Preview Newsletter
ACC AM May 1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics-To-Oil Not Out To Compete With Traditional Recycling Stream
Apr 30, 2015 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Plastics-to-oil technologies should not be considered a competition to traditional plastic recycling, according to people who make a living in that field. Cynar plc, RES Polyflow and Agilyx Corp. are three firms that are on the forefront of the plastics-to-oil industry, and representatives of all three agree that their companies look to... -
(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices Drop Again as PS Climbs
Apr 30, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for polypropylene and polystyrene resins traveled different paths in April, with PP prices dropping and PS rising. PP prices in the region fell an average of 4 cents per pound in April. Prices for propylene monomer fell by 6 cents, but sources said that PP makers were able to limit the resin price slide to 4 cents, holding... -
(ACC Mentioned) Quality Distribution, Inc. Announces Dates for First Quarter 2015 Earnings Release and Conference Call
Apr 30, 2015 | Nasdaq
Quality Distribution, Inc. (Nasdaq:QLTY) ("Quality" or the "Company"), a North American logistics and transportation provider with market leading businesses, today announced that the Company will release its first quarter ended March 31, 2015 results after the market closes on Wednesday, May 6, 2015. Quality will host a conference call for... -
(ACC Mentioned) Commonly Used Chemicals Come Under New Scrutiny
May 1, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Rachel Abrams
A top federal health official and hundreds of environmental scientists on Friday voiced new health concerns about a common class of chemicals used in products as varied as pizza boxes and carpet treatments. The concerted public campaign renews a years-old debate about a class of chemicals known as poly- and ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Tom Udall Tries To Fix The Nation's Toxic Chemicals Law
Apr 30, 2015 | High Country News
By Elizabeth Shogren
New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall thought he was stepping into the footsteps of his father, conservation giant Stewart Udall, when he agreed to broker a bipartisan bill to fix the country’s broken toxic chemicals law. That bill is now gaining momentum, a rare feat in the highly partisan climate in Washington. Four Democrats joined all ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Minnesota Firefighters Seek Action On Stalled Flame Retardant Bill
Apr 30, 2015 | Minneapolis Star Tribune
By Abby Simmons
An effort by Minnesota firefighters to ban flame-retardant chemicals they blame for higher cancer rates within their ranks is stalled at the Legislature, where House leaders have been reluctant to act. “The longer we wait, the more firefighters are going to be at risk, the more firefighters are going to contract cancer, and eventually they die,” said St.... -
(ACC Mentioned) Firefighters Push To Ban Flame Retardants In Minnesota
May 1, 2015 | KARE
By John Croman
Firefighters put on a dramatic demonstration Thursday as part of a push to ban flame retardants in Minnesota. They set a sofa on fire at St. Paul's fire training center, and invited the media to watch how quickly acrid smoke fills the spaces firefighters often inhabit. It was part of an effort to add momentum to legislation that has stalled out in the ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Pro-Foam Coaltion Sues City to Overturn Ban on Styrofoam Containers
Apr 30, 2015 | New York Eater
By Marguerite Preston
Early this year, Mayor Bill DeBlasio signed off on a law that will ban New York City businesses from using styrofoam takeout containers, set to go into effect July 1. As that date draws near, a coalition of styrofoam manufacturers, restaurant owners, and recycling businesses have banded together to get that decision overturned. -
(ACC Mentioned) Boulder Brands adds How2Recycle Label
Apr 30, 2015 | Recycling Today
Boulder Brands), a natural consumer packaged food company headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, has joined the How2Recycle Label program. The program is a project of GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC), Charlottesville, Virginia. Boulder Brands joins more than 35 How2Recycle members, which GreenBlue says are... -
Observers See TSCA Bill Movement As ‘Huge’ Step But Questions Remain
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Congress watchers are touting the Senate environment committee’s passage of a bipartisan compromise bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as a “huge” accomplishment toward amending the decades-old law, but acknowledge that questions remain, including what happens with a separate TSCA reform effort in the House. -
White House Completes Review of EPA's Final Underground Storage Tank Revisions
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The White House Office of Management and Budget completed its review of a final Environmental Protection Agency rule revising underground storage tank requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act on April 29. As proposed, the rule would require backup containment systems for certain tanks, expand tank owner and operator... -
Senate Republicans, Industry Official Rip BLM Rule
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management's final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing at thousands of oil and gas wells across the West is a "solution in search of a problem." Those were the words of at least two Republican senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining at a hearing yesterday that... -
Vote on Murkowski Measure to Repeal Ban on Oil Exports Unlikely, Corker Says
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A measure to repeal the 40-year-old ban on oil exports filed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is “unlikely” to receive a vote, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told Bloomberg BNA April 30. “I don't think she's ready for a vote on that,” said Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is managing the Iran sanctions bill (H.R. 1191). -
Critics of Fracking Rule for Federal Lands Predict Delays, Higher Costs, Lost Activity
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The new federal rule to update regulations on oil and gas operations using hydraulic fracturing will impose delays and higher costs that will drive more work away from federal lands, witnesses and Republican senators suggested during an April 30 hearing. “It will inevitably lead to delays in the permitting process for operators without increasing... -
Gas Companies to Ask Court for Re-Argument of Fracking Lease Case
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Inflection Energy LLC will ask New York's highest court May 18 to allow it to re-argue a case that allowed leases between it and other oil and gas companies and certain New York landowners to expire. The Denver company is asking the New York Court of Appeals to reconsider a March 31 decision that said the “force majeure” provisions in ... -
Gas Emissions From Fracking Operations Drift Hundreds of Miles, Study Suggests
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Natural gas emissions from hydraulic fracturing operations are the likely explanation for increased detection of ethane gas in air monitoring stations hundreds of miles downwind of the operations, according to a new study published in the journal Atmospheric Environment. Air monitoring stations set up decades ago near Baltimore and... -
Democratic Senator Files Bill To Block Obama Air Gun Plan
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) today will unveil a bill to block Obama administration plans to consider allowing seismic testing off the coast of Florida, an activity Nelson warned is a first step toward oil and gas drilling. Nelson said drilling off Florida's eastern seaboard would be "unwise and impractical" and would interfere with military operations... -
Trick to Dodging Keystone XL Woes In Pipeline Projects: Pledge No Oil
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Penty
Canada's energy industry may have figured out how to build a pipeline without the uproar that stalled Keystone XL: promise it will never carry oil. Plans to transport natural gas to multibillion-dollar shipping terminals proposed by the likes of Royal Dutch Shell Plc are winning favor in British Columbia as TransCanada Corp. and other pipeline builders... -
Steyer Expects Clinton To Oppose Keystone XL, Focus On Climate
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Last year, climate activist and mega-donor Tom Steyer said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would benefit from a Democratic primary challenger if she were to run for president. "Being forced to refine what you say and think is a good thing," Steyer told MSNBC in September. That's why the news that Steyer would host a Clinton fundraiser in... -
McConnell Tactic Unlikely to Block Interstate Trading Programs Under Clean Power Plan
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
An obscure provision of the Clean Air Act cited by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is unlikely to deter states from joining emissions trading programs to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, legal experts said. Section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act, which requires congressional approval of... -
Mcconnell: States Need My Approval To Collaborate On Carbon Rule
Apr 30, 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... -
Whitfield Looks For Swift Floor Vote On Opt-Out Bill, Hopes For Dems' Support
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Disappointed that his bill that would let states opt out of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan failed to get any Democratic support in yesterday's Energy and Commerce Committee markup, Rep. Ed Whitfield said today that he expects the measure to see floor action next month. The Kentucky Republican's bill, H.R. 2042, has two Democratic co-sponsors... -
Oklahoma Governor Signs Order Ruling Out Plan for EPA Carbon Rules
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Signaling the second time in a week the state has sought to rebuff federal authority in environmental affairs, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed an executive order declaring that Oklahoma won't file a state implementation plan with the Environmental Protection Agency regulating carbon dioxide emissions produced by Oklahoma power ... -
Oklahoma Takes Aim At Climate Plan
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) and the state Legislature are taking a stand against Obama administration climate rules. Fallin signed an executive order this week saying her state will not comply with a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule setting targets for carbon emission reduction at power plants. Republicans have said... -
DOE to Post More Quadrennial Review Data; Report Urges $15 Billion for Infrastructure
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
More appendices and supporting documents with data collected as part of the White House Quadrennial Energy Report (QER) will be released, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said April 30. The QER, released April 21, recommends more than $15 billion in new spending programs and tax credits to invest in energy transmission, storage and... -
Obama Signs Energy-Efficiency Measure, First Energy Bill Enacted This Congress
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
President Barack Obama signed into law the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 535), which directs federal efforts to increase energy and water efficiency in commercial buildings. “We've made great strides since the beginning of my administration on everything from doubling fuel-efficiency standards on cars to incentivizing... -
Obama Signs Energy Efficiency Bill Into Law
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama on Thursday signed into law a measure that is intended to improve energy efficiency in buildings and stop efficiency rules for certain water heaters. The measure had strong bipartisan support and easily passed the Senate in March and the House in April. It creates new voluntary building efficiency standards and exempts certain... -
Dems Bristle At Regulatory Reforms In Efficiency Legislation
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano and Katherine Ling
Energy efficiency is widely popular, but some provisions Republicans hope to include in a broad energy bill aimed at dialing back some existing policies ran into sharp objections from House Democrats yesterday. The emerging energy bill continued to take shape yesterday in a pair of hearings on either side of the Capitol focused ... -
House Energy Efficiency Bill Draws Opposition From Committee Democrats
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Energy efficiency legislation unveiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee drew opposition from Democrats on the panel, who called into question the majority's quest to keep the bill bipartisan. Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D- N.J.) and other minority members of the committee took issue with provisions in the bill that would... -
EPA Moves to Rescind Some Greenhouse Gas Permits Following Supreme Court Decision
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency in a direct final rule detailed steps that states may take to rescind some greenhouse gas permits in accordance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of the permitting program. The final rule (RIN 2060-AS57), released April 30, does not rescind any prevention of significant... -
EPA Rejects Multiple Bids For Further Reconsideration Of Utility MACT
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has rejected multiple petitions by industry and environmentalists for the agency to again reconsider its utility air toxics rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for power plants, rebuffing an industry assault on its estimates of health risk from mercury and other toxins, and criticisms over a slew of other technical aspects of the... -
EPA Drops Plan Subjecting EOR To CCS Permits Following Critics’ Caution
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Curt Barry
EPA has dropped a controversial plan that would have subjected enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells to strict permits intended for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) operations rather than more relaxed permits for oil and gas operations following industry warnings that the plan would have stymied the sector that is expected to provide a ... -
California Leading Effort to Push Global Activity on Climate Change: Brown Adviser
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California is leading an effort by subnational governments to advance global action on climate change, Ken Alex, a senior policy adviser to Gov. Jerry Brown (D), told a climate change conference. Negotiations are under way to get hundreds of national and subnational governments that are pursuing climate policies to sign agreements to be... -
Senate 'Waters' Bill Outlines Parameters For Revamped EPA Regulation
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Amanda Palleschi
A bipartisan group of senators opposed to EPA's pending final Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule has introduced a bill directing the agency to issue a revised proposal with a specific checklist of which waters can and cannot be covered by a new rule -- seeking to provide more specificity than House legislation aimed at blocking the rule. -
House Kicking Vote On Water Rule To Next Month
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
The House will wait until next month to take up its measure aimed at killing the Obama administration's controversial water rule. House Republican leaders had planned to start consideration of the bill, H.R. 1732, tomorrow but will kick the debate and a final vote to next month, a GOP aide said. -
Brown’s Goals On Water And Climate Change Need Specifics
Apr 30, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
Nine years into a landmark effort to limit climate change, California is poised to push even further by capping emissions ever tighter. It’s part environmental crusade and part political challenge pushed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who is rightly impatient with Washington’s slow pace. The governor, though, needs to supply the crucial specifics on what... -
More Groups Lobbying on Ozone Following EPA Proposal to Revise 2008 Standards
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Lobbying on national ozone standards increased by 184 percent from a year ago, following the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to revise the standards, with 88 groups and companies reporting lobbying on the issue during the first three months of 2015, according to public records. -
Environmentalists Ask Court To Force Recordkeeping In Waste Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists in litigation over EPA's non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) rule, a regulation defining what is “fuel” for use in boilers and what is “waste” to be incinerated, are urging a federal appeals court to force EPA to require industry to keep records to confirm compliance with “self-implementing” exclusions from the waste rule... -
Bill Would Prompt Tank Car Upgrades For Flammable Liquid Transport by Rail
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Seven senators introduced a bill April 30 that would provide companies with incentives to quickly upgrade rail tank cars used to transport flammable liquids, such as crude oil and ethanol. The Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2015 (no bill number assigned), introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)... -
U.S., Canada to Announce Oil Tank Car Standards
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The U.S. and Canada will announce May 1 the new tank car standards for moving flammable liquids via rail, the Transportation Department said. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and Canada Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt will hold a news conference at 10:30 a.m. announcing the tank car standards and other aspects of a pending... -
Most Major Oil, Ethanol Train Derailments Occurred Below FRA-Issued Speed Limit
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Most major domestic crude oil and ethanol train derailments since 2006 have occurred at speeds lower than the Federal Railroad Administration's recently issued speed limits—limits some believe are indicative of what will appear in an upcoming Transportation Department final rule. Despite this fact, the FRA said in its April 17 emergency order...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics-To-Oil Not Out To Compete With Traditional Recycling Stream
Apr 30, 2015 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
Plastics-to-oil technologies should not be considered a competition to traditional plastic recycling, according to people who make a living in that field.
Cynar plc, RES Polyflow and Agilyx Corp. are three firms that are on the forefront of the plastics-to-oil industry, and representatives of all three agree that their companies look to complement existing recycling infrastructure, not replace what’s already firmly established.
“We’re not competing for plastic bottles, things that are readily going to the recycling stream,” said Laura Deeks, environmental manager for London-based Cynar. “We’re really trying to pick up whatever is left over and what would otherwise be landfilled or dumped or incinerated.
“So, I think, in that sense, we’re not competing in the same market,” she said during a panel discussion at the recent Plastics Recycling 2015 conference in Dallas.
“The reality is there’s a lot of plastic out there that needs responsible end-of-life management. And I think these technologies really are for that plastic,” she said. “I would hope that recyclers see us as complementary. We certainly see ourselves as complementary to the recycling industry.”
Todd Pendexter is business development manager for Beaverton, Ore.-based Agilyx, and says the economics of traditional plastic recycling is much different than the plastics-to-oil business.
“I don’t feel we compete at all. I think we enhance the recycling companies’ business,” he said.
That’s because companies like Agylix can provide an outlet for certain types of plastics that traditional recyclers have to accept from their customers but find difficult to manage.
“We really need to acquire our feedstock at a very low cost,” Pendexter said.
That means plastics-to-oil firms often look to divert those hard-to-recycle plastics that would otherwise head to the landfill instead of targeting the higher value materials that traditionally get recycled.
“We take something that nobody wants ... low value plastic and make something everybody needs, ultra-low sulfur diesel,” said Michael Dungan, director of sales and marketing for Akron, Ohio-based RES Polyflow.
Becoming a home for low-value plastics, Pendexter said, works for the waste generator and even recyclers because there’s really no other home for the material other than disposal. And that disposal cost avoidance can be attractive.
Deeks said there certainly are barriers to broad commercialization plastics-to-oil technology. They include a need for a feedstock to be consistent and not overly contaminated, a regulatory bias toward biofuels and renewables, and subsidies granted to fossil fuels and biofuels.
There’s also can be prejudice and misunderstanding of the pyrolysis technology used to convert plastics to oil or simply a lack of awareness, she said.
“Some people associate it with incineration or consider it a disposal technology. But we’re really coming up with a new product that you can then sell,” Deeks said.
“It’s not recycling in the sense that you return it to plastic again. But if you’re still coming up with a valuable commodity, I think it does not deserve to be in the sandbox as landfill or incineration,” she said.
“We take end-of-life plastics, residual plastics that otherwise are not being recycled and that would probably end up being in landfill or being incinerated if they didn’t come to us,” Deeks said.
“We do take the plastic that’s destined for the landfill, so we’re not competing with the recycling markets,” Pendexter said. “That’s one of the points we really wanted to hit home here.”
Cynar, Agilyx and RES Polyflow are all members of the Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance, a group established through the American Chemistry Council to increase awareness of the industry.
ACC estimates the plastics-to-oil business has the potential to be worth up to $9 billion in annual U.S. economic output and could create up to 40,000 jobs.
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices Drop Again as PS Climbs
Apr 30, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for polypropylene and polystyrene resins traveled different paths in April, with PP prices dropping and PS rising.
PP prices in the region fell an average of 4 cents per pound in April. Prices for propylene monomer fell by 6 cents, but sources said that PP makers were able to limit the resin price slide to 4 cents, holding on to the remaining 2 cents for margin improvement.
“Margin expansion is real,” a PP contact in the Midwest U.S. said. “The market is tight and the [PP] industry has high operating rates right now. A lot of resin capacity was taken out during the recession, but now suppliers are close to getting back to reinvestment economics.”
The price drop is the second consecutive monthly drop to hit the PP market, and the fourth in five months. Regional PP prices now are down a net of 24 cents since December, including drops of 10 cents each in December and January.
North American PP demand was strong in the first quarter of 2015, according to the American Chemistry Council. Total sales growth was 7.3 percent vs. the same quarter in 2014, as domestic growth of 9 percent was dampened by a drop of almost 31 percent in export sales.
Looking to May, PP market analyst Scott Newell said that monomer prices are looking to settle flat to slightly down, but he added that resin prices could be flat to up slightly if monomer settles flat and producers push for more margin. Newell is with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas.
In the PS market, prices jumped an average of 5 cents per pound, following a price increase of almost 25 percent for benzene feedstock, which is used to make styrene monomer. Regional PS prices had been flat in March, as a slight increase in benzene prices wasn’t enough to move the needle on resin.
PS resin prices had fallen a total of 11 cents in January and February, including a 9-cent drop that had been pre-announced by PS maker Americas Styrenics.
Benzene prices jumped 51 cents per gallon to $2.59 in April and could see another 30-cent increase in May, according to Robin Chesshier, a PS analyst with RTI. PS makers are seeking an additional 6-cent increase for May in anticipation of this benzene hike.
On the demand side, North American PS sales enjoyed a strong first quarter, growing almost 3 percent, according to ACC. This growth was led by a 6 percent gain in sales of PS into food packaging and food service. That combined end market accounts for more than half of North American PS sales. Regional sales of PS to resellers and compounders also grew 22 percent in the first quarter of 2015.
The PP drop and PS hike are shown on this week’s Plastics News resin pricing chart. PNthis week also is correcting prices for amorphous and crystalline PET and dispersion PVC to reflect price movements seen since early 2013. Prices for APET and CPET are being corrected downward by 18 cents per pound, while dispersion PVC prices will show a 13-cent upward correction.
-
Apr 30, 2015 | Nasdaq
Quality Distribution, Inc. (Nasdaq:QLTY) ("Quality" or the "Company"), a North American logistics and transportation provider with market leading businesses, today announced that the Company will release its first quarter ended March 31, 2015 results after the market closes on Wednesday, May 6, 2015.
Quality will host a conference call for analysts and investors to discuss these results on Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, which can be accessed as follows:
First Quarter Results Conference Call
Toll free dial-in: 888-211-7451
Toll dial-in: 913-981-5518
Passcode: 8062318A live audio webcast of the conference call may be accessed in the Investor Relations section of Quality's website. Copies of the earnings release and other financial information about Quality may also be accessed in the Investor Relations section of Quality's website at www.qualitydistribution.com. The Company regularly posts or otherwise makes available information within the Investor Relations section that may be important to investors.
About Quality
Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, Quality operates the largest chemical bulk logistics network in North America through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Quality Carriers, Inc., and is the largest North American provider of intermodal tank container and depot services through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Boasso America Corporation. Quality also provides logistics and transportation services to the unconventional oil and gas industry through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, QC Energy Resources, Inc. and QC Environmental Services, Inc. Quality's network of independent affiliates and independent owner-operators provides nationwide bulk transportation and related services. Quality is an American Chemistry Council Responsible Care® Partner and is a core carrier for many of the Fortune 500 companies that are engaged in chemical production and processing.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commonly Used Chemicals Come Under New Scrutiny
May 1, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Rachel Abrams
A top federal health official and hundreds of environmental scientists on Friday voiced new health concerns about a common class of chemicals used in products as varied as pizza boxes and carpet treatments.
The concerted public campaign renews a years-old debate about a class of chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs. After studies showed that some PFASs lingered in people’s bodies for years, and appeared to increase the risks of cancer and other health problems, the chemical manufacturer DuPont banned the use of one type of PFAS in its popular Teflon products, and other companies followed suit.
At issue now are replacement chemicals developed by those manufacturers and used in thousands of products, including electronics, footwear, sleeping bags, tents, protective gear for firefighters and even the foams used to extinguish fires.
The companies assert that the alternatives are safe and vehemently contest the scientists’ contentions, pointing to extensive studies conducted in the last decade or so.
But two separate salvos fired on Friday question whether enough research has been done to justify the chemical industry’s confidence in the safety of this crop of PFASs.
“Research is needed to find safe alternatives for all current uses of PFASs,” Linda S. Birnbaum, the head of the national toxicology program for the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote in a commentary piece published Friday in Environmental Health Perspectives. “The question is, should these chemicals continue to be used in consumer products in the meantime, given their persistence in the environment?”
The journal, published by the National Institutes of Health, devoted several pages to the issue, with articles from researchers and from the industry trade group.
A statement signed by 200 international scientists — environmental health experts, toxicologists, epidemiologists and others — urged countries around the world to restrict the use of PFASs.
“We call on the international community to cooperate in limiting the production and use of PFASs,” the statement said.
In a counterpoint, the American Chemistry Council, the industry trade association, argued that the statement ignored the fact that such chemicals use “essential technology for many aspects of modern life,” and that tests, reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency, concluded that these alternatives were safer than the chemicals they were replacing.
The PFAS family of chemicals represents an important part of DuPont’s $34.7 billion in sales last year.
Thomas H. Samples, the company’s head of risk management for the division that manufactures these chemicals, rejected the scientists’ concerns.
“We don’t dismiss the right of folks to debate this,” Mr. Samples said. “But we just believe based on the 10-year history of extensive studies done on the alternatives, that the regulatory agencies have done their job of determining that these things are safe for their intended uses.”Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
This business sector, the fluoro-technology industry, is considerable and reached $19.7 billion in sales in 2013, according to the most recent estimate from the FluoroCouncil, a division of the American Chemistry Council.
This class of chemicals is known for its durability. PFASs have strong water-resistant properties. Cardboard pizza boxes treated with the chemicals, for example, stay sturdy even when grease seeps into them.
But some of these same features worry environmental health specialists because traces of the chemicals linger and have been detected in the bloodstream of a large segment of the population, although typically at low levels. In some cases, detectable levels of the older class chemicals have been declining as major manufacturers have developed alternatives they say are safer.
Some researchers cite lingering concerns about a chemical spill more than a decade ago. The health of residents of Parkersburg, W.Va., is still monitored related to a spill of an older form of PFAS from a nearby chemical plant. A class-action lawsuit accused DuPont, which owned the plant, of knowingly contaminating the residents’ groundwater, and the company faces new accusations, in a separate report being issued Friday by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, that it is not living up to the terms of a court settlement.
Mr. Samples, from DuPont, which is based in Delaware, disputed any suggestion that it was not complying with those terms.
But Dr. Paul Brooks, who helped conduct a study in the West Virginia case that found probable links between the chemical and health issues like thyroid disease and kidney cancer, said DuPont needed to do more to ensure that local residents were participating in the monitoring program. He said he was not convinced that the alternative chemicals that DuPont and other companies were selling would eliminate the health threat.
“When you have something that is a first cousin or brother-in-law to a chemical that we are certain is carcinogenic, you have to somehow prove that it is safe before you use it — that it is not injurious,” he said. “You just have to be cautious.”
Some environmental scientists point to a chemical called GenX as an example of a newer but questionable alternative. Some studies have linked GenX to short-term symptoms like eye and skin irritation in humans, as well as liver damage in animals. Mr. Samples, of DuPont, which manufacturers GenX, said that the tests involved exposing animals to levels so concentrated that they were intended to cause health complications. He also said the chemical was used in industrial settings, not as an ingredient in consumer products.
Still, environmental and health specialists are urging consumers to avoid products containing PFASs “whenever possible.”
“It’s likely they’re going to have some health effects, it just may take us a while to figure out what it is,” said Thomas F. Webster, a professor of environmental health at Boston University’s school of public health who was an author of a paper seeking more scrutiny of PFASs. “It might take five or 10 years to really do the research.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tom Udall Tries To Fix The Nation's Toxic Chemicals Law
Apr 30, 2015 | High Country News
By Elizabeth Shogren
New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall thought he was stepping into the footsteps of his father, conservation giant Stewart Udall, when he agreed to broker a bipartisan bill to fix the country’s broken toxic chemicals law.
That bill is now gaining momentum, a rare feat in the highly partisan climate in Washington. Four Democrats joined all 11 Republicans in the Senate Environment committee this week to send the bill to the full Senate. The bill is designed to give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate and assess the safety of toxic chemicals, such as asbestos, flame retardants and Bisphenol A, better known as BPA. It also gives industry some of what it wants, by limiting regulation of the same chemicals by states.
The legislation won a key endorsement this week from EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. She told Udall in a Senate hearing that she was “pleased” that shortcomings had been fixed. “I am encouraged that we’re moving forward with a bipartisan bill,” she said. Sen. Tom Udall in front of a dry riverbed in Las Cruces, New Mexisco. New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute But rather than bolstering Udall’s reputation as a champion of the environment and public health across the board, his effort has provoked attacks by some environmentalists—and even a fellow Democratic Senator.
“I believe he’s gotten a very raw deal by being characterized as carrying water for the chemical industry,” said Richard Denison, senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the few environmental groups that support the bill. “He’s the reason the bill has gotten stronger and stronger.”
Udall’s plight reflects how emotional the battle over environmental laws has become in Washington and how difficult it is to find common ground, even when everyone agrees a problem needs fixing. The emotion surrounding this bill is particularly piqued because it concerns the failure of the government to regulate toxic chemicals that Americans, even the most vulnerable such as infants and the elderly, encounter every day.
In the 40 years since the Toxic Substances Control Act was passed, the EPA has only regulated five chemicals, and none since 1990, when it lost a court case to regulate asbestos.
To fill the void, some states, California and Oregon among them, have started regulating chemicals, but they have only managed to finish work on a handful.
Through the years, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, repeatedly offered bills to reform the toxic chemical law, but they never got a vote on the Senate floor. Just days before Lautenberg died, in June 2013, he unveiled a bipartisan bill with Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, one of the chemical industry’s biggest supporters in Congress. Lautenberg’s widow and other senators are among those who asked Udall to take the lead on the bill.
In deciding to do so, Udall thought about the work his father had done after he left his post as Interior Secretary. He advocated for New Mexicans sickened by nuclear fallout and Native Americans suffering from exposures to uranium mining.
“I worked with him, and it had a real impact on me,” Udall said in response to questions from HCN. “New Mexicans in particular have a personal understanding of how substances in our environment can make you sick -- or kill.”
Udall says he’s also motivated by concerns he hears from constituents who worry about the chemicals they’re exposed to in everyday life.
“People are genuinely concerned about the tens of thousands of chemicals -- in our furniture, baby bottles, clothes, and other everyday products -- that aren't being tested,” he said. “We don't know the impact they have on our health, or with each other, or with medicines we take.”
Many longtime Udall supporters don’t question his motivations, but the senator has taken some low blows in recent months.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, has been the Udall-Vitter bill’s biggest opponent. “To be 100 percent candid and direct, their bill has been generated by the chemical industry itself,” Boxer said in a March news conference.
She charged that computer coding showed the bill originated at the American Chemical Council, an allegation Udall and the trade group have denied. Media stories, including one in the New York Times, highlighted donations Udall had received from the trade group.
True, the American Chemical Council donated $13,500, a relatively large amount, but the group gave other lawmakers far more and the League of Conservation Voters gave Udall five times that much, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Udall commented on these personal attacks during a hearing on the bill in March. “They do not concern me because they are absurd and unfounded,” he said “But they do a serious disservice to the legislative process.”
He told HCN he took offense at suggestions that he was doing the chemical industry’s bidding as a result of some campaign donations, especially since he has long worked for campaign finance reform.
“It's insulting to think that anyone would believe that I would put all of that aside for a few thousand dollars,” Udall said.
The New Mexico sentaor is the first to admit there are flaws in the bill, but says the “perfect” bill that Lautenberg pushed for many years couldn’t pass.
Officially called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the latest bill would: Mandate that the EPA consider only risk and not costs to industry when assessing chemicals.Require the EPA to review the safety of at least 25 chemicals in the first five years and sets deadlines for action.Create new fees for the industry to help pay for the EPA to assess chemicals.
A big reason Republicans and the chemical industry are willing to support the bill is that it blocks states from regulating chemicals while the federal EPA is doing so. Also, once the EPA decides a chemical is safe, that would preempt state action.
Three Senate Democrats -- Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse, New Jersey’s Cory Booker -- agreed to support the bill this week, after they negotiated some changes that make the bill more flexible to state action and more protective of public health. For example, state would be able to seek a waiver to regulate a chemical even if the EPA is examining it.
Those changes didn’t go far enough to satisfy many environmental groups.
“We believe Senator Udall has been a longtime environmental leader,” Tiernan Sittenfeld, a lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters, told HCN. “While we are not able to support this bill in its current form, we appreciate that he has made improvements to the bill.”
A companion bill is moving through the House, with a vote expected in committee later this month. It is not clear when either full chamber will vote on the legislation.
Whether Udall’s commitment to this bill, despite the compromises he had to make with industry, will shine or tarnish his environmental credentials depends on whom you ask.
Udall is working to protect public health and is willing to negotiate “with interests quite disparate to his own,” the EDF’s Denison said. “He knows this is the only way to get this done.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Minnesota Firefighters Seek Action On Stalled Flame Retardant Bill
Apr 30, 2015 | Minneapolis Star Tribune
By Abby Simmons
An effort by Minnesota firefighters to ban flame-retardant chemicals they blame for higher cancer rates within their ranks is stalled at the Legislature, where House leaders have been reluctant to act.
“The longer we wait, the more firefighters are going to be at risk, the more firefighters are going to contract cancer, and eventually they die,” said St. Paul Fire Department Capt. Chris Parsons. Moments later he lit a couch ablaze at a training facility Thursday to demonstrate the effectiveness of flame retardants compared to the harmful chemicals they release.
Parsons is president of Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters, a union that helped spearhead bipartisan legislation to phase out 10 flame-retardant chemicals used in furniture, textiles, mattresses and children’s products. The measure would ban the manufacture and wholesale distribution of such items in Minnesota by 2017. By 2018, it would ban the retail sale of such items, no matter where they were manufactured.
Firefighters say the retardants grant only seconds of extra escape time, while creating significantly higher amounts of smoke, carbon monoxide and soot. They blame inhalation of such chemicals for a rise in firefighter cancer deaths. In 2014, cancer was attributed to more than half of professional firefighter line-of-duty deaths nationwide. Parsons knows four firefighters currently battling cancer, including 17-year veteran St. Paul firefighter Steve Shapira, who is in the midst of a battle with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The bill is modeled after federal legislation by U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Parsons said that after the legislation failed to gain traction at the national level because of a strong chemical lobby, firefighters have resorted to a state-by-state approach. Oregon, Maine and Vermont have passed similar legislation. Six other states are considering it.
In Minnesota, a bill sponsored by Sen. John Marty, D-Roseville, passed 59-2 in the Minnesota Senate earlier this week. In the Republican-led House, the effort is led by Rep. Jeff Howe, R-Rockville, a former firefighter himself who long ago advocated for fire retardants but has since changed course. Despite Howe’s advocacy and broad support from the Health and Human Services Committee, the bill is bottled up in the House Commerce Committee, where it has failed to even get a hearing.
Parsons said he met with House Speaker Kurt Daudt in hopes of pushing the legislation to the House floor. He said Daudt told him he’d talk to Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska. But Parsons is skeptical that it’s out of leadership’s hands.
“I can guarantee you if Kurt Daudt wanted it to move, it would get moved,” Parsons said.
Daudt’s spokeswoman Susan Closmore said the bill “continues to work through the process.” She said that no hearing date has been set, but Hoppe was “in discussions with interested parties.”
Retardants not sole cause
The bill is opposed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the North American Flame Retardant Alliance, who say Minnesota’s proposed ban goes much further than those in other states, and is too broad.
“It’s important to know that when we’re talking about flame retardants that one size does not fit all,” Tony Kwilas, the chamber’s director of environmental policy, told the HHS Committee in March. “There are different chemicals in different applications for all the products we’re talking about.”
Robert Simon, vice president of chemical products and technology for the American Chemistry Council, testified that the bill goes too far, saying that multiple flame retardants have different uses.
“There does need to be more work here,” he said of determining and fighting increased causes of cancer in firefighters. “We don’t think as part of that we should be banning some products that have been determined not to present a risk and have been proven to provide critical benefits.”
In a statement Thursday, Simon pointed to studies that showed flame retardants did not make smoke more toxic, and proved that flame retardants slowed the spread of fire by minutes. Regardless of whether flame retardants are present, he said, smoke and other fire byproducts are naturally dangerous.
“The important thing is to minimize firefighter exposure to smoke and combustion byproducts, so it is essential that best practices are followed by all firefighters with respect to using protective equipment and appropriately handling firefighter gear during a fire and during subsequent clean up,” he said.
‘What we’re dealing with’
At the St. Paul Fire Training Center, Parsons and firefighter Pete Gutzmann led reporters into a training room arranged to look like the average living room. The couch was labeled as containing flame-retardant material, though Parsons couldn’t say specifically which kind.
Gutzmann touched a torch to the furniture and within two minutes it was fully engulfed. Acrid, heavy smoke drifted toward the ceiling, then thickened, pushing toward the floor. Parsons and Gutzmann put out the fire and stepped outside as a thick plume of smoke billowed out a window behind them. Gutzmann’s helmet and mask were black with soot, hiding his face.
“These are the carcinogens that we’re dealing with, and we need the House to act,” Parsons said. “Any firefighter will tell you that up to three or four days after a fire, it doesn’t matter how many times you bathe or wash your hair, the moment you sweat you can smell your previous house fire coming through your skin. These things are nasty, they’re insidious and they’re not helping keep the public from being harmed in a fire. They’re harming firefighters; we need to get them out of our homes.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Firefighters Push To Ban Flame Retardants In Minnesota
May 1, 2015 | KARE
By John Croman
Firefighters put on a dramatic demonstration Thursday as part of a push to ban flame retardants in Minnesota.
They set a sofa on fire at St. Paul's fire training center, and invited the media to watch how quickly acrid smoke fills the spaces firefighters often inhabit. It was part of an effort to add momentum to legislation that has stalled out in the legislature.
"These flame retardants are dangerous for the general public, but they're especially dangerous for firefighters, because when they burn they give off highly carcinogenic furans and dioxins," Capt. Chris Parsons of St. Paul told reporters.
Parsons, who also serves as president of the Minnesota Professional Firefighters union, has worked hard this session to convince state lawmakers of the need to get rid of some of the very chemicals that are designed to slow the spread of blazes.
Virtually all upholstered furniture, carpet padding and many other consumer products contain the retardants. Many of those retardants were added in response to government mandates in the past, including some that have since been repealed.
And when those retardants burn they give off many of the same chemicals present in petroleum fires.
Parsons asserts exposure to those fumes are linked to several cancers that occur more frequently in firefighters than in the general public. First responders' turnout gear isn't typically designed to filter out all of those toxins.
"We inhale. We ingest it, and we also absorb it through the skin," Parson explained.
"For every five degree rise in skin temperature your skin absorption rate increases 400 percent, which means we become literally like a sponge for these chemicals."
A bill that would phase out 10 of those retardants in Minnesota passed by an overwhelming bipartisan 59 to 2 vote. But the companion bill in the House has stalled without any explanation from leadership.
The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry group, sent representatives to the Capitol to oppose the bill.
The Chemistry Council contends that the bill is overly broad, and that more research is needed into which additives are actually carcinogenic and which one's don't pose enhanced health threats.
The industry also says the Minnesota version of the bill sets a more stringent threshold than the standards used in other states that have taken actions to regulate flame retardants.
According to the National Conference on State Legislatures eight states have enacted restrictions on the chemicals commonly found in flame retardants.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pro-Foam Coaltion Sues City to Overturn Ban on Styrofoam Containers
Apr 30, 2015 | New York Eater
By Marguerite Preston
Early this year, Mayor Bill DeBlasio signed off on a law that will ban New York City businesses from using styrofoam takeout containers, set to go into effect July 1. As that date draws near, a coalition of styrofoam manufacturers, restaurant owners, and recycling businesses have banded together to get that decision overturned. They're currently suing the city, claiming that the decision was "arbitrary," and a "sham," made only so that De Blasio could keep promises he made in his campaign.
Before De Blasio approved the ban, foam proponents (mostly from the Dart Container Corporation and the American Chemical Council) were given a year to prove that the material could be easily recycled. When the study was finished, city officials concluded that foam couldn't be recycled. But now representatives from Dart and from multiple recycling businesses claim that foam can be recycled. In the suit, they say that they had been working with the Sanitation Department to develop a plan to recycle both hard and soft foams – dealing with more than the ban, which only applies to soft foams. Dart says it had even committed to privately fund "state-of-the-art equipment" that would be used to do this recycling. Allegedly, the Sanitation Commissioner "was poised to find that ‘foam can be recycled,'" but was ordered by City Hall to ban foam anyways, no matter what her research revealed.
The city has not responded publicly to the suit, and no matter what happens, it will still be some time before foam takeout containers disappear from the city entirely. Even after the ban goes into effect (if it goes into effect), restaurants have until January of 2016 to phase the stuff out before the city actually starts enforcing the law.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Boulder Brands adds How2Recycle Label
Apr 30, 2015 | Recycling Today
Boulder Brands), a natural consumer packaged food company headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, has joined the How2Recycle Label program. The program is a project of GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC), Charlottesville, Virginia.
Boulder Brands joins more than 35 How2Recycle members, which GreenBlue says are dedicated to helping consumers recycle their products with clear and simple on-package instructions. The company will be the first to label polyethylene (PE) bread and baked good bags.
“Boulder Brands is thrilled to be working with How2Recycle to encourage recycling among our consumers,” says Kyle Heberle, senior vice president for operations and supply chain for Boulder Brands. “Reducing our environmental footprint is a key goal for our company, and as a packaged goods manufacturer we also take our responsibility seriously to educate our consumer on relevant issues.
"Our partnership with How2Recycle will help us increase transparency and awareness on our packaging and the importance of recycling. Boulder Brands is particularly pleased to have the opportunity to be the first How2Recycle member to start labelling polyethylene bread and baked goods bags in the months ahead in partnership with the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Flexible Film Recycling Group. (FFRG)”
Consumers will start to see the label on Boulder Brands’ packaging this summer, with the company increasing the use of the label as it undergoes packaging refreshes throughout the year.
The SPC’s goal is for the How2Recycle label to appear on the majority of consumer goods packaging by 2016 and to provide participating companies with detailed information regarding the recyclability of their packaging.
How2Recycle sponsorships are available for the use of the store drop-off label. The sponsorships are made possible through the support of the ACC’s FFRG.
-
Observers See TSCA Bill Movement As ‘Huge’ Step But Questions Remain
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Congress watchers are touting the Senate environment committee’s passage of a bipartisan compromise bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as a “huge” accomplishment toward amending the decades-old law, but acknowledge that questions remain, including what happens with a separate TSCA reform effort in the House.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy noted during an April 29 Senate Appropriations interior, environment and related agencies subcommittee hearing that EPA toxics chief Jim Jones had previously identified “a couple of areas” where the bill, as introduced, “fell short of the administration’s principles.”
“But I also am pleased that the most recent amendments really address those issues,” she said. “And, I am encouraged that we’re moving forward with a bipartisan bill.”
The bill, S. 697, known as the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” after the late senator who previously worked on TSCA reform legislation with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), cleared the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee during a April 28 markup.
The amended bill, introduced as a substitute to the original draft, included a number of revisions aimed at addressing concerns raised by Democratic lawmakers and others. Those revisions include allowing states to be co-enforcers of chemical regulations, modifying the factors for when EPA designates a chemical as a “high priority,” and changing the safety standard to be consistent with existing law while clarifying the term “unreasonable risk” to be consistent with the standard.
But observers say that a number of questions remain, including how lawmakers reconcile key differences between the Senate bill and a House draft bill floated by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) given that both bills appear to have bipartisan support. Additionally, questions linger as to how lawmakers resolve questions over funding mechanisms for implementing the new chemical safety regime and whether the Senate bill changes on preemption of state rules could cause some industry groups to withdraw support.
“It’s an incredible accomplishment to get something out of EPW -- huge,” one industry source says, but cautions that “There are a lot of steps past this point.”
That source adds that while it is understandable that without some modifications to the previous bill’s preemption provisions it would have been hard to maintain bipartisan support, “whether it will lose some industry groups” is unclear, and that some groups may be more willing to negotiate given the momentum building on the legislation.
Narrower Preemption
The House discussion draft, though not yet introduced, is substantially more narrow than the Senate bill and would preempt state rules only after EPA issues a requirement or a rule for a particular substance, causing some House Democrats to voice support for its approach on preemption. The House plans to mark up a bill on May 14.
Rep. Gene Green (R-TX) in an April 24 interview with Inside EPA suggested the two chambers will have to reconcile their differences in an eventual conference committee. But he expressed his support for the House’s plan to “go smaller and address the biggest issues” for chemical law reform, rather than the Senate’s approach.
Both pieces of legislation are aimed at reforming the decades-old chemical safety law, widely seen as ineffective in particular because it fails to give EPA ample authority to address the thousands of chemicals already in the marketplace.
Green said using the conference process to reconcile the differences in the bills “would be a novelty” for this Congress. “Right now, one of my concerns is we would need to know what we’re voting on, if we get a bill through the House, and they get a bill through the Senate, we have some buy-in,” Green said.
And a second industry source says that Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) continued opposition to the S. 697 bill’s preemption language could be “fundamentally a reason to avoid conference,” given that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would likely name Boxer, as ranking member on EPW, to a conference committee.
The revisions to the bill, made in the late hours ahead of the April 28 markup, were the result of negotiations between EPW Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Cory Booker (NJ); and the bill’s authors, Vitter and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM).
Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker, though they offered support for five Democratic amendments that were defeated by recorded vote, all voted for S. 697, while Boxer and Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ed Markey, (D-MA), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted against the legislation.
But while Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker’s support for the bill could enhance the chances of giving it “big, working numbers [of Democrats] on the floor,” the second industry source says, Boxer’s opposition remains a hurdle, particularly given that Reid could consider her recommendations in appointing Democratic conferees.
A third industry source says, that support from the new Democrats makes “the odds greater than 50-50 that TSCA reform is in our future.”
And the first source, noting that there have not been many conferences on environmental bills, adds that Reid will likely push hard to have Boxer as a conferee, but that her strenuous opposition to the bill will likely result in pushback from GOP leadership.
Boxer's Concerns
Boxer, who prepared 27 amendments but only called for a vote on three of them during the April 28 markup, vowed to pursue additional changes to the bill ahead of a floor vote, saying, “If anybody thinks the fight is over, it is just beginning.”
Boxer also suggested that she is likely to filibuster the legislation, saying, “I will stand on my feet until I can’t stand on my feet anymore” to ensure passage of a stronger reform bill.
Among Boxer’s concerns about the bill, though she acknowledges that the revisions do make some improvements, include what she says is a gap of up to five years during which neither new state nor federal rules would apply while EPA reviews a chemical. Moreover, Boxer took issue with the waiver provisions, saying the conditions upon which a waiver can be granted might still “force states to go to court,” and argued that the reform bill must contain a requirement to expedite EPA action on asbestos, which the agency tried unsuccessfully in 1991 to ban under current TSCA.
But McCarthy, in response to a question from Udall at the Senate appropriations hearing, said the amended bill would give EPA the “authority to make asbestos what we call now a ‘high-priority’ chemical.” That would put the agency on a schedule for assessing and making regulatory determinations for the chemical, she said.
Boxer supported an amendment offered by Gillibrand, that would have adopted language in a the House draft, preempting state rules only after EPA issues a requirement or a rule for a particular substance. The third source says it is “unclear whether any moves” on Boxer’s part to “burden the bill with endless amendments will be successful.” That source adds that the House bill is “another uncertainty” but that it is possible the House could accept the Senate version and go to conference earlier, in which case a bill would be on the president’s desk by late summer or early fall.
-
White House Completes Review of EPA's Final Underground Storage Tank Revisions
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The White House Office of Management and Budget completed its review of a final Environmental Protection Agency rule revising underground storage tank requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act on April 29.
As proposed, the rule would require backup containment systems for certain tanks, expand tank owner and operator training requirements and require owners and operators to periodically test tank components. Existing underground storage tank requirements have not been updated since 1988.
The rule would apply only to underground storage tanks containing petroleum or other hazardous chemicals regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA. Tanks regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA would not be regulated under the proposal.
Small petroleum marketers, convenience stores and airlines are among the groups that would be affected by the revisions to the underground storage tank requirements. The EPA did not respond when asked when it would release the final rule.
The EPA released the proposed underground storage tank regulation in 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 71,708) and sent the final proposal (RIN 2050-AG46) to OMB for review in late September 2014.
Concern Over Compliance Costs
Petroleum marketers warned OMB during the review that the EPA significantly underestimated compliance costs associated with the regulation. The Petroleum Marketers Association of America said compliance costs would be $6,960 per gas station rather than the $900 estimate from the agency (237 DEN A-12, 12/10/14).
Instead of EPA's proposed compliance options, PMAA offered an alternative that it said would cost $1,555 per station per year. The industry group has previously said the regulation, as proposed, would cost the 233,157 affected facilities nationwide a combined $1.37 billion annually.
-
Senate Republicans, Industry Official Rip BLM Rule
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management's final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing at thousands of oil and gas wells across the West is a "solution in search of a problem."
Those were the words of at least two Republican senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining at a hearing yesterday that featured testimony from BLM Director Neil Kornze.
A Western oil and gas official and a regulator from Wyoming also panned the rule as duplicative and costly, while Bruce Baizel, of the environmental group Earthworks, called it common sense.
The afternoon hearing was short and decidedly partisan. Zero Democrats showed up, and the Republican majority did not ask any questions of Baizel, who had flown from Colorado to testify.
Republicans said BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule duplicates state regulations and will drive up the cost to drill on the federal estate, stunting jobs in Western states that are dominated by public lands.
"Wyoming has among the strictest hydraulic fracturing rules in the country," said subcommittee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). "These regulations and those that the administration has already imposed put Wyoming and the West at an even greater disadvantage."
The BLM rule, finalized in late March after more than four years of public outreach, was the agency's first major update to fracking regulations in three decades and sought to tamp down public worry about the integrity of wells and the possible escape of fracking fluids.
It applies to the roughly 3,400 wells that are hydraulically fractured on public lands annually, forcing operators to disclose fracturing chemicals to the industry-based FracFocus, and banning pits at well sites, requiring wastewater to be stored in metal tanks, among many other provisions (Greenwire, March 20).
The rule already faces two lawsuits, one from Wyoming and one from drilling groups including the Western Energy Alliance, whose vice president, Kathleen Sgamma, testified yesterday.
A key topic at yesterday's hearing was how BLM would implement the so-called variance process in its fracking rule. For states and tribes with standards that meet or exceed those in BLM's rule, agency regulators will work with states to establish variances from those aspects of the BLM rule, Kornze said.
Mark Watson, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said the Cowboy State has little incentive to apply for a variance, since it would still require companies that drill on federal lands to submit permitting materials to both state and federal regulators, which Watson called "a duplication of effort."
Watson said Wyoming would prefer to implement and enforce oil and gas rules on its own, similar to how Wyoming runs the Underground Injection Control program -- where it implements federal rules for injecting materials underground.
"A better solution would be a mechanism to allow states to apply for primacy if they could demonstrate that the objectives of the BLM frack rule could be met by the states' rules and regulations," he said. "This would provide certainty and uniformity in enforcing a frack rule for the benefit of citizens and the oil and gas industry."
Kornze said BLM is scheduling meetings to discuss the frack rule and possible variances with regulators in Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Talks have already occurred with Wyoming, and "there's a sense that they've been productive," Kornze said.
Kornze said base-line federal regulations are needed to keep pace with advances in hydraulic fracturing, which involve higher pressures, since BLM last updated its regulations in the 1980s. Moreover, he argued that only about half of the states where BLM oversees mineral resources have hydraulic fracturing regulations in place, and those regulations vary from state to state.
Kornze said BLM expects to spend about four added hours of staff time per well to implement the new rule. It will cost companies about $11,000 per fracturing operation, less than 1 percent of the cost to drill a well, he said.
But Sgamma said BLM has badly underestimated enforcement and compliance burdens.
She warned of an "entirely new decision point" in the BLM rule where agency engineers must respond to certain well pressure readings. Companies will have to wait indefinitely for a BLM response, she said.
Baizel was supportive of BLM's rule, calling its costs "negligible."
"This BLM rule creates a minimum standard, a basic level of protection for our public lands, the water that flows through them and the citizens that enjoy their use daily," he said.
In his written testimony, Baizel said there are significant variations in how oil and gas states regulate drilling, such as where cement well casing is required and how to define usable groundwater.
Alan Septoff, a spokesman for Earthworks, said Republicans didn't ask Baizel any questions "because they knew they wouldn't like the answers."
-
Vote on Murkowski Measure to Repeal Ban on Oil Exports Unlikely, Corker Says
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A measure to repeal the 40-year-old ban on oil exports filed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is “unlikely” to receive a vote, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told Bloomberg BNA April 30.
“I don't think she's ready for a vote on that,” said Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is managing the Iran sanctions bill (H.R. 1191).
Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on April 28 filed an amendment to H.R. 1191 that would lift the crude oil export ban and require the Energy Department to complete a report on Iranian oil exports.
“I think the message Lisa and Heidi are putting forth is a really good one and calls for people to look at this in a really different light and could build some momentum for passage,” Corker said, referring to Murkowski and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.). “I think they were wise to bring it forth on this bill and get people thinking about what they are doing in the context of potentially lifting sanctions on Iran, but keeping ours.”
A spokesman for Murkowski said the senator was traveling and declined to comment.
Link Between U.S. Ban, Iranian Oil Sanctions
In the amendment, which was co-sponsored by Heitkamp, Murkowski sought to link lifting the export ban with lifting sanctions on Iran.
“Lifting the ban on U.S. exports would let American oil compete with Iranian oil, reduce Iranian revenue from oil exports, send a strong signal to U.S. allies that still depend on Iranian oil that alternative supplies are available, and lower global oil prices, which would decrease the price of gasoline and other consumer fuels,” Murkowski said in remarks on the Senate floor April 29.
Proponents of lifting the prohibition, which include major oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and independent producers such as Dallas-based Pioneer Natural Resources Co., argue that the export ban is an anachronism of the 1970s that doesn't make sense now that advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led U.S. oil production to rise to near-record levels.
Opponents of changing the law, including independent refiners such as Delta Air Lines's refining subsidiary Monroe Energy LLC, argue that such a move would raise domestic oil prices and render them unable to compete with refineries overseas.
-
Critics of Fracking Rule for Federal Lands Predict Delays, Higher Costs, Lost Activity
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The new federal rule to update regulations on oil and gas operations using hydraulic fracturing will impose delays and higher costs that will drive more work away from federal lands, witnesses and Republican senators suggested during an April 30 hearing.
“It will inevitably lead to delays in the permitting process for operators without increasing environmental protection,” Mark Watson, state oil and gas supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, testified.
He spoke at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining that focused on the hydraulic fracturing rule. The rule has been drawing fire from the industry and state regulators (80 DEN A-13, 4/27/15).
Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs for the Western Energy Alliance, testified that members of the oil and gas association say they “avoid at all costs federal lands” and that the rule “will continue the exodus off federal lands.”
Watson described how oil and gas operators in Wyoming will sometimes drill a well that intersects both federal and private or federal and state lands. Often the operator will use such a well to draw hydrocarbons from the private or state lands but not the federal ones, a strategy to avoid regulatory burdens and delays, Watson said.
Rule to Become Effective June 24
The Bureau of Land Management, an Interior Department agency, published the final rule March 26 to update requirements for well integrity testing, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for wells using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal and Indian lands. It will become effective June 24.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the subcommittee, used the hearing in part to ask BLM Director Neil Kornze to respond to the criticisms.
Kornze defended the rule as a part of the BLM's obligation to safeguard federal lands nationwide. It uses the best management practices of the best state regulations, an approach that will elevate quality of regulations in 32 states that have oil and gas leases on federal lands.
Barrasso asked more than once for Kornze to explain which states were failing to do an adequate job of regulating activities related to hydraulic fracturing, but the BLM director avoided naming any state. Kornze also conceded that no pollution incident had motivated the rulemaking.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) similarly asked Kornze to explain what Utah regulations were inadequate. Kornze responded that the BLM looked at best management practices rather than inadequate regulations, so he couldn't criticize Utah for any failings.
‘Can't Get Straight Answer.'
“We can't get a straight answer on the question of which of these states doesn't measure up,” Barrasso said.
The back-and-forth on that subject reflected the contention of some critics, such as Sgamma, that the rule was a response to environmental activism rather than genuine need.
The BLM never pointed out a deficiency in state regulations to justify its rule, Sgamma said.
The BLM position has been that the rule won't have a significant negative impact on revenues or oil and gas production from federal lands. Barrasso asked Kornze whether the agency had any data to support that position.
Kornze didn't have any data to offer.
-
Gas Companies to Ask Court for Re-Argument of Fracking Lease Case
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Inflection Energy LLC will ask New York's highest court May 18 to allow it to re-argue a case that allowed leases between it and other oil and gas companies and certain New York landowners to expire.
The Denver company is asking the New York Court of Appeals to reconsider a March 31 decision that said the “force majeure” provisions in oil and gas leases don't extend the primary terms of the leases (Beardslee v. Inflection Energy LLC, N.Y., No. 44, 3/31/15).
Force majeure generally refers to an event beyond the control of the parties that prevents performance under a contract.
“There are some very significant errors in the Court of Appeals decision, not the least of which was misquoting the operative language in a very significant manner,” Thomas S. West of the West Firm PLLC, who represents Inflection Energy, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Three energy companies—Inflection Energy LLC, Megaenergy Inc. and Victory Energy Corp.—had argued that the state's effective moratorium on fracking triggered the force majeure clause in the contracts and, therefore, extended the terms of the leases. The court, however, ruled in favor of landowners, whose leases expired in 2012 (62 DEN A-6, 4/1/15).
The court declined to rule on whether the state's moratorium amounted to a force majeure event, saying the question was “academic” given its ruling on the primary terms of the lease, which is contained in the “habendum clause.”
Re-Argument Based on Three Key Points
Inflection Energy is moving to re-argue the case based on three key points, according to a motion dated April 28. It said the Court of Appeals decision “misstates the operative language” in the oil and gas leases, “misapprehends” fundamental precepts in oil and gas leases and is “discordant” with contract construction principles.
According to the motion, the court substituted the word “production” for the term “other operations” in its March opinion.
The motion said “operations” is a term of art in the oil and gas industry that refers to activities that occur prior to production. Operations is a term that refers to activities in the primary term of the lease, while production refers to activities that would occur in the secondary term.
In this case, the interests conveyed by the leases existed for a five-year primary term, followed by an open secondary term if the land was used in the production of oil or gas.
“The opinion misstates the operative language in the leases' force majeure clause and this misstatement critically affects the entire analysis,” the motion said. “Not only does the opinion rely upon language in the force majeure clause that does not exist, it then glosses over and fails to mention the word ‘drilling,’ which is the only other term that defines and informs the scope and applicability of the force majeure clause.”
No Valid Basis for Reconsideration Motion
Robert R. Jones, an attorney for the landowners with Coughlin & Gerhart, told Bloomberg BNA that there was “no valid basis for the motion for reconsideration.”
“The motion is nothing more than an attempt to get a second chance to argue the case,” Jones said in an e-mail. “If the respondents wanted the primary term to be subject to a force majeure event, they should have stated that in the habendum clause of the leases, but they didn't.”
“The respondents are sophisticated business entities, and they knew better,” Jones said. “Simply, they are trying to get something for nothing.”
-
Gas Emissions From Fracking Operations Drift Hundreds of Miles, Study Suggests
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Natural gas emissions from hydraulic fracturing operations are the likely explanation for increased detection of ethane gas in air monitoring stations hundreds of miles downwind of the operations, according to a new study published in the journal Atmospheric Environment.
Air monitoring stations set up decades ago near Baltimore and Washington, D.C., to measure levels of volatile organic compounds that contribute to ground-level ozone have shown a general decline in VOC levels since 1996, but beginning in 2010, the levels of one of the constituent gases—ethane—began increasing, the study, released April 30, said.
The increased levels of ethane coincided with the boom in hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in central Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, several hundred miles west of the two cities, according to the research conducted at the University of Maryland.
Methane is by far the largest single gas in natural gas, but ethane is the second largest gas at the wellhead, said Sheryl Ehrman, professor and chair of the university's department of chemical and biomolecular engineering.
Asked why the researchers didn't study methane, Ehrman told Bloomberg BNA that methane doesn't contribute to ozone. She said that because of that, ground-level methane levels have been measured only recently at air monitoring stations.
Other Gas Sources Ruled Out
According to a news release on the study findings, Ehrman's group examined other possible sources of ethane, such as vehicles, natural gas pipeline losses and natural gas storage fields in Garrett County, Md., located 155 miles west of Baltimore. According to the study, those sources didn't produce enough of the gas to explain the change.
A natural gas industry spokesman declined to comment on the main study findings, saying the group had yet to examine the full study.
However, America's Natural Gas Association spokesman Dan Whitten told Bloomberg BNA the study “does point to improvements in overall air quality, and that's thanks in large part to greater use of natural gas for power generation.”
Whitten also said the industry has achieved “substantial reductions” in methane emissions at natural gas wells, even as production has increased dramatically.
The industry is using “green completion” on almost all natural gas wells, Whitten said. He added that “green completions” release 99 percent less methane than wells that don't use it.
-
Democratic Senator Files Bill To Block Obama Air Gun Plan
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) today will unveil a bill to block Obama administration plans to consider allowing seismic testing off the coast of Florida, an activity Nelson warned is a first step toward oil and gas drilling.
Nelson said drilling off Florida's eastern seaboard would be "unwise and impractical" and would interfere with military operations off Jacksonville and rocket launches from Kennedy Space Center and Patrick Air Force Base.
The Obama administration last summer authorized companies to apply to shoot air guns off the East Coast from Delaware to Cape Canaveral, Fla., to identify the location of potential oil and gas deposits. But in January, it released a plan that would forbid companies from leasing Florida waters for drilling until at least 2022.
"If you're not going to drill there, then why do the seismic testing?" said Nelson, a longtime foe of drilling off the Sunshine State's shores who helped negotiate a 2006 bill that banned drilling rigs off the state's Gulf Coast until 2022.
Nelson and many environmental groups have warned that the intense noise from seismic air guns could harm marine mammals that rely on their hearing to communicate with one another.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which authorized the seismic survey program, says there is "no documented scientific evidence" that air guns harm animal populations.
Yet many scientists have urged a halt to the testing until more is known about its impacts on marine species, especially whales.
Florida's Department of Environmental Protection on April 20 sent a letter to BOEM asking it to halt permitting of seismic surveys off the state's shores until more is known about their effects on the environment.
"Florida is concerned about the effects of [seismic] activities on its marine and coastal resources including sea turtles, marine mammals (including the North Atlantic Right Whale) and fishery resources and their habitats located in these areas," said the letter. "Much of Florida's economy is dependent on these healthy and sustainable marine and coastal resources."
The department said five applications have been proposed for surveys under BOEM's program off Florida, including one application to survey within BOEM's Straits of Florida planning area, which wraps around Miami.
-
Trick to Dodging Keystone XL Woes In Pipeline Projects: Pledge No Oil
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Penty
Canada's energy industry may have figured out how to build a pipeline without the uproar that stalled Keystone XL: promise it will never carry oil.
Plans to transport natural gas to multibillion-dollar shipping terminals proposed by the likes of Royal Dutch Shell Plc are winning favor in British Columbia as TransCanada Corp. and other pipeline builders sign no-crude commitments. The terms are helping allay fears about future oil spills from lines designed to carry gas.
The pledges for a crude-free route to Canada's Pacific Coast are being made as TransCanada faces mounting opposition to its plan to convert a gas pipe to send oil to the Atlantic. The C$12 billion ($10 billion) Energy East would be North America's largest oil pipeline and would provide an alternative to the Keystone link to the Gulf of Mexico.
In British Columbia, TransCanada's Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line won't carry oil, according to a compensation agreement the company announced last week with the 600-member Kitselas First Nation. The aboriginal community has rights to hunt and fish along the path of the 900-kilometer (559-mile) line, which would feed a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed by Petroliam Nasional Bhd.
“It was the game-changer we all needed to hear,” Kitselas Chief Councillor Joe Bevan said in a phone interview. “If a gas line breaks, it's going to add to greenhouse gases, let's not kid ourselves, but it's less intrusive than oil.”
The Kitselas first asked TransCanada to vow it won't transport oil back in 2012, when the project's opponents were stoking fears on social media about the threat of spills, Bevan said. The company, which was under siege from environmental groups opposing Keystone XL, quickly agreed.
Greenpeace Birthplace
British Columbia, where Greenpeace was born, has become a battleground for groups seeking to stop oil-sands development over environmental impacts including carbon emissions. Plans by Enbridge Inc. and Kinder Morgan Inc. to carry crude from Alberta to coastal waters for export are being delayed after facing scrutiny for the risk of pipeline and tanker spills.
For TransCanada, it's been important to keep talks with aboriginal groups and the provincial government focused on gas, Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling said this month in an interview at Bloomberg's Toronto office.
In January, after concerns raised by aboriginal groups, the provincial government introduced regulation barring conversions for six lines proposed to supply gas export projects, including two that would be built by TransCanada.
Other proponents of gas pipelines in Canada's westernmost province include Spectra Energy Corp., Chevron Corp., Fortis Inc. and Pacific Northern Gas Ltd.
“In our discussions with local communities including aboriginal communities, we've had to commit that we would never convert our gas pipeline to an oil pipeline,” Girling said. “My guess is down the road there will be a rational discussion around oil, too.”
-
Steyer Expects Clinton To Oppose Keystone XL, Focus On Climate
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Last year, climate activist and mega-donor Tom Steyer said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would benefit from a Democratic primary challenger if she were to run for president.
"Being forced to refine what you say and think is a good thing," Steyer told MSNBC in September.
That's why the news that Steyer would host a Clinton fundraiser in California next week raised so many eyebrows, particularly because she has yet to articulate her position on one of the green movement's top issues -- the Keystone XL oil pipeline (E&E Daily, April 29).
Yesterday, Suzanne Henkels, spokeswoman for Steyer's NextGen Climate, reiterated her boss's view that KXL is not only bad policy but also bad politics. Surely, she suggested, Clinton knows that.
"While we await a final U.S. government decision," Henkels said, "we are confident that any policymaker or candidate for public office that is committed to fighting climate change will oppose Keystone XL."
Not all environmental groups are equally sanguine. Yesterday afternoon, for example, the Center for Biological Diversity was planning a small rally at a Clinton event in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.
Asked about Steyer's plan to host a Clinton fundraiser, CBD Senior Counsel Bill Snape said, "I think it's his money. But we'd like to see the vegetables from Hillary first, so to speak."
Ben Schreiber, spokesman for Friends of the Earth Action, the political arm of Friends of the Earth, said the group has "concerns about Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate."
Schreiber is worried not only by Clinton's having once said she was inclined to support KXL, back when she was secretary of State, but about other signs that she may be open to working with fossil fuel companies, including accepting industry donations to the Clinton Foundation.
"The environmental community works together, and we are generally supportive of each other," Schreiber said in an interview. Groups, working in coordination, became top players and donors during the last elections (see related story).
At the same time, Schreiber said, "The truth of the matter is, it is not a monolithic entity by any means, and there are many different issues that make up the environmental community. Every group needs to go forward with the strategy and issues that are important to their members."
Bill McKibben, founder of the group 350.org, this week took to Twitter to welcome a Senate liberal taking on Clinton in the battle for the Democratic nomination: "Bernie Sanders says he's running for president to win -- which is an extremely cool thought!"
Karthik Ganapathy, the group's U.S. communications chief, similarly tweeted: "Look out for climate change to become a top-tier issue in the run-up" to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary because of Sanders' entry.
During last year's elections, critics questioned environmental leaders when they backed candidates who expressed support for KXL. Greens defended the move by stressing the importance of picking candidates who were supportive of acting on climate change, whether or not they agreed with environmental groups on every issue.
And even though many green-backed politicians failed to win re-election, environmental advocates say their issues were prominent during the races and that climate deniers are out of step with voters.
Heather Taylor-Miesle, head of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, said the group has yet to decide on which presidential candidate to support, but is encouraging hopefuls to embrace environmental causes.
NRDC President Rhea Suh and League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski penned an op-ed in the Huffington Post recently to make the case for the policy and political benefits of running green and to call for candidates to support cutting carbon emissions by 28 percent by 2025.
"We appreciate that some announced candidates have already shown great leadership and we hope that they bring those important conversations to the campaign trail so the American people know exactly where all of the candidates stand," Taylor-Miesle wrote in an email.
NextGen Climate spokeswoman Henkels said, "When Secretary Clinton addressed the National Clean Energy Summit and stated that climate change is 'the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world,' she made clear the primary importance of addressing this critical issue."
She added, "Any serious candidate needs a serious plan to promote clean energy jobs and curb carbon pollution, and we look forward to specific policy proposals from all of the 2016 candidates."
But Friends of the Earth Action's Schreiber warned against supporting candidates who don't back his group's goals.
"We think of it as a failed strategy to support candidates who are not champions on our issues," he said, because if they're not committed during the campaign, they may be less so during their time in office.
-
McConnell Tactic Unlikely to Block Interstate Trading Programs Under Clean Power Plan
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
An obscure provision of the Clean Air Act cited by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is unlikely to deter states from joining emissions trading programs to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, legal experts said.
Section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act, which requires congressional approval of binding interstate agreements or compacts to address air pollution, is likely not applicable to the sort of interstate emissions trading programs envisioned by the EPA as part of its proposed carbon dioxide emissions limits for existing power plants, lawyers said.
“This is totally irrelevant. It's not a serious obstacle,” Michael Livermore, associate professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law, told Bloomberg BNA April 30.
McConnell invoked Section 102(c) as a possible tool to block interstate emissions trading programs under the proposed Clean Power Plan during a Senate appropriations hearing April 29 (83 DEN A-10, 4/30/15).
That section provides that “No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved by Congress.”
“It doesn't seem ambivalent to me,” McConnell said April 29. “I can assure you that as long as I'm majority leader of the Senate, this body is not going to be signing off on any back door energy tax.”
However, attorneys said not all interstate agreements would qualify as compacts as defined by Section 102.
“You don't need to have an interstate compact in order for there to be regional cooperation,” Livermore said. “A compact is a very specific form of cooperation that is legally binding.”
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), 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, which could include interstate emissions trading programs.
Voluntary Programs an Option
However, legal experts said that language would likely be inapplicable to interstate emissions trading programs fashioned to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
Voluntary agreements between states with no interstate enforcement mechanisms would likely not need congressional approval, Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, told Bloomberg BNA April 30.
“I don't think this is the only way states could coordinate their actions should they choose to coordinate their actions,” he said.
While Section 102 does require congressional approval of any binding interstate agreements, Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said that provision is also intended to encourage just that sort of interstate collaboration.
“Section 102 affirmatively encourages cooperation among the states,” he told Bloomberg BNA April 30.
Rather than legally binding compacts, states could simply fashion nonbinding agreements similar to that used by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states. That agreement, which established an emissions trading program for Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, is voluntary, which is what allowed New Jersey to decide to withdraw from the program with no legal consequences.
Brian Potts, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, said it is plausible that some interstate agreements could require congressional approval, but he agreed that states could simply structure their Clean Power Plan compliance strategies to avoid triggering that requirement. While McConnell's latest tactic could delay implementation of the EPA's proposed rule, it would not jeopardize it in its entirety, he told Bloomberg BNA April 30.
“It's not going to stop compliance because worst case, even if a court was to say states can't do a regional plan because of this provision, they'd have to do state plans, which would be more expensive,” he said.
McConnell Pushes Noncompliance
Invoking Clean Air Act Section 102(c) is McConnell's latest bid to block implementation of the EPA's proposed rule. Previously, McConnell had urged state governors not to submit their own compliance plans, a strategy dubbed “just say no.” That would instead force the EPA to issue its own federal plans for states, which would likely be more time consuming and expensive (54 DEN A-16, 3/20/15).
Livermore said McConnell's latest push would also appear to run afoul of Republican preference for locally driven solutions.
“Put aside the legal silliness of what he's saying, he's so opposed to reducing greenhouse gases that two states voluntarily deciding they want to get together to reduce their emissions, that he wants to intervene and stop that,” Livermore said.
-
Mcconnell: States Need My Approval To Collaborate On Carbon Rule
Apr 30, 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.
-
Whitfield Looks For Swift Floor Vote On Opt-Out Bill, Hopes For Dems' Support
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Disappointed that his bill that would let states opt out of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan failed to get any Democratic support in yesterday's Energy and Commerce Committee markup, Rep. Ed Whitfield said today that he expects the measure to see floor action next month.
The Kentucky Republican's bill, H.R. 2042, has two Democratic co-sponsors -- Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia and Collin Peterson of Minnesota -- but no Democrats supported it in committee.
"It was disappointing because it was such a modest approach," Whitfield said. The measure, he said, would simply delay the rule "until the courts render a decision."
Whitfield's bill would bar EPA from implementing a federal plan to regulate power plant carbon dioxide in states that do not choose to comply with the rule. It also would grant all states a reprieve from requirements to submit implementation plans until judicial review has concluded.
Some Democrats said during the markup that they sympathized with states concerned about the proposed rule's requirement to turn in implementation plans by deadlines beginning in 2016. A few, including Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), offered their cooperation on legislation that would give states more time to formulate plans.
But Green said in an email to E&ENews PM that he couldn't back the bill because it "would delay implementation through endless litigation."
"Additionally, rather than addressing climate issues in a piece-meal fashion, one EPA regulation at a time, I would prefer Congress work together to pass comprehensive legislation," said Green, who backed a cap-and-trade bill that cleared the House in 2009 after working to secure concessions for refiners in his district.
Whitfield said he had instructed his staff to reach out to Green's office and other Democrats who had expressed willingness to collaborate.
"We're not going to support anything that doesn't delay it, though," he said.
Environmentalists said Whitfield's bill is anything but a "modest approach." In a letter to committee members Tuesday night, a coalition of green groups -- including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and Appalachian Voices -- blasted the bill as an attempt to undermine the Clean Air Act.
"The Whitfield bill would destroy the national guarantee that makes the Clean Air Act work by simply letting any state just 'opt out' of meeting national carbon standards and it would delay critical carbon pollution standards indefinitely until every polluter's lawsuit has run its course," they said.
They noted that the rule's opponents already have recourse to petition the courts to stay implementation of a rule.
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, meanwhile, praised the committee for passing legislation it said "provides a safe harbor period that delays the implementation of the EPA's Clean Power Plan until after the courts have spoken."
The group of nonprofit power providers says the proposal's interim goal -- which phases in after 2020 -- would force them to "make irrevocable and expensive decisions in the near-term."
Several NRECA members foresee having to shutter coal-fired capacity early because of the rule, even if they are not finished paying for it. The group didn't mention the bill's provision allowing governors to opt out of compliance permanently if they deem it too costly to ratepayers or grid reliability.
-
Oklahoma Governor Signs Order Ruling Out Plan for EPA Carbon Rules
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Signaling the second time in a week the state has sought to rebuff federal authority in environmental affairs, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed an executive order declaring that Oklahoma won't file a state implementation plan with the Environmental Protection Agency regulating carbon dioxide emissions produced by Oklahoma power plants.
The governor's order arrives six weeks following Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) call to all U.S. governors to consider ignoring the agency's carbon pollution limits for power plants while urging all 50 states to “carefully review the consequences” before “signing up” for the EPA's Clean Power Plan (54 DEN A-16, 3/20/15).
The Oklahoma governor's order asks Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to “take such action as is necessary to enforce the rights of the State of Oklahoma and its citizens” to be protected from federal actions seen by the state as potentially affecting “the freedoms of its people.”
The EPA's proposal for limiting carbon dioxide varies state by state, projecting a 30 percent cut in those emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels.
“President Obama and the EPA are fighting a politically charged war against utility consumers across the country,” Fallin said. “While the environmental benefits of these regulations will be minimal, the economic devastation of these overreaching and unrealistic regulations will be very real.”
“The order I signed today makes it clear the state of Oklahoma has no intention of implementing new regulations that run directly contrary to the interests of our citizens and our state,” the governor said.
Delays Would Come at Environmental Cost
Oklahoma Sierra Club Director Johnson Bridgwater said further delays would come at an environmental cost.
“Drought, extreme heat and other dangerous weather conditions are affecting Oklahoma right now,” Bridgwater said in an April 30 e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
Severe, extreme or exceptional drought grips 47 percent of Oklahoma while affecting 1.4 million people, according to data released April 30 by the U.S. Drought Monitor.
“We don't have time to wait, and the solutions already exist,” Bridgwater said. “If the state fights the EPA on the Clean Power Plan, we're only delaying achievable reductions in carbon emissions that contribute to climate disruption.”
Remarking in an April 29 statement that the Clean Power Plan would provide an “opportunity” for Oklahoma “to take its energy future into its own hands,” Bridgwater warned that in the absence of a state plan, “Governor Fallin will force the EPA to swoop in and create a federal solution for our state.”
Latest Move to Buck Federal Authority
The executive order is the latest move from Oklahoma City seeking to buck federal authority, following the Oklahoma House's recent passage of S.B. 676, a measure touted by state officials as a means of protecting the state from “overreach” by the EPA (80 DEN A-18, 4/27/15).
Approved by the Senate in March and sent to the governor's desk April 29, the measure would allow for legislative oversight of carbon dioxide emissions plans submitted to the EPA to ensure the plan complies with the Clean Air Act.
-
Oklahoma Takes Aim At Climate Plan
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) and the state Legislature are taking a stand against Obama administration climate rules.
Fallin signed an executive order this week saying her state will not comply with a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule setting targets for carbon emission reduction at power plants. Republicans have said the plan is an unfair expansion of executive power.
Fallin's order prohibits the state's Department of Environmental Quality from writing a strategy to reduce carbon emissions under the Clean Power Plan.
It directs the state's attorney general, himself an opponent of the plan, to analyze the legality of the climate rule and "take such action as is necessary to enforce the rights of the state of Oklahoma and its citizens from such federal actions as may impact the freedoms of its people."
"As Governor, I will not submit [a plan] to ensure Oklahoma's compliance with such a clear overreach of executive authority," Fallin's order said.
Oklahoma is the first state to definitely say it will not comply with the rule. States that don't write their own climate plans will receive implementation guidelines from the federal government.
Declining to comply with the rule is a strategy being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has questioned the legality of the climate rule. But the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club slammed the decision as "adding more bureaucratic roadblocks" to better climate protections.
"Without a state implementation plan, Governor Fallin will force the EPA to swoop in and create a federal solution for our state," Oklahoma Sierra Club Director Johnson Bridgewater told The Norman Transcript. "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."
Also this week, the Oklahoma Senate sent Fallin a bill meant to put up barriers to writing a climate plan by giving some state officials review power over it, the Tulsa World reports. Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has sued the federal government over the plan, is among them.
"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. "This bill will assist the state in defending its interests against the EPA’s unlawful actions."
-
DOE to Post More Quadrennial Review Data; Report Urges $15 Billion for Infrastructure
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
More appendices and supporting documents with data collected as part of the White House Quadrennial Energy Report (QER) will be released, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said April 30.
The QER, released April 21, recommends more than $15 billion in new spending programs and tax credits to invest in energy transmission, storage and distribution infrastructure, including accelerating pipeline replacement and maintenance of natural gas distribution systems (77 DEN A-13, 4/22/15).
The review was spearheaded by the Energy Department and involved 22 federal agencies, which resulted in recommendations that spanned nearly 350 pages.
A “comparably sized” set of appendices will be released from the agency “as soon we get them cleaned up a little bit,” Moniz said at the U.S. Energy Association annual meeting.
“All of the recommendations are in the report, but those appendices, I think you will see, are going to be very data-rich, because this was a highly data-driven exercise,” Moniz said.
In addition to the appendices, he said the agency will be posting on its website the 30-plus analytical supporting documents that the DOE solicited as input to the formation of the QER.
Moniz hinted that the second installment of the QER will address energy supply and demand. He said there has been talk about “more or less” annual installments of reports.
“The question is whether we have a scope now that fits that or whether we have a much bigger scope and have a year-and-a-half installment,” he said.
Working With Congress
Moniz said he is optimistic about working with Congress. He testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing April 28 and was told by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), committee chairman, that she would work to include provisions of the QER in a broader energy policy bill she expects to introduce this summer (82 DEN A-15, 4/29/15).
Moniz said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House committee, have “shown great interest and expressed the same desire to move forward on energy infrastructure legislation.”
“We know it's always hard to get things over the finish line, but at least right now, the conditions are good for trying to move something forward,” Moniz said.
The House Energy Committee hasn't scheduled a hearing for the QER yet, but continues to work on its comprehensive energy bill, which addresses issues in the QER, Charlotte Baker, deputy communications director for the committee, told Bloomberg BNA April 30.
Meeting of Energy Sector Partnership
Moniz also said the Partnership for Energy Sector Climate Resilience, a group of 17 utility companies working to improve energy infrastructure resilience, met for the first time with DOE officials April 30.
The partnership was announced in conjunction with the QER release and has a goal “to accelerate investment in technologies, practices, and policies that will enable a resilient 21st century energy system,” according to the agency.
The companies include investor-owned, federal, municipal and cooperative utilities such as Consolidated Edison Inc., Dominion Resources Inc., Exelon Corp., PEPCO Holdings Inc. and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The 17 utility companies represent about 25 percent of the electricity customer base in the country, Moniz said at the USEA event.
Judy Rader, Exelon director of external communications, said the firm is glad to be part of the grid resilience partnership.
“Our partnership with DOE on smart grid deployment is already providing dividends by increasing our grid resilience and shortening the duration of storm-related outages,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
“We welcome the opportunity to learn from other energy companies and share our learnings with them and the DOE, and used this initial meeting of the partnership to begin doing so,” she said.
Moniz said the partnership is working in parallel with the QER “to move some specific actions forward in terms of increasing grid resilience, although recognizing increasing interdependencies of different infrastructures.”
-
Obama Signs Energy-Efficiency Measure, First Energy Bill Enacted This Congress
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
President Barack Obama signed into law the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 535), which directs federal efforts to increase energy and water efficiency in commercial buildings.
“We've made great strides since the beginning of my administration on everything from doubling fuel-efficiency standards on cars to incentivizing smarter policies when we build buildings so that they're not wasting as much energy,” Obama said April 30 at a signing ceremony at the White House.
Obama said Republicans and Democrats have come together on the issue of how the country uses energy and, as a consequence, consumers and businesses are going to save money while confronting climate change at the same time.
The bill was sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and is the first energy bill to be signed into law this Congress, Portman said in a statement.
“This is an important part of our energy plan for America that can help bring jobs back, help make our manufacturers more competitive, and actually help to protect the environment,” Portman said.
Would Loosen Water Heater Standards
The House cleared the bill, which also would loosen efficiency standards for grid-enabled water heaters, by voice vote on April 21 (77 DER A-37, 4/22/15)(77 DEN A-15, 4/22/15).
The Senate passed it in March (60 DEN A-3, 3/30/15).
The new law provides an exemption from Energy Department efficiency standards that went into effect April 16 regarding large-capacity water heaters in demand response programs. The provision was backed by trade groups representing utilities such as Dominion Resources Inc. and American Electric Power.
The measure requires the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a voluntary “Tenant Star” program to promote energy efficiency in leased commercial buildings and would require that federally leased buildings without Energy Star labels benchmark and disclose their energy usage data “where practical.”
Agencies to Coordinate With DOE, EPA
It also requires federal agencies to coordinate with the DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House to develop “an implementation strategy that includes best practices, measurement, and verification techniques for the maintenance, purchase, and use of energy-efficient and energy saving information technologies,” according to an official bill summary.
-
Obama Signs Energy Efficiency Bill Into Law
Apr 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama on Thursday signed into law a measure that is intended to improve energy efficiency in buildings and stop efficiency rules for certain water heaters.
The measure had strong bipartisan support and easily passed the Senate in March and the House in April.
It creates new voluntary building efficiency standards and exempts certain grid-enabled water heaters from efficiency regulations.
Obama brought to the White House energy efficiency advocates and the leading congressional backers of the legislation, including Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), for the signing ceremony, along with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
“What we’ve seen is a coming together of Republicans and Democrats who are going to facilitate us being much smarter in terms of building buildings, how we use energy and, as a consequence, we’re going to save money for consumers, we’re going to save money for businesses, and we’re going to deal with issues like climate change that have an enormous economic and health impact on Americans as a whole,” Obama said before signing the bill, according to the White House.
The provisions contained in the bill were once part of a much broader energy efficiency package that Portman and Shaheen pushed in the last Congress with bipartisan support, but that got caught up in a fight over the Keystone XL oil pipeline and never passed.
Shaheen said she was glad to have the smaller measure signed into law.
“It’s always tough to convince Washington to not play politics with a good idea,” she said in a statement. “But persistence has paid-off and this legislation is a small but significant victory over legislative gridlock.”
-
Dems Bristle At Regulatory Reforms In Efficiency Legislation
May 1, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano and Katherine Ling
Energy efficiency is widely popular, but some provisions Republicans hope to include in a broad energy bill aimed at dialing back some existing policies ran into sharp objections from House Democrats yesterday.
The emerging energy bill continued to take shape yesterday in a pair of hearings on either side of the Capitol focused on various legislative proposals that eventually could become its efficiency title. Senate Energy and Natural Resources and House Energy and Commerce panels convened separate hearings around the same time yesterday morning.
Most of the draft efficiency bill that House Energy and Commerce members were considering yesterday had bipartisan support. But Democrats emphasized objections to provisions that would delay an efficiency standard for home furnaces, reverse a directive for the federal government to cut its fossil fuel use and limit the federal government's influence over third-party building codes.
"As this efficiency title is currently constituted, I would not be in a position to support it or to recommend that others support it," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the full committee's ranking member, during a hearing yesterday of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, which addressed the efficiency bills and a separate energy bill proposal that would require a study of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Still, Pallone and other Democrats acknowledged that it is still early in the process and expressed a willingness to try to find a compromise on efficiency.
The most visible disagreement at yesterday's House hearing came over DOE's recently proposed furnace rule, which has drawn the ire of gas utilities, manufacturers and home builders, among others. They say its requirements would be especially burdensome in the South and could force homeowners facing the need to replace an old gas furnace to switch to a less expensive electric furnace that would produce more carbon emissions.
Language in the draft bill would send DOE back to the drawing table to come up with a new rule. That is opposed by Democrats and efficiency advocates, who say they understand the concerns with the rule but would prefer a more targeted solution that narrowly addressed legitimate cost concerns without sacrificing efficiency gains. The efficiency standard has not been revised since 1987, and proposed updates have fallen victim to litigation twice in eight years.
Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) emerged as key potential dealmakers in the negotiations during yesterday's hearing.
Doyle noted that there is very little new construction in his Pittsburgh-area district, which features mostly row houses built nearly a century ago occupied by a large number of senior citizens. Doyle worried about the costs to replace an old "noncondensing" furnace that would be outlawed by the rule with a new "condensing" unit, a process that could require additional venting that is expensive to install in old structures. He said he is fine with requiring the more efficient furnaces in new homes but would like to address concerns over retrofits.
"The fear is it's going to drive people to consider something else if the cost is too much" to replace a gas furnace in an old home, Doyle said in a brief interview after the hearing.
Several Democrats also targeted language in the House draft to kill Section 433 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which requires the federal government to eliminate its use of fossil energy in all-new and substantially renovated buildings by 2030.
The House language did not include a provision included in Senate legislation from Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) to strengthen expiring efficiency targets in exchange for eliminating the fossil fuel phaseout, but several industries said they would support that compromise, indicating it would likely be part of the final product.
There also was sharp disagreement over language in the House bill inserted by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) that would prevent DOE from advocating for particular technologies when it offers advice to independent organizations that set building codes and would require any DOE-endorsed standard to be cost-effective within a decade. It is a more industry-friendly provision than language advanced by Welch and Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) aimed at making standards more cost effective but not limiting DOE's advocacy that is supported by efficiency advocates. Senate
At the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing examining 22 efficiency bills, Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and several of her colleagues also pressed the issue of the "efficiency" of energy programs -- cutting back the burdens imposed by the federal government in trying to achieve those reductions.
Energy efficiency will be one of four titles in a comprehensive energy bill Murkowski aims to pass this year and is considered an area where there is a great deal of bipartisan, bicameral support. But as important as efforts to boost energy efficiency are, Murkowski said it is also key to understand "what is happening out there with agency oversight; knowing what we have and using it to our advantage ... to ensure what we do have out there makes sense."
Streamlining the programs and regulations in place also ties into a fourth title planned for the comprehensive bill on "accountability," Murkowski said.
"I think this is part of our required review not only of the 22 energy efficiency bills but how do we bring about efficiency within our processes so we make sure our programs are working properly," she said.
Along those lines, Murkowski raised concerns about the possibility of duplicating or burdening a state's own initiative if there is a national energy efficiency resource standard, as promoted in a bill from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), S. 1063.
Her colleagues Hoeven and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) similarly pressed their provisions on lifting overly burdensome energy efficiency regulation and duplicative programs on fossil fuel phaseouts, S. 869; gas furnace standards, S. 1029; and green building programs, S. 939 (E&E Daily, April 29).
Kathleen Hogan, DOE's deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency, said many of these programs, and certainly those at DOE, were complimentary and not duplicative.
"I think I can speak quite well to how well and how committed we are to make sure these are effectively coordinated and supporting the mission of doing what they are supposed to do," Hogan told the committee. "Through R&D, deployment, and collaborations at all levels of government and the private sector, the Department of Energy aims to capitalize on the opportunities that energy efficiency affords."
While DOE supported the "underlying goals" of several of the energy efficiency bills, including S. 720 -- the latest version of the long-standing Shaheen-Portman bill -- and S. 858 -- to promote the use of energy-savings performance contracts and utility energy service contracts -- the agency is still reviewing details and did not take a position on any of the bills, Hogan said.
Democratic members of the committee chose to focus on the provisions to expand energy efficiency during the hearing.
Franken stressed that his energy efficiency resource standard measure would cut three times more carbon emissions as compared to the Shaheen-Portman bill and together they would remove emissions equivalent to taking 88 million cars off the road, according to a preliminary analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
Ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also refrained from comment about the discussion of regulation reform and streamlining for now.
"I think today was a love-fest about energy efficiency, and so we are not trying to squelch that and definitely want to get to things that will promote further deployment," she said after the hearing.
-
House Energy Efficiency Bill Draws Opposition From Committee Democrats
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Energy efficiency legislation unveiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee drew opposition from Democrats on the panel, who called into question the majority's quest to keep the bill bipartisan.
Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D- N.J.) and other minority members of the committee took issue with provisions in the bill that would repeal a federal requirement that new and significantly renovated federal buildings phase out the use of fossil energy, prohibit the Energy Department from issuing final energy efficiency standards for commonly used furnaces estimated to cost consumers as much as $11.6 billion and hinder the department's role in developing building codes related to energy efficiency.
“As this efficiency title is currently constituted, I would not be in a position to support it or to recommend that others support it,” Pallone said in his opening remarks of an April 30 Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing on the legislation.
The committee released the bill April 28 (82 DEN A-4, 4/29/15).
Opposition From Environmental Groups
Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Alliance to Save Energy also testified in opposition to those provisions, which are supported by trade groups representing utilities such as Xcel Energy Inc. and Southwest Gas Corp., as well as the National Association of Home Builders.
“Without significant changes to the energy efficiency title of the Discussion Draft, we will be unable to offer our support,” Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington-based nonprofit, told the committee.
The bill would “eviscerate DOE's historic role” in developing building codes by barring them from participating in steps related to their development, evaluation and adoption, and would weaken the certification process for state code submissions to the point where it would be “essentially an ‘automatic' certification by DOE regardless of whether or not efficiency criteria are met,” Callahan said in her written statement.
Bill Called ‘Disappointment.'
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) was more blunt in his criticism of the legislation. “This draft bill is a real disappointment,” he said.
Frank Thompson, a home builder representing the National Association of Home Builders, said the organization has concerns that “technical assistance” provided by the Energy Department “has been broadly interpreted to allow representatives from DOE to advocate for or against certain technologies, picking winners and losers and seeking aggressive and costly requirements.”
“Instead of allowing the builder to have flexibility in making decisions in the interest of the buyer, the energy codes dictate specific construction methods and which products to use,” Thompson said in his written testimony.
-
EPA Moves to Rescind Some Greenhouse Gas Permits Following Supreme Court Decision
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency in a direct final rule detailed steps that states may take to rescind some greenhouse gas permits in accordance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of the permitting program.
The final rule (RIN 2060-AS57), released April 30, does not rescind any prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits by itself. Rather, it provides a mechanism for state officials to rescind greenhouse gas permits that are no longer required.
The rule would allow industrial sources that were required to obtain PSD permits based solely on their greenhouse gas emissions once the EPA implemented the second phase of its permitting program July 1, 2011, to petition state or federal officials to rescind that permit. The recision authority also would allow permitting officials to revise Title V operating permits to reflect that change.
The permitting provisions at 40 C.F.R. Part 52.21 currently allow the EPA and states to rescind only those permits issued on or before July 30, 1987. The EPA direct final rule would amend that recision authority to include those greenhouse gas permits no longer allowed following a 2014 Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of the permitting requirements.
The rule doesn't quantify how many industrial sources could be affected, but the EPA said that “several sources” could seek to have their permits rescinded. The EPA and states have issued 196 prevention of significant deterioration permits with greenhouse gas requirements as of August 2014, according to agency data.
Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA in an April 30 e-mail that he did not believe that many permits would be affected.
Court Limited Permitting
As part of the first step of its greenhouse gas permitting program, only those sources already subject to permitting requirements for other pollutants were initially required to obtain permits for greenhouse gases as well. The second step, which took effect July 1, 2011, expanded the program to include those sources that would trigger permitting requirements based solely on their greenhouse gases.
Those permits are no longer applicable since the Supreme Court held that only those sources that would be subject to permitting requirements for conventional pollutants must also permit their greenhouse gas emissions (Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 78 ERC 1585, 2014 BL 172973 (S.C. 2014) ).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 10 vacated portions of the EPA's tailoring rule in accordance with the Supreme Court decision (Coal. for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 09-01322, 4/10/15; 71 DEN A-1, 4/14/15).
The EPA also plans to issue the direct final rule as a proposed rule.. If it receives any adverse comments on the direct final rule, the agency will proceed through the proposed rule process.
The direct final rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
-
EPA Rejects Multiple Bids For Further Reconsideration Of Utility MACT
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has rejected multiple petitions by industry and environmentalists for the agency to again reconsider its utility air toxics rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for power plants, rebuffing an industry assault on its estimates of health risk from mercury and other toxins, and criticisms over a slew of other technical aspects of the rule.
In an April 30 Federal Register notice, EPA denies a host of petitions for review of its 2012 MACT rule, filed by industry and environmental groups. The agency defends its discretion on scientific and technical matters, saying it has already responded adequately to numerous points raised by petitioners in its response to public comments.
Since the rule’s publication, EPA has granted reconsideration of several discrete issues raised by the petitioners, and modified the rule on several occasions to make changes that environmentalists say weaken the rule’s health protections. For example, EPA has made available alternative compliance options that would enable utilities to more easily comply with the MACT during periods of startup.
However, many issues were left unresolved from the 20 petitions filed over the MACT, and another three filed over the related utility new source performance standards (NSPS) for power plants, according to EPA’s notice. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed letters to petitioners denying their petitions April 21, EPA says. The agency summarizes the many points raised by petitioners and its responses in a document posted to its website.
Many of the individual complaints by industry groups relate to EPA’s scientific evaluation of the health risks posed by mercury and other harmful pollutants regulated by the MACT and NSPS. Industry petitioners challenge EPA’s risk assessment, which they said is exaggerated and based on worst-case assumptions, such as high fish consumption rates.
Some issues raised by petitioners are now moot -- for example, EPA has now dropped “affirmative defense” provisions to shield industry from civil liability for high emissions that occur during periods of malfunction, which environmentalists have criticized as unlawful, pointing to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in unrelated litigation that agreed with environmentalists’ position.
Other issues did not meet the criteria for reconsideration, including being made too late. For example, EPA says a “significant majority of the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration were or could have been raised in comments on the proposed [MACT] and Utility NSPS,” and therefore do not warrant reconsideration.
Also, a host of issues were raised by industry and environmentalists in petitions for judicial review with the D.C. Circuit in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA. The D.C. Circuit last year rejected all of these and upheld the rule in its entirety. The Supreme Court is now weighing the legality of the rule on one narrow issue of whether EPA should have considered costs in its preliminary determination that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate air toxics from power plants, with a ruling expected in June.
Mercury Exposure
Many of the issues raised by industry in petitions for administrative reconsideration relate to EPA’s risk assessment for mercury exposure from power plants. EPA rejects criticism that it overestimated risk by basing its calculations on unrealistic assumptions that project more fish consumption than is reasonable.
EPA in response points to similar arguments made during the D.C. Circuit litigation, saying, “in the White Stallion decision, the Court found that ‘EPA’s “appropriate and necessary” determination in 2000, and its reaffirmation of that determination in 2012, are amply supported by EPA’s findings regarding the health effects of mercury exposure.’” EPA says that in the context of this rulemaking, it was justified in using fish consumption rates that reflect the “maximally exposed” population of subsistence fish consumers, rather than lower fish consumption rates the agency has assumed in other rules.
EPA further rejects criticisms that it failed to account for mercury reductions that would be achieved by its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule emissions trading program, and failed to properly account for foreign sources of mercury such as China.
The agency rejects a long list of criticisms over technical aspects of the MACT and NSPS rules, including; averaging times for regulatory compliance; startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions; alleged bias against co-generation of power by industrial boilers; monitoring, testing, reporting and recordkeeping provisions; data quality; quantification of “co-benefits” of reducing pollutants not directly regulated by the MACT; use of “surrogate” pollutants; calculation of MACT “floors,” or minimum emissions standards; compliance deadlines; electric grid reliability; “sub-categorization” of different boiler types and other issues. Any lawsuits challenging EPA’s denial of the various petitions for administrative review must be filed with the D.C. Circuit by June 30, EPA says.
-
EPA Drops Plan Subjecting EOR To CCS Permits Following Critics’ Caution
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Curt Barry
EPA has dropped a controversial plan that would have subjected enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells to strict permits intended for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) operations rather than more relaxed permits for oil and gas operations following industry warnings that the plan would have stymied the sector that is expected to provide a major market for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources.
Peter Grevatt, director of EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, signed an April 24 memo that largely drops plans to require existing EOR wells to transition from their current Class II underground injection control (UIC) permits for oil and gas operations to stricter Class VI permits for CCS, declaring in part that CO2 can be safely stored under existing Class II permits.
Among other things, the memo concludes that EOR operations can switch from using a natural source to an anthropogenic source of CO2 without triggering the need to upgrade to a stricter Class VI permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) program.
But the memo, sent to the agency’s regional water division directors, leaves the door open to consider some EOR wells for Class VI permits in cases where the Class II rules may not provide regulators with adequate tools to protect against “increased risks” to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from “significant storage of CO2 in the reservoir.”
The most direct indicator of increased risk to USDWs “is increased pressure in the injection zone related to the significant change of CO2,” the memo says. “Increases in pressure with the potential to impact USDWs should first be addressed using tools within the Class II program. Transition to Class VI should only be considered if the Class II tools are insufficient to manage the increased risk.”
The dramatic changes to the EPA guidance follow a wave of industry opposition to a draft guidance EPA issued in 2013 that proposed to transition EOR wells from existing SDWA Class II permits -- which govern a range of oil and gas sector activities -- to novel Class VI wells intended for CCS projects as they sequester increasing amounts of CO2.
EPA’s Class VI program, established in 2010, includes significantly more rigorous site survey requirements, a more comprehensive monitoring program and additional financial responsibilities.
Energy groups raised strong concerns over the previous draft guidance, warning it would make it difficult for the EOR industry -- currently viewed by some as the only form of carbon capture that is commercially viable -- to use CO2 captured from power plants. That could undermine the agency’s claim that CCS is “adequately demonstrated” as a means of complying with its proposed rule to curb CO2 from future utilities.
The agency’s more relaxed approach is already winning praise from industry representatives. A California CCS industry source says the EPA memo provides a very welcome “bright line guidance” that has been a “long time in the making.”
Industry Concerns
EPA first released its “Draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program On Transitioning Class II Wells to Class VI Wells” guidance in December 2013, and took comment on the document through March 1, 2014.
Major industry organizations, including the National Mining Association, Edison Electric Institute and American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, charged in comments to EPA last year that the previous draft guidance document would prompt EOR operators to halt purchases of CO2 from utilities if the agency required them to transition from a Class II well permit to a Class VI permit.
As a result, this scenario would have the effect of eliminating CCS as a viable compliance option for utilities trying to comply with EPA’s new source performance standards (NSPS) requiring coal power plants to install partial CCS, the organizations argued. Under the NSPS, EPA is proposing a greenhouse gas control standard that would require new plants to install at least partial CCS in order to capture 30 percent of their emissions.
The new guidance memo now states that EOR “wells across the U.S. are currently permitted as UIC Class II wells. CO2 storage associated with Class II wells is a common occurrence, and CO2 can be safely stored where injected through Class II-permitted wells for the purpose of oil and gas-related recovery.”
EOR operations can continue to be permitted as Class II wells regardless of the source of CO2, the new guidance states. “An owner or operator of an [EOR] operation can switch from using a natural source to an anthropogenic source of CO2 without triggering the need for a Class VI permit.”
EPA also received push-back on the previous draft guidance from states, whose officials argued that the document may allow the agency to “unlawfully” preempt states’ control over EOR wells and force operators to obtain the stricter Class VI permits.
In a 2014 letter, the state attorneys general of Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska and South Carolina said the draft guidance created confusion and uncertainty for states with permitting authority to oversee their own Class II programs -- the majority of oil- and gas-producing states.
Many states have delegated authority, known as “primacy,” for permitting Class II wells but no state currently has primacy for Class VI wells, for which EPA retains permitting power. Therefore, the attorneys general feared that an EPA regional official could cite the guidance to force a state Class II director to change a well to Class VI. But EPA’s new revised guidance document now states that the “best implementation approach is for states to administer both the Class II and the Class VI UIC programs.” EPA “encourages states to apply for primacy for all well classes, including Class VI,” the memo says. “Based on our conversations with states, in most cases, states who are approved for primacy for the Class VI program are expected to administer the program through their oil and gas program.” -
-
California Leading Effort to Push Global Activity on Climate Change: Brown Adviser
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California is leading an effort by subnational governments to advance global action on climate change, Ken Alex, a senior policy adviser to Gov. Jerry Brown (D), told a climate change conference.
Negotiations are under way to get hundreds of national and subnational governments that are pursuing climate policies to sign agreements to be delivered at the international climate talks in Paris in December, he said.
The initial list of signatories will be released May 19, Alex told the April 28-30 conference sponsored by the Climate Action Reserve in Los Angeles.
“We're going to build on that list,” he said. The goal is to represent “a significant chunk of the world's [gross domestic product] by the time we get to Paris.”
As part of the project, each of the signatories will outline their individual climate initiatives and actions, Alex said.
The initiative is among several ways California is sharing its climate policies and technologies with the rest of the nation and the world, Alex said.
Much of the discussion at the opening plenary session of the conference, titled Navigating the American Carbon World, focused on climate and energy policies being implemented in the West Coast states and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
California Serving as Model
California's low-carbon fuel standard, which requires the state's transportation fuels to be 10 percent less-carbon intensive by 2020, is serving as a model policy for both Oregon and Washington, representatives of the two states said.
Oregon has passed legislation to implement a clean fuels program, similar to California's fuels program, according to Margi Hoffman, energy policy adviser to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D).
“We consider it a market-based approach” for reducing emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for 36 percent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions, Hoffman said.
The Americans Trucking Associations and two petroleum industry groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the measure, alleging it violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution (Am. Fuel & Petrochemical Mfrs. v. O'Keeffe, D. Ore., No. 3:15-cv-00467, complaint filed 3/23/15; ( 57 DEN A-5, 3/25/15).
Oregon sees the fuels standards as a building block for the state's discussion on carbon pricing policies, Hoffman said.
Washington State Commitment
Chris Davis, a senior adviser to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), said the governor is committed to taking “serious action on climate change” and looking for ways to put a price on carbon, including evaluating a cap-and-trade program.
Inslee believes he has executive authority to implement a clean fuels standard, Davis said.
With Washington facing budget challenges to shore up transportation and education funding, Inslee is framing cap-and-trade as an economic opportunity, Davis said.
“We may not see a carbon solution come out” of the Legislature, but the dialogue has changed, he said.
Quebec's launch of a cap-and-trade program, and its linkage with the California emissions trading system, meant a modest hike in fuel prices, but now there's overwhelming support for the program, David Heurtel, provincial minister of sustainable development, environment and the fight against climate change, told the conference.
A year ago, there was enormous pressure for Quebec to not establish a carbon market, and “Ontario was light-years away from considering pricing carbon,” Heurtel said. Now Ontario has announced plans to develop an emissions trading market and link it with California's program.
Economic Advantages Discussed
Heurtel also discussed the economic advantages of the program, pointing to a company that developed technology to capture coal-mine methane and produce offset credits under the California and Quebec programs.
Glen Murray, Ontario minister of the environment and climate change, said that advancing climate policies and carbon pricing programs requires leadership from corporations, nonprofit groups and the government.
“We have a dynamic premier now,” Murray said.
Earlier in April, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne announced plans to develop a cap-and-trade program and link it with the Quebec and California markets (71 DEN A-14, 4/14/15).
Ontario is working to bring business and industry to the table to discuss cap-and-trade, Murray said.
States, Provinces Taking Lead
The keynote speaker at the event, Bill Ritter, the former governor of Colorado and now director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University, said subnational governments, including many U.S. states and Canadian provinces, are leading the way when it comes to adopting climate policies.
Many states are looking at the carbon markets in California and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast as an opportunity to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gases, Ritter said.
In fact, the EPA proposal has many states exploring carbon pricing options and efforts to work cooperatively, he said.
-
Senate 'Waters' Bill Outlines Parameters For Revamped EPA Regulation
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Amanda Palleschi
A bipartisan group of senators opposed to EPA's pending final Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule has introduced a bill directing the agency to issue a revised proposal with a specific checklist of which waters can and cannot be covered by a new rule -- seeking to provide more specificity than House legislation aimed at blocking the rule.
The senators at an April 30 press conference touted the bill's “moderate” language, saying they anticipate receiving enough Democratic support, once the bill is read through, to possibly override a potential presidential veto.
“It is moderate enough that I think it can be advanced,” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). “Is it going to be the final product? No one can say that. I've been around long enough to know that everyone is going to want to have a little bit of input. But the way this has been written and advanced, with compromises put in while we were writing it, people are going to be pleasantly surprised and be able to step forward.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, has made passage of the legislation one of his priorities, along with advancing a highway funding bill and moving legislation to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
The legislation -- which has backing from Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) in addition to Inhofe -- differs from other pending bills seeking to block EPA's pending jurisdiction rule in that it leaves less discretion to EPA on how to revise the rule, compared to a House bill, but does not bar the agency from issuing a revised regulation, as a competing Senate bill would.
Senators speaking at the press conference said their constituents in the agriculture communities had identified the rule as a top regulatory concern.
“It's their number one issue,” Roberts said, adding that the bill should send a message to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to “withdraw the rule, start from scratch . . . in a manner that allows for more meaningful input.”
“If you are from one of our types of states, it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican,” Donnelly said. “It's not Republican farmers who are telling us this, it's, who are your farmers? There's no reason we can't get the votes.”
But McCarthy has stressed that the agency would not re-propose the rule, and observers expect President Obama to veto legislation requiring a re-proposal.
Defining Covered Waters
S. 1140 sets a deadline of Dec. 31, 2016, for EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a revised rule and outlines the types of waters that would be subject to CWA requirements.
A new jurisdiction regulation should cover: streams “identified on maps at the scale used by EPA to identify potential sources of drinking water; streams with enough flow to carry pollutants to a navigable water, based on a quantifiable and statistically valid measure of flow for that geographic area; wetlands situated next to a water of the United States; and areas unlawfully filled without a permit,” according to a summary of the bill's language.
The bill also specifies that a “water of the U.S.” should not include: water that is located below the surface of the land, including soil water and groundwater; water that is not located within a body of water including channels that have no bed, bank or ordinary high water mark or surface hydrologic connection to traditional navigable waters; isolated ponds; stormwater and floodwater management systems; wastewater management systems; municipal and industrial water supply management systems; agricultural water managements systems; streams that do not have enough flow to carry pollutants to navigable waters; prior converted cropland, and areas lawfully filled pursuant to a permit or areas exempt from permitting.
Barrasso, speaking on the Senate floor April 30, said the “bipartisan bill does nothing to block legitimate protection of the true waters of the United States” but “simply restores Washington’s attention to the traditional waters that were always the focus before.”
Referencing concerns from industry and agriculture that EPA's pending rule would expand the scope of waters subject to regulation, Barrasso said S. 1140 would keep “Washington’s hands off of the things like irrigation ditches, isolated ponds, and groundwater” and prevent jurisdictional determinations from being “based on plants and insects.” Instead, the bill would result in a rule “that protects streams that could carry dangerous pollutants to navigable waters, or wetlands that protect those waters from pollutants.”
The bipartisan Senate bill comes at the House lawmakers are expected to vote on similar legislation May 1. H.R. 1732, which the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee approved April 15, would require an extensive consultation process with states and industry over the scope of the water law and force EPA and the Corps to withdraw the proposal EPA issued April 21, 2014, within 30 days of enactment. The agencies would then have to craft a new proposal based on comments received, on the rule, a related cost-benefit analysis, and scientific study on waters' connectivity, and joint consultations with state and local stakeholders. Earlier in April, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced legislation, S. 980, that would block EPA from finalizing the rule, and restrict the definition of “navigable waters” subject to the CWA. The bill has the support of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and four other Republicans -- but not Inhofe.
-
House Kicking Vote On Water Rule To Next Month
Apr 30, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
The House will wait until next month to take up its measure aimed at killing the Obama administration's controversial water rule.
House Republican leaders had planned to start consideration of the bill, H.R. 1732, tomorrow but will kick the debate and a final vote to next month, a GOP aide said.
The bill would give U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers 30 days to withdraw a rule the Obama administration is finalizing to clarify which streams and wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act and three months to then consult with state and local officials on how to address the issue.
The delay stems from a decision by GOP leaders last night to pull from the floor an appropriations bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction, a change that also pushed back a debate on amendments to the energy and water spending bill.
House Republicans also inserted language to block the proposed "Waters of the United States" rule in the energy and water measure, which is expected to pass tomorrow afternoon.
Senate authorizers are also unhappy with the rule and introduced legislation today that would require EPA and the Army Corps to proposed a new rule (Greenwire, April 30).
-
Brown’s Goals On Water And Climate Change Need Specifics
Apr 30, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
Nine years into a landmark effort to limit climate change, California is poised to push even further by capping emissions ever tighter. It’s part environmental crusade and part political challenge pushed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who is rightly impatient with Washington’s slow pace.
The governor, though, needs to supply the crucial specifics on what follows. It’s akin to his talk on the drought, another crisis that has led to calls for conservation and a war on water wasters that lacks details. With the drought, California is taking impromptu steps, while major changes such as limits on groundwater pumping and shifts in agriculture lie ahead. Where this direction leads will be enormously important for the state’s future.
The water dilemma might be troubling enough to sidetrack any other initiative. As a long summer approaches, California residents may not want to hear another sweeping Sacramento proposal that asks people, industry and government to change in a major way.
But Brown is showing leadership in not backing away from the challenge of climate change. The state is already out front with a cap-and-trade system adopted in 2006 that curbed greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, blamed for rising global temperatures.
Tacked on are other laws to produce cleaner fuel, lesser tailpipe emissions, and energy-thrifty buildings and appliances. Within the next five years, a third of the state’s electricity will come from solar, wind and other renewable power sources. It’s a far cry from the national foot-dragging over limiting coal-fueled power plants and mumbled doubts about the reality of climate change.
State officials believe California is on a pace to hit a first-step goal of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. That’s an initial down payment on the major target of 80 percent reduction by 2050.
Brown wants to speed up the process dramatically by cutting emissions by 40 percent by 2030. A strong green-tech sector, environment-friendly voters and Democratic control of the Capitol underlie Brown’s assertive plans. A booming state economy has undercut business complaints about the new rules.
Brown has hinted at the future changes needed to hit his marks. Power generation will need to get greener. Cars will run on less gas and more batteries. Buildings will use less energy and sprout more solar panels.
But the next steps — as with the drought — must be spelled out to assure residents that state directives and the everyday costs of transforming California will be achievable. California has high electricity costs and gas-pump costs brought on by the need to clean the state’s air, routinely rated among the worst in the nation. The next steps will need to be clearly explained and justified as well.
California is showing ambition and strength in facing climate change. It’s time to supply the critical details that will deliver this goal.
One drop over the line?
Gov. Jerry Brown proposes penalizing water wasters up to $10,000. But who is a water waster?
It depends. Each district sets its own rules. The East Bay Municipal Utility District will subject households to a modest fine if they exceed 984 gallons per day, about four times the district average. San Francisco defines water wasters as those who allow landscape irrigation to run off on sidewalks.
Each district has its own targets, and the state may punish an agency that fails to preach conservation to its customers. While districts would have the authority to impose the big fine, it is unlikely any customer will pay it.
-
More Groups Lobbying on Ozone Following EPA Proposal to Revise 2008 Standards
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Lobbying on national ozone standards increased by 184 percent from a year ago, following the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to revise the standards, with 88 groups and companies reporting lobbying on the issue during the first three months of 2015, according to public records.
Officials with several organizations told Bloomberg BNA that the existence of a concrete proposal from the EPA and the looming Oct. 1 deadline for the agency to finalize its decision on the ozone standards have fueled the increase in lobbying activity.
Supporters and opponents of more stringent national ambient air quality standards for ozone said lobbying is part of a larger effort on ozone, which includes various public awareness campaigns and discussions with the EPA and the White House.
The EPA in November 2014 proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the current standards issued in 2008 of 75 parts per billion to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, a development that the agency estimated could cost up to $16.6 billion annually. The proposal would revise both the health-based primary standard and the welfare-based secondary standard to somewhere in that range (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
All Industry Sectors Concerned
Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, told Bloomberg BNA April 30 that the EPA's proposal motivated member companies across all sectors, including energy, agriculture and construction, to get involved on ozone.
That is unique for environmental regulations, which typically only affect specific sectors, he said. “This one really hits everybody,” Eisenberg said.
When asked about the increase in industry lobbying activity on ozone, Eisenberg cited two main factors: “timing and the fact there is a proposal that frankly we don't like.”
The 88 distinct filings that mention ozone represent a 33 percent increase from the 66 groups that reported lobbying on the issue in the fourth quarter of 2014 and a 184 percent increase from the 31 groups that lobbied on ozone in the first quarter of 2014.
Bloomberg BNA conducted its review of the Senate Office of Public Records lobbying disclosure database using the search term “ozone.” The first-quarter filing deadline for 2015 was April 20.
New Organizations Report Lobbying
Some of the groups that reported lobbying on ozone in 2015 that did not in 2014 include American Electric Power, the American Wood Council and the state of Indiana, which filed comments on the ozone proposal urging the EPA to retain the current standards.
Advocacy on the ozone standards isn't new for the wood products industry, but the American Wood Council waited for the EPA to issue its proposal before beginning its lobbying of Congress, Sarah Dodge-Palmer, vice president of government affairs at the council, said.
Dodge-Palmer told Bloomberg BNA the group has been “very active” in advocacy efforts toward the EPA and is in the midst of a new effort to inform Congress of how a more stringent standard could affect various states differently.
Group Distributing Maps of Facilities
Those efforts include distributing maps to the EPA and members of Congress showing the location of wood products, pulp and paper facilities and whether those areas would be in nonattainment of a more stringent ozone standard based on 2011-2013 monitoring.
A nonattainment designation triggers additional pollution control requirements and more stringent permitting requirements under the EPA's new source review program, which applies to new and modified power plants, manufacturing facilities and other industrial facilities.
Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for American Electric Power, told Bloomberg BNA that the company started lobbying on ozone in 2015 because there is “an actual proposal now to talk about and express views on.”
Health Organizations Weigh In
While various industries are working together against a more stringent ozone standard, many public health and environmental groups that support a revised standard also reported lobbying activity. Those organizations include the American Lung Association (ALA), the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.
Lyndsay Moseley, director of the ALA's Healthy Air Campaign, told Bloomberg BNA there is increasing interest in ozone pollution by the health and medical community because of strong evidence that a more protective standard is needed.
“The science is so clear,” Moseley said. “We cannot emphasize enough the health impacts of breathing unhealthy levels of ozone.”
Moseley said the public health groups, which would like to see ozone standards no higher than 60 ppb, are reinforcing the strengths of the science and reminding members of Congress of the requirements of the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to set the primary, health-based ozone standard at a level that is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
Interest in Republican Proposals
Many of the groups that reported lobbying on ozone identified a pair of bills that would block the EPA from finalizing revised standards in 2015.
One of those bills, the Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act (S. 751, H.R. 1388), would bar the EPA from setting more stringent standards until 85 percent of the areas currently designated as being in nonattainment with the 2008 ozone standards of 75 ppb demonstrate compliance.
That legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and in the House by Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) (52 DEN A-17, 3/18/15).
The other bill (S. 640), introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), would block the EPA from finalizing revised ozone standards until Feb. 1, 2018 (43 DEN A-23, 3/5/15).
Groups Support Regulatory, Legislative Fixes
Eisenberg said that while industry trade associations are working together for a regulatory solution to their concerns with the EPA's proposal, they also are supportive of legislative fixes that would block the revised standards.
He specifically highlighted provisions of the CASE Act that would require the EPA to consider feasibility and cost when deciding where to set the ozone standards, two things that the EPA currently is barred from considering under the Clean Air Act.
Eisenberg also said Flake's bill, the Ozone Regulatory Delay and Extension of Assessment Length (ORDEAL) Act , had good ideas about extending the current five-year review cycle for national air quality standards.
“Ultimately, we're at a point now where we'll take anything,” Eisenberg said.
Lobbied Against Bills
While many industry groups reported lobbying on those bills, the Sierra Club and the American Lung Association both reported lobbying against both ozone bills.
Terry McGuire, Washington representative for the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA in an April 30 e-mail that the group has focused its efforts on highlighting the overwhelming public support for strong clean air protections.
“We will continue to draw out the distinctions between those elected officials that are fighting to protect their constituents from deadly air pollution and those that are content to do the bidding of big corporate polluters,” McGuire said.
Additional Action Planned
Representatives on both sides of the debate said lobbying and public outreach efforts would continue leading up to the Oct. 1 deadline for finalizing the new standards.
McGuire said the Sierra Club and other environmental and public health groups will continue to implement “strong media and field strategies” to remind the EPA and the White House of the science that supports a stronger standard.
He noted that the groups helped generate more than 500,000 public comments in support of the strongest possible standards and said the groups will continue their grass-roots efforts.
The Sierra Club in April launched a nationwide campaign to raise awareness of the need for a stronger ozone standard. That campaign will continue through October and will include online and print advertisements, as well as collaborations with local officials and community organizations.
Profiles Issued on Supporters, Opponents
The Sierra Club also issued a series of baseball-themed profiles of various members of Congress identifying supporters and opponents of clean air, action on climate change and clean energy.
Eisenberg said the National Association of Manufacturers is in the middle of a multimillion dollar advocacy campaign including lobbying, media and grass-roots efforts. Ozone is one of the highest priority issues for the manufacturing sector, which is planning a “consistent drum beat” from now until the Oct. 1 deadline, he said.
“We're pulling out all the stops,” Eisenberg said.
-
Environmentalists Ask Court To Force Recordkeeping In Waste Rule
Apr 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists in litigation over EPA's non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) rule, a regulation defining what is “fuel” for use in boilers and what is “waste” to be incinerated, are urging a federal appeals court to force EPA to require industry to keep records to confirm compliance with “self-implementing” exclusions from the waste rule, amid fears that the court could vacate a similar provision from a related incinerator rule.
With oral argument in the case, Eco Services Operations LLC v. EPA, set for May 11 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Earthjustice on behalf of nine environmental groups is warning the court that the absence of the recordkeeping mandate from the NHSM rule could leave a regulatory void. Environmentalists fear that an overly broad definition of “fuel” permits the burning of potentially dangerous materials, and argue that industry should not be left to self-police its use of exclusions from the rule.
In an April 21 letter, they note that industry opponents are trying to strip equivalent recordkeeping requirements from the related EPA rule limiting air emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI), in the D.C. Circuit case American Forest and Paper Association v. EPA.
EPA has defended its decision not to require industry to keep the records in question in the NHSM rule because it did impose such conditions in the CISWI rule.
In the letter, Earthjustice attorney Seth Johnson writes, “EPA seeks to support its refusal to establish recordkeeping or notification requirements to verify compliance with the conditions for various 'self-implementing' exclusions from its definition of non-hazardous secondary waste by relying on recordkeeping requirements in EPA's rule” for CISWI. “Industry petitioners have asked the Court to vacate those recordkeeping requirements.”
Thus, “the decision in American Forest and Paper Association v. EPA . . . may be relevant to the disposition of the present case, even though that case will not be argued until the fall. Vacating the recordkeeping requirements of the incinerator rule would undermine EPA's rationale for not including recordkeeping requirements in the waste-definition rule at issue here.”
Environmental groups ask that, “if the Court grants Industry petitioners' request to vacate the incinerator rule's recordkeeping requirements, the Court also remand the definition rule so that its recordkeeping requirements can be strengthened.”
The letter further notes the close relationship between the NHSM rule, the CISWI rule and EPA's air rules for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers, which taken together form a package of “combustion” rules. “If, instead of deciding these cases together, the panel reaches a decision rejecting any aspect of the waste-definition rule before considering the incinerator and boiler cases, Environmental Petitioners respectfully suggest that supplemental briefing on the effect (if any) on the other rules and the appropriate remedy may be warranted.”
Industry in the related cases is seeking to overturn the rules for being too stringent, while environmentalists say the regulations are too lax.
-
Bill Would Prompt Tank Car Upgrades For Flammable Liquid Transport by Rail
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Seven senators introduced a bill April 30 that would provide companies with incentives to quickly upgrade rail tank cars used to transport flammable liquids, such as crude oil and ethanol.
The Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2015 (no bill number assigned), introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and six other senators, would implement a $175-per-shipment fee on trains that use DOT-111 tank cars to transport these liquids. The fee would increase every year and would be used to fund cleanup, emergency response preparation and, temporarily, tax credits for upgrading CPC-1232 tank cars.
“It's time for the Department of Transportation to push faster and more aggressively to make oil-by-rail transportation safer,” Wyden said in a statement. “This legislation takes a market-based approach to get unsafe cars off the tracks and safer cars on the tracks more quickly.”
The bill would address concerns that tank cars used for shipping flammable liquids aren't robust enough to limit risks if a train derails. Crude-by-rail derailments, which have become more frequent in recent years as domestic oil production has increased, have caused deaths and environmental and property harm and have prompted significant public concern.
Fee Would Be Used for Upgrades
The tax credit funded by the DOT-111 fee would be available for upgrades that occur between 2016 and 2018 from CPC-1232 cars, the current industry standard, to the standard set by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Additionally, the DOT-111 fee would fund efforts to reroute railroad tracks that handle large quantities of flammable liquid and fund more rail inspectors.
The fee also would implement some National Transportation Safety Board recommendations, such as strengthening rail track inspections, requiring the Transportation Department to conduct two studies about responder preparedness and freight train length safety and requiring the Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Census Bureau to publish certain data on this type of transport.
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) also sponsored the bill.
The senators introduced the bill the day before Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is scheduled to announce the new PHMSA tank car standard (see related story).
-
U.S., Canada to Announce Oil Tank Car Standards
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The U.S. and Canada will announce May 1 the new tank car standards for moving flammable liquids via rail, the Transportation Department said. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and Canada Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt will hold a news conference at 10:30 a.m. announcing the tank car standards and other aspects of a pending Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration rule that would govern crude-by-rail transport, according to the news release. The news conference will be held at the Transportation Department. Safety issues associated with moving crude oil on trains, such as potential fires and environmental damage that can result from derailments, have taken center stage in Washington following a series of high-profile derailments domestically and in Canada. As crude oil production has increased in areas without adequate pipeline infrastructure, the practice of transporting crude by rail and related derailments have increased.
-
Most Major Oil, Ethanol Train Derailments Occurred Below FRA-Issued Speed Limit
May 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Most major domestic crude oil and ethanol train derailments since 2006 have occurred at speeds lower than the Federal Railroad Administration's recently issued speed limits—limits some believe are indicative of what will appear in an upcoming Transportation Department final rule.
Despite this fact, the FRA said in its April 17 emergency order that the agency appropriately balanced risk mitigation benefits and economic and safety costs to come to a 40 mile-per-hour restriction for certain trains in certain areas. A railroad company and the National Transportation Safety Board, while not openly endorsing the requirement, noted that limiting speed is only one part of reducing risks associated with transporting these liquids.
“I don't know if moving to 40 [mph] is enough mitigation ... but what I do know is that it reduces kinetic energy, which reduces potential damage from an incident,” Michael Trevino, a spokesman for BNSF Railway Co., told Bloomberg BNA. “There is no silver bullet.”
The new speed limit took effect April 24. The rail agency said in its order that the restrictions were necessary until the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issues its final rule governing operational controls and tank car requirements for certain flammable liquid rail transportation, which PHMSA may announce May 1, and until that rule takes effect (see related story).
Safety issues associated with moving crude oil on trains, such as potential fires and environmental damage that can result from derailments, have taken center stage in Washington following a series of high-profile derailments domestically and in Canada. As crude oil production has increased in areas without adequate pipeline infrastructure, the practice of transporting crude by rail has increased, as have these types of derailments.
High-Hazard Flammable Trains
The FRA emergency order restricts “high-hazard flammable trains,” or certain trains carrying Class 3 flammable liquids such as crude oil and ethanol, from moving in high-threat urban areas at speeds of 40 mph or faster. There are 46 high-threat urban areas, defined as one or more cities and surrounding areas including a 10-mile buffer zone.
Specifically, the order applies to trains that have 20 or more tank cars of the Class 3 product in a continuous block or that move 35 or more tank cars of these products. Either way, a train would need at least one older DOT-111 tank car or CPC-1232 standard car transporting these liquids to be a high-hazard train (75 DEN A-10, 4/20/15).
These rail cars tend to be puncture prone and don't adequately retain the liquids during derailments.
Only four out of the 16 major domestic crude oil and ethanol incidents—identified by the Transportation Department in its April emergency order and its upcoming final rule on this type of transport—occurred when the train was moving at a speed of 40 miles per hour or faster. Those incidents included crude oil train derailments in New Augusta, Miss., and Casselton, N.D., in January 2014 and December 2013, respectively, and ethanol train derailments in Arcadia, Ohio, and Painesville, Ohio, in February 2011 and October 2007, respectively.
The railroad agency said in its order that its speed restriction appropriately balances risk mitigation benefits with potential economic and safety harms associated with slower speeds.
“This Order's threshold ensures that FRA is focusing on the highest risk shipments and not unnecessarily imposing safety-related burdens on lesser risks that do not represent the same safety and environmental concerns,” the order said.
Identifying Safe Speed
When asked whether the emergency order's speed restrictions are slow enough, Eric Weiss, spokesman for the NTSB, told Bloomberg BNA that the board doesn't set regulations and would be “hard-pressed to say this is a safe speed or this is not a safe speed.”
However, Weiss said these safety efforts need to be dealt with comprehensively—keeping the trains on the tracks and making tank cars “as robust as possible.” He wouldn't rule out the board commenting on PHMSA's chosen speed restrictions for its upcoming rule.
Trevino of BNSF also emphasized the importance of taking a comprehensive approach. BNSF, which in March upgraded its safety requirements for trains carrying crude oil, requires crude oil trains to reduce speeds to 35 miles per hour through communities of 100,000 residents or more, among other tank car, inspection and monitoring requirements (63 DEN A-11, 4/2/15).
“This [doesn't mean] that the problem was solved,” Trevino said. “DOT-111s and unmodified CPC-1232s need to come off the rails.”
Fast as Slowest Train
Slowing the speeds for flammable liquid trains will slow down the rail network for all shipments since “traffic can only go as fast as our slowest train,” Trevino said. The move could lead to higher costs for the rail industry, for example, if the railroad needs to boost capacity by expanding on existing lines, he said.
However, Trevino said that “safety is our top priority” and the railroad will continue its efforts to make this type of transport as safe as possible.
The American Petroleum Institute told Bloomberg BNA it is still reviewing the emergency order. Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, said the industry is complying with the order.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested