdiction -- including the Air Resources Board, Energy Commission and Public Utilities Commission -- have been told to launch their processes for enacting administrative policies, Alex said. The first step often is holding workshops with the public.
Brown is also talking with the Legislature. While there's existing authority to roll out paths to the 40 percent cut, "we may need additional" clout, Alex said.
The governor said that meeting the 40 percent greenhouse gas cut would "require creative responses on the part of industry, agriculture, energy, government, local and state."
"I've set a very high bar, but it's a bar we must meet," Brown added. "It's a bar not only for California, but it's a goal for other states, for the United States as a whole and for nations around the world. California is now setting the pace, and we're very serious about it."
Brown's announcement took place as California prepares for what it hopes will be a significant role this fall at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris.
California is uniting with other subnational governments in an effort to gain more recognition at the U.N. climate talks for their policies. Alex said yesterday that on May 19, the alliance will release a list of the founding signatories to the "Below 2 MOU pledge."
That pact seeks to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, generally agreed upon by scientists as needed to stave off environmental catastrophe. Developed countries in the subnationals agreement would pledge to keep their emissions to no more than 2 tons per year by 2050.
Each subnational government that joins the group also will lay out what it will be doing in the 2030 time period, Alex said.
"Very few folks are looking to Washington, D.C., for leadership on the issue of climate," state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D) said yesterday when he and Brown spoke at the the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles. "California as a subnational will have a leading role in Paris."Pressure groups prepare for battle
In California, groups already were forming plans to help shape future emissions rules.
Reheis-Boyd, with the oil group WSPA, said that the Legislature needs to be involved in decisionmaking on a greenhouse gas emissions cutback target.
"Who's going to get the phone calls," she asked, "from constituents" that likely would be hardest hit, like those in the San Joaquin Valley already suffering amid high unemployment? WSPA, as well, will be talking to lawmakers on the issue, she said.
"We're going to work in this space, obviously, with the governor and the Legislature," said Reheis-Boyd. "You are going to hear us really looking at timing, cost-effectiveness, feasibility, all of those basic core things that have to happen for this to be successful."
Sierra Club California Director Kathryn Phillips said Californians could meet the new goal by "cutting our dependence on carbon-based fuels -- natural gas, oil and coal -- to produce electricity and move vehicles."
"Now it is up to the Legislature to help put policies in place this year that will further advance renewable energy, zero-emission vehicles and greater energy efficiency to make sure we can more than meet the 2030 goals," Phillips said.New bills back 2030 target
In Sacramento yesterday, lawmakers heard disagreements about a bill to set the 2030 greenhouse gas target and another one to mandate electricity, petroleum and building efficiency measures to achieve the goal.
S.B. 32, by Sen. Fran Pavley (D), and S.B. 350, from De León, both passed out of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
S.B. 32 would, like its 2006 predecessor A.B. 32, authorize the California Air Resources Board to set greenhouse gas targets from a 1990 base line. The bill would authorize the creation of targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050.
A separate bill by De León, S.B. 350, would mandate a 50 percent renewable portfolio standard, a halving of petroleum use and a doubling of existing buildings' energy efficiency by 2030.
Industry representatives faulted both bills for their lack of specificity, criticizing S.B. 32 for omitting any mention of a cap-and-trade program, the emissions market that forms the backbone of the current set of emissions-cutting regulations.
"In A.B. 32, there was a substantial debate and discussion around whether they should have a market-based mechanism," said Eloy Garcia, a lobbyist for oil group WSPA. "We shouldn't forget that."
Garcia also said it is too early to declare the existing regulations an economic success, as some studies have done. "We haven't met the first compliance period," Garcia said. "To sit here and say it's been a wild success is like taking out a huge loan and saying, 'I haven't made a payment yet, but I took out a loan.'"
Most recently, the nonprofit Next 10 issued a report on Tuesday finding that while emissions will have to decline twice as steeply through 2050 as they are projected to through 2020, California can still create a million additional jobs by then. It also notes that the state's economy is projected to have more than doubled by 2020 from 1990 levels, even as emissions are on track to reach 1990 levels.
The consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics projected earlier this month that the state's goals will cost households $8 to $14 per month on average in 2030, in 2012 dollars.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested