Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Companies to Write Their Own “Safety Standards” for the Proposed “Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (Bill S.697)
Jun 1, 2015 | Global Research
By Christina Sarich
With bill S.697, the chemical industry is about to be given free reign to write their own safety standards. -
Lautenberg Chemical Safety Bill Protects Public Health
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H.
Six million dollars and three years. That’s what it takes for the Environmental Protection Agency to test the safety of just one chemical on animals—and there are tens of thousands of chemicals waiting to be tested. -
House Update: Red Flag Edition
Jun 2, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
The House unveiled a new version of the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576) last week and it will be voted on by the full House Energy and Commerce Committee tomorrow. -
US EPA Declines Petition for Cancelling All Triclosan Registrations
Jun 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is looking at risks posed by the antimicrobial pesticide, triclosan, across various programmes, including the risk assessment process in the registration review under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra). -
US EPA Receives 63 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in April
Jun 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 63 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) for new chemicals between 1 and 29 April. Several have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information. -
(ACC Blog) EE Global 2015: Bright Outlook for Energy Efficiency
Jun 2, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Last month, the Alliance to Save Energy once again hosted a high-wattage gathering of energy efficiency experts from around the world. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/ee-global-2015-bright-outlook-for-energy-efficiency/ -
GOP Chairman Backs Oil Exports
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top House lawmaker overseeing energy said he wants to lift the four-decade-old ban on exporting crude oil. -
Upton Puts Crude Exports on the Agenda
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) today joined the growing chorus of voices that wants to ease long-standing restrictions on the export of U.S.-produced crude oil. -
Enviros Move to Defend Interior Frack Rule in Court
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups is poised to join the Obama administration in defending the Interior Department's new regulations for hydraulic fracturing on public and American Indian lands. -
Court Rejects Challenge to EPA's Ozone Powers
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court is siding with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), saying it has wide latitude when enforcing limits on ground-level ozone pollution. -
Judges Cite Lack Of Standing To Reject Suit Over EPA's RCRA CCS Waiver
Jun 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Appellate court judges in a unanimous June 2 ruling have rejected an energy sector challenge over EPA's Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) waiver for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) after finding industry groups lacks legal standing to sue because they can only show “speculative concerns” over the rule's potential harms. -
In Big EPA Win, Court Denies Challenges to Ozone Designations
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacob
A federal appeals court today rejected a series of challenges from states, environmental groups and energy companies to U.S. EPA's determinations of which parts of the country meet its standard for ozone, a main component of smog. -
Judges Deny Industry Challenge of EPA Carbon Capture Rule
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Federal judges today rejected a challenge from energy companies to U.S. EPA's finding that carbon captured from power plant emissions and injected underground qualifies as a "solid waste" and may be subject to regulation. -
EPA Climate Plan Sent to White House for Review
Jun 2, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
The Obama administration has teed up a busy summer on climate change, with the final review of its tentpole climate rule swinging into action. -
FERC Commissioner Says EPA Carbon Rule May Usurp State Powers
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden
States complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan run the risk of ceding jurisdiction over energy policy decisions to the federal government, according to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Tony Clark. -
Obama Climate Rule Nearly Complete
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is conducting the final review of its controversial rule to limit carbon emissions from power plants. -
Oil Industry Takes Aim at Coal, Pushes Gas Ahead of Climate-Change Talks
Jun 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent and Inti Landauro
Europe’s largest oil companies on Tuesday came out forcefully against coal, taking aim at a competing fossil fuel as they push cleaner-burning natural gas ahead of climate-change talks. -
Oil and Gas CEOs Call for Carbon Price as Exxon, Chevron Outline Climate Strategy
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
The CEOs of six of the largest energy companies worldwide want national governments to put a price tag on greenhouse gas emissions. -
Evolving Business Models are Primary Concern for Power Executives, Survey Finds
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The most significant challenge facing the electric utility industry in the next five years is the need to develop new business models, according to a survey of executives to be released today. -
Utilities Concerned Over EPA's 'Pressure' To Change State's Water Standards
Jun 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Amanda Palleschi
Wastewater utilities are criticizing EPA's continued push for Washington state to modify controversial proposed water quality standards for toxics, arguing the agency's objection to the state's draft cancer risk levels oversteps the agency's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to oversee states' development of such standards. -
House Dems Urge Moniz, Foxx to Set Crude-by-Rail Volatility Standards
Jun 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A dozen House Democrats today asked Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to work on volatility limits for oil shipped by rail in the wake of multiple recent fiery accidents on the tracks.
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
-
Jun 1, 2015 | Global Research
By Christina Sarich
With bill S.697, the chemical industry is about to be given free reign to write their own safety standards. Unless, they are willing to drink their own glyphosate to prove it is “completely safe” as one Patrick Moore recently refused to do, then it hardly makes sense for them to decide if their own products meet safety requirements for the public.
Congress hasn’t passed a chemical control bill since 1976, with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). But this was even ‘broken from the start,” according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
The TSCA grandfathered in thousands of chemicals that were already on the market at the time, even though most of them were extremely hazardous to human health. That act didn’t even allow the EPA to ban asbestos, which is a known cause of cancer.
This new bill would essentially give companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta the authority to call their own toxic chemicals ‘safe’ when regulatory bodies elsewhere have called them carcinogenic, and even deadly.
Since the 1970’s, tens of thousands of chemicals have been created and are sold on the market with little or no real regulation. More than 80,000 of them are in our food, our clothing, and even in new building materials used to build homes.
If anything, it is time for reform of the original bill, but instead, congress is looking to give chemical giants like Dow and Monsanto more ammunition to poison the planet.
S.697 is the brainchild of a chemical industry that has spent $190 million lobbying for its passage. Here are examples of just some of the money trail supporting this bill:Democratic Sponsor Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) campaign received $49,050 from the Chemical industry in the 2014 cycle, plus $23,500 from lobbyists employed by the American Chemistry Council.Republican sponsor David Vitter’s (R-La.) campaign received $20,600 in the 2014 cycle, and $14,300 from American Chemistry Council lobbyists.American Chemistry Council has other ‘donations.’
If you want Congress to veto this bill, act quickly. It’s up for a vote very soon. It’s being called the ‘Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,’ but it does absolutely nothing to keep us safe from chemicals used by this enormous industry.
-
Lautenberg Chemical Safety Bill Protects Public Health
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H.
Six million dollars and three years. That’s what it takes for the Environmental Protection Agency to test the safety of just one chemical on animals—and there are tens of thousands of chemicals waiting to be tested. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) is the only bill under consideration by Congress that will make that process faster and cheaper by requiring modern testing methods that better protect public health.
As a toxicologist, I work to make chemical testing more human relevant—and less reliant on animal tests, which do not adequately protect human health. Scientists have been working to modernize toxicology test methods by moving away from animals and toward advanced methods in molecular and cellular biology and computing. I applaud the Senate for introducing a bill that will speed this transition.
Continued reliance on animal testing is not only costly and time-consuming—it’s also dangerous to human health. Scientists using results from these tests can only theorize that humans will respond to the chemicals in the same way animals do. That’s risky business: Ninety-two percent of animal-tested drugs fail in humans, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
But the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), brings toxicity testing into the 21st century—and in line with recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences—by encouraging advanced methods using robots, human cells, and tissues that are often faster and cheaper than animal tests.
It is proven technology that’s already being used by the federal government. The Tox21 consortium—which includes the National Institutes of Health, the EPA, and the FDA—uses an ultra-high-speed robot capable of testing thousands of different chemicals for potential toxicity every day.
Christopher Austin, M.D., director of NIH’s Chemical Genomics Center, says that thanks to new technologies like this, “the same number of chemicals that have been tested over the last 20 to 30 years [are] being tested now in a single day.” This information can be used to help regulate chemicals much more quickly than animal tests.
S. 697, which is already sponsored by 39 senators, includes principles to increase the use of information from methods like these and places restrictions—stronger than current law—on animal testing. The bill also requires the EPA to continue funding the development and use of nonanimal methods.
It’s no wonder S. 697 has a diverse and growing base of support from both sides of the aisle and from many environmental and public health groups. Alarmingly, a few groups are urging senators to vote against the bill, instead supporting less robust legislation. Their efforts will delay the protection of public health by maintaining reliance on animal tests.
As Congress returns from recess, we need to send a clear message that passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is our best chance to overcome the failings of the current Toxic Substances Control Act and give the EPA the power to protect the public’s health from dangerous chemicals.
Sullivan is director of regulatory testing issues for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit with 12,000 doctor members.
-
House Update: Red Flag Edition
Jun 2, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
The House unveiled a new version of the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576) last week and it will be voted on by the full House Energy and Commerce Committee tomorrow.
We’ve generally been positive about the direction of this effort, in spite of the problems in the original discussion draft for a few reasons:The bill is more clearly drafted.It focuses on the basics of reform to avoid pitfalls.Chairman Shimkus has shown openness to improvements and worked productively with Ranking Members Pallone and Tonko.
Indeed, the bill has improved since the first discussion draft was unveiled.
With a vote scheduled tomorrow in the full committee, however, at least one issue hasn’t been addressed at all so it is important to flag very clearly:The chemical industry would get to decide the majority, potentially the overwhelming majority, of the chemicals that EPA reviews.
We flagged this in our testimony to the House subcommittee back on April 14. So did EPA. The bill imposes a clear, no wiggle room, obligation on EPA to conduct an assessment for each and every chemical where it is requested by the industry. It’s a “shall,” not a “may.” EPA shall complete the assessment within 3 years of receiving the request.
On the positive side, EPA is authorized to collect fees for these assessments and the chemicals are held to the same standard of safety. The downside, however, is quite severe.
Literally, as drafted, if companies request reviews for 500 chemicals in the first year, EPA will have to complete those reviews within 3 years. Meanwhile they are only required to initiate 10 reviews of chemicals that they think pose a risk to health or the environment every year, but that requirement is “subject to the availability of appropriations.” The explicit conditioning of EPA’s minimum progress on the availability of appropriations has been described as a requirement of the House budget rule known as “Cut Go.” That may or may not be true, but it has the effect of making the 10-per-year EPA minimum unenforceable, while the industry requests are both enforceable and unlimited.
But is this really a big deal? If industry is paying for the extra assessments and the standard is the same, who cares how many assessments EPA does at their behest?
The first argument is moral. EPA would spend more time, perhaps much more time, giving a seal of approval to those chemicals that industry thinks it is already managing well, instead of the chemicals that EPA thinks could be causing cancer, infertility, and birth defects right now.
The second argument is practical. EPA only has so many staff and so many contractors available to them. If they are jammed with a large number of industry requests, it would create a train wreck at the agency, which is the last thing we need.
Some balance needs to be restored. Congress should make the 10-per-year a true minimum for the EPA-initiated chemicals and give EPA the ability to manage the industry-requested ones to ensure they do not overwhelm the program.
There are other issues in the bill, some of which we’ve highlighted for the committee in the attached letter this morning. This imbalance, however, is clearly the biggest problem in the House bill.
-
US EPA Declines Petition for Cancelling All Triclosan Registrations
Jun 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is looking at risks posed by the antimicrobial pesticide, triclosan, across various programmes, including the risk assessment process in the registration review under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra). It will consider regulatory action, depending on the results of the assessments.
The agency made the comments, while declining a citizen's petition calling for, among other things, cancellation of the registration of all products containing triclosan. The reasons cited by the petitioners – Food & Water Watch and Beyond Pesticides – includes that its ubiquity results in endocrine disruption and contributes to bacterial resistance in antibiotic medications and antibacterial cleansers.
The EPA's most recent assessments of the risks to human health and the environment found that the “antimicrobial uses of triclosan met the applicable statutory standards, and the petition and supporting comments did not provide sufficient evidence to significantly change those conclusions,” the agency said.
Fifra requires the EPA to periodically review pesticide registration eligibility decisions (REDs) and the “agency is committed to examining the endocrine interactions of triclosan further,” it said. The registration review process will give the EPA the opportunity to examine information acquired since the triclosan RED and to require submission of additional data if necessary.
Also, the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) will provide “additional opportunity to assess the need to issue future orders or data call-ins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays.”
As for the issue of bacterial resistance, the agency said: “There is currently no evidence before the EPA ... of causal relationship between bacterial resistance in humans and either triclosan 'body burden' or residential exposure to triclosan residues, resulting from the use of consumer products.”
Triclosan was first registered with the EPA as an antimicrobial pesticide in 1969. It is currently registered under Fifra as a bacteriostat, fungistat, and mildewstat for use as a materials preservative in residential, public access, commercial, institutional and industrial premises.
The EPA issued the RED for triclosan in 2008.
-
US EPA Receives 63 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in April
Jun 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 63 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) for new chemicals between 1 and 29 April. Several have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information.
During the same period, the agency received 22 notices of commencement to manufacture new chemicals.
-
(ACC Blog) EE Global 2015: Bright Outlook for Energy Efficiency
Jun 2, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Last month, the Alliance to Save Energy once again hosted a high-wattage gathering of energy efficiency experts from around the world. Now in its eighth year, Energy Efficiency Global Forum (EE Global) brought together policymakers, industry leaders, and members of academia to share their latest insights and “best practices” in saving energy.
Building Energy Efficiency in the Spotlight
Energy efficiency in homes and buildings was a popular topic, and for good reason: Buildings use 71% of America’s electricity, 54% of our natural gas, and 42% of all energy, according to the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition (EECC), and account for roughly 40% of U.S. energy consumption – more than industry or transportation.
Unfortunately, a lack of transparency around building energy performance remains a stubborn challenge, a number of speakers said. Measuring and disclosing buildings’ energy use could stimulate market demand for energy efficiency and encourage building owners to make energy improvements, but it is vastly underused.
Alliance President Kateri Callahan had good news. She announced the availability of a tool that will help quantify the benefits of building energy efficiency. With the new calculator, state air quality officers can gauge the carbon emission savings from state adoption and enforcement of the most recent building energy codes.
Dow’s Jane Palmieri at EE Global
Jane Palmieri, Business President of Building and Construction at The Dow Chemical Company and newly elected Industry Co-Chair at the Alliance, explained that using energy-saving materials and solutions for new construction is vital: Get the building envelope right the first time. She said the average home contains a half-mile of cracks, and sealing them could cut energy bills by 20-30%. A lack of consumer awareness is another challenge. Energy efficiency often gets lost in the maze of choices home buyers face. A focus on immediate expenses may mean that they overlook ongoing energy costs. Ultimately, success in improving building energy efficiency will depend on awareness, appraisal (i.e., having energy performance listed on the appraisal form), and code enforcement.
Greg Merritt of Cree Inc., a lighting products company, reported that many states are woefully behind in implementing energy building codes. He called for more benchmarking so that energy savings factor into a home purchase: “You can’t make a good decision based on something you don’t understand.”
Policies Should Help Drive Energy Efficiency Improvement
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), dubbed the “first lady of energy efficiency,” proclaimed that without energy efficiency, our nation would have used 60% more energy since 1973. But there is more to do, and she renewed her call for action on the bipartisan “Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness (ESIC) Act” (S. 720). Co-sponsored by Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the bill contains sensible ways to improve energy efficiency across the economy. ACC is a longtime supporter. A targeted bill, the “Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015,” passed the Senate and House and was signed into law on April 30.
In a rousing speech, Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) called energy efficiency the “great test bed of bipartisanship.” He was feeling optimistic about moves by Congressional Leadership to solicit ideas for bills that could pass: “It’s a hugely hopeful sign.” He would like to see ESIC’s energy efficiency provisions move on their own.
Kevin Kolevar, Dow’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, spoke at the morning plenary session on Wednesday. He said progress in energy efficiency requires a strong partnership between regulators and industry. In fact, “regulation done right can drive innovation.”
Industrial Energy Efficiency: Building a Better Plant
Ross Eisenberg, Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, moderated a fascinating panel on “the advanced manufacturing plant of the future.” Mark Johnson, Director of the Advanced Manufacturing Office at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), underscored the reversal from outsourcing to in-sourcing underway among many manufacturers, largely due to the “unleashing of energy resources in the United States.” DOE has a “Better Plants Program” that supports the implementation of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements. A number of ACC member companies participate.
Andreas Schierenbeck, CEO of ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG, said transparency around energy use helps engage employers and get them competing with each other. In the chemical industry, the Responsible Care® Energy Efficiency Awards program is a great way for companies to share and be recognized for their individual progress. Since 1974, the U.S. chemical industry as a whole has improved itsenergy efficiency by 49 percent.
Learn more about the ways chemistry is creating solutions to improve energy efficiency:
- See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/ee-global-2015-bright-outlook-for-energy-efficiency/#sthash.LicINR0z.dpuf
-
GOP Chairman Backs Oil Exports
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top House lawmaker overseeing energy said he wants to lift the four-decade-old ban on exporting crude oil.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had long been a hold-out on supporting a relaxation of the ban, despite a growing chorus of his GOP colleagues — and some Democrats — pushing for it.
But at a hearing Tuesday of the committee’s energy and power panel, Upton said it is time for Congress to consider lifting the ban, and he wants it on the committee’s agenda this year.
“Oil exports can be a win for the American people and a win for our allies,” Upton said in a speech at the beginning of the hearing on energy diplomacy and infrastructure.
“Economic and foreign policy experts across the political spectrum believe that expanding the markets for American oil would be a net jobs creator at home while enhancing our geopolitical influence abroad,” he said.
Upton said the energy sector has been the top job creator in recent years in the United States, but it has lost 100,000 jobs because of the drop in oil prices, which could be stabilized by lifting the ban.
Upton had previously only said that opening the industry to exports should be considered.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has become the main voice in the House behind lifting the ban, which was instituted amid the Arab oil embargo and energy shortages as a way to protect United States consumers and businesses from international spikes in oil prices.
But with abundant oil supplies that are likely to make the United States the top oil producer soon, supporters say the case for the export restriction is weakening.
Support for oil exports is high in Texas and other areas with heavy oil production, but it is less popular among oil refiners who fear that prices would increase.
Barton has 40 co-sponsors on his bill to end the export ban, including five moderate Democrats.
While Upton said he would work with Barton and other co-sponsors of that bill, he recognized that oil exports are not currently part of the comprehensive energy reform package that the Energy Committee is working to write.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) are the main supporters of oil exports in the Senate.
-
Upton Puts Crude Exports on the Agenda
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) today joined the growing chorus of voices that wants to ease long-standing restrictions on the export of U.S.-produced crude oil.
Upton has previously signaled a willingness to consider changes to the export ban but offered a more definitive pronouncement at the outset of a hearing of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.
"It's time that Congress considers revising the ban on crude oil exports," he said, citing the foreign policy ramifications as well as lost U.S. energy jobs from the downturn in oil prices. "The case for creating more jobs by expanding the market for American oil is a key reason why oil exports should be on this committee's agenda this year."
However, Upton did not endorse a specific legislative approach to easing the ban or say whether he intends to include such a plan in the bipartisan energy package the committee is currently assembling. Instead, he pledged to work with Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) -- the chief sponsor of H.R. 702 -- to fully end the ban, "to ensure we get the policy right."
Upton is the latest senior Republican to shift positions in favor of legislating to remove the ban. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) had urged a cautious approach to moving a bill on the issue, in large part because of lingering fears of a voter backlash if gasoline prices should later rise, but in April announced her own legislation to ease the ban.
During today's hearing, on the Energy Department's Quadrennial Energy Review and associated legislative drafts, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz continued to resist calls for ending the export ban.
Advertisement
Pressed by Barton on a host of studies showing that exports could lower domestic gasoline prices, Moniz noted that the United States still imports 7 million barrels of oil a day. He also sought to reframe the debate as to whether allowing crude to flow overseas would boost domestic production.
"The real issue is whether there's more production, and certainly in today's market, it's hard to imagine that happening," Moniz said.
Barton then invited Moniz to send staff to a Republican Study Committee forum on exports occurring this afternoon.
Responding to a question from Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) on whether including a "safety valve" would make crude export legislation more palatable, Moniz responded that "more flexibilities are always welcome" but reiterated his earlier points about a lack of appreciable production increase that would result from lifting the ban.
The pro-export Producers for American Crude Oil Exports applauded Upton's position.
"Chairman Upton has stated from the beginning that this is an issue he would carefully research and arrive at a position after a thorough evaluation of how a change in policy would impact consumers, the overall economy and our national security," George Baker, the group's executive director, said in a statement.
Moniz also raised concerns about the use of revenues that could result from selling surplus crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Upton's committee recently passedH.R. 6, which would direct about $5 billion from sales of SPR oil to offset the cost of a medical innovation priority.
"I have considerable concern about using the SPR for anything other than energy security and resilience issues for which it's intended," he told Upton.
-
Enviros Move to Defend Interior Frack Rule in Court
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups is poised to join the Obama administration in defending the Interior Department's new regulations for hydraulic fracturing on public and American Indian lands.
The Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, Earthworks, the Conservation Colorado Education Fund, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Western Resource Advocates today asked a federal court in Wyoming to allow them to help defend against two legal challenges to the years-in-the-making rule, which aims to regulate wastewater management, well construction and chemical disclosure from fracked wells.
The first challenge, from the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance, alleges that Interior's Bureau of Land Management failed to consider certain costs to industry when crafting the rule. The second -- from Wyoming, Colorado and North Dakota -- argues that the rule duplicates state regulatory programs and that Interior lacks the authority to enforce it. Both sets of plaintiffs have asked the court to block the rule's scheduled summer rollout.
"Like other extreme attempts by states to assert authority over federal land, these legal claims are meritless," Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman, who is representing the groups, said in a statement. "Our public lands belong to all Americans. They should be managed under strong national standards that protect our water, land and wildlife -- not just to benefit oil and gas companies."
In a motion to intervene filed this morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, the environmental groups contend that they have a legal right to join the case to advocate for the environmental interests at stake.
"Given BLM's multiple use role in balancing environmental protection and oil and gas development, the Citizen Groups cannot rely on the agency to represent their interests any more than the Petitioners could," attorneys for the groups wrote in a brief filed today. "The Citizen Groups should be allowed to intervene in order to protect their interests in environmental protection and in the health and safety of their members."
Advertisement
In particular, the brief says, the groups are concerned that BLM could opt to negotiate with the industry groups and reach a settlement that weakens the rule.
The filing is the first formal action environmental groups have taken since the rule's unveiling in March. Though the conservation community has largely expressed disappointment that the rule does not go further to restrict fracking on federal lands, the groups say the rule should be protected as a "first step" toward stricter oversight.
"BLM still needs to do more to improve its management of fracking on public lands," Sierra Club's Deb Nardone said in a statement. "The new hydraulic fracturing rule represents only a first step, but we're in this case to ensure that the federal government keeps making progress -- rather than moving backward -- in dealing with the threats from fracking."
The Department of Justice, which is handling the defense of the rule, has taken no position on the groups' motion to intervene, and attorneys for the industry groups and states have said they do not oppose it.
-
Court Rejects Challenge to EPA's Ozone Powers
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court is siding with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), saying it has wide latitude when enforcing limits on ground-level ozone pollution.
In a massive, 87-page opinion covering numerous challenges from states and outside groups, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit repeatedly refused to overturn decisions the EPA made regarding areas of the countries that exceed mandate ozone levels.
States that the EPA labels as being in “nonattainment” with the 2008 ozone regulation must work to reduce the levels of ozone, a byproduct of various fossil fuel pollutants.
The ruling reinforces the EPA’s position that it has broad power to enforce ozone rules, so long as the agency can reasonably show that it reasonably complies with the law.
The decision could prove important as the EPA works to further restrict the ozone levels, which it plans to do later this year.
“Virtually every petitioner argues that, for one reason or another, the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in making its final [air quality] designations,” the judges wrote unanimously in their Tuesday response to 19 lawsuits.
“But because the EPA complied with the Constitution, reasonably interpreted the [Clean Air] Act’s critical terms and wholly satisfied — indeed, in most instances, surpassed — its obligation to engage in reasoned decision-making, we deny the consolidated petitions for review in their entirety,” the court said.
Connecticut and Delaware fought for the EPA to designate a large swatch of the East Coast as being under nonattainment, and environmental groups WildEarth Guardians and the Sierra Club wanted stricter enforcement as well.
Mississippi, Indiana and Texas, meanwhile, challenged the EPA’s designation of certain nonattainment areas within their borders.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia welcomed the decision.
“The agency is pleased with this decision, and will continue to work with states toward implementing ozone standards to protect public health, as required by the Clean Air Act,” she said in a statement.
The 2008 ozone rule set the allowable level at 75 parts per billion.
In November 2014, the EPA proposed to reduce the level to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, a controversial plan that Republicans, energy companies and other business groups have said would be the most expensive regulation in United States history.
The EPA prevailed in two other decisions from the D.C. Circuit court Tuesday.
The court affirmed the EPA’s decision not to renew a fuel refinery’s exemption to the ethanol blending mandate, and that carbon dioxide injected underground as part of the carbon sequestration process was correctly labeled as “solid waste” under EPA rules.
-
Judges Cite Lack Of Standing To Reject Suit Over EPA's RCRA CCS Waiver
Jun 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Appellate court judges in a unanimous June 2 ruling have rejected an energy sector challenge over EPA's Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) waiver for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) after finding industry groups lacks legal standing to sue because they can only show “speculative concerns” over the rule's potential harms.
The decision by the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to scrap the case over standing -- a threshold requirement for pursuing litigation -- means the court does not address the merits of industry's challenge to the waiver. As a result, the decision does not weigh in on whether carbon dioxide (CO2) that is sequestered qualifies as a solid waste under RCRA, and also does not address the merits of the waiver.
The suit, Carbon Sequestration Council (CSC), et al. v. EPA, challenged the agency's Jan. 3, 2014, rule that exempts CCS activities injecting CO2 underground from RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste rules if they obtain Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Class VI permits -- a novel permitting category EPA created in 2010 for CCS.
The final rule means anyone injecting CO2, which can exhibit hazardous characteristics such as corrosivity, into a permitted Class VI well, may seek "certification" under the waiver to win an exclusion from complying with RCRA subtitle C's strict monitoring, tracking, testing and other waste management measures.
The waiver also excludes an operator from having to obtain a strict Class I permit for hazardous waste injections, as long as they inject into a Class VI permitted well. Though the industry petitioners do not oppose the RCRA rule itself, their suit asked the court to vacate EPA's underlying determination that CO2 injected for CCS activities is a “solid waste” under RCRA, arguing the fidning created new regulatory burdens and liability concerns.
Industry generally feared the rule could trigger potential enforcement actions and citizens suits under the waste law and possibly hinder enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations and other types of CO2 injection that do not use Class VI permits, but the court said that it need not consider the case's merits as industry lacks standing.
CSC, a broad energy coalition including the Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership and Battelle, filed suit asserting that it had “representational” standing to sue over the rule on behalf of Southern Company, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) asserted standing on behalf of Occidental Oil and Gas.
But the court says, “Neither Southern nor Occidental can show any injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III. They therefore lack standing. Carbon Sequestration Council lacks standing because Southern lacks standing. And American Petroleum Institute lacks standing because Occidental lacks standing.”
As a result, the opinion authored by Senior Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards on behalf of fellow D.C. Circuit panel Judge Janice Rogers Brown and Chief Judge Merrick Garland dismisses the lawsuit.
Legal Standing
At March 26 oral arguments in the case the judges highlighted their doubts over industry's standing to sue, because the CCS groups' members are not yet using SDWA Class VI wells for sequestration.
For example, Edwards noted that the groups appear to be “over-reading” the waiver's implications for other types of CO2 injections, adding, “I think it's because they have serious standing problems.”
In the subsequent ruling, the court backed EPA's argument that the rule is narrowly intended to address Class VI well injection and does not affect other types of injection activities, which means the petitioners lack standing to sue. “The record is clear that neither Occidental nor Southern operates or plans to operate Class VI wells and neither is regulated in any way by the narrow rule at issue in this case,” Edwards writes.
Industry sought to establish standing by showing that member companies are harmed by the rule, citing a 2007 D.C. Circuit ruling in Public Citizen, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which gives an organization standing on behalf of its members if the members can show standing “in their own right.”
Southern argued that its involvement in testing carbon sequestration technologies using experimental Class V wells -- a broad SDWA category -- and its plans to capture CO2 for use by other companies in EOR give it standing because it would be required to incur costs to determine whether the CO2 streams were hazardous. At arguments, industry attorney Thoams Llewellyn said that CCS operators would be required under the waiver to "certify" that a CO2 stream is non-hazardous, even though EPA has not offered a test methodology for doing so.
But the court rejects Southern's standing, saying the record contains no evidence that Southern is required to incur costs by testing for hazardous characteristics, particularly if it later decides to contract with a third party for use of its CO2 through a co-mingled system that could expose it to liability if the third party's CO2 stream was hazardous. “Neither of these activities is covered by EPA’s solid waste determination,” the opinion says of the two types of CO2 injection the company references in the record. “EPA has strictly and clearly limited its solid waste determination to carbon dioxide streams injected into Class VI wells for purposes of geologic sequestration, meaning that any requirement that Southern might have to determine whether its carbon dioxide streams are hazardous is speculative rather than actual or imminent,” according to the ruling.
Similarly, industry attorneys argued on behalf of Occidental that the company’s oil exploration efforts are harmed by the rule. They claimed that the agency's “broad assertion” of authority under RCRA by issuing the solid waste determination could presage further regulatory action that would adversely affect the company’s energy operations and will alter business decisions in anticipation of future regulatory action.
The groups argued that Occidental’s situation was comparable to the plaintiffs in Sabre, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, a 2005 D.C. Circuit ruling that held the company had standing when DOT asserted jurisdiction over it although that assertion carried no immediate regulatory requirements.
But the court in CSC held that Sabre is “clearly in apposite” and does not support standing because EPA has specifically argued it does not assert jurisdiction over the EOR activities engaged in by Occidental. “In fact, EPA has stated its 'expectation that [injection of carbon dioxide streams as part of enhanced oil recovery] would not generally be a waste management activity' subject to RCRA,” the opinion says, quoting from EPA's rule. “In sum, the record in this case stands in stark contrast to the situation encountered by the regulated party in Sabre. The disputed rule here is indisputably narrow and it does not capture any of Occidental’s business activities.”
RCRA Determination
The ruling means that the judges did not reach the merits of the case to examine EPA's determination that RCRA's statutory language describing solid wastes as “including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material” is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, as industry argued, and that supercritical fluids such as CO2 could fall within that definition. The agency also found in the regulatory determination that CO2 used for CCS is “discarded” within the plain meaning of the waste law and therefore subject to the statute.
In briefing in the case, EPA argued that CO2 streams are discarded in a similar fashion to sludge extracted from mining wastewater at issue in a pair of D.C. Circuit decisions. In American Mining Congress v. EPA (AMC 1), a 1987 ruling, the court held that "solid waste" is limited to materials that have been "discarded" by virtue of “being disposed of, abandoned, or thrown away." And in AMC II, a 1990 ruling, EPA says the court rejected the argument that "potential reuse of a material prevents the agency from classifying it as discarded."
But industry countered that CO2 streams are stored, and have yet to be discarded and that CCS facilities may be considered a "staging point" for future sale for use in EOR and other activities.
While the judges at arguments raised doubts over industry's standing claims, Garland appeared to be trying to identify ways to overcome the hurdle given the potential limits on industry pursuing future suits over the rule.
The judge raised the 90-day statute of limitations for suing over an agency rule, which could bar the groups from filing a later challenge once the suit is dismissed even if the groups were able to establish standing at a later date after using the waiver. "If we can't challenge this now, we may very well not be able to in the future," Llewellyn said.
That prompted Garland to ask, "Is there a ripeness question?" adding that he was "looking at ripeness as a way to protect you [petitioners] from the statute of limitations."
Garland also asked the Justice Department's Michele L. Walter, defending EPA, whether the energy groups would be able to challenge the waiver rule "as soon as they indicate" they are conducting Class VI operations. She answered that there may be a "question as to whether they would be out of time."
Garland responded, "it can't be that they don't have standing" in the current lawsuit and then when they can establish standing at some future time petitioners would be barred by the time limit.
-
In Big EPA Win, Court Denies Challenges to Ozone Designations
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacob
A federal appeals court today rejected a series of challenges from states, environmental groups and energy companies to U.S. EPA's determinations of which parts of the country meet its standard for ozone, a main component of smog.
In May 2012, EPA finalized its attainment and nonattainment designations for its 2008 ozone air standard of 75 parts per billion. If the agency finds a county or area does not meet the standard, that area must undertake significant and often expensive steps to reduce ozone emissions.
Mississippi, Texas, Indiana, Delaware and Connecticut all challenged EPA's nonattainment findings for some of their counties. Environmental groups argued that 15 other counties that were found in attainment shouldn't have been. And, in another claim, the groups argued that Utah's Uinta Basin -- home to oil and gas development and some of the country's worst ozone pollution -- should not have been dubbed "unclassifiable."
In a nearly 90-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected all of those claims, handing EPA a significant victory.
"Because EPA complied with the Constitution, reasonably interpreted the [Clean Air Act's] critical terms and wholly satisfied -- indeed, in most instances, surpassed -- its obligation to engage in reasoned decision-making, we deny the consolidated petitions for review in their entirety," the court wrote.
The consolidated cases featured all types of arguments, and the court refuted each one. Some of the most high-profile challenges involved the Uinta Basin, as well as Wise County, Texas, which lies near Dallas and is home to significant natural gas and oil development. Like the Uinta Basin, Wise County has historically had the country's worst ozone pollution.
Advertisement
EPA separated Wise County from the Greater Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and classified it as in attainment with the previous ozone standard in 1997. In assessing the newer limit, however, EPA found it failed to meet the 2008 standard.
Various companies, including Devon Energy Corp. and Targa Resources Corp., contended that EPA misapplied a multi-factor test to label the county in nonattainment. Specifically, they criticized the agency for relying on meteorological factors, including wind.
But the court deferred to EPA's expertise in the area.
"Barring an unreasonable or irrational application of the 'scientific data within [the EPA's] technical expertise,'" the court wrote, quoting precedent, "we cannot say that the EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously."
In the Uinta Basin, WildEarth Guardians contended that the area should have been characterized as in nonattainment, not "unclassifiable."
The problem in the area is that, until recently, there were no ozone monitoring stations in the basin. In a 2007 settlement with Kerr-McGee Corp., EPA required the Oklahoma-based company to install monitors in northeast Utah. EPA argued that it could not rely on data from those monitors to determine whether the area was in attainment for the 2008 standard, saying the data did not meet EPA's "quality assured and quality certified" standard for the years necessary for the attainment determinations (Greenwire, Oct. 21, 2014).
Again, the court sided with the agency's expertise.
"EPA reasonably declined to rely on data that it considered of insufficient quality for designation purposes," it wrote.
Other challenges were similarly rejected, including Connecticut and Delaware's attempt to draw a nonattainment area spanning more than 15 upwind states because of ozone pollution that drifts into their borders.
A Sierra Club attempt to force EPA to reclassify 15 counties as nonattainment instead of attainment was also dismissed.
Click here for the opinion.
-
Judges Deny Industry Challenge of EPA Carbon Capture Rule
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Federal judges today rejected a challenge from energy companies to U.S. EPA's finding that carbon captured from power plant emissions and injected underground qualifies as a "solid waste" and may be subject to regulation.
The case concerns EPA's efforts to promote carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, as part of its plan to address climate change. CCS takes carbon dioxide, compresses it into a semicritical fluid, then injects it into wells half a mile underground.
The entire process is not being used in the United States yet. But to encourage it, EPA in January 2014 issued a rule that exempted those carbon "streams" -- which are partly liquid, partly gas -- from regulation as a "hazardous waste" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA. Such a determination would have subjected the streams to tighter regulation.
In writing the rule, however, EPA also determined that the streams qualify as a "solid waste," a less stringent characterization that requires them to be certified before they are injected into a specific type of well known as Class VI.
Southern Co., the American Petroleum Institute and the Carbon Sequestration Council challenged the rule at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Their interest, however, was only tangentially related to the rule at issue. Oil companies frequently use carbon dioxide streams in enhanced oil recovery, where they are injected into wells to help produce more oil.
Advertisement
But those are different types of wells, the D.C. Circuit ruled, so the companies do not have legal standing to bring their case.
The challengers, wrote Senior Judge Harry Edwards for the three-judge panel, "have no standing to pursue this challenge."
In fact, Edwards wrote, none of the companies in the case has shown that it uses or will use the Class VI wells in the regulation.
Click here for the opinion.
-
EPA Climate Plan Sent to White House for Review
Jun 2, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
The Obama administration has teed up a busy summer on climate change, with the final review of its tentpole climate rule swinging into action.
The Environmental Protection Agency sent its rules on carbon emissions for existing power plants to the White House Office of Management and Budget for a final review, according to awebsite that tracks federal rulemaking. The rule is set to be finalized in August, according to OMB and a schedule of federal rulemakings.
EPA last June proposed cutting carbon-dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent of 2005 levels by 2030, targeting one of the nation's largest sources of greenhouse-gas emissions. The proposal sets specific targets for each state, allowing them to craft their own plans through measures like energy efficiency, upgrading power plants, and shifting away from coal power.
The regulatory move tees up the final steps in the rulemaking process for the long-awaited rule. Stakeholder groups—including industry representatives, utilities, and environmental groups—will head to OMB to meet with White House aides and take their last stabs at the rule.
It's unclear what changes EPA will make to the final rule, although officials have said they are incorporating input from all sides. There have been reports, for example, that EPA is considering dropping a requirement that coal plants install technology that would capture carbon dioxide and store it because the technology is not yet viable.
Congressional opponents will also continue their assault on the rule, which they say would essentially kill the coal industry without providing environmental benefits. The House is set to vote the week of June 23 on a bill from Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican, that would give states the option to opt out of the rule and put it on hold until judicial review is completed. A similar Senate bill is expected to move through the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is also continuing to press state governors to opt out of the rule. Already Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, has said her state won't comply, and Wisconsin Governor and possible Republican presidential contender Scott Walker has hinted he will follow suit.
States and industry groups are also sure to set up legal challenges to the rule. Already one lawsuit against the rule has gone to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in April, charging that EPA could not regulate carbon pollution from power plants because it was already regulating other emissions. Although no ruling has yet been issued, justices indicatedthat the challenge was premature because the rule was not yet final.
-
FERC Commissioner Says EPA Carbon Rule May Usurp State Powers
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden
States complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan run the risk of ceding jurisdiction over energy policy decisions to the federal government, according to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Tony Clark.
Clark, a Republican and former North Dakota electric regulator, told state regulators at a meeting of the Western Conference of Public Service Commissioners yesterday that EPA's draft regulation to cut power-sector carbon emissions could "fundamentally change everything about how utilities are regulated."
"What EPA is asking states to do, depending on how states choose to write their [state implementation plans], is to give EPA authority over things that it on its own in the Clean Air Act does not have authority to claim jurisdiction over," Clark said.
The Clean Power Plan set individual state reduction goals based on what EPA thought states could achieve through direct changes to coal-fired power plant operations and with systemwide efforts to cut emissions by using more natural gas, building up renewable energy and cutting back on power demand.
But Clark said states that seek credit for renewable portfolio standards and energy efficiency efforts would be giving EPA authority to regulate those programs.
"To the degree that you put that in a plan and it gets a seal of approval from the EPA, that then becomes a federally enforceable plan. So what happens then is the administrator of EPA is really in charge of state energy policy," Clark said. "It simply gives Washington so much authority over the decisions that have traditionally been made by state public utility commissions, legislators and governors."
Clark said he believes states' responses will fall into three categories as they try to avoid giving EPA that power.
First, California and states in the Northeast will likely rely on cap-and-trade programs to set limits on emissions. Clark said he hasn't traditionally been a fan of cap and trade, but from a mechanical standpoint, it might be "the least burdensome way for states to comply," as long as EPA is only enforcing the cap itself.
However, cap and trade is "a political dead leg in a large chunk of the country," Clark said.
Clark thinks a second group of states will submit plans based only on changes that can be made directly at power plants -- which EPA has uncontested authority to regulate. But many states argue they cannot reach their targets with those changes alone, especially without jeopardizing electric reliability or significantly raising costs to consumers.
Last, Clark said a number of states will refuse to send EPA plans and "just say no" until the last lawsuits have been settled in front of the Supreme Court years from now.
Because those states will not be preparing proposals at all, regional carbon-cutting solutions that could be beneficial and keep costs down will be difficult to get off the ground, he noted.'Rubber-stamping costs'?
Even in states that are hostile to the rule, Clark says it's critical for electric regulators to be talking closely with state energy offices, legislators, governors and environmental regulators responsible for writing plans.
"They absolutely have to be talking with those folks, because if they don't, they could end up in a very, very bad spot where you could have the state environmental regulator committing to certain things that are within the jurisdiction of the [public utility commission] and all of a sudden, the state environmental regulator's writing checks they can't cash," Clark said. "At that point, you're just rubber-stamping costs. ... You don't want to be in that position as a utility commissioner; you want to be in a position of actually helping to shape the energy policy of those states."
In states that have already announced they won't comply, though, regulators are in a "holding pattern," he said.
Clark also offered further insight into FERC's recent advice to EPA on how to avoid risking power outages under the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, May 18).
"The Clean Power Plan puts FERC in a very interesting and unique position in that it's not our rule; it's EPA's rule ... and yet ... almost all of the potential negative outcomes that could come out of a poorly structured Clean Power Plan are all squarely within our wheelhouse, both at the FERC level and at the local level at public utility commissions," Clark said. "Whether we want to be involved in that fight or not, the fight is coming to us and we need to be engaged."
Clark said that in regional technical conferences on the rule, FERC identified three concerns: that the rule didn't allow enough time for power-sector changes to begin, that someone would need to review proposals to make sure they mesh together, and that there should be a reliability "safety valve" to provide real-time relief from state plans in emergency situations.
FERC's letter did not explicitly call for a review of individual plans, what many have come to call a "reliability assurance mechanism."
But Clark said FERC and the North American Electric Reliability Corp. would want to conduct modeling to see how state plans fit together to affect reliability without making a "qualitative judgment."
"We're not going to be going into the middle of individual state implementation plans and saying, 'Oh, your energy efficiency product that you've worked out with your utility is garbage; you need to change it,'" he said. "Where we have a potential to be helpful is in modeling the reliability of the wider power system."
-
Obama Climate Rule Nearly Complete
Jun 2, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is conducting the final review of its controversial rule to limit carbon emissions from power plants.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said it is putting the regulation into the final review process after receiving the text on Monday from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The OMB review, the last process before the plan can be made final, started nearly a year to the day since the EPA publicly released the proposed rule. The timing puts the rule on track for the August unveiling that the administration has been planning for.
“Following President Obama’s call to issue carbon pollution guidelines for the power sector, EPA has submitted the final Clean Power Plan for existing power plants to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement. “The transmittal to OMB is the next step in the agency’s routine rulemaking process.”
Sending the rule to the OMB also allows stakeholders to request meetings with the White House and EPA officials. Under an executive order, officials are obligated to meet with most groups that ask.
The administration has not revealed what changes, if any, will be in the final rule when compared with the proposal released in June 2014.
The rule has become the Obama administration's most controversial environmental regulation and promises to become a main piece of the president's legacy.
As proposed under the Clean Air Act, the regulation aims to slash the power sector’s carbon output 30 percent by 2030, when compared with 2005 levels.
It would set specific goals for each state and ask the states to write plans to comply within a year of the August release date.
Officials are planning to unveil the climate rule at the same time as two other contentious power plant rules: limits on carbon emissions from newly built power plants and a proposed framework for how the EPA would force compliance upon states that do not write their own plans.
Republicans in both chambers of Congress have proposed legislation to delay and weaken the main climate rule, and efforts to repeal it legislatively are likely to ramp up once it is made final.
Energy companies and states have also sued in federal court to challenge the rule. Judges in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit indicated in April that they were reluctant to overturn a rule before it is made final, but that problem will be moot once the complete rule is published.
-
Oil Industry Takes Aim at Coal, Pushes Gas Ahead of Climate-Change Talks
Jun 2, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent and Inti Landauro
Europe’s largest oil companies on Tuesday came out forcefully against coal, taking aim at a competing fossil fuel as they push cleaner-burning natural gas ahead of climate-change talks.
Executives from Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, Total SA and others told industry officials at a conference that their increased production of gas could help reduce carbon emissions and lessen the world’s reliance on coal for heating homes and creating electricity. Coal, they said, was a pollutant that set back environmental efforts.
“Together with renewable energies it is important to promote the use of gas to replace coal,” Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné said. “It would contribute at a low cost to meet carbon emissions targets.”ENLARGE
The message was delivered at the World Gas Conference in Paris six months before United Nations climate-change talks that could result in an agreement to curb carbon emissions and limit global warning.
Shell, BP and other big European oil companies sent a joint letter to the U.N. this week calling for measures to push up the cost of burning coal, which remains fairly cheap. The companies suggest governments could either tax carbon emissions directly or reduce the supply of carbon emission credits, required to offset emissions, to make those credits pricier on the secondary market.
The lobbying effort comes as gas grows into a bigger revenue source for the world’s top oil companies.
For instance Shell now produces more gas than crude oil and the Anglo-Dutch company is set to solidify its position on top of the liquefied natural gas market with its $70 billion deal to buy U.K. gas giant BG Group PLC, which is expected to close next year. Around half of BP’s production is natural gas and this could rise to 60% by the end of the decade, according to CEO Bob Dudley.
The coal industry has defended the fossil fuel’s role in the energy mix, with backers noting that natural gas also emits greenhouse gases and that advanced technologies can sharply reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“It’s flawed to think that you’ll reach a solution to climate change without talking about low-emission technology for coal,” Mick Buffier, chairman of the World Coal Association and an executive at Glencore PLC’s coal unit, said in an interview in London on Tuesday. Mr. Buffier said new technology for coal-fired power plants and reduce carbon emissions by more than 30%.
He said China and India, which consume most of the world’s coal, will continue to rely on it for power generation for decades. “The reality is that coal will continue to be used, particularly in developing countries,” he said. He recommends that governments and development banks help fund low-emission technology for coal-fired power plants and the installation of the plants in developing countries.
Long the world’s dominant source of energy, coal will likely play a role for the foreseeable future. According to BP’s World Energy Outlook, coal and gas are forecast in 2035 to each provide roughly the same amount of the world’s energy—just over 25%. Renewables will increase but still be less than 10% by 2035, according to BP’s annual tome of energy industry forecasts.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and burning it produces greenhouse gases blamed for climate change—though much less of it, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The attack on coal comes as oil companies are stepping up their involvement in the climate change debate before the U.N. summit later this year. The international gathering is intended to seal a deal that would ensure man-made global warming is limited to two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, but governments remain far apart on how to achieve this.
Environmental groups increasingly question whether all the resources that have been discovered can be burned if the world is to meet its climate change goals. In response, the oil industry has begun acknowledging the issues presented by climate change, while also saying investment in fossil fuels must be made to meet the world’s growing energy needs.
Shell Chief Executive Ben van Beurden is pushing for the industry to speak out clearly and with a common voice on the measures it believes are necessary to encourage a shift to lower-carbon energy sources. The coalition of European energy companies on carbon pricing is one aspect. Mr. van Beurden also wants a broader coalition that includes utilities, academics, technology companies and others, acknowledging that the oil industry has a credibility issue.
“We have quite often retreated from the debate believing that whatever we say, there’s only going to be a reputational downside,” Shell’s Mr. van Beurden said in an interview. “I think with the benefit of hindsight that has been wrong, because as a result the whole societal debate has not moved in the right direction and meaningful policy action has been delayed.”
However, not everyone in the oil industry has embraced this new stance. European oil executives said that U.S. oil companies invited to join their collective action have so far refused.
Speaking at the Paris conference, the heads of both Exxon and Chevronstressed the role natural gas will play in the energy mix in the coming years, but focused more on the need for continued investment amid mounting global demand.
For instance, Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson called on Europe to be more open to hydraulic fracturing. France has a ban on fracking, despite potentially large shale reserves, while Germany has a moratorium.
-
Oil and Gas CEOs Call for Carbon Price as Exxon, Chevron Outline Climate Strategy
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
The CEOs of six of the largest energy companies worldwide want national governments to put a price tag on greenhouse gas emissions.
In a letter addressed to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the authors call upon the United Nations and countries to "open a direct dialogue" on climate change and carbon pricing, "including at the UNFCCC negotiations in Paris and beyond."
The authors -- the CEOs of European oil and gas companies BG Group PLC, BP PLC, Eni SpA, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Statoil and Total SA -- want the international community to create national and regional carbon pricing mechanisms and a global network that could "eventually connect national systems."
The letter, sent also to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, doesn't specify a preference for a carbon tax policy or a cap-and-trade marketplace.
"Climate change is a critical challenge for our world," the letter reads. "We acknowledge that the current trend of greenhouse gas emissions is in excess of what the IPCC says is needed."
To serve consumers and meet growing demand, the companies have shifted to natural gas, invested in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and improved their energy efficiency, the letter reads. The authors call for more government direction, placing responsibility on international leaders.
"For us to do more, we need governments across the world to provide us with clear, stable, long-term ambitious policy frameworks," the CEOs write.
"Low-carbon business models and solutions are fragile until they reach critical size," they continue. "Whatever we do to implement carbon prices ourselves will not be sufficient or commercially sustainable unless national governments introduce carbon pricing even-handedly and eventually enable global linkage between national systems."
In a statement, Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, welcomed the announcement: "We need more business leaders from this industry and others to support putting a price on carbon."
Yet Charlie Kronick, of Greenpeace's U.K. division, said emissions pricing doesn't go nearly far enough to mitigate climate change. "Carbon pricing will only make a marginal contribution," he said in an email, sarcastically calling the six firms' announcement a "solution."
Ed Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, took a more sanguine tone. "EDF is pleased to see this public statement of support for a price on carbon," he said. An emissions price, he added, can "drive reductions as efficiently and as fairly as possible."Exxon: We want a 'uniform and stable' carbon price
The letter comes on the heels of investors' submitting a spate of shareholder resolutions about climate change this proxy season, (ClimateWire, May 27).
And climate was a central topic at annual corporate meetings for Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. last week, though proposals from stockholders worried about global warming received minimal support -- underscoring a difference between how U.S. and European firms are addressing climate risks (ClimateWire, May 28). The top executives at both U.S. energy majors said they wouldn't sign onto a group stance on climate change.
"We're not going to be disingenuous about it. We're not going to fake it," Rex Tillerson, Exxon's CEO, said at the annual company meeting Wednesday, after a shareholder noted that rival European firms have backed shareholder resolutions on climate change. "Just speaking out to be speaking out about it doesn't seem to be particularly helpful to me."
Richard Keil, an Exxon spokesman, said company leaders are aware of the European letter. Exxon, he said, wants a "uniform and stable price on carbon."
Asked about the company's preferred carbon pricing mechanism, he said the company supports "a revenue-neutral carbon tax that is understandable and predictable for everybody."
Climate policies should be drafted on a global scale, use market-based mechanisms --"rather than technology mandates" -- and "create a level competitive playing field among energy sources between countries," said Daren Beaudo, a ConocoPhillips spokesman, in an emailed response. And Melissa Ritchie, of Chevron Corp., also provided the following statement: "We believe that taking prudent, practical and cost effective action to address climate change risks is the right thing to do."
Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS), the world's biggest carbon market, should be deployed worldwide.
In May, E.U. leaders also agreed to reform the system -- plagued by an oversupply of emission credits and minimal incentive for high-emitting firms to change their investment and day-to-day practices -- in January 2019.
In 2005, when the market began, a per-metric-ton credit traded for between about €15 to €30.
After plunging during the financial crisis of 2007 and rising again, prices for the past several years have remained below €10 -- a price many market watchers say is too low to shift industries to low-carbon energy sources.
Reporter Mike Lee contributed.
-
Evolving Business Models are Primary Concern for Power Executives, Survey Finds
Jun 2, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
The most significant challenge facing the electric utility industry in the next five years is the need to develop new business models, according to a survey of executives to be released today.
That was the chief conclusion of the second annual survey on the "Utility of the Future" conducted by global consultant DNV GL.
"The need for new business models is prompted in part by growth in distributed generation (DG) and adaptation to emissions regulations. Policymakers, utilities and independent power producers alike are looking to renewable DG, centralized renewable production and energy efficiency to support emissions reduction approaches in addition to other emissions control strategies," the survey found.
The need for fresh ways of doing business was cited by 34 percent of respondents, far higher than the 2 percent who said that was a concern in 2014. Last year, the increased interconnection of distributed generation was seen as the most significant challenge.
Just under a third of DNV GL's respondents believed that net metering and DG interconnection will have the greatest effect in shaping the industry by 2020, followed by greenhouse gas and emissions controls. Nearly a quarter of the survey's respondents said a lack of clarity in national energy and environmental policies will be a significant challenge.
The survey's findings may "make utilities realize [that looking at new business models] is something they will want to sit down and consider," even if the potential threat from distributed generation is "not immediately in their territory right now," said Jessica Harrison, DNV GL's head of section for energy strategy, markets and policy development.
As "policies around interconnection [of distributed generation] are starting to clarify," utilities are realizing that "they can grow their business even if they're not taking a defensive strategy against third parties like PV developers," Harrison said.
Electric vehicles and energy storage are examples of new technologies that don't have to threaten a utility's business model, she said. Along with innovations such as home energy management systems, they allow utilities to "engage with customers in a slightly different way" than they have traditionally, Harrison said.
The "millennial generation is much more keen to manage their own power and ensure that they have more green power," she said.
Some industry players plan to take on new business to hedge against risks to their current business, the DNV GL survey said, indicating a "slight increase in defensive strategies towards new entrants."
Despite some receptivity by industry toward new ways of doing things, "there's a lot of confusion still," Harrison said, because policies are changing and will "shape what's viable" as a business model in each state.
"I think if [the industry] had it in the bag, they'd be on it already."
The survey is being released in Washington, D.C., during DNV GL's two-day Utility of the Future Leadership Forum.
-
Utilities Concerned Over EPA's 'Pressure' To Change State's Water Standards
Jun 2, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Amanda Palleschi
Wastewater utilities are criticizing EPA's continued push for Washington state to modify controversial proposed water quality standards for toxics, arguing the agency's objection to the state's draft cancer risk levels oversteps the agency's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to oversee states' development of such standards.
The concerns from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) follow recent public comments from EPA, environmentalists and industry on the Washington Department of Ecology's proposed revisions to water quality standards, where the state is planning to change its human health criteria to reflect higher fish consumption rates than previous default values but is also reducing the cancer protection value the state uses when setting water quality standards and advancing a legislative package to restrict the use of some toxic chemicals.
EPA and environmental groups have generally praised the proposed changes to the fish consumption rates but maintain that lowering the cancer protection value would negate any public health benefits from acknowledging higher fish consumption. In contrast, major industrial dischargers, such as Boeing, argue the proposed fish consumption rates are overly conservative and would increase compliance costs to the extent the company could not afford to make future investments in the state.
Last summer, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) announced the state planned to raise its fish consumption rate from 6.5 grams per day (g/day) to 175 g/day in order to protect Native American and subsistence fishers. But at the same time, Inslee said the state plans to reduce the cancer risk rate to 10^-5 because using the 10^-6 cancer rate would have created "extremely tough standards, resulting in an unacceptable level of uncertainty for businesses and local government with little corresponding benefit for human health.
The state formally proposed the water quality standards changes in January and accepted comment on them until March 23. EPA has set an Aug. 3 deadline for the state to finalize the changes or the agency will step in with its own standards.
Washington's efforts come as EPA still has a long-awaited final rule imposing new requirements on how states should craft water quality standards at the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. The final rule will update regulations governing state water policies required by the CWA such as antidegradation requirements, procedures for granting variances and restrictions on waterbodies' designated uses.
EPA officials have repeatedly expressed concerns about the state's plan to reduce the cancer risk rate. And in a March 23 letter from EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran to the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program's Cheryl Niemi, the region says the proposed cancer risk level as well as some sections on variances, intake credits and compliance schedules do not "fully reflect the best available science, including local and regional information, as well as applicable EPA policies, guidance, and legal requirements."
"Specifically, a cancer risk level of 10^-5 does not provide appropriate risk protection for all Washington citizens, including tribal members with treaty-protected fishing rights, when coupled with a fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day or higher," EPA Region X writes in its comments. "By using a 10^-5 cancer risk level, the state has substantially offset the environmental benefits of raising the fish consumption rate for carcinogenic human health criteria."
NACWA's Concerns
But in a May 13 letter to McLerran, NACWA calls EPA's assertion that Washington's standards do not fully reflect its policies "strongly worded" and a way for the agency to informally pressure the state to revise its rules to address EPA's preferences "even if these changes may be counter to the state's policy, science, and risk choice position" -- a tactic NACWA says Region 10 also used when Oregon similarly revised its human health criteria.
Although NACWA's letter does not mention substantive objections to Region 10's letter and its concerns about Washington's new, proposed 10^-5 cancer risk level, it calls EPA's approach troubling in its "tone" and overstepping its CWA authority in the development of state water quality standards. The group argues that EPA's communications with states often have the effect of applying its own federal criteria "recommendations, preference, and guidance as law of the land."
"In the case of Washington's proposed rule, which in fact was consistent with the range of values and approaches included in existing federal guidance, EPA appears to ignore the flexibility afforded to states in its own guidance by insisting that the state's program conform to EPA's preferred approach," NACWA writes. The group adds that it is common practice for the agency to comment on proposed state water quality standards: "EPA has long used these strategies at the permitting stage -- issuing 'interim objections' to signal to the state that changes must be made -- to avoid EPA overfiling on permits and facing direct legal challenge to its policies. EPA's decision to use such tactics in its role in helping states develop state water quality standards is cause for great concern among NACWA's members."
Industry's Criticisms
While NACWA raises concerns over EPA's involvement in the state's rulemaking, other industry sectors are critical of the proposed rule itself.
For example, Boeing, one of the state's largest employers, says in March 23 comments that it is concerned about the methodology used to develop the human health criteria. "Use of a 175 g/day fish consumption rate is wholly unjustified and out of step with the rate used by the [EPA] and virtually every other state in the nation," Boeing says, asserting that contrary to the state's claims, "only a very small number of individuals, if any, consume fish at this rate throughout their lifetime."
While the state has "properly used a 10-5 cancer risk factor and a relative source contribution of 1.0 for non-carcinogens, the use of the 175 g/day fish consumption rate provides a level of risk protection far beyond that required by EPA or the Clean Water Act," Boeing says, adding that it has recommended the state "use a fish consumption rate consistent with national data to revise the human health criteria." Washington could then collect necessary data on actual fish consumption rates and further revise the criteria, if appropriate, the company says.
Boeing also says it is "disappointed" by the proposed compliance schedules and variances for the standards, saying "it provides little additional clarity or certainty for regulated entities."
"As a result, we are concerned that the proposed changes to the Human Health Criteria could drive hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to Boeing, disrupt our current operations, and severely limit our ability to expand future operations in Washington," the company says. "Boeing will not be alone - other industries, municipalities, counties, and ultimately, taxpayers, will also be impacted. We believe our mutual investments must be predictable and targeted to achieve real improvements. We therefore urge the Department to carefully consider the impacts on the state's economy and quality of life before moving forward with a proposed rule that it has concluded will have no effect on water quality."
'Blatant Giveaway'
In contrast, environmental groups continue to urge Washington to maintain the current cancer risk rate of 10^-6. Northwest Environmental Associates (NWEA) in its March 23 comments says, "There is no justification for this increase in cancer risk rate; instead, it is a blatant giveaway to those who pollute, at the cost of protecting those who do not pollute but merely seek to use the public waters that Ecology is charged with protecting."
The state's "proposed changes to its water quality standards are a huge disappointment and represent an overall decrease in protection for public health and protection of the environment due to the emphasis on so-called 'implementation tools,' which are not tools for implementing but, rather, tools for not implementing Washington's new toxic criteria," NWEA says.
Meanwhile, a slew of environmental, food industry and community development groups -- such as the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, League of Women Voters of Washington, Center for Environmental Law & Policy and many local fish industry groups -- say Washington's proposed standards are not stringent enough to protect "people who regularly eat locally-sourced fish and shellfish" and say the proposal is "neither strong, nor accurate."
In a March 23 letter to Region 10 administrators and Washington state officials, including the governor, the groups urge the state to revise the draft rules, saying they use an "illegal approach that results from the manipulation of relevant equations and use of pollution loopholes," and instead adopt a rule based on a cancer risk rate of one in a million "across the board."
The groups also ask, among other things, that the state: reject "multi-discharger and statewide variances of more than five years that facilitate an increase in toxic pollution across the state; reject compliance plans that last longer than the underlying permits; reject "so called 'intake credits' as difficult to enforce because many of these pollutants are bioaccumulative and toxic even in very small amounts" and can build up in fish and shellfish, and revise its arsenic and PCB criterion.
-
House Dems Urge Moniz, Foxx to Set Crude-by-Rail Volatility Standards
Jun 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
A dozen House Democrats today asked Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to work on volatility limits for oil shipped by rail in the wake of multiple recent fiery accidents on the tracks.
“There should be an intensive, independent study in conjunction with experts in petroleum and hazardous materials chemistry to determine what actions need to take place to increase safety for all,” Reps. Cheri Bustos, Ron Kind, and Mike Quigley wrote alongside nine colleagues.
The DOT’s crude-by-rail safety regulations don’t set minimum stability standards for shipped oil, though a joint DOE-DOT research effort is underway to examine whether light shale fuel transported by train is more volatile than other crude oil grades. North Dakota has separately established its own volatility standards.
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