Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Market Outlook: Chemicals are Driving Growth
Jun 12, 2015 | ICIS
With the megatrend of mobility comes great responsibility. Never have manufacturers and OEMs been under greater pressure to ensure the vehicles on our roads are lightweight, efficient and safe. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Plastics-to-Fuel Tools Can Help Make Business Case for Technology
Jun 12, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) and Ocean Recovery Alliance (Hong Kong) have introduced two new tools aimed at helping global communities evaluate their potential to adopt plastics-to-fuel technologies. -
National Labs Look to Flip the Board on Cyber Warfare
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
Two years ago, hackers broke into computer systems of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, a crown jewel of the U.S. national security research establishment. -
Bill Targets 'Loopholes' for Fracking Pollution
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced a bill to close what he characterized as loopholes for pollution that the oil and natural gas industry uses for hydraulic fracturing. -
Letters: EPA Consulted Many to Develop Its Clean Power Plan
Jun 12, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
Regarding Benjamin Zycher’s “The EPA’s ‘Clean Power’ Mess” (op-ed, June 8): The EPA’s Clean Power Plan proposal was informed by unprecedented engagement with states, utilities, stakeholders and the public. -
Spurred by Clean Power Plan, Advocates Call for U.S. to Become Efficiency Superpower
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
With the United States' emergence as the largest oil producer in the world and with the president proclaiming the country "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas," industry advocates are now calling for the United States to be an "energy efficiency superpower." -
House Republican Likens EPA Ozone Rule to Eating Peas
|
-
House Republican Likens EPA Ozone Rule to Eating Peas
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
House Republicans today fired away at U.S. EPA's air chief, claiming that the agency's proposal to tighten the country's ozone standard is unrealistic and would put a strain on the country's economy. -
Blacks and Hispanics Stand to Lose from Power Plan -- Industry Group
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The National Black Chamber of Commerce released an analysis today that found minorities stand to lose the most if U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan drives up the cost of power and puts pressure on U.S. manufacturing and other industries. -
Senate Republicans Decry 'Unnecessary' EPA Methane Rules
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday wrote to President Obama blasting U.S. EPA's forthcoming curbs on methane leaked from new and modified oil and gas operations, arguing that the effort ignores progress industry is voluntarily making to rein in emissions. -
GOP Senators Urge EPA To Drop Methane Rulemaking
Jun 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
A group of seven Republican senators, led by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (OK), is calling on EPA to “postpone indefinitely” its plan to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. -
Clock Starts For Filing Suits Over EPA's SSM Air Rule
Jun 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA will publish in the June 12 Federal Register its final rule requiring 36 states to remove provisions from their state implementation plans (SIPs) that allow some Clean Air Act emissions limit exemptions for industry during periods of startups, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), triggering a 60-day clock for groups to sue over the rule. -
High Court Utility MACT Win For EPA Might Not End Fight On Toxics 'Limit'
Jun 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A possible EPA victory in a pending Supreme Court case over its air toxics rule for power plants might still not resolve legal uncertainty over the utility rule and other air toxics standards, industry sources say, because the regulations share a contested method for setting emissions limits that is still being litigated in federal appeals court. -
Clean Water Rule Protects National Parks
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Maureen Finnerty
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers have released a new rule to re-extend protections of the Clean Water Act to the headwater streams and wetlands that provide drinking water for one in every three Americans. -
Ethanol Group Intervenes in Oil Industry Suit Over Rail Safety Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Growth Energy, a major ethanol trade group, is warning that an oil industry lawsuit "threatens to upend" a recent rail safety rule and rattle the market for renewable fuels.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Market Outlook: Chemicals are Driving Growth
Jun 12, 2015 | ICIS
With the megatrend of mobility comes great responsibility. Never have manufacturers and OEMs been under greater pressure to ensure the vehicles on our roads are lightweight, efficient and safe.
An average car contains around 30,000 separate components, most of which are produced from petrochemicals and plastics. Whether it is polypropylene (PP) and polyols or polycarbonate (PC) and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), chemicals are vital to the car industry.
According to a recent study by Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, the global market for vehicle components is expected to grow to around €800bn ($874bn) by 2020 – representing a €125bn increase in market volume.
The prevalence of plastics in cars has increased considerably in recent decades, thanks in part to their durability, heat resistance and low weight when compared to conventional metal components. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says plastics make up 50% of the volume of new cars but only 10% of the weight.
Dashboard
Aesthetically pleasing, practical and safe, a vehicle’s dashboard not only needs to house those all important dials and electronics but the many safety features such as multiple passenger airbags as well. PP, ABS and PC are among the most common materials used for dashboards in today’s vehicles
Electrical components
Cars are becoming more advanced and reliant on technology. Components may use PP, PE, PET, PBT or PVC which have excellent thermal, mechanical and chemical properties, and offer longevity and reliability
Liquid reservoirs
Strong, rigid plastic like PP and PE is essential to safely store the various liquids that the car relies on, such as windscreen wash, brake and hydraulic fluids and gasoline
Engine components
Plastics are strong, hard-wearing and resistant to high temperatures so materials such as PP, PBT and polyamide are increasingly used for fittings in the engine compartment. An additional benefit is significant weight reduction
Bumpers
With the bumpers an intrinsic part of a car’s safety, the materials used – such as PS, ABS, PC and PBT – require specific properties to absorb impact and protect the driver
Lighting
Polycarbonate is now largely used in the bezels, lenses and housings. PC is transparent, lightweight, shatterproof, resistant to stone chips and is very easy to mould
Fuel
Reducing harmful emissions remains at the top of the agenda and companies are striving to find greener options. Alternative fuels are therefore becoming increasingly popular, according to the latest figures from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association. The report shows the registration of electric vehicles had doubled year on year for the first quarter of 2015; hybrid cars were up by over 21%; and natural gas- powered car registrations rose by 16.5%
Paints and coatings
Automotive coatings are not only visually important but are designed to withstand dirt and various weather conditions. They also offer resistance to stone chips, fading, scratches and rust and ensure the car’s outer skin retains its appearance throughout its lifetime. An added benefit of today’s coatings is that they are quick to apply and bake, have lower emissions of solvents or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and are cheap to repair. Some even boast self-healing properties
Glazing
For decades, automotive OEMs and manufacturers have extolled the virtues of replacing heavy glass with safer, easier-to-work-with materials such as polycarbonate. Today, the thermoplastic polymer provides a hard-wearing, transparent, scratch resistant solution that is used in windows (not windscreens, yet), sunroofs and to produce light fittings
Body panels
Many manufacturers are looking towards plastic as their material of choice for the bodywork to reduce their reliance on metals. Not only is it lighter but materials such as thermoplastic composites, PU and PC prove far easier to assemble and offer the driver optimal protection
Seating
There are many facets to the design of a car seat. Combining comfort and functionality, the very fact they take up a sizable portion of the interior means they have to be lightweight. Plastics are therefore replacing metal, while still offering a robust and reliable structure. Fabrics also need to be hard-wearing and durable. PU, PVC, PP, ABS and polyamide use is common
Tyres
A quality tyre made from stryene butadiene rubber (SBR) can reduce driving costs, enhance efficiency and offer fuel savings. Lowering rolling resistance, improving wet grip and cutting rolling noise is vital
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Plastics-to-Fuel Tools Can Help Make Business Case for Technology
Jun 12, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) and Ocean Recovery Alliance (Hong Kong) have introduced two new tools aimed at helping global communities evaluate their potential to adopt plastics-to-fuel technologies. A growing number of experts believe that harnessing more of our non-recycled plastics to create valuable fuels and manufacturing feedstocks could dramatically reduce ocean litter and deliver economic and environmental benefits to local communities, said a release from the ACC.
The 2015 Plastics-to-Fuel Developers Guide and Cost Estimating Tool for Prospective Project Developers were designed to help potential investors and community leaders determine whether this rapidly growing family of technologies could be a good fit for meeting local waste management needs and demand for the relevant commodities. Available at no cost, these tools provide, for the first time, an exploration of available commercial technologies, operational facilities and things to consider when developing a business plan.
Also known as pyrolysis, today's plastics-to-fuel technologies are versatile and can be designed to match local conditions. Depending on the specific technology, a variety of products can be manufactured, including synthetic crude or refined fuels for home heating; ingredients for diesel, gasoline and kerosene; or fuel for combined heat and power for industrial use.
ACC also announced a new, animated video from the American Chemistry Council's Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance (PTOTA) showcasing plastics-to-fuel technologies as a viable end-of-life solution for non-recycled plastics and a complement to recycling.
The video (embedded below), Plastics-to-Fuel: Creating Energy from Non-Recycled Plastics, explains pyrolysis technology—commonly known as plastics-to-fuel—and its potential to divert used, non-recycled plastics from landfills. Pyrolysis can generate a range of products, including transportation fuels, electricity and petroleum-based feedstocks for manufacturing. The video also discusses some of the barriers to growing the use of plastics-to-fuel technologies and proposes solutions to allow for wider adoption.
"We're manufacturers, not waste managers"
"The video shows the potential of expanding the number of plastics-to-fuel facilities to create jobs and locally sourced fuels and energy," said Michael Dungan, Director of Sales and Marketing for RES Polyflow and chairman of ACC's Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance. "Our facilities create products; we're manufacturers, not waste managers."
"Plastics-to-fuel technologies complement recycling by converting non-recycled plastics into useful commodities," said Craig Cookson, Director of Sustainability and Recycling for ACC's Plastics Division. "Plastics are a valuable resource that should be kept out of landfills, and plastics-to-fuel technologies can help us do that."
These non-recycled plastics tend to involve multiple types of plastics and/or other materials, such as multi-layer pouches (bags for chips and snack mixes, laundry detergent pouches, and many frozen food bags, for example) or items with a lot of food residue, such as takeout containers and utensils, said ACC in response to submitted questions from PlasticsToday. Although these items aren't recycled, they have enormous potential for being converted to energy and fuels.
ACC also noted that much of this material could potentially be converted into fuels with wider deployment of plastics-to-fuel technologies. At present, the ACC is working to overcome regulatory barriers to adoption, including working with states to update existing laws and regulations, so plastics-to-fuel facilities can be classified as manufacturing facilities and/or producers of alternative energy, not as waste-disposal facilities. The process of converting non-recycled plastics to fuels and other petroleum products should not be considered waste disposal, but sometimes is categorized as such under outdated state regulations, ACC added.
To help address this issue, PTOTA has released a guide, Regulatory Treatment of Plastics-to-Fuel Facilities, to help regulators better classify this family of technologies. The guide includes a permitting checklist and two-page fact sheet on regulating plastics-to-fuel technologies.
According to EPS's 2012 municipal solid waste characterization report, there are about 29 million tons of non-recycled plastics eligible for energy conversion in the United States each year. According to a recently released annual report from the ACC, this valuable material could support the development of up to 600 plastics-to-fuel facilities, help create nearly 39,000 new jobs with $2.1 billion in annual payrolls and spur nearly $9 billion in yearly economic output.
Dungan told PlasticsToday in an interview that RES Polyflow has worked for a number of years on developing its plastics-to-fuel technology, which has resulted in strong commercial business for the company. "In manufacturing, you take something of a lower value and make something of a higher value, and it's no different for us," explained Dungan.
"Our process is able to tolerate low-value comingles plastics—scrap if you will—and make a high-value product, such as our low-sulfur diesel fuel," he added. "In our case it's a very robust process with a very strong profit incentive."
The Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance counts Agilyx Corp. (Beaverton, OR); Cynar plc (London); RES Polyflow (Akron, OH); Americas Sytrenics (The Woodlands, TX); Sealed Air (Charlotte, NC); and Tetra Tech (Pasadena, CA) among its members.
-
National Labs Look to Flip the Board on Cyber Warfare
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
Two years ago, hackers broke into computer systems of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, a crown jewel of the U.S. national security research establishment.
The embarrassing cyber breach, whose source was not publicly identified, resulted in a very limited data loss, officials said.
Its more far-reaching impact was to prompt Oak Ridge researchers to redirect development of a next-generation cybersecurity program called Hyperion, one they view as a potentially game-changing bulwark against advanced cyber campaigns.
The attack "changed how we thought about using Hyperion," says the program's co-inventor, Stacy Prowell, leader of Oak Ridge's cyber warfare research team.
"Until then, we thought of it as supporting reverse engineering," the common tactic for detecting and analyzing advanced malware that has gotten into targeted systems, he said.
"Then we saw we can use it to find the patterns" in attack software, even before their dirty work commences, he said.
Advertisement
The Department of Homeland Security licensed the Hyperion technology early this year to a small Northern Virginia company, R&K Cyber Solutions, through DHS's Transition to Practice program. R&K has hired some of Prowell's key Oak Ridge colleagues to take the program public, working from an office in Knoxville, Tenn., not far from the laboratory.
Much as U.S. and British breakthroughs in strategic research were pivotal in World War II, Prowell and colleagues across the complex of American national laboratories are pushing for esoteric discoveries that will tilt the cyberwar battleground decisively back toward the defense before adversaries are able to launch a "cyber Pearl Harbor."
"Lots of folks are concerned with keeping all the bad guys out," Prowell said. "I tend to think that is not possible in general. I'm much more concerned when they get in that they don't cause serious harm," said Prowell, who earned a Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Tennessee and went from there to Carnegie Mellon University to pursue the ideas that become Hyperion. He joined Oak Ridge in 2009.
The list of high-priority cybersecurity projects at national laboratories documents the labs' search for unconventional, highly challenging but potentially high-impact breakthroughs.
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory has a product, CodeDNA, that can spotlight "families" of malware by detecting close relationships in malware binary code, exploiting the tendency of hackers to build new attacks on earlier code. The approach also supports predictions of what new, "zero-day" attacks could look like.
Digital Ants, created at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, mimic the swarming behaviors of ants in their colonies as a strategy for uncovering hidden malware. The technology employs mobile sensors that "roam" within interconnected computers and devices in a network, gathering and evaluating key operational indicators, such as memory or processing activity. When a sensor spots activity out of the ordinary, it leaves behind a digital marker, like the chemical pheromones that ants deposit to mark paths to food. In the software world, the markers attract more sensor attention, and when the swarm reaches a predetermined size, it triggers an alarm, PNNL said.
Sandia National Laboratories' Weasel Board technology addresses cyber vulnerabilities in PLCs (programmable logic controllers) that manage essential operations at power plants and other energy facilities, including remote terminals that operate electric power grids. According to Sandia's description of its technology, conventional security systems cannot detect attacks on PLCs, and the PLCs are not monitored for breaches. Weasel Board, when added to a network, analyzes communications between PLCs to spot unusual activity and detect known threats.Zeroing in on attack operations
In Hyperion's case, the program does not make a long-shot search for needles of malware code buried in mountainous haystacks of software instructions. It focuses instead on the fundamental computer operations that attackers must carry out to achieve their ends.
For example, a hacker seeking to steal the identity of a program administrator may try to implant a clandestine keystroke logging routine that will copy the unaware user's sign-on name and password, hide the stolen information somewhere on the victim's system, and transmit it secretly back to the hacker.
Computer code that carries out such attacks may be disguised, said Prowell.
But the operational steps -- implanting, copying, hiding and transmitting -- are specific functional directions that software tells a computer to do, and they can be represented as logical equations: "If x=y, do this, and keep doing it until x=something else."
"You get away from bytes to the more literal picture of what is happening. You translate the compiled program into a function that describes what it does," Prowell said. Actions that might be innocent by themselves can have a malicious purpose when put together in a particular sequence that Hyperion's mathematical analysis can reveal, he added.
The instructions or operational "calls" for key logging are compiled into a formal logic and stored as a catalog of known attacking behaviors called Behavior Specification Units. To scrutinize new programs, Hyperion uses advanced mathematical analysis to look for attacking operations described by the Basic Specification Units.
Prowell draws an analogy to a machinery with a motor, gears and a gear lever. Engineers can write an output equation for the motor, and for the gears. Putting that together creates a set of equations on what the machine is doing in mathematical terms. If the gear lever is moved, the equations produce a different result. Hyperion follows that model in analyzing computer operations that attacks must use.
Richard Linger, one of leading designers of Hyperion, who moved from Oak Ridge to R&K Cyber Solutions, said, "The fundamental difference is that most current [cyber defense] methods are based on the syntax of programs and malicious code, and they operate by scanning code and looking for signatures. Those signatures are very easily subverted.
"Hyperion doesn't look for things in code, which is a loser's game. We use the semantics of the individual program instructions to compute the behavior of the code."'In the trenches'
R&K Cyber, which had just 12 employees and $3 million in annual sales when it licensed Hyperion, must force its way into a fast-growing cyber defense market stocked with competition. But Linger said Hyperion gives it an edge. "It positions R&K as having a technology that is not generally available in the marketplace, and what we believe is a next-generation approach," Linger said.
Company founder Joseph Carter said the program is not challenging to deploy. "If they want to adopt it as a managed service, they won't need to have any expertise. If they want to apply it on their own, we will be able to train their guys in two to three weeks in how to utilize the technologies."
Hyperion's development has been a formidable challenge, Prowell said. "Everything about this is really hard. ... The hardest part is representing faithfully the way that each instruction works on the computer. It's not all that well specified. Sometimes the specs are wrong, and there are so many of them."
Hyperion was successfully piloted with DHS and an unidentified U.S. intelligence agency, R&K Cyber Solutions said. “We are in the trenches with government agencies, dealing with their malicious code,” Linger said.
"I'm making no guarantees about once-and-for-all security, but once we know this is how an attack works, I can easily find it every place it exists," Prowell said.
-
Bill Targets 'Loopholes' for Fracking Pollution
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced a bill to close what he characterized as loopholes for pollution that the oil and natural gas industry uses for hydraulic fracturing.
The changes enacted in 1987 and 2005 create exemptions for fracking from various provisions of the Clean Water Act, a controversial oil and gas extraction process that involves pumping fluid at high pressure into wells.
Cardin’s bill, the Focused Reduction of Effluence and Stormwater runoff through Hydraulic-fracturing Environmental Regulation (Fresher) Act, would roll back the exemptions.
“With 15 million Americans living within 1 mile ... of a well that has been drilled in the last 15 years, the loopholes oil and gas companies enjoy threaten our environment and public health,” Cardin, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
“Oil and gas companies that already enjoy tax breaks should be required to follow the same laws to protect our water and public health as other industries,” he said. “The Fresher Act is a needed safeguard to ensure that oil and gas companies cannot pollute our water.”
Cardin said a recent Environmental Protection Agency report on fracking backs up the case for his bill because it found some circumstances in which the practice can pollute drinking water.
Environmentalists have criticized the fracking exemptions for years, saying that they enable water pollution. The 2005 exemptions have been labeled by green as the “Halliburton loophole,” since then-Vice President Dick Cheney was previously the head of oilfield services company Halliburton Co.
“The loopholes created ten years ago to protect Halliburton and other frackers have been a disaster for our water, our air, and our communities,” Rachel Richardson, director of Environment America’s Stop Drilling Program, said in a statement. “It’s well past time for the oil and gas industry to be held accountable to our core environmental laws.”
“Sen. Cardin’s bill restores one of the important environmental protections that a Republican Congress rolled back 10 years ago,” said Kate DeAngelis, a climate and energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth.
The oil and gas industry has taken issue with how green groups frame the issue, saying the provisions are not loopholes and the industry is subject to strict federal and state regulations that stop pollution.
“As regulators and experts have stated time and again, there is no evidence that hydraulic fracturing poses a credible risk of contaminating groundwater,” industry group Energy In Depth recently wrote.
-
Letters: EPA Consulted Many to Develop Its Clean Power Plan
Jun 12, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
Regarding Benjamin Zycher’s “The EPA’s ‘Clean Power’ Mess” (op-ed, June 8): The EPA’s Clean Power Plan proposal was informed by unprecedented engagement with states, utilities, stakeholders and the public. Because of this input and the Clean Air Act’s clear direction on the proper roles for the EPA and the states, the CPP is built on actions that states and utilities are already undertaking.
As we work to release the final CPP this summer, we are paying particular attention to ensuring that the flexibility the proposal promised is delivered to states and utilities. We are confident that it will because of our sustained outreach and the 4.3 million public comments we received.
Ensuring that the final CPP supports our electricity system’s ability to deliver reliable—and affordable—energy has been a top priority all along. That’s why we are working closely with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and welcome its suggestions.
The CPP represents a clear choice not to double down on the status quo of aging, inefficient and polluting infrastructure, as the author would have us do, but to capitalize on the innovations already under way in a dynamic, interconnected and rapidly advancing power sector for the benefit of our communities and our economy.
Over the past 45 years, the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act has delivered deep cuts in harmful pollution from the power sector, preventing hundreds of thousands of illnesses and premature deaths, all while the economy has grown and American families have enjoyed affordable and reliable electricity. The CPP will show we can do it again.
Janet McCabe
Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation
EPA
Washington
I disagree with Mr. Zycher’s statement that “there are good reasons to doubt that the EPA understands how a modern power system works.” I think it understands this subject very well. It just doesn’t care because the order from the top is to get rid of coal as a source of power in this country. In this administration, global warming supersedes a lot of economics.
Steven Schoenfeldt
Grand Rapids, Mich.
-
Spurred by Clean Power Plan, Advocates Call for U.S. to Become Efficiency Superpower
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
With the United States' emergence as the largest oil producer in the world and with the president proclaiming the country "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas," industry advocates are now calling for the United States to be an "energy efficiency superpower."
However, the country has a long way to go: In a ranking of efficiency last year of the world's 16 largest economies, Germany came in first, while the United States languished in 13th place (ClimateWire, July 18, 2014).
"For the United States to become an energy efficiency superpower, it's going to take extraordinary effort, especially in the regulatory arena," said William Polen, senior director of the U.S. Energy Association, speaking yesterday at the Energy Efficiency Forum, sponsored by USEA and Johnson Controls Inc.
As a result, doing more with less energy is emerging as a crucial component of major energy legislation. Cheryl LaFleur, commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, explained that energy efficiency is one of the four building blocks of the Clean Power Plan.
All approaches to cutting carbon dioxide emissions have to balance energy reliability, cost and the environment. "Energy efficiency and other demand-side resources really almost uniquely have the potential to contribute to all three goals rather than holding them in tension," LaFleur said.Slashing emissions the 'invisible' way
But unlike carbon scrubbers and wind turbines, energy efficiency is invisible, and its value comes from money not spent.
"It's the power plant that never got built; it's the buildings that are delivering more with less. It's an invisible way to have carbon-free and pollution-free power," said James Connaughton, executive vice president at C3 Energy and former chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality under President George W. Bush.
To get at most of these benefits, Connaughton said, the United States needs to take better measurements of its energy infrastructure, deploying sensors that can communicate with each other all over the electrical grid to identify weaknesses and waste. This also helps utilities and consumers figure out who is doing the heavy lifting in efficiency so that they can get paid for it.
"It's the necessary foundation for becoming an energy efficiency superpower, because unless you get this 'Internet of energy,' you can't get these huge leaps forward in scale and size," he said. "The smart grid is going to be the largest and most complex machine ever conceived, and it will likely prove to be one of the most significant scientific achievements of this century."
Efficiency is also one of the few areas in energy policy with bipartisan support. While lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan make their way through the courts, the House and Senate passed efficiency legislation with support from both parties, so better insulation and smart thermostats may be a more palatable pitch for cutting carbon (E&E Daily, May 1).
"We have great and incredible free-market opportunities with energy efficiency and renewable energy," said Sen. Cory Gardner (D-Colo.).
-
House Republican Likens EPA Ozone Rule to Eating Peas
|
-
House Republican Likens EPA Ozone Rule to Eating Peas
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
House Republicans today fired away at U.S. EPA's air chief, claiming that the agency's proposal to tighten the country's ozone standard is unrealistic and would put a strain on the country's economy.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) expressed "frustration" with the Clean Air Act, saying it should require EPA to consider the economic impacts of tightening air standards for pollutants like ozone, which EPA is on schedule to do by Oct. 1.
"It's all about the benefits, the benefits, the benefits," said Whitfield, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power. "There are detriments to these actions."
EPA has proposed lowering the current standard for ozone -- the main component of smog -- from 75 parts per billion to between 65 ppb and 70 ppb. The agency is also reviewing comments on a standard as low as 60 ppb.
Industry groups and Republicans have urged the agency to retain the current standard, which was set during the George W. Bush administration.
"Many of us feel very strongly that you should continue to implement the existing rule," Whitfield told acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe.
Advertisement
EPA officials contend that they are following the letter of the law. The Clean Air Act, they note, requires the agency to review air standards ever five years and tighten them when science shows lower levels of pollutants are necessary to protect public health. The agency cannot consider costs in those deliberations.
For the ozone standard, EPA's proposal is in line with what its panel of independent scientific advisers recommended.
The "health benefits of the proposed standard are substantial," McCabe said.
Republicans have pounced on data suggesting that in some areas of the country, background levels of ozone exceed the proposed standard.
Background ozone comes from non-manmade sources, such as the upper atmosphere, other countries and wildfires.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said EPA should be required to consider such background levels. During questioning, in which he became very animated, he said EPA was condemning areas to nonattainment through no fault of their own.
"If an area has 70 parts per billion background," he said, "you can't get them to 65 percent through the power of government."
"Should they move?" he asked, referring to individuals living in that area.
McCabe countered that Republicans are overemphasizing background levels.
"Across the country, most of the ozone that is contributing to high values is locally or regionally created," she said.
She added that there are "very few parts of this country" where background levels would cause an area to exceed the proposed standard.
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) also aggressively questioned the EPA official.
He contended that ozone levels in the Houston area come from other countries, including Mexico, to a degree that they are "beyond our control."
McCabe disagreed with that premise, but Olson cut her off.
"Is it true that EPA won't even consider whether an ozone rule is achievable?" Olson asked.
Olson also attempted to play on the colloquialism, "Eat your peas, then you'll get dessert."
Under the proposal, EPA is saying, "Eat your peas, then you can have more peas," Olson said.
-
Blacks and Hispanics Stand to Lose from Power Plan -- Industry Group
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The National Black Chamber of Commerce released an analysis today that found minorities stand to lose the most if U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan drives up the cost of power and puts pressure on U.S. manufacturing and other industries.
NBCC, an industry-backed group that has testified repeatedly against carbon regulation, commissioned research firm Management Information Services Inc. to complete the study. It assumed that the existing power plant rule would significantly reduce U.S. gross national product every year, with energy-intensive industries taking the greatest hit.
Natural gas prices and power prices would double, it stated, and the rule would "[r]equire the average family to pay over $1,225 more for power and gas in 2030 than in 2012."
These dire predictions would affect Hispanics and blacks most, the report said, because they are most likely to be employed by industries that would be adversely affected by the rule, and because low-income people spend a greater proportion of their income on energy.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the states with the steepest targets under the existing power plant rule also have some of the largest minority populations. These include Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York and Texas, among others.
The paper's verdict: "The EPA regulations will increase Hispanic poverty by more than 26 percent and Black poverty by more than 23 percent."
But the study comes as advocacy group Public Citizen is in the process of releasing analyses showing that, far from driving up the cost of energy, the Clean Power Plan could reduce electricity rates by spurring energy savings through efficiency (ClimateWire, June 11).
The public advocacy group is releasing a set of state-specific papers assessing the costs and benefits of the rule. Its paper on Maine, released this week, showed that the average household electricity bills would rise slightly -- by $39 to $52 -- by 2020, but then decrease by $78 to $84 in 2025 and $117 to $129 in 2030, compared with the business-as-usual scenario.
-
Senate Republicans Decry 'Unnecessary' EPA Methane Rules
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday wrote to President Obama blasting U.S. EPA's forthcoming curbs on methane leaked from new and modified oil and gas operations, arguing that the effort ignores progress industry is voluntarily making to rein in emissions.
"Simply stated, the evidence is clear that these mandatory reductions are unnecessary and will be less effective than a voluntary, cooperative effort," the senators wrote in aletter spearheaded by panel Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
EPA in January announced plans to limit methane from new and modified oil and gas wells and transmission infrastructure, and to expand restrictions for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from existing wells in ozone nonattainment areas. Proposals are due this summer, with final rules coming next year (Greenwire, Jan. 14).
But Inhofe and six of his GOP colleagues argued that the petroleum industry has already made strides in limiting methane and would make more as EPA's VOC rule and state rules take their full effect. An added layer of federal regulation would yield little environmental benefit, the senators contended, but could harm the United States' status as the world's largest oil and gas producer.
They also noted that while EPA excluded existing operations from its regulatory plan in January, the new source standards it plans under the Clean Air Act will automatically trigger rules for existing infrastructure that will be "even costlier and more far-reaching."
They asked EPA whether its own legal analysis showed that the new source rule would trigger an existing source rule. EPA has pledged to expand its voluntary programs to cover existing oil and gas infrastructure, and the Republicans asked whether that scheme would "preclude future mandates" for those operations.
To make its case that methane emissions are already on the decline, the GOP senators pointed to a study by the Environmental Defense Fund; the University of Texas, Austin; and partners that they said showed a 10 percent drop in methane levels from natural gas production. But EDF shot back this morning to say its research had been misrepresented in the letter, and actually showed that leakage from the sector had changed very little.
EDF and other environmental groups have urged EPA to limit methane not only from new and modified oil and gas infrastructure, but from existing sources, as well.
"Curbing these avoidable emissions from the oil and gas industry is a critical element of any effective climate strategy," said Mark Brownstein, an associate vice president at EDF. Voluntary programs like Natural Gas STAR have limited impact because they cover only a tiny portion of the industry, he said.
EDF has sponsored a series of studies aimed at improving data about oil and gas methane leakage.
-
GOP Senators Urge EPA To Drop Methane Rulemaking
Jun 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
A group of seven Republican senators, led by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (OK), is calling on EPA to “postpone indefinitely” its plan to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
In a June 11 letter to President Obama, the senators denounced the need for mandatory regulations, including the agency's proposed performance standards for new and modified sources, calling them “unnecessary” and ultimately “less effective than a voluntary, cooperative effort.”
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Sens. David Vitter (LA), John Barrasso (WY), Jeff Sessions (AL), Shelley Moore Capito (WV) and Roger Wicker (MS) joined Inhofe in the letter.
The senators charge it is too soon to pursue a rule that directly regulates methane when recent rules that regulate the sector's emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are seeing indirect methane emissions reductions. “It is therefore practically sensible to assess the results of these rulemakings, as well as ongoing voluntary and state regulatory efforts, before embarking on another series of federal mandates that could prove detrimental to job creation, energy security and environmental progress,” the senators write.
The senators also ask whether EPA will pursue regulation of existing sources under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, either through a mandatory rule or a voluntary program, a requirement that would be triggered if the agency finalizes a rule for new sources under section 111(b).
EPA has indicated it faces no deadline for when it must regulate existing sources under the statute, and therefore does not plan to develop existing source standards at this time.
Industry officials, though, have been skeptical, with one pointing to the agency's proposed power plant GHG standards and saying it is “a little disingenuous” for EPA to say it “would never do 111(d).”
Also in the letter, the senators ask EPA whether it intends to conduct a technology review to determine the “best system of emission reduction” used to set standards in the new source rule; whether the agency would use a “social cost of methane” measure to estimate its rules' benefits, as some environmentalists have urged; and how much state regulators have been and will be consulted during the process.
Overall, the senators say the oil and gas sector has already achieved significant emissions reductions, citing EPA's report that methane emissions declined 12 percent between 2011 and 2013.
“We think objective data show the industry has made remarkable progress in reducing methane emissions over the last two decades without heavy handed federal mandates. There is every reason to believe that will continue, unless restrictive federal regulations impede new technologies and cooperative state and local efforts,” the senators write.
-
Clock Starts For Filing Suits Over EPA's SSM Air Rule
Jun 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA will publish in the June 12 Federal Register its final rule requiring 36 states to remove provisions from their state implementation plans (SIPs) that allow some Clean Air Act emissions limit exemptions for industry during periods of startups, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), triggering a 60-day clock for groups to sue over the rule.
The rule, which EPA released May 22 and that took effect the same day, sets a Nov. 22 deadline for each affected state to submit its corrective revision to its SIP, which is a blueprint for complying with federal air programs. Although the affected SIPs have for years included the SSM exemptions, the agency is now forcing states to scrap the language after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the exemptions unlawful.
If states miss the deadline in the “SIP Call” rule, EPA must within two years issue a federal implementation plan to remove the exemptions, unless the state submits and EPA approves a revision within that time.
The D.C. Circuit in a 2008 ruling said that SSM exemptions were unlawful, as environmentalists had long argued. EPA then tried to offer an alternative “affirmative defense” for industry against claims of emissions limit violations during SSM, but the D.C. Circuit in a 2014 ruling also found that defense unlawful.
EPA's rule acknowledges those two court decisions and also responds to petitions for rulemaking from environmentalists opposed to SSM exemptions, which they say allow very large amounts of pollution to be emitted in contravention of regulatory limits.
Sierra Club in a petition had initially called for EPA to include 39 states in the SIP Call, but EPA declined to include all 39, noting changes made by some states such as Kentucky to SIPs in order to remove exemptions.
Advocates are also seeking to kill SSM exemptions with state-level challenges. Several environmental groupsrecently urged EPA to scrap SSM exemptions that the advocates claim Texas granted to 19 power plants, asking the agency to force changes to the facilities' permits to end the air law waivers.
-
High Court Utility MACT Win For EPA Might Not End Fight On Toxics 'Limit'
Jun 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A possible EPA victory in a pending Supreme Court case over its air toxics rule for power plants might still not resolve legal uncertainty over the utility rule and other air toxics standards, industry sources say, because the regulations share a contested method for setting emissions limits that is still being litigated in federal appeals court.
The method, known as the upper prediction limit (UPL), has prompted attacks from environmentalists who say it has flaws that lead to air toxics limits that are too weak. While the UPL is not at issue in the imminent high court decision on the utility MACT, it is a live issue in consolidated litigation over EPA's MACT for industrial boilers. The Supreme Court case centers on whether EPA erred by not considering costs in deciding to issue a MACT for utilities.
Even if the justices decide to uphold the utility rule -- with a ruling expected as early as next week -- that might not resolve the rule's fate, the industry sources say, because an adverse U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacating or remanding the UPL method to EPA could spur calls to revise the utility MACT.
One boiler industry source says that the UPL, which also underpins the MACT "floors," or minimum pollution limit in the utility MACT rule, is industry's number one concern in the boiler rule litigation.
If the D.C. Circuit agrees with advocates that the UPL is unlawful, EPA could be forced to recalculate MACT floors in the boiler MACT, utility MACT, and other emissions standards, the source says. This could result in some MACT standards "an order of magnitude" tougher than existing rules, the source adds.
The D.C. Circuit is also due to hold oral arguments during its next term, which begins in the fall, in litigation over a package of three combustion air rules limiting emissions from large "major" industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers, smaller "area" source boilers, and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI).
Underlying all these pending appellate cases is a challenge by environmentalists to the UPL, which EPA says accounts for variability in boiler or incinerator performance. The UPL attempts to account for discrepancies among the three test runs emissions sources are required to conduct. The method helps to more accurately predict the future performance of the source, and is widely employed in other fields, EPA told the D.C. Circuit in a filing last year.
MACT Standards
Environmentalists counter that the methodology unlawfully weakens MACT standards. Advocates say the UPL ignores a Clean Air Act requirement that EPA set MACT "floors," or minimum emissions limits, using the average emissions of the top 12 percent of sources in terms of environmental performance in a given source category.
EPA in the combustion rules used a 99 percent UPL, which the agency says estimates the average performance of the top 12 percent of sources for 99 percent of the time sources are operating, in order to better predict real-world performance. The agency used the same approach in the utility MACT.
The D.C. Circuit has considered EPA's use of the UPL before, remanding a sewage sludge incinerator air toxics rule to EPA in a 2013 ruling seeking further explanation of the method in the rulemaking in its unanimous decision in National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) v. EPA.
The agency responded with a memo last year from Stephen Page, director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, defending the method as a reasonable and lawful approach.
EPA in the boiler and CISWI litigation voluntarily remanded its emissions limits briefly in order to respond to the D.C. Circuit's remand in NACWA, and is still reconsidering some limits that are based on nine or fewer data points. The agency said that it would re-examine those data points in the light of possible shortcomings that could arise from insufficient data to properly apply the UPL method in its rules.
EPA has indicated that it intends to address the remand of MACT emissions limits in its reconsideration of parts of the boiler rules, which the industry source says is now expected in September or October.
UPL Method
However, one environmental attorney opposed to the UPL doubts that the ongoing boiler litigation could have any bearing on the utility MACT rule and notes the UPL is not at issue in the utility rule suit.
When the D.C. Circuit issued its 2-1 ruling from April in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, et al. upholding the utility MACT, it did not find fault with the use of the UPL in how EPA calculated the MACT floors.
Referencing the D.C. Circuit's upcoming arguments later this year in the litigation over the combustion air toxics rules, the environmentalist says, "With respect to all other data sets, the UPL will be addressed by the Court this fall. . . . The UPL doesn't satisfy the Clean Air Act, and EPA's rationale for it doesn't satisfy NACWA."
Many observers also believe the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling will be largely moot with respect to the actual impact on industry of EPA's rule. Whether the high court chose to remand or even vacate the rule, industry has already invested very large sums to close older coal-fired power plants, re-power them with natural gas or apply emissions controls, and sources note that most of these decisions are already irreversible.
The high court's ruling will address three related challenges to the MACT rule, National Mining Association (NMA) v. EPA, et al., Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, et al. and State of Michigan, et al. v. EPA, et al.
The court heard oral arguments on all three cases together March 25, where the justices appeared split largely along ideological lines, with conservative justices faulting EPA's decision to not consider costs in launching the MACT, and their more liberal colleagues in favor, with Justice Anthony Kennedy the apparent possible swing vote.
The court is considering only a relatively narrow question, of whether EPA should have considered implementation costs when making a preliminary determination that it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate air toxics emissions from power plants. EPA says it correctly considered costs when it set the actual standards in the rule, but critics say costs should have been part of the earlier decision on whether to regulate utilities with a MACT.
-
Clean Water Rule Protects National Parks
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Maureen Finnerty
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers have released a new rule to re-extend protections of the Clean Water Act to the headwater streams and wetlands that provide drinking water for one in every three Americans. This is great news for our families; it is also great news for our national parks. Already, more than half of our 407 national parks have waterways deemed “impaired” under the Clean Water Act and in need of attention.
Finalized in May, the EPA’s common-sense new Waters of the U.S. or Clean Water Rule reestablishes protections for headwaters streams and wetlands -- benefiting downstream national parks, 279 million annual visitors, and gateway communities. Although polluters may be squealing in protest, the Clean Water Rule is a longtime coming and importantly, restores EPA’s oversight of our drinking water supplies, which were first established by Congress and President Nixon in 1972.
Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 had created judicial loopholes and uncertainties for developers, agricultural producers, municipal water providers and conservationists about which waterways were worthy of Clean Water Act protections. Groups from the American Farm Bureau to the National Parks Conservation Association asked the EPA to clarify its jurisdiction– so it did, consulting the science, as well as industry, agricultural interests, municipalities and the American public, which sent in nearly one million comments.
The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks also weighed in. Our coalition includes 1,083 former National Park Service employees with over 30,000 years of combined experience. Like me, many of our members have served in parks whose local domestic water supply and protected natural resources are dependent upon and often impacted by the quality of surface water flowing into and through the respective park’s designated boundary.
We believe that this common-sense clean water rule provides ecological, recreational and economic benefits to downstream national parks and communities. With Clean Water Act protections, visitors can safely drink, fish, swim and play in park waterways. Plants and wildlife can depend on healthy streams.
Congress should join national park visitors and tourism-dependent businesses and communities in celebrating what this new rule means for our heritage – not seeking to undermine or delay the rule. Our national parks are our legacy to the next generation; conserving them is our shared responsibility. The 2016 centennial of our parks is a prime opportunity for renewing this commitment. Let’s be sure we can all hold up a clean glass of water at the time.
Finnerty is chair of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks – Voices of Experience. She has three decades of experience with the National Park Service, including serving as superintendent of both Everglades National Park in Florida and Olympic National Park in Washington. She is a recipient of the Department of Interior’s Meritorious Service award.Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
-
Ethanol Group Intervenes in Oil Industry Suit Over Rail Safety Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Growth Energy, a major ethanol trade group, is warning that an oil industry lawsuit "threatens to upend" a recent rail safety rule and rattle the market for renewable fuels.
The legal challenge "will introduce substantial financial and regulatory uncertainty that will impact the ability of Growth Energy members to transport their ethanol products to market," the group said in a motion to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the American Petroleum Institute.
In a major rulemaking last month, the Department of Transportation issued a 10-year deadline for phasing out or repairing the nearly 100,000 cars now used to haul oil and ethanol in bulk.
API soon challenged the final rule's requirement for oil shippers to update their cars faster than their rivals in the ethanol business. Federal regulators based the difference on each liquid's chemical properties -- light crude from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play is typically more hazardous than ethanol.
Oil producers have until 2018 to upgrade or scrap their oldest, riskiest tank car models, while companies moving ethanol can use the same type of unjacketed car until 2023.
Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said the rule "begins to acknowledge the difference between cars in ethanol and crude service." The group is intervening on regulators' behalf in the API suit, in part to preserve the timelines for fixing trains packed with oil and ethanol (EnergyWire, May 14).
Advertisement
Both flammable liquids have been involved in deadly derailments, including a 72-car oil train disaster that killed 47 people in Quebec two years ago. In 2009, an ethanol train derailed and exploded near Cherry Valley, Ill., killing one, injuring nine and spurring calls for thicker tank cars.
As the Department of Transportation considered new tank car rules in the wake of those accidents, the oil and ethanol industries found rare common ground advocating the need to keep trains on the tracks. Bob Dinneen, CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, another ethanol industry group, once called toughening up track standards "the one issue" that he could agree on with API's head of downstream operations Bob Greco. "And that's not to be taken lightly," he added (EnergyWire, Feb. 27, 2014).
An RFS spokesman declined comment on API's lawsuit. API spokesman Brian Straessle declined comment on pending litigation but noted that the group still believes "more needs to be done to prevent derailments by enhancing the inspection and maintenance of train tracks, axles and other railroad equipment."
For its part, DOT is now facing legal challenges to its crude and ethanol safety rule in at least four federal appeals courts. Joe Delcambre, a spokesman for DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, said in a recent emailed statement that "it is disappointing that the American Petroleum Institute chose to challenge these important safety regulations."
"We believe the rule will stand up to challenge in court and remain hopeful that industries impacted by these changes will accept their safety obligations and follow the new regulations," he said.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested