Preview Newsletter
ACC June 8
-
Hearing on Energy Accountability and Reform Legislation
Jun 9, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 304 Dirksen Senate Building / 9:30 AM -
Business Meeting to consider S. 1140, Federal Water Quality Protection Act
Jun 10, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen Senate Building / 9:30 AM -
One Year Anniversary after Enactment: Implementation of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
Jun 10, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM -
Full Committee Markup
Jun 10, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 4:00 PM -
Full Committee Markup
Jun 11, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 11:00 AM -
EPA's Proposed Ozone Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building / 9:30 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) New Mexico Senator Takes A Beating Over Toxics Regulation
Jun 8, 2015 | High Country News
By Elizabeth Shogren
Sen. Tom Udall prides himself on personally answering constituents’ questions. So the Democrat has spent a lot of time recently assuring outraged New Mexicans that his bill to overhaul the nation’s chemical safety law was not written by or at the behest of industry, as critics charge. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in one-on-one conversations... -
Cobalt Possible Human Carcinogen, Draft Toxicology Program Analysis Finds
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Cobalt and certain cobalt compounds are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program said in a draft analysis released June 5. The draft analysis is open for public comment and will be critiqued by multiple scientific panels before the secretary of health and human services would decide whether the metal... -
EPA Report Shows States Effectively Managing Risks Associated With Fracking
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Environmental Protection Agency's finding that fracking poses no widespread contamination risk to drinking water proves that states should continue as the primary regulator of the oil and gas industry, various sources told Bloomberg BNA. In addition to “confirming what we have known all along”—that fracking “does not pose... -
EPA Fracking Study Undercuts Push By Environment Groups for Regulation
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem and Jim Snyder
It was always a long shot that the Obama administration or Congress would crack down on the golden goose of hydraulic fracturing. The chances shrank further June 4 with the release of a landmark U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study that found the drilling method had no widespread impact on drinking water. -
State, Industry Suits Against Fracking Rule Consolidated in Federal Court in Wyoming
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Two lawsuits against the federal government over its hydraulic fracturing rule were consolidated June 4, combining a state case against the rule with an industry case (Wyoming v. Interior, D. Wyo., No. 2:15-cv-00043, 6/4/15). Wyoming sued the Interior Department over its rule, issued in March by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to update... -
Fracking Divides Red, Blue States
Jun 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Fracking is creating a new dividing line between the nation’s red and blue states. While liberal-leaning states such as New York and Maryland have opted to ban hydraulic fracturing, despite the potential revenue from natural gas, conservative strongholds such as Texas and Oklahoma have gone the opposite... -
Dems Push Pipeline Company Behind Santa Barbara Spill For New Info
Jun 5, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Ed Markey today pressed the company behind the 100,000-plus gallon Santa Barbara oil spill for more information following new revelations about corrosion along its failed pipeline. The senators, joined by Rep. Lois Capps, who represents the area affected by the leak, pushed Plains Pipeline CEO Greg... -
EPA Power Plan Will Incorporate Changes, Comments, Official Tells Midwest Group
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The final version of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan won't be the same as the proposed version currently under review at the Office of Management and Budget, Mark Rupp, EPA deputy associate administrator for intergovernmental relations, told a group of Midwestern government and utility officials June 5. -
The EPA’s ‘Clean Power’ Mess
Jun 7, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Benjamin Zycher
‘Flexibility” is the advertised hallmark of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which by 2030 would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30% from 2005 levels. The central feature of the plan is a forced shift away from inexpensive coal-fired power. Not to worry, says EPA Administrator... -
Regulators Preparing Compliance Models As States Ready for EPA Clean Power Plan
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
State air pollution, utility and energy officials are crafting tools that regulators will be able to rapidly adopt to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming Clean Power Plan. Regulatory associations said the goal is to provide states with a plethora of pre-prepared compliance options they can adapt to their unique circumstances as... -
Key Industry Meetings Look Into Electric Reliability Concerns
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,
With the Clean Power Plan under final review at the White House, electric industry conferences this week will focus on how states can implement the draft rule without jeopardizing electric reliability. In New Orleans, the utility trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, is holding its annual convention, which includes a panel about how the draft ... -
Senate Panel Takes Aim At Reform For Federal Labs, Drilling, Grid Authority
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Katherine Ling, Nick Juliano and Hannah Northey
Reforming federal bureaucracy and authority on energy issues will be the subject of a final hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week before committee leaders turn to hashing out a comprehensive energy bill. The "energy accountability and reform" session will focus on more than three... -
Jerry Brown, Lawmakers Pull Cap-And-Trade Out Of Budget Talks
Jun 5, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By David Siders
Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders have agreed to set aside a dispute over cap-and-trade revenue until after adopting the state’s annual spending plan, eliminating a point of contention in budget talks 10 days before the deadline for its approval. H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Brown’s Department of Finance... -
Panel To Consider 3 Long-Stalled Obama EPA Picks
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week is expected to consider three long-stalled Obama administration nominees for top U.S. EPA posts. The panel will hold a nomination hearing Thursday for Ann Dunkin to be assistant administrator of the Office of Environmental Information; Thomas Burke to be assistant administrator... -
Obama Nominates Full-Time Interior Inspector General
Jun 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama has nominated Mary Kendall to be the full-time inspector general at the Department of Interior, looking to make permanent a position Kendall has held on an interim basis for six years. Kendall has been the deputy inspector general at Interior since 1999. When Obama promoted Interior's full-time inspector general out of the... -
Graham Urges Action On Climate Change
Jun 7, 2015 | Politico
By Jonathan Topaz
Sen. Lindsey Graham is urging action on climate change and endorsing a budget plan that includes tax increases — another example of how the South Carolina Republican breaks with many other conservatives seeking the GOP presidential nomination. In a wide-ranging interview aired Sunday on CNN’s... -
Better Attribution of Ozone Sources Needed For Tighter Standards, NOAA Researchers Say
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to tighten national ambient air quality standards for ozone will require additional scientific efforts to quantify and attribute sources of ground-level ozone, according to researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado. -
Chairman Says Economy Is 'Still Job One' As Panel Takes Up Ozone Standard
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
A House Energy and Commerce Committee subpanel next week will take up U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard. The Friday hearing in the Energy and Power Subcommittee will focus on the potential costs of EPA's proposal, subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said Friday in a statement. -
Even Low-Level Air Pollution May Cause Harm
Jun 5, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Bakalar
Even low levels of air pollution may not be safe, a new study suggests. The Environmental Protection Agency rates air pollution based on concentrations of particles smaller than 2.5 microns, or PM2.5. It generally regards as safe an annual average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, or 35 micrograms per cubic meter over a one-day period. -
Congressmen Request GAO Investigation of EPA Grants
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) are asking the Government Accountability Office to look into how the Environmental Protection Agency manages the grants it allocates. In a letter to the GAO released June 5, the congressmen cited prior investigations that found a lack of environmental performance measures for EPA... -
Railroads Receive Four-Day Extension To Appeal Oil-by-Rail Rule, DOT Says
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Association of American Railroads has received a four-day extension to administratively appeal the Transportation Department's final rule governing crude oil by rail, the department told Bloomberg BNA June 5. The extension from a June 8 deadline to a June 12 deadline only applies to the railroads groups. Other requests for extensions will...
Congressional Hearings
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
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Hearing on Energy Accountability and Reform Legislation
Jun 9, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 304 Dirksen Senate Building / 9:30 AM
-
Business Meeting to consider S. 1140, Federal Water Quality Protection Act
Jun 10, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen Senate Building / 9:30 AM
-
Jun 10, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00 AM
-
Jun 10, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 4:00 PM
-
Jun 11, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 11:00 AM
-
Jun 12, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building / 9:30 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Mexico Senator Takes A Beating Over Toxics Regulation
Jun 8, 2015 | High Country News
By Elizabeth Shogren
Sen. Tom Udall prides himself on personally answering constituents’ questions. So the Democrat has spent a lot of time recently assuring outraged New Mexicans that his bill to overhaul the nation’s chemical safety law was not written by or at the behest of industry, as critics charge. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in one-on-one conversations on the phone answering everybody’s questions,” Udall said in a recent interview in his Capitol Hill office.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, now awaiting a full Senate vote, might well become the rare piece of major legislation that makes it through one of the least-productive Congresses in history. But along the way, it’s opened an unusually ugly rift among Democrats, while creating unexpected alliances among senators who rarely agree.
Being accused of kowtowing to industry is unfamiliar territory for any Udall. Tom Udall, 67, has enjoyed a reputation as an environmental and public-health defender since he entered Congress in 1991, and even before that, as New Mexico attorney general. His father, the late Stewart Udall, built an extraordinary conservation legacy as Interior secretary for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. He spent his post-government years fighting for nuclear-testing downwinders and uranium miners with lung cancer, and Tom, then a private lawyer, assisted him.
Given his history, the intensity of the recent attacks came as something of a surprise.
“I don’t think it’s useful to the process of legislating to get personal or to attack someone’s character,” Udall said. “I care about legislating on chemical safety because it’s something that’s so important to the people.”
After years of pushing a chemical safety bill that attracted zero support from Republicans or industry and never even reached the Senate floor, Udall took a gamble. Following the lead of New Jersey’s late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D, Udall embraced a bipartisan approach to fixing the Toxic Substances Control Act. The 1976 law was supposed to give the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate toxic chemicals, but by directing the agency to set the “least burdensome” requirements, it created too high a burden of proof: The EPA couldn’t even regulate a proven carcinogen like asbestos.
Lautenberg died in June 2013, shortly after introducing a bill with one of the chemical industry’s biggest supporters, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, R. Udall, a co-sponsor, took Lautenberg’s place. The bill was unpopular among Senate Democrats, because although it gave the EPA new power to regulate chemicals, it broadly limited states’ authority. Udall still thought it was better than current law and believed he could make it stronger, such as by requiring the EPA to consider health and safety but not costs when setting standards for chemicals, and to protect vulnerable populations like infants, the elderly and chemical workers.
Many people, Udall said, told him they worried about the chemicals in everything from sippy cups to sofas. But ever since the EPA lost a 1991 court case, it’s failed to regulate any of the tens of thousands of chemicals already in commerce.
Meanwhile, however, the chemical industry was rethinking its long opposition to regulation. Fears about flame retardants and compounds in plastics like bisphenol A, better known as BPA, had eroded public confidence. A few states, including California and Oregon, had begun regulating chemicals, and the industry began to think that dealing with a single federal law would be easier than coping with a patchwork of state regulations.
Udall saw this as an opportunity. But many public health and environmental activists thought he was compromising too much — betraying his principles by giving the industry what it wanted.
California Sen. Barbara Boxer, D, told reporters in March: “To be 100 percent candid and direct, their bill has been generated by the chemical industry itself.” Computer coding, Boxer said, proved the bill originated at the American Chemical Council.
Udall denies this. He said he and Vitter first wrote a draft and then asked for comment from industry groups and environmental and public health advocates, along with fellow senators, including Boxer. “I think it was an unwarranted, completely false accusation,” he said.
But national media, including The New York Times, questioned the donations Udall had received from the American Chemical Council, as well as a campaign ad the group sponsored. Those attacks got some traction, but Udall said he isn’t worried about his reputation. “They have to be true to mean anything to me. And none of them are true.”
Udall appeared undaunted, and behind the scenes, he pushed Vitter and industry to accept a number of changes. The bill the senators introduced in March was significantly stronger than the 2013 Lautenberg-Vitter bill. For instance, it introduced new fees for chemical companies and increased the number of chemicals the EPA would be required to evaluate.
But the attacks continued. Boxer convened a press conference April 21 where public health advocates trashed the bill. Deirdre Imus, co-founder of the Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids with Cancer, in New Mexico, called it an “irresponsible prescription for disaster.”
One substantive explanation for the Boxer-Udall discord is that New Mexico, a poor state, has no plans to regulate chemicals. So California has much more to lose if states’ authority to regulate toxic substances is pre-empted.
The criticism started to ebb only after April 28, when four Democrats joined all 11 Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to approve the bill. By then, it had moved closer toward Democrats’ goals, significantly reducing restrictions on states. It was the first time in two decades that the committee passed major environmental legislation with a bipartisan vote.
Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon White House, D, one of the Senate’s most ardent environmentalists, marveled that he and senators on the opposite end of the political spectrum supported the same bill. He credited Udall with “a signal legislative accomplishment.”
Boxer, however, said that though the original Vitter-Udall bill “was slain,” the new legislation “is still not a really good bill.”
Despite the beating he took, Udall could end up looking like an environmental statesman. His bill has at least 40 co-sponsors, and chances of a Senate vote on it look good. If chemical safety reform ends up becoming law, Udall said: “I think it will be shown that all of us who worked on it did the right thing.”
-
Cobalt Possible Human Carcinogen, Draft Toxicology Program Analysis Finds
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Cobalt and certain cobalt compounds are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program said in a draft analysis released June 5.
The draft analysis is open for public comment and will be critiqued by multiple scientific panels before the secretary of health and human services would decide whether the metal should be included in the Report on Carcinogens.
The congressionally mandated carcinogens report provides information to health agencies, industrial hygienists and other interested parties. It is neither a regulation nor a risk assessment. Inclusion, however, can trigger some regulatory requirements such as updating safety data sheets.
Production Volumes, Uses
The draft conclusion is of particular interest due to the growing use of cobalt in green energy technologies such as solar panels, fuel cells and wind and gas turbines, as well as in portable rechargeable electronic devices. Cobalt also is used to make cemented carbides, diamond tools and alloys used in a variety of commercial, industrial, medical and military applications.
Cobalt nanoparticles are used in medical tests and treatments as well as in the textile and electronics industries, NTP's draft analysis said.
Formation Metals Inc., a Canadian mineral exploration company, plans to serve this increased market through its Idaho Cobalt Project, a mine and mill formation it is constructing near Salmon, Idaho, with a projected annual production rate of 2.77 million pounds of cobalt.
Alcoa Inc., ELG Metals Inc. and Precision Castparts Corp. were among the companies that mostly imported about 23 million pounds of cobalt (CAS No. 7440-48-4) into the U.S. in 2011, according to the most recent data available from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Akzo Nobel Inc., Koch Industries Inc. and Shepherd Chemical Co. were among the companies making or importing additional cobalt compounds in volumes of 1 million pounds or more that same year.
Human Exposures, Forms of Cobalt Reviewed
Workers in various commercial, industrial and military facilities may be exposed primarily through inhalation of dust, fumes or mists or gaseous cobalt carbonyl or through dermal contact with hard metals and cobalt salts, the toxicology program's draft analysis said.
The general public may be exposed from airborne releases of the metal, food, the use of some consumer products containing cobalt and surgical implants such as hip replacements.
Evidence of exposure has been measured through means including urine, blood, hair and toenail analyses, NTP's draft analysis said.
NTP selected cobalt and certain cobalt compounds for review for possible listing in the Report on Carcinogens due to evidence of widespread exposure and an adequate database of cancer studies to evaluate the potential carcinogenicity of cobalt.
The term “certain” cobalt compounds refers to cobalt compounds that release cobalt ions in the body, but does not include the form of cobalt found in vitamin B12, which plays a key role in maintaining brain and nervous system function and the formation of blood.
Certain other cobalt alloys and radioactive forms of cobalt also were excluded from the review.
Draft Conclusions
The NTP scientists who evaluated a variety of toxicity and other research on cobalt provisionally concluded human evidence is inadequate to make the case that cobalt exposure leads to cancer.
Sufficient evidence is found in laboratory animal data combined with mechanistic data, the draft analysis said.
Mechanistic data refers to studies that examine biological events. As just one example, the draft analysis refers to research that suggests cobalt ions can replace zinc ions in the key DNA repair proteins, thereby making repairs less effective.
-
EPA Report Shows States Effectively Managing Risks Associated With Fracking
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Environmental Protection Agency's finding that fracking poses no widespread contamination risk to drinking water proves that states should continue as the primary regulator of the oil and gas industry, various sources told Bloomberg BNA.
In addition to “confirming what we have known all along”—that fracking “does not pose a large threat to drinking water”—the study the EPA released June 4 demonstrates “states are properly managing the risk,” Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs for the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group in Denver, told Bloomberg BNA.
The study found that hydraulic fracturing and associated oil and natural gas drilling activities can threaten the quality or quantity of drinking water resources, but the instances of contamination have been relatively few (108 DEN A-1, 6/5/15).
In the context of the national debate over fracking, which Sgamma described as “in reality a quite boring engineering process,” the report “strengthens the hand of states and the industry,” she said.
“The difference between state and federal regulation is that while the feds study the issues, states act carefully in a timely manner with science-based information to ensure that we are properly protecting our environment while not stifling a fast-paced, technologically-driven industry,” Christi Craddick, chair of the Texas Railroad Commission, said in a June 4 statement.
“Economic development and environmental safety can and do exist peacefully in Texas, which should be the ultimate goal for any regulatory body,” she said.
States Addressing Issues
While the EPA study identified fracking's potential vulnerabilities as relatively small, those concerns—including water withdrawals in areas with low water availability, fracking directly into formations containing drinking water resources, inadequately cased and cemented wells, inadequate management of wastewater, and spills of flowback and produced water—are overseen primarily by states, the agency said.
EPA said its authority is limited by statutory or regulatory exemptions under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
“Where EPA's exemptions exist, states may have authority to regulate unconventional oil and gas extraction activities under their own state laws,” the agency said.
Colorado, for example, has “some of the most comprehensive groundwater baseline testing rules and cementing and casing rules in the country, which further protect our health and safety,” Dan Haley, president and chief executive officer of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said in a June 4 statement.
Colorado Requires Groundwater Sampling
The state has “rigorous” standards for mandatory groundwater sampling, surface casing and well cementing, protection of public water supplies, mechanical integrity testing, pit construction and lining, surface disturbance requirements and numerous other standards, he said.
The state's groundwater sampling rule, approved in 2013 by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, led to the collection of nearly 10,000 samples—one of the largest in the U.S., he said.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), sponsor of the Empower States Act which would ensure that states retain the right to manage oil and gas activity, said the EPA report was “good news for residents of oil producing lands in our state and across the country.”
“We in North Dakota have been regulating hydraulic fracturing effectively for years with good environmental stewardship and we are now the second largest oil producing state in the nation,” he said.
New York Banned Fracking
Although it has banned fracking, New York also took the EPA report as a validation of its authority to decide what's best for the state (243 DEN A-2, 12/18/14).
“As the EPA said, states are in the best positions to make decisions regarding high-volume hydraulic fracturing,” Tom Mailey, spokesman for the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, said.
Mailey said the EPA review of fracking focused on impacts to water resources, while the review by the New York Department of Health “was much broader—examining impacts to air, water, public health, ecosystems, wildlife and community character. Our review identified many potential significant adverse impacts.”
-
EPA Fracking Study Undercuts Push By Environment Groups for Regulation
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Drajem and Jim Snyder
It was always a long shot that the Obama administration or Congress would crack down on the golden goose of hydraulic fracturing.
The chances shrank further June 4 with the release of a landmark U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study that found the drilling method had no widespread impact on drinking water.
“That is as close as the federal government gets to saying, ‘I'm not that interested in you,' ” said Michael McKenna, a pollster and lobbyist close to Republican lawmakers.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has helped bring about a boom in U.S. oil and gas production, turning the world's largest hydrocarbon user into its largest producer. With that boom have come complaints that it has fouled water supplies, polluted the air and even triggered earthquakes.
Some communities and states have responded by banning fracking, in which millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals are forced underground to free natural gas or oil. Environmental groups have urged Congress to strip a 2005 exemption of fracking from part of the Safe Drinking Water Act and asked the EPA to tighten rules on disclosure of the chemicals used and limits on the methane emitted.
“The EPA fracking study does not appear likely to spur additional federal water regulation beyond initiatives that are already in process,” Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, said in a research note.
Large Producers
That is good news for companies such as Halliburton Co. and Schlumberger Ltd., the largest oil services companies, as well as producers ExxonMobil Corp. and Chesapeake Energy Corp., as they weather a drop in oil and natural gas prices.
The 998-page EPA study concluded there are “mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources.” But, it “did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.”
Thomas Burke, the EPA's top science adviser, told reporters that given 30,000 fracked wells each year, “the number of documented impacts on groundwater resources is relatively low.”
Industry groups said that result vindicated what they have been arguing for years: Drilling activity has risks, but fracking doesn't deserve new federal oversight because the risks of underground water contamination are low.
The study “is absolutely consistent with all the previous studies that show that effective well containment practices make hydraulic fracturing a very safe practice,” Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon, said in a telephone interview June 4.
No Support Seen for Fracking Regulations
The report's conclusions don't provide any support for fracking regulations proposed by congressional Democrats, said Larry Nettles, a partner with law firm Vinson & Elkins who represents several industry clients that supplied data for the study.
“I think this report effectively kills those bills,” Nettles said.
The report is also a boost for President Barack Obama's reliance on natural gas to achieve cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, an effort that is the mainstay of his agenda to combat climate change.
“It's quite clear that the Obama administration remains committed to the all-of-the-above energy plan, of which natural gas is a huge part,” said Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, an anti-fracking group. “I don't think the Obama administration would ever come out against fracking.”
The Obama administration in March issued fracking regulations for drilling on public land (55 DEN A-14, 3/23/15).
Stanford University Professor Rob Jackson has tested water supplies in communities where residents said they had contaminated supplies and found there are risks from the process but not insurmountable ones. The EPA study doesn't add much to that and other on-the-ground research, he said.
The EPA encountered challenges in getting baseline data to help determine if fracking was the cause in instances of alleged contamination.
Waste Disposal
In addition, when the study began much of the focus was on the risk that chemicals mixed in fracking fluids could flow through underground fissures and into underground water reservoirs. The results show that might not be the biggest risk.
“The process of fracking itself is one risk factor. But in fact it's not the biggest one,” Mark Brownstein, vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said. “Ongoing physical integrity of the wells and handling the millions of gallons of wastewater coming back to the surface after fracking, over the lifetime of each well, are even bigger challenges.”
And the biggest worry now about fracking is one that has nothing to do with the process itself. Residents in Oklahoma, Ohio and other states have seen more and more earthquakes, which researchers tied to the increasing use of disposal wells for the wastewater from fracking.
“The water quality issue is not the primary problem with fracking impacts; it's seismicity,” said Paul Bledsoe, president of Bledsoe & Associates, a strategic policy firm, and a former aide to President Bill Clinton.
-
State, Industry Suits Against Fracking Rule Consolidated in Federal Court in Wyoming
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Two lawsuits against the federal government over its hydraulic fracturing rule were consolidated June 4, combining a state case against the rule with an industry case (Wyoming v. Interior, D. Wyo., No. 2:15-cv-00043, 6/4/15).
Wyoming sued the Interior Department over its rule, issued in March by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to update standards for oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands, with a particular focus on well integrity, wastewater management and chemical disclosure as they relate to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Wyoming has been joined in that lawsuit by Colorado and North Dakota. Their case is before Judge Scott Skavdahl in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance, two oil and gas industry trade groups, also sued Interior. Their case was filed in the same court and transferred to the same judge (Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v. Jewell, D. Wyo., No. 2:15-cv-00041, 6/4/15).
The court consolidated the cases in the Wyoming v. Interior docket (No. 2:15-cv-00043). A hearing on motions for a preliminary injunction remains scheduled for June 23, the day before the new regulations are scheduled to go into effect.
States Argue for Sovereignty
The states have based their argument against the hydraulic fracturing rule on state sovereignty. They told the court the Safe Drinking Water Act allowed states to administer the Underground Injection Control program under that act, and a 1997 decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that fracking was covered by the UIC program (Legal Envtl. Assistance Found. Inc. v. EPA).
The states further contend that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 then stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate fracking except in cases where diesel fuel is used—leaving authority in the hands of states.
The industry groups argued that the federal fracking rule was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because of vague and impractical elements and unrealistic cost estimates.
Interior has cited its authority under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as well as other laws. It also has defended the practicality of the rule and BLM's cost estimates (107 DEN A-7, 6/4/15).
In requesting consolidation of the cases, the plaintiffs and federal defendants said the cases share common questions of law and fact and will use the same BLM administrative record.
-
Fracking Divides Red, Blue States
Jun 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Fracking is creating a new dividing line between the nation’s red and blue states.
While liberal-leaning states such as New York and Maryland have opted to ban hydraulic fracturing, despite the potential revenue from natural gas, conservative strongholds such as Texas and Oklahoma have gone the opposite route, moving to ensure that local towns and cities cannot outlaw the practice in their communities.
Observers say a state’s approach to fracking is increasingly falling along partisan lines, with the affiliation
ADVERTISEMENT“Where we have legislative or executive preemption efforts, we have tended to see would be expected, which is that the more liberal states tend to be more concerned about the environmental and social effects of fracking, whereas the more conservative states tend to welcome the money,” said Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University Professor who researches environmental regulation,
The Democratic leaders of New York and Maryland have banned fracking, responding to the concerns of environmentalists, who say fracking can pollute groundwater and the air.
Kate DeAngelis, the head climate and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said the increasing evidence of environmental harm from fracking is spurring residents and local political leaders to rise up against the practice.
“There’s just more and more evidence, you see so many new studies coming out even in the last year about the impacts of fracking,” said DeAngelis, whose group pushes for more restrictions and bans on fracking and cheered the decisions.
Supporters of fracking dispute that the practice — which involves high-pressured injections of water and chemicals into rock — is environmentally harmful. They got a boost this week when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a long-awaited review of the scientific research on the topic.
The main conclusion of the nearly 1,000-page EPA report was that fracking has not “led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
That was welcome news to Texas and Oklahoma, which are promoting fracking as critical for their local economies.
The debate over fracking is raging at the local level, where states and localities are locked in emotional debates over what restrictions, if any, to place on the practices.
In the states that don’t allow local bans, DeAngelis argued that environmental concerns are being drowned out by the power and influence of oil and gas companies.
“They’re having their interests put above the public interest,” she said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) decided last year to indefinitely ban fracking, disappointing the rural upstate communities that sit atop the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation.
State officials finalized the move last month, shortly before Maryland imposed a 2.5-year moratorium on fracking over the objections of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan.
The EPA’s report this week finding little evidence of water contamination form fracking has spurred calls for Cuomo to reverse his decision.
Activists in California have put Gov. Jerry Brown (D) under strong pressure to ban fracking there, but have thus far been unsuccessful.
Industry groups fear a patchwork of rules for fracking across municipal lines and want the regulatory questions to be settled on a state-by-state basis.
“We think that the appropriate place to regulate oil and gas activities is at the state level. States have the expertise and the experience within the agencies that regulate oil and gas,” said Frank Macchiarola, head of government affairs for America’s Natural Gas Alliance.
“While there’s certainly a proper role for the localities to have input in the process on issues like noise, lighting and truck traffic, the general jurisdiction of regulating oil and gas activities is most appropriately found at the state level,” he said.
With the federal government mostly staying out of the drilling debate, some states are looking for a middle ground.
Wiseman cited Colorado as an example of a purple state that is seeking compromise. Environmentalists and Democrats decided against sponsoring ballot initiatives on fracking last year, instead agreeing to a task force that is trying to decide how the state and localities can regulate it.
David Spence, a law professor at the University of Texas, predicted states would eventually find a middle ground on fracking.
“You have more opportunities for states to take one or the other extreme position based on their ideology,” he said.
“But I really think in the long run that the more polarized public debate is going to get much less polarized.”
-
Dems Push Pipeline Company Behind Santa Barbara Spill For New Info
Jun 5, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Ed Markey today pressed the company behind the 100,000-plus gallon Santa Barbara oil spill for more information following new revelations about corrosion along its failed pipeline.
The senators, joined by Rep. Lois Capps, who represents the area affected by the leak, pushed Plains Pipeline CEO Greg Armstrong to shed more light on "inconsistencies in the inspection reports about this pipeline, which raise questions about the safety of other pipelines that you operate."
In a letter to the CEO, the Democrats asked for an explanation of metal loss discovered on the failed pipe during an initial post-spill investigation; of reports that company operators had attempted to restart the failed pipe after an initial shutdown; the time lag between the company's discovery of potential abnormalities on its pipe and its notification of response officials that a spill had occurred; and several other issues. -
EPA Power Plan Will Incorporate Changes, Comments, Official Tells Midwest Group
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The final version of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan won't be the same as the proposed version currently under review at the Office of Management and Budget, Mark Rupp, EPA deputy associate administrator for intergovernmental relations, told a group of Midwestern government and utility officials June 5.
“In our mind, the best rules are the rules that truly reflect the comments we received,” Rupp said at a workshop on implementation options for the rule held in Detroit by the Great Plains Institute and Bipartisan Policy Center. “This final rule will do that.”
In the meantime, the agency is working on ways to help states and energy companies begin to think about complying with the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), Rupp said. “Let EPA know what tools are helpful,” he told the group. “We really do want to hit the ground running as soon as the final rule is signed.”
“EPA does recognize the interconnected nature of the power sector, and we are aware of the differences in the mix of resources” on which states rely, Rupp said.
“We understand states and utilities need time to make the changes that will cut emissions,” he said. “We appreciate the input we're getting about the challenges imposed” by an interim deadline of 2020 for certain reductions and about other aspects of the proposed rule, he said.
“EPA is taking the information and suggestions commenters provided and the concerns you have raised seriously,” he said.
EPA Will Put Out Model Plan
At the same time the final Clean Power Plan is released, the EPA will put out a proposed federal plan for compliance for states to use as they design their own plans, Rupp said.
“It is our desire that states design their own plans,” he said. “They are in the best position to determine their own destinies, and we want to support that.”
The hope is that the proposed plan will be “instructive” to states, he said.
“We're really striving hard to put a toolbox together for things states might be looking for,” such as rate-to-mass conversion models, as well as a plan to provide training to state regulators, he said.
One thing workshop participants don't want to see is a prescription for states seeking to trade allowances or credits with other states. Requiring the formation of groups such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast would hinder collaboration, they said.
States Develop ‘Trading-Ready' Plans
The Great Plains Institute, in a guide for states and utilities looking to comply with the plan, proposed a scenario in which states come up with “trading-ready” plans that don't require predetermined coordination of goals.
To make such plans workable, the EPA would have to change a requirement in the proposed plan that calls for states to merge their goals if they want to trade. “That has been recognized as an obstacle to connecting states,” Franz Litz, program consultant for the institute, said.
“I don't believe you need to set up a large, regional program with a lot of administration, a lot of administrative costs like RGGI,” said Bruce Braine, vice president of strategic analysis for American Electric Power Corp.
“It's got specific legislation for each state and an organization behind it,” he said. “A lot of states here, I know, can't necessarily afford to engage in that kind of venture.”
What would be better, he said, would be a simple, “party-to-party” emissions trading or credit system with the EPA or another party as a “clearinghouse.”
Simplicity, Flexibility Called Key
Other speakers at the workshop agreed on the need for simplicity and flexibility for states seeking to work together.
“Do less posting of model [memoranda of understanding] on your websites,” Michael Schnitzer, a director at Northbridge Group who spoke to the group on behalf of Entergy Corp., suggested to organizers.
A group of coal companies and states opposed to the plan has already filed a court challenge (In re Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-1112)(80 ERC W-3, (4/24/15))(74 DEN A-1, 4/17/15).
“We're anticipating a decision from the court any day on that,” Rupp said.
Valerie Brader, executive director of the Michigan Agency for Energy, said there will be at least a period where states will have to make decisions in an area of uncertainty, so it's important to be able to understand the effects those decisions will have on energy prices and the environment.
“Our participation here does not mean we support the rule,” she told the group. “I'm not here to say we absolutely oppose it out of the gate, either. What we're trying to understand is the effect it has on Michigan.”
-
Jun 7, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Benjamin Zycher
‘Flexibility” is the advertised hallmark of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which by 2030 would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30% from 2005 levels. The central feature of the plan is a forced shift away from inexpensive coal-fired power. Not to worry, says EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy: “With EPA’s flexible proposal, states choose the ways we cut carbon pollution, so we can still have affordable, reliable power to grow our economy.”
Under the plan, the EPA will set a carbon-dioxide-emissions target for every state, and give each state roughly a year to develop and implement a “state plan” to meet it. Of course, the EPA must approve the plan before it can go into effect. How is that flexible? The EPA allows states to choose any combination of four “building blocks” to reach its target—reducing coal, increasing natural-gas, more renewables and nuclear energy, and enhancing energy-efficiency standards.
So if the Clean Power Plan is so flexible, why has the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a May 15 letter to the EPA, voiced its concerns over the “flexibility” and potential impact on the “reliability” of America’s electricity grid once it is implemented? Signed by FERC Chairman Norman Bay and all four commissioners, the letter recommends a “Reliability Safety Valve,” which is defined as “a process through which the affected entities can petition the EPA for temporary waivers or adjustments to the emissions requirements or compliance timelines in an approved state plan to preserve Bulk-Power System Reliability.”
FERC and those in the industry it regulates seem to realize what the EPA does not: that the agency’s “building blocks” are mutually inconsistent. The recommended 6% efficiency improvement for coal plants is prohibitive in cost because their individual operating characteristics—the types of coal they use, operating pressures, emissions equipment, etc.—are predetermined in their designs and extremely difficult to change. Few if any owners of coal plants will be willing to make that huge investment. Moreover, the recommended increase in the capacity utilization of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) turbines to 70% from roughly 45% today means reduced output and a smaller market share for coal.
The coal-efficiency path is made even more difficult by the EPA’s recently implemented Mercury and Air Toxic Standards. Compliance with this new rule requires the installation of costly scrubbers and other equipment that reduce operating efficiency.
The increase in the utilization of natural-gas plants also conflicts with the increase in wind and solar power. Because renewables are unreliable, they must be backed up by coal- and gas-fired plants, which must be cycled up and down depending on whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. This cycling reduces efficiency for the backup coal and gas plants in much the same way as stop-and-go driving cuts automotive fuel efficiency, and this will make it more difficult for gas plants to achieve higher capacity utilization.
The “energy efficiency” path means a reduction in demand for both coal- and gas-fired power, again inconsistent with investment in improved coal efficiency, and with the envisioned increase in the utilization of gas plants.
No one knows how this demand reduction will affect power consumption at peak periods relative to off-peak ones. This will exacerbate the uncertainties regarding investment in new power plants, which will again increase costs and create significant risks to the reliability of the grid.
The operators of electricity systems have always used the cheapest power first and then more-expensive power as demand increases through a given day. How will costs and reliability change when they are forced to adopt a convoluted system combining operating cost and greenhouse gas considerations? No one knows.
Put aside that neither the Clean Power Plan nor the administration’s larger climate policy would have a measurable effect on temperatures. The reality is that the plan is so inflexible and costly that states heavily dependent on coal power will suffer an artificial competitive disadvantage, and will be forced to join regional cap-and-trade emissions trading systems. Since those states disproportionately are red ones—Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas, for example—the dominant effect will be payments for emissions credits from red states to blue ones.
There are good reasons to doubt that the EPA understands how a modern power system works. Such are the fruits of regulatory zealotry and the haste driven by the prospect that the next administration might place a greater emphasis on economic growth.
-
Regulators Preparing Compliance Models As States Ready for EPA Clean Power Plan
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
State air pollution, utility and energy officials are crafting tools that regulators will be able to rapidly adopt to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming Clean Power Plan.
Regulatory associations said the goal is to provide states with a plethora of pre-prepared compliance options they can adapt to their unique circumstances as they evaluate options to comply with the EPA's carbon dioxide emissions limits for the existing fleet of power plants.
“We're trying to provide, as much as we can, packaged options states can use going forward,” David Terry, executive director of the National Association of State Energy Officials, said June 5 at a forum sponsored by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.
Though air pollution regulators would be responsible for developing compliance measures for the Clean Power Plan, energy officials and utility regulators said they are also looking at options states can employ to achieve the required carbon dioxide emissions reductions while preserving reliability of the grid and containing costs for customers.
NASEO plans to release a case studies on incorporating energy efficiency measures such as combined heat and power systems into state compliance plans. The group is also looking to establish a voluntary national energy efficiency registry to provide transparency and verification for efficiency measures that could be included under the Clean Power Plan.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state. State regulators will develop their own plans on how best to achieve those emissions goals using four so-called “building blocks” —heat rate improvements to existing power plants, shifting generation from coal to cleaner natural gas-fired units, investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. The EPA would issue federal plans for any state that chooses not to submit its own.
The final rule, expected in August, is currently at the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review (106 DEN A-4, 6/3/15).
Model Plan Coming
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies has already released its menu of emissions reduction strategies that state regulators can choose from to craft their compliance plans (99 DEN A-2, 5/22/15).
Executive Director Bill Becker said that NACAA will also issue a model compliance plan for states within 30 days of the rule being finalized. NACAA's model plan will include regulatory language that states can adapt to a variety of regulatory pathways to meet their carbon dioxide emissions rates, he said. States will have 13 months to submit their compliance plans to the EPA, though extensions are available if states have difficulties or if they pursue multistate compliance measures.
Becker said state regulators are already taking steps to comply with the upcoming rule even as some political leaders, particularly Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) call on states to refuse to submit implementation plans. So far only Oklahoma has publicly announced plans to boycott compliance (95 DEN A-6, 5/18/15).
“Until or unless this program is curtailed in any manner, this is the law and our folks are going to be implementing this program as effectively as we can and as expeditiously as we can unless we're being told to stand down,” Becker said.
-
Key Industry Meetings Look Into Electric Reliability Concerns
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,
With the Clean Power Plan under final review at the White House, electric industry conferences this week will focus on how states can implement the draft rule without jeopardizing electric reliability.
In New Orleans, the utility trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, is holding its annual convention, which includes a panel about how the draft rule's interim goals beginning in 2020 could affect the grid.
The panel today, deemed "Untying the Gordian Knot: Complying with the EPA Clean Power Plan," features DTE Energy CEO Gerry Anderson, Great Plains Energy CEO Terry Bassham, Environmental Council of the States Executive Director Alexandra Dunn, Colorado Public Utilities Commission Chairman Joshua Epel and North American Electric Reliability Corporation Senior Vice President Janet Sena. The talk will "explore the major issues with the proposal and potential paths forward," according to EEI's agenda.
EnergyWire's Joel Kirkland and Rod Kuckro will cover the convention.
In Milwaukee this week, the Mid-America Regulatory Conference -- an association of energy regulators from 14 states -- also holds its annual meeting.
Speakers include EPA air chief Janet McCabe and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Colette Honorable, as well as state officials and energy company executives from the member states: Arkansas, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see news and documents related to the latest Clean Power Plan developments.
-
Senate Panel Takes Aim At Reform For Federal Labs, Drilling, Grid Authority
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Katherine Ling, Nick Juliano and Hannah Northey
Reforming federal bureaucracy and authority on energy issues will be the subject of a final hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week before committee leaders turn to hashing out a comprehensive energy bill.
The "energy accountability and reform" session will focus on more than three dozen bills aiming to tweak programs and authority under the Energy Department, the Interior Department, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other federal agencies regarding the commercialization of federal labs, energy resource standards, oil and gas leasing, energy markets, research programs, manufacturing and federal loan guarantees, among other issues.
Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she would like to start considering the full energy package as soon as this month, after holding several previous hearings on bills pertaining to energy supply, infrastructure and energy efficiency.
One issue that has growing bipartisan support is a revision of DOE management of the 17 national laboratories and their ability to move experiments into the marketplace. Several reports have criticized the agency's "micromanagement" of the labs and the strict rules on private-public partnerships as inhibiting innovation in a post-Cold War era (Greenwire, Sept. 16, 2014).
The national labs already play an important economic role, especially in the regions where they are located. A report released last week found the National Renewable Energy Laboratory alone contributed $872.3 million to the nation's economy and $701 million to Colorado in fiscal 2014, according to a study by the University of Colorado, Boulder's Leeds School of Business.
Murkowski has sponsored S. 1229 to codify changes to the national labs recommended by an ongoing commission examining how the labs support and are aligned with DOE's mission and priorities. The nine-member commission has been meeting for more than a year and released an interim report in the spring on impediments to a "lack of meaningful change," a need to streamline and reduce costs for public laboratory users, and needed flexibility for lab-directed projects.
The commission is now exploring a second phase of its review looking at "opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the national laboratories, including consolidation and realignment, reducing overhead costs, reevaluating governance models using industrial and academic bench marks for comparison, and assessing the impact of DOE's oversight and management approach."
Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin and a member of the commission, has been beating the drum for Congress to strengthen its support, and even more importantly its spending, for the national labs and energy research.
"Despite its importance to our economy and future, federal energy innovation investments have stagnated over the last five years," Augustine said in a statement last week. "America now ranks 29th among developed nations in the fraction of research that is governmentally funded. America must compete, and if it's going to compete, it needs to invest in ingenuity. We need to increase investments in energy technology innovation, as well as maximize the returns on those investments through thoughtful reforms."
Leveraging the expertise and technology at the laboratories to boost U.S. competitiveness and support business innovation could help attract the political support necessary to boost federal funding.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) has championed the issue of opening up the labs for business, including bills that would establish national microlabs to give businesses and the public more access and convenience to lab resources -- S. 784 as well as S. 1259, to provide lab expertise vouchers to small business (Greenwire, March 19).
In February, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz created the Office of Technology Transitions to boost DOE's support for commercialization of national lab research. The office will oversee more than $20 million Congress directed to advance technology transfer and commercialization and to develop metrics to measure success (Greenwire, March 17).
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) has also been a leader on reforming the lab system. He introduced S. 1187 to improve management of the national laboratories, enhance technology commercialization and facilitate public-private partnerships. A similar bill, H.R. 1158, authored by Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.), passed last month by voice vote in the House.
Coons is also the co-sponsor of a bill sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). S. 1398 would reauthorize the Advanced Renewable Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and DOE's Office of Science -- providing 4 percent funding boosts for the next five years -- as well as funding competitive grant programs while eliminating and consolidating roughly a dozen programs. Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) are also co-sponsors of the bill (Greenwire, May 20).
It is the energy portion of a larger science and energy research and education reauthorization bill known as COMPETES, which expired in 2013. The House recently passed its version -- with significantly less long-term funding then the Alexander-Coons bill -- largely along party lines and with a White House veto threat (E&E Daily, May 21).
While the administration's veto threat was mostly based on funding issues, the White House also took issue with the House provisions to streamline DOE oversight of the national labs, which could be significant for the Senate's efforts in its comprehensive energy bill. The House bill would "increase the exposure of the federal government to risk and liabilities while also conflicting with the execution of the DOE mission," the White House said in its policy statement. Oil and gas
On the issue of oil and natural gas authority, one bill likely to receive substantial attention at the hearing is S. 1312 from Murkowski, Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and others. It would lift the ban on exporting crude oil that has been in place since 1975 and direct the federal government to study needed infrastructure improvements and find ways to link energy markets between the United States, Canada and Mexico, among other provisions.
Several other oil and gas bills also are on the agenda: S. 15 from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) would prevent Interior from regulating hydraulic fracturing on public lands in states that already regulate the practice. S. 1216 from Murkowski would allow individuals or companies investigated by FERC for allegations of market manipulation under the Natural Gas Act to seek de novo district court reviews of their cases, rather than being required to meet a higher evidentiary standard in appellate courts. Subjects of FERC market manipulation investigations pursuant to the Federal Power Act already have a right to such reviews, but that right was inadvertently not given under the gas act when Congress last updated the law in 2005. S. 1230, also from Murkowski, aims to improve coordination between Interior and states regarding management of oil and gas drilling on public lands. The bill would require the Bureau of Land Management to respond to governors' requests to "create consistent rules and processes" between the state and federal regulation of oil and gas production. S. 1310 from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) would increase royalties on offshore oil drilling and use the proceeds to decrease the deficit. Markey says the bill is meant to close a "loophole" that has let some companies avoid paying royalties on their offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico. S. 1311, also from Markey, would increase penalties that Interior can assess for violating onshore and offshore drilling regulations. Onshore penalties would increase twentyfold, from $5,000 per incident per day to $100,000, while offshore penalties would go from $40,000 to $250,000. Grid, cybersecurity
Concerns about the effect of new U.S. EPA rules like the Clean Power Plan and cyberattacks on the nation's electric grid are also on tap.
The Senate panel will take up Murkowski's bill, S. 1221, which would amend the Federal Power Act to require reviews of major federal rules on the grid that would then be submitted to FERC.
The language, which mirrors a similar effort in the House, would require grid overseers to prepare a "reliability impact statement" to assess the effect of proposed major federal rules on the grid, to enter those findings into the record and "spur" a response from the rule-issuing agency.
Agencies like U.S. EPA, for example, would be required to address the effects of any proposal in the final rule, as well as alternatives to protect grid reliability. Grid overseers would also be called on to report to Congress and FERC every three years to report on regional reliability challenges.
Many of Murkowski's concerns stem from a host of new EPA rules and their effect on the grid. The senator earlier this year took the agency to task for calling a high-profile review of the Clean Power Plan "premature" and downplaying the findings (E&ENews PM, April 21).
Other members are eyeing the Federal Power Act to bolster the nation's cyberdefenses and licensing of renewables.
Republican Sen. James Risch of Idaho joined Heinrich to introduce S. 1068, which would amend the federal law to allow the secretary of Energy to take immediate action in dealing with cyberattacks.
It's not the committee's first time considering such a request.
Federal regulators tasked with protecting the U.S. electric grid from cyber and physical attacks and massive solar blasts have for years asked Congress for more authority to counter sudden, serious threats, but Capitol Hill has resisted (Energywire, April 9, 2014).
Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur, a Democratic member of FERC, called for Congress last year to empower a federal agency -- not necessarily FERC -- with clear and direct authority during a cyber or physical attack on the country's grid.
The long-standing and oft-debated point is that no single federal entity is designated under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to respond during an emergency. And in a world where transmission lines and equipment and power plants could be threatened by physical and cyber attacks, Congress is wondering whether that language should be rethought. Other legislation
The hearing will also address a smattering of other issues, from coal to manufacturing to boosting U.S. capacity in supercomputers: S. 454 would amend the DOE High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 to improve high-end computing research and development program. A similar provision passed as a stand-alone measure and part of a comprehensive bill in the House (Greenwire, May 20). S. 1033, to amend the DOE Organization Act to replace the current requirement for a biennial energy policy plan with a Quadrennial Energy Review and for other purposes. S. 1054, to direct the secretary of Energy, in coordination with the National Academies and other appropriate federal agencies, to develop a national smart manufacturing plan and to provide assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers in implementing smart manufacturing programs. S. 1181 would expand the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program to include commercial trucks and U.S.-flagged vessels to return unspent funds and loan proceeds to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the national debt. S. 1218 would establish an interagency coordination committee or subcommittee with the leadership of DOE and Interior, focused on the nexus between energy and water production, use, and efficiency. S. 1223 would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve the loan guarantee program for innovative technologies. S. 1241 would require the secretary of Energy to carry out programs for research, development, demonstration and information-sharing for cybersecurity for the energy sector. S. 1256 would establish an energy storage research program, loan program, and technical assistance and grant program. S. 1258 would establish a distributed energy loan program and technical assistance and grant program. S. 1263 would establish a fund to assist U.S. businesses with exporting clean energy technology products and services. S. 1274 would amend the National Energy Conservation Policy Act to reauthorize federal agencies to enter into long-term contracts for the acquisition of energy. S. 1275 would create a DOE program to provide financial assistance to promote energy efficiency and on-site renewable technologies in manufacturing and industrial facilities. S. 1277 would allow the General Services Administration to enter into the lengthy renewable energy power purchase agreements currently reserved for the military (E&E Daily, May 14). S. 1293 would establish DOE as the lead agency for coordinating all requirements under federal law with respect to eligible clean coal and advanced coal technology generating projects. S. 1306 would require DOE to study an $8 billion fossil fuel loan guarantee program that has yet to support any projects. The committee reviewed similar bills in previous hearings on the prospective energy package (E&E Daily, May 15). S. 1338 would amend the Federal Power Act to provide licensing procedures for certain types of hydropower projects. S. 1340 would put a moratorium on leasing pending reforms, overhaul the process for determining coal's fair market value, produce public appraisal reports and ensure regulators take exports into account and require Interior to develop a leasing plan modeled after offshore oil and gas leasing to promote competition (E&ENews PM, May 15). S. 1346 would require the secretary of Energy to establish an e-prize competition pilot program to provide up to four financial awards to eligible entities that develop and verifiably demonstrate technology that reduces the cost of electricity or space heat in a high-cost region. S. 1363 would require the secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a report assessing the capability of DOE to authorize, host and oversee privately funded fusion and fission reactor prototypes and related demonstration facilities at sites owned by the agency. A similar provision passed as part of a comprehensive bill in the House (E&E Daily, May 14). S. 1405 would require a coordinated response to coal fuel supply emergencies that could affect electric power system adequacy or reliability. S. 1407 would promote geothermal, solar and wind energy on public land through changes in permitting, environmental reviews and interagency coordination. S. 1408 would boost research, development, demonstration and commercial application in vehicle technologies at DOE. S. 1420 would collect information on critical energy supplies -- including oil inventories and other physical oil assets owned by the 50 largest traders of oil contracts -- and to establish a Working Group on Energy Markets with relevant energy and financial federal agencies. S. 1422 would establish a comprehensive program to improve education and training for energy- and manufacturing-related jobs to increase the number of skilled workers trained to work in energy and manufacturing-related fields. S. 1428 would amend the USEC Privatization Act to require the secretary of Energy to issue a long-term federal excess uranium inventory management plan (E&E Daily, May 22). S. 1432 would require DOE to conduct a study on the technology, potential life-cycle energy savings and economic impact of recycled carbon fiber. S. 1434 would amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish an energy storage portfolio standard (Greenwire, May 28). S. 1449 would amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to add certain medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles to the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program. H.R. 35 would require the National Academies to conduct a study assessing the current status and development of a long-term strategy for low-dose radiation research.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, June 9, at 9:30 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Lynn Orr, undersecretary for Science and Energy, DOE; Colleen McAleer, commissioner, Port of Port Angeles, Washington; Norman Augustine, board member, Bipartisan Policy Center; Karen Harbert, president and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy; Duane Highley, president, CEO and chief accountability officer, Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas; and Mark Mills, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
-
Jerry Brown, Lawmakers Pull Cap-And-Trade Out Of Budget Talks
Jun 5, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By David Siders
Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders have agreed to set aside a dispute over cap-and-trade revenue until after adopting the state’s annual spending plan, eliminating a point of contention in budget talks 10 days before the deadline for its approval.
H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Brown’s Department of Finance, said in an email Friday that Brown, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins agreed to pick up negotiations surrounding cap-and-trade – money polluters pay to offset carbon emissions – “outside of the budget process.”
While removing a hurdle for the budget’s passage, cap-and-trade remains a sticking point for Brown and legislative Democrats.
Senate leaders have proposed a spending plan that exceeds Brown’s proposal by about $500 million, mostly for greenhouse gas reducing programs benefiting disadvantaged communities, according to a report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The cap-and-trade debate does not affect the largest portion of the fund – 60 percent, or $1.2 billion, continuously appropriated for high-speed rail, transit and other programs agreed to last year.
Palmer said removing cap-and-trade from the budget talks would “ensure that there’s ample time to put in place a thoughtful expenditure plan.”
-
Panel To Consider 3 Long-Stalled Obama EPA Picks
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week is expected to consider three long-stalled Obama administration nominees for top U.S. EPA posts.
The panel will hold a nomination hearing Thursday for Ann Dunkin to be assistant administrator of the Office of Environmental Information; Thomas Burke to be assistant administrator of the Office of Research and Development; and Jane Nishida to be assistant administrator of the Office of International and Tribal Affairs.
The administration put all three nominees forward at least a year ago. They are currently working at EPA in various positions as they await confirmation.
President Obama first nominated Burke in November 2013 to lead EPA's research and development efforts. He cleared the Senate EPW Committee in a voice vote in February of last year, but the full Senate never confirmed his nomination.
Until early this year, Burke was the associate dean for public health practice and training at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a position he held since 2008. Previously, Burke served as deputy commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Health from 1986 to 1990, and as assistant commissioner prior to that. In the early 1980s, Burke was the director of the office of science and research for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
In January, as his nomination continued to stall, Burke began a new job as EPA's science adviser and deputy assistant in the Office of Research and Development (Greenwire, Jan. 15).
The EPW Committee will also consider the nomination of Dunkin for the Office of Environmental Information post, where she would oversee EPA's policies for collecting environmental data and putting in place control systems.
The president first nominated Dunkin in January of last year. She was previously chief technology officer for the Palo Alto Unified School District in California and has held several positions with the Hewlett-Packard Co., including senior research and development program manager.
Last August, Dunkin joined EPA as senior adviser to Administrator Gina McCarthy and in February of this year moved to the position of chief information officer (E&ENews PM, Feb. 25).
Obama first tapped Nishida to head EPA's international environmental initiatives, as well as its efforts to improve public health and environmental protection on American Indian lands, in April of last year.
Nishida is currently serving as principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA's Office of International and Tribal Affairs. She previously led the international office's regional and bilateral affairs office.
Before joining EPA, Nishida was the senior environmental institutions specialist at the World Bank from 2004 to 2011. She served as secretary of the Maryland Department of Environment from 1995 to 2002 and was the Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation from 1991 to 1995.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, June 11, at 9:30 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Ann Dunkin to be assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Environmental Information; Thomas Burke to be assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development; and Jane Nishida to be assistant administrator of EPA's Office of International and Tribal Affairs.
-
Obama Nominates Full-Time Interior Inspector General
Jun 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama has nominated Mary Kendall to be the full-time inspector general at the Department of Interior, looking to make permanent a position Kendall has held on an interim basis for six years.
Kendall has been the deputy inspector general at Interior since 1999. When Obama promoted Interior's full-time inspector general out of the department in 2009, Kendall took over the position on interim basis. Obama nominated her to be the permanent inspector general on Thursday.Republicans have criticized Kendall's tenure as acting inspector general. In 2013, Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee published a 72-page investigation into the Office of Inspector General under Kendall, which they said is rife with mismanagement.
The GOP's report accused Kendall of not investigating political appointees and not filing investigative reports on issues within the department. Last year, the GOP hit Kendall again, saying she withheld information about an Interior Department mountaintop removal rule in a report to Congress.
"The office has been managed by an acting inspector general whose tenure has been the subject of recent, significant congressional oversight and controversy," senior House Republicans, including Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wrote in a letter to Obama on Monday.
But Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-N.M.), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said Republicans object to Kendall only because they have "demanded that she support their unfounded conspiracy theories and blanket criticisms of hard-working Interior Department officials."
Grijalva endorsed Kendall's nomination on Thursday.
"Her fair, even-handed treatment of Department personnel, her honest handling of sensitive issues, and her personal integrity are beyond dispute, and I wholeheartedly support her nomination," he said.
-
Graham Urges Action On Climate Change
Jun 7, 2015 | Politico
By Jonathan Topaz
Sen. Lindsey Graham is urging action on climate change and endorsing a budget plan that includes tax increases — another example of how the South Carolina Republican breaks with many other conservatives seeking the GOP presidential nomination.
In a wide-ranging interview aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Graham also called out two of his Republican rivals by name and challenged his party for not having an environmental policy.
“Here’s a question you need to ask everybody running as a Republican: What is the environmental policy of the Republican policy? When I ask that question, I get a blank stare,” he said in the interview taped Saturday in Boone, Iowa, where a number of GOP presidential hopefuls attended Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst’s “Roast and Ride.”
“If I’m president of the United States, we’re going to address climate change, CO2 emissions in a business-friendly way,” the South Carolina senator said. “I do believe that climate change is real.”
”When 90 percent of the doctors tell you you’ve got a problem, do you listen to the one?” Graham added, in a nod to the vast majority of scientists who say climate change is real and caused by human activity.
The senator also urged Congress to pass the Simpson-Bowles budget plan — a deficit-reduction package proposed a couple years ago by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson that includes several tax increases.
Graham, who announced his presidential bid last Monday in his hometown of Central, South Carolina, is a long shot for the GOP nomination in part because he’s alienated some conservatives with his stances on several domestic issues, including support for comprehensive immigration reform. The vast majority of Republican hopefuls have ruled out tax increases and haven’t pushed for legislative action on climate change.
The senator also criticized two fellow GOP presidential contenders — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whom Graham said wasn’t serious about entitlement reform, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who recently said in New Hampshire that he doesn’t support open-ended military conflicts.
“Most people over there are not buying what these guys are selling,” Graham said.
One of the most outspoken national security hawks in Congress, Graham reiterated in his CNN interview his call for U.S. ground combat troops in the Middle East to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
“If you think we can protect America without some troops having to go back overseas and fight for a very long time — most likely, then I’m not your guy,” he said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/graham-urges-action-on-climate-change-118709.html#ixzz3cSXamSWf -
Better Attribution of Ozone Sources Needed For Tighter Standards, NOAA Researchers Say
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to tighten national ambient air quality standards for ozone will require additional scientific efforts to quantify and attribute sources of ground-level ozone, according to researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado.
The researchers, in a paper published June 5 in Science, said attaining a more stringent ozone standard will be “particularly challenging” in high-altitude areas in the Western U.S., where ozone levels are more likely to be affected by uncontrollable pollution from Asia and from stratospheric intrusions.
While ozone concentrations across the U.S. are generally declining due to the EPA's low-sulfur gasoline standards and other efforts to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, that trend is weakest in rural, high-elevation areas in the West, the NOAA researchers said.
The EPA in November proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the current ozone standards of 75 parts per billion to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, with a final decision expected by Oct. 1. Several states, including South Dakota and Wyoming, raised concerns that the proposed ozone standards are nearing background levels in rural areas (52 DEN A-19, 3/18/15).
The NOAA researchers said if the standards are tightened, air quality officials will require more accurate information on the sources of observed ozone concentrations, including local and background sources, to determine the amount of emissions reductions that would be required to attain the standards.
“The ozone baseline is rising, especially in high-elevation regions of the western U.S. that are more strongly influenced by high ozone coming from upwind sources or from the stratosphere,” Owen Cooper, lead author of the paper, said in a June 5 statement. “Lowering the federal ozone standard to protect public health will reduce the wiggle room for air quality managers. We point out that measurements and science will be crucial to successfully navigating the new regulatory landscape.”
Need for Improved Models
The EPA has said that upcoming regulations and guidance will aid states in ensuring that background ozone does not result in unreasonable pollution control obligations. However, the NOAA researchers said that in order to do that, scientists will need to conduct additional research to more accurately quantify background ozone levels.
The paper identified weaknesses in current observations of background ozone, including “extremely limited” observations conducted along the West Coast, which only has two measurement sites for marine boundary layer ozone and two mountain monitoring sites for lower tropospheric baseline ozone.
Accurate quantification of background ozone levels would require enhanced observation of ozone levels, which would then improve modeling that estimates background ozone, the researchers said.
-
Chairman Says Economy Is 'Still Job One' As Panel Takes Up Ozone Standard
Jun 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
A House Energy and Commerce Committee subpanel next week will take up U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard.
The Friday hearing in the Energy and Power Subcommittee will focus on the potential costs of EPA's proposal, subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said Friday in a statement.
"We will continue our efforts in Congress to bring to light and examine the very real economic consequences these EPA regulations could have on families and communities across America," Whitfield said. "Jobs and the economy are still job one."
EPA in November proposed to tighten the national ozone standard of 75 parts per billion -- last set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb. According to EPA, the current standard is not adequate enough to protect the public against the negative health effects associated with ozone pollution.
Ground-level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. States would be required to develop control plans to reduce emissions of those pollutants in areas that are found to be out of compliance with a tighter standard.
Under the Clean Air Act and affirmed by the Supreme Court, EPA is not supposed to consider costs when setting a new national ambient air quality standard. But the potential costs of the pollution controls required by a tighter standard have been a key part of the debate over whether EPA should lower the limit.
EPA's cost estimates for the proposal vary greatly from the numbers put forth by industry groups that are pushing for the agency to retain the current 75-ppb limit.
According to a widely distributed study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, the cost of a new 65-ppb standard could be as high as $140 billion a year (Greenwire, Feb. 26).
But in November, EPA estimated that a new standard set at 70 ppb would cost the nation $3.9 billion a year by 2025, though that figure excludes California. A 65-ppb standard, on the other hand, would cost $15 billion a year. The agency said that the proposal would have benefits that yield significant savings in health care costs and outweigh costs by as much as 3-to-1.
In his statement about the upcoming hearing, Whitfield pushed for EPA to allow states to continue to put in place the 2008 standard and not lower the limit at this time.
"Our fragile economic recovery should not be jeopardized," he said, "by imposing a new regulation before states and local governments have time to design and implement plans to meet the current standard."
The House hearing comes after the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week held a hearing on EPA's proposal and three pieces of legislation that are aimed at curtailing EPA's ability to set a lower limit and to find areas out of compliance (E&E Daily, June 4).
Public health experts say that a new standard no higher than 60 ppb is necessary to protect public health.
"While there is also some evidence of health effects of ozone exposure below 60 ppb," Gregory Diette, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, told the Senate panel last week, "the strongest evidence supports the conclusion that serious adverse health effects occur across all ages at levels above 60 ppb."
Schedule: The hearing is Friday, June 12, at 9:30 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
Even Low-Level Air Pollution May Cause Harm
Jun 5, 2015 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Bakalar
Even low levels of air pollution may not be safe, a new study suggests.
The Environmental Protection Agency rates air pollution based on concentrations of particles smaller than 2.5 microns, or PM2.5. It generally regards as safe an annual average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, or 35 micrograms per cubic meter over a one-day period.
Researchers studied all Medicare recipients in New England, using satellite data to rate short- and long-term exposure. They tracked daily air pollution from 2003 to 2008 and used Medicare data on residents older than 65 to calculate death rates. More than 550,000 people were included in the analysis, published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Generally, E.P.A. standards were met. But each 10 microgram per cubic meter increase in PM2.5 was associated with a 2.14 percent increase in death rate over a two-day period, and a 7.52 percent increase over a year.
Even in rural areas like northern Maine, where the E.P.A. standard was consistently met, the results were similar. For each 10 microgram increase, there was a 2.14 percent higher death rate short-term, and 9.28 percent higher over a full year.
“The E.P.A. should tighten its standards,” said the lead author, Liuhua Shi, a doctoral student at the T.H. Chen Harvard School of Public Health, “and we need to reduce particles in the air, which we can do with off-the-shelf technologies.”
-
Congressmen Request GAO Investigation of EPA Grants
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) are asking the Government Accountability Office to look into how the Environmental Protection Agency manages the grants it allocates. In a letter to the GAO released June 5, the congressmen cited prior investigations that found a lack of environmental performance measures for EPA grants and potential understaffing among its grants management team. Grants to state and local governments, tribes and other entities are the largest portion of the EPA budget; they make up 43.6 percent of agency spending for the current fiscal year. The congressmen say they are especially interested in learning how the EPA monitors whether its grants are successful and what types of personnel management practices the agency uses to organize its grants workforce. Upton chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Murphy chairs its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The letter is available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Letters/20150601GAOEPAGrantsLetter.pdf.
-
Railroads Receive Four-Day Extension To Appeal Oil-by-Rail Rule, DOT Says
Jun 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Association of American Railroads has received a four-day extension to administratively appeal the Transportation Department's final rule governing crude oil by rail, the department told Bloomberg BNA June 5.
The extension from a June 8 deadline to a June 12 deadline only applies to the railroads groups. Other requests for extensions will be considered in line with 49 C.F.R. Section 106.120 and 106.100.
The freight railroads group submitted its request to extend the deadline on May 20, but the association had requested an extension through June 29. The group said in its letter that the extension was warranted, because the rule is based on new materials only made available after the rule was already released May 1 or published in the Federal Register May 8.
Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for the freight group, told Bloomberg BNA June 3 that the industry is still considering whether to appeal the rule administratively or in court. The deadline to appeal the rule in court is July 7.
The rule (80 Fed. Reg. 26,644) implemented new tank car requirements and operational control requirements, such as speed limits for certain flammable liquid-moving trains. It is already the subject of two lawsuits, one in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by petroleum and short line railroads and the other in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by environmental and public interest groups (102 DEN A-8, 5/28/15).
Congressional Hearings
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
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested