The Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) helps members develop and bring to market their innovative biobased and renewable chemical products through insightful policy and regulatory advocacy. BRAG is managed by B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C., an affiliate of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on CSIA, a bill to reform TSCA. CSIA was introduced earlier this year by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Senator Vitter and Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) are now working to move CSIA forward through the legislative process. A Law360 article recently published by Lynn Bergeson contains a detailed discussion of the significance and provisions of this legislation. With 25 bipartisan co-sponsors, CSIA is a "potentially politically viable framework for TSCA reform and renewed hope that badly needed modernization of this ancient law may occur."


The hearing included three panels of nine witnesses and focused on CSIA and potential reform to TSCA. A detailed memorandum on the hearing issued by B&C is available online.


Senators Vitter and Udall are working to address concerns about CSIA raised during a hearing held in July 2013 before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on TSCA reform. The BRAG report on that hearing may be found online.
 


 

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified as the sole witness before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on "Strengthening Transparency and Accountability within the Environmental Protection Agency."


While the hearing was held as part of the Committee's annual oversight of EPA, it provided Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) an opportunity to question McCarthy on several concerns he reportedly had with EPA and appropriate transparency at the Agency. These included reports of EPA officials' use of outside e-mail addresses to conduct business, and questions following EPA's "insufficient" response to a subpoena last summer requesting information about the Agency's confidential health studies that form the basis for EPA regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.


Assessments of EPA's performance during the hearing fell along party lines. Committee Democrats led by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) have publicly criticized Chair Smith for his criticisms of the Agency.


Administrator McCarthy's nomination was held up for several months due to concerns by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member David Vitter (D-LA) over sufficient transparency at EPA. It was allowed to go through after Administrator McCarthy pledged to bolster transparency at EPA under her leadership.
 


 

On Thursday, November 14, 2013, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), held a hearing to discuss EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas standards for new power plants and draft legislation authored by Chairman Whitfield and Senator Joe Manchin. The hearing included three panels of ten witnesses, including Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and EPA Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe, to discuss a potential legislative proposal by Subcommittee Chair Whitfield and Senator Manchin that would effectively prohibit EPA from promulgating or enforcing its recently released proposed rule to regulate GHG emissions from new power plants and make regulation of GHGs from existing plants contingent on Congressional approval.

Several states and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support the Whitfield-Manchin proposal. Information on the hearing, including a list of witnesses and the draft legislation, may be found online.
 


 

On October 30, 2013, Representatives Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Peter Welch (R-VT), and Steve Womack (R-AR) sent a letter signed by 169 Members of Congress to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy urging EPA to use its authority to reduce the 2014 statutory renewable volume obligations (RVO) for all types of biofuels, including conventional corn starch ethanol under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). A copy of the letter is available online.


The arguments made in the letter echo those put forth by the oil and gas industry and assert that the 2014 RVO reductions are needed to protect against corn price volatility and the E10 ethanol blend wall.


The letter comes at a crucial time in RFS advocacy. The oil and gas industry is leading the effort to repeal or weaken the RFS through regulatory, legal, and legislative channels, while the biofuels industry is fighting to maintain the policy, arguing that it is the fundamental driver of investment in the industry and that it provides EPA sufficient regulatory flexibility to make all necessary adjustments in its implementation. Further, the biofuels industry notes that no reductions in the conventional RVOs are needed as the RFS has minimal impact on corn prices and there are sufficient mechanisms for 2014 compliance. In addition, many in the biofuels industry argue that the concerns about the E10 blend wall are misplaced, as it exists because the oil and gas industry has refused to make or encourage the necessary investments to enable additional ethanol to be blended into the fuel supply.


A copy of Growth Energy's press release and the Renewable Fuels Association's (RFA) statement on the letter are available online and online.
 


 
‹ First  < 20 21 22