Preview Newsletter

ACC PM 5/13

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) IRIS Progress Report Details Key Improvements, but the Bar Must be Raised Higher
May 13, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Nancy Beck, Ph.D.

According to a May 2015 progress report to Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is better off than it was a year ago, but not as effective as it needs to be to deliver timely, high-quality and credible chemical risk assessments. - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/05/iris-progress-report-details-key-improvements-but-the-bar-must-be-raised-higher/#sthash.nGPcSHjU.dpuf
(ACC Mentioned) Group Lied about Role in Flame retardant Lobbying -- Consultant
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

The American Chemistry Council continues to argue it had nothing to do with an industry lobbying effort that claimed to be grass roots in its successful opposition of legislation banning potentially ineffective and toxic flame retardants in furniture.
Americans Face an Irreversible Rollback in Chemical Safety with S. 697
May 13, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Linda Reinstein

Nearly forty years ago, Congress recognized the need to protect the public from toxic chemicals and passed the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate industrial chemicals. Unfortunately, TSCA has been failed miserably.
House Republican Releases New Draft of TSCA Reform Bill
May 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar

Efforts in the US Congress to reform the country's chemical law are gathering steam with a House panel set to vote tomorrow on a new draft of a bipartisan bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 15 April 2015).
Metal Oxide Nanoparticles Affect Gut Microflora, Say Researchers
|

Chemical Security News

DHS Publishes Expedited Guidance for Storage Facilities
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson

Chemical facilities can apply for faster reviews of security procedures under a new regulatory guidance from the Department of Homeland Security.

Energy and Environment News

Murkowski Floats Bill to Lift Crude Export Ban
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Juliano

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and a dozen of her colleagues today introduced legislation to end a 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil.
Senators Push to Lift Crude Oil Export Ban
May 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) have introduced a bill to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports.
Gulf Project Takes Lead in Floating U.S. LNG
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jenny Mandel

A project aiming to be the first U.S. floating deepwater facility to liquefy natural gas for global shipment last week filed for permits to construct and operate Port Delfin, 50 miles off the Louisiana coastline.
USGS Study Finds Unusual Variations in Fracking Wastewater
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Pamela King

Even within the same shale formation, the microbiology and organic chemistry of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is not uniform, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey study of 13 gas wells in the Marcellus Shale.
Proposed Silica Sand Transport Site Divides Ill. Town
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

A proposed transport facility aimed at shipping silica sand to use for hydraulic fracturing has garnered attention and divided a small Illinois town.
Western Energy Alliance's Wigley Discusses Administration's Latest Moves on Oil and Gas Development
May 13, 2015 | E&E TV

How could the Obama administration's recent actions on fracking regulations and Arctic drilling affect investments in the oil and gas sector? During today's OnPoint, Tim Wigley, president of the Western Energy Alliance, discusses the ongoing friction between federal and state governments on how to proceed with oil and gas regulations. He also talks about his organization's lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management on recent federal land fracking regulations.
House Panel Takes First Swing at NEPA Climate Guidance
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick

A White House proposal for knitting climate change into National Environmental Policy Act reviews came under fire today in a House hearing.
Gas Closes in on Coal in Power Plant Generation
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr

For the first time in three years, natural gas is about to catch up with coal as a fuel for the nation's power plants, foreshadowing the crucial role of gas supplies in meeting U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan.
New Tools Allow States to Weigh Multistate Compliance Options for EPA Carbon Plan
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro

Two prominent groups of policymakers have developed a set of tools to help states weigh the costs and benefits of multistate compliance with U.S. EPA's proposed rule to curb carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Enviros Challenge EPA over 'Flexibility' for States on Ozone Rule
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka

Environmental groups have launched a two-front attack on a U.S. EPA rule that sets requirements for states to meet the 2008 air quality standard for ozone.
Climate Change to Worsen 'Double-Whammy' of Ozone, Pollen -- Report
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka

One in three Americans live in areas that experience both unhealthy levels of ozone and ragweed pollen, and climate change will only increase their vulnerability, according to a new report today by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Va.'s Clean Power Plan? At the Moment, Natural Gas and Energy Efficiency
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden

Virginia's plans for cutting carbon emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could rely heavily on increasing natural gas use and instituting energy efficiency programs, rather than building renewable power, a state official said yesterday.
Shell to Push into Seattle Port Despite City Opposition
May 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

Shell officials have told the Seattle Times that the company's oil rigs intend to arrive at the Port of Seattle to prepare for a drilling excursion in the Arctic Ocean despite a push from the city and the Port to keep them out, at least for now.
Commissioner Moeller Announces Departure, Setting Off Replacement Rumors
May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Hannah Northey

Philip Moeller, an outspoken Republican member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, announced yesterday that he plans to leave the agency in the coming months, creating an opening expected to be filled by a senior Senate GOP aide.
GOP Energy Commissioner to Resign
May 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) member Philip Moeller is planning to resign.

Transportation News

Democrats Bash Proposed GOP Cuts to Amtrak after Crash
May 13, 2015 | The Hill
By Rebecca Shabad

Democrats on Wednesday bashed a fiscal 2016 spending bill that would cut funding to Amtrak, just hours after one of its trains crashed north of Philadelphia.

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) IRIS Progress Report Details Key Improvements, but the Bar Must be Raised Higher

May 13, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

By Nancy Beck, Ph.D.

According to a May 2015 progress report to Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is better off than it was a year ago, but not as effective as it needs to be to deliver timely, high-quality and credible chemical risk assessments.
EPA does deserve credit, first and foremost, for following through on several of the National Research Council’s (NRC) recommendations to fix IRIS, which has struggled to meet various stakeholder expectations. At the same time, more tangible signs of progress are needed before everyone can be assured that the Agency is doing the very best job it can to build greater confidence that its assessments can be used to inform federal and state chemical management decisions.
Keep in mind, IRIS assessments are highly influential for guiding public health policy, so it’s important that “close enough” not be the standard by which the Agency evaluates chemicals under IRIS.
In order for IRIS to produce better results, EPA needs to make more headway in three key areas:
1. IRIS needs a more robust problem formulation and scoping process
In its progress report, EPA states that changes to problem formulation and scoping have been implemented. However, ACC has some concerns about transparency in the decision-making processing regarding which assessments are initiated, and why.
EPA’s own Human Health Risk Assessment Framework describes important elements that should be included in the process, but which are not referenced in the IRIS scoping and problem formulation documents for ethylbenzene, naphthalene and PCB’s. Examples of these important elements include: What risk assessment products (qualitative and quantitative) are needed by management?Are screening values sufficient?Are best estimates and distributions needed?Finally, what will the schedule be for developing the assessment?
2. EPA must establish a clear & objective criteria for reviewing evidence
While it is discouraging that recent IRIS assessments have not included clear and objective criteria, ACC continues to be optimistic that the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) review panels will urge EPA to create transparent benchmarks to judge data quality and relevance, and clearly note the rating of each critical study according to these benchmarks.
At the recent CAAC review for benzo[a]pyrene, reviewers struggled to understand why EPA chose to rely on some studies that experts found to be low quality. Simple intermediate steps (e.g., Klimisch scoring for non-cancer end points) for documenting the quality of studies would go a long way to improve the logic and decision making in IRIS assessments.
3. EPA must be more responsive to peer review and stakeholder input
While EPA has implemented more stakeholder meetings — which indeed have led to more stakeholder feedback — commenters can cite very few examples, if any, in which EPA actually used the feedback to inform their decisions.
For example, there have been two meetings to discuss draft assessments before peer review (step four meetings for ethylene oxide and benzo[a]pyrene) where EPA took public comment; however EPA made little if any changes in response to these discussions. Where there has been engagement before draft assessments are released, EPA has not provided any feedback to stakeholders regarding what information is helpful and what is not.
EPA should facilitate a two-way dialogue at the bimonthly IRIS meetings so stakeholders leave the meetings with a clear sense of how EPA believes scientific differences should be resolved. Currently, EPA collects information but is reticent to share what they think about the information with the public.
A solution for sound chemical assessments

We understand these problems can take time to resolve. However, some solutions are available that are not difficult to implement and which EPA can begin to move forward on today.
Completing work in these three areas will help EPA ensure that objective scientific analysis and transparency are at the core of how the Agency evaluates the safety of chemicals. Fixing the flaws in the process will help improve the productivity of IRIS and eliminate unnecessary delays in completing the assessments – and in turn, shorten the time needed to finalize the assessment. Furthermore, addressing these issues will lead to higher quality assessments and increase their overall utility for making risk management decisions, a goal that everyone can agree is important for restoring the public’s faith that chemicals are being managed effectively.
This is why we support an inclusive process that leverages everyone’s knowledge and expertise for improving how assessments are conducted, and why we are committed to helping EPA fill in the scientific gaps so the cracks plaguing IRIS can finally fade away. - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/05/iris-progress-report-details-key-improvements-but-the-bar-must-be-raised-higher/#sthash.nGPcSHjU.dpuf

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Group Lied about Role in Flame retardant Lobbying -- Consultant

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

The American Chemistry Council continues to argue it had nothing to do with an industry lobbying effort that claimed to be grass roots in its successful opposition of legislation banning potentially ineffective and toxic flame retardants in furniture.
But Grant David Gillham, the political consultant who ran Citizens for Fire Safety, said the council helped create and frequently coordinated with his organization.
"They flat-out lied about it," Gillham said in a recent interview. "They denied that they ever did anything with us."
A 2012 Chicago Tribune investigation exposed Citizens for Fire Safety, which instead of being a coalition of firefighters, educators and doctors was in fact three flame-retardant manufacturers (Greenwire, Aug. 31, 2012).
Gillham said the group spent $22 million alone to defeat a California bill banning some form of flame retardants found in almost every U.S. home, linked to health problems such as diabetes, IQ deficits, fertility problems and cancer. The group, according to the Tribune report, paid Seattle burn surgeon David Heimbach $240,000 to falsely testify that babies were killed in fires because of a lack of flame retardants. The Washington state Medical Quality Assurance Commission found that the babies had never existed, while some scientists say flame retardants do little to protect people from fire.
The American Chemistry Council denied any affiliation with the group, but Gillham said he was hired to run Citizens for Fire Safety in ACC's Sacramento offices by an ACC executive. He was told not to reveal his association with the chemical industry.
Gillham said he coordinated frequently with the American Chemistry Council over five years and directed all calls from journalists to the council. He disclosed calendar entries of meetings with ACC representatives, email conversations and strategy documents produced with the council.
The American Chemistry Council, which includes Exxon Mobil Corp., Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont, maintained it had accurately reported that it had no affiliation with Citizens for Fire Safety but now acknowledges having engaged in discussions with the group.
"It's an example of coordination between two separate groups," said Anne Kolton, vice president of communications. "This is a normal part of our job to understand what's going on in the environment and to talk to other organizations as needed."
ACC is currently helping the Senate rewrite the law governing toxic chemical regulations. Nearly every major environmental group opposes the legislation. "This is an industry that lies," said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. "I think at this point anybody would be foolish to believe them when they say they are serious about reining in the abuses that they've committed" (David Heath, Center for Public Integrity, May 13).

Return to headline | Return to top
Americans Face an Irreversible Rollback in Chemical Safety with S. 697

May 13, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Linda Reinstein

Nearly forty years ago, Congress recognized the need to protect the public from toxic chemicals and passed the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate industrial chemicals. Unfortunately, TSCA has been failed miserably.

Americans have lost faith in the chemical industry’s ability to bring safe chemicals to the market and the EPA’s ability to protect them from dangerous chemicals. Fighting for real TSCA reform is the 2nd hardest battle of my life, after fighting mesothelioma with my late husband, Alan. We lost our mesothelioma battle three years after Alan had a radical surgery to remove his left lung, strip off is pericardium, replaced is diaphragm, and chemotherapy.
Jim Jones, assistant administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that, "More than three and a half decades since the passage of TSCA, the EPA has only been able to require testing on just a little more than 200 of the 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory and has regulated or banned only five of these chemicals under TSCA’s section 6."

Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said it best, “The poster child for TSCA reform is asbestos.” – but asbestos has been ignored in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S.697), which Udall co-authored. Real TSCA reform must ensure the EPA has the ability, and the mandate, to address other instances of widespread contamination by known unsafe chemicals like asbestos and toxic flame-retardants via expedited action.

History is a great teacher to those who listen.

For more than 100 years, we have known that asbestos exposure leads to horrific diseases and death. In 1989, after conducting a ten-year study, the EPA issued a final rule under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) banning most asbestos-containing products. Yet, just two years later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ban based on the Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA case. As a result, most of the original ban on the manufacture, importation, processing, and/or distribution in commerce for the majority of the asbestos-containing products covered in the 1989 final rule was overturned and, subsequently, the manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of these products in commerce have not been banned.

Asbestos remains legal and lethal in the U.S. and imports continue.
Each year, an estimated 10,000 Americans die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases caused by occupational exposure alone. Most Americans can’t identify the nearly invisible asbestos fiber or manage the deadly risk. Asbestos can be found in our homes, schools, workplaces, and even children’s toys.

Recently, The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported "the population of firefighters [studied] had a rate of mesothelioma two times greater than the rate in the U.S. population as a whole."

The time for true TSCA reform is now.

After hours and hours of Senate Environmental Pubic Works (EPW) and House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee hearings – the evidence is irrefutable – TSCA currently does little to protect Americans from unregulated and dangerous substances like asbestos.

The stakes are high.

It was reprehensible to watch every Republican on the EPW committee vote NO on Sen. Boxer’s (D-Calif.) “Alan Reinstein Asbestos Amendment” which would ensure the EPA will expeditiously review and take action to ban asbestos within 3 or less years. As currently written, it would take the EPA more than a century to test the most hazardous 1,000 chemicals that have been grandfathered into commerce.

Congress must protect public health - not big businesses that are responsible for the asbestos man-made disaster. As a mesothelioma widow, I remind Congress that for every life lost from an asbestos-caused disease, a shattered family is left behind. Americans demand and deserve legislation that protects us from hazardous chemicals and lethal carcinogens. The time is now for our lawmakers to come together to end the asbestos man-made disaster and pass a bill that ensures asbestos is expeditiously banned and the public is finally protected from toxic chemical hazards.
Reinstein is president/CEO and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO).

Return to headline | Return to top
House Republican Releases New Draft of TSCA Reform Bill

May 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Dinesh Kumar

Efforts in the US Congress to reform the country's chemical law are gathering steam with a House panel set to vote tomorrow on a new draft of a bipartisan bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 15 April 2015).
The move follows passage of a TSCA bill by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, late last month (CW 29 April 2015).
John Shimkus (R-Illinois), House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy chairman, unveiled the new draft that would be marked up by the panel on 14 May. It contains some changes in areas like preemption and deadlines for EPA action from the discussion draft that he released last month.
The bill has the backing of subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko (D-New York), as well as Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), full Energy and Commerce Committee chairman and ranking member, respectively.
In the contentious area of preemption, the bill would now exempt “prior state laws that do not conflict with TSCA”. The EPA would be required to complete risk evaluations within three years and follow up with risk management rules in 90 days.
On funding, industry user fees for designating chemicals for risk evaluation will now be deposited in a separate fund in the Treasury. This is aimed at addressing concerns, raised at a hearing last month, that the EPA would not have access to the funds if they went into the general Treasury pot.
Confidential business information claims would have to re-established after ten years and exemption from CBI protection for health and safety studies will not include “disclosure of confidential chemical formulas”.
“Our nation’s chemical management system has long been broken. The time to fix it is now. We have all spent a great deal of time studying the law and negotiating solutions, and we have reached a strong bipartisan agreement that works to improve both chemical safety and commerce,” said Mr Shimkus and the other backers of the bill in a joint statement.
“This is an opportunity to make meaningful reforms that will enhance consumer protections and strengthen our economy. We look forward to advancing this important bill and finally seeing TSCA reform signed into law.”
The full committee is expected to schedule a mark-up, next week.

Return to headline | Return to top
Metal Oxide Nanoparticles Affect Gut Microflora, Say Researchers

|

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

DHS Publishes Expedited Guidance for Storage Facilities

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Sam Pearson

Chemical facilities can apply for faster reviews of security procedures under a new regulatory guidance from the Department of Homeland Security.
The guidance, published today in the Federal Register notice, fulfills the "Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act," which President Obama signed last year.
Under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, chemical facilities that store large quantities of specified chemicals are subject to a risk-based formula that determines their security risk. DHS places the plants into risk-based tiers ranging from 1 to 4, with 1 being the highest risk. The plants are then required to submit site-security plans for DHS review.
The new law reauthorizes the CFATS program for four years, with provisions allowing DHS to process security documents more quickly and let facilities considered at the lowest risk of terrorist attack avoid some of the program's more burdensome procedural requirements. The goal is to help DHS clear a backlog of unprocessed site security plans.
Under the law, DHS was required to develop guidance for the Expedited Approval Program that "identifies specific security measures that are sufficient to meet the risk-based performance standards" in an attempt to make compliance easier for chemical facilities. The agency also was required to build a template through which companies can submit the material.
Participation in the accelerated review is optional for plants, but only those in tiers 3 or 4, the lowest levels, can use the tool.
When companies submit expedited approval requests, the owner or operator is required to certify under penalty of perjury that it is familiar with the procedures and that it is omplying with DHS's security regulations. While DHS would not immediately verify the information, the company could face enforcement action if it's found to have misrepresented its compliance with the regulations.
Provisions mandating the guidance for plants was the initiative of Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) last year as they worked on the bill in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (E&E Daily, Dec. 4, 2014).
While chemical companies and lawmakers looking to make it easier for the CFATS program to review the security plans supported the self-certification provision last year, some chemical safety groups warned that taking operators at their word was a risky proposition and could threaten local communities.

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

Murkowski Floats Bill to Lift Crude Export Ban

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Nick Juliano

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and a dozen of her colleagues today introduced legislation to end a 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil.
In addition to authorizing crude oil exports, S. 1312, the "Energy Supply and Distribution Act," would implement recommendations from the Obama administration's recent Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) to better integrate U.S. energy markets with those in Canada and Mexico. It also would establish a definition of condensate and direct federal agencies to consider the product separate from traditional crude oil. The Commerce Department last year signed off on a few companies' plans to export condensate, a type of lightly processed crude. Crude exports would not be authorized to countries sanctioned by the United States, and the bill would allow the president to prohibit exports under certain circumstances to protect national security.
"America's energy landscape has changed dramatically since the export ban was put in place in the 1970s. We have moved from energy scarcity to energy abundance. Unfortunately, our energy policies have not kept pace," Murkowski said in a statement today. "This legislation builds from bipartisan ideas, linking energy security and infrastructure to expanding exports and helping our allies. Our nation has an opportunity to embrace its role as a global energy powerhouse, sending a signal to the world that we are open for business and will stand by our friends in need."
North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, whose home state includes much of the oil-rich Bakken Shale play, is the only Democrat among the bill's 14 co-sponsors. Perhaps as important, noted the firm ClearView Energy Partners in a research note this morning, is the co-sponsorship by members from states with virtually no oil production, including Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Marco Rubio of Florida.
Rubio is the only senator running for president who is co-sponsoring the bill. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who also have thrown their hats into the presidential ring, have previously come out in favor of crude exports. Cruz offered an amendment to the Keystone XL bill in January that would have lifted the ban, but Murkowski talked him out of seeking a vote on it.
Domestic oil producers say the export ban should be lifted to ease the glut of light oil on the U.S. market, which is driving down oil prices compared with global benchmarks and reducing incentives for the industry to keep expanding. Refiners and labor unions warn against job losses in the refining sector to foreign competitors if the export ban is lifted, and environmental groups are wary of encouraging more domestic drilling if exports are authorized.
Murkowski has not decided whether to include the export legislation in a broader energy bill she is assembling, but many analysts see legislative action as unlikely before the next election.
"We still do not expect legislative crude export reforms to succeed during the current Congress, but strong, bipartisan committee support for ESDA could inspire House legislative efforts and pave a pathway towards a lifting of the ban in 2017," ClearView said in its analysis. "By the same token, a failed committee vote could potentially freeze crude export debate for months or years."

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Push to Lift Crude Oil Export Ban

May 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) have introduced a bill to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports.
The bill would fulfill one of Murkowski’s biggest energy priorities and allow American oil companies to export crude oil as they do petroleum products. It would also allow exports of condensate, a type of light crude oil.“America’s energy landscape has changed dramatically since the export ban was put in place in the 1970s. We have moved from energy scarcity to energy abundance. Unfortunately, our energy policies have not kept pace,” Murkowski said in a statement.
“This legislation builds from bipartisan ideas, linking energy security and infrastructure to expanding exports and helping our allies. Our nation has an opportunity to embrace its role as a global energy powerhouse, sending a signal to the world that we are open for business and will stand by our friends in need.”
Eleven Republicans have co-sponsored the bill, but Heitkamp is the only Democrat to sign on so far. In a statement, she said the bill would do away with the “nonsensical, out-of-date” ban.
“The 1970s-era ban on exporting American crude oil is as outdated as the typewriters on which the policy was written,” she said. “It’s past time for an upgrade.”
The oil industry cheered the move on Wednesday.
“This bill will unlock America’s energy potential and help U.S. energy production to stay competitive in a difficult market,” American Petroleum Institute Executive Vice President Louis Finkel said in a statement. “The benefits are clear, and members of Congress in both the House and Senate have shown they are ready to act in a bipartisan way to support free trade.”
The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) called the bill “ critical for U.S. energy security, economic growth, increased investment in free trade, and new American jobs.”
“Much like the export of gasoline and diesel fuels from American refineries now helps keep refining jobs in America, oil exports will enable the U.S. to invest in more American shale crude development and keep those good jobs here,” IPAA and a handful of other oil interests wrote in a letter to Murkowski and Heitkamp.
Lifting the ban has been a top priority for Murkowski and other Republicans, who have pitched the measure as a boon for the oil industry, a win for consumers, and a national security and diplomacy issue.
Democrats have met the move with skepticism and hesitancy, worrying that exporting more crude oil could mean higher costs for consumers in the United States. Green groups say lifting the ban — and the increased oil production associated with it — would have dire environmental impacts.
"Repealing the ban would open the floodgates to more crude oil extraction and the burning of petroleum products, which would worsen the impacts of climate disruption,” Friends of the Earth Oceans and Vessels Program Director Marcie Keever said in a Wednesday statement.

Return to headline | Return to top
Gulf Project Takes Lead in Floating U.S. LNG

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Jenny Mandel

A project aiming to be the first U.S. floating deepwater facility to liquefy natural gas for global shipment last week filed for permits to construct and operate Port Delfin, 50 miles off the Louisiana coastline.
The ambitious proposal entails reversing an unused Gulf of Mexico pipeline that once brought natural gas onshore for processing; building an onshore gas compressor at an existing brownfield site in Cameron Parish, La.; and building moorings for four floating liquefaction and shipping vessels to export up to 8 million metric tons per year (mmtpa) of LNG starting in 2019.
The project is being put forward by Delfin LNG LLC and backed by Fairwood Peninsula Energy Corp., a venture made up of the Fairwood Group, which is based in India and Singapore, and the Texas-based Peninsula Group, which invests in land development, construction, and oil and gas projects.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC is currently constructing the world's first floating LNG project, Prelude FLNG, which is slated to begin processing natural gas next year. Another project, Excelerate Energy's Lavaca Bay LNG venture, previously aimed to be the first such facility in the United States, but the backers announced in December that they were "suspending" activities due to poor economic conditions.
Delfin said yesterday that it is moving forward and has submitted a key permit application to the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard, which regulate deepwater LNG export facilities much as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission oversees development of onshore projects.
In a statement, Delfin founder Frederick Jones highlighted the anticipated speed and cost advantages of constructing floating liquefaction vessels compared with traditional land-based terminals.
"We believe that floating liquefaction technology is faster to market, more flexible, and more environmentally friendly than land-based liquefaction terminals. As the first floating liquefaction project in North America, Port Delfin will be a significant development in the world's evolving natural gas markets and an historic milestone for the U.S. oil and gas industry," Jones said.
Earlier plans for the Port Delfin project envisioned building for 13 mmtpa of export capacity, but the current proposal reserves that as an expansion prospect "if market conditions warrant and pending any necessary regulatory review or approval" (EnergyWire, Oct. 24, 2013).
In March, Delfin announced a memorandum of understanding with BTG Pactual Commodities for the full tolling capacity from the first floating LNG vessel, with options for additional project liquefaction capacity. Delfin has also reported a tolling agreement with natural gas supply and trading company LITGAS, part of the Lithuanian state-controlled group Lietuvos Energija.

Return to headline | Return to top
USGS Study Finds Unusual Variations in Fracking Wastewater

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Pamela King

Even within the same shale formation, the microbiology and organic chemistry of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is not uniform, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey study of 13 gas wells in the Marcellus Shale.
"Some wells appeared to be hotspots for microbial activity, but this was not predicted by well location, depth, or salinity," survey microbiologist and lead author Denise Akob said in a Monday statement. "The presence of microbes seemed to be associated with concentrations of specific organic compounds -- for example, benzene or acetate -- and the length of time that the well was in production."
Akob's research is part of a broader effort by USGS to better understand oil and gas operations and the waste they produce. Variation of those wastes -- which include fracking flowback, formation water, injected fluid and gas-phase condensation -- could prompt oil and gas firms to take a closer look at their storage options.
In Pennsylvania, where USGS's test wells were located, companies with the proper authorizations have the option to store brine and other produced fluids in pits. That waste cannot be discharged at the surface unless it complies with a suite of statutory and regulatory requirements.
But because volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not homogeneously distributed across wells, the safest containment method would be a closed storage system, Akob said. Operators that want to use open impoundments should consider testing their produced waters to ensure that particular method is safe.
She expects that, in many cases, companies will find that it is.
"The fact that we're finding [VOCs] in only a few wells is good news," Akob said.
Energy firms in the Keystone State are already adhering to a strict operational code, said Marcellus Shale Coalition President Dave Spigelmyer.
"Pennsylvania's entire shale water management process is not only tightly and effectively regulated, but this play, perhaps more than any other, continues to be an incubator for cutting-edge, industry-leading technologies and commonsense solutions that protect our environment while increasing operational efficiencies," Spigelmyer said in a statement to EnergyWire. "This is especially true as it relates to the widespread utilization of reuse and recycling technologies that our members have pioneered and continue to refine."

Return to headline | Return to top
Proposed Silica Sand Transport Site Divides Ill. Town

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

A proposed transport facility aimed at shipping silica sand to use for hydraulic fracturing has garnered attention and divided a small Illinois town.
The multibillion facility to be constructed by Texas-based EOG Resources Inc. in Earlville, Ill., promised jobs, increased revenue and potential businesses moving in; it also ignited fears over possible public health impacts.
Environmental concerns, regulatory delay and the price downturn have caused the dreams of fracking in Illinois to fade.
"I don't think this is viewed as progress," said the Rev. Del Keilman of the United Presbyterian Church in Earlville.
Another division over the center in the town are worries its presence could kill jobs, as evidenced by a 93-page complaint filed in LaSalle County Court by Tim O'Regan, whose factory sits near to the proposed center's site.
O'Regan worries trucks and trains will block his factory; his business, Electrical Materials Co., is likely to close if the center is built, he said.
However, EOG spokeswoman K. Leonard said that the company has a history of "being good neighbors." "Historically, EOG has been able to provide satisfactory solutions to issues raised by the public in other communities," Leonard added. "We expect to be able to do the same in Earlville" (Ted Gregory, Chicago Tribune, May 11).

Return to headline | Return to top
Western Energy Alliance's Wigley Discusses Administration's Latest Moves on Oil and Gas Development

May 13, 2015 | E&E TV

How could the Obama administration's recent actions on fracking regulations and Arctic drilling affect investments in the oil and gas sector? During today's OnPoint, Tim Wigley, president of the Western Energy Alliance, discusses the ongoing friction between federal and state governments on how to proceed with oil and gas regulations. He also talks about his organization's lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management on recent federal land fracking regulations. Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Tim Wigley, president of the Western Energy Alliance. Tim, thanks for coming back on the show.
Tim Wigley: Thanks for having me back. I appreciate it.
Monica Trauzzi: Tim, there's growing friction between states and the federal government over who should regulate what on oil and gas production. Right now there's a patchwork of regulations from state to state. How challenging do these differing rules make it for the industry to do business?
Tim Wigley: You know, we like to sometimes call it a definite maybe. We have lots more uncertainty with the federal government than we do with state governments. States have been regulating things like fracking for years, for generations actually, and it's become a very complicated mix for the industry as they try to -- especially in markets like you have right now with crude prices being as low as what they are, of trying to have a little bit more certainty out there. And what we're seeing in this latest round of national ... research is there's very strong support by the average voter out there for having states play a bigger role, and it makes sense. They're closer to the resource. They're closer to the companies and closer to the people that are impacted by it. So it's starting to be a pretty significant trend over the last few years.
Monica Trauzzi: Earlier this year the Bureau of Land Management introduced regulations related to fracking on federal lands. Western Energy Alliance along with IPAA have filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department. Fracking on federal lands represents just about 11 percent of all U.S. fracking. Why then do those rules concern you so much if they take up a pretty small portion?
Tim Wigley: They concern us because even energy development on public lands has been overseen -- in the area of fracking has been overseen and managed by state regulatory agencies. My biggest concern is I don't look around the landscape and see a lot of things that the federal government's doing very efficiently and very cost-effectively now, when you've had for decades the states overseeing this, whether it be safety inspections or what else. We think they've been doing a good job, the public seems to support that, and I just think adding another layer of federal government bureaucracy and red tape on top of what's already been done -- I don't think it's going to be good for the industry or good for the public at large.
Monica Trauzzi: How concerned are you about safety as it relates to fracking?
Tim Wigley: Well, they like to say the reason they're doing it is because they can better enhance safety inspections, but the actual numbers show the opposite, that states have done a far better job of inspecting fracking jobs and locations than has the federal government. So again I go to the core philosophy that we have, and that is we just don't think the federal government does a very good job at this stuff to begin with; why add another layer?
Monica Trauzzi: In Oklahoma for example, though, one in six people is employed by the oil and gas industry. Oklahoma Geological Survey there has linked an increase in earthquakes to oil and gas waste disposal, so clearly not enough has been done there yet on the state level --
Tim Wigley: It's my home state --
Monica Trauzzi: Yeah.
Tim Wigley: And I appreciate you asking that question. It has been a growing concern amongst a number of people. Most of the people that I have spoken to that -- what I would consider to be experts in the geological realm -- I think it's incorrectly associated with fracking, per se. There is a concern out there and rightfully so, but as you just stated water disposal is what's -- many people are saying are causing this. They're going to have to get a handle on it, there's no question about it, because people are concerned.
Monica Trauzzi: The Obama administration moved this week to conditionally approve drilling in the Arctic. Does this point to sort of measured but favorable handling of the oil and gas industry by this administration?
Tim Wigley: Well, I would hope that's the case; I really do. It's been a rough six or 6½ years with this administration. They seem to not really care a whole lot about the oil and gas industry while they take credit for increased drilling domestically. It's really in spite of them, not because of them. But I hope this is a sign that they are understanding that not only geopolitical -- the benefits of us developing more and more energy domestically that can help us internally, nationally, but also internationally. But I hope they're also understanding that the oil and gas industry is -- take great strides every single day to do this in a responsible and safe manner, and for us to be able to not only help our own economy but also help economies that are under stress, under threat from other foreign governments. It's a good thing for the country.
Monica Trauzzi: We're seeing oil prices rise slightly recently. Is that enough to give a boost to the U.S. industry that suffered as a result of last year's market dynamics?
Tim Wigley: I don't know that I'm the perfect person to answer that only because this is the first time I've been through a downturn since I've been in the industry. But I've talked to a lot of people I trust that have been through three or four of these downturns. This one happened very rapidly, faster than most. This is the first downturn we've had since 1900 other than 2008 where the price dropped in half in just a few short months. But what it does for the industry, it makes them much more efficient. It makes them look at costs, look at internal systems. And I've always been told that when they come out of it, after the dark days, they tend to be a better industry, and I have all reason to believe that's going to be the case here.
Monica Trauzzi: In Congress there's growing interest to lift the ban on crude oil exports. Do you believe Americans are aware of the different political dynamics that are at play when we talk about crude oil exports?
Tim Wigley: I believe they're not aware, as it is in most issues that involves energy development. We dug into this in this most recent national survey. There's strong support from people to lift the ban -- it's a 1970s ban. It was put in place at a whole different time in our nation's economy and history and so forth. But I think the energy industry has a lot to do in front of them to try to educate them as to what it means to them and how it could potentially benefit them as consumers.
Monica Trauzzi: So how would you describe the momentum in Congress that exists on this?
Tim Wigley: I had the privilege to be -- to fly both to and from Denver with a U.S. senator who's not from Colorado, who was going there for a child's graduation. And that senator told me it's growing, but we as an industry need to do and continue a just very aggressive, hard-charging job of making sure that members of Congress, both the House and Senate, understand what it means and what it can do. But the public strongly supports -- 60 percent-plus support for it, so ...
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show.
Tim Wigley: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Nice to see you. And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio] resize text Resize Text Watch&nbsp Watch Email&nbsp Email
Advertisement

Return to headline | Return to top
House Panel Takes First Swing at NEPA Climate Guidance

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Jean Chemnick

A White House proposal for knitting climate change into National Environmental Policy Act reviews came under fire today in a House hearing.
Natural Resources Chairman Bob Bishop (R-Utah) said the Council on Environmental Quality's draft guidance to federal agencies oversteps the intent of the 45-year-old environmental statute, making economic activity on federal lands subject to a vague assessment of a project's indirect and direct effects on global warming.
By requiring all agencies to consider the causes and effects of climate change when issuing NEPA permits, Bishop said, the guidance "would force more delays, more costs onto economic and energy-related activities nationwide."
Promising to hold more hearings on NEPA in general, Bishop added that the draft would even frustrate the Obama administration's stated goal of improving the quality of the nation's power grid by making infrastructure difficult to site and build.
NEPA was never intended as an avenue for sweeping environmental regulations, particularly of a global pollutant, he said.
"The trend for this administration seems to be that the ends justifies the means, regardless of whether the law allows it," he said. "This draft guidance is the latest case in point."
But ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said the draft guidance would "ensure sustainable decisionmaking" and protect communities that would be affected by bad planning.
"In my opinion, it is long overdue," he said.
CEQ first issued a draft NEPA guidance on climate change in 2010 but never finalized it. It released a revised version last December to applause from environmentalists who said guidance was needed to improve the consistency of the how agencies weigh climate change.
But fossil fuel-extraction industries in particular have said the guidance has the potential to squelch development on public lands by requiring land management agencies to deny permits to operators based on their real or imagined contribution to warming.
Natural gas and manufacturing advocates held a Capitol Hill press conference Monday to argue that if the draft is not rescinded it will kill the nation's booming gas production (E&E Daily, May 12).
But they noted that unlike regulations the administration is currently writing under the Clean Air Act and other laws, the NEPA guidance can be scrapped easily by a subsequent administration.
CEQ's managing director, Christy Goldfuss, appearing for the first time before the Natural Resources panel, noted that the guidance doesn't compel agencies to deny permits for projects that are judged to have an impact on climate change -- even a substantial one, she said.
Instead, she said, the draft was intended to provide a clear, consistent procedure to agencies that are already wrestling with how to factor climate change into their decisionmaking processes. It's not a new mandate, she said.
"We know that consideration of climate change falls squarely within the scope of NEPA, and federal courts across multiple circuits have considered various approaches to this analysis," she said.
Even if the CEQ guidance were retracted or if agencies chose to ignore it, permits might be challenged in court for failing to consider climate change in permitting, she noted. Litigation can delay permits, causing economic activity to grid to a halt, she said. 'A sword that will block projects'
But Roger Martella, a former U.S. EPA lawyer and now a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, said the guidance was aimed at changing the way NEPA is implemented -- transforming the law from a "shield" to protect against direct environmental impacts from federal actions to a "sword that will block projects that are critically important to our energy independence."
He took aim at the guidance's request to agencies to consider upstream and downstream impacts of their decisions -- a broader scope, he said, than was supported by the statutory language.
The proposal also uses the social cost of carbon, an estimate for the economic harm done by each ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. The process that led the administration to introduce the 2013 revised estimate was "the single least transparent decisionmaking in the environmental area," he said. Republicans have frequently taken aim at the figure, which the administration compiled using modelling that they say was flawed.
The estimate has been used in numerous agency rulemakings, but Goldfuss said her office's guidance did not require agencies to apply it to projects they permit.
"NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis, and this guidance does not require the social cost of carbon to be used," she said. "It is not a requirement."
The hearing also veered into climate science, with witness John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who disputes the consensus on man-made warming testifying that there was no evidence that individual projects would have any impact on global temperatures.
"The climate is something we can't predict," he said, panning the large network of established climate models that most researchers say point to escalating temperatures. "The policy is based upon theory that needs a whole lot of correction to it."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) jabbed at Republicans, congratulating them for finding a "contrarian" scientist to support its assault on climate action.
"I'm sure you could also find a cardiologist who would say that chocolate cake is good for you," he said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Gas Closes in on Coal in Power Plant Generation

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Peter Behr

For the first time in three years, natural gas is about to catch up with coal as a fuel for the nation's power plants, foreshadowing the crucial role of gas supplies in meeting U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan.
Natural gas prices below $3 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) have created the closest convergence of the two power plant fuels since April 2012, the Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Energy Analysis reported yesterday. And the dead heat that April was the only other time that has ever happened, noted EIA, an arm of the Department of Energy.
"There are a lot of different factors" contributing to the pickup in gas use, said EIA energy economist Tyler Hodges. Some coal plants have closed in response to EPA's regulations on toxic power plant emissions, or in anticipation of the CPP, EIA said. Coal plant operators often do maintenance projects in the spring, taking plants offline, which opens a door for more gas plant dispatch, Hodges added.
"Primarily the main one is the low natural gas prices. That's been driving down the share of generation fueled by coal and pushing up the gas share," he said.
Coal's share of power plant fuel supply was 43 percent during the first two months of 2014 but has fallen to 37 percent in this year's opening two months, while natural gas generation has climbed from 24 percent to 28 percent in that period. The gap will be virtually closed before this summer, EIA said.
The competition between the two hydrocarbon cousins can be close, because both kinds of plants have surplus generation capacity except in periods of heavy demand. Generally, coal is in the driver's seat, and its share rises when gas prices climb above $3.50 to $4 per MMBtu and coal prices are constant. Gas recoups with a price below $3 MMBtu, analysts note. The gas price at the Henry Hub terminal point in Louisiana has dropped from $4.66 per MMBtu in April a year ago to $2.61 MMBtu this April, EIA said.
But the playing field will be tilted by the Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030. Coupled with the EPA toxics rule, the CPP will drive down coal generation in favor of gas, which discharges half of the carbon dioxide that gas plants produce for the same amount of energy, analysts agree. The unknown is by how much.
Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., said last week that his organization's latest analysis points to "a tremendous shift on the energy side to a dependence on gas." Speaking at a review of CPP compliance strategies sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center, Cauley said that shift brings with it the risk that the gas pipeline and storage infrastructure may not be adequate to deal with peak periods of demands on the gas system. Long-term pricing game
Advocates for renewable power and energy efficiency measures say gas dominance isn't foreordained. There is more flexibility and potential resources than grimmer forecasts provide, they say.
EIA's short-term forecast has gas prices rising only gradually through the balance of this year and next, remaining well below $4 per 1 MMBtu at the end of 2016.
What happens in the long term will have a significant impact on the future for gas prices and generation, however, a Bipartisan Policy Center analysis last week noted.
In its "high gas price" scenario, the spot gas price is 11 percent higher than in a midpoint base case in 2020, and 15 percent higher in 2030. The "low gas price" outlook leaves gas spot prices 17 percent lower than the base case in 2020 and 14 percent lower in 2030.
Looking at the 2020-2030 period when the CPP would be in effect, the center's analysis predicts that a $6 to $7 per MMBtu price would cause renewable energy output to jump by 9 percent, compared to today's prices. Coal output would rise 6 percent, and gas would fall 13 percent.
If gas prices remain on the low side, between $4 and $5 per MMBtu, renewable energy would fall off by 5 percent and coal generation by 4 percent, while gas generation would jump 9 percent.
"We are certainly in a period of real change in the industry, and that is always the challenge with the power segment, not having a crystal ball on prices," said Jennifer Macedonia, a BPC senior adviser and an author of the recent study.
"Yes, attention is warranted. There are people whose job it is to worry and think about any possible vulnerabilities. That's where they're focused now, and that's good," Macedonia said.
"The reality of it is, we don't see a lot of electricity demand growth. We have abundant natural gas, and prices are expected to be pretty stable going forward. Renewable power continues to be more competitive. ... All the places where people are trying out new things with energy efficiency are really paying off. The challenges are not insurmountable. There really is a lot of good news, but it does require some new thinking."
"A lot of these issues can be foreseen and dealt with proactively," Cauley remarked at last week's BPC session. But he added, "It's a challenge to run the grid every day. Even today, and we are going to go through a lot of change." The uncertainties, the demanding timetable for building new energy infrastructure and the consequences if plans don't work require a "safety valve" exception in the plan if required to deal with severe reliability issues, he said. "I need to be able to raise a flag and say, 'I need relief,'" he said.

Return to headline | Return to top
New Tools Allow States to Weigh Multistate Compliance Options for EPA Carbon Plan

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Rod Kuckro

Two prominent groups of policymakers have developed a set of tools to help states weigh the costs and benefits of multistate compliance with U.S. EPA's proposed rule to curb carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
But the tools are accompanied by a major caveat from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council -- their use "shall be entirely voluntary and their development in no way endorses the Clean Power Plan."
The tools were developed during a "dialogue" among a group 20 regulators from states with as differing views on the Clean Power Plan as Kentucky and Oklahoma to Illinois and Maine.
The tools, released yesterday, include checklists for multistate planning and legislative language examples, and a sample memorandum of understanding for multistate coordination.
The package "leaves open the choice to go it alone or to coordinate across state lines on compliance policy, recognizing that each state and region is unique but that these states are interconnected by power flows and markets," said NARUC Executive Director Charles Gray.
"Also, the process of developing these state plans will be complex and coordination may prove frustrating, and we can help reduce some of that frustration by providing a workable starting point," he said.
Whether particular states support EPA's plan, most are exploring how to overcome institutional barriers that make multistate compliance more difficult, NARUC and EISPC said.
Unlike the "criteria pollutants" regulated by EPA -- particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and lead -- "the location where the greenhouse gas emissions happen is somewhat irrelevant: emission reductions anywhere lead to benefits everywhere," NARUC and EISPC said.
"This couples with the interstate nature of the power grid to strengthen the case for economic benefits from interstate coordination, and to weaken the case for a 'go it alone' approach," they added.
The legislative language checklist is being pulled together in partnership with the National Conference of State Legislatures. It will look at legislative language that could both impede or encourage interstate cooperation.
NCSL does not offer model legislation, so there will not be specific language suggested for adoption, but instead the group will emphasize common trends or processes.
NARUC and EISPC are planning a summer meeting in the Washington, D.C., area for state commissions, state agencies, power companies, legislators and others to better understand the merits, challenges and practical implications of multistate coordination.

Return to headline | Return to top
Enviros Challenge EPA over 'Flexibility' for States on Ozone Rule

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Amanda Peterka

Environmental groups have launched a two-front attack on a U.S. EPA rule that sets requirements for states to meet the 2008 air quality standard for ozone.
Led by the Sierra Club, the groups filed a lawsuit last week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking for judicial review of the rule. They also directly petitioned EPA to reconsider the rule.
Seth Johnson, an Earthjustice attorney who's representing the groups, said environmentalists had several concerns with the final rule, including that it revokes the previous 1997 ozone standard and gives states too much leeway for meeting the 2008 limit.
"We're concerned that it's allowing additional what EPA would call flexibility, but I think what we would call ways to circumvent or weaken the requirements of the Clean Air Act," he said today.
Ground-level ozone is a component of smoggy air that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. It's been linked to adverse health effects such as reduced lung function.
EPA's rule set the due dates for states to submit plans to address ground-level ozone pollution in areas that aren't meeting the 2008 national standard of 75 parts per billion, along with revoking the 1997 standard for regulatory purposes. It also established control technologies for meeting the standard, emissions inventory requirements and processes for areas to demonstrate compliance.
EPA finalized the rule in February (E&ENews PM, Feb. 17).
The rule "includes provisions that give the EPA's partners flexibility to minimize administrative burdens while still ensuring the public health protections achieved by meeting the 2008 ozone standards," the agency said on its release.
Along with the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation, Downwinders at Risk and Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles are challenging the rule. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has also separately filed a petition for review.
According to Johnson, the environmental groups are concerned that revoking the 1997 standard means that areas still out of compliance with the limit won't face escalating levels of controls as required by the Clean Air Act.
"EPA keeps revoking the standard before that process works its way through," he said. "In our view, that stalls progress. There are areas that have never attained any ozone standard, so we don't think that make sense."
He also said that the groups think that the "anti-backsliding" measures included in the rule to ensure that areas continue to meet the 1997 limit don't go far enough.
The groups are also concerned that the rule unlawfully gives states too much flexibility in the areas of setting base lines for pollutant reductions and offsetting emissions.
Under the Clean Air Act's ozone provisions, EPA can only allow sources to offset emission increases for a pollutant by reductions of the same pollutant, according to the environmentalists.
But in the rule, EPA has allowed sources to offset increases in one ozone precursor pollutant by reductions in another. For example, a source of pollution could increase emissions of volatile organic compounds in exchange for decreasing emissions of NOx, the environmentalists say.
The Clean Air Act "unambiguously bars the interprecursor offset trading authorized by EPA's rule," according to the environmentalists' petition to EPA for reconsideration of the rule. The agency petition focuses solely on this issue because it arose after the public comment period on the rule was over.
The lawsuit over the 2008 implementation rule comes as EPA is reviewing public comments on a proposal to tighten the ozone standard to between 65 and 70 ppb. EPA is under an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to choose a final standard.
At a recent meeting, EPA officials indicated that states should use the 2008 rule as a guide for what they would be expected to do to meet a potential new standard.
"We expect this implementation rule to kind of serve as a blueprint for any implementation rule under a 2015 revised standard," Anna Wood, director of the air policy division at EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said at the meeting last month. "The approaches over time -- and litigation and just knowing what flexibility we do and don't have -- have pretty much settled down" (E&ENews PM, April 23).

Return to headline | Return to top
Climate Change to Worsen 'Double-Whammy' of Ozone, Pollen -- Report

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Amanda Peterka

One in three Americans live in areas that experience both unhealthy levels of ozone and ragweed pollen, and climate change will only increase their vulnerability, according to a new report today by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The report, which is an update of a 2007 analysis, identified 35 major cities that are hot spots for both ozone pollution and ragweed pollen. NRDC said that it overlaid maps of areas that experience at least one day a year of unhealthy ozone levels with a map showing areas in the United States that have reported ragweed to achieve the results.
The findings suggest EPA should both finalize its Clean Power Plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and tighten the national ozone standard, NRDC wrote. Industry has objected to both the Clean Power Plan and the ozone proposal, arguing that they would impose high compliance costs with minimal health benefits.
"This double-whammy health threat will only intensify, and affect more people, if we don't take steps to reduce climate change now," NRDC's Juan Declet-Barreto, the report's lead author, said in a statement. "For our health and future, the EPA should strengthen the health standard for ozone pollution and set strong limits on power plant carbon pollution."
In all, 109 million Americans live in areas that are the most exposed to the negative health effects linked to ragweed pollen and ozone, the NRDC report found.
Ragweed pollen can trigger asthma and allergic reactions, while ground-level ozone has been tied to reduced lung function and inflammation. Together, the substances can magnify negative health effects.
According to the report, 10 cities are the "sneeziest and wheeziest" in the country, ranking the highest for exposure to both substances. They are Richmond, Va.; Memphis; Oklahoma City; Philadelphia; Chattanooga, Tenn.; Chicago; Detroit; New Haven, Conn.; Allentown, Pa.; and Atlanta.
NRDC warned that negative health effects associated with ozone and pollen could increase with climate change. Ragweed pollen increases in the face of higher carbon dioxide concentrations, according to the report, while high ozone events occur during hot summers.
NRDC said the results signaled the need for more data collection on ragweed pollen and the installation of more air monitors to capture data on ambient ozone concentrations.
The study also "bolsters" the need for EPA to finalize the Clean Power Plan, which would compel states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, NRDC said.
"Many of the sources of ozone-producing chemicals -- industrial facilities, electric power plants and motor vehicles -- also emit the carbon pollution that drives climate change," the report says. "Therefore, minimizing emissions from these sources can help reduce ozone air pollution and climate change."
The environmental organization also today called on EPA to tighten the national ozone standard; EPA has proposed to lower the limit from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb and is currently weighing public comments.
EPA is expected to finalize its power plant rule in midsummer and its ozone proposal by Oct. 1.

Return to headline | Return to top
Va.'s Clean Power Plan? At the Moment, Natural Gas and Energy Efficiency

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

By Emily Holden

Virginia's plans for cutting carbon emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could rely heavily on increasing natural gas use and instituting energy efficiency programs, rather than building renewable power, a state official said yesterday.
While all options are on the table, Michael Dowd, director of the air division of Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality, said the draft rule's 2020 goals don't leave the state enough time to build the infrastructure needed for new wind and solar projects.
Dowd -- one of the main officials in charge of writing the state's compliance plan for reducing the power sector's CO2 emissions rate 38 percent by 2030 -- also thinks EPA has overestimated Virginia's renewable energy capabilities.

"We're swimming in natural gas. We've got lots of natural gas generation and more on the way," Dowd said at an event hosted by the Electric Power Research Institute. "The prospects for renewables in Virginia might be not as good as they are in some states. In particular it's because of EPA's interim goal ... it may preclude the addition of baseload types or utility-scale renewables between 2020 and 2030."
Dowd said Virginia could be further limited in options because states in the region -- like West Virginia and Kentucky -- are hostile to the regulation and don't want to coordinate with neighbors. Virginia is, however, considering joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a Northeastern cap-and-trade program, he said. A 'competitive disadvantage'?
Virginia believes its goal will make it hard to compete with other states, Dowd said. While several states in the region have goals similar to Virginia's 38 percent, Dowd said the percentages don't give a clear picture of the different efforts required in each state.
"We have looked in detail at some of our neighbors, including West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Maryland and Tennessee, and we do believe that the numbers EPA has given all these states puts Virginia at a competitive disadvantage against most of these states, especially West Virginia and Kentucky."
Dowd said West Virginia and Kentucky are getting "pretty good deals, relatively."
West Virginia's target CO2 rate is 19.8 percent lower than 2012 levels, and Kentucky's is 18.3 percent lower.
Kentucky is exploring a compliance plan that relies almost entirely on planned coal plant closures. West Virginia's attorney general is leading legal challenges against the regulation, and all of the candidates to replace the state's Democratic governor are saying the state should just refuse to write a proposal.
"It's clear we won't be engaging in any interstate discussions with them, and that's too bad," Dowd said. "They might have a lot of allowances to sell folks."
In an interstate trading market, Dowd thinks both states could have a lot to offer and to gain. But political obstacles stand in the way.
While Virginia has been engaging with stakeholders, Dowd said the air office hasn't heard much about how Dominion, a major electric utility in the state, wants to move forward.
"Frankly, we would like to know more about what the utility industry as a whole is thinking," he said. "Do you guys want a mass-based interstate system or interstate trading ... and if you do, I'll tell you, you guys are going to have to work hard to get it done. The states so far have not really been doing a lot; they've been talking, but things are still at the formative stages. If utilities do want a trading program, there's going to have to be a lot of grass-roots work done in a lot of the states." Sorting the winners and losers
Dowd said state plans will inherently have winners and losers, although regulators will try their best to evenly distribute the impacts.
While energy efficiency looks like a good option for Virginia, he said he has heard concerns that those programs can be disproportionately expensive in rural areas and for electric cooperatives.
"There are going to be some hard decisions moving forward," he said.
For now, the state is awaiting the final rule's release later this summer and will then be working nonstop to interpret the regulation and get to work on a response.
"It's me and a guy named Tom, literally, at the moment, who actually look at this," Dowd joked, before adding, "I got a good staff, and a good commissioner who's engaged. ... As soon as it comes out, me and a few people will be locking ourselves behind closed doors to read it while the other folks will be manning the Internet and putting out public notices to start generating public comments."
Dowd explained that the state will be required to take public comment on its proposed and final plans before submitting them to EPA as early as next summer, making for a tight timeline.
"There are going to be things that are wrong that have to be revisited," he said. "At the moment, our view is we have to get a state plan in on time, and if EPA doesn't like it, we'll work through it, and if it doesn't work for reliability, we'll work through it."

Return to headline | Return to top
Shell to Push into Seattle Port Despite City Opposition

May 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

Shell officials have told the Seattle Times that the company's oil rigs intend to arrive at the Port of Seattle to prepare for a drilling excursion in the Arctic Ocean despite a push from the city and the Port to keep them out, at least for now.
The Port commission voted on Tuesday to appeal a Seattle government decision that said the Port needs a new permit to host Shell's fleet of drilling ships. But the commission also asked Shell to delay its arrival until the city and the Port have settled their dispute over the permit.But Shell told the Times that "rig movement will commence in days to come," and Foss Maritime, the Seattle company that will work with Shell, said it will move forward as well.
"We are going to proceed," Foss CEO Paul Stevens told the Times, saying the first drilling ships will arrive on Thursday. "These rigs and our operation will be in and out of here before there is any conclusion on the appeal process.”
Shell plans to use Seattle's port as a base as it heads to the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska to begin drilling. The federal government approved the company's Arctic plans on Monday.
Last week, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray attempted to block the company's arrival in the city, saying the Port needs a new type of permit to handle the fleet.
Shell says it needs to move quickly to begin drilling in the Arctic, where it hopes to eventually drill six wells.
Environmental groups have slammed the government's decision to approve Shell's drilling plan, warning about the environmental consequences of allowing oil rigs in the Arctic Ocean.

Return to headline | Return to top
Commissioner Moeller Announces Departure, Setting Off Replacement Rumors

May 13, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Hannah Northey

Philip Moeller, an outspoken Republican member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, announced yesterday that he plans to leave the agency in the coming months, creating an opening expected to be filled by a senior Senate GOP aide.
Moeller's likely replacement is Patrick McCormick, senior counsel for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who has deep ties in the energy world. A source familiar with the situation said McCormick would be the nominee.
The move, assuming McCormick is confirmed by the Senate, would place at FERC a top aide to Senate ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) as she tries to usher through Congress the first comprehensive, bipartisan energy bill in nearly a decade.
Moeller, first nominated to the agency by President George W. Bush in 2006 and renominated by President Obama in 2010, said he plans to serve the remainder of his term through June 30 -- or until his replacement is confirmed. Moeller also said he has no future plans lined up at this point.
"It's been an honor and a privilege to serve on the Commission every single day since I joined the Commission in July 2006," Moeller said in a statement. "I send thanks to President Bush and President Obama for nominating me, as well as the members of the United States Senate who unanimously confirmed me to both terms."
In recent months, Moeller has warned that time is running out for the agency to provide suggestions to U.S. EPA on its Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be finalized in the coming months (E&ENews PM, May 4). Moeller has joined his Republican colleague on the panel, Tony Clark, in calling for the commission to have a more formal advisory role as the EPA proposal takes shape.
Moeller was born in Chicago and grew up on a ranch near Spokane, Wash. From 1997 through 2000, he served as an energy policy adviser to then-Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), working on electricity policy, electric system reliability, hydropower, energy efficiency, nuclear waste, energy and water appropriations, and other energy legislation.
Before that, Moeller served as the staff coordinator for the Washington State Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications. He also headed the Washington, D.C., office of Alliant Energy Corp. and worked in the Washington office of Calpine Corp.
One former Republican member of FERC said McCormick would be a good fit to replace Moeller.
"It's a natural because he's counsel to the committee, he's a qualified guy," said Marc Spitzer, a former FERC commissioner and now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, who worked with McCormick at Hunton and Williams LLP.
But Spitzer quickly noted that the nomination does have to come out of the White House. Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski, wouldn't comment last night on the rumor of McCormick replacing Moeller.
Murkowski hired McCormick, an energy market lawyer, as the panel's special counsel in 2011 (E&ENews PM, April 26, 2011). He came to the committee from the regulated markets and energy infrastructure practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, and worked as an attorney for FERC.
As a staffer on the committee, McCormick advised lawmakers on issues related to the security, adequacy, reliability and affordability of the nation's energy supply resources and delivery infrastructure. He also worked at other Washington, D.C., law firms and in the law and governmental affairs departments of Potomac Electric Power Co.
McCormick's role was of high interest when Murkwoski voted against supporting Ron Binz, a past Obama nominee to the commission who later stepped back after facing furious backlash from the fossil industry and free-market groups.
Hunton & Williams represented coal giant Peabody Energy Corp. when the company was involved in a controversial case before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and Binz was its chairman (Greenwire, Oct. 25, 2013).

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Energy Commissioner to Resign

May 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) member Philip Moeller is planning to resign.
Moeller, a Republican who was first nominated to FERC by President George W. Bush and started in 2006, said late Tuesday that he will stay on until a replacement is confirmed.“It’s been an honor and a privilege to serve on the commission every single day since I joined the commission in July 2006,” Moeller said in a statement.
“I send thanks to President Bush and President Obama for nominating me, as well as the members of the United States Senate who unanimously confirmed me to both terms.”
FERC has wide jurisdiction over interstate energy commerce and movements, including wholesale electricity markets, oil and natural gas pipelines and licensing hydroelectric projects.
Moeller’s resignation comes as FERC wrestles with whether and how it should step in to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon limits for power plants do not interfere with electric reliability, which is one of FERC’s main responsibilities.
Moeller has been the most vocal opponent of the EPA’s rule at FERC.
He has warned that the rule poses a significant threat to electricity reliability because it would lead to large-scale shutdowns of coal-fired plants. Reliability is one of FERC’s main charges.
“EPA's proposed rule will dramatically interfere with America's competitive market forces, perhaps resulting in even more greenhouse gases in the future,” Moeller wrote to the EPA in December, adding that the rule “could total hundreds of billions of dollars.”
He told the House in July that the biggest problem with the rule “is that it treats states individually for compliance. But electricity markets are fundamentally interstate in nature … so that could create some challenges that may not be insurmountable, but need to be looked at very closely.”
Before coming to FERC, Moeller worked for electric utilities like Alliant Energy Corp. and Calpine Corp. Earlier, he was an aide to then-Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.).
Since FERC has five members and no more than three may be from a particular political party, Obama will have to nominate a Republican to replace Moeller.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Democrats Bash Proposed GOP Cuts to Amtrak after Crash

May 13, 2015 | The Hill

By Rebecca Shabad

Democrats on Wednesday bashed a fiscal 2016 spending bill that would cut funding to Amtrak, just hours after one of its trains crashed north of Philadelphia.
“I do hope we can keep the accident in mind [during today’s markup],” Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said about the derailed Amtrak train. “Cutting the funding drastically does not help improve the services at Amtrak.”
At least six people died as a result of the derailment, which also left several hundred injured, authorities said.
“We cannot meet tomorrow’s challenges by slashing investments in TIGER, Amtrak and air traffic modernization,” Lowey added.The GOP-sponsored transportation and housing bill contains $1.13 billion for Amtrak for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That’s down from roughly $1.4 billion that Congress appropriated for 2015.
A spokeswoman for Republicans on the Appropriations Committee pointed out that those amounts are for infrastructure and construction and do not cover operating costs or safety. The aide said the Federal Rail Administration would receive nearly $187 million for safety and operations for next year, which is the same amount as 2015.
Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), the ranking member of the subcommittee that produced the bill, said the measure is “totally inadequate.”
The measure “does not provide adequate funding to address the capital needs required for safety.”
Several Democrats offered amendments that would boost funding to Amtrak, but Republicans blocked the proposals from being wrapped inside the measure. They would have busted spending caps.
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said Congress “failed” passengers who traveled on the Amtrak train Tuesday night.
“Last night we failed them. We failed to invest in their safety. We failed to make their safety our priority,” he said. “We are divesting from America in this committee...it defies the interests of the American people.”
Later on, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said he was “disappointed” by Israel’s statement for suggesting that underfunding Amtrak caused the accident.
“Don’t use this tragedy in that way. It was beneath you,” Simpson said.
The panel’s chairman, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), argued that Congress is operating under tight spending limits, known as the sequester, imposed by a 2011 law.
“While adhering to tough levels, this bill makes the best possible choices within these tight budget constraints,” said Rogers, who added that “safety” remains a priority for the panel.
Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) said on CNN Wednesday morning that he would fight the cut to Amtrak.
“You put up some statistics at the beginning of the segment about some who seek to reduce the appropriations for Amtrak,” he said. “I'm not in that camp; I can tell you that right now. And if that bill shows a reduction when it hits the floor, myself and others, I think you're going to see amendments to make sure that there is stable funding on the northeast corridor.”
President Obama’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, warned Rogers in a letter Monday that the White House opposes the funding levels in the bill.
“If they want this committee to have more capabilities, I think they would want to come to the Hill and meet with the House and Senate leaders,” Rogers said about the possibility of a future budget deal that could provide sequestration relief. “In the meantime, as we await that, we have no choice but to move forward.”
Lowey questioned when Congress would be able to strike a deal similar to the one passed in late 2013, which relieved sequestration limits for two years.
“When will will get that conference? June, July, September, October?” Lowey asked. “Let’s do a real budget resulting from a conference, do real bills and let’s pass them.”
The House Appropriations Committee is expected to advance the bill to a floor vote.
The bill would provide a total of $55.3 billion to transportation and housing programs, which is $1.5 billion more than the current fiscal year and $9.7 billion less than President Obama’s request. The bill would provide $17.2 billion to the Transportation Department, which is $1 billion below the 2015 level and $6.8 billion below Obama’s request.
Republicans also included riders opposed by Democrats and the White House including one that would undermine Obama’s new policy to normalize relations with Cuba.

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested