Preview Newsletter
ACC AM May 19
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Homebuilder Confidence Dips In May, 4th Drop In Five Months
May 18, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
Market confidence among US housing contractors fell in May, a key survey said on Monday, marking the fourth decline in the last five months as consumers remain uncertain about the nation’s economic prospects. In its monthly survey of member contractors, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) said that the... -
(ACC Mentioned) Experts Clear the Water on the Colorful Myths Associated With Peeing in the Pool
May 18, 2015 | Sat PR News
As the swimming season kicks off, health experts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Water Quality and Health Council and the National Swimming Pool Foundation (NSPF) have teamed up to launch a campaign to stop people from peeing in the pool. To do so, they are busting a couple of colorful myths associated... -
(ACC Mentioned) Top News: Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLDX), TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCON), Cabot Corporation (NYSE:CBT), The Home Depot, Inc. (NYSE:HD), Springleaf Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LEAF)
May 18, 2015 | Stock Transcript
By William
Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLDX) belongs to Healthcare sector. Its weekly performance is -0.12%. On last trading day company shares ended up $25.81. Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLDX) distance from 50-day simple moving average (SMA50) is -6.23%. On May 13, Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLDX) announced that ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Europe IBAP Shows Rising Cost Of Petrochemicals In Auto Production
May 19, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
The Europe ICIS Basket of Automotive Petrochemicals (IBAP) rose sharply by €13.61/tonne of overall vehicle weight in April compared with March, ICIS analysis showed on Tuesday. The Europe IBAP is a basket of European prices for major petrochemicals used in automotive production. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Adds Controversial Bisphenol A (BPA) to Prop 65 List
May 19, 2015 | Envrionmental Law & Policy Monitor
By Angela Levin
Effective May 11, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added bisphenol A (BPA) to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, more commonly known as Proposition 65. BPA has numerous consumer ... -
Strides Made, but More Needed to Protect States in Senate TSCA Bill, Organizations Say
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Legislators should take additional steps to ensure chemical safety legislation in the Senate would protect states' rights to regulate chemicals, two state organizations said in a letter they disseminated May 18. “The National Conference of State Legislatures and the Environmental Council of the States are grateful for the strides that have... -
White House Begins Review of Revisions To Hazardous Waste Import-Export Policies
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The White House Office of Management and Budget began its review May 16 of an Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule that seeks to update regulations for imports and exports of hazardous waste. According to the semi-annual regulatory agenda, the proposed rule would enable the electronic submission of all ... -
Flame Retardant Caused Rodent Cancers, NTP Says
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A mixture of flame retardants formerly used in furniture showed clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in exposed male and female rats and mice, according to a draft technical report the National Toxicology Program released May 15 for public comment and peer review. The program tested a mixture of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame... -
Debate on Chemicals in TTIP Continues
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Civil society organisations and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) have again stressed their opposition and support, respectively, for chemicals regulatory cooperation measures to be included in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated between the EU and the US. -
UN Negotiators Eschew Consensus to Ban Toxic Chemical, Adopt E-Waste Guidelines
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
nternational chemicals negotiators in Geneva broke a quarter century of precedent and banned a toxic chemical despite opposition from a member country during the conference of parties of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Parties to the Stockholm Convention—which bans the production, use and trade -
(ACC Mentioned) New Ozone Regulations Will Devastate the American Economy
May 18, 2015 | Wilson County News
By Michael James Barton
Ever wonder what ozone smells like? According to Smithsonian Magazine, it's "the sweet, fresh, powerfully evocative smell of fresh rain." That familiar scent is a combination of plant oils, bacteria, and ozone. But when highly concentrated, it can actually be a pollutant. That's why the United States has been working to reduce "ground level"... -
Bill to Repeal Crude Export Ban Introduced In House as Companion to Senate Legislation
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Companion legislation to a Senate bill that would lift the crude oil export ban was introduced in the House by Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), a spokeswoman for the congressman told Bloomberg BNA May 18. The bill (H.R. 2369), co-sponsored, by Rep. Henry R. Cuellar (D-Texas), is nearly identical to legislation (S. 1312) to lift ... -
Texas Governor Signs Bill Restricting Local Ordinances Seeking to Regulate Drilling
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
A bill that would keep municipalities from regulating oil and gas operations became law May 18 when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed the measure that some criticized as a power grab. Environmental groups said the measure will prevent the adoption of health and safety protections limiting the impact of oil and gas activities. -
Texas Prohibits Local Fracking Bans
May 18, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold
Last year, a city in North Texas banned fracking. State lawmakers want to make sure that never happens again. On Monday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law that prohibits bans of hydraulic fracturing altogether and makes it much harder for municipal and county governments to control where oil and gas wells can be drilled. -
Oil Groups Ask Court To Temporarily Block U.S. Fracking Rules
May 18, 2015 | Reuters
By Ayesha Rascoe
May 18 Two oil and gas groups have asked a federal court to block the implementation new U.S. rules for hydraulic fracturing on public lands until their lawsuit challenging the regulations is resolved. The Independent Petroleum Association Of America (IPAA) and the Western Energy Alliance filed a motion on Friday for a preliminary injunction... -
Utah Joins Challenge to BLM Fracking Rule
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Utah will join three other states in a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule, Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) announced May 18. Colorado and North Dakota already joined the case, which was initiated by Wyoming (Wyoming v. Interior, D. Wyo., No. 15-CV-43, 4/22/15; 80 DEN A-22, 4/27/15). The proposed BLM rule... -
Despite Protests, Arctic Drill Rig Preparations Continue
May 19, 2015 | AP (in the Washington Post)
By Phuong Le
Neither a protest by hundreds of demonstrators nor a permit violation notice from the city will halt Royal Dutch Shell’s use of a Seattle seaport terminal as it prepares for exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, spokesmen say. The violation notice issued Monday by the Seattle Department of Planning and Development said use of Terminal 5... -
FERC Sees Limited Role if Clean Power Plan Contains Reliability Safety Valve for States
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it would play a limited role if the Environmental Protection Agency adopts a reliability safety valve as part of states' implementation of the Clean Power Plan. Under the reliability safety valve option, utility companies could petition the EPA for a waiver or adjustment to emissions requirements or... -
Ky. Race May Alter Clean Power Plan Fortunes
May 19, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
For many supporters of the Obama administration's landmark proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, Kentucky is an example of the plan's viability. Even though the state is a major producer and consumer of coal, Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear's administration thinks it can develop a plan to comply with U.S.... -
Senate Panel To Continue Energy Bill Work With Focus On Supply Bills
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
A Senate panel this week will continue its work on a comprehensive energy bill with a hearing to consider more than two dozen proposals to boost supplies from offshore oil wells, hydroelectric dams, geothermal deposits and most other sources of energy. The proposals are competing for a spot in the energy bill that Senate ... -
Bobby Jindal Forming Exploratory Committee For White House Run
May 18, 2015 | Politico
By Jonathan Topaz
Bobby Jindal announced Monday that he’s forming a presidential exploratory committee for a potential run for the 2016 Republican nomination, a major step toward launching a bid. The Louisiana governor, a fierce social conservative who has been active in the early nominating states, will make a decision after the state’s legislative... -
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 ... -
FERC Sees 'Narrow' Role In Helping Ensure Reliability With Climate ESPS
May 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in its final unanimous consensus advice to EPA on how to protect electric reliability in the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants is outlining a “narrow” role for itself under a reliability safety valve (RSV) that would allow some fossil plants to temporarily run -- and emit higher ... -
EPW Subcommittee Takes Aim At Agency's Science Panel
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
A Senate subcommittee this week will scrutinize the panel that advises U.S. EPA on the scientific issues underlying agency regulations. Among the witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing Wednesday are vocal critics of EPA and the panel's work, as well as representatives of the Government Accountability Office and an environmental... -
White House, Congressional Dems Blast Competes Reauthorization Bill
May 19, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Democrats mounted a concerted assault yesterday on a proposed reauthorization of science and energy research programs, as the Obama administration threatened to veto the legislation and House members sought to undo some provisions with dozens of proposed amendments. -
‘Computational Error' Identified in Coal Ash Rule With Implications for Large-Scale Reuse
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency made a significant computational error in its final coal ash regulation with major impacts for the recycling industry, and the mistake requires an “important change” to the rule's language, the nation's largest coal ash recycler told the agency. In its final rule, the EPA outlined four criteria entities would have ... -
Dem Warns Of 'Reckoning' On Climate Change
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Jordain Carney
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gave the 100th speech in his weekly climate change series on Monday, saying that there will be “a reckoning” on the issue. “One day there will be a reckoning,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. “If we wake up, if we get this right, if we turn that ponderous balance of destiny in our time, it can be their reckoning. It does not... -
Whitehouse Keeps Climate Change Front and Center
May 18, 2015 | Roll Call
By Matthew Fleming
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has been a familiar sight the past few years, standing on the Senate floor beside a “Time To Wake Up” placard and talking to a nearly empty chamber. It’s set to happen again Monday evening, when the Rhode Island Democrat delivers his 100th weekly floor speech on climate change. -
Critics Hear E.P.A.’s Voice in ‘Public Comments’
May 19, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport
When the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a major new rule intended to protect the nation’s drinking water last year, regulators solicited opinions from the public. The purpose of the “public comment” period was to objectively gauge Americans’ sentiment before changing a policy that could profoundly affect their lives. -
Green Group: Voters Like EPA Water Rule
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The public likes the Obama administration's proposed water rule, according to a new poll from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Eighty percent of the 800 registered voters LCV surveyed earlier this month said they support the Environmental Protection Agency’s "waters of the United States" rule, which would let the EPA redefine... -
Controversial WOTUS Proposal Gets Double Whammy With Back-To-Back Hearings
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Annie Snider
The high-stakes battle over the Obama administration's controversial water rule kicks up a level tomorrow with back-to-back Senate hearings aimed at winning skeptical Democrats to the opposition. In the morning, the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife takes up S. 1140, opponents' preferred... -
Kansas Set to Repeal Renewable Energy Mandate
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Kansas lawmakers are set to repeal the state’s renewable energy mandate and replace it with a voluntary goal for electric utilities, the Lawrence Journal-World reports. Lawmakers have approved a bill to the end the state’s “renewable portfolio standard,” which requires utilities to get 20 percent of their power from renewable sources... -
Washington State Enacts Oil Transportation Safety Bill; No New Taxes Included
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed into law a bill addressing rail transportation safety including a requirement that refineries notify the state ecology department in advance of crude-by-rail shipments. ESHB 1449, signed May 14, also provides for: • additional state inspection of crude-by-rail facilities and crossings... -
We’re Halfway to Radically Safer Railroads
May 18, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Edward R. Hamberger
The tragic derailment of an Amtrak passenger train near Philadelphia shines a light on an advanced safety feature known as positive train control, or PTC, a technology designed to automatically stop or limit the speed of locomotives. Investigators report that at the time of the accident, Amtrak train 188 was traveling more than 100...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Homebuilder Confidence Dips In May, 4th Drop In Five Months
May 18, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
-Market confidence among US housing contractors fell in May, a key survey said on Monday, marking the fourth decline in the last five months as consumers remain uncertain about the nation’s economic prospects.
In its monthly survey of member contractors, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) said that the resulting housing market index (HMI) fell two points in May to a reading of 54 compared with the April index of 56.
The index saw a one-point decline in January and two-point downturns in February and March before bumping up by four points in April.
As the May index signals another decline in homebuilder confidence, NAHB chief economist David Crowe attributed the downturn to economic uncertainty among would-be buyers of new homes.
“Consumers are exhibiting caution and want to be on a more stable financial footing before purchasing a home,” Crowe said.
“Builders continue to express concern that consumers remain tentative on their judgement of present and future economic conditions,” he said, noting that many would-be new-home buyers “demand prices below costs and are concerned about selling their existing home”.
Particularly worrisome for homebuilders is the fact that first-time home buyers still constitute about half their normal share of new home purchases, according to NAHB data.
The HMI measures homebuilders’ confidence in the market for construction and sale of single-family homes, considered the core segment of the US housing sector.
The HMI is a compilation of three subsidiary measures in the market for single-family homes: builders’ current sales, the number of prospective buyers visiting model homes and contractors’ sales expectations over the next six months.
On the 1-100 HMI scale, a reading of 50 or above indicates that home builders are confident about their prospects over the next six months, while a score below that tipping point suggests a housing market in contraction.
Initiated by the NAHB in 1985, the index fell to its all-time low of 8 in January 2009 in the depths of the 2008-2009 Great Recession.
The most recent high for the HMI was 59 in September 2014.
On the bright side, Crowe noted that despite the index decline in May, it remains above the 50-point benchmark and is nine points higher than the index reading of 45 in May of last year.
Crowe said that with mortgage loan rates still low and housing prices remaining affordable, “these factors should spur the release of pent-up demand moving forward”.
The housing market is a key downstream consumer sector for the chemicals industry, driving demand for a wide variety of chemicals, resins and derivative products such as plastic pipe, insulation, paints and coatings, adhesives and synthetic fibres, among many others.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates that each new single-family home built represents some $15,000 worth of chemicals and derivatives used in the structure or in production of component materials and equipment.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Experts Clear the Water on the Colorful Myths Associated With Peeing in the Pool
May 18, 2015 | Sat PR News
As the swimming season kicks off, health experts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Water Quality and Health Council and the National Swimming Pool Foundation (NSPF) have teamed up to launch a campaign to stop people from peeing in the pool. To do so, they are busting a couple of colorful myths associated with this clandestine activity.
According to a new survey conducted by Survata on behalf of the Water Quality and Health Council, nearly half of Americans surveyed incorrectly believe that there is a chemical that is added to pools that turns a conspicuous color in the presence of pee. In the same survey, 71 percent also incorrectly blame chlorine for causing swimmers’ eyes to become red and irritated.
“Chlorine and other disinfectants are added to a swimming pool to destroy germs. Peeing in a pool depletes chlorine and actually produces an irritant that makes people’s eyes turn red,” said Michele Hlavsa, chief of CDC’s Healthy Swimming Program. “The solution isn’t rocket science; it’s common courtesy. Swimmers should use the pool to swim, the restroom to pee and the showers to wash up before getting in the pool. It’s that simple.”
“There isn’t a dye that turns red. It’s the eyes that turn red. Swimmers’ eyes are the real color indicator that someone might have peed in a pool,” said Thomas M. Lachocki, CEO of the NSPF.
“That ‘chlorine’ smell at the pool isn’t actually chlorine. What you smell are chemicals that form when chlorine mixes with pee, sweat and dirt from swimmers’ bodies,” said Chris Wiant, Chair of the Water Quality and Health Council. “These chemicals – not chlorine – can cause your eyes to become red and sting, make your nose run and make you cough.”
Busting the Pool Dye Myth
It’s the most common pool myth of all time: If you pee in the pool, the water will change color and everyone will know. Parents have long used the story of a chemical that changes color in the presence of pee to keep their children from peeing in the pool. The fact is there is no such dye that currently exists.Busting the Chlorine/Red Eye Myth
When nitrogen-containing compounds found in pee, sweat and dirt combine with chlorine, irritants are formed. These substances, not the chlorine itself, irritate the eyes, skin and respiratory system. In this case, more chlorine may actually need to be added to pool water to break down irritants, according to the Water Quality and Health Council.Getting the Word Out
Lachocki added that swimming keeps us happy and healthy. We need more healthy swimming and less seeing red! The CDC and the American Chemistry Council also have collaborated on a brochure that includes key messages about healthy swimming, which include showering before swimming and not peeing in a pool. To order a free CDC brochure, go to www.cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming/resources/brochures.html.The Water Quality and Health Council is once again making free pool test kits available this summer through its Healthy Pools campaign. Swimmers can test their backyard pools or community pools to ensure proper pH and chlorine levels. Good pool chemistry combined with a few easy and effective healthy swimming steps will not only help reduce unwanted germs in the pool, but they can help reduce instances of red eye.
-
May 18, 2015 | Stock Transcript
By William
Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLDX) belongs to Healthcare sector. Its weekly performance is -0.12%. On last trading day company shares ended up $25.81. Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLDX) distance from 50-day simple moving average (SMA50) is -6.23%. On May 13, Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLDX) announced that several clinical programs, including the Phase 2 ReACT study of RINTEGA® (rindopepimut) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM), will be presented at the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago.
TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCON) shares moved up 12.98% in last trading session and ended the day at $12.27. TCON return on assets is -27.70%. TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCON) quarterly performance is 31.37%. On May 13 TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCON) announced its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Cash and cash equivalents were $65.3 million at March 31, 2015 compared to $35.0 million at December 31, 2014. The net loss for the first quarter of 2015 was $4.0 million compared to a loss of $1.4 million for the first quarter of 2014.
On 15 May, Cabot Corporation (NYSE:CBT) shares fell -0.21% and was closed at $43.19. CBT EPS growth in last 5 year was 34.70%. Cabot Corporation (NYSE:CBT) year to date (YTD) performance is -1.06%. On May 12, Cabot Corporation (NYSE:CBT) announced that three of its U.S. manufacturing facilities were recognized with “Certificates of Excellence” by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) for their safety achievements in 2014.
The Home Depot, Inc. (NYSE:HD) ended the last trading day at $113.35. Company weekly volatility is calculated as 1.42% and price to cash ratio as 85.41. The Home Depot, Inc. (NYSE:HD) showed a weekly performance of 0.78%. Vetr lowered shares of Home Depot (NYSE:HD) from a sell rating to a strong sell rating in a report released on Monday. Vetr currently has $104.75 price objective on the stock.
Springleaf Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LEAF) shares moved up 0.04% in last trading session and ended the day at $46.85. LEAF Gross Margin is 73.90% and its return on assets is 4.00%. Springleaf Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LEAF) quarterly performance is 37.07%. On May 07, Springleaf Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LEAF) reported a GAAP basis net income of $0 million, or $0.00 per diluted share for the first quarter of 2015, compared with net income of $52 million or $0.45 per diluted share in the first quarter of 2014, which included a pretax gain of $55 million on the sale of real estate assets.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Europe IBAP Shows Rising Cost Of Petrochemicals In Auto Production
May 19, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
The Europe ICIS Basket of Automotive Petrochemicals (IBAP) rose sharply by €13.61/tonne of overall vehicle weight in April compared with March, ICIS analysis showed on Tuesday.
The Europe IBAP is a basket of European prices for major petrochemicals used in automotive production.
The Europe IBAP is weighted on the percentage amount of each petrochemical used in an average passenger car to give a petrochemical-based raw material cost per tonne of a vehicle's total weight.
Although the Europe IBAP rose by €13.61 in April, prices in dollar terms moved by just $6.22, showing the volatility of exchange rate movements over the past few months.
The rise in the Europe IBAP was mostly the result of price rises of polypropylene (PP), nylon 6 and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).
The rise in PP prices has been caused by several forces majeures in the region, coupled with global shortages.
Nylon 6 price rises in April were driven by rising upstream benzene costs. The European April benzene contract price rose by €133/tonne. Coupled with this, shortages of PP and nylon 6,6 lead to increased demand for nylon 6 - particularly for the Bulk Continuous Filament (BCF) carpet sector - as players looked to cover short term end-use order requirements.
ABS prices increased significantly in April because of hikes in feedstock costs amid market tightness. Availability in Europe was limited due to strong demand and a reduction in import volumes from outside the EU.
The IBAP comprises prices for PP, polyethylene (PE), ABS, nylon, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate (PC), isocyanates, polyols, styrene-butadiene-rubber (SBR), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), base oils and soda ash. In Asia and Europe, the IBAP additionally includes prices for polyacetal (POM) and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), which ICIS does not cover in the US. Weightings are based on American Chemistry Council (ACC) and European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) data.
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Adds Controversial Bisphenol A (BPA) to Prop 65 List
May 19, 2015 | Envrionmental Law & Policy Monitor
By Angela Levin
Effective May 11, 2015, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added bisphenol A (BPA) to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, more commonly known as Proposition 65. BPA has numerous consumer applications, including to make the hard clear plastic called polycarbonate, some sealants, and thermal paper such as the paper used to print cash register receipts.
The decision comes after a determination made by OEHHA’s advisory panel, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC) that BPA was clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause reproductive toxicity, based on the female reproductive endpoint.
Whether and to what extent BPA causes reproductive toxicity has been the subject of intense debate in the scientific and regulatory communities for several years. In conjunction with DART-IC’s determination, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement strongly disagreeing with the decision because it is “not supported by the extensive scientific record, presented to the committee, and is completely contrary to explicit input provided by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA].” In fact, in April, the FDA’s acting chief scientist submitted a letter to the DART-IC, stating that the results of the FDA’s own comprehensive research “do not support BPA as a reproductive toxicant.”
Under Proposition 65, businesses are required to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a listed chemical. This warning can be given by a variety of means, such as by labeling a consumer product, posting signs at the workplace, distributing notices at a rental housing complex, or publishing notices in a newspaper.
Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 12 months to comply with warning requirements. However, OEHHA’s decision to list BPA almost certainly will be litigated due to the scientific uncertainty surrounding its reproductive effects, and if the court grants a preliminary injunction, the duty to provide a warning will be put on hold until the litigation is resolved.
-
Strides Made, but More Needed to Protect States in Senate TSCA Bill, Organizations Say
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Legislators should take additional steps to ensure chemical safety legislation in the Senate would protect states' rights to regulate chemicals, two state organizations said in a letter they disseminated May 18.
“The National Conference of State Legislatures and the Environmental Council of the States are grateful for the strides that have been taken in the latest iteration of S. 697,” the executive directors of both organizations said in a letter to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of that committee.
“We do, however, urge the Senate to go further, as preemption language with potentially harmful consequences still remains in the bill,” William Pound and Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, the executive directors, respectively, of the state conference and council, wrote May 15.
The letter referred to provisions in both the introduced version of S. 697 and the committee-approved version that largely would put new state chemical regulations on hold for several years once the EPA announces the scope and begins to assess high-priority chemicals, but before it takes any type of regulatory action or concludes regulation is not warranted. During a March 18 hearing on S. 697, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) dubbed this multi-year period as the “death zone in which no one is allowed to regulate chemical in the high risk category.”
“We would support language that allows states to regulate a particular chemical in the absence of an Environmental Protection Agency final determination,” they wrote.
Federal Preemption
Both state organizations weighed in on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), which would overhaul the 39-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act and which the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved April 28 with a 15-5 bipartisan vote (82 DEN A-9, 4/29/15).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had not scheduled a floor vote on S. 697, an aide in his office told Bloomberg BNA May 18.
Sens. Whitehouse, Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Jeff Merkley (R-Ore.), who serve on the Senate's environment committee, joined the list of co-sponsors for S. 697 prior to the markup (89 DEN A-1, 5/8/15).
The committee-approved version of S. 697 added language making it easier for states to obtain waivers so they could regulate a chemical while the EPA's safety assessment proceeds (90 DEN B-1, 5/11/15).
While better, “the waiver language remains complicated and creates uncertainty. States are willing to offer specific suggestions for streamlining,” Pound and Dunn wrote.
Susan Parnas Frederick, senior federal affairs counsel at the National Conference of State Legislatures, declined to describe specific language states are suggesting.
The conference is actively working with Senate staff on the preemption and other issues, Frederick told Bloomberg BNA in a May 18 interview.
The conference has been less active with House staff, in part because states have not been invited to participate in the legislative process as much as they have in the Senate, she said.
Another change both state organizations said they supported is a new provision in the committee-approved version of S. 697 that would allow states to adopt chemical regulations identical to those issued by the EPA and therefore help co-enforce nationwide standards.
The conference and council also supported the committee's inclusion language directing the EPA to give preference to persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals when it establishes its initial list of high-priority chemicals, Pound and Dunn wrote.
States to Congress: Fund EPA's Chemicals Work
Another high priority for states is that the EPA receive sufficient funds to carry out the increased chemicals work for which it would be given responsibility under a modernized TSCA, Frederick told Bloomberg BNA
States see no reason to accept federal preemption of their authority to regulate chemicals if the EPA is inadequately funded under TSCA-reform legislation, Dunn said in February (25 DEN A-7, 2/6/15).
“NCSL and ECOS are in favor of a strong federal regulatory system for those states with limited resources, if that system is adequately funded,” Pound and Dunn wrote in their joint letter.
Democratic senators also said during the March 18 hearing on and the April 28 markup of S. 697 that their concern over state preemption is spurred in part by their concern that the EPA's funding could be slashed.
“The other side of the aisle is consistently and relentlessly attacking the EPA budget,” Whitehouse said in March.
Pound and Dunn also urged the Senate to reauthorize, in any final TSCA-reform bill, a section of TSCA that provides states grants to manage chemicals.
States can and want to offer technical assistance, Dunn said in February (30 DEN B-1, 2/13/15).
-
White House Begins Review of Revisions To Hazardous Waste Import-Export Policies
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The White House Office of Management and Budget began its review May 16 of an Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule that seeks to update regulations for imports and exports of hazardous waste.
According to the semi-annual regulatory agenda, the proposed rule would enable the electronic submission of all import and export-related documents “to the extent possible” and would allow electronic validation of consent prior to a shipment's departure.
The proposed rule also would more closely align hazardous waste import and export requirements for non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries to existing procedures for OECD member countries.
The U.S. has separate waste bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada.
According to the EPA's regulatory tracker, the agency expects to issue the proposed rule in June, though OMB has 90 days to complete its review of the proposed rule.
Current Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations for the import and export of hazardous waste require consent from the receiving country to the hazardous waste shipments, export notices, annual reporting on hazardous waste shipments and notification to the EPA if an export shipment is returned to the U.S.
There are different tracking mechanisms for individual shipments depending on whether the country is subject to OECD-member procedures.
According to the regulatory agenda, the revisions (RIN 2050-AG77) will affect 40 C.F.R. pts. 261-266 and 273 and “will be likely to have international trade and investment effects.”
The EPA initially began its work on the proposed revisions in October 2013 (212 DEN A-14, 11/1/13).
-
Flame Retardant Caused Rodent Cancers, NTP Says
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A mixture of flame retardants formerly used in furniture showed clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in exposed male and female rats and mice, according to a draft technical report the National Toxicology Program released May 15 for public comment and peer review. The program tested a mixture of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants that furniture manufacturers often used. The mixture, called DE-71, consists of three out of 209 forms of the PBDE family of chemicals, NTP said. Use of the commercial mixture has been either voluntarily phased out or banned in countries beginning with Germany in 1986. In May 2009, two of the three PBDEs in DE-71 were added to the Stockholm Convention, which aims to eliminate the use of chemicals that persist and bioaccumulate in the environment, are toxic and can travel around the world far from where they are made or used. The NTP will accept public comment on its draft report through June 11; the document will be peer reviewed June 25. A copy of the draft technical report and details about commenting or attending the peer review are available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/about/org/trpanel/meetings/index.html.
-
Debate on Chemicals in TTIP Continues
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Civil society organisations and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) have again stressed their opposition and support, respectively, for chemicals regulatory cooperation measures to be included in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated between the EU and the US.
Numerous NGOs wrote to the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, Bernd Lange, asking him to support a motion adopted by the Parliament’s Environment Committee calling for the exclusion of chemicals from TTIP.
They reiterated their concern that regulatory cooperation on chemical issues under the future trade agreement may have a negative effect on the EU’s right to identify and regulate endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) under its pesticides and biocides Regulations.
At the same time, Cefic and the American Chamber of Commerce in the EU held an event to stress their support for TTIP and the opportunity it brings to the chemical industry on both sides of the Atlantic.
These actions followed the ninth round of negotiations, which took place in New York at the end of April. The EU chief negotiator said at the time that chemicals would not be excluded from TTIP (CW 28 April 2015).
Little progress on chemicals-related issues was made in this negotiating round, however, according to a European Commission summary. Two pilot projects were briefly discussed, plus a third, proposed by the US, to analyse differences on safety data sheets (SDS) between the two sides.
The tenth negotiating round is scheduled to take place in Brussels in July.
-
UN Negotiators Eschew Consensus to Ban Toxic Chemical, Adopt E-Waste Guidelines
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
nternational chemicals negotiators in Geneva broke a quarter century of precedent and banned a toxic chemical despite opposition from a member country during the conference of parties of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions.
Parties to the Stockholm Convention—which bans the production, use and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—voted May 16 to prohibit pentachlorophenol, a wood preservative that is linked to brain damage and increased risk for cancer. The ban takes place despite strong opposition from India, a party to the convention.
Switzerland's delegate, Luca Arnold, initiated the decision to vote on procedural grounds after the head of the Indian delegation, Shashi Shekhar, rejected the report of the convention's scientific expert committee, in which India had participated.
Pentachlorophenol is now listed under Annex A of the Stockholm Convention with specific exemptions for utility poles and their cross-arms. India had asked members to also create an exemption from the ban for the use of the wood preservative in the production of medium-density fiber board and in impregnated particle boards for at least 10 years, but that request was denied.
This was the first time a voting procedure—rather than a declaration of unanimous consent—had been conducted by the Stockholm Convention. Some observers said it could be considered a game-changing event in the history of the chemical negotiations.
“This needed to happen, as too often environmental progress can be blocked by one or two countries simply shilling for one of their powerful industries,” said Jim Puckett, an activist with Basel Action Network (BAN), a Seattle-based nongovernmental organization.
Majority Vote
Since their inception, the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) conventions—which hold conference of parties talks every two years—always adopted any decisions or amendments to the treaties on a consensus basis. However, under Basel and Stockholm Convention rules if all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted a majority vote may be held.
“This levels the playing field in the UN where all too often developed countries bully their way by blocking the will of the majority of developing states, which are most vulnerable to environmental harm from toxic trade and dangerous chemicals,” Puckett told Bloomberg BNA.
New Chemical Listings
Parties to the Stockholm Convention meeting in Geneva over a two-week period agreed to prohibit hexachlorobutadiene, a chemical byproduct linked to hypotension, myocardial dystrophy, nervous disorder, liver function disorders and respiratory tract lesions (90 DEN A-1, 5/11/15).
Chemical negotiators also banned polycholrinated napthalenes by listing it in Annexes A and C of the Stockholm Convention with specific exemptions for production of polyfluronapthalenes, including octaxfluoronapthalenes.
Parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed to adopt measures to reduce or eliminate releases from intentional production of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, a carcinogenic chemical.
Stockholm Convention parties rejected new measures to reduce or eliminate use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; polychlorinated biphenyls; brominated diphenyl, ethers used as flame-retardants; and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride.
E-Waste Guidelines
Parties to the Basel Convention—which governs the international trade of toxic substances—adopted an unfinished text aimed at stemming the 41 million tons of toxic digital equipment that is shipped to developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Latin America each year (92 DEN A-9, 5/13/15).
Basel Convention President Andrzej Jagusiewicz forced adoption of the guidelines under unusual circumstances at 1 a.m. on May 16, despite India's objections to the guidelines' contract requirements.
Several countries—including Argentina, India and Mexico—disassociated themselves from the proceeding due to their procedural reservations about Jagusiewicz's threat to vote on the issue and the absence of translators during the late hours of the negotiations.
Participants acknowledged that the e-waste guidelines are far from finished and the most contentious issues were relegated to the annex of the text for further negotiation. It remains unclear how the guidelines would govern the management of cathode ray tubes, electronic parts for product repairs, and secondhand electronic products with limited life spans.
The adoption of the e-waste guidelines was the “worst development of the night,” Puckett said. “The chair gaveled through the interim adoption of a very ill-advised and dangerous e-waste guidelines that will allow electronics waste traders to simply claim electronics as repairable and export such dangerous waste outside of the convention.”
The lack of comprehensive e-waste guidelines has led to the improper disposal of old televisions, computer monitors, mobile phones and other devices that contain toxic materials like mercury, cadmium, asbestos and lead.
Asbestos, Paraquat
During two weeks of meetings, a group of countries blocked efforts to increase transparency about exports of chrysotile asbestos and paraquat dichloride, despite a concerted effort to include them on the Rotterdam Convention's prior informed consent (PIC) procedure for hazardous chemicals and pesticides (93 DEN A-7, 5/14/15).
Russia, India, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Zimbabwe said there was insufficient scientific evidence to support listing chrysotile asbestos in Annex III, which requires countries that export restricted chemicals to adequately notify the receiving country.
Exposure to chrysotile asbestos—used in the production of cement and roofing materials—causes cancer of the lung, larynx and ovary, mesothelioma and asbestosis, according to the World Health Organization.
India, Guatemala, Malaysia and Zimbabwe also blocked the Annex III listing of paraquat dichloride, an herbicide considered toxic to humans and animals, due to concerns about the impact on their respective agricultural industries.
“It is a shame that just a few countries continue to prioritize profit over human rights by blocking the listing of asbestos, paraquat, and other dangerous chemicals under the Rotterdam Convention,” said Baskut Tuncak, UN special rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. “Unfortunately, a few countries have catered to industry's demands, chosen to impede access to information about unquestionably hazardous substances, and failed to help reduce double standards that exist today.”
Members agreed to list methamidophos, a pesticide that can affect the central nervous system and may lead to respiratory failure or cardiac arrest, in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention.
Sudan categorically objected to the listing of fenthion 640 ULV, a toxic pesticide, under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention due to concerns that it would negatively affect its domestic agricultural practices. India opposed the listing of trichlorfon, a toxic pesticide.
Compliance Mechanism
Members could not agree upon rules to identify when countries fail to meet their obligations of the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions and when to offer technical and financial assistance to bring them into compliance.
In contact group negotiations, members had difficulty in adopting the so-called “trigger,” a legal tool that would permit either the BRS secretariat or a compliance committee to indicate when a country was not in compliance with the terms of the Rotterdam Convention.
Ultimately, India was the only member to object to the establishment of a compliance mechanism for the Rotterdam Convention. Delegates from the Indian delegation declined repeated requests for comment.
BRS negotiators agreed to further discuss many of the COP's unfinished items during the 2016 meeting of the open-ended working group. The next BRS COP will be held in Geneva April 23 to May 5, 2017.
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Ozone Regulations Will Devastate the American Economy
May 18, 2015 | Wilson County News
By Michael James Barton
Ever wonder what ozone smells like? According to Smithsonian Magazine, it's "the sweet, fresh, powerfully evocative smell of fresh rain."
That familiar scent is a combination of plant oils, bacteria, and ozone. But when highly concentrated, it can actually be a pollutant. That's why the United States has been working to reduce "ground level" ozone for decades.
But the Environmental Protection Agency refuses to write implementation guidelines for its last ozone regulations, which it released in 2008. And instead of clarifying what actions it expects states to follow, the EPA has introduced new regulations that could permanently handicap American businesses and undercut the country's incremental economic recovery.
Strange that the EPA has time to write more regulations on ground ozone but not the time to implement existing regulations on the exact same matter.
Major precursors of ozone production are industrial emissions, electrical providers, vehicle emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents. Ozone molecules close to the earth's surface can contribute to smog and can cause serious health problems, chiefly lung damage.
Ozone emissions are notoriously difficult to control. Indeed, the United States is still struggling to lower emissions to meet the ozone standard the EPA put in place in 2008.
However, the EPA is determined to curb ozone emissions still further before even knowing the results of the 2008 regulations that await implementation. The agency recently proposed new regulations that would lower the amount of ozone permitted in ground-level air from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to between 65 ppb to 70 ppb.
The cost of this rule change to energy producers will be astronomical. The EPA itself concedes that the compliance will cost upwards of $15 billion a year.
And that might be an understatement. A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that this ozone regulation would cut U.S. GDP by $1.7 trillion from 2017 to 2040, or about $140 billion a year. Researchers also found that it would destroy nearly 1.4 million jobs annually.
Already, the average manufacturer pays about $35,000 in regulatory compliance costs per employee per year. These added costs would be a huge new hit.
These cost upticks will also discourage future investments. According to the American Chemistry Council, 211 shale-related energy projects, totaling $135 billion in capital investment, would likely get shuttered if these new ozone standards are implemented.
Even President Obama has acknowledged that the ozone standards can go too far. In 2011, he halted the EPA from pushing forward new emissions rules that would have cost the country $90 billion per year.
These new rules would choke this industry and throw thousands -- if not millions -- of jobs into jeopardy.
What's more, these ozone rules are unnecessary. The quality of the air Americans breathe has been steadily improving over the past 30 years. Indeed, since just 2000, lower ozone levels have improved air quality by 18 percent. And carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides emissions have dropped 42 percent and 41 percent, respectively.
These new ozone regulations are gratuitous and will cost American jobs. For the economy's sake, they need to be shelved at once. And doing so may afford the EPA some time to implement existing ozone regulations that are overdue by seven years and counting. -
Bill to Repeal Crude Export Ban Introduced In House as Companion to Senate Legislation
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Companion legislation to a Senate bill that would lift the crude oil export ban was introduced in the House by Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), a spokeswoman for the congressman told Bloomberg BNA May 18.
The bill (H.R. 2369), co-sponsored, by Rep. Henry R. Cuellar (D-Texas), is nearly identical to legislation (S. 1312) to lift the 40-year-old trade prohibition introduced by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Conaway spokeswoman Emily Hytha said in an e-mail.
The bill, the Energy Supply and Distribution Act, would authorize the exports of U.S. crude oil and condensate, which was banned in the wake of the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s.
‘Antiquated Policy.'
“Today, the ban has outlived that purpose and has become an antiquated policy that is now only harming Americans,” Conaway said in a May 18 statement. “We have an abundance of oil here in the U.S., and lifting the oil export ban will create jobs, spur economic growth, and strengthen our national security interests.”
Supporters of lifting the trade prohibition include companies such as Hess Corp., Marathon Oil Corp. and ConocoPhillips. Opponents include refiners such as Alon USA, Monroe Energy, PBF Energy and Philadelphia Energy Solutions.
However, analysts such as ClearView Energy Partners have said Congress is unlikely to act until after the 2016 elections, if at all.
Text Identical to Murkowski Bill
Like Murkowski's bill the of the same name, Conaway's legislation would direct the Energy Department to create a standard definition of “condensate” and affirm a 2014 decision by the Commerce Department to treat processed condensate as a petroleum product, which may be exported without a license, the bill summary said. Other provisions in the bill would authorize a program requested by the Energy Information Administration to share data with Mexico and Canada on cross-border energy flows and would authorize the departments of Energy and Interior to assess condensate separately from crude oil ( 93 DEN A-3, 5/14/15).
The legislation, which would authorize exports of all crude oil and condensate produced in the U.S. without a federal license, comes amid surging U.S. production of crude oil due to the advent of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The Energy Information Administration has projected oil production of 9.2 million barrels per day in both 2015 and 2016.
“The 40 year ban on oil exports is out of date and out of touch with America's thriving energy industry,” Conaway said. “At the time the ban was introduced, it served a purpose—to keep our oil at home in order to reduce our exposure to the wildly fluctuating markets of the 1970s.”
Barton Bill
Conaway is also a co-sponsor of H.R. 702, legislation introduced by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) that also would end the crude oil export ban.
In addition to repealing the section of the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act that created the crude export ban, the bill bars the federal government from imposing or enforcing any similar restrictions and requires a DOE report on the appropriate size and makeup of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
-
Texas Governor Signs Bill Restricting Local Ordinances Seeking to Regulate Drilling
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
A bill that would keep municipalities from regulating oil and gas operations became law May 18 when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed the measure that some criticized as a power grab.
Environmental groups said the measure will prevent the adoption of health and safety protections limiting the impact of oil and gas activities.
Authored by House Energy Resources Committee Chairman Drew Darby (R), the bill (H.B. 40) cleared the Texas Senate May 4 in a 24-7 vote after the House gave its approval by a 125-20 margin (76 DEN A-18, 4/21/15).
The measure is one of several filed during the legislative session in response to a ballot measure approved by the North Texas city of Denton that would ban hydraulic fracturing within its city limits.
In a May 18 statement following the signing, the governor said the law “does a profound job of helping to protect private property rights” while “ensuring those who own their own property will not have the heavy hand of local regulation deprive them of their rights.”
Exclusive State Jurisdiction
The law grants the state exclusive jurisdiction of oil and gas operations, preempting ordinances and regulations enacted by a municipality that ban, limit or otherwise regulate an oil and gas operation unless the regulation meets one of four tests, according to the bill (87 DEN A-14, 5/6/15).
“This law ensures that Texas avoids a patchwork quilt of regulations that differ from region to region, differ from county to county or city to city,” Abbott said.
The law, which takes effect immediately because it passed with a two-thirds majority in both chambers, could undermine oil and gas ordinances in over 300 Texas communities, including setbacks that limit drilling near homes and schools, a May 18 release issued by a local environmental group said.
“By advocating for and signing this bill, Gov. Abbott has succeeded in seizing power away from local governments working to protect us from the real dangers of dirty drilling,” Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, said. “In the past, the state of Texas has failed to stop Big Oil from polluting our air and water, causing earthquakes, and putting our families at risk from leaks, spills and explosions.”
Quakes Continue
The U.S. Geologic Survey confirmed May 18 a 3.3 magnitude earthquake centered three miles from Farmers Branch, an inner-ring suburb of Dallas. That quake follows a 4.0 magnitude quake on May 7, occurring approximately 30 miles south-southwest of Dallas.
Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association (TXOGA), said the bill “balances local control and property rights” while allowing the state to “continue to benefit from billions of dollars in annual state and local taxes that directly fund our schools, roads and essential services.”
Following the Texas Senate's passage of the bill, Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, told Bloomberg BNA it was “a little unclear” as to whether cities would need “to go back and rewrite their ordinances to deal very narrowly with surface issues,” adding that ambiguity surrounded the subject of whether those surface issues would meet the test for being declared “commercially reasonable.”
The final version of the bill defines “commercially reasonable” as a “condition that would allow a reasonably prudent operator to fully, effectively, and economically exploit, develop, produce, process, and transport oil and gas, as determined based on the objective standard of a reasonably prudent operator and not on an individualized assessment of an actual operator's capacity to act.”
Concern over the potential for injection wells triggering earthquakes has been an ongoing concern in the state following the November 2013 outbreak of more than 20 earthquakes in the small town of Azle along the outskirts of Forth Worth (148 DEN BB-1, 8/1/14).
-
Texas Prohibits Local Fracking Bans
May 18, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold
Last year, a city in North Texas banned fracking. State lawmakers want to make sure that never happens again.
On Monday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law that prohibits bans of hydraulic fracturing altogether and makes it much harder for municipal and county governments to control where oil and gas wells can be drilled. Similar efforts are cropping up in states including New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado and Oklahoma, where both chambers of the legislature have passed a bill that limits local governments to “reasonable” restrictions on oil and gas activities.
This is all part of a broader legislative and judicial effort, backed by the oil industry, to limit local governments’ ability to regulate drilling. Backers say that both the Oklahoma and Texas bills were proposed in response to a voter-approved ban on fracking in Denton, Texas, in November.
One of the authors of the Texas bill said his motivation was to protect an economically important industry. “Oil is a huge job driver for the state of Texas,” said state Sen. Troy Fraser, a Republican from the central part of the state.
The new law eliminates a “patchwork of local ordinances creating more and more regulation, some of which is intentionally onerous and intended to stop or limit oil and gas development,” said Ed Longanecker, president of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association.
The law has angered officials in Denton, about 50 miles northwest of Dallas, where residents approved the first ban in the state. Officials there said they supported it only after failed efforts to resolve quality-of-life problems including a well explosion and noisy drilling near homes and schools.
“It’s a bad situation when city leaders’ hands are tied,” said Councilman Kevin Roden. “There seems to be an attitude that big state government knows better than the citizens of a city. I just think—conservative or liberal—that is something you don’t do in Texas.”
Other critics of the bill said the balance of power between cities and the energy industry had been tilted toward drillers.
“The bill guts 100 years of traditional municipal authority to regulate oil and gas operations,” said A. Scott Anderson, a senior policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, which advocates robustly regulating fracking. Other environmental groups say fracking, which involves injecting water and chemicals deep into shale rock formations, should be banned.
In the past decade, new technologies launched an energy boom in the U.S., sending oil and gas production soaring. But intense drilling and fracking activity triggered a backlash in some communities, which by zoning and ballot initiatives have tried to keep the drilling rigs either outside the city limits or far from housing.
Supporters of drilling say that local limits are driven by environmental ideology, not practical problems, and deprive landowners of their rights.
Across the country, the issue of the role of cities in deciding where drilling can occur “is still very much up in the air,” said Hannah Wiseman, a law professor at Florida State University. “There is plenty of work for legislators and lawyers.”
State governments are also taking the local bans to court, and winning. Earlier this year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that state rules regulating energy development trump local laws. In January, a federal judge overruled a ban on oil and gas drilling in Mora County, N.M., northeast of Santa Fe.
One of the few places where local governments have prevailed is Pennsylvania. Lawmakers attempted to rein in cities’ ability to limit oil and gas activity, but the state Supreme Court overturned that law in late 2013.
In Colorado, after voters in several cities approved fracking bans and were sued by industry groups, the governor convened a task force to find middle ground. The group wrapped up its work earlier this year but failed to resolve the thorny issue of the appropriate role for cities.
Peter Dea, a member of the task force and chief executive of Cirque Resources LP, a Denver oil and gas exploration company, said he hopes companies and communities can reach a compromise.
“Maybe this low oil price has a silver lining,” he said. “Half as many wells will be drilled this year as last year. It’s a natural cooling-off period.”
-
Oil Groups Ask Court To Temporarily Block U.S. Fracking Rules
May 18, 2015 | Reuters
By Ayesha Rascoe
May 18 Two oil and gas groups have asked a federal court to block the implementation new U.S. rules for hydraulic fracturing on public lands until their lawsuit challenging the regulations is resolved.
The Independent Petroleum Association Of America (IPAA) and the Western Energy Alliance filed a motion on Friday for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management from enforcing the regulations, arguing the standards will cause their members irreparable harm.
The regulations, finalized in March, would require companies to provide data on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and to take steps to prevent leakage from oil and gas wells on federally owned land. They do not cover wells on private land.
Fracking, involves the injection of large amounts of water, sand and chemicals underground at high pressure to extract fuel.
In their filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, the oil trade groups said the fracking regulations display a "misunderstanding" of the technical aspects of oil and gas production.
The groups said the Bureau also failed to properly account for the economic consequences of the rules.
"Requiring oil and gas operators to comply with these unsustainable regulations would impose costs that cannot be recovered and discourage development that would benefit the public, without any demonstrable environmental or administrative benefits," the groups told the court.
A spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Environmentalists have charged that fracking, which helped unleash the shale oil and gas boom, pollutes the air and fouls drinking water supplies. Oil and gas industry supporters counter the practice has been done safely under state oversight for decades.
The IPAA and the Western Energy Alliance argued the Bureau has not shown any deficiencies in existing state regulations for oil and gas drilling that would justify the federal standards.
The case is Independent Petroleum Association of America et al v. Jewell et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, No. 15-cv-00041.
-
Utah Joins Challenge to BLM Fracking Rule
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Utah will join three other states in a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule, Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) announced May 18. Colorado and North Dakota already joined the case, which was initiated by Wyoming (Wyoming v. Interior, D. Wyo., No. 15-CV-43, 4/22/15; 80 DEN A-22, 4/27/15). The proposed BLM rule unlawfully interferes with state regulations that already address fracking, Herbert said in Salt Lake City at the annual business meeting of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which he chairs. Adoption of the rule would create an “inconsistent, costly and inefficient regulatory system” providing no additional environmental protection or public safety than is already offered by state programs, he said. The Interior Department final rule includes requirements for wellbore integrity, public disclosure of fracking chemicals, and wastewater handling and disposal.
-
Despite Protests, Arctic Drill Rig Preparations Continue
May 19, 2015 | AP (in the Washington Post)
By Phuong Le
Neither a protest by hundreds of demonstrators nor a permit violation notice from the city will halt Royal Dutch Shell’s use of a Seattle seaport terminal as it prepares for exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, spokesmen say.
The violation notice issued Monday by the Seattle Department of Planning and Development said use of Terminal 5 by a massive floating drill rig was in violation of the site’s permitted use as a cargo terminal. The 400-foot Polar Pioneer and its support tug Aiviq must be removed from the terminal or Shell’s host, Foss Maritime, must obtain an appropriate permit, the city indicated.
Possible fines start at $150 per day and can rise to $500 per day. The notice said the violation must be corrected by June 4. The companies can appeal and-or request extensions.
“It remains our view that the terms agreed upon by Shell, Foss and the Port of Seattle for use of Terminal 5 are valid, and it’s our intention to continue loading-out our drilling rigs in preparation for exploratory drilling offshore Alaska,” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.
“Terminal 5 is permitted to tie up ships while they are being loaded and unloaded,” Foss Maritime spokesman Paul Queary said. “That is exactly what Foss is doing there.”
Queary noted that both Foss and the Port of Seattle are appealing an earlier determination by the city that the use of Terminal 5 was not permitted. Monday’s violation notice followed that determination.
Earlier Monday, protesters spent several hours blocking entrances to the terminal where the rig will be loaded before heading to waters off Alaska this summer.
Holding banners and flags, demonstrators marched across a bridge to Terminal 5, temporarily closing the road during Monday morning’s commute. Once at the terminal, they spread out across the entrances and rallied, danced and spoke for several hours before leaving the site in the early afternoon.
Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant was among the speakers. She said political leaders had failed to deal with climate change and called for “an escalating series of mass nonviolent civil disobedience until this madness is stopped,” The Seattle Times reported.
Organizers had prepared to engage in civil disobedience to stop work on the drill rig, but Seattle police said Monday afternoon that no one had been arrested and the demonstration remained peaceful. A few dozen officers followed the march on foot and bicycle and kept watch at the terminal.
“I’m not planning to get arrested,” protester Jennifer Jones told The Times. “It would be very inconvenient to get arrested in Washington state. We’re from Portland.”
The mass demonstration was the latest protest of the Polar Pioneer’s arrival in Seattle. Protesters greeted the rig Thursday, and then hundreds of activists in kayaks and other vessels turned out Saturday for a protest dubbed the “Paddle in Seattle.”
Smith said in an email Monday that the “activities of the day were anticipated and did not stop crews from accomplishing meaningful work in preparation for exploration offshore Alaska this summer.”
There were minimal operations at Terminal 5, “so there’s not much to block,” Port of Seattle spokesman Peter McGraw said. The operator of Terminal 18, a major hub of port activity where the march began, closed those gates in anticipation of the demonstration, he said.
Officials have been urging people to exercise their First Amendment rights safely, and “that’s what we’ve been seeing so far,” McGraw said.
The activists say they are concerned about the risk of an oil spill in the remote Arctic waters and the effects that tapping new frontiers of oil and gas reserves will have on global warming. Officials in Alaska have touted the economic benefits that drilling could bring there and to the Pacific Northwest.
On Monday, protesters of all ages sang, rapped and danced at the vehicle gate of Terminal 5. They chanted and held signs saying “Climate Justice For All” and “You Shell Not Pass.”
Lisa Marcus, 58, a musician who participated in Saturday’s protest, turned up with her “Love the planet” sign for another day of activism Monday.
“We’ve got to wake up” to the dangers of human-caused climate change, she said, ticking off a list of environmental problems that the world is facing. “Shell is trying to make it worse, and that’s not acceptable.”
-
FERC Sees Limited Role if Clean Power Plan Contains Reliability Safety Valve for States
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it would play a limited role if the Environmental Protection Agency adopts a reliability safety valve as part of states' implementation of the Clean Power Plan.
Under the reliability safety valve option, utility companies could petition the EPA for a waiver or adjustment to emissions requirements or compliance timelines in state plans to ensure bulk-power system reliability.
FERC said it would maintain a narrow role, primarily considering “whether a specified set of loads, resources or grid facilities would cause a reliability standard violation or reserve margin deficiency.” The agency said in a May 15 letter it wouldn't decide whether an applicant or the EPA should pursue different options.
During four technical conferences FERC held to seek public feedback on its role in the Clean Power Plan, participants suggested FERC or the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) review the state plans to ensure they don't hurt reliability. But FERC said it wants to keep in place a process in which regional transmission organizations and independent system operators assess the reliability of the bulk-power system. FERC said it could get involved when necessary or at the request of EPA, states or other parties.
FERC was responding to a May 6 EPA letter.
Support From EPA, APPA, Murkowski
The American Public Power Association, which represents public utilities, supports the proposed role FERC would take in the implementation of the Clean Power Plan.
“We view the letter positively because this is FERC saying, ‘Yes, we have a role in that process. We'll tell you EPA whether we think there's a reliability issue or not. That's very helpful,' ” said Joe Nipper, the APPA's senior vice president of regulatory affairs and communications. “Based on conversations with EPA staff, we're pretty optimistic that EPA will include some kind of reliability safety valve process in the final rule. We've gotten pretty positive feedback from them on that.”
Nipper also said the APPA is supportive of NERC reviewing the state plans, as proposed in FERC's letter.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she is pleased that FERC has weighed in on its role in the Clean Power Plan's implementation. Murkowski is working on an energy omnibus bill, which includes legislation to address reliability concerns with future major proposed rules.
“We must do more to ensure that the nation's power supply and delivery will not be degraded by the cumulative effect of environmental regulations that are becoming increasingly restrictive. Moreover, the utilities we task with keeping the lights on need a clear signal that if there's ever a conflict between compliance with environmental and reliability requirements—reliability wins out,” Murkowski said.
The EPA said it welcomed the letter from FERC and its role in holding the technical conferences.
“EPA is committed to continuing the dialogue with FERC, as well as with DOE, to safeguard public health and the environment and maintain a strong electric grid,” Liz Purchia, an EPA spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA May 18.
Modeling After MATS
FERC said that if the EPA chose to adopt a reliability safety valve, the process should be clearly defined, as it was in the mercury and air toxics standards for power plants.
FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable previously indicated she would be open to safety valve process like MATS, wherein a utility can petition to operate in noncompliance for an additional year if reliability would be affected (68 DEN A-11, 4/9/15).
But Nipper said that if a safety valve is established for the Clean Power Plan, it should differ from the MATS standard in that utilities should be able to remain in compliance while obtaining a waiver or amended emissions requirements or timelines.
“We'd like it to be clear that you don't go into a state of noncompliance in order to access the safety valve,” Nipper said. “It's just that you're saying, ‘Look we can see something coming at us that we didn't anticipate and so that's going to present a reliability problem. So we need to take another look at the situation and make some changes to what we, the utility or the state, are going to be required to do so that we head off that reliability problem.' ”
Separately, the APPA submitted comments May 14 that supplemented its original comments to FERC in February, outlining the role it would like FERC to play in the Clean Power Plan's implementation. Nipper said FERC's letter has addressed APPA's major concerns in the comments.
Craig Cano, a FERC spokesman, said the commission's letter “is a report to EPA on the continuing dialogue.” But he didn't comment on whether the agency will offer further public input to the EPA, according to a May 18 e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
Report Examines Compliance Tradeoffs
Separately, a May 18 report from Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions examined how the structure of state compliance plans will determine how expensive or efficient the emissions reductions required by the Clean Power Plan will be.
The EPA has proposed rate-based emissions limits for the power sector in each state, but the agency has provided state regulators with guidance on converting those targets to mass-based standards to facilitate emissions-trading programs (216 DEN A-4, 11/7/14).
A mass-based system would result in more coal generation in 2020 and would have compliance costs 50 percent lower through 2030 than comparable rate-based plans, according to the report. While a rate-based system would result in fewer increases in wholesale electricity prices, mass-based systems introduce fewer market distortions, which tend to keep the overall cost of emissions reductions down, the report said. Expanding regional emissions trading markets to a single national market also would keep costs down in a mass-based program, the report said.
-
Ky. Race May Alter Clean Power Plan Fortunes
May 19, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
For many supporters of the Obama administration's landmark proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, Kentucky is an example of the plan's viability.
Even though the state is a major producer and consumer of coal, Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear's administration thinks it can develop a plan to comply with U.S. EPA's proposed mandates.
But the state's posture is likely to change after this year's gubernatorial election. Every major candidate in today's gubernatorial primary -- including the leading Democrat -- has either promised or suggested they would not follow through with a plan.
"At my direction, my administration will resist EPA and their draconian regulatory agenda," Republican hopeful Matt Bevin, who ran for U.S. Senate unsuccessfully last year, told the Kentucky Coal Association in a letter last week.
Pro-coal, anti-EPA rhetoric is common in political races in Appalachia. So the Kentucky Coal Association wanted to make sure candidates were on the record specifically about their Clean Power Plan compliance intentions.
The industry group asked the candidates one question: "If elected the Governor of Kentucky, will you submit a GHG State Implementation Plan (or SIP) or will you refuse to do so?"
Attorney General Jack Conway, the leading candidate on the Democratic side, told the KCA: "I believe the recent actions by EPA are an illegal overreach of its authority, and my administration will work to prevent further damage to our state's economy from overzealous regulation."
For now, the state's Democratic governor is bucking another of its top politicians, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), who wants states to unify in opposing the Clean Power Plan.
Next year, after Beshear has left office, Kentucky may join the "just say no" contingent. KCA President Bill Bissett says the move would send a message to the country that the state is not divided on the issue.
"It adds another state to the solid column of [those] against" the rule, said Bissett during an interview about the significance of this year's elections.
EPA plans on finalizing the Clean Power Plan later this year. States would then have to submit their plans or extension requests by 2016. Jurisdictions that don't comply risk EPA implementing a plan on their behalf.
That's where the "just say no" strategy comes in. Seeing the proposed rule as an illegal overreach, coal industry opponents and their political allies favor letting EPA carry the rule's burden rather than states voluntarily submitting to pollution limits.
"Their ability to ramrod this through decreases by day," Bissett said about EPA's options in the face of states boycotting the plan. He sees litigation or a future president scaling back the rule. 'Saying this for political reasons'
Beshear and his Energy and Environment Cabinet Secretary Len Peters are generally pro-coal. But while they don't like EPA's proposal, they are willing to move forward with its implementation (E&E Daily, March 4).
Peters has been optimistic about the state being able to craft a plan, despite limits passed by the General Assembly, where the Senate is under Republican control and the House is in Democratic hands.
Because the Bluegrass State is so coal reliant, EPA would only require its power sector to cut its carbon emissions by 18 percent from 2012 levels by 2030 -- among the lowest targets in the nation.
"Will the next governor take that and move with it? I don't know," Peters said during a recent climate conference. "But we want to give him an opportunity to look at what we have been thinking the last several years."
That's why Kentucky political analyst Al Cross isn't sure candidates opposing the Clean Power Plan will stand by their words when it's time to submit a state implementation plan.
"It's a doable thing," said Cross about EPA's proposal. "They're just saying this for political reasons." He added, "It wouldn't surprise me to find them picking up where Peters and Beshear have done."
Despite the "just say no" campaign by rule opponents, 41 states are considering their options and in talks with neighboring states about compliance plans (ClimateWire, May 18).
Michael Dowd, director of the air division at Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality, lamented that West Virginia and Kentucky would likely not be part of such discussions. Dowd's state must cut its emissions by 38 percent, according to EPA's draft rule.
"We think that they have a competitive advantage," Dowd said during a recent conference. A state in the same region with greater emissions reduction responsibilities will bear more cost and pass it through to its industries, he noted.
Bissett knows there's always a risk politicians will say one thing and do another when push comes to shove. But he said, "I feel confident" about them sticking to their positions. Conway well-positioned
A SurveyUSA poll released last week showed Agriculture Commissioner James Comer, former Louisville Metro Councilman Hal Heiner and Bevin essentially tied for the GOP nomination.
Conway enjoys a comfortable lead over primary rival Geoff Young, who is running as a progressive, pro-environmental regulations Democrat.
The attorney general, who ran for Senate in 2010 and lost to Republican Rand Paul, is also well-positioned for the general election, polls show (Greenwire, May 14).
But after today's primary, the Republican nominee will likely escalate his attacks against Conway's Democratic connections. President Obama remains unpopular in the state, and coal field residents blame him for the sharp downturn in mine employment.
Conway will try to inoculate himself by pointing to litigation by him and other states against the Clean Power Plan. "Conway has his line down," Cross said. "This suit is central to his candidacy. He's got that comeback, and it relies on a coal issue."
But he may be more vulnerable to political attacks on stances on two other lawsuits. Conway decided against defending the state's gay marriage ban in court or suing to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
"In the current environment, you're just expected to be pro-coal," said Cross. But he doesn't see the Clean Power Plan debate as a make-or-break issue in this fall's gubernatorial election. "This is not something most people are paying attention to."
-
Senate Panel To Continue Energy Bill Work With Focus On Supply Bills
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
A Senate panel this week will continue its work on a comprehensive energy bill with a hearing to consider more than two dozen proposals to boost supplies from offshore oil wells, hydroelectric dams, geothermal deposits and most other sources of energy.
The proposals are competing for a spot in the energy bill that Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) hopes to have assembled by this summer, although not all of the 26 bills on the committee agenda will make the final cut.
The supply hearing will be the third of a series of four that Murkowski scheduled to consider energy bill proposals. Earlier this month, the panel considered efficiency and infrastructure proposals; after the Memorial Day recess, it will discuss government accountability.
Tomorrow's hearing agenda runs the gamut from providing coastal states a share of offshore drilling revenue to creating a nationwide renewable energy standard. Hydropower, geothermal, biomass and coal are among the sources targeted by particular bills.
Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Murkowski offered a trio of bills last week to expand offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Arctic, and split revenues between adjacent states and the federal government (E&E Daily, May 13).
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) introduced a suite of bills promoting carbon capture and sequestration and aiding a coal industry facing economic pressure from environmental regulations and cheap natural gas (E&E Daily, May 15).
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) led a coalition of Democrats in pushing a revamped renewable energy standard that would require utilities to provide 30 percent of their power from wind, solar and other renewable sources by 2030 (E&ENews PM, May 12).
Along with the RES, several bills target specific sources of renewable energy, although sometimes taking different approaches to promoting it.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Murkowski and other bipartisan co-sponsors introduced a bill to allow the Interior Department to offer noncompetitive leases for parcels of private land adjacent to existing geothermal leases. Wyden also teamed with Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester on a broader proposal that would add a public-private grant program and encourage DOE to promote the use of geothermal heat pumps, along with the noncompetitive adjacent leasing, to promote geothermal technology.
Republican Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada and James Risch of Idaho introduced a separate bill taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act as the cause of geothermal development delays; their bill would offer categorical exclusions to early-stage development activities.
Murkowski and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) were among those offering hydropower bills.
Murkowski's bill would define hydropower as a source of renewable energy for federal agencies to comply with existing goals to use at least 7.5 percent renewable energy and would aim to streamline the licensing process. Gardner's bill would reauthorize an expiring grant program that provides payments equivalent to the production tax credit to owners of existing dams who add power turbines to them.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is working on its own energy bill addressing similar themes of supply, infrastructure and efficiency. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify there on Thursday (see related story).
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, May 19, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: TBA.
Proposals for energy bill
S. 1026
SPONSORS: Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Allows federal agencies and the military to purchase fuel produced from coal, oil shale and oil sands, by eliminating a requirement that the government not buy fuel with a larger greenhouse gas footprint than conventional petroleum.S. 1057
SPONSORS: Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
Establishes a public-private grant program to facilitate geothermal exploration. Allows for noncompetitive geothermal leases on existing oil and gas drilling parcels to facilitate co-production, as well as on federal land adjacent to other geothermal leases. Directs DOE to promote geothermal heat pumps and direct use of geothermal energy.S. 1058
SPONSORS: Wyden and Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Angus King (I-Maine)
Reauthorizes DOE's marine renewable energy programs.S. 1103
SPONSORS: Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Tester, and Sens. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Reinstates a license and extends the deadline for a construction project related to the Clark Canyon Dam in Montana.S. 1104
SPONSORS: Daines, Tester and Risch
Extends the deadline for the Gibson Dam in Montana.S. 1199
SPONSOR: Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Allows federal agencies to construct electric vehicle charging stations or other alternative fuel infrastructure for use by federal employees so long as they pay for the electricity or fuel they use.S. 1215
SPONSOR: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Reauthorizes DOE's methane hydrates research program and authorizes a production test in the Arctic on land set aside by the state of Alaska and a production test at sea within 10 years.S. 1222
SPONSOR: Murkowski
Shields power plants that receive "must run" orders from DOE to maintain reliability from liability for violating EPA climate change rules or other regulations.S. 1224
SPONSOR: Murkowski
Affirms the Commerce Department's decision to authorize exports of condensate, a type of lightly processed crude, and orders DOE to establish a standardized definition of the term "condensate."S. 1226
SPONSOR: Murkowski
Establishes a leasing program for helium exploration similar to the existing oil and gas leasing program and directs the Interior secretary to develop a programmatic environmental impact statement for helium production.S. 1236
SPONSOR: Murkowski
Defines hydropower as a source of renewable energy for federal agencies' compliance with an existing goal to use at least 7.5 percent renewable energy. Designates FERC as a lead coordinating agency to set deadlines on reviews associated with hydropower projects and directs certain legal challenges to FERC's administrative law judges, among other efforts to streamline the approval process.S. 1264
SPONSOR: Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
Establishes a renewable energy standard of 30 percent by 2030.S. 1270
SPONSOR: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)
Renews DOE authority to provide incentive payments to certain hydropower facilities.S. 1271
SPONSOR: Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
Directs Interior to craft regulations to prevent natural gas venting or flaring.S. 1272
SPONSOR: Markey
Orders a study on the effects of forward capacity auctions and other capacity mechanisms.S. 1276
SPONSOR: Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
Expands offshore drilling opportunities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and raises the revenue-sharing cap for Gulf Coast states.S. 1278
SPONSOR: Murkowski
Increases offshore drilling opportunities in the Arctic and authorizes revenue sharing with Alaska.S. 1279
SPONSOR: Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Directs offshore leases in the south Atlantic Ocean and authorizes revenue sharing for bordering East Coast states.S. 1280
SPONSOR: Markey
Directs Interior to impose fees on oil and gas leaseholders that are not producing.S. 1282
SPONSOR: Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
Directs DOE to consider the "conversion, use or storage" of carbon dioxide within its fossil energy research programs.S. 1283
SPONSOR: Manchin
Establishes new coal technology program at DOE.S. 1285
SPONSOR: Manchin
Authorizes DOE to enter into "price stabilization" contracts to aid coal-fired power plants.S. 1294
SPONSOR: Wyden
Establishes cost-share programs at DOE and the Forest Service to promote biomass development.S. 1304
SPONSOR: Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
Directs DOE to establish a competitive grant program to encourage workforce development in the energy industry. -
Bobby Jindal Forming Exploratory Committee For White House Run
May 18, 2015 | Politico
By Jonathan Topaz
Bobby Jindal announced Monday that he’s forming a presidential exploratory committee for a potential run for the 2016 Republican nomination, a major step toward launching a bid.
The Louisiana governor, a fierce social conservative who has been active in the early nominating states, will make a decision after the state’s legislative session ends on June 11.
“For some time now, my wife Supriya and I have been thinking and praying about whether to run for the presidency of our great nation. We’ll make a final decision in June,” Jindal said in a statement sent to reporters.
“If I run, my candidacy will be based on the idea that the American people are ready to try a dramatically different direction. Not a course correction, but a dramatically different path,” Jindal said. “While other Republican leaders are talking about change, I’ve published detailed plans to repeal and replace Obamacare, rebuild America’s defenses, make America energy independent, and reform education for our nation’s children.”
The exploratory committee was up with a website early Monday afternoon to enlist volunteers and donations.
Jindal was one of eleven candidates to visit Iowa this weekend for the state Republican Party’s Lincoln dinner. The governor, dealing with low approval numbers back home, would be a long shot to win the nomination, but is popular among social conservatives and evangelical voters in Iowa.
In particular, Jindal has strongly emphasized his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying he supports a constitutional amendment that would disallow the Supreme Court from overturning state bans. He has also backed a religious freedom law in Louisiana and has expressed support for similar legislation in Arkansas and Indiana.
The governor’s stock has fallen considerably in the past several years. When he came into office in 2008, he was 36 years old, the youngest governor in the country at the time and the first Indian-American governor in U.S. history. Jindal, a Rhodes Scholar, was often rumored as a potential vice-presidential pick for both John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 and seen as a rising star in the party.
Jindal famously bombed in his 2009 rebuttal to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, and angered some in the GOP when he said Republicans need to “stop being the stupid party” in the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election.
Jindal has also suffered from low approval ratings at home — sitting in the high 20s-low 30s — and Louisiana Republicans have criticized him for the state’s budget deficit. In February, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s — two of the top three U.S. credit rating agencies — downgraded the state’s outlook from “stable” to “negative,” citing Louisiana’s $1.6 billion shortfall and declining oil prices. The budget gap has increased pressure on the governor to raise taxes, which would be a nonstarter with anti-tax advocates such as Grover Norquist and a liability in a Republican primary. Jindal has blamed much of the budget issues on the drop in oil prices.
He has so far been overshadowed in a large and growing Republican presidential field, registering at one percent in the latest polls among national Republicans and those in Iowa and New Hampshire. Early-state activists say he will likely have trouble breaking through in a field that features many social conservative favorites — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; the past two Iowa caucus winners, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; tea party icon Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; former Texas. Gov Rick Perry and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, among others.
Still, the governor has been aggressive in early-state outreach and has been a fierce critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, even signing onto the open letter that 47 GOP senators sent to Iran’s leadership denouncing a nuclear deal with the U.S. He has also pleased conservatives by becoming one of the most vocal opponents of Common Core, the education standards closely associated with Jeb Bush, though he initially supported the standards and implemented them in 2012.
-
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.
-
FERC Sees 'Narrow' Role In Helping Ensure Reliability With Climate ESPS
May 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in its final unanimous consensus advice to EPA on how to protect electric reliability in the agency's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants is outlining a “narrow” role for itself under a reliability safety valve (RSV) that would allow some fossil plants to temporarily run -- and emit higher levels of GHGs than would otherwise be allowed -- if needed to maintain enough power on the grid.
FERC adds that EPA would retain a role in determining when RSV relief should be granted, and that the commission would also have a limited role in reviewing state compliance plans for reliability monitoring and assistance. Additionally, the commission also endorses calls for more “flexibility” in interim compliance targets to ensure reliable service.
FERC makes its long-awaited recommendations in a four-page May 15 letter to acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe, the result of a series of technical conferences the commission held over the past few months on the potential reliability impacts of the proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS).
“If the EPA chooses to adopt a Reliability Safety Valve, the Commission's participation should be clearly defined,” the letter says, citing FERC's ongoing review of the agency's mercury rule for power plants as an example.
FERC strikes a largely diplomatic tone in the letter, for example, noting it would only review claims that unforeseen events would jeopardize reliability. The commission “would not opine on other issues that EPA could consider,” such as whether a facility seeking an RSV waiver had “made sufficient efforts to resolve [the reliability standard] without deviating from approved emissions requirements or compliance timelines.”
The commission adds that its role “would be to consider whether a specified set of loads, resources and grid facilities would cause a Reliability Standard violation or reserve margin deficiency, not whether the applicant or EPA should pursue a different set of options and, if so, which options.”
FERC member Cheryl LaFleur hinted to Inside EPA May 12 that the commission expected a “consultative” role on reliability. She also praised EPA's outreach to the commission. “I certainly think there's broad consensus that there is a role for some sort of reliability protections in the rule,” she said, but noted there still remained “a lot to be worked out in the details.”
Earlier this month, an industry coalition of major manufacturers and clean power generators said it would endorse states requiring sufficient emission cuts to offset RSV relief as long as states bear any costs. The National Climate Coalition in a May 6 statement said states could “retain the option” of addressing RSV-related shortfalls in their GHG reduction requirements elsewhere in their electricity portfolio as long as states assure the facility “full recovery” of any additional cost. Members of the coalition include AES Corp. the American Public Power Association and Southern California Edison.
The need for emission offsets has been a key point of contention regarding an RSV. Some environmentalists, for example, say they could live with a limited RSV, but that the need to preserve the overall level of emission cuts is a “foundational” principle.
Also, in early May FERC member Colette Honorable said an RSV should not excuse states from their emission reduction obligations under the ESPS. She told an Energy Bar Association event that an RSV should not be seen as “a way to lift the cap and release emissions that are never accounted for.”
But FERC member Philip Moeller -- an RSV proponent -- late last month warned of an outcome that could result in the “worst of all worlds,” where FERC is given a role to guard reliability but doesn't have the power to be effective.
The letter, which was signed by all five members of the commission, does not include a lot of detail on either the RSV or another process for reviewing state plans for reliability shortfalls.
'Existing Processes'
For reliability planning purposes, FERC's letter says states and grid operators should “rely primarily on existing processes for identifying and addressing reliability issues, adjusted as appropriate for the circumstances.” FERC would have a limited role, it says, noting that regional grid operators and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation should continue to be the primary reliability reviewers.
“These processes are generally adequate, although increased effort by industry will be needed as State plans are developed. As appropriate, the Commission could then review the analysis, suggest or request additional or modified analysis or, in limited cases, perform analysis itself,” the letter says, adding that FERC's role should generally focus on the regional impacts of ESPS compliance.
The letter cites FERC's existing statutory authority to “look more closely at particular areas or issues, subject to resource availability, and taking into consideration requests by EPA, States or others.”
FERC could then convene more technical conferences or other outreach, and “if requested by EPA, could provide formal input on a particular plan or set of plans.”
Beyond specific reliability tools in the rule, FERC says EPA's final rule “should provide enough time and flexibility for affected entities to take the actions that they must take to ensure system reliability,” noting those actions could include building a new transmission line or gas pipeline.
“Thus, we trust EPA will consider the concerns raised with the interim goals, and other views expressed on this issue, as EPA finalizes the rule,” FERC adds.
Utilities and grid operators have cast the proposal's interim goals -- which require compliance on an average basis between 2020 and 2029 -- as a reliability issue because many states' targets are heavily weighted toward the early years of the compliance period.
As such, they say, loosening the interim targets while maintaining a focus on the final 2030 limits would result in far fewer instances where generators would request compliance relief under an RSV.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has hinted that the agency will soften the interim targets but not eliminate them, as some have urged.
An EPA spokeswoman says in a statement that the agency welcomes FERC's letter and appreciates the commission's work during the four technical conferences and in direct meetings with EPA air office staff.
“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,” the spokeswoman says. She adds that EPA will continue its dialogue with FERC and the Energy Department, and notes that the agency has never issued a rule that threatened electric reliability, and the ESPS “will not change that.”
-
EPW Subcommittee Takes Aim At Agency's Science Panel
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
A Senate subcommittee this week will scrutinize the panel that advises U.S. EPA on the scientific issues underlying agency regulations.
Among the witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing Wednesday are vocal critics of EPA and the panel's work, as well as representatives of the Government Accountability Office and an environmental organization.
EPA's Science Advisory Board is an approximately 50-member panel that advises the agency on the science that goes into air, water and other environmental rulemakings.
The hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight will likely be used to bolster support for legislation aimed at correcting what critics perceive as bias in the science panel's findings.
Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) introduced the "EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015" in February. It is similar to legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) that passed the House in March mostly along party lines (E&E Daily, March 18).
The bill would set new balance requirements for the scientific and technical views presented by the board, as well as set a 10 percent quota for state and local officials to be included in membership.
It would also allow corporate interests to serve after disclosing conflicts of interest and add requirements for board members to respond in a written format to public comments.
"Our legislation will make the agency more transparent and open, while empowering scientists to do their work and express their views without undue interference," Boozman said in February when introducing the bill.
S. 543 is co-sponsored by Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Roger McClellan, a former member of the Science Advisory Board, is scheduled to testify Wednesday. McClellan has been a vocal critic of the science panel's work, arguing at previous hearings that academic members of the panel who have received funding from EPA and other government agencies are biased.
At a workshop held last month by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, McClellan singled out the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board, which is headed by a member of the SAB, as not understanding their role as defined by law.
"I hope as we go forward, scientists would show somewhat more humility in terms of making scientific advice and staying out of policy," he said then.
During the House debate over the bill, several Democrats defended EPA's scientific advisers and pushed back against changes to the panel. The White House has also threatened to veto the reform legislation, arguing that it would add burdensome requirements to the board's activities.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, May 20, at 9:30 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Roger McClellan, adviser at Toxicology and Human Health Analysis; Ted Hadzi-Antich, senior staff attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation; Alfredo Gomez, director of the Government Accountability Office's Natural Resources and Environment Team; Terry Yosie, president and CEO of World Environment Center; and Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at Environmental Working Group.
-
White House, Congressional Dems Blast Competes Reauthorization Bill
May 19, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Democrats mounted a concerted assault yesterday on a proposed reauthorization of science and energy research programs, as the Obama administration threatened to veto the legislation and House members sought to undo some provisions with dozens of proposed amendments.
The full House is scheduled to take up the legislation, dubbed the "America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015," tomorrow.
In a policy statement released as the House Rules Committee was meeting yesterday to set the terms of floor debate, the White House said it "strongly opposes" passage of H.R. 1806 on the grounds that it would "undermine key investments in science, technology and innovation" and "impose unnecessary and damaging requirements on federal support of research."
Congressional Democrats continued the attack at the Rules Committee session. In its present form, the two-year, $16 billion measure "is not what any of us would be proud about," Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, the top Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, told Rules members. "It is a bill that would leave the nation behind, in a sense."
But of more than three-dozen amendments proposed by Democrats -- two in concert with Republicans -- the Rules panel agreed to permit floor votes on only nine, although one of those is a rival bill offered as a substitute by Johnson. A bid by Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, the Rules Committee's top Democrat, to allow a vote on every amendment failed on a 4-8 party-line vote.
Besides the bill's funding levels, which they consider too low, the White House and congressional Democrats object to spending cuts that target environmental and climate change research as well as renewable energy and biology programs (E&E Daily, May 18).
At yesterday's hearing, Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the bill's lead sponsor, said the legislation attempts to edge the government out of the role of picking "winners and losers" and subsidizing specific types of energy production.
"What we are doing," he said, "is increasing the amount of research and development for all forms of energy, whether it be fossil fuel or alternative forms" in the interest of promoting sales abroad by reducing the cost. While the bill would boost funding for fossil fuel R&D by about 6 percent, Smith added, the amount set aside for "alternative forms" still equals the combined budget for "fossil, nuclear and electric."
He added, "So we have a good balance here, we feel."
That wasn't the White House's view. In yesterday's policy statement, the administration decried the authorized funding levels for various National Science Foundation programs and said that the bill would weaken Energy Department efforts to foster electric grid modernization and clean energy research and development.
The administration also objected to the science committee's decision to authorize a fiscal 2016 budget for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy at a level almost 20 percent below President Obama's request. The bill would reduce oversight of the Energy Department's national laboratories, according to the administration, which warned in the statement that the provision would conflict with execution of the department's mission and expose the federal government to more risk.
-
‘Computational Error' Identified in Coal Ash Rule With Implications for Large-Scale Reuse
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency made a significant computational error in its final coal ash regulation with major impacts for the recycling industry, and the mistake requires an “important change” to the rule's language, the nation's largest coal ash recycler told the agency.
In its final rule, the EPA outlined four criteria entities would have to meet to be considered beneficial reuse and therefore exempt from federal regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. One of the criteria requires companies to keep records and demonstrate that coal ash poses low risk to human health and the environment if 12,400 tons or more of the unencapsulated material is placed on land (80 Fed. Reg. 21,302).
But Headwaters Resources Inc. told the EPA in a letter provided to Bloomberg BNA May 18 that the 12,400-ton figure—meant to signify the smallest coal ash landfill in the agency's database—was off by a factor of six because the data were entered in cubic yards instead of cubic feet. The smallest landfill used as the basis for the criteria should actually have been 74,800 tons, according to the company. Under the final rule, companies seeking the exemption would have to begin time-consuming recordkeeping requirements for any site with more than 12,400 tons of coal ash, when those requirements shouldn't kick in until the site has 74,800 tons, according to Headwaters.
“The 12,400 ton threshold is clearly a mistake,” Kenneth M. Kastner of Hogan Lovells and counsel to Headwaters wrote. “EPA should make this correction to the rule before it is published in the Federal Register, or shortly afterwards as part of a technical correction notice, and in all cases, the rule should be corrected before the 90 day period expires in which a petition for review challenging the rule would have to be filed.”
On April 17, the EPA formally published its final rule on the management and disposal of coal ash, which opted to regulate the residue from coal-fired power plants under the nonhazardous waste provisions of RCRA but did not address the issue raised by Headwaters (80 Fed. Reg. 21,302).
Congressional lawmakers are pursuing legislation to respond to perceived shortcomings with the final regulatory approach (88 DEN A-3, 5/7/15).
Legal challenges to the final rule would be due by July 16 under the 90-day window prescribed by RCRA.
EPA ‘Reviewing' Letter
The EPA told Bloomberg BNA in early April it was reviewing a separate, briefer letter from Headwaters outlining the error. That earlier letter did not explain the company's basis for concluding an error had been made.
Kirk Benson, chief executive officer of Headwaters, told Bloomberg BNA May 18 the agency had committed to responding before legal challenges to the rule were due. The agency did not respond May 18 to requests for comment.
Legal observers have already suggested the 12,400-ton threshold could be vulnerable under judicial review because the EPA never solicited comment on that cutoff level. Benson said the criteria would not directly affect the operations of Headwaters, but said his company got involved to prevent any intrusions into beneficial use of coal ash.
“We can live with the rule,” Benson said. “But when you have a major math error, it's a slippery slope into harming beneficial use broadly.”
Headwaters raised concerns about mathematical inconsistencies in the EPA data set in its August 2013 comments to a notice of data availability that the agency used to inform its final rule.
“We understand that the unit of measurement in that data set is supposed to be cubic feet instead of cubic yards,” the company wrote back in 2013. “It appears some of the volume entries, however, are in cubic yards.”
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy approved six changes to the final coal ash rule between its release and formal publication, but the beneficial reuse threshold issue was not among the issues addressed (77 DEN A-4, 4/22/15).
Beneficial Reuse in Final Rule
The agency's final rule provided a definition of beneficial use to help entities distinguish between that practice and disposal of coal ash.
To qualify, coal ash would have to provide a functional benefit, substitute for the use of a virgin material and meet relevant production specifications, regulatory standards or design standards.
If unencapsulated and used in quantities greater than 12,400 tons, the companies would then have to keep records and demonstrate that environmental releases to groundwater, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products or that environmental releases to groundwater, surface water, soil and air will be at or below regulatory standards to ensure protection of human health and the environment, according to the EPA.
Benson said the 12,400-ton threshold was incredibly small and that many companies would store more coal ash than that temporarily before utilizing the material in other beneficial applications such as roadway materials and wallboard. As written, the final rule appears to subject such temporary storage of the material to more costly and burdensome landfill standards.
-
Dem Warns Of 'Reckoning' On Climate Change
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - Floor Action
By Jordain Carney
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gave the 100th speech in his weekly climate change series on Monday, saying that there will be “a reckoning” on the issue.
“One day there will be a reckoning,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. “If we wake up, if we get this right, if we turn that ponderous balance of destiny in our time, it can be their reckoning. It does not have to be all of ours. It can be their shame; not the shame of our democracy.”
Whitehouse said he has come to the Senate floor to discuss climate change each week since April 18, 2012.
“I decided to come to the floor every week the Senate is in session, to put at least my little light to work, to urge colleagues to wake up and take action,” he said.
Whitehouse added that he was not a “lone voice” on the issue, and lawmakers including Democratic Sens. Al Franken (Minn.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) came up to Whitehouse after his speech to congratulate him.
Boxer said that the Rhode Island Democrat has “shown through the weeks, the months, the years that all he’s going to do is a very simple thing, just come down here and tell the truth.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), expected to be the next Democratic leader, added that Whitehouse “deserves a real moment of recognition." Share on Twitter
-
Whitehouse Keeps Climate Change Front and Center
May 18, 2015 | Roll Call
By Matthew Fleming
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has been a familiar sight the past few years, standing on the Senate floor beside a “Time To Wake Up” placard and talking to a nearly empty chamber.
It’s set to happen again Monday evening, when the Rhode Island Democrat delivers his 100th weekly floor speech on climate change.
Since April 2012, Whitehouse has devoted a considerable amount of time and energy to the practice. He said the repetition helps him keep his facts straight — so he’s ready to throw down and debate the issue at any moment.
“I’m pre-prepared for climate change debate,” Whitehouse said in an interview with CQ Roll Call.
Throughout the Capitol campus, floor speeches often appear to serve as little more than background noise from wall-mounted TVs. But Whitehouse said his efforts are not about immediate action as much as keeping climate change — once a policy afterthought — in the Senate discussion.
“Mr. President, I am here today for the 99th time to remind us that we are sleepwalking our way to a climate catastrophe, and that it is time to wake up,” Whitehouse said May 13.
“I do this every week we are in session,” Whitehouse said Nov. 25 in his 75th speech, “hoping someday a spark will hit tinder.”
The second-term senator generally writes the speeches himself and focuses the rest of his preparation on the delivery.
“Mine may not be the biggest voice in town,” he said in the interview, “but I figured you work with what you’ve got, and maybe persistence would make up for what not having a very big megaphone left me with.”
Whitehouse started his speech series while reeling from a bitter defeat of cap-and-trade legislation and discouraged by silence on the subject from the White House. (He’s since been pleased by the Obama administration’s actions related to climate change.)
Another climate cohort, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., joined Whitehouse in late 2013 in pushing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to keep the issue front and center.
“Our leader was so great about it,” Boxer said, recalling that Reid allowed for a climate change presentation at every party lunch thereafter. Boxer pointed to two climate change working groups that have helped keep the discussion going. “And I think Sheldon’s reminders on the floor are really helpful as well,” she added.
While his persistence is notable among sitting senators, the Senate’s floor speech heavyweight was Wisconsin Democrat William Proxmire, who also holds the record for most consecutive roll call votes cast.
According to the Senate Historical Office, Proxmire announced in 1967 his intention to speak every day the Senate was in session about the country’s failure to ratify a genocide treaty. The Senate voted for ratification in 1986 after more than 3,000 speeches by Proxmire, who retired two years later.
In a statement to CQ Roll Call, former Vice President Al Gore, a top climate-change advocate, said Whitehouse’s leadership and consistent speeches come “at an important time for our planet when the need for urgent climate action has never been clearer. We need more leaders like Senator Whitehouse to help chart a course forward toward a sustainable future.”
Whitehouse recently took his “Time To Wake Up” show on the road, speaking in presidential proving grounds such as Iowa and New Hampshire. He also gained some attention just ahead of the 2014 elections when he and Sen. Joe Manchin III agreed to visit each other’s states to discuss their respective perspectives on environmental policy.
He’s optimistic climate change will become a significant issue in the 2016 elections, both congressional and presidential. He said public opinion and science have stacked the deck so much in favor of the existence of climate change that it’s now impossible to deny.
“That game is over,” Whitehouse said. “It’s going to be harder to say, ‘I’m not a scientist, I don’t know whether we should do anything.’ That’s just irresponsible, that’s a ludicrous argument.”
Among the Democrats running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton has spoken heavily about climate change in the past. Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., told CQ Roll Call he “absolutely” planned to make the issue a huge part of his campaign and applauded Whitehouse’s oratorical accomplishment.
Whitehouse noted recent comments from some of the prospective Republican candidates, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, suggest climate change could play some role in the primaries — though the Environmental Protection Agency remains a political target, particularly in coal-producing states.
For all of Whitehouse’s optimism, his top Senate rival on climate change, Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., sees the debate shifting in favor of those who see the science as clearly divided.
“I’ve been involved in the center of this debate [since 2002], and it’s been very unpopular with some people,” Inhofe told CQ Roll Call. “The people have had a wake-up call and they understand now what the cost of the thing would be and that the science is clearly divided. So I think [proponents] are losing the argument.”
Whitehouse and Inhofe are actually complimentary of each other, but on this issue the difference is stark. Their defining interaction came in February, when Inhofe brought a snowball onto the Senate floor and threw it toward the presiding officer — sailing symbolically through what he perceives as a hole in climate science.
Speaking just after, Whitehouse quoted different scientific sources and said, “You can believe every major scientific society, or you can believe the senator with the snowball.”
In his 100th speech, Whitehouse was expected to touch on elements from other speeches, arguing for climate action, outlining motives for Republican opposition and the path forward, which would likely include a resurrection of the carbon tax.
According to Whitehouse, the proposed tax has been strongly opposed by the fossil-fuel industry but would “set forces in motion to solve the [climate change] problem” by discouraging carbon emissions and allowing for non-fossil fuel energy producers to catch up.
He believes circumstances such as significant weather events, public opinion, politics and even the vote this year that got 98 senators to agree climate change was occurring will lead to legislation by the end of 2016.
Until then, he’ll be on the floor every week.
-
Critics Hear E.P.A.’s Voice in ‘Public Comments’
May 19, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport
When the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a major new rule intended to protect the nation’s drinking water last year, regulators solicited opinions from the public. The purpose of the “public comment” period was to objectively gauge Americans’ sentiment before changing a policy that could profoundly affect their lives.
Gina McCarthy, the agency’s administrator, told a Senate committee in March that the agency had received more than one million comments, and nearly 90 percent favored the agency’s proposal. Ms. McCarthy is expected to cite those comments to justify the final rule, which the agency plans to unveil this week.
But critics say there is a reason for the overwhelming result: The E.P.A. had a hand in manufacturing it.
In a campaign that tests the limits of federal lobbying law, the agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with President Obama. Photo Left, a Twitter post from the agency promoting the rule.
The Obama administration is the first to give the E.P.A. a mandate to create broad public outreach campaigns, using the tactics of elections, in support of federal environmental regulations before they are final.
The E.P.A.’s campaign highlights the tension between exploiting emerging technologies while trying to abide by laws written for another age.
Federal law permits the president and political appointees, like the E.P.A. administrator, to promote government policy, or to support or oppose pending legislation.
But the Justice Department, in a series of legal opinions going back nearly three decades, has told federal agencies that they should not engage in substantial “grass-roots” lobbying, defined as “communications by executive officials directed to members of the public at large, or particular segments of the general public, intended to persuade them in turn to communicate with their elected representatives on some issue of concern to the executive.”
Late last year, the E.P.A. sponsored a drive on Facebook and Twitter to promote its proposed clean water rule in conjunction with the Sierra Club. At the same time, Organizing for Action, a grass-roots group with deep ties to Mr. Obama, was also pushing the rule. They urged the public to flood the agency with positive comments to counter opposition from farming and industry groups.
The results were then offered as proof that the proposal was popular.
“We have received over one million comments, and 87.1 percent of those comments we have counted so far — we are only missing 4,000 — are supportive of this rule,” Ms. McCarthy told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in March. “Let me repeat: 87.1 percent of those one-plus million are supportive of this rule.”
But critics said environmental groups had inappropriately influenced the campaign — just as environmentalists complained that the energy industry improperly drove policy during the George W. Bush administration.
At minimum, the actions of the agency are highly unusual. “The agency is supposed to be more of an honest broker, not a partisan advocate in this process,” said Jeffrey W. Lubbers, a professor of practice in administrative law at the American University Washington College of Law and the author of the book “A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking.”
“I have not seen before from a federal agency this stark of an effort to generate endorsements of a proposal during the open comment period,” he said.
Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and chairman of the environment committee, is holding a hearing on Tuesday to examine the proposed rule. “There is clear collusion between extreme environmental groups and the Obama administration in both developing and promoting a host of new regulations,” he said.
The most contentious part of the E.P.A.’s campaign was deploying Thunderclap, a social media tool that spread the agency’s message to hundreds of thousands of people — a “virtual flash mob,” in the words of Travis Loop, the head of communications for E.P.A.’s water division.
The architect of the E.P.A.’s new public outreach strategy is Thomas Reynolds, a former Obama campaign aide who was appointed in 2013 as an associate administrator. “We are just borrowing new methods that have proven themselves as being effective,” he said.
-
Green Group: Voters Like EPA Water Rule
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The public likes the Obama administration's proposed water rule, according to a new poll from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).
Eighty percent of the 800 registered voters LCV surveyed earlier this month said they support the Environmental Protection Agency’s "waters of the United States" rule, which would let the EPA redefine which streams, ponds, wetlands and other waterways are under its regulatory jurisdiction.According to the group’s poll, majorities of voters in both parties support the proposed rule, the final version of which could come this year. The group’s pollster said the proposal, which LCV calls the “clean water rule,” has the support of nearly 70 percent of voters in rural areas.
“Our poll showed that the public also overwhelmingly supports this rule,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, LCV’s senior vice president for government affairs said. “Unfortunately, however, the Republican leadership in Congress is desperately trying to halt this important, scientifically-sound rule in its tracks.”
LCV’s poll comes as congressional Republicans ramp up their efforts to stop the rule, which they say would give the government the power to regulate small bodies of water like puddles and ditches. Agriculture groups have opposed the rule, as well, saying it would interfere with their abilities to do business.
The House recently passed a bill to block the rule and a handful of committees will hold hearings on it this week. LCV officials said they plan to make voters' support of the proposal known on Capitol Hill.
“We’ll be sharing all these results with everyone on the Hill. There are a lot of attacks coming on the clean water rule,” Madeleine Foote, LCV’s legislative representative, said. “We will work to make sure that the overwhelming support for the clean water rule, moving forward, is known to everyone.”
-
Controversial WOTUS Proposal Gets Double Whammy With Back-To-Back Hearings
May 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Annie Snider
The high-stakes battle over the Obama administration's controversial water rule kicks up a level tomorrow with back-to-back Senate hearings aimed at winning skeptical Democrats to the opposition.
In the morning, the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife takes up S. 1140, opponents' preferred legislative vehicle for countering the administration's "Waters of the United States" rule.
The bill, introduced late last month by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), would send U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers back to the drawing board with their current regulation. It would set a series of criteria -- some relating to the process around developing the rule, others relating to what it can count in and out -- that any rule pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act would have to meet (Greenwire, April 30).
Backers of the bill say it provides the agencies much-needed congressional direction on the thorny topic of which streams and wetlands should be covered by the 1972 law. But supporters of the Obama rule say it is a thinly veiled attempt to kill the current rulemaking and that it could roll Clean Water Act coverage back further than where it stands today in its current, confused state.
The measure is geared at winning over moderate Democrats like Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who have been getting an earful from farmers and other constituents worried about the Obama proposal. A test vote on a Senate budget resolution amendment in March suggested that the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster on such legislation could be within reach (E&E Daily, March 26).
Senate Republicans have said they expect to move S. 1140 forward through regular order, beginning with tomorrow's subcommittee hearing.
Tomorrow afternoon, Sen. David Vitter's (R-La.) Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee will then delve into the potential economic implications of the Obama rule.
When the Obama administration proposed the rule last March, it said the regulation would generate $2 in benefits for every $1 in cost. But opponents have argued that the administration's economic analysis was fundamentally flawed and that the regulation would have a negative ripple effect across the economy (Greenwire, May 29, 2014).
Expect that divide to be on display tomorrow, with witnesses like Benjamin Bulis, who heads the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, arguing that the rule's boosted protections for headwater streams will benefit businesses like those he represents, while farmers counter that it could vastly restrict their operations.
Also testifying will be the director of interagency affairs for the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy.
The advocacy office, which is independent from its parent agency, has urged the Obama administration to withdraw the rule. It said that the agencies erred in concluding that the proposal would have minimal impacts on small businesses and they should have prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and put it out for public comment (Greenwire, Oct. 10, 2014).
Schedule: The EPW hearing is Tuesday, May 19, at 10 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Andrew Lemley, government affairs representative for New Belgium Brewing Co.; Patrick Parenteau, professor of law and senior counsel for Vermont Law School's Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic; Susan Metzger, assistant secretary of Kansas' Department of Agriculture; Mark Pifher, manager of the southern delivery system for Colorado Springs Utilities; and Robert Pierce with Wetland Training Institute Inc.
Schedule: The Small Business Committee hearing is Tuesday, May 19, at 2 p.m. in 428A Russell.
Witnesses: Charles Maresca, director of interagency affairs for the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy; Benjamin Bulis, president of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association; Darcy Dougherty Maulsby, a fifth-generation Iowa farmer; Elizabeth Milito, senior executive counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business; and Karl Randall Noel, president of Reve Inc.
-
Kansas Set to Repeal Renewable Energy Mandate
May 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Kansas lawmakers are set to repeal the state’s renewable energy mandate and replace it with a voluntary goal for electric utilities, the Lawrence Journal-World reports.
Lawmakers have approved a bill to the end the state’s “renewable portfolio standard,” which requires utilities to get 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, and replace it with a voluntary goal instead. The bill also limits the property tax exemption for renewable energy projects currently in law. The Legislature passed the bill on Thursday, sending it to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback for his signature.
Lawmakers wrote the bill after negotiations between Kansas’ wind industry, energy producers and conservative groups, according to the Journal-World. They dubbed the bill a compromise, because a previous proposal would have imposed a 4.33 percent excise tax on the sale of renewable energy.While free-market groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the state’s Americans for Prosperity branch praised the deal, green groups slammed it, claiming the renewable energy mandate created thousands of jobs and led to billions of dollars in investment in the state.
The wind industry said it supported the deal because an excise tax could have hurt existing wind projects and the lingering debate over the renewable energy mandate drove investors away from the state.Kansas utilities have already met the 20 percent limit, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said, meaning the law has already served its purpose.
“Kansas has decided to transition the RPS to a goal in a multi-pronged agreement that gives Kansas a chance to continue to compete for wind investment," Susan Sloan, the AWEA vice president of state policy, said in a statement. "The state as a whole already gets more than 20 percent of its power from wind, with more on the way. With this new agreement in place, developers have more certainty as they look to continue growing Kansas’s homegrown resource.”
-
Washington State Enacts Oil Transportation Safety Bill; No New Taxes Included
May 19, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed into law a bill addressing rail transportation safety including a requirement that refineries notify the state ecology department in advance of crude-by-rail shipments.
ESHB 1449, signed May 14, also provides for:
• additional state inspection of crude-by-rail facilities and crossings;
• updated spill-response planning to reach “best achievable protection to respond to a worst case spill;” and
• an updated definition of oil in spill prevention, cleanup and financial responsibility statutes to explicitly include bitumen, synthetic crude and natural-gas well condensate.
The bill passed a politically divided Legislature with only one dissenting vote after compromises stripped provisions from the measure that would have strengthened safety requirements for transport of oil on Puget Sound such as a mandate that tugs escort articulated barges. Democrats also conceded to Republican insistence that the bill contain no new taxes to fund the safety measures.
Washington's bill was carefully crafted in light of an Oct. 2014 lawsuit filed by the rail industry against a similar bill passed into law in California (Ass'n of Am. R.R. v. Cal. Office of Spill Prevention and Response, E.D. Cal., No. 2:14-cv-02354, filed 10/7/14). The lawsuit seeks to invalidate that state's statute on grounds including federal preemption (197 DEN A-10, 10/10/14).
To avoid the preemption argument, the Washington bill's notification provisions were written to place the burden on refineries rather than railroads, Rep. Jessyn Farrell (D) told Bloomberg BNA May 18 in a telephone interview.
State Anticipates Litigation
Farrell, prime sponsor of the bill, anticipates a rail industry challenge to the new law. “I highly suspect that they will file suit,” she said. “I think we are in good shape in terms of advance notice because we chose to regulate the refineries and not the railroads themselves. I did look at the briefs in the California suit. I didn't want to pass a bill that would ultimately get overturned.”
Association of American Railroads spokesman Ed Greenberg, in a May 18 telephone call, declined comment other than to tell Bloomberg BNA: “It's being reviewed, and we don't have any direct comment on the bill at this time.”
Farrell said that while the bill took important steps to improve crude-by-rail safety, the bill was essentially gutted of elements intended to improve marine transport of crude. “We didn't get anything on Puget Sound,” she said. She said she intends to introduce a bill in the next session addressing marine safety.
Legislative/policy analyst Rob Dengel of the state Department of Ecology told Bloomberg BNA March 18 in a telephone interview that the bill does address marine safety in Grays Harbor County where there are two proposals to build oil facilities (197 DEN A-17, 10/10/13).
The new statute provides for rulemaking on oil barges plying Grays Harbor. It also mandates a study be conducted on vessel traffic safety on the Columbia River.
Federal Rules Inadequate
Dengel said an important element of the new statute that enhances safety is that it provides for the creation of geographic response plans which will be immediately accessible to first responders who will be able to pinpoint what equipment is available and what emergent steps can be taken.
Dengel said that although new federal rules on oil tank cars call for a transition from the older DOT 111 technology, “in the point of view of the governor, it doesn't do it soon enough.”
Dengel also criticized the federal rules, which “never addressed speeds, which is probably the most significant safety component you can take to avoid a collision or tank car explosion.”
According to Dengel, the state sees “speed limits on rail as the dominion of the federal government.” Any state attempt to regulated speed “we see as likely being preempted.”
-
We’re Halfway to Radically Safer Railroads
May 18, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Edward R. Hamberger
The tragic derailment of an Amtrak passenger train near Philadelphia shines a light on an advanced safety feature known as positive train control, or PTC, a technology designed to automatically stop or limit the speed of locomotives.
Investigators report that at the time of the accident, Amtrak train 188 was traveling more than 100 miles an hour, double the appropriate speed for the curve it was taking. As a result, there is much soul searching about whether Congress should increase funding for Amtrak in general, and numerous questions regarding PTC in particular, which is already installed on some Amtrak track.
A separate system, automatic train control, or ATC, is a current, less-advanced safety mechanism on some passenger and freight trains that controls speed and is tied to the track signal system. If a train is traveling too fast, it will automatically apply the brakes.
But in 2008, Congress mandated that both passenger and freight rail must adopt the more sophisticated PTC. The system is required for more than 60,000 miles of rail track—on lines that transport passengers or certain types of hazardous materials—by the end of this year.
As mandated by Congress, PTC addresses more than speed. In addition to slowing trains traveling above speed limits, positive train control is designed to prevent collisions between trains, unauthorized incursions into work zones, and the movement of trains through switches left in the wrong position.
Passenger and freight rail are two distinct sectors. Freight rail is privately owned and privately funded, while Amtrak is partially funded by taxpayers. Each side is responsible for implementing its own upgrades and maintenance.
When it is up and running, the freight rail version of PTC will use a network of global positioning satellites, state-of-the-art signaling systems, and advanced databases to monitor and, if the need arises, automatically stop the train movement in the event of operator error.
Although PTC is an unprecedented technical and operational challenge, the industry has made great strides. Freight railroads have already invested more than $5 billion in private capital into PTC and expect to spend another $5 billion by the time it is fully implemented. They have retained more than 2,400 signal-system personnel to implement PTC. They have installed or partially installed PTC equipment on more than 50% of the 23,000 locomotives that require the new gear. They have deployed 50% of the 34,000 required wayside units. They have replaced more than half the required signals and mapped most of the track that will be equipped with PTC.
But the breadth of the task and the additional development to install this nationwide network means that freight railroads won’t meet the congressional deadline. Much of the technology has had to be developed from scratch, and much work remains. There are thousands of locations where the signal system must be redesigned as well as unique configurations of the wayside units. Location-specific communications equipment is required as well. PTC software must be adjusted as defects are discovered.
To be fair, the government is partially responsible for slowing down PTC implementation. In 2013 the Federal Communications Commission directed a year-long moratorium on the installation of 20,000 communications antennas used in PTC for environmental and historic preservation review.
Given the challenges, Congress should provide a reasonable and responsible extension to its end-of-year deadline. An adjusted timeline would give railroads the time needed to test, approve and install the system and to train the thousands of employees necessary for the safe and correct use of this complex technology. Without an extension, freight railroads will be in violation of federal law and subject to fines up to $100,000 a day.
Freight railroads are fully committed to implementing PTC, but they require until 2018 to deploy all the necessary equipment and outfit the locomotive fleet. Then, two years are needed for testing and validation that the nationwide system is properly working in all regions.
The safety of freight rail operations is the industry’s top priority, and the statistics underscore the point: 2014 was the safest year on record for freight rail. Given enough time to ensure that the complicated safety network is working effectively, PTC will make a safe method of transportation even safer.
Although freight and passenger rail are separate, we are one rail community. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims and those who were injured in the Amtrak tragedy.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested