Preview Newsletter
ACC june 15
-
Hearing to Consider Energy Department Nominations
Jun 16, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Building/ 10:00 AM -
EPA’s Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing
Jun 16, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM -
Oversight Hearing on "Arctic Resources and American Competitiveness"
Jun 16, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:30 AM -
Oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Rule to Regulate Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities
Jun 17, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:30 AM -
Crude Intentions: The Untold Story of the Ban, the Oil Industry, and America's Small Businesses
Jun 17, 2015 | House Small Business Committee
Location: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building/ 11:00 AM -
Re-examining EPA’s Management of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program
Jun 18, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:00 AM -
Subcommittee on Water and Power Legislative Hearing
Jun 18, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
(ACC Mentioned) Mad Men Of The Chemical Industry
Jun 15, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Back in 1970, U.S.I. Chemicals, a subsidiary of National Distillers, wanted to tell the world about its new vinyl acetate monomer plant, the largest anywhere. It took out a full-page advertisement in C&EN with an exquisitely painted railcar, filled to the dome with VAM. The plant’s 300 million lb of capacity came on six weeks ahead of schedule... -
(ACC Mentioned) Investment in US Chemicals Industry Rises
Jun 14, 2015 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
Planned investments in the US chemicals industry have continued to rise this year in spite of the fall in oil prices, pointing to a surge in capacity by the end of the decade. Companies have announced 238 investment projects worth a total of $145bn, up from $136bn at the end of last year and about $90bn a year ago, according to the American... -
(ACC Mentioned) Market Outlook: Chemicals are Driving Growth
Jun 15, 2015 | ICIS News
By Andy Brice
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. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plasticity Forum Tackles Solutions To Plastic Waste
Jun 13, 2015 | Recycling Today
The fourth annual Plasticity Forum took place in Cascais, Portugal, June 7-9, 2015, with the global event bringing together more than 80 business and industry officials, sustainability experts, plastic producers and users, innovators, government representatives and other thought leaders to discuss innovative solutions to the growing plastic... -
(ACC Mentioned) No Plans to Reopen Comment Period For Fragrance-Free Label, EPA Says
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency has no plans to reopen the public comment period for a fragrance-free chemical product label it unveiled in March, the EPA told Bloomberg BNA June 11. The agency updated Bloomberg BNA on its plans for the fragrance-free label, which is part of the Safer Choice program the EPA announced in... -
(ACC Mentioned) Rick Hind: Udall Bill Would Weaken Chemical Safety Standards
Jun 15, 2015 | Las Cruces Sun-News
By Rick Hind
Fifty-two years ago when Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" became a best seller, there were 62,000 chemicals in commerce. In a 1963 CBS News report about her book, she eloquently warned of the dangers of these chemicals. Today there are 84,000 chemicals on the market, with more every year. -
(ACC Mentioned) Say No To Toxic Chemical Shell Game
Jun 12, 2015 | Delaware Online
By Michele Roberts and Charles E. Brittingham
A decade of pressure by parents, doctors, scientists, businesses and state governments has created momentum to finally fix the broken federal law governing chemicals used in commerce, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which has allowed thousands of hazardous and untested chemicals to be widely used in everyday... -
Fragrance Industry ‘Trade Secrets’ Brought About EPA Label
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Erin Switalski and Alexandra Scranton
The EPA’s Safer Choices program has developed a certification label for products that are fragrance-free – which states that no ingredients that are used in fragrance are allowed to be used in the product. Now, the fragrance industry’s leading trade association, the International Fragrance Association (IFRA), opposes the creation ... -
OECD Makes Chemical Classification Search Easier
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A new Internet search capability released June 12 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will make it easier to find how chemicals have been classified in accordance with the United Nation's Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The OECD added the search capability... -
Shell Offshore Arctic Spill Response Plans Survive Appeal Over Species Risks, NEPA
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Another attempt to delay or block exploratory oil drilling by Royal Dutch Shell Plc in U.S. Arctic waters failed June 11 when an appeals court ruled a federal regulator did not violate environmental laws in approving two spill response plans (Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell, 9th Cir., No. 13-35866, 6/11/15). -
Oil Lobby Confronts Image Problem In Arctic Drilling
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry has identified public perception as one of the top issues it faces as it seeks to drill in the Arctic Ocean. American Petroleum Institute (API) officials said that throughout the world in places like Canada and Russia, oil drillers have a century of experience operating in Arctic conditions, and they are not worried about their ability... -
Obama Rule For Future Exploration To Go Under Natural Resources Microscope
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A House Natural Resources panel tomorrow will scrutinize the Obama administration's draft rule governing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean and how it might affect the nation's economic competitiveness. The hearing before the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee will feature diverging views on the Interior... -
Opponent Of Lifting Oil Export Ban Hopes To Turn Bipartisan Tide
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
With a growing number of Democrats joining the push to lift the crude export ban, a leading critic this week will make the case for keeping a decades-old lid on U.S. crude exports firmly in place. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said during an interview that he hopes to sway Democrats while testifying before the House Small... -
Drinking Water, Fracking, and the EPA
Jun 12, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Michael Brune
Last week, the EPA released 1,000-plus draft pages of its "Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment." The report took almost five years to produce and essentially tells us (in great detail) what we already knew: Fracking and drinking water are a bad combination. On top of that, the EPA finally admitted that water resources have already been... -
Bill Calls for Stormwater Permit at Oil, Gas Wells
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill to apply stormwater runoff regulations to oil and natural gas exploration and production activities was introduced June 11 by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.). The bill would amend the Clean Water Act to require oil and gas operators to obtain a permit designed to require safeguards that will prevent rainwater from carrying pollutants into streams. -
Senators Hope to Consider Bill to Block Clean Power Plan Ahead of Final Rule
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told Bloomberg BNA June 11 they hope the full Senate will consider legislation to immediately scuttle the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan before the agency issues a final rule on it sometime in August. -
Honorable Sees a 'Proactive' FERC on Clean Power Plan
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should play a "proactive" role in helping states and regions respond to challenges posed by compliance with the forthcoming final version of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, Colette Honorable, FERC's newest member, said in a Friday interview. -
GOP Taking Aim At Key Obama Environmental Priorities With Markups On Tap
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick and Phil Taylor
Funding for U.S. EPA and the Interior Department will be on the agenda on both sides of Capitol Hill tomorrow, with EPA's Clean Power Plan, ozone proposal and the newly finalized Waters of the U.S. rule all likely targets. The House Appropriations Committee will mark up its fiscal 2016 measure in the morning, followed by the Senate... -
Vitter Energy Platform Plays Up Industry Ties, Opposition To Regs
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter today unveiled his energy platform as he vies for the state's governorship, touting his familial ties to the oil industry while also vowing to fight regulations that he asserts curtail production in the Pelican State. Vitter (R) is considered the leading contender in the open-seat race to replace term-limited... -
Senate Panel to Take Up Interior, EPA Funding Bill
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Legislation that would fund the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other related agencies for 2016 fiscal year will be marked up June 16 by a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, a committee staffer told Bloomberg BNA. The markup, which the staffer said will be formally announced June 12, is coincidentally... -
Emissions Cap-And-Trade Program Is Working Well In California
Jun 12, 2015 | LA Times
By Michael Hiltzik
The climate change debate may seem mostly to be about science, but it's really driven by dollars and cents — what will it take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and how much will that cost? Of all U.S. states, California has taken the most direct approach to settling those questions through a pioneering cap-and-trade program. -
Senate Takes Up New EPA Rule
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
The debate over U.S. EPA's efforts to regulate the disposal of coal power plant waste is moving to the Senate from its usual home in the House. The Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee this week is holding its first oversight hearing of the agency's newly released standards. -
Holding Back Climate Change Isn’t as Hard as You Think
Jun 15, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Louise Downing
The global economy grew strongly last year without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, suggesting that government regulations, carbon markets and existing technologies are starting to bite in the battle against climate change. In a special report to help policy makers in the run-up to a major climate conference in Paris... -
EPA Asks Fourth Circuit to Block Discovery In Lawsuit Over Air Rules' Impact on Jobs
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency asked a federal appellate court to block a lower court's order that it make agency staff and documents available to a coal company in a lawsuit seeking to compel a review of Clean Air Act regulations' impact on jobs (In re: Administrator of EPA, 4th Cir., No. 15-01639, 6/12/15). -
GOP Pushes Changes To Clean Air Law To Fight Ozone Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House Republicans knocked a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule restricting ozone levels on Friday, suggesting they could change the Clean Air Act in order to hamper the regulations. Republicans have proposed a bill that would require the EPA to consider the economic impact of its regulations and states’ abilities to achieve new... -
EPA's McCabe Defends Ozone Proposal From Criticism About Cost, Achievability
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's top air official defended the agency's proposal to revise national ozone standards in response to criticism by Republican members of Congress, citing the health benefits of the proposed rule. Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, said June 12 that the EPA proposal to... -
Shimkus: EPA Regs Are Like Changing Rules During Baseball Game
Jun 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
Republican Rep. John Shimkus on Friday compared the litany of regulations that EPA is issuing to changing the rules of the game for U.S. job creators. The chairman of the Environment and the Economy subcommittee, noted at an Energy and Commerce hearing on EPA’s proposed ozone standards that Republicans lost the annual congressional... -
EPA Asks 4th Circuit To Block Discovery In Air Rule 'Jobs' Review Lawsuit
Jun 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is asking a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court's order granting an industry bid to launch discovery in a suit aiming to force the agency to conduct a review of its air rules' impacts on jobs, with EPA warning the case is a “fishing expedition” seeking documents to make broad attacks on the agency rather than correct a legal wrong. -
Environmental Groups Declare Victory After Trade Package Scuttled on House Floor
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Environmental groups declared victory June 12 after House Democrats blocked trade legislation they say would expedite the approval of future trade deals paving the way for the export of fossil fuels and block climate agreements. “This is a major victory for everyone who thinks trade should be fair and responsible,” Sierra Club... -
Green Activist Urges Clinton To ‘Get Serious’ On Climate
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Star environmental activist Bill McKibben is telling presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that if she wants their support, she’ll have to confront environmentalists’ deep distrust of her. “Mother Nature may not have a super PAC, but she has her own ways of focusing attention,” McKibben wrote Friday in an article published on Grist, in which he... -
New EPA Mapping Tool Sheds Light on Pollution Risk and Social Vulnerability
Jun 12, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Marcelo Norsworthy
EPA is getting into the mapping game in a big way. Just this week, they launched an environmental justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool called EJSCREEN. It is an online, publicly accessible, and will be a tremendously helpful resource for the EJ movement. In the past, concerned citizens, researchers, and advocates would access ... -
Questions Over Court Venue For CWA Rule Suits Add To Legal Uncertainty
Jun 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Questions over whether a district or appellate court is the proper venue for expected lawsuits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule are adding to legal uncertainty over the regulation, observers say, as various provisions in the water law complicate answers on the venue, timing, and other aspects of litigation over the rule. -
EPA Hits Back At Farm Bureau Criticisms Of Controversial Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Annie Snider
U.S. EPA today hit back at criticisms of the agency's controversial water rule lobbed yesterday by the American Farm Bureau Federation. In a blog post, Ken Kopocis, the agency's top water official, argued that contrary to allegations that the rule will vastly expand federal say in day-to-day agricultural operations, the final version of the water rule... -
GOP Taking Aim At Key Obama Environmental Priorities With Markups On Tap
|
-
Association of American Railroads Files Agency Appeal of DOT Tank Car Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens
The Association of American Railroads became the latest challenger to new crude-by-rail rules Friday, filing an agency appeal with the U.S. Department of Transportation. The rail industry group called for the department to remove a requirement for an expensive new braking system which rail executives have said is unproven.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Hearing to Consider Energy Department Nominations
Jun 16, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Building/ 10:00 AM
-
EPA’s Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing
Jun 16, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM
-
Oversight Hearing on "Arctic Resources and American Competitiveness"
Jun 16, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1334 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:30 AM
-
Jun 17, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:30 AM
-
Crude Intentions: The Untold Story of the Ban, the Oil Industry, and America's Small Businesses
Jun 17, 2015 | House Small Business Committee
Location: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building/ 11:00 AM
-
Re-examining EPA’s Management of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program
Jun 18, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:00 AM
-
Subcommittee on Water and Power Legislative Hearing
Jun 18, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
(ACC Mentioned) Mad Men Of The Chemical Industry
Jun 15, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Back in 1970, U.S.I. Chemicals, a subsidiary of National Distillers, wanted to tell the world about its new vinyl acetate monomer plant, the largest anywhere. It took out a full-page advertisement in C&EN with an exquisitely painted railcar, filled to the dome with VAM.
The plant’s 300 million lb of capacity came on six weeks ahead of schedule—“as a matter of fact,” the spot proudly noted. It didn’t say where the plant was. The ad, however, directed inquiries to a 212 area code if readers wanted to request samples.
There are barely any chemical companies with headquarters in New York City anymore. Heck, when was the last time a chemical company also made bourbon?
This ad is a gem lurking in C&EN Archives. There are many like it. When C&EN prepared the archives in 2010, it included the ads.
It is fortunate C&EN did. A lot of C&EN’s great journalism from the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s chronicled the vast expansion of the young chemical industry. But the advertisements complete the picture of what that era in the chemical enterprise was actually like, plus they add a dash of charm and nostalgia to the magazine’s archives.
The U.S.I. ad was typical. Chemical companies had a fairly straightforward pitch to make: They had commercial quantities of a particular chemical available. They explained that prospects for the molecule were enormous. And then they propositioned the reader to call or send away for a sample.
“What Can Methocel Do For You?” Dow Chemical asked in 1950. Dow suggested uses as a thickener and a binder. Methylcellulose is still a major Dow business. And Methocel has since found very modern applications such as replacing gluten in baking. Eastman Chemical, in 1960, took out a full page for 2-ethylhexanol, still an important intermediate for the firm. The industry hasn’t changed very much in 50 or 60 years.
One sees in some ads rudimentary versions of the same rhetorical themes that remain in healthy circulation today. Mallinckrodt bought 10 pages in the April 15, 1963, issue under the theme “Covalent with the American Home.” Page after page showed pictures of a prosperous and immaculate early ’60s American abode and how it was made better by the firm’s stearates and gallotannins. “There’s scarcely a home untouched by the wonder of Mallinckrodt chemicals,” the copy promised.
This idea that “chemistry is everywhere” is still a familiar refrain. It is an underpinning of modern image efforts such as the American Chemistry Council’s essential2, Dow’s Human Element, and BASF’s We Create Chemistry campaigns.
A Sinclair Petrochemicals ad from 1962, “How To Make a Mountain Out of a Molecule,” should also resonate with modern chemists. It pictured a heap of gadgets and toys—including, of course, a model dinosaur to hark back to its corporate trademark. “Molecules are tiny things, but the magic molecules of Sinclair Petrochemicals grow like crazy when you use them as ‘building-blocks,’ ” the copy declared. “In your hands, they can become a mountain of fast-selling items that mean extra profits for you.”
We hear a lot about building block chemicals today, usually when talking about foundational petrochemicals such as ethylene and benzene. But Sinclair made such molecules sound like new and exciting tools for creativity—less like bricks, more like Legos. That might be because, at the time, they were relatively new and exciting.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Investment in US Chemicals Industry Rises
Jun 14, 2015 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
Planned investments in the US chemicals industry have continued to rise this year in spite of the fall in oil prices, pointing to a surge in capacity by the end of the decade.
Companies have announced 238 investment projects worth a total of $145bn, up from $136bn at the end of last year and about $90bn a year ago, according to the American Chemistry Council, the industry group.
The drop in crude prices is a potential threat to US producers of bulk chemicals such as ethylene, because they use feedstocks that are typically linked to gas prices, and compete against rivals in Asia and Europe that use feedstocks based on oil.However, the fall in oil prices appears to have slowed the flow of new investment plans for the US, rather than stopping it altogether.
Some projects are also being delayed, but they account for only about 5 per cent of the total value of planned investments, the ACC believes, with the outlook for a further 7 per cent uncertain.
Capital spending in the US chemicals industry rose 64 per cent from 2010 to $33.4bn in 2014, and is expected to rise another 37 per cent to $45.8bn on the ACC’s forecasts.
Kevin Swift, the council’s chief economist, said the US was capturing a growing share of investment in the chemicals industry worldwide.
US capacity for some bulk chemicals could rise 35-40 per cent by the end of the decade, he added.
US companies including ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical and CP Chem, a joint venture of Chevron and Phillips 66, have launched expansion plans, but about 61 per cent of the announced investment comes from non-US companies, Mr Swift said.
Companies including Sasol of South Africa and Royal Dutch Shell have launched or are considering large investment projects.
US chemicals producers have preserved most of their cost advantage during the drop in oil prices because the US prices for gas and the natural gas liquids such as ethane used as feedstocks have also fallen sharply.
Bob Patel, chief executive of LyondellBasell, one of the largest US-listed chemicals companies, said he expected the oil to gas price ratio to remain favourable to producers in the US, making it the world’s most competitive location for making ethylene, a basic building block used in many products.
“When you think about ethylene production, the US clearly has the advantage in terms of new capacity,” he said.
However, he raised concerns about the cost of investing in new plants on greenfield sites, at a time when competition for staff and construction services was inflated by the surge in activity.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Market Outlook: Chemicals are Driving Growth
Jun 15, 2015 | ICIS News
By Andy Brice
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) Plasticity Forum Tackles Solutions To Plastic Waste
Jun 13, 2015 | Recycling Today
The fourth annual Plasticity Forum took place in Cascais, Portugal, June 7-9, 2015, with the global event bringing together more than 80 business and industry officials, sustainability experts, plastic producers and users, innovators, government representatives and other thought leaders to discuss innovative solutions to the growing plastic problem facing our land and marine environments.
Organizers say the Plasticity Forum is unique in its focus on upstream solutions, which aim to prevent plastic pollution before impacting our communities or entering our waters. This year’s forum focused on “Designing for Circularity, and Opportunities in Action That Now Need Scale.” The agenda included companies that are leading the way in plastic recycling and transforming plastic waste into revenue streams.
This year’s event also featured a keynote presentation on a new report on Plastic-to-Fuel. The study is a joint effort between with Ocean Recovery Alliance and the American Chemistry Council to help unlock the potential for plastic-to-fuel technologies to deliver economic and environmental benefits to communities around the world. The report allows stakeholders and government leaders to better understand the opportunities that exist with this new technology in terms of plastic waste reduction. It also includes a functional financial model that can be used to estimate the appropriate technologies for a given jurisdiction, and feedstock stream of plastic material that is available within that community.Some of the exciting research, developments and initiatives in managing and recovering plastic waste as a resource that were shared at this year’s Plasticity Forum included: Plastic bottles that have been designed to be upscaled into long-term assets for us on building as roof tiles for those in developing communitiesBuilding bricks made of hard-to-recycle plastic waste material which yields a product that is stronger than cement and can be used in building constructionA new Net Benefit Analysis report to be conducted with a number of Plasticity participant companies from this event, and previous ones, with Trucost and Ocean Recovery Alliance, as a follow-on to the report published last year on “Valuing Plastic,” with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Plastic Disclosure Project, and Trucost. The report will show the broad economic, social and financial impacts of making decisions related to waste reduction, new design, material use, packaging changes and use of increased recycled content. Plastic made from algae, which can also be deployed along with the fish farming industry, creating a new sector for sustainable job creation via mutually beneficial production processes – both of which are very relevant in both the developed and developing world. Dr. Denise Hardesty, Senior Research Scientist Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, CSIRO, said, “Plasticity creates the critical conversation we need to be having around the world. This mix of experts are the people making changes, and we collectively need these programs, products, opportunities and solutions to scale across countries.”
“The mandate for Plasticity to envision and create a sustainable future for plastics, where there material is maintained as a resource after its initial use is a huge challenge, but one which people at this event are actively addressing, and that is exciting,” says Andrew Russell, Director of the Plastic Disclosure Project.
Plasticity Forum was first launched in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 and has since been held in Hong Kong and New York, with this year’s conference marking its first European event. The conference brings together experts across the plastic spectrum – including innovators, entrepreneurs, industry leaders, brand managers, educators, think tanks, government agencies, designers and investors – to address the growing plastic waste issue by creating opportunities, inspiring collaboration, and generating scalable results.
According to Doug Woodring, founder of Plasticity, “The global reach, along with the positive, solutions-based approach have made Plasticity Forum an event like no others, engaging those interested in managing and recovering plastic as a resource; scalable innovations in plastic that save money; use of new materials; designing for sustainability; and solutions for a world where plastic is used, but without its current footprint.” -
(ACC Mentioned) No Plans to Reopen Comment Period For Fragrance-Free Label, EPA Says
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency has no plans to reopen the public comment period for a fragrance-free chemical product label it unveiled in March, the EPA told Bloomberg BNA June 11.
The agency updated Bloomberg BNA on its plans for the fragrance-free label, which is part of the Safer Choice program the EPA announced in March (43 DEN A-15, 3/5/15)
Trade associations including the American Chemistry Council, American Cleaning Institute and International Fragrance Association of North America have asked the EPA to withdraw the Fragrance-Free Safer Choice label and engage with interested parties regarding concerns about and support for the fragrance-free label (91 DEN A-12, 5/12/15)
“EPA doesn't plan to reopen the comment period,” the agency e-mailed in response to a Bloomberg BNA inquiry.
The agency continues to review the comments it received in response to a March 6 Federal Register notice discussing implementation of the labels and other Safer Choice program elements, the EPA said (80 Fed. Reg. 12,171).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rick Hind: Udall Bill Would Weaken Chemical Safety Standards
Jun 15, 2015 | Las Cruces Sun-News
By Rick Hind
Fifty-two years ago when Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" became a best seller, there were 62,000 chemicals in commerce. In a 1963 CBS News report about her book, she eloquently warned of the dangers of these chemicals. Today there are 84,000 chemicals on the market, with more every year.
On April 28 the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) approved a toxic chemicals bill (S.697) to the applause of the chemical lobby. If this Congress took the lessons of Rachel Carson to heart, this legislation would instead have the support of community and public health advocates across the country who have for decades urged a complete overhaul of the famously weak 1976 Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). But that's not even being considered in this Congress.
Instead, the committee approved a bill that was far too industry-friendly. In fact, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "The draft bill, obtained by Hearst Newspapers is in the form of a Microsoft Word document. Rudimentary digital forensics — going to 'advanced properties' in Word — shows the 'company' of origin to be the American Chemistry Council." The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents major chemical manufacturers such as Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon and many others. Stung by these and other criticisms, the committee made a few minor changes in the bill, but nothing to dampen the ACC's enthusiasm for it.
An unlikely ally aiding the chemical lobby has been Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), who usually supports strong environmental protections. He partnered with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) who consistently seeks to weaken environmental protections. Udall's recent alliance with Vitter and the chemical industry coincided with his acceptance of $10,000 from the ACC's Political Action Committee (PAC) and others such as Dow Chemical's PAC in 2014. According to a new report by Open Secrets, Udall received $49,050 from chemical and related manufacturing in 2014. As Will Rogers once said, "America has the best politicians money can buy."
Meanwhile, of the 84,000 chemicals now registered for use, the EPA has required testing for only about 250 of them and has banned or placed restrictions on only nine. Lacking complete health and safety data, S.697 would prioritize testing of just 25 chemicals in the first 12 years. And even if the EPA tried to ban a dangerous chemical under S. 697, the agency would be bogged down in court for years and possibly lose, as it did when EPA tried to ban asbestos in 1989.
Permanently extending an ineffectual law is only half of the chemical lobby's agenda. They also want to strip the rights of states to set more protective safety standards than the EPA. This attack on the rights of states could set a dangerous precedent for other environmental laws. In the absence of protective federal standards, 38 states have set their own safety standards for dangerous chemicals such as formaldehyde, lead, mercury and toxic flame retardants.
Since 2007 the European Union (EU) has prioritized 170 chemicals for phase-out with hundreds slated for the same by 2020. If the Udall bill is enacted, American consumers will continue to be exposed to toxic chemicals that people in Europe will be protected from and our own states will for the first time be limited from creating a safety net. If enacted, S. 697 will:
1. Put the U.S. at risk of becoming a dumping ground for products laden with hazardous chemicals not allowed in Europe or other markets.
2. Give European companies a competitive advantage over U.S. companies by allowing them to market their products in the U.S., while U.S. companies will be barred from exporting products that do not comply with European safety standards.
3. Put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage in the development of safer chemicals.
4. Open the door to potentially costly legal claims against U.S. companies for damages from chemicals banned in Europe.
In sum, this legislation is worse than no legislation. This Congress should either adopt the first rule of medicine, "do no harm" or table this legislation.
Rick Hind is the legislative director of Greenpeace USA. He has over 30 years of experience on toxic chemical issues and lobbying in Washington, D.C.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Say No To Toxic Chemical Shell Game
Jun 12, 2015 | Delaware Online
By Michele Roberts and Charles E. Brittingham
A decade of pressure by parents, doctors, scientists, businesses and state governments has created momentum to finally fix the broken federal law governing chemicals used in commerce, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which has allowed thousands of hazardous and untested chemicals to be widely used in everyday consumer products.
Unfortunately, while TSCA reform is desperately needed to protect the lives of millions from harmful chemicals found in products or where we live, reform efforts in Congress appear to have been hijacked by the chemical industry. A new proposal by Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, and Sen. David Vitter, D-Louisiana, claims to be a step toward fixing TSCA. In reality, this bill could delay action on hazardous chemicals even further than the current law and give the chemical industry a free pass to continue endangering our children. Now, Delaware’s Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons face an important decision: Will they allow industry to write their own regulations, or will they stand up for our health and safety by pushing for real reform instead?
While this “reform” bill proposes some improvements to our federal chemical laws, it would at the same time create new barriers to action. The aims seeks to strip states of their right to restrict hazardous chemicals – even if federal government isn’t doing anything to regulate them. State leadership has been absolutely essential in creating real protections against toxic chemicals, so why would Congress seek to block states from protecting us?
Over the past decade, 35 states have enacted more than 150 policies addressing some of the worst chemicals in broad categories of household products. People in Delaware can now buy furniture, televisions, infant formula, baby bottles, baby food, and many other products made without highly toxic chemicals like bisphenol-A (BPA) and several polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) because of reforms enacted by other states. These reforms have caused product manufacturers to broadly phase out these toxic chemicals from their products sold nationwide. Today, children and families in Delaware are safer because of these actions by other states. In contrast, the federal government has failed to ban even the most toxic chemicals and substances (such as asbestos and BPA). It’s clear that blocking states from taking new actions on toxic chemicals would secure a “free-pass” for industry and maintain the toxic status quo of broken chemical safety regulations.
The chemical industry has been vigorously pushing for a version of TSCA reform that is friendly to it’s interests. On March 6, the New York Times reported that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) “spent more than $4 million during the 2014 election cycle on television and radio spots to help their allies in Congress.” Then, on March 16 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that when the electronic version of the draft Udall-Vitter bill was examined the paper found “the ‘company’ of origin to be the American Chemistry Council.”
When it comes to regulating toxic chemicals, we believe the Senate should be listening to Delaware families more than the chemical industry. Delaware’s high rates of asthma, heart diseases, learning disabilities, cancers and cancer mortality, and the proven disproportionate impact on communities of color should be more than enough reasons for the senators to protect the many who vote.
Another troubling aspects of the Udall-Vitter TSCA “reform” bill is it’s failure to address legacy contamination and the many communities fighting for environmental justice in Delaware and across the nation. Many of our communities live near toxic waste dumps, brownfields, or chemical facilities in their neighborhoods. Communities such as parts of Claymont, Foxpoint, Edgemoore, Prices Run, the Eastside, Southbridge, areas along Route 9 and areas in Kent and Sussex Counties will not be protected under this bill. This proposal also fails to do anything specific to address problems faced by the nation’s 3.8 million people living fence-line to many of these chemical facilities, including those here in Delaware.
Finally, the proposed Udall-Vitter bill would require EPA to initially review just 10 out of over 84,000 available chemicals, with no requirements or deadlines for adopting actual restrictions, using a process that will in practice take at least 7 to 15 years to complete, while immediately blocking actions by states.
That’s a pretty sweet deal for the chemical industry.
We know TSCA must be reformed, but Sen. Udall’s effort would take us backwards. Giving away the ability of states to protect their residents, while creating new barriers to federal action, (and ignoring environmental justice and fence line communities) in exchange merely for EPA review of a handful of chemicals with no guarantee of restrictions isn’t necessary compromise, it’s bowing down to the chemical industry when we need to be standing up for justice. We hope Sen. Carper and Sen. Coons will act to protect our health by voting against the Udall-Vitter fake reform bill, and stand up for real toxic chemical reform in Congress.
Michele Roberts is national co-coordinator of the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance. Charles E. Brittingham is president of the Wilmington Branch of the NAACP.
-
Fragrance Industry ‘Trade Secrets’ Brought About EPA Label
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Erin Switalski and Alexandra Scranton
The EPA’s Safer Choices program has developed a certification label for products that are fragrance-free – which states that no ingredients that are used in fragrance are allowed to be used in the product. Now, the fragrance industry’s leading trade association, the International Fragrance Association (IFRA), opposes the creation of the fragrance-free label claiming that the Safer Choice fragrance-free label would be misleading.
The reason the EPA created the fragrance-free label is that there are many consumers who want a fragrance-free product because they have found that they experience adverse health effects from products that contain “fragrance” in the list of ingredients. The well-documented health effects from fragrance exposure include rashes and skin conditions, headaches, eye irritation, exacerbation of asthma and other breathing problems.
Certain individuals with extreme chemical sensitivities can also experience much more serious adverse effects to fragrance exposure. IFRA is opposing Safer Choice’s definition of “fragrance-free” because it differs from the industry standard definition, stating:
“… in general the industry defines fragrance-free products as those that do not contain fragrance compounds to impart or change the scent of the final product and its ingredients. Some materials used in perfumery might still be present in a “fragrance free” product because these are present for purposes other than scenting or malodor coverage. These are called dual use materials. In contrast, EPA would not permit the use of dual use materials in a “fragrance-free” product, even if they are present as a solvent or surfactant."
IFRA makes the argument that these “dual-use” materials should be allowed in “fragrance-free” products because they aren’t actually imparting a scent to the product. But that argument makes the assumption that we know that it is only the ingredients in fragrance that impart a scent that lead to the adverse health effects experienced by some people.
Unfortunately, due to the long held tradition of trade secrets for fragrance ingredients, we have no such knowledge. All that consumers, scientists and health professionals have access to currently is that fragranced products contain a mystery compound called “fragrance”, and that these products are causing problems for certain individuals. Without ingredient disclosure, it is impossible to distinguish if the problems are associated solely with the scent-imparting fragrance ingredients or also with the surfactants or solvents that are included in fragrance with them. In the name of “trade secrets” the fragrance industry has intentionally created and maintained this state of ignorance on the behalf of consumers.
The only logical option Safer Choice has to provide meaningful information to consumers who do not want to be affected by “fragrance” is to certify that a product does not contain ANY of the ingredients used in fragrances.
-
OECD Makes Chemical Classification Search Easier
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A new Internet search capability released June 12 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will make it easier to find how chemicals have been classified in accordance with the United Nation's Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The OECD added the search capability to its existing eChemPortal website, which allows users to simultaneously search global reports and data sets by chemical name and number, chemical property, and—now—by GHS classification. eChemPortal also can be used to locate a chemical's GHS classification, pictograms that may be required on labels or other hazard warnings, and the ministry, agency or other authority that classified the chemical. The GHS searching section of the OECD's eChemPortal website is available at http://www.echemportal.org/echemportal/substancesearch/page.action?pageID=134.
-
Shell Offshore Arctic Spill Response Plans Survive Appeal Over Species Risks, NEPA
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Another attempt to delay or block exploratory oil drilling by Royal Dutch Shell Plc in U.S. Arctic waters failed June 11 when an appeals court ruled a federal regulator did not violate environmental laws in approving two spill response plans (Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell, 9th Cir., No. 13-35866, 6/11/15).
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), an Interior Department agency, adhered to the Clean Water Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act when it approved the spill response plans for work in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled.
A majority of the three-judge panel agreed with a district court that the Clean Water Act requirements for spill response plans, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(D) and (E), do not require Endangered Species Act consultations.
The majority opinion also said the BSEE was not required to conduct an analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act as part of a spill response plan approval. NEPA analyses and species consultations are conducted at more than one other stage of leasing and exploration planning, the court noted.
One judge disagreed, arguing that additional NEPA analyses and species consultations were needed. That judge agreed with the majority only that the BSEE had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Litigation Strategy Pursued
Environmental advocates have been launching lawsuits to block federal approvals of the Shell exploration work, following years of litigation over the 2008 lease sales. Activists sued June 2 to challenge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approval of the Shell exploration plan for the Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea (106 DEN A-13, 6/3/15).
Shell, which last drilled on one of its Chukchi leases in 2012, hopes to resume drilling at the Burger prospect as early as this summer. Its exploration plan has been approved, but it still needs a drilling permit and other approvals.
Shell's regulatory applications for its Arctic offshore drilling program have been handled by Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. and Shell Offshore Inc.
The lawsuit challenging the approvals of the spill response plans was launched by Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, Pacific Environment and Resources Center, Redoil and the Sierra Club.
Earthjustice attorney Holly Anne Harris was the plaintiffs' lead attorney. Justice Department attorney David Shilton led the federal defendants' legal team.
-
Oil Lobby Confronts Image Problem In Arctic Drilling
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry has identified public perception as one of the top issues it faces as it seeks to drill in the Arctic Ocean.
American Petroleum Institute (API) officials said that throughout the world in places like Canada and Russia, oil drillers have a century of experience operating in Arctic conditions, and they are not worried about their ability to drill north of Alaska.
But convincing the public of those qualifications is proving a challenge.
“We need to secure public confidence,” Richard Ranger, a senior advisor at API who oversees Arctic drilling policy for the group, told reporters Friday.
“There’s obviously a significant debate, and we recognize the fact that the idea that we can operate safely and have operated safely in the Arctic is as not broadly realized across the public as we think it should be,” he said.
As oil producers eye the largest untapped hydrocarbon resource in the world, where the federal government estimates up to 36 billion barrels of oil and 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas sit, it’s important the industry gets its ducks in a row.
Royal Dutch Shell is preparing to drill exploratory wells in northwest of Alaska in the Chukchi Sea this summer, though other companies like ConocoPhillips Co. and Statoil hold leases there as well, and more lease sales are likely in the coming years.
The industry is trying to explain to the public that it is safe and that environmental damage is rare, but it’s a difficult task, Ranger said.
“Our challenge as an industry and as people who work in the industry is, it’s too easy for us to default to technical arguments, and people’s eyes simply glaze over,” he said.
It doesn’t help the industry that news travels so fast and happens at all hours of the day, making relatively small spills into national news.
“There’s a network of information transfer, which means we operate in a fishbowl,” Ranger lamented.
The Obama administration approved Shell’s drilling plan in May, eliciting widespread condemnation from environmentalists who say drilling in the harsh, delicate Arctic is nearly impossible to do safely.
“Once again, our government has rushed to approve risky and ill-conceived exploration in one of the most remote and important places on Earth,” Susan Murray, deputy vice president for the Pacific at the group Oceana, said at the time.
“No company deserves a license to despoil our last pristine ocean and spew massive amounts of carbon pollution into our atmosphere,” said Franz Matzner, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Beyond Oil initiative.
API believes a focus on educating the public and policymakers is the key to gaining support for Arctic drilling.
“We’ve had experience, in North America, drilling those types of wells with success,” API Upstream Director Erik Milito said, pointing to successful projects in Canada.
Shell’s abortive 2012 drilling quest, for which it received tongue lashings from various federal agencies after its drilling rig ran aground on an island, is driving much of the opposition, but the industry is pushing back.
API officials refused to get into the details of Shell’s operations, but they said it’s no reason to doubt the industry’s safety and qualifications.
“When you have an incident, you don’t stop. You move forward,” Milito said. He cited the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill at a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico as an example, saying the industry has improved since.
“You just keep moving, and through the course of moving and being allowed to continue to operate, you build the confidence back up. Fortunately, whatever’s happened in the past couple of years in Alaska hasn’t resulted in any kind of environmental damage,” he said.
“Whatever happened up there, I hope everybody’s learned from it,” Milito continued. “I think if the public sees that we’ve learned from our mistakes and we’re making improvements on them, that’s how we get the confidence.”
And Ranger defended Shell’s drilling, saying the grounding incident wasn’t related to the drilling operation itself.
“The drilling activities proceeded safely and have been acknowledged as such,” he said.
-
Obama Rule For Future Exploration To Go Under Natural Resources Microscope
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A House Natural Resources panel tomorrow will scrutinize the Obama administration's draft rule governing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean and how it might affect the nation's economic competitiveness.
The hearing before the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee will feature diverging views on the Interior Department rule, released in February, which garnered praise from conservationists and criticism from industry (E&ENews PM, Feb. 20).
The new drilling standards will govern future exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and include a controversial requirement for developers to have a second rig available to sink a relief well in case of a blowout.
The hearing comes as Royal Dutch Shell PLC prepares to drill for oil next month in the Chukchi about 70 miles from shore, a proposal that has shined a spotlight on the administration's Arctic policies.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management last month gave Shell conditional approval to drill, though the company must still obtain additional permits from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The new drilling regulations, which won't apply to Shell's upcoming season, were jointly crafted by BSEE and BOEM and will cover about 128 million acres of Arctic waters believed to contain an estimated 21.5 billion barrels of oil and 93.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The rule aims to protect Alaska Native subsistence resources and sensitive marine ecosystems, while also recognizing the limitations of drilling in a frontier region marked by ice and storms and far from any major ports, BSEE Director Brian Salerno said in February.
Salerno is scheduled to testify tomorrow alongside an official from an Alaska Native corporation, a former federal energy official, an oil and gas industry representative, and a conservationist.
Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) denounced the rule as a job killer that could discourage companies like Shell from exploring the U.S. waters.
"If we are to become independent of foreign oil, we must actively promote responsible development of federal assets that are energy-rich and abundant in supply," he said in February after the draft rule was released. "Provisions in this rule cloud rather than clarify this prospect. I look forward to reviewing the intricacies of this rule and its impacts on limiting development."
But committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said no rule will be strong enough to make Arctic drilling safe.
"Federal regulators shouldn't encourage more fruitless campaigning or exploration in a region we know needs to be left alone," he said then. "It doesn't matter what this or any future federal rule says. There should be no drilling in the Arctic."
Conservation groups including the Pew Charitable Trusts said the rule was a positive step.
"The proposed regulations include critical oil spill prevention, source control and response requirements," Pew said in May 27 comments on the rule to Interior. "Overall, the proposal offers substantial improvements to the existing regulatory framework for the Arctic OCS."
But the American Petroleum Institute, National Ocean Industries Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in separate comments that the rule is overly prescriptive. The groups objected to the rule's emphasis on floating drill rigs, its requirement that companies file an integrated operations plan prior to filing an exploration plan and its requirement that companies have a relief rig on hand to kill an out-of-control well.
"Reliance on the false premise that relief wells provide a primary means of regaining well control would not only add substantially to already high drilling costs, it would also introduce risk by reducing the incentive or ability for an operator to use more effective alternatives appropriate to a given drilling program," the groups wrote, noting that while relief wells have been used during several blowouts over the past few decades, all of those wells were brought under control through other means.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, June 16, at 10:30 a.m. in 1334 Longworth.
Witnesses: Brian Salerno, director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Richard Glenn, executive vice president, Arctic Slope Regional Corp.; Drue Pearce, senior policy adviser, Crowell & Moring LLP; Christine Resler, Schlumberger Ltd.; and Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel, Oceana.
-
Opponent Of Lifting Oil Export Ban Hopes To Turn Bipartisan Tide
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
With a growing number of Democrats joining the push to lift the crude export ban, a leading critic this week will make the case for keeping a decades-old lid on U.S. crude exports firmly in place.
Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said during an interview that he hopes to sway Democrats while testifying before the House Small Business Committee this week to keep domestically produced oil in the United States, and will sound the alarm that gasoline prices could spike and business for U.S. refiners could dwindle if overseas sales of crude move forward.
Slocum, who made a similar argument in a March 17 editorial in The Hill newspaper, said that while Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has been the loudest in protesting any change to the export ban, the issue has not been a top priority for the majority of rank-and-file Democrats.
"One purpose of [my] testimony is to walk them through why they need to care about this issue, and why it's extremely premature to base a short-term phenomenon in the U.S. oil markets and extrapolate that into the new norm," Slocum said.
Slocum's message arrives as a number of House Democrats join a mostly Republican push to allow overseas sales of domestic crude.
At least seven Democratic House members are now co-sponsoring a bill that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) introduced to lift the ban. The bill, H.R. 702, would strike the provision of the 1975 law that authorized a ban on crude oil exports, which was imposed in response to the oil price shocks earlier in the decade, and it would bar any federal official from imposing "any restriction on the export of crude oil."
Democratic co-sponsors are Reps. Henry Cuellar, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Marc Veasey of Texas; Brad Ashford of Nebraska; Collin Peterson of Minnesota; Ed Perlmutter of Colorado; and Sanford Bishop of Georgia.
But other witnesses slated to speak before the House panel will likely push for raising the ban for economic benefits, echoing calls from Republicans including Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and House Small Business Chairman Steve Chabot of Ohio.
Those witnesses include Dale Leppo, chairman of the Leppo Group, a full-service power equipment sales and rental dealer in Northeast Ohio, and Rory McMinn, president and managing director of Read & Stevens Inc., a New Mexico-based oil and gas production company.
Also on tap is Kenneth Medlock, senior director of Rice University's Center for Energy Studies, who earlier this year released a report that showed the export ban is taking a larger pinch out of domestic oil producers' wallets than once thought (EnergyWire, March 26).
Republicans have been quick to point to economic benefits of lifting the ban, a theme that's likely to play out at the hearing.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) this month offered his most definitive public support yet for lifting the ban at a House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing, citing the foreign policy ramifications as well as lost U.S. energy jobs from the downturn in oil prices (E&ENews PM, Dec. 22, 2014).
Although Upton didn't endorse a specific legislative approach, he did vow to work with Barton "to ensure we get the policy right" (Greenwire, June 2).
Notably, Chabot, who chairs the House Small Business Committee, co-sponsored Barton's language.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, June 17, at 11 a.m. in 2360 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Dale Leppo, chairman of the Leppo Group; Rory McMinn, president and managing director of Read & Stevens Inc, Roswell, N.M.; Kenneth Medlock, senior director of Rice University's Center for Energy Studies, on behalf of Center for Energy Studies; and Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program.
-
Drinking Water, Fracking, and the EPA
Jun 12, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Michael Brune
Last week, the EPA released 1,000-plus draft pages of its "Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment." The report took almost five years to produce and essentially tells us (in great detail) what we already knew: Fracking and drinking water are a bad combination. On top of that, the EPA finally admitted that water resources have already been contaminated by fracking: "We found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells."
So much for past assertions -- not just from fossil fuel companies but also from Obama administration officials -- that no instance of drinking water contamination has ever been documented. And don't even get me started on the fossil fuel PR hacks and politicians who tried to claim that this report shows that fracking is safe. When you add up the threat to drinking water and all of the other problems with fracking that this report doesn't address -- the air pollution, the climate-disrupting methane, the landscape destruction, the earthquakes -- it's as obvious as ever that fracking is dirty, dangerous, and a terrible idea.
OK, so we knew that. What else, then, does this report have to tell us? Here are five takeaways, one for each year the EPA spent on this:
1. Oil and gas companies want you to know as little about fracking as possible. This EPA report offers no new research on whether fracking contaminates water supplies. Instead it relies on "available data and literature," including previous investigations by state regulators into fracking-related water pollution. The main reason for this is that oil and gas companies did all they could to make gathering new data impossible. And they were able to do that because Congress and successive administrations have exempted them from so many federal pollution rules.
2. Opportunities abound for disaster. One thing the EPA's report does detail is the many risks that fracking operations pose to drinking water both above and below ground -- from mixing the fracking chemicals to injecting the fracking fluid into the well to handling the millions of gallons of toxic, radioactive waste water. So many ways that something could go wrong! Now you know why this report is more than 1,000 pages long.
3. Fracking is happening close to where we live. According to the EPA, "Between 2000 and 2013, approximately 9.4 million people lived within one mile of a hydraulically fractured well."
4. Lots of fracking is also happening close to our water supplies. Again, according to the EPA: "Approximately 6,800 sources of drinking water for public water systems were located within one mile of at least one hydraulically fractured well ... These drinking water sources served more than 8.6 million people year-round in 2013." Suppose you're lucky enough to live more than a mile from the nearest fracking site? EPA: "Hydraulic fracturing can also affect drinking water resources outside the immediate vicinity of a hydraulically fractured well." What's more, the EPA points out that in some places, such as Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, fracking happens at relatively shallow depths, where "oil and gas resources and drinking water resources co-exist in the same formation."
5. What they don't know could hurt you. Of the 1,076 chemicals used in fracking that the EPA could identify, the agency was able to assess the chemical, physical, and toxicological properties for fewer than half. Of those, the majority have the potential to "persist in the environment as long-term contaminants." Great, but how many of them are potentially carcinogenic? The EPA could find data for about 90 of them, but offered a bureaucratic shrug of the shoulders as to what level of exposure people might have to those carcinogens. Feeling reassured yet?
We didn't need 1,000 pages to figure out the obvious. We don't even need 1,000 words. Here's what we know: Fracking is a nationwide game of Russian roulette that puts an essential resource -- drinking water -- at risk every single day. The sooner it stops, the better.
-
Bill Calls for Stormwater Permit at Oil, Gas Wells
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill to apply stormwater runoff regulations to oil and natural gas exploration and production activities was introduced June 11 by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.). The bill would amend the Clean Water Act to require oil and gas operators to obtain a permit designed to require safeguards that will prevent rainwater from carrying pollutants into streams. The title of the proposed bill includes the term “hydrofracking,” but the legislation actually would not be limited to sites involving hydraulic fracturing. The bill text is available at http://1.usa.gov/1FOWb37.
-
Senators Hope to Consider Bill to Block Clean Power Plan Ahead of Final Rule
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told Bloomberg BNA June 11 they hope the full Senate will consider legislation to immediately scuttle the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan before the agency issues a final rule on it sometime in August.
Aides to both senators said the Environment and Public Works Committee, which Inhofe chairs, would hold a hearing on the Affordable Reliable Electricity Now (ARENA) Act (S. 1324) in the “coming weeks,” though Capito herself said a hearing could come as soon as the week of June 15.
“I think it would be good to have a discussion before the rule comes out,” Capito said. “I'd certainly like [for the Senate to consider the bill] sooner than later, but I think that determination has yet to be made.”
Key to the measure's timing is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who controls the chamber's schedule and what measures are considered. Capito said she thinks the bill is a priority for McConnell, but his office said it remained too soon to determine timing.
“We look forward to the committee's action on this important legislation, and once the committee reports the bill, we'll be able to have a better handle on timing,” an aide to McConnell told Bloomberg BNA June 12.
Bill Released in May
Capito unveiled legislation May 13 with the backing of 26 co-sponsors, including McConnell and Inhofe. The ARENA Act would immediately stop all in-progress regulations on carbon emissions from power plants and set strict requirements for the EPA to meet before beginning new regulations (93 DEN A-3, 5/14/15).
It goes further than House legislation—the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 2042), expected to be considered by the lower chamber during the week of June 23—by immediately killing off the rules and imposing additional strict requirements for the agency to meet before proposing new ones.
The movement legislatively comes as the EPA prepares to finalize the Clean Power Plan. That regulation (RIN 2060-AR33) would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state. State regulators would develop their own plans on how best to achieve those emissions goals.
The rule was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review (106 DEN A-4, 6/3/15).
-
Honorable Sees a 'Proactive' FERC on Clean Power Plan
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should play a "proactive" role in helping states and regions respond to challenges posed by compliance with the forthcoming final version of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, Colette Honorable, FERC's newest member, said in a Friday interview.
Before joining FERC in January, Honorable was chairwoman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, as well as president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
While Honorable and her colleagues are on record in support of EPA, including a so-called reliability safety valve in the final rule, she also wants FERC to use its "tools" to "provide certainty and support for this [EPA] planning effort."
"It might be a technical conference or FERC could direct assessments or studies to be conducted. FERC is going to be needed now more than ever to support the vast work that will have to be undertaken in states, in [organized market] regions and in multistate groups that are not part of regions."
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
GOP Taking Aim At Key Obama Environmental Priorities With Markups On Tap
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick and Phil Taylor
Funding for U.S. EPA and the Interior Department will be on the agenda on both sides of Capitol Hill tomorrow, with EPA's Clean Power Plan, ozone proposal and the newly finalized Waters of the U.S. rule all likely targets.
The House Appropriations Committee will mark up its fiscal 2016 measure in the morning, followed by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies in the afternoon. The House markup is likely to be long and filled with votes on amendments, many of them aimed at President Obama's top-tier environmental priorities.
The Senate markup will probably be less eventful. Interior and Environment Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said last week that she was focused on seeing her panel's bill progress through regular order. The threat of contentious riders have prevented that from happening in the past.
"I can't speak to the direction the House may go," she said. "I think we traditionally have seen they've been a little more aggressive with riders than you've seen on the Senate side."
The House bill as approved by the subcommittee last week is already aggressive (Greenwire, June 10). It funds Interior and EPA at a level $3 billion below Obama's budget request for the two agencies combined.
Besides trimming EPA's allocation by 9 percent to $7.4 billion, the House measure would prevent EPA from implementing a new rule to expand the number of water bodies in the United States that get automatic protection under the Clean Water Act. It also would bar EPA from enforcing an existing permitting requirement for large producers of greenhouse gases, taking steps to phase out heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons, or incorporating the administration's controversial social cost of carbon estimate into any regulations.
The latter is an estimate for the cost to society of each ton of carbon dioxide added to the Earth's atmosphere, and Republicans on Capitol Hill and elsewhere complain that it was crafted with no input from the public despite playing a role in the cost-benefit analyses for numerous rulemakings by EPA, the Energy Department and other agencies.
At the subcommittee markup of the bill last week, Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said EPA's Waters of the U.S. rule and Clean Power Plan were likely candidates for policy riders again this year. The committee did not respond Friday to inquiries about possible amendments that may be offered tomorrow.
There is already language in the bill that would bar EPA from moving ahead with the Clean Water Act rule and from promulgating carbon dioxide rules for new, modified and existing power plants. The policy rider pertaining to the new plant rule bars the agency from basing any such regulation on projects that benefited from federal financial backing. EPA is set to finalize rules for new, modified and existing power plants this summer.
A spokeswoman for House Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said the Democratic amendments would target "insufficient funding levels and damaging and ideological policy riders." Interior, Forest Service
The House bill also contains a bevy of policy riders designed to hamstring the Obama administration's wildlife policies and would significantly cut funding for land acquisitions.
Tomorrow's full committee markup will likely feature debate over GOP provisions to extend a ban on the Fish and Wildlife Service listing the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act and to reissue rules to delist wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes that were recently tossed by a federal court. Both provisions have sparked a backlash from wildlife groups that oppose congressional meddling in ESA.
The House bill would also reduce funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund from just over $300 million to $248 million and shift funding away from federal land purchases, a goal of Republicans in both chambers who argue that federal agencies are struggling to manage the lands they already own.
The House bill also rejects key Obama administration proposals to impose new fees on oil and gas drillers and public lands ranchers and to shift some wildfire funding to a disaster pot designed to prevent the Forest Service from having to deplete funds from non-fire accounts.
Public lands stakeholders, including energy developers, ranchers, sportsmen and environmentalists, will be watching closely for amendments affecting Interior and the Forest Service.
One area that could see action is the Bureau of Land Management's handling of the greater sage grouse. While the bill would already block Fish and Wildlife from preparing a listing rule for the bird, it does not block BLM plans to enhance habitat protections across more than 50 million acres of the West that are designed to prevent the bird from going extinct.
Some Western governors and industry officials say the BLM plans are overly restrictive. Republicans have already attached language to the House's defense authorization package to roll back the BLM plans, and similar language has been proposed as an amendment to the Senate defense package. Appropriations bills could offer an additional legislative vehicle to block or amend the BLM plans if Republicans so choose.
On the Senate side, Murkowski's spending bill is expected to follow the House's lead in slashing spending on land acquisitions and rejecting the administration's proposed drilling and grazing fees.
Murkowski is a top critic of using the Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land purchases, so her bill may also seek to shift funding to states to invest in local recreation projects.
A big question is whether Murkowski's bill will break from the House measure and authorize disaster funding for wildfires. Murkowski has yet to endorse the administration's disaster funding proposal, though she has acknowledged the need to prevent fire borrowing and has pledged to seek national forestry reforms to reduce long-term wildfire costs. The Senate panel last year endorsed Obama's disaster funding proposal while it was under Democratic leadership.
Another unknown is whether Murkowski's bill will include money for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), which compensate rural counties with federal lands that pay no property taxes. PILT has historically been funded with mandatory dollars, but those payments have expired. The House bill includes $452 million in discretionary funding for PILT, which reduced the pot of money available for other Interior, Forest Service and EPA programs. Appropriators would prefer to see PILT funded outside of the discretionary budget.
Schedule:The House markup is Tuesday, June 16, at 10:15 a.m. in 2359 Rayburn.
Schedule: The Senate markup is Tuesday, June 16, at 2:30 p.m. in 124 Dirksen.
-
Vitter Energy Platform Plays Up Industry Ties, Opposition To Regs
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter today unveiled his energy platform as he vies for the state's governorship, touting his familial ties to the oil industry while also vowing to fight regulations that he asserts curtail production in the Pelican State.
Vitter (R) is considered the leading contender in the open-seat race to replace term-limited Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), which Louisiana voters will decide in an all-party election in October.
If none of the candidates -- the field also includes Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle (R), Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne (R) and state House Minority Leader John Bel Edwards (D) -- claims a majority of the vote, the top two vote-getters will advance to a November runoff election.
In a four-page document released today, Vitter outlined his energy platform for the state, which includes a review of all state tax policy that affects the oil and gas industry. His proposals also include creating a fast-track process for new drilling permits.
While Vitter vowed to adopt an "aggressive litigation strategy" to block any federal environmental standards -- including the recently finalized Waters of the United States rule -- he also notes that he will pursue reforms at the state level to curb lawsuits against the energy industry.
Vitter also references his familial ties to the energy industry, noting that his father served as chief of Gulf of Mexico production for Chevron during his childhood.
The new proposals are included in Vitter's "Together, Louisiana Strong" platform.
A Southern Media & Opinion Research poll conducted in early May shows Vitter leading the field with 38 percent, followed by Edwards with 25 percent. Dardenne received 17 percent, and Angelle received 5 percent, while 17 percent of voters remained undecided.
The survey of 600 likely voters had a 4-point error margin. resize text Resize Text Email  Email Print  Print
Advertisement
-
Senate Panel to Take Up Interior, EPA Funding Bill
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Legislation that would fund the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other related agencies for 2016 fiscal year will be marked up June 16 by a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, a committee staffer told Bloomberg BNA. The markup, which the staffer said will be formally announced June 12, is coincidentally scheduled on the same day that the House Appropriations Committee will markup its own version of the Interior/EPA funding bill. A House Appropriations subcommittee approved its funding package June 10 on a unanimous voice vote (112 DEN A-6, 6/11/15). The nearly $30.2 billion House bill includes $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Land Management, a 2.8 percent increase over the current fiscal year, and $7.4 billion for the EPA, an 8.6 percent cut. The Senate has not yet released its version of the spending bill.
-
Emissions Cap-And-Trade Program Is Working Well In California
Jun 12, 2015 | LA Times
By Michael Hiltzik
The climate change debate may seem mostly to be about science, but it's really driven by dollars and cents — what will it take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and how much will that cost? Of all U.S. states, California has taken the most direct approach to settling those questions through a pioneering cap-and-trade program.
More than two years into the program — which aims to reduce the state's overall greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — it's working very well, but it may not be doing as much as its biggest fans say.
"We think we do have a good story to tell," says Mary D. Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, which administers cap-and-trade.
The program's quarterly auctions of emissions allowances have gone on largely without a hitch. The program has fit in, as was expected, with other emissions reduction programs implemented under AB 32, the state's landmark greenhouse gas legislation, including mandates for renewable fuels sources for electrical utilities and emissions standards for new cars and trucks.
It has done so without a measurable drag on economic growth. The program generated $969 million in revenue for the state through the end of 2014, and is expected to generate $2 billion a year or more in the future. The money must be spent on efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
"What we've learned is that a cap-and-trade system will not kill the California economy," says Stanford economist Lawrence H. Goulder, who advised the ARB on the program's design. "The economy has continued to flourish."
The state's greenhouse gas emissions have declined since cap-and-trade was introduced in 2013, but "the jury's really out on whether we've seen a lot of reductions caused by cap-and-trade," says James Bushnell, an energy economist at UC Davis who follows the program closely.
That's important, because finding the right incentives for industries and consumers to reduce their carbon footprint may be the key to fighting climate change. All the options, including cap-and-trade, direct caps, and a carbon tax, are controversial, though some are more politically palatable than others.
California's cap-and-trade experiment is being widely watched because it covers the broadest range of industries of any such program in North America in the largest state economy in the region. It's also, as the Legislative Analyst's Office declared in 2012, "one of the most wide-ranging and complex regulatory efforts in the history of the state." If cap-and-trade can work here, it could work anywhere.
"California has provided a very good signal to other states and the federal government that significant reductions can be achieved through a market-based system," Goulder says. One positive aspect of the state's lengthening experience is that it has "drained away some of the fear-mongering" about cap-and-trade, says Severin Borenstein, an energy expert at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. For example, the state's oil and gas industry, which last year unsuccessfully lobbied to defer the Jan. 1, 2015, deadline for imposing cap-and-trade rules on gasoline suppliers, predicted that the regulation would drive up gas prices by 16 to 76 cents per gallon.
Borenstein and other experts accurately put the increase at closer to nine to 10 cents, and argued that cap-and-trade would be meaningless if the largest source of greenhouse gases, transportation fuel, was left out of the program.
To meet 1990 level goals, emissions must be cut by almost 16% — from 507 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 427 million. Every year, ARB hands out or auctions allowances covering that year's emission cap, which is reduced year by year as 2020 draws near. Factories and other sources of greenhouse gases can buy the allowances they need or sell any they don't need. ARB forbids speculators to hoard allowances — to avoid the sort of manipulation that fouled the state's electricity market during the deregulation era of 2000-01 — and sets a floor price, which will rise slightly every year, to signal that emissions have some real cost.
The goal is to prompt emitters to become more efficient users of energy. But the pressure is more of a nudge than a cudgel because of fears of imposing emissions limits so tight or costs so high that businesses would flee the state. "Although we were moving forward ahead of others, we weren't moving so far ahead that it became destabilizing to current businesses in California," Nichols observes.
Energy experts expect the auction price of allowances to stay close to the minimum through 2020, largely because the emission caps have turned out to be higher than what the state's covered industries are actually producing.
The state's other emissions mandates already have done much to bring emissions down. Another big factor was the recession: The state's greenhouse gas emissions fell 4.4% from 2008 to 2009, tracking the slowdown in economic activity, and didn't return to pre-crash levels until 2012, ARB statistics show.
"Current emissions are below what we would have seen even without the program," Bushnell says. "When we came out of the recession, everybody was a bit more efficient, and those efficiencies have persisted." Auction prices may begin to rise, however, if the state enacts more stringent targets for 2020-30, as Gov. Brown advocates.
A larger question, Borenstein says, is whether emissions regulations such as cap-and-trade do enough to drive technological change. "California produces 1% of world greenhouse gases," he says, "so it's not going to solve the problem on its own. Making a difference means developing new technologies that can be used in the developing world. If California meets our greenhouse gas goals by taking expensive measures no one else is willing to do, that's not doing it in a way that drives technology forward."
ARB's Nichols maintains that cap-and-trade is achieving that goal merely by establishing a predictable benchmark price for carbon emissions. Even at a modest $12 per ton, she says, "that's enough of a signal for industries to make dramatic investments in clean energy."
But it's also just one piece of a broad strategy to fight climate change. By itself, cap-and-trade doesn't answer the one most important question on climate change: Just how much are we willing to do to win the fight?
-
Jun 15, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
The debate over U.S. EPA's efforts to regulate the disposal of coal power plant waste is moving to the Senate from its usual home in the House.
The Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee this week is holding its first oversight hearing of the agency's newly released standards.
For years, most of the scrutiny of the rulemaking took place in the Republican-controlled House, while the Democratic-controlled Senate focused on blocking any legislation against it.
Now that the rule is complete and Republicans control the Senate, too, the chamber may become more involved in plans to tweak the agency's final action.
In December, EPA decided to regulate coal ash disposal as a non-hazardous substance. It was what utilities and coal ash recycling firms wanted.
Environmental groups would have preferred that the agency pick a hazardous designation, which would have phased out wet ash dumps and given EPA strong nationwide oversight authority.
But even though companies largely got what they wanted, they are pressing Congress to amend EPA's rule by creating a state-centered regulatory system with limited EPA intervention.
As it stands, states have the option of incorporating EPA's new guidelines into their own oversight. Citizens can sue companies to force compliance.
Greens -- who have for years been pressing EPA for more coal ash oversight -- would also like stronger oversight, but oppose other legislative provisions they say would weaken the rule.
Later this month, the House is scheduled to vote on West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley's H.R. 1734, which would tweak EPA's rule. A version has yet to emerge in the Senate, though Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) is mulling an amendment to a future energy bill.
This week's hearing will likely focus on similar issues. Republicans can be expected to call for changes, while Democrats may opt to give EPA's rule the benefit of the doubt, if they follow the lead of recent House debates.
Talk may also focus on ongoing litigation and pollution concerns in different states. Last week, North Carolina regulators pressed Duke Energy Corp. to prevent contamination from dumps there. Duke has disputed the scope of the problem.
At the same time, the state Supreme Court said the company had years to clean up its impoundments, according to a new state law. It overturned a previous ruling hailed by environmental groups.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, June 17, at 9:30 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
Holding Back Climate Change Isn’t as Hard as You Think
Jun 15, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Louise Downing
The global economy grew strongly last year without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, suggesting that government regulations, carbon markets and existing technologies are starting to bite in the battle against climate change.
In a special report to help policy makers in the run-up to a major climate conference in Paris later this year, the International Energy Agency said the past year marks the first time that it has seen a decoupling of energy use and economic growth since being created as the energy watchdog for developed countries in the 1970s.
Pledges already put forward for the Paris conference, including by the U.S., European Union and China, could hold temperature increases to 2.6 degrees Celsius. That’s significantly less of an overshoot than the 3.6-degree long-term gain in the IEA’s main scenario issued in November. The United Nations is trying to hold the increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.
“The cost and difficulty of mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions increases every year,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. “Time is of the essence. While we see growing consensus among countries that it is time to act, we must ensure that the steps taken are adequate and that the commitments made are kept.” National Pledges
The IEA outlook that’s being presented Monday shows what would happen under the national pledges already set out for Paris, which at the time the report was written in May accounted for a third of global emissions. Under that outlook, the IEA sees the world economy growing 88 percent by 2030 with carbon emissions gaining just 8 percent.
The institution is pushing for policy makers to arrest gains in global emissions by 2020, bringing them down in the years thereafter. That’s the path scientists have identified as compatible with manageable temperature increases.
Halting new coal-fired power plants and doubling investment in renewable energy to $400 billion a year by 2030 are among the steps governments should take to curb the gases damaging the atmosphere, the agency said. It expects renewables to become the leading source of electricity by 2030, overtaking natural gas and coal. ‘Credible Vision’
“The challenge is stern, but a credible vision of the long-term decarbonisation of the sector is available,” the report said. “The world must quickly learn to live within its means if this generation is to pass it on to the next with a clear conscience.”
Already, countries are using energy more efficiently and polluting less. The amount of energy required to produce economic growth dropped 2.3 percent last year, more than double the average rate over the past decade, the IEA estimated.
That shift is due to limits on carbon emissions in areas such as the European Union and efforts by countries such as China and India to squeeze more power from energy supplies. In the U.S., a shift away from coal and toward natural gas is lowering the amount of carbon used per unit of GDP.
The IEA said governments must deepen their ambitions on reducing energy use and slashing pollution to halt temperature increases.
It recommended rules that mandate more efficiency in buildings and cars as well as a phase-out of new coal-fired power plants. It reiterated the value of the Group of 20 nations goal to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies by 2030 and said oil producers should work to cut methane emissions from drilling.
“These measures have profound implications for the global energy mix, putting a brake on growth in oil and coal use within the next five years and boosting renewables,” the IEA said.
-
EPA Asks Fourth Circuit to Block Discovery In Lawsuit Over Air Rules' Impact on Jobs
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency asked a federal appellate court to block a lower court's order that it make agency staff and documents available to a coal company in a lawsuit seeking to compel a review of Clean Air Act regulations' impact on jobs (In re: Administrator of EPA, 4th Cir., No. 15-01639, 6/12/15).
The EPA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit June 12 for a writ of mandamus to overturn an order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia compelling discovery in a lawsuit brought against the agency by Murray Energy Corp. and 11 other coal companies. The EPA argues that additional discovery is unnecessary because Murray Energy simply seeks to compel the EPA to evaluate the impact its various air pollution rules will have on jobs as required by Section 321 of the Clean Air Act.
“EPA is plainly entitled to the writ in this case,” the agency petition said. “Congress strictly limited the scope of judicial inquiry in nondiscretionary-duty suits like this one, and the extraordinarily broad discovery compelled by the district court has no reasonable prospect of unearthing evidence relevant to the ultimate disposition of this case.”
Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to periodically review its various air pollution regulations to determine the impact they have on employment and job growth. Murray Energy and the other companies contend that regulations such as proposed carbon dioxide performance standards for power plants and air toxics emissions limits for power plants and industrial boilers are causing job losses in the industry. Their lawsuit seeks to compel the EPA to conduct that review.
Prior Request Denied
District Judge John Preston Bailey had denied the EPA's prior request to block discovery in the lawsuit and is holding in abeyance the agency's pending motion for summary judgment. He ordered the EPA to turn over additional documents sought by the coal companies and make agency staff available for depositions.
The EPA has also petitioned Bailey to reconsider that decision, arguing that it has already provided 53 requested documents as part of the litigation (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, N.D. W.Va., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, motion for reconsideration, 6/1/15; 106 DEN A-5, 6/3/15).
The EPA argues in its Fourth Circuit petition that Bailey's order requires the agency to turn over more material than is necessary to determine whether performing the jobs review sought is a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act.
“In a Clean Air Act nondiscretionary-duty case like this one, however, the reviewing court is limited to deciding whether EPA performed the alleged duty, not whether that performance was inadequate, ineffectual, or an abuse of discretion,” the EPA said.
On June 11, Murray Energy Corp. asked Bailey to extend the deadline for discovery from June 19 to July 31. The company said it believes additional time is necessary after conferring with the EPA on how quickly it could provide the requested materials.
-
GOP Pushes Changes To Clean Air Law To Fight Ozone Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House Republicans knocked a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule restricting ozone levels on Friday, suggesting they could change the Clean Air Act in order to hamper the regulations.
Republicans have proposed a bill that would require the EPA to consider the economic impact of its regulations and states’ abilities to achieve new standards before putting out ozone rules. By law, the EPA considers only public health issues when issuing Clean Air Act rules.“It sounds like we need to change that law,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) said at a Friday committee hearing with EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe, the agency’s point person on clean air issues.
Olson said parts of his state will struggle to comply with stricter ozone standards — set to be finalized this fall — because of ozone that drifts across the border from Mexico. Other parts of the country will need to utilize compliance measures that aren’t used right now.
“We know that natural and foreign ozone are not going away and likely to get larger,” he said. “That means we must squeeze more from smaller sources of ozone.”
Republicans have pushed back against the EPA’s proposed rule to reduce ozone levels from around 75 parts per billion to 65 ppb or 70 ppb. They say the lower level would threaten jobs, and cost employers and communities billions of dollars to implement. The EPA and the rule’s supporters say the public health benefits are greater than the economic impacts.
“We look at both; we lay both of those out,” McCabe said. “In our analysis we put out with our proposed rule, it showed that the benefits of this rule would outweigh the costs by 3 to 1.”
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, told McCabe, “many of us” in Congress want the Clean Air Act changed to accommodate more considerations for the impact of EPA pollution rules on the economy.
“Under the act, you do not have any responsibility to look at those pockets of the country that are in noncompliance and the impact these stringent controls have on jobs,” he said.
“And yet, EPA, every time they come up here, it’s all about the benefits, the benefits, the benefits, and there are detriments to these actions.”
Industry groups estimate implementing the ozone rule could reduce the gross domestic product by $140 billion a year, a figure government officials dispute. The EPA’s formal cost projection is between $3.9 billion and $15 billion.
McCabe said concerns over the economic ills of the rule are overblown. She said past speculation about the impact of EPA ozone rules on the economy “absolutely hasn’t come true.”
“The two things go hand in hand,” McCabe said of cleaning up air pollution and growing the economy. “We’ve reduced air pollution dramatically in this country; the economy has grown.”
Republicans on the committee tied the ozone rule to the overall slate of regulations the EPA is in the process of updating, from those dealing with mercury standards to carbon dioxide emissions at power plants. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said employers are struggling to keep up with the agenda as a whole.
“We’re changing the rules on the fly, and the people who are creating jobs in this country can’t manage it,” he said. “That’s our problem with the EPA.”
-
EPA's McCabe Defends Ozone Proposal From Criticism About Cost, Achievability
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's top air official defended the agency's proposal to revise national ozone standards in response to criticism by Republican members of Congress, citing the health benefits of the proposed rule.
Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, said June 12 that the EPA proposal to tighten the current ozone standards of 75 parts per billion is based on a review of thousands of scientific studies, including many new studies published since the current standards were set in 2008.
Testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, McCabe touted the benefits of reducing ambient levels of ozone, including prevented asthma attacks, premature deaths and missed school days that would result from less frequent exposure to unhealthy ozone levels.
However, Republican subcommittee members raised concerns about the EPA's failure to consider negative health effects that could result from tighter ozone standards, including health effects associated with unemployment and suggested that the Clean Air Act may need to be revised to require the agency to consider economic issues. Several Republican members also criticized the EPA for proposing standards that some areas may not be able to meet due to ozone pollution that is transported to the U.S. from Mexico and Asia.
The EPA in November proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) revising the national ambient air quality standards for ozone to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb. The agency estimated the proposal could cost up to $16.6 billion annually in 2025 (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
Cost Consideration Barred
McCabe stressed that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the ozone standards every five years and revise the standards if necessary to protect human health and the environment. The agency is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to issue a final decision on whether to review or revise the standards. The statute required the EPA to complete that process in 2013, five years after the standards were last revised, but the agency failed to meet that deadline.
McCabe also mentioned that the EPA is barred from considering the cost and feasibility of achieving a national ambient air quality standard. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to consider the cost of compliance when setting national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (U.S. 2001)).
Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said one of the problems with the current process is that the EPA does not have any responsibility to look at the effect of job loss in nonattainment areas. Whitfield described a nonattainment designation, which triggers pollution control obligations and stronger permitting requirements for new and modified industrial facilities, as a “self-imposed recession” and said economists have shown a link about the effect of job loss on health care.
When asked by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) if the U.S. had to choose between healthy air and jobs, McCabe said that history shows that economic growth and clean air efforts go “hand in hand.”
Republicans Say Change Needed
Whitfield and Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) both indicated support for revising the Clean Air Act to require the EPA to consider cost and feasibility issues when reviewing national ambient air quality standards.
“Well it sounds like we need to change that law,” Olson said after McCabe said the Clean Air Act bars the EPA administrator from considering the achievability of potential standards.
Olson in March reintroduced legislation (H.R. 1388) that would block the EPA from revising the current ozone standards in 2015 and require the agency to consider the cost and feasibility of setting a more stringent standard in future reviews (52 DEN A-17, 3/18/15).
Background Concerns Raised
Whitfield, Olson and other Republican members also raised concerns that the EPA proposal would set the ozone standards close to background levels, which is the level of ozone in a given area that would exist absent any man-made emissions from inside the U.S.
Many states, especially states in the western U.S., raised background ozone as a concern in comments to the agency on the ozone proposal (52 DEN A-19, 3/18/15).
Olson presented a pair of graphics highlighting the issue: a photo of a high-ozone day in Houston, Texas, that he said was a result of ozone pollution transported from Mexico and a map showing ozone from Asia traveling to the western U.S.
McCabe noted that background ozone levels vary in different areas of the country and at different times of the year. Very few areas of the U.S. see background levels that would approach the proposed range of ozone standards, according to McCabe.
She added that a more stringent ozone standard would not require areas to attempt to control background ozone.
“The Clean Air Act does not hold states responsible for pollution that they do not control,” she said.
EPA Confident in Implementation Ability
Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) questioned whether the EPA will be able to review state implementation plans under a revised ozone standard at the same time the agency will need to review state plans under the Clean Power Plan. The EPA is expected to issue its final Clean Power Plan, which would set state goals for reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants, sometime in August.
“Do you realistically think this is something the agency can handle?” Long asked.
McCabe said the EPA expects to use its resources effectively to work with states on both ozone and the Clean Power Plan. The agency will “get it done” with respect to reviewing state plans, she said.
-
Shimkus: EPA Regs Are Like Changing Rules During Baseball Game
Jun 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
Republican Rep. John Shimkus on Friday compared the litany of regulations that EPA is issuing to changing the rules of the game for U.S. job creators.
The chairman of the Environment and the Economy subcommittee, noted at an Energy and Commerce hearing on EPA’s proposed ozone standards that Republicans lost the annual congressional baseball game on Thursday night.
“Had we started the game and then halfway through the game the strike zone changed, or in the second inning the number of outs changed, or in the fourth inning the foul line changed or the outfield wall got moved in,” Shimkus said. “That would make for a very frustrating, impossible game.”
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe countered Shimkus, saying “Ozone is not about rules, it’s about science.”
Shimkus shot back a list of recent EPA clean air actions affecting a wide swath of industries.
“This is about utility MACT, boiler MACT, cement rules, cross-state air pollution, 111(d), 111(b), ozone, different standards, particulate matter, Tier 3,” Shimkus said. “We’re changing the rules on the fly and the people who are creating jobs in this country cannot handle it. And that’s our problem with what’s going on at EPA.” -
EPA Asks 4th Circuit To Block Discovery In Air Rule 'Jobs' Review Lawsuit
Jun 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is asking a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court's order granting an industry bid to launch discovery in a suit aiming to force the agency to conduct a review of its air rules' impacts on jobs, with EPA warning the case is a “fishing expedition” seeking documents to make broad attacks on the agency rather than correct a legal wrong.
“Although the rules of civil discovery may be liberally construed, they do not condone this sort of fishing expedition. . . . By allowing discovery to proceed unhampered in this unique class of suit, the district court usurped judicial power and clearly abused its discretion,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) argues on EPA's behalf in a June 12 petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The petition asks the court to issue a writ blocking discovery, which is the collection of information and evidence from an opposing party in a lawsuit.
DOJ wants the appellate court to issue a rare writ of mandamus that would vacate the recent order from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia Judge John Preston Bailey allowing discovery in the lower court case, Murray Energy, et al. v. EPA, in which coal companies are seeking the job review.
Bailey in his May 29 order rejected the government's claims that discovery is unnecessary in a case where the plaintiffs are seeking to prove that an agency failed to execute a non-discretionary duty, and that EPA has already provided all the documentation needed for a ruling on the merits.
Murray Energy and other coal firms claim the agency is violating a Clean Air Act duty to conduct a comprehensive review of the impact its air rules, such as its utility air toxics standards, have on employment levels. EPA has countered in filings that it has met the requirement through studies that evaluated air rules' jobs impacts in addition to their other effects.
Bailey's order means that discovery can now start in the district court case, but DOJ in its petition to the 4th Circuit says that even if the appellate court finds discovery is appropriate, it should limit Murray's requests for information. DOJ cites demands for “such disparate, politically-motivated topics as a campaign statement from then-Senator Obama and the current EPA Administrator’s preparation for her confirmation hearing” as excessive and unrelated to the case over the air law requirement for the jobs review.
Murray and its coal sector allies are claiming that EPA has ignored its section 321(a) duty to “conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provision of this chapter and applicable implementation plans, including where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.”
But DOJ is arguing that any information industry could gain from discovery would be irrelevant to that question, because the court can only decide whether EPA has performed a section 321(a) study, not whether the studies were flawed.
The agency has maintained in briefs to the district court that the only work it has produced that might satisfy section 321(a) are regulatory impact analyses conducted prior to issuing final rules, and an assortment of broad studies of impacts from Clean Air Act rules and enforcement that it provided to the court. DOJ has argued that if those studies are inadequate then there is no need for discovery because EPA should lose the case.
“[I]t would not be sufficient for Murray to establish that EPA reached arbitrary or unreasonable conclusions regarding the employment-related effects of its administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Rather, the company must prove that the agency did not 'conduct continuing evaluations' at all. If the 53 documents proffered by EPA are otherwise sufficient to show that the agency conducted those evaluations, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine how additional documents would justify a contrary conclusion,” DOJ's petition says. But Murray has countered that discovery is necessary to evaluate the appropriate corrective action if EPA loses.
-
Environmental Groups Declare Victory After Trade Package Scuttled on House Floor
Jun 15, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Environmental groups declared victory June 12 after House Democrats blocked trade legislation they say would expedite the approval of future trade deals paving the way for the export of fossil fuels and block climate agreements.
“This is a major victory for everyone who thinks trade should be fair and responsible,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement. “The era of free trade deals that harm workers and the environment is coming to a close. Now, we must bury fast track and trade deals that threaten our air, water, and climate once and for all, and start fresh to build a new model of trade.”
The Sierra Club and dozens of other environmental groups urged lawmakers to oppose the Trade Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314), which would approve “fast track” trade promotion authority for international agreements.
The measure failed to advance after a title of the bill on Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) failed by a vote of 126-302. Though the Trade Promotion Authority title of the legislation passed by a vote 219-211, a successful vote on both measures was required for it to advance to the White House.
Another vote on the failed TAA provision is scheduled for the week of June 15, according to Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee.
The bill's failure to advance comes after House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spoke in opposition to the bill and its effect on the environment and climate change, moments before the vote.
“The connection between the environment and commerce is inseparable,” Pelosi said in her floor remarks.
Pelosi Links Bill to Climate Change
Specifically, Pelosi said she objected to a separate trade bill, later approved by a vote of 240-190, that would limit what deals negotiated through fast track authority could achieve on climate issues by blocking the U.S. Trade Representative from negotiating on climate change (113 DEN A-4, 6/12/15).
Pelosi's remarks against the bill came despite a Capitol Hill visit from President Barack Obama, who came to lobby skeptical House Democrats to vote in favor of the trade package (H.R. 1314).
Environmental groups are concerned that passage of the measure, which would give Obama and the next president expedited trade negotiating authority for six years, could lead to trade deals that would allow crude oil exports and expedited liquefied natural gas exports between the U.S. and the European Union.
The EU “wants to use the leverage of the trade agreement to legislate away the crude export ban,” Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club Responsible Trade Program, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview.
Most domestic exports of crude oil were banned in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo.
The U.S.-E.U. deal, formally known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is being negotiated in secret and isn't expected to be completed until 2017, Solomon said. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
Green Activist Urges Clinton To ‘Get Serious’ On Climate
Jun 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Star environmental activist Bill McKibben is telling presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that if she wants their support, she’ll have to confront environmentalists’ deep distrust of her.
“Mother Nature may not have a super PAC, but she has her own ways of focusing attention,” McKibben wrote Friday in an article published on Grist, in which he implored the Democrat to “get serious” about climate change in her campaign.McKibben, the founder of 350.org, said Clinton’s statements thus far on climate change have been “correct but eye-glazing” and make it look like she’s not committed to the issue.
Many greens are likely to support Clinton because she is the front-runner, but they won’t support her enthusiastically, he said.
McKibben’s criticisms of Clinton focus mainly on her time as secretary of State, but include what she has done since then.
He said she was “terrible” on Keystone XL because she said once the Obama administration was “inclined” to approve it, but she has been silent on it since then.
She has failed to make climate change a top issue, promoted hydraulic fracturing, participated in the failed 2009 Copenhagen climate pact talks and has taken speaking fees from unsavory groups and companies, he said.
But if she comes out against Keystone, fossil fuels and fracking while pushing for renewable energy and foreign climate aid, while criticizing predictions of economic harm from fighting climate change, McKibben said, Clinton could get much stronger support from environmentalists.
Many of McKibben’s points reflect what many in the environmental movement have said about Clinton, particularly her positions on Keystone and fracking.
McKibben himself publicly supports Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) bid for the Democratic nomination, having said he is “overjoyed” that Sanders is running.
-
New EPA Mapping Tool Sheds Light on Pollution Risk and Social Vulnerability
Jun 12, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Marcelo Norsworthy
EPA is getting into the mapping game in a big way.
Just this week, they launched an environmental justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool called EJSCREEN. It is an online, publicly accessible, and will be a tremendously helpful resource for the EJ movement. In the past, concerned citizens, researchers, and advocates would access national databases individually without the ability to bring multiple sources of information together in one clear and consistent platform. EJSCREEN was created to address that issue. It’s a significant milestone that puts environmental and demographic data at your fingertips and empowers you to learn about your community.
One of the major advancements in EJSCREEN is the combination of environmental risk and social vulnerability information. This intersection defines a critical element of environmental justice: communities that are at elevated risk of exposure to harmful pollution are often home to the elderly, low-income families and other vulnerable populations. Much of EDF’s work focuses on this intersection, such as our environmental health efforts to improve air quality at and near ports and freight hubs. These areas can be pollution hotspots, and they are often close to communities of vulnerable populations.
EJSCREEN will help areas like port communities better understand how environmental and social issues overlap – and shows the information by map. The tool combines a set of demographic indicators and a set of environmental indicators into an “EJ Index.” There is one index per environmental indicator and the index for a particular area is compared to regional, state, and national averages. The tool produces a profile report and a map of a selected area that provides the comparative analysis of a community.
You can use EJSCREEN to visualize your neighborhood or city, or to develop a better understanding of a community that may be affected by environmental risks. Although EJSCREEN does feature a comparison of the selected area to the state and nation, the tool should not be used to define or qualify an environmental justice community. Rather, EJSCREEN is designed to promote a better understanding of the intersection between risk and vulnerability for potentially impacted communities.
Texas in particular will benefit from EJSCREEN as demographic shifts and significant industrial activity carry implications for environmental justice concerns. Houston, for example, is an incredibly diverse city with many sources of potential pollution hotspots. Area residents will be able to use the tool and better interpret environmental risks in the context of the local population.
EJSCREEN is a major advancement, but EPA is already thinking about what may come next for the tool. Right now, EPA wants you, the public, to use and explore this interim version and provide input ahead of the next release in early 2016. That version is set to include a vital dataset for understanding environmental risks: the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). The inclusion of this valuable dataset on some of the most hazardous air pollutants will greatly enhance the ability of EJSCREEN to characterize the environmental risk faced by many communities.
The tool comes at an important time for EJ at EPA, as they are preparing to finalize their “EJ 2020” framework that will establish their plan for advancing environmental justice over the next five years. EPA is accepting public input on the draft framework through July 14.
EPA is democratizing data with EJSCREEN. The ability to draw in nationally consistent datasets on demographics and environmental risks and present accessible maps and reports will be a major benefit to communities of all types. EDF is excited to share in the enthusiasm for the release of the interim version of the tool and is looking forward to seeing an even better tool in the future. EJSCREEN can be accessed publically and freely at http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen.
-
Questions Over Court Venue For CWA Rule Suits Add To Legal Uncertainty
Jun 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Questions over whether a district or appellate court is the proper venue for expected lawsuits over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule are adding to legal uncertainty over the regulation, observers say, as various provisions in the water law complicate answers on the venue, timing, and other aspects of litigation over the rule.
The rule, which EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly released May 27 but have not yet published in the Federal Register, is aimed at clarifying when smaller waters are considered jurisdictional following prior Supreme Court decisions that confused the issue. But sources say the push-back on the rule from various industry groups ensures fresh litigation and the possibility that the high court will again have to weigh in on CWA jurisdiction.
Critics say the rule, also known as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, unlawfully expands the scope of the law but EPA and its supporters say it helps end confusion over the CWA's reach.
At a June 8 Environmental Law Institute (ELI) panel discussion on the rule, Hunton & Williams attorney Diedre Duncan said the legal landscape for the rule is likely to be "very complicated," with uncertainty over appellate court challenges to the rule, and a spate of district court challenges likely to be filed.
Moreover, since the CWA contains a 120-day statute of limitations for judicial review, there is likely to be a "race to the courthouse with multiple litigants," after the rule is promulgated, Duncan said.
Craig Schmauder, deputy general counsel for the Corps' civil works' installation division, told the ELI event in Washington, D.C. that the agencies will likely public the rule within the next "two to three weeks."
The agencies say in the rule preamble that the 120-day clock for judicial review begins two weeks after publication in the Register. But that time frame applies only to the appellate courts under CWA section 509, and it is unclear whether appellate courts would have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the rule, sources say.
Many environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, provide that judicial review of final agency rules must proceed in a court of appeals as opposed to a federal district court. But section 509 says that only specific types of rules must be initiated at the appellate level.
Section 509 also allows litigants to file in any appeals court, as opposed to other statutes, such as the air law which says that nationally applicable laws may only be reviewed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- meaning challenges to the CWA rule could be filed in any of the 12 appellate circuits.
Section 509 of the CWA says that legal challenges to approval or promulgation of any effluent limitation "or other limitation" under sections 301, 302, 306, or 405, permit approvals under section 402, or individual water quality control strategies under section 304 must seek initial review in an appeals court.
However, the jurisdiction rulemaking does not fall within a specific section of the water law, and so "the question really comes down to 'other limitations,'" in section 509, Duncan said.
One industry source asks, "is the WOTUS rule one of those few types of rules that CWA 509 says must have judicial review initiated in a court of appeals?" and says the answer is unclear.
Arguments can likely be made on both sides, the source says, adding that litigants are likely to file in both types of courts, and that "then the courts are going to have to sort out this whole mess."
Litigation Confusion
The confusion over litigation on the rule and the likelihood that the Supreme Court will once again have to take up the issue means that fights over the law's scope could remain unresolved for years, given the time taken for litigation and the fact that the membership of the high court several years from now is unpredictable.
In the final rule's preamble, the agencies say, "The Supreme Court and lower courts have reached different conclusions on the types of actions that fall within section 509," but do not weigh in on whether the jurisdiction rule will fall within those parameters.
Among the rulings the agencies list in the preamble include E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Train, a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that generally backed a 4th Circuit decision upholding EPA's authority to promulgate limits on discharges from inorganic chemical manufacturers.
The preamble also cites a D.C. Circuit case, Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, from 1982, which found that appeals courts may review initial challenges over EPA rules that set procedures for issuing or denying discharge permits.
It also references a 2009 6th Circuit ruling, National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, over EPA's CWA rule excluding pesticide spraying from CWA permitting. The language also references Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, a 2010 ruling in the 9th Circuit over whether logging roads are a point source under the CWA and a 2009 11th Circuit ruling over EPA's 2008 water transfer rule.
Speaking during the April 8 ELI discussion, Duncan also referenced the ruling on the water transfer rule, saying the court's finding that the rule did not pose a "limitation" but rather a path for regulatory relief and thus did not fall under section 509 and could give some insight into how courts decide on the jurisdiction rule. "[EPA] wanted to fit it in under 509 and recognized they can't quite get it there," a third industry source notes, and another industry attorney says that parties are likely to try district courts first, but noted that "if we're wrangling in the courts over which venue it's supposed to be in, we're not getting to" the rule's merits.
-
EPA Hits Back At Farm Bureau Criticisms Of Controversial Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Annie Snider
U.S. EPA today hit back at criticisms of the agency's controversial water rule lobbed yesterday by the American Farm Bureau Federation.
In a blog post, Ken Kopocis, the agency's top water official, argued that contrary to allegations that the rule will vastly expand federal say in day-to-day agricultural operations, the final version of the water rule will make life easier for producers.
"Farmers, ranchers, and foresters depend on clean water for their operations -- so as EPA and the Army developed the Clean Water Rule, we listened carefully to concerns from the agricultural community," Kopocis said. "The agencies' priority was not only to protect clean water while making sure we didn't negatively impact agricultural operations, but also to find ways to help."
The final version of the rule is a win for agriculture, he argued, because it reduces uncertainty about which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act.
"Producers don't need regulatory uncertainty that makes their work more difficult," he wrote. "Instead of confusion and case-by-case determinations about which waters are covered, the rule sets physical, measurable boundaries for the first time about where Clean Water Act coverage begins and ends."
The Waters of the U.S. rule has implications for a broad array of industries, but what it will mean for farmers and ranchers has become a key point in the political debate. The influential American Farm Bureau Federation is leading a major effort to persuade lawmakers to kill the rule.
The House has already approved both stand-alone legislation and an appropriations rider to block the rule, but in the Senate the vote margin on similar measures stands to be razor thin. Both supporters and opponents of the rule have major grass-roots campaigns underway on the issue.
In a call with reporters yesterday, Farm Bureau officials laid out concerns with the final version of the water rule, which they argued is "even worse" than the agencies' original proposal (Greenwire, June 11).
Kopocis' blog post today takes on many of those concerns.
Chief among them: ditches.
Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman yesterday argued that landowners have little way to know whether a ditch on their property is subject to federal regulation and that the "smart money" is on it being up to the landowner to prove his or her ditch is excluded under the rule.
Kopocis argued, though, that the rule "reduces the regulation of ditches for agriculture" and that "landowners do not bear the burden of proof."
The blog post also argues that the rule will not trigger any new permit requirements for pesticide and fertilizer application and that the agencies do not rely solely on maps to determine whether waters are jurisdictional.
"We remain committed to engaging in productive conversations with America's farmers, ranchers and foresters," Kopocis wrote. "Farms across America depend on clean, reliable water for livestock, crops, and irrigation. And we depend on those farms and ranches. Our goal continues to be protecting clean water while ensuring agriculture, ranching and forestry thrive."
-
GOP Taking Aim At Key Obama Environmental Priorities With Markups On Tap
|
-
Association of American Railroads Files Agency Appeal of DOT Tank Car Rule
Jun 12, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Laura Stevens
The Association of American Railroads became the latest challenger to new crude-by-rail rules Friday, filing an agency appeal with the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The rail industry group called for the department to remove a requirement for an expensive new braking system which rail executives have said is unproven. The challenge also asks for enhanced thermal protection for tank cars, as well as to fully eliminate the usage of older tank cars considered unsafe for carrying hazardous flammable liquids. Related U.S. Crude-by-Rail Rules Face Fresh Challenge U.S. Lays Down Strict Railcar Rules
“It is the AAR’s position the rule, while a good start, does not sufficiently advance safety and fails to fully address ongoing concerns of the freight rail industry and the general public,” the group said in a statement.
Concern about transporting crude oil and other flammable liquids has grown after a string of at least nine fiery oil-train derailments in the U.S. and Canada since 2013, including one in Quebec which killed 47 people.
Early last month, the Transportation Department issued new rules for trains carrying hazardous flammable liquids that included tougher tank car standards to be phased in over several years, as well as requirements to install new braking systems on trains hauling more than 70 cars of crude oil by 2021.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Transportation’s Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said the agency has received six administrative appeals of the rules so far, including the AAR’s. The agency must next respond to the appellants within 90 days of the rule’s publication date, unless it files for an extension.
Railroads don’t own the vast majority of tank cars so have little control over whether the costly new brakes are installed. Moreover, the brake requirement isn’t a mandate for tank car owners, only railroads. But if tank cars aren’t equipped with the new brakes, oil trains will either have to be reduced to a maximum of 69 tank cars or to a maximum speed of 30 miles an hour, both of which would effectively reduce railroads’ capacity.
Railroads also take issue with the rule’s allowance of shipments in any kind of tank car, provided it is in less than a block of 20 tank cars or fewer than 35 tank cars total.
Additionally, they want increased thermal protection for tank cars to allow for emergency responders to have more time before they explode during a fire.
The Transportation Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. When the rule was announced May 1, officials said that it was comprehensive and would dramatically improve the safety of transporting dangerous goods by rail. Transportation Department Secretary Anthony Foxx said he believed it would stand up to a legal challenge.
Railroads aren’t the first to challenge the new rules. Separate challenges filed in federal appeals court include one by environmental groups arguing the timeline to phase out dangerous older tank cars is too long and that the new standards are too weak, among other demands. Two Illinois municipalities filed a similar appeal, while the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the oil industry, is seeking more time to make retrofits to oil tank cars because of manufacturing-capacity restraints.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested