Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics-to-Fuel Resources Introduced at Plasticity Forum
Jun 9, 2015 | Recycling Today
The Washington-based American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Ocean Recovery Alliance, with offices in Los Angeles and Hong Kong, have introduced two new tools aimed at helping communities evaluate their potential to adopt plastics-to-fuel technologies. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Criticises EPA 'Fragrance-Free' Product Label
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
US trade bodies, representing the cleaning product and chemicals industries, have criticised a new EPA ecolabel, which describes products as “fragrance-free” on the grounds that it is inconsistent with similar industry labelling practices and may, therefore, confuse consumers. -
Senate Bill to Modernise TSCA Would Save Government Some Money
Jun 9, 2015 | ICIS
By Joe Kamalick
Pending legislation to modernise federal control of chemicals in commerce would require more regulatory action but also would reduce government spending over the long term, according to a congressional analysis circulated on Monday. -
Toy Industry Supports Federal Law to Address Chemicals
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Frankling
The Toy Industry Association (TIA) is calling for comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it will stop the increase of “inconsistent” regulation at the state and county level. -
S.C. Johnson Discloses Ingredients in Popular Scents
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The maker of products like Glade, Pledge and Windex is releasing new information about the fragrance chemicals used in more than 200 of its air fresheners, candles and scented oils. -
Flame Retardant Labelling Bill Passes California Senate
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A bill (SB 763) that would require manufacturers to label juvenile products to indicate whether or not they contain flame retardants has passed the California Senate. -
PlasticsEurope Responds on Activity of BPA Metabolite
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A recent study published by Health Canada researchers demonstrating biological activity of the metabolite bisphenol A glucuronide (BPA-G) in cell cultures is not relevant for human risk assessment, says the polycarbonate/bisphenol A industry group of PlasticsEurope. -
Secretive Trade Group Serves as De Facto Regulator of Flavor Additives
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Ingredients used by food companies to flavor products from juice drinks to ice cream and canned soup are certified as safe not by a federal agency but by a secretive food industry trade group. -
Appeals Court Dismisses Challenge to EPA’s Climate Rule
Jun 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
A federal appeals court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to an Obama administration proposal to cut carbon emissions from U.S. power plants, ruling the lawsuit was premature. -
Court Rejects Effort to Block EPA Climate-Change Rules
Jun 9, 2015 | National Journal
By Clare Foran and Dan Berman
In a major victory for the Obama administration, a panel of federal judges has blocked a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's planned efforts to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants. -
GOP Appropriators Look to Block EPA Rules
Jun 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House appropriators want to use a funding bill to block several controversial Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, Republicans on the committee announced Tuesday. -
EPA Prevails in Climate Rule Challenge — For Now
Jun 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
EPA notched a win Tuesday when an appellate court said critics of the agency’s landmark climate rule for power plants must wait for the regulation to be completed before they can challenge it in court. -
D.C. Circuit Rejects Early Climate ESPS Suits From States, Coal Industry
Jun 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected a series of challenges filed by states and industry groups seeking to block EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, finding in a per curiam judgment that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the proposal. -
Court Rejects Bid to Block EPA Power Plant Standards
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal appeals court today dismissed an attempt by more than a dozen states, energy companies and industry groups to block U.S. EPA from finalizing its landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants. -
EPA Advised to Give States Notice Before Release of Clean Power Plan
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA would be doing a service if it were to give states a heads up a day or two before it releases the final version of the Clean Power Plan, the head of a major stakeholder group told utility executives here yesterday. -
Wis. AG Says Another Clean Power Plan Lawsuit Likely After Final Rule
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Less than three months after joining a federal lawsuit seeking to block U.S. EPA from issuing a final version of its Clean Power Plan, Wisconsin's attorney general said the state is likely to file another lawsuit when the final version of the rule is issued this summer. -
Georgia PSC Commissioner Echols Concerned EPA Will Not Consider Stakeholder, FERC Comments in Final Power Plan
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E TV
With news this week that U.S. EPA has sent its Clean Power Plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, how are states gearing up for the pending final rule? -
GOP Lawmaker Wants Obama to Offer Oil Export Exemptions
Jun 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is urging foreign countries to petition for exemptions to the 40-year-old U.S. ban on crude oil exports from the United States. -
House Republicans Target Key Regs in Interior, EPA Spending Bill
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka, Phil Taylor and Manuel Quiñones
Republican House appropriators today released a draft fiscal 2016 spending bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA that contains several policy riders aimed at key Obama administration environmental regulations. -
House FY16 Bill Targets EPA For Major Funding Cuts, Policy Prohibitions
Jun 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Republicans have unveiled their fiscal year 2016 funding bill for EPA that would impose major cuts to core agency programs for a total $718 million decrease to its existing $8.13 billion budget, and block high-profile rules such as EPA's pending climate rules for power plants and its final Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics-to-Fuel Resources Introduced at Plasticity Forum
Jun 9, 2015 | Recycling Today
The Washington-based American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Ocean Recovery Alliance, with offices in Los Angeles and Hong Kong, have introduced two new tools aimed at helping communities evaluate their potential to adopt plastics-to-fuel technologies. The ACC says a growing number of experts believe that harnessing more nonrecycled plastics to create fuels and manufacturing feedstocks could help reduce ocean litter and benefit local communities.
The “2015 Plastics-to-Fuel Developers Guide” and “Cost Estimating Tool for Prospective Project Developers” were designed to help potential investors, developers and community leaders determine whether this rapidly growing family of technologies could be a good fit for meeting local waste management needs and local demand for the relevant commodities, the ACC says. Available at no cost, these tools provide an exploration of available commercial technologies, operational facilities and things to consider when developing a business plan.
According to ACC, current plastics-to-fuel technologies, such as pyrolysis, are versatile and can be designed to match local conditions. Depending on the specific technology chosen, processors can manufacture a variety of products, including synthetic crude or refined fuels for home heating; ingredients for diesel, gasoline and kerosene; or fuel for combined heat and power for industrial uses, the ACC says.
“We are excited to introduce these new tools,” says Doug Woodring, director and co-founder of Ocean Recovery Alliance. “Sustainable materials management is largely a local issue, but one with important global implications. Our goal is to give communities and government leaders the tools they need to make good decisions that meet local needs. These new technologies can help mitigate the flow of plastic resources into our communities, waters and the ocean.”
“Modern plastics-to-fuel technologies are a critical tool to recapture the value in materials that otherwise would be destined for landfill,” says Steve Russell, ACC’s vice president of plastics.
ACC and the Ocean Recovery Alliance announced the tools at the fourth annual Plasticity Forum held June 8-9 in Cascais, Portugal. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Criticises EPA 'Fragrance-Free' Product Label
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
US trade bodies, representing the cleaning product and chemicals industries, have criticised a new EPA ecolabel, which describes products as “fragrance-free” on the grounds that it is inconsistent with similar industry labelling practices and may, therefore, confuse consumers.
In response, the agency says will make “changes, as necessary” to the fragrance-free label criteria.
The voluntary label, which is part of the EPA's revamped Design for Environment (DfE) programme, aims to promote safer product design and green chemistry alternatives through “informed substitution” of chemicals. More than 2,500 products, mainly used for cleaning and maintenance, have been certified.
It was launched in March, together with a redesigned “Safer Choice” label with an accompanying tagline, “meets US EPA safer products standards” and revisions to the scheme's criteria. The changes were aimed at making the DfE labels more consumer-oriented.
While recognising that consumers, institutional purchasers and product manufacturers care about the use of fragrances in cleaning, personal care and other products, “we know that many fragrance materials may be associated with sensitisation and allergenic responses and lack toxicological data,” the agency said. Health and environmental groups had raised the need for products that are certified to be fragrance-free for people with fragrance allergies or sensitisation concerns and in response the EPA developed an option for a “fragrance-free” label.
However, the American Cleaning Institute claimed the EPA did not seek industry input on the criteria, while the American Chemistry Council said it was “drafted and enacted without any notice or opportunity to comment by any party materially affected by this label programme.”
The EPA said it “discussed the fragrance-free label with a range of stakeholders, including industry, and sought formal comments.” The comment period ended on 5 May.
A group of NGOs - the Children’s Environmental Health Network, the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society - said they “continue to be disappointed and concerned with the fragrance category of chemicals for commercial and consumer cleaning products.” The programme stipulates that “each ingredient in a formulation has a function in making a product work.”
However, fragrances play no role in the effectiveness of cleaning products. Such artificial suppression of other odours may even mask the continuation of an unsanitary condition after cleaning, the groups said.
The ACI said that the criteria's definition of fragrance-free “could lead to confusion because products with fragrance-free, scent-free, no perfume, or other like-worded phrases on their label, can earn the Safer Choice label and maintain their fragrance claims,” it said. The programme “should have consulted experts and stakeholders in order to understand fragrance industry standards, before establishing a separate criterion for fragrance-free.”
Because the Safer Choice label uses a comparative term, “it is going to be confusing to the consumers,” said ACI technical and regulatory affairs director, Katherine Station. She said the EPA did little outreach on the changes apart from a webinar, but the agency said it made the changes to the DfE labels, after considering more than 1,700 comments, input from six consumer focus groups and a national online survey. “EPA gave considerable weight to consumer and stakeholder feedback in tailoring and selecting the new label,” it said.
In response to concerns about delay in approval of product certifications, due to paucity of third-party reviewers, the agency is “laying the groundwork for adding other third-party profilers to the programme, primarily by bringing online a new data management system that can handle a multiplicity of users.”
Retailer response to the new labels has been “quite favourable”, the agency said.
At the recent Consumer Specialty Products Association mid-year meeting, Walmart and Staples were among retailers “making strong statements of support for the Safer Choice programme”. Retailers like Safeway and Wegmans now carry a “full line of Safer-Choice labelled store brand products”, the EPA said.
Walmart declined to comment.
-
Senate Bill to Modernise TSCA Would Save Government Some Money
Jun 9, 2015 | ICIS
By Joe Kamalick
Pending legislation to modernise federal control of chemicals in commerce would require more regulatory action but also would reduce government spending over the long term, according to a congressional analysis circulated on Monday.
In its financial and budgetary analysis of the pending Senate bill to modernise the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that while the bill would require increased regulatory activity - more chemical reviews, more staff and more spending - those additional costs would be offset by income generated from increased fees and additional fines assessed to industry.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the 39-year-old TSCA.
Among other features, the Senate bill, the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (S-697), would require EPA to greatly accelerate its review of the safety of chemicals already in commercial use and any new chemicals being introduced to or imported into the US market.
In addition, S-697 would require EPA to assess, for a fee, chemicals nominated for agency review by companies that want an early determination of safety or its lack.
The CBO said it “estimates that EPA would incur additional administrative costs over the 2016-2020 period to meet new requirements imposed by S-697”.
“However, we also estimate that under the bill, EPA would collect sufficient fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to offset the cost of conducting the activities proposed under this legislation,” the CBO analysis said.
S-697 also would raise EPA’s funding “because the bill would increase some existing and criminal penalties for violations of TSCA”, the office said.
“On net, we estimate that implementing this legislation would reduce [EPA’s] discretionary costs by $8m over the next five years”, the CBO report said.
That is not a substantial savings, considering that EPA’s projected budget for fiscal year 2016 is $481m. But it is very unusual that a new or expanded federal regulatory programme would represent any sort of savings at all and more likely would bump costs still higher.
Within the EPA’s overall FY 2016 proposed budget, enforcement of TSCA, the current law, is expected to cost $47m or 9.7% of the agency’s total outlays.
S-97 won strong bipartisan support in the Environment and Public Works Committee, where it was approved and sent to the full Senate on 28 April with a vote of 15-5.
A Senate floor vote on the bill is expected before the congressional August recess.
A similar TSCA reform bill cleared committee in the House last week and is awaiting a floor vote in that chamber as well.
If both measures are approved by their respective chambers, they would then go to a House-Senate conference committee where the two bills would be moulded into one and then passed on to the White House for the president’s enacting signature.
The CBO assists the House and Senate budget committees and Congress in general by analysing the spending impact of pending legislation. The CBO is required by Congress to provide impartial analyses and consequently does not offer policy recommendations.
Paul Hodges studies key influences shaping the chemical industry inChemicals and the Economy
-
Toy Industry Supports Federal Law to Address Chemicals
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Frankling
The Toy Industry Association (TIA) is calling for comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it will stop the increase of “inconsistent” regulation at the state and county level.
Chemical regulation bills, affecting the toy industry, have been passed or proposed in Oregon, Maine and Minnesota. In New York, the patchwork of laws has reached the county level, with legislation passed in Albany, Westchester and Suffolk counties banning the sale of toys containing certain chemicals, and with several other counties eyeing similar measures.
The Safe to Play Coalition, an industry alliance of which TIA is a member, has filed suit against Albany's Local Law J [would prohibit the sale of children’s products or clothing containing benzene, lead, mercury, antimony, arsenic, cadmium and cobalt in the county], resulting in a motion to stay that has stalled enforcement of the law.
“One of the biggest challenges for TIA members is the barrage of state and local attempts to ban the use of certain chemicals in children’s products, when these products are proven to be perfectly safe,” said Ed Desmond, TIA executive vice president of external affairs.
TIA hopes that passage of TSCA reform will curb the growth of these local laws. “In many cases, bill proponents cite the failure of the federal government to act as the reason for these local laws,” said Mr Desmond. “A federal approach to chemical regulation avoids the problems inherent in a series of potentially inconsistent county and state regulatory programmes.”
TIA hosted a Washington DC fly-in on 2-4 June, to allow members to meet face-to-face with policy makers. In an open letter, TIA president Steve Pasierb called on participants “to push back against these redundant local laws, while we at the same time advocate for a single, federal law that addresses chemical use nationally.”
TSCA reform bills have been introduced in both the Senate and House. The House is set to vote on the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (HR 2576) the week of 22 June (CW 4 June 2015).
-
S.C. Johnson Discloses Ingredients in Popular Scents
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The maker of products like Glade, Pledge and Windex is releasing new information about the fragrance chemicals used in more than 200 of its air fresheners, candles and scented oils.
Kelly Semrau, S.C. Johnson & Son's senior vice president for global corporate affairs, said, "We just feel that transparency in this area is the right thing to do."
The disclosure of additional information about the fragrances comes in response to increasing demands from consumers to know more about what is present in the products they use. Some of S.C. Johnson's ingredients in scents like "Aruba wave" and "Hawaiian breeze" include chemicals like 2-t-butylcyclohexyl acetate, 2,6-dimethyl-7-octen-2-ol, allyl caproate, benzyl salicylate, ethyl 2,2-dimethyl hydrocinnamyl and ethyl hexanoate.
Companies are not required to list these ingredients on products and often simply lump them together as "fragrance" on ingredient lists -- a term that tells consumers little about their composition. Some advocacy groups said the company's move was a positive sign but could go further to shed light on the ingredients.
S.C. Johnson's disclosure system will list the top 10 chemicals in a fragrance when more than 20 are present, or the highest concentrations down to 0.09 percent of the formula, "whichever provides the most information," the company said (Rachel Abrams, New York Times, June 8). -- SP
-
Flame Retardant Labelling Bill Passes California Senate
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A bill (SB 763) that would require manufacturers to label juvenile products to indicate whether or not they contain flame retardants has passed the California Senate.
The measure would apply to products intended for use by children under 12 and subject to the Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation Act, which covers items such as car seats, crib mattresses, playpens and strollers.
If passed, the law would require the following label to be affixed to covered products sold in the state:
The State of California has determined that this product does not pose a serious fire hazard. The state has identified many flame retardant chemicals as being known to, or strongly suspected of, adversely impacting human health or development. This product: contains added flame retardant chemicals or contains NO added flame retardant chemicals.
Products sold online or by catalogue would have to include this flame retardant message “clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to the juvenile product's price”, on each page that contains a detailed description of the item.
-
PlasticsEurope Responds on Activity of BPA Metabolite
Jun 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A recent study published by Health Canada researchers demonstrating biological activity of the metabolite bisphenol A glucuronide (BPA-G) in cell cultures is not relevant for human risk assessment, says the polycarbonate/bisphenol A industry group of PlasticsEurope.
The in vitro study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives at the end of May, demonstrated the stimulation of the development of fat cells by BPA-G (CW 4 June 2014). But if this was correct then animal experiments would have demonstrated weight gains, PlasticsEurope says.
The group says that body weight is “a regularly measured parameter in toxicological in vivo studies. Comprehensive multigenerational studies have investigated potential effects of bisphenol A (BPA) after oral ingestion, covering a broad range of levels. After ingestion, BPA is quickly converted into glucuronated BPA, so any potential effects of BPA-G would have been observed. However, none of these large-scale studies showed effects on the body weight at realistic dose levels.”
PlasticsEurope points to the levels of BPA-G used in the study, which it describes as “very high”. It adds that evidence was lacking on an effect from BPA-G rather than from free BPA.
“BPA-G is subject to hydrolysis,” the group’s Jacques Ragot says. “The authors should have ascertained whether hydrolysis occurred in the test, which lasted for two days – a long time for in vitro.
The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) declined to comment on the study.
-
Secretive Trade Group Serves as De Facto Regulator of Flavor Additives
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Ingredients used by food companies to flavor products from juice drinks to ice cream and canned soup are certified as safe not by a federal agency but by a secretive food industry trade group.
The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association has no in-house employees, no office and a tiny budget, but is the de facto regulator of flavor additives.
The group says it makes public information about flavor additives, but critics dispute the claim.
"Oh, garbage," said Susan Schiffman, an adjunct professor at North Carolina State University who studies sweeteners. "It's not transparent."
When she spoke with the trade group, "They would not give me the safety data," Schiffman said. "It was absolutely astounding."
John Cox, the trade group's executive director, said Schiffman hadn't requested that information, and it would have been provided if she had.
But the cumbersome process in which the flavor additives are self-regulated has long drawn criticism from advocacy groups, who fault the system as "fundamentally problematic," said Erik Olson, the Natural Resources Defense Council's senior strategic director for health and food (Young/Quinn, Center for Public Integrity, June 9). -- SP
-
Appeals Court Dismisses Challenge to EPA’s Climate Rule
Jun 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
A federal appeals court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to an Obama administration proposal to cut carbon emissions from U.S. power plants, ruling the lawsuit was premature.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said industry challengers and coal-dependent states can’t challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal until the administration issues a final regulation, which is expected in August.
The EPA proposed the power-plant rule, the central component of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, in June 2014. It calls for a 30% cut in power-plant carbon emissions by 2030 based on emissions levels in 2005.
The challengers said the regulation was such a dramatic, labor-intensive overhaul that it was an immediate threat to the U.S. coal industry.
“A proposed rule is just a proposal,” the appeals court said. “We do not have authority to review proposed agency rules,” the judges wrote, saying the cases were denied “because the complained-of agency action is not final.”
The decision is an early victory for the Obama administration. Additional legal challenges are likely once the rule is ripe for court consideration. In future litigation, judges will have to consider a range of issues, including whether the EPA exceeded its powers by relying on a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act as a basis for its emissions limits.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency would address comments about the legality of the proposal when it issues the final rule this summer.
“EPA is pleased that the court has denied the challenges to our proposed clean power plan and confirmed our assessment that they are premature,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a written statement.
One plaintiff in the lawsuit, Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., a coal-mining company, maintained its contention the proposed rules are illegal: “While we were disappointed by the court’s decision, we will fully litigate the rule once it is formally finalized by the Obama EPA and we will prevail.”
-
Court Rejects Effort to Block EPA Climate-Change Rules
Jun 9, 2015 | National Journal
By Clare Foran and Dan Berman
In a major victory for the Obama administration, a panel of federal judges has blocked a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's planned efforts to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.
Tuesday's ruling does not prevent future legal challenges against the rules but states that a challenge before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit came too early, as EPA has not yet finalized its climate rule. That action is expected later this summer.
The case, brought by coal company Murray Energy and a coalition of states led by West Virginia, was an early skirmish in the high-stakes legal battle over the rules, which stand as the centerpiece of President Obama's second-term climate-change agenda.
It was highly unusual in that it attempted to challenge the legality of a federal rule before it had been made final. At least two of the judges on the three-judge federal panel appeared hesitant during oral arguments in April to side with state and industry challengers, suggesting that such a move would break with long-held precedent and open the floodgates to future legal challenges against not-yet-final rules.
"Petitioners are champing at the bit to challenge EPA's anticipated rule restricting carbon-dioxide emissions from existing power plants. But EPA has not yet issued a final rule. It has issued only a proposed rule," stated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority of the three-judge panel. "They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule. But a proposed rule is just a proposal."
Tuesday's decision does not mean, however, that the rule is safe from future legal attacks. The legal opinion did not delve into the wide array of arguments that opponents have marshaled in support of their effort to dismantle the regulation, leaving an opening for an all-but-guaranteed onslaught of lawsuits sure to arrive once the rule is made final.
Nevertheless, the ruling arrives as a key victory for the administration.
"EPA is pleased that the court has denied the challenges to our proposed Clean Power Plan and confirmed our assessment that they are premature," Liz Purchia, a spokesperson for the agency, said. "The Clean Power Plan is built on a time-tested state-federal partnership established by Congress decades ago in the Clean Air Act that gives states important flexibility to design plans that meet their individual and unique needs."
Environmentalists were also quick to applaud. "Today's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals is both a big win in protecting our communities and families against the massive carbon pollution from power plants and an important victory for a fair and democratic rule-making process," Vickie Patton, the general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said.
The decision delivers a blow to Republican opponents of the regulation who had hoped that the panel of conservative judges would rule in their favor.
Republicans led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have vowed to fight the regulations tooth and nail, accusing the administration of attempting to wage a war on coal by pushing the regulatory regime forward.
McConnell has urged states not to comply with the rule and vowed to do everything in his power to fight back. But lacking the necessary votes to override a presidential veto, McConnell's bid to sink the rule looks more likely to succeed in the courts than in Congress.
-
GOP Appropriators Look to Block EPA Rules
Jun 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House appropriators want to use a funding bill to block several controversial Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, Republicans on the committee announced Tuesday.
The Appropriations Committee's 2016 interior and environment funding bill would block the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas emissions rules for new and existing power plants, as well as its ability to define which waterways it is allowed to regulate.
The bill also blocks several other potential EPA regulatory changes, including rewriting its definition of material that can be dumped into waterways and regulations on lead in ammunition and fishing tackle.
The bill cuts funding for the EPA by $718 million, or 9 percent, and caps staffing levels at the agency to 15,000, the lowest level since 1989.
EPA provisions in the 2016 spending bill are very similar to those Republicans proposed last year, when they looked to cut funding for the agency by 9 percent, cap staffing levels and block a handful of potential agency rules.
"The bill takes meaningful steps to shield our economy and defend American jobs from the executive overreach of EPA regulators," Interior Subcommittee chairman Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said in a statement. His subcommittee will consider the bill at a hearing on Wednesday.
The budget deal approved by Congress in December funded the EPA at $8.1 billion during 2015 — a $60 million cut from 2014 — and kept staffing at around 1989 levels. That deal did not block major EPA rule-making.
President Obama has called for a $500 million increase in EPA funding next year.
Conservation groups hit the appropriations bill quickly on Tuesday.
"This is a draconian proposal," Friends of the Earth Climate and Energy campaigner Lukas Ross said in a statement. "Agencies like the EPA are a crucial line of defense between polluters and our air and water. Congress should give these agencies the support they deserve instead of treating them as props in political theatre.”
Overall, the GOP's proposed interior and environment appropriations bill spends $30.17 billion next fiscal year, $246 million less than current levels and $3 billion less than what Obama requested.
The bill bumps up funding for wildfire prevention, Native American programs and the Office of Surface Mining. It passes on small cuts to the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and includes a provision blocking Endangered Species Act rule-making on the greater sage grouse.
-
EPA Prevails in Climate Rule Challenge — For Now
Jun 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
EPA notched a win Tuesday when an appellate court said critics of the agency’s landmark climate rule for power plants must wait for the regulation to be completed before they can challenge it in court.
But the Obama administration is not out of the woods. Tuesday’s win did not address the substantive issues surrounding the regulation, and it essentially postpones by only a few months the bitter legal battle over the first-ever rules that will limit emissions of power plants’ carbon dioxide.
The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, all of them Republican appointees, rejected arguments by coal companies and a number of states that wanted the court to block EPA from even issuing the regulations.
No court has ever blocked a rulemaking before the final regulation was issued, and Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh were unwilling to create a new precedent by halting the process.
“We recognize that prudent organizations and individuals may alter their behavior (and thereby incur costs) based on what they think is likely to come in the form of new regulations,” the ruling says. “But that reality has never been a justification for allowing courts to review proposed agency rules. We see no persuasive reason to blaze a new trail here.”
The ruling is crystal clear: “We do not have authority to review proposed agency rules.”
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the agency has already made up its mind on the rule’s legal questions. The plaintiffs had cited public statements by Administrator Gina McCarthy and other EPA leaders regarding the agency’s powers under a much-disputed section of the Clean Air Act.
“[E]ven if EPA’s position on its legal authority is set in stone, the agency’s statements about its legal authority — unconnected to any final rule or other final agency action — do not impose any legal obligations or prohibitions on petitioners,” the ruling says. “Any such legal obligations or prohibitions will be established, and any legal consequences for violating those obligations or prohibitions will be imposed, only after EPA finalizes a rule.”
And the court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ objections to a 2011 settlement agreement that had set a timeline for EPA to decide whether to issue a rule.
All three judges agreed to dismiss the challenges.
Henderson wrote a concurring opinion in which she agreed with the outcome but argued that the court should have the power to issue an “extraordinary” writ like the one EPA’s critics were seeking — though she said it should not issue one in this case.
The three lawsuits that were subsequently combined were brought by Murray Energy, a major coal producer, and other companies, as well as states including West Virginia, Wyoming, Louisiana, Alaska, Kentucky and Ohio. EPA got backup in court from several environmental groups and states such as Massachusetts, New York and Oregon.
EPA said in a statement that it is “pleased” with the ruling.
But the agency has little time to celebrate.
Opponents of the rule are guaranteed to sue after the rule is finished this summer, which may happen in August. The lawsuit that was rejected on Tuesday offered a sneak peek of the legal arguments that are likely to be used at a fresh trial.
It remains unclear how another panel of federal judges may eventually rule on the climate regulation. The judges who will be randomly chosen to hear future lawsuits over EPA’s final rule could have an ideological makeup that is significantly friendlier to the administration’s climate rule than the conservative, all-GOP-appointed panel that issued Tuesday’s decision. (Henderson was named to the court by George H.W. Bush, while George W. Bush added Griffith and Kavanaugh.)
Because the trio dismissed the suits as premature, the judges never weighed in on the biggest argument against the rule: that EPA does not have the authority to regulate carbon under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because it already regulates coal plants under the law’s Section 112 with its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
At the heart of the dispute are two conflicting statutes — both of which, because of a legislative error, became law as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Critics of the rule argued that EPA should follow the House version, which would prevent the agency from issuing 111(d) rules for power plants that are already regulated under Section 112.
But EPA argues it should get deference to interpret the conflicting statutes. That would allow it to rely on the Senate version, which says EPA cannot twice regulate the same pollutant under two different sections of the Clean Air Act. That would allow EPA’s carbon rules to move forward.
At least one judge, Griffith, indicated during oral arguments in April that he leaned toward giving deference to EPA’s interpretation.
Griffith noted that the Supreme Court recently decided in an unrelated case that conflicting statutes mean the courts should defer to the agency. “When Congress passes conflicting statutes, we let the agency decide,” Griffith said in April, adding that he “may not agree” with the Supreme Court’s assessment but that it has ruled on the issue.
Attorneys for the rule’s challengers argued that the case Griffith cited is different enough from the EPA challenge that it should not necessarily guide the judges’ decision. But administration attorneys argued that the two cases are similar.
The judges also seemed noncommittal on the challengers’ argument that the Supreme Court, in its 2011 decision upholding EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, wrote in a footnote that the agency cannot regulate under 111(d) if power plants are also regulated under Section 112.
Administration attorneys argued that the high court had never been briefed on the dueling House and Senate language, so the footnote didn’t directly address this issue.
-
D.C. Circuit Rejects Early Climate ESPS Suits From States, Coal Industry
Jun 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected a series of challenges filed by states and industry groups seeking to block EPA's proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, finding in a per curiam judgment that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the proposal.
The unsurprising opinion, which provides no indication on the merits of petitioners' arguments, ends the first round of lawsuits against EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS), though new litigation is likely to quickly begin again after EPA finalizes the rule this summer.
In a June 9 majority opinion authored by Judge Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, the panel said the petitioners' suits are premature and without precedent. “Petitioners nonetheless ask the Court to jump into the fray now. They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule,” the majority states.
“But a proposed rule is just a proposal. In justiciable cases, this Court has authority to review the legality of final agency rules. We do not have authority to review proposed agency rules.”
The three-judge panel was considering consolidated litigation brought by coal mining firm Murray Energy Corp., as well as a coalition of a dozen states led by West Virginia. The petitioners brought three separate cases -- In re: Murray Energy, Murray Energy, et al. v. EPA, et al., and West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. -- to convince the court to find it has jurisdiction to review the proposal.
The underlying issues in all three cases rest on petitioners' claims that EPA is barred by the Clean Air Act from regulating power plant GHG emissions under section 111(d) of the law, as it proposes in the ESPS, because it already regulates power plant mercury emissions under section 112.
But the issue is complicated because House and Senate amendments to section 111(d) were never reconciled in a conference committee before the 1990 air act amendments were signed into law. The Senate amendment would explicitly allow EPA's proposed rule by limiting section 111(d)'s "112 exclusion" to pollutants already regulated under that section.
During oral arguments, Kavanaugh and Griffith had signaled the suits are premature, with Griffith warning that if the court were to find the petitioners had jurisdiction, it would create a “morass” of challenges to other proposed regulations.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, but arguing that the court would have jurisdiction to issue a writ blocking the proposal under the All Writs Act, but that it would not be appropriate to do so in the instant case because EPA will soon issue a final rule.
-
Court Rejects Bid to Block EPA Power Plant Standards
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal appeals court today dismissed an attempt by more than a dozen states, energy companies and industry groups to block U.S. EPA from finalizing its landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling hinged on procedural grounds, holding that the court would not rule on the legality of the standards before they were finalized.
In his majority opinion for the three-judge panel, Judge Brett Kavanaugh said the challengers, led by West Virginia and Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., asked the court to take unprecedented action.
"They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule," wrote Kavanaugh, a Republican appointee. "But the proposed rule is just a proposal."
EPA's Clean Power Plan is a critical component of President Obama's efforts to address climate change. Due to be promulgated this summer, the proposal would cut heat-trapping emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The rules would shift the country from coal-based power to energy from renewable sources and natural gas.
Arguing that the rule will have a significant economic impact and questioning whether EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to issue it, the challengers asked the D.C. Circuit to issue an "extraordinary writ" to halt the regulations.
Kavanaugh addressed the challengers' contentions for why the court should act and found that "none is persuasive."
"We may review final agency rules," Kavanaugh wrote, citing court precedents. "But we do not have authority to review proposed rules."
EPA in a statement said it is "pleased" with the decision and underscored that the standards will be legally sound.
"EPA addressed the legal foundation for our actions when we issued the proposed rule in June and we will address all comments we've received on this issue in the final Clean Power Plan," the agency said. "EPA is on track to issue a common-sense, affordable Clean Power Plan this summer that is based on the input we've received and will move the nation significantly forward in addressing climate change and protecting public health."
The case grabbed significant attention before it was argued in a standing-room-only courtroom in April. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a former mentor to Obama, added celebrity to the case, representing Peabody Energy Corp. and contending that the rules violate the Constitution.
An open question is whether EPA has the authority to issue the far-reaching rules. Of particular concern is the so-called legislative "glitch" issue. There are two versions of the Clean Air Act section EPA is relying on, 111(d), that were enacted into law -- one from the House and one from the Senate. Under the challengers' reading, the House version prohibits EPA from issuing regulations for sources of pollution already regulated under the law.
Because EPA has already issued standards for other pollutants for power plants, that theory would foreclose the new rule.
EPA and environmentalists counter that the Senate version only prohibits redundant regulation of specific pollutants, which would allow the greenhouse gas standards to stand. They further suggest that the agency deserves deference in reconciling the two seemingly conflicting versions, and that the challengers' reading of the House version is incorrect because it would weaken EPA's authority when Congress intended to strengthen it.
The case was closely watched to see whether the court would grapple with that issue and provide any hints on how it would view inevitable challenges to the rule when it is finalized.
The ruling, however, at less than 20 pages, avoided them, opting instead to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Further, the decision is not surprising given the panel's stiff questioning of the challengers at oral arguments (Greenwire, April 16).
Kavanaugh was joined in the opinion by Judge Thomas Griffith, another Republican appointee. The panel's third judge, Karen Henderson, also a Republican appointee, concurred in the judgment but wrote separately on when extraordinary writs may be issued.Reactions
Thomas Lorenzen, a former Justice Department environmental attorney now at Dorsey & Whitney, said the court's silence on the most contentious issues was no accident.
"The judges were very careful not to say a word about the merits, declining even to describe what the merits argument is," Lorenzen said. "I believe this is quite intentional. Judges Kavanaugh and Griffith firmly believe that, absent final agency action, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the merits, and they accordingly would want to avoid giving any hint in their opinion as to how those merits arguments might ultimately be resolved."
Murray Energy and West Virginia, in statements, said they look forward to challenging the rule when it is finalized.
"While we were disappointed by the Court's decision, we will fully litigate the rule once it is formally finalized by the Obama EPA and we will prevail," the company said.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) echoed that sentiment, calling the ruling "narrow."
"As the court recognized, the rule will be final very soon, and we look forward to continuing to press the issue," he said in a statement.
The National Mining Association was more emphatic.
"All EPA got was a temporary reprieve," spokesman Luke Popovich said. "And hopefully only a stay of execution."
Environmentalists praised the ruling.
"Today's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals," said Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund's general counsel, who intervened in the case on EPA's behalf, "is both a big win in protecting our communities and families against the massive carbon pollution from power plants, and an important victory for a fair and democratic rulemaking process."
Click here for the opinion.
Reporter Manuel Quiñones contributed.
-
EPA Advised to Give States Notice Before Release of Clean Power Plan
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA would be doing a service if it were to give states a heads up a day or two before it releases the final version of the Clean Power Plan, the head of a major stakeholder group told utility executives here yesterday.
State regulators, political leaders and utilities "need advance knowledge so we can respond intelligently to the rule" when it is issued, said Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, which represents state environmental agencies.
EPA is slated to release the final version of its Clean Power Plan to slash carbon emissions from existing power plants in August. The agency's sweeping remake of the way the nation produces electricity is under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Dunn was at the Edison Electric Institute annual meeting here as part of a panel discussion on untying the "Gordian Knot" posed by compliance challenges with the EPA rule, crafted under the authority of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Dunn added her voice to a growing chorus of regulators and others who want some systematic review of the compliance plans that states submit for the EPA rule. "We need some sort of centralization of review happening with these plans," she said.
If the plans are submitted to one of the 10 EPA regional offices, "we're going to end up with a real backlog" as some utilities operate in multiple EPA regions, Dunn said.
A solution would be for EPA to put in place "an appropriately trained and empowered team to review these plans, kind of like a SWAT team, because every plan is going to contain novel issues."
There was a consensus that the scope of the proposed rule by EPA was unparalleled. "It's dragging everything else behind it," quipped Gerry Anderson, CEO of DT Energy, who moderated the panel.
There was also agreement that the rule is unlikely to be derailed by pending or future legal challenges.
"This is going to move forward," Dunn said. There is no "white knight" in the guise of a three-judge panel waiting to intervene on behalf of the rule's opponents, she said.EPA has been 'very careful' in 'covering their legal bases'
She pointed out that EPA has been successful in cases that lay the foundation of the Clean Power Plan, including a ruling by the Supreme Court that the agency could regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. "The bottom line is they've followed the legal steps to do this," she said.
"Here's what someone at EPA told me: 'This is one where every legal argument against this rule has been laid out from day one. There are no hidden, gotcha arguments,'" Dunn said.
With 49 attorneys working full-time on the final rule, Dunn said, EPA is "going to release a rule that is as shored up against legal challenge as possible."
"I think they will address a lot of the things that people have raised. And I think they will make very clear that their authority is over the [electric generating units] owned by utilities," she said.
Nonetheless, stakeholders will have to wait about three years to see a ruling from the D.C. Circuit on an inevitable challenge, and by the time it might reach the Supreme Court, "we will probably not have the same court that we have today" because of retirements, Dunn said.
"I wouldn't put high odds on it, either," Anderson said, because EPA has been "very careful from the outset in trying to cover their legal bases."
Courts "will give them all the deference," he said. "I'm not counting on [the rule being reversed], and I don't think many people in the industry are, either."
Joshua Epel, chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, was the most succinct in his contribution to the panel's discussion. "I think we're all tired of discussing the Clean Power Plan, and we just want to see the final rule," he said.
-
Wis. AG Says Another Clean Power Plan Lawsuit Likely After Final Rule
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Less than three months after joining a federal lawsuit seeking to block U.S. EPA from issuing a final version of its Clean Power Plan, Wisconsin's attorney general said the state is likely to file another lawsuit when the final version of the rule is issued this summer.
Attorney General Brad Schimel said his office is preparing a case to be filed after the final rule is released unless there are substantive changes made.
"All indications are it's going to look a lot like the preliminary rule announced last June," Schimel told dozens of utility regulators at the Mid-American Regulatory Conference here. If so, he said, "it's going to disproportionately impact mid-American states."
Schimel and Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, both Republicans, spent their morning speeches at the conference taking aim the Clean Power Plan and what it will mean for electric reliability and rates, especially in coal-dependent states like Wisconsin.
Kleefisch said Wisconsin is one of the top two states for manufacturing activity per capita, and anything that hurts industry would rob the state of a competitive advantage.
Similarly, the rule would also sting residential consumers, raising their bills an average of $485 a year by 2020, she said.
"We'll have fewer jobs, higher electric bills, and our state will struggle," Schimel said.
Schimel said the state, not the federal government, should be in charge of balancing environmental protection, energy rates and electric reliability. The Clean Power Plan, which as proposed would require Wisconsin to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing plants by 34 percent by 2030, would disrupt that balance, he said.
Wisconsin is among 15 states that joined a lawsuit brought against EPA by Murray Energy Corp. to halt the agency from issuing a final rule this summer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in April (Greenwire, April 16).
While the court has not yet ruled, Schimel said he's encouraged that the court took the unusual step of allowing oral arguments in the case.EPA air chief: 'We heard you loud and clear'
The criticisms of the Clean Power Plan, which echo those in some other Midwestern states, were made in the presence of one of the proposed rule's primary authors, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe, who followed them to the stage.
For McCabe, it was a return to the Mid-American Regulatory Conference. Just over a year ago, she made her first public presentation on the proposal before the same group in her home state, Indiana (EnergyWire, June 5, 2014).
Without responding directly to the remarks made by Wisconsin officials, McCabe addressed some of the issues raised, including that a new environmental regulation would cause economic harm.
History has shown over the 40 years of the Clean Air Act that the United States can grow the economy "by orders of magnitude" while significantly slashing air pollution, McCabe said.
"These are things that do not have to be traded off against one another," she said.
McCabe noted the significant cost already being incurred by states from climate change and said the agency went to great lengths to provide flexibility to states. Mostly, she stressed the effort by EPA to listen to state regulators, utilities and other parties and respond to their concerns.
McCabe cited the efforts of groups in the Midwest such as the Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators (MSEER), a group of energy and environmental regulators from across the central United States. The group recommended to EPA this spring that states be allowed to trade emissions allowances among themselves without a formal memorandum of understanding or compact.
"What an excellent idea that is, and we're certainly pursuing that," she said.
McCabe also acknowledged many concerns raised about the interim compliance targets that utilities and states said were too much, too soon. Some utilities have said the deadlines will push them to rush to build new natural gas-fired generation instead of pursuing other alternatives that may be more desirable and cost-effective in the long run, such as energy efficiency and renewables.
"We certainly heard that," she said. "We heard you loud and clear. If there's one issue we've been working on, it's that."
McCabe noted that EPA sent the final draft of the rule to the Office of Management and Budget last week. She provided no clues to when the final rule would be released, other than to say it would be midsummer.
In the meantime, Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Colette Honorable said states should continue to have discussions with utilities, regional transmission organizations and other parties to look at costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Doing so will leave them better prepared for whatever happens, she said.
"The courts are in the best position to determine the legality of it," Honorable said. "We are in the best position to plan and prepare."
-
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E TV
With news this week that U.S. EPA has sent its Clean Power Plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, how are states gearing up for the pending final rule? During today's OnPoint, Tim Echols, commissioner on the Georgia Public Service Commission, explains why his state has not officially begun working on a compliance mechanism for the power plan. He also talks about the impact construction delays at Georgia Power's Vogtle nuclear facility could have on his state's power plan compliance.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Tim Echols, commissioner on the Georgia Public Service Commission. Commissioner Echols, it's nice to have you back on the show.
Tim Echols: I appreciate your organization and the great information that you provide on many platforms.
Monica Trauzzi: Well, thank you very much. Commissioner, news this week that EPA has sent its final Clean Power Plan over to the Office of Management and Budget for review. When we last spoke on the show, you said the commission was not really talking about any compliance measures yet because the rule is not officially the rule yet. Has that changed since we last spoke at the NARUC meeting and how is your state preparing at this point as we get close to the release of that final?
Tim Echols: Yeah. We're not a part of the lawsuit. We're not party to that, but we haven't started working officially on our compliance plan either. I think we want to wait and see what's going to happen, see for example if we get wind from Oklahoma are we going to get to count that? Are we going to get direct for that? There's a lot of things that we want to see how the EPA treats it in final rule before we move forward.
Monica Trauzzi: Reliability has continued to be a key concern for many stakeholders. What's your sense of the interaction between FERC and EPA on the rule on how closely EPA will consider what FERC has sort of laid out on reliability?
Tim Echols: You know I don't know that EPA's going to consider much of anything other than what they deem is best. I'm concerned about that. I do think the comments regarding the treatment of new nuclear power -- I'm getting signals from folks down on the lower level of EPA that they think there's going to be some change in that, so I'm encouraged by that.
But I know the alarm that FERC has been sending regarding, you know, transmission and you know, and gas lines and other things like that and its impact, the impact of the infrastructure on the ability to hit the targets is of great concern so I do hope that the EPA looks at the practicality of this and being able to make it happen before they issue the final ruling.
Monica Trauzzi: And any changes to nuclear are a big deal to you all in Georgia. When we last spoke you said that the Vogtle nuclear facility would be a big part of a potential compliance mechanism, but there are construction delays there. Are you confident that the plant will be on line in time to support any potential compliance mechanism that you might put together?
Tim Echols: I think what I'm more concerned about with Unit 4, is it going to come online in 2020 so that we can get those production tax credits, which is worth about $600 million to our ratepayers. So right now we're scheduled to get Unit 3 in the summer of '19, Unit 4 in the summer of '20, and if we don't make it by the end of '20 on Unit 4 we lose that, we'd lose that credit. So I'm more probably concerned about that.
I do feel like EPA is going to move those dates back. It wouldn't surprise me if they go from 2020/2030 to maybe 2022/2032. I feel like the president wants to see the compliance plans otherwise I think that requirement is going to stay as part of his legacy. I believe in what's important to him, but I think those dates, you know, to meet those interim dates and the final date I think is going to move.
Monica Trauzzi: So you have these targets for 3 and 4, but what types of penalties or pressure could the commission place on Georgia Power to ensure that these targets are met?
Tim Echols: You know, Georgia Power has no control, no control over what's happening with our contractors. So I mean we've got 600 Southern Nuclear employees on the site. There's 5,200 people working on this site. There's a lot of moving parts and I think Georgia Power is doing all they possibly can do. I don't want to pile on Georgia Power. I want to encourage. I want to be a cheerleader there and we're looking at this every -- twice a year we do a monitoring hearing. We just finished one up recently. So I don't fault Georgia Power.
Monica Trauzzi: Did you hear what you wanted to hear in that hearing?
Tim Echols: Well, I think I've heard in these hearings what we've heard in every one of them and that is that a certain amount of money has been spent and we're being asked simply to verify that. We're not looking to any prudency, anything like that. We've delayed all of that until Unit 3 goes into production.
Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk solar, which is another element of potential power plant compliance for your state. Is Georgia in a disadvantaged position because you do not have net metering in place and there's a potential there for some major solar companies to potentially not do business in Georgia because there is no net metering?
Tim Echols: Well, I think that, you know, what we've done with solar is 90 percent of it is being sold back to Georgia Power; 90 percent of it is utility scale. So we've opted to go this route because it's the cheapest for our consumers. So next year we'll enter our integrated resource planning period and we'll look out for the next three years on how much solar we want to do.
In the meantime, out Legislature approved unanimously a third-party leasing bill, I think, that's going to create a Wild West environment in Georgia for DG, and I think we're going to see, we're going to see the deployment of rooftop arrays like we've never seen before. And I'm pushing Georgia Power for localized marginal pricing.
Let's look at the map. Where do we need this power and let's offer an avoided cost for solar that's pricier up in this area versus over in the area where maybe we don't need it. So we'll see what we wind up with in our IRP next year.
Monica Trauzzi: You've been on the commission since 2010 and you're running for another six-year term, election set for May of next year. How are you trying to distinguish yourself as a commissioner as you approach that election?
Tim Echols: Well one of the things when I came into office we had 4 megawatts of solar. Now we have almost 940 slated to be built. We're the No. 1 market for the Nissan Leaf in the U.S., and there's been a nexus between the commission and electric car charging tariffs so I've really promoted that. I own three Nissan -- two Nissan Leafs and a Kia Soul myself so I've been living this and really pushing this.
Of course the biggest issue for us is finishing this nuclear power plant, and I don't think there's anyone that's more pro-nuclear in the United States as a commissioner than I am so I've really pushed that. I've even talked about reprocessing of nuclear waste which I hope that the U.S. eventually does.
Monica Trauzzi: In addition to your three electric vehicles you also have a Ford Focus that you fuel up with E-85. I'm curious if you view renewable fuel standards differently than emission standards. Both are put out by EPA.
Tim Echols: Well, I guess the long-standing, you know, fuel standards for cars we've just kind of forgot how that came about. It's been there for so long and I'm not an advocate for that necessarily. I'm using these cars because it makes sense for our state, it makes sense for my family.
But I think just the overall issue of federalism and the encroachment of the federal government on states -- I kind of view the EPA rule as kind of an SEC wealth-transfer act is how I'm referring to it as because it will have such an impact on these Southern states that are heavy on coal.
So I just have issues with the federal government issuing rules and then never following through on their promises as is the case with the spent fuel and the charge that Georgians have borne $1.2 billion for the spent fuel that we paid for and the government's done virtually nothing. So they're really good at coming up with rules, but not really great at following them.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate your time.
Tim Echols: Thank you very much.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow. Very nice. Nice job.
[End of Audio]
-
GOP Lawmaker Wants Obama to Offer Oil Export Exemptions
Jun 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is urging foreign countries to petition for exemptions to the 40-year-old U.S. ban on crude oil exports from the United States.
Murkowski argued in a Tuesday report that the Obama administration should use its executive authority to approve exports to U.S. allies.
“Exempting certain countries on a case-by-case basis, as the statutes and regulations currently allow, would be a partial and helpful step toward the modernization of U.S. energy policy,” said the report from the Republican staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which Murkowski is chairwoman.
The report suggested countries like Poland, the Netherlands, Japan and South Korea should be considered.
President Ronald Reagan used his authority to allow oil exports to Canada, and Murkowski is urging more exemptions.
“Many U.S. allies and trading partners are interested in purchasing American oil to diversify away from Russia, Iran and other problematic sources,” the report says.
“Allowing such shipments would send a powerful signal of support and reliability at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions in much of the world. The mere option to purchase U.S. oil would enhance the energy security of [these countries] even if physical shipments did not occur.”
The report argues that action by Congress to lift the ban would be the most effective step. But lawmakers don't appear ready to make that move.
Murkowski has long argued that Congress needs to lift the oil export ban, enacted in the 1970s amid an Arab oil embargo and the prospect of domestic shortages.
She and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) have sponsored a bill to end the prohibition. They argue it would bolster the U.S. economy, lower prices and help U.S. allies.
The day before Murkowski released her report, the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers, which represents workers at various oil refineries, wrote a letter to the Senate asking that the export ban be kept.
“Lifting the ban would not only prove detrimental to the jobs of the men and women employed at U.S. refineries, but also to the communities that rely on the tax base generated,” the groups said.
“Lifting the crude oil export ban will also increase greenhouse gas emissions, hampering our nation’s efforts to combat climate change and lower U.S. emissions,” they wrote.
-
House Republicans Target Key Regs in Interior, EPA Spending Bill
Jun 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka, Phil Taylor and Manuel Quiñones
Republican House appropriators today released a draft fiscal 2016 spending bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA that contains several policy riders aimed at key Obama administration environmental regulations.
The 134-page draft would place several restrictions on the administration's climate change agenda, including halting EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It would also bar EPA from putting in place its new rule that amends which bodies of water get automatic Clean Water Act protection.
The bill would also extend a ban on the Obama administration's preparation of a rule to list sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, would legislatively delist wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming, and would limit the government's ability to regulate ivory and curb the use of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle.
In all, the bill would give EPA and the Interior Department, including the Forest Service, $30.17 billion in funding for fiscal 2016, consistent with the funding pot approved by the House Appropriations Committee in April. That figure represents a decrease of $246 million below current spending levels and is $3 billion below President Obama's request for Interior and EPA.
"This bill represents difficult decisions to allocate resources to important federal programs, while operating under a tight budget caused by the administration's unwillingness to address our national debt," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, in a statement today.
The subcommittee tomorrow is scheduled to mark up the draft legislation, though most debate on amendments will likely occur during consideration by the full House Appropriations Committee.
AdvertisementEPA
The House bill unveiled this morning would provide EPA with $7.4 billion in fiscal 2016, a reduction of $718 million -- or 9 percent -- from current funding levels. EPA staffing levels would be held to 15,000, which would be the lowest level since 1989. The budget includes nearly $3 billion overall for state and tribal environmental grants, compared with current levels of about $3.55 billion.
In what is sure to be a controversial move, the bill would level a nearly 25 percent cut to the popular Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water state revolving funds, which provide low-interest loans to utilities for upgrades.
The bill proposes $1.775 billion for the sister funds -- $1.018 billion for the Clean Water fund and $757 million for the Safe Drinking Water fund. Together, that's 23 percent lower than the president's budget request, which has already drawn fire from Republicans and Democrats alike on Capitol Hill for being too low (Greenwire, March 4).
The House proposal comes after the Obama administration earlier this year requested an increase of $452 million, or about 6 percent, for EPA's total discretionary budget (Greenwire, Feb. 2).
Along with proposed funding cuts, the bill would take aim at several facets of the Obama administration's landmark climate and water agendas.
Chief among the House bill's policy riders is a provision that would prevent the agency from putting in place its proposed plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The spending bill would halt both EPA's proposal to reduce emissions from new and modified plants and its proposed Clean Power Plan targeting existing power plants.
The Obama administration is expected to finalize both proposals in August.
"This legislation stops the abuse of power by over-zealous bureaucratic agencies in Washington -- including the EPA -- that seek to impose regulations that kill jobs and hinder growth," House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said in a statement.
The bill would also restrict the Obama administration from incorporating the social cost of carbon -- which found that carbon dioxide would cost society $71 a ton in 2050 -- into any rules or guidance documents until 2013 estimates are revised by a new working group. House appropriators also proposed to bar EPA from requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems and from regulating greenhouse gas emissions resulting from biological processes at livestock operations.
The draft legislation takes aim at the Significant New Alternatives Policy, EPA's program for regulating substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals. It would prohibit EPA from disapproving any previously accepted substitutes for hydrofluorocarbons used as refrigerants or in foam-blowing agents.
Under the bill, the president would be required to submit to Congress a report detailing all federal government funding for climate change projects -- both domestic and international -- in fiscal 2015 and 2016.
Aside from climate change, the bill prepares the battlefield for the looming fight over the Obama administration's controversial water rule.
Critics of the Waters of the U.S. rule are working on two parallel tracks to try to kill it: stand-alone legislation and an appropriations rider. The House has already passed its stand-alone legislation to block it and approved an appropriations rider to its energy and water spending bill.
But in the Senate, the appropriations fight is shaping up to take place during consideration of the Interior and EPA funding measure. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who is leading that fight, last month agreed to withdraw his appropriations amendment during consideration of the energy and water bill after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Interior and EPA subcommittee, agreed to take the issue up in her measure.
The House measure unveiled this morning contains such a policy rider, laying the groundwork for a fight in the upper chamber.
Environmentalists were quick to slam the proposal. Friends of the Earth climate and energy campaigner Lukas Ross called the draft legislation a "frontal assault" on environmental regulations.
"Agencies like the EPA are a crucial line of defense between polluters and our air and water," Ross said. "Congress should give these agencies the support they deserve instead of treating them as props in political theater."Interior
The bill contains a bevy of policy riders curbing land-use restrictions by the Interior Department and Forest Service but would keep funding for key programs under those agencies roughly level.
It would restrict regulations under the Endangered Species Act, temporarily block restriction on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle, and cut funding for land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
It would also provide $452 million for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), a program that compensates rural counties with large amounts of federal lands that pay no property taxes. But funding PILT within the appropriations bill -- rather than from mandatory funding as has occurred in the past -- leaves less funding available for all other Interior, Forest Service and EPA programs, a situation appropriators from both parties have said is not ideal.
As expected, the bill also rejects Obama administration proposals to impose new fees on oil and gas drillers and public lands ranchers and to shift some wildfire funding to a disaster pot designed to prevent the borrowing of funds from non-fire accounts.
Funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund appears to be roughly $250 million, a notable decline from the more than $300 million in current spending levels.
But this funding level is the highest recommended by House appropriators since 2010, said Alan Rowsome, of the Wilderness Society.
"The House bill recognizes the diversity of important LWCF projects across the country that are worthy of investment in the coming year," he said. "And though the amount is not nearly enough to meet the needs of the nation, it is a step in the right direction towards restoring stable, consistent funding to the program into the future."
Many of the policy riders would apply to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which would be funded at $1.4 billion, about $8 million below current funding levels.
It continues for one year a ban on preparing proposed listing rules for the greater sage grouse and Columbia Basin distinct population segment of sage grouse. The agency is under a legal mandate to decide by Sept. 30 whether the greater sage grouse deserves protection under ESA, but the listing rider would prevent a rulemaking that would set federal restrictions in motion until October 2016.
Notably, the bill would not retroactively block a sweeping effort by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to strengthen grouse protections across some 66 million acres, an effort that is designed to allow FWS to conclude in September that a listing rule is not warranted.
Also, unlike the current spending bill, the House's fiscal 2016 bill would not prohibit listing rules associated with the Gunnison sage grouse, a separate bird in Colorado and Utah that is already designated "threatened." Absence of that provision may allow FWS to issue a special rule allowing more regulatory flexibility for ranchers and other land users.
In addition, the bill would require the agency to reissue rules from 2011 and 2012 that delisted wolves in the western Great Lakes and Wyoming, rules that were recently tossed in federal court. It would also require the agency to amend an interim rule that would allow some activities to harm or kill northern long-eared bats, which the agency in April decided to list as threatened. The special rule was meant to provide flexibility for forest managers and landowners by allowing for some incidental killing or harming of long-eared bats, but listing of the flying mammal incensed GOP lawmakers who argued it is threatened by a disease, not human activities.
The bill maintains level funding for key wildlife accounts, including $35 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, roughly $50 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and $59 million for state and tribal wildlife grants.
BLM would be funded at $1.1 billion, an increase of $30 million above current levels. The bill would reject the Obama administration's proposal to impose $48 million in new oil and gas inspection fees and to establish a new administrative fee for public lands ranchers. It also does not appear to support the creation of a BLM charitable foundation that would mobilize public support for its multiple-use mission, which was a key priority of BLM Director Neil Kornze.
But it would honor BLM's request to quadruple funding -- to $60 million -- to conserve sage grouse.
The National Park Service would be funded at $2.7 billion, an increase of $53 million above current levels but far below the roughly $3 billion the administration requested on the eve of the agency's 2016 centennial.
Agency operations would be funded at $2.3 billion, about $50 million more than current levels. It would also provide $20 million -- a doubling of current funding -- for the Centennial Challenge, a program that requires an equal or greater match from nonfederal partners to support projects like construction and education to burnish the parks system ahead of its centennial. The Obama administration was seeking $50 million for the centennial account and more from mandatory funding sources.
John Garder, a budget specialist with the National Parks Conservation Association, said he was pleased with the funding levels given how little money appropriators had available for the Park Service.
"In the context of a very constrained allocation, we're very grateful to appropriators for the proposed investment for national parks," he said. "But with an expected influx of visitors for the 2016 parks centennial, this level wouldn't provide the rangers and maintenance those visitors deserve, so this shows the urgency for Congress to replace the sequester or to find another way to provide the investment parks and gateway communities deserve."
Like the current funding bill, the House's fiscal 2016 bill would also establish conditions for when the Park Service may transfer franchise fees from one park unit to another park unit to pay down the investments that concessionaires have made in park facilities. The provision follows the Park Service's decision last August to transfer $50 million in franchise fees from 88 park units to the Grand Canyon to reimburse a park concessionaire for investments it had made in the park over the past century. That move was designed to increase competition for new concessionaire contracts. But language in the House appropriations bill appears to stipulate that such transfers may occur in the future only if the receiving park is able to pay them back during the life of the contract.
For the Forest Service, funding would be kept roughly level at $1.5 billion for the national forest system, including $40 million for collaborative forestry and $355 million for logging.
Wildland fire programs at Interior and the Forest Service would be funded at $3.6 billion, $52 million above the current spending levels, according to House appropriators. Funding to remove hazardous fuels from the forest would be set at $526 million, equal to current funding levels.Coal and mining
The spending bill takes a cue from President Obama's budget proposal in proposing a new program to help Appalachian coal miners displaced by the industry downturn.
Instead of speeding up the release of $1 billion from the abandoned coal mine reclamation fund, however, as the White House proposed, the bill would provide $30 million in new grant funding.
The money would go to the hardest-hit states, presumably including Kentucky and West Virginia, and promote cleanups that can also help boost the economy. The panel's report on the bill will include more details, it said.
Otherwise, the spending legislation would leave funding for the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement largely untouched at $123 million for regulation and technology.
While OSMRE has in recent years wanted to reduce allocations to states, encouraging them to raise fees on industry, the bill includes $68 million in regulatory grants. It mandates that OSMRE fees go to offset the agency's expenses rather than add to its coffers.
The legislation would also seek to block the agency's forthcoming stream protection rule meant to protect waterways from coal mining under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
Similarly, the spending bill would bar EPA from changing the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act, which would restrict strip mining. There's a similar provision in the Army Corps of Engineers spending bill.
Separately, the bill aims to block EPA's plan to add new financial assurance requirements for hardrock mines. Environmental groups are in litigation against the agency to speed up the rulemaking, and yesterday it asked small companies for input on the process.Chemicals
Though Congress has been intensely interested in Chemical Safety Board management practices this year, lawmakers' desire for the board to improve its slow operations has not translated into more money proposed for the beleaguered agency.
Appropriators outlined keeping the board's funding steady at $11 million for the upcoming fiscal year. The agency had requested an increase of $1.253 million, or about 11 percent -- small change in the context of the broader federal budget, but enough for CSB to hire more safety inspectors and work to clear a backlog of unfinished investigations, the agency said.
The agency has struggled with the backlog for years, in part because it launched an ambitious investigation of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 at the request of members of Congress but never received additional funding for what was a vast project unprecedented in the board's history.
Lawmakers have also failed to confirm a new chairman to lead the agency and an additional board member, both of whom have been nominated by the president (Greenwire, April 22).
CSB made the same funding request a year ago, with a similar outcome.
Reporters Annie Snider and Sam Pearson contributed.
-
House FY16 Bill Targets EPA For Major Funding Cuts, Policy Prohibitions
Jun 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Republicans have unveiled their fiscal year 2016 funding bill for EPA that would impose major cuts to core agency programs for a total $718 million decrease to its existing $8.13 billion budget, and block high-profile rules such as EPA's pending climate rules for power plants and its final Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule.
The draft bill released June 9 one day ahead of a House Appropriations Committee interior panel markup sets significantly lower funding levels for EPA than President Obama floated in his FY16 proposal to fund the agency at $8.59 billion. Almost all of the agency's major budget accounts -- including its clean water and drinking water state revolving funds (SRFs) -- would face millions of dollars in cuts from their currently enacted levels.
The GOP wants to reduce funding for the SRFs that support state infrastructure spending, despite calls from statesfor lawmakers to hold the accounts steady at FY15 levels, and the president's proposal to re-balance the two funds by raising the drinking water SRF while lowering the clean water account.
Under the House plan EPA's clean water SRF would be cut by $430 million or 30 percent, from the current $1.45 billion to $1.02 billion, while the drinking water SRF would drop from its current $906 million funding to $757 million, a 16 percent cut. The proposed cuts contrast with Obama's proposal that would cut the clean water SRF by $332 million down to $1.12 billion, but shift almost the entire amount of the cut into raising the drinking water SRF by $279 million, up to $1.186 billion.
The House sought to implement identical cuts in FY15 but ultimately agreed to hold the accounts unchanged from previous spending levels in an agreement with the then-Democratic Senate.
While the upper chamber is now controlled by the GOP, both Democratic and Republican senators at a March 4 hearing on Obama's proposal attacked the plan to cut clean water SRF spending, signaling that there could still be a bipartisan compromise in that body to protect the funds.
The new House bill would also maintain an existing “Buy American” requirement mandating the use of American-made iron and steel components in SRF-funding projects, but only for the drinking water SRF.
Funding Reductions
Beyond the SRF reductions, the bill would also cut other grant and loan programs, reducing the overall state and tribal assistance grant account, which includes the SRFs, by $565 million from $3.55 billion down to $2.98 billion -- counter to the White House budget that would set the account at $3.59 billion.
However, allocations for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative would hold steady at the current level of $300 million, up from the president's proposal of $250 million.
The House bill also targets the environmental programs and management account, which includes most EPA regulatory activities, for a $141 million reduction, from $2.61 billion to $2.47 billion. In a statement released alongside the draft bill, the committee said “These reductions will help the agency streamline operations, and focus its activities on core duties, rather than unnecessary regulatory expansion.”
The only accounts that would escape cuts under the House bill would be those associated with contaminated site issues. The Superfund office would hold steady at $1.09 billion, while the leaking underground storage tank program would remain at $91.9 million. Obama had sought to raise the accounts to $1.15 billion and $95.3 million, respectively.
The science and technology account would face a $29.7 million reduction under the House plan, from $734 million to $704 million -- in contrast to the president's proposal to raise the account to $759 million.
Meanwhile, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) would see its dedicated budget reduced from $41.5 million to $40 million, instead of the White House plan to raise its funding to $50 million -- which OIG had already argued was inadequate because it included a payroll reduction.
Policy Provisions
The bill also includes a series of provisions aimed at blocking pending rules that the GOP opposes and preserving some existing rules that environmentalists have urged regulators to change.
For example, it would prevent the agency from finalizing its pending greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for new and existing power plants, and also block EPA from implementing its recently finalized rule defining the scope of the CWA.
The legislation would also bar EPA and other agencies from using the administration's controversial 2013 revisions to the social cost of carbon -- the measure of benefits from carbon dioxide reductions that forms the basis for many agencies' climate rules -- unless a new interagency working group revises the figure.
Another provision would block any change in the federal rules for financial assurance mechanisms under the Superfund law, which include surety bonds and self-insurance instruments used to limit taxpayers' liabilities for cleanups at contaminated sites.
The bill would also forbid EPA from giving any hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) the “unacceptable” status under its significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program if the chemicals are currently used for refrigeration or foam blowing. HFCs were once touted as ozone friendly but have been found to act as powerful GHGs, and EPA hassought to use SNAP to phase them out in favor of substitutes with lower global warming potential.
EPA would also be barred from regulating lead ammunition or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act; from regulating or mandating reporting on GHG emissions from livestock or manure; from changing the definition of “fill material” subject to CWA permit requirements; or from revising the stream buffer required for surface mining operations.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested