Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
US EPA Proposes Snurs for 30 Substances
Jun 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is proposing significant new use rules for 30 chemical substances, which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Security Experts Warn Chemical Plants are Vulnerable to Cyber-Attacks
Jun 10, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Emma Stoye
Security experts are warning that the computers controlling machinery in chemical plants, power stations and other critical infrastructure are vulnerable to attacks from hackers, and that more work is needed to prevent control of critical equipment falling into the wrong hands. -
Clean Power Plan is Obama's 'Legacy,' Utility Leader Says
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
President Obama has established his legacy with his leadership on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming, and it may be time to "call it a day" and finalize a "rational" rule to cut CO2 emissions from power plants, the CEO of American Electric Power Company Inc. said here yesterday. -
Environmentalists Fault EPA Ozone 'Backsliding' Air Rule
Jun 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists in a new legal filing are claiming that EPA's March 6 final rule for implementing the agency's 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) could unlawfully weaken controls on air pollution sources that states imposed in order to help cut ozone and achieve an earlier, less-stringent, ozone standard set in 1997. -
Clean Power Plan Not a Threat to Reliability in MISO, Report Says
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
A report by consultants at the Analysis Group concludes the sprawling area served by the MidContinent Independent System Operator shouldn't see reliability problems as a result of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
EPA Carbon Rule Could Create 300,000 Net Jobs, Despite Hit to Coal -- Study
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
A new report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute argues that U.S. EPA's impending Clean Power Plan could create a net total of nearly 300,000 new jobs when it goes into effect in 2020. -
U.S. Should Ditch 'Outdated' Oil Export Ban -Harvard
Jun 10, 2015 | Reuters
By Richard Valdmanis
The United States must lift an "outdated" ban on oil exports to take full economic and geopolitical advantage of its hydraulic fracturing boom, according to a Harvard Business School study released on Wednesday. -
House Panel Approves Bill Cutting EPA Funding
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Appropriators teed up the latest congressional fight over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday when a House panel approved a bill with deep spending cuts for the agency and provisions blocking its rule-making. -
GOP Readies Assault on Obama’s Climate Agenda
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senate Republicans are poised to launch a series of attacks aimed squarely at President Obama’s climate change initiative, as the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward this summer with a host of new regulations. -
Subcommittee Approves Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka and Phil Taylor
A House Appropriations subcommittee today approved a fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA that would cut below current funding and contains about two dozen policy riders aimed at Obama administration regulations. -
Senate Panel OKs Bill to Kill Obama Rule After Fierce Partisan Clashes
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
Despite fiery opposition from Democrats, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this morning voted 11-9 along party lines to advance a measure to kill the Obama administration's controversial water rule. -
Lawmakers Spar Over EPA's Water Rule
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Lawmakers sparred Wednesday over Environmental Protection Agency’s "waters of the United States" rule, with Republicans blasting the proposal as overreach and their Democratic counterparts accusing them of hyberbole. -
Senators Vote to Block Obama’s Water Rule
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee voted along party lines Wednesday to overturn the Obama administration’s new regulation asserting control over small waterways like streams and wetlands. -
The EPA and Army Corps' Clean Water Rule
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Gene Karpinski
For many people, no experience is as evocative of carefree childhood memories as long summer days. Cannonballing into your local swimming hole. -
'Unprecedented' Appeals to Crude-by-Rail Rule Arrive at DOT's Doorstep
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
An array of environmentalist, industry and tribal groups are appealing federal tank car standards, adding a new layer to the legal challenges facing the Department of Transportation's recent oil train safety rule. -
Pa. Commissions Crude-by-Rail Safety Report as Train Traffic Increases
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
A consultant hired by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) will compile a list of recommendations to make oil transportation safer, as the state increasingly becomes a transportation hub for crude shipped by rail.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
US EPA Proposes Snurs for 30 Substances
Jun 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is proposing significant new use rules for 30 chemical substances, which were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The agency had issued direct final Snurs for the substances last October, but withdraw them after receiving notices of intent to submit adverse comments. After considering stakeholder comments, the EPA is reproposing the Snurs.
-
Security Experts Warn Chemical Plants are Vulnerable to Cyber-Attacks
Jun 10, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Emma Stoye
Security experts are warning that the computers controlling machinery in chemical plants, power stations and other critical infrastructure are vulnerable to attacks from hackers, and that more work is needed to prevent control of critical equipment falling into the wrong hands.
Last week, the UK government unveiled the results of a survey that showed the average cost of a serious cybersecurity breach has more than doubled since last year – rising from £600,000 to £1.46 million. And the UK Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance – the UK government body organising cybersecurity policy – recently estimated that cybercrime costs the UK £27 billion every year. But in the industrial sector – where computer-controlled equipment is commonplace – the threats go beyond financial ruin.
‘Virtually all chemical plants have some sort of computer-based automated control system,’ says Eric Cosman, who has advised the chemical industry on cybersecurity. ‘If you somehow compromise [that system] bad things could happen depending on the nature of the plant – that could range from spills of material, to some sort of overpressure or venting, or in the worst case even some sort of explosion.’The Stuxnet effect
The prospect of sabotaging industrial control systems has been on the radar since 2010 when the news broke that Stuxnet, the infamous cyber-weapon thought to have been developed by US and Israeli software engineers, had brought uranium enrichment to a standstill at a nuclear facility in Iran during a sustained two year attack.
Attacks on US industrial targets climbed from 41 in 2010 to 198 in 2011, the year after Stuxnet, according to US Department of Homeland Security’s Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). The number of attacks had reached 245 by 2014.
But according to Andrew Ginter, vice president of industrial security at US-based technology supplierWaterfall Security, the threat has only just begun to ‘trickle down from experts’, and some of the safety and security standards that industries operate under are outdated. ‘Most of these targeted attack capabilities have only arisen in the last few years … anything based on old best practice is vulnerable,’ he says.Lack of motive
A sophisticated computer virus was used to target the Natanz Nuclear Enrichment Facility in Iran © HO/Reuters/Corbis
When it comes to chemical plants, severe incidents appear to be rare. Chemistry World spoke to several security experts, none of whom knew for certain whether a chemical plant had ever been the subject of a targeted attack. There were just four chemical industry cybersecurity incidents reported to ICS-CERT in 2014, although it is possible that the real number of attacks may be higher, as companies rarely choose to publicise information on security breaches.
And although attacks are rare, companies shouldn’t be lulled into thinking they’re impossible, says Ginter. But at the moment, most professional hackers goal is to make money from their activities so they have no motive to cause a chemical spill, for example, because it wouldn’t benefit them financially. Those who target chemical companies are more likely to attack corporate networks and try to steal intellectual property.
‘But motives can change in a heartbeat,’ he warns. ‘We must design defences based on capability. And the capability is there.’Remote access
Ginter explains that control systems that are connected to the internet, or to other machines through remote networks, may be vulnerable to targeted attacks because of the porous nature of the firewalls used to protect them. ‘Any professional attacker can buy a copy of the system … find attacks that will work and the firewall won’t discover,’ he says. He recalls speaking to someone who employed a tester to try hack into their system. When allowed to gain control of the receptionist’s PC, the specialist took just five minutes to hack into their process control system to the point where they would be able to ‘stir the pot’ in the plant.
‘If you blow up a cracker you can’t restore it from back up!’
Companies can also unknowingly take risks by giving system access to suppliers or maintenance contractors to allow them to connect remotely – a measure that can help cut costs but increases vulnerability to hacking. ‘If they do not have the experience or sophistication necessary to ensure that that connection is secure then that could represent a possible path of attack,’ says Cosman. In one case, he says, hackers managed to access a retail firm’s systems using credentials they stole from a heating contractor. ‘They didn’t have to break into the target system, they logged in using perfectly valid credentials.’
And if the control system is not kept sufficiently isolated from the business network, damage to process equipment can also occur as ‘collateral damage’ from attacks to the corporate network. Indeed, when incidents such as shutdowns or malfunctions do occur, it can be difficult to determine the cause. In the case of Stuxnet, puzzled engineers spent years replacing what they thought was faulty equipment before the real problem was uncovered. And even if a cyber-attack is confirmed, as was the case last year at anunnamed steel mill in Germany where operators lost control of a blast furnace, it can be difficult to tell whether the damage is deliberate or accidental.Designing defences
For those who design cyber-defences, industrial facilities such as chemical plants pose particular challenges. Some of the strategies which are effective for traditional IT systems can’t be used by industry.
The systems that are built to control plant equipment may be designed and built to last decades, which makes them difficult to update regularly in response to constantly evolving threats. And in many cases they need to run 24 hours a day, so cannot be taken down to install security updates.
‘The current situation is a bunch of accidents waiting to happen’
A lot of the software used to protect IT systems such as firewalls are ‘leaky’ by nature, as they have to be able to allow internet access and communication within the network. Anti-virus software detects and removes known threats by scanning for malware which has slipped through the net, and it can take days or weeks to detect and remove threats – an unacceptable timescale to lose control of any industrial system.
Even the ultimate safety response of ‘shut everything down’ that is commonplace in IT systems can be problematic in an industrial setting, as shutting down a reaction vessel mid-process could leave an unholy mess to clean up. ‘In a chemical plant if you blow up a cracker you can’t restore it from back up!’ Ginter points out.
There are technology solutions that address some of these issues. Ginter explains the kind of hardware tools Waterfall makes – unidirectional gateways – are ‘stronger than firewalls’ as they create a non-porous perimeter that allows information to be sent out of process control systems, while preventing anything being sent in.
Other tools can tighten security using ‘whitelisting’ – only allowing previously approved software to access the system – instead of the ‘blacklisting’ approach found in traditional firewalls, which prevents the entry of known threats.Identifying dangers
In most places the chemical industry self-regulates and the owners of plants take responsibility for their own security. By and large, big international companies recognise that the stakes are high and have in-house teams working on cybersecurity. But for smaller companies, the expense makes this unfeasible.
Many are arguing that the regulations set by governments are in need of an overhaul to bring them in line with current threats. The UK government has started to recognise the potential dangers, and its overall cybersecurity strategy was published in 2011. At the end of 2014 it announced a £2.5 million investmentin a project that will focus on identifying and fighting cyber threats to the UK’s industrial control systems, including power stations, national rail infrastructure and manufacturing plants.
‘The government has put quite a lot of effort into getting companies to understand the sort of risks that they face to their enterprise IT systems. But there’s been very little work done on raising awareness of the risks they face in terms of their industrial control systems,’ says Chris Hankin, director of the research institute in trustworthy industrial control systems at Imperial College London, UK.
Over the next three years, Hankin’s group will join with several universities and partner companies to measure the risks of cyber threats and explore how they might translate into infrastructure damage and lost revenue for businesses, as well as developing better defences. ‘It’s about getting an understanding of what is applicable and adding to the set of defences that we can deploy,’ says Hankin. ‘The aim is to make [systems] better protected and less vulnerable to the sorts of attacks that we’re fearing that we might begin to see.’
In the meantime the industry will have to hope no hacker with the capability to break through existing defences has an appetite for destruction. As one expert put it, it seems the current situation is ‘a bunch of accidents waiting to happen’.
-
Clean Power Plan is Obama's 'Legacy,' Utility Leader Says
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
President Obama has established his legacy with his leadership on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming, and it may be time to "call it a day" and finalize a "rational" rule to cut CO2 emissions from power plants, the CEO of American Electric Power Company Inc. said here yesterday.
Nick Akins is the new chairman of the Edison Electric Institute, the association of the nation's investor-owned utilities, which is today concluding its annual meeting here.
"If I were talking with the president today, I'd say his legacy is already there. The world community is starting to recognize the issue. Secondly, just the fact of the Clean Power Plan being presented has brought together a lot of issues that weren't brought together before," Akins said during a news conference with other members of EEI's leadership team.
"To me, I think you'd call it a day and say, 'OK, let's go talk to people about making this thing rational because if it is, then you can avoid all the litigation and all the discourse that will slow the process down.'"
From left, Edison Electric Institute CEO Thomas Kuhn, Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning, American Electric Power Company Inc. CEO Nick Akins, Exelon Corp. CEO Chris Crane and PNM CEO Pat Vincent-Collawn speak at the EEI conference in New Orleans. Photo by Rod Kuckro.
EEI's member companies "have been very supportive of working with the administration to advance this ball in the proper fashion," Akins said.
The White House Office of Management and Budget is currently reviewing U.S. EPA's proposed final rule to attack carbon emissions using Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. It is slated for release in August.
Akins also urged Congress "to bring some balance to the equation" of how the energy industry operates as it attempts to craft bipartisan energy legislation.
"Because we as utilities have to think about that balance every day -- the impact it has on the economy, the impact it has on our customers, the impact certainly that is has on the environment and the ability to make this transition and maintain [grid] reliability," Akins said. "It's critical for that dialogue to continue."
Chris Crane, CEO of Chicago-based Exelon, said his company wants to see Congress engage in a "larger conversation; take some of the partisan bickering out of it. We're coming up on the election period and everybody wants to put their stake in the ground. But it's not productive for us as energy companies to have a future that's not predictable on the investment [side]," he said.
Pat Vincent-Collawn, CEO of New Mexico's PNM Resources, said Congress has to tackle some type of backstop siting authority over long-distance electric transmission lines.
"Transmission is going to be key to carrying out the Clean Power Plan and in the states that we serve -- in New Mexico and Texas -- we have an abundance of renewables that we would like to be able to take to other states. But we don't have an abundance of transmission because it's very difficult to site and plan; it can take anywhere from eight to 15 years. So that ability to more easily site and plan transmission would be helpful," she said.Clean Power Plan's 'silver lining'
Akins' seven coal-dependent utilities in 11 states face a challenge from the compliance demands of the Clean Power Plan. Still Akins sees a "silver lining" to the proposed rule insofar as it "makes everyone within the stakeholder group think about those complicated issues that are involved in the transformation of our grid."
"It's not about where we're heading. It's about the pace at which we're going in the interim as opposed to where we plan to get in 2030 or beyond," he said.
"It is really about timing. But it's also a cultural thing, because in today's generation, in today's workforce, there is an expectation that we will continue to drive toward a cleaner energy economy," he said.
PNM's Vincent-Collawn was optimistic. The electric utility industry has "an amazing history of meeting any kind of emissions targets. If you give us the goals -- we achieve. What we need with that is the flexibility to do it in the best way for our states," she said.
"Give us that flexibility, the industry will always do the right thing."
-
Environmentalists Fault EPA Ozone 'Backsliding' Air Rule
Jun 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists in a new legal filing are claiming that EPA's March 6 final rule for implementing the agency's 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) could unlawfully weaken controls on air pollution sources that states imposed in order to help cut ozone and achieve an earlier, less-stringent, ozone standard set in 1997.
In a June 5 statement of issues filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a coalition of environmental groups asks whether EPA unlawfully lifted “anti-backsliding” measures, and other measures such as “transportation conformity” requirements, that should have remained in place for 20 years after areas attained the 1997 NAAQS. Transportation conformity mandates that state air regulators evaluate federally-funded or permitted transportation projects and plans to ensure they do not worsen air quality.
“Did EPA unlawfully or arbitrarily eliminate the conformity control in numerous areas before states satisfied the congressionally established conditions?” the groups ask. “Did EPA unlawfully or arbitrarily fail to provide anti-backsliding protections to keep 'new source review' controls in place in areas that, by virtue of EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, no longer must satisfy it?”
EPA in 2008 tightened the ozone NAAQS to 75 parts per billion (ppb), stricter than the previous standard established in 1997 and expressed as 84 ppb.
The environmental groups further question the legality of EPA's provisions allowing state regulators some choice of “baseline year” against which to measure progress in reducing ozone and of the practice of “inter-pollutant trading.” They further question whether EPA unlawfully allowed attainment areas to use the same “maintenance” plans for the 2008 standard as for the 1997 standard.
The groups pursuing the lawsuit are Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Downwinders at Risk, and Physicians for Social Responsibility -- Los Angeles.
In addition, California's South Coast Air Quality Management District is also suing EPA over the rule, which details steps states must take to comply with the 2008 ozone standard.
Although briefing has not yet started in the case, the air district in its May 27 statement of issues says it intends to raise “whether EPA erred in concluding that emission reductions demonstrating reasonable further progress must all come from within the nonattainment area.”
-
Clean Power Plan Not a Threat to Reliability in MISO, Report Says
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
A report by consultants at the Analysis Group concludes the sprawling area served by the MidContinent Independent System Operator shouldn't see reliability problems as a result of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
"We think the region is generally well-positioned to be OK," said Susan Tierney, senior adviser at Analysis Group, said during a presentation yesterday afternoon at the Mid-American Regulatory Conference here. "The industry is going to be able to comply in [MISO] very capably."
Utilities and states within MISO's footprint, including Wisconsin, have expressed concerns about EPA's proposal issued just over a year ago. Among them is worry that the plan to curtail carbon dioxide emissions could lead to premature closure of coal-fired power plants and jeopardize the stability of the grid.
So why is MISO well-equipped to handle the transformation of the industry anticipated when and if the Clean Power Plan is implemented?
First, the Carmel, Ind.-based grid operator is already undergoing significant changes as a result of relatively low natural gas prices and EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which is expected to result in the retirement of thousands of megawatts of coal-fired generation within MISO. There's also continued wind development in the Upper Midwest, as well as billions of dollars of new transmission.
The report also notes a "strong culture of practice and planning" in MISO states to help to ensure reliability is maintained, as well as a history of "culture of collaboration" in the region.
Advertisement
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Energy, ticked off a list of parties and processes that will help ensure reliability is maintained. They include the 10-year assessments by the North American Electric Reliability Corp., long-range planning required by state utility commissions and MISO's own resource adequacy surveys.
Some critics of the Clean Power Plan have cited recent MISO's resource adequacy surveys showing generation capacity shortfalls within certain subregions, or zones, of MISO's 15-state footprint, including Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
Tierney said shrinking reserve margins are something MISO will have to address regardless of the Clean Power Plan.
"Reliability assurance is a job right now and will continue to be a job," she said.
But EPA's proposal shouldn't affect the ability of states to meet even near-term carbon reduction targets, which Tierney expects will be more gradually phased in when EPA releases the final version of the rule this summer.
"There is a variety of practices and procedures by different players to provide long-term and immediate assurances that the lights will stay on," she said.
The report released Monday is the third by the Boston-based Analysis Group looking at reliability and the Clean Power Plan. Previous reports drew similar conclusions about the threat to reliability nationwide and within the PJM Interconnection (E&ENews PM, March 16).
While the reports have concluded the Clean Power Plan isn't a threat to reliability, Tierney told utility regulators and others at the conference that the close examination of the issue is healthy.
Concern about reliability "has been a hallmark of environmental regulations," she said. "There's a lot of hand wringing appropriately about whether reliability will be jeopardized."
-
EPA Carbon Rule Could Create 300,000 Net Jobs, Despite Hit to Coal -- Study
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
A new report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute argues that U.S. EPA's impending Clean Power Plan could create a net total of nearly 300,000 new jobs when it goes into effect in 2020.
The direct gains, which EPI characterizes as "a small net boost in employment," would come from an increase in energy efficiency installation and manufacturing, natural gas extraction and other energy sectors likely to see increased demand as the power sector shifts from coal to lower- and zero-carbon energy sources.
The study also examines "indirect" job creation or loss in sectors affected by the energy industry, either by producing goods or services tied to energy production, or by interacting with the people who work in that sector.
"The key driver of these positive net effects is the large increase in energy efficiency investments," the report reads.
The marginal boost would be short-lived, however. "After [2020]," the report concludes, "the net impacts of the rule on employment converge quickly to zero -- becoming almost completely insignificant by 2030."
It's a sharp contrast from the steady drumbeat of economic concerns that has come from conservative critics of the plan to lower the power sector's carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has warned that the rule will lead to "significant job loss," while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has predicted that it and other Obama administration policies would "have a devastating impact on our economy."A 'gallon of milk' rise in monthly electricity costs?
Still, the EPI report isn't all positive news for EPA. The study predicts that the roughly 473,000 jobs directly or indirectly created in 2020 would be offset by the loss of about 188,000 jobs. The direct job losses would primarily come from coal-mining and coal-fired power plants. Because of that, the study found, "Gross job losses are likely to be geographically concentrated, raising the challenge of ensuring a fair transition for workers in sectors likely to contract due to the CPP."
EPI also sees increased electricity costs siphoning off some of the Clean Power Plan's short-term economic gains. Citing an estimated 5 percent increase in electricity prices in 2020, the study warns that "if consumers and businesses fail to anticipate or properly plan for these price increases, employment could fall by between 25,000 and 150,000 jobs."
"The rate for electricity might go up commensurate with about a gallon of milk -- a little over three bucks a month" in 2020, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged on a conference call yesterday with business leaders. "But in the end, in 2030, when we are going to get a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution ... that is going to lower rates so significantly," she predicted, "because the cheapest way to get there is ... efficiency and renewables."
EPA's analysis predicts an 8 percent drop in consumer electricity bills by 2030, though the bulk of that decrease would come from lower consumer electricity demand.McCarthy: Coal will still be 'in the mix'
The EPI report is the latest in a long line of studies -- some with more partisan motivation than others -- to examine the Clean Power Plan's impact on the economy, the electric grid, public health and other areas ahead of the release of a final rule.
Like most of these studies, it has its caveats. EPA is expected to make several changes to the draft language. McCarthy and other EPA officials have hinted they'll likely tweak some aspect of the 2020 interim goals. Observers also expect changes in the way the plan credits nuclear power plants, as well as actions that states have already taken to expand their renewable footprints and energy efficiency.
On top of that, states will be charged with creating their own pathways to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and compliance plans won't necessarily follow the building blocks laid out by EPA. Still, in the broad picture, nearly every expert expects the plan to decrease the greenhouse gas footprint of coal-fired power plants and lead to additional use of natural gas and renewable power.
"The gross [job] losses are going to be more concentrated than the gross gains," said EPI study author Josh Bivens. "It's really about coal mining and coal-fired generation."
Mindful of the "war on coal" narrative that critics like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have fixed to the Obama administration's environmental policies, EPA has pushed back on the idea that the Clean Power Plan is designed to take the carbon-intensive fuel out of the generation mix. "You will continue to see coal in the mix," McCarthy told business representatives yesterday, pointing to an EPA analysis projecting that coal will still generate about 30 percent of electricity once the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented. "We can do this using all kinds of fuel supplies if we do this in a clever and thoughtful way," she said.
The EIA projects that the Clean Power Plan would lead to 90 gigawatts' worth of coal plant retirements by 2040, with most of them taking place when the rule's interim goals kick in (EnergyWire, May 22).
The rule's language will be released later this summer -- likely in August, according to most EPA observers.
-
U.S. Should Ditch 'Outdated' Oil Export Ban -Harvard
Jun 10, 2015 | Reuters
By Richard Valdmanis
The United States must lift an "outdated" ban on oil exports to take full economic and geopolitical advantage of its hydraulic fracturing boom, according to a Harvard Business School study released on Wednesday. Lifting the 40 year-old ban imposed after the Arab oil embargo and easing restrictions on liquefied natural gas export terminals would add $23 billion to the economy by 2030, create tens of thousands of jobs, and provide the United States with additional clout overseas, the paper said. "Our energy resources have given the U.S. important new diplomatic tools that can aid allies and counteract the ability of unfriendly countries to use oil and gas access to achieve political aims," according to the research authored by three Harvard Business School professors in conjunction with the Boston Consulting Group. "Today, the ban on crude exports ... is reducing market opportunities for producers and reducing U.S. growth, with no clear offsetting benefits for America or Americans," said the study, which outlined several steps the country should take to fully benefit from the fracking boom. The call comes during intensifying debate in Washington on whether to reverse the oil export ban after Republicans introduced bills in both the House and the Senate in recent months. Oil producers eager to ship to markets in Asia and Europe say the ban has led to a glut of U.S. sweet crude that could eventually choke the domestic drilling boom. Some Democrats have been cool to the idea, citing concerns that exports would raise domestic energy prices. The rise of fracking technology, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into a well to extract oil or gas, has helped lift U.S. production of natural gas by 35 percent since 2005 and oil by 45 percent since 2010. The Harvard paper said fracking now contributes about $430 billion to annual U.S. gross domestic product and supports more than 2.7 million jobs. It called the industry "perhaps the largest single opportunity to change America's competitiveness." It said, however, that the oil industry and regulators needed to work hard to counter weak public support for fracking, mainly by addressing concerns about potential air and water pollution, and the practice's links to earthquakes. A report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this month said fracking had not led to widespread pollution of drinking water, but it added that some drilling activities could cause health risks.
-
House Panel Approves Bill Cutting EPA Funding
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Appropriators teed up the latest congressional fight over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday when a House panel approved a bill with deep spending cuts for the agency and provisions blocking its rule-making.
The House Interior and Environment appropriations bill would cut EPA funding by $718 million, or 9 percent, next year and block a handful of environmental rules the agency is looking to put out this summer.
Democrats on a House Appropriations subcommittee said they wouldn’t support the bill or deep cuts to the EPA, which has sustained a 20 percent decrease in funding since Republicans took the House in 2011.
“We are going backwards and the consequences will be felt in communities all across the country,” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said at a Wednesday hearing.
The bill also blocks EPA rule-making on water oversight and greenhouse gas emissions at power plants, two key planks in President Obama’s environment agenda.
“Congress must exercise its prerogative to prevent this kind of bureaucratic overreach, and I am proud that we are doing so in this bill,” said House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), whose state’s coal industry would be hit by the power plant rules.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the subcommittee, said the policy riders were included “to stop unnecessary and damaging overreach by the agency.”
“There is a great deal of concern over the number of regulatory actions being pursued by EPA in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional action,” he said.
The spending bill increases funding in some areas, especially among Native American programming. But the $30.17 billion bill cuts spending by $246 million overall, making it just the most recent budget bill to spur a debate over funding caps within the federal budget.
“This is the latest in a series of bills that drastically shortchanges job-creating investments and vital environmental protections, while carrying a wish list of special interest giveaways that hurt hardworking American families’ health and safety,” Appropriations Committee ranking member Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said.
After McCollum said lawmakers "must get serious about fixing the Budget Control Act's irresponsible caps,” Rogers made a point of congratulating Republicans for adhering to them.
“I know how tough it’s been to work with that number, but it’s as good as we can do,” he said.
-
GOP Readies Assault on Obama’s Climate Agenda
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Senate Republicans are poised to launch a series of attacks aimed squarely at President Obama’s climate change initiative, as the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward this summer with a host of new regulations.
Legislation coming before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday would effectively block the EPA’s latest proposal, a rule defining which waterways it can regulate.
“I expect that we will successfully get it out of committee tomorrow, and we’re going to continue to move forward,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the bill’s sponsor, said Tuesday. “This is a significant overreach by the White House and the administration.”
Barrasso’s bill would force the withdrawal of the Waters of the United States rule and give the EPA instructions for rewriting it, a move that would essentially limit the number of waterways the agency is able to regulate.
The water rule, unveiled last month, represents the first in a spate of major regulations due out in the coming months. Rules placing new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants are under White House review now and should be released before the fall.
The agency has said it will also finalize a rule on ozone levels this year, despite fierce critics from business groups that say the regulation would be the most expensive ever enacted.
Senate Republicans have drafted plans to stop many of the regulations, as they look to beat back the president’s climate change push and fulfill campaign promises made in the months before they seized control of the upper chamber in November.
Following the election, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pledged “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”
McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn’t released a schedule for bringing EPA bills to the floor, though several are in the pipeline.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), for instance, has introduced a bill blocking the EPA’s Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, a measure that Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and McConnell support. She said Tuesday she hopes to move the bill before August.
“I think it’s pretty clear that when they say it’s a straight-out environmental agenda, that doesn’t take into account the economic impacts across the states, basically pursuing policies that’s picking winners and losers in this country,” Capito said of the EPA’s rule-making.
“The heartland, where West Virginia is, and most especially West Virginia, I think has already suffered great job loss, and it’s going to get worse.”
Republicans have looked for Democratic allies in their fight against the EPA, and they’ve found at least a few. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has sponsored both Capito’s and Barrasso’s bills; Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) have signed on to Barrasso’s bill.
Republicans will need significant Democratic support to overcome both a potential filibuster in the Senate and likely vetoes from Obama, if the bills get that far. An Inhofe aide said the committee is working toward a veto-proof majority for Barrasso’s bill.
In the House, Republicans have taken an aggressive approach to the EPA as well. Lawmakers passed legislation in April to stop the water rule, which bill sponsor Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said would “increase confusion, increase uncertainty, increase lawsuits, and open up just about any water or wet area to federal regulation.”
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has scheduled votes on two bills designed to block EPA rules this month. In a memo to members in late May, he said the bills, which would undo the Clean Power Plan and coal ash regulations, would “protect consumers from burdensome and costly EPA regulations, keep the decision power in the hands of the states, and help modernize outdated laws.”
The House Appropriations Committee released an Interior and Environment spending bill Tuesday that would block potential EPA rule-making on everything from the power plant regulations to oversight of lead in fishing tackle. McConnell has previously endorsed using appropriations riders to target EPA policies where possible.
The EPA, for its part, has defended its rule-making as both necessary and legal — and within the purview Congress has assigned it.
“Clean air and clean water should not be a political issue,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said.
“All sides of the aisle want a clean and safe planet for their children and future generations. We are just doing our jobs — as Congress has directed us, and as courts have affirmed for us — to protect public health and the environment.”
-
Subcommittee Approves Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka and Phil Taylor
A House Appropriations subcommittee today approved a fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA that would cut below current funding and contains about two dozen policy riders aimed at Obama administration regulations.
The Interior, EPA and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee advanced the bill by voice vote during a quick markup this morning. Committee members saved debate over amendments for consideration by the full House Appropriations Committee, which will likely take up the bill next week.
The draft bill unveiled earlier this week would give EPA and Interior $30.17 billion in funding for fiscal 2016, $246 million below current spending levels and $3 billion below President Obama's request for Interior and EPA. Under the bill, EPA would take a hit of about $718 million, or a reduction of 9 percent, compared with current funding levels (Greenwire, June 9).
The proposed bill makes a "sincere effort to prioritize critical needs" in the face of "some serious challenges," said subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.).
At the markup today, Democratic appropriations leaders expressed concern with the proposed legislation, both for its funding cuts and for the policy provisions contained within the 134-page bill.
The legislation would halt many of EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including its proposals to stem carbon dioxide from power plants and the agency's rule that expands the number of water bodies in the United States that get automatic protection under the Clean Water Act.
Advertisement
It would also bar the Fish and Wildlife Service from preparing a potential Endangered Species Act listing rule for sage grouse, legislatively delist wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming, and limit the government's ability to regulate ivory and the use of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle.
"Unsurprisingly, the majority seeks to dismantle critical environmental protections in the bill that are supposed to advance environmental initiatives," House Appropriations ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said.
She also slammed the bill for extending the sequestration levels set in a 2011 budget law, noting that Obama would not sign the legislation.
"How much longer do we have to play this charade before the committee writes bills that could be enacted?" Lowey asked.Sage grouse rider
Calvert today specifically defended provisions in the bill to bar the Fish and Wildlife Service for another year from preparing a rule to list the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, as well as slash funding for federal land acquisitions.
As long as sage grouse are not under "imminent threat" of extinction, cooperative conservation between the federal government and states must be given more time to work, Calvert said.
"States are rightfully concerned that a listing or unnecessarily restrictive federal land-use plans will jeopardize existing conservation partnerships with states and private landowners, which are necessary to save the sagebrush ecosystem," he said. "This could eliminate jobs and curtail future job growth, devastate state and local economies, and undermine the development of conventional and renewable resources necessary for energy independence."
The spending bill, he noted, would provide $60 million -- a fourfold increase, as requested by the Obama administration -- for sage grouse conservation efforts at the Bureau of Land Management. The committee will continue to monitor BLM's efforts to enhance sage grouse protections on roughly 50 million acres in 10 Western states, he said.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell yesterday called the bill's policy riders, particularly the sage grouse provision, "dreadful" and urged they be removed.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has a legal mandate to decide by Sept. 30 whether sage grouse warrant protections under ESA, though under the House bill the agency would not be allowed to begin writing a rule that would trigger federal restrictions until October 2016.
Calvert this morning also defended the bill's proposed cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the government's main vehicle for acquiring new federal lands, conserving private lands and providing grants for local recreation projects. The bill would provide $248 million for LWCF, a significant drop from current levels above $300 million that caters to GOP calls to scale back federal lands purchases.
"We've attempted to forge a middle ground that begins to return the emphasis of Land and Water Conservation Fund to its original intent of recreation and state and local acquisitions," Calvert said.
Alan Rowsome, who co-chairs the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, said yesterday that the bill "once again shortchanges America's most important conservation program."
"As a result, irreplaceable natural land and water, historic sites and outdoor recreational areas will go unfunded, leaving communities across America in limbo for another year," he said.
Calvert also warned that rising wildfire costs continue to shoulder out other priorities within the Interior-EPA bill and called on Congress to fix the problem of "fire borrowing," which happens when the Forest Service runs out of suppression funds and must borrow from other non-fire accounts.
Last year, Senate appropriators tentatively approved an Obama administration request to allow some fires to be fought using disaster funds, a proposal that aims to prevent fire borrowing. But House appropriators have so far declined to approve the proposal via spending bills.
"The policy of borrowing funds from other programs in order to fight fires makes forests less healthy and fuels more fires and fire-related spending," said Calvert, who is a co-sponsor of H.R. 167 by Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) to provide disaster funds. "This is an endless cycle that Congress must address."
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the subcommittee's ranking member, said wildfire programs are consuming 12 percent of the committee's $30.17 billion allocation for Interior, EPA and Forest Service programs.
"It appears that any increases in this bill have come at the expense of the programs and responsibilities of the EPA and the public health of the American people," she said.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) today endorsed the proposed draft, highlighting EPA's Waters of the U.S. rule and Clean Power Plan as two areas where Congress should "exercise its prerogative to prevent this kind of bureaucratic overreach."
He applauded the bill for having "retooled" an Obama administration budget request for 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 as the White House proposed, the bill would provide $30 million in new grant funding.
Appropriators have "put forward a thoughtful alternative to help communities struggling under the weight of these regulations invigorate their economies," Rogers said.
-
Senate Panel OKs Bill to Kill Obama Rule After Fierce Partisan Clashes
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
Despite fiery opposition from Democrats, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this morning voted 11-9 along party lines to advance a measure to kill the Obama administration's controversial water rule.
S. 1140 would send the Obama administration back to the drawing board on its recently finalized Waters of the U.S. rule, setting new criteria for how a future rule should be developed and what streams and wetlands should and shouldn't qualify for Clean Water Act protection under it.
Ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said this morning's markup was a low point for her on the committee.
"You're ripping the heart out of a bill, which is a landmark bill which has separated this country from a lot of other countries and has done a great job for 40 years and we're messing with it, and that's a sad day for the Environment Committee," she said.
She pointed out that William Ruckelshaus, who served as U.S. EPA Administrator under Republican presidents Nixon and Reagan, has said “broad Clean Water Act jurisdiction” is necessary to cleaning up the country’s waters and making sure responsibility is shared equally among the states.
The often-professorial Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) at one point raised his voice and banged the dais in frustration.
"The collective wisdom of the Congress of the United States said we want clean water, and it's up to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps to carry out those directives," he said. "Don't say that we aren't going to let agencies carry out their responsibility because they're not carrying out the will of Congress; if we don't think we're clear in what we say, let's say it clearer."
Before final passage, the committee voted down five amendments from Democrats aimed at altering the bill's goals and allowing U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to ignore portions of the legislation if the agencies decide the measures would interfere with their ability to protect drinking water or would increase costs.
Republicans said those amendments would neuter the bill and voted them all down on party lines.
The fight now heads to the Senate floor where the vote margin is much closer. A test vote in March suggested that the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster could be within reach for opponents of the rule. But key senators, including Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Angus King (I-Maine) who voted with critics in March, have reserved final judgment until they more fully absorb the changes made in the final version of the rule (E&E Daily, June 3).
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who co-sponsored S. 1140 with Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), today made a pitch to those swing senators.
"It's possible to have reasonable regulations that help preserve our waterways while still respecting the difference between state waters and federal waters," he said. "Unfortunately, the rule that EPA has released doesn't do that. In fact, the rule is actually worse than the proposed rule."
Barrasso argued that any concessions made by the agencies in the final rule -- such as hard-line boundaries for when waters are outside federal reach and broader exemptions for ditches -- are outweighed by other changes in the rule "that greatly expand their authority."
Although the fight in committee fell strictly along party lines, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he did see merits in the Barrasso bill, even though he couldn't support it.
"While I can't support this proposal, I would say that there are several aspects of this bill that have merits," Carper said. "I think it's really important for Congress to ensure that communities aren't harmed intentionally by this rule."
-
Lawmakers Spar Over EPA's Water Rule
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Lawmakers sparred Wednesday over Environmental Protection Agency’s "waters of the United States" rule, with Republicans blasting the proposal as overreach and their Democratic counterparts accusing them of hyberbole.
At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said it’s the rule Republicans love to use as an example of “overzealous regulation.”
The rule, which would strengthen EPA’s authority over minor water bodies like wetlands, streams and ponds, has been labeled by opponents as a massive federal land grab that would give EPA the ability to regulate ditches, puddles and soggy ground.
But Whitehouse said these attacks are based more on conspiracy theory than factual accuracy. He read remarks from a sampling of Republican colleagues who called the rule a threat to the economy, way of life and said it could jeopardize fireworks on the Fourth of July.
Whitehouse said the rule excludes the vast majority of roadside ditches and ditches on agricultural lands, eliminates EPA’s jurisdiction over artificially irrigated areas, fully preserves permitting exemptions for farming, forestry and ranching activities, and clearly states that the Clean Water Act does not apply to ground water.
“Mr. Chairman, the only people who think clean streams and rivers are economic hell are deep pocketed polluters and I’m confident that there will be fireworks on the Fourth of July after this rule goes into effect,” he said
But Ellen Steen, general counsel and secretary for the American Farm Bureau Federation and Affiliates, said the EPA has been misleading in its assurances that farmers and ranchers aren’t going to face increased permitting requirements.
“What’s going to be before the court is the text of the rule, the federal register preambles” she said. “And all those documents have been carefully set up to invite, not just allow, but invite the interpretation that land that’s farmed today can be farmed no longer without a federal permit.”
If EPA wants to adopt wide-scale federal permitting for farming activities, Steen said let’s have that discussion.
“Let’s look at the cost, let's look at the impact on the 96 percent of U.S. farmers who are family-owned and operated small businesses,” she said, adding that most of these farmers can’t afford these regulatory burdens.
“EPA has refused to look at those costs and impacts, denying they exist and going forward with a rule they know will have that result and that’s infuriating.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said regulatory agencies have increasingly become the lawmaker, the judg and the jury andwhen it comes to enacting regulations.
“I particularly am troubled by the decisions of the courts, which have shown deference to the legal interpretation of the agencies’ own jurisdiction and authority,” he said. “That is a power I believe is reserved to the judiciary and not to the agency.” -
Senators Vote to Block Obama’s Water Rule
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee voted along party lines Wednesday to overturn the Obama administration’s new regulation asserting control over small waterways like streams and wetlands.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), would repeal the waters of the United Statesrule, also known as the clean water rule, and give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) specific guidelines to re-write it in a way that Republicans find more acceptable.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the bill by a vote of 11-9, with only Republicans supporting it.
Republicans complained that the rule released late last month by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act would extend federal control over large swaths of private or state-owned water and land, including puddles, dry creek beds, man-made ponds and many agricultural features.
In fact, the rule the Obama administration wrote is worse than what it proposed last year, and would cover nearly all water in the country, despite promises otherwise Barrasso said.
“This is legislation that will protect our nation’s navigable waterways and the streams and wetlands that help keep our navigable waters clean,” he said, calling his bill “bipartisan, pro-environmental protection, pro-small business legislation.”
Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are among the cosponsors of the bill.
“It’s possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while still respecting the difference between state waters and federal waters,” Barrasso said.
If a waterway is regulated, the property owner might have to get federal approval for anything that harms or pollutes it.
While the Clean Water Act is focused on navigable waterways, the federal government has long recognized that some upstream waterways must also be protected.
The bill sets out specific waterways that cannot be regulated, like isolated ponds, and requires the EPA to consult with various state and local governments and small businesses when it rewrites the rule.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee’s chairman, said farmers in Oklahoma are more concerned about the EPA’s water rule than any other federal policy, since they fear it will subject them to red tape for basic agricultural practices like spraying pesticides or digging ditches.
“This bipartisan legislation would stop the final rule and make the EPA and the Corps of Engineers go back and redo it,” Inhofe said. “This time, they cannot avoid consultation with states and local governments, they will have to do a full economic analysis, including an unfunded mandates analysis, they will have to review the impacts on small businesses and small local government.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, accused Republicans of sponsoring “a back-door repeal of the Clean Water Act,” since it would remove significant areas that are under the law’s protection.
“Today, we’re considering legislation that would undermine one of our nation’s landmark laws, the Clean Water Act and roll back protections for the American people, their drinking water,” she said.
“When we weaken the Clean Water Act, as this bill will do, we’re putting the lives of our people in danger,” she continued.
Boxer and other Democrats proposed five amendments aimed at preserving parts of the regulation, including protections for drinking water, public health and the costs to states. All the amendments failed along party lines.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) voted against the bill, but he applauded some provisions of the bill.
“At the end of the day, some of the things that Sen. Barrasso has called for in his bill deserve support,” he said, pointing to protections for local communities and a mandate that the EPA publish maps on the rule’s reach.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia declined to weigh in on the bill.
But Obama administration officials have vehemently defended the rule and generally criticized attempts to weaken it.
“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who threaten our clean water,” top Obama adviser Brian Deese said in rolling out the regulation last month.
-
The EPA and Army Corps' Clean Water Rule
Jun 10, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Gene Karpinski
For many people, no experience is as evocative of carefree childhood memories as long summer days. Cannonballing into your local swimming hole. Water balloon fights with your friends. Homemade lemonade on a hot day. Or just running through a sprinkler with the kids on your street. With the start of summer vacation, this is exactly the kind of fun most of us can’t wait to provide for our children and grandchildren.
All of these activities are built around a fundamental assumption: the water that comes out of our faucets, hoses, and sprinklers is safe. Unfortunately, this assumption may be incorrect. Currently, Clean Water Act jurisdiction is unclear, leaving the smaller streams and wetlands that feed our drinking water supply vulnerable to pollution and toxic dumping.
Thankfully, there is good news coming for the clean water our families depend on. This week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers released their final Clean Water Rule, which restores protections for these important waterways. This is great news for our kids and grandkids, and the 117 million Americans whose drinking water is at risk today.
Put simply, the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA’s Clean Water Rule fights pollution and protects the drinking water of one in three Americans.
Last week, LCV released a new poll, which found that the public overwhelmingly supports the Clean Water Rule and the agencies’ actions to protect our clean water. The results were pretty remarkable: nearly 80 percent of respondents want the rule to move forward, including a majority of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats all in agreement, while 61 percent of respondents felt that water pollution is a big concern for them personally.
This public support is not surprising, given the stakes. Without this new rule, the drinking water of one in three Americans is at risk for contamination. We all read the headlines last summer about the toxic algae contamination of Lake Erie, which left more than 500,000 people in Toledo without drinking water for three days. The Clean Water Rule will help prevent situations like these while also protecting the waterways our children and grandchildren use to drink, swim, and play in.
The Republican leadership in Congress, however, has yet to get the message about how much we want the Clean Water Rule—it seems they are only listening to big polluters. Already this year we have seen a raft of legislation in both the Senate and the House seeking to undermine these science-based protections. Through needless delay, arbitrary guidelines, and outright attempts to block the rule, many Members of Congress seem intent on defending polluters rather than fighting for the health and safety of our families’ drinking water.
Time and again, Americans have stated that they trust our federal agencies, like the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, over Congress to decide the best way protect our health and environment. Instead of trying to gut the Clean Water Act, Congress should step aside and let the EPA do its job.
The EPA and Army Corps’ important Clean Water Rule will restore critical protections to our nation’s waterways, and with summer right around the corner, we can’t think of a better way to celebrate than to provide clean, healthy water for our children and grandchildren.
Karpinski is president of the League of Conservation Voters.
-
'Unprecedented' Appeals to Crude-by-Rail Rule Arrive at DOT's Doorstep
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
An array of environmentalist, industry and tribal groups are appealing federal tank car standards, adding a new layer to the legal challenges facing the Department of Transportation's recent oil train safety rule.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major refining industry trade group, took the unusual step of requesting further-reaching reporting requirements in an administrative appeal, one of four such petitions filed Friday.
"It's a rather unprecedented move on our part, frankly," AFPM President Chet Thompson said in an interview. "It shows how committed we are to safety -- that we're asking DOT to require us to provide more information so we can ensure that we're all on the same page and on schedule."
At issue is a requirement for oil shippers to report their progress as they upgrade or scrap the oldest, riskiest type of tank cars now used to haul crude. AFPM wants regulators to expand that provision to gather data on all types of tank cars needing repairs under the final rule.
The goal, Thompson explained, is to make sure DOT can keep its "finger on the pulse" of how the tank car industry handles a smattering of repair deadlines stretched out over the next 10 years. A string of recent oil train derailments and fires have led U.S. regulators to order a complete overhaul for the tens of thousands of tank cars now in crude and ethanol service across the country.
If DOT requires progress reports starting nine months before each tank car deadline, the agency "would be in a position to decide whether the schedule is spot on or whether it needs to be adjusted," Thompson said. "Nobody wants to be in a place where, down the road, we find out that we as a country are in a bad spot because there's an insufficient supply of rail cars."
Advertisement
AFPM is also seeking a way for individual oil shippers to get relief from the federal deadlines, as long as they can show they made a "good faith" effort to fix their cars on time.Multiple attacks on rule
DOT published its long-awaited rule on oil train safety early last month, addressing everything from new tank car specifications to speed limits for "high-hazard" trains.
The regulations have already come under fire from multiple angles. Four federal courts are now weighing lawsuits brought by groups challenging the rule, including the American Petroleum Institute and Earthjustice.
For his part, Thompson said he doesn't expect to seek court review of the rule, although AFPM has moved to intervene on DOT's side in environmentalist groups' legal challenges.
"We've decided that we're going to turn our focus to doing everything within our reasonable control to start to comply with the rule," he said.
Outside the courts, administrative appeals offer a way to pressure transportation officials into tweaking regulations after they are passed.
Not all appeals seek minor changes. The Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, a nonprofit educational organization backed by chemical shippers, mailed its own administrative appeal to DOT on Friday requesting the agency throw out requirements for advanced braking systems -- a key facet of the new rule.
Meanwhile, the Quinault Indian Nation and Columbia River treaty tribes called for DOT to reopen comments on the final tank car rule, on the grounds that the agency failed to consult with American Indian tribes.
"It is of little solace that [the DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] has written tribes offering to meet with them after the rule making has been completed," they said. A PHMSA spokesman did not respond to request for comment on the appeals yesterday.Oil train transparency
A dozen environmentalist groups and municipalities, including Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, joined up to submit their own administrative appeal Friday. They want DOT to reinstate oil train transparency measures that were unexpectedly struck from the final rule.
Last year, DOT issued an emergency order to squeeze more information out of railroads moving trains with more than 1 million gallons of explosive crude from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play. The order was designed to get important details about oil train traffic patterns into the hands of first responders, but it also made route information accessible to the public via freedom of information laws.
DOT had said it planned to make the temporary order permanent through the rulemaking process, but the final rule would let the measure die.
"It came so out of the blue," said Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice. "[The final rule] was so different than the proposed rule that it seemed ripe for an internal agency rethinking."
DOT appears to have backed down from the language in the final rule and pledged late last month to keep the reporting requirement in place (EnergyWire, May 29). Still, Earthjustice and others have filed the administrative appeal to make sure DOT keeps good on its promise to keep oil train info transparent.
"I'm optimistic that they'll get it sorted out," Boyles said.
-
Pa. Commissions Crude-by-Rail Safety Report as Train Traffic Increases
Jun 10, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
A consultant hired by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) will compile a list of recommendations to make oil transportation safer, as the state increasingly becomes a transportation hub for crude shipped by rail.
The study is in its early phases, but it's likely to focus on train derailments as a key factor in rail safety, Allan Zarembski, a professor at the University of Delaware, said yesterday during a joint hearing of the state Senate Transportation and Environmental Resources and Energy committees.
Crude-by-rail accidents are "almost invariably associated with a derailment," Zarembski said.
Philadelphia and southern New Jersey are home to a complex of oil refineries and tank farms that previously were supplied by tankers from Africa and the Middle East. Over the past five years, new sources of crude have been discovered in North Dakota that are cheaper than foreign crude. North Dakota lacks pipelines to deliver its oil, though, so about two-thirds of the state's production is shipped by rail.
More than half the oil used on the East Coast now arrives by rail, up from about 5 percent in 2012, according to the American Petroleum Institute. The former Sunoco refineries in Philadelphia, now run by Philadelphia Energy Solutions, use about 20 percent of the oil produced in North Dakota's Bakken Shale field, PES Chief Executive Philip Rinaldi testified.
Pennsylvania authorities have watched as a string of oil trains have crashed around the country, sparking fires and explosions. Forty-seven people died in 2013 when a train loaded with Bakken crude derailed and burned in a small town in Quebec.
In January 2014, a train headed to Philadelphia derailed on a bridge over the Schuylkill River, leaving several cars of crude tipping for days until they could be moved. Other crashes have occurred this year in Iowa, West Virginia, Illinois and North Dakota.
The U.S. Department of Transportation proposed new regulations in May on tank cars used to carry oil (EnergyWire, May 4).
One of Zarembski's first actions when he was hired in May was drafting a letter from Wolf to the two dominant rail lines in Pennsylvania, asking them to voluntarily reduce the speed of oil-laden trains and take other safety precautions.
Zarembski's report is due in August, a Wolf spokesman said in an email.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested