Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. Senate OKs Plan for Flagging Flame Retardants in Kids' Products
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The California state Senate yesterday approved 30-10 a bill to require labels on children's products that contain flame retardant chemicals, in what would be an expansion of the state's newly aggressive policy against the controversial substances. -
US Building Materials Industry Supports TSCA Reform
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US building and construction industry associations are supporting recent congressional activity to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Global Brands Highlight Challenge of Measuring Chemicals Use
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Difficulty in measuring a company’s chemicals use is a major barrier to effectively communicating chemicals management efforts to consumers, delegates heard at a Chemical Watch workshop held at the end of last week’s Helsinki Chemicals Forum. -
Main BPA Metabolite 'Is Biologically Active'
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Researchers from Health Canada have demonstrated that the major metabolite of bisphenol A (BPA), formed in the body, is biologically active in stimulating the development of adipose fat cells. -
Science Denial: It's Not Just a Republican Problem | Commentary
Jun 4, 2015 | Roll Call
By Dan Maffei
Daytime TV host Dr. Mehmet Oz apologized this month for pushing fake weight loss supplements and junk science “miracle cures” on his show. -
Study Finds Toxic Chemicals in Child Car Seats
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Of 377 child car seats tested, nearly three-quarters were found to contain toxic flame retardant chemicals, according to new research from the Ecology Center released Thursday. -
Minnesota Enacts Law Restricting Flame Retardants
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Minnesota Governor, Mark Dayton, has signed into law a bill (SF 1215) that restricts the use of four flame retardants in certain products (CW 14 May 2015). -
Prenatal PBDE Exposure Increases Weight in Boys
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A long-running Californian study of prenatal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants has found that boys’ and girls’ weight are affected differently at age seven. Boys with high exposure have a higher body mass index (BMI), and girls a lower BMI. But the same study showed, at birth, that high exposure was linked to reduced weight. -
House Rejects Amendment to Increase PHMSA's Pipeline Safety Budget
Jun 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
The House narrowly rejected an amendment on Thursday that would have increased the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety budget by $27.6 million. -
Fracking Has Had No ‘Widespread’ Impact on Drinking Water, EPA Finds
Jun 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold and Amy Harder
A decade into an energy boom led by hydraulic fracturing, the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded there is no evidence the practice has had a “widespread, systemic impact on drinking water.” -
EPA: Fracking Poses No 'Widespread, Systemic' Harm to Drinking Water
Jun 4, 2015 |
By Elana Schor
A long-awaited EPA report on hydraulic fracturing hands a victory to the oil and gas industry, concluding that the extraction process has “not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.” -
EPA: Fracking Not Causing Major Harm to Drinking Water
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Hydraulic fracturing has not caused any major harm to drinking water supplies, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded Thursday. -
EPA Study Finds No 'Widespread' Impact on Drinking Water
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Mike Soraghan
Hydraulic fracturing can contaminate drinking water but has not caused "widespread" impacts, U.S. EPA found in a highly anticipated study released today. -
Va. Rules Would Require Chemical Disclosure
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
A Virginia advisory panel proposed that energy companies disclose the chemical ingredients they use in hydraulic fracturing and provide the state with the closely guarded recipes the drilling companies use for fracking fluids. -
West Virginia Republicans Urge Governor to Reject Climate Rules
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
West Virginia's U.S. House delegation has asked the state's governor to reject the Obama administration's proposed climate rule for power plants. -
State Senate OKs Climate Change Bill, Seeks to Ban New Offshore Drilling
Jun 4, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By Chris Megerian and Patrick McGreevy
State senators passed legislation Wednesday intended to help California tackle climate change by setting new targets for generating renewable energy, reducing gasoline use and increasing energy efficiency in buildings. -
Calif. Senate Passes Climate Package Aiming for 50% Renewable Power, Halving Petroleum Use
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's Senate yesterday accelerated the state's push for clean energy, passing a bundle of climate bills that aimed to shrink sharply greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable power to 50 percent of electricity and chop in half petroleum use by 2030. -
Georgia PSC Commissioner Echols Concerned EPA Will Not Consider Stakeholder, FERC Comments in Final Power Plan
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E TV
With news this week that U.S. EPA has sent its Clean Power Plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, how are states gearing up for the pending final rule? During today's OnPoint, Tim Echols, commissioner on the Georgia Public Service Commission, explains why his state has not officially begun working on a compliance mechanism for the power plan. -
Chamber's Early ESPS Litigation Preparation Draws Utility Sector Concern
Jun 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
An early effort by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to craft an industry-wide consensus legal challenge against EPA's final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for power plants is prompting swift push back by some utility industry attorneys who say the power sector, which is directly regulated by the rule, is best positioned to lead the massive legal fight.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. Senate OKs Plan for Flagging Flame Retardants in Kids' Products
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The California state Senate yesterday approved 30-10 a bill to require labels on children's products that contain flame retardant chemicals, in what would be an expansion of the state's newly aggressive policy against the controversial substances.
Four Republicans joined all of the chamber's Democrats in supporting the measure by state Sen. Mark Leno (D) targeting the chemicals, which scientists have called potentially harmful to children and ineffective at stopping fires.
The bill still must pass the state Assembly, where Democrats control nearly two-thirds of the seats, before reaching Gov. Jerry Brown (D).
The legislation would specify that labels on covered products say: "The State of California has determined that this product does not pose a serious fire hazard. The state has identified many flame retardant chemicals as being known to, or strongly suspected of, adversely impacting human health or development."
A check box would then specify whether the product "contains added flame retardant chemicals" or "contains NO added flame retardant chemicals."
The warning would also have to be included on the websites of Internet retailers that sell covered products. The bill would also establish procedures to test children's products for compliance and fine violators between $2,500 and $15,000 if they fail to comply with the provisions.
Advertisement
"This bill furthers our state's ongoing efforts to empower consumers and create more transparency in disclosing important information about toxic flame retardant chemicals," Leno said in a statement.
Because many companies want consistent packaging for their products, Leno's bill has the potential to aid consumers across the country who are seeking more information about the substances.
The plan has the support of advocacy groups like the Center for Environmental Health, the Breast Cancer Fund and Earthjustice. But industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business, have argued the proposed rules "lack scientific justification," conflict with other state regulations and "would mislead consumers about the safety of products that contain flame retardant chemicals."
Last year, Leno won passage of a state law requiring labels on furniture containing flame retardant chemicals, something that was previously required by state regulationsE&ENews PM, Sept. 30, 2014). Those regulations have since been updated to reflect the state's position that flame retardant chemicals do not offer a measurable fire safety benefit.
Scientists consider infants the most vulnerable to harmful chemicals because of their developing bodies. But more than 73 percent of car seats tested in a report released today by the Ecology Center's HealthyStuff project showed levels of halogenated flame retardants, while more than half contained non-halogenated organophosphate flame retardants, the group said.
The researchers tested 15 car seats sold last year for bromine, chlorine, lead and other heavy metals, which can indicate the presence of related flame retardant chemicals.
Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center's research director, said in a statement he doesn't want to discourage parents from using car seats, but they should be informed consumers.
"Some car seats contain more harmful chemicals than others," Gearhart said.
Car seats, along with other products like bassinets, booster seats and changing pads, are among products that would receive labels under Leno's bill.
Despite the mounting criticism from Leno and others over flame retardants, the chemical industry has stood behind the products and defended them as safe and effective.
Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance, said in a statement the group believes California should find ways to increase fire safety, instead of targeting flame retardant chemicals.
"We would prefer that California policymakers focus on issues like fire safety, as there are already regulatory agencies in place that can evaluate the safety of chemicals," Goodman said.
Goodman added that it made sense for companies to use flame retardants in car seats because the risk of fire "extends to cars, trucks and other vehicles."
-
US Building Materials Industry Supports TSCA Reform
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US building and construction industry associations are supporting recent congressional activity to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The House Energy and Commerce Committee's vote to send the TSCA Modernization Act (HR 2576) to a floor vote (CW 4 June 2015) and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's passage of the modified Udall-Vitter bill (CW 29 April 2015) mark the latest developments in bipartisan support for TSCA reform, which many in the building materials sector have called for in recent years.
On 2 June, the American Alliance for Innovation (AAI), a coalition of over 150 trade groups across several industries, including more than a dozen building materials organisations, who advocate for TSCA reform (CW 14 January 2015), sent a letter to the House leadership, voicing its commitment to updating TSCA and offering support to HR 2576.
AAI member, the American Coatings Association (ACA) said the Senate's bill is “a pragmatic compromise that balances the interests of multiple stakeholders, while making significant improvements to chemicals management and facilitating a more cohesive federal approach to chemical regulation.”
Adhesives and Sealants Council's (ASC) director of regulatory affairs, Mark Collatz, said the Senate's bipartisan work on TSCA is “very gratifying” for ASC and their membership. He added that under the current federal legislation, EPA's review of chemicals has slowed to the point that states have begun to pass their own legislation, which can prove challenging for any formulator, not just for those within the adhesives and sealants industry.
Many trade groups in the building and construction industry monitor a variety of state-level initiatives, aimed at controlling chemical content in certain product types. California's department of toxic substances' newly-released Priority Product Work Plan, for example, has singled out building materials and furnishings as one of the seven categories to be evaluated under the Safer Consumer Products Program (CW 17 April 2015). Hundreds of potential priority products and an array of candidate chemicals may be covered by such activities.
Industry trade groups hope that the passage of TSCA reform will curb the growth of such state legislative activities.
Taking their message to Congress, ASC and several other AAI members join the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) as sponsors to the trade group's Manufacturing Summit, a two-day fly-in event held on 2-3 June in Washington DC.
NAM forecasted 400 industry representatives to attend, advocating for TSCA reform among other policies that the trade groups said promote economic growth.
-
Global Brands Highlight Challenge of Measuring Chemicals Use
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Difficulty in measuring a company’s chemicals use is a major barrier to effectively communicating chemicals management efforts to consumers, delegates heard at a Chemical Watch workshop held at the end of last week’s Helsinki Chemicals Forum.
The workshop, on the business case for sound chemicals management, heard a panel including representatives from Adidas, Hewlett-Packard (HP) and VF Corporation say that other areas of environmental management, such as carbon and water, can be easier to report because there are effective metrics, such as those used by the Carbon Disclosure Project.
“Quantifying and measuring chemical management and use is vitally important because if you can’t do that you don’t know if you’re making progress,” said Hans Wendschlag, environmental manager at HP.
Another panel member, Clean Production Action director Mark Rossi, said the ability to measure progress allows a company to report and communicate its environmental management in a “narrative or story-based way” (GBB March 2015).
For example, he said, consumers can better identify with information that explains how a company has reduced its use of hazardous chemicals, and what impact that has had on the environment and human health, than it can with a list of substances that have been eliminated from the supply chain.
In addition, chemicals management is still not viewed as a competitive differentiator, he said, which is why the issue is not being communicated to the extent other environmental and health issues are.
However, he did say that in some sectors, such as beauty and personal care and cleaning products, companies are starting to communicate their chemical selection and report on transparency, because they see it as a competitive issue (CW 29 January 2015).
Sean Cady, vice president of global responsible sourcing at VF Corporation (CW 21 November 2014), parent company of brands such as Timberland, North Face and Wrangler, added that because the word chemical has a negative connotation, communicating progress, good performance and leadership is a “huge challenge for our communications team”.
-
Main BPA Metabolite 'Is Biologically Active'
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Researchers from Health Canada have demonstrated that the major metabolite of bisphenol A (BPA), formed in the body, is biologically active in stimulating the development of adipose fat cells.
The finding is important because many toxicologists have claimed that the metabolite, bisphenol A glucuronide (BPA-G), is rapidly excreted and unlikely to be harmful.
In particular, the recent European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) scientific opinion on BPA in food (CW 22 January 2015) repeatedly refers to BPA-G as “a biologically inactive form of BPA”. These statements are sometimes qualified with the additional statement that it is “inactive at the oestrogen receptor”.
The Health Canada paper, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives by a team led by Jonathan Boucher, claims to be the first to demonstrate the biological activity of the metabolite. Using established in vitro techniques, the researchers show that BPA-G promotes the differentiation of cells into adipose tissue containing fat deposits. The process, known as adipogenesis, also involves a number of RNA molecules and protein markers.
Free BPA is known to be weakly oestrogenic and able to stimulate adipogenesis among many other effects. It works through the oestrogen receptor (ER) and various other hormone systems, including the glucuronide (GR), oestrogen-related (ERR), androgen (AR) and thyroid (TR) receptors. The scientists show that although metabolite BPA-G is not oestrogenic, it does stimulate adipogenesis in human and 3T3L1 murine (mouse) tissue at environmentally relevant levels.
The paper also demonstrates that the expression of adipogenic mRNA and protein markers is increased. The addition of the oestrogen receptor, blocking compound ICI, also inhibits the effect of BPA-G. This suggests that although it is not an oestrogen, it does work through an oestrogen-related pathway or one blocked by ICI.
The scientists conclude: “In this study, we show for the first time, to our knowledge, that BPA-G is biologically active and promotes lipid accumulation in vitro. We also show that while BPA-G does not have oestrogenic-activity, BPA-G-induced adipogenesis is still inhibited by an ER antagonist, suggesting the possibility that it may be acting through a non-classical ER action or as yet unidentified pathway.”
The paper also suggests that BPA-G may also be active in other cell processes, requiring further study.
-
Science Denial: It's Not Just a Republican Problem | Commentary
Jun 4, 2015 | Roll Call
By Dan Maffei
Daytime TV host Dr. Mehmet Oz apologized this month for pushing fake weight loss supplements and junk science “miracle cures” on his show. This comes as no surprise to many observers in Washington, D.C. — as a Senate committee grilled him about that last June. Unfortunately, followers of Dr. Oz are only the latest victims of an increasing trend of manipulating science to fit an agenda — and the public policy world is incredibly susceptible.
As a former member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, I witnessed firsthand the effect of this science denying culture on our nation’s policies. To protect fossil-fuel interests, Republicans attempted to defund climate science. Sometimes they would declare it a big government conspiracy or label mainstream climate studies “bad science.” However, the overwhelming evidence of peer-reviewed studies shows global climate change is happening and is man-made.
Republicans don’t have a monopoly on science denial. Democrats, too, are often guilty of ignoring scientific consensus and, in turn, undermining many of our own policy goals. Those on the left who manipulate science for their own interests tend to believe all corporations are evil and/or that activist groups are infallible.
These movements can be dangerous when they widely perpetuate misinformation. The anti-vaccine movement, for instance, was launched by one discredited British physician in a 1997 article that was later retracted. A few years later, environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. launched a campaign to remove the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal from vaccines. As the misinformation snowballed into hysteria, confused parents started to resist having children vaccinated, and outbreaks of infectious diseases followed. To this day, no evidence has been found that the very low amounts of thimerosal in some vaccines are harmful.
Another example is bisphenol-A, commonly known as BPA, a chemical used to harden plastics and line the insides of aluminum cans. Anti-chemical activists allege BPA causes a host of health problems. However, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as scientists at regulatory organizations around the world, have repeatedly debunked the so-called scientific justifications for these claims. As it happens, people are exposed to amounts of BPA many hundred times smaller than the amount that would have any effect on them. Of course, you’d never know this from alarmist headlines on the Internet or from calls by some officials to restrict its use. Most recently, California regulators have started pushing to have BPA added to its much-maligned Prop 65 list of hazardous chemicals, despite direct outreach by the FDA’s chief scientist to disprove the unsound science behind this proposal.
Movements such as this, even while they lack scientific justification, still lead some citizens — mirroring their right-wing counterparts — to complain the government is part of the “conspiracy” and is not doing enough on BPA. Elected officials then push government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. The NIH has already spent more than $170 million studying BPA since 2000, and it continues to spend more even while the FDA gives BPA its “safe-use” designation and health agencies in Europe, Canada and Japan have made similar determinations.
-
Study Finds Toxic Chemicals in Child Car Seats
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Of 377 child car seats tested, nearly three-quarters were found to contain toxic flame retardant chemicals, according to new research from the Ecology Center released Thursday.
The nonprofit environmental organization found that 73 percent of child car seats tested contained hazardous halogenated flame retardants and over half contained non-halogenated organophosphate flame retardants, some of which are hazardous as well.
Fifteen 2014-models of car seats were also tested for bromine, which is associated with brominated flame retardants; chlorine, which indicates the presence of chlorinated flame retardants when detected in a certain range of concentration; lead and other heavy metals.
The Ecology Center said these substances have been linked to thyroid problems, learning and memory impairment, decreased fertility, behavioral changes and cancer.
Heat and UV-ray exposure in cars can accelerate the release of these chemicals from products into the vehicle environment.
“Many children spend hours in a car every week, or even every day, potentially exposing them to harmful flame retardants, the Ecology Center said. “Babies are the most vulnerable population in terms of exposure, since their bodily systems are still developing and they spend many hours in their car seats.”
The study included car seats from Britax, Clerk and Graco.
Britax’s 2014-2015 Frontier and Marathon Convertible car seats and Clek’s Foonf convertible car seat were the best performing when evaluated using a comparative rating methodology, which evaluated a range of chemical hazards in the products.
Graco’s My Size 65 convertible car seat had the poorest rating. The company could not immediately be reached for comment.
Other car seats tested came from Chicco; Cybex; Dorel Juvenile Group, which makes Safety First; Evenflo, Harmony Juvenile; Orbit Baby and Peg Perego.
“This study reminds us that the lack regulation of chemicals in vehicles and vehicle components, like children's car seats, has resulted in vehicle interiors having some of the highest levels of hazardous chemicals including flame retardants, ”Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition said in a news release. “Yet in the face of increased consumer vigilance and activism, industry has responded by trying to exempt itself from aspects of federal regulation on chemicals. ”
Lawmakers have been working to overhaul the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, which was created to give the Environmental Protection Agency the ability to regulate the nation’s most dangerous chemicals, but it widely viewed as unenforceable.
On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced a toxic chemical safety bill on a nearly unanimous vote to the House floor for a vote later this month.
-
Minnesota Enacts Law Restricting Flame Retardants
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Minnesota Governor, Mark Dayton, has signed into law a bill (SF 1215) that restricts the use of four flame retardants in certain products (CW 14 May 2015).
From 1 July 2018, the law bans the manufacture or importation of children's products and residential upholstered furniture, containing in excess of 1,000 parts per million, the flame retardants:TDCPP (tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate);TCEP (tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate);decaBDE (decabromodiphenyl ether); andHBCDD (hexabromocyclododecane).
The ban on the sale of such products in Minnesota takes effect on 1 July 2019.
The bill passed the House by a 125-6 margin and the Senate unanimously.
-
Prenatal PBDE Exposure Increases Weight in Boys
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A long-running Californian study of prenatal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants has found that boys’ and girls’ weight are affected differently at age seven. Boys with high exposure have a higher body mass index (BMI), and girls a lower BMI. But the same study showed, at birth, that high exposure was linked to reduced weight.
The paper, published in Environmental Health Perspectives by researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, is based on a study by the Centre for Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), which is following a group of children born to 224 Latino women, who gave serum samples for the measurement of ten PDBE congeners, during pregnancy (CW 1 September 2011).
PBDEs were phased out in the US in 2004, but exposures seem to be continuing to have health effects. The study is now aiming to investigate whether prenatal PBDE exposure is linked to obesity, partly because Californians’ exposures are among the highest worldwide. Over 18% of the children at age seven were overweight. Blood samples were also taken from the children at this age for comparison with their BMI.
Maternal PBDE serum levels, during pregnancy, were statistically significantly associated with higher BMI scores in boys but lower scores in girls. The mean differences were 0.26 higher in boys and -0.41 in girls.
In addition, the serum concentration of one BDE congener (BDE 153) in the children was found to be associated with a reduced BMI, but there was no interaction by sex.
The researchers suggest that future studies should examine the children’s trends in obesity with PBDE exposure as they go through puberty.
-
House Rejects Amendment to Increase PHMSA's Pipeline Safety Budget
Jun 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
The House narrowly rejected an amendment on Thursday that would have increased the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety budget by $27.6 million.
Rep. Lois Capps’ amendment would have increased the agency's budget by ratcheting up industry user fees, but failed in a 202-222 vote.
PHMSA has for years been unable to quickly comply with Congressional pipeline safety mandates in part because the agency has a meager budget, an April POLITICOinvestigation found. -
Fracking Has Had No ‘Widespread’ Impact on Drinking Water, EPA Finds
Jun 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold and Amy Harder
A decade into an energy boom led by hydraulic fracturing, the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded there is no evidence the practice has had a “widespread, systemic impact on drinking water.”
The report is the federal government’s most comprehensive examination of the issue of fracking and drinking water, and it bolsters the position staked out by the energy industry and its supporters: that fracking can be carried out safely and doesn’t need to pose a threat to water.
While there have been some cases involving spills and leaking wells, the spread of fracking didn’t cause extensive damage to groundwater resources, the EPA found. The four-year study noted that there were certain “potential vulnerabilities” to water supplies that needed to be addressed, including ensuring wells are well-built and wastewater is disposed of properly.
“EPA’s draft study will give state regulators, tribes and local communities and industry around the country a critical resource to identify how best to protect public health and their drinking water resources,” said Thomas Burke, deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s office of research and development.
While the report doesn’t recommend any specific action, it could reinvigorate a debate over the role of fracking in the nation’s energy landscape at a time when environmentalists have increasingly called to ban the practice outright, a step that two states with gas resources—New York and Maryland—have recently taken.
Fracking remains controversial in some communities as critics of the practice have recently moved to highlight other concerns, including air emissions, community health impacts and the proliferation of earthquakes that some studies have tied to injecting fracking wastewater.
Fracking involves shooting millions of gallons of water, laced with chemicals, into dense rock formations to create fractures and allow oil and natural gas to flow out.
Several years ago, as fracking spread across the U.S., there were widespread fears that fracking would lead to contaminated drinking water. Many of these fears were stoked by the 2010 documentary “Gasland.” One of the most notable scenes showed a landowner lighting his faucet on fire.
In Congress recently, the political debate over fracking has subsided. Almost all Republicans endorse fracking, and many Democratic lawmakers have increasingly been supportive as well, in large part because it has brought economic growth to their districts.
The growing skepticism of fracking by the environmental movement has done little to change Democrats’ support for the practice. The report from the EPA, whose findings echo the views of many Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the Obama administration, will reinforce much of the conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill about the drilling practice.
-
EPA: Fracking Poses No 'Widespread, Systemic' Harm to Drinking Water
Jun 4, 2015 |
By Elana Schor
A long-awaited EPA report on hydraulic fracturing hands a victory to the oil and gas industry, concluding that the extraction process has “not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.”
The conclusions of EPA’s years-long fracking study should bolster natural gas producers, who have benefited from Obama administration environmental policies that shrunk the coal industry’s hold on the electricity industry.
Story Continued Below
Fracking has helped turn the U.S. into an energy superpower in recent years, but it’s also set off a political firestorm. Fueled by the Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland,” which told the story of a flaming tap water and well water contamination in a Pennsylvania town, the state of New York, as well as the cities of Pittsburgh and Denton, Texas enacted bans on the technology.
But environmentalists have had little success in curbing fracking on a large scale. Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has hailed natural gas as playing “an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy.”
That stance puts her largely in line with President Barack Obama, who has championed domestic gas and seen U.S. economy benefit from resurgence in oil production from fracking in states such as North Dakota and Texas.
Still, the EPA’s findings do not fully dismiss environmentalist concerns that fracking could imperil the water supply, pointing to “potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water.”
POLITICO PROFull coverage of energy policy
Among the possible areas of risk from fracking, according to EPA’s study, are “water withdrawals in areas with low water availability; hydraulic fracturing conducted directly into formations containing drinking water resources; inadequately cased or cemented wells resulting in below ground migration of gases and liquids; inadequately treated wastewater discharged into drinking water resources; and spills of hydraulic fluids and hydraulic fracturing wastewater, including flowback and produced water.”
The EPA study, first requested by Congress during the fiscal 2010 appropriations cycle, is not designed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing fracking regulations or suggest new rules for the practice. The agency conducted a comprehensive peer review of existing studies on fracking’s drinking water impacts.
-
EPA: Fracking Not Causing Major Harm to Drinking Water
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Hydraulic fracturing has not caused any major harm to drinking water supplies, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded Thursday.
In what the EPA is calling the most comprehensive examination of existing data and science on the impact the controversial oil and natural gas drilling technique has on drinking water, it largely debunked concerns about extensive contamination of well water or other sources.
And while the draft report released Thursday is largely a win for industry, which has said for years that fracking is completely safe, the EPA recognized some “potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water.”
“EPA’s draft assessment will give state regulators, tribes and local communities and industry around the country a critical resource to identify how best to protect public health and their drinking water resources,” Thomas A. Burke, an EPA science adviser and top official in its research office, said in a statement.
“It is the most complete compilation of scientific data to date, including over 950 sources of information, published papers, numerous technical reports, information from stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports,” he said.
Fracking is the main force behind the oil and gas renaissance seen in recent years in the United States, leading it to become the top gas producer in the world and putting it on a course to top oil producer.
The process involves injecting water and chemical additives into wells at high pressure to break shale rock and unleash additional oil or gas.
The main conclusion of the nearly 1,000-page report is the researchers did not find that fracking has “led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
But it nonetheless outlined situations in which problems could occur, like when the fracking goes directly into formations that hold drinking water resources, wells are not adequately constructed or wastewater is not treated appropriately before being discharged into areas where drinking water is drawn.
The industry took the report as a major victory.
“After more than five years and millions of dollars, the evidence gathered by EPA confirms what the agency has already acknowledged and what the oil and gas industry has known,” Erik Milito, director of upstream operations at the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.
“Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry best practices,” he said.
The report will become final after the EPA’s Science Advisory Board approves it, and it goes through a public comment period.
Green groups have long complained that fracking pollutes groundwater, drinking water and the air, among other problems. They point to research from Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico showing hundreds of instances of water pollution from the practice.
On Thursday, environmentalists focused on the EPA’s conclusions on possible drinking water harms, saying the study proves their arguments.
“The EPA's water quality study confirms what millions of Americans already know — that dirty oil and gas fracking contaminates drinking water,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.
The group also called out the EPA for the limitations on its study and called for more thorough research.
“Unfortunately, the EPA chose to leave many critical questions unanswered,” Brune continued. “For example, the study did not look at this issue under the lens of public health and ignored numerous threats that fracking poses to drinking water.”
The EPA acknowledged numerous limitations to its research, including insufficient data and other sources of water pollution.
-
EPA Study Finds No 'Widespread' Impact on Drinking Water
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Mike Soraghan
Hydraulic fracturing can contaminate drinking water but has not caused "widespread" impacts, U.S. EPA found in a highly anticipated study released today.
The landmark findings, published in a final draft still subject to public comment and peer review, assessed the potential "life-cycle" effects of fracking -- from water acquisition to injection to wastewater management -- and identified vulnerabilities in the process that have led to contamination of surface water and groundwater in several cases.
"Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells," EPA said in an executive summary. "The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells."
The report upsets the industry line that fracking has never contaminated drinking water but concludes that the evidence does not indicate "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States."
The two-layer message of the findings was evident in stakeholders' immediate reaction, with environmentalists trumpeting the news that EPA linked fracking to water contamination and industry heralding the study as reaffirmation that fracking is safe.
"After more than five years and millions of dollars, the evidence gathered by EPA confirms what the agency has already acknowledged and what the oil and gas industry has known," the American Petroleum Institute's Erik Milito said in a statement. "Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry best practices."
Advertisement
Environmentalists, meanwhile, seized on the fact that the Obama administration has formally acknowledged instances of contamination.
"Today EPA confirmed what communities living with fracking have known for years, fracking pollutes drinking water," Earthworks Policy Director Lauren Pagel said in a statement. "Now the Obama administration, Congress, and state governments must act on that information to protect our drinking water, and stop perpetuating the oil and gas industry's myth that fracking is safe."
The agency won't issue policy recommendations from the study but noted in a statement that the study provides a tool for states and industry to adopt changes as needed.
"EPA's draft assessment will give state regulators, tribes and local communities and industry around the country a critical resource to identify how best to protect public health and their drinking water resources," EPA science adviser Thomas Burke said in a statement after the release.
"It is the most complete compilation of scientific data to date, including over 950 sources of information, published papers, numerous technical reports, information from stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports."Beyond the numbers
The study has been a political football for nearly five years. It was requested by House Democrats in 2010 and immediately became a point of contention between supporters and opponents of expanded domestic oil and gas production.
A final draft was originally planned for late 2012, but the agency instead published an interim progress report and pushed the final draft to 2014 -- a deadline that then slipped to late spring 2015.
Early on, drilling critics packed hearing halls for the "scoping" process, while environmental groups and industry lobbied to get their favored scientists on the peer review panel (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2012). The agency tangled with Halliburton Co. about what information the company should hand over, even issuing a subpoena at one point.
In 2012, EPA dropped a water contamination enforcement case against Range Resources Inc. in Texas in part because the company agreed to cooperate with the study, according to an inspector general report.
Differing interpretations of "fracking" fueled further controversy. Though the word refers to a specific state of the production process, in which crews use high-pressure water to crack open rock formations, many critics use the term as a catch-all description of the whole drilling process.
Industry has argued that EPA's study should look only at what happens when fracturing fluid is injected at high pressure, instead of taking a life-cycle approach. Environmental groups, by contrast, have pushed to broaden the review into how expansion of the drilling industry, facilitated by advances in fracturing technology, will affect the environment, economy and quality of life in the regions where it's taking place.
For both sides, the study has represented more than just a compilation of data. Industry fears the study will form the basis for more EPA regulation of drilling. And environmentalists are wary because a previous EPA study of the issue was used to justify a broad exemption for fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
That study, released in 2004, concluded that further study was not needed because fracturing in coalbed methane formations posed "little or no threat" to aquifers.
-
Va. Rules Would Require Chemical Disclosure
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
A Virginia advisory panel proposed that energy companies disclose the chemical ingredients they use in hydraulic fracturing and provide the state with the closely guarded recipes the drilling companies use for fracking fluids.
Other proposed rules include tightening up on water monitoring, safeguarding water supplies and inspecting drilling equipment.
The review over Virginia laws guiding hydraulic fracturing was spurred by concern over the leasing of more than 80,000 acres near Fredericksburg by a Dallas energy company. The area already has tighter restrictions because of its proximity to water resources.
Both conservation and industry groups noted their satisfaction with the proposed rules.
"I think the state moving toward that cataloguing system and toward that information availability is a good thing all around," said Mike Ward, executive director of the Virginia Petroleum Council (Steve Szkotak, AP/Charleston [W.Va] Gazette, June 2). -- KS
-
West Virginia Republicans Urge Governor to Reject Climate Rules
Jun 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
West Virginia's U.S. House delegation has asked the state's governor to reject the Obama administration's proposed climate rule for power plants.
The Republican lawmakers, led by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), wrote a letter to Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin warning him that the rules could raise energy prices and hurt the state's coal producers. They said West Virginia should not write a state plan to comply with the carbon emission reduction targets the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going to propose in its final Clean Power Plan rule.
The members said the rule is on "shaky legal ground" because it directs states to implement strategies to meet those emission reduction goals.
"The EPA is trying to compel states to do more themselves than what the agency would be authorized to do on its own," the members — McKinley and Reps. Alex Mooney and Evan Jenkins — said in their letter. "By declining to submit a plan you will give the courts the necessary time to rule on whether the EPA's proposed rule is legal while giving Congress a chance to address its concerns with the plan."
Several states and Republican lawmakers have questioned the legality of the Clean Power Plan, and West Virginia is one of more than a dozen states that have sued the government over it. The EPA has defended the rule's legal standing and promised to justify it further when the agency releases the final version this summer.
Tomblin signed a bill in March giving the West Virginia Legislature authority over any strategy state regulators write to comply with the Clean Power Plan. If a state does not write its own plan, the federal government will step in and do it for them.
Oklahoma is the only state to formally say it will not write its own emissions reduction strategy, though officials in other states have hinted they may not comply, either.
-
State Senate OKs Climate Change Bill, Seeks to Ban New Offshore Drilling
Jun 4, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By Chris Megerian and Patrick McGreevy
State senators passed legislation Wednesday intended to help California tackle climate change by setting new targets for generating renewable energy, reducing gasoline use and increasing energy efficiency in buildings.
The lawmakers also approved a measure that would ban new offshore oil drilling from an area in the Santa Barbara Channel known as Tranquillon Ridge, two weeks after an oil spill at nearby Refugio State Beach.
The climate change bill, which now goes to the Assembly with other bills passed by the Senate, advances goals outlined by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this year.These standards are reasonable, achievable and consistent.- Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles)
If passed by the Assembly and signed into law, the bill would require California to meet several objectives by 2030: generating 50% of its electricity from renewable sources, doubling energy efficiency in older buildings and cutting in half the amount of gasoline used on state roads.
"These standards are reasonable, achievable and consistent," said Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), author of the proposal.
Republicans opposed the measure, which they said would raise fuel costs and stifle businesses with new regulations. And they questioned whether the targets are achievable.
"We have a very lofty and noble goal," said Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-San Dimas). "But other than feeling good about it, what does it accomplish?"
De León said the plan would lead to cleaner air in the Central Valley, which has some of the state's worst pollution. He and other Democrats said the measure, SB 350, would lead to new investment in cleaner technologies.
"This bill is not a job killer," said Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). "It is a major job creator."
Senators passed several other proposals related to climate change Wednesday.
One, SB 32 by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), would put into law executive orders issued by Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It would require the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and then to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The other bill, SB 185 by de León, would require the state's pension funds, the two largest public funds in the country, to divest from coal.
The Assembly approved and sent to the Senate several climate-related measures, including AB 1288 by Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). It would remove the expiration date for the state's cap-and-trade program, in which permits to pollute are traded and fees are levied.
On the proposal to ban oil drilling, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) said the Tranquillon Ridge sector is designated as a Marine Protected Area, so the state should not risk oil spills by allowing drilling there.
The region has the only waters along California's coast that could be used for new oil production.
"As long as you drill, there will be spills," Jackson said, adding that the proposal would not affect production of the 30 or so existing oil rigs off the California coast. "It just says we are done … developing new oil."
The legislation was introduced before the May 19 leak from an oil pipeline that released 101,000 gallons of crude at Refugio State Beach, including 21,000 gallons that flowed into the Pacific Ocean.
But co-authors Jackson and Sen. Mike McGuire (D-San Rafael) cited the spill Wednesday as evidence of the vulnerability of oil operations in environmentally sensitive regions.
Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Murrieta) opposed the measure, SB 788, saying it would cost the state millions of dollars in potential revenue as well as new oil industry jobs.
"This bill, I think, sends the wrong message about oil and gas production in our state," he said. While he said green energy should be pursued, "oil and gas are still an important part of the equation" for meeting the state's energy needs.
Also on Wednesday:The Senate voted to expand the list of misdemeanors that result in a 10-year ban on the possession of firearms. Dealing in firearms without a license, petty theft involving a firearm, selling ammunition to someone younger than 21 and taking or carrying ammunition onto school grounds would be included under SB 347 by Jackson.
The Assembly passed AB 1200, a measure by Assemblyman Rich Gordon (D-San Mateo), to require disclosure of lobbying activity related to state purchasing contracts.
The Assembly advanced a proposal to require that parents be notified when blood samples taken from newborns to screen for diseases are retained by the state for research. The measure is AB 170 by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles).
A measure to collect data on police stops to help the state evaluate the occurrence of racial profiling passed the Assembly. AB 953 is by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego).
-
Calif. Senate Passes Climate Package Aiming for 50% Renewable Power, Halving Petroleum Use
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's Senate yesterday accelerated the state's push for clean energy, passing a bundle of climate bills that aimed to shrink sharply greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable power to 50 percent of electricity and chop in half petroleum use by 2030.
The upper chamber's set of 12 measures also included one calling for two state pension funds, which are the nation's largest, to divest from thermal coal. Another bill sought to ramp up transit and inner-city rail. There were multiple measures looking to develop plans to help the state adapt as climate change proceeds.
The bills still must pass the state's Assembly, and similar ones from that chamber must be reconciled with Senate versions. But Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D) cast the effort in momentous terms, calling the climate legislation "the most far-reaching not just in California history, but in U.S. history."
"This package of bills will put California on a pathway to sustainable economic growth, protecting the health of our communities and the integrity of our environment while also spurring a wave of innovation in our energy and transportation sectors," de León said as he stood with a host of other senators after passage.
"These policies will bring much-needed investments to our infrastructure systems, reduce energy costs for families, create jobs in construction and energy efficiency retrofitting, reduce the harmful air pollutants that our children breathe into their lungs, and increase the livability and walkability of our communities," he added.
One of the lead bills in the package was from de León. S.B. 350 would put into law the goals Gov. Jerry Brown (D) set out in January, increasing the state's renewable power mandate to 50 percent, halving petroleum consumption and requiring a 50 percent improvement in the energy efficiency of buildings.
Advertisement
The state Senate also approved S.B. 32 from Sen. Fran Pavley (D), which would extend the state's landmark climate law. Her legislation directs the California Air Resources Board to limit the state's greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 to 80 percent below 1990's level.
Bills in the package passed mostly on party-line votes, with Democrats having enough members to not need GOP support. The Senate's Republican caucus called the package a "job killer." Greenhouse gases "don't end at California's border?" said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R).
"When we stop burning coal for fuel, it doesn't stop Arizona or other states from doing it," Huff said. "We have a lofty and noble goal. But other than feeling good about it, what does it accomplish?"
But Democrats control both chambers in California's Legislature. Those familiar with Golden State politics said they expected the climate measures to pass out of the Assembly, though some changes to the language were expected.Putting 'meat on the bones' of state targets
There are more moderate Democrats in the lower chamber. There's likely to be talk about putting "more meat on the bones of S.B. 350," said Ann Notthoff, director of California advocacy for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The language in the bill on petroleum use, for example, tells the state air board to adopt a "cost effective, and technologically feasible," means of halving gas and diesel consumption. But it doesn't specify a baseline level from which to subtract the 50 percent. The oil industry has complained that more details are needed so that Californians know what to expect.
Notthoff said there could be debates about how much detail to add on the other parts of S.B. 350 dealing with the renewable energy mandate and building energy efficiency. S.B. 32 also sets the goal for carbon emissions in 2050 but doesn't describe how to accomplish it.
"Right now, the bill language sets out specific targets. It's not that prescriptive how you get there," Notthoff said. "There's going to be a healthy conversation about how prescriptive" to be, she said, versus how much authority should be delegated to ARB.
Sierra Club California Director Kathryn Phillips said there's the possibility that some moderate Democrats would seek to weaken the bills. She noted that Assemblyman Henry Perea (D) last month took one of his existing bills, A.B. 1511, stripped out the language and amended it to include wording that would change rules on the state's renewable power mandate.
Perea's amendments said that a utility could try to meet its green power requirement with the energy from distributed generation, which generally means rooftop solar and other local systems. Right now, that cannot be counted toward the renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The new version of A.B. 1511 also would let utilities recover in rates the costs of any program offering incentives to increase building energy efficiency. The revised measure was held in the Rules Committee.
"The challenge here is to see what Henry Perea and the moderates do" as the climate package moves forward, Phillips said.
There is opposition from some in the oil industry. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the trade group representing BP, Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co. and other oil companies, yesterday criticized S.B. 350.
"Unfortunately, it's not a surprise or 'historic' that the Senate pro Tem's bill passed out of the Senate," WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement. "What is surprising is the lack of serious discussion on this major proposal and its implications for California's families and businesses.
"We will continue to educate consumers and businesses on the enormous negative impact the legislation will have on all Californians and hope members of the Assembly are more willing to take a critical look at this legislation than did their counterparts in the Senate," she added.
Green groups and other climate advocates lauded the package's passage.
"Parents and families are thankful for the leadership of Senator Pro-Tempore Kevin De Leon and Senator Fran Pavley," Lisa Hoyos, director and co-Founder of Climate Parents, said in a statement. "They are prioritizing kid safe, climate safe energy over the narrow political interests of fossil fuel companies that would rather thwart progress than innovate. Our kids are our state's most precious resource, and the Senate's vote to protect their health and safety by reducing fossil fuel pollution and expanding clean energy underscores why California is the Golden State."Can utilities 'leapfrog into the 21st century'?
The goals set out by de León's S.B. 350 and Pavley's S.B. 32 are achievable, said Dan Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
Every research group in California that has examined the issue has indicated the ambitions are realistic, he said. The real issue is all of the different groups that have different perspectives on how to meet the targets and different recommended pathways.
"That just really highlights that we really could do it," Kammen said.
As well, the cost would not be high, he said. Solar prices are falling, and California has shown in recent years that clean energy is a job creator. About 40 percent of all of the nation's venture capital investment in clean energy technology flows through California, Kammen said.
However, "there are real challenges," Kammen said. Among those, he said, is that the state's Public Utilities Commission will have to develop a new set of rules for utilities.
"They're going to have to make the distributed energy market the market to be in, and that's a lot of coordination," Kammen said. In addition, he said, "utilities, they're going to have to really leapfrog into the 21st century. They're going to have to really change."
California has a directive that is not yet in law that every new home after 2020 should have a solar rooftop and be "aggressive about energy efficiency," he said. The state also needs to "incentivize storage being built ... so that lots and lots of businesses are storing power" they can sell back to utilities.
-
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E TV
With news this week that U.S. EPA has sent its Clean Power Plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, how are states gearing up for the pending final rule? During today's OnPoint, Tim Echols, commissioner on the Georgia Public Service Commission, explains why his state has not officially begun working on a compliance mechanism for the power plan. He also talks about the impact construction delays at Georgia Power's Vogtle nuclear facility could have on his state's power plan compliance.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Tim Echols, commissioner on the Georgia Public Service Commission. Commissioner Echols, it's nice to have you back on the show.
Tim Echols: I appreciate your organization and the great information that you provide on many platforms.
Monica Trauzzi: Well, thank you very much. Commissioner, news this week that EPA has sent its final Clean Power Plan over to the Office of Management and Budget for review. When we last spoke on the show, you said the commission was not really talking about any compliance measures yet because the rule is not officially the rule yet. Has that changed since we last spoke at the NARUC meeting and how is your state preparing at this point as we get close to the release of that final?
Tim Echols: Yeah. We're not a part of the lawsuit. We're not party to that, but we haven't started working officially on our compliance plan either. I think we want to wait and see what's going to happen, see for example if we get wind from Oklahoma are we going to get to count that? Are we going to get direct for that? There's a lot of things that we want to see how the EPA treats it in final rule before we move forward.
Monica Trauzzi: Reliability has continued to be a key concern for many stakeholders. What's your sense of the interaction between FERC and EPA on the rule on how closely EPA will consider what FERC has sort of laid out on reliability?
Tim Echols: You know I don't know that EPA's going to consider much of anything other than what they deem is best. I'm concerned about that. I do think the comments regarding the treatment of new nuclear power -- I'm getting signals from folks down on the lower level of EPA that they think there's going to be some change in that, so I'm encouraged by that.
But I know the alarm that FERC has been sending regarding, you know, transmission and you know, and gas lines and other things like that and its impact, the impact of the infrastructure on the ability to hit the targets is of great concern so I do hope that the EPA looks at the practicality of this and being able to make it happen before they issue the final ruling.
Monica Trauzzi: And any changes to nuclear are a big deal to you all in Georgia. When we last spoke you said that the Vogtle nuclear facility would be a big part of a potential compliance mechanism, but there are construction delays there. Are you confident that the plant will be on line in time to support any potential compliance mechanism that you might put together?
Tim Echols: I think what I'm more concerned about with Unit 4, is it going to come online in 2020 so that we can get those production tax credits, which is worth about $600 million to our ratepayers. So right now we're scheduled to get Unit 3 in the summer of '19, Unit 4 in the summer of '20, and if we don't make it by the end of '20 on Unit 4 we lose that, we'd lose that credit. So I'm more probably concerned about that.
I do feel like EPA is going to move those dates back. It wouldn't surprise me if they go from 2020/2030 to maybe 2022/2032. I feel like the president wants to see the compliance plans otherwise I think that requirement is going to stay as part of his legacy. I believe in what's important to him, but I think those dates, you know, to meet those interim dates and the final date I think is going to move.
Monica Trauzzi: So you have these targets for 3 and 4, but what types of penalties or pressure could the commission place on Georgia Power to ensure that these targets are met?
Tim Echols: You know, Georgia Power has no control, no control over what's happening with our contractors. So I mean we've got 600 Southern Nuclear employees on the site. There's 5,200 people working on this site. There's a lot of moving parts and I think Georgia Power is doing all they possibly can do. I don't want to pile on Georgia Power. I want to encourage. I want to be a cheerleader there and we're looking at this every -- twice a year we do a monitoring hearing. We just finished one up recently. So I don't fault Georgia Power.
Monica Trauzzi: Did you hear what you wanted to hear in that hearing?
Tim Echols: Well, I think I've heard in these hearings what we've heard in every one of them and that is that a certain amount of money has been spent and we're being asked simply to verify that. We're not looking to any prudency, anything like that. We've delayed all of that until Unit 3 goes into production.
Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk solar, which is another element of potential power plant compliance for your state. Is Georgia in a disadvantaged position because you do not have net metering in place and there's a potential there for some major solar companies to potentially not do business in Georgia because there is no net metering?
Tim Echols: Well, I think that, you know, what we've done with solar is 90 percent of it is being sold back to Georgia Power; 90 percent of it is utility scale. So we've opted to go this route because it's the cheapest for our consumers. So next year we'll enter our integrated resource planning period and we'll look out for the next three years on how much solar we want to do.
In the meantime, out Legislature approved unanimously a third-party leasing bill, I think, that's going to create a Wild West environment in Georgia for DG, and I think we're going to see, we're going to see the deployment of rooftop arrays like we've never seen before. And I'm pushing Georgia Power for localized marginal pricing.
Let's look at the map. Where do we need this power and let's offer an avoided cost for solar that's pricier up in this area versus over in the area where maybe we don't need it. So we'll see what we wind up with in our IRP next year.
Monica Trauzzi: You've been on the commission since 2010 and you're running for another six-year term, election set for May of next year. How are you trying to distinguish yourself as a commissioner as you approach that election?
Tim Echols: Well one of the things when I came into office we had 4 megawatts of solar. Now we have almost 940 slated to be built. We're the No. 1 market for the Nissan Leaf in the U.S., and there's been a nexus between the commission and electric car charging tariffs so I've really promoted that. I own three Nissan -- two Nissan Leafs and a Kia Soul myself so I've been living this and really pushing this.
Of course the biggest issue for us is finishing this nuclear power plant, and I don't think there's anyone that's more pro-nuclear in the United States as a commissioner than I am so I've really pushed that. I've even talked about reprocessing of nuclear waste which I hope that the U.S. eventually does.
Monica Trauzzi: In addition to your three electric vehicles you also have a Ford Focus that you fuel up with E-85. I'm curious if you view renewable fuel standards differently than emission standards. Both are put out by EPA.
Tim Echols: Well, I guess the long-standing, you know, fuel standards for cars we've just kind of forgot how that came about. It's been there for so long and I'm not an advocate for that necessarily. I'm using these cars because it makes sense for our state, it makes sense for my family.
But I think just the overall issue of federalism and the encroachment of the federal government on states -- I kind of view the EPA rule as kind of an SEC wealth-transfer act is how I'm referring to it as because it will have such an impact on these Southern states that are heavy on coal.
So I just have issues with the federal government issuing rules and then never following through on their promises as is the case with the spent fuel and the charge that Georgians have borne $1.2 billion for the spent fuel that we paid for and the government's done virtually nothing. So they're really good at coming up with rules, but not really great at following them.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate your time.
Tim Echols: Thank you very much.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow. Very nice. Nice job.
[End of Audio]
-
Chamber's Early ESPS Litigation Preparation Draws Utility Sector Concern
Jun 4, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
An early effort by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to craft an industry-wide consensus legal challenge against EPA's final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for power plants is prompting swift push back by some utility industry attorneys who say the power sector, which is directly regulated by the rule, is best positioned to lead the massive legal fight.
The split appears to be in part over legal tactics, with some in the utility industry charging that the chamber -- with its diverse membership, including an array of manufacturers, utilities and service sector companies -- may not win standing to pursue a legal challenge or be able to show “irreparable harm” needed to stay the rule.
Not only do some chamber members support EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS), but others stand to benefit from its natural gas, renewable energy and energy-efficiency provisions, utility and other sources note.
In addition, some in the coal and utility sectors are seeking to pursue a “no-holds-barred” legal attack to convince the courts to vacate EPA's rule entirely, while the chamber may be leaning toward a softer approach that would only narrow the rule's reach so it is limited to coal-fired power plants and not measures beyond power plants' “fencelines.”
Chamber officials declined to comment for the record. However, other industry lawyers following the issue say that the chamber has adopted the consistent position that the proposed ESPS and related new source performance standards (NSPS) “are unacceptable to [its] membership.” The chamber will use “every tool . . . to fight them,” one industry lawyer says.
The industry lawyers also say the chamber's effort to craft a common position among its members is routine.
But one opponent of the chamber's effort says the group's push to lead the litigation is not normal, despite claims by others that is how the group has always operated. The opponent adds that it is being pursued by lawyers who have suggested they would seek a court ruling that would significantly scale back the rule, rather than try to kill it entirely as many in the utility industry prefer.
Environmentalists are watching the industry infighting closely so far, with one source noting that such internal divisions may have helped doom a challenge to EPA's 1997 ozone and particulate matter air quality standards, which resulted in a unanimous 2001 Supreme Court decision in favor of the agency authored by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
A spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, says the group “is not in the business of litigating environmental rules.”
Utility sector concerns over the chamber's effort to craft a legal strategy were first reported by Politico May 27, which noted that two of the chamber member companies reportedly pursuing the push for a consensus include Energy Future Holdings, a Texas power company, and Exxon, the oil and gas giant.
EPA's ESPS subjects the entire electricity system to regulation by declaring it to be the best system of emission reduction. As a result, the agency proposed four building blocks, or strategies, for states to meet emission rate targets that include measures beyond plants' fencelines. Block 1 assumes efficiency improvements at coal plants, block 2 would increase dispatch of existing natural gas to displace coal, block 3 expands non-emitting generation from nuclear and renewables, and block 4 boosts demand-side efficiency.
Given the rule's broad reach, many manufacturers -- which have major electricity and natural gas needs -- have long raised concerns over the rule's grid and energy cost impacts. Chamber officials have also raised concerns that the administration's international climate commitments may require additional regulations on the industrial sectors beyond those already announced or completed.
Chamber Divisions
Sources say the chamber hosted a meeting several months ago where lawyers in favor of a chamber-led strategy argued that a broad, unified, “whole-economy” approach from the entire chamber membership was the best way to proceed to challenge EPA. Since then, some lawyers have been lining up chamber member companies to go back to the chamber and continue to push the strategy, the opponent says.
However, other chamber members, such as General Electric (GE), “are not going to want to oppose the rule, and despite what [strategy supporters] tell you, standing is going to be a very real issue,” the opponent warns.
GE already publicly distanced itself from the chamber's position on climate change in 2009 during debate over the Waxman-Markey climate bill, making it clear the chamber does not represent its views. “We're a member of the Chamber because a lot of our customers are there, a lot of our competitors, so we get a good perspective on issues of national import,” a GE spokesman said. “The chamber does not speak for us on climate legislation, but we are still a member.”
The opponent of the chamber effort says the way litigation preparation generally works is that companies go to the chamber with concerns and ask it to be the “host” for a lawsuit. “I can recall of no instance where a lawyer has gone around, gotten companies and then gone to the chamber and asked to form a legal steering committee. This is not routine.”
The source expects the chamber to start hearing internal opposition from some of its members soon, and says if enough powerful members raise concern, that could scuttle the effort to craft a legal consensus entirely. “These guys are going to tune in and say, 'Whoa horsey.' . . . The chamber cannot have a unified position” because it has members strongly on both sides of the EPA rule.
However, the industry lawyers familiar with the issue note that the chamber's comments on EPA's proposed rule were unequivocally opposed to the ESPS, in support of the position that the chamber can be unified in its litigation stance. They also insist that the chamber is “doing what [it] always does,” which is to act as a convenor. And they acknowledge that the chamber was “surprised” that opposition to its legal discussions came up at all.
“You are seeing other groups throwing some stones for whatever reasons,” one source says.
'Eating Up This Narrative'
Industry is also worried that publicity about internal divisions will have “environmentalists and EPA eating up this narrative” but the “reality is the facts don't fit the allegations,” another of the sources says, pointing to the chamber comments which represented utility generators, agriculture and manufacturing companies. “There was no ambiguity” in the group's opposition to the ESPS.
These sources believe that a broad, unified industry front is needed to show that the ESPS challenge is not just a run-of-the-mill industry suit against an EPA rule, and that an economy-wide argument will help “capture the imagination of the justices and judges.” They also note that jurisprudence on Clean Air Act section 111, under which the ESPS is being developed, is “more or less a blank slate” at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court, so there is “much more room for judges and justices not to feel constrained by prior rulings."
This is very different from cases over national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and other traditional air act rules that have been widely litigated, they say.
One of the industry attorneys adds that the press coverage of the industry dispute was surprising and notes that the effort is not intended to have the chamber “dominate the conversation,” particularly because of how lawsuits work in the D.C. Circuit, where all industry challengers will have to come together on a single brief with limited page numbers. “So there is really a premium on cooperation,” and the chamber's role is to foster that.
The ESPS “is a transformational, unprecedented rule that purports to work every aspect of the energy system” and would affect every chamber member, including energy producers, consumers and manufacturers. The chamber and other business groups with broad membership have “a helpful perspective to offer on this litigation, the economy-wide effect.”
Questions about who is the named plaintiff and who is the lead lawyer are “a long way off” and not as yet a concern, one of the sources says. “The best way to prevail is if we present as united” a front as possible.
One utility industry lawyer is not bothered by the chamber effort, noting that internal industry divisions may impact the briefing in the case but should have no role on stay motions, which this source believes could be more important than the actual briefs, because they are generally not limited and will be the first item the court addresses.
The source adds that in the end the chamber effort is not concerning because “there are not that many lawyers really known for their Clean Air Act expertise, so you end up with a relatively small group of lawyers that take the lead” and the suit will “play out, I think, in a pretty sensible” if challenging way.
But a second utility industry attorney says it is “notable” that the chamber effort “does not involve the utility industry, and the utility industry is talking amongst themselves as well. They're the regulated source category . . . and generally the members of the regulated source category are those that are in the best position to demonstrate their standing to challenge the rule and to advance the arguments most salient to the court.”
The source believes that the chamber is “trying to get out in front” and notes “a lot of jockeying in this town for control of the legal issues here.” And the source says early planning and coordination “is going to be critical” given the number of issues involved with the ESPS lawsuit.
'Bad Situation'
The environmentalist says the industry infighting echoes similar divisions that emerged when industry sought to challenge the Clinton administration's ozone and particulate matter NAAQS. The source says it was well known within the D.C. Bar that two industry attorneys from two different law firms were fighting over who would deliver the oral arguments to the high court as late as the night before they were scheduled.
“That's a very very bad situation you don't want,” the source says. “And a 9-0 opinion by Scalia proves it with a sting. . . . . That's the worst case I've ever heard of, and if industry is smart it will want to avoid the same situation here.”
The source adds that if the early jockeying is over being the named party, that “means nothing more than chest thumping. . . Legally, it means nothing, and it means less than nothing about your ability to shape the content of the briefs because court rules require all similarly-situated parties on the same brief with page limits.”
A second environmentalist says the early fights suggest “the kid gloves are off and they will hit each other with 2x4s. Maybe [the chamber doesn't] want the [traditional utility industry] attorneys upfront because they are white-shoe and old school."
The opponent says these kinds of responses are why the infighting is bad. “The chamber effort will lead to an enormous amount of contention and will be a drag on a tough-enough effort.” The source notes that lawyers inherently do not get along but says “that's not fixable, so don't make it worse by inviting guys like GE into the situation to” water down the arguments. Industry will either win or lose the case on the strength of its legal position, the source adds.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested