Preview Newsletter
ACC AM May 18
-
Hearing on Energy Supply Legislation
May 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 340 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Discussion Draft Addressing Energy Reliability and Security
May 19, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
May 19, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM -
An Examination of Proposed Environmental Regulation’s Impacts on America’s Small Businesses
May 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Location: 428A Russell Senate Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
Oversight of Scientific Advisory Panels and Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency
May 20, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:30 AM -
Legislative Hearing on "National Energy Security Corridors Act"
May 20, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Oversight Hearing on "State Perspectives on the Status of Cooperating Agencies for the Office of Surface Mining's Stream Protection Rule.
May 20, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
Nomination Hearing
May 21, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM -
Quadrennial Energy Review and related Discussion Drafts
May 21, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Nominations Sought for Polyurethane Technical Conference
May 17, 2015 | Paint & Coatings Industry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council is issuing a call for nominations for the 2015 Polyurethane Innovation Award. The award, presented annually at the Polyurethanes Technical Conference, recognizes the most inventive commercial technologies in the global polyurethanes industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Chemical Industry Hoodwinked California Legislature
May 16, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
By John Diaz
Grant David Gillham, former legislative staffer and veteran political consultant, knows how to work the system. Three major manufacturers of fire retardants went to the right person in 2007 when they enlisted him to help defeat legislation that would ban two classes of retardants believed to cause cancer. -
(ACC Mentioned) Exposed: The Chemical Industry's Fake Grass-Roots Lobbying For Fire Retardants
May 15, 2015 | LA Times
By Michael Hiltzik
Grant D. Gillham stepped to the microphone in a California State Senate hearing chamber on April 13 and spoke out in favor of a bill mandating the labeling of children's products containing flame retardant chemicals. What made Gillham's appearance notable was that for years, he had been in charge of a chemical industry effort to kill such bills... -
(ACC Mentioned) Minnesota Poised to Pass Nation’s Toughest Fire Retardant Ban
May 18, 2015 | Environmental Leader
Manufacturers of furniture and other household items such as textiles, mattresses and children’s products may have to stop using four commonly used flame-retardant chemicals in their manufacturing processes. Minnesota legislators are considering a bill that would ban four flame-retardant chemicals in these products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lowe’s Follows Home Depot’s Lead On Vinyl Flooring
May 15, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
By Christie Moffat
Major US home improvement retailer Lowe’s has announced it will match competitor Home Depot in committing to phasing out phthalates in vinyl flooring products by the end of 2015. The announcement was made on Wednesday by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which said that Lowe’s had confirmed the new policy in a recent email exchange... -
(ACC Mentioned) TPP Trade Deal Could Increase The Risk Of Dying From Breast Cancer
May 17, 2015 | NJ Today
By Karuna Jaggar
On the surface, the fear and urgency of a new breast cancer diagnosis seems far removed from a huge international trade deal. And yet, as the executive director of Breast Cancer Action, I am acutely aware of how the highly contested Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) threatens the health and well-being of women. -
OECD's Updated Chemical Safety Toolbox Includes New Industrial, Labeling Features
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has released a new version of the online toolbox it developed with eight United Nations agencies to help countries foster safe and sustainable production of chemicals. The Inter-Organization Program for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) toolbox helps countries choose... -
De Blasio Says New York Will Investigate Nail Industry Practices
May 15, 2015 | The New York Times
By Sarah Maslin Nir
Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Friday that his administration would take steps to address what he called “deplorable conditions” that workers in the nail salon industry confront, including several investigations by New York City agencies and a “day of action” next week to inform manicurists of their rights. -
Government Cites DuPont For Chemical Leak That Killed Four Workers
May 15, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
DuPont has been cited by federal investigators for 11 violations related to a chemical leak at the company’s plant in LaPorte, Texas, that claimed the lives of four workers. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) on May 14 said the tragedy would have been prevented had DuPont taken steps to protect the workers. -
(ACC Mentioned) Higher Energy Taxes Threaten Shale’s Manufacturing Renaissance
May 15, 2015 | Northcentrail PA
This week, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) released a new report touting the shale-powered resurgence of American manufacturing. The study, which concluded America’s affordable and abundant supplies of clean-burning natural gas will fuel $130 billion in new capital investments and 127,500 manufacturing jobs over the next decade... -
BLM Leases Nearly 33,000 Acres for Drilling in Pawnee National Grassland
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Bureau of Land Management sold 73 parcels totaling 32,962 acres in the Pawnee National Grassland in northeastern Colorado for more than $32 million in its quarterly oil and gas lease sale. Ironhorse Resources LLC of Denver paid the highest per acre amount—$19,381,900 for a 1,919-acre parcel in Weld County—or $10,100 per acre... -
If Hindsight Is 20/20, Why Doesn’t Obama Nix Shell’s Arctic Drilling?
May 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Cindy Shogan
Last week, the Interior Department greenlighted Shell’s risky and dangerous plans to drill in America’s Arctic Ocean. The old saying is that hindsight is 20/20. So why isn’t the Obama administration pulling the plug on Shell’s reckless plans for the Arctic? There is plenty of evidence that Shell should not return to America’s Arctic -
Panel To Consider Bipartisan Proposal For Expediting Pipelines On Federal Land
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
A House Natural Resources panel this week will consider a bipartisan proposal to designate new "corridors" to expedite permitting of natural gas pipelines on federal land -- an issue that has proven to be thorny in the past among environmental groups. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will discuss legislation that Republican... -
EU Wants U.S. to Lift Ban on Oil Exports
May 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Gabriele Steinhauser
The European Union is increasing pressure on Washington to include an energy chapter in a planned trans-Atlantic trade deal that would allow U.S. exports of natural gas and oil and reduce the bloc’s dependency on Russia. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s energy chief, said that easing flows of liquefied ... -
Canada’s Climate Target Won’t Help Sway Obama On Keystone
May 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia & Elana Schor
Canada just passed up the chance to meet one of President Barack Obama’s biggest conditions for approving Keystone XL. Six months before world leaders converge in Paris for high-stakes negotiations on a historic climate change deal, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government unveiled a new global warming target on Friday that was... -
‘Intense' Work With Congress Ahead On Implementing Energy Review, Moniz Says
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said May 15 he anticipates an “intense period of working with Congress” on implementing recommendations included in the Obama administration's Quadrennial Energy Review. The broad interagency assessment of energy policy, which was released in April and included $15 billion in... -
Moniz Heads To Hill As Push For Bipartisanship Grows
| E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will address House members this week as the chamber takes up far-reaching energy language to ensure the U.S. electric grid remains stable as new environmental rules take effect. Moniz is slated to address the House Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee on Thursday about the ... -
California's Cap-And-Trade Program Is Key To Gov. Jerry Brown's Agenda
May 15, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
For Gov. Jerry Brown, fighting climate change is more than a central tenet of his political agenda. It's also a key source of funding. California's cap-and-trade program, in which permits to pollute are traded and fees are levied, has been a swelling source of revenue, helping to fuel major initiatives in the updated spending blueprint released by the... -
Justice Actions Sought on Power Plan Are Realistic to Legally Murky, Lawyers Say
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
As the Environmental Protection Agency considers how to address environmental justice in its Clean Power Plan, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA that the actions sought by advocates range from feasible to potentially legally unsound. Although the agency determined that a thorough national environmental justice analysis was... -
Republicans Question EPA's Outreach To Small Businesses in Power Plant Rule
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't allotted sufficient time to seek the input of small businesses on proposed carbon dioxide standards for power plants and still meet a summer deadline to issue the final rule and propose a federal plan for its implementation, 18 congressional Republicans said in a letter. -
Governors Largely Shrug Off McConnell's Call To Boycott Clean Power Plan Compliance
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers and Anthony Adragna
Oklahoma will not draft its own plan to implement the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, but other governors appear to be reluctant to heed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) call to boycott compliance with the rule. Bloomberg BNA polled state governors on their Clean Power Plan intentions following ... -
Behind The Scenes, Critical States Chew Over Clean Power Plan Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
While Republicans in Congress say states should refuse to write plans for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, state officials are nonetheless gathering in regional groups around the country to explore carbon-cutting options. Last week in Denver, 90 stakeholders from 13 states met again as part of the Colorado-based Center for the New Energy ... -
EPA Eyes Higher Octane In Gasoline As Post-2025 GHG Control Strategy
May 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
A top EPA fuels official says the agency is considering requiring higher gasoline octane levels as part of its next round of greenhouse gas (GHG) controls for passenger vehicles, and believes it has statutory authority to impose such a requirement but that it would not be undertaken until after the current rules end in model year 2025. -
House Hearing Is A Gas, Gas, Gas
May 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Let's clear the air upfront: The next few hundred words are all about fart jokes. Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R) fired off the first one Wednesday, when she offered an "indelicate statement" in her opening remarks at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. Then she made a not-so-subtle reference to an exhalation of the lower ... -
EIA Forecasts Increase in Power Plant Emissions
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are projected to increase through 2040 barring federal regulations, the Energy Information Administration said in a data snapshot released May 15. The forecast doesn't include the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set carbon dioxide emissions rates... -
Senate Subpanel to Probe EPA Science Board Reform
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight will hold a legislative hearing May 20 on legislation (S. 543) that would modify the operations, scope and selection process for members of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board, a committee... -
Markey Bill Would Begin New Coal Lease Moratorium
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill introduced May 15 would suspend new coal lease sales until reforms are implemented to ensure the government is receiving fair prices for such sales. The Coal Oversight and Leasing (COAL) Reform Act (S. 1340), introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would close loopholes that allow coal companies to skip the “upfront costs” of coal leases and put... -
Markey Introduces Leasing Reform Bill
May 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Manuel Quiñones
Sen. Ed Markey introduced legislation this week to overhaul federal leasing of coal reserves to mining companies. The Massachusetts Democrat's S. 1340 would put a moratorium on leasing pending reforms outlined in his legislation. He introduced a similar measure last year. -
Obama’s Climate Negotiators Face High Expectations
May 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
As the United States pushes for a historic deal at the Paris climate change summit later this year, President Barack Obama’s negotiators are trying to paint a realistic picture about what will emerge from the unpredictable talks. That’s the challenge facing Todd Stern, the State Department’s special envoy for climate change, who has carefully... -
EPA Decisions on Ozone Implementation, Transport Plans to Be Required by Court
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency will be required over the next 16 months to act on numerous state plans governing implementation of the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for ozone (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 4:14-cv-5091, proposed order and judgment filed 5/14/15). -
EPA Denies Nitric Acid Manufacturer's Bid For 'Subcategories' In Air NSPS
May 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has denied a nitric acid manufacturer's petition urging the agency to revise its 2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) air rule for the sector to create “subcategories” of varying emissions limits for different types of acid production plants, clearing the way for the company to revive pending litigation over the NSPS. -
Better Transparency, Coordination Needed to Make Aging Pipelines Safer, Mayors Say
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
More data, increased transparency and better coordination at all levels are needed to solve risks in the nation's disjointed and aging pipeline system, speakers and conference participants told Bloomberg BNA at the first Mayor's Council on Pipeline Safety in Philadelphia on May 15. -
Proposal on Allowing Bulk Transport Of Fracking Wastewater Sent to White House
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The White House is reviewing a U.S. Coast Guard pre-rule on allowing bulk transport of fracking wastewater. There is no description of the proposal, and the Coast Guard declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA on what the pre-rule contains. However, the pre-rule has the same title—“Carriage of Conditionally Permitted Shale Gas Extraction ... -
White House Drags Its Feet in Hiring Railroad Cop
May 16, 2015 | Politico
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
This week’s deadly Amtrak crash has stoked an intense debate about the safety of the U.S. railways, but one critical piece is missing from that conversation — a permanent head for the federal government’s top railroad agency. President Barack Obama has failed to nominate a leader for the Federal Railroad Administration for 127 days and ...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Hearing on Energy Supply Legislation
May 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 340 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Discussion Draft Addressing Energy Reliability and Security
May 19, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
May 19, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM
-
An Examination of Proposed Environmental Regulation’s Impacts on America’s Small Businesses
May 19, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Location: 428A Russell Senate Office Building/ 2:00 PM
-
Oversight of Scientific Advisory Panels and Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency
May 20, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:30 AM
-
Legislative Hearing on "National Energy Security Corridors Act"
May 20, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
May 20, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 2:00 PM
-
May 21, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM
-
Quadrennial Energy Review and related Discussion Drafts
May 21, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nominations Sought for Polyurethane Technical Conference
May 17, 2015 | Paint & Coatings Industry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council is issuing a call for nominations for the 2015 Polyurethane Innovation Award. The award, presented annually at the Polyurethanes Technical Conference, recognizes the most inventive commercial technologies in the global polyurethanes industry.
Companies or individuals interested in entering the award program must submit an application no later than 5 p.m. EDT on June 19. The award winner will be announced during the 2015 Polyurethanes Technical Conference, which is taking place October 5-7 at the Gaylord Palms Resort in Orlando. More information can be found on CPI’s website.
Award entries in polyurethane chemistry may include finished products, initiatives, training or education programs, or processes or processing equipment. Entries pertaining to a polyurethane product or polyurethane manufacture must relate to polyurethane chemistry defined as the reaction of an isocyanate with a polyol. Technologies submitted for consideration must have been commercialized more than 15 months prior to June 19, 2015. To learn more, click here.
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Chemical Industry Hoodwinked California Legislature
May 16, 2015 | San Francisco Chronicle
By John Diaz
Grant David Gillham, former legislative staffer and veteran political consultant, knows how to work the system. Three major manufacturers of fire retardants went to the right person in 2007 when they enlisted him to help defeat legislation that would ban two classes of retardants believed to cause cancer.
“This sent shock waves through the chemical industry,” Gillham said of the proposal. “I was on the phone with CEOs pleading for help.”
Their instructions to him: Don’t worry about the science, the evidence supports their position that the chemicals are safe. His job was to run a political campaign.
Oh, and by the way, he was not to reveal his association with the industry.
Now Gillham is speaking out in a big way, and his story of creating a bogus front group, saturating the state’s airwaves and mailboxes with fear — and even bringing in a physician whose testimony was later found to have been fabricated — illustrates the extent to which the legislative process can be manipulated by a well-heeled special interest with no bounds of ethics.
State Sen. Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote several measures on fire retardants over the past eight years, said the chemical industry’s tactics were as reprehensible as anything he’s seen in his 13 years in the state Capitol.
“To learn of Mr. Gillham’s revelations really just confirmed what I had suspected — these guys will stop at nothing,” Leno said.
The chemical industry’s main trade group, the American Chemistry Council, denied any connection with Gillham after a 2012 Chicago Tribune series exposed that the advocacy group he created, Citizens for Fire Safety, was not as it claimed, “a coalition of fire professionals, educators, community activists, burn centers, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders.” It was funded by three manufacturers who controlled 40 percent of the global market for the targeted chemicals.
As first reported by the Center for Public Integrity, Gillham now has detailed how representatives of the chemistry council were closely involved in the campaign from the moment he was interviewed in Sacramento to lead the advocacy campaign.
The industry group tried to give the impression after the expose on Citizens for Fire Safety that “this was some rogue organization run by some cowboys out west,” Gillham said.
“All the lobbyists I hired knew exactly where the money was coming from,” he told me in a phone interview. “The companies thought they were being too cute by half, I guess, to think this was going to hoodwink anyone. A group run by Grant Gillham with a staff of two, including my puppy, just doesn’t spend $22 million (as it did in 2007) on an advocacy program. It just doesn’t happen.”
However, the strategy worked in California — Leno’s bill to ban chlorinated and brominated fire retardants died on the Senate floor on Aug. 26, 2008 — and Citizens for Fire Safety went on to help defeat similar bills in other states.
The manufacturers’ claims of the lifesaving benefits of fire retardants have been contradicted by scientific studies that suggests their flame-resisting properties are minimal, and are more than offset by their negative effect in making fires more toxic. Firefighter groups have been among the prominent advocates of Leno’s bill.
One of its most egregious lobbying acts involved the testimony of Dr. David Heimbach, Seattle burn surgeon and former president of the American Burn Association, who told of treating a 7-week-old girl who was burned in a fire when a candle ignited a pillow that was not treated with fire retardants. The Chicago Tribune concluded that no such victim existed. Heimbach told the Tribune that his Sacramento testimony was “an anecdotal story rather than anything which I would say was absolutely true under oath, because I wasn’t under oath.”
Heimbach was paid $240,000 from the flame retardant manufacturers.
Gillham insisted that he was not aware that the doctor was using “composite cases” instead of actual patient experiences.
“It wasn’t a conspiracy to give false testimony,” Gillham said. However, in March 2014, the state of Washington issued disciplinary charges against the doctor for his testimony at hearings in Washington, California and Alaska.
Gillham is again getting involved in flame-retardant legislation, but this time guided only by his conscience, and in support of Leno’s new bill (SB736) to require a disclosure tag when fire retardants are used on child products ranging from bassinets to booster seats to play mats.
The manufacturers had plenty of scientists on the payroll, but they were unable to persuasively back up their claims about the safety of the fire retardants, Gillham said.
“When it came time to put up or shut up with their science, then these guys either wouldn’t do it or their science was old and dated,” Gillham said. “We spent millions of dollars on public advocacy, but they wouldn’t spend a few thousand to have their science peer-reviewed.”
Also spent is the industry’s credibility in Sacramento.
John Diaz is The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial page editor. E-mail: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JohnDiazChron
It wasn’t a fair fight from the start
The bill: In 2007, then-Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced AB706 to ban two classes of potentially carcinogenic fire retardants in furniture.
The response: Three fire-retardant manufacturers enlisted a Sacramento political consultant, Grant David Gillham, and set up a group called Citizens for Fire Safety to work for the defeat of Leno’s bill. Gillham revealed that he worked in close coordination with the American Chemistry Council, the industry trade group that claimed for years to have no involvement in the campaign. “They flat-out lied,” Gillham said last week.
The money: Gillham said he spent $22 million in 2007 alone to defeat AB706.
The tactics: Highly compensated witnesses. Full-page newspaper ads, a TV and radio blitz, mailers and robocalls suggesting — disingenuously — that the bill was a threat to rules that helped reduce fire deaths by 64 percent. In fact, other rules — electrical codes, smoke detectors — played a big role.
The outcome: The bill cleared the Assembly but died on the Senate floor: 15 yes, 19 no and — shamefully — 6 senators failing to vote.
The aftermath: The possibility of banning chlorinated and brominated fire retardants has been all but abandoned. The state, however, did adopt regulations in 2013 that no longer required them in upholstered furniture — and last year Gov. Jerry Brown signed a Leno bill that requires disclosure on furniture of whether those chemicals were present.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Exposed: The Chemical Industry's Fake Grass-Roots Lobbying For Fire Retardants
May 15, 2015 | LA Times
By Michael Hiltzik
Grant D. Gillham stepped to the microphone in a California State Senate hearing chamber on April 13 and spoke out in favor of a bill mandating the labeling of children's products containing flame retardant chemicals.
What made Gillham's appearance notable was that for years, he had been in charge of a chemical industry effort to kill such bills -- in fact, one that had targeted numerous measures in Sacramento.
"Over a five-year period of time we killed 58 of 60 bills like this throughout the country," he said. But now, he said, "I don't believe the industry has the science to support their claims that these products are safe and that they work."
That moment may have been the final coda to the credibility of Citizens for Fire Safety, the ostensibly grass-roots organization Gillham had headed.
Set up in 2007 by the chemical industry to lobby against flame-retardant regulations, the group described itself as "a coalition of fire professionals, educators, community activists, burn centers, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders, united to ensure that our country is protected by the highest standards of fire safety."
A 2012 investigation by The Times' sister newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, and also published by The Times, exposed Citizens for Fire Safety's industry pedigree as the offspring of three flame-retardant manufacturers.
Now a new report by the Center for Public Integrity adds to the record with evidence that Citizens for Fire Safety worked intimately with the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's lobbying arm, which has always disavowed any affiliation with Citizens for Fire Safety. "Neither ACC staff nor resources were used to support activities undertaken by the group," its chief executive, Cal Dooley, told a Maine legislator in 2012, according to a letter cited in the expose.
The CPI's report sheds new light on a lobbying and public information campaign waged for years by the chemical industry to defeat regulations on retardants. It shows how a big industry can cloak its lobbying power as grass-roots citizen activism.
The chemicals at issue have been infused into bedding, upholstery and other household goods for decades on the presumption that they can prevent house fires.
But scientific evidence suggests that they're easily absorbed through the skin and work their way into breathable household dust as treated fabrics deteriorate; according to one study, 97% of Americans have traces of the compounds in their blood. Laboratory studies suggest they're associated with cancer, thyroid and neurological problems, and other health effects. There are also doubts about their efficacy in preventing fires.
The ACC's membership is a Who's Who of the global chemical industry, including Chevron, Dow Chemical, DuPont and the three firms directly involved in starting Citizens for Fire Safety -- Albemarle, Chemtura and ICL, or Israel Chemicals Ltd.
The ACC says its role is overstated by the CPI investigation. "We disagree with the characterization of the relationship in the CPI story," Anne Kolton, the council's spokeswoman, told me Friday. "While we were certainly aware of one another, there was not any support or coordination between the groups."
But as Gillham disclosed in a letter last month to California State Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), chairman of the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development, Citizens for Fire Safety was all but founded in the ACC's Sacramento office at a meeting in August 2007. The meeting launched what he called "a six-year relationship with the American Chemistry Council," which exercised "oversight" of his "grass-roots public relations campaign" to defeat legislation banning chemical flame retardants.
When Gillham, a veteran tobacco lobbyist, urged his employers to revisit their scientific data on safety and efficacy in the aftermath of the 2012 Tribune investigation, he says, he was fired.
By then the "citizens" group had made its mark. "Over the past eight years, we had five different bills [to regulate retardants] and they opposed every one," says Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).
The organization spent lavishly across the country and in California. Gillham told CPI that it spent $22 million on lobbying and advertising to defeat a California measure in 2007. California lobbying records show it paid more than $4 million to Sacramento lobbyists from 2007 through 2012.
The industry's campaign included heart-wrenching testimony from a prominent burn specialist, Dr. David Heimbach of Seattle, who presented stories of children burned and killed in fires preventable by flame retardants. The Tribune established that those stories were fabricated.
But they met the goal of killing anti-retardant regulations. "There was no hope to pass a bill when you saw pictures of burned babies," says Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group and a long-term campaigner for stricter regulations on the chemicals. "But there were no such babies."
Heimbach later gave up his medical license under the threat of disciplinary proceedings in Washington.
The California legislature finally passed a measure in 2014 mandating warning labels on upholstered furniture with flame retardants. The state fire code also has been amended to remove a mandate that household fabrics be treated with the chemicals. The measure on which Gillham spoke last month, also sponsored by Leno, would add labeling requirements to treated infant and child products.
Meanwhile, the industry is training its firepower on Capitol Hill, where it is pushing legislation to shift regulation of fire retardants to the federal government. Cook of EWG says the effect would be to force states to accept looser federal rules. "The goal of the sponsors is clearly to preempt state regulation," he says.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Minnesota Poised to Pass Nation’s Toughest Fire Retardant Ban
May 18, 2015 | Environmental Leader
Manufacturers of furniture and other household items such as textiles, mattresses and children’s products may have to stop using four commonly used flame-retardant chemicals in their manufacturing processes.
Minnesota legislators are considering a bill that would ban four flame-retardant chemicals in these products. If approved, it would be the nation’s most restrictive, the Minnesota Star Tribune reports.
Firefighters initially pushed for 10 chemicals to be banned, arguing that the chemicals do not effectively slow the spread of fire and contain toxins that are making firefighters sick. The director of the Marine & Environmental Research Institute and a professor at the State University of New York testified that these chemicals contain carcinogens and that exposure to them is increasing firefighters’ risk for developing aggressive cancers at an earlier age than the general population.
The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the North American Flame Retardant Alliance opposed the proposed ban, stating in testimony that it was too broad. The American Chemistry Council pointed to studies that show flame retardants do not make smoke more toxic, and that they slow the spread of fire by minutes.
The bill under consideration is a compromise between the opposing groups. It was passed by the House Commerce and Regulatory Reform Committee and is expected to be approved by the full House and Senate.
A number of major corporations and government purchasers have pledged to preferentially purchase furniture made without toxic flame-retardant chemicals.
Read more: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2015/05/18/minnesota-poised-to-pass-nations-toughest-fire-retardant-ban/#ixzz3aUQ0iv3s -
(ACC Mentioned) Lowe’s Follows Home Depot’s Lead On Vinyl Flooring
May 15, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
By Christie Moffat
Major US home improvement retailer Lowe’s has announced it will match competitor Home Depot in committing to phasing out phthalates in vinyl flooring products by the end of 2015.
The announcement was made on Wednesday by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which said that Lowe’s had confirmed the new policy in a recent email exchange with the organisation.
Lowe’s reiterated its commitment to being phthalate-free in a statement, and said that more than 90% of the virgin flooring available in its stores was already phthalate-free.
“By the end of 2015, we will transition to 100% phthalate-free virgin vinyl flooring, and 95% of all vinyl we purchase will be phthalate-free,” the company said.
Lowe’s said it will continue to sell “peel and stick” vinyl tile options, which are made with recycled materials and may still contain phthalates.
“We are working with our suppliers to ensure that the durable wear (top) layer of any of these products is phthalate-free,” the company added.
Home Depot did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The “Mind the Store” campaign, an initiative of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, has been directly lobbying large vinyl flooring retailers to eliminate the use of phthalates.
The campaign welcomed the news, but said it would continue to urge retailers Lumber Liquidators, Ace Hardware and Menards to follow suit.
Last month, a new report co-released by HealthyStuff.org and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families found that most vinyl flooring tested contained toxic phthalates, a number of which have been banned in children’s products since 2009.
Though medical opinion is still divided, some of the risks associated with exposure to phthalates include asthma, harm to male reproductive organs, brain development, and the immune system.
The researchers found that of 65 vinyl flooring tiles tested, 58% contained phthalates. All samples were purchased from major US home improvement retailers, including Home Depot, Lowe’s, Ace Hardware, build.com, Lumber Liquidators and Menards.
HealthyStuff.org is a project of Michigan-based nonprofit organisation, the Ecology Center.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has previously expressed its criticism over the push to remove phthalates from vinyl flooring, stating that “scare tactics” had distorted the scientific facts.
In a statement, the ACC said that phthalates had been “thoroughly studied and reviewed” by a number of government scientific agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide.
These various agencies concluded that phthalates in commercial products “do not pose a risk to human health at typical exposure levels,” the ACC added.
The ACC also criticised the HealthyStuff.org report, pointing out a concerning lack of data to support claims about the negative health effects of phthalates.
Phthalates have recently been in the spotlight, following the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), which would ban children’s toys and child care articles containing specified phthalates. The phthalates listed as part of the ban include diisonsonyl phthalate (DINP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl (DHEXP) and dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP).
-
(ACC Mentioned) TPP Trade Deal Could Increase The Risk Of Dying From Breast Cancer
May 17, 2015 | NJ Today
By Karuna Jaggar
On the surface, the fear and urgency of a new breast cancer diagnosis seems far removed from a huge international trade deal. And yet, as the executive director of Breast Cancer Action, I am acutely aware of how the highly contested Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) threatens the health and well-being of women.
Although negotiations between the world’s biggest economic players can feel disconnected and distant from the day-to-day issues of women living with or at risk of breast cancer, the truth is these massive multinational trade deals play out in ways that directly impact all of us. These impacts include restricting access to affordable cancer treatments and increasing our exposure to chemicals that increase our risk of cancer.
The TPP is a sweeping free trade deal negotiated in secret by the U.S. and 11 other Asian and European countries, with the “help” of more than 600 corporate advisors, including institutions and corporations that produce policies or products linked to breast cancer, like the American Chemistry Council, Avon and Chevron. Yet, while these multibillion dollar giants have a seat at the table, the public is forced to rely only on leaked snippets of information about the trade deal that will impact many aspects of our lives—and bodies.
And as if the secretive and back room deal politicking isn’t bad enough, President Obama has asked Congress to give him authority to quickly pass, or “fast-track,” the deal. Yesterday the Senate said “no” to moving forward with Fast Track—and we must keep the pressure on.
As the head of a watchdog organization for the breast cancer movement, I work to ensure that public health and patient interests come before those of big business—and I say no way to secret trade deals that harm our health and well-being, especially when we have no say in the matter. I am outraged that information revealed so far about the TPP shows that while it will be great for multinational corporations, it would be, as is too often the case, terrible for our health.
The TPP both threatens access to affordable treatments and limits regulation that protects the public from toxic exposures and processes. This means that not only will more people be exposed to chemicals that are known and suspected to cause health harm, but the treatments for these medical problems will be more expensive as a result of the TPP.
Cost of treatment for breast cancer (and other) patients is a critical issue in the U.S. Too many women already experience first-hand the exorbitant cost of cancer drugs in the U.S.: 11 out of the 12 cancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 cost more than $100,000 per year. The current U.S. patent system is designed to reward drug companies for introducing new treatments by providing them with a period of exclusivity, during which no other drug company can sell a competing or generic version of that drug.
The Obama administration once acknowledged that an important step in making cancer treatments more affordable is by limiting this period of exclusivity so that generic options can come onto the market more quickly and provide cancer patients with affordable treatments options. Despite this, the administration is reportedly pushing for market exclusivity periods to last 12 years.
According to language in the TPP’s leaked intellectual property chapter, the trade deal would require all participating countries to enact automatic market exclusivity periods on many essential medical drugs, including biological therapies used to treat cancer. In this way, no country would be able to take action within their borders to bring down the cost of treatment by reforming the patent system or reducing the period of exclusivity. It could also limit the U.S. government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices and better reimbursements for patients requiring Medicaid and Medicare. And it would spell disaster for developing countries signing on to the deal.
By locking all 12 nations into patents with long exclusivity periods, the TPP removes any chance for participating countries to take action to reduce the cost of breast cancer and other medical treatments. The TPP would limit access to life-saving treatment by keeping drug prices high—and out of reach of too many patients. This is unacceptable and wrong.
The TPP will include an “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS) provision, which allows international investors — mainly multinational corporations — to sue a country if its laws interfere with their profits. Corporations are able to bypass domestic courts and go before an international tribunal of private lawyers, who can, in turn, force nations to pay compensation or “reparation” to corporations—sometimes handing over millions in taxpayer dollars. While ISDS is a provision in many international trade agreements, the TPP expands the current reach of ISDS to thousands of corporations in the twelve countries signing on to the trade deal.
Currently, the nation’s fifth-largest pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly, is using an ISDS to challenge Canada’s drug approval process. After finding that one of Eli Lilly’s drugs was not effective, Canada invalidated one of its drug patents. In response, Ely Lilly is attempting to use the ISDS provision under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to sue Canada for $500 million. The TPP threatens to expand the power of pharmaceutical corporations like Eli Lilly to set and maintain high drug costs—and high profits at the expense of patient well-being.
Not only do the TPP and its ISDS provision threaten to keep the costs of breast cancer treatments high, this trade deal will also erode efforts to stop cancer before it starts—meaning more and more people may need these exorbitantly expensive cancer treatments.
Health activists, environmental justice activists, and healthcare professionals have long sought strong chemical policy reform in the U.S. to limits exposures to toxic chemicals—some of which have been linked to breast cancer—in consumer, personal care, and household products. While we have a long way to go to strengthen the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and other chemical regulatory policies, the TPP would enable countries importing goods to the U.S. to bypass our existing chemical safety regulations. As a result of ISDS, countries signing on to the TPP won’t be held to U.S. standards for chemical safety when importing their goods here.
Similarly, activists across the country have been fighting for both local and national bans on fracking, a process using many chemicals linked to breast cancer and other health harms. But because of ISDS, foreign oil and gas corporations could sue the U.S. if they assert that our fracking bans interfere with their profit – thus undermining the important work the anti-fracking movement is doing in the U.S. to limit its toxic impact.
We must take a stand and demand public health comes before corporate profit. We must stand against the TPP which blatantly and unapologetically shifts power away from people and toward corporations. Not only would the TPP block vital work to reduce toxic exposures that increase our risk of breast cancer in the first place, the TPP threatens access to affordable and effective treatments for women who are diagnosed with breast cancer.
Now is the time to tell our Congressional representatives: Don’t trade away our health.
-
OECD's Updated Chemical Safety Toolbox Includes New Industrial, Labeling Features
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has released a new version of the online toolbox it developed with eight United Nations agencies to help countries foster safe and sustainable production of chemicals.
The Inter-Organization Program for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) toolbox helps countries choose from among hundreds of available tools and guidance documents for managing safe production of chemicals, with a particular focus on addressing their specific national concerns with cost-effective solutions, OECD said May 12.
The updated version provides new tools for managing safety decisions affecting production of industrial chemicals, as well as a new chemical classification and labeling system and a support system for health authorities' management of chemicals, it said.
The IOMC is a joint project by OECD and the Food and Agriculture Organization, International Labor Organization, UN Development Program, UN Environment Program, UN Industrial Development Organization, UN Institute for Training & Research, World Health Organization and World Bank.
According to OECD, the updated toolbox helps countries choose from among the tools and guidance documents that these organizations have developed for implementing the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM).
Sound Management of Chemicals
The SAICM, a policy framework for achieving sustainable production of chemicals worldwide by 2020, includes a nonbinding commitment to its goals by authorities, industry and civil society.
The IOMC, UNEP and the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety co-sponsored the first International Conference on Chemical Safety in Dubai in 2006, which launched the SAICM. The initiative, which has a secretariat in Geneva, aims to achieve sound management of chemicals throughout their life-cycle so that by 2020 chemicals are produced and used in ways that minimize significant adverse impacts on human health and the environment, the SAICM said on its website.
OECD said the IOMC toolkit gives governments an interactive platform for collaboration among ministries, agencies and industries. It currently includes tools for managing safety issues related to pesticide production, chemical accident prevention, and risk assessments and harmonized labeling for chemicals. A tool for management of pollutant release and transfer registers is coming soon, OECD said.
-
De Blasio Says New York Will Investigate Nail Industry Practices
May 15, 2015 | The New York Times
By Sarah Maslin Nir
Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Friday that his administration would take steps to address what he called “deplorable conditions” that workers in the nail salon industry confront, including several investigations by New York City agencies and a “day of action” next week to inform manicurists of their rights.
The city’s efforts come in response to a series of articles published in The New York Times examining widespread exploitation of nail salon workers and the health risks they face from the chemicals they use on the job. On Sunday, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced the creation of a new, multiagency task force that will investigate wage theft at salons, institute new rules to protect manicurists from potentially dangerous chemicals and crack down on other abuses in the industry.
City officials face a dilemma: Their ability to regulate nail salons is circumscribed because state, not city, agencies are responsible for monitoring wage violations, as well as ensuring salons and workers are properly licensed. The city’s efforts, therefore, are for the most part limited to advocacy, with some exceptions. Continue reading the main story Unvarnished
Articles in this series are examining the working conditions and potential health risks endured by nail salon workers.
The city’s Department of Consumer Affairs will begin an investigation into employment agencies used by some manicurists. It is illegal for agencies to knowingly place workers in jobs that pay less than minimum wage.
For the past week, department personnel have also been surreptitiously visiting salons, collecting nail products that are labeled nontoxic or free of chemicals like toluene, formaldehyde and dibutyl phthalate, ingredients that have been linked to cancer and miscarriage. The department said it would test the products to check the veracity of the claims and issue subpoenas to the manufacturers if the products, in fact, contain the chemicals.
A similar study was conducted in 2012 by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Toxic Substances Control. That study found that many products claiming to be free of certain chemicals were not.
“We will use all available powers to shield nail salon workers from deplorable conditions, empower them with awareness of their rights,” Mr. de Blasio said in a statement, “and offer every other support we can to ensure the safety and dignity of our hardworking fellow New Yorkers.”
The city’s initiatives are not intended, for the most part, to be punitive, said Julie Menin, the commissioner of consumer affairs. “In the absence of regulatory jurisdiction, our role here is to advocate and not regulate,” Ms. Menin said. “To equip workers and consumers with the information they need.”
Along these lines, the most visible step the de Blasio administration will take is what is being described by officials as a day of action on Thursday, when 500 volunteers and city personnel, including several elected officials, will canvass salons around New York, distribute information to educate workers about their rights and tell owners about their legal obligations.
For an hour and a half, starting at 7:30 a.m., volunteers will stand at subway stops and other places in neighborhoods including Flushing, Queens, and Sunset Park, Brooklyn, where many nail salon workers live and congregate, passing out information in seven languages about job training programs, workers’ rights and tips for consumers. They will later visit shops in areas with a high concentration of salons, like the Upper East Side and Upper West Side of Manhattan and Forest Hills in Queens.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The goal is to drop in on 800 to 1,000 businesses, city officials said. There were nearly 2,000 salons in the city in 2012, according to census data from that year, the most recent statistics available.
Letters will also be mailed to salon owners reminding them of their obligation to provide paid sick leave. The letters are in English with sentences in other languages directing readers to a government website with more information. About 70 percent to 80 percent of nail salon owners in the city are of Korean descent, according to the Korean American Nail Salon Association.
Sunjung Yuk, 40, a former manicurist who worked in the industry for about 20 years, said that paying workers for days they were out sick would be nearly impossible for bosses already struggling because of fierce competition, and that the message was out of touch with the reality of salon life. “It’s not a white-collar job,” she said.
Nevertheless, Ms. Menin said the city was committed to protecting workers. “We just want people to confidentially tell us when these rights are being violated so we can take educational action at the businesses that need it, and ultimately enforcement action if need be,” she said.
The Department of Consumer Affairs has started a petition directed at the Personal Care Products Council, the main trade group for the cosmetic chemical industry, urging its members to ban ingredients that have been linked to serious ailments. It has also sent similar letters to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration.
“Every New Yorker,” Mr. de Blasio said in a statement, “must be protected from predatory workplace practices that threaten their health and exploit their labor.”
-
Government Cites DuPont For Chemical Leak That Killed Four Workers
May 15, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
DuPont has been cited by federal investigators for 11 violations related to a chemical leak at the company’s plant in LaPorte, Texas, that claimed the lives of four workers.
The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) on May 14 said the tragedy would have been prevented had DuPont taken steps to protect the workers. The agency is proposing fines totaling $99,000 for the November 2014 deaths, which were caused by exposure to a leak of methyl mercaptan, an insectide ingredient.
An investigation by OSHA determined that one worker was overcome when “methyl mercaptan gas was unexpectedly released” after she opened a drain on a vent line. Two coworkers nearby, unaware of the leak, attempted to save her but were also consumed by the gas. The brother of one of the victims rushed to rescue the three but was also overcome by the gas.
“Four people lost their lives and their families lost loved ones because DuPont did not have proper safety procedures in place,” says OSHA chief David Michaels. “Had the company assessed the dangers involved, or trained their employees on what to do if the ventilation system stopped working, they might have had a chance.”
The accident occurred in a unit that manufactures methomyl, a carbamate insecticide DuPont markets under the trade name Lannate.
In a statement, DuPont says it is reviewing OSHA’s findings and has taken “a series of actions to prevent this from ever happening again.” The company says the unit remains shut down while it conducts “completely new process hazards analyses, acting on findings from our own investigation.”
Methyl mercaptan, one of the ingredients used to make methomyl, is a colorless gas with a strong odor. DuPont has determined that more than 23,000 lb of methyl mercaptan was released during the Nov. 15, 2014, accident.
At dangerous levels of exposure, the gas depresses the central nervous system and affects the respiratory center, producing death by respiratory paralysis, according to OSHA.
DuPont was cited for one repeat violation, nine serious violations, and one other than serious OSHA violation. The repeat violation was assessed for not training employees on using the building’s ventilation system and other safety procedures, such as how to respond if the fans stopped working.
In July 2010, DuPont was cited for a similar violation after a fatal accident at a plant in West Virginia.
The company has 15 business days to comply or contest OSHA’s findings.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Higher Energy Taxes Threaten Shale’s Manufacturing Renaissance
May 15, 2015 | Northcentrail PA
This week, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) released a new report touting the shale-powered resurgence of American manufacturing. The study, which concluded America’s affordable and abundant supplies of clean-burning natural gas will fuel $130 billion in new capital investments and 127,500 manufacturing jobs over the next decade, reaffirmed the generational impact shale is having on our nation’s manufacturing base and global economic competitiveness.
While these real and game-changing economic benefits are undeniable, some in Harrisburg continue to pursue misguided proposals to increase energy taxes that would undoubtedly curb the Commonwealth’s competitive advantage and jeopardize important manufacturing investments and jobs. In an effort to push back against these efforts, the Pa. Chamber of Business and Industry formed a broad coalition of industry, manufacturing and consumer groups that are united in defeating calls for increased energy taxes.
Here’s what they’re saying:
SHALE DRIVES U.S. MANUFACTURING RESURGENCE “Shale Gas Development has Reversed the Fortunes” of Manufacturing: Domestic plastics production and related manufacturing has a bright future because of the growth in shale natural gas …. “Shale gas development has reversed the fortunes of the U.S. plastics industry,” the authors of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) study wrote in their introduction. “Because the competitiveness of plastic resins depends on energy costs — in particular, the difference between oil and natural gas prices — the surge of natural gas production from shale has changed the competitive landscape for U.S. plastics.” That’s good news for Shell Chemicals and those who support its proposed ethane cracker plant for Potter Township because the plant will produce polyethylene pellets used in plastics manufacturing. “Shale development continues to be a powerful economic engine, especially for our manufacturing sector, as this new report and countless others reflect,” said Dave Spigelmyer … “We have a truly historic opportunity to reestablish Pennsylvania as a leading manufacturing state thanks to our abundant natural gas base coupled with a second-to-none workforce.” … Total investment in chemical manufacturing capacity is pinned at $130 billion by the ACC. As a result of those investments, the ACC said the plastics industry will “directly generate” 127,500 jobs and another 172,900 indirect jobs in related industries that supply materials, utilities, parts and services. Those U.S. workers will receive $19.1 billion in wages with local spending expected to support 161,000 additional jobs in other business areas, the ACC estimated. … “To make certain that we fully realize these broad-based benefits for all of Pennsylvania, leaders in Harrisburg should pursue commonsense policies aimed at attracting more investment into the Commonwealth and creating even more jobs,” Spigelmyer said. (Beaver County Times, 5/15/15) Shale Gas “Has Given the U.S. a New Competitive Advantage”: The nation’s shale gas fields have given the U.S. a new competitive advantage in the plastics industry, helping to spur $130 billion in new capital investments, according to the American Chemistry Council. In a report looking at the rising competitive advantage of the U.S. plastics industry, the council found that inexpensive supplies of natural gas are tipping the favor of the plastics industry toward the U.S. … “Because energy resources — which account for up to 70 percent of total costs for plastic resin producers — are the primary raw materials to make plastic resins, the price of energy feedstocks is critical to the global competitiveness of plastic resin producers,” the report said. (Pittsburgh Business Times, 5/14/15) Affordable Shale Gas has “Flipped the Fortunes” for U.S. Manufacturers: [The American Chemistry Council released] an economic analysis projecting that plastics makers will add 127,500 direct jobs over the next decade. … The growth in the sector largely reflects the nation’s energy dynamics — and, in particular, the abundance of cheap natural gas being tapped in recent years. Breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, have sent U.S. gas production surging and pushed down electricity costs for consumers who rely on gas-fired power plants. Those lower prices have given many U.S. manufacturers, who are huge electricity users, a competitive boost in the global marketplace. … In plastics, the United States’ cost advantage in natural gas is particularly large, industry leaders say. … “Feedstocks in the U.S. have completely flipped our fortunes” compared with international competitors,” Steve Russell, vice president of the chemistry council’s plastics group, said in an interview. (Washington Post, 5/12/15) U.S. Manufacturing is “Mounting a Comeback” Thanks to Affordable Natural Gas: After a lengthy stagnation, the U.S. plastics industry is mounting a comeback thanks to a surge of cheap, abundant natural gas that’s providing the nation with a competitive advantage over other countries for the first time in years, a new report finds. The shale boom reversed fortunes for the U.S. plastics industry, which ranked among the highest-cost producers in the world just a decade ago … “Today, America is one of the most attractive places in the world to invest in plastics manufacturing,” Steve Russell, the council’s vice president of plastics said in a statement. … Domestic plastic makers have been capitalizing on the flood of inexpensive natural gas unleashed in recent years by advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques, lowering the cost of U.S. production compared to other countries. … Overall, plastics industry investments are expected to generate 127,000 new high-paying jobs, the report said. Workers at plastics materials plants, on average, earn $85,000 per year, the council said. “(That’s) more than 73 percent higher than the average wage for workers across U.S. industries,” Russell said in a statement. “Companies are ‘re-shoring’ jobs to the U.S. as new manufacturing is increasingly being located here at home.” (Houston Chronicle, 5/14/15) Shale Gas to Create Thousands of New Plastics Manufacturing Jobs: Jobs related to plastics manufacturing are expected to grow by 462,000 – or by 20% — over the next decade largely because of plentiful and affordable natural gas and natural gas liquids from shale formations, reports the American Chemistry Council. … “A decade ago, the U.S. was among the highest-cost plastics producers,” said Steve Russell, the ACC’s vice president of plastics. “Today, America is one of the most attractive places in the world to invest in plastics manufacturing. … The report states the U.S. plastics industry could experience investments of nearly $47 billion in new capacity to produce plastics materials and products, which are expected to create hundreds of thousands of permanent jobs up and down the supply chain. In addition, the analysis projects nearly 97,000 temporary jobs will be created during the peak of the construction phase. … “This substantial investment in new capacity is creating more high-paying jobs in the U.S. in this high-tech industry,” said Russell. (Youngstown Business Journal, 5/13/15)
HIGHER ENERGY TAXES HURT JOB GROWTH, ECONOMY, LOCAL COMMUNITIES Higher Energy Taxes Jeopardize Shale’s “Game-Changing” Benefits: In a letter to Pennsylvania legislators and Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration, a consortium of business owners, community leaders and association executives on Thursday implored the government to reconsider before hiking natural gas industry taxes. … Signators hailed the gas industry’s recent progress and potential as “an absolute game-changer,” according to Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer; and a “window of opportunity for historic industrial investment and growth,” Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council President Jeff Logan said. Stressing the dramatic positive impact natural gas development has had on the state’s economy, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry President Gene Barr stated, “Pennsylvania cannot afford to lose our competitive advantage in the shale play … A higher severance tax will drive our fastest growing industry out of the state.” Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association President Dave Taylor said the state’s natural gas revolution is a “one-two punch for manufacturing competitiveness.” … A recent study determined that the proposed additional tax could result in massive job loss over the next decade, leading to a $20 billion loss. “Pennsylvania’s manufacturing renaissance is a result of the dramatic increase…from the state’s Marcellus Shale formation,” Consumer Energy Alliance Executive Vice President Michael Whatley said. “We call on the House, the Senate and Gov. Wolf to come to an agreement that will encourage – rather than discourage – continued natural gas development and keep energy affordable and reliable for Pennsylvania energy consumers.” (Pa. Business Daily, 5/14/15) Higher Energy Taxes will “Hurt our Economies and Local Communities”: As much as the Marcellus Shale has fueled an energy boom in the state, business owners and others who are links in the supply chain to the natural gas industry expressed their concerns about the effects of a proposed severance tax. … In the last 10 years, about 250,000 jobs indirectly and directly connected to the development have been created across the state, [Speaker Mike Turzai] said. The impact fee that would be repealed in Wolf’s plan benefits all counties, even those where no drilling occurs, he added. …. “We want to develop the usage of natural gas so that it continues to provide economic vitality and energy independence,” Turzai said. When Bob Housel’s company, Masters Concrete, delivered two cubic yards of the building material to a job site for Gas Search Drilling in March 2008, he thought it was just another order. … His company went from bust to boom due to the Marcellus, increasing revenues by 115 percent in 2013, hiring more employees and upgrading plants and equipment. His story was one of how the Marcellus Shale development has a wide economic reach beyond the place where drilling take place. “All of the raw materials we use in our plants are made in Pennsylvania,” Housel said. But the governor’s plan to impose 5 percent severance tax on natural gas … has effected more than drillers, it’s depressed his business, Housel said. … [Lackawanna College in Scranton]has a nearly 100 percent placement rate of graduates in the industry for jobs that pay between $50,000 and $70,000 annually. “We could not operate the programs that we do without that investment,” Volk said. Since the proposal of the severance tax, the school has had difficulty placing interns and Volk urged the lawmakers to take a careful look at imposing new taxes on the industry. … Turzai asked the governor to lend an ear too. “So positive economic job growth, good public policy in the impact fee and governor please, please you’re going to hurt our economies and our local communities if you continue to push a policy that’s not taking into account these stories,” he said. (Times Leader, 5/14/15) Additional Energy Taxes Curtail Job Growth, Harm Small Business: Governor Tom Wolf has proposed a five percent severance tax on natural gas drillers but many in the industry say it will cost local jobs. With a possible severance tax looming on natural gas drillers, industry experts say the move would kill jobs. “This severance tax will be the worst tax at the worst time possible. It will impact job growth,” Cabot Oil & Gas spokesman George Stark said. … State republican lawmakers listened as business owners and business leaders also weighed in. “We always hear them say ‘we’re the only state without a severance tax.’ What we never hear them say is ‘we’re the only state with an impact fee.’ They don’t give both sides of the story,” Vince Matteo with the Williamsport/Lycoming Chamber of Commerce said. Lackawanna College has dedicated its Susquehanna County campus to the gas drilling industry. … Republicans credit the Marcellus Shale and related industries for already creating 249,000 jobs in Pennsylvania. “The potential for continuing that growth in jobs lies ahead of us. Why would we want to stop that in its tracks? Look at New York!” House speaker Mike Turzai said. (WBRE, 5/14/15) Small Business Owners Agree: “Don’t Pass” Higher Energy Taxes: Industry leaders from Northeast Pennsylvania had a request for state lawmakers Thursday: don’t pass a natural gas severance tax proposed by Gov. Tom Wolf. “For those of you who doubt if the severance tax will make companies leave, I have news: some of them already have,” said Bob Housel, vice president of Masters Ready Mixed Concrete. … Mr. Housel said his business, comparatively small and family owned, was hit hard during the recession. But revenue has been up 115 percent since 2009 … Adam Diaz, owner of the Diaz Companies, said of the severance tax, “You can’t be upset or frustrated that other companies have left. They have their own balance sheets. “But if the gas pulls out,” he continued, “what does that do with the cash flow through the community?” (Citizens Voice, 5/15/15)
-
BLM Leases Nearly 33,000 Acres for Drilling in Pawnee National Grassland
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Bureau of Land Management sold 73 parcels totaling 32,962 acres in the Pawnee National Grassland in northeastern Colorado for more than $32 million in its quarterly oil and gas lease sale.
Ironhorse Resources LLC of Denver paid the highest per acre amount—$19,381,900 for a 1,919-acre parcel in Weld County—or $10,100 per acre, the BLM said after the May 14 sale.
Of the 73 parcels sold, 44 are Forest Service parcels totaling 25,215 acres that sold for $30.8 million within the Grassland, which is administered by the service, the BLM said.
The Forest Service recently signed a record of decision granting the BLM consent to offer the parcels in the Grassland. The BLM acted as a cooperating agency on the service EIS and adopted the plan.
For the parcels inside the Grassland, the bureau's record of decision requires a “No Surface Occupancy” stipulation, meaning lessees will have access to subsurface minerals but not surface acreage. Producers will access the underground oil and gas using directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into tight shale formations deep underground to release natural gas and oil trapped there. Opponents of fracking say it can harm air and water quality, while the oil and gas industry maintains the practice is safe.
Environmental groups say drilling in the Grassland threatens air, water and wildlife, according to appeals of the Forest Service's December 2014 decision to permit oil and gas development in the region.
Environmental Groups Objected
WildEarth Guardians filed an objection Jan. 21 to the service's draft record of decision and final environmental impact statement for the leasing, saying the decision violates the Mineral Leasing Act and the service's own oil and gas regulations. Additionally, it filed a formal protest of the lease sale March 16 (14 DEN A-18, 1/22/15).
The BLM rejected the protest May 13, the day before the lease sale, saying the group's allegations that the bureau didn't adequately assess the greenhouse gas and climate impacts of the drilling were speculative since the anticipated production—and resulting carbon dioxide emissions—from a particular lease parcel is unknown.
The group also said the BLM failed to consider the regional air quality impacts of horizontal drilling and fracking, but the bureau rejected that argument, saying the impacts were variable and the potential for quantifying them at the leasing stage would be “too speculative to be useful.”
Additional Consultation Approved
However, the bureau agreed it would engage in additional consultation with the Forest Service for the parcels underlying the Grassland, Jeremy Nichols, spokesman for WildEarth Guardians in Denver, told Bloomberg BNA May 15.
“That's a positive development from our perspective because it gives us a chance to ask for greater protection for those parcels,” he said.
The BLM said the “No Surface Occupancy” requirement will result in 10 percent to 60 percent fewer roads, pipelines and well pads in the Grassland. Every lease will require reclamation and contain standard terms and stipulations designed to protect air, water, wildlife and historic and cultural resources, the bureau said.
The lease sale is the first step in the development of mineral resources in the region, the BLM said. Additional planning, environmental analyses and public input must occur before drilling can begin, the bureau said.
-
If Hindsight Is 20/20, Why Doesn’t Obama Nix Shell’s Arctic Drilling?
May 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Cindy Shogan
Last week, the Interior Department greenlighted Shell’s risky and dangerous plans to drill in America’s Arctic Ocean. The old saying is that hindsight is 20/20. So why isn’t the Obama administration pulling the plug on Shell’s reckless plans for the Arctic?
There is plenty of evidence that Shell should not return to America’s Arctic Ocean this year. By the Interior Department’s own admission, there is a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill if full field development occurs in the Chukchi Sea. What’s more, former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in 2012 that “Shell screwed up” and promised to hold Shell’s “feet to the fire,” which is reflective of the battering that Shell’s reputation took when it made its last go at Arctic drilling in 2012. It is also reflective of the tone of the administration and the seriousness of Shell’s infractions at the time.
As a reminder, Shell’s drilling rig, the Kulluk, ended 2012 by running aground by Sitkalidak Island. Earlier in the season its oil-containment dome was “crushed like a beer can” during sea trials in the much calmer waters of Washington state. It’s been just a little over a year since the U.S. Coast Guard released its report on the grounding of the Kulluk, where Rear Admiral Joseph A. Servidio wrote that he was “most troubled by the significant number and nature of the potential violations of law and regulations.”
Yet, the Obama administration seems to forget the report’s contents. The report reveals how truly incompetent Shell is. Shell gets everything wrong – from which weight-bearing clasps to tow the Kulluk to crewmembers completely disregarding alarm after alarm after alarm that warned of serious problems onboard right before the Kulluk crashed.
But Shell’s list of mishaps doesn’t end in 2012. Shell’s other drilling rig, the Noble Discoverer, has already failed an inspection this year from the U.S. Coast Guard. This is the same ship for which its operator went to court and was found guilty of eight felony offenses and ended up having to pay $12.2 million in fines from its last trip with Shell in 2012.
It’s obvious that the Obama administration should not trust Shell. But even without their incompetence, the bottom line is that it is risky and reckless to allow drilling to move forward in the Arctic.
Yet, Obama defended this action saying that we still need to use fossil fuels as a bridge to cleaner energy solutions when it can be done safely. Safe and Shell should not be used in the same sentence.
We also know this “extreme oil” can’t be burned if we’re to leave our kids a climate-safe world. Obama still has the chance to make the right decision – one that would stop Big Oil from plundering our special places and wrecking our climate. Some places are too special, too risky and too irresponsible to drill – America’s Arctic Ocean is one of those places.
Obama and his administration have dealt with the lasting impacts and the devastation that was caused by Deepwater Horizon. The administration has also been faced with Shell’s incompetence in 2012. Call it hindsight given Shell’s history or call it foreshadowing with what we know about other tragic oil spills: oil spills cannot be effectively cleaned up – once the oil spills the battle has already been lost. We know how this story ends; let’s not let it begin. It’s time for Obama to act on the evidence and pull the plug on Shell’s plans and say no to risky and reckless Arctic drilling.
-
Panel To Consider Bipartisan Proposal For Expediting Pipelines On Federal Land
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
A House Natural Resources panel this week will consider a bipartisan proposal to designate new "corridors" to expedite permitting of natural gas pipelines on federal land -- an issue that has proven to be thorny in the past among environmental groups.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will discuss legislation that Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur of New Jersey and Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana introduced last week that would require the identification of corridors on federal land in which pipelines would receive right of way within a year.
The subpanel will take up H.R. 2295, the "National Energy Security Corridors Act," a bill that would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to require the secretary of the Interior to identify and designate corridors for the construction of natural gas pipelines on federal land.
Republican senators crafting comprehensive energy legislation have also made attempts in recent weeks to fast-track gas infrastructure on federal land, citing backlogs and outdated laws. One Republican Senate proposal would allow Interior to approve gas pipelines through national parks without Congress' approval (Greenwire, May 7).
Under the House bill, the corridors would be incorporated into agencies' land-use and resource management plans and the secretary would be required to balance national energy security with public land use principles.
Other federal, state, local and tribal governments could also weigh in on the decision, as well as the affected utility and pipeline industries, to determine the most cost-effective and suitable acreage. According to the bill, gas pipeline companies' applications for rights of way would be granted no later than one year after being filed.
The secretary would take requests from state governors seeking such corridors in their state. Within two years of the bill becoming law, the secretary would be required to designate at least 10 corridors in contiguous states referred to in Section 368(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
But that same language in the 2005 law was used to foster the identification of corridors in the past before running into opposition from environmental groups and eventually budget constraints.
Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed federal land managers to designate energy corridors to facilitate the development of electricity transmission and distribution facilities on federal public land in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
The largest project conceived to date under the mandate is the West-wide Energy Corridor, a congressionally designated 6,000-mile-long energy corridor that stretches across nearly 3 million acres of public land, including federal wildlife refuges and key habitat for greater sage grouse.
In 2012, the government reached a legal settlement with conservation groups to correct contested sections of the corridor that if left unchanged could allow transmission lines and oil, natural gas and hydrogen pipelines through sensitive areas such as along the border of Arches National Park in southern Utah (Greenwire, May 28, 2014).
But substantive revisions to dozens of contested sections of the corridor have been stalled by a lack of federal funding.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, May 20, at 10 a.m. in 1334 Longworth.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
EU Wants U.S. to Lift Ban on Oil Exports
May 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Gabriele Steinhauser
The European Union is increasing pressure on Washington to include an energy chapter in a planned trans-Atlantic trade deal that would allow U.S. exports of natural gas and oil and reduce the bloc’s dependency on Russia.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s energy chief, said that easing flows of liquefied natural gas and crude oil from the U.S. to the EU is one of the bloc’s goals for the trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership, or TTIP, that is currently under negotiation. The U.S. has so far resisted an energy chapter in TTIP, but the shale-gas boom in the U.S. and the EU’s trouble with Russia have pushed the issue into focus.
“We believe that the energy chapter in TTIP…could make a quite important contribution to the mutually beneficial trade exchange, but also to the energy security of the EU,” Mr. Sefcovic said.
Fossil-fuel exports from the U.S. have been restricted for decades. Yet growing internal production of oil and gas has eased some of Washington’s concerns over energy independence and the Energy Information Administration believes the U.S. will become a net gas exporter in 2017.
In recent years, the Energy Department has granted long-term gas-export licenses to six U.S. gas projects, which will eventually be able to sell 8.61 billion cubic feet (240 million cubic meters) of gas a day. At the same time, the U.S. oil industry is lobbying to lift the ban on oil exports, hoping that new markets would boost prices.
“We are the biggest market in the world; we are the biggest energy importer in the world. So I think we are a quite important destination for any energy exporter,” Mr. Sefcovic said.
Trevor Kincaid, a spokesman for the U.S. trade representative, said the U.S. hadn’t taken a final decision on whether to include an energy chapter into TTIP: “The United States has not decided on the threshold issue of whether or not there should be a separate chapter, or whether there should be unique provisions addressing energy and raw materials, or whether general rules that cover all sectors should apply.”
A 48-year-old Slovak diplomat, Mr. Sefcovic heads the EU’s push to create an “energy union” among its 28 member states. Apart from seeking out alternative suppliers to Russia, which currently provides almost one-third of the EU’s gas, that means breaking down long-standing barriers between the EU’s national energy markets.
On Monday, Mr. Sefcovic will launch his energy union roadshow, which will take him to 18 EU member states before the end of the year.
By the summer, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, will unveil plans to overhaul the bloc’s electricity market, including new cross-border grid connections called “interconnectors” that could help smooth out the highs and lows of renewable energy production and lower prices for consumers.
“We need swifter action from the member states, where very often, especially if it comes to interconnectors, it’s not always easy to get two or three countries to move at the same time,” Mr. Sefcovic said. “This should be one area where agencies for cooperation of national regulators could play a much stronger role to overcome national differences.”
The Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators was created in 2009, as part of an earlier energy overhaul. But it can only issue nonbinding opinions and has so far failed to break resistance from national utilities and network operators to competition from abroad. Mr. Sefcovic said he hasn’t decided what new powers could be given to ACER and how to improve cooperation among network operators—but that something will be done. “Everybody would be happy if the process would be smoother and faster when it comes to these cross-border elements of the energy union,” he said.
-
Canada’s Climate Target Won’t Help Sway Obama On Keystone
May 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia & Elana Schor
Canada just passed up the chance to meet one of President Barack Obama’s biggest conditions for approving Keystone XL.
Six months before world leaders converge in Paris for high-stakes negotiations on a historic climate change deal, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government unveiled a new global warming target on Friday that was immediately mocked by environmentalists as too weak.
Canada once again signaled it has no short-term plans to impose new regulations on the greenhouse gas-intensive oil sands development that is at the center of the debate in the U.S. over whether to approve Keystone.
Obama has said his decision on the $8 billion Alberta-to-Texas heavy oil pipeline would depend in large part on whether the project will worsen climate change, vowing in 2013 that any Canadian move to rein in emissions from the oil sands “will go into the mix.”
Canada’s announcement Friday will give Obama little comfort that Ottawa is serious about limiting the environmental impacts of its rapidly expanding oil sands industry, critics say.
“If anything, it should be another reason for Obama to reject Keystone because Canada isn’t in any position to be taken seriously on regulating the tar sands and climate,” Cameron Fenton, Canadian tar sands organizer at 350.org, said in an interview. “It’s nothing but a public relations number.”
Clinching an international climate change deal is a top second-term priority for Obama. Canada’s target is unlikely to improve the already cool relationship between Harper and Obama, which has slowly deteriorated after years of waiting for a Keystone decision.
Canada set a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
“This is a fair and ambitious target that is in line with other major industrialized countries and reflects our national circumstances, including Canada’s position as a world leader in clean-electricity generation,” the office of Canadian Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq said in a statement.
In a plan submitted to the United Nations in advance of the December Paris talks, the country said it would impose a slew of new regulations to help meet the target as part of its sector-by-sector approach to reducing emissions, including rules for methane emissions from the oil-and-gas sector, natural gas-fired electricity, chemicals and nitrogen fertilizers.
But the plan — known in United Nations’ jargon as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution — makes no mention of new regulations for oil sands development. Instead, the plan says Canada is a “leader in clean energy technologies” touting a first-of-its-kind carbon capture and storage project at an oil sands operation.
Canada said it will continue making investments in those kind of technologies. “To build on this success, Canada will focus climate-related investments in innovative production technologies to continue to drive further improvements in environmental performance in the oil sands and other growing sectors,” the plan said.
Obama was clear in his judgment of oil sands emissions trends during a 2013 interview that gave anti-Keystone greens a tremendous confidence boost.
“[T]here is no doubt that Canada, at the source in those tar sands, could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release,” he told The New York Times.
The absence of oil sands regulations from Canada’s pledge is substantively as well as politically significant. Harper’s government projected in December that it would miss the 2020 emissions-cutting target it agreed to in Copenhagen by 117 million metric tons if its current path were sustained — and that the oil sands would drive a 69-Mt emissions increase over the same period of time.
The one-quarter of Canadian greenhouse gases that the oil and gas industry generates makes it the nation’s biggest emissions driver among all economic sectors. Canada’s embrace of clean electricity sources such as hydropower, by contrast, is expected to drive that sector’s share of total emissions down by 50 Mt by 2020.
Activists decried Canada’s new target as one of the weakest submitted under the UN process so far by a developing country. They noted that Canada is giving itself an extra five years to meet a similar target to the one issued by the United States, which last year unveiled a target of cutting its emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The White House held off on issuing any judgement of the Canadian target.
“We welcome the news of Canada’s submission of its INDC along with other countries’ submissions to date, and we look forward to reviewing its contents,” a White House official said in an email. “We encourage all countries to submit transparent and ambitious INDCs as soon as possible and well in advance of Paris.”
Climate activists have long savaged Harper, whose political base lies in Canada’s oil-patch province of Alberta, for failing to pursue serious emissions cuts from the industry. Harper and fellow conservatives counter that oil sands companies are working voluntarily on ways to reduce the growth of their carbon footprint, vowing that Canada would only regulate its crude producers if the Obama administration did the same.
Cutting carbon from oil and gas is “a continental issue that needs a North American solution,” Aglukkaq’s spokesman told POLITICO in November.
But Canadian greens pointed out today that meeting Harper’s newest carbon target for 2030 would prove practically impossible without forcing greater greenhouse gas reductions in the oil sands.
“The Harper government has not only ignored its existing reduction target, but the pro-tar sands policies it has adopted are taking us in the opposite direction,” Keith Stewart, head of Greenpeace Canada’s energy campaign, said by email. “Until today’s announcement is backed by a commitment to enacting policies that can actually achieve this new target, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on.”
Amin Asadollahi, oil sands director at the moderate Canadian green group Pembina Institute, lauded the Harper government’s planned oil-and-gas methane limits as in line with recent moves by the Obama administration, but added that “Canada simply can’t do it’s part globally on climate change without reigning in the growth of greenhouse gas pollution from the oil sands.”
Andrew Leach, an associate professor at the University of Alberta’s business school and energy economics expert, aired his own skepticism soon after the target’s announcement.
“Dear Alberta, if you think [Harper] is in your corner, his gov’t just damned the Alberta oil industry to pariah status for another decade,” Leach tweeted.
Politically speaking, Harper’s future is far from clear ahead of a national election slated for October. Liberal party leader Justin Trudeau is seen as his strongest challenger, but the New Democratic Party helmed by Thomas Mulcair scored a stunning victory in Alberta earlier this month as they toppled a four-decade conservative dynasty.
-
‘Intense' Work With Congress Ahead On Implementing Energy Review, Moniz Says
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said May 15 he anticipates an “intense period of working with Congress” on implementing recommendations included in the Obama administration's Quadrennial Energy Review.
The broad interagency assessment of energy policy, which was released in April and included $15 billion in recommendations to improve energy-related infrastructure, is serving as the basis for a partnership between the administration and Congress, Moniz said during a presentation on the report at the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.
“We did speak with members of Congress, and interestingly they said right then that this kind of integrated document was what they needed to have a discussion across the energy space,” Moniz said “It's clear from the public statements that have come out of the energy committees of both the Senate and the House that there is an eagerness on the part of those committee leaders to engage with the administration on the basis of the Quadrennial Energy Review to try to move some bipartisan legislation forward on energy infrastructure.”
The wide-ranging review found more investment was needed to modernize and upgrade the country's aging energy infrastructure—pipelines, storage, waterways, railways and the electric grid—and that more needed to be done to prepare for threats coming from climate change and cyber attacks (77 DEN A-13, 4/22/15).
Moniz's remarks come as both the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee are crafting omnibus energy legislation that is expected to have titles devoted to infrastructure.
Moniz to Testify
Moniz is scheduled to be the sole witness before a House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing May 21 on the QER and the committee's bill.
“Many of the recommendations included in the administration's report are in step with the committee's efforts,” Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said in a May 14 statement announcing the hearing. “We said we want to work together, and we are seeking meaningful feedback on our proposals as we continue to advance the Architecture of Abundance and bring our energy policy into the 21st Century.” Upton is chairman of the full committee, and Whitfield is chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.
In the Senate, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing May 14 on 22 separate energy infrastructure bills ranging from measures to ensure the continued operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, promote hybrid micro-grid technologies for isolated communities and speed permitting for cross-border energy projects.
-
Moniz Heads To Hill As Push For Bipartisanship Grows
| E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will address House members this week as the chamber takes up far-reaching energy language to ensure the U.S. electric grid remains stable as new environmental rules take effect.
Moniz is slated to address the House Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee on Thursday about the department's high-profile energy policy blueprint, the Quadrennial Energy Review, as well as a number of draft bills the lower chamber has generated in recent days.
The hearing is likely to highlight a growing sense of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill as both chambers craft energy legislation.
Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) in a statement applauded the QER for identifying the need for more infrastructure and expressed a willingness to work with the Obama administration.
"Many of the recommendations included in the administration's report are in step with the committee's efforts," Upton and Whitfield said. "We said we want to work together, and we are seeking meaningful feedback on our proposals as we continue to advance the Architecture of Abundance and bring our energy policy into the 21st Century."
The same subcommittee is slated to hear from a slew of federal grid experts, utility executives and environmental groups tomorrow when taking up far-reaching energy language to ensure the U.S. electric grid remains stable as new environmental rules take effect.
Among the most high-profile attendees weighing in on the House draft language will be Michael Bardee, the director of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Electric Reliability, and Gerry Cauley, the president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp.
Members of the House Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee will be asked to weigh in on the proposal, which includes provisions that have attracted support from both sides of the aisle and language that aligns with suggestions in the Senate.
Also testifying will be the president and CEO of Southern Co.; executives from wind companies; Joseph Dominguez, Exelon Corp.'s executive vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy; and senior officials from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund who focus on grid issues.
First on tap is a proposal in the draft language that lays 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 violated state, federal or local environmental laws (Greenwire, May 13, 2013). Sponsoring Olson's bill were Democratic Reps. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Gene Green of Texas.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) this month dropped a similar bill, S. 1222, which would ensure generators operating under DOE orders are not made vulnerable to environmental lawsuits.
Discussion may turn to the role of federal agencies. Former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in the past opposed Olson's measure after U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy warned it could deter utilities from complying with new mercury and toxins standards. Waxman warmed to the measure after Olson tweaked the language to give environmental regulators a larger oversight role (E&E Daily, May 15, 2013).
The draft language would also require FERC and NERC to conduct reliability reviews of "major rules," those which would have a $1 billion or more impact on the economy.
The House proposal would also hand federal energy regulators something they've asked for: more authority. The draft would allow federal regulators to take swift action to protect the grid from rare solar flares and storms, and cyber or physical attacks.
In the past, FERC officials have faulted the current regulatory process that calls on utilities to act in emergencies and protect the grid as sluggish and inefficient.
FERC and Energy Department officials have expressed support for legislation that would grant the agencies authority over critical distribution networks, including generation, transmission or distribution equipment affecting interstate commerce that regulators consider vital to U.S. security and safety (Greenwire, May 5, 2011).
Schedule: The reliability hearing is Tuesday, May 19, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Michael Bardee, director of FERC's Office of Electric Reliability; Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp.; Thomas Fanning, chairman, president and CEO of Southern Co.; Elinor Haider, vice president of market development, Veolia Energy North America, on behalf of the Alliance for Industrial Efficiency; Mike Bergey, president and CEO of Bergey Wind Power and board president of the Distributed Wind Energy Association, on behalf of the Distributed Wind Energy Association; Joseph Dominguez, Exelon's executive vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy; John Moore, senior attorney with the Sustainable FERC Project, Natural Resources Defense Council; John Di Stasio, president of the Large Public Power Council; Emily Heitman, vice president and general manager of demand side organization power transformers at ABB Inc., on behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association; and Elgie Holstein, Environmental Defense Fund senior director for strategic planning.
Schedule: The hearing with Moniz is Thursday, May 21, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witness: Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
-
California's Cap-And-Trade Program Is Key To Gov. Jerry Brown's Agenda
May 15, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
For Gov. Jerry Brown, fighting climate change is more than a central tenet of his political agenda. It's also a key source of funding.
California's cap-and-trade program, in which permits to pollute are traded and fees are levied, has been a swelling source of revenue, helping to fuel major initiatives in the updated spending blueprint released by the governor this week.
Money from the pollution fund is already being used to install rooftop solar panels, start bullet train construction in the Central Valley and put more clean vehicles on California roads.
Now, Brown is proposing that it also finance anti-drought efforts, such as helping Californians replace outdated appliances and investing in more efficient water projects.
Simply put: When power plants burn fuel and tailpipes spew exhaust, money is pumped into the governor's agenda.
All revenue from cap and trade must, by law, be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the goal of the legislation that created the program. Brown and lawmakers have cited overlap between pollution reduction and a variety of goals that, at first glance, may not seem directly related.
"This has become a Christmas tree of spending," said Bill Whalen, a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution who was a speechwriter for former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. "It's like modern art. You can look at it and interpret it any way you want."
Brown's funding strategy carries some risk. Lawsuits are pending that challenge the legality of the cap-and-trade program and Brown's decision to use some of the revenue for the bullet train.
The governor's finance director, Michael Cohen, rejected legal concerns in discussing the budget Thursday, saying, "We're confident that everything in this plan is legal."
Brown views the cap-and-trade program as a model for other states and countries, touting its ability to reduce emissions as world leaders plan to convene in Paris later this year to discuss new steps against climate change.
"Carbon pollution is still rising worldwide," the governor said Thursday. "And so, one of the principal strategies is to put a price on carbon, and a price that will rise to increase the burden of using carbon."
For California's government, putting a price on carbon has been lucrative. The governor expects to have $2.2 billion from the pollution fund to spend in the fiscal year that begins July 1 — more than double what was available last year. Revenue has surged because cap and trade now applies to transportation fuels, the source of roughly 40% of the state's carbon emissions.
An annual framework for spending the money was included in last year's budget. Each year, the $68-billion bullet train will receive 25%, while 35% goes to affordable housing and other transportation programs.
Securing annual funding for high-speed rail — which was awarded $250 million in the last budget and stands to receive $500 million in the next — was a key victory for Brown.
"It's helping to leverage private-sector interest," said Lisa Marie Alley, a spokeswoman for the statewide project.
The money arrived when state cash was needed to match federal funding for the project but voter-approved bonds to finance it were tied up by lawsuits.
From last July through March of this year, almost every dollar of the nearly $200 million spent on the bullet train has come from the cap-and-trade program.
That funding is controversial because, as nonpartisan legislative analysts have warned, the process of building the train could increase greenhouse gas emissions over the next several years – a contradiction of the cap-and-trade goal.
The argument is being used by an opponent of high-speed rail who has sued to block the funding. Administration officials have defended their plans by saying the train itself, which will run on electricity, will reduce emissions in the long run.
Another beneficiary of cap-and-trade funding has been affordable housing. Last year's budget included $130 million of the funds for that cause, and Brown's latest budget proposal would add another $400 million.
Projects using the money are supposed to be built in ways that encourage public transportation, walking or biking, and a government commission is scheduled to announce the first grants this summer.
Matt Schwartz, president of the advocacy group California Housing Partnership, said the funding won't replace what was lost when redevelopment agencies that subsidized revival of blighted areas were eliminated.
However, he said, limitations on using cap-and-trade money have spurred beneficial cooperation with groups fighting climate change.
"It's forced us to work together to consider environmental climate impacts as we plan affordable housing," he said. "There's huge benefits to this."
Former Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat who worked with the governor on cap-and-trade spending last year, said lawmakers were careful to make sure all dollars contributed to reducing emissions.
"Once that definition is met, I think it's an added benefit that we can also address some of the other priorities," he said.
Finding ways to creatively match the funding to the state's needs is "the art of good government," Steinberg said.
Forty percent of cap-and-trade revenue is up for grabs each year — some of which Brown wants to tap now for drought relief.
About $120 million of his $2.2-billion plan for fighting the drought comes from cap and trade. Part of that money could be used for rebates to consumers who, for example, invest in new dishwashers that use less water and energy.
"That's a perfect example of what I think is an easy call," said Cara Horowitz, co-director of UCLA's Environmental Law Clinic. "You're increasing energy efficiency, reducing climate pollution and helping us adapt to a reality with less water."
It's an open question how long the money will last, however. A lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce calls the program an illegal tax. A state judge rejected that assertion in 2013, but an appeal is pending.
Loren Kaye, president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education, a think tank affiliated with the Chamber, was asked for an opinion on how Brown is using the revenue.
"We don't really have an opinion on how he's spent the money," he said, "because we don't think he should have the money in the first place."
-
Justice Actions Sought on Power Plan Are Realistic to Legally Murky, Lawyers Say
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
As the Environmental Protection Agency considers how to address environmental justice in its Clean Power Plan, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA that the actions sought by advocates range from feasible to potentially legally unsound.
Although the agency determined that a thorough national environmental justice analysis was not “practicable,” the patchwork collection of EPA guidance, policies and an executive order leaves the agency with a framework for deciding what constitutes adequate consideration of disparate impacts, lawyers said.
“It's their policy; they can conduct it as they see fit,” Richard Alonso, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP who previously served in the EPA's enforcement office, told Bloomberg BNA referring to the power plan's environmental justice analysis. “It's not like someone could sue them over this EJ analysis.”
Additionally, a law rarely used in environmental justice cases—Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—could become a prime legal hook for the agency and advocates to ensure that at least some vulnerable communities are considered in state plans to implement the proposed rule, attorneys said.
The EPA told Bloomberg BNA May 15 it's considering developing guidance for states on how to consider environmental justice issues when developing implementation plans for the Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Power Plan proposal (RIN 2060-AR33) would set carbon dioxide rates for each state's power plants and allow states individually to determine how to meet those targets. The EPA proposal would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, the agency estimates.
Concerns Raised About Some Communities
Environmental justice advocates have expressed concerns that the current proposal doesn't adequately ensure protections for low-income and minority communities from impacts such as the potential for increased emissions in some areas due to cap-and-trade approaches or other actions.
The rule also needs to ensure that these vulnerable populations aren't hit with increased energy prices, among other concerns, they said(49 DEN A-3, 3/13/15).
The EPA determined in its Clean Power Plan proposed rule that it wouldn't be practicable to conduct a national analysis. States have too many options in how they would achieve their emissions reductions to determine which power plants would close, for example, or how specific communities would be affected, the agency said (78 DEN A-22, 4/23/15).
EPA's Determination Called Fair
While many environmental justice advocates disputed the EPA's finding, Alonso; Albert Huang, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told Bloomberg BNA the EPA's finding that it isn't practicable to determine what states will do is fair.
Executive Order 12898—“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”—and various environmental justice policy, guidance and strategy documents such as the agency's draft EJ 2020 plan outline agency decisionmaking and goals on environmental justice. Ultimately, it is up to the EPA to interpret its own policy, Alonso said (73 DEN A-18, 4/16/15).
Alonso and Huang said the agency could do more if it wanted to. The types of national analyses aren't easy and could take a long time, but they are doable, Huang said.
The agency could assess how increased electricity costs would affect the quality of life for environmental justice communities; how coal-fired power plant closures would affect these communities economically; and how climate change would impact environmental justice areas, Alonso said.
State Requirement Authority
When it comes to EPA's actions with states, the agency's authority to require certain actions, such as an environmental justice analysis, gets murkier.
The agency “certainly” has the legal and policy authority to issue guidance for states on how to consider environmental justice in their plans, Huang said. That is the step the EPA is considering taking, according to its statement to Bloomberg BNA.
Some states also may conduct environmental justice analyses on their own, Huang said. However, attorneys differed over whether the EPA could legally require states to conduct the assessments.
The “plain language” of Clean Air Act Section 111(d) indicates that the EPA couldn't require states to consider environmental justice in their state plans, Alonso said.
Reach of Provision Is Unclear
Gerrard wasn't sure whether requiring states to conduct state environmental justice analyses of their plans would be legal. Executive Order 12898 does apply some authority to permits that are issued by state agencies under EPA-delegated programs; however, whether that extends to Section 111(d) plans submitted by states isn't clear, he said.
The more prescriptive the agency is, the more the agency could move toward “legally disputed territory,” Gerrard said.
“I am not going to advocate that they test that,” Gerrard said. “I think that the most important thing is for the EPA rule to withstand the inevitable judicial scrutiny that they face, and I'm nervous about adding to the uncertainty.”
Reviewing State Plans
The agency does have options when reviewing the states' plans to ensure that environmental justice isn't forgotten, Alonso said. For example, the EPA can conduct its own analysis of a state's plan or of a federal plan for a state and use that in determining whether to approve it, he said, a fact that Gerrard also cited.
“When it comes to the EPA approval, it's a federal action,” Alonso said. “They can do what they want.”
Huang and Gerrard said the federal agency also could use its legal hook of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Environmental justice encompasses minority and low-income communities, whereas Title VI only addresses the race component. Title VI prohibits use of federal funds on any actions or programs that discriminate based on race, color or national origin.
Could Remind States of Need to Comply
The EPA could remind states that their plans must comply with Title VI or even require that states conduct an analysis to predict where there may be disproportionate impacts based on race and require states to mitigate them, Huang said.
“Although the Clean Air Act doesn't have EJ requirements, EPA certainly has other legal and policy authorities to provide more guidance to ensure states avoid EJ impacts where possible,” Huang said.
-
Republicans Question EPA's Outreach To Small Businesses in Power Plant Rule
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't allotted sufficient time to seek the input of small businesses on proposed carbon dioxide standards for power plants and still meet a summer deadline to issue the final rule and propose a federal plan for its implementation, 18 congressional Republicans said in a letter.
The May 15 letter asks EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy how the agency can collect and incorporate input from small businesses into its upcoming rulemakings when it only convened the Small Business Advocacy Review panel April 30. The first outreach session for small businesses was scheduled for May 14.
“It is not clear how EPA can solicit, receive and incorporate meaningful stakeholder input from small entities into the soon-to-be proposed federal plan if the agency intends to meet its summer 2015 deadline,” the Republicans said.
The EPA anticipates finalizing its Clean Power Plan this summer.
The rule (RIN 2060-AR33) would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state. With that rule, the EPA plans to propose a model federal implementation plan to guide state regulators in developing their own compliance measures for the Clean Power Plan.
The EPA announced in January it planned to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to evaluate the potential impact of the proposal (18 DEN A-6, 1/28/15).
Republican Leaders
The Republicans were led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee; Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; and Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Small Business Committee.
The Republicans cited a May 8 letter from the Small Business Administration that said the EPA has failed to provide small businesses with the information necessary to provide meaningful input on the proposed Clean Power Plan.
“Due to this lack of information , any panel conducted under these circumstances is unlikely to succeed at identifying reasonable regulatory alternatives for small businesses,” Claudia R. Rodgers, acting chief counsel for advocacy at the Small Business Administration, said in the letter.
The Republicans have asked the EPA to respond to their concerns by June 5.
-
Governors Largely Shrug Off McConnell's Call To Boycott Clean Power Plan Compliance
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers and Anthony Adragna
Oklahoma will not draft its own plan to implement the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, but other governors appear to be reluctant to heed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) call to boycott compliance with the rule.
Bloomberg BNA polled state governors on their Clean Power Plan intentions following McConnell's March 19 letter to the National Governors Association asking states to “carefully review the consequences before signing up for this deeply misguided plan.” McConnell has repeatedly urged states not to develop their own compliance plans for the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, a strategy dubbed “just say no” (54 DEN A-16, 3/20/15).
Twenty-four states failed to respond, but the remainder were reluctant to embrace McConnell's strategy outright. No state other than Oklahoma has publicly refused to submit its own compliance plan.
Even Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D), chief executive of one of the states most critical of the proposed rule, declined to embrace the strategy of his state's senior senator.
“We disagree with the EPA on numerous issues, especially those that would further restrict or diminish coal and coal-fired power plants,” Beshear told Bloomberg BNA in a statement. “However, we strongly believe that a Kentucky-developed policy for reducing greenhouse gases would be superior to a one-size-fits-all policy imposed by Washington, D.C.”
Beshear said other states with strong interests in coal mining, including Utah, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Missouri, will also develop their own compliance plans to ensure maximum flexibility for the states.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which is expected to be finalized this summer, would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14). State regulators would then develop their own plans to comply with the emissions rates. The EPA would issue federal plans for states that choose not to develop their own.
Federal Plan More Costly?
The federal plans are expected to be more expensive and restrictive because the EPA lacks the authority under the Clean Air Act to pursue emissions reductions through energy efficiency programs or investment in new renewable energy generation, which would be available to state regulators.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon and Vermont all told Bloomberg BNA they plan to comply with the rule when it is finalized. North Carolina said it is on the path to meet its emissions targets even though the state opposes the rule. Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming all said they are still reviewing their options. Several other states deferred to the comments they had submitted on the EPA's proposal.
“As governors begin to seriously look at what these plans will look like, we expect more and more governors will follow Sen. McConnell's lead,” a McConnell aide told Bloomberg BNA.
Though Beshear has pledged his support for the Clean Power Plan, McConnell's office touted reports that other leading candidates for Kentucky governor have said they will not comply.
Oklahoma Opts Out
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) became the first governor to publicly buck the EPA's Clean Power Plan when she issued an executive order April 28 prohibiting her state from submitting a compliance plan. Fallin also vetoed legislation that would have required the state to develop its own plan, subject to legislative oversight (85 DEN A-11, 5/4/15).
Other states that have been staunch opponents of the EPA's regulations stopped short of embracing McConnell's approach.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said McConnell has his “full support for his efforts to fight this federal government overreach” following a meeting between the two in Washington, D.C., May 7. Though Abbott opposes the EPA's rule, which he believes will increase electricity prices, he stopped short of saying Texas would not submit its own compliance plan. McConnell has still touted Abbott's statement as further evidence that states will choose to opt out of compliance. Abbott's office did not respond to requests to clarify his intentions.
Kentucky Governor, Attorney General Differ
Though Beshear has said his state will develop a compliance plan for the rule, Kentucky Attorney General John Conway joined a pair of lawsuits that sought to block the Clean Power Plan before it could be finalized. Argument in the cases was heard April 16 ( In re: Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112, oral argument, 4/16/15; West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1146, oral argument, 4/16/15; 74 DEN A-1, 4/17/15).
States Push Back
In sharp contrast to Oklahoma and Texas, states supportive of the EPA's proposal pushed back on McConnell's suggestion that they boycott compliance.
“Climate change is real. It's a threat to humanity. We should be working harder to address it, not rolling back efforts to do so. I fully support the Environmental Protection Agency's plan,” Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said in a March 25 letter responding to McConnell.
New Hampshire Gov. Margaret Wood Hassan (D) also rebuffed McConnell in an April 10 letter, touting her state's experience with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
“I respectfully disagree with your letter and would ask that states in the Midwest (and Kentucky) follow the science and take a more active effort in reducing harmful emissions, including CO2 emissions—particularly emissions generator through coal-fired power plants,” Hassan said. “Those emissions are harming the air quality and climate of states such as New Hampshire.”
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) went further still on an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press in late March when he said McConnell's actions were a “disgrace” and “borders on the immoral.”
“To have the leader of the Senate, Mr. McConnell, representing his coal constituents, putting at risk the health and well-being of America, is a disgrace,” Brown said. “This is a serious matter we're experiencing in California as kind of a foretaste, but there is no doubt that into the future we're going to have more problems and we have to do something. President Obama is taking some important steps. And to fight that, it borders on the immoral.”
McConnell Plans Additional Challenges
While states have proven reluctant to cede the ability to write their own power plant plans to the EPA, McConnell has made opposition to the proposed rule a central priority, exploring several options for blocking or derailing the standards.
In addition to his call for states to boycott compliance, McConnell has also argued that Section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act requires congressional approval of binding interstate agreements or compacts to address air pollution, which could be used as a tool to shut down trading programs under the proposed rule (84 DEN A-1, 5/1/15).
McConnell and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) both joined Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) in sponsoring a bill that would block the EPA's proposal and set strict standards for the agency to meet if it pursues new rules (93 DEN A-3, 5/14/15).
The Senate majority leader has also pledged to fight the EPA regulations through the appropriations process, which he has repeatedly called his “best tool” for rolling the rules back.
In the meantime, though, many governors are keeping their options open. Kentucky's governor, for one, thinks states should develop their own plans or risk an onerous federal regulation that does not account for state-specific factors.
“No matter whether the states lean Democratic or Republican, they recognize that we all must be prepared for the worst-case scenario of federal regulations,” Beshear said. “Otherwise, we could be caught flat-footed with no alternatives to offer, and then be forced to implement a federal policy that doesn't consider the particular needs of our state.”
-
Behind The Scenes, Critical States Chew Over Clean Power Plan Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
While Republicans in Congress say states should refuse to write plans for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, state officials are nonetheless gathering in regional groups around the country to explore carbon-cutting options.
Last week in Denver, 90 stakeholders from 13 states met again as part of the Colorado-based Center for the New Energy Economy. The group has convened about half a dozen such sessions since June. Even states that are challenging the draft rule, including Wyoming and South Dakota, have participated.
The Western Interstate Energy Board in the West and Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions in the Southeast have corralled states in similar discussions, conducting research on options for states to trade compliance credits, rather than submit formal plans to EPA as a group.
At least 41 states in total have been involved in these sort of talks with neighbors, according to the Great Plains Institute.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see news and documents related to the latest Clean Power Plan developments.
-
EPA Eyes Higher Octane In Gasoline As Post-2025 GHG Control Strategy
May 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
A top EPA fuels official says the agency is considering requiring higher gasoline octane levels as part of its next round of greenhouse gas (GHG) controls for passenger vehicles, and believes it has statutory authority to impose such a requirement but that it would not be undertaken until after the current rules end in model year 2025.
Paul Machiele, director of fuel programs in EPA's Assessment and Standards Division in Ann Arbor, MI, told a May 5 meeting of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee that the agency has “broad authority” under the air law to regulate fuels and fuel additives that can likely now extend to octane, a component of fuel used to reduce engine knock, since mandating higher levels can improve efficiency and cut GHGs.
Machiele in a presentation noted that there is “considerable interest” being expressed in raising U.S. gasoline octane levels because the United States lags behind much of the world and has seen an influx of high-octane ethanol blended with petroleum.
However, Machiele said EPA's authority is limited to setting vehicle and engine emissions standards to protect human health and welfare. The agency cannot regulate “just because someone wants us to” and cannot impose requirements on the basis of vehicle or engine performance.
It “wasn't until” carbon dioxide (CO2) became a regulated pollutant “that we could start talking about octane. Before that, “octane was outside our wheelhouse. Now it's sort of been brought into the fold.”
But before EPA could raise gasoline octane levels it would have to issue a GHG endangerment finding for fuels, similar to the finding it issued for GHGs from motor vehicles and aircraft. Then, the agency would have to show how raising fuel octane would reduce GHGs from the existing fleet, and demonstrate that the costs of doing so justify the benefits.
“Octane increases have to . . . be relatively cheap to justify” benefits for the existing fleet, Machiele noted.
The agency would also have to assess whether the higher octane gas could impair emission control devices, and also whether it could enable new vehicle technology. Machiele gave as an example the agency's decision to remove lead from gasoline which enabled use of catalytic converters, and its later decision to then require lower sulfur gasoline to improve the efficiency of those catalysts.
Higher octane gasoline could achieve similar results by enabling higher compression ratio engines, he said.
Machiele cited a long list of air law authorities to address octane but said the agency's “broad and general” authority under section 211(c) is most relevant.
“Now that we can regulate on the basis of CO2, can't EPA just require higher octane? And the answer is yes, probably, it's complicated,” he said.
Further, Machiele said the air law requires EPA to consider vehicle controls first before regulating fuel or fuel additives. “I laud the oil companies for having a little more foresight” and winning inclusion of that language in the air law, he said.
Increasing Octane
Also, he noted that if EPA were to increase octane, it would likely be phased in over time. “In addition, we could only exercise our authority if we first find the replacement fuel is basically not any worse than the fuel that's being replaced.” It is unclear whether this will be a hurdle but the agency has to go through the process of making sure higher octane fuel is not causing unintended consequences on other air pollutants.
“If we are looking at octane control, we are looking at going beyond those 2025 standards,” he said. As an example of the time frame, Machiele said he attended his first meeting on Tier III gasoline standards in 2004 -- a rule that was finalized in 2014 and phases in over a period of six years ending in early 2020.
While there are hurdles for EPA to raise octane, Machiele said, “quite frankly I'm always up for a challenge . . . so don't count me out.”
An official from Marathon Petroleum, Dan Short, seemed supportive of raising fuel octane levels, according to his presentation. Short acknowledged challenges similar to raising ethanol levels in fuel, such as misfueling concerns. But he said the “product distribution and retail infrastructure currently exists to deliver a hydrocarbon based, high octane motor gasoline product.”
Also, a General Motors official, Coleman Jones, gave a similarly supportive presentation at the meeting, saying higher octane fuels would enable higher compression ratio engines that could have little to no cost. However, he too noted challenges to bringing higher octane fuels to market in the United States and said the pathway is unclear. “All stakeholders will have to work together to capitalize on the advantages and address the challenges,” his presentation says.
Further, a California official also seemed supportive of higher octane levels in concert with higher ethanol blends in fuel, according to a presentation Jim Guthrie of the California Air Resources Board said that requiring higher ethanol content and higher octane would be compatible because ethanol has a high blending octane number, however they would be separate regulations which would each require significant additional resources.”
He predicted it would be at least a six-year process and require a multimedia evaluation.
A source with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says that group has not taken a position on octane but would likely only support it as a means to expand low-carbon biofuels. That provides an opportunity to “optimize engine efficiency,” the source says. “Alcohol fuels can provide that octane boost and also have a cooling effect that allows an engine to have a higher compression ratio, and if you allow that, you can tune an engine to perform better.” NRDC is stressing that the current fuel economy/GHG rules can be met through 2025 with the current fuel mix.
-
House Hearing Is A Gas, Gas, Gas
May 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Let's clear the air upfront: The next few hundred words are all about fart jokes.
Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R) fired off the first one Wednesday, when she offered an "indelicate statement" in her opening remarks at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing.
Then she made a not-so-subtle reference to an exhalation of the lower cheeks.
"I emit greenhouse gases; you emit greenhouse gases; the ranking member, our panelists, we all emit greenhouse gases," Lummis said. "You can measure our emissions with a high degree of accuracy."
While her words were lighthearted, Lummis was actually offering criticism of the revised draft guidance issued by the White House Council on Environmental Quality late last year. The changes would require all federal agencies to integrate climate change into their National Environmental Policy Act reviews for projects under their jurisdiction.
"What's difficult but perhaps impossible to measure is how much our emissions actually contribute to global warming, or global cooling or other global climate changes that impact our environment," Lummis said.
She later added: "There isn't a corner of the United States that isn't touched by this new guidance, and the cost could be enormous."
But the Sierra Club responded to Lummis' blast yesterday -- offering to help quell her intestinal distress with a box of Gas-X delivered to her office along with a missive taking aim at the Wyoming lawmaker's remarks about the human contribution to climate change.
"There's an easy remedy to the discomfort Congresswoman Lummis is feeling. Embracing climate science and the Clean Power Plan would result in new clean energy jobs, curbs on dangerous pollution, and action on the climate crisis," Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce said in a statement.
She added: "We hope this medicine provides some modest relief in the meantime that will let her focus on helping American communities, rather than suffering from the side effects of climate denial."
A Lummis spokesman did not respond to a request for comment this afternoon.
But her colleagues couldn't resist airing out their own opinions over Lummis' comments.
"Is it possible for a human being to emit 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases in a year?" Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) asked CEQ Managing Director Christy Goldfuss, who responded: "That would be an impressive human being."
Huffman pressed on: "Just wondering because, I mean using Ms. Lummis' hypothetical. We all like Ms. Lummis, we like hanging around her, she has lots of friends. But if someone emitted that much greenhouse gas, would they have any friends?"
Goldfuss replied: "I'll let the committee answer that one."
But committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) couldn't resist tooting his own horn: "With what I ate last night, I'm close to that already. You did say when you're doing your final guidance, you are not going to eliminate chocolate cake, right?"
-
EIA Forecasts Increase in Power Plant Emissions
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are projected to increase through 2040 barring federal regulations, the Energy Information Administration said in a data snapshot released May 15. The forecast doesn't include the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state, because that rule has not yet been finalized, EIA said. However, the projections do include measures taken by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast and by California to reduce emissions. Even with those efforts, EIA said carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are projected in 2040 to be at least 2 percent higher than emissions in 2013. Emissions could grow by an even greater rate depending on economic growth and other factors, the projection said. The EIA's analysis is available at http://tinyurl.com/kbt24vd.
-
Senate Subpanel to Probe EPA Science Board Reform
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight will hold a legislative hearing May 20 on legislation (S. 543) that would modify the operations, scope and selection process for members of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board, a committee aide told Bloomberg BNA May 15. The bill, introduced by Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would expand public comment opportunities, limit nonscientific advice from the board, clarify industry members could serve on the board as long as their potential conflicts of interest are disclosed, require greater acknowledgment of dissenting views and reform the selection process of advisory members, among other provisions. Companion legislation (H.R. 1029) cleared the House in late March. The White House has threatened to veto the measure if it reaches President Barack Obama's desk (52 DEN A-14, 3/18/15).
-
Markey Bill Would Begin New Coal Lease Moratorium
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill introduced May 15 would suspend new coal lease sales until reforms are implemented to ensure the government is receiving fair prices for such sales. The Coal Oversight and Leasing (COAL) Reform Act (S. 1340), introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would close loopholes that allow coal companies to skip the “upfront costs” of coal leases and put in place processes for accurately determining fair market value and making the leasing process more transparent. Additionally, the bill would require the Bureau of Land Management to develop and finalize rules that guarantee consistent coal mining inspection and enforcement. The bill also would increase enforcement capacity to allow the bureau to issue civil penalties to coal companies violating the law of up to $100,000 per incident per day. The introduction of Markey's bill follows several congressional hearings and lawsuits on issues related to the federal coal leasing program, ranging from the leasing of coal at prices below fair market value to the lack of consideration of climate change. The Markey bill is available at http://www.markey.senate.gov/download/coal-reform-act.
-
Markey Introduces Leasing Reform Bill
May 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Manuel Quiñones
Sen. Ed Markey introduced legislation this week to overhaul federal leasing of coal reserves to mining companies.
The Massachusetts Democrat's S. 1340 would put a moratorium on leasing pending reforms outlined in his legislation. He introduced a similar measure last year.
The bill would overhaul the process for determining coal's fair market value, produce public appraisal reports and ensure regulators take exports into account.
The legislation would also require the Interior Department to develop a leasing plan modeled after offshore oil and gas leasing to promote competition.
Under the current program, companies generally request coal tracts for lease. And even though sales are through competitive bidding, a single company is often a sole bidder.
In response to pressure from groups and lawmakers, plus critical reports by the Office of Inspector General and Government Accountability Office, Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue is considering a rule reforming coal valuation.
"While the Interior Department has taken some steps to address the coal leasing process, we need comprehensive reform to ensure taxpayers receive a fair return on the sale of these publicly owned resources and the agency has the authority to ensure coal mining companies are following the law," Markey said.
Mining companies have said the ONRR proposal goes too far in reforming the valuation system. Environmental and other watchdog groups want Interior to do more.
-
Obama’s Climate Negotiators Face High Expectations
May 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
As the United States pushes for a historic deal at the Paris climate change summit later this year, President Barack Obama’s negotiators are trying to paint a realistic picture about what will emerge from the unpredictable talks.
That’s the challenge facing Todd Stern, the State Department’s special envoy for climate change, who has carefully tried not to over-promise while also maintaining the momentum among major nations toward reaching a landmark international pact to begin slashing greenhouse gas emissions.
“You have to strike a balance. You’ve got to balance not going too high and not going too low. You’ve got to build momentum. You’ve got to have people invested in the imperative of getting an agreement done in Paris,” he told POLITICO. “But you don’t want to deflate the will of countries to get something strong done.”
It’s a lesson that the Obama administration learned the hard way. Basking in the glow of President Barack Obama’s first electoral victory, top administration officials did little to counter the perception that a Democratic president pushing aggressive climate legislation could help break the logjam at the late 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen.
But in the end, those inflated expectations were partly to blame for the Copenhagen summit being widely viewed as a flop. Despite Obama’s last-ditch effort to salvage the negotiations by personally intervening, the talks produced a three-page text that didn’t bind countries to specific emissions cuts, and commentators roundly criticized the agreement as “weak” and “watered down.” One European official called it a “great failure.”
Now, nearly six years later, Stern seems confident that Paris won’t be another Copenhagen.
“We are in a much better posture from the point of view of expectations than we were in Copenhagen because I think there’s built-in realism here, having lived through the last six years, about what we can expect to get done,” Stern said.
Indeed, unprecedented breakthroughs like last year’s joint commitment by the United States and China on emission targets appear to signal a turning point in the fraught negotiations. Negotiators have already largely coalesced around the structure of the Paris deal, agreeing to submit individual domestic climate plans that will form the foundation of the final pact. Those plans, though not legally binding, put pressure on nations to curb their emissions and could help usher in more stringent cuts down the road.
But Stern, ever the realist, is careful not to suggest that the Paris meeting will be a breeze.
“It’s going to be a tough negotiation this year,” he said. “I don’t mean to suggest it’s easy.”
The success of the negotiations won’t be determined by the specifics of the final agreement alone. It will depend in large part on the reactions of governments and green groups who are pushing hard to shape the talks — many of whom may be setting unrealistically high expectations about the deal that will emerge.
That’s why administration officials, negotiators from other countries and outside groups are working hard to explain exactly what will — and won’t — be accomplished in Paris.
For starters, the final Paris agreement won’t, by itself, solve the climate crisis. The combination of every nation’s domestic climate plan is not expected to stop the average global temperature from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the threshold that scientists warn could unleash catastrophic climate change impacts like devastating sea-level rise.
Those who expect an unprecedented breakthrough that saves the planet are going to be disappointed.
“Do people see and expect the agreement to solve the climate crisis and put us on a glide-path to a low-carbon world? If that’s the threshold, then that’s not a realistic expectation for what is going to be achieved,” said Pete Ogden, a former White House aide who now serves as director of international energy and climate policy at the Center for American Progress. “This is not the last word on climate change.”
But that hasn’t stopped activists from arguing that negotiators lack ambition.
Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, said in an email it was “highly concerning,” that Paris wouldn’t meet the 2-degree threshold “because even 2 degrees is a terrible target.”
“Having ‘an agreement’ can’t be the main focus,” he said. “The main focus has to be to use Paris as one stop along the road to dealing with the underlying physics of the climate crisis. If ‘an agreement’ somehow takes the pressure off for more progress it will be a net loss.”
Top negotiators see Paris as the first step in a long, complicated process. They hope to cement a structure that will for the first time commit all countries to self-imposed domestic strategies for tackling climate change over the next several years that can be ratcheted up over time. A series of recent analyses have warned that the planet must reach net zero carbon emissions in the coming decades, perhaps as early as 2050, in order to prevent disaster.
“It is not a one-off deal. It is not an overnight, miraculous silver bullet. It is being seen as very much a process with results over time,” Christiana Figueres, the United Nations’ climate chief, told reporters this week.
Figueres, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said she was focused on keeping the negotiations on track rather than spinning a positive message.
“I think our challenge in the lead up to Paris, more than managing expectations, is managing complexity,” Figueres said. “The scale of what’s on the table and the number of moving parts is so, so, so much greater than what we had in Copenhagen.”
But long-time observers of the climate negotiations worry that the complex nature of the talks paired with unrealistic expectations could lead some to view the final outcome as a letdown, even if participants see it as a success.
Nat Keohane, vice president for international climate at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former White House energy and environment official, warned of an “expectation gap” between the insiders who are immersed in the subtleties of the talks and those who only have a passing understanding of them.
The media, he said, play a crucial role in setting the narrative. The high-profile nature of the Paris talks — Obama views the negotiations as key part of his legacy — guarantees they will be covered by a flood of journalists who haven’t followed international climate diplomacy closely.
Advocacy groups are working to educate reporters and the public about what success looks like in Paris to them, and Obama administration officials are expected to do the same in the coming months. Keohane, for his part, says Paris will be a success if countries make progress toward setting a global emissions peak.
“The media helps translate the policy and political world to the public,” Stern said. “I think it’s very important. I think it’s important in understanding what we’re trying to get to, what the challenges are, what’s an agreement that we can accept.”
But all the talk about managing expectations won’t quiet critics of the negotiations.
Liberal environmental groups and other activists have for years raised hopes that the international community would make major progress in cutting emissions and funneling money to poor nations, only to bash negotiators in press releases and public statements when they have failed to make breakthroughs.
The same dynamic is expected to play out in Paris, with groups like 350.org and Greenpeace already taking aim at negotiators for not being ambitious enough. Smaller, developing countries that are likely to face the most severe effects of climate change will also likely criticize wealthy nations for not providing enough financial assistance to deal with the effects of a warming planet.
“Three things are clear. The first is that any Paris agreement is unlikely to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius in one fell swoop. This will be a concern to all who worry about climate change. The second is that Paris commitments are unlikely to be internationally legally binding. This will be a relief to some in the business community, but a frustration to those hoping for green investment confidence,” Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s climate chief from 2006 to 2010, said in an email.
“The third is that Paris cannot give a final answer to the climate finance challenge. For poor and vulnerable countries who see Paris as their last chance in the political spotlight, this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said de Boer, who now serves as director-general of the Global Green Growth Institute.
So far, outside observers are giving Stern high marks for hammering home a realistic view of how the negotiations will shake out.
“Todd Stern is not a grandstander by nature and he’s always moved to reign in everybody’s enthusiasm,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University geoscientist and an author of several Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.
True to form, Stern offered this assessment of Paris: “I can see the shape of an agreement and a way forward on all the hard issues. It won’t be perfect in anybody’s mind, but it would be a big achievement. But there’s still a long road to go to get this done.”
-
EPA Decisions on Ozone Implementation, Transport Plans to Be Required by Court
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency will be required over the next 16 months to act on numerous state plans governing implementation of the 2008 national ambient air quality standards for ozone (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 4:14-cv-5091, proposed order and judgment filed 5/14/15).
A proposed order and judgment, filed May 14 upon request of a federal district court judge, would resolve litigation brought by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians over the EPA's failure to issue a finding that 26 states didn't submit required ozone transport plans for the 2008 ozone standards and the agency's delayed action on various portions of 23 state implementation plans.
The proposed order implements a May 7 order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that granted summary judgment to the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians on the EPA's failure to find that 26 states hadn't submitted required “good neighbor” provisions for implementing the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion.
The court found that there was no dispute of the material fact that the EPA had failed to act and ruled the agency could reasonably issue the findings by June 30, 2015 (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 2015 BL 133964, N.D. Cal., No. 4:14-cv-5091, 5/7/15).
Good Neighbor Provision Addressed
The good neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act requires that upwind states ensure that their pollution won't significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with attainment areas in downwind states.
A finding of failure to submit by the EPA would trigger a 24-month deadline for the agency to issue a federal implementation plan to address those issues.
If any of the 26 states, which include California, Iowa, Kansas and Virginia, submit a plan addressing their good neighbor obligations before the June 30 deadline for EPA action, the agency's obligation to act with respect to that state would be automatically terminated, according to the proposed order.
Other Action Required
The proposed order also implements a consent decree between the Sierra Club and the EPA to resolve claims that the EPA hadn't taken its mandatory duty to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve state implementation plans submitted by 23 states for the 2008 ozone standards.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take final action on administratively complete implementation plans within one year after the agency determines the submission is complete.
The order establishes a schedule for the EPA to make final decisions on the plans between now and September 2016. The last plan to be approved by the EPA would be a submission from Iowa, which must be approved or disapproved by Sept. 30, 2016.
-
EPA Denies Nitric Acid Manufacturer's Bid For 'Subcategories' In Air NSPS
May 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has denied a nitric acid manufacturer's petition urging the agency to revise its 2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) air rule for the sector to create “subcategories” of varying emissions limits for different types of acid production plants, clearing the way for the company to revive pending litigation over the NSPS.
In a Federal Register notice slated for publication May 18, EPA says that it is rejecting the company Dyno Nobel's (DNI) petition for administrative reconsideration of the rule. The rule set conventional pollutant limits on nitric acid production facilities. EPA finalized it in May 2012, and the company then filed a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency, as well as a parallel petition for review in federal appeals court.
EPA's regulation tightened emissions limits for new or modified plants that commenced construction after Oct. 11, 2011, from 3 pounds of nitrogen oxides emissions per ton of nitric acid production (3 lb/T) on a 3-hour basis to 0.5lb/T on a 30-day average basis, and added testing and monitoring requirements.
DNI criticized the data EPA relied on to set the standard as insufficient, and said that EPA should have subcategorized nitric acid plants according to their air pollution control technology.
Dividing the sector into subcategories would have the effect of setting less-stringent emissions limits for plants using less-effective control technology -- in this case non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR), rather than the more-effective selective catalytic reduction, but EPA in its Register notice rejects the request.
The notice says EPA denied the petition “because the information and analysis submitted by DNI is not of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, in that it does not demonstrate that the rule should be reconsidered.”
EPA says it “believes it is inappropriate to establish subcategories based on differences in control technologies, so it is inappropriate to establish a subcategory for plants using NSCR.”
Further, “we believe the agency had ample test data to support selective catalytic reduction as the best system of emission reduction and to establish a revised emission limit.”
EPA adds, “although some units with NSCR may not be able to meet the limit without improving their controls, based on available data we believe it is feasible for some units with NSCR to comply with this NSPS without the need for any additional controls as some existing units with NSCR are already achieving the NSPS emission limit.”
The agency concludes that, “we believe other units with NSCR that are modified or reconstructed, could comply with the NSPS limit by improving their controls at reasonable costs.”
Denying the petition for administrative reconsideration will allow DNI to now ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to push ahead with briefing in Dyno Nobel, Inc. v. EPA, the company's legal challenge to the rule. The case had been on hold pending EPA's decision on the reconsideration petition. EPA when it issued the rule also rejected environmentalists' requests to use the NSPS to set first-time greenhouse gas (GHG) limits on the nitric acid sector, citing a lack of data on the plants' GHGs
-
Better Transparency, Coordination Needed to Make Aging Pipelines Safer, Mayors Say
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
More data, increased transparency and better coordination at all levels are needed to solve risks in the nation's disjointed and aging pipeline system, speakers and conference participants told Bloomberg BNA at the first Mayor's Council on Pipeline Safety in Philadelphia on May 15.
“Without exception, every time we see something that goes wrong, somebody is out there who says, ‘We knew about that problem, and we knew it was going to hurt somebody sooner or later,’ ” keynote speaker Christopher Hart, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, told the group.
More data, better communication, and public awareness are crucial, he said. “We have to get the system more effective at every level.”
The gathering of elected officials, public regulators, pipeline workers, emergency responders and consultants was motivated by gas pipeline explosions that killed residents and destroyed homes in San Bruno, Calif., in 2010, and in Philadelphia and Allentown, Pa., in 2011.
“It's easy to identify a deteriorating bridge because it's rusty, and it's easy to notice a pothole because you drive over it, but pipelines are out of sight, out of mind,” Jim Ruane, mayor of San Bruno, told Bloomberg BNA.
Eight residents in San Bruno were killed and 55 homes destroyed in September 2010 when a 30-inch gas transmission pipeline exploded in a residential neighborhood there (198 DEN A-4, 10/15/10).
“They're ticking time bombs under our cities,” he said.
Need Seen to Map City Pipelines
Nathan Phillips, a professor of earth and environment at Boston University, told Bloomberg BNA that mapping a city's pipelines and creating a geographic information system (GIS) of a city's infrastructure could help city governments and utilities make cost-effective decisions about where to replace pipelines.
Most cities have a “mish-mash” underground with water pipes, gas pipes, sewer pipes and electrical transmission lines running around “like spaghetti” under the streets, he said.
In a study that mapped gas pipes in every city street in Boston, Phillips found 3,300 leaks in 785 miles of road. He joked that there is “environmental injustice for all” in that leaks occurred throughout the city.
Phillips said one key to strategic repair would be a complete GIS map of a city's infrastructure that would show the age of the pipe, the material it's made of, the roads and electrical systems.
“Then find the worst of the worst. Those are the biggest opportunities to save money and solve” many problems at once, he said.
One-Size-Fits-All Doesn't Work
Timothy P. Butters, deputy administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), told Bloomberg BNA that it's difficult to put out a single federal regulation that would cover all pipelines because systems vary so much from place to place.
Also, he said, “some operators may not have good information about their own systems” because they were installed so many years ago or the data have been lost.
Federal regulations implemented in 2010 under the Distribution Integrity Management Program now require utilities to survey their system, map gas leaks and submit an annual report to PHMSA, pipeline consultant Richard B. Kuprewicz, president of Accufacts Inc., told Bloomberg BNA
“You now have data to see the trends,” said Kuprewicz, who has done research for the mayor's council. Data about the leaks isn't required to be made public, but now that data are being gathered, public utility commissions could demand that utilities turn over maps whenever they ask for a rate increase, Kuprewicz said.
National Map Said Needed
Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski expressed frustration that there is no national map that shows all gas pipelines, including transmission, distribution and gathering pipelines.
More than four years after a 12-inch, 1928 cast iron distribution pipeline exploded in his city and killed five people, “I still can't get the gas companies to tell me where the gas lines are,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
In 2011, it took six hours to figure out where the shut-off valves were located, which allowed a fire to continue to burn, he said. And in February, 100 homes were evacuated because residents smelled gas and no one knew where to shut it off, he said.
“It's appalling,” he said. “We have the technology. There's no reason we can't figure out where these gas lines are.
“My theory is that they don't know where all the gas line are,” he added. “And if that's true, that's scary.”
-
Proposal on Allowing Bulk Transport Of Fracking Wastewater Sent to White House
May 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The White House is reviewing a U.S. Coast Guard pre-rule on allowing bulk transport of fracking wastewater.
There is no description of the proposal, and the Coast Guard declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA on what the pre-rule contains. However, the pre-rule has the same title—“Carriage of Conditionally Permitted Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water in Bulk”—as a Coast Guard policy letter that was proposed in October 2013 and never finalized.
The latest pre-rule was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget on May 14.
The 2013 policy proposal offered a framework for the agency to permit barge owners' bulk transport of the shale gas extraction wastewater, a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing. The framework was proposed at that time due to a growing commercial interest in the practice, specifically transporting the wastewater from northern Appalachia to Ohio, Texas and Louisiana, according to the 2013 document (212 DEN A-3, 11/1/13).
Nearly 1,100 comments were submitted on the October 2013 policy statement with a large amount of public backlash against the agency move. Others, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the American Water Works Association, didn't outright oppose the measure but offered restrictions that should be implemented to ensure safe movement of these materials.
GreenHunter Resources is one of the companies that, as of February, still was seeking approval to ship shale gas extraction wastewater.
The White House's Office of Management and Budget has 90 days to review the proposal.
-
White House Drags Its Feet in Hiring Railroad Cop
May 16, 2015 | Politico
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
This week’s deadly Amtrak crash has stoked an intense debate about the safety of the U.S. railways, but one critical piece is missing from that conversation — a permanent head for the federal government’s top railroad agency.
President Barack Obama has failed to nominate a leader for the Federal Railroad Administration for 127 days and counting, a vacancy that experts say could hamper the federal response to the accident that killed eight people and injured more than 200 others.
“Career employees who have been here before this administrator and will be here after this administrator know that an acting administrator has less authority,” said Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board, which has issued the FRA a flurry of recommended safeguards over the years that the agency has yet to implement. He said the lack of a permanent leader can only be a “detriment.”
The agency’s acting chief, Sarah Feinberg, is a former Facebook executive and ex-aide to Rahm Emanuel who has close ties to the White House and much popularity on the Hill — but little substantial railroad experience. And as only an interim boss, she faces obstacles in even attempting to make the changes that FRA critics want to see at the agency, which some lawmakers have lambasted as too slow to regulate and too cozy with the railroads it oversees.The agency also hasn’t had a deputy administrator since September.
The White House praises Feinberg’s performance, which has included an aggressive outreach to Congress that won over some of the agency’s harshest critics. This week, she briefed more than a half-dozen lawmakers about the Amtrak crash and spent two days near the scene in Philadelphia, where sources say she headed barely 15 minutes after Tuesday night’s accident.
“While we have no personnel announcements at this time, it is important to note that Acting Administrator Feinberg is providing excellent leadership of the FRA during this time,” a White House official said Friday.
Still, the White House is showing no signs it plans to fill the slot anytime soon, let alone put her in it. And with lawmakers already pointing fingers in the wake of the crash, and reform proposals already being floated, experts said the FRA needs a permanent head who has the credibility that comes with Senate confirmation and is less immune to the political forces that will shape the response to the safety crisis.Feinberg is showing every sign that she’s interested in the nomination. She’s also tried to dispel any impression of coziness with the railroads, declaring earlier this month that “we are not an agency with a goal of making things convenient or inexpensive for industry.” Near this week’s crash scene, she told POLITICO she’ll continue to push the railroads to install a speed-control technology that investigators said would have prevented the fatal derailment, despite the companies’ complaints about the costs.
The railroad agency also made a point of announcing on Wednesday that Feinberg would be joining investigators in Philadelphia, which is part of a purposeful turn toward more transparency that Feinberg initiated. The lawmakers she briefed on the accident included Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), who heads the House’s railroads subcommittee.
But observers of the agency say her interim status puts her in the role of a substitute teacher, minding a flock that knows she may be heading for the exit soon. That’s on top of other limits on the agency’s performance, such as its continued complaints that Congress hasn’t given it the authority to better manage some safety initiatives.
“Of course,” said Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who sits on the House Transportation Committee, when asked whether not having a permanent head is a drag on the agency’s response.Still, one former Democratic Senate aide said acting administrators are less of a problem than the perception they create of vacancy at the top.
“Institutionally, it is always better to have somebody who has the confidence in the Senate in that slot,” the aide said. “It’s not that the agency’s people aren’t going to listen to her, it’s because people take shots — the media and everybody else, people question because she’s an interim. And you don’t want that. You want certainty.”
But the aide said he doubted Feinberg would let the “acting” in her title get in her way. “Sarah’s pretty much a hard-ass. I don’t think the lack of a title would stop her — that’s just my impression of Sarah.”
David Clarke, director of the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, said the lack of a permanent administrator isn’t necessarily an impediment to an agency doing its job. “The administrator obviously is the leader of the FRA forces, but you’ve got a pretty good group of staff that carry out the day-to-day activities of the administration,” he said.
Goelz, the former NTSB official, said Feinberg deserves credit for what he calls an “outstanding job” on the substance of rail policy, for instance by prying loose a long-stuck regulation meant to lessen the dangers of trains that transport crude oil. The final rule came out at the beginning of May, 3 1/2 months after the deadline that an impatient Congress had set after years of delays.“My understanding is she played a major role in getting that moving,” Goelz said. But he said that the longer Feinberg sits in the post without being nominated, the more questions it raises about “whether the White House has full confidence in her.”
The vacancy at the top of the FRA mirrors the 220-plus days that have gone by without a permanent leader for another Department of Transportation agency that plays a role in rail oversight, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Both agencies regulate aspects of the surging practice of transporting crude oil by train, which has led to derailments and explosions in communities from North Dakota to Alabama to Virginia in the past two years.
The administration has offered no explanation for the delays, although Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has said Feinberg — his one-time chief of staff — “has my complete confidence.”
Feinberg has declined repeatedly to discuss on the record her handling of the job, but she’s long been a known quantity in Washington: She spent years working for Emanuel, including as the communications director of the House Democratic Caucus and then as a senior White House adviser when Emanuel was Obama’s chief of staff. She’s also been one-half of a Washington power couple with her 2006 marriage to former White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer, though they later separated.
After leaving the White House, she jumped to the private sector, taking communications gigs at Bloomberg and Facebook.
Her fans on and off the Hill say she’s brought a refreshing openness to a notoriously closed agency, especially compared with her immediate predecessor, fifth-generation railroad veteran Joseph Szabo, who left Jan. 9.
While Szabo boasted that his six-year tenure had seen a “dramatic improvement in safety,” he had a testy relationship with lawmakers who pointedly disagreed and accused him of keeping them out of the loop. Last fall, after a spree of transit accidents in New York and Connecticut that killed six people and injured 126, Blumenthal accused Szabo of running “a rogue agency” that disregards Congress’ mandates and deadlines.
In contrast, Feinberg has waged a charm offensive with Congress that left even Blumenthal praising her. Since taking the helm of the FRA, sources say, she has met with more than 40 members of Congress one-on-one, usually without staff.
“She has been far more transparent and vigorous in overseeing an agency with very profoundly important responsibilities for rail safety and reliability,” the senator told POLITICO in April. The House Transportation Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, agreed on that score last month, saying that “I would say she is a rare combination of substance and political background.”
But DeFazio, who has been clashing with the White House on trade policy, said Friday that he has no insight into whether the administration plans to nominate Feinberg for the post. “I’m not exactly on the best terms with them right now,” he said.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested