Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Companies Take Honors From State
May 5, 2015 | Ironton Tribune
The Ohio Chemistry Technology Council (OCTC) this week recognized exceptional performances in environmental, health, safety and security by two local companies at the organization’s annual Awards for Excellence dinner. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Formaldehyde Regulations Delayed by Industry Groups, New York Times Reports
May 5, 2015 | The Times-Picayune
By Jed Lipinski
The Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of imposing tighter regulations on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen that has been shown to cause respiratory problems including asthma, the New York Times reports. -
Beyond the Rhetoric: Chemical Industry Advocating More Regulations
May 4, 2015 | Black Press USA
By Harry C. Alford
One of the few shining stars of our nation’s economy, the $812-billion chemistry business, is working with Congress to pass a law that would actually give the federal government more authority to regulate chemicals. -
Chemical Industry Advocating More Regulations
May 5, 2015 | The Philadelphia Tribune
By Harry C. Alford
One of the few shining stars of our nation’s economy, the $812-billion chemistry business, is working with Congress to pass a law that would actually give the federal government more authority to regulate chemicals. -
EPA Administrator 'Encouraged' by Bipartisan Support for TSCA Bill
May 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The changes made to the Udall-Vitter bill, before its passage in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (CW 29 April 2015), addressed the shortcomings previously identified by the US EPA, says the agency’s head, Gina McCarthy. -
Study Links Natural Gas Development to Drinking Water Contamination
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Krysti Shallenberger
A study out of the natural-gas-rich Marcellus Shale has linked contaminated drinking water to shale gas development for the first time. -
Capito Readies Bill to Exempt States from Power Plant Rules
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito picked up the baton today on "just say no" legislation, announcing in a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee she chairs that she will introduce a bill next week to allow states to opt out of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Peer-Reviewed Study Backs White House's Claims on Health Benefits of Clean Power Plan
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
The Obama administration has taken great pains to frame its Clean Power Plan as an immediate solution for an immediate, quantifiable problem. -
Exelon's Dominguez Discusses Nuclear Outlook, Reliability Concerns with Power Plan Proposal
May 5, 2015 | E&E - TV
As market dynamics shift, what are Exelon's plans for renewable energy versus nuclear energy in its business model? -
EPA Issues Direct Final Rule To Allow States To Rescind GHG-Only Permits
May 5, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is issuing a direct final rulemaking that would provide a process to rescind air permits that were issued solely based on facilities' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, following a Supreme Court ruling last year that slightly narrowed EPA's GHG permitting regime. -
Key Senator Withholds Judgment as More Bills Floated Against Obama Rule
May 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Annie Snider
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a key swing vote on the Obama administration's controversial water rule, signaled yesterday that she would reserve judgment until she sees the regulatory revisions made in response to worries from farmers, developers and other stakeholders. -
Feds to Require Climate Change Plans for States Seeking Disaster Relief
May 5, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans. -
White House: Prepare for Climate Change in Infrastructure Planning
May 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is convening local and state leaders and experts Tuesday to encourage infrastructure planning to incorporate climate change preparation. -
Firefighters' Union: Oil-By-Rail Rules 'Fall Short'
May 5, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
DOT’s crude-by-rail safety rules “fall short” of the mark when it comes to giving local first responders the data they “need to respond effectively when the call arrives,” International Association of Fire Fighters chief Harold Schaitberger said today. -
Green, Labor Groups Led Late Lobbying Blitz on Oil-By-Rail Rule
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
During the past two months, more than a dozen oil and rail industry groups jockeyed for attention as Obama administration officials put the finishing touches on a major crude-by-rail safety rule.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Companies Take Honors From State
May 5, 2015 | Ironton Tribune
The Ohio Chemistry Technology Council (OCTC) this week recognized exceptional performances in environmental, health, safety and security by two local companies at the organization’s annual Awards for Excellence dinner.
Americas Styrenics in Hanging Rock and the Dow Chemical Company in Ironton were among a group of 24 companies in Ohio selected for the awards.
The Awards for Excellence are presented to companies that have shown commitment to the protection of people and the environment, safety at its facilities and effective communications with the public in at least one of the award’s four performance areas.
One company whose performance is judged exemplary among the group of distinguished Awards for Excellence recipients is selected for the Eagle Award.
Americas Styrenics’ Hanging Rock facility is committed to manufacturing, handling, transporting and disposing of chemical products safely. Through a variety of capital project upgrades, synergies, repairs and refined work processes, the facility successfully reduced greenhouse emissions and improved air quality. The facility also worked to improve the quality of life for their employees and community through the giving of resources, time and encouragement.
In 2014, the Dow Chemical Company’s Hanging Rock facility implemented a project to help mitigate a potential dust explosion, the plant’s largest process safety concern. By partnering with an industry leader to engineer a process control monitor system, the risk of an event heavily decreased while ensuring the dust collection system operates at peak performance. The project implemented sensors alert operations of unsafe condition and, if needed, automatically shutdown the process.
American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley delivered the keynote address during the presentation of the awards.
The Awards for Excellence dinner serves as the opening events for the OCTC 37th Annual Conference in Columbus.
The conference will continue today with industry and regulatory panelists and a special appearance by Ohio Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor.
Ohio’s chemical technology industry is the second largest manufacturing industry in Ohio and the sixth largest chemical manufacturing state in the nation.
- See more at: http://www.irontontribune.com/2015/05/05/companies-take-honors-from-state/#sthash.LEZViWxz.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Formaldehyde Regulations Delayed by Industry Groups, New York Times Reports
May 5, 2015 | The Times-Picayune
By Jed Lipinski
The Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of imposing tighter regulations on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen that has been shown to cause respiratory problems including asthma, the New York Times reports. But industry groups like the American Chemistry Council, arguing the proposed regulations would "impose unfair costs and restrictions," have led the agency to ease important testing requirements, the Times says.
Temporary trailers provided to those without homes after Hurricane Katrina by the Federal Emergency Management Agency were found to contain formaldehyde, an ingredient often used in wood glue for flooring and furniture, the Times writes. The resulting health complaints helped spark a national debate about the chemical's safety, with the EPA concluding that certain laminated wood products can generate a dangerous levels of formaldehyde fumes, the newspaper says.
-
Beyond the Rhetoric: Chemical Industry Advocating More Regulations
May 4, 2015 | Black Press USA
By Harry C. Alford
One of the few shining stars of our nation’s economy, the $812-billion chemistry business, is working with Congress to pass a law that would actually give the federal government more authority to regulate chemicals. You heard right. An industry that has spent the past 40 or so years operating under a loosely defined “chemical regulatory system” in the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has decided it’s time to bring U.S. chemical regulations into the 21st Century so the federal government can do a better job at protecting consumers, including African Americans.
If you think something smells fishy here, you’re mistaken. In an era of zero-sum games and partisan, win-lose decision-making in Congress, this is a case of good, old-fashioned compromise.
Businesses around the country, millions of consumers who purchase their products as well as regulating agencies and environmental activists who hold those agencies accountable – all of us stand to gain from the passage of chemical safety reform legislation currently under review by Congress.
I haven’t seen this kind of bipartisanship in years.
But why are chemical manufacturers supporting this change? And for that matter, why should our 2.1 million Black-owned businesses support it? Because chemical reform done right will help ensure America and Americans – not just industry – are in a better place than we are today under the current law, in terms of protecting both health and safety, and ensuring that our country can hold on to its position as the world’s leading, low-cost innovator.
Note that I said low-cost innovator. As the backbone of America’s economy, the U.S. chemical industry is in a position to become the world’s low-cost producer of chemicals. This is important for a simple reason: the cost savings chemical manufacturers enjoy from being able to make the same chemicals for less can be passed on to suppliers, distributors, retailers and ultimately, the consumers served by our businesses.
What makes this all possible is America’s gift of abundant, affordable natural gas. Only in the past decade have we begun to unwrap that gift and see all that it has to offer. It turns out that one of the key building blocks of natural gas, ethane, is also a key building block of plastics – and, therefore, of virtually every product or technology in our homes made from plastics. If plastic can be made at a more reasonable cost, plastic products can be supplied, distributed and sold at a more reasonable cost.
In large part, because of what chemistry can do with our country’s vast natural gas supply, other countries are investing in America again. They want a share of our pie. That makes for a very bright outlook for 21st century manufacturing, and certainly a welcome development for the thousands of Black men and women who have made a career in making the products that their friends, family and fellow Americans can enjoy every day.
Now, not all of us in the African American community may care that much for the chemical sector. But I can tell you this: we care a great deal about what chemistry brings our community and our country. How about 800,000 jobs across the U.S.? How about 7.5 jobs in other sectors for every one job created in the business of chemistry? How about more than $700 billion in chemistry products flowing through our economy every year? Many of those products are helping to revolutionize medicine in the United States – and they’re saving our lives.
More than 96 percent of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry. We know them as the cars and trucks we drive every day; the clothes we wear; the shoes we run in; the insulation and windows that keep us warm when we need it and cool when we don’t; the battery-powered portable device you might be holding in your hand right now; the lightweight plastic containers that keep our food safe from the farm, to the local store, to our homes; and those life-saving drugs and medical devices that help keep our loved ones healthy and in our lives as long as possible.
That’s why making sure we get it right in reforming our nation’s outdated chemical regulatory law is so important. Americans deserve to be able to shop at their favorite stores with confidence, knowing that the product they need is made and available in store shelves here in America – and that the chemicals used to make those products have been thoroughly tested. And chemical manufacturers want consumers to be able to have this kind of confidence. They want a comprehensive regulatory program that has everyone’s buy-in so that they can continue focusing on what they do best: creating solutions that enhance our lives and can solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges.
The chemical reform bill currently under review in the U.S. Senate is “The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (S. 697). In the House, the bill is called the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015.” With the support of our community, we can help ensure strong reform is delivered to President Obama so he can sign them into law – and become a champion of one of the greatest compromise efforts of his presidency.
Harry C. Alford is the co-founder, President/CEO, of the National Black Chamber of Commerce®. Website: www.nationalbcc.org Email: halford@nationalbcc.org.
-
Chemical Industry Advocating More Regulations
May 5, 2015 | The Philadelphia Tribune
By Harry C. Alford
One of the few shining stars of our nation’s economy, the $812-billion chemistry business, is working with Congress to pass a law that would actually give the federal government more authority to regulate chemicals. You heard right. An industry that has spent the past 40 or so years operating under a loosely defined “chemical regulatory system” in the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has decided it’s time to bring U.S. chemical regulations into the 21st century so the federal government can do a better job at protecting consumers, including African Americans.
If you think something smells fishy here, you’re mistaken. In an era of zero-sum games and partisan, win-lose decision-making in Congress, this is a case of good, old-fashioned compromise.
Businesses around the country, millions of consumers who purchase their products as well as regulating agencies and environmental activists who hold those agencies accountable — all of us stand to gain from the passage of chemical safety reform legislation currently under review by Congress.
I haven’t seen this kind of bipartisanship in years.
But why are chemical manufacturers supporting this change? And for that matter, why should our 2.1 million Black-owned businesses support it? Because chemical reform done right will help ensure America and Americans — not just industry — are in a better place than we are today under the current law, in terms of protecting both health and safety, and ensuring that our country can hold on to its position as the world’s leading, low-cost innovator.
Note that I said low-cost innovator. As the backbone of America’s economy, the U.S. chemical industry is in a position to become the world’s low-cost producer of chemicals. This is important for a simple reason: The cost savings chemical manufacturers enjoy from being able to make the same chemicals for less can be passed on to suppliers, distributors, retailers and ultimately, the consumers served by our businesses.
What makes this all possible is America’s gift of abundant, affordable natural gas. Only in the past decade have we begun to unwrap that gift and see all that it has to offer. It turns out that one of the key building blocks of natural gas, ethane, is also a key building block of plastics — and, therefore, of virtually every product or technology in our homes made from plastics. If plastic can be made at a more reasonable cost, plastic products can be supplied, distributed and sold at a more reasonable cost.
In large part, because of what chemistry can do with our country’s vast natural gas supply, other countries are investing in America again. They want a share of our pie. That makes for a very bright outlook for 21st century manufacturing, and certainly a welcome development for the thousands of Black men and women who have made a career in making the products that their friends, family and fellow Americans can enjoy every day.
Now, not all of us in the African-American community may care that much for the chemical sector. But I can tell you this: we care a great deal about what chemistry brings our community and our country. How about 800,000 jobs across the U.S.? How about 7.5 jobs in other sectors for every one job created in the business of chemistry? How about more than $700 billion in chemistry products flowing through our economy every year? Many of those products are helping to revolutionize medicine in the United States — and they’re saving our lives.
More than 96 percent of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry. We know them as the cars and trucks we drive every day; the clothes we wear; the shoes we run in; the insulation and windows that keep us warm when we need it and cool when we don’t; the battery-powered portable device you might be holding in your hand right now; the lightweight plastic containers that keep our food safe from the farm, to the local store, to our homes; and those life-saving drugs and medical devices that help keep our loved ones healthy and in our lives as long as possible.
That’s why making sure we get it right in reforming our nation’s outdated chemical regulatory law is so important. Americans deserve to be able to shop at their favorite stores with confidence, knowing that the product they need is made and available in store shelves here in America — and that the chemicals used to make those products have been thoroughly tested. And chemical manufacturers want consumers to be able to have this kind of confidence. They want a comprehensive regulatory program that has everyone’s buy-in so that they can continue focusing on what they do best: creating solutions that enhance our lives and can solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges.
The chemical reform bill currently under review in the U.S. Senate is “The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (S. 697). In the House, the bill is called the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015.” With the support of our community, we can help ensure strong reform is delivered to President Obama so he can sign them into law — and become a champion of one of the greatest compromise efforts of his presidency.
Harry C. Alford is the co-founder, president/CEO, of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Website:www.nationalbcc.org Email: halford@nationalbcc.org.
-
EPA Administrator 'Encouraged' by Bipartisan Support for TSCA Bill
May 5, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The changes made to the Udall-Vitter bill, before its passage in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (CW 29 April 2015), addressed the shortcomings previously identified by the US EPA, says the agency’s head, Gina McCarthy.
Testifying last week before the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies on the agency's 2016 budget request, Ms McCarthy was asked by the bill's co-author, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), whether the amended version met the Obama administration's principles (CW 30 September 2009) for reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Back in March, the EPA’s head of chemicals policy, assistant administrator Jim Jones, had “identified a couple of areas where the bill fell short of the administration's principles,” Ms McCarthy told the subcommittee. “But I am pleased that the most recent amendments really addressed those issues.”
Mr Udall told the subcommittee that because of a 1991 court ruling against an EPA Rule on asbestos, the substance was the “poster child” for TSCA reform. He wanted to know whether the amended bill would give the EPA the “tools it needs” to act on the substance. In response, Ms McCarthy said the agency would have the “authority to make asbestos what we call now a 'high priority' chemical and, with that, the agency would be on a schedule for assessing and making regulatory determinations for asbestos.”
In a conference call with business leaders and journalists on 1 May, Mr Udall said he expects the bill to hit the Senate floor in June. Because it is “complex” and other senators may want to offer amendments, it could take three to six weeks to pass it out of the Senate.
Referring to the House draft TSCA measure, Mr Udall said a bill text would be marked up in the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy on 18 May. “We are kind of moving in tandem, which is a very good sign to get the House and the Senate both moving a bill at the same time. If we can get something done in the summer and try to iron out the differences [between the two bills], we might be able to get this [TSCA reform] done this year.”
Meanwhile, industry executives and lawyers have different takes on the issues that could arise, if the bill moves forward to a conference committee – a committee appointed by the House and Senate to resolve disagreements on a particular bill.
The House draft is an alternative approach to the more comprehensive Udall-Vitter bill because it targets “specific TSCA problems”, said Mark Duvall of law firm Beveridge & Diamond. It is not clear yet in which direction Congress, as a whole, would want to go, so it would be useful for conference committee members to have two approaches to work on, he added.
The pre-emption language in the House draft is not ideal but “we understand major concessions were being made to make this bill bipartisan,” said Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. “We have confidence that the essence of pre-emption, and our concerns with states creating their own laws, will be adequately addressed when they go to conference.”
Pre-emption is one of the areas where there are likely to be “big changes and significant discussions” in conference between the House and the Senate, said Ernie Rosenberg, president of the American Cleaning Institute. “Our key interest is making sure there is a credible federal programme because our principal vulnerability is from retailer and other private sector restrictions on chemicals.”
-
Study Links Natural Gas Development to Drinking Water Contamination
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Krysti Shallenberger
A study out of the natural-gas-rich Marcellus Shale has linked contaminated drinking water to shale gas development for the first time.
The study, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says faulty well bore construction, a documented leak at a well pad and possible clumsiness while handling fluids used in hydraulic fracturing are likely to blame for contaminating the drinking water of three Pennsylvania wells located in the Marcellus Shale formation.
"The most likely explanation of the incident is that stray natural gas and drilling, or HF compounds, were driven 1-3 kilometers along shallow to intermediate depth fractures to the aquifer used as a potable water source," says the study, which compiled data collected by environmental consulting firm Appalachia Hydrogeologic and Environmental Consulting LLC and several Pennsylvania State University professors. "Part of the problem may have been wastewaters from a pit leak reported at the nearest gas well pad -- the only nearby pad where wells were hydraulically fractured before the contamination incident."
At the behest of homeowners and their lawyers, Garth Llewellyn and his company collected data for a year starting in the spring of 2011 from three wells owned by the homeowners alongside three wells used for background data and public data related to the gas wells, Llewellyn said in an interview with EnergyWire.
"In the past, the impression by the general public [has] focused on the stage where the company injects fluids into the ground and that fractures the Marcellus Shale," Llewellyn said. He added people worry that the fluids used in the production method are pushed upward from the action when the horizontal drill breaks open the shale, but "such upward linkage has never been documented."
Instead, Llewellyn said the fracking fluids were unlikely to flow up from the portion broken open by the horizontal drill, but rather in the part nearest to the surface where drillers bore vertically.
Llewellyn added that "the issue is well bore integrity; it's not the horizontal portion. It's the vertical portion." Other possible explanations included carelessness when handling fracking fluids, causing them to spill near the aquifer; lack of strong casing construction; and a documented leak found at a well pad near the homes with contaminated wells.
The homeowners' case was settled with Chesapeake Energy Corp. for $1.6 million in 2012, according to the Associated Press.
However, Llewellyn and his team continued collecting samples in an effort to document and consequently publish their findings "so that it becomes more transparent to the public," he said.
Dr. Susan Brantley, a Penn State professor in geoscience, said, "This is the first time [someone] publishes all the data that's available where we're actually seeing toxins moving in the subsurface to drinking water.
"That incident has been alleged before but never been shown in a study; such incidents are rare but important for people to know."
Due diligence when constructing well bores and paying closer attention when handling fracking fluids near water could diminish these occurrences, Llewellyn said.
"So all of these possibilities that we cite are really things that are relatively under our control," Llewellyn said. "People need to be aware of all these different processes taking place. ... In order to be responsible as we move forward with oil and gas development, people need to be more careful with gas well construction, including with intermediate casing and proper cementing."
Travis Windle, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an organization representing energy developers and companies in the Marcellus Shale formation, said in an email to EnergyWire, "It's absolutely critical to acknowledge that important technological advancements have been and continue to be made along with the fact that Pennsylvania's regulations were dramatically strengthened over the past several years -- from overall well construction practices, including enhanced casing and cementing requirements, to expanded pre-drill testing, and heightened surface containment measurements -- aimed at protecting groundwater, which is a top industry priority."Foaming at the hose
One unusual discovery caught the researchers' eyes. When pumping the water out of the ground, the water "foamed ... white like shaving cream," Brantley said.
Both Brantley and Llewellyn noted the incident is highly unusual; in fact, neither one experienced such an event in their combined years of research.
The researchers discovered low concentrations of a compound called 2-BE, which is a "foaming agent," Llewellyn and Brantley said. In their study, the researchers said despite its low concentrations, "this compound is of special interest because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has suggested that 2-BE could be an indicator of contamination from HVHF [high-volume hydraulic fracturing] activity."
Studies have found blood issues in animals from exposure to this chemical, Brantley noted, but its effects on humans are unknown. Brantley and Llewellyn also cautioned against the fact that this compound was solely responsible for the foaming water.
"Given that 2-BE was only found in [one well], it might be reasonable to conclude that the UCM [unresolved complex mixture] hydrocarbons aided by gas effervescence was the most probable cause," the study said.
-
Capito Readies Bill to Exempt States from Power Plant Rules
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito picked up the baton today on "just say no" legislation, announcing in a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee she chairs that she will introduce a bill next week to allow states to opt out of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The West Virginia Republican said her bill "will preserve the proper balance of state and federal authority, help ensure reliable and affordable electricity, and protect jobs and our economy."
The Clean Air and Nuclear Subcommittee chairwoman told Greenwire that her bill will have "a lot of the same elements" as a House bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) that cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.
But she said the two measures will not be identical. "It will incorporate some of the bills that we have looked at in the past and that I've participated in on the House side," she said. "Those are the areas we're looking at."
Whitfield's bill would bar EPA from implementing a federal plan to regulate power plant carbon dioxide in states that fail to submit approvable state plans. It would also grant all states a reprieve from requirements to submit implementation plans until judicial review has concluded.
Whitfield has said he hopes his bill in the next few weeks will come to the House floor, where it is likely to pass. He is also planning to release a separate bill to address EPA's carbon rule for new power plants, which the agency is preparing to finalize this summer along with the standard for existing plants.
Capito's measure will encompass both those rules for new and existing plants, she said after the hearing. But the senator took a dim view of her bill's prospects for passage. It would need significant Democratic support to clear the Senate's 60-vote hurdle for controversial legislation, and while some Democrats see the rules as disruptive to their states' economies, she acknowledged that might not be enough.
"We obviously want to get as many as we can, but we're under no false premises here that we'll be able to pick up a lot of people," she said. "We'll just have to see how it works out."
Capito presided over EPW's fourth hearing on the EPA rule for existing power plants, which delved into the legal arguments states and others have raised against the rule. The attorneys general of Oklahoma and West Virginia -- representing both Capito's state and that of EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R)-- took turns airing some of the objections they have raised in lawsuits ahead of EPA finalizing the rule.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) raised the oft-cited argument that the Clean Air Act bars EPA from regulating power plants under Section 111(d) -- as it proposes to do for carbon -- because it is already using another section of the statute to regulate the same sources for mercury and other toxics.
The argument stems from two unreconciled provisions -- one passed by the House, the other by the Senate -- that were mistakenly both included in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. It is also the crux of a legal challenge West Virginia is leading with other states that includes Murray Energy Corp. and other industry parties.
By basing its rule on the Senate-passed language that permits EPA to regulate different pollutants under both sections of the law, even from the same sources, EPA is "relying on a typo, on a conforming error, if you will, in order to breathe life into one of the most sweeping regulations in our nation's history," Morrisey said.
The rule EPA is advancing would be "devastating" for coal-producing states like West Virginia, he said. EPA regulations have already harmed not only the state's mining economy but its tax base, which is dependent on revenues from the coal industry.
"It is my duty as the chief legal officer of the state of West Virginia to fight against this unlawful power grab that is hurting our citizens," he said.
In addition to leading the state challenge to the proposed rule, West Virginia has enacted legislation that would require its Legislature to sign off on any state implementation plan (SIP) for the rule, making submission of an approvable SIP highly unlikely. EPA is readying a federal plan that would apply in states that opt not to write their own, but bills like Capito's would prevent the agency from implementing it.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) said the rule "treats states like a vessel of federal will."
"The EPA believes the states exist to implement the policies the administration sees fit, regardless of whether laws like the Clean Air Act permits such action," he said.
Pruitt highlighted arguments by industry and states that hold that EPA should not have promulgated a rule that goes beyond the fence line of a power plant. By requiring systemwide reductions from demand-side efficiency, fuel switching and other activities, EPA has overstepped its authority, he said, seeking to regulate power markets within states -- a violation of the principle of cooperative federalism that the Clean Air Act is built upon.
Attorney Roger Martella, an attorney representing industry clients at Sidley Austin LLP, predicted that the courts would listen most closely to this issue of the rule's scope. But while he said the Clean Power Plan has substantial legal vulnerability, it could take four years to resolve those issues, leaving states to implement a rule that would ultimately be overturned.
Pruitt said this obligation would lead states to take costly steps such as shuttering coal plants before the rule is invalidated. EPA's proposal gives states only a year to submit a SIP, he noted. State agencies "feel as though they are being pressured, intimidated, to comply with a rule that is perhaps not constant with the statutory construction," he said.
But Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown Law Center said the legal arguments against the rule were "flimsy." And she disputed that the rule is legally "unprecedented," as EPA opponents have charged.
The option to craft an approvable state plan to meet the federal rule's targets or see EPA step in with a federal plan is the same choice states have had since the Clean Air Act was enacted, she said.
"It is not an unconstitutional choice," she said. She added that the courts are likely to afford EPA deference for its interpretation of the law, as they have generally done in the past.
"EPA is interpreting statutory provisions with less than ideal clarity," she said.
Democrats on the panel said the hearing demonstrated Republican bias toward the perceived economic woes of fossil fuels states, and a willingness to ignore the risks climate change poses to states on the coasts.
Ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) noted that his own coastal state is vulnerable to sea-level rise driven by warming.
"The longer we wait to reduce our carbon output, the more severe and perhaps irreversible the effects of climate change will become," he said. "Meanwhile, public health and our economy will continue to be endangered by more frequent storms, intense droughts and sea-level rise."
Reporter Nick Juliano contributed.
-
Peer-Reviewed Study Backs White House's Claims on Health Benefits of Clean Power Plan
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
The Obama administration has taken great pains to frame its Clean Power Plan as an immediate solution for an immediate, quantifiable problem. President Obama and other high-level administration surrogates have routinely focused on easy-to-picture issues like asthma, rather than the more existential threat of an increasingly warming planet, as they try to sell an ambitious plan to lower the power sector's carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years.
So the key takeaway of the first independent, peer-reviewed study on the U.S. EPA regulation's public health benefits was likely music to the administration's ears.
"The general narrative is addressing climate change will be costly, and the benefits will now accrue for generations," said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future and one of the study's co-authors. "We take a look at this and see there are important benefits and changes in air quality that accrue in the present, and close to home."
Burtraw said that when the power sector begins shifting away from coal-fired power plants and toward energy sources with smaller carbon footprints, like natural gas, wind and solar, the health benefits would begin materializing immediately. "Really, we are talking about a matter of days to weeks," he said.
None of the health benefits the study focused on would come from reduced carbon dioxide emissions, however, but rather, they would come from reduced output of sulfur dioxide and other emissions.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, analyzed three different approaches to reducing the power sector's carbon footprint: an "inside the fence line" approach where power providers improve efficiency at coal-fired plants, but do not shift production to alternative sources; a scenario where the power sector utilizes all four "building blocks" EPA has suggested, including an aggressive use of energy efficiency programs; and the imposition of a $43-per-ton price on carbon dioxide emissions.
Researchers found that the second and third scenarios would scale back power plant emissions enough to prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths each year from heart attacks, respiratory illnesses and other pollution-related health problems.
Interestingly, the first scenario would actually lead to a slight increase in premature deaths. Burtraw explained that after utilities invest in carbon capture technology and other scrubbing mechanisms for their coal-fired plants, "in some regions, those plants actually are utilized more. And with their greater utilization comes greater emissions."Getting Americans 'on board' with the health angle
The results were dismissed by the coal industry. "We know that taking coal power offline will lead to electricity disruptions including blackouts, brownouts and rationing," said American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity spokeswoman Laura Sheehan. "These disruptions are not just nuisances they jeopardize hospital and emergency care, city sanitation systems and regular commerce."
The Obama administration, on the other hand, welcomed the study, saying it "provides independent confirmation by independent scientists that EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan is on the right track."
Indeed, the results fit well with the White House's narrative. President Obama focused on childhood asthma when he first announced the Clean Power Plan last summer (ClimateWire, April 10).
Last month, the White House circled back to the issue of health problems. "There are a whole host of public health impacts that are going to hit home," Obama said at a Washington, D.C., event focused on climate change. "All of our families are going to be vulnerable. You can't cordon yourself off from air or from climate" (ClimateWire, April 8).
The health care messaging makes sense, said Christopher Borick, who directs Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion and has polled extensively on environmental issues. "Even when Americans accept the reality of climate change, they continue to generally give it low saliency in terms of issues on the agenda."
"When you think about public health matters like asthma or any breathing issues that many Americans face, it's real and it's immediate," Borick said. "The threats from climate change are major and potentially devastating, but to many individuals, remain abstract. The more you can get individuals to think about carbon and fossil fuel matters through the lens of public health, the more likely you are to get them on board in policy efforts to reduce emissions."
So expect to hear a lot more about this report from the White House as it prepares to release its final regulations later this year.
-
Exelon's Dominguez Discusses Nuclear Outlook, Reliability Concerns with Power Plan Proposal
May 5, 2015 | E&E - TV
As market dynamics shift, what are Exelon's plans for renewable energy versus nuclear energy in its business model? During today's OnPoint, Joseph Dominguez, executive vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy at Exelon, discusses the reliability challenges with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan proposal and the improvements that can be made to ensure reliability and a smooth transition for the nation's utilities.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Joe Dominguez, executive vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy at Exelon. Joe, thanks for joining me.
Joseph Dominguez: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Joe, we see such a wide disparity among the country's largest electric utilities on the impact of the Clean Power Plan and the ability of stakeholders to comply with it. Why doesn't Exelon share some of those same concerns that some of our counterparts in the industry do?
Joseph Dominguez: Well, it's not that we don't share the same concerns. I think a bad rule would raise concerns for all of us. But we think there's a lot of room for a good rule here: a lot of strong comments that we've provided to EPA, others have provided to EPA, that are thoughtful and actually give us a path forward, both to achieve the emissions reductions but also achieve them on time and maintain electric reliability and hold down costs.
Monica Trauzzi: Nuclear is a big part of Exelon's operations and we know that nuclear is not given the same consideration as other forms of energy in the draft Clean Power Plan. What conversations have you had with EPA about how nuclear will be handled in the final plan?
Joseph Dominguez: Yeah, well, I think first the EPA recognizes the important role of nuclear: It's about 63 percent of the nation's clean electricity. So keeping the existing plants operating, upgrading those plants, building new plants is important to the agency.
We don't think they went about it exactly the right way. And what they did is they credited nuclear for about 6 percent of its overall contribution.
What we've been talking to the agency about, and we've included in our comments, making sure that nuclear is treated not preferentially but the same way that other zero-carbon resources are treated like wind, solar, hydro and others.
Monica Trauzzi: Why is Exelon part of this group that's proposing a reliability dispatch safe harbor that would place a price on carbon if you are confident that the EPA's Power Plan can be implemented and not affect reliability?
Joseph Dominguez: Well, one of the things that the EPA comment period does is it allows us to make proposals that would then be incorporated in the final rule. And what we've suggested to the EPA is that they create a mechanism to allow the states to use existing grid operators to pricing carbon and co-optimize reliability and environmental attributes.
So effectively what the grid operators would do is ensure that the -- ensure that we keep the lights on, but at the same time, where possible, we would allow for gas plants to operate ahead of coal plants, recognizing the advantages of gas relative to coal from a carbon standpoint.
Monica Trauzzi: So as written do you have reliability concerns with the draft?
Joseph Dominguez: As written we think there are timing concerns and ultimately potential reliability concerns. But we think EPA has heard those concerns and we think they're poised to address them in the final rule.
Monica Trauzzi: What do you think about the calls for states to just simply not comply with the plan?
Joseph Dominguez: You know, I've certainly heard that -- we all have -- but realistically think about what position the state would be in if they ignore their opportunity to submit a compliance plan. Basically they would be surrendering themselves ultimately if the courts uphold the rule to the jurisdiction of the federal authorities in terms of designing the plan at a federal level.
We all believe that state involvement in the process is important. I think the states do too, and I don't think they're going to discard their opportunity to participate in their own compliance plan drafting readily despite the calls to do that.
Monica Trauzzi: Renewables will certainly play a large role as part of compliance. Describe Exelon's plans for expanding renewables versus nuclear energy.
Joseph Dominguez: Well, I think our view is that we need to get the most bang for the buck out of the existing nuclear fleet. In terms of incremental expansion of clean energy, nuclear plays an important but limited role. We could upgrade existing facilities, get more megawatts out of the machines we have, but we don't see presently a path forward for building new nuclear plants.
We think the more economical alternative right now is renewables and storage and energy efficiency. So our focus right now is deploying those technologies while at the same time policies write to keep what we have going going, because what we do know is that we need more of both.
Monica Trauzzi: And we see this firsthand in Illinois where there have been discussions about shutting down three plants. Talk about what's happening there.
Joseph Dominguez: Well, we're seeing increasing cost pressures. Basically the way state policy has been drafted so far is it recognizes zero-carbon attributes from certain technologies and rewards those attributes. The renewable portfolio standards are typically the mechanism that they use to reward these technologies.
And so in Illinois we support clean coal, we support wind, we support solar, we support hydro; we basically support every conceivable way of producing zero-carbon electricity except the form of electricity production that produces 93 percent of Illinois' zero-carbon electricity: nuclear.
So nuclear isn't allowed to compete in those programs, and the discussion we're having with the Legislature is whether it would make more sense to create a technology-neutral platform that focuses on what society wants -- zero-carbon electricity -- and reward all technologies that do that in the same way.
Monica Trauzzi: So will you be shutting down these three plants if you don't see what you want from the Legislature?
Joseph Dominguez: You know, I don't want to speculate on whether all three plants, but very clearly the plants are distressed at this point, they're not economic under the current circumstances; absent some policy change we're going to have to make those decisions.
Monica Trauzzi: Exelon is seeking to buy Pepco Holdings. Can your company make a guarantee to customers that they will not see cost rises and that they'll actually see cost savings from the merger?
Joseph Dominguez: Yeah, I think so. I think what we're putting on the table is a really impressive package. Obviously some of our key customer counties in terms of customer counts have been involved and have participated in settlement discussions. And the package looks like rebates for customers, it improves reliability, and because we're operating on a much bigger scale we can do a couple of things.
We could take advantage of lessons learned through all of our utilities to make sure that we have the best technology, the best work practices. And the other way that the scale helps us is it holds down costs over time. We could eliminate duplicative costs at the utilities and we could provide the service to customers at the lowest possible price. That's what we're aiming for.
Monica Trauzzi: The cost of wind and solar has come down significantly, natural gas remains an extremely cost-effective investment.
Joseph Dominguez: Sure.
Monica Trauzzi: What market signals is Exelon looking at as you construct your business model for the future?
Joseph Dominguez: I think right now the focus from a market standpoint is, as you said, natural gas is the clear winner from an economic standpoint. If we're just trying to build the next megawatt of incremental generation without regard to pollution, without regard to policy, it's natural gas.
Wind is probably 175 percent of that. New solar is probably 150 percent or better of those costs. So if you just let the market decide, it's going to pick gas over wind and solar. But obviously the policy design is more complicated than just market price signals: there are federal incentives, tax incentives, there are also state incentives through the RPS mechanisms that allow us to build incremental solar and build incremental wind -- and we're doing a lot of both -- and take advantage of policy support for those two technologies.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show.
Joseph Dominguez: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
EPA Issues Direct Final Rule To Allow States To Rescind GHG-Only Permits
May 5, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is issuing a direct final rulemaking that would provide a process to rescind air permits that were issued solely based on facilities' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, following a Supreme Court ruling last year that slightly narrowed EPA's GHG permitting regime.
The move has been widely expected, following the ruling in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, in which the high court said EPA cannot treat GHGs as an air pollutant when determining whether a source is required to obtain a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) or Title V stationary source air permit.
Even so, major sources that would otherwise require PSD permits because of their conventional pollutants, known as “anyway sources,” must still have GHG emission limits included in their permits. Only sources that “triggered permitting requirements based solely on their GHG emissions [are] no longer are required to get a permit,” EPA says in a fact sheet released alongside the new rule.
The Supreme Court ruling was recently followed by a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit order vacating a portion of EPA's “tailoring rule” that sought to phase in regulation of GHG-only sources. The appellate court also rejected without comment industry arguments that EPA is barred from permitting GHGs at “anyway” sources until officials promulgate a new rule setting GHG emission thresholds.
EPA has estimated that the high court's move would scale back the universe of regulated facilities from 86 percent of all major source GHG emissions to 83 percent.
The agency adds that the new rule “does not rescind any permits,” and instead provides a needed “regulatory mechanism” for EPA and delegated states to rescind PSD permits for GHG-only sources. EPA says permitting authorities already have the necessary authority to rescind GHG-only Title V permits.
Because the agency views the rule as “non-controversial,” the April 30 direct final rule will take effect within 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The move bypasses the need for public comments, so long as the agency does not receive “adverse” comment within 30 days of publication.
In case the agency does receive adverse comment, it would withdraw the direct final rule and instead proceed with a traditional companion proposed rule that was also released April 30. Comments on the proposal are also due within 30 days of publication in the Register, though EPA says it will take no further action on the proposal if it receives no adverse comment on the direct final rule. The two rulemakings are substantively the same.
EPA's rule comes as the agency recently said it is crafting a separate rule to set a de minimis threshold level of GHG emissions above which PSD requirements would be triggered at anyway facilities, also in line with the UARG ruling. Once finalized, the rule would likely quell lingering legal uncertainty over the agency's authority to issue GHG limits in those permits.
-
Key Senator Withholds Judgment as More Bills Floated Against Obama Rule
May 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Annie Snider
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a key swing vote on the Obama administration's controversial water rule, signaled yesterday that she would reserve judgment until she sees the regulatory revisions made in response to worries from farmers, developers and other stakeholders.
"The review process for the final Waters of the U.S. rule is still underway, and I plan on closely reviewing the revised rule to see how it impacts our waterways and meets the needs of farmers and rural communities in Minnesota," she said in a statement to E&E Daily yesterday.
Klobuchar provided what was essentially the 60th vote on an amendment from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to the Senate's budget resolution in March, which was teed up as a test vote for legislation introduced last week by Barrasso and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.). That measure (S. 1140) would prevent U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from finalizing their current rule and would set new criteria for any future rule aimed at clearing up years of confusion over which streams and wetlands fall under the protection of the Clean Water Act (Greenwire, April 30).
But Klobuchar has remained noncommittal on the overall issue.
"I look at each thing on a case-by-case" basis, she told E&E Daily at the time. The Barrasso amendment "was kind of a broad thing, and I've always said they need to make some changes to the rule."
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has acknowledged that the agency's rollout of the proposed rule was bumpy and has said that the final rule will contain key changes responding to concerns from industry groups, particularly those in the agricultural sector (E&ENews PM, March 16).
She and outside supporters of the water rule have urged lawmakers to hold off on legislative intervention in the process until they see the final rule.
"I think I understand the issues that folks have raised in their concerns, and my concern is to make sure that I'm developing a final rule that respects those," McCarthy told Senate appropriators last week (E&E Daily, April 30).
The question of waiting to see the final rule could be moot, though, if the Obama administration follows through with its goal of releasing it before summer. It's unlikely that lawmakers will have the opportunity to act before then.Other bills
Klobuchar's statement comes as additional legislation on the water rule is piling up.
The Barrasso measure is poised to be the primary vehicle for opponents of the water rule, but lawmakers are introducing other legislation to spotlight their top concerns.
Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, both Arizona Republicans, yesterday introduced the "Defending Our Rivers From Overreaching Policies Act" (S. 1178), highlighting issues in the arid West.
The measure would block the rule from being finalized until a new scientific review panel and an "Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams Advisory Commission" can complete reports on how to determine the importance of water bodies -- particularly those that don't flow year-round -- to downstream water bodies clearly covered by the Clean Water Act. Ninety-four percent of Arizona's streams flow only in response to rainfall or during certain times of year.
Such intermittent and ephemeral streams have posed some of the trickiest -- and most time-consuming -- problems for federal regulators trying to figure out which waters should be jurisdictional. The Obama administration's proposed rule would have counted more in automatically, much to the chagrin of Arizona developers, miners and other industrial interests (Greenwire, Oct. 15, 2014).
"The EPA's flawed water rule could give the government powerful authority to dictate how Arizona farmers and ranchers use limited water on their lands," McCain said in a statement. "Our bill would send EPA to the penalty box while its proposed rule undergoes peer-reviewed scientific analysis, which the agency failed to do in the first place."
Meanwhile, conservative senators eager to go further than bipartisan legislation can have lined up behind Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) "Defense of Environment and Property Act" (S. 980).
That measure would kill the Obama administration's current rule and codify the conservative wing of the Supreme Court's approach to narrowly defining federal jurisdiction under the 1972 water law. It has the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as well as GOP presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas.
-
Feds to Require Climate Change Plans for States Seeking Disaster Relief
May 5, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.
The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.
In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.
“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”
The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).
In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.
“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.
But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing "gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”
The letter goes on to ask FEMA to explain which statutory authority the agency relied on to require states to consider climate change, whether or not the agency still agrees with its 2012 statement that hurricanes follow a cycle of increased and decreased activity over decades and how much it will cost states to comply with the new requirement.
In a January White House blog post about a new flood standard for federal investments, Fugate and then-presidential adviser John Podesta (who has since joined the Hillary Clinton camp) recognized the effects of climate change.
"Effects of climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent and more severe," they wrote. "And the climate is changing — earlier this month, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally, meaning that 14 of the 15 hottest years in recorded history have happened this century."FEMA’s new requirements will take effect March 6, 2016.
-
White House: Prepare for Climate Change in Infrastructure Planning
May 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is convening local and state leaders and experts Tuesday to encourage infrastructure planning to incorporate climate change preparation.
The administration is hoping that along with factors like population and economic growth, local and state governments can think of a changing climate when they build highways, bridges, transit and other projects.
Jeffrey Zients and Christy Goldfuss, advisers to President Obama on economic and environmental policy respectively, explained the effort in a Tuesday blog post.
“It’s not just population and economic growth that will put pressure on U.S. infrastructure,” they wrote. “Climate change will also test the strength and endurance of the highways we drive on, the airports we fly out of, and the dams, reservoirs, canals and water facilities that provide water to our homes, businesses and farms.”
The event fits in with a key strategy in Obama’s second-term climate change push: to show Americans how climate change will affect their everyday lives and their backyards, and to either help them cope with the effects or show them the great effort that is necessary to cope with rising sea levels, hotter weather and other changes that scientists are forecasting.
It also comes as the Obama administration and Congress once again try to find a way to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements, maintain and new facilities are needed to help the country thrive.
Tuesday’s event will highlight some success stories from the Obama administration’s July 2014 initiative to connect local governments with the financing they need for infrastructure.
The White House is also using the event to release a guide to help officials adjust their infrastructure planning for climate.
“The guide includes an extensive list of all federal programs that can help local, state and tribal governments in the early stages of a project’s life,” the advisers wrote. “It also includes a set of principles for planning and design that we hope will be a resource for communities around the country as they build projects that will define growth and development in the decades ahead.”
The guests at Tuesday’s roundtable will include about 90 investors, local and state officials, policy experts, nonprofit leaders and federal representatives.
The White House’s councils of economic and environmental advisers are hosting the event with the Ford and Rockefeller foundations.
-
Firefighters' Union: Oil-By-Rail Rules 'Fall Short'
May 5, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
DOT’s crude-by-rail safety rules “fall short” of the mark when it comes to giving local first responders the data they “need to respond effectively when the call arrives,” International Association of Fire Fighters chief Harold Schaitberger said today.
The IAFF criticism comes as DOT faces growing calls from within President Barack Obama’s party to go further than it did on Friday with oil train regulations that were already buffeted by lengthy delays. Sens. Chuck Schumer and Maria Cantwell are among the senior Democrats urging the administration to do more.
The DOT rules ask railroads to provide state and local officials with a point person to keep tabs on flammable fuel routes running through specific communities, but Schaitberger said regulators should have beefed up those requirements.
“Fire fighters depend on all available information to launch an effective response to emergencies like oil explosions,” Schaitberger said in a statement to POLITICO. “They need to know what trains are carrying and when.” The firefighters’ union, he added, hopes to help “the DOT to develop rules that make our communities and those that protect communities safer from deadly rail explosions.” -
Green, Labor Groups Led Late Lobbying Blitz on Oil-By-Rail Rule
May 5, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
During the past two months, more than a dozen oil and rail industry groups jockeyed for attention as Obama administration officials put the finishing touches on a major crude-by-rail safety rule.
But as firms such as Exxon Mobil Corp., Hess Corp. and CSX Corp. led one last lobbying blitz, several environmentalist and labor organizations paid their first visits to the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as it weighed the final regulations.
John Risch, national legislative director for the SMART union's transportation division, said his group's March 30 meeting at OIRA stemmed from a desire to do "something different" about the oil safety rule, which touches on everything from train speed to tank car design. OIRA is a small but influential part of the Office of Management and Budget that analyzes the costs and benefits of a given rule before it goes public.
"I saw actually a press clip that the railroads had met with [OIRA] and I thought, 'Wow, I'm missing a step here,' so I requested to meet with them," Risch said, noting that SMART-TD had filed comments on an earlier draft of the crude-by-rail rule in addition to working with the Federal Railroad Administration.
Earlier in the month, representatives from the environmental group Earthjustice sat down with OIRA to call for a ban on the oldest, least crash-worthy type DOT-111 tank cars still used to haul thousands of barrels of crude across the country each day. Other organizations present at the March 13 meeting included ForestEthics, Riverkeeper and the Sierra Club, all of which have voiced concerns about a string of recent oil train derailments and explosions.
Earthjustice again met with OIRA on April 15, just two weeks before the release of the final rule.
"We're starting to see more and more people get engaged on this rule because these tank cars are rolling through towns and communities across the country," said Jessica Ennis, a senior legislative representative with Earthjustice who lobbies on a range of topics important to the organization. "Every time there's another explosion, more people are realizing that carrying crude oil by rail is actually very dangerous."
The new Department of Transportation rule aims to make that process less dangerous by toughening new tank car standards and requiring shippers to update older cars on a 10-year time frame. The rule also caps oil and ethanol trains' speed limits at 40 mph through most big cities and 50 mph elsewhere.
Environmentalist groups have been largely critical of the final rule, noting that it applies only to trains with 20 or more tank cars and follows a too-leisurely phaseout schedule.Brakes added
Risch of SMART-TD is more satisfied with the rule.
At the meeting he called for in March, Risch pushed transportation regulators to make railroads add electronically controlled pneumatic brakes -- a technology the North Dakota native hailed as "the greatest safety enhancement I witnessed in my 30-year career as a locomotive engineer."
The final rule would require trains carrying 70 or more cars of the most flammable kinds of crude to use ECP brakes by 2021 or face a 30 mph speed limit, with other "high-hazard flammable unit trains" following suit by 2023.
The rail, oil and tank car industries had fought an ECP braking mandate as expensive and unnecessary, with Ed Hamberger, head of the Association of American Railroads, calling their requirement a "rash rush to judgment" on the part of DOT.
Risch acknowledged that the shift to ECP technology would come at a cost but called DOT's 2021 initial deadline a "reasonable approach."
"It's not radical like it's being portrayed," he said.
Green groups led by Earthjustice had hoped for faster and broader application of ECP brakes, which government analyses said would reduce the severity of oil train accidents by up to 36 percent compared to regular braking systems.
Environmentalists had also sought to draw attention to the towns affected by the DOT rulemaking, with Ennis of Earthjustice helping schedule a conference call between Obama administration officials and council members from several cities.
"I think these meetings are extremely important, especially with local elected officials -- they're closest to where these accidents can happen across the country," Ennis noted. "They have a unique, on-the-ground perspective on this that's very important for the DOT to hear."
Shannon Williamson, a City Council member in Sandpoint, Idaho, participated in the April 15 conference call with OIRA and called the conversation an "absolutely critical opportunity."
Sandpoint is a hub for westbound crude from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play, where the bulk of the nation's oil-by-rail shipments originate. Oil train traffic rose from about 15 oil trains per week to 23 in the span of a year, said Williamson, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper.
She added that her town is about the same size as Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, where a 72-car train hauling Bakken crude derailed and exploded in July 2013, killing 47 people.
That disaster set into motion the rulemaking unveiled Friday, which was a joint effort between U.S. and Canadian regulators.
"The oil industry had lobbyists in the administrative offices practically every single day during this whole rulemaking," Williamson said. "The people who are going to be impacted by oil-by-rail transport are not being adequately represented -- or they weren't."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested