Preview Newsletter
ACC AM May 8
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hazard Advisory Panel's Methods, Data Focus of Public Comments on Phthalate Rule
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's advisory panel on phthalates used an unproven methodology and old data to support recommendations adopted in a proposed rule on phthalates in children's products, the American Chemistry Council and other trade associations said in public comments submitted to the agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lowe's Follows Rival Home Depot In Phasing Out Flooring With Phthalates
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The home improvement retail chain Lowe's said it will largely phase out the sale of vinyl flooring that contains potentially harmful phthalate chemicals. The company said that, by the end of this year, 95 percent of all vinyl flooring and 100 percent of all non-recycled vinyl flooring sold at its stores will be free of phthalates. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Panel Votes Unanimously to Add BPA to Prop 65 List
May 7, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A California panel on Thursday voted unanimously to list controversial polycarbonate ingredient bisphenol A as a hazardous chemical. -
Senators Seek To Limit TSCA Reform Bill Amendments As Support Grows
May 7, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senators backing a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill are seeking to limit the amendments that might be offered during upcoming floor debate in order to minimize chances of a controversial chemicals policy amendment from dooming the bill, which May 7 secured an additional 14 Democratic and Republican sponsors. -
More Than One-Third of Senate Now Co-Sponsoring Bill to Overhaul TSCA
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
More than a third of the Senate is co-sponsoring the Senate bill (S. 697) that would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act, Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) said May 7. Udall and Vitter were joined by Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in a news conference... -
EDF Welcomes 14 Additional Cosponsors of the Lautenberg Act
May 7, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund welcomes today’s announcement that 14 additional Senators – 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans – have cosponsored the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697). This brings the total number of Senators cosponsoring the legislation to 36, more than a third of the full Senate. -
Bipartisan Good Feelings Reign On TSCA — Without Boxer
May 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Barbara Boxer doesn’t leave the Senate for another 20 months, but she was already absent Thursday from the latest development on the chemical safety law that she’s fought so hard to shape. The California Democrat’s name never came up when an eclectic group of a half-dozen senators held a news conference to push for quick action on their bipartisan... -
Lowe’s to Eliminate Toxic Phthalates in Flooring by End of 2015
May 7, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
Matching a commitment from The Home Depot to eliminate phthalates in flooring by the end of the year, Lowe’s has become the latest retailer to pledge to eliminate the toxic chemicals, according to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. -
Oil Recovery, Textile Treatment Chemicals Among 25 Covered by EPA New Use Rule
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Direct final significant new use rules for 25 oil recovery, textile treatment and other chemicals will be effective July 7 unless the Environmental Protection Agency receives an adverse comment by June 8. The rules, which are scheduled to be published in a May 8 Federal Register notice, would impose on any new manufacturer or processor precautions... -
Final Season of Hudson River PCB Dredging Begins
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The sixth and final season of dredging polychlorinated biphenyls from the upper Hudson River began May 7, as one of the most complex and expensive cleanups in Superfund history comes to an end. General Electric Co. has spent more than $1 billion on the project, which involves removal of a total of at least 2.75 million cubic yards of... -
EPA Meeting June 11 on Nanoscale Materials Rule
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposed rule that would require manufacturers and processors of nanoscale materials to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency chemical identity, production volume, manufacture methods and other information will be discussed June 11 at an EPA meeting, the agency is scheduled to announce in a May 8 Federal Register notice. -
(ACC Mentioned) NAMPA and ACC Hit out at BPA Decision
May 8, 2015 | Food Quality News
By Joe Whitworth
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA) have slammed a decision by a Californian committee to list bisphenol A (BPA) on Proposition 65. -
Markey Reintroduces Pipeline Modernization Bills
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) reintroduced May 6 two bills to facilitate faster natural gas pipeline infrastructure improvements. Repairing this infrastructure could prevent accidents, reduce leaks that contribute to climate change and save consumers money, Markey said in a news release. The Pipeline Modernization and Consumer Protection Act... -
Industry, Environmentalists Weigh In On EPA Oil Spill Response Proposal
May 7, 2015 | Inside EPA
The oil industry, environmentalists and others are weighing in on EPA's proposed revisions to its oil spill response regulations, with industry expressing concern that tightened controls over spill response methods, such as the use of dispersants, could hinder responses, while a coalition of environmentalists and citizens says EPA's attempt at overhauling the regulations "is incomplete," failing to address unconventional oil spills and the toxic nature of oil. -
Environmental Groups Sue Feds Over Natural Gas Export Project
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental groups have sued the federal government in an attempt to block a new liquefied natural gas export facility in Maryland. The groups, led by Earthjustice, sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over its decision to authorize Dominion Resources' $3.8 billion Cove Point natural gas export project, arguing the... -
DOE Gives Final Approval to Md. Export Terminal; Greens File Lawsuit
May 8, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Energy Department gave final approval today for Dominion Resources Inc.'s plan to export domestic gas from its $3.8 billion Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility on the Chesapeake Bay. The same Calvert County, Md., terminal was at the center of a legal fight brought on by activists opposed to hydraulic fracturing and fossil fuels. -
Murkowski to Introduce Bill to Lift Oil Export Ban, Considers Amendment to Trade Measure
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said May 7 she will introduce legislation to repeal the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports May 12 and that she also is considering an amendment to trade promotion authority legislation that would lift the prohibition. Murkowski said she has yet to decide whether... -
Murkowski to Introduce Crude Export Bill Next Week
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) yesterday said she will introduce legislation next week to lift the ban on crude oil exports. -
Dominion Gets DOE Approval for LNG Exports From Maryland; Earthjustice Sues
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Dominion Resources may export liquefied natural gas from Maryland to countries that do not have free-trade agreements with the U.S., under authorization granted May 7 by the Energy Department. With the authorization, Dominion has all the regulatory approvals needed to construct a natural gas liquefaction facility and shipping... -
DOE Gives Cove Point Final Approval to Export Natural Gas
May 7, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Department of Energy today gave final approval for Dominion’s Cove Point facility to export liquefied natural gas to nations that don’t have free trade pacts with the U.S., bringing the $3.8 billion terminal closer to fruition. -
Alberta Election Shakeup Raises New Questions About Pipelines, Oil Sands
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Tuttle
Alberta's historic election brought to power a New Democratic Party that plans to scale back advocacy of oil export pipelines such as Keystone XL. Such a policy shift may not be needed. Slowing oil development on the back of lagging oil prices and expansions of existing pipelines had already pushed into the next decade the time needed to... -
More Federal Offshore Oil Rules May be on the Way
May 7, 2015 | Houston Chronicle
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The nation's top offshore drilling regulator is eyeing new regulations to boost the safety of oil and gas development in coastal waters. -
Even Keystone XL Foes Grow Weary Of Obama's Delay in Deciding on Project
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder
Keystone XL supporters often complain that President Barack Obama's delay in deciding on whether to allow the oil pipeline to be built is costing jobs and keeping the U.S. tied to unstable energy partners. With the review now stretching beyond six years, some critics, increasingly confident that Obama will reject the Canada-to-U.S. pipeline... -
California Oil Waste Injection Rules Threaten Groundwater, Lawsuit Alleges
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pamela A. MacLean
California's rules allowing oil extraction waste to be injected into the ground were challenged May 7 by environmental groups saying the practice threatens protected sources of drinking water as the state suffers through a record drought (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. California Dep't of Conservation, Cal. Super. Ct., No. RG 15769302, 5/7/15). -
House Panel Unveils Bills to Speed Pipeline Permitting, Hydro Licensing, Grid Security
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The federal permitting process for new natural gas pipelines and the licensing process for hydropower projects would be expedited under draft legislation unveiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bills, which are planned components of a comprehensive energy bill the committee is crafting, scheduled to be the subject of an... -
Alaska Republican Gears Up Energy Reform Package
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) took her biggest step to date toward a large-scale overhaul of federal energy policy on Thursday, introducing 17 bills she said could make up parts of an energy reform package this session. The bills cover a myriad of topics, from electricity reliability to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the production of methane... -
Murkowski, Other Senators Introduce Flurry Of Bills to Consider for Energy Package
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Energy Department would be required to establish a single definition of what constitutes condensate—a type of lightly processed crude oil—for use by other federal agencies, under legislation introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). The bill is one of 17 introduced by Murkowski as well as others from various... -
Murkowski Aims To Skirt Tough Issues To Get Broad Energy Bill
May 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Sen. Lisa Murkowski declared on Thursday that “it’s way past time” for the first broad, bipartisan energy bill since 2007, and she’s aiming to sidestep controversy to craft a package that can pass. Yet whether the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources committee can avoid the contentious issues that have dominated eight years of... -
Murkowski Casts Aside 'Messaging' in Pursuit of Overdue Energy Bill
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
Gone are the days of politically charged, procedurally doomed bills designed more to rile up partisans than to actually change policy. -
Time For Congress To Embrace The Clean Power Plan
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Corey Cantor
In the early days of the 2016 race, climate change is already emerging as a divisive issue: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argues that the science on climate change isn’t in. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whose state is at great risk from rising sea levels, claims to not be a scientist to avoid culpability on the issue. Hillary Clinton wants to protect the Obama ... -
Clean Power Plan Legally Solid But Imperfect As Tool to Cut Carbon Pollution, Schatz Says
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Regulations to reduce carbon pollution from power plants are a legal but imperfect tool to address climate change, and setting a carbon fee would be a better option if the political climate would allow it, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told a Bloomberg Government breakfast May 7. Carbon fee legislation “puts us in a better position to ameliorate... -
DOE to Meet With White House to Plan Quadrennial Energy Review Implementation
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy Department officials plan to meet with White House staff in two weeks to discuss implementation of the Quadrennial Energy Review, Melanie Kenderdine, counselor to the U.S. energy secretary, said May 7. Kenderdine has put together an implementation team within the DOE's Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, which met with... -
House GOP Draft Partly Aligns with White House, Mainly Sticks to Party Line
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
House Republicans last night aligned themselves with some policy suggestions in the Obama administration's high-profile Quadrennial Energy Review, another mark of bipartisan cooperation as comprehensive legislation is crafted on the Hill. -
Team Implementing High-Profile Review to Meet with White House
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
A team of Energy Department officials is slated to meet with the White House in the coming weeks to begin implementing recommendations in the Quadrennial Energy Review, a high-profile report that laid out the administration's outlook on energy infrastructure. -
Texas Governor Pledges Support for McConnell's 'Just Say No'
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) met with prominent Senate Republicans in Washington, D.C., yesterday to strategize about ways to defend against "grave consequences" arising from U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Natural Gas, LNG Trade Groups to Merge
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jenny Mandel
The main trade association representing liquefied natural gas exporters will be folded into another group representing supply interests, under an agreement the groups announced yesterday. -
Crude Oil That Ignited After N.D. Derailment Had Been Treated to Make it Less Volatile
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lynn Doan
The Hess Corp. oil that caught fire in rail cars May 6 after a derailment in North Dakota had been treated ahead of the voyage to make it safer to carry. The Bakken oil, which was loaded into more than 100 tanker cars at Hess's Tioga rail terminal and was headed east when it veered off BNSF Railway Co. tracks, had been conditioned to reduce... -
PHMSA Sets June Meeting to Prepare for UN Panel
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will hold a meeting June 10 in preparation for the United Nations meeting later that month, the agency will announce May 8. PHMSA is soliciting feedback regarding new issues that may be discussed at the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods meeting...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hazard Advisory Panel's Methods, Data Focus of Public Comments on Phthalate Rule
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's advisory panel on phthalates used an unproven methodology and old data to support recommendations adopted in a proposed rule on phthalates in children's products, the American Chemistry Council and other trade associations said in public comments submitted to the agency.
In addition, the process wasn't transparent enough, the groups said.
Safety, health and environmental organizations defended the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel's (CHAP) science and transparency. But they said the CPSC didn't go far enough in the proposed rule and should have kept or created bans on a few more phthalates.
Phthalates are used to increase the softness and flexibility of plastics and improve their processing. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 permanently banned three phthalates in concentrations above 0.1 percent in children's toys and child-care articles and created interim bans on three others, pending a final rule.
The CPSIA directed the CHAP to issue a report advising whether phthalates (or combinations of phthalates) should be banned because of health risks to children.
The advisory panel recommended that the CPSC make permanent an interim ban on one widely used phthalate, lift interim bans on two others, create permanent bans on four phthalates and create an interim ban on an additional phthalate.
It also recommended that the CPSC obtain more data on chemicals used as alternatives to phthalates.
Incorporated Into Rule
The commission incorporated the CHAP's recommendations into its proposed rule, adopting the suggested bans except for the new interim ban on one phthalate .
The agency said it lacks the authority to create a new interim ban.
The comment period, originally due to close March 16, was extended to April 15 by a commission vote .
Industry groups took issue with the way the CHAP's work was handled. “[T]he CHAP report was not subject to an open, public comment period” as set forth in Office of Management and Budget guidelines “and was only subject to a closed peer review,” Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said in Feb. 17 comments.
‘Extremely Concerning Precedent.'
“The failure to adhere to OMB guidelines for the peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment, such as the CHAP report, sets an extremely concerning precedent for federal chemical assessment,” he said.
The ACC has been critical of the CHAP report and convened its own group of scientists to discuss the report in February .
The Toy Industry Association,Retail Industry Leaders Association and National Retail Federation agreed. “The CHAP report was not publicly peer reviewed as is typically done for scientific studies of this nature,” they said in April 15 comments.
But a letter by 13 public-interest groups, including Kids in Danger, Breast Cancer Action and U.S. PIRG, disputed this criticism. “The CHAP solicited public and industry comments and held 13 public meetings (six by teleconference),” the groups said in comments dated April 15.
Other Groups Hail Process
Another letter, signed by 29 consumer, environmental and health organizations, also stressed the transparency of the CHAP's process. “The CHAP process itself constituted an in-depth and thorough peer review by the best available scientists of the best available science” on exposure to phthalates, they said.
Even though “Congress did not require any further review of the CHAP report, the CHAP members themselves requested an additional peer review,” the groups said.
The 29 groups included the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Center for Environmental Health and the American Public Health Association.
Methodologies
The CHAP's assessment of individual phthalates by looking at the potential for cumulative exposure to phthalates came under fire from several commenters. The CPSC must assess “both the potential of a hazard and exposure to that hazard,” the ACC's Dooley wrote.
“Instead of following these requirements, CPSC adopted the CHAP's recommendations to ban a chemical that could contribute in any ‘degree' toward the likelihood of a cumulative risk,” he said.
The American Council on Science & Health echoed these comments and added, “This is in essence adopting the ‘precautionary principle'—a day we here at ACSH hope never arrives.” The precautionary principle, according to the World Trade Organization, “is a notion which supports taking protective action before there is complete scientific proof of a risk.”
By contrast, he 29 consumer, environmental and health groups said the cumulative risk analysis method “represents the cutting edge and most current and best available science.”
Further, it was “specifically required by Congress,” they said.
Data Analyzed
The CHAP analyzed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, instead of more recent data, which several commenters said were available to it.
“It is puzzling why the group did not use the most recent data,” the Toy Industry Association and retailers' associations said. “If more recent data had been used, the group would have noticed a decline in human phthalate exposure, which would have impacted the final report's assessments of cumulative risk.”
Some commenters even suggested that data were “cherry-picked” to favor phthalate bans. “Using an older biomonitoring data set necessarily raises suspicion that the data set was selected for reasons other than its reliability,” Mark S. Chenoweth and Richard A. Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation wrote in April 15 comments.
Use of More Recent Data
The Washington State Department of Ecology and Department of Health, which submitted comments April 13 generally supportive of the proposed rule, also recommended that the CPSC use more recent data, and offered two Washington state data resources.
The consumer and health groups said some phthalate exposures are going up while others are going down. “Even though some phthalate exposures are going down based on the NHANES results, the 2011–2012 data show consistently higher levels … in children 6–12 as compared to adults,” the 29-group coalition said.
And the NHANES data don't illuminate exposure levels for children younger than 6, “a key population for consideration in this rulemaking,” it said.
The CPSC intends to “rerun the CHAP's analysis with the most recent data,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in April 15 comments criticizing use of the older data. He asked for public review and comment of the new findings and described the importance of the chemical industry to the economy of his state.
Other Concerns Raised on Data
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association submitted comments expressing concern about the data and urging caution. It also said although most of its members no longer use the phthalates due to be banned in the rule, the organization is concerned about testing costs and wants more exclusions for materials known not to contain phthalates.
One particular phthalate was the subject of some attention. The ExxonMobil Chemical Co. submitted comments April 14 focused on diisononyl phthalate (DINP), which was subject to an interim ban in children's toys and childcare products under the CPSIA. The CPSC is proposing to extend the ban permanently.
ExxonMobil, a major domestic producer of the chemical—which is used in many vinyl products—submitted extensive comments opposing that aspect of the proposal.
The 29-group coalition said DINP is increasingly used in consumer products and is the focus of much of the debate, particularly about cumulative risk assessment.
The JPMA expressed concern about a change in scope of the ban on DINP from mouthable toys to all toys.
The European Commission submitted comments comparing European regulations with the proposed CPSC regulations, and seeking access to the underlying data used by the CHAP.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lowe's Follows Rival Home Depot In Phasing Out Flooring With Phthalates
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The home improvement retail chain Lowe's said it will largely phase out the sale of vinyl flooring that contains potentially harmful phthalate chemicals.
The company said that, by the end of this year, 95 percent of all vinyl flooring and 100 percent of all non-recycled vinyl flooring sold at its stores will be free of phthalates.
Numerous scientific studies on laboratory animals have associated the chemicals with male reproductive problems, asthma, diabetes, obesity and pre-term births, though exactly how phthalates affect the human body is far from certain (40 DEN A-6, 3/2/15).
Lowe's spokeswoman Connie Bryant told Bloomberg BNA that the company doesn't view phthalates as dangerous. However, she said, environmental advocacy groups and some of Lowe's customers were urging it to take this action.
“We're confident that all of the products we sell are safe,” she said. “Sometimes we'll evolve what we offer based on things we're hearing from our stakeholders, even if a product is approved by [the Environmental Protection Agency] and meets government health and safety regulations.”
Company Will Work With Suppliers
Bryant said Lowe's will work with its flooring suppliers to reduce or eliminate phthalates.
“It could mean a current supplier would change their products, or it may mean that we stop offering their products,” she said.
Lowe's also recently announced it would phase out the sale of a class of insecticides believed to be toxic to bees and other pollinator insects after a two-year campaign against the company by environmental activists and socially responsible investors (69 DEN A-3, 4/10/15).
Momentum Against Phthalates
Lowe's actions come just days after its largest rival in the home retail market, Home Depot, also announced it would phase out flooring products that contain phthalates.
The chemical industry is pushing back on the health claims made by environmental groups pressuring retailers to stop selling phthalate products.
“We urge retailers and their customers to closely examine the misleading claims, rather than allowing scare tactics to distort the facts about phthalates used in vinyl flooring,” Liz Bowman, an American Chemistry Council spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Phthalates have been studied and found to be safe by numerous government bodies worldwide, according to the ACC, a trade organization that represents several companies that make and sell phthalates.
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Panel Votes Unanimously to Add BPA to Prop 65 List
May 7, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A California panel on Thursday voted unanimously to list controversial polycarbonate ingredient bisphenol A as a hazardous chemical.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) scientific panel, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC), voted 7-0 to add BPA to the Proposition 65 list, contradicting recent pronouncements from scientists and the U.S., Canadian and European governments that the chemical is not a reproductive threat to humans.
"We strongly disagree with the DART-IC decision to list BPA under Proposition 65 as a female reproductive toxicant," said Steven Hentges of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council in a news release.
"The decision is not supported by the extensive scientific record presented to the committee and is completely contrary to explicit input provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In April, FDA’s acting chief scientist submitted a letter to the DART-IC stating that the results of FDA’s own comprehensive research 'do not support BPA as a reproductive toxicant.'"
A major concern for the plastics industry overall is that listing BPA, a key component of polycarbonate and certain epoxy resins, could result in preemptive deselection by manufacturers and consumers avoiding a large number of plastic products without a full understanding of the amount of BPA they are being exposed to or the potential effects of the chemical.
Attempts to put BPA on the Prop 65 list began in 2009. The OEHHA panel decided to list it in 2013, though the American Chemistry Council filed a lawsuit to stop it in March 2013. The litigation is still slowly working its way through the court system.
The biggest difference for this round of deliberations is that, after an extensive review of the science on BPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared unequivocally in 2014 that exposure to BPA is safe for humans. FDA sent a letter to that effect to the OEHHA panel. Scientists also have provided hundreds of pages of information on the safety of BPA to the panel as part of the public comment period of the process.
California's Proposition 65, approved by voters there in 1986, requires businesses to notify citizens when significant amount of chemicals are present in products, workplaces, public spaces or released into the environment. OEHHA administers the Prop 65 program, including managing the list of potentially harmful chemicals.
In July 2009, OEHHA's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC) voted unanimously that BPA did not belong on the Prop 65 list, based largely on the findings from a 2008 report by the National Toxicology Program.
-
Senators Seek To Limit TSCA Reform Bill Amendments As Support Grows
May 7, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senators backing a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill are seeking to limit the amendments that might be offered during upcoming floor debate in order to minimize chances of a controversial chemicals policy amendment from dooming the bill, which May 7 secured an additional 14 Democratic and Republican sponsors.
At a press conference to announce the new support, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) -- who introduced the bill, S. 697, with Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) -- said he is committed to an “open amendment process” on the floor. However, he added that, “We already have compromised a huge amount,” noting that he believes the legislation is “in a good place now” and that too many amendments could upset that balance of bipartisan support for the bill.
“I don't think unfriendly amendments will get very far on this,” added Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), calling the legislation a “top priority.”
Democratic supporters of the bill are also aiming to prevent the amendment process during Senate floor debate from potentially killing the legislation with an amendment that could cause a loss of existing support.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), one of the newly announced co-sponsors of S. 697, said at the press conference in the Capitol that in the “old days” of Congress, “co-sponsors and floor managers of bills would stick together on amendments that could tear an agreement apart,” even for riders those lawmakers would otherwise support. “I hope that's the kind of process we get when we get to the floor,” Whitehouse added.
Nevertheless, the bill's opponents -- led by EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) -- are vowing to pursue dozens of amendments on the floor, fearing the bill is worse than current law.
The addition of the 14 new co-sponsors brings the total support for the bill, including Vitter and Udall, to 36 senators. The seven new Democratic supporters announced May 7 are Sens. Whitehouse, Cory Booker (NJ), Claire McCaskill (MO), Tim Kaine (VA), Jeff Merkley (OR), Chris Murphy (CT), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH).
Seven Republicans are also new supporters of the legislation: Sens. John Barrasso (WY), John Cornyn (TX), Tom Cotton (AR), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Marco Rubio (FL) and Tim Scott (SC).
Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker worked with Vitter and Udall ahead of an April 28 EPW markup of the legislation to secure a number of revisions to an earlier draft of the bill. The changes were aimed at addressing concerns over the bill raised by Democrats, environmental and public health advocates and EPA.
Legislative Revisions
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.
Lawmakers also agreed to changes to the threshold for when EPA may regulate substances in “articles” or finished products; qualitative deadlines for EPA to take action on a chemical that fails to meet the safety standard; modifications to end what Whitehouse called a “death zone” for state chemical regulations that could be preempted under the bill; and a mechanism for the public to challenge low priority designations.
Boxer acknowledged during the markup that the amended bill contains a number of improvements over the original legislation, including allowing states to co-enforce toxics laws on the condition that there are no duplicative penalties and clarifications that state air and water laws would not be preempted.
But she suggested that she is likely to filibuster the legislation, saying, “I will stand on my feet until I can't stand on my feet anymore” to ensure passage of a stronger reform bill.
One of Boxer's biggest concerns is the potential that S. 697 would broadly preempt state chemicals programs, and potentially create a regulatory gap for some substances by barring state action once EPA has decided to review a chemical -- even if the agency takes years to regulate that substance.
At the EPW markup, Boxer had prepared 27 amendments but only called for a vote on three of them during the markup. She vowed to pursue additional changes to the bill ahead of a floor vote. Voicing her opposition to S. 697 absent major changes, Boxer said, “If anybody thinks the fight is over, it is just beginning.”
Committee Markup
During the markup, Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker generally voted in favor of the five Democratic amendments raised during the hearing, all which failed to get a majority of the votes.
But the senators ultimately voted in favor of passing the bill. Five senators voted against the bill: Boxer, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD).
The bipartisan group of senators who previously announced support for the bill includes Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Boozman (R-AR), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Inhofe, Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Mike Crapo (R-ID, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), John Hoeven (R-ND), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and John Thune (R-SD).
Now the bill has cleared EPW, it awaits debate and votes on the Senate floor. Inhofe said at the press conference that he had a “great meeting” earlier that day with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), on moving the bill, and it was a “very productive discussion.” However, there is as of yet no date scheduled for floor debate on the legislation, Inhofe said. Udall and other lawmakers have said they would like to get the bill to the floor by June.
Udall at the event said he has also spoken to McConnell recently about the bill, and that he “knows we've moved a long way, he knows how bipartisan it is” and understands the importance of moving it quickly.
Even if S. 697 clears the Senate, lawmakers might be facing potentially controversial conference negotiations to reconcile the legislation with a much narrower TSCA reform bill pending in the House. Supporters of the House measure say that the preemption language is far less sweeping than the Senate version of the bill. Should both bills clear their chambers as currently drafted, a conference committee would have to craft compromise legislation that the House and Senate would then vote on.
-
More Than One-Third of Senate Now Co-Sponsoring Bill to Overhaul TSCA
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
More than a third of the Senate is co-sponsoring the Senate bill (S. 697) that would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act, Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) said May 7.
Udall and Vitter were joined by Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in a news conference announcing that 14 additional Republicans and Democrats have joined the bill's original 22 co-sponsors.
Republican and Democratic senators from 25 states now are supporting the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
If the bill were to become law, it would be the first major environmental law in 25 years to be completely revamped. The Clean Air Act was overhauled in 1990 and substantial amendments were made to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996.
“Congress has been mired in gridlock on environmental issues. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I'm proud to say we are back to tackling important issues like TSCA-reform legislation,” Inhofe said in a statement announcing the 14 additional co-sponsors.
Merkley: ‘Gives States Full Ability to Act.’
“There are substantial issues that were resolved in these intense negotiations,” Merkley said. “Certainly to replace the preemption of state activity with empowerment of states to be able to act on high risk chemicals. That was the single biggest challenge we faced and what we have now is a set of three standards that enable a state to act during the safety determination phase.”
“As far as we can determine this gives states a full ability to act when they feel that they need to act to protect the safety, the health of their citizens,” Merkley said. These and other changes convinced .Merkley to co-sponsor S. 697, he said.
The extent to which federal law would preempt state regulations of chemicals has been one of the thorniest issues in the TSCA-reform effort (53 DEN A-16, 3/19/15).
Udall and Vitter said they are trying to get to the Senate floor by June.
As of May 7, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hadn't scheduled the bill for the floor, an aide to the senator said.
Notwithstanding the support S. 697 has secured, “there will be a lot of amendments,” Inhofe said.
Amendments Expected
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) is expected to try to add the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act, a bill he introduced in the last Congress.
That bill, which didn't move, would have directed the president to establish an interagency sustainable chemistry program to promote and coordinate research, development, demonstration, technology transfer, commercialization, education and training activities.
During the April 28 markup, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking minority member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she plans to bring more than a dozen amendments to the floor.
Whitehouse said he anticipates the floor process working “the way we used to work in the good old days when the Senate worked.”
Republicans and Democrats who had worked on the bill would discourage their colleagues from pursuing amendments likely to tear the legislation apart, Whitehouse said.
“I don't think unfriendly amendments will get very far,” he said as Inhofe nodded.
Carper Recommendations Incorporated
Carper referred to a letter he sent to Udall and Vitter in February 2014 that detailed nine specific improvements he said were needed in a bill that evolved into S. 697. All those changes have been accomplished, Carper said.
Ernie Rosenberg, president and chief executive officer of the American Cleaning Institute, issued a statement regarding the 14 new co-sponsors.
“The news of additional Senate bipartisan cosponsors keeps the ball rolling for meaningful reform of our chemical safety laws. Along with the steady work taking place in the U.S. House, this is a golden opportunity to help ensure we can continue to have innovate products and chemistries to improve people's lives,” Rosenberg said.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy is scheduled to mark up the TSCA Modernization Act May 14, an aide to Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) confirmed May 5. Shimkus released a draft version of that bill April 7 (68 DEN A-4, 4/9/15).
-
EDF Welcomes 14 Additional Cosponsors of the Lautenberg Act
May 7, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund welcomes today’s announcement that 14 additional Senators – 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans – have cosponsored the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697). This brings the total number of Senators cosponsoring the legislation to 36, more than a third of the full Senate.
The Lautenberg Act would reform our nation’s badly broken 40-year-old chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans lending their names to this legislation not only affirms strong bipartisan support, but demonstrates Congress’ growing recognition that reform of TSCA is urgent, and that this bill is a solid compromise that represents our best chance in a generation to significantly improve public health protections from toxic or untested chemicals.
Today’s announcement was made possible by a breakthrough in negotiations immediately preceding the April 28 markup of the legislation in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which led the Committee to approve the revised bill on a strong 15-5 bipartisan vote.
Today’s announcement in turn signifies that it is now time to move the legislation to the Senate floor.
-
Bipartisan Good Feelings Reign On TSCA — Without Boxer
May 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Barbara Boxer doesn’t leave the Senate for another 20 months, but she was already absent Thursday from the latest development on the chemical safety law that she’s fought so hard to shape.
The California Democrat’s name never came up when an eclectic group of a half-dozen senators held a news conference to push for quick action on their bipartisan measure to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Instead, fellow Democrats Tom Udall of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island thanked two Republicans — Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe and Louisiana’s David Vitter — for working with them to craft a compromise, which Tom Carper (D-Del.) hailed as a “proud day for the Senate.”
And Inhofe, who replaced Boxer in January as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, had a warning for her and anyone else who plans to try to change the bill on the Senate floor. “I don’t think unfriendly amendments are going to get very far on this,” the outspoken climate skeptic said, noting how rare it is that he and Whitehouse are supporting the same environmental bill.
Boxer, the committee’s top Democrat and longtime environmental firebrand, has fought especially hard in the debate on the chemical safety bill, which she opposes because it would prevent states like hers from imposing future penalties harsher than EPA allows for violations involving high-priority chemicals.
In March, she trashed an earlier version of the proposal being championed by Udall and Vitter, telling The New York Times that “it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.” Last week, Carper told Bloomberg BNA that his 30-year-old friendship with Boxer had “basically ended” because he supported the initial version of the bill — although Carper somewhat walked back that statement this week.
“Phoenix rises from the ashes, and we’re going to be buds again sooner rather than later,” said Carper, who is next in seniority after Boxer on the environment panel. “For a while, it was rough going. And I think it was probably true for a couple of others of our colleagues.”
The latest version of the bill continued to gain momentum Thursday with the announcement that 14 more senators — split equally between the parties — have signed on as co-sponsors, bringing the total to 36. But dozens of environmental and public health groups have sided with Boxer’s ongoing criticism of the bill, including the state preemption issue.
Some lawmakers on each side of the debate have tried to discourage the idea of a lasting schism.
Whitehouse told POLITICO this week that he and other Democrats on the committee kept in close contact with Boxer while negotiating late changes to the bill with Udall and Vitter. That led to the committee approving the bill in a 15-5 vote last week, with Boxer voting no.
Among other changes, the bill now allows for state co-enforcement and would shorten the period from an earlier version of the bill in which states are prohibited from taking action before EPA acts. Whitehouse had called that period “regulatory dead zone.”
“I would say that we were working in close allegiance,” Whitehouse said of Boxer. “I think she really appreciates that we made the effort to move the bill in the direction that she likes. I appreciate that she’s always been a really strong advocate. … And I’m certainly still a very strong admirer of hers.”
Likewise, Boxer disagreed last week with the notion that she is an outlier in the TSCA talks and the type of deal-making that led to the bill’s current version. Whitehouse and fellow liberals Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) were part of those negotiations.
“No, because it’s the opposite, I blessed them,” she said. “It was my whole idea to have them go negotiate. So I feel very responsible for the fact that they did get three good things. But I’m also honest and I could never lie to the American people and say this bill is great. It still has major problems.”
She said she plans to offer a long list of “perfecting amendments” if the bill hits the full Senate. “I can’t wait to be on my feet on the Senate floor … and I will stand there hours on end to make the point with lots of my colleagues,” she said.
Thursday’s news conference had a rare air of optimism — especially for Democrats who couldn’t pass climate legislation when they ran the Senate and are now fighting Republican efforts to roll back EPA regulations.
“One thing that every person on the podium today will agree is that this is not a perfect bill,” Whitehouse said in singling out Udall for praise. “And nothing is easier in the Senate than to wait until you agree with something and keep your purity about you. The willingness to get in and work on a bill that was not then popular in the caucus and to hang in there and to keep encouraging us and to stick with it and to get us finally to today has been, I think, a signal legislative accomplishment.”
-
Lowe’s to Eliminate Toxic Phthalates in Flooring by End of 2015
May 7, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
Lowe’s to eliminate toxic phthalates in flooring by end of 2015
Posted May 7, 2015 by Tony Iallonardo in Mind the Store Tony Iallonardo Communications Director
Email: tonyiallonardo
Phone: 202.503.8581
Twitter Handle: @tonyiallonardo Retail chain joins The Home Depot in eliminating harmful chemicals, while Lumber Liquidators, Ace Hardware and Menards lag behind
(Washington, DC) Matching a commitment from The Home Depot to eliminate phthalates in flooring by the end of the year, Lowe’s has become the latest retailer to pledge to eliminate the toxic chemicals, according to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. The retailer made the commitment following a recent report, which found that 48 percent of Lowe’s flooring samples tested contained toxic phthalates. Lowe’s is the second largest home improvement retailer in the country.
Mike Schade, “Mind the Store” campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families said:
“We welcome and thank Lowe’s for their commitment to transition away from unnecessary toxic phthalates in flooring. We urge Lumber Liquidators, Ace Hardware and Menards to follow suit in phasing out these chemicals that are harmful for children’s health.”
Lowe’s confirmed the new policy to the “Mind the Store” campaign in a recent email exchange, saying:
“With more than 90 percent of our virgin product offering sold today currently phthalate-free, the remainder of the virgin product will be free of ortho-phthalates by the end of 2015. Peel and stick product will be the only vinyl flooring product remaining with ortho-phthalates, but only in the layer with recycled content which will be sandwiched between two ortho-phthalate free layers including a durable top wear layer.”
A recent HealthyStuff.org report found 58 percent of the flooring tiles tested from major retailers contained phthalates. Lumber Liquidators and Ace Hardware had phthalates in all of the samples tested. To date, Lumber Liquidators, Ace Hardware, Build.com, and Menards have not adopted timeframes to phaseout phthalates in flooring. For more on the April report results, click here.
Phthalates are commonly found in flooring at levels that exceed U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) children’s product standards for phthalates. A growing body of credible scientific evidence has linked exposure to phthalates to serious threats to human health including asthma, harm to male reproductive organs, brain development, and the immune system. Phthalates can migrate out of flooring materials and get into the air and dust inside homes.
-
Oil Recovery, Textile Treatment Chemicals Among 25 Covered by EPA New Use Rule
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Direct final significant new use rules for 25 oil recovery, textile treatment and other chemicals will be effective July 7 unless the Environmental Protection Agency receives an adverse comment by June 8.
The rules, which are scheduled to be published in a May 8 Federal Register notice, would impose on any new manufacturer or processor precautions the chemical's original manufacturer already has agreed to undertake.
The original manufacturer agreed to take these precautions through either the premanufacture notice (PMN) it submitted to the EPA before making the chemical or through consent orders it negotiated with the EPA.
Any manufacture or use of the chemicals that differs from what the agency has approved would be considered a new use.
Manufacturers or processors wanting to use any of the 25 chemicals in new ways would have to file significant new use notices with the EPA 90 days before doing so. This would allow the agency to review the proposed use and determine whether it might pose an unreasonable risk warranting additional controls.
Of the 25 chemicals, nine were subject to enforceable consent orders authorized under Section 5(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
That means the EPA determined they could pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The protective measures agreed to in the consent order require measures, such as the submission of environmental fate data, that the EPA determined would mitigate the potential risk.
The EPA didn't conclude any of the remaining 16 chemicals might pose an unreasonable risk, provided they were made and used only in accordance with the PMN it reviewed.
The nine chemicals with potential risks, which the agency and original manufacturer addressed through the consent orders, fall into two batches.
Three Used in Oil Recovery
The first batch consists of three chemicals used in oil recovery.
Their generic names are alkylbenzene sulfonic acid (PMN No. 12-115) and two forms of benzenesulfonic acid, dimethyl-, alkyl derivatives, sodium salt (P-12-116 and P- 13-568).
Based on information the EPA reviewed on one of the three chemicals along with information it has on analogous substances, the agency was concerned that the chemicals could be corrosive to the eyes, mucous membranes, lungs and skin and harm aquatic organisms if surface water concentrations exceeded four parts per billion.
Under the consent agreements, the three chemicals may only be used for the specific oil recovery purposes that the EPA reviewed, chemical production is limited to confidential volumes and manufacturers must establish hazard communication programs.
The consent agreements also bar any predictable or purposeful release of the three chemicals into the waters of the U.S. if the release would result in water concentrations exceeding four ppb.
Treatment, Repellent Chemicals
The second batch of so-called Section 5(e) chemicals consists of six chemicals that are used to treat tiles, textiles and paper and that repel water and oil.
The six generic names of the chemicals are: fluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer modified with polysiloxanes (P-13-646 and P-13-648), three fluoroalkyl acrylate copolymers (P-13-647, P-13-649, and P-13-679) and fluoroalkyl methacrylate copolymer (P-13-678).
Based on data from analogous chemicals, the EPA said it is concerned that the chemicals could degrade in the environment and become chemicals that would persist in the environment, bioaccumulate or biomagnify and be toxic.
The consent order requires the submission of physical-chemical property and environmental fate data, the inclusion within 90 days of any new risk information into safety data sheets and certain reporting requirements.
The EPA primarily had aquatic toxicity concerns for the remaining 16 chemicals, but it concluded the planned manufacturing and use conditions likely wouldn't cause an unreasonable risk.
-
Final Season of Hudson River PCB Dredging Begins
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The sixth and final season of dredging polychlorinated biphenyls from the upper Hudson River began May 7, as one of the most complex and expensive cleanups in Superfund history comes to an end. General Electric Co. has spent more than $1 billion on the project, which involves removal of a total of at least 2.75 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment from a 40-mile stretch of the river. This year's work will involve the removal of about 250,000 cubic yards of sediment. The dredging work will be followed by habitat restoration in 2016. GE is a responsible party for the cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act because it discharged PCBs into the river from two plants from 1947 to 1977 (211 DEN A-1, 10/31/14). More information is available at http://1.usa.gov/1F8j8mT.
-
EPA Meeting June 11 on Nanoscale Materials Rule
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposed rule that would require manufacturers and processors of nanoscale materials to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency chemical identity, production volume, manufacture methods and other information will be discussed June 11 at an EPA meeting, the agency is scheduled to announce in a May 8 Federal Register notice. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received by June 1. Issues the EPA would like comment on include the proposed requirement that chemical manufacturers and processors submit information 135 days before they begin to make or process a new nanoengineered chemical. The EPA published the proposed rule April 6 (80 Fed. Reg. 18,330; RIN: 2070-AJ54) and comments are due July 6 (58 DEN A-4, 3/26/15). EPA's meeting announcement is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-11215.pdf. The proposed rule is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=prio-9wajda.
-
(ACC Mentioned) NAMPA and ACC Hit out at BPA Decision
May 8, 2015 | Food Quality News
By Joe Whitworth
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA) have slammed a decision by a Californian committee to list bisphenol A (BPA) on Proposition 65.
The content is copyright protected. For full article, please visit:
http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Regulation-and-safety/DART-IC-lists-bisphenol-A-on-Prop-65
-
Markey Reintroduces Pipeline Modernization Bills
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) reintroduced May 6 two bills to facilitate faster natural gas pipeline infrastructure improvements. Repairing this infrastructure could prevent accidents, reduce leaks that contribute to climate change and save consumers money, Markey said in a news release. The Pipeline Modernization and Consumer Protection Act (S. 1208) would require that utilities and state regulators consider developing and implementing: policies to repair the leakiest pipes first, cost-recovery programs to quickly recover funds spent on replacing pipes and limits for how much lost or unaccounted gas utilities can charge to consumers. The Pipeline Revolving Fund and Job Creation Act (S. 1209) would create a natural gas pipeline repair and replacement state revolving loan fund that would require states to match 20 percent of the federal funds received under this program. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) are co-sponsoring the bills. Both bills have been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. S. 1208 is available at http://tinyurl.com/oqmporq and S. 1209 is available at http://tinyurl.com/o7usyyj.
-
Industry, Environmentalists Weigh In On EPA Oil Spill Response Proposal
May 7, 2015 | Inside EPA
The oil industry, environmentalists and others are weighing in on EPA's proposed revisions to its oil spill response regulations, with industry expressing concern that tightened controls over spill response methods, such as the use of dispersants, could hinder responses, while a coalition of environmentalists and citizens says EPA's attempt at overhauling the regulations "is incomplete," failing to address unconventional oil spills and the toxic nature of oil.
"[I]t is our belief that ExxonMobil and EPA share a common desire to have a robust well-defined approach that allows for the expeditious use of dispersants (where warranted based on [a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA)]) during a spill response," ExxonMobil says in comments submitted to EPA on the proposal. But, "[t]here appear to be a number of areas in the proposal that run counter to this shared objective."
EPA took comments through April 22 on its long-awaited proposed revisions to its National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan's (NCP) Subpart J Product Schedule.
Under the revisions, EPA is proposing to strengthen requirements related to the use of chemical and biological agents, including dispersants, applied in the cleanup of oil spills. The agency is also proposing to add new product toxicity and efficacy test methods and criteria for listing dispersants and other agents on the schedule, require manufacturers to provide more detailed product application information and human health and safety data, tighten the requirements governing authorizations of agent use, and add new monitoring requirements for agents used on certain types of spills, according to the agency.
ExxonMobil in its comments warns against the potential impacts of stricter controls. "It is our belief that severely limiting use of dispersants by establishing arbitrary thresholds for listing, adding burdensome controls over an already effective pre-authorization process, and requiring activities during a response that do not contribute directly to the operational, decision-making activities, such as additional dispersant monitoring or water sampling, may result in a less effective response, especially from a NEBA perspective," the company says in written comments to EPA.
"For example, anything that delays the decision to appropriately deploy dispersants can lead to long lasting negative effects…"
NEBA refers to the process used by the spill response community to determine the best path for minimizing the impacts of a spill on the environment and people, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API).
ExxonMobil defends the current toxicity and effectiveness test requirements as distinguishing between effective and poorly performing products, but concedes "[t]here may be room for improvement in some of these test protocols," for instance in moving from the Swirling Flask Test to the Baffled Flask Test. EPA's proposed test parameter changes, however, are significant and may not provide enough value with respect to protecting the environment, it says.
API's Concerns
In addition, officials with API, a trade association that represents the oil and natural gas industry, met with EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus and other agency officials on April 15 where API expressed concerns over aspects of the proposed revisions, according to meeting notes EPA entered into the rule's docket. The industry group is particularly concerned about the toxicity threshold requirements for listing dispersants on the agency's Subpart J product schedule, and about the "continued availability of dispersants as a 'tool in the response toolkit,'" the notes say.
EPA says it reaffirmed to API that dispersants are an available option when making "environmental tradeoff decisions in emergency responses."
API also voiced concern about proposed monitoring requirements, which may pose challenges when trying to rapidly respond to an event, the notes say. The industry group contended that losing time when weighing whether to apply dispersant could result in the spill spreading with greater impacts than it would have had in the water column, and said handling spill response "is easier in the water column than shoreline cleanup," the notes say.
EPA says it recognizes the need for quick response and proper preparedness, the notes say. "The Agency also pointed out that an environmental tradeoff analysis should not default on 'fighting the battle in the water column as opposed to in the shoreline,' as there may be spill situations where the water column habitat would need to take precedence."
The meeting notes add that API voiced support for proposed revisions that would update the effectiveness testing protocols for dispersants, and for the protocols for acute toxicity testing for dispersants alone. API also acknowledged the significance of Endangered Species Act consultations to inform response actions, they say.
The U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, an independent body within the federal government that represents small business interests, also expressed concerns in April 21 comments to EPA. In particular, the office says it believes EPA has underestimated the number of small businesses that will be impacted by new testing requirements -- particularly retesting all products on the NCP product schedule -- as well as other costs they would endure under the changes.
The office also opposes the proposed rule's lifting of Confidential Business Information (CBI) protections, saying its requirement to disclose all chemical components and other ingredients will have a large adverse impact on small businesses. The agency "does not evaluate the impact of weakened intellectual property protection for products submitted for listing on the NCP schedule," it says.
Environmentalists' Comments
Meanwhile, the ALERT Project, run by the environmental group Earth Island Institute, and the ad hoc Citizens' Coalition to Ban Toxic Dispersants -- which has long campaigned for EPA to strengthen its spill response requirements -- submitted comments April 22, saying the proposal only partially addresses concerns raised by the coalition in petitions for a rulemaking. In addition, they say the proposal raises new concerns.
The groups say the agency attempts to comprehensively overhaul Subpart J of the NCP, as well as certain definitions in Subpart A. "However, this overhaul is incomplete in that it fails to address two critical issues: (1) the impossibility of handling Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG) with response tools designed for conventional oil; and (2) the toxic nature of oil."
The NCP has focused on maritime spills of conventional oil, but increasingly UOG, such as tar sands oil that sinks and light oil that explodes are becoming more commonplace, according to the coalition. "Spills of UOG in fresh water call into question the wisdom of shipping these oils -- at all -- until the operators devise viable oil spill contingency response plans."
On the second issue, the coalition says current regulations fail to consider the post-Exxon Valdez oil spill findings that "crude oil is 1,000 times more toxic than thought in the 1970s when the Clean Water Act was amended and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enacted. Any revisions to the NCP and Subpart J will fail to adequately protect public health and the environment because oil and oil waste continues to be under-regulated."
The Alliance for the Great Lakes, an environmental group aimed at protecting the Great Lakes, urges EPA to ban submersion agents and dispersants altogether and to add fresh water dispersant testing, expressing concerns about the rise of oil shipments, including heavy crude oils, in the region, as well as the use of dispersants to mitigate spills of those oils.
The Alliance in April 21 comments says it supports several of EPA's proposed revisions, "including authorizing dispersants only in 'those water environments for which it was tested and for which it met the listing criteria,' [the] prohibition on the use of dispersants in freshwater, authorizing use of dispersants based on tested effectiveness for oil type, and limiting CBI claims to the concentrations of each component rather than the list of components."
-
Environmental Groups Sue Feds Over Natural Gas Export Project
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental groups have sued the federal government in an attempt to block a new liquefied natural gas export facility in Maryland.
The groups, led by Earthjustice, sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over its decision to authorize Dominion Resources' $3.8 billion Cove Point natural gas export project, arguing the commission did not consider whether it would hurt the environment or increase air and water pollution by encouraging new hydraulic fracturing.
FERC approved the plant last fall and denied the groups' request for a rehearing on the decision earlier this week. The groups — the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Patuxent Riverkeeper and the Sierra Club — worry a new export facility will encourage new fracking in the Marcellus Shale region, which they say is bad for air and water quality, could contribute to global warming and could be dangerous for those living in the area.
"Time and again, FERC has shown a blatant disregard for the health and safety of people and the climate and, we believe, the law," Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said in a statement. "Tragically, FERC’s foot-dragging has allowed Dominion bulldozers to start construction before Calvert County [Maryland] residents had legal recourse to challenge the agency’s decision.”
FERC approved the project, which is set to open in 2017, in September, clearing the way for the first liquefied natural gas export station on the East Coast. Dominion hopes to export up to 5.75 metric tons of natural gas a year from the facility, located on the Chesapeake Bay.
Also Thursday, the Energy Department authorized Dominion to export natural gas to countries that do not have Free Trade Agreements with the United States.
"The Energy Department conducted an extensive, careful review of the Dominion Cove Point LNG applications," a department statement said. "Among other factors, the Department considered the economic, energy security, and environmental impacts and determined that [the export rate] was not inconsistent with the public interest."
-
DOE Gives Final Approval to Md. Export Terminal; Greens File Lawsuit
May 8, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Energy Department gave final approval today for Dominion Resources Inc.'s plan to export domestic gas from its $3.8 billion Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility on the Chesapeake Bay.
The same Calvert County, Md., terminal was at the center of a legal fight brought on by activists opposed to hydraulic fracturing and fossil fuels.
DOE granted Dominion approval to export domestic gas to countries that don't have free-trade agreements with the United States for the next two decades. DOE also reiterated that it intends to act on export applications on a case-by-case basis.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) applauded the move and called for faster action on pending applications, particularly the Jordan Cove project in Oregon.
"I applaud the administration's decision giving communities along the Gulf Coast and East Coast the opportunity to export LNG," Barrasso said in a statement. "Now the administration must quickly deliver the same economic opportunities to communities in the West. It's time for the Administration to complete the permitting process for the Jordan Cove LNG export facility."
But the Maryland project was also the target of a federal lawsuit filed today by activists opposed to fracking and the spread of gas infrastructure.
Green groups sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for approving Cove Point without considering the expanded effect on hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale region.
FERC approved the project last year -- the first on the East Coast -- and denied requests for a rehearing of that decision this week (Greenwire, May 5).
Earthjustice filed the suit on behalf of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Patuxent Riverkeeper and Sierra Club.
The groups argued that the commission also failed to consider the effect foreign ships will have on the Chesapeake Bay, and complained that FERC waited months to act on their request for rehearing -- preventing them from filing a lawsuit -- but allowed Dominion to move forward with constructing the terminal.
"After months of delay, we will finally get our day in court to challenge the fundamentally flawed approval of Dominion's climate- and community-wrecking project," Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said in a statement. "Tragically, FERC's foot-dragging has allowed Dominion bulldozers to start construction before Calvert County residents had legal recourse to challenge the agency's decision."
"Dominion is confident the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of the Dominion Cove Point LNG Liquefaction Project will be upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals," said Dominion spokesman Jim Norvelle. "The FERC recently denied appeals by these groups to stop the project, which also has consistently been upheld in the courts as well as by federal and state regulators, so we expect a similar outcome."
-
Murkowski to Introduce Bill to Lift Oil Export Ban, Considers Amendment to Trade Measure
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said May 7 she will introduce legislation to repeal the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports May 12 and that she also is considering an amendment to trade promotion authority legislation that would lift the prohibition.
Murkowski said she has yet to decide whether the bill, which is being co-sponsored by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), will be incorporated into a broad energy package she is drafting in the committee.
“Having actual copy out there for people to look at is going to be important for the discussion of what we can build into the base bill and what we can't,” Murkowski said during a news conference. “I think this is a change in policy that needs to happen.”
Murkowski and other proponents of lifting the ban say it is an anachronism that is no longer relevant given surging domestic oil production. Other lawmakers, however, are concerned that lifting the export ban could later be tied to increased gasoline prices.
Amendment to Trade Bill
Companies that support lifting the ban include major oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and independent producers such as Dallas-based Pioneer Natural Resources Co.
Opponents include independent refiners such as Delta Air Lines's refining subsidiary Monroe Energy LLC, which argue that such a move would raise domestic oil prices and render them unable to compete with refineries overseas.
Murkowski filed an amendment to lift the ban as part of Senate legislation (H.R. 1191) related to Iran sanctions that ultimately didn't receive a vote. She said she is considering a similar tactic when the Senate takes up a trade promotion authority bill (H.R. 1314), which is expected to begin the week of May 11 (84 DEN A-22, 5/1/15).
“When you are talking about oil exports, that's certainly in the realm of trade,” Murkowski said, though she added it is unknown if amendments would be allowed to the bill.
Murkowski Discussed Lifting Ban in April
Murkowski announced she would be introducing legislation to end the export ban during an April speech before oil industry executives and others in Houston. Prior to that, she said she hadn't made up her mind and was hopeful the Obama administration would use its executive authority to allow the export of crude oil (76 DEN A-20, 4/21/15).
“I am hoping that as this discussion moves forward and there is increased talk of national security as it relates to our oil and natural gas resources, you will see some movement out of the administration,” she said.
-
Murkowski to Introduce Crude Export Bill Next Week
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) yesterday said she will introduce legislation next week to lift the ban on crude oil exports.
The bill's introduction comes after Murkowski floated an amendment to lift the ban during this week's debate over an Iran sanctions bill but did not pursue a vote so as not to "derail" the underlying legislation, which passed overwhelmingly yesterday. The Senate is scheduled to take up trade promotion legislation next, and Murkowski suggested that she may offer a crude export amendment there, too.
"When you're talking about oil exports, that's certainly in the realm of trade," Murkowski said.
Murkowski was one of the first federal policymakers to highlight the effect of the crude export ban -- which was implemented in the wake of the 1970s oil crises -- in light of current growth in U.S. oil production spurred by hydraulic fracturing. But she has been slower to introduce legislation to eliminate it, arguing that the Obama administration already can authorize exports under existing authority. In addition to mulling a trade bill amendment, Murkowski said she plans to introduce a stand-alone bill Tuesday.
"I'm approaching this change in policy from a multidimensional view," she said during a discussion with reporters yesterday.
Murkowski said she has not decided whether to include the ban-lifting legislation in a larger energy bill she is assembling in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which she chairs. She introduced 17 bills yesterday as candidates for that broader package, including S. 1224, which would establish a uniform definition for condensate, a type of lightly processed crude, and affirm the Commerce Department's previous ruling that it can be exported.
Producers say the domestic oil glut forces them to sell at a discount to U.S. refineries, whose gasoline and other products can be exported and hence are sold at prices set on the world market. Lifting the ban, they say, would close the gap between the domestic and international oil price benchmarks, spurring more U.S. drilling activity and reducing gasoline prices for consumers.
Some refiners and labor unions argue that the ban would cost jobs in their sector because it could make it cheaper in some instances to ship oil to European refineries rather than those in the United States. Environmental groups also resist lifting the ban because they do not want to encourage more oil production and the greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution that brings.
-
Dominion Gets DOE Approval for LNG Exports From Maryland; Earthjustice Sues
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
Dominion Resources may export liquefied natural gas from Maryland to countries that do not have free-trade agreements with the U.S., under authorization granted May 7 by the Energy Department.
With the authorization, Dominion has all the regulatory approvals needed to construct a natural gas liquefaction facility and shipping terminal to export LNG around the globe, company spokesman Jim Norvelle told Bloomberg BNA.
Dominion Cove Point LLC is converting a 1970s LNG import terminal near Lusby, Md., on the west bank of the Chesapeake Bay into an export terminal. According to the company, the $3.8 billion project in Calvert County will be completed in 2017.
The DOE approved a licence in October 2011 allowing Dominion to export LNG to countries with free-trade agreements with the U.S. The new DOE authorization allows Dominion to export LNG to non-free trade countries, including Japan, China, India and many European nations.
Earthjustice Challenges FERC's Approval
Environmental groups, however, haven't given up efforts to stop the export terminal.
Earthjustice filed a lawsuit May 6 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval Sept. 29, 2014, of the project.
The lawsuit came in response to FERC's denial May 4 of Earthjustice's petitions to rehear the case and stop work on the project. Environmental groups filed those petitions Oct. 15, 2014 (201 DEN A-6, 10/17/14).
The new lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Sierra Club, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and other environmental groups, charged that FERC circumvented the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider how the project would trigger expanded hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region. That would lead to significant new amounts of air, water and climate-disrupting pollution, the lawsuit said.
Lawsuit Filing Won't Stop Construction
The filing of the lawsuit won't stop construction on the project. Earthjustice attorney Jocelyn D'Ambrosio told Bloomberg BNA the plaintiffs were “weighing our options for asking the court to stop construction while the appeal is pending.”
Dominion didn't respond to a request for comment.
The American Petroleum Institute praised the DOE's granting of the new export license to Dominion.
“This is a major milestone for a multi-billion dollar project that has waited years for federal approval. This facility, and others like it, will allow America to be a net natural gas exporter by 2017,” Erik Milito, API director of upstream and industry operations, said in a news release.
-
DOE Gives Cove Point Final Approval to Export Natural Gas
May 7, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Department of Energy today gave final approval for Dominion’s Cove Point facility to export liquefied natural gas to nations that don’t have free trade pacts with the U.S., bringing the $3.8 billion terminal closer to fruition.
Cove Point had received a conditional approval from DOE in 2013 that today’s order makes final, authorizing the terminal to ship up to 0.77 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day for 20 years. Dominion expects to complete work on Cove Point in 2017, though environmental groups continue to press legal challenges aimed at slowing down or halting that process.
-
Alberta Election Shakeup Raises New Questions About Pipelines, Oil Sands
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Tuttle
Alberta's historic election brought to power a New Democratic Party that plans to scale back advocacy of oil export pipelines such as Keystone XL. Such a policy shift may not be needed.
Slowing oil development on the back of lagging oil prices and expansions of existing pipelines had already pushed into the next decade the time needed to build a new pipeline, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute. With pledges to raise corporate taxes and review the government's take of energy revenue through royalties, the New Democratic rise to power may slow oil growth further, according to AltaCorp Capital Inc.
“Nobody wants to put money in the ground if you don't know what the royalty will be,” Jeremy McCrea, an analyst at AltaCorp, said. This “big unknown could potentially cause a slowdown in drilling even more.”
The NDP, led by Rachel Notley, won 53 of the province's 87 districts and tied in another in elections that ended 44 years of Progressive Conservative rule.
The election came as Western Canada's crude output was set to grow by just 17,000 barrels a day in 2016 after the biggest plunge in oil since 2008 prompted drilling cuts, Peter Howard, CERI's president emeritus, said April 21.
The slowdown delays by two years, until 2020, the need to complete TransCanada Corp.'s Energy East pipeline, Keystone XL or two projects to Canada's west coast including the Trans Mountain expansion and Northern Gateway, according to CERI. The four major planned pipelines would move a combined 3.3 million barrels a day from Alberta to the coasts.
Environmental Opposition
While not in the party's official platform, Notley has said she will not advocate for the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, oil export projects that have come under fire from environmental opponents of the oil sands and communities fearful of spills along their paths. She has said that Kinder Morgan Inc.'s Trans Mountain line expansion and TransCanada Corp.'s Energy East project are worth discussing.
The slowdown in oil growth comes as existing pipelines are already being expanded. Enbridge Inc. freed 240,000 barrels a day of space on its main line to the U.S. last year and will free up another 230,000 barrels this year, Chief Executive Officer Al Monaco has said. Enbridge's Line 9 is scheduled to be reversed this quarter, allowing Western Canadian producers to ship more oil to refineries in the country's east.
No Need
“Long-run growth expectations have decreased with the oil price crash,” Andrew Leach, a professor at the University of Alberta's school of business, said in an April 13 e-mail. “The near-term growth is maybe enough for one pipeline, not the four.”
Rigs drilling for oil have fallen to the lowest since 2009 and companies from Cenovus Energy Inc. to Statoil ASA canceled or postponed projects after oil fell to a six-year low last month. Given the drop in rigs, Canadian conventional crude output will fall this year and not return to 2014 levels until at least 2020, CERI data show.
Energy East
TransCanada delayed Energy East's start to 2020 last month when it canceled a planned terminal along the St. Lawrence River because of risks to endangered beluga whales. In March, the U.S. Senate failed to override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill forcing approval of the 830,000 barrel-a-day Keystone XL, a project delayed since 2008.
Cities in British Columbia, including Vancouver, have asked the Canadian government to halt Kinder's proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, calling the public hearing process “deeply flawed.” Enbridge's Northern Gateway line to the Pacific coast has been planned for more than a decade. It was approved last year by regulators, subject to more than 200 conditions. Environmental and aboriginal groups oppose the project.
The oil price drop hasn't lessened the urgency for new lines, Paul Miller, TransCanada's president of liquids pipelines, said at IHS CERAWeek in Houston April 21.
Oil Sands
While producers including Cenovus and Royal Dutch Shell Plc have shelved planned projects, they are going ahead with most expansions already being built. Oil sands output will rise 117,000 barrels a day each year between 2015 and 2018, CERI data show.
In addition to pipeline expansions, Western Canada will have the capacity to move more than a million barrels a day of crude by rail by year-end, according to Wood Mackenzie Ltd. estimates, as Kinder Morgan starts its Edmonton rail terminal this quarter, which will eventually handle 250,000 barrels daily.
“We don't need all of these options” for pipelines by the end of the decade, Afolabi Ogunnaike, senior research analyst for Americas refining and oil product markets at Wood Mackenzie, said April 10. “But we do need them as the crude supply continues to grow.”
-
More Federal Offshore Oil Rules May be on the Way
May 7, 2015 | Houston Chronicle
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The nation's top offshore drilling regulator is eyeing new regulations to boost the safety of oil and gas development in coastal waters.
Despite strides since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, there is still "public unease with offshore drilling" and a spotty performance by oil companies and their contractors when it comes to safety offshore, said Brian Salerno, head of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
Salerno's assessment came on the final day of the Offshore Technology Conference - a "safety day" with panel discussions and presentations on the issue.
At Salerno's bureau, regulators are considering doing more upfront assessment on whether oil and gas companies are "fit to operate" offshore, based on experience and performance. The Interior Department already assesses would-be leaseholders' finances, but a "fitness to operate" model would go further.
"Norway and Brazil ... look at a variety of factors to determine who is qualified to engage in exploration and production off their coasts," Salerno noted. "We have learned from our international colleagues that there may be value for us in broadening this concept to account for operational experience and performance history."
But he cautioned that "this is still in the exploratory stages."
The agency is also weighing the next steps to build on nearly 5-year-old mandates for oil and gas companies to create safety and environmental management systems that help them broadly manage and mitigate risk at every stage of offshore work.
The government first mandated those programs in 2010. A separate 2013 regulation required companies to subject those SEMS programs to third-party audits, with compliance required by this June. Now, a third such regulation may be underway.
"SEMS 3 is a concept right now; there's nothing written down," Salerno said, adding that it might not require a regulation. "But I think we need ... to build on what we've done already and take it to the next steps."
Coast Guard Rear Adm. Paul Thomas described wide variations in safety programs. Some are well designed and well implemented, with buy-in from corporate leaders down to workers on deck, he said.
"I've also seen some where they are very well designed but not well implemented," Thomas said. "That's probably the worst case because the operators of those vessels have a false sense of security."
Companies must also beware of vulnerabilities created by increasing reliance on automated equipment at offshore wells and production facilities.
There already have been some threats and cyber-attacks on offshore installations. Increasing computerization and automation open the possibility of less malevolent, but no less dangerous, disruptions, driven by errant software updates and plugged-in flash drives.
In the Gulf of Mexico, software may have triggered at least one accident, when a top drive motor - usually suspended from the derrick - fell to the rig floor. No one was injured and workers thought they fixed the problem. Then it happened again.
Salerno said a preliminary probe by the bureau suggests the failures may have been caused by "a software issue and a system compatibility issue."
-
Even Keystone XL Foes Grow Weary Of Obama's Delay in Deciding on Project
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Snyder
Keystone XL supporters often complain that President Barack Obama's delay in deciding on whether to allow the oil pipeline to be built is costing jobs and keeping the U.S. tied to unstable energy partners.
With the review now stretching beyond six years, some critics, increasingly confident that Obama will reject the Canada-to-U.S. pipeline, have joined the project's supporters in calling for a resolution.
“We don't understand what the White House is waiting for,” says Jane Kleeb, founder of Bold Nebraska, which has been among the most vocal critics of the Keystone project. “Landowners would like to have the certainty that their land is no longer at risk.”
This is a switch for Keystone's foes. They used to view no decision as no pipeline, and that meant less carbon dioxide from the production of Alberta's oil sands. Now some see the effort as taking resources away from other environmental fights.
“As long as Keystone is an open question, it sucks up a lot of oxygen,” said Elijah Zarlin, a senior campaigner for Credo Action, an advocacy group that opposes Keystone.
Obama has in recent months sounded increasingly negative about the project and the type of crude it would deliver, saying during a March event in South Carolina that the process for extracting oil sands is “extraordinarily dirty” (45 DEN A-1, 3/9/15).
Critics Confident of Rejection
That comment and others like it have raised the hopes of Keystone critics.
“We're quite confident that President Obama will reject this dirty and dangerous pipeline once and for all, and we hope it happens very soon,” Tiernan Sittenfeld, a lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters, said in an e-mail.
TransCanada Corp., a Calgary-based pipeline company, first applied for a presidential permit to build Keystone XL in September 2008.
Mark Cooper, a spokesman, said in a telephone interview that the company remains confident the project will be approved “on its merits.”
Backers of the project, however, lost an advocate April 5. Provincial elections in Alberta brought the New Democratic Party to power. Leader Rachel Notley has pledged to scale back the government's lobbying for Keystone.
Other Campaigns
Kleeb of Bold Nebraska said activists are as engaged as ever in the debate over the $8 billion pipeline, which would cross the Nebraska prairie en route to the Gulf.
But time and effort that could otherwise go to fighting a proposed fracking wastewater well in the western part of the state or in promoting greater use of renewable energy is taken up battling Keystone, Kleeb said.
Protesters still dutifully show up at Obama events. Some were preparing to welcome Obama to South Dakota on May 8, his first visit to the state as president.
Bold Nebraska, meanwhile, was putting the finishing touches on a piece of anti-pipeline crop art in a Nebraska field. Protesters carrying anti-Keystone placards greet Hillary Clinton at campaign events. The former secretary of state is running for president and hasn't said how she views Keystone XL.
For years, it was Keystone supporters who pushed most loudly for a conclusion to the debate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in January that Obama was “out of excuses” after the Nebraska Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit challenging the pipeline's path in that state.
The administration had suspended its federal review to allow the state court case to come to a conclusion.
McConnell: ‘No Brainer.’
McConnell called the pipeline a “no brainer” when Congress was debating a bill to force approval of the project. While Republicans were able to send the legislation to Obama's desk, they couldn't muster enough votes to override his veto, leaving the project in limbo.
The State Department is overseeing a review of the TransCanada Corp.’s proposal to build Keystone because it crosses an international border. Spokeswoman Nicole Thompson declined to comment on when a decision could come.
McConnell has moved on to other issues, like battling the Obama administration's plans to impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Environmentalists are lobbying in support of those carbon rules. They're also expanding their fight against development of oil sands, issuing a recent report noting the risks of a series of proposed rail terminals along the West Coast that could be another destination for the heavy crude.
Keystone helped to activate and broaden resistance to the development in Alberta, Zarlin said. Now Zarlin said it's like the debate over the pipeline has entered a purgatory.
“It's a sort of wait-and-see feeling,” Zarlin said. “Everybody knows it's a big moment.”
-
California Oil Waste Injection Rules Threaten Groundwater, Lawsuit Alleges
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pamela A. MacLean
California's rules allowing oil extraction waste to be injected into the ground were challenged May 7 by environmental groups saying the practice threatens protected sources of drinking water as the state suffers through a record drought (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. California Dep't of Conservation, Cal. Super. Ct., No. RG 15769302, 5/7/15).
State environmental regulators have allowed the oil industry for years to pump wastewater and other fluids from thousands of wells into protected aquifers, according to a complaint filed in state court in Oakland.
Rather than stop the practice, the state enacted emergency rules allowing it to continue until 2017, according to a complaint by lawyers at Earthjustice, which represents the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity.
The groups seeks a court order to invalidate the emergency regulations and halt what they call illegal wastewater injections into aquifers.
Oil industry wastewater produced from hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, and steam-injection oil wells contain potentially cancer-causing benzene, heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals, according to the complaint.
The state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources knowingly violated an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce controls under a federal law limiting wastewater injection into aquifers, the groups claimed in the suit.
‘Sham' Rules
Instead of ordering a halt to the contamination, the state agency issued “sham” emergency rules that would let the practice continue another two years, it's alleged.
“The true emergency is the ongoing contamination of California's underground supply of water,” according to the complaint.
Officials of the state agency weren't immediately available to comment on the suit, a secretary said.
-
House Panel Unveils Bills to Speed Pipeline Permitting, Hydro Licensing, Grid Security
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The federal permitting process for new natural gas pipelines and the licensing process for hydropower projects would be expedited under draft legislation unveiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bills, which are planned components of a comprehensive energy bill the committee is crafting, scheduled to be the subject of an Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing May 13 that will feature testimony from companies such as PG&E Corp., which operates 4,000 megawatts of hydroelectric projects.
The pipeline permitting bill would require a final decision on projects 90 days after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues its final environmental document and would require FERC to identify all agencies considering an aspect of an application and set a schedule for review, including a deadline for a final decision, among other changes.
The legislation is weaker than a bill (H.R. 161) by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) that would require FERC to approve or deny a permit application for the siting, construction, expansion or operation of any natural gas pipeline within 12 months of receiving a completed permit application.
That bill, which was approved by the House in January despite a White House veto threat, was supported by trade groups representing Cheniere Energy Inc., Dominion Transmission Inc., DTE Energy Co., Enbridge Energy Partners LP, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, TransCanada Corp., DuPont Co., and Eastman Chemical Co.
The hydropower legislation would establish FERC as the “exclusive authority” to enforce and administer all license requirements, direct the commission to minimize duplication of studies in license proceedings and exempt projects of five megawatts or less at non-powered dams from licensing requirements, according to a summary.
The bill, introduced May 6 and similar to draft legislation written by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), is designed to spur “new hydropower development at non-powered dams, which would create thousands of new jobs and thousands of megawatts of clean, affordable power,” the subcommittee said.
Grid Security Bill Unveiled
The committee also released a draft bill May 7 on Energy Reliability and Security that “seeks to update our nation's energy infrastructure and ensure it is secure, resilient, and reliable,” the Subcommittee on Energy and Power said.
Specifically the bill would give the Energy Department authority to address “grid security emergencies” at the determination of the president, including the authority “to take emergency measures to protect the bulk power system or defense critical electric infrastructure, including ordering critical electric infrastructure owners and operators to take appropriate actions,” a summary said.
The bill also would require FERC to develop standards for voluntary information sharing among federal, state, local and tribal authorities; the Electric Reliability Organization; regional entities; and owners, operators and users of the bulk-power system in the U.S. and establish sanctions for the unauthorized disclosure of shared information, the summary said.
Hearing Scheduled
“This collection of proactive and innovative solutions will reduce our grid's vulnerabilities and help ensure the reliable flow of power to households and businesses,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in a statement.
The legislation is scheduled to be the subject of a May 19 subcommittee hearing.
-
Alaska Republican Gears Up Energy Reform Package
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) took her biggest step to date toward a large-scale overhaul of federal energy policy on Thursday, introducing 17 bills she said could make up parts of an energy reform package this session.
The bills cover a myriad of topics, from electricity reliability to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the production of methane, hydropower or helium. Any of the bills could make up the backbone of a broad energy reform effort, something Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has made one of her top priorities this session.
“Does this mean all of them are going to part of a broader bill? No,” she said at a briefing with reporters. “But does it mean these are my ideas I would like to have folks catch up on? Yes, absolutely.”
One high-profile piece of legislation missing from the slate introduced Thursday: a bill to lift the federal ban on crude oil exports. Murkowski said she will release that bill separately next week.
Murkowski has long supported lifting the 40-year-old export ban, but it’s an idea that has tenuous support among Democrats and other members, who worry it could raise gas prices.
An oil export ban — like any of the 17 bills she announced Thursday — could be a part of a final energy bill, she said, but she’s not wedded to including anything that could sink that push. That means the oil exports bill could move on its own or attached to something else.
“This is not about sending a message, this is about changing the policy, and how can we change the policy is by winning, and in order to win, we have to make sure we have the votes that are there,” she said. “We’ve been building our case, and we’ve seen a real change in the response and posture of people.”
Murkowski said she could try tying the oil export ban to legislation dealing with trade promotion authority, a topic that could come to the Senate floor next week.
“When you’re talking about oil exports, that’s certainly in the realm of trade,” she said.
Congress hasn’t passed a major energy reform bill since 2007. With Republicans in charge of both chambers of Congress, Murkowski has said she wants to push a energy bill this session, but it’s something she acknowledged will take some degree of bipartisan cooperation, both on her committee and in Congress as large.
Murkowski said she hopes to work “cooperatively and collaboratively” with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member on the panel, to write a final bill. She’s also been talking with Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who is leading the energy reform push in the House.
“It’s not going to benefit me to try to move a measure that has no bipartisan support,” she said. “I might be able to move it through committee, but if I can’t actually move it through the floor, that’s a lot of work for no gain. We’ve done enough messaging around these parts of late, and I want to actually make some changes to our energy policy.”
-
Murkowski, Other Senators Introduce Flurry Of Bills to Consider for Energy Package
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Energy Department would be required to establish a single definition of what constitutes condensate—a type of lightly processed crude oil—for use by other federal agencies, under legislation introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
The bill is one of 17 introduced by Murkowski as well as others from various senators trying to meet a May 7 deadline set by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for bills to be considered for inclusion in a broad energy package, Robert Dillon, a committee spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA May 7. Murkowski is the committee's chairman.
In addition, the Condensate Act (S. 1224) would authorize the Energy and Interior departments to assess condensate separately from crude oil. It also would affirm the Commerce Department's 2014 decision to treat processed condensate as a petroleum product, which may be exported without a license.
“Many federal agencies have conflicting definitions of what qualifies as ‘condensate' and how it differs from ‘crude oil,' ” a bill summary said. “In common parlance, one man's ‘heavy condensate' is another man's ‘light crude.' ”
Murkowski also introduced a bill (S. 1231) that would require the Energy Department to notify Congress before it makes any test withdrawals of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to report to Congress on the results of test drawdowns. The bill also would require the department to study the costs associated with operating and maintaining the SPR.
Other bills introduced by Murkowski include the Hydropower Improvement Act (S. 1236), designed to improve the licensing process for hydropower projects, and S. 1230 that would require the Interior Department—at the request of a state governor—to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the state “to create consistent rules and processes for oil and gas operations on federal lands.”
June Markups Planned
Not all of the 17 bills will be included in the broader energy bill, which will be composed of four separate titles focused on energy supply, infrastructure, energy efficiency and federal accountability, Murkowski said.
“These are my ideas I'd like folks to have a heads up on,” Murkowski said during a news conference May 7. Markups on the four bill titles are expected to start in June, Dillon said.
Other bills introduced recently by committee members include a measure from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that would authorize $1 billion over five years to modernize the U.S. electricity grid.
The Grid Modernization Act of 2015 would double federal spending on the country's electricity grid to “create a more flexible and efficient grid, help consumers take advantage of advanced technology and lay a strong foundation for American innovation to serve consumers around the world,” a bill summary said.
Grid R&D Program Authorized
The bill also would authorize a research and development program focused exclusively on grid-scale storage technology, establish demonstration programs for “advanced distribution systems” and microgrids combined with grid storage and propose new resilience requirements for utilities and states, the summary said.
Cantwell is seeking to include the legislation in the broader energy package being developed by the committee, Rosemarie Calabro Tully, a spokeswoman for the senator, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Other recently introduced bills include legislation to expedite decisions on international energy projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline and to speed up the federal approval process for oil and gas pipelines (88 DEN A-14, 5/7/15).
-
Murkowski Aims To Skirt Tough Issues To Get Broad Energy Bill
May 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Sen. Lisa Murkowski declared on Thursday that “it’s way past time” for the first broad, bipartisan energy bill since 2007, and she’s aiming to sidestep controversy to craft a package that can pass.
Yet whether the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources committee can avoid the contentious issues that have dominated eight years of congressional energy policy making — from Keystone XL to offshore drilling revenue sharing — remains to be seen.
That doesn’t mean the Alaska Republican won’t attach one of her top priorities — a repeal of the crude oil export ban — to her nascent no-drama energy bill, though she stopped short of issuing a firm commitment on it.
“We’ve done enough messaging around these parts of late,” Murkowski told reporters Thursday. “I want to actually make some changes to our energy policy.”
She made an opening bid on that plan, offering 17 individual bills that touch on hydropower, grid reliability, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and more that will keep committee aides and members busy during an ambitious summertime schedule of hearings and votes.
While the final legislative package isn’t likely to reach the full Senate before the August recess, early signs pointed to the success of what she termed “very constructive” work with ranking energy committee Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
Before Cantwell supplanted former oil-state Sen. Mary Landrieu as the panel’s top Democrat earlier this year, members of the energy industry privately worried that the climate hawk from Washington state might put a liberal stamp on a committee that has typically operated in a bipartisan fashion.
But Cantwell’s collaboration with Murkowski to steer a Keystone bill through a freewheeling floor debate in January won her praise from the GOP and now stands to serve as a template for the successful passage of a broader energy measure.
“There are some areas where Sen. Cantwell and I are going to depart,” Murkowski said, adding that “we can agree we’re just going to leave that off the table and find areas [where] we’re going to build consensus.”
And Cantwell agreed, saying in a brief interview today that “no one’s talking about” the prospect of poison pills sneaking their way into the bipartisan bill.
Murkowski said she was hoping to submit legislation that would open the door to crude exports as an amendment next Tuesday to the "fast-track" trade authority bill. But she appeared sanguine on her prospects of overhauling oil trade policy without using the bipartisan energy effort as a vehicle. “If we can’t move this policy reform on this bill, there are going to be other opportunities going forward,” she said.
Other bills that energy committee members are likely to press to include in the package — such as a cross-border energy infrastructure proposal reintroduced yesterday by Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) that would open the door for Keystone politics — could emerge in the coming weeks as a threat to Murkowski’s no-drama goal.
Jurisdictional issues also could complicate the process as the bill makes its way to the floor. Noting that the 2005 energy bill contained a tax title, Murkowski said it would be “helpful to have that tax piece,” but she made no commitment to starting a debate that could delve into the long-term future of the wind production tax credit.
Still, Murkowski took pains today to underscore her willingness to work with colleagues.
Asked about the future of a broader version of energy efficiency legislation from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Murkowski said it “needs to be a part of” the committee’s broader work, but she was noncommittal on whether it would be part of her energy package or a stand-alone proposal.
-
Murkowski Casts Aside 'Messaging' in Pursuit of Overdue Energy Bill
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Nick Juliano
Gone are the days of politically charged, procedurally doomed bills designed more to rile up partisans than to actually change policy.
At least that's Sen. Lisa Murkowski's hope when it comes to the sweeping energy bill she looks to assemble in the coming months.
"It's not going to benefit me to try to move a measure that has no bipartisan support. I might be able to move it through committee, but if I can't actually move it through the floor, that's a lot of work for no gain," the Alaska Republican, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told reporters during a 40-minute briefing yesterday afternoon.
"We've done a lot of messaging around these parts of late, and I want to actually make some changes to our energy policy," Murkowski continued. "We haven't done that since 2007; it's way past time."
Murkowski yesterday floated a slate of 17 bills aimed at bolstering the electric grid, easing some regulatory burdens and supporting alternative forms of energy, among other measures, and several other senators from both sides of the aisle put forward their own ideas ahead of a series of hearings over the next two weeks (Greenwire, May 7).
While not all of the proposals will make the final package, the menu of options Murkowski and Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) are considering may be most noteworthy for its absence of the most divisive issues, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, which Murkowski has been advocating for years, or creating a nationwide renewable energy standard, which many Democrats have historically supported.
To be sure, the most controversial aspects of energy, environmental and climate change policy would likely have to be addressed somehow, but Murkowski said she hopes those issues can at least wait until the broad energy bill makes it to the Senate floor. Murkowski pointed to a 22-0 vote last month in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which she also is a member, on legislation to update the controversial No Child Left Behind education law as evidence that bipartisanship is possible.
"That's kind of a marker for me," she said of the unanimous education vote, pointing out that during a committee markup, members on both sides of the aisle agreed to withhold their most controversial amendments until the bill hits the Senate floor.
The Energy committee will convene a hearing next Thursday on proposals for the energy bill's infrastructure title. On May 19, it will consider supply title proposals, and on June 4, the energy bill legislative hearings will conclude with a focus on government accountability, including the Department of Energy loan guarantee program. The committee expects to begin marking up legislation as soon as next month, but it remains to be seen how quickly a bill would hit the floor.
Murkowski said she has been reaching out to members who are not on the committee to stress her goal of delivering bipartisan legislation that can pass, including occasionally briefing fellow Republicans during their weekly policy lunches.
"I make no secret of the fact that I'm trying to build out an energy package that is broad and comprehensive and moves this country forward," she said. "And I want ideas from all members."
Lobbyists who have been involved in the process from the outside say Murkowski has been just as interested in bipartisanship behind the scenes. She and Cantwell have sent aides into joint meetings with outside stakeholders and worked closely with the Department of Energy, whose recent Quadrennial Energy Review is serving as a template for parts of the bill (see related story).
Still, there is a wariness given the prevalence of congressional gridlock in recent years and the extent to which a commitment to areas of bipartisan consensus may limit the scope of a final bill.
"If the political will exists, there's a path forward to meaningful energy legislation," said Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Part of demonstrating that political will, he added, would be convincing the "bomb throwers" in the Senate to hold their "fossil-fueled fire" and not weigh the bill down with efforts to eliminate U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, for example.
Matzner said environmentalists also would be looking for a bill that "cuts pollution and embraces the future" and would be skeptical of calls to expand oil or gas drilling on public lands or offshore, for example. He had not studied the details of the various proposals yesterday so could not weigh in on specifics but said the effort seemed to be moving in the right direction.
"There is a road map emerging for real progress," he said.
Mike McKenna, a Republican lobbyist who advocates for utilities among other clients, said he liked the general approach of the Murkowski bills and their focus on taking advantage of abundant domestic energy, but he noted that the overall package is constrained by its lack of attention to controversial issues such as climate change, oil and natural gas exports or hydraulic fracturing regulations, among others. But he predicted votes on those issues would eventually occur -- even if they came on amendments that ended up failing on the floor.
If the energy bill makes it to the floor, it could build on a record that started in January with the dozens of amendments to the Keystone XL bill and continued this spring on the budget resolution. Another round of amendments to an energy bill -- which would be more detailed than anything lawmakers have been forced to weigh in on since 2007 -- would be incredibly valuable in its own right.
"It makes lobbyists nervous, and it makes staff nervous," McKenna said of letting senators vote on specifics. "But it's really healthy because it starts to ventilate issues."
Even if an energy bill does not become law this year -- which still may be the safest bet given the relatively little time remaining before campaign season drains the Capitol of its legislative ambitions -- the process will better illustrate where members of Congress stand on issues like how the country should manage natural gas pipelines or integrate rooftop solar panels into the electric grid.
"At the end of the process, I think we're going to know ... a lot more about the world than we know right now," McKenna said. "It becomes the base line for the next go-round, so you've got to take it seriously."
-
Time For Congress To Embrace The Clean Power Plan
May 7, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Corey Cantor
In the early days of the 2016 race, climate change is already emerging as a divisive issue: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argues that the science on climate change isn’t in. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whose state is at great risk from rising sea levels, claims to not be a scientist to avoid culpability on the issue. Hillary Clinton wants to protect the Obama administration’s efforts on climate, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes they haven’t gone far enough. Meanwhile in Congress, Republican lawmakers have been busy attacking the EPA’s proposed new rules that aim to reduce U.S. carbon emissions—the Clean Power Plan. Instead of working to destabilize and nullify the plan, Congress should embrace the opportunity and help states prepare.
The Clean Power Plan aims to encourage innovation by allowing states to meet carbon reduction targets through various means, including by increasing energy efficiency; investing more in states’ clean energy portfolio; switching from higher carbon emitting power sources to lower-emitters like natural gas; upgrading infrastructure on older power plants to reduce emissions; and incentivizing collaboration between states to develop further reduction plans. This plan would make up the core of the Obama administration’s efforts to cut carbon emissions by 26 – 28 percent by 2025.ADVERTISEMENTCongress should throw its support behind the EPA’s flexible, market-based climate proposal, as there are many convincing reasons to back the rules. The Clean Power Plan encourages states to invest in growing renewable energy industries, and implementing the plan will show America is a serious player on the international stage. Moreover, voters have been shown to support large-scale efforts to mitigate climate change.
According to a new ABC News poll, 59 percent of Americans want the next president to be one who favors government action to address climate change. 72 percent of Americans who are likely to vote in 2016 support an international agreement to cut greenhouse gases. Another recent poll from Stanford University dispels the myth that Republicans do not support fighting climate change: 48 percent of Republicans polled would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, and 71 percent of those polled believe that failing to reduce carbon emissions will be an enormous problem in the long run. Among young voters, the causes of climate change are a settled issue. In addition, Americans across the political spectrum are very supportive of clean energy sources like solar, wind, and natural gas that could blunt harsher climate change. Congress should heed these voices when considering their stance on the new regulations.
Beyond being a solution to a problem many voters are worried about, the Clean Power Plan also offers states an opportunity to tap into a growing and exciting industry. While clean energy is no panacea, it creates new jobs, has the potential to bring cheaper energy prices, and has a smaller impact on the environment. Solar panel installations were at a record high in 2014 of 6.2 gigawatts, and look to be growing in the years ahead. The job market for solar has grown by 86 percent over the past five years to about 174,000 workers and could grow to over 210,000 at the end of 2015. Wind energy growth has been strong over the past decade, and is the largest non-hydro renewable generator of electricity. Over the past ten years, the costs of wind and solar have fallen greatly, and they are now more competitive with traditional forms of energy. A recent report by the NRDC also predicts the Clean Power Plan could result in 224,000 jobs by 2020.
Implementing the Clean Power Plan also allows America to re-claim its mantel of climate leadership on the international stage. After the U.S. failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the Obama Administration has put the U.S. back in the driver’s seat. The Clean Power Plan nicely compliments America’s 2014 bilateral agreement with China, which constrained their future carbon emissions for the first time, and the Obama Administration’s pledge to cut carbon emissions from the federal government by 40 percent by 2025. These moves in tandem show aggressive leadership and give the U.S. international credibility in the lead up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Paris this December. We are in a better position to hold other countries accountable in submitting their carbon emission reduction plans, and more importantly live up to our own commitments over the next decade and onwards.
The Clean Power Plan is a strong framework that paves the way for further investment in clean energy, will improve standing abroad, reduce carbon emissions, and help solve a problem that many voters deem alarming. Instead of re-litigating old battles, Congress and our next president should embrace this opportunity to invest in the future of America’s energy economy.
-
Clean Power Plan Legally Solid But Imperfect As Tool to Cut Carbon Pollution, Schatz Says
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Regulations to reduce carbon pollution from power plants are a legal but imperfect tool to address climate change, and setting a carbon fee would be a better option if the political climate would allow it, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told a Bloomberg Government breakfast May 7.
Carbon fee legislation “puts us in a better position to ameliorate the disruption that will occur as we make a transition from one energy portfolio to the other” though it may take “another election cycle” beyond the presidential election of 2016 before Congress would seriously consider such an option, Schatz said.
“There are some members of the Senate—on the Republican side—who are trying to thread a needle here and trying to survive or avoid a primary, but I think in their conscience, they want to do the right thing,” Schatz said. “These regulations are a relatively blunt instrument and don't put us in a position to help communities that are going to be disrupted. And legislation gives us that flexibility.”
Despite the political climate, Schatz and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) intend to introduce legislation in 2015 levying a fee on companies for every ton of carbon pollution emitted, which Schatz said would be the “best solution” to minimize disruption as the nation shifts to a cleaner energy portfolio.
Republican opposition in Congress to a carbon fee makes President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan addressing carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of power plants the best option for the moment to ensure U.S. leadership on climate change, Schatz said.
Will Need to Defeat Effort to Block Plan
In order to more seriously enter conversations about how to address climate change, Schatz said Democrats would have to first beat back attempts to block or eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which the agency expects to finalize in mid-summer, would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state.
States would be required to meet interim targets between 2020 and 2029, with a final emissions rate amounting to a 30 percent cut in 2030 from 2005 levels. States would have flexibility as to how best to meet their individual targets.
Schatz expressed confidence the Senate would successfully defend the regulations from attacks through the Congressional Review Act. He predicted several Democrats—“probably four or five”—might defect and back attempts to weaken the rules, but Republicans couldn't summon the numbers necessary to overcome a certain veto from Obama.
“After that is done, I think then there's room for a more adult conversation,” Schatz said.
Preparing for ‘Next Legislative Fight.'
The Hawaii Democrat has previously told Bloomberg BNA his caucus is preparing for the “next legislative fight” to be protecting Obama's climate regulations and ensuring international negotiations to address climate change aren't subjected to congressional interference (79 DEN A-2, 4/24/15).
Seth Larson, an aide to Whitehouse, told Bloomberg BNA the senators plan to introduce carbon fee legislation “in the next month or two” but didn't have a specific date yet.
Whitehouse and Schatz introduced legislation in November 2014 that would have required large greenhouse gas emitters to pay $42 for every ton of carbon pollution they emit. The fee would have increased annually by an inflation-adjusted 2 percent(224 DEN A-3, 11/20/14).
Similar legislation has already been floated in the House this session. The Tax Pollution, Not Profits Act (H.R. 2202), introduced by Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) on May 1, would tax emissions of greenhouse gases at $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2015 and increase the tax each year at 4 percent above inflation.
Funds collected through the tax would be used to reduce the corporate tax rate, provide monthly payments to low-income and middle-class households and create job training, early retirement and healthcare programs for coal workers.
-
DOE to Meet With White House to Plan Quadrennial Energy Review Implementation
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy Department officials plan to meet with White House staff in two weeks to discuss implementation of the Quadrennial Energy Review, Melanie Kenderdine, counselor to the U.S. energy secretary, said May 7.
Kenderdine has put together an implementation team within the DOE's Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, which met with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on May 6, she said during an event at the Wilson Policy Center.
The first installment of the White House's Quadrennial Energy Review, released April 21, focused on recommendations to modernize and update U.S. energy transmission, storage and distribution infrastructure (77 DEN A-13, 4/22/15).
Next up is for the DOE to meet with the administration and Congress to implement the $15 billion proposal over the next decade.
“We will put a plan together and will take it to the White House to discuss,” she said. They will likely meet with the White House during the week of May 18.
“There are many actions in [the QER] that the administration can do and take. There are many studies and analyses that DOE can do under regular order,” she said.
She said the program recommendations adding up to $15 billion over 10 years have to be addressed incrementally.
“We think they're important,” she said. “We have to figure out how to fund those. It was always agreed that that would be incremental funding, not out of an agency's baseline budget.”
Recommendations Spread Around
“Many of those recommendations are at DOE, but several of the large ones are at other agencies,” she continued. “So we're going to work on innovative funding mechanisms for those or how they could go in baseline budgets for the future. We don't want to displace other important programs; we just want more money.”
Before meeting with the White House, Kenderdine and Moniz will be attending the Group of Seven meeting of energy ministers May 11-12 in Hamburg, Germany, to discuss energy security and other topics.
Kenderdine said, “We are taking the QER as a deliverable to meet and address some of the principles in the G-7 energy security communiqué that we put out and the G-7 leaders adopted in Brussels.”
Congress Developing Broad Bills
Both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are developing broad energy bills, and both chambers have said they'd like to work with the administration to include provisions of the QER in the bills.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate committee, is holding hearings in the coming weeks to address the four broad energy policy areas she wants to include in her bill—modernizing infrastructure, strengthening the energy supply, supporting efficiency and ensuring federal accountability.
Moniz has already testified on the QER before the Senate committee and will testify before the House committee May 21, Kenderdine said.
Could be Bipartisan Effort
“I think energy infrastructure is something that could be a very bipartisan effort and commitment, and we look forward to working with the Congress and coming up with a good package,” she said.
However, she noted that Congress hasn't asked for technical assistance in developing the legislation, adding that the agency will provide it when asked.
She said most of the 63 recommendations in the QER wouldn't require statutory changes.
-
House GOP Draft Partly Aligns with White House, Mainly Sticks to Party Line
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
House Republicans last night aligned themselves with some policy suggestions in the Obama administration's high-profile Quadrennial Energy Review, another mark of bipartisan cooperation as comprehensive legislation is crafted on the Hill.
In other areas, they continued to play along party lines.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power yesterday unveiled a discussion draft on energy reliability and security that's slated to be included in the chamber's larger energy package. The draft language will also be the subject of a hearing of the Energy and Power Subcommittee next week.
"We are working to keep the lights on," Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in a statement. "This collection of proactive and innovative solutions will reduce our grid's vulnerabilities and help ensure the reliable flow of power to households and businesses."
The House draft language follows up on a policy recommendation the QER made by calling for a review of the feasibility of establishing a bank of electric transformers.
Similarly, the QER called for the departments of Energy and Homeland Security to study the development of an emergency stockpile of mobile high-voltage power grid transformers that could replace units damaged by major storms, space weather or a terrorist attack. Those results will feed into a national strategy for safeguarding the entire bulk power grid, due in 2015 (E&E Daily, April 21).
In other areas, Republicans appeared to mesh in both chambers over areas of shared interest.
The House draft, for example, would lay out a path of relief for utilities caught between DOE orders to continue operating -- for reliability reasons -- and potentially violating environmental regulations.
Similar language moved through the lower chamber in 2013. Texas Republican Rep. Pete Olson's "Resolving Environmental and Grid Reliability Conflicts Act of 2013" (H.R. 271) would have ensured power plants complying with DOE emergency orders did not face lawsuits if they violate state, federal or local environmental laws (Greenwire, May 23, 2013).
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) dropped a similar bill, S. 1222, which would ensure generators operating under DOE orders are not made vulnerable to environmental lawsuits.
House Republicans' and Murkowski's language also aligned by calling for reliability reviews of federal regulations affecting the U.S. electric grid. Murkowski's bill, S. 1221, would require reliability coordinators to assess the effects of major federal rules on grid reliability and submit those reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
-
Team Implementing High-Profile Review to Meet with White House
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
A team of Energy Department officials is slated to meet with the White House in the coming weeks to begin implementing recommendations in the Quadrennial Energy Review, a high-profile report that laid out the administration's outlook on energy infrastructure.
Melanie Kenderdine, DOE's director of energy policy and systems analysis, said at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., yesterday that she met with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to discuss the "team," which will meet with the White House the week after next -- after President Obama attends the next G7 meeting in Germany early next month.
Kenderdine revealed last month that Karen Wayland, DOE's deputy director for state and local cooperation in the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, would be leading the group of agency officials (Greenwire, April 2).
Although Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has said she'd welcome language from the administration on energy issues, Kenderdine said policymakers have not yet reached out to DOE for technical guidance in reference to the QER.
"Whenever Congress asks us for technical assistance we provide it," Kenderdine said. "They haven't asked for technical assistance at this point in time. We just sat down yesterday as I mentioned to start firming up an implementation plan -- there are 63 recommendations in the QER, and we're going through looking at ones that actually require statutory changes."
The bulk of the review's recommendations, she added, don't require statutory changes, and there are many steps the administration and DOE can take on their own.
DOE has briefed both House and Senate energy committees but not all issues fit neatly into one committee's jurisdiction, Kenderdine said. Ports and inland waterways, for example, don't fall within the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee's jurisdiction, and yet the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and electric reliability do, she said.
"It's very early, we just got the QER done and slept a little bit, and we're working on an implementation plan," she said. "The first thing we need to do is discuss it with the White House."
Kenderdine said that as soon as she and other DOE officials meet with the White House, the administration will be calling in various agencies to talk to them about approaching the relevant committees on the Hill.
"We've gone to the energy committee, that's our jurisdiction, but I haven't spoken to the transportation committee yet," she said, adding that Moniz has spoken often about the QER with Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx.
-
Texas Governor Pledges Support for McConnell's 'Just Say No'
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) met with prominent Senate Republicans in Washington, D.C., yesterday to strategize about ways to defend against "grave consequences" arising from U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Abbott spoke with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is personally leading the Senate's charge against the EPA rule, and with Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz -- the latter who has thrown his hat in the ring for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
The Texas governor said in a statement yesterday afternoon that he believes the existing power plant draft for carbon will "burden Texas far more than any other state," especially when combined with EPA's ozone standard and other rules.
"The EPA's newest suite of rules, led by the Clean Power Plan, seeks unprecedented control over the State's energy mix that will certainly result in higher energy prices for Texans and will threaten the reliability of Texas' electric grid," he said.
He added that the rule would stop "Texas' unprecedented economic growth" and that he offered McConnell "support for his efforts to fight this federal government overreach."
McConnell continues to float new legal arguments aimed at disarming the existing power plant proposal for carbon dioxide and after Texas launched a pre-emptive lawsuit against it earlier this week. But he has urged state officials to resist complying with the draft to allow Congress and the courts time to work. Abbott's statement suggests he is likely to go the "just say no" approach, not submitting an implementation plan to EPA for the rule.
The agency is readying a federal implementation plan that would be enforced in noncompliant states, but McConnell contends that it does not have the legal tools to force states to overhaul their power grids. The most the agency can do, he says, is require some heat-rate improvements on site at power plants -- a far less onerous standard than the one EPA hopes states will adopt on their own.
Texas faces a 40 percent reduction target under the draft rule -- higher than the national average of 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The target is based largely on the state's supposed capacity to switch from existing coal to natural gas use, as well as its robust wind power industry.
McConnell also maintains that an obscure provision of the Clean Air Act gives Congress authority to approve -- or reject -- any interstate compliance plan for the rule (Greenwire, May 7). That reading of Section 102(c) of the statute was seconded by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which warned EPA in comments on the draft rule that regional approaches would require congressional approval -- something that is unlikely to come from the current Congress.
"There could be impacts to the costs of compliance, the ability to comply, and grid reliability if the multistate option is not available," the state agency stated.
-
Natural Gas, LNG Trade Groups to Merge
May 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jenny Mandel
The main trade association representing liquefied natural gas exporters will be folded into another group representing supply interests, under an agreement the groups announced yesterday.
In a press release, the Natural Gas Supply Association said that it would be incorporating the Center for LNG in a reorganization that would "increase the effectiveness of both associations."
"CLNG will benefit from the leverage of natural gas suppliers as well as LNG producers, shippers, terminal operators and developers working together toward common LNG goals," Dena Wiggins, NGSA's president and CEO, said in a statement. "LNG exports represent an important future market for our members' production, and one of NGSA's strengths is supporting well-functioning markets."
Under the proposed change, "CLNG would maintain its mission, brand and identity and have a stronger platform for ... advocacy and education efforts on behalf of the LNG industry," according to Bruce Henderson, chairman of CLNG's board and president and CEO of Total Gas and Power North America. "NGSA's promotion of the benefits of competitive markets and CLNG's promotion of the important role of LNG in the U.S. economy would be a good fit."
Wiggins said CLNG will continue to work under its current name as a committee of NGSA, though details about the new structure have yet to be finalized and approved by the board.
There will also be a search process to identify a new leader to head CLNG, Wiggins said. The LNG trade group has been without a public face since its former president, Bill Cooper, took a job as staff director of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in March (EnergyWire, Jan. 22).
"I think it's fair to say ... that they have been undertaking a review of how they're going to move forward," Wiggins said of the group's thinking since that departure. She noted that before it became an independent trade group, CLNG was a committee of the American Petroleum Institute.
Wiggins said she does not anticipate changes to CLNG's priorities through the move, and it will continue to primarily focus on facilitating LNG exports.
-
Crude Oil That Ignited After N.D. Derailment Had Been Treated to Make it Less Volatile
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lynn Doan
The Hess Corp. oil that caught fire in rail cars May 6 after a derailment in North Dakota had been treated ahead of the voyage to make it safer to carry.
The Bakken oil, which was loaded into more than 100 tanker cars at Hess's Tioga rail terminal and was headed east when it veered off BNSF Railway Co. tracks, had been conditioned to reduce volatility, John Roper, spokesman for New York-based Hess, said by phone May 7.
North Dakota issued an order Dec. 9 requiring producers, starting April 1, to remove light hydrocarbons from oil so it falls below a vapor pressure limit before being shipped.
The rule is among several that state and federal policy makers have established and are developing after a series of oil train derailments, fires and explosions. The accidents are occurring as refiners along U.S. coasts increasingly use rail cars to reach cheaper supplies from shale formations such as North Dakota's Bakken oil field. Crude-by-rail shipments now make up more than half of East Coast refiners' supply.
All but two of the 109 cars on the BNSF train were carrying crude oil, the company said (88 DEN A-19, 5/7/15).
Federal Railroad Administration spokesman Kevin Thompson said May 7 that “smoldering continues” at the scene of the derailment about 50 miles east of Minot, N.D. An evacuation order for the small town of Heimdal has been lifted.
The oil inside the tank cars had a vapor pressure of 10.8 pounds per square inch, below the 13.7 PSI limit set by North Dakota in December, Roper said. He declined to say where the oil was headed.
BNSF said in a notice May 6 that the derailment may delay traffic by as much as two days, with part of its system shut following the derailment. The Fort Worth, Texas-based company said shippers still have “multiple options” to carry crude east from North Dakota and that the track may reopen May 8.
-
PHMSA Sets June Meeting to Prepare for UN Panel
May 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration will hold a meeting June 10 in preparation for the United Nations meeting later that month, the agency will announce May 8. PHMSA is soliciting feedback regarding new issues that may be discussed at the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods meeting June 22 to June 26 in Geneva, the agency said in its public inspection notice. The agency is also requesting input on items the U.S. may propose at the meeting, including recognition of alternative assessment methods for classification of corrosive materials. PHMSA also will highlight its efforts for increasing transparency at its meeting. The June 10 meeting will be held at Transportation Department headquarters in Washington between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. Individuals interested in attending in-person, via phone or via Web should sign up at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3XTD2TB. Call-in and Web information will be available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/international. The notice, which will appear in the May 8 issue of the Federal Register, is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-11104.pdf.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested