Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Better Living Through Chemistry?
May 21, 2015 | OnEarth Magazine
By Susan Cosier
Industrial chemicals are big—no, huge—business. About 80,000 industrial chemicals exist on the market, in everything from toys to toothpaste. Of those, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has regulations on the books for only five—that’s right: FIVE. -
Response to Tainted US Drinking Water Criticised
May 21, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Official responses to recent disasters that have contaminated drinking water supplies in the US often lack scientific rigour, according to new research from Purdue University. -
US Experts Add to Risk Assessment Tool for Endocrine Disruptors
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US endocrine experts, Laura Vandenberg and Thomas Zoeller, have added to Franco-US suggestions on how to incorporate non-monotonic dose-response (NMDR) data on endocrine disruptors into risk assessments. -
US Osha Consults on Cadmium in Construction Standard
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) is seeking public comments on its proposal to seek extension of its information collection requirements, contained in the cadmium in construction standard. -
Niosh Announces Centre for Nano Health and Safety Research
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has announced the launch of the Nano Health & Safety Consortium to help advance research in worker health and safety. -
US EPA Receives Test Data on Two Substances
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data on two substances – 2-butenedioic acid (2E)-, di-C8-18-alkyl esters, an industrial manufacturing lubricant, and phenol, 2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6-[2-(2-nitrophenyl)diazenyl], a UV absorber or light stabiliser for plastics. -
Home Depot and Lowe’s Eliminating Toxic Phthalates in Flooring
May 21, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Fantastic news!! Home Depot and Lowe’s, the two largest home improvement chains in the country, announced they will ban toxic phthalates added to vinyl flooring by the end of the year! -
Senate Dems Call for Pipeline, Hazmat Regulator
May 21, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Ten Senate Democrats implored President Obama Thursday to nominate a new head for the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), which has not had a leader in seven months. -
Senate Bill Targets Problems and Inefficiencies with TWIC
May 21, 2015 | Land Line Magazine
By David Tanner
Excessive costs, redundant background checks, processing delays, and a lack of electronic card readers at ports and other secure areas are just some of the problems with TWIC, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential. -
Santa Barbara Rupture Prompts Calls for More Restrictions
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Debra Kahn
Tuesday's oil spill on the Southern California coast has sparked calls for more restrictions on drilling and an inquiry into the cause of the accident. -
Government and Companies Address Trade-Offs of Cyber Risk Rules
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
The escalation of cybersecurity attacks over the past two years has made more U.S. company executives and their legal counsel willing to look past the "marginal" legal risk of sharing cyber breach information with security agencies in return for government help on cyberdefense, FBI Director James Comey said yesterday. -
Agency Must Improve its Response to Congressional Requests on Science -- GAO
May 21, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA does not have a clear procedure in place for responding to requests from Congress for information from agency science advisers, according to the preliminary results of a Government Accountability Office review. -
NACAA Releases Detailed EPA Clean Power Plan Compliance 'Menu'
May 21, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies today released a massive "menu of options" that states can use to write compliance plans for EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Air Regulators Set to Release Much-Anticipated 'Menu' of Clean Power Plan Options
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden
The association of state air regulators who are charged with writing carbon-reduction proposals under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan today will release an extensive 465-page encyclopedia of 25 core compliance options. -
Regulators Outline Options for States Saying Yes to Clean Power Plan
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies unveiled a detailed "menu of options" today for state regulators aiming to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Capito Cites Room To Modify ESPS Bill, But Democrats Remain Skeptical
May 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) is suggesting that her recent legislation incorporating multiple attacks on EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for new and existing power plants gives EPA critics more negotiating “tools” to modify the bill as they seek more Democratic support for the legislation. -
Senate Appropriators Approve Energy and Water Spending Bill
May 21, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday passed their $35.4 billion energy and water spending bill on a 27-3 vote, sending the package to the floor. -
Committee Clears Energy, Water Spending Bill
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider, Daniel Bush and Geof Koss
Senate appropriators this afternoon approved a $35.4 billion measure to fund the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers but saved the battle over the Obama administration’s controversial water rule for another venue. -
Senate Panel Approves Reduced Spending for Interior, EPA
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Senate Appropriations Committee today voted 16-14 along party lines to allocate $30.01 billion to the subcommittee that funds the Interior Department, U.S. EPA and Forest Service, a cut of approximately $400 million below current spending levels. -
GOP Senator Withdraws Amendment to Defund EPA Water Rule — For Now
May 21, 2015 | The Hill
By Rebecca Shabad
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) offered an amendment Thursday that would defund a pending Environmental Protection Agency water rule, but quickly withdrew it after a fellow Republican warned it could hurt a crucial bill. -
Data-Driven When it Suits Him
May 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By William O'Keefe
President Obama loves to invoke his reverence for science and prides himself on relying on facts and figures rather than ideology to make policy – the inference being that his opponents offer platitudes or fabricated data to fit their world view.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time
-
Better Living Through Chemistry?
May 21, 2015 | OnEarth Magazine
By Susan Cosier
Industrial chemicals are big—no, huge—business. About 80,000 industrial chemicals exist on the market, in everything from toys to toothpaste. Of those, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has regulations on the books for only five—that’s right: FIVE.
This is largely because the Toxic Substances Control Act, passed by Congress almost 40 years ago, is ineffective.
Over the decades, lawmakers have tried in vain to revise TSCA, only to be shot down by bipartisan politics and the influence of industry. With two reform bills in the works, one in the Senate and another in the House, this year may present the best chance yet at improving the law. The Senate bill—written by Mark Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, and David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana—currently has one-third of the chamber as cosponsors, and debate on it could begin as early as June. Unfortunately, environmentalists and public-health advocates question whether either bill, in their current forms, would be enough to protect the public from harmful chemicals.
In the absence of progress on the federal front, states have tried to fill the void. In California in 2010, for example, legislators restricted cancer-causing plasticizers called phthalates, forcing manufacturers to change products that contained them. More state laws could follow, and because it’s easier to comply with one federal rule instead of as many as 50 different ones, the chemical industry would prefer that Congress act.
But most environmental groups see the proposed laws as too industry-friendly. The proposals in both draft bills are still open to interpretation, but here’s a quick run down of a few pros and cons.
A couple good things about the Senate proposal:It would restrict substances based on health impacts, not economics. Right now, if the EPA proposes a limit on a certain chemical, the agency must conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the regulation. The Senate bill would end that. The new bill eliminates a mandate that the EPA prove that curbing a chemical’s use is the “least burdensome” option. That current requirement is largely why the agency’s decision to outlaw the carcinogen asbestos in 1991 didn’t withstand a court challenge: It put too much of an economic burden on the industry. “The idea was, if this can’t work for asbestos, which was the substance with the clearest links between its use and devastating human health impacts, then it can’t really be used for anything,” says Andy Igrejas from Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, a coalition of advocacy groups. “The EPA really threw up its hands and didn’t try to regulate existing chemicals that much after that.”
And a couple areas where there is room for improvement:The new bill would give the EPA the sole authority to impose restrictions, thereby preempting state actions. If a state decides to put limits on a substance, it has to ask the agency if it wants conduct a review first. As Igrejas says, “Why take dogs out of the hunt when we have such a big problem?”Only chemical-restricting state laws in place before August 1 will stand. If the federal government takes action, a state can then co-enforce a bill, meaning both the state and federal governments can ensure companies abide by the limits. Unlike with many other environmental laws, states would not be able to have stronger restrictions than the federal government. If there’s an unregulated hazardous chemical seeping into the Great Lakes, for example, the affected states can’t do anything unless the EPA steps in.
“On balance, we think that it’s still not a bill that merits support,” says Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney for NRDC (disclosure). Now, onto the bill making its way through the House.
A couple goodies:The current version of the House bill doesn’t impede the state’s ability to restrict substances (unless, that is, the EPA takes action or says a chemical is A-OK after conducting a full review). And if the EPA does put a limit on a chemical, the states can co-enforce it.The EPA will have to assess existing industrial chemicals to see if they persist and accumulate in the environment. If they do, those chemicals will be put on a fast track for reduction (unless industry fights it). Then it goes into the pipeline for regular review. (Both the House and Senate provisions handle persistent and bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals ingood and not-so-good ways.).
And some points that still need tweaking:The proposal swaps the EPA’s current cost-benefit analysis (remember how that affected asbestos regulation?) for a cost-effective requirement. What that actually means, however, is unclear and, well, concerning.This one’s a doozy. The industry gets to ask the EPA to assess certain substances. This could result in the industry sending review requests for lots of innocuous chemicals in an attempt to slow down the regulatory process. (The EPA gets a say in which ones it looks at, too, but there’s no cap on the number of industry requests.)
Other positives and negatives of each piece of legislation exist, of course, and future changes are expected as lawmakers revise and amend the bills. American consumers have waited four decades for this reform, all the while consuming products that just might harm them or their families. Here’s hoping Congress can figure out the right formula (and soon) for making TSCA’s active ingredients work.
-
Response to Tainted US Drinking Water Criticised
May 21, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Official responses to recent disasters that have contaminated drinking water supplies in the US often lack scientific rigour, according to new research from Purdue University. As a result, public health risks have not been fully anticipated and contaminants have not been effectively tackled. More than 1.5 million people across the US have had their drinking water tainted by crude oil, diesel fuels, algal toxins and coal-washing chemicals since 2014, according to the Purdue team.
In the US, drinking water is tested for chemicals that have established drinking water limits, but there is little or no testing for unregulated chemicals when spills occur, and these can also be harmful. In one analysis, the Purdue team examined all of the drinking water testing data from the January 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia, in which a large quantity of 4-(methylcyclohexane)methanol (MCHM) leaked from Freedom Industries’ chemical storage tanks and contaminated water supplies over a 480km2 area. The Purdue team found that methyl 4-methylcyclohexanecarboxylate (MMCHC) – one of the seven primary ingredients in crude MCHM – was present in the drinking water 13 to 30 days after the incident. No safe exposure limit has been established for this compound.
Neither MCHM nor MMCHC are regulated under the US’s drinking water standards. Responders tested for MCHM after the West Virginia incident, but nine days later they started testing for two other contaminants which they didn’t know were initially present – propylene glycol phenyl ether and dipropylene glycol phenyl ether.
-
US Experts Add to Risk Assessment Tool for Endocrine Disruptors
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US endocrine experts, Laura Vandenberg and Thomas Zoeller, have added to Franco-US suggestions on how to incorporate non-monotonic dose-response (NMDR) data on endocrine disruptors into risk assessments.
Earlier this year, a team led by Claire Beausoleil at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) outlined how studies revealing NMDR relationships could be selected (CW 12 March 2015).
“Non-monotonicity represents a challenge to fundamental concepts in toxicology and risk assessment,” wrote Ms Beausoleil and her colleagues.
To help overcome the challenge, they developed a decision tree to pick out which NMDR studies would be suitable for risk assessment. Its first step involves assigning a Klimisch score to assess data quality. Following Klimisch evaluation, selected studies then proceed to the next step, which focuses on the number of doses considered. Next comes availability of data and statistical analysis. The final step is to determine whether the NMDR relationship is “biologically plausible”.
The decision tree is a “significant advancement for the field of risk asessment”, write Ms Vandenberg and Mr Zoeller from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. However, they do not agree that the Klimisch score should be used to assess study quality. Instead, this should be done by experts in the specific field, they suggest.
The two scientists are not alone in their criticism of the Klimisch criteria, which were developed by scientists at German chemical company BASF. There have been suggestions that the criteria favour industry studies and give results that lack consistency (GBB, October 2013).
When it comes to assessing biological plausibility, Ms Vandenberg and Mr Zoeller point out that understanding mechanisms, linking chemical exposure to specific outcomes, is “highly complex and time-consuming”, in some cases, taking years. “An understanding of mechanisms should not be required to accept observable, scientifically valid phenomena,” they say.
The US authors are confident that, with relatively minor amendments, the decision tree “could offer vast progress for the risk assessment community”.
The articles are both published in Environmental Health.
-
US Osha Consults on Cadmium in Construction Standard
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) is seeking public comments on its proposal to seek extension of its information collection requirements, contained in the cadmium in construction standard.
The Standard seeks to protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to the chemical.
Approval is needed from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and comments should be submitted by 20 July.
-
Niosh Announces Centre for Nano Health and Safety Research
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has announced the launch of the Nano Health & Safety Consortium to help advance research in worker health and safety.
It will also provide training and education as part of the Suny Polytechnic Institute network in Albany and throughout the state of New York.
-
US EPA Receives Test Data on Two Substances
May 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data on two substances – 2-butenedioic acid (2E)-, di-C8-18-alkyl esters, an industrial manufacturing lubricant, and phenol, 2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6-[2-(2-nitrophenyl)diazenyl], a UV absorber or light stabiliser for plastics.
The data relates to aquatic and mammalian toxicity and biodegradability, among others.
-
Home Depot and Lowe’s Eliminating Toxic Phthalates in Flooring
May 21, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Fantastic news!! Home Depot and Lowe’s, the two largest home improvement chains in the country, announced they will ban toxic phthalates added to vinyl flooring by the end of the year!
Their actions will have a huge impact on driving these harmful chemicals out of flooring in our homes, given the tremendous quantities of flooring both retailers sell. Together, they sell nearly $10 billion of flooring a year. You can read all about it in our national news release, as well as the New York Times, Boston Globe, Bloomberg Business, Charlotte Observer, as well as hundreds of others nationwide.
We welcome and congratulate both Home Depot and Lowe’s for doing what’s right for our families and homes, and hope other major retailers will join them. This is a huge win for our Mind the Store campaign, which has been encouraging big retailers to tackle toxic chemicals in their supply chains.
Phthalates are harmful to our health and can migrate out of flooring, get into the air we breathe and easily make their way into our bodies. A growing body of credible scientific evidence has linked exposure to phthalates to serious threats to human health including asthma, harm to male reproductive organs, brain development, and the immune system. Ten years of biomonitoring data gathered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows near universal exposure to most phthalates in a representative sampling of Americans. Women are exposed to higher levels of phthalates than men, and children are more greatly exposed to phthalates than adults.
Big retailers driving phthalates out of flooring
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign has been working in partnership with Home Depot for nearly one year to develop their policy, along with our partners at the Healthy Building Network, Environmental Health Strategy Center, the Ecology Center, and Clean Production Action.
The company has instructed their suppliers to eliminate added ortho-phthalates from all vinyl flooring by the end of 2015. This is a big deal as Home Depot is not only the largest home improvement chain in the US, but the largest worldwide. According to one story, “Total flooring sales accounted for over 7% of Home Depot’s $83.2 billion total revenues in 2014, or almost $6 billion, a 4% increase from the year before.” As of their first quarter of 2015, Home Depot had accomplished 85 percent of the phase-out!
We unveiled Home Depot’s policy in a new report we co-released with our partners at the Ecology Center’s HealthyStuff.org where we surveyed major retailers to assess whether they have adopted policies to eliminate phthalates in flooring. The survey found that The Home Depot was far ahead of its competitors by requiring its suppliers to eliminate ortho-phthalates.
The survey also revealed Lumber Liquidators has pledged to take action — they are working with suppliers and seeking new suppliers to transition all non-recycled vinyl floor products to those with alternative plasticizers rather than those containing phthalates. They continue to seek alternatives and are currently testing replacements, however they have not set a formal timeframe for elimination of phthalates, unlike both Home Depot and Lowe’s. We are hopeful they will also set a clear timeframe soon.
Home Depot’s actions are already having a ripple effect throughout the flooring supply chain, .
In less than one week after we released our report and an accompanying online campaign, Lowe’s has agreed to eliminate toxic phthalates in their flooring by the end of this year! Lowe’s wrote to us and said, “With more than 90 percent of our virgin product offering sold today currently phthalate-free, the remainder of the virgin product will be free of ortho-phthalates by the end of 2015.” This is huge as Lowe’s is the second largest home improvement retailer in the country, and their sales of flooring, “represented $3.2 billion in sales for Lowe’s last year, or 6% of its $56 billion total revenues.” Toxic chemicals widespread in vinyl flooring
The report also found that most vinyl flooring tested contained toxic phthalates, a number of which have been banned in children’s products since 2009. The flooring samples tested were purchased from major home improvement retailers including Lumber Liquidators, Menards and Ace Hardware. Researchers found that 58% of vinyl flooring tiles tested contained phthalates. Moreover, almost all (89%) of vinyl flooring samples tested contained organic tin-based stabilizers. Over half of the samples tested contained multiple plasticizers.
A separate report from the Healthy Building Network also found other toxic hazards hiding in recycled vinyl flooring. HBN found, “legacy toxic hazards are being reintroduced into our homes, schools and offices in recycled vinyl content that is routinely added to floors and other building products. Legacy substances used in PVC products, like lead, cadmium, and phthalates, are turning up in new products through the use of cheap recycled content.” No retailer has adopted a policy on recycled vinyl, at least yet. Tell Menards: Eliminate toxic phthalates in flooring
A big question remains though – what about the other leading retailers of flooring? To date, Menards, Ace Hardware, and Build.com have no public policies or time-frames to eliminate phthalates in flooring.
Who will be the next retailer to join this growing trend?
We’re turning our attention to Menards, as they are the 3rd largest home improvement chain in the country with sales of over $8 billion and 280 stores in 14 states. If Home Depot and Lowe’s can ban phthalates in flooring, so can Menards!
Menards has earned a reputation for violating environmental laws in their own home state of Wisconsin. They were fined $1.5 million after their CEO, John Menard Jr. “used his own pickup truck to haul bags of chromium-contaminated incinerator ash produced by the company and dump it into his trash at home.”
TAKE ACTION and ask Menards CEO John Menard Jr. to #MindTheStore and phase out phthalates in flooring.
-
Senate Dems Call for Pipeline, Hazmat Regulator
May 21, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Ten Senate Democrats implored President Obama Thursday to nominate a new head for the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), which has not had a leader in seven months.
The letter came two days after an oil pipeline on California’s coast leaked an estimated 105,000 gallons of oil into the the Pacific Ocean, which washed onto the beaches of Santa Barbara County.
The PHMSA is part of the Transportation Department. Its responsibilities extend over areas like crude oil transportation by rail and oil and natural gas pipelines, important areas that need a lead regulator, said the Democrats, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“Our states have unfortunately experienced first-hand what happens when old pipelines break,” they wrote. “These types of spills highlight the importance of proper oversight and sensible regulations.”
Cynthia Quarterman, the PHMSA’s last administrator, left the agency in October as it was working on a fast track to develop new oil train regulations amid various high-profile disasters.
PHMSA and other Transportation Department agencies unveiled the final rules earlier this month, but environmentalists and industry are suing to stop them from taking effect.
“It is important to states like ours that PHMSA have a permanent administrator to ensure accountability, to develop long-term plans for pipeline transport and crude-by-rail safety, and to respond quickly when things unfortunately go wrong,” the Democrats said.
-
Senate Bill Targets Problems and Inefficiencies with TWIC
May 21, 2015 | Land Line Magazine
By David Tanner
Excessive costs, redundant background checks, processing delays, and a lack of electronic card readers at ports and other secure areas are just some of the problems with TWIC, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential. A bill making its way to the U.S. Senate floor begins to address many of the problems truckers and other stakeholders have had with the post-9/11 security program.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved a substitute amendment for a TWIC reform bill, HR710, on Wednesday, May 20.
The Senate version, as amended by committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., now advances to the floor for vote. If it passes, it will be sent back to the House, where lawmakers approved the initial bill in April. HR710 was introduced in February by U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.
OOIDA Director of Government Affairs Ryan Bowley says truckers are more than on board with reforming the TWIC program, adding that the amended Senate bill is the strongest version of the bill yet.
“From the trucker’s perspective, TWIC is a huge cost,” Bowley told Land Line. “The substitute amendment passed by Senate Commerce is a strong signal to the Department of Homeland Security that before you move forward on TWIC, you’ve got to make fundamental reforms to the program and address concerns that stakeholders have raised to Congress including the high costs and the duplicative nature of the program.”
If it becomes law, the HR710 would commission a Government Accountability Office study of TWIC, require a new cost-benefit analysis and require a third-party analysis and corrective action plan. It also says the Department of Homeland Security cannot issue a final rule on electronic card readers until the agency addresses any action items identified in the third-party analysis.
Bringing a third-party analysis into the mix is huge, Bowley says.
“Truckers pay a heck of a lot of money for TWIC, which involves redundant background checks that truckers already get,” he said. “This assessment would show whether all of that is necessary and will hold DHS to make sure they fix the problems before further moving forward on TWIC.” -
Santa Barbara Rupture Prompts Calls for More Restrictions
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Debra Kahn
Tuesday's oil spill on the Southern California coast has sparked calls for more restrictions on drilling and an inquiry into the cause of the accident.
A 24-inch pipeline, owned by Plains All American Pipeline Co., ruptured Tuesday afternoon and released 105,000 barrels of crude oil, with about 21,000 gallons of that making its way to the ocean. The pipeline, which runs from a storage facility in Las Flores to Gaviota, about 180 miles up the coast, was last inspected two weeks ago, the company said. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) yesterday declared a state of emergency for the area in order to speed cleanup.
For drilling opponents, the spill evoked a historic 4-million-gallon spill off Santa Barbara in 1969 that resulted in a moratorium on offshore drilling in state waters.
The spill has galvanized groups that are pushing for restrictions on drilling. Groups including Food & Water Watch, 350 Santa Barbara and the Center for Biological Diversity are planning a press conference today on Refugio State Beach, the site of the spill, located 20 miles west of Santa Barbara. They will campaign to "ban extreme oil extraction like fracking and phase out oil development in California."
"This incident is yet another example, of which we're having too many, of how our dependence upon dirty fossil fuels is bad for our environment and bad for our health," said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for Environment California. There are bills on the state and federal levels that would ban drilling activity off California's coast.
"The good news is we have the technology to do it," Jacobson said. "We just need to get the political will."
Advertisement
The chairman of the state's Assembly Natural Resources Committee announced he would hold an oversight hearing to explore how the pipeline could have ruptured despite leak inspections.
"It is unacceptable that local people on the bluffs were the first ones to report the spill before the oil company did," said Assemblymember Das Williams (D). "We will also seek answers through a district hearing in the coming days to understand how a breach in the leak detection technology this serious could have occurred without raising alarms to the pipeline operator. We need answers to these serious questions and to find out why the response communication apparently broke down."
A bill in the state Legislature, S.B. 788, by state Sen. Mike McGuire (D), would remove the State Lands Commission's authority to enter into offshore oil leases on state-owned lands.
"The oil slicks on the front page of this morning's newspapers are reminiscent of the images from 1969," McGuire said in a statement. "Tuesday's devastating oil spill is yet another example of the significant dangers related to coastal oil development."
Currently, the state permits slant drilling from federal leases into state lands, language that has been interpreted to apply only to a part of Santa Barbara County known as Tranquillon Ridge. Petroleum companies in response have sought leases at the site, while environmentalists have pushed to close what they call a "loophole" in the offshore drilling prohibition.
Last year, a similar bill failed, 28-34 (Greenwire, Aug. 27, 2014).
In 2010, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico prompted then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to pull his support for a drilling proposal off Santa Barbara (Greenwire, May 4, 2010).
Appetite for taking on oil companies has waned in the state Legislature, however, Jacobson noted. Bills to ban hydraulic fracturing failed in 2013 and 2014, and no bills to ban the practice have been submitted this year, although one from Sen. Anthony Rendon (D) would restrict fracking near earthquake zones (Greenwire, May 30, 2014;EnergyWire, April 28).
"I just think the special interest groups came out and crushed the bills so badly, legislators are thinking, 'I don't think we can pass a bill,'" Jacobson said.
On the federal level, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced a bill last month, H.R. 1951, to put a moratorium on fracking in federal West Coast waters until the Interior Department conducts an environmental impact study. She also has reintroduced the "California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act," H.R. 1952, which would permanently ban new oil and gas development in federal waters off the California coast.
"I am deeply saddened by the images coming from the scene at Refugio," she said. "This incident is yet another stark reminder of the serious risks to our environment and economy that come from drilling for oil."
The Western States Petroleum Association, of which Plains is a member, put out a statement saying its members would learn from the incident.
"As an industry, we are always concerned when accidents like this happen," the group said. "WSPA members strive to prevent any amount of spillage and have numerous programs and procedures designed to prevent such occurrences. Once the incident is contained and thoroughly cleaned up, they will review the facts surrounding this incident and apply what they learn to prevent future accidents."
-
Government and Companies Address Trade-Offs of Cyber Risk Rules
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
The escalation of cybersecurity attacks over the past two years has made more U.S. company executives and their legal counsel willing to look past the "marginal" legal risk of sharing cyber breach information with security agencies in return for government help on cyberdefense, FBI Director James Comey said yesterday.
"In my view, we're still not good enough, but we've gotten a whole lot better," Comey told attendees at a Georgetown Cybersecurity Law Institute event in Washington, D.C.
At the institute session, Comey and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell both addressed the cyberthreat-sharing issue, the subject of bills in the House and Senate that have gathered some momentum.
Comey also spoke at length on InfraGard, an information-sharing partnership between the FBI and companies. "Inside the FBI, we've long had a database of all the malware we've ever seen, and our investigators, when they're working on a case, will query it ... and connect dots, similar to our fingerprint database. We're trying to make that resource available to the private sector, starting with the trusted partners at InfraGard.
"We've got hundreds of companies now participating [in InfraGard]. ... We give them an online password, and they can, through an online portal, connect to it and query the database -- it should be able to scale without limit, frankly. The limit is, we've got to make sure we know the people who are connecting to it."
Comey said that since last year's destructive breach of Sony Pictures Entertainment, other companies have been less reluctant to approach the FBI or other federal partners.
Advertisement
"General counsels have legitimate questions about 'what's our exposure?'" if they share information with the government, he said.
While the technical challenges of automating cyberthreat detection and analysis remain formidable, that isn't the biggest hurdle, Comey said. "Hardest of all, frankly, are the cultural impediments that I attribute to the post-Snowden world -- there's a lot of people who don't want to be seen with us.
"It's hard to get that back," he continued. "That requires time and lots of conversations."
But "what people sense of the threat has changed so much in the last two years that those concerns don't dominate in the way they might have two years ago," Comey said.Cyber legislation outlook
The House has passed two bills designed to enrich the federal-private exchange of threat information, while providing liability protection for companies that voluntarily do so. The next move is up to the Senate, where a debate continues over how far that protection should extend, with privacy advocates expressing fears that an over-broad legal shield might lead to privacy abuses by companies. The "Cyber Information Sharing Act" (CISA) was approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan vote, but its path to a Senate vote has not yet been cleared.
Matthew Eggers, national security and emergency preparedness director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told another panel on cybersecurity yesterday that the CISA legislation could come up as soon as the Senate can resolve the debate over the National Security Agency's surveillance program.
"I think it is just a matter of where it is in line," Eggers said, speaking at a panel hosted by the Financial Services Roundtable.
Scott Aaronson, national security policy director of the Edison Electric Institute, also a panelist on the FSR session, said that among business groups, the goal is "an atmosphere where information can be shared for the common good without fear of regulatory or legal reprisal." Beyond that, he said it is crucial to link the advanced cyberthreat-sharing networks maintained by particular industries like banking and the energy sector to speed the recognition and response to these attacks.
Francis Creighton, the roundtable's executive vice president of government, asked Eggers what the issue was from businesses' standpoint. Eggers said it was that government "might use threat data they gather to inform the drafting of future rulemaking. ... We don't want to regulate companies that are trying to do the right thing."Cooperation rewards
Caldwell said a discussion is underway among federal investigative agencies about the possibility of leniency for companies targeted for investigation following a cyber breach if the companies have collaborated openly with law enforcement.
"We have discussed how those agencies can factor a victim company's cooperation with law enforcement into decisions they make when investigating a breach," Caldwell said. She pointed listeners to a new statement on this issue by the Federal Trade Commission on its website. The FTC statement, which was coordinated with Justice Department officials, "highlights the consideration that the FTC will give to a company that reports a data breach to law enforcement and cooperates in the ensuing criminal investigation," she said.
Last year, for example, the FTC announced a settlement with two companies that, according to the commission, had misrepresented the security of their mobile application and failed to safeguard sensitive personal information of customers moving between the companies and customers' mobile apps.
The FTC alleged that Fandango, which sells movie tickets through its app, and Credit Karma, which gives consumers access to personal credit information, failed to take reasonable steps to secure their mobile apps, leaving consumers' sensitive personal information at risk. The alleged actions left customers at risk to "man-in-the-middle" exploits at Wi-Fi hubs by attackers able to intercept personal information in transit. The settlements required the two companies to establish comprehensive cybersecurity programs and to undergo periodic independent security assessments.
The FTC's statement yesterday said: "In our eyes, a company that has reported a breach to the appropriate law enforcers and cooperated with them has taken an important step to reduce the harm from the breach. Therefore, in the course of conducting an investigation, it's likely we'd view that company more favorably than a company that hasn't cooperated."
-
Agency Must Improve its Response to Congressional Requests on Science -- GAO
May 21, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA does not have a clear procedure in place for responding to requests from Congress for information from agency science advisers, according to the preliminary results of a Government Accountability Office review.
Alfredo Gomez, director of GAO's natural resources and environment team, presented theresults yesterday at a hearing held by a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee on EPA scientific advisory activities. GAO plans to release a full report in June, he said.
"EPA's policies and procedures lack clarity," Gomez said.
EPA's approximately 50-member Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides the agency with scientific and technical advice on air, water and other environmental regulations.
The 1978 Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act created the board and gave it requirements to provide scientific advice to certain congressional committees when requested. The board also falls under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which made EPA responsible for establishing guidelines and controls over the board's activities.
Since 1980, Congress has made only two requests for advice from the science panel, according to the GAO preliminary report. One request, submitted on May 2, 2013, by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), included 14 questions about hydraulic fracturing. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Stewart submitted a second request on Nov. 6, 2013, seeking information on EPA's report on the connectivity of water bodies.
Advertisement
In assessing EPA's response to the two requests, the Government Accountability Office found that EPA's written procedures for congressional requests "do not ensure compliance with ERDDAA because these procedures are incomplete," Gomez told the EPW Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight at the hearing yesterday.
EPA is not clear on which questions SAB is required to answer, he told lawmakers. EPA also doesn't clearly lay out which office is responsible for processing the requests, Gomez said.
"What we found is that when a request comes over, it wasn't clear who was to respond," he said. "In one case, it was the SAB staff office. In another case, it was EPA's office of congressional relations."
Neither of the two 2013 requests sent over by Congress has been completed, GAO found.
In the case of the hydraulic fracturing letter, the SAB answered three of the 14 questions in its initial response sent in May 2013. Seven months later, EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledged the letter and noted that a then-draft plan on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water addressed remaining questions.
In the case of the second letter, EPA's congressional office said that it had begun an initial review of the questions but that some went beyond the scientific review that is the SAB's statutory focus.
According to Gomez, EPA has the authority to prioritize what issues the SAB should respond to in congressional requests.
"What we're looking at is to really make the procedures clear on how EPA is to respond," he said.
EPA has developed additional documents to clarify its process, but questions still remain, he added.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who leads the EPW oversight subpanel, said he was concerned by the results that Gomez presented and was specifically troubled that the SAB and EPA had not yet completed responses to the two requests.
"My concern is that we're being confronted with these issues today, and yet the SAB is not giving Congress the relevant information that it requests to investigate these issues in the first place," he said.
GAO also reviewed the activities of EPA's Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, which provides EPA with scientific advice on where to set national ambient air quality standards and which is headed by a member of the SAB. Gomez said that the results indicated that CASAC has carried out its role as required by the Clean Air Act.
The GAO report comes as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is considering legislation, S. 543, that would add new requirements for the SAB to set a quota for including state agencies and provide written responses to public comments.
Republicans say the legislation sponsored by Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) is needed to enhance the transparency of the board, but Democrats say that it would add onerous and unnecessary requirements that would stymie the science panel's work.
The House has already passed a version of the bill (E&E Daily, March 18).
-
NACAA Releases Detailed EPA Clean Power Plan Compliance 'Menu'
May 21, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies today released a massive "menu of options" that states can use to write compliance plans for EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The 465-page document includes 25 chapters dedicated to approaches states can consider, ranging from those included in the rule’s four “building blocks” to pretty much anything else that reduces carbon dioxide emissions.
The options include frequently discussed options such as retiring older power plants and generating more power from zero-carbon sources like renewable and nuclear energy, as well as ideas like improving the quality of coal burned for electricity, using combined heat and power technology, reducing transmission line loss and strengthening building energy codes.
Each chapter includes detailed descriptions of the regulatory history and a rundown of past experiences in implementing similar policies, as well as information on co-benefits.
NACAA also included a chapter urging states to consider emerging technologies that could have major emissions reduction applications, including energy storage, electric vehicles and the "Internet of things."
“Air regulators can use the ‘menu’ to help identify emission reduction opportunities that are most appropriate for their own jurisdictions, as we work toward our important common goal: reducing our nation’s power-sector GHG emissions and securing the many environmental and health co-benefits that will come with that,” said NACAA co-president Merlyn Hough, the director of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency in Eugene, Ore. -
Air Regulators Set to Release Much-Anticipated 'Menu' of Clean Power Plan Options
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden
The association of state air regulators who are charged with writing carbon-reduction proposals under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan today will release an extensive 465-page encyclopedia of 25 core compliance options.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents 41 states and more than 100 local agencies, will make the report public at 11:30 a.m. EDT.
The menu goes far beyond the "building blocks" EPA used to set state emissions goals. EPA based standards on actions the agency thought states could take to make coal plants more efficient, use more natural gas, build renewable energy and cut electricity use through efficiency improvements.
NACAA's report explores those options plus more, including using higher-quality coal, retiring older plants, and pursuing appliance and building efficiency standards. It looks at improving grid operations, revising power line planning and funding processes, encouraging distributed generation, and using demand-response programs to limit peak-time electricity use.
"We purposefully stopped short of making major recommendations or creating unnecessary controversy," said NACAA Executive Director Bill Becker. "It is a technical resource that we think is one of the most important tools states will have to develop their plans."
The "menu" has been in the works for more than a year and was compiled by the Regulatory Assistance Project, a consulting group of former state air and energy regulators. A NACAA steering committee of air regulators from different states reviewed the document, making revisions on everything "from tone to punctuation," Becker said.
The report goes into deep detail, including on politically controversial measures such as carbon capture technologies for coal plants and cap-and-trade programs.
NACAA's menu doesn't spend as much time exploring the more logistical questions states face, such as whether to use a rate-based standard or cap emissions to a certain number of tons of carbon dioxide per year. It offers some input on how much various strategies could cost and how much they might reduce emissions, but it does not conduct any direct comparisons.Can EPA enforce a federal plan?
The guidance could be essential to states considering whether to write their own plans or heed the advice of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and "just say no."
EPA will release a draft Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) this summer for states that don't write plans that meet requirements, and Becker expects it will "have certain constraints that will make it less flexible, and potentially more costly."
"I don't know of a single state in the country that would prefer a FIP over developing its own plan," Becker said. "Moreover, I don't know of any power plant that prefers a FIP, as well."
But some states are already leaning that direction. Oklahoma's governor signed an executive order prohibiting the state from submitting a plan, and all of Kentucky's major gubernatorial candidates have taken the same stance (E&E Daily, May 19).
Critics argue that EPA will not have authority to enforce emissions reductions outside of the power plant "fence line" or mandate all four of its building blocks. They say the federal government cannot force states to build wind turbines, for example.
A new report out today from Advanced Energy Economy -- a member group of companies ranging from technology giants like Apple to renewable energy businesses like Solar City -- counters that viewpoint.
AEE argues that EPA could enforce a FIP while directly regulating only fossil fuel power plants.
EPA could impose standards on states and determine how much each electric generator would have to lower its own specific emissions rate, AEE says. The generators could either curb output, shut down or purchase carbon credits from a registry to comply, said Malcolm Woolf, AEE's senior vice president of policy and government affairs and a former EPA attorney and Maryland energy official.
"A number of entities, including the Chamber of Commerce and members of Congress, have attacked the validity of the Clean Power Plan rule, arguing that EPA cannot achieve the same level of reductions in a federal plan for states without creating state policy, which would violate the 10th Amendment," said AEE spokeswoman Monique Hanis. "This analysis demonstrates that under a very traditional view of EPA jurisdiction, EPA can still create a federal plan that hits the same standards without doing either of those things. All they have to do is create a voluntary market, which is something they do all the time."
Woolf said EPA has allowed trading under regulations for ozone and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Those rules are based on different statutory authority than the Clean Power Plan, though.
The registry AEE discusses could offer allowances for sale from generators that have exceeded their obligations in other states, regardless of whether those states are also facing a FIP. The registry could also offer allowances from other types of companies, like energy service companies that retrofit universities and hospitals to make them more efficient and reduce carbon emissions, Woolf said.
Woolf said the system would work best with one national registry that ensures against double-counting and is backed by EPA as a compliance tool.
The North American Renewables Registry announced last week that it is expanding to allow for trading under the Clean Power Plan, Woolf noted.
Woolf said AEE's report is directed at EPA more than states.
"We wanted to make sure that EPA realizes the whole range of compliance tools they have before them," he said.
-
Regulators Outline Options for States Saying Yes to Clean Power Plan
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Emily Holden
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies unveiled a detailed "menu of options" today for state regulators aiming to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The 465-page report includes 26 chapters on measures that would help states meet target carbon dioxide emissions rates assigned by EPA.
"This is a report that was developed by and for the people who will actually be responsible for writing the state plans to comply with the greenhouse gas emissions targets in the Clean Power Plan -- the state air pollution control agencies," said Bill Becker, executive director of NACAA, which represents regulators in 41 state and more than 100 localities.
"If it were up to me, I think that every stakeholder at every meeting on the Clean Power Plan would have an electronic copy of this report."
Critics of the Clean Power Plan are urging states to "just say no" to writing compliance proposals. EPA today welcomed NACAA's work, saying it's "an example of the states' strong interest in working together with EPA as well as with other states to develop plans to cut carbon pollution."
EPA's draft rule set individual state standards by determining how much each state might be able to slash emissions with four "building blocks": improving the efficiency of coal plants, using more natural gas, bulking up renewable power and cutting electricity use.
NACAA's report -- developed by former air and energy regulators at the Regulatory Assistance Project and reviewed by NACAA members -- delves into those four options and many more.
"Each chapter starts with a profile, that is, a short description of the pros and cons of the approach. Next, a description of the regulatory backdrop, the policy underpinnings, implementation experience, and GHG reduction potential associated with the approach are discussed," the report explains. "Each chapter then examines the co-benefits of the approach, including benefits to society and the utility system, and explores the costs and cost-effectiveness of the option."
The first chapter, for example, goes over specific ways to improve coal-fired power plant operations to boost thermal efficiency by 4 to 7 percent. It explains how much each method might reduce emissions and at what cost.
Ken Colburn, a senior associate with RAP, said the authors "wrote [the menu] agnostically, to be an encyclopedia, not an advocacy document."
The report explores a variety of options but doesn't address practical questions of how to write a state plan. NACAA will release a "model plan," after the final EPA rule comes out this summer, and it will provide sample regulatory language.'Menu' or buffet?
NACAA's "menu" explores commonly discussed strategies, like employing lower-carbon power sources, but it also looks at less conventional alternatives, including burning higher-quality coal, using carbon capture technologies and optimizing grid operations with techniques like voltage reduction.
Among several systemwide options, NACAA considers improving the performance of power lines and distribution systems, revising transmission planning and cost-sharing, reworking capacity markets, changing utility resource planning practices, and bolstering demand response programs to curb peak-time energy use.
On energy efficiency, NACAA reviews implementing combined heat and power in the commercial and manufacturing sectors, establishing energy savings targets for utilities, and using energy savings contracts between consumers and third-party energy service companies. The report explores behavioral efficiency programs and appliance and building standards.
NACAA also considers politically controversial market-based emissions programs, including cap-and-trade systems and CO2 taxes.
"We purposefully did not rank and also did not pick favorites," Colburn said. "We understand that each state has different needs and different interest and different politics and different experiences."
The last chapter of the report explores emerging options, including smart grid technologies.
Becker said the report, which took a year to complete, may not be comprehensive because some measures might have become more feasible in recent months.
"When you start a year ahead of time there are huge technological advances even within a 12-month period," Becker said. He offered recent advances in the solar industry as an example.
Colburn added that other options, including carbon capture, have seen "further hiccups" since the menu was written.
-
Capito Cites Room To Modify ESPS Bill, But Democrats Remain Skeptical
May 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) is suggesting that her recent legislation incorporating multiple attacks on EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for new and existing power plants gives EPA critics more negotiating “tools” to modify the bill as they seek more Democratic support for the legislation.
Capito in new comments to Inside EPA offers further indication that the legislation she recently floated with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and more than two dozen Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), is a starting point that could be modified to bolster its appeal.
At the same time, Democrats are either mum on the bill -- saying they are unfamiliar with it -- or express doubts that enough changes could be made to attract sufficient support, an appraisal also backed by a GOP co-sponsor who cites President Obama's veto pen.
“I just felt like we need to make a stronger statement,” Capito said May 19 in an in an interview with Inside EPA,explaining a decision to offer the legislation, S. 1324, that includes more aggressive attacks on EPA's proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS) than a House bill approved by the Energy & Commerce Committee last month.
“I think it gives us more tools,” Capito added, in response to a query on whether the Senate bill's multiple provisions blocking the ESPS provide more negotiating room for future concessions.
At issue is the so-called “Affordable Reliable Electricity Now Act of 2015,” which Capito introduced at a May 13 press conference with Manchin and several Republicans. Capito at the event called the measure “the principal legislative vehicle in the Senate to roll back the president's Clean Power Plan," and noted 26 original Republican cosponsors. But she also called the bill a “starting point,” and aides said she is open to changing the measure to boost support.
Since then, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK) have signed on as co-sponsors, with Murkowski's support potentially significant given her chairmanship of both the Senate energy panel and an appropriations subcommittee that oversees EPA's budget.
Capito's bill includes language scuttling both the ESPS and EPA's pending GHG rules for new power plants. That contrasts with the House bill, which only provides a state opt-out mechanism and an implementation delay for the ESPS, though lawmakers have said a House bill on the new source rule is in the works.
But the Senate bill also goes beyond the House bill's language on the ESPS by incorporating multiple, seemingly redundant, provisions that would block the rule, including specific specific language that both the ESPS and new source rule would have “no force or effect.”
The Senate bill also would codify critics' interpretation of an uncertain legal issue with section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act -- effectively prohibiting any section 111 GHG rule for emission sources -- such as power plants -- already subject to air toxic rules.
The legislation also sets forth new criteria for any future GHG rules by the Obama EPA or future administrations and prohibits EPA from withholding highway funds from states that do not comply -- authority many experts say EPA already lacks.
Like the House measure, it includes provisions that would postpone compliance deadlines until legal disputes over the rule are resolved, and would allow governors to opt out of the ESPS if they determine the rule would negatively impact cost or reliability.
The compliance delay provision in the Senate bill -- even though the bill would otherwise scrap the rule entirely -- suggests that lawmakers could pursue a compliance delay as an eventual middle ground. A Capito aide acknowledged at a May 13 background briefing on the measure said there were “staff discussions” early this Congress on narrower legislation focused on such a provision. The aide said that approach failed to get “overwhelming support” but did not rule out lawmakers coalescing around such a measure in the future.
Democratic Reaction
But Senate Democrats to date are either mum on Capito's legislation -- with several saying they are unfamiliar with the bill -- or are already saying that even a scaled-back approach could not garner enough Senate support to overcome a presidential veto.
“I haven't seen it,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) told Inside EPA May 20, a response echoed by Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill (MO) and John Tester (MT) in response to queries.
Heitkamp, a coal state lawmaker who has already criticized the Obama administration's long pending review of the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, is likely one of at least six Democratic supporters Capito would have to get -- assuming every Republican votes for it -- to reach a 60-vote, filibuster-proof threshold.
Manchin at the May 13 press conference predicted bill supporters could attract at least six Democrats while retaining all of the GOP caucus.
But even if GOP senators persuade six of their Democratic colleagues to sign on, they would still be far short of the 67 votes needed to overcome a presidential veto.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) in May 20 comments to Inside EPA said he would not support a bill delaying the ESPS until legal challenges are resolved. Blumenthal added, “I doubt that there is significant support for unduly and unnecessarily delaying compliance with common sense environmental rules.” However, he acknowledged that he has “not really” discussed the issue with other Democrats.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) in May 20 comments to Inside EPA said he had not seen the Capito bill and could not definitively say how he would vote on it. But he said it is an “educated guess” that he would oppose the bill in its current form and also praised EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for meeting with him to discuss concerns he voice last year over his state's renewable energy target.
“The time they have spent with us is significant. I am assuming that has been replicated in other [Senate] offices and that is a good sign they are working with people” to blunt concerns over the ESPS, Casey said. He added that it is “hard to assess” how his Senate colleagues would respond if Capito's bill were changed to simply delay compliance rather than eliminate the rule entirely. “I always try not to speak for others, he said.
Casey's support would likely be necessary for Republicans to reach a veto-proof majority, given that he was part of a group of Democrats that supported the Keystone pipeline in a January vote that fell a few votes short of that threshold.
Even some Republicans express skepticism that there is much room for compromise with Democrats or the White House on the EPA rules. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) told Inside EPA May 20 that he is “very concerned” about EPA's power plant rules, but he said that even a bill delaying compliance rather than scuttling the rules would not garner a critical mass of Democratic support.
“I think you've got a problem getting enough Democrats to vote for that and certainly the president would veto” it, Boozman said. “I think the president would fight any of those provisions as much as the whole bill. . . . Let me know if you hear anything different.”
-
Senate Appropriators Approve Energy and Water Spending Bill
May 21, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday passed their $35.4 billion energy and water spending bill on a 27-3 vote, sending the package to the floor. Three Democrats, Sens. Jon Tester, Jack Reed and Chris Murphy, voted against the bill.
It does not yet include funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Energy and water subcommittee chairman Lamar Alexander says he expects pro-Yucca senators to propose Yucca funding via an amendment on the floor, which provides Republicans a chance to attract support from those Democrats willing to buck Minority Leader Harry Reid on the issue.
The package does include the pilot nuclear waste storage program Alexander and Sen. Dianne Feinstein have pushed in previous years. That funding was previously pulled out by the House, which insists on first funding Yucca Mountain. The House’s top energy appropriator says he is open to funding the pilot program so long as Yucca is also funded.
While the bill goes after GOP targets like funding for wind power, it includes a record $5.14 billion for DOE’s Office of Science, which funds basic research and the national labs, and funds ARPA-E at $291 million, an $11 million bump over fiscal 2015.
It remains unclear when the spending bill will hit the floor.
Earlier this month, the House passed its own energy and water spending bill, garnering a veto threat from the White House over cuts to clean energy and climate change funding, as well as money provided for Yucca. -
Committee Clears Energy, Water Spending Bill
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider, Daniel Bush and Geof Koss
Senate appropriators this afternoon approved a $35.4 billion measure to fund the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers but saved the battle over the Obama administration’s controversial water rule for another venue.
By a vote of 26-4, the Appropriations Committee approved the energy and water development funding measure, with Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Jon Tester of Montana and Chris Murphy of Connecticut voting against it.
The committee was still debating amendments to the measure at publication time.
"Governing is about setting priorities, and this legislation does just that by complying with the spending caps in the Budget Control Act while supporting energy, waterways and national security," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who chairs the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
The spending bill would provide $35.4 billion in fiscal 2016 to DOE, the corps and other agencies, a $1.2 billion increase over fiscal 2015 enacted levels but $666 million less than President Obama requested.
DOE energy programs would receive $10.5 billion, a $270 million increase over current spending levels, but $1.1 billion less than the White House is seeking. The agency's Office of Science would receive a record $5.1 billion to further Alexander's goal of doubling long-term investment in basic energy research.
Advertisement
"It's the highest level of funding ever provided for the Office of Science," Alexander said at the markup.
The spending measure includes $610 million for fossil fuel research and development, a $39 million increase over current spending levels.
That proposed funding for coal, natural gas and oil development has been a point of contention. Democrats claim that the spending framework does not include enough funding for renewable energy programs, undercutting the Obama administration's efforts to reduce domestic carbon emissions. Republicans have argued that it represents part of an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy and praised the broader spending measure.
"This appropriations bill is forward-looking in its approach to responsibly providing for our national security, waterways management, flood control and energy security despite limited resources," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said in a statement.
The bill once again would authorize a DOE pilot project to temporarily consolidate spent nuclear fuel, a proposal that Alexander and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the subcommittee, have unsuccessfully pushed for three years.
That plan has run into opposition in the House, where appropriators have deferred to the authorizing panel, the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), a senior member of that panel, has long resisted the plan, citing concerns that interim storage would further complicate efforts to permanently store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. But he has signaled he would allow interim storage to proceed should additional funds for Yucca move simultaneously.
Now that Republicans have control in the Senate, the prospects for a deal allowing consolidated storage are better than in previous years. The House's energy and water appropriations bill would hand the administration $150 million to continue licensing activities for Yucca. The Senate's version doesn't include such funds, but Alexander signaled he expects an amendment addressing the issue when the bill reaches the Senate floor.
Adding further impetus to efforts to move past the nuclear waste impasse is interest in storing spent fuel at private facilities in Texas and New Mexico. The Senate's bill contains language that would allow DOE to move waste to such facilities.Army Corps, Reclamation
The measure would also provide $5.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers' lock, dam, harbor, levee and ecosystem restoration projects. That's an increase of $45 million above fiscal 2015 enacted levels and $768 million above the president's budget request.
The bill reflects Alexander's focus on navigation issues. It includes $2.5 billion for such projects and studies, including $1.254 billion in funding for ports dredging from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
It also meets the barge industry's goal of fully using all money in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for new and upgraded lock and dam projects. That fund, which covers industry's half of the cost for such projects, was meager for years but stands to be more flush now that Congress recently shifted a larger share of the system's most expensive projects to federal taxpayers and increased the diesel fuel tax that provides money to the trust fund.
For the Bureau of Reclamation, the bill offers $1.1 billion, an increase of $3 million over fiscal 2015 enacted levels.
Feinstein spoke at length about the entrenched drought gripping broad swaths of the West and expressed an interest in boosting funding to cope with the crisis.
"I very much appreciate that we have an additional $50 million in this bill for drought," she said. "The Bureau of Reclamation indicates it could well use $100 million."
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) introduced and then withdrew an amendment to block the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule, which he described as a backup to authorizers' ongoing efforts to kill the rule outright.
"Essentially, what this amendment does is it defunds WOTUS," Hoeven said. "Now, we also have a bill that would deauthorize this rule, and I think there's a good chance that we may be able to get 60 votes to deauthorize Waters of the U.S. on the Senate floor, but at the same time I think that we have to work to defund it."
Alexander said he shared Hoeven's and other critics concerns with the water rule but asked Hoeven to "exercise some restraint" at the moment in the interest of moving a bipartisan bill to the floor.
"Last year, when this amendment came up, it resulted in problems in the committee, and I'm afraid it might this year," he said. "There are other ways to deal with this issue."
In addition to possibly taking up the issue on the floor, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds U.S. EPA, also floated the possibility of dealing with the water rule through that measure.
-
Senate Panel Approves Reduced Spending for Interior, EPA
May 21, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Senate Appropriations Committee today voted 16-14 along party lines to allocate $30.01 billion to the subcommittee that funds the Interior Department, U.S. EPA and Forest Service, a cut of approximately $400 million below current spending levels.
The so-called 302(b) allocation is the amount of money the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies will have available when it writes its fiscal 2016 spending bill, which funds a host of conservation programs, clean water grants, climate change, and habitat restoration work and energy permitting on public lands.
It's slightly below the $30.17 billion that the House Appropriations Committee in April allocated to its Interior-EPA panel (E&E Daily, April 23).
Both chambers' allocations conform to an overall $1.017 trillion Republican spending blueprint that meets sequestration levels set in a 2011 budget law that has set up a spending showdown with the White House and Democrats.
President Obama, whose budget is about $74 billion above the Republican levels, has pledged to veto appropriations bills that hew to sequestration.
"It is our responsibility to propose appropriations bills that conform to the law, and to do so in a way that best meets the public need," said Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). "The constraints of these budget limitations are very real."
Advertisement
Committee ranking member Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) this morning offered an alternative $1.091 trillion spending plan, equal to president's level, but it was defeated on a party line vote.
"This funding ceiling is just very, very spartan -- it simply is not enough money," Mikulski said, arguing that her amendment would essentially return discretionary spending to 2010 levels.
"Every other [appropriations] bill we will consider will have similar challenges," she said, "a failure to invest in innovation, to find new cures or new ideas for new products; a failure to invest in physical infrastructure, and in human infrastructure, whether it's our bridges, or whether it's our education for our children."
The committee today also voted to approve a $35.4 billion fiscal 2016 spending bill for the Department of Energy, the Army Corps and other related agencies -- $1.2 billion more than current enacted levels, but $666 million less than President Obama's budget request (see related story).
In contrast, the newly approved subcommittee allocations will force Interior-EPA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to find about $400 million in cuts from current spending levels to programs under her purview.
Those will include funding for wildfire response, national parks, energy permitting and land conservation, as well as EPA clean water grants and a bevy of other programs important to a spectrum of stakeholders.
The funding level will be particularly challenging considering the rising costs of wildfires and Congress' inability to find a mandatory funding source for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). PILT, which provides more than $400 million annually to compensate counties with large tracts of nontaxable federal lands, was funded with mostly discretionary dollars last year, putting a strain on other Interior-EPA programs.
Conservationists said the House's slightly higher allocations for its Interior-EPA panel do not bode well for Obama requests to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and bolster funding for park maintenance ahead of the National Park Service centennial.
-
GOP Senator Withdraws Amendment to Defund EPA Water Rule — For Now
May 21, 2015 | The Hill
By Rebecca Shabad
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) offered an amendment Thursday that would defund a pending Environmental Protection Agency water rule, but quickly withdrew it after a fellow Republican warned it could hurt a crucial bill.
During the Senate Appropriations markup of the fiscal 2016 energy and water funding bill, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the amendment could prevent the bill's passage.
“Last year, when this amendment came up, it resulted in problems within the committee,” said Alexander, who advised Hoeven to propose it on the Senate floor or in another form.
“EPA has gone beyond the statutory authority it has,” Hoeven said about the pending rule. “For our farmers and ranchers, this is a huge problem.”
Hoeven agreed to withdraw the amendment under the assumption it would gain support at some other point in the appropriations process.
The EPA is expected to release a final rule soon that would redefine which ponds, wetlands, streams and other waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act. Republicans, however, contend the rule would be a massive land grab.
Senate Republicans are considering an authorization bill that would block the rule and give the EPA specific instructions for rewriting it. The House voted last week to stop the implementation of the rule.
While the Army Corps of Engineers, funded in the energy and water bill, is working with the EPA on the rule, the agency is not funded through this measure.
Republicans could propose defunding the water rule in another amendment to the bill that funds the EPA and Department of Interior later on.
Before the amendment process began Thursday, the committee approved the bill, reporting it out of committee to the floor.
-
May 21, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By William O'Keefe
President Obama loves to invoke his reverence for science and prides himself on relying on facts and figures rather than ideology to make policy – the inference being that his opponents offer platitudes or fabricated data to fit their world view. But lately, with regard to proposed standards for ozone levels in the air, it is the assertions of the administration and its environmental allies that are not holding up.
Just weeks after the mid-term elections last November, the administration unveiled a new standard for ground-level ozone. The new standard, as proposed, would require every county in the country to meet a ground level ozone standard likely set at 65 parts per billion of ozone. It is an ambitious demand, to say the least – and apparently costly. Even many rural areas are in excess of that standard, in part from naturally occurring ozone or from man-made ozone from sources far away.
A report by the National Association of Manufacturers conducted in partnership with NERA Economic Consulting found the rule would be “the most expensive of all time,” costing an estimated $140 billion per year as companies pulled back from plant expansion, construction and other investments. Some 1.4 million jobs would likely be lost and families with fixed or limited incomes would be forced to pay higher energy costs and thereby limit consumption of other items, thus creating an additional drag on economic growth. This regulation is a job killer and a major blow to a still struggling economy.
The administration plays down such dire warnings, suggesting a little more innovation and a little less “whining” from business is what is needed. The Natural Resources Defense Council has also been piling on, illogically suggesting that NAM’s assertion that steady success in complying with the existing rules was an admission that the more stringent rules are affordable and desirable. That was a distortion. NAM has correctly pointed out that very costly regulations imposed in recent years have not been able to achieve their desired impact, and thus, it would be hasty and unnecessarily costly to double down and impose even tougher regulations.
And now the American Lung Association has added its voice to the debate. It a recent air quality report, it uses a standard of 59 ppb or lower to evaluate public policies related to ozone. However, according to analysis by the EPA, any air with a lower ppb than 65 has no direct impact on health or environmental benefit. In essence, the ALA has created a pre-industrial age standard to make the case that air quality is actually worse than it is and, presumably, to justify even tougher standards – or to buttress the Administration’s push for the aggressive ones it has proposed. In addition, how does the ALA reconcile their claim that there has been an increase in asthma incidence is due to poor air quality with the fact that air quality has improved over the last 35 years, with ozone levels down by at least a third?
Let’s take a step back and look at some facts. First, we cannot even measure the success the administration is so confident will result as soon as the new standards are in place. Right now, only 675 of the nation's 3,000 counties have ozone monitors in place. The administration will rely on computer models – glorified guess work – rather than actual on-the-ground measurements to determine progress. What’s more, states are simply not ready to implement the regulations to comply with the new standards. The funding – and make no mistake, navigating the red tape created by a new ozone standard is a herculean, multi-year undertaking – is not there. In addition, the administration assumes compliance will be possible with the advent of technologies that do not yet exist but will likely be developed as businesses pour money into R&D and race to be clean-air technology innovation leaders. If the technology does not materialize, would the administration allow manufacturers to create their own computer models and guess work to match the regulators’ guesswork?
Second, the sweeping ambition of the proposed ozone standards makes the warnings from business groups seem modest. The new rules would leave nearly the country in or near non-attainment, even a host of national parks. Getting Yellowstone to the new standard will be difficult since the main ozone creator in the area is Mother Nature. The challenge of attaining in urban and metropolitan areas is even greater, and cannot even be approached without sharply curtailing manufacturing, construction, holding off on economic activity and infrastructure improvements and generating less electrical power for homes and businesses. When you consider this, it is hard to dismiss warnings from business groups as simply the latest installment of wolf-crying.
So the administration is insisting that manufacturers and other businesses meet new ozone standards that cannot even be measured by using technology that does not exist, and suggesting that they can do so without creating any negative consequences. That is the triumph of faith over data and the audacity of hope.
O'Keefe is the chief executive officer of the George Marshall Institute.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested