Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Group Calls for More Improvements to IRIS
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) needs to show “more tangible signs of progress”, before stakeholders can be “assured that the agency is doing its very best job” and to build confidence that its assessments can be used to inform federal and state chemical management programmes, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals, Electronics Sectors React to UN Convention Decisions
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
In response to outcomes of the recent meeting of the Basel Convention (CW 18 May 2015), the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) says it strongly supports the actions that parties took to distinguish legitimate shipments of used electronics for appropriate servicing, from improper shipments of electronic wastes. -
Udall-Vitter TSCA Bill Gains Four More Sponsors
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Udall-Vitter bill to modernise the decades old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has gained four more sponsors, bringing to 40 the number of backers in the 100-member US Senate. -
The Fight to Regulate Formaldehyde
May 19, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
The Environmental Protection Agency has been trying for several years to reduce the risk of toxic formaldehyde fumes from commonplace items and materials found in American homes. -
Many Ways to Honor the Mothers in Our Lives.
May 19, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Last Sunday, I called my mom (and heard about how all nine grandchildren and her first great grandson were doing) and checked out Facebook to see friends’ posts about the special tributes given to the moms in their lives. -
Officials Push for New Authorities in Case of Cyberattack on Grid
May 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By David Perera
A proposal to give the secretary of energy emergency powers over the electrical grid doesn’t go far enough, regulatory officials said today. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas Could Fuel Plastics Industry Boom During Next Decade
May 19, 2015 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Jamison Cocklin
The U.S. plastics industry is expected to grow rapidly over the next decade, fueled by cheap and abundant shale natural gas that's made it more competitive with overseas markets, according to a report by economists at the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
Murkowski, Heitkamp Float Second Crude Export Bill
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The bipartisan duo leading the Senate's charge to ease crude oil export restrictions have introduced new legislation to overturn the ban, picking up a new Democratic co-sponsor in the process. -
Texas Bill to Prevent Local Fracking Bans Becomes Law
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed into law a bill aimed at limiting cities' control of the oil and gas industry. -
Regulators Say Riskiest Injection Wells Have Been Shut Down
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
California regulators say they're making progress identifying problematic injection wells used by the oil and gas industry in areas with federally protected groundwater. -
Experts Urge States to Tap Efficiency for Clean Power Plan, Despite Marketing Challenges
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
In conversations about energy use and U.S. EPA's impending Clean Power Plan, energy efficiency cheerleaders often refer to the rule's fourth building block as "low-hanging fruit." -
FERC Rejects Role in Reviewing State Compliance Proposals Under Clean Power Plan
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro and Emily Holden
Federal electricity regulators are rejecting calls from some parts of the industry to review the plans states will submit to U.S. EPA outlining how they would comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan. -
EPA's Call For States To Seek CCS Permit Primacy Spurs Advocates' Fears
May 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A recent EPA push for states to seek delegated "primacy" authority to issue federal water permits for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects is prompting concern from environmentalists, who say it is "alarming" because the permit program is only in its early stages and EPA has not approved the sole pending primacy request. -
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. -
EPA Accused of Improper Lobbying for Water Rule
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
Obama administration officials are being accused of improperly lobbying to solicit public support for a proposed rule on fighting water pollution. -
Opponents of Water Rule Claim Agency Outreach Went Too Far
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
U.S. EPA's aggressive outreach around the proposed "Waters of the U.S." rule, which is expected to be finalized this week, has prompted criticism from industry groups that the agency has gone beyond the kind of advocacy permitted by a federal agency. -
Republicans: States, Not EPA, Can Regulate Water
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Republicans on a Senate Environment and Public Works panel hit an Obama administration clean water rule proposal as an example of federal overreach on Tuesday as they began considering a bill that would undo it. -
EPA’s Biggest Fear? Evaluating Employment Impacts of Its Regulations
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bill Kovacs
Congress in 1977 mandated in every major environmental statute that EPA “continuously evaluate potential loss or shifts in employment” from its regulations in order to gauge the real regulatory impact on individuals and communities. -
Why Does it Take So Long to Issue a Regulation?
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Stuart Shapiro
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it was delaying its regulation on formaldehyde emission standards for certain wood products. -
Cooperation, Not a Drilling Ban, Would Insure Safety
May 19, 2015 | The New York TImes
By Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen
The Obama administration’s decision to allow offshore drilling in the Chukchi Sea has led to calls for an Arctic-wide ban on offshore oil and gas industry in the region. -
Green Group Challenges 'Seriously Flawed' Crude-by-Rail Rule
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A New York environmental group is suing the U.S. Department of Transportation over recent crude-by-rail safety regulations, claiming they fail to shield the Hudson River from fiery derailments.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Group Calls for More Improvements to IRIS
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) needs to show “more tangible signs of progress”, before stakeholders can be “assured that the agency is doing its very best job” and to build confidence that its assessments can be used to inform federal and state chemical management programmes, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Commenting on the agency's recent IRIS progress report to Congress (CW 6 May 2015), Nancy Beck, ACC's senior director of regulatory science policy, says the EPA does “deserve credit for following through” on several recommendations made by the National Research Council to improve the assessments. But it needs to make more headway in three key areas for the programme to show better results.
Firstly, IRIS “needs a more robust problem formulation and scoping process”, she says. The agency says in its report that it has implemented changes, but the ACC has “some concerns about transparency in the decision-making process, regarding which assessments are initiated and why,” she adds.
The EPA also must establish “a clear and objective criteria for reviewing evidence”, Ms Beck says, noting that recent IRIS assessments have not included such.
She called on the agency to be more responsive to peer review and stakeholder input. “While the EPA has implemented more stakeholder meetings … commenters can cite very few examples, if any, in which it actually used the feedback to inform decisions.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals, Electronics Sectors React to UN Convention Decisions
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
In response to outcomes of the recent meeting of the Basel Convention (CW 18 May 2015), the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) says it strongly supports the actions that parties took to distinguish legitimate shipments of used electronics for appropriate servicing, from improper shipments of electronic wastes.
Rick Goss, ITI senior vice president for environment and sustainability, says: “Global governments have now sent a clear signal that they will not tolerate transport of obsolete and broken products to countries that lack proper management capacity.” At the same time, he adds, participants of the meeting defined strict conditions for proper and environmentally sound servicing operations that are not considered to be waste processing, and that only the most responsible companies can satisfy.
“By adopting the technical guidelines on an interim basis, the Basel parties are indicating that the approach approved, last week, will require further research and review. The guidelines need to be tested in practice, and this may generate new data to allow governments to refine the approach. This will also help inform government perspectives on the several open items that are captured in Annex V of the guidelines,” he says.
Meanwhile, Michelle López Orfei of the American Chemistry Council says the decision of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to reject some of the listing recommendations made by its scientific advisory body, the POP Review Committee, “is a clear indication that the quality of information included in the substance review could be improved”. She says that moving forward, “the POPRC should ensure the quality of scientific data is robust and that it includes a review of all relevant studies, utilising an appropriate weight-of-evidence framework.”
The ACC does not have a specific position on the chemicals proposed for listing, at the meeting. It wants to see the inclusion of substances to the Stockholm Convention that are “based on the best scientific information available, and clearly meet the criteria of the Annexes.”
Ralf Maecker, of chemical manufacturer Momentive, who attended the COP as an industry representative, also refuted comments from environmental NGOs, regarding the influence of the private sector. He suggested that NGOs increasingly “drive the show” and added: “The fact that there have been strong disagreements, specially from developing countries, proved that the processes are too political.”
-
Udall-Vitter TSCA Bill Gains Four More Sponsors
May 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Udall-Vitter bill to modernise the decades old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has gained four more sponsors, bringing to 40 the number of backers in the 100-member US Senate.
The new cosponsors are: Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Dan Coats (R-Indiana), Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) and David Perdue (R-Georgia).
The measure was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee, last month, and is awaiting action on the Senate floor (CW 29 April 2015).
“Senators from over half the states are backing chemical safety reform, because the American people want a working law that protects our families and communities,” said Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), a co-author of the bill. “Momentum continues to build in both parties and both houses of Congress, and I urge the Senate leaders to bring this bill to the floor for a vote soon.”
-
The Fight to Regulate Formaldehyde
May 19, 2015 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
The Environmental Protection Agency has been trying for several years to reduce the risk of toxic formaldehyde fumes from commonplace items and materials found in American homes. It has been stymied at every turn by industry, antiregulatory Republicans and even some Democrats. These opponents, abetted by the White House, have at least temporarily forced the agency to retreat from a proposal formulated in 2012 that it had hoped would address the issue. Unless the agency and its supporters in Congress fight back, the result could be thousands or even tens of thousands of needless illnesses.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and can cause asthma and other respiratory ailments. Its dangers became widely known after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 drove thousands of people out of their homes and ultimately into temporary trailers that registered high levels of the substance, causing sore throats and burning eyes and, possibly, more serious long-term effects in future years.
A law passed in 2010 set standards for formaldehyde in composite wood products. In 2012, the E.P.A. proposed and sent to the White House regulations to carry out these standards. One rule proposed limits on how much formaldehyde may be emitted from plywood and other composites. It also mandated the testing of laminates, a thin veneer of wood added to furniture or flooring as a cheaper alternative to using hardwoods throughout. That step was designed to prevent the escape of dangerous vapors from glues containing formaldehyde.
Industry objected. On the regulation of laminated products, the E.P.A. backed down willingly. Industry groups complained that the tests would be a particular hardship for small manufacturers. After a top agency official visited a small furniture plant in North Carolina, the agency agreed and is now exploring less intrusive ways to protect public health without disrupting small manufacturers. On the emission standards for plywood, the White House Office of Management and Budget caved in, forcing the E.P.A. to greatly reduce its estimates of the public health benefits of regulating formaldehyde.
The 2012 proposal estimated savings of as much as $278 million a year in avoided health costs. The weaker version, dictated by O.M.B. andpublished in 2013, sharply reduced that estimate to $48 million, chiefly by eliminating asthma, the highest-cost item. These lower numbers, in turn, argued for less rigorous requirements and tests.
However, that is not necessarily the end of the story. A quirk in the interaction of the federal law and an executive order required the agency to submit an estimate of the costs and benefits of its proposed rule even though it had not fully completed an assessment of formaldehyde’s dangers. It is now in the process of finishing that assessment. Once that task is done, the agency could conceivably lift its estimates of monetary benefits back up again by including what its officials say are the “substantial” benefits of avoiding asthma and other respiratory diseases.
The American Academy of Pediatrics warned that formaldehyde exposure has been associated with childhood asthma, and it urged the E.P.A. to calculate those economic impacts in its final rule. Even if the agency does submit higher numbers, it remains unclear whether this White House will be willing to accept the tougher regulatory regime that such numbers would seem to call for and that industry would almost certainly oppose.
-
Many Ways to Honor the Mothers in Our Lives.
May 19, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Last Sunday, I called my mom (and heard about how all nine grandchildren and her first great grandson were doing) and checked out Facebook to see friends’ posts about the special tributes given to the moms in their lives.
Some of my FB friends posted about the activist origins of Mothers Day – before it was dominated by brunches, cards and flowers. One approach brought West Virginia mothers together to learn how to better care for their children in the days before any real public health protections or systems. Another push was for a “Mother’s Peace Day” to unite mothers in promoting world peace.
Last week, members of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition celebrated the more activist origins of Mothers Day by telling members of Congress that the best gift for moms (and the people who love them) would be to protect our families from toxic chemicals. Here are some highlights:
In Connecticut, members of the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut visited Senator Chris Murphy’s office to express their continued opposition to the Udall Vitter chemicals bill (S. 967).
Members of the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut met with Sen. Chris Murphy’s state director Ken Curran in Hartford. Anne Hulick, Ken Curran, Dr. Mark Mitchell, Hacah Boros
In Washington State, the Washington Toxics Coalition led a meeting with the ARC of Washington, Latino Community Fund & area pediatricians with Rep. Suzan DelBene to urge her to stick up for strong reforms that protect vulnerable populations in any House chemicals reform bill.
Dr. Neil Kaneshiro, Randi Abrams-Caras, Catalina Angel, Suzan Delbene, Patricia Carrion Maras.
In Rhode Island, Clean Water Action director Dave Gerraughty seized the opportunity at an event with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to thank him for his work to improve the Senate bill and to urge him to keep fighting to make sure any final bill has strong protections for public health.
In Massachusetts, the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow and local groups including Green Newton, Medfield Green Moms, and Choose Wiser met with Rep. Kennedy’s staff to urge him to promote amendments that protect public health when the bill comes before the full Energy and Commerce committee.
Congressman Kennedy’s aide Stephanie Noguera (2nd from left) met with representatives from Green Newton, Medfield Green Moms, and Choose Wiser.
In Pittsburgh PA, Maureen Swanson of the Learning Disabilities Association and Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis from Women for a Healthy Environment met with Rep. Mike Doyle who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to talk about the improvements that must be made in the House discussion draft to make it a bill that really reforms chemical policy. They carried with them the concerns of Pittsburgh firefighters and followed up by joining a meeting with the congressman’s staff in DC by phone in advance of Thursday’s subcommittee review of the legislation.
-
Officials Push for New Authorities in Case of Cyberattack on Grid
May 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By David Perera
A proposal to give the secretary of energy emergency powers over the electrical grid doesn’t go far enough, regulatory officials said today.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee is floating legislation authorizing the Energy Department to issue orders for 30 days to the power industry in the event of “imminent danger” from a cyber or physical attack or geomagnetic storm to the electrical grid.
Michael Bardee, director of the Office of Electric Reliability within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said the bill should permit the secretary to act after an attack to ensure restoration of power, as well as before. "I think that’s as important” as reacting to imminent danger, he told the committee at a hearing to discuss the legislation.
Gerry Cauley, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., agreed. “The emergency may not become apparent beforehand,” he said.
The federal government needs this new authority, Cauley said. The electricity industry is incapable of making strategic decisions for national security such as favoring military power customers or particular cities over others, he said.
The existing regulatory process also would fall short during an emergency, Bardee said. Today, FERC instructs NERC to develop reliability standards, which FERC can approve or reject. “In the context of cyber threats or physical threats that we may face, it’s difficult to envision that process working that quickly” he said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas Could Fuel Plastics Industry Boom During Next Decade
May 19, 2015 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Jamison Cocklin
The U.S. plastics industry is expected to grow rapidly over the next decade, fueled by cheap and abundant shale natural gas that's made it more competitive with overseas markets, according to a report by economists at the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Billions of dollars of planned investments for chemical manufacturing capacity expansions and new-builds in the industry are expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The ACC said shale gas development has changed the competitive landscape for the U.S. plastics industry. The country's producers use natural gas-based feedstocks, unlike their European and Asian competitors that use oil-based feedstocks.
As a result of the spread between the price of oil and natural gas, the ACC has been tracking more than $130 billion of planned investments in chemical manufacturing capacity that have been announced since 2010.
"This substantial investment in new capacity is creating more high-paying jobs in the United States in this high-tech industry," said Steve Russell, ACC's vice president of Plastics. "Plastics materials makers pay workers on average nearly $85,000 [annually], which is more than 73% higher than the average wage for workers across U.S. industries. Companies are reshoring jobs to the United States as new manufacturing is increasingly being located here at home."
The ACC's study found that nearly 462,000 direct and indirect jobs would be created over the next decade in the industry, its supply chain and the broader economy as plastics production grows. Increasing feedstock and production would be consumed by the plastics-intensive automotive, building and construction and packaging industries, among others.
U.S. natural gas production has increased sharply in recent years, where nearly all the growth has come from the nation's leading shale fields, such as the Marcellus, Haynesville and Eagle Ford. The Energy Information Administration projects that the top seven fields will produce more than 46 Bcf of natural gas in June, up from roughly 37 Bcf at the same time last year.
The ACC estimates that combined output from the new investments in resin, compounding and ancillary chemistries and products could reach more than $46 billion over the next decade. Increased plastics production, the report said, could also increase net plastic exports from $6.5 billion to $21.5 billion from 2014-2030.
The ACC tracks chemical industry investment announcements rather than potential capital spending. The organization used that data to estimate output and related growth.
-
Murkowski, Heitkamp Float Second Crude Export Bill
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The bipartisan duo leading the Senate's charge to ease crude oil export restrictions have introduced new legislation to overturn the ban, picking up a new Democratic co-sponsor in the process.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) today offered the new bill to "complement" the measure they introduced earlier this month.
The previous bill, referred to the Energy panel, would authorize crude exports, while the second version "seeks to reinforce the need to lift the oil export ban by going line-by-line through federal laws already on the books to strike any mention of or reference to the prohibitions on crude oil exports," according to a joint statement from the senators.
The new legislation was written to be referred to the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over commodities exports and on which Heitkamp sits. Also signing on to the new legislation are Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
The measure, which is intended to be joined with the pair's earlier bill before coming to the floor, would also amend federal regulations by requiring export licenses for crude oil only for nations that are subject to sanctions or have been excluded by Congress or the president for national security reasons. Export licenses would also apply to crude shipments originating from the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The legislation additionally contains exemptions for the president to impose export restrictions during emergencies or if there's a determination that crude shipments are causing major supply or price disruptions.
Advertisement
The latest bill comes as supporters of overturning the crude exports ban are ramping up legislative efforts. In the House, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) yesterday introduced a companion bill, H.R. 2369, to the earlier Murkowski-Heitkamp bill.
-
Texas Bill to Prevent Local Fracking Bans Becomes Law
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed into law a bill aimed at limiting cities' control of the oil and gas industry.
H.B. 40, by Republican Rep. Drew Darby, stipulates that the Texas Railroad Commission has sole authority over oil and gas regulation in the state. Cities and other local governments can still enact "commercially reasonable" rules to govern lights, traffic, noise and other aspects.
The bill was written after voters in Denton, a college town about 40 miles north of Dallas, voted to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking (EnergyWire, April 20).
"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 in a statement.
Abbott, a first-term Republican, singled out the Denton ban and local regulations on tree-trimming and shopping bags as threats to the state's economy (EnergyWire, Jan. 9).
Denton is already facing lawsuits from the Texas Oil and Gas Association and the state General Land Office over the ban. Environmental groups are working with Denton to defend the ban.
The environmentalists are "investigating our options" on how to respond to H.B. 40, Deborah Goldberg, an attorney with Earthjustice, said in an email last week.
-
Regulators Say Riskiest Injection Wells Have Been Shut Down
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
California regulators say they're making progress identifying problematic injection wells used by the oil and gas industry in areas with federally protected groundwater.
State Oil & Gas Supervisor Steven Bohlen said during a press call yesterday that regulators had shut down 23 injection wells deemed a potential risk to nearby water sources. The wells were part of a larger group of 2,553 injection wells permitted over decades in California aquifers that are supposed to be protected by federal law. Initial water well tests in the area have not shown signs of contamination.
The review is part of a broader analysis that U.S. EPA ordered California officials to perform to bring the state's underground injection control (UIC) program into compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The program regulates more than 50,000 injection wells in the state. Though EPA's order came down in 2011, state officials say they were sidetracked by efforts to draft hydraulic fracturing regulations and did not begin the injection well review until last summer (EnergyWire, March 11).
The Department of Conservation and State Water Resources Control Board updated EPA on their progress late last week, focusing on 176 wells located in aquifers with the highest likelihood of being used someday for drinking water.
"Our review was based upon whether the injection wells pose an immediate risk to water supply wells," John Borkovich, head of groundwater monitoring for the state water board, said in a statement. "The Division has shut in the injection wells where the risk of contamination is considered highest. The Water Boards are requiring the operators to supply detailed water quality data and information to assess if groundwater resources have been contaminated."
One Tulare County well and 22 Kern County wells were shut down as a result of the investigation. Bohlen said the results indicated no significant risk to water supplies.
"We're working together," he said during the call. "We're making good progress on our compliance schedule with U.S. EPA."
Under interim regulations adopted by the state last month, oil companies must by Oct. 15 stop using injection wells in aquifers with higher-quality water -- those with less than 3,000 milligrams of total dissolved solids (TDS) per liter and no naturally occuring oil reservoirs. After the deadline, the wells can only be used with an EPA-approved exemption.
State regulators will now move to the second phase of their investigation, focusing on the 356 injection wells located in aquifers with the next-highest water quality -- those with 3,000 to 10,000 TDS per liter. The agencies will also review 3,600 cyclic steam wells to ensure they do not pose a threat to drinking water.
Environmental groups sued state regulators over the new regulations earlier this month, arguing that the emergency requirements give drillers too much time to come into compliance with federal law (Greenwire, May 7).
-
Experts Urge States to Tap Efficiency for Clean Power Plan, Despite Marketing Challenges
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
In conversations about energy use and U.S. EPA's impending Clean Power Plan, energy efficiency cheerleaders often refer to the rule's fourth building block as "low-hanging fruit." Other metaphors thrown around during a Monday-morning Center for Climate and Energy Solutions event included "money that's found on the ground" or "groceries that are purchased, but then left at the store." (That last one gets a bit complicated.)
Ralph Izzo, the chairman and CEO of the New Jersey-based Public Service Enterprise Group, thinks about programs that lower customers' energy use in a more direct way: a potential pathway to better shareholder earnings.
"If I lower my cost more than I lower my revenue, I make more money," Izzo said during a speech promoting energy efficiency efforts.
"The proposition is simple," added the longtime supporter of efficiency programs. "If I can install energy efficiency at or less than fuel price, then I can recouple all that fixed cost, pass some small savings on to the customer, and help achieve the carbon emission targets [being proposed by EPA]. It's not magic. It's not fairy dust."
Izzo, whose company's utilities deliver electricity to more than 2 million New Jersey customers, made his comments at an event organized around a new assessment released by the center. The paperargues that the more states embrace energy efficiency in their Clean Power Plan implementation strategies, the less it will cost to cut the power sector's carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels.
"Deploying energy efficiency to bring down emissions rates allows for the pursuit of the target with minimal change to the existing mix of coal and natural gas on the grid," the white paper concluded.
But despite beating the drum for energy efficiency programs, Izzo and other speakers at the event pointed to numerous hurdles that can keep consumers from embracing programs and purchases that would help them save money on their monthly bills.
One challenge, especially for larger commercial consumers, is the fact that institutions don't see their energy consumption as a core concern.
Izzo recalled a conversation he had with the president of a hospital. "If you choose a hospital for your family, are you going to go to the hospital with the best medical equipment, or the one with the best heating, venting or air conditioning system?" he said the unnamed executive asked him. "So if I ... have discretionary disposable income, where am I going to invest that? It's a no-brainer," Izzo said the president concluded.
And, Izzo argued, household-level consumers simply don't think about their energy consumption, other than when they read and pay their monthly bills. "No one wakes up and says, 'I can't wait to use a kilowatt-hour,'" he said.Getting rid of the 'government-y' message
Other speakers offered solutions in the form of messaging and branding.
Rick Counihan, who heads government outreach efforts for the smart thermostat company Nest, said many campaigns to lower energy use, specifically the infamous attempts made by President Carter, gave off the vibe of "take your medicine."
"What we found is if you can make a product convenient for customers -- save them time, save them convenience -- a lot of energy efficiency can ride along on that," he said. Touting Nest's products, which allow customers to control their thermostats electronically, Counihan said, "that convenience, compared to programming the old beige box on your wall ... is huge. The additional efficiency almost comes as a byproduct."
But while a new gadget or app can be dressed up, it's a bit harder to make that sale for basic weatherization or insulation.
Philadelphia's director of sustainability, Katherine Gajewski, said applications for her city's programs "skyrocketed" when Philadelphia changed its marketing approach. "A lot of the marketing that has been done towards consumers on efficiency is just terrible," she admitted. "It's really government-y and technical."
Gajewski said the city made strides when it stopped trying to argue economics. "It wasn't about the cost at all. How many people can tell you what they spent last year? What the going rate for a kilowatt is?" she asked.
"What people really cared about ... was discomfort. They were hot, they were cold ... people were uncomfortable in their old drafty homes." So the city instead started focusing on that message, and even targeted digital ad campaigns for especially cold winter days. After that, Gajewski said, applications surged.
These types of lessons will be important for state-level policymakers to consider. The guidelines EPA released alongside its draft rule assumed that states should eventually be able to gain an annual energy savings rate of 1.5 percent, regardless of how low or high the metaphorical fruit in their electricity markets is hanging.
-
FERC Rejects Role in Reviewing State Compliance Proposals Under Clean Power Plan
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro and Emily Holden
Federal electricity regulators are rejecting calls from some parts of the industry to review the plans states will submit to U.S. EPA outlining how they would comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan.
Electric utilities and regional grid organizations have suggested FERC should review whether the interaction of individual state plans -- which will not necessarily be developed in tandem -- might jeopardize electric reliability and risk power outages. States will likely be reducing coal power use, increasing natural gas and renewable energy, and curbing power demand, and those actions could have unintended effects on their neighbors, they said.
The EPA proposal aims to reduce carbon emission 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 using Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
"State authority to propose plans for compliance with the federal Clean Air Act does not depend on, or require," approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency wrote in a brief letter Friday to EPA air chief Janet McCabe.
FERC "is not seeking to alter this balance of federal and state roles or to assert authority over state plans," said the four-page document signed by all five commissioners.
FERC did, however, offer assistance to EPA should it choose to develop a reliability safety valve, or process for a state to seek a waiver if grid operators determine they must violate compliance plans to ensure against power outages (Greenwire, May 18).'Pushback' from state regulators
The FERC stance is a victory for its newest member, Commissioner Colette Honorable, who has spoken out in defense of the primary responsibility that states have in planning for electricity generation and related resources.
Honorable came to FERC in December after serving as chairwoman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. She is also the immediate past president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
In April, Honorable noted that utility executives suggested at FERC's St. Louis technical conference on the Clean Power Plan that the agency "review each and every state implementation plan and determine whether or not reliability would be met."
But there was "pushback" from state regulators in attendance, who said "not so fast," she said (EnergyWire, April 10).
The idea that FERC or the North American Electric Reliability Corp. should review all state plans to ensure that their combined effects do not harm electric reliability was embraced by the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation's investor-owned utilities, as well as the ISO/RTO Council of regional grid organizations.
In April 3 comments to EPA, EEI proposed a Reliability Assessment Mechanism designed to be used "preferably prior to state plan submittal, but no later than when state and regional plans are submitted to EPA for approval."
FERC could issue an opinion, EEI said, "regarding the nature of possible reliability issues as a result of simultaneous implementation of state and/or regional plans individually and collectively."
EEI spokesman Jeff Ostermayer yesterday didn't comment on FERC's hopes to forgo that process but said the group appreciated FERC convening a "robust series of technical conferences" with stakeholders and weighing in with EPA on how to protect reliability.Current reliability processes 'generally adequate'
Reviews of state plans "should rely primarily on existing processes for identifying and addressing reliability issues," such as those conducted by NERC, regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, FERC said.
"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 analyses, suggest or request additional or modified analyses or, in limited cases, perform analyses itself," FERC wrote.
Sue Tierney -- a senior adviser with the Analysis Group who has been arguing that a poorly crafted reliability mechanism could harm emissions reductions -- said she thinks FERC's letter shows "FERC is being extremely respectful of where it fits into the constellation of players at the moment."
"Clearly, it will retain its reliability authority, but at this point in time, EPA is really in the driver's seat," she said.
In that same vein, FERC also offered its thoughts on a reliability safety valve for the rule but did not explicitly express the need for one.
FERC defined the safety valve as "a process through which the affected entities can petition the EPA for temporary waiver or adjustments to the emissions requirements or compliance timelines in an approved state plan to preserve Bulk-Power System reliability."
FERC said it could review claims that unforeseen or emergency situations could result in a Clean Power Plan violation.
"In this narrow role, the Commission would not opine on other issues that EPA could consider, such as whether an applicant had made sufficient efforts to resolve the Reliability Standard violation or reserve margin violation deficiency," the letter said. "If EPA is interested in further developing this concept, our staff is available to work with EPA staff on the specific reliability-based information that applicants should be required to provide to facilitate our assessment."
Tierney noted that although FERC doesn't call for a specific type of safety valve, the agency's technical conferences create a large record of options for EPA to review. And FERC and EPA have been in discussions about reliability for months.
"It won't surprise me if at the end of the day EPA feels that they need to make sure that these issues are being addressed," Tierney said.
-
EPA's Call For States To Seek CCS Permit Primacy Spurs Advocates' Fears
May 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A recent EPA push for states to seek delegated "primacy" authority to issue federal water permits for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects is prompting concern from environmentalists, who say it is "alarming" because the permit program is only in its early stages and EPA has not approved the sole pending primacy request.
One industry source adds that the agency should quickly approve North Dakota's application for primacy to issue Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) "Class VI" permits for CCS under the law's underground injection control (UIC) program, which has been pending since June 21, 2013. Granting the request is vital if the agency "wants to demonstrate it is earnest" about encouraging CCS projects to move forward and for other states to seek primacy, the source says.
EPA created the Class VI rules under its SDWA UIC permit program in 2010 to address the unique characteristics of CCS, a nascent technology that the agency has proposed to require for some power plants in its proposed new source performance standards setting greenhouse gas limits for coal- and natural gas-fired utilities.
While several oil and gas producing states have shown interest in overseeing Class VI wells, North Dakota is the only state to so far submit an application for primacy, though its request is still pending.
Even though EPA has yet to make a decision on whether to approve the state's request, the agency is at the same time calling on other state oil and gas regulators to seek primacy for Class VI permits.
Peter Grevatt, director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, signed an April 24 memorandum that said the agency "encourages states to apply for primacy for all well classes, including Class VI," and that based on "conversations with states, in most cases, states who are approved for primacy for the Class VI program are expected to administer the program through their oil and gas program."
The language is aimed at assuaging concerns from industry that state oil and gas commissions that currently oversee their own enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells, permitted under the less strict Class II rules for oil and gas activities, would also be able to seek primacy to oversee Class VI, given that it also involves energy operations.
But an environmentalist says that the language is "somewhat alarming" given that the "most suitable body to administer the program has not yet been determined" as the Class VI program is still in the early stages.
EPA Region 5, which covers Illinois and other Midwest states, to date has issued the only permits for CCS projects under the new rules. North Dakota however is part of EPA's Region 8.
"EPA should not be actively trying to farm out the regulations" to state agencies, the environmentalist says of the Class VI permitting program, "Ultimately it has to be left up to the state" to decide whether it wants to oversee the program, and if so, whether the state environmental agency or oil and gas regulator, for those states that have separate bodies for each, should administer the program, the source adds.
CCS Permitting
Industry officials meanwhile are welcoming Grevatt's memo because they say it reflects EPA's willingness to allow state oil and gas programs, as opposed to strictly environmental agencies, to oversee Class VI programs and clarifies that the decision of whether to transition a Class II well to Class VI should be made by both the Class II and Class VI program directors, if that state has separate agencies to oversee the programs.
While state environmental agencies generally are the bodies that would seek primacy over UIC permit programs, both the Class II and Class VI rules allow for other state agencies to apply for permit authority even if they do not govern any of the other UIC regulatory classes.
This results in a number of states, such as California, Ohio, and other oil and gas producing states, overseeing their Class II programs through a separate oil and gas regulatory as opposed to an environmental agency.
EPA is currently the only permitting agency for Class VI except for North Dakota, according to the agency's website. But a North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources spokeswoman says the request is yet to be granted final approval by the agency.
Industry had been concerned about statements in EPA's 2010 rulemaking and draft guidance EPA issued in 2013 that suggested that some Class II wells would need to be transitioned to Class VI that indicated that the decision over whether and how to transition wells should be made by the class VI program director.
"There was a clearly spelled-out role [for the Class VI permit writer], now it says they can work together, which is good because EPA doesn't oversee" many Class II EOR wells, the industry source says.
Grevatt's memo says that, "The Class II program director (in most cases a state official) will have the relevant data on pressure and volume of [carbon dioxide] CO2 injected into Class II ER operations, which will influence any transition decision." the memo says. The agency "encourages the Class II director to contact the Class VI director where he/she believes the risk has changed as a result of significant storage of CO2 in the reservoir."
CO2 Sequestration
EPA's memo is aimed at clarifying issued related to the draft guidance, which suggested steps to transition EOR wells from existing SDWA Class II permits -- which govern a range of oil and gas sector activities -- to novel Class VI wells intended for CCS projects as they sequester increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2).
EPA in the draft guidance said that EOR operators should transfer from Class II to Class VI permits if they switch from primarily extracting oil to primarily trying to maximize carbon injection volumes for permanent storage -- though the agency does not set a trigger for when such transition should occur.
But officials in the EOR sector said the draft guidance alarmed them, as the guidance created a host of questions and uncertainties about their EOR operations that they urgently want to avoid -- such as taking on additional financial responsibilities that they fear may last indefinitely, given the long-term nature of the geologic sequestration of CO2.
Industry also feared that when closing EOR wells that were no longer productive, EPA may require them to be closed under Class VI rules, the industry source says.
Grevatt's memo clarifies that "A Class II well that has been used for injection of anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic C02 and has been operated within its permit conditions can be closed as a Class II well," which the industry source says, "calmed a lot of nerves."
The memo also clarifies that the "first threshold" for an operator to determine whether a well must be transitioned to Class VI should be whether wells "are focused on oil or gas production" specifying that they should continue to be regulated as Class II, the industry source says.
"If oil or gas recovery is no longer a significant aspect of a Class II permitted [EOR] operation, the key factor in determining the potential need to transition a CO2 [EOR] operation from Class II to Class VI is the increased risk to [underground sources of drinking water] USDWs related to significant storage of CO2 in the reservoir, where the regulatory tools of the Class II program cannot successfully manage the risk," the memo says.
EPA identified "increased pressure in the injection zone related to the significant storage of CO2" as the "most direct indicator" of significant risk to USDWs, saying it will elaborate on those risk factors in its final transition guidance, which it is working to finalize. "As we complete the final guidance, we will work to ensure that these key principles remain clear," the memo says.
-
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.
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.
-
EPA Accused of Improper Lobbying for Water Rule
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
Obama administration officials are being accused of improperly lobbying to solicit public support for a proposed rule on fighting water pollution.
The Environmental Protection Agency undertook a concerted effort on the web, in social media and with environmental groups to drum up support for the waters of the United States rule and counter Republican opposition to it, testing the limits of laws meant to limit federal employees’ lobbying efforts, the New York Times reported.
The Justice Department specifically limits “grass-roots” lobbying, which includes “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,” the Times said Tuesday.
The water regulation, which the EPA is planning to make final soon, would redefine the reach of its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
It encountered strong opposition from Republicans, agriculture and other businesses who say the EPA is trying to massively expand its jurisdiction.
The EPA tried to fight back, including through a social media “Thunderclap” a sort of virtual flash mob organizing thousands of people to tweet in support of the rule simultaneously, among other methods to draw up support.
Jeffrey W. Lubbers, a professor of administrative law at American University, said the strategy is at least highly unusual.
“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 told the Times.
Industry opponents of the rule said the EPA went too far.
“The agency has relentlessly campaigned for the rule with tweets and blogs, not informing the public about the rule but influencing the public to advocate for the rule,” Ellen Steen, general counsel at the American Farm Bureau Federation, told the Times. “That is exactly what the Anti-Lobbying Act is meant to prevent.”
But Thomas Reynolds, the EPA’s top communications official, defended the practices, saying the agency is “just borrowing new methods that have proven themselves as being effective.”
The agency also wrote a blog post about its advocacy, saying that it is well within normal federal government practices and is appropriate.
“To ensure Americans had the facts directly from us about the proposed rule, the value of protecting streams and wetlands, and the need for clearly defined protections under the Clean Water Act, we used social media,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in the post.
“A public outreach effort to increase awareness and support of EPA’s proposed Clean Water Rule is well within the appropriate bounds of the agency’s mission to educate and engage Americans,” she said, citing a recent opinion from the Government Accountability Office that agency officials have “broad authority to educate the public on their policies and views.”
-
Opponents of Water Rule Claim Agency Outreach Went Too Far
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
U.S. EPA's aggressive outreach around the proposed "Waters of the U.S." rule, which is expected to be finalized this week, has prompted criticism from industry groups that the agency has gone beyond the kind of advocacy permitted by a federal agency.
EPA received more than 1 million comments on the WOTUS rule, and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said more than 90 percent of them supported the agency's position.
But the agency, in a key test of an Obama administration shift to let it conduct more public outreach before regulations are finalized, may have run afoul of restrictions passed decades ago to not engage in substantial "grass-roots" lobbying, opponents say.
Under Justice Department legal opinions, this kind of advocacy is 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."
EPA launched a campaign last year on social media, which was joined by the Sierra Club, and Organizing for Action, an advocacy group launched by veterans of President Obama's election campaigns, pushed the issue, as well.
The push was evidence of "clear collusion between extreme environmental groups and the Obama administration," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Advertisement
Thomas Reynolds, EPA's associate administrator for public affairs and a former Obama campaign aide, said the agency had acted appropriately.
"We are well within our authority to educate the American people about the importance of what EPA is doing to act on climate change and protect public health," Reynolds said. "There is a very clear line, and we never, ever cross it" (Lipton/Davenport, New York Times, May 18). -- SP
-
Republicans: States, Not EPA, Can Regulate Water
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Republicans on a Senate Environment and Public Works panel hit an Obama administration clean water rule proposal as an example of federal overreach on Tuesday as they began considering a bill that would undo it.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are currently finalizing their “waters of the United States” rule, which would redefine the bodies of water that fall under the EPA's regulatory jurisdiction.
Officials from Colorado and Kansas and a handful of Republicans on the committee's fisheries, water and wildlife subcommittee said the rule is too broad and could impinge on the way their states operate.
Mark Pifher, with the National Water Resources Association, said state and local governments should have a bigger voice in crafting water regulations because they are the ones that will bear the costs of regulating the waterways. Susan Metzger, the assistant secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, said her state, too, is concerned that the rule would raise water monitoring costs for regulators. She said states are best suited to regulate waters on their own.
“Allowing for states’ administrative discretion without ubiquitous, counter-productive federal oversight ensures the critical waters of the state, as well as the nation, will be protected,” she said.
Republicans have long criticized the proposed rule an unjust expansion of federal power, warning that it could give the federal government jurisdiction over everything from ditches to drainage ponds. Agriculture groups have opposed the effort as well, saying it would hurt their ability to manage their water and land.
The House passed a GOP-backed bill last week that would repeal the water rule. In the Senate, Republicans have promoted Sen. John Barrasso’s (R-Wyo.) bill to withdraw the current rule proposal and issue a new one based around a handful of principles laid out in the bill. The legislation would remove waterways that would be covered under the proposed rule from federal jurisdiction.
“It’s possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while still allowing them to be used as natural resources,” he said Tuesday.
Democrats on the committee, primarily Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) defended both the rule and the federal government’s role in regulating waterways.
“The idea that as a downstream, sovereign state, I have to depend on what another state does to protect the waters that flow through me, is inconsistent with the entire history of clean water regulation,” he said. “To me the notion that the federal government has no role in protecting a downstream state from upstream pollution is an extraordinary idea.”
Patrick Parenteau, a law professor at the Vermont Law School, said Supreme Court has given the federal government the power to regulate water that flows between states. That conclusion set up a back and forth between Whitehouse and Kansas’ Metzger on the validity of removing the federal government’s role as a water regulator.
“Even where you can foresee that waste and pollution will be washing into the waterways of Kansas, you would still say, no, that is not something that the Clean Water Act should regulate?” Whitehouse asked.
“We feel they are adequately protected by state regulation,” Metzger responded.
“Ok, well,” Whitehouse said. “Good luck with the Supreme Court on that.”
-
EPA’s Biggest Fear? Evaluating Employment Impacts of Its Regulations
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bill Kovacs
Congress in 1977 mandated in every major environmental statute that EPA “continuously evaluate potential loss or shifts in employment” from its regulations in order to gauge the real regulatory impact on individuals and communities. Since 1977, EPA has not complied. The agency has been ignoring the faces of real people who lose real jobs because of a regulation.
EPA has been implementing rules as a result of Congressional action, but Congress also intended for EPA to evaluate the impact on real Americans who lose real jobs. Fortunately, this lack of compliance is now being challenged in federal district court.
A lawsuit brought against EPA by Murray Energy Company argues that section 321(a) of the “Clean Air Act” imposes a mandatory duty on EPA to conduct the continuous evaluation of potential job loss and shifts in employment from the agency’s air quality rules, but the agency failed to act. EPA tried to dismiss the case, arguing that Murray has no standing to bring a lawsuit because it is not harmed by EPA’s failure to conduct the study.
But on March 27, the federal district court found that Murray’s claimed injuries are sufficient to give the company legal standing:
Congress’ purpose in enacting the requirement for the evaluations was to provide information which could lead the EPA or Congress to amend the prior EPA actions. This Court also finds that the injuries are redressable. If this Court were to grant the requested injunctive relief to require the EPA to perform its duty under 18 U.S.C. § 7621, the results of the inquiry may have the effect of convincing the EPA, Congress, and/or the American public to relax or alter EPA’s prior decisions.
The legislative history shows clearly that Congress wanted to get the hard facts about the impact of EPA regulations on jobs. The 95th Congress was unmistakably clear that it wanted to determine the truth of the allegations that environmental regulations were responsible for plant shutdowns, decisions not to build new plants and resulting job loss.
Decades later, in Whitman v. American Trucking Association, Justice Scalia writing for a near-unanimous Court observed:
In particular, the economic cost of implementing a very stringent standard might produce health losses sufficient to offset the health gains achieved in cleaning the air – for example, by closing down whole industries and thereby impoverishing the workers and consumers dependent upon those industries. That is unquestionably true, and Congress was unquestionably aware of it.
Why is EPA so fearful of undertaking this mandate? Perhaps it is time for Congress to demand EPA look at the impacts of its regulations on real people, in real communities. And if EPA continues to deny Congress this information, then maybe it is time for Congress to make EPA’s funding contingent on the performance of a mandate imposed on the agency by a federal court.
Kovacs is senior vice president of Environment, Technology, & Regulatory Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
-
Why Does it Take So Long to Issue a Regulation?
May 19, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Stuart Shapiro
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it was delaying its regulation on formaldehyde emission standards for certain wood products. The EPA began working on the formaldehyde regulation after it was told to do so by Congress in 2010, and the latest delay has produced the usual concerns from environmental activists that the EPA is caving into industry by delaying the rule (the EPA actually cites comments from the state of California as the reason for its decision to delay).
A long timeframe for completing a regulation is not unusual. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed a rule regulating exposure to crystalline silica in 2013, but actuallybegan work on it in 2003. A dozen years later, it has yet to be finalized. When Congress created the regulatory process, many thought it would be an efficient way to make policy. What happened? And is the long process a problem?
The first thing to note is that not all regulations take a long time to complete. Thousands of noncontroversial regulations are issued each year and they are typically completed in a year or less. There are really two categories of regulations that take a long time for agencies to finish. The first consists of those regulations that are a low priority for the agency. The second, and more interesting category, consists of the regulations, like the EPA formaldehyde and OSHA crystalline silica regulations, where there are high stakes. These regulations typically impose significant costs on industry (and also have large public health benefits).
Regulation began to surface as a significant policymaking tool in the wake of the large number of statutes passed in the 1960s and early 1970s designed to protect public health. It wasn't long after this emergence that industry began to object to the regulations promulgated pursuant to these statutes. Two means for objections were already in place. Agencies were required to solicit public comment on their proposed regulations before issuing them in final form. And agencies could be sued if the regulations were not justified by a statute, or the agencies did not follow proper procedures in publishing the regulation. These two mechanisms immediately became sources of delay and continue to be so today.
But both public comment and judicial review are very important checks on agency power to issue regulations. Rule-making is an administrative process, not a legislative one. When a member of the public doesn't like the actions taken by their representative in Washington, they vote against them or donate to their opponent. This is not an option in the regulatory process; therefore Congress designed the public comment process to allow parties affected by a regulation to weigh in on the policy decision. Courts are also a necessary check to ensure that agencies are following their statutory mandates. Indeed, courts have been used to compel agency regulation as well as to stop it.
In the years that followed, Congress and the president imposed new requirements on agencies issuing regulations. These include requirements that agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses, encourage participation by particular constituencies and examine the impact of their rules in numerous different ways. Many of these requirements only apply to small subsets of regulations (but usually they do apply to the most controversial ones). Each of these steps unquestionably adds time to the agency process for issuing a regulation. There is considerable debate over whether the time added leads to better regulations. In my view, as someone who has studied this field considerably, some of these requirements, like economic analysis, have to potential to be worth the time they take. Others, like the myriad impact analyses, do not.
It is important to keep in mind that much of the delay in issuing politically controversial regulations comes from attempts to embody certain values (public participation, judicial review, economic efficiency) in a policymaking process that is largely conducted by unelected officials. Some of these attempts don't always work well and we should always be working to improve them (increasing funding for regulatory agencies to meet these requirements is one necessity). Twelve years is too long to issue a regulation. But delay in and of itself is not a problem. Once issued, regulations rarely disappear, so getting them right is important.
Shapiro is an associate professor and director of the Public Policy Program at Rutgers University and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
-
Cooperation, Not a Drilling Ban, Would Insure Safety
May 19, 2015 | The New York TImes
By Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen
The Obama administration’s decision to allow offshore drilling in the Chukchi Sea has led to calls for an Arctic-wide ban on offshore oil and gas industry in the region. However, such a ban ignores the fact that different countries face different circumstances, and that is the challenge in finding a balanced approach to the region.
Most of the new Arctic industries -- mining, shipping, tourism and hydroelectric energy to name a few – have a limited environmental impact and offer the opportunity to develop a region where income is low and social problems abundant. When it comes to oil and gas, however, leaders face a trade-off between environmental protection and local development.A comprehensive ban on oil and gas exploration may seem like a quick fix for the High North, but it is neither realistic nor desirable.
The High North is not just one uniform mass. Instead, Arctic leaders like to talk about “several Arctics” that face distinct challenges. Alaska, for instance, is an integrated part of the United States with a population mix that in many ways resembles the rest of the country. In contrast, Greenland has a predominantly Inuit population that dreams of independence from Denmark. An independent Greenland can only sustain itself if exploitable oil and gas is found along its coast. An Arctic-wide ban on oil and gas activities would end any hope of independence for Greenland. Making such decisions from our sub-Arctic metropolises smacks of imperialism and reinstates colonial structures that we had long thought abolished.
Similarly, whereas Alaskan oil and gas has a relatively small impact on the American economy, Arctic hydrocarbons are crucial sources of wealth for countries like Norway and Russia. For example, Russia, a country that basically lives off oil and gas, will face fiscal instability in the decades to come if it does not develop its High North oil and gas resources. These states will oppose an Arctic-wide ban vehemently.
Arctic cooperation offers opportunities to diminish the environmental dangers that follow from oil and gas exploration. The 2013 Arctic Council Oil Spill Agreement provides tools for states to handle the repercussions of an oil spill. More can be done to prevent disasters from happening through shared practices and common rules, and hopefully the U.S. government will use its role as chairman of the Arctic Council to push this agenda in the coming years.
A comprehensive ban on oil and gas exploration may seem like a quick fix for the High North, but it is neither realistic nor desirable.
-
Green Group Challenges 'Seriously Flawed' Crude-by-Rail Rule
May 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A New York environmental group is suing the U.S. Department of Transportation over recent crude-by-rail safety regulations, claiming they fail to shield the Hudson River from fiery derailments.
The advocacy organization Riverkeeper filed its petition for review Friday, the day after a bevy of other green groups sued DOT in a separate proceeding (EnergyWire, May 15).
Legal challenges to new regulations on shipments of crude oil by rail car are now circulating in four federal appeals courts across the country, reflecting a range of stakeholders dissatisfied with the final rule. Earlier last week, the American Petroleum Institute sued DOT on the grounds that an order to scrap or update most oil tank cars by 2020 would unduly burden the oil industry (EnergyWire, May 14).
Environmental groups such as Riverkeeper have taken the opposite tack, arguing that the DOT rule includes loopholes wide enough to haul an oil train through.
"These seriously flawed standards all but guarantee that there will be more explosive derailments, leaving people and the environment at grave risk," Riverkeeper President Paul Gallay said in a statement announcing the lawsuit yesterday.
He cited "numerous" shortcomings in the rule, including a 10-year deadline for phasing out some recently built but still-problematic tank cars and DOT's "inadequate" 50 mph speed limit for oil and ethanol trains traveling through rural areas.
A DOT spokesman declined to comment on pending litigation yesterday.
A few days after the agency unveiled its crude-by-rail rule at the beginning of the month, a train hauling Bakken crude derailed and caught fire near a small town in North Dakota. The crash hurt no one but added to a string of similar accidents in recent years.
One oil train derailment and explosion killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, two years ago. Under DOT's final rule, the older, type DOT-111 cars implicated in that disaster would have until January 2018 to be updated or pulled off the tracks.
"The DOT completely fails to recognize that we're in the middle of a crisis -- we don't need bureaucratic half measures that are years away from implementation, we need common-sense protections today," Gallay said.
Several community leaders have added to the deluge of lawsuits. The Illinois towns of Aurora and Barrington objected to DOT's rule in a petition filed Wednesday in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The towns voiced concerns over the scope of the crude-by-rail rulemaking. The backbone of DOT's new regulations -- stronger standards for tank cars carrying crude -- doesn't apply to trains that string together 19 or fewer cars of hazardous liquids.
"Although the tank car standard itself that [DOT's] looking at is a good one, it only applies to 'high-hazard' flammable trains," said Karen Darch, village president of Barrington, Ill. "So the DOT-111s could be around for years to come. As long as [oil's] transported in those cars, that to us is a huge loophole."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested