Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Body Accused Over Links to Discredited US Fire Safety Group
May 26, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Explosive allegations levelled at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) by a former industry insider are exposing frictions underlying the science and policy of flame retardants. -
(ACC mentioned) Plastics Group Releases Video on Plastics-to-Fuel Technologies
May 26, 2015 | Renerwable Energy From Waste
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance (PTOTA) l) has released an animated video that the Alliance says showcases plastics-to-fuel technologies as a viable end-of-life solution for nonrecycled plastics and a complement to recycling. -
The Right Wing's Endless War on Environmental Regulation
May 26, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Steven Cohen
Since it seems impossible to update our environmental laws in this era of partisan poison, the Obama Administration has been working to use existing laws to update old rules. -
Landrieu Joins DC Lobbying Firm
May 26, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu has joined the D.C. lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman as a senior policy advisor. -
Ex-Sen. Landrieu Joins Law and Lobby Firm
May 26, 2015 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is following many of her former colleagues to K Street, and will be joining Van Ness Feldman as a senior policy advisor, the law and lobby firm said on Tuesday. -
Landrieu Joins D.C. Lobbying Firm
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is joining the Washington, D.C., environment and energy lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman, the company announced today. -
Former AFPM President Assumes Role as IER Fellow.
May 26, 2015 | Institute for Energy Research - Press Release
Today, the Institute for Energy Research announced that Charles T. Drevna is joining the organization as a Distinguished Senior Fellow. Drevna will advise IER on a variety of energy topics, particularly fuel and refining issues. -
Veteran Refinery Lobbyist Drevna Joins IER
May 26, 2015 | Politico - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The conservative nonprofit Institute for Energy Research today named Charles Drevna, longtime president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a distinguished senior fellow with a focus on fuel and refining. -
Former State Energy Regulator Vows to fight Clean Power Plan From Inside Congress
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
While Republicans in Congress strategize about how to gut carbon regulations for power plants, at least one among them has had some direct exposure to the critical choices states will have to make if U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan moves forward. -
Cities Play Critical -- But Unclear -- Role in EPA's Clean Power Plan
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
There's no question that when it comes to complying with U.S. EPA's looming regulations requiring the power sector to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent, cities will need to play a major role. -
Advocates Pitch Favored Oil, Gas Methane Controls For Pending EPA Rule
May 26, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are highlighting specific controls for curbing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) methane and other pollutants from oil and gas sources and are urging EPA to implement those approaches as it crafts its proposed emissions standards for new and modified sources in the sector, expected in the coming months. -
Investment Fund CEOs Call for Long-Term Greenhouse Gas Cuts
May 26, 2015 | Reuters
By Alister Doyle
Some of the world's biggest investment funds urged the Group of Seven industrialized nations on Tuesday to commit to a long-term goal to cut world greenhouse gas emissions as part of a U.N. climate deal due to be agreed in December. -
Crude-by-Rail Shippers Could Take a Chance with Older Cars
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
New federal rail safety rules grant years of wiggle room for oil firms to use older, riskier tank cars to haul crude, a fact that has drawn scorn from environmentalists and public safety advocates concerned about recent fiery derailments.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Body Accused Over Links to Discredited US Fire Safety Group
May 26, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Explosive allegations levelled at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) by a former industry insider are exposing frictions underlying the science and policy of flame retardants.Before it was discredited and disbanded in the summer of 2013, the Citizens for Fire Safety Institute (CFFSI) purported to be a non-profit coalition of fire professionals, burn centres, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders advocating for the highest fire safety standards. But when the organisation was exposed as primarily a front group for the chemical industry, and flame retardant manufacturers in particular, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) immediately distanced itself and said neither its staff nor its resources were used to support the organisation’s activities.
But now the ACC’s story is being challenged by Grant Gillham, a consultant who was hired to develop a national public relations campaign promoting flame retardants through the CFFSI. Gillham says he had a six-year relationship with the ACC and three of its members who manufacture flame retardants – Albemarle, Chemtura and Israeli Chemical Corporation – that began in 2007. Together, he says, they set up the institute as a non-profit whose role was to advocate for the use of flame retardants in furniture, home goods and building materials. At all times, he says, the institute coordinated closely with the ACC’s senior staff and legal counsel.
Over its five years of operation, the CFFSI’s advocacy campaign defeated 58 of 60 separate piece of legislation that addressed flame retardants in 21 states, according to Gillham.‘Intimately involved’
‘They were intimately involved in the day-to-day operations of our activities,’ he says of the ACC. But when the Chicago Tribune broke the story of the industry front group for flame retardants he says the ACC painted a picture of the CFFSI as a rogue entity that did not meet its ethical standards.
‘ACC did not support Citizens for Fire Safety. End of story’The ACC continues to deny any involvement with the CFFSI to this day. Back in June 2012 the ACC’s president and chief executive, Cal Dooley, wrote to a member of the Maine state legislature and said: ‘ACC is not affiliated with the Citizens for Fire Safety, and neither ACC staff nor resources were used to support activities undertaken by the group.’
Dooley’s proclamation is echoed by others at the ACC. The council’s vice president of communications, Anne Kolton, tells Chemistry World: ‘ACC did not support Citizens for Fire Safety. End of story.’ She insists that the ACC was not involved in the creation or operation of the CFFSI. ‘We did not provide any financial support and any interaction was infrequent and at the encouragement of the companies involved in both of the separate groups,’ Kolton says.
But Gillham says she ‘is not telling the truth’. In fact, emails and other documents that he gave to the Center for Public Integrity do indicate that ACC staff members were coordinating with Gillham on flame retardant advocacy efforts.
These records also seem to support the theory that ACC employees were organising and participating in meetings with Gillham and the three member companies comprising the CFFSI. However, Kolton notes that Gillham doesn’t even appear to be included in many of the allegedly incriminating emails that he has provided.
Steve Levan, the vice president of advocacy for Albemarle, says the CFFSI was ‘critical to raise awareness of the importance of fire safety and to give a voice to those who want to speak out on this important public issue’. But he notes that Albemarle moved all of its advocacy activities to the ACC’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance in 2012.
‘While we will not comment on what might motivate someone to make the claims that are being made, we will say that CFFSI took no direction from the American Chemistry Council,’ Levan adds. He notes, however, that the three companies participating in the CFFSI would communicate with the ACC when broader issues of chemical industry relevance were involved. ‘But, neither CFFSI nor its directors were accountable to ACC,’ Levan states.Safe science
Nevertheless, Gillham maintains: ‘The ACC essentially allowed us to go out and provide representations as to the science of the safety and the effectiveness of fire retardants, and no one gave us any science to support those claims.’ Gillham says he had requested independent peer review of the member companies’ science by a major university, but that never happened because it was going to cost approximately $20,000 (£13,000).
‘ACC is just trying to distance itself from the controversy,’ says Duke University environmental chemistHeather Stapleton. Stapleton has conducted research on flame retardants and found that about 80% of the baby products her team examined – such as car seats, nursing pillows and strollers – contained various flame retardants.
Stapleton says the science shows that Americans are exposed to numerous flame retardants, and this contact has been associated with hormone regulation and cognition problems. Meanwhile, Stapleton argues that the benefits of such chemicals remain unclear. In fact, she says her research suggests they offer no benefits in a house fire.
In contrast, Albemarle’s Levan insists that there are ‘decades of independent and peer reviewed research that support the fact that flame retardants save lives and are safe’. He points to the websites of Albemarleand the ACC’s North American Flame Retardants Alliance.
Meanwhile, Gillham is now backing new legislation introduced in California that would require manufacturers to add labels to products for children, such as car seats and nursing pillows, if they contain flame retardants. Gillham says that the media attention surrounding this recent bill is what prompted him to go public with his allegations. ‘I thought it was a good time to get my point injected into the debate,’ he tellsChemistry World.
-
(ACC mentioned) Plastics Group Releases Video on Plastics-to-Fuel Technologies
May 26, 2015 | Renerwable Energy From Waste
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance (PTOTA) l) has released an animated video that the Alliance says showcases plastics-to-fuel technologies as a viable end-of-life solution for nonrecycled plastics and a complement to recycling.
The video, Plastics-to-Fuel: Creating Energy from Non-Recycled Plastics, explains pyrolysis technology and its potential to divert used, nonrecycled plastics from landfills. The PTOTA notes that pyrolysis can generate a range of products, including transportation fuels, electricity and petroleum-based feedstocks for manufacturing. The video also discusses some of the barriers to increasing the use of plastics-to-fuel technologies and proposes solutions to allow for wider adoption.
“Plastics-to-fuel technologies complement recycling by converting nonrecycled plastics into useful commodities,” says Craig Cookson, director of sustainability and recycling for ACC’s Plastics Division. “Plastics are a valuable resource that should be kept out of landfills, and plastics-to-fuel technologies can help us do that.”
Additionally, PTOTA has released a guide, “Regulatory Treatment of Plastics-to-Fuel Facilities,” that seeks to help regulators better classify the technologies. The guide includes a permitting checklist and two-page factsheet on regulating plastics-to-fuel technologies.
“The video shows the potential of expanding the number of plastics-to-fuel facilities to create jobs and locally sourced fuels and energy,” says Michael Dungan, director of sales and marketing for RES Polyflow and chairman of the PTOTA. “Our facilities create products, we’re manufacturers, not waste managers.”
Members of the PTOTA include Agilyx Corp., Beaverton, Oregon; Cynar Plc, London; RES Polyflow, Akron, Ohio; Americas Styrenics, The Woodlands, Texas; Sealed Air, Charlotte, North Carolina; andTetra Tech, Pasadena, California. -
The Right Wing's Endless War on Environmental Regulation
May 26, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Steven Cohen
Since it seems impossible to update our environmental laws in this era of partisan poison, the Obama Administration has been working to use existing laws to update old rules. Updates like these were anticipated by many of our environmental laws, which included provisions that assumed that technologies and economic practices would evolve over time and new rules would be needed. For example, greenhouse gases were recently defined as air pollutants and the Supreme Court required EPA to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. Now EPA has turned to an update of some of the rules issued under federal water pollution laws.
According to Coral Davenport's report in last week's New York Times:
The E.P.A. proposed the rule, known as Waters of the U.S., last March. The agency has held more than 400 meetings about it with outside groups and read more than one million public comments as it wrote the final language. The rule is being issued under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which gave the federal government broad authority to limit pollution in major water bodies, like Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi River and Puget Sound, as well as streams and wetlands that drain into larger waters. But two Supreme Court decisions related to clean water protection, in 2001 and in 2006, created legal confusion about whether the federal government had the authority to regulate the smaller streams and headwaters...E.P.A. officials say the new rule will clarify that authority, allowing the government to once again limit pollution in those smaller bodies of water -- although it does not restore the full scope of regulatory authority granted by the 1972 law. The E.P.A. also contends that the new rule will not give it the authority to regulate additional waters that had not been covered under the 1972 law. People familiar with the rule say it will apply to about 60 percent of the nation's waters.
Since water sources drain into each other, efforts to regulate pollution in "major" lakes and rivers require the regulation of pollution in smaller streams, tributaries and wetlands. Unfortunately, none of the Supreme Court Justices are hydrologists, and their 2001 and 2006 rulings did not reflect this basic fact of environmental science; their rulings (excuse the pun) muddied the waters.
As Davenport and others have reported, the interest group reaction to EPA's new rule has been intense. The American Farm Bureau Federation believes it will reduce the value of farmland dramatically. The usual ideologues are making the usual noises about big, intrusive government and job-killing regulations. Some time down the road (or should I say downstream?) when we all end up paying additional billions to treat our drinking water and clean up toxic wetlands and waterways, these same special interests will complain about wasteful government spending.
Environmental protection is typically about smaller costs up front, at least when compared to huge costs once pollution has occurred and remediation must take place. It's pay me now or pay me later. Cleaning up the oil spilling into the ocean by Santa Barbara will cost much more than preventing the leak would have cost. But of course, preventing the leak would require more "overreaching by government" and "job-killing regulations."
We pay for this ideological idiocy. Ask BP now that they are spending $20 billion to clean up the Gulf of Mexico if they wished they'd spent a few million more to better manage their drilling contractors. The complaint that regulations prevent economic growth is an old one and is just as fictitious now as it has ever been. Auto manufacturers once claimed that seat belts and catalytic convertors would bankrupt their businesses. Bar owners in New York City once complained that banning smoking would destroy their business. I see lots of cars on the road and more people in New York City's bars than ever. People like safe, less polluting cars and it turns out that the market for smoke-free bars was larger than the one for smoke-filled bars.
Before EPA was created in 1970, economic growth and pollution were both increasing rapidly. By 1980, after regulation kicked in, pollution started to drop and, with few exceptions, economic growth and pollution reductions have continued ever since. While some regulations are misguided, typically bad rules are corrected before they do much damage. But in an increasingly complex world economy, the free market cannot function effectively without clear and reasonable rules. At some point, we will need to drop this absurd mindset that all rules are bad and start focusing on improving the regulatory structure to maximize benefits and minimize costs. The day of complete freedom for businesses to operate any way they want never really existed, but certainly in today's high-tech, highly-networked, global economy, such freedom is not even remotely possible.
People who manage global businesses understand this, expect rules, and hope to influence their development or manipulate their implementation to their competitive advantage. In fact, the absence of rules, or in the case of the U.S., state-by-state rules, can create confusion and uncertainty that makes business operations complex and difficult to manage. Nevertheless, conservative extremists are attempting to delegitimize rulemaking and governance itself. This anti-authoritarian impulse is deeply problematic. The world is filled with dangers. Everything from global terror to toxic waste poses threats to human health and wellbeing. Rules of law apply to many aspects of our economic and social life. The alternative to a world of law is not a world of freedom but a world of chaos, terror and danger.
A very active effort underway in congress is to attach bans on environmental regulation to statutes needed for the government to function. The threat of a presidential veto is one of the few remaining weapons that environmental advocates still possess to resist these destructive measures. The right wing is also trying to prevent regulation by starving EPA of funding for inspections, environmental monitoring, research, and enforcement. The Toxic Substances Control Act is so under-funded that it typically takes many years for new chemicals to be tested for regulation.
Conservatives will discover, as their great hero Ronald Reagan learned over 30 years ago, that support for protecting the environment runs deep in the American political culture. Polling measures the ebb and flow of this political support, but it is a mistake to assume that Americans do not care about clean air and clean water. They assume that government is taking care of this problem. Just as they assume that the police and military will keep them safe, Americans assume that government will prevent the poisoning of their air, water and food. When the public sees the government losing interest in environmental protection, support for the environment spikes in the polls.
The right wing attack on environmental regulation is a fundamental political mistake. Conservatives are correct in assuming that Americans mistrust big organizations and powerful institutions, but they should remember that the public counts on these powerful organizations to protect them. Attacking government inefficiency and overreach is often a popular political message, but attacking government practices that protect the health of American families is a losing one. American environmental law was born in a bipartisan partnership. This past week, Columbia's Earth Institute posted a video of a semester-long class taught last year on the origins of our environmental law by Leon Billings and Tom Jorling, the Republican and Democratic senate staff leaders who worked across the aisle to help develop these path-breaking laws. We once knew how to be the world's leader in developing creative and cost-effective environmental rules. We should learn from our own history and figure out a way to end the war on the environment and move forward once again.
-
Landrieu Joins DC Lobbying Firm
May 26, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu has joined the D.C. lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman as a senior policy advisor.
The former chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee “will advise clients on various public policy, strategic, and regulatory issues with an emphasis on energy, natural resources, and infrastructure matters,” the firm announced today.
Landrieu said in a statement the firm’s “substantive and sophisticated approach to important public policy issues in the areas of energy, the environment and natural resources was a major factor in my decision making process.”
The Louisiana Democrat will join former Washington Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks in heading the firm’s public policy shop. -
Ex-Sen. Landrieu Joins Law and Lobby Firm
May 26, 2015 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is following many of her former colleagues to K Street, and will be joining Van Ness Feldman as a senior policy advisor, the law and lobby firm said on Tuesday.
The firm said the former head of the Senate’s energy panel would focus on energy, environment, natural resources and transportation policy issues. She will help lead the firm’s public policy team with former Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), a former chair of the House Appropriations Committee.
“Mary is known as being one of the most effective, passionate, and bipartisan members of the Senate. Her knowledge, experience, and leadership skills will be a tremendous asset to our clients,” Richard Agnew, the chairman of Van Ness Feldman, said in a statement. “Her collaborative style, tenacity, and focus on results will advance our firm’s core practice areas and makes her an ideal fit with Van Ness Feldman.”
The firm earned $2.68 million in lobbying revenue last year, and represents clients including the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, electric power company Pacificorp, the Coal Utilization Research Council, the National Association of Energy Services, American Electric Power, among many other energy interests.
While Landrieu must wait two years before officially lobbying her former colleagues, she is able to give strategic advice and counsel to clients and the firm’s lawyers and lobbyists.
In a release, she says that she worked “closely” with the firm during her near two-decades in the Senate.
“Their substantive and sophisticated approach to important public policy issues in the areas of energy, the environment and natural resources was a major factor in my decision making process,” Landrieu said in a release. “I look forward to being part of the Van Ness Feldman team to help businesses, governments and non-governmental organizations achieve solutions for the wide range of challenges they face.”
Landrieu lost re-election in 2014, a cycle in which many moderate Democratic senators lost their seats. A few of them of them – including former Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.) – have popped up at some of K Street’s largest firms.
The Times-Picayune in New Orleans first announced the move earlier Tuesday morning. Joining Landrieu at Van Ness Feldman is former Senate aide Marianna Knister.
-
Landrieu Joins D.C. Lobbying Firm
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is joining the Washington, D.C., environment and energy lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman, the company announced today.
Landrieu, who held the gavel of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee when she lost re-election last December after a failed last-ditch effort to secure congressional approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, will serve as a senior policy adviser with an emphasis on energy, natural resources and infrastructure, the firm said. Van Ness Feldman has represented a variety of energy, mining and electric utility interests, according to lobbying disclosures.
Former senators are barred from lobbying Congress for two years after they leave their posts, which means Landrieu won't be able to lobby her former colleagues until January 2017. But she is free to lobby the executive branch and provide advice to clients.
"I am proud to join Van Ness Feldman," Landrieu said in a statement. "Their substantive and sophisticated approach to important policy issues in the areas of energy, the environment and natural resources was a major factor in my decision making."
Landrieu, who lost her bid for a fourth term to Republican Bill Cassidy, has also signed on as a strategic adviser for the Walton Family Foundation, according to the New OrleansTimes-Picayune. The paper reported last month that Landrieu will focus on the foundation's educational initiatives.
At Van Ness Feldman, Landrieu will work closely with former Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), a former House Appropriations Committee chairman who recently joined the firm to lead its public policy team.
-
Former AFPM President Assumes Role as IER Fellow.
May 26, 2015 | Institute for Energy Research - Press Release
Today, the Institute for Energy Research announced that Charles T. Drevna is joining the organization as a Distinguished Senior Fellow. Drevna will advise IER on a variety of energy topics, particularly fuel and refining issues.
Drevna comes to IER with more than 40 years of experience in legislative, regulatory, and public policy issues involving energy and the environment. Most recently, he served as President of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the national trade association representing 98 percent of U.S. refining capacity, a position he had held since 2007.
Drevna released the following statement:
"I’m excited to be working with IER to advance free market energy policies. America is in the midst of an energy renaissance, but government policies threaten to prevent us from reaching our full energy potential. The Renewable Fuel Standard is just one example of a broken government policy that is holding the country back. We need the American people to stand up to Washington bureaucrats and demand solutions that embrace affordable, reliable, and abundant energy."
IER President Thomas Pyle released the following statement:
"Charlie has spent his career on the front lines in the fight for energy prosperity. He’s a strong voice for free markets whose decades of experience will prove an invaluable addition to the IER team as we spread the message that markets, not mandates, offer the best opportunities for growth and prosperity. We’re lucky to have him and ready to get to work."
Drevna is available for further comment.
-
Veteran Refinery Lobbyist Drevna Joins IER
May 26, 2015 | Politico - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The conservative nonprofit Institute for Energy Research today named Charles Drevna, longtime president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a distinguished senior fellow with a focus on fuel and refining.
Drevna stepped down from the refiners’ lobbying group earlier this year after eight years at the helm.
“America is in the midst of an energy renaissance, but government policies threaten to prevent us from reaching our full energy potential,” he said in a statement on his arrival at IER, which has received backing from the oil and gas industry. -
Former State Energy Regulator Vows to fight Clean Power Plan From Inside Congress
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
While Republicans in Congress strategize about how to gut carbon regulations for power plants, at least one among them has had some direct exposure to the critical choices states will have to make if U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan moves forward.
Rep. Kevin Cramer, 54, was one of North Dakota's electricity regulators for nine years before being elected to the state's only House seat. His successors back home will have to help craft plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the state's power sector while keeping electricity affordable and reliable.
The draft rule to cut U.S. power sector carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 represents more than some "romantic notion over whether you have windmills or gas plants," Cramer said. "It has real consequences at the end of the line."
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a former state electricity regulator, gets a close-up view of Congress' struggle with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.
As Cramer watches his colleagues react to the rule, he worries that intelligent debate about those consequences is giving way to ideological vitriol.
"What you see happens around here is we get very passionate, and then our passion becomes emotion, and then our logic is replaced by passion and emotion, and we don't talk to each other very effectively or very convincingly," Cramer said.
On the other hand, he said that "it's hard not to be cynical and think that [the administration's] intent is to do what they've always said they want to do, and that's bankrupt coal." He said the United States is getting "played" by countries like China when negotiating to curb climate change.
Others in his party question whether humans are responsible for global warming, but Cramer said he tries not to wade into that "futile fight."
"I don't even participate in that 'climate change is real, climate change isn't real' debate. It doesn't matter to me whether it's real or it isn't real," the second-term GOP lawmaker said earlier this year. "We're dealing with it in reality, and my concern is more on the solution to it than it is on the climate change issue itself. What I do reject is the notion that somehow the power sector in the United States of America is going to bear the burden and the responsibility for fixing the entire world."
However, in previous statements in 2013, Cramer reportedly called EPA's climate science fraudulent and said CO2 does not have a warming effect on the planet. While Cramer may find it politically advantageous to avoid fights over climate change, a spokesman clarified this week in an email that "the congressman is a sceptic [sic] that humans are a major contributor to global warming."Preparing to call Obama's 'bluff'
Republicans in the House and Senate have proposed allowing states to opt out of their EPA-assigned emissions goals, and Cramer supports that legislation. He also agrees with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that state officials should refuse to write plans to reach their required emissions levels, or "just say no" to EPA. North Dakota officials oppose the rule, but have nonetheless been engaged in discussions about the best compliance options as part of an effort by the Colorado-based Center for the New Energy Economy.
Cramer thinks the Clean Power Plan will ultimately cause more harm than doing nothing at all. In press statements, he has called the rule a "disastrous proposal which threatens the reliability of the electric grid."
In an interview with ClimateWire earlier this year, Cramer acknowledged that direct attacks on the regulation might not be effective, with a presidential veto likely. He said he would rather put up some "speed bumps" to delay implementation.
Cramer hopes opponents of the rule can use the appropriations process to delay the 2030 deadline for states to make cuts, lower the standard, or "collaborate more with the utilities and find more realistic options."
President Obama may veto those attempts, too, but Cramer says the battle would be worthwhile, even if it threatens a partial government shutdown.
"I'm prepared to call his bluff personally. Let him say whether he's going to fund the EPA, the Department of Energy and water regulations," Cramer said. "They wouldn't throw a ticker tape parade for me at home, but it wouldn't cost me an election."
Cramer thinks energy companies will eventually cut back on carbon emissions on their own. But they need time to develop carbon-capturing technologies, he argues.Coming to love the nitty-gritty
Cramer compares rhetoric over the proposed power plant regulations to the yearslong, bitter fights between industry groups, environmentalists, Republicans and Democrats over the Keystone XL pipeline that would move oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. While Keystone XL has morphed into a touchstone political issue, the Clean Power Plan truly is one.
"The Keystone pipeline issue has become a larger symbol than reality," Cramer said. "It's important, don't get me wrong, it's big, but it's not nearly the magnitude of the clean power rule, it doesn't have near the consequences."
He empathizes with environmental concerns over the pipeline, but he says people don't understand the technical aspects of how a product moves to market or how much CO2 is emitted from a truck or train as opposed to a pipeline.
To Cramer, most of the emotion surrounding the Clean Power Plan originates with constituents, few of whom understand how the electric system works and remains reliable.
"You can't expect the public to know about a regional transmission organization," he said. "You can't expect the public to know about reliability margins and what's required and why."
And you can't expect lawmakers to be experts on every subject either, he said. He hopes to share his expertise from his seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which he joined in November.
"When I have a health care question, I go to the doctors. I go to Ami Berra, who is a Democrat from California, or Tom Price, who is a Republican from Georgia," he said. "We need to listen more to people and look to experts within our ranks." At least one other U.S. congressman is a former electric regulator -- Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), who also has a spot on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Cramer sympathizes with legislators learning about the electric industry through the lens of the Clean Power Plan. His father was an electric lineman, and as a child, he sometimes accompanied him on service calls. But otherwise, he didn't have a ton of technical experience with the energy world before becoming a state regulator.
He recalled when he first joined the North Dakota Public Service Commission and attended a meeting of the regional grid organization -- the Midcontinent Independent System Operator -- he went to fellow Commissioner Tony Clark -- now a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- and said, "I think I've made a mistake. I think I'm drowning."
But Cramer asked an engineer from the meeting to sit down with pen and paper and explain locational marginal pricing, a way of determining the value of energy at the specific destination and time it is delivered.
Years later, he's learned to love the nitty-gritty details. He now warmly recalls first bonding with Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) over a mutual interest in the trade publication Public Utilities Fortnightly, which was bedside reading for her late husband when he was a regulatory attorney.
An evangelical Christian, Cramer considered attending a seminary but chose to pursue politics after studying social work in college. He said religious faith should inform a person's work and does affect his own.
"The wind only blows when God chooses, or nature," Cramer said. "Not when the electric utility wants it to." He picks his words carefully. In the past, he's styled himself as an "articulate bomb-thrower," but now he also sees a role for him in offering electric industry expertise as Congress examines the impacts of the Clean Power Plan.Fighting for a state with lowest national EPA target
Cramer became North Dakota's GOP party chairman at age 30. Before then, he was state tourism director and economic development director -- then-Gov. John Hoeven (R) appointed him to the state Public Service Commission in 2003. The next year, voters elected him to the position.
Having worked in those jobs, Cramer admitted he can have a parochial approach to energy policy. At his first MISO meetings, he disliked the whole concept of a Midwest regional operator dispatching power.
"I'm a states' rights guy, and I felt like we were submitting too much of our business culture and fuel source to the region. I always felt like we were going to get gobbled up," he said. "Yet, as a practical matter, clearly, you've got to have partnerships. ... I get the concept of regulation, but it was counterintuitive to me to support this kind of notion."
North Dakota is a net exporter of electricity, almost 80 percent of which comes from coal, and Cramer doesn't like that the Clean Power Plan asks the state to reduce emissions from plants that are serving users in other states.
"We generate a lot of electricity for companies that aren't even going to have customers in North Dakota," Cramer said.
Sometimes, state regulators have to deal with culture clashes with their neighbors. Those squabbles could happen more and more under EPA's draft rule -- which will require states to collaborate or hash out disputes over who gets credit for carbon-cutting measures, like renewable energy projects in one state that send power to another.
Cramer talks about the late 1990s, when Xcel Energy bought a Minneapolis-based utility, Northern States Power Co.
"There's a lot of benefit, obviously to aggregation and consolidation, but you also lose some things," Cramer said. "We started seeing more and more ... resource planning, even by the utility itself, giving greater weight to a place like Minneapolis than a place like Fargo or Grand Forks. Even that was a little bit uncomfortable for me, representing the 700,000 people who live in North Dakota, compared to the million people who live in Minneapolis."
Cramer said Xcel started converting coal plants to natural gas and building more wind power. He doesn't oppose wind power but sometimes voted against it because companies couldn't "adequately demonstrate that it was going to be good for the consumer, the ratepayer in North Dakota."
States will face more of those decisions under the Clean Power Plan as they seek carbon-cutting options. Differing philosophies about energy policy in North Dakota and neighboring Minnesota have been a source of tension for years, and EPA's disparate goals for states may exacerbate that pressure.
North Dakota's target under the draft rule is the lowest in the country -- an 11 percent reduction in the emissions rate between 2012 and 2030. Minnesota must cut its rate nearly 40 percent.
State officials note North Dakota is at the center of an energy hub that serves Minnesota, as well as South Dakota and Iowa. And North Dakota has massive generation and transmission and mining industries, Cramer said, and "it's as much about them as it is about North Dakota meeting their 11 percent mandate."
At the end of the day, he said the regulation is giving states "the responsibility and the burden of meeting an arbitrary, in my view, standard that's set in Washington without the level of collaboration [needed]."
-
Cities Play Critical -- But Unclear -- Role in EPA's Clean Power Plan
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
There's no question that when it comes to complying with U.S. EPA's looming regulations requiring the power sector to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent, cities will need to play a major role.
After all, as a recent report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy pointed out, two-thirds of the world's energy consumption -- and three-quarters of its greenhouse gas emissions -- occurs in cities or broader urban areas.
Dozens of American cities have taken an aggressive approach toward curbing greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. The ACEEE study, released last week, focused on cities that have been particularly successful in implementing energy efficiency policies that have reduced their overall energy footprint or slowed its growth.
Many of the policies being implemented in cities like Boston, New York City and Washington, D.C. -- bulked-up building codes, aggressive partnerships with utilities aimed at improving homeowner energy use and mandatory energy-use reporting for commercial buildings -- could play a key role in the eventual Clean Power Plan compliance strategies that states will need to put together in the coming years.
The "building blocks" EPA has recommended for states to comply with its requirements suggest states can ultimately achieve annual efficiency improvements of 1.5 percent. And a growing number of studies suggest that efficiency-heavy compliance plans present an easier, cheaper way of meeting EPA's carbon-reduction goals.
But when it comes to folding successful city-level efficiency programs into the implementation plans EPA will require states to submit, two key questions remain unanswered:How, exactly, will states verify or enforce city-level efficiency gains?And will transportation policies, which ACEEE's report said accounted for a large percentage of efficiency gains in cities like Washington, D.C., even be accepted by EPA as a form of compliance?Moving into 'uncharted territory'
Philadelphia scored 14th on ACEEE's city scorecard. The group gave the city credit for policies requiring large commercial buildings to report their annual energy use, as well as energy-savings goals imposed on Philadelphia's municipal government.
Katherine Gajewski, director of Mayor Michael Nutter's Office of Sustainability, said that she and her peers in other major cities are still trying to figure out how, exactly, their efforts will fit into state-level Clean Power Plan approaches. "I think it's unclear where the opportunities are going to be," she said at a Washington, D.C., energy efficiency forum last week. "There's so much variation between the states and what the state's approach to the rule is. I think it's too early to give a definitive response on, this is the model that we think is best for cities to plug in," she said.
National experts say there's no question states will need to embrace city-level policies as they craft their implementation plans. "If cities within a state are undertaking measures such as efficiency or clean energy that reduce emissions, then it would be unwise of the state not to take advantage of those reductions and not count them in its plan," said Ken Colburn, a senior associate at the Regulatory Assistance Project. "How to do that ... that's a trickier question. I want to say completely uncharted territory right now."
The challenges are similar to the ones that states with aggressive carbon-reduction policies, like California, are facing, as well: Is it possible to keep enforcement and programming at the local level, while still vouching for and banking on programs' successes?
Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said it's a question many state officials are grappling with. "States aren't going to accept blank checks crediting these programs. There will need to be sufficient verification -- emissions verification and monitoring -- of these programs," he said.
As with so many other aspects of Clean Power Plan compliance, Becker said, regulators need to walk a fine line. "One of the things we have talked about is, we don't want to make it so easy that credit will be given to anything irrespective of how good the program is," he said. "But we don't want to make it so difficult, with so many bells and whistles, that no state or municipality in its right mind will want to go through all these hoops."Should transportation emissions count?
NACAA and RAP recently collaborated on a major report examining how states can comply with the Clean Power Plan's requirements. Several local-level efficiency programs, like aggressive enforcement of building code requirements, were included in the study (ClimateWire, May 21).
One suggestion Colburn made was over-accounting for city-level efficiency goals -- counting on, say, a program achieving 115 percent of its target. "So if one [program] fails," explained Colburn, "they still have 110 or 108 percent. Thereby, the state can have greater confidence."
Becker is confident states will ultimately figure it out. "There are enough protocols that are existing that will allow these energy efficiency programs to be seamlessly included in state plans," he said.
The second challenge of tapping city-level efficiency gains remains a bit more complicated. Many of the successes ACEEE touted occurred in the transportation sector. Washington, D.C.'s high score was primarily a result of its transit policies, for example. "Washington aims to achieve a 75 percent increase in commuter trips by transit, biking and walking by 2032," the report noted. "To do so, it has invested in public transit facilities and hosts several car-share programs in addition to one of the most successful bike-share programs implemented recently."
The Clean Power Plan is the federal government's most ambitious approach to date in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is focused squarely on the power sector. So observers like Colburn have a hard time seeing EPA accepting transportation programs like bike-shares as an acceptable method of reducing carbon footprints. "I don't know. It's clearly the longest stretch," Colburn said.
He's holding out hope that someone can make a successful argument for inclusion, though. "I see water conservation policies as being directly applicable [to the power sector]," he argued. "Pumps are electrically driven ... you could knock out a bunch of power plants just serving water. If you're going to allow water, can you allow transportation? It's a little further out on the limb."
"I hope somebody does come forward with that approach and breaks the ice," he said.
The final rule is expected to be released later this summer. Until then, EPA officials are, for the most part, remaining publicly mum on what may or may not count toward compliance.
-
Advocates Pitch Favored Oil, Gas Methane Controls For Pending EPA Rule
May 26, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are highlighting specific controls for curbing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) methane and other pollutants from oil and gas sources and are urging EPA to implement those approaches as it crafts its proposed emissions standards for new and modified sources in the sector, expected in the coming months.
In a May 20 letter EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, environmental groups such as Earthjustice, Clean Air Task Force, Sierra Club and more than two dozen other groups and state chapters, “urge the agency to propose strong standards this summer to minimize methane pollution from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry and also provide a solid foundation for required standards reducing methane emissions from a broad range of existing sources.”
In accordance with the White House methane strategy, EPA is developing amendments to its 2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) rule for cutting volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the sector. The amendments will impose first-time limits on methane from new and modified oil and gas facilities, with a proposal slated for release sometime this summer.
The administration's methane plan, released in January, calls on EPA to craft an NSPS rule under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act to amend its 2012 standards that only targeted VOCs. The proposed rule would target VOCs and methane for five sources of emissions within the sector that were the subject of five 2014 white papers: completions of hydraulically fractured oil wells, leaks, pneumatic devices, compressors and liquids unloading operations.
According to EPA's Spring 2015 unified agenda of regulations, the agency plans to release a proposed rule in August and anticipates a final rule by June 2016.
An environmentalist says groups recently met with EPA to outline their “top asks” for the proposed rule, including expanding leak detection and repair requirements (LDAR), which under the 2012 NSPS only apply to some processing sources, across the sector and extending reduced emission completion (REC) controls, or so-called green completions, to oil wells.
The environmentalist says they also sought to “underscore the critical importance of regulating existing sources,” under air act section 111(d), and that they met with EPA to “outline our top asks and show broad support, including from states with active oil and gas production” such as New Mexico and Colorado.
Under the Clean Air Act, once EPA sets regulations for new and modified sources under section 111(b), the agency "shall prescribe regulations" that would require states to craft plans for meeting standards for existing sources under section 111(d) -- as the agency is doing in its GHG standards for the power sector. That rule would set state-specific GHG limits and then defer to states on writing compliance plans.
EPA's Discretion
However, for the oil and gas sector, McCarthy has said the air law gives EPA considerable discretion(/node/177779) on when to promulgate a rule. EPA has indicated that if drilling operators work through voluntary measures to reduce existing sources' methane emissions within the next several years, it could negate the need for regulation of those sources, since the Clean Air Act mandates that regulations must be based on the best technology that is economically achievable.
But EPA is facing calls from environmentalists to directly curb emissions of methane and other pollutants from existing oil and gas sources immediately after promulgating the section 111(b) rule, arguing that the air law does not grant EPA endless discretion in holding off on regulating existing sources after it establishes an NSPS.
In the May 20 letter, the groups stress that the agency must regulate emissions from venting during liquids unloading, pointing to recent GHG inventory estimates they say indicate “significant methane emissions associated with well venting from liquids unloading, a process operators use to remove liquids that accumulate during production.” EPA opted against regulating liquids unloading in the 2012 NSPS.
Additionally, the letter says, “Though EPA has established VOC standards for certain pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps are a significant source of methane emissions that are not currently subject to federal requirements.”
A second environmentalist says groups hope that EPA is closely watching what states are doing with regard to methane, given that Colorado and California have already launched efforts to curb the potent GHG from oil and gas sources and Pennsylvania is currently weighing the issue.
An industry source says, however, that a “voluntary VOC based leak detection program focused on 'fat tail' emissions is feasible and does not have to be the burdensome program,” compared with the LDAR measure outlined in environmentalists' letter.
Cost-Effective Standard
That source adds that while industry believes EPA can craft a cost-effective standard for methane from crude oil development and pneumatic pumps by amending its existing rules, they “do not see liquids unloading as a fruitful regulatory area because there is little consistency between production areas and no clear universal technology to apply.
“Ultimately, the issue should be developing cost effective control regimes and we believe that these can be done using VOC regulation in the E&P [exploration and production] arena and meet the Administration's methane reduction objectives,” the source says.
Along those lines, in a May 21 letter to McCarthy and a separate letter sent the same day to Neil Kornze, director of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Western Governors' Association urges the agencies to “engage in meaningful consultation” with state regulators and governors before releasing their respective proposals to reduce methane from the oil and gas sector.
Also as part of the president's methane strategy, BLM is separately working on a proposed rule to address flaring of methane emissions at existing drilling sites and some new sites, and could issue the rule by next month, Inside EPArecently reported.
-
Investment Fund CEOs Call for Long-Term Greenhouse Gas Cuts
May 26, 2015 | Reuters
By Alister Doyle
Some of the world's biggest investment funds urged the Group of Seven industrialized nations on Tuesday to commit to a long-term goal to cut world greenhouse gas emissions as part of a U.N. climate deal due to be agreed in December.
Cuts in emissions would give investors more certainty, promote research and development and new technologies, and help create jobs, fund chiefs said.
"We believe climate change is one of the biggest systemic risks we face," the fund managers, who oversee more than $12 trillion in assets, said in an open letter to G7 finance ministers. The letter was signed by 120 CEOs of investment funds, including Henderson Global Investors, Schroders and pension plans for French civil servants and Ontario teachers.
"The benefits of addressing climate change outweigh the costs," they said.
The letter was sent ahead of a meeting of G7 finance ministers in Dresden, Germany, on Wednesday. Last week top European companies also urged governments to set a goal for slashing greenhouse emissions, saying that going green can bring profits rather than costs.
Senior officials from nearly 200 nations will attend a United Nations' conference in Paris from Nov. 30-Dec. 11 to try to nail down an agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, after talks collapsed at the last minute at the last global climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
The fund managers did not specify an exact goal but said the cuts should ensure that average global temperatures rise by less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrialized levels in the 19th century, a U.N. target adopted in 2010.
"We believe that a long-term emissions reduction goal, carbon pricing, and strong national-level plans are critical to send clear market signals," Anne Stausboll, CEO of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), said in a statement.
"The world needs $53 trillion of energy investment by 2035 to avoid dangerous climate change," said Philippe Desfosses, head of ERAFP, the pension fund for French civil servants. "A low-carbon future is an imperative."
Studies by the U.N. panel of climate scientists suggest that world emissions will have to fall to net zero by 2100 to avert the worst of rising temperatures, such as more floods, droughts and rising sea levels.
Net zero means that any lingering emissions of greenhouse gases would be offset, for instance by planting trees that soak up carbon dioxide from the air as they grow or by yet-to-be-developed technologies to extract emissions from the atmosphere.
-
Crude-by-Rail Shippers Could Take a Chance with Older Cars
May 26, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
New federal rail safety rules grant years of wiggle room for oil firms to use older, riskier tank cars to haul crude, a fact that has drawn scorn from environmentalists and public safety advocates concerned about recent fiery derailments.
Puncture-prone type DOT-111 tank cars could legally carry crude for another decade or more under the latest Department of Transportation framework, although regulators have said their intent is to phase out such cars much sooner.
It's not clear how many shippers will exploit the rule's flexible timeline, given the chance of a devastating explosion.
"At least in theory, DOT-111s can still be used," said Richard Kloster, senior vice president of business development and technical services at rail consultancy AllTranstek LLC. "Our view is still that those risk elements will trump the economic advantage that a retrofit gives you over a new car."
Oil shippers large and small will have to figure out in coming months whether it's worth hanging on to outdated equipment. Type DOT-111s were involved in the 2013 oil train derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people as dozens of cars shredded and burst into flames downtown.
Before the DOT published its crude-by-rail rule early this month, analysts expected regulators to quickly show DOT-111 tank cars the door. For decades, safety experts have warned that the design isn't adequate for carrying hazardous materials, and the chorus of critics has only grown louder in the years since the Lac-Mégantic disaster.
Advertisement
But the text of the final rule contained a surprise: Tank cars built as far back as the 1990s could be fixed and used in "high-hazard" trains of 20 or more cars, at a cost of about $70,000 per car, according to AllTranstek. Even unrepaired DOT-111s could be used to haul petroleum in smaller batches of 19 or fewer connected cars.
Meanwhile, oil firms will have until 2021 to install advanced, electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems on "unit" trains moving crude in strings of 70 or more tankers, although several industry groups are challenging that provision in court.
"It's one of those things where people can delay a little bit," Kloster said. "I'm sure there will be some people that have already decided, 'I want to be first.' They don't want to be on the front page of The New York Times."
Many tank car owners and builders have positioned themselves to stay ahead of the DOT's rulemaking, with the Oregon-based manufacturer Greenbrier Cos. hawking its "tank car of the future" as far back as February 2014.
Last week, independent refiner Tesoro Corp. announced it had teamed up with Union Tank Car Co. to make an existing pressure car model compatible for crude service. Tesoro has ordered 210 "DOT-120" cars, while a spokesman for Union Tank Car declined to say whether any other crude shippers were interested in the design that goes above and beyond even the DOT's new requirements.
For its part, Tesoro claims to have removed its last older DOT-111 from crude service in mid-2014.
The rush to replace old tank cars has exposed rifts in the oil industry and even among rival rail car companies.
"Vocal participants in this public debate are focusing solely on tank car improvements," Brian Kenney, president and CEO of rail car leasing giant GATX Corp., noted in an April 14letter to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx. "One could reasonably question whether they are using this strategy to promote their economic interests under the guise of safety."
Kenney, whose company owns a fleet of 130,000 rail cars in North America, pointed out that at least one of the companies now critical of the DOT-111s had "until very recently manufactured thousands of DOT-111 tank cars -- the same cars that it now deems 'unsafe.'"'Pretty gratifying'
The DOT's final rule grants 10 years to scrap or upgrade essentially the entire U.S. crude and ethanol tank car fleet.
The extended timeline marks a concession to tank car manufacturers, whose chief lobbying arm warned would not be able to keep up with the five-year schedule DOT initially proposed last year (EnergyWire, July 23, 2014).
Environmentalist groups such as Riverkeeper had hoped for an immediate ban on older-model DOT-111 tank cars and have filed suit against the DOT to close "loopholes" in the updated regulations (EnergyWire, May 19).
The Railway Supply Institute, which represents tank car manufacturers and lessors including Greenbrier and GATX, has stopped short of launching its own legal challenge of the rule.
"We're watching the legal steps others are taking, but we have not made any decisions yet," the group's president, Tom Simpson, said in an interview.
"The modifications are several billion dollars, so that's what my side of the industry is facing here, but the certainty is welcome," he said, adding that it's "pretty gratifying that the secretary and the regulators took our advice" on the feasibility of the retrofit timeline.
With the onset of the final rule, Simpson said that the discussion has "pivoted to the business side, and how are shippers and car owners going to deal with it."
While tank car owners debate whether keeping their old cars is worth the risk, railroads are going their own way.
BNSF Railway Co., which moves the bulk of the crude moving out of North Dakota's Bakken Shale play, has already unveiled pricing schemes to pressure oil industry clients away from older tank cars.
"We continue to believe that DOT-111 tank cars should be removed from BNSF shale crude service in one year," BNSF executives told industrial customers earlier this month. The company added that "commercial differentiation" for tank cars hauling different products such as crude oil and ethanol would be "beneficial in deploying the next-generation tank car into service more quickly."
BNSF even briefly entertained buying its own fleet of 5,000 state-of-the-art tank cars to kick-start the market, but abandoned the idea recently due to customer "concerns," according to a May 13 letter.
"The railroads are going to incent behavior through price -- lock, stock and barrel," said Kloster of AllTranstek.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested