Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Safer Chemicals Can Make Economic Sense for Firms -- Report
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The market for safer chemicals is likely to grow faster than for traditional compounds, as companies can save money by avoiding the environmental impacts and liability risks of legacy products, according to a new report. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Faces Broad Criticism Over Upcoming Formaldehyde Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
U.S. EPA is expected to finalize a rule this fall to regulate formaldehyde in wood products, after years of facing opposition from industry groups and lawmakers. -
Chemicals In Food Wrappers And Outdoor Clothing Linked To Spike In Miscarriages
May 4, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
More bad news about the nonstick, greaseproof and waterproof chemicals in cookware, food wrappers, outdoor clothing and even cosmetics: In a Danish study, women whose blood had high levels of these perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, were up to 16 times more likely to suffer miscarriages. -
Senate May Vote On TSCA Reform Bill In June
May 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), a lead sponsor of bipartisan Senate legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), says the Senate could debate the bill on the floor as early as June, and the fact that the House is proceeding on a similar timeline with its own reform measure could result in the president signing a law before the end of the year. -
EPA, FERC in 'Ongoing Discussions' on Grid Reliability Under CO2 Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,
While the electric industry awaits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's contribution on how to ensure against power outages under the Clean Power Plan, a U.S. EPA spokeswoman said Friday that the two agencies have already been in "ongoing discussions" following a series of FERC technical conferences. -
Okla. Governor Vetoes Bill Aimed at EPA Carbon Plan After Signing Executive Order
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) vetoed a bill Friday that envisioned a review by the state's attorney general of any state implementation response to U.S. EPA's plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. -
McConnell's Clean Power Plan Warning -- A Stumbling Block, Or Empty Threat?
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) unveiled his latest strategy for blocking U.S. EPA's impending greenhouse gas regulations, it caught most of the energy world off-guard. -
Scientists: EPA’s Curbs on Coal-Burning Will Save Thousands of Lives
May 4, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The Obama administration’s proposed curbs on coal-burning power plants could prevent thousands of deaths each year from heart attack and respiratory disease, scientists said Monday in the first peer-reviewed study to examine the measure’s health impacts. -
Report: Global Emissions Goals Still Aren’t Enough to Prevent a Dangerous Level of Climate Warming
May 4, 2015 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
When it comes to combating climate change, many scientists and policy makers focus on one major goal: cut carbon emissions enough to keep the planet’s average surface temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above its pre-industrial level. -
Clean Power Plan Protects Public Health as Much as High Carbon Tax -- Paper
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will protect public health as much as a very stringent carbon tax would, but at less cost to consumers, a paper published today found. -
Supreme Court to Review FERC Energy Saving Rule
May 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Breet Kendall and Amy Harder
The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider whether a federal regulator overstepped its authority with a rule to promote energy conservation using incentives for big energy consumers to cut power use. -
SCOTUS Takes Up Appeal on Energy Rule
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider an Obama administration appeal to a lower court ruling that struck down a regulation meant to encourage energy conservation. -
SCOTUS Gives FERC a Second Chance on ‘Demand Response’
May 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
The Supreme Court threw a lifeline Monday to a FERC rule that the Obama administration calls an important tool for avoiding blackouts and lessening air pollution during times of peak power demand. -
Study: EPA's Carbon Rules Save More Lives than Carbon Tax
May 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A carbon dioxide emissions reduction plan similar to EPA's Clean Power Plan results in greater public health benefits than other options, according to a new study in Nature Climate Change. -
USDOT Releases Final Rule on Crude-By-Rail Safety, Joins Transport Canada in Introducing New Tank-Car Class
May 4, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
By Jeff Stagl
The day that railroads, tank-car builders and lessors, shippers, refiners and other crude-oil supply-chain constituents long have been waiting for arrived on Friday, when the U.S Department of Transportation (USDOT) released its final safety rule governing the transportation of flammable liquids by rail, primarily crude and ethanol. -
Schumer Wants Older Crude-by-Rail Tank Cars Phased Out Faster
May 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
Sen. Chuck Schumer is floating a bill that would speed up the retirements of DOT-111 and newer CPC-1232 tank cars, saying DOT's tank car rule announced Friday moves too slowly. -
With Federal Deadlines Set, Crude-By-Rail Industry Gets Ready for Makeover
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The clock is ticking for oil shippers that rely on rail tank cars to shuttle more than a million barrels of crude each day from shale plays in North Dakota and Canada.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Safer Chemicals Can Make Economic Sense for Firms -- Report
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The market for safer chemicals is likely to grow faster than for traditional compounds, as companies can save money by avoiding the environmental impacts and liability risks of legacy products, according to a new report.
The report, by the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council and the American Sustainable Small Business Council, found that the market for safer chemicals is estimated to grow 24 times that for conventional chemicals from 2011 to 2020.
The groups, which work to promote the business case for using less toxic chemicals, worked with environmental consulting firm Trucost PLC to conduct the research, which they said was the first comprehensive picture of the costs and benefits of less toxic chemicals.
The report shows "that safer chemicals are the future, not just for safety and health, but for business itself," David Levine, CEO of the American Sustainable Small Business Council, said in a statement.
The report noted that large companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co. have seen growth in "green chemistry" products, while smaller companies like Seventh Generation have also seen strong sales of the products but have room for further growth.
"We found that safer chemistry's potential for creating business and economic value is promising but not yet fully realized," the report said.
Customers are signaling that they want products that are made using safer chemicals, but most companies are reacting to demands rather than moving on their own, the report said. In addition, most firms do not use a comprehensive approach to formulate products in a way that uses the least toxic chemicals, but instead respond to complaints about specific products and ingredients, according to the report.
The report said that companies need to evaluate whether safer chemicals make economic sense for their businesses and more clearly track these metrics. Ultimately, these steps will help companies meet the changing demands of consumers and major businesses that are increasingly putting purchasing requirements in place for safer products, the groups said.
The research "clearly demonstrates the business benefits of safer chemicals," Trucost CEO Richard Mattison said in a statement. "By translating the risks and opportunities of green chemistry into economic terms, the results will help companies move from awareness to action."
The American Chemistry Council said in a statement it "supports the increased communications around these sustainability topics, and we are working to enhance value chain collaboration to further grow consumer confidence in the science that enables the safe and effective use of ingredients in consumer products."
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Faces Broad Criticism Over Upcoming Formaldehyde Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
U.S. EPA is expected to finalize a rule this fall to regulate formaldehyde in wood products, after years of facing opposition from industry groups and lawmakers.
The agency expects to finalize the rule in September, according to a rulemaking schedule published on its website. It was first proposed in 2013 (E&ENews PM, May 29, 2013).
Industry officials have pressed the White House and EPA to relax planned standards, which threaten the wood products industry's billions of dollars in sales. Furniture industry lobbyists, as well as Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), wrote to EPA raising questions about the proposed stricter testing standards.
The White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in 2012 struck key aspects from EPA's proposal, which reduced its estimated health benefits, making it more difficult for EPA to justify the regulations.
Industry executives also met with White House officials and Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, to push for rollbacks to the proposal.
Meanwhile, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and the American Chemistry Council have persistently challenged EPA science on formaldehyde exposures.
EPA is still working on the plan, Jones said.
"We have to reduce those exposures so that people can live healthy lives and not have to worry about being in their homes," Jones said (Lipton/Abrams, New York Times, May 3). -- SP
-
Chemicals In Food Wrappers And Outdoor Clothing Linked To Spike In Miscarriages
May 4, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
More bad news about the nonstick, greaseproof and waterproof chemicals in cookware, food wrappers, outdoor clothing and even cosmetics: In a Danish study, women whose blood had high levels of these perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, were up to 16 times more likely to suffer miscarriages.
The study was released on the same day as EWG’s Poisoned Legacy report, which details how the new generation of PFCs – replacements for chemicals once used to make Teflon and Scotchgard – are flooding the consumer marketplace despite an alarming lack of studies on whether they are any safer than their predecessors, which have been linked to cancer, birth defects and other serious health problems.
Separately last week, 14 international scientists published a statement in Environmental Health Perspectives, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, sounding the alarm about the new PFCs and urging consumers to avoid them.
The two most notorious PFCs – PFOA, which DuPont used to make Teflon, and PFOS, for 40-plus years the key ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard – have been phased out in the U.S. and effectively banned in Europe. The Danish study looked at two similar chemicals, PFNA and PFDA. They are also being phased out in the U.S. by the end of 2015, but the researchers said they believe they are still widely used in Europe in pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, carpet treatments and waterproof clothing. In any event, the replacement chemicals may not be much safer: The problem with PFCs is not with specific substances but the entire chemical family.
The researchers at the University of Southern Denmark studied 392 pregnant women, including 56 who miscarried. They found that those who miscarried had much higher levels of PFCs (also known as PFAS) in their blood. Tina Kold Jensen, who led the study, told Newsweek she was shocked by the results.
“I'm not a politician, but I think there has to be a political decision to ban these chemicals, because women should be able to eat whatever is in the stores. It shouldn't be up to the individual woman to figure out what she can eat,” said Jensen.
She’s right, and at least in Europe, health officials can require safety studies before allowing new chemicals on the market. But in the U.S., under the weak and outdated Toxic Substances Control Act, chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. Even when there is abundant evidence of harm, the law makes it essentially impossible for the Environmental Protection Agency to ban hazardous chemicals.
Instead EPA has to negotiate slow and incomplete phaseouts, largely on the manufacturers’ terms, which is what happened with DuPont and 3M. While the Teflon and Scotchgard chemicals were slowly being phased out, chemical companies introduced scores of new PFCs. The new chemicals have slightly different molecular structures than the old ones, which makes them less likely to build up in people’s blood, but the limited studies that have been done show that they may share many of the same health hazards. Under the outdated U.S. law, the details of these studies – as well as the chemicals’ names, the manufacturer, how much is produced and the products they’re used in – are often hidden as trade secrets.
That’s why real reform of the federal chemicals law, now being debated in Congress, is so important. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration should have the clear authority to protect public health by banning dangerous chemicals and keeping new chemicals off the market unless they’re proven safe.
In the meantime, the burden is on the consumer to try to avoid PFCs. To help, EWG has released an updated consumer’s guide to tell you how to minimize your exposure. Take its advice, but realize that this is not a problem you can shop your way out of. It’s time to make the precautionary principle – better safe than sorry – the foundation of U.S. chemical policy.
-
Senate May Vote On TSCA Reform Bill In June
May 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), a lead sponsor of bipartisan Senate legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), says the Senate could debate the bill on the floor as early as June, and the fact that the House is proceeding on a similar timeline with its own reform measure could result in the president signing a law before the end of the year.
“I think it could be on the floor of the Senate in June,” Udall told a May 1 town hall teleconference discussion on the legislation.
Udall also said the House's plans to move ahead with its own draft bill, floated by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) and tentatively scheduled for a May 14 markup, is a “very good sign” because moving on a similar timeline could allow lawmakers the time to “iron out any differences” in the legislation by the end of summer, with a goal of enactment some time this year.
Udall said he spoke with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) this week on the issue of timing, and that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who co-sponsored the legislation with Udall, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Senate environment committee chairman, would also speak with McConnell. The understanding is that the bill will “get in line behind” McConnell's other legislative priorities.
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 Vitter, cleared the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee in a 15-5 vote during an 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.
And while the revisions to the bill narrowed a number of preemption measures for state chemical requirements, Udall sought to highlight that robust national rules are necessary given that a number of states lack the resources to effectively regulate chemicals.
New Mexico and other states do not have the capacity to test hundreds of chemicals and write regulations to restrict them, Udall said, adding that the “patchwork [of state rules put into place in absence of a stronger TSCA] only does part of the job."
Moreover, Udall said, even for states that do step into the chemical regulation arena, they often target one chemical but not related or similar substances which could have adverse health effects. Former EPA toxics chief Lynn Goldman, also on the call, added that states often are only able to target one use, such as lead in children's jewelry, whereas EPA under TSCA can issue much broader requirements.
-
EPA, FERC in 'Ongoing Discussions' on Grid Reliability Under CO2 Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,
While the electric industry awaits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's contribution on how to ensure against power outages under the Clean Power Plan, a U.S. EPA spokeswoman said Friday that the two agencies have already been in "ongoing discussions" following a series of FERC technical conferences.
"We are reviewing comments on reliability and there have been ongoing discussions with FERC following up on a rich set of comments received from (regional transmission organizations), utilities and others on reliability," said EPA's Liz Purchia.
It's been six weeks since FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller said the clock is ticking for the agency to provide suggestions in time for EPA's final rule, which is expected in the coming months.
FERC spokeswoman Mary O'Driscoll said only that "when the commission has an announcement to make on this matter, we will make that announcement."
On Friday, FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable will headline a Bipartisan Policy Centerworkshop at the National Press Club on two of the reliability mechanisms that featured prominently in FERC's regional technical conferences. The event will explore the reliability assurance mechanism (RAM), a proposal for reviewing state carbon-cutting plans for reliability concerns and the reliability safety valve (RSV), a backstop tool for real-time problems.
Also this week, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association will have 2,000 representatives in Washington, D.C., meeting with senators and staff as part of the group's annual legislative conference. The House is not in session.
CEOs, federal affairs directors and board members of the co-ops will urge lawmakers to support legislation to stall the rule until the courts determine whether it is legal, which could take several years.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see news and documents related to the latest Clean Power Plan developments.
-
Okla. Governor Vetoes Bill Aimed at EPA Carbon Plan After Signing Executive Order
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) vetoed a bill Friday that envisioned a review by the state's attorney general of any state implementation response to U.S. EPA's plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
Fallin issued the veto the same week she signed an executive order that seeks to prevent Oklahoma from submitting an implementation plan related to a final EPA carbon rule (EnergyWire, April 30).
In a news release, the governor said the vetoed legislation -- S.B. 676 -- had been described as an attempt to fight EPA. In fact, Fallin said, it inadvertently had the opposite effect by requiring that Oklahoma develop a state plan. The attorney general could have rejected the plan after reviewing its legality.
Fallin said her executive order was the "clearest path" to fighting EPA carbon mandates, saying the legislative approach backed by some others in state government could come with great expense for the state.
"I stand with our Legislature and our attorney general in opposing the EPA's unconstitutional and ill-conceived power-grab," Fallin said in a news release. "However, we do not need to spend a lot of time and money to develop a plan that we have no intention of implementing and every intention of rejecting, which is what this bill requires."
In a veto message, Fallin said developing a state plan would involve "dozens of state and private entities and thousands of hours of study and negotiations. It is a massive undertaking and requires the commitment of untold amounts of financial and time resources." She called it unnecessary because she, the Legislature and the attorney general agree that Oklahoma shouldn't implement a state plan.
EPA has said it's preparing to deliver a final version of its proposed Clean Power Plan this summer. The plan seeks to cut carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Targets vary by state, and some interim goals could start in 2020.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a Republican, had applauded the Senate last week for passing S.B. 676 as a way to help fight EPA. In an emailed statement, his office had indicated the bill would bolster the more temporary nature of an executive order.
The Oklahoman newspaper reported that Pruitt, in a statement, expressed disappointment with the veto and said the bill wouldn't have created a large expense for the state but would have made sure Oklahoma didn't have to turn in a plan that conflicted with state or federal laws.
State Sen. Greg Treat, the Republican author of the bill, described the executive order as cover for a veto and was considering Friday afternoon whether to seek an override, The Oklahoman reported.
Fallin said in a news release last week that her executive order was intended to show that "Oklahoma has no intention of implementing new regulations that run directly contrary to the interests of our citizens and our state."
Her order said developing a plan could happen only if it's found to be necessary by the state's attorney general or a "court of competent jurisdiction." Fallin said there would need to be written authority of the governor.
If EPA's plan is finalized, Fallin said, the attorney general is to review it and publish a white paper on the legal efficacy of the regulation. She also requested the attorney general take necessary action in enforcing the rights of Oklahoma in relation to federal action that may affect the "freedoms of its people."
-
McConnell's Clean Power Plan Warning -- A Stumbling Block, Or Empty Threat?
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) unveiled his latest strategy for blocking U.S. EPA's impending greenhouse gas regulations, it caught most of the energy world off-guard.
After all, there's a growing consensus from all ideological ends of the spectrum that regional approaches to the Clean Power Plan would keep costs down for compliance, regulation and, most importantly, consumers' electricity bills. EPA even gives states that sign onto a regional plan an extra year to put their proposals together.
But during a back-and-forth last week with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at an appropriations hearing, McConnell threatened to block all multi-state compliance plans.
Calling up an obscure portion of the Clean Air Act, McConnell pointed out that in order to enter multi-state compliance approaches to be "binding or obligatory," they need approval from Congress. "I can assure you," McConnell told McCarthy, "that as long as I'm majority leader in the Senate, this body's not going to be signing off on backdoor energy taxes" (ClimateWire, April 30).
Republicans control both chambers of Congress, and while they do not have the ability to override a presidential veto without significant Democratic defections, they could easily block or defeat a compact authorization.
"I've been doing the Clean Air Act since 1990. I've never heard of this before," admitted Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air chief who now works as a partner at the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm.
The requirement "just hadn't been part of the conversation," said Kathryn Zyla, the deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center.
But while Holmstead thinks the congressional approval language could be a major roadblock for EPA's unprecedented effort to lower the power sector's carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels, others who have been analyzing multi-state compliance options envision no practical scenario where states would submit a compact for congressional approval.Untried language in the law
McConnell's threat is based on the intersection of two things: language embedded in the Clean Air Act and the requirements EPA has set for the implementation plans that states will submit to comply with the new Clean Power Plan.
Implementation plans need to be enforceable. The guidance EPA provided to states when it released its draft rule last year listed five different conditions to meet this bar -- among them that "each compliance activity or measure is enforceable as a practical matter" (translation: The state can actually track the carbon reductions it's requiring) and that "the Administrator and the state maintain the ability to enforce violations and secure appropriate corrective actions pursuant" to aspects of the Clean Air Act.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.
EPA says Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act gives it the authority to impose the new carbon dioxide regulation. But while another section of that law gives states the authority to enter into "agreements ... [of] cooperative effort and mutual assistance" to comply with the act's environmental regulations, it stipulates 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."
So the question is whether a multi-state plan can be deemed "enforceable" if Congress does not approve it as "binding or obligatory." Holmstead doesn't think it can.
"It's pretty clear that just a voluntary commitment or goal probably doesn't work under the Clean Air Act," he said. "That's an issue EPA's going to have to deal with."
"EPA hasn't discussed this anywhere," he added, "not in their proposed rule, not in their legal memo. It's just another issue EPA hasn't paid attention to."
The agency, for its part, wouldn't directly say whether it believes multi-state plans can be "enforceable" without congressional approval. Spokeswoman Liz Purchia's emailed response to the question: "Thanks in part to comments we received on the proposal, we are considering a variety of ways that states and utilities can realize flexibility through multi-state compliance strategies."A path to solution?
But others who have worked to develop regional compliance options say that, practically speaking, no states would submit a full-fledged compact to Congress. "I don't think it's a meaningful barrier," said Zyla. "Compacts are not necessary or even likely the way states would comply with the Clean Power Plan."
The much more likely regional compliance approach, she said, would be a situation where every state implements its own individual, enforceable program but follows a broad regional strategy. That's how the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative operates.
The nine-state coalition is based on a voluntary memorandum of understanding, enforced by model rules that every member state implemented through its own legislative or rulemaking process.
A growing number of states have also been discussing lower-level "modular" regional compliance approaches. The Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators, a group of states in the region covered by power grid manager the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, addressed this very issue in its December public comments on the rule.
"For example, two states could implement separate programs that are connected only by the mutual acceptance of each other's emissions and reductions. In such a case, the two state plans would stand alone as a legal and regulatory matter, without a joint multi-state implementation plan as proposed in EPA's draft proposal," the comments read.
If that's the case, then McConnell and congressional Republicans likely won't have the leverage they would need to block the effort. That puts the compact issue in line with other congressional attempts to alter or stall the EPA effort, as the counsel for another high-profile Clean Power Plan opponent, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), admitted last week.
"We don't necessarily have a veto-proof majority, so any of the legislative responses that we send up will face significant political obstacles," Mandy Gunasekara said Thursday during a panel discussion at an American Bar Association conference. "Ultimately, what we'll focus on and seek out is what kind of actions states will take, because that's what we believe it will ultimately come down to" (ClimateWire, May 1).
Which means that if the Clean Power Plan is going to be blocked, that's much more likely to happen in another branch of the federal government. McConnell said as much at the end of his exchange with McCarthy last week.
"You're going to have to prove it in court," he said.
"As we most often do," McCarthy replied.
-
Scientists: EPA’s Curbs on Coal-Burning Will Save Thousands of Lives
May 4, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick
The Obama administration’s proposed curbs on coal-burning power plants could prevent thousands of deaths each year from heart attack and respiratory disease, scientists said Monday in the first peer-reviewed study to examine the measure’s health impacts.
Many parts of the country could see immediate improvements in air quality as a side-effect of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” regulations, which are primarily intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, the researchers said in a study published in Nature Climate Change.
Depending on implementation, the proposals could prevent about 3,500 premature deaths a year, mostly from respiratory disease, said the study’s authors, scientists from Harvard and Syracuse universities and four other institutions.
“The bottom line is, the more the standards promote cleaner fuels and energy efficiency, the greater the added health benefits,” said lead author Charles Driscoll, a professor of environmental systems engineering at Syracuse.
The finding comes as the Obama administration deliberates over the final shape of the proposed rules, which have drawn a fierce backlash from the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers are gearing up to battle the measures on Capitol Hill and in the courts, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has written letters to the governors of all 50 states urging them not to support the regulations. McConnell has called the proposals harmful to the coal industry and the economy.
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan seeks to cut emissions of carbon dioxide largely through stricter limits on the coal-fired power plants, one of the country’s largest sources of greenhouse gas pollution. The rules, a key component of the administration’s climate-change strategy, are due to be finalized in mid-summer.
But while carbon dioxide is the focus of the EPA’s regulations, other kinds of air pollution also would be reduced if the rules go into effect, according to the Nature study. The researchers attempted to measure the health impacts from lowering emissions of sulfur dioxide, soot and other pollutants that come from coal-burning.
The study compared different implementation scenarios and found that a robust standard — roughly similar to the one outlined by the EPA when it unveiled its proposal last year — would result in substantial, and rapid, improvements in air quality, along with a sharp drop in deaths from heart attacks and respiratory ailments. The most significant gains, the report said, would occur in states such as Texas and Ohio, home to some of the most vociferous opponents of the proposed regulations.
“An important implication of this study is that the largest health benefits from the transition to cleaner energy are expected in states that currently have the greatest dependence on coal-fired electricity,” said co-author Dallas Burtaw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan research institute.
The Nature study did not attempt to analyze other economic costs of implementing the proposed regulations. McConnell told a Senate hearing last week that the measures would be economically ruinous to his state.“Your agency’s proposed budget request, if approved, would facilitate the EPA’s plan to shutter coal plants in my state and put countless more of my constituents out of work — all at the service of a regulatory agenda,” McConnell told EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
The EPA on Monday welcomed the Nature study as a validation that its Clean Power Plan “is on the right track,” spokeswoman Liz Purchia said.
“These benefits are in addition to the benefits that will be realized by addressing a changing climate,” Purchia said in a prepared statement. “Overall, the proposed Clean Power Plan’s billions of dollars in health and climate benefits would far outweigh the projected costs.”
-
Report: Global Emissions Goals Still Aren’t Enough to Prevent a Dangerous Level of Climate Warming
May 4, 2015 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
When it comes to combating climate change, many scientists and policy makers focus on one major goal: cut carbon emissions enough to keep the planet’s average surface temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above its pre-industrial level. But a new analysis, published on Monday by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said we’re still falling short of the mark.
For years, the 2-degree target has been touted by experts as a kind of climate threshold: By staying within its confines, many argue, we can keep the planet in relatively stable condition and avoid the most dire effects of global climate change.
Currently, world leaders are developing concrete emissions reduction goals in preparation for this December’s U.N. climate change conference in Paris, where they’ll ultimately draft an international agreement to combat climate change with the goal of staying within the 2-degree mark. By contrast, if world nations were to do nothing — in other words, if we stuck to a “business as usual” trajectory — experts believe our climate could warm more than 4 degrees by the end of the century.
Three of the most heavy-hitting emissions reduction targets have already been declared by the United States, the European Union and China. The United States has resolved to reduce its carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent below its 2005 emissions levels by 2020, and the European Union has vowed that by 2030 it will collectively cut its emissions by 40 percent compared to its 1990 levels. Meanwhile, China has claimed its carbon emissions will peak by 2030.
But according to the Grantham report, these resolutions, combined with the rest of the world’s projected future emissions, will probably not be enough to keep Earth within the 2-degree boundary.
“In thinking about where we’re going, it’s important to have an assessment now of what the sum total of those commitments might add up to,” said co-author Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and president of the British Academy.
Stern and his co-authors Rodney Boyd and Bob Ward, also of the Grantham Research Institute, calculated what global greenhouse gas emissions will be in 2030 based on the announced targets from the United States, the European Union and China, as well as energy use estimates for the rest of the world published by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Then, they compared these calculations with a report from United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) describing the kinds of emissions pathways that might allow the world to reach its 2-degree target.
The authors found that if the United States, the European Union and China stick to their resolutions, their combined emissions in the year 2030 will be between 20.9 and 22.3 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent. (A gigaton is a billion metric tons.) And their estimate for the rest of the world’s emissions came to about 35.4 gigatons, meaning total global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 could exceed 57 gigatons.
But according to the UNEP report the authors used for comparison, global emissions in 2030 must be below 48 gigatons if we want even a 50 percent chance of hitting the 2-degree mark. (What matters is not precise emissions in 2030, but rather what emissions pathway the world is on by then, with emissions in 2030 taken as a representation of that.)
In other words, on our current trajectory, we’re unlikely to make it.
This means the world needs to step up its game, both leading up to the conference in Paris and afterward, Stern said. He and his co-authors laid out four potential steps in their analysis that could help world leaders get back on target. These include coming up with more aggressive emissions reduction plans; increasing investment and innovation in clean energy and land use; creating a mechanism in the Paris agreement that will enable participating countries to review their efforts and create better targets post-2030; and building strong foundations at home for a decarbonized society.
There’s still room for optimism, according to Stern. There are some uncertainties in the analysis that could lean in a positive direction. For instance, China has vowed to cap its emissions by 2030, but they could still peak earlier than that — perhaps by 2025 or even sooner, Stern said. Improvements in our clean energy technology are also a possibility. “There’s uncertainty, on the positive side, that technical progress could be even faster than we thought,” Stern said.
He added that governments’ political will to take action is an uncertainty that could cut either way. He believed the key to political goodwill when it comes to climate action is remembering that growth and climate responsibility are not mutually exclusive. “I think the building of that political will depends critically that these two things can come together and support each other,” Stern said.
In addition to the four steps outlined in the paper, Stern said another key to effective climate action is increased cooperation between countries — particularly sharing ideas and paying attention to the methods other countries are using to achieve their goals. Paris should be seen as the beginning of an ongoing conversation about decarbonization — one that should challenge countries to set more aggressive goals for themselves.
“We should recognize that it looks as if Paris will take us half of the way between what might have been ‘business as usual’ and where we need to be to meet 2 degrees,” Stern said. “I would tend to take a glass-half-full approach to that and ask how we can fill the glass up.”
-
Clean Power Plan Protects Public Health as Much as High Carbon Tax -- Paper
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will protect public health as much as a very stringent carbon tax would, but at less cost to consumers, a paper published today found.
The paper, by researchers at Harvard University and the Washington, D.C., think tank Resources for the Future (RFF), says that a flexible nationwide model roughly approximating EPA's proposal for carbon dioxide from existing power plants would do more to encourage states to implement demand-side efficiency programs and shutter coal plants than a direct levy on carbon emissions could.
Published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the study, which is the first of its kind to undergo peer review, assumes the carbon price would track with the administration's $43 a ton social cost of carbon estimate.
The scenario studied in the paper that is most like the Clean Power Plan is assumed to result in more demand-side energy efficiency programs and reductions in coal-fired power than the levy. That would cut emissions of not only CO2 but the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to harmful fine particulate matter pollution, its authors found.
A carbon levy might encourage less power use because it would drive electricity rates up more sharply, but it would also do more to incentivize a switch to natural gas, the report says. The health benefits would be roughly the same between the two approaches, or even a little better under the flexible plan.
Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at RFF and co-author of the study, said it shows that the EPA rule would have immediate benefits -- especially for residents of states that historically drew most of their power from coal-fired generation. While the study found that all 48 states in the continental United States would see health benefits from the flexible reduction approach, the biggest winners would be coal-heavy states in the Ohio River Valley like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
"The narrative is that the benefits of climate policy accrue in a geographically disbursed way and in the distant future, but this work shows that combating climate change produces benefits in the present and close to home that are substantial," Burtraw said.
The Harvard paper models three policy scenarios that were constructed before EPA released the Clean Power Plan draft last June. Supplied by the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the scenarios were intended to mimic what experts believed EPA could do to control CO2 using Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
The paper found that had EPA promulgated a set of modest heat-rate improvement requirements at individual power plants -- as many in industry urged it to do -- that would have done less to safeguard public health than if EPA had done nothing at all to limit carbon.
While tinkering with heat rates would reduce CO2 by a little more than 2.2 percent after 2020, the paper found that it would actually boost SO2 emissions by 3 percent because retrofitted coal plants would run more often than under a business-as-usual approach. Coal use would rebound under that scenario, resulting in 10 extra deaths in the United States each year compared with a business-as-usual approach, the paper said.
Industry lawyers have argued that an "inside the fence line" approach to CO2 reduction would be more likely to withstand legal challenge than the current Clean Power Plan proposal. But while agency staff members have said this summer's final rule will include changes, they have left little doubt that it will maintain a systemwide approach.
The proposed rule would reduce power-sector emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 by requiring states to meet targets that demand more extensive changes to the grid. The paper's second scenario tracks most closely with that approach, allowing averaging across a state and between states and assuming that many states will reach for demand-side efficiency to satisfy a substantial portion of their required reductions.
With less energy being consumed and less of it coming from coal, the paper's "scenario 2" would cut CO2 by more than 23 percent compared with the reference case but would do even more to limit emissions that contribute to hazardous airborne particles known as PM2.5 (particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter). SO2 emissions would decrease 27 percent, the paper said.
A carbon tax would result in more CO2 reductions -- nearly 40 percent -- and would do more to encourage the development and use of carbon capture and storage, the paper said. But it would also yield a 27 percent cut in SO2.
While "scenario 2" would prevent 3,500 premature deaths in the United States every year, the paper found, the carbon tax would avoid only 3,200.
Some economists and other advocates have proposed a carbon levy, but few envision it being as high as $43 a ton. Australia repealed its $25 a ton levy last year, which was considered by many to be too high.
-
Supreme Court to Review FERC Energy Saving Rule
May 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Breet Kendall and Amy Harder
The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider whether a federal regulator overstepped its authority with a rule to promote energy conservation using incentives for big energy consumers to cut power use.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees wholesale electricity markets, had appealed a lower court decision striking down the 2011 regulation on the grounds such incentives should be provided by the states, which regulate local electricity distribution. The rule sought to promote higher compensation levels for large power users, like factories and other businesses, which can receive special payments if they reduce their energy consumption during peak demand times.
The Supreme Court will consider the case during its next term, which begins in October.
“I am pleased with this morning’s decision by the Supreme Court to grant the petition,” FERC Chairman Norman Bay said in a statement. “The integration of demand response is important to the nation’s competitive wholesale electricity markets and reliable electric service.”
The FERC rule is considered integral to the federal government’s efforts to curb carbon emissions from power plants, the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. The lower court’s ruling last year was considered a major setback for those efforts.
The rule also supports energy-efficiency investments by big consumers, from grocery store chains to aluminum manufacturers. Electricity suppliers, struggling with low power prices and lackluster demand, said the payments businesses could receive under the rule have become excessive.
The Electric Power Supply Association filed the lawsuit on behalf of power generators that sell electricity into wholesale markets regulated by FERC. In its appeal to the Supreme Court filed in March, the association argued FERC was overstepping its federal authority in seeking to regulate what it said should be left to the states.
The group added that the rule distorts electricity markets “by dramatically overcompensating retail customers for not consuming energy.”
A dozen environmental and consumer groups that filed a brief in support of FERC’s rule praised the high court’s decision to hear the case.
“FERC Order 745 has helped save Americans money and cut pollution, and is firmly anchored in law,” said Michael Panfil, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. “We look forward to presenting our compelling case to the Supreme Court.”
The rule is intended to give energy consumers equal standing with power generators in deregulated wholesale energy markets.
When a company uses power, the units of electricity are measured in megawatts. In recent years, federal officials have tried to create legal standing for so-called “negawatts,” a term used for a megawatt of power saved by increasing efficiency or reducing consumption. Negawatts are used to quantify and give a market value to electricity that conservation-minded businesses don’t pull off the power grid during times of peak energy demand.
-
SCOTUS Takes Up Appeal on Energy Rule
May 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider an Obama administration appeal to a lower court ruling that struck down a regulation meant to encourage energy conservation.
The court said it would hear the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) appeal to a 2014 lower-court ruling against its "demand response" regulations, which are designed to cut electricity demand through electric grid operator payments to users who cut their consumption.
FERC's rules, from 2011, require energy wholesalers to compensate large consumers who reduce their demand at the same rate as the payments made to energy producers.
The Electric Power Supply Association, which represents utility companies, had challenged the regulation, and a lower court ruled against FERC last May.
When the Supreme Court hears the case during its fall term, it will consider whether FERC exceeded its authority in setting the compensation rates and whether the lower court erred in its interpretation of the rule.
Justice Samuel Alito will recuse himself from the case, the court announced.
-
SCOTUS Gives FERC a Second Chance on ‘Demand Response’
May 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
The Supreme Court threw a lifeline Monday to a FERC rule that the Obama administration calls an important tool for avoiding blackouts and lessening air pollution during times of peak power demand.
The ruling allows the agency, at least temporarily, to continue to direct grid operators to pay full market price to power customers to trim their energy consumption.
The high court agreed to review the 2011 “demand response” regulation, known in FERC parlance as Order No. 745, which an appellate court struck down last year in a ruling that savaged the agency for trespassing into territory regulated by the states. The rule remains in place during FERC’s appeal to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments will take place sometime this fall.
The case is a prime example of the kinds of complexities that regulators and courts have begun to tackle amid the dramatic transformations taking place in the electric grid — one in which energy efficiency, wind farms, solar panels and storage will take on some of the role traditionally played by power plants.
Demand response programs help grid operators avoid blackouts and keep consumer costs down by paying businesses to reduce their use during periods of high demand. Power generators often turn to older, dirtier power plants during those peak demand hours when prices rise.
Former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff — who shepherded Order 745 through the commission in 2011 — told POLITICO that the stakes could not be higher.
“I believe that this case is the most important case regarding the energy system in this country that the Supreme Court has ever yet to consider,” said Wellinghoff, who is now an attorney at the law firm Stoel Rives.
He predicted the case will be even more critical to the nation’s electric grid than two landmark Supreme Court rulings from 1923 and 1944 that established the rules for utilities’ rates of return on their investments and heavily influenced the development of the U.S. electric system.
“It will decide whether or not we can put a robust market structure in place in this country or not, and save consumers money,” Wellinghoff said.
Opponents of FERC’s demand response rule will have to convince the Supreme Court that the appellate court’s decision to vacate the rule last year should stand. A majority on the three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided against FERC in 2014, ruling that the agency intervened too deeply into the retail marketplace, which is regulated by the states, as opposed to the wholesale market that is within FERC’s jurisdiction.
The administration will argue that FERC should be allowed to regulate demand response payments because those programs inherently affect the wholesale energy markets.
Wellinghoff offered the Justice Department some advice on presenting FERC’s case to the high court.
“What’s their best argument? Reading to the court Judge Edwards’ dissent,” he said, referring to Judge Harry T. Edwards’ full-throated support in the appellate court for FERC’s jurisdiction.
Edwards, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, chastised his colleagues’ interpretation of the law and legal precedents. The Federal Power Act, he argued, is ambiguous and thus FERC should get deference in this matter.
The solicitor general, who represents FERC before the Supreme Court, took a similar tack, attacking the lower court opinion as a major mistake.
The appellate court “seriously misinterpreted the [Federal Power Act] and misapplied basic principles of deference to agency interpretations of statutes,” administration attorneys told the Supreme Court.
“Demand-response commitments are critical to ensuring the efficiency and reliability of the Nation’s electricity markets,” they added.
The lower court’s majority, Republican appointees Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Laurence H. Silberman, concluded that FERC had interpreted the statute so broadly that the agency could potentially justify regulating any number of goods that have only indirect links to wholesale market prices, such as steel or fuel itself.
But FERC disagreed, and told the Supreme Court that the judges’ scope conclusion is incorrect because Order 745 — “as well as the regulation of generation inputs like fuel” — is limited only to demand response providers operating in the wholesale markets, “not to those who seek payments from outside the wholesale market.”
The Electric Power Supply Association — which challenged Order 745, along with Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Public Power Association and several power suppliers — relied on a states’ rights argument in urging the court not to review the case.
“That FERC cannot force States to adopt dynamic pricing, either directly or through the expedient of treating reduced retail demand as a wholesale resource, is simply a reflection of our federalist system as reinforced by the Federal Power Act’s express reservation of exclusive jurisdiction over retail sales to the States,” EPSA wrote.
The circuit court also ruled last year that Order 745’s compensation scheme was unfair because it overpaid demand response providers compared with payments made to generators. Demand response providers were getting the full cost of the negated electricity on top of the savings earned by reducing their electricity consumption in the first place, they said.
While the administration did not appeal that part of the ruling — saying that the compensation plan was a relatively minor issue that could be better explained, or potentially revamped, by FERC on remand —the Supreme Court said on Monday that it would review that portion of the ruling as well.
The expansion of the case’s scope could indicate several justices believe the compensation scheme is acceptable. It is also possible the court ultimately will rule on the jurisdictional question but decline to weigh in on the compensation scheme.
Should the Supreme Court uphold FERC’s jurisdiction but not rule on the compensation scheme, that would send the rule back to FERC for further action.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the decision to accept the case, and probably will not participate in the final decision. The court does not say why he recused himself.
-
Study: EPA's Carbon Rules Save More Lives than Carbon Tax
May 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A carbon dioxide emissions reduction plan similar to EPA's Clean Power Plan results in greater public health benefits than other options, according to a new study in Nature Climate Change.
The study — limited to a straight examination of public health benefits without consideration of compliance costs — examined a scenario similar to EPA’s carbon rules, with flexible compliance options, “moderate” stringency and emissions trading.
Compared to a scenario that limited actions at plants to “inside-the-fenceline” reductions and another that is essentially a carbon tax, the CPP-like scenario “results in the greatest estimated emissions reductions, air quality improvements and health co-benefits,” the study says.
EPA’s rule would lead to higher CO2 emissions by 2020 than a carbon tax, the study concluded. But when it comes to health-threatening pollutants, the Clean Power Plan-like scenario would prevent approximately 3,500 premature deaths annually. The carbon tax would prevent about 3,200 premature deaths each year, while the researchers concluded that the “inside-the-fenceline” scenario would actually increase premature deaths annually by 10.
The Clean Power Plan-like scenario’s “top performance is due to lower total fossil fuel generation, greater substitution of natural gas for coal and more new demand-side energy efficiency,” the study adds. It also concluded that the states with the most health benefits are generally those most heavily dependent on coal-fired power.
The study is the first peer-reviewed paper of its kind, according to the authors.
It was paid for by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Grantham Foundation and Mistra’s Indigo Program. -
May 4, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
By Jeff Stagl
The day that railroads, tank-car builders and lessors, shippers, refiners and other crude-oil supply-chain constituents long have been waiting for arrived on Friday, when the U.S Department of Transportation (USDOT) released its final safety rule governing the transportation of flammable liquids by rail, primarily crude and ethanol.
The USDOT and Transport Canada held a press conference Friday morning to unveil a new class of tank car for flammable liquids. During the conference, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx shared some details about the final safety rulewhile Canadian Transport Minister Lisa Raitt talked about the importance of the two nations jointly strengthening tank-car standards.
Developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration in coordination with Canada, the USDOT's final rule focuses on safety improvements designed to prevent crude-by-rail accidents, mitigate consequences if an accident occurs and support emergency-response efforts. The rule predominantly applies to high-hazard flammable trains (HHFTs), or a continuous block of 20 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid, or 35 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid dispersed through a train.
The rule stipulates that new tank cars constructed after Oct. 1, 2015, must meet design and performance requirements for a new USDOT-specified class, the DOT-117. In Canada, the new class of tank car will be the TC-117. The car must feature a 9/16-inch shell, 11-gauge jacket, one-half-inch, full-height head shield, thermal protection, and improved pressure-relief valves and bottom outlet valves. Existing tank cars must be retrofitted with the same key components based on a "prescriptive, risk-based" retrofit schedule, according to the USDOT. The final rule will require replacing the entire fleet of DOT-111 tank cars for Packing Group I, which covers most crude shipped by rail, within three years, and all non-jacketed CPC-1232 cars in the same service within five years.
"Today is a big step. It's been quite some time since there's been a tank-car rule change," said Foxx during the Friday press conference.
The harmonized tank-car regulation between the United States and Canada was developed "in the spirit of partnership" and takes into account feedback from a variety of constituents said Raitt. But regulators in both nations realize the timeline and requirements in the tank-car rule are perhaps more aggressive "than some would like," she said.
"I understand that the safety measures ... will not be easy and, quite frankly, they will not be cheap [to implement]," said Raitt. "However, the financial losses and costs of cleaning up after accidents would, in the long run, be much more burdensome. But more important than all of this is what we can save in human costs."
The USDOT's final rule also requires HHFTs to feature a functioning two-way, end-of-train device or a distributed power braking system, and trains meeting the definition of a high-hazard flammable unit train (HHFUTs) with at least one tank car carrying Packing Group I materials to be operated with an electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking system by Jan. 1, 2021. All other HHFTs must have ECP brake systems installed after 2023.
Crude unit trains of 70 or more cars operating faster than 30 mph must feature ECP brakes, which are "a proven technology," said Foxx, adding that BNSF Railway Co. andNorfolk Southern Railway use the brakes on certain coal routes, and that ECPs could be the difference between "a controlled fire or a catastrophe."
AAR: ECP requirement 'unjustified'
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) opposed the inclusion of a ECP brake requirement in the final rule because the government had no substantial evidence to support a safety justification for mandating the brakes, other than an outdated study, according to association officials. In addition, the AAR estimates it would cost railroads billions of dollars to install the brakes on tank cars used in unit trains.
Although the AAR welcomes the tank-car rule, attention and resources should be allocated to addressing the underlying causes of rail accidents, "and ECP brakes simply aren’t on that list," said AAR President and Chief Executive Officer Ed Hamberger in a prepared statement.
"Unjustified regulations such as this trigger a reallocation of investments that will not generate the kind of safety benefits the industry and the public expects. The regulation does not take into account the disruption the ECP mandate will wreak on railroad – both freight and passenger – operations," he said. "The USDOT's study is flawed and ECP brakes do not significantly improve safety and are unreliable. No justified safety case for ECP brakes has ever been made."
Replying to a question about railroads' reaction to the ECP brake requirement in the final rule, Foxx said on Friday: "We hope the rail industry can accept the rule and follow the rule."
Other requirements in the final rule call for restricting the speed of all HHFTs to 50 mph in all areas and any HHFTs containing tank cars not meeting the enhanced tank-car standards to 40 mph in high-threat urban areas. In addition, railroads operating HHFTs must perform a routing analysis that considers 27 safety and security factors, including track type, class and maintenance schedule; railroads must provide state and/or regional fusion centers, and state, local and tribal officials with a railroad point of contact for information related to the routing of hazardous materials through their jurisdictions; and crude offerors must develop and carry out sampling and testing programs for all unrefined petroleum-based products, such as crude oil.
The rule focuses on the least safe component of flammable liquids transportation — crude by rail — and builds on two dozen actions already taken by the USDOT, said Foxx. In terms of moving hazardous materials by rail, government statistics show 99.99 percent of all shipments arrive at their destination safely, but more can be done, he believes.
"99.99 is not enough. We need to strive for perfection," said Foxx.
CBR constituents, political leaders react
In addition to the AAR, many other agencies, organizations, railroads and politicians issued statements on the tank-car standard and final rule after the USDOT's annoucement:
"[Friday's] announcement signals the beginning of the next chapter in rail safety. This new rule governing the movements of crude and ethanol trains will enable us to focus more precisely on oil train accident prevention, and mitigation. This final rule also signals our renewed commitment to a comprehensive, all-of-the-above strategy, spanning across the federal government, to address rail safety and do more to keep people living and working along rail lines safe. As I have said before, there is no silver bullet that will solve this challenge. Improving safety requires constant re-examination of every procedure and protocol to make sure sufficient safeguards and redundancies are in place to protect the American public." — Acting Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg
"I am pleased that the Department of Transportation issued a rule today concerning the safety of rail tank cars carrying flammable liquids, one of the issues on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of transportation improvements. The board has long been concerned about the safety of rail transportation of hazardous materials. This new rule is a significant step toward improving the safety of transporting crude oil and ethanol by rail." — National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Christopher Hart
"The TSB has been calling for improvement to railway tank cars for several years and has reiterated these calls following recent occurrences involving crude-oil train derailments. The new standards and timelines announced today are important steps in addressing outstanding recommendations, including those stemming from the TSB's investigation into the Lac-Megantic accident." — Transportation Safety Board of Canada Chair Kathy Fox"CP has long been a proponent of improving tank-car safety, as well as implementing other options to enhance the secure transportation of dangerous goods. From our customers to our employees to all the communities within which we operate, the implementation of a safer tank car standard benefits all. We look forward to continued collaboration and cooperation between regulators, shippers and railroads to ensure the safe movement of the industrial commodities that form the building blocks of the North American economy." — Canadian Pacific CEO E. Hunter Harrison
"BNSF has advocated for a safer tank car in the movement of crude oil and finally setting a new federal standard will get the next-generation tank car into service and substantially reduce the risk of a release in the event of an incident. We have also said that any regulatory changes that automatically take away capacity will have a devastating impact on our shippers and the economy. Most importantly, capacity is not abundant. The supply chain’s experiences with the recent disruptions at the West Coast ports is clear evidence of the negative impacts substantially reduced capacity will have on the economy." — BNSF Railway Co. officials
"CN has strongly supported the retrofitting or phase-out of the older DOT-111 model tank cars … as well as a reinforced standard for new tank cars that goes beyond the current CPC-1232 tank car design. CN welcomes the new tank-car standards … including the added thickness of tank car steel walls and other protection features. The new standards represent a clear advance in tank car safety, the last line of defense in the event of an incident. The vast majority of tank cars are owned by shippers or rail-car leasing companies. CN has also proactively taken steps on its own to reduce the speeds of dangerous goods trains in high-population areas and to conduct corridor risk assessments. [But] CN does not support the implementation of ECP brakes for high-hazard flammable trains as the rail industry is of the opinion this technology has not proven to provide a meaningful safety benefit. CN also has serious concerns about interoperability and the reliability of the technology in Canada’s harsh winter weather." — CN officials
"CSX endorses the more rigorous standards adopted for the North American tank-car fleet … as an important and well-researched step in making safe railroads safer. While the mandate will be complex and challenging to address, we plan to work with our customers and suppliers to achieve the new standards as set out in the rule. On the other hand, we are deeply troubled by the requirement for ECP brakes, a braking technology that is still in development and not proven in regular service. This requirement could dramatically and widely slow railroad operations and impair railroads’ ability to serve customers in all sectors of a growing economy. With respect to sharing shipping information and supporting community readiness, CSX has long recognized the need for balance between national security interests and public agencies’ need to know about the products moving through communities." — CSX Corp. officials"Norfolk Southern is committed to the highest levels of safety in the communities where we operate. In addition to advocating and adopting voluntary actions for the safe transport of crude oil that go beyond federal requirements, we strongly support more stringent tank-car standards to further enhance the safe transport of flammable liquids. We support those initiatives most directly benefiting safety while also allowing for the efficient transport of our nation’s growing domestic energy resources, which are vital to the U.S. economy. NS has been experimenting with ECP brakes on a small number of coal trains since 2007, but it is not widely used on our system. We stand with the AAR and question the benefits and consequences of this rule. We will evaluate the new ECP rule to determine how it will impact our operations and work with the owners of the tank cars to determine the best way forward." — Norfolk Southern Corp. officials
"ECP brakes do not prevent derailments from happening; rather, this technology has some limited potential to mitigate the severity of a derailment. The Railway Association of Canada believes this marginal safety benefit must be weighed against the considerable operational challenges of implementing this technology, and the additional risk posed to employee safety. RAC believes that the new tank car standard recently announced by Transport Canada will deliver the most meaningful results in mitigating the impacts of a potential derailment. RAC also believes that by focusing resources on other technologies proven to prevent derailments, the railway industry can have a much more meaningful safety impact." — Railway Association of Canada officials
"It is disappointing that the final ruling [includes] ECP brakes and did not fully address our concerns as small businesses that are critical in the successful transportation of these commodities. We will be taking the next several days to carefully review these documents, evaluate the impact on our members and to consider next steps." — Linda Bauer Darr, president of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, which had argued that adequate studies haven't been undertaken to assess the impact of final rule elements on the 160 short lines that carry crude or ethanol or both
"[The ECP brake mandate] is a game changer. I’ve operated trains with ECP brakes, and they are the greatest advancement in safety I’ve seen in my 35 years in the industry. While this rule will go a long way towards ensuring the safety of our nation’s railroads, more can be done. We now urge the USDOT and FRA to ensure that all freight trains are operated by a minimum of two individuals — a certified conductor and certified engineer." — SMART Transportation Division National Legislative Director John Risch
"AFPM members have demonstrated a commitment to improved crude-by-rail safety; voluntarily investing more than $4 billion to upgrade tank cars in advance of this regulation. We intend to work with DOT to implement today's mitigation-focused rulemaking to the greatest extent possible, but caution that this aggressive retrofit schedule is unrealistic and may be disruptive to transporting crude oil to markets across the country. Now that tank-car specifications have been addressed, AFPM suggests that it is long overdue for DOT to show similar concern for the root causes of train derailments: track integrity and human error. Keeping the trains on the tracks should be of the highest priority for DOT." — American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Executive Vice President Brendan Williams
"As we review these rules, the key question is whether science and data show each change will make a meaningful improvement to safety. Accident investigations consistently show that more must also be done to prevent derailments by enhancing the inspection and maintenance of train tracks, axles and other railroad equipment. The inclusion of a requirement for ECP brakes will add to the artificial constraints created by a timeline for retrofitting the existing tank car fleet that does not fully account for limited shop capacity available to complete the work. The safety impact of ECP brakes is marginal at best." — American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard"Although shipping costs will rise, we don't expect that the new regulations will significantly reduce rail shipments of crude oil and ethanol. Nor do we envision that these new regulations, in and of themselves, will result in lower ratings for affected shippers, leasing companies, rail-car manufacturers and railroads over the near term. It remains unclear exactly how many existing tank cars will have to be scrapped and replaced, and how many can be retrofitted with the thicker tank shells, thermal jackets, improved valve and fitting protection, and added steel shields that are now required. The initial focus, however, will be on older tank cars that carry crude oil. The biggest costs for railroads will be the requirements for new, enhanced braking systems. Regulators will now allow some of these braking systems, such as ECP braking systems that cover entire trains,
to phased-in gradually, while some less costly mandates will be implemented
immediately." — Standard & Poor's Ratings Services"We commend both governments for enacting these meaningful enhancements to tank-car safety standards. We're already delivering cars that meet these standards to our customers. Nearly 1,000 of these Greenbrier-designed and built tank cars are already in service, and more are steadily joining the North American rail fleet, enhancing the safety of citizens and protecting the environment. Through GBW Railcar Services, we've [also] laid the groundwork to meet the need for tank car retrofits required by the new rule. We look forward to continuing our work with our customers to address the achievable timeline [that was] announced." — Greenbrier Cos. Inc. Chairman and CEO William Furman
"The new design regulations are in line with what [we] expected would occur. [Our] rail subsidiaries are now in the process of reviewing schedules and will comply with these new regulations." — Trinity Industries Inc. officials
"As one of North America's largest rail-car manufacturers, we want to commend Minister Raitt for her leadership on this important issue. Our customers needed clarity on the issue of safety regulations moving forward and today's announcement provides just that." — National Steel Car Co. Chairman and CEO Gregory Aziz
"GATX understands the need for all industry participants to respond constructively in this effort to improve safety, and we will move expeditiously to meet the mandated schedule. [Our] North American rail-car fleet contains nearly 126,000 rail cars, and we currently estimate that approximately 13,700 tank cars in our fleet could be affected by the new regulations. The number of cars affected could be substantially less depending on whether these cars travel as part of high-hazard flammable train service as defined by the new rules. Based on our preliminary analysis, approximately 90 percent of [our] affected cars have a deadline of 2023 or later for modification or retirement, due to the type of commodities they currently carry. [We] previously stated that the company is unlikely to retrofit its older DOT-111 tank cars and is more likely to retire them. The DOT’s addition of ECP brakes to the retrofit standard is not only questionable from a safety improvement perspective, it makes the probability of retrofit even more unlikely for these cars." — GATX Corp. President and CEO Brian Kenney
"The RSI‐CTC has been seeking the certainty of a final rule for more than four years and these standards have been a top priority for our members. While we are still reviewing the details, our initial review indicates that the timeline for modifying existing tank cars is aggressive, but appropriate. It will be a challenge to meet these obligations. We are disappointed that DOT chose to require ECP braking systems as part of the new tank car standards. RSI‐CTC provided extensive information and analysis to officials in the U.S. regarding the challenges of requiring ECP brakes to rail tank cars. That data and analysis show that ECP brakes do not achieve significant safety advantages in derailment scenarios as compared to alternative braking systems which are already being used and which present far fewer technical and logistical challenges than ECP brakes." — Tom Simpson, president of the Railway Supply Institute, on behalf of the Committee on Tank Cars
"We are pleased the Department of Transportation has finally set a stronger federal standard for transporting crude oil by rail. The new tank-car requirements are a sensible approach to address shortcomings in older car designs and will lead to substantial safety benefits. While we fully support efforts to strengthen crude-oil tank cars and set thoughtful operational requirements, we have some concerns regarding the new rules and how certain requirements could create unintended consequences throughout the rail network. We look forward to working with Secretary Foxx and other colleagues as we fully evaluate these new policies." — U.S. Sens. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and John Thune (R-S.D.)"Tank cars manufactured in the 1970s should have been phased out or retrofitted long ago. We will continue to push the rail supply industry to hire, add new capacity and aggressively transition to the new, safer design." — U.S. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.)
"We have been pushing for measures to make the transport of crude oil safer since 2012, when we asked the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to issue a new standard for safer tanker car construction. This new construction standard was and is vitally important because industry needs regulatory certainty in order to make the substantial investment required to deploy a newer and safer fleet of tankers. Our objective is to prevent accidents in the first place and to mitigate their impacts when they do occur. That means not only a final rule for tanker car construction, but also more inspectors and track inspections, improved classification of materials, conditioning to reduce volatile gases before crude is shipped and enhanced training for first responders.
In the end, all of us — regulators, railroads, oil shippers and first responders on the state, local and federal levels — have a role to play in ensuring that our communities are safe when trains carrying oil pass through them." — U.S. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)"These new rules which the U.S. Transportation Department finally released today in conjunction with our neighbors to the north are a needed and important step to improve the safety of transporting crude oil on the rails. When a crude oil train derailed in Casselton in 2013, it shook our entire state. That’s why I’ve been pressing our federal agencies ever since to work holistically to ramp up and approve across-the-board safety standards, and to make sure our first responders are prepared in case of another derailment emergency." — U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
"The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll. It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars. It’s more of a status-quo rule than the real safety changes needed to protect the public and first responders." — U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
"While I am glad that the administration is finally taking steps to protect our communities, I have serious concerns with these rules. Inadequate tank cars will be allowed to continue carrying volatile crude oil until 2020, and in some cases, indefinitely. While I understand concerns about allowing time for industry to adjust to new standards, I believe that tank cars without thermal protection are inappropriate for shipping crude oil, period. Congress should pass legislation that speeds up the phase out of these dangerous cars and I am hopeful that my Republican colleagues will join our effort to do so." — U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)"Instead of providing first responders more details about oil shipments, railroads will simply be required to give firefighters a phone number. It is disappointing the department has not expanded the amount of public information about oil train routes, despite numerous calls to do so. First responders need more information about dangerous materials moving through their communities, and we will continue to push to meet that need." — U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)
"This new rule is a step forward in rail safety, but it’s important to remember that it’s only a step. There is much more that needs to be done to ensure communities within reach of these rails are protected. Congress also needs to invest in rail safety and make sure our first responders have the resources and training they need while adding inspectors to our nation’s railways. This rule is the beginning of an effort to increase safety on our nation’s railways — not the end." — U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
"These new standards are definitely a step in the right direction. After seeing a number of terrible oil train incidents over the past few years, it is imperative that the Department of Transportation be more proactive when it comes to the safety of the American people and the future of this vital industry. It is my hope that in the coming months and years more action will be taken on this critical issue, including additional support for my ongoing efforts to improve first responder training and technology on these rail cars." — U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.)
"Improving tank-car safety is a key area where we can make significant progress to help prevent and mitigate the potentially catastrophic effects of a train derailment. Although I am disappointed to see such a lengthy timeline for phasing out older tank cars, the strong standards announced for new tank cars will help us meet our goal of ensuring that every car on the rails meets strict safety requirements. [But] srengthening tank cars alone will not solve all of our rail safety issues. We need to address rail safety comprehensively, including focusing on rail infrastructure, equipment, maintenance and human factors. And we need to look at not just the safety of the rail cars, but the safety of what is being put into those cars." — U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
-
Schumer Wants Older Crude-by-Rail Tank Cars Phased Out Faster
May 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
Sen. Chuck Schumer is floating a bill that would speed up the retirements of DOT-111 and newer CPC-1232 tank cars, saying DOT's tank car rule announced Friday moves too slowly.
Under DOT’s phase-out schedule, the riskiest cars would be retired beginning in 2017, with others removed through 2025. Schumer's bill would phase out DOT-111s in two years, and would also phase out unjacketed CPC-1232 by 2019, compared to the new rule's date of 2023.
The bill also would expand the scope of the rule's 40-mile-per-hour speed restrictions, which apply only to "high threat urban areas," to include any DOT-111 cars that travel in a county with a population denser than 20 people per square mile. That same threshold would be applied to unjacketed CPC-1232 cars within two years, as an incentive for the cars to be phased out faster.
Schumer's bill also would require DOT to create a federal volatility standard for crude transported by rail or barge within one year. DOT and DOE are currently working jointly on a volatility study.
It also would require that Positive Train Control be installed along all routes that carry crude oil or ethanol by Dec. 2018. And it would mandate more track inspections, comprehensive oil response spill plans, a new confidential close-call reporting system, and that more information about derailments be disclosed to the FRA and first responders. -
With Federal Deadlines Set, Crude-By-Rail Industry Gets Ready for Makeover
May 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The clock is ticking for oil shippers that rely on rail tank cars to shuttle more than a million barrels of crude each day from shale plays in North Dakota and Canada.
Sweeping safety regulations unveiled Friday give crude-by-rail businesses across North America five years to fix up their fleets or stop using them.
Oil and refining industry groups have said the rule could disrupt crude shipments, while environmental groups warn that the timeline puts the public at risk of damaging oil train derailments and explosions.
Tank car manufacturers, meanwhile, say they are relieved to have a concrete, if complex, set of deadlines to work with.
"While we are still reviewing the details, our initial review indicates that the timeline for modifying existing tank cars is aggressive, but appropriate," noted Tom Simpson, president of the Railway Supply Institute, a trade group that represents major tank car builders such as GATX Corp. and Union Tank Car Co.
Simpson's comments signal a turnaround for RSI, which had warned earlier in the Department of Transportation rulemaking process that a speedy upgrade or phaseout schedule could cost the economy $60 billion (EnergyWire, Dec. 3, 2014).
The agency relaxed some of the deadlines in the first draft of its rulemaking, giving shippers until 2025 to fix jacketed tank cars built to tougher standards in place since 2011.
In all, nearly 100,000 tank cars will be affected by the 395-page final rule from DOT, which covers everything from oil train speed limits to new tank car design requirements.
The rule carries an estimated price tag of $2.5 billion over 20 years, according to federal analyses, but could yield benefits of $2.9 billion due to averted oil train accidents. One such disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, two years ago killed 47 people when old, puncture-prone tank cars went up in flames, and is expected to cost more than $2 billion in cleanup and litigation.
Central to DOT's plan to improve oil train safety is a staggered set of timelines for removing or repairing tank cars that fall short of the new construction standards laid out Friday. DOT, working in conjunction with Canada, divided tank cars according to their original designs, added equipment such as steel jackets, and the "packing group" or risk category of each car's contents.
"The approach here is to address those cars that are highest-risk, that carry the packing group I commodities, first," explained Tim Butters, acting administrator of the DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. "Then the packing group II commodities would happen a little bit further out. But the goal is to get all of these cars up to snuff."
Packing group I typically applies to light crude oil, such as that from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play, while ethanol most often moves as a PG II commodity.
The first round of improvements would be due by January 2018 and would apply to more than 16,000 cars in PG I service, according to DOT.
By 2020, DOT estimated, more than 43,000 tank cars would need repairs or else be retired under the new rule.
The RSI previously has estimated that about a quarter of the North American tank car fleet for hazardous liquids would be scrapped under the rule.
Brian Kenney, president and CEO of RSI member GATX, said in a conference call last month that "we're much more in the 'we'll scrap them' than 'retrofit them' mode," although he noted that GATX has a relatively small footprint in the market for tank car repairs.
Greenbrier Companies Inc., which has butted heads with its manufacturing peers over fixing the North American tank car fleet on tight deadlines, called the DOT timeline "completely feasible," adding that it is "prepared to meet the need for tank car retrofits." The Oregon-based company recently launched GBW Railcar Services, a 50-50 joint venture with Watco Companies LLC, to handle some of the forecast demand from crude-by-rail shippers.
Greenbrier commissioned its own report of tank car manufacturing capacity in the wake of the RSI's findings, concluding that North American manufacturers could handle as many as 19,600 cars per year.
"Ultimately, it is implementation of the rules that will make safer transport of flammables a reality," said William Furman, Greenbrier's chairman and CEO, said in a statement Friday, calling the timeline "achievable."
DOT's timeline has not gone over well with green groups concerned over recent derailments and fires in Illinois, West Virginia and Canada.
Todd Paglia, executive director of environmental organization ForestEthics, said Friday that "the regulations move too slow and the trains continue to move too fast."
"The administration has slowed down and narrowed the scope of the rules so the most dangerous tank cars stay on the rails for at least two and a half years," he said in a blog post, referring to the oldest type DOT-111 tank car that went up in flames during the Lac-Mégantic disaster. "So we can begin to look for new and upgraded cars (like the ones that exploded in recent months) in the years to come, but those living along the tracks can still expect to see the worst cars continue to roll by their homes for a very long time."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested