Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Moving To Change Its Chemical Warning Labels
May 18, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
...OEHHA “proposes picking the ‘list of 12’ chemicals not based on any kind of science about the actual risk they may present to consumers, but based on the chemicals it thinks consumers already recognize and are already afraid of,” charges Tim Shestek, a director of public affairs with the American Chemistry Council , an industry trade group. -
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Returned To California List
May 18, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
...But the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, filed a lawsuit challenging the move, and a court in 2013 ordered the state to withdraw the listing until the panel of experts could review data on BPA. -
Stopping Cancer Before It Starts
May 18, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Margaret I. Cuomo, M.D.
On May 20, 2015, New York State will host its Cancer Prevention Summit in Manhattan. -
OMB Review Spurred Significant Changes To Scope Of EPA Nano Data Rule
May 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Changes resulting from the White House review of EPA's recently proposed rule to collect data on nanoscale materials significantly altered the scope of substances that companies must report, though an industry source says the changes show federal officials wrestling to craft practical requirements, while an environmentalist says certain changes downplay the prevalence and risk of the novel substances. -
US EPA Seeks Extended Lead-Based Paint Activity Authorities
May 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The USA EPA has submitted a new information collection request (ICR) for TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 training and certification, accreditation and standards for lead-based paint activities and renovation, repair and painting. -
Minnesota Lawmakers Strike Deal On Flame Retardant Ban
May 18, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
Minnesota is one step closer to enacting the nation's strictest ban on fire retardant chemicals. -
US Agency Consults on DBCP Standard
May 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration is asking for public comments on its proposal to extend the information collection requirements specified by the 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) Standard. -
House Panel Approves Microbeads Phase-Out Legislation
May 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A House panel has passed, by voice vote, a bill that would ban the sale or distribution of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads, from 1 January 2018 (CW 12 March 2015). -
Regulators Seek Climate Rule 'Safety Valve' to Protect Electric Grid
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) wants the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants to include a “safety valve” to protect electric reliability. -
Despite Political Rhetoric, 41 States Exploring Clean Power Plan Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
At least 41 states are in talks with neighbors about how they might cut power-sector carbon emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, despite appeals from Republicans in Congress for state officials to refuse to comply, according to regional coordinators. -
Behind the Scenes, Critical States Chew Over Clean Power Plan Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
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. -
Former Portland, Ore., Mayor Adams Discusses New Carbon Pricing Handbook for Policymakers
May 18, 2015 | E&E - TV
As U.S. EPA moves forward with emissions regulations, how should lawmakers approach the conversation on carbon pricing? -
Week Ahead: Lawmakers Dig Into Energy Overhaul
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Lawmakers on both the House and Senate Energy committees will focus their attention on a slew of bills that could form the basis for a long-awaited comprehensive energy package. -
Why EPA’s Alleged ‘War on Coal’ May Actually be a War on Energy Waste
May 18, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
The growing criticisms of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions have a common theme — the agency and the president, it is often alleged, are waging a “war on coal.” -
Landowner Group Unlikely to Challenge Fracking Ban; Industry Still Weighing Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A pro-drilling landowner group in upstate New York is unlikely to bring a legal challenge against Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) administration for its soon-to-be-finalized ban on hydraulic fracturing. -
Industry Asks Court to Block BLM Fracking Rule
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Oil and gas industry groups that sued the Obama administration within minutes of the release of new regulations for hydraulic fracturing are now pressing a federal court to stop the rule in its tracks. -
New Oil Train Safety Rules Spell Delay, Leaving Citizens at Risk
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Jayni Hein
Chicago, Philadelphia and Sacramento, Calif.: These are just a few of the cities within the "blast zones" of mile-long trains carrying flammable crude oil across the country.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Moving To Change Its Chemical Warning Labels
May 18, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
OEHHA “proposes picking the ‘list of 12’ chemicals not based on any kind of science about the actual risk they may present to consumers, but based on the chemicals it thinks consumers already recognize and are already afraid of,” charges Tim Shestek, a director of public affairs with the American Chemistry Council , an industry trade group.
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i20/California-Moving-Change-Chemical-Warning.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) BPA Returned To California List
May 18, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
...But the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, filed a lawsuit challenging the move, and a court in 2013 ordered the state to withdraw the listing until the panel of experts could review data on BPA.
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i20/BPA-Returned-California-List.html
-
Stopping Cancer Before It Starts
May 18, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Margaret I. Cuomo, M.D.
On May 20, 2015, New York State will host its Cancer Prevention Summit in Manhattan.
This bold initiative is the work of the New York State Commissioner of Health, Dr. Howard Zucker, and his colleagues at the New York State Department of Health. Many health related organizations in New York are participating in the Summit, and the audience will be challenged with action points. I am honored to participate in the Cancer Prevention Summit as a speaker, and will introduce the keynote speaker, Dr. Graham Colditz, an internationally recognized leader in the prevention of cancer and other diseases.
The Summit's focus is the primary prevention of cancer -- stopping cancer before it starts -- and leading experts will present their research and insights with those present, and remotely through a live webcast. Creating a society that makesprevention a priority for the next generation is the ultimate goal.
The good news is that over 50 percent of all cancers can be prevented by applying what we know right now. Dr. Graham Colditz will share his current research involving adolescents and adults.
While the evidence is strong for the power of prevention through lifestyle choices and environmental factors, the message of prevention still has not reached the majority of Americans.
The PBS series "The Emperor of All Maladies" is a comprehensive history of cancer in America, the pain and suffering that cancer causes, the roles of patients, their loved ones, and the physicians and other healthcare workers caring for them. While cancer treatments that bring relief, and in some cases, a cure, were highlighted, the series did not shed much light on the prevention of cancer.
The full story of the power of prevention is yet to be told. With more than 50 percent of cancers worldwide considered to be preventable, we need to focus on the ways in which cancer risk is profoundly affected by lifestyle and environmental factors, including diet, exercise, alcohol consumption, tobacco, infectious agents, environmental agents, ionizing and nonionizing radiation, environmental pollutants, and harmful chemicals in pesticides, varnishes, cleaning agents, personal care products, cosmetics and many other products.
The public would welcome the chance to learn about the ways in which cancer risk can be reduced through healthful eating, increased physical exercise, smoking cessation, moderate use or avoidance of alcohol, avoidance of tanning beds, avoidance of over-exposure to the sun, and use of HPV vaccine and Hepatitis B vaccine, all of which contribute to cancer prevention. This good advice, and much more, will be presented at the Summit on May 20th.
As we learned recently by the outpouring of resistance from the food and beverage industry to the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, even the simple act of advocating for the consumption of more vegetables and fruits and advising the public to drink water to quench thirst is met with opposition by those industries threatened by a public interested in eating and living more healthfully.
Toxic chemicals present in our homes, schools, work and recreational spaces present a real threat to our health and are increasing cancer risk. If the federal government cannot effect meaningful reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, then each state will have to take responsibility to protect consumers from harmful chemicals in many household and personal care products. The Summit will present scientific evidence regarding the damaging effects of many chemicals on adults and children. The profound effect of these chemicals on children and adults should be acknowledged, and steps should be taken to protect consumers.
Some cancers have an infectious cause, but vaccination rates for hepatitis B virus, associated with liver cancer, and human papilloma virus (HPV), associated with cervical, penile, and head and neck cancers are low. The public needs to be encouraged become vaccinated to prevent these cancers.
Researchers have determined that physical activity is associated with a reduction in the risk of cancer of the breast, colon, prostate and endometrium (lining of the uterus), and probably many other cancers, as well.
In addition to reducing cancer risk, physical exercise helps prevent heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and other conditions. Physical activity is also a key factor in the prevention of overweight and obesity, both of which increase the risk of several cancers.
Increased physical activity in schools, at work and at home can be achieved. Our schools are challenged by many academic requirements, but physical activity should still be a priority for the sake of our children's mental and physical health. Taking the stairs instead of an elevator, walking to an appointment rather than taking a bus, subway or taxi, and spending times outdoors in warm and sunny weather are all easy ways to increase daily physical activity.
During break time during the Summit, the audience and speakers will be led in simple physical exercises that can be done at work or home. The Summit will provide practical examples of ways in which we can all be more physically active each day.
When we talk to our middle and high school students about alcohol abuse, do we explain that alcohol raises the risk of cancer? Teaching young people about healthy lifestyles should include a conversation about cancer risk factors.
Cigarette smoking is still a major cause of cancer worldwide.
The World Health Organization reports that tobacco use causes approximately 20 percent of cancer deaths, and 70 percent of lung cancer deaths around the world.
According to the American Cancer Society, smoking kills more Americans alcohol than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, homicide, illegal drug use and suicide combined.
Vigilant smoking cessation programs in schools are still necessary. We should all beaware that smoking causes not only lung cancer, but many other cancers including cancer of the throat, voice box, nose and sinuses, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon, kidney, bladder, ovary, cervix and acute myeloid leukemia.
And because e-cigarettes contain nicotine and many other harmful chemicals, young people should be advised not to use them. There is clear evidence that e-cigarettes promote inflammation of the airways and malignant transformation of the bronchial cells.
At the Cancer Prevention Summit on May 20th, 2015, experts in public health will challenge us all to consider what we could be doing better to prevent cancer. Most importantly, we need to commit to a collaborative effort, involving every segment of our society. We can all contribute to a healthier, more vigorous society, and a world where cancer is considered a preventable illness.
Dr. David J. Hunter is the Vincent L. Gregory Professor in Cancer Prevention and Dean of Academic Affairs at Harvard's TH Chan School of Public Health. Referring to cancer as the "emperor of all maladies," Dr. Hunter offered this comment: "As we admire the emperor's parade of new discoveries and potential breakthrough medicines, we need to be like the clear-eyed child with the courage to point out the obvious -- a cancer prevented does not need to be cured."
The prevention of cancer will be a priority for New York on May 20th, as it should be for all of America, all of the time.
This blog post is part of a series produced by the New York State Department of Health in conjunction with their Cancer Prevention Summit (New York, May 20). For more information about the event, read here.
-
OMB Review Spurred Significant Changes To Scope Of EPA Nano Data Rule
May 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Changes resulting from the White House review of EPA's recently proposed rule to collect data on nanoscale materials significantly altered the scope of substances that companies must report, though an industry source says the changes show federal officials wrestling to craft practical requirements, while an environmentalist says certain changes downplay the prevalence and risk of the novel substances.
EPA is taking comment through July 6 on its proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule to collect information on nanomaterials already on the market.
Earlier this month, the agency released documents revealing how the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of the rule significantly altered the agency's original proposal.
The red-lined versions of the Federal Register (FR) notice of the proposal and an economic analysis supporting the proposal show the OMB review resulted in changes to the definition of substances that would require reporting, and to language describing EPA's estimate of the number of manufacturers that would likely be subject to the final rule.
An industry source says several changes resulting from OMB's review will alter the scope of substances subject to the future reporting requirement, with some broadening and others limiting the scope of substances that would have to be reported.
The changes will likely draw comment from companies arguing the revised parameters that help describe substances requiring reporting are arbitrary, rather than aligning with properties that EPA believes could lead to potential environmental health and safety risks.
One of the changes, the source notes, that may raise concerns is a call in the revised version of the FR notice for data on substances that exhibit properties that are "unique and novel" because of their size.
"From a policy perspective, it's troubling because it may exclude materials that have characteristics that are not unique and novel but are still of a concern," the source says. The criteria of "being unique and novel doesn't seem to bear any relationship to the characteristics EPA has identified for environmental health and safety."
Still, the industry source says that the changes overall show federal officials wrestling with practical boundaries for the reporting rule that will target a very broad class of materials, rather than seeking to promote certain technologies.
OMB Revisions
An environmentalist disagrees, saying revisions to the documents, including how nanomaterials are referenced and estimates of the number of companies that will be subject to the rule, appear to downplay the prevalence of nanomaterials on the market, as well as their novel properties and potential risks.
Specifically, the source with the Center for Food Safety (CFS) notes a change in the economic analysis that turned EPA's original, conservative estimate of 800 producers of nanomaterials on the market into a "high-end" estimate.
"They have an interest in making there be less nano out there, so they don't have to take it as seriously," the CFS source says, noting the agency's limited resources.
The CFS and industry sources both note that while the changes resulted from the White House review process, which all EPA's proposed rules undergo, it is unclear whether officials at OMB, EPA or perhaps another federal agency were responsible for the changes to the documents supporting the rule.
EPA proposed the rule April 6 under its TSCA section 8(a) authority, and has said that information received under the rule will help guide its future policies, which could include additional reporting requirements and possible regulation of certain nanomaterials.
The rule would require one-time reporting of data to EPA on nanomaterials six months after issuance of the final rule. The agency is also proposing that any company that intends to manufacture a substance that would have been subject to the one-off rule but does not do so until after the effective date of the regulation would have to report to EPA at least 135 days before commencing manufacturing.
Environmentalists have long pushed EPA to craft regulatory approaches for nanomaterials, which they say may present novel risks because of potentially vast differences in performance and toxicity of the particles based on relatively small changes in their properties -- characteristics such as length, size, and coating, among others.
The recent proposal followed years of wrangling with the nano industry and White House officials over how to define and seek better information on the substances. EPA first submitted a proposal in 2010, though review of the plan for a pair of rules under TSCA stalled amid industry concerns about the potential scope of EPA's information collection effort.
The agency withdrew part of its proposal from OMB review in 2011, and withdrew the remaining portion late last year, the same day it submitted a new option for White House consideration, according to OMB's website.
-
US EPA Seeks Extended Lead-Based Paint Activity Authorities
May 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The USA EPA has submitted a new information collection request (ICR) for TSCA Section 402 and Section 404 training and certification, accreditation and standards for lead-based paint activities and renovation, repair and painting.
It is a proposed extension of the agency's existing ICR, which is currently approved until 31 December.
-
Minnesota Lawmakers Strike Deal On Flame Retardant Ban
May 18, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
Minnesota is one step closer to enacting the nation's strictest ban on fire retardant chemicals.
Proponents, however, lamented that a deal struck by lawmakers severely curbed the original list of banned substances.
"I'm tremendously disappointed today that we don't have more of the chemicals on this list. I can't even believe it," said Susan Shaw, a public health professor at the State University of New York-Albany who testified before a legislative committee on Monday.
The Minnesota Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, overwhelmingly passed the original version of the ban last month.
That bill would have banned 10 flame retardants in mattresses, furniture and children's products amid concerns about increasing rates of cancer among firefighters. Shaw testified that firefighters absorb dangerous levels of those chemicals when responding to fires.
The legislation, however, hit a snag in the Republican-controlled House. Business and chemical industry groups questioned the connections between the chemicals and cancer risks and argued more information is needed.
"There is not a one-size-fits-all when it comes to the chemical application of flame retardants," said Tony Kwilas of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
Ultimately, the House passed amended legislation that restricts four chemicals and requires state officials to study the dangers of the other six. The ban would impact manufacturers and wholesalers beginning in July of 2017, with retailers affected one year later.
Firefighters groups grudgingly praised the changes.
“We are leaving off the list six carcinogenic flame retardants, so in that regards I’m not pleased about it,” said Chris Parsons, a St. Paul fire captain and president of the Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters union. "But does it move the conversation further, does it get us closer to our goal? Yes."
The lead author of the Senate bill, meanwhile, said he would support the amended bill when it returns to his chamber for a vote.
"Our firefighters deserve better than this, but this is a significant step forward," said Sen. John Marty, a Twin Cities-area Democrat. -
US Agency Consults on DBCP Standard
May 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration is asking for public comments on its proposal to extend the information collection requirements specified by the 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) Standard.
Osha says it can find no US employer currently producing DBCP or DBCP-based end-use products.
This is probably because the EPA has suspended registration of the substance.
However, it is asking for one hour to approve the information collection provisions of the standard should the EPA lift its suspension, or if technology develops new applications for the substance.
Comments must be submitted by 17 July.
-
House Panel Approves Microbeads Phase-Out Legislation
May 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A House panel has passed, by voice vote, a bill that would ban the sale or distribution of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads, from 1 January 2018 (CW 12 March 2015).
The Microbeads-Free Waters Act of 2015 was introduced by Representatives Fred Upton (R-Michigan), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey).
At the markup of the legislation by the Health Subcommittee, Mr Pallone noted that the measure had broad support from both industry and environmental advocates.
He said he was working with Mr Upton on further improvements to the legislation before its consideration by the full committee. These include the potential for including a definition of synthetic microbeads, and refining the timeline for phasing out the manufacture and sale of products containing them.
Expressing support for federal legislation for the phase-out from its products, John Hurson, executive vice president of the Personal Care Products Council, stressed the need to define synthetic plastic microbeads, in the statute. That is, he said, to “avoid inadvertently prohibiting the use of natural alternatives and to make sure the prohibition provides clear direction to companies regarding reformulation (CW 6 May 2015)”.
-
Regulators Seek Climate Rule 'Safety Valve' to Protect Electric Grid
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) wants the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants to include a “safety valve” to protect electric reliability.
The safety valve could allow a state to ask the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a temporary waiver to its compliance plan to protect the reliability of the electric grid.
FERC’s late Friday letter to the EPA did not sound any loud alarms about reliability or say that the climate rule would necessarily threaten the electrical grid.
Congressional Republicans and the rule’s other opponents have highlighted reliability as a top disadvantage of the climate rule, warning that mass closures of coal-fired power plants would cause widespread blackouts.
The GOP has repeatedly called upon FERC to analyze how the rule would impact the grid in the hopes that the regulators would agree with their concerns.
Instead, the agency asked for the safety valve provision, which the EPA has said it is considering.
FERC, which is responsible for ensuring electricity reliability, said the climate rule could work similarly to a safety valve built into the EPA’s recent Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulation.
The agency said it could help the EPA to determine whether a state's request for a waiver under the safety valve measure was valid.
“Specifically, after a plan is approved and in place, the commission could review a petitioner’s claim that unforeseen or emergency system conditions will result in violation of a commission-approved reliability standard or reserve margin deficiency, unless a compliance obligation is adjusted,” the agency wrote.
Janet McCabe, head of the EPA’s air pollution office, told lawmakers earlier this year that she has heard multiple calls for a safety valve provision, and she and her colleagues are listening.
The EPA’s rule seeks to slash the power sector’s greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030, with interim reductions in 2020.
FERC held a series of conferences in recent months to gather input from the EPA, states, utilities and others about potential reliability problems the rule would cause.
The agency told the EPA that speakers at the conference also asked for more flexibility in how they reach the 2020 goals. But FERC said it trusted that the EPA understood those concerns.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said the agency was glad to see FERC weigh in.
“The information and insights that we’ve gleaned from these sessions and discussions have helped us in our continued focus on crafting a rule that provides sufficient time, flexibility and latitude for states, utilities and reliability organizations to take the necessary steps to ensure that all Americans continue to have access to clean, affordable and reliable energy,” she said.
Purchia added that the EPA is “committed” to working with FERC, the Energy Department and others to safeguard reliability.
-
Despite Political Rhetoric, 41 States Exploring Clean Power Plan Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
At least 41 states are in talks with neighbors about how they might cut power-sector carbon emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, despite appeals from Republicans in Congress for state officials to refuse to comply, according to regional coordinators.
Fifteen states are bringing court challenges to the rule, and based on comments from GOP governors and attorneys general, it appears that number could grow closer to two dozen once EPA finalizes the regulation this summer.
But while those high-level politicians threaten to fight the standards or follow advice from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and "just say no," air and electric regulators are still considering their options and discussing how they can coordinate with other states.
"Our experience from states that are going to make a legal challenge, they have said nothing publicly, but still behind the scenes they're saying, 'OK, what are our options?'" said Doug Scott, former chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission and vice president of the Great Plains Institute. GPI is organizing Clean Power Plan talks in the Midwest and tallied up the 41 states involved in discussions around the country.
Seven states involved with GPI's Midwestern Power Sector Collaborative have asked EPA to set up a voluntary carbon credit trading system so states or generators that fall short of their goals can purchase allowances from states that exceed them.
Regulators from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Michigan signed on to that letter to EPA last month, with high-ranking officials in Missouri, Kentucky and Wisconsin participating as observers. That group also involves electric utilities and environmental advocates. Also in the Midwest, the Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators has held talks.
In Denver last week, representatives from 13 Western states met in private sessions convened by former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's Center for the New Energy Economy. CNEE has held about half a dozen such meetings since June, involving North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and states to the West, said Jeff Lyng, a senior policy adviser for the group. EPA officials from headquarters and three regional offices have been involved.Sprawling array of interstate talks
At the recent gathering, more than 90 participants from state offices and utilities focused on "building a common understanding of the rule," Lyng said.
Similar meetings have occurred within the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB), which involves Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
WIEB contracted the consulting firm Cadmus to explore how states could use a "modular" approach to trade credits for renewable energy, energy efficiency and redispatch from coal power to natural gas (ClimateWire, May 4).
In the Southeast, Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions has been coordinating talks and issued a policy brief urging states to adopt "common elements," or common definitions of carbon-cutting measures and methods for proving how much they reduce emissions. The paper says states could leave the door open for trading without submitting proposals together formally (ClimateWire, March 17).
The Georgetown Climate Center has engaged with a broader group of stakeholders that included state officials from California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
And in the Northeast, the nine states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade system have been coordinating.
To add to those efforts, nearly every recent national or regional conference of state officials, including the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, has involved panels or EPA listening sessions on the rule.
"A lot of state commissioners, public utility commissioners and environmental regulators of course know other state commissioners, so there's probably been untold legions of calls between individuals," added Ken Colburn, a senior associate for the Regulatory Assistance Project, an organization of former state air and electric regulators that is consulting states on compliance options.What might work with the neighbors?
As states move ahead with these discussions, they aren't hashing out what they could offer each other so much as considering whether there are opportunities for coordination.
"What I've seen is states really just trying to figure out how different things might work rather than talking to them about specific agreements," Scott said.
Talks about multi-state coordination on the rule have focused not on formal interstate agreements but on ways for states to trade compliance credits. States would not mesh together their goals and work in tandem but show EPA how they offset one another's efforts to reach individual targets.
Many states have appealed to EPA to lower their target rates, and if they get their wishes, "that might change your whole dynamic about working with a particular neighbor," Scott said.
EPA assigned a different goal to each state, except Vermont, which is excluded from the rule. States must reduce their annual CO2 emissions rates -- or the amount of the gas that is released per unit of power produced -- between 11 and 72 percent.
States that have spent years investing in renewable energy and switching to natural gas from coal power have complained that the targets are inequitable. Some states with the least stringent goals are next door to states with much higher standards, which can create unintended rivalries.
For example, North Dakota has the lowest required reduction, 11 percent, but neighboring Minnesota faces a decrease of 41 percent. Missouri has a goal of 21 percent, while Arkansas is looking at 44 percent. Kentucky and West Virginia have goals of 18 and 20 percent, respectively, while Virginia must make a 38 percent reduction.Can mutual cost-savings trump state politics?
Many expect EPA to even out some of those disparities. But the Obama administration has pledged in international negotiations to reduce power-sector emissions 30 percent by 2030, so if EPA weakens some state targets, it will likely need to make others tougher. The standards in the final rule could make some states sore losers and discourage them from working together.
"Politics are also about emotion and the perception of fairness, and just because something makes economic sense doesn't mean that it's fair," said one person working closely with states.
Regardless of the ending targets, some states are already hostile toward the rule, limiting options for regional plans from the start.
"When we're meeting with states, we have to be really sensitive in that we're getting opinions all over the map, and that can be within a single state," said Gary Helm, lead strategist for emerging markets for the grid organization PJM Interconnection. "When you go to the energy office, when you go to the environmental [regulators], when you go to the [electric] commission, they're not always on the same page."
Reports from grid organizations and think tanks routinely stress that regional collaboration limits costs. If one state has a tough goal and a neighboring state has an easier goal and the ability to build cheaper zero-carbon energy, both states can benefit, they argue. Modeling has shown, though, that interstate options aren't always the best deal for each individual state. West Virginia would see higher CO2 prices under an analysis of interstate options conducted by PJM.
But "if a state chooses to do a state-only program even though the costs are lower if they are in a trading program, they are leaving money on the table," Helm said at a panel hosted by the Electric Power Research Institute.
Scott says cost savings may trump politics if states can prove with modeling that they would be better off working together.
"Nobody is going to want to be in a position of turning a blind eye to something that could save ratepayers in their state a lot of money over a go-it-alone approach, where each individual plant or each individual utility is left to fend off these costs wholly on their own," he said.
-
Behind the Scenes, Critical States Chew Over Clean Power Plan Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
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.
-
Former Portland, Ore., Mayor Adams Discusses New Carbon Pricing Handbook for Policymakers
May 18, 2015 | E&E - TV
As U.S. EPA moves forward with emissions regulations, how should lawmakers approach the conversation on carbon pricing? During today's OnPoint, Sam Adams, director of the World Resources Institute's U.S. Climate Initiative and the former mayor of Portland, Ore., discusses WRI's new carbon pricing handbook for U.S. policymakers and talks about the politics of climate change legislation.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Sam Adams, director of the World Resources Institute's U.S. Climate Initiative and the former mayor of Portland, Oregon. Sam it's a pleasure to have you here.
Sam Adams: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Sam, the Climate Initiative recently released a handbook for U.S. policymakers on carbon pricing in the U.S. It comes at a very interesting time when EPA is moving forward with emissions regulations. States are grappling with how and even if to comply with EPA's Clean Power Plan. Why does the conversation on carbon pricing need to happen now?
Sam Adams: Well I think for the reason you mentioned in terms of this administration's work to implement the climate action plan for sure and I think probably three other reasons.
One is we have a presidential election coming up, major elections for U.S. Congress at the state and local level. I think informing those races and the candidates' thinking around how do you have a prosperous low-carbon economy is really important. So this research is intended to have the elections as an audience for the findings.
In addition to that, we've got the United Nations Global Summit in Paris at the end of this year. It's important too, in this case, this report looks at the 38 nations already in the world that have priced carbon. We want to inform that conversation.
Then really though probably the third reason to do a handbook on pricing carbon is there is so much evidence, a preponderance of facts and analytics that show it is an effective way to both, if depending on the policy design's choices, it is an effective way to both stimulate the economy in the creation of jobs while transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
Monica Trauzzi: So on the 2016 elections, you would argue that there are votes to be made if lawmakers side with moving forward on carbon regulation.
Sam Adams: I'm a realist and I think the chance of a price on carbon, a national price on carbon, being picked up as a banner for one of the presidential candidates is probably low and probably pretty low for the state races, congressional and state races as well, but we still want to help set the future conversation with some facts and with some analytics and inform as much as possible those contests, those debates.
You can support a price on carbon and demonstrate a number of potential benefits for this country even if you don't believe in climate change. You can use the revenues from pricing carbon to provide rebates for the folks that pay it, for companies that pay it. You can use it for economic development and job growth in terms of incenting innovation and clean technology.
So there are lots of reasons to look at this, but I'm a realist. I understand that this is probably a future discussion that will have more traction.
Monica Trauzzi: What are the biggest market failures that need correcting through some type of pricing mechanism?
Sam Adams: Well, fundamentally as the facts show right now, the carbon polluter does not pay and there's few incentives. In fact, there are many disincentives to even look at the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon under the way things are now outside of those countries and states and provinces and cities that price carbon.
Oftentimes the conversation is set up as we have to choose between helping the environment or helping the economy. I think that when you look at those nearly 40 countries and 20-odd-some states and provinces that have set this up in a smart way, that's not the case and you only need to look as close as California that has had such an economic renaissance and a very aggressive cap-and-trade price on carbon.
You've got British Columbia who has a price on carbon now for nearly five years and very successful economically. You've got here even in New England RGGI success in the power sector at pricing carbon. So it's no longer either or and if done right, you can do both.
Monica Trauzzi: But how do you protect industries that are emitting high levels of carbon and those states that are very economically dependent on these industries like the coal industry?
Sam Adams: For me personally I think that a smart national price on carbon also deals within equity of impacts that will happen. I think that it is absolutely fair that if we're going to price carbon and you have disproportionate impacts, economic impacts on coal country, that that policy would take into account that and to provide the support needed with the change.
There are elements of that in the last time that Congress seriously considered this, this economic equity elements, and I think that most policymakers would want to pursue the same kind of equity elements to a national price on carbon.
Monica Trauzzi: And this is the first in a series of handbooks on carbon pricing that you'll be releasing. So what aspects will be explored in the subsequent papers?
Sam Adams: The following research, the next following research, it's nerdy, but important stuff. I will dig deep on the mechanics. What are the best results from a particular approach to putting a tax on carbon versus a cap and trade. Where has the experience of these 38 countries, what have the lessons that they've learned in terms of getting the most and the fairest mechanism of pricing carbon.
Then also we'll be looking at the issue of innovation. How can you have complementary policies beyond the pure taxing mechanism that will spur clean technology and innovation. Right now China is leading the world in clean technology innovation by a number of measures. The national price on carbon, we will dive deep to look at what are the best practices to make sure that if we pursue this, the United States gets the full economic benefit of job creation and supporting businesses.
Then we also want to look at this issue of equity. What's a best practice approach? What is a fair way to deal with the disproportionate impacts if you go to a price on carbon across the United States? There is a difference between the impacts of the Pacific Northwest where I'm from and coal country here in the Mid-Atlantic.
Monica Trauzzi: So you had a lot of success in Portland in greening that city. How are you going to take the accomplishments you had there and some of the lessons learned and apply it to your new work at WRI?
Sam Adams: I think that the one area that I'm very passionate about is economic prosperity. I grew up in a small town on the Oregon coast, hard struggle background, I know how important it is that a family have economic security, access to good-paying jobs.
So when you're the mayor of a city pursuing a deeply green sustainability agenda, you also, or I did, pursued an economic development strategy that takes full advantage of that. I think cities have really led innovation on this issue. It's not a partisan issue when you get to the city level. Most mayors, most city councils are elected on a nonpartisan basis in this country, and our particular climate action plan also was integrated with an economic development strategy called We Build Green Cities. It really helped propel and support Portland's clean technology industry to grow jobs by exporting not only the products that they made, like modular eco-roofs, but also the green professional services, like engineering and architecture and systems engineering around deeply green building.
Monica Trauzzi: We'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate your time.
Sam Adams: My pleasure. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Week Ahead: Lawmakers Dig Into Energy Overhaul
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Lawmakers on both the House and Senate Energy committees will focus their attention on a slew of bills that could form the basis for a long-awaited comprehensive energy package.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a Tuesday hearing on many of the 17 energy bills she introduced earlier this month. The chairwoman said those bills could lay the foundation for an energy overhaul, the first such package since 2007.
Twenty-one other bills are also on the hearing’s agenda. But Murkowski’s bill to lift the federal ban on crude oil exports isn’t on that list. She said earlier this week she is still working on a legislative route for the bill, which could be part of the broader energy package or move on its own.
House lawmakers will take another crack at the energy overhaul effort on Tuesday as well.
Energy and Commerce’s Energy and Power Subcommittee will consider the draft of an energy reliability and security measure that could be included in a comprehensive reform bill.
The House committee has already held a handful of hearings on other aspects of that legislation, including a hearing last week on hydropower and natural gas regulation.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before that same House subcommittee on Thursday, both on a reform bill and the administration’s April energy infrastructure report. Moniz testified on that same report before the Senate Energy Committee last month.
Elsewhere, the sage grouse saga returns to the House Natural Resources Committee. The panel will hold a Tuesday hearing on state management of the bird, the endangered status of which has stirred debate on Capitol Hill.
The Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will hold a hearing on states’ reaction to federal mountaintop removal regulations on Wednesday.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plans to hear testimony Tuesday on a bill from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that takes aim at proposed water protection rules from the Environmental Protection Agency. A New Belgium Brewery representative will testify.
-
Why EPA’s Alleged ‘War on Coal’ May Actually be a War on Energy Waste
May 18, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
The growing criticisms of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions have a common theme — the agency and the president, it is often alleged, are waging a “war on coal.” And indeed, if the so-called “Clean Power Plan” is successfully implemented by the agency, it’s pretty clear that coal use will decline, even as we’ll get more and more of our electricity from natural gas and renewables (all trends that have begun already anyway).
But according to a new analysis of how the plan will work, all this emphasis on coal may distract from one of the policy’s key features. The Clean Power Plan, finds the analysis by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), will work most of all by stoking more efficient uses of energy. In other words, wherever electricity comes from under the plan — whether coal, natural gas or renewables — we’ll be giving off less greenhouse gas emissions simply because we’ll be using less of it in total (in some cases, if you will, wasting less).
Not only is energy efficiency arguably less controversial than cutting down on coal use; it also saves everybody money on their energy bills — a projected 8 percent by 2030 under the Clean Power Plan, according to EPA. After all, if more homes are weatherized, if they contain more energy-efficient appliances and smarter thermostats, if buildings are constructed more sustainably, then there will be less overall electricity required for powering our daily lives.
The C2ES analysis examined the results of six economic models which were used to identify “least-cost pathways” for how the Clean Power Plan might be implemented. And it found that “all studies project that energy efficiency will be the most used and least-cost option to implement the plan.”
“The studies also show that the effect of energy efficiency is large enough that overall electricity consumption declines,” the analysis, written by Jeff Hopkins, adds. (The paper draws on modeling studies from EPA, the Natural Resources Defense Council and several other outlets.)
A similar analysis last year, by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, found that the nation’s overall carbon emissions could shrink by 26 percent by the year 2030 if all states put in place a suite of four major energy-efficiency measures — a pretty dramatic level of savings.
The research on energy efficiency, explains C2Es president Bob Perciasepe, “really makes it clear that no matter how people have started to look at this, it almost always turns out to be the most cost-effective approach.”
The reason energy efficiency could play such a big role turns on the way the Clean Power Plan is designed. The regulation would set targets for states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but then allow the states to reach these goals by drawing on a blend of four separate approaches or “building blocks.” Those include not only switching to more natural gas and renewables but also finding ways to use less energy overall to achieve the same goals — in other words, increasing efficiency. The EPA assumed that states might be able to increase overall energy efficiency by as much as 1.5 percent per year.
Notably, C2ES’s analysis of the models showed that in hypothetical cases in which energy efficiency is for some reason not counted, or is constrained under the Clean Power Plan, the result is sharper cuts to coal use, and more stark increases in use of natural gas. “All models respond to the constraint by dispatching less coal generation and more natural gas generation,” wrote author Jeff Hopkins.
As we have previously highlighted, under the Clean Power Plan, states could even meet EPA’s emissions reductions goals, in part, by a truly novel approach in the context of environmental “regulation” — “nudging” human behavior itself. If people simply change their habits to use a little less energy in their homes, then greenhouse gas emissions (and electricity bills) will inevitably decline, whether or not each flip of the light switch is ultimately powered by coal.
[We could keep a huge amount of carbon out of the atmosphere just by changing people’s behavior]
Indeed, the benefits of increasing energy efficiency extend far beyond those who actually take steps to implement efficiency measures, says Susan Tierney, a senior adviser with the Analysis Group and former assistant secretary at the Department of Energy. “We know that what happens with energy efficiency is that, the overall systems requirements go down, so the most expensive power plants don’t have to run as much,” Tierney says. “So there are savings not only for the households and firms who adopt efficiency measures, but it helps people who don’t do it anyway.”
That’s not to say that the energy efficiency component of the Clean Power Plan is uncontroversial — to the contrary. Perhaps the biggest critique of this “building block” is that EPA doesn’t have the power to institute it.
Bruce Braine, vice president at the large utility company American Electric Power, has argued that EPA may lack authority to govern states’ energy efficiency programs, noting that “Energy policies that include [energy efficiency] programs and goals are traditional areas of regulation reserved for states under the 10th Amendment, and included in integrated planning processes in states with vertically integrated utilities.” Eugene Trisko, an attorney representing the United Mine Workers of America, made similar arguments recently before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
So in sum, with EPA’s regulatory plans, it’s hard to consider any aspect of them truly uncontroversial or uncontested.
Nonetheless, it’s safe to say that with all talk of targeting coal, we often fail to realize that a fundamental part of the plan is simply based on doing more with less. The disconnect was epitomized by a recent exchangebefore a subcommittee of House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce. Janet McCabe, the EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, was testifying about the Clean Power Plan, and was questioned by Republican Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia:
Rep. McKinley: I want to make sure I am hearing — you said energy prices are going to go down?
McCabe: Energy bills will go down, congressman.
McKinley: How in the world are they going to go down if we are spending this …
McCabe: With energy efficiency, people will be buying less electricity.
McKinley: And you are serious? You really —
McCabe: I —
McKinley: — believe this?
McCabe: I do. We are seeing it all across the country.
-
Landowner Group Unlikely to Challenge Fracking Ban; Industry Still Weighing Options
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A pro-drilling landowner group in upstate New York is unlikely to bring a legal challenge against Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) administration for its soon-to-be-finalized ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Though the state's recent release of a final environmental study means the ban is expected to become official soon, Joint Landowners Coalition of New York President Dan Fitzsimmons told EnergyWire his organization is simply tapped out.
"We just don't have the deep pockets to do something," he said last week, "unless we can get a grant or some other funding."
The group, made up of 70,000 landowners who favor drilling in New York's portion of the Marcellus Shale, has been at the forefront of opposition to the state's seven-year moratorium on fracking, leading a failed attempt to force officials to complete their fracking study last year, and organizing countless rallies and other political maneuvers to emphasize the potential economic benefits from natural gas production in New York's Southern Tier.
Fitzsimmons has lamented the lack of industry involvement in New York's fracking fight, as compared with expensive industry campaigns in Colorado and elsewhere (EnergyWire, Jan. 12). The group has been in talks with the Mountain States Legal Foundation for support, but Fitzsimmons says many members are now turning their attention from litigation to legislation.
Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) in January sponsored a bill in Congress that would make it easier for landowners to seek compensation from state actions that diminish their property value. The bill, H.R. 510, faces slim odds for passage but has attracted support from a range of property rights groups, including the JLCNY, Property Rights Foundation of American and New York Farm Bureau.
Advertisement
Industry representatives, meanwhile, say they are still deciding whether to bring suit when the ban is finalized.
"Yes we are considering it," New York State Petroleum Council Executive Director Karen Moreau told EnergyWire in an email Friday, adding that if the council does file suit, she doesn't yet know whether it will be an independent challenge or a joint effort with other parties.
Environmentalists warn that industry will face an uphill battle with any legal response to the decision.
"They've got to realize that any challenge is going to face enormous legal obstacles," Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Kate Sinding told EnergyWire. "The final [environmental impact statement] that came out is an extraordinarily comprehensive document."
Apart from challenging the decisionmaking process itself, landowners or gas companies may also opt to bring a regulatory takings claim against the state for diminishing the value of their property. Sinding said those claims would face similarly tough odds due to the steep standard of evidence required and the expense of litigating such cases.
Prospective legal challenges can move forward once New York officials issue a findings statement and make the ban official. That statement is expected in the coming month.
-
Industry Asks Court to Block BLM Fracking Rule
May 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Oil and gas industry groups that sued the Obama administration within minutes of the release of new regulations for hydraulic fracturing are now pressing a federal court to stop the rule in its tracks.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance on Friday asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to issue a preliminary injunction barring the Bureau of Land Management from implementing its long-awaited fracking rule. The groups argue that the rule is unnecessary and that BLM has underestimated the cost to industry.
"BLM's misunderstanding of numerous technical aspects of oil and gas production, as well as the agency's failure to properly account for the final rule's economic consequences undermines the procedural legitimacy of the rulemaking," the groups said in a legal filing. "Requiring oil and gas operators to comply with the unsustainable regulations would impose costs that cannot be recovered and discourage development that would benefit the public, without any demonstrable environmental or administrative benefits."
BLM began crafting the rule more than three years ago as fracking and horizontal drilling began unlocking a glut of natural gas and oil trapped in shale formations across the country. The final version, scheduled to take effect June 24, sets new standards for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands. The agency estimates the rule will affect 2,800 fracking operations per year.
Friday's filing from IPAA and WEA offers the first peak into the substance of the groups' legal argument against the rule. While their initial petition in March simply stated their concerns about cost and necessity, the injunction request outlines specific legal prongs to their opposition:The rule is contrary to BLM's mission to manage public lands for multiple uses.Specific technical provisions of the rule are impossible, unsupported or unclear.BLM failed to undertake adequate economic analysis.
"The rule will end up discouraging the very innovations we need to stay competitive in the global economy," said BakerHostetler attorney Poe Leggette, who is representing industry, in a statement. "The only thing this rule achieves is more permits, more delays, fewer jobs, and less revenue for state and federal treasuries."
BLM has not yet filed an answer to the claims.
The industry suit is one of two legal challenges to the fracking rule so far. Wyoming led the states' charge against the rule, arguing in a lawsuit that the requirements duplicate state law. North Dakota and Colorado later joined the litigation.
Tribes and environmental groups have also signaled their disappointment with the final rule but have not yet filed any formal challenges (EnergyWire, March 27).
-
New Oil Train Safety Rules Spell Delay, Leaving Citizens at Risk
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Jayni Hein
Chicago, Philadelphia and Sacramento, Calif.: These are just a few of the cities within the "blast zones" of mile-long trains carrying flammable crude oil across the country. Twenty-five million Americans live in these vulnerable areas; yet it will be years until dangerous tank cars are retrofitted or retired from the rails, based on the U.S. Department of Transportation's new safety standards.
The standards, released on May 1, cover railcars that carry the nation's growing supply of volatile crude oil produced in the Bakken region of the northern United States and the Canadian tar sands. While the new rules mark incremental progress, they give residents little reason to rest easy. And more implementation delays could be coming — the American Petroleum Institute filed a petition in federal court on Monday challenging the new rules, and other legal challenges may be on the horizon.
When it comes to oil train derailments, it's no longer a question of "if," but "when." Driven by growth in the production of oil in the U.S. and Canada, there has been a staggering increase in rail transportation of crude oil over the past five years, with a corresponding spike in the number of accidents — many causing explosions, oil spills and fatalities. The latest incident happened earlier this month, when a train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed and caught fire in central North Dakota, forcing the evacuation of a small town.
In 2008, only 9,500 tank car loads of crude were transported by rail in the United States. By 2013, that number rose to 400,000. In 2013, more oil spilled from U.S. trains than in the previous four decades combined. In addition to putting citizens directly at risk, these trains pass over important sources of drinking water — such as the Sacramento River in drought-stricken California — and share track with commuter rail in many urban areas, including Philadelphia.
The Department of Transportation initiated a rule-making last year to update railcar design standards, speed limits and routing requirements for trains carrying 20 carloads or more of flammable crude oil. The agency's final rule maintains some of the positive aspects of itsproposed rule: new electronically controlled pneumatic brake requirements, lower speed limits for older tank cars moving through "high-threat urban areas," and new routing analysis requirements.
But, in other ways, the final rule represents a step backwards from the Department of Transportation's initial proposal. And more fundamentally, the rule puts a Band-Aid on a chronic condition caused by booming fossil fuel production, ongoing reliance on oil and aging transportation infrastructure.
First, the final rule exempts many trains that would have been made safer under the initial proposal. Originally, any train carrying 20 or more cars with flammable oil or ethanol was defined as a "high-hazard flammable train" subject to these standards. The final rule applies only to trains carrying at least 35 tank cars of flammable oil or ethanol, or 20 cars of flammable liquid in a continuous block. This final definition, then, encompasses fewer trains.
Second, the rule suffers from a lengthy, five- to eight-year retrofit or phaseout of DOT-111 and CPC-1232 railcars that have been known to puncture upon derailment for many years. These are the same cars that were involved in the Lac Mégantic, Quebec tragedy in July 2013 that killed 47 people and in the five major accidents in 2015 (thus far) in West Virginia, Illinois, North Dakota and two locations in Ontario. The protracted phaseout means many additional years of dangerous tank cars sharing track with commuter rail, traveling through dense population centers, and crossing water bodies and other sensitive environmental habitats. The delay is especially striking, as National Transportation Safety Board reports dating back to 1991 detail the high failure and puncture rates of DOT-111 tank cars. However, the agency determined that a quicker phaseout of DOT-111 cars would cause negative effects by temporarily shifting oil transportation from rail to trucks, increasing hazardous air pollution and traffic-related fatalities.
Finally, while the rule imposes 40-mph speed limits for non-retrofitted trains traveling through "high threat urban areas," only a few dozen cities around the nation have been so designated, leaving many towns, cities and drinking-water sources highly vulnerable.
In the next year, the Department of Transportation should prioritize additional measures, like increasing railcar and track inspections, lowering speed limits in additional urban areas, sharing risk reduction "best practices" among the railroads and potentially tightening design standards for retrofitted cars to align with the standards for new cars.
The department should also coordinate closely with the states to modernize communication systems, improve spill prevention and response planning, ensure that states are empowered to train and fund additional rail inspectors, and collaborate to identify high-priority infrastructure needs, such as bridge and track improvements.
Ideally, these safety improvements should be made as part of an "all of the above" strategy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels while ensuring that domestic production and transportation are as safe as possible in the near-term. The new rail safety rules are a necessary first step on what looks to be a long, uncertain journey.
Hein is the policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, focusing on climate change, energy and transportation issues.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested