Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 9/7

Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Michelle Malkin: Eric Cantor and Jeb Bush Deserve Each Other, But Republicans Don’t
Sep 6, 2015 | Noozhawk
By Michelle Malkin

Ooouuuch. My sides are still aching after the comical recent announcement by Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush that he had snagged the coveted endorsement of notorious electoral reject Eric Cantor, the former House majority leader kicked to the curb by disgusted voters in Virginia’s 2014 primary election.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA FY16 Report Language May Be Tied To Formaldehyde Study Proposal
Sep 4, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

A proposal to test a controversial 2010 study of Chinese workers exposed to formaldehyde may have spurred congressional report language for draft fiscal year 2016 EPA spending bills that calls on the agency to fund an effort to replicate the study, which undergirds the agency's draft assessment saying formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia.
(ACC Mentioned) Solana Beach to Consider Polystyrene Ban
Sep 4, 2015 | The San Diego Union-Tribune
By Phil Diehl

The Solana Beach City Council is set to talk Wednesday about possible ways to ban polystyrene, the omnipresent plastic found in food containers, toys, auto parts and much more.
California to List Glyphosate, Pesticides as Carcinogens
Sep 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment plans to identify the herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, and three pesticides as carcinogens under Proposition 65.
Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show
Sep 5, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton

At Monsanto, sales of genetically modified seeds were steadily rising. But executives at the company’s St. Louis headquarters were privately worried about attacks on the safety of their products.
Monsanto “Science” Ignores Weed Killers Linked To Cancer
Sep 5, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Farber

As the New York Times reveals today, the “science” served up to legislators considering whether to block state and federal GMO labeling has been cherry-picked by GMO labeling opponents.
Environmental Protection Agency Proposes To Halt Health Care Facilities From Flushing Some Drugs Down The Drain
Sep 7, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison

Health care facilities including hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes, and veterinary clinics would be banned from flushing certain unused pharmaceuticals under a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Chemical Security News

Chemical Safety Board Gets New Chief
Sep 7, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson

With two weeks on the job, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, the new chair of the Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), on Sept. 2 announced an organizational review that she says will lead to an “agency wide improvement plan” in three months.

Energy and Environment News

Energy Bill Not Expected on Floor Until October, Aide Says
Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter and Jonathan Nicholson

House energy legislation that was expected to be brought to the floor this month may be pushed to October, a Republican leadership aide told Bloomberg BNA.
States Argue Power Plan Deadlines Need Court Review
Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

A federal appellate court should review the legality of the Clean Power Plan now—before it is published in the Federal Register—because the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule sets a specific deadline for states to submit compliance plans, which imposes immediate burdens on regulators, states said (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1277, response filed 9/4/14).
State Lawmakers Challenge Air Resources Board's Power over Climate Change Rules
Sep 5, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By Chris Megerian

Top members of Gov. Jerry Brown's staff hosted more than a dozen Assembly members recently to take their temperatures on hotly contested environmental legislation.
EPA Unmoved by Administrative Stay Requests
Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

The Environmental Protection Agency stopped short of denying several administrative requests to stay its Clean Power Plan, but urged a coalition of states and a mining group against filing premature lawsuits, according to responses obtained by Bloomberg BNA.
Kerry Defends Arctic Drilling Plan
Sep 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

Secretary of State John Kerry is defending the Obama administration’s approval of an oil drilling expedition in the Arctic Ocean.
Oil Industry Braces for Obama’s Final Climate Push
Sep 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

The oil and gas industry is hunkering down to weather the final stretch of the Obama administration.
Sources: Oil, Natural Gas Lobby Groups in Merger Talks
Sep 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Anna Palmer and Darren Goode

The American Petroleum Institute and America's Natural Gas Alliance are in talks to merge, according to multiple sources close to the organizations, a move that would bring together two of nation's largest oil and gas industry groups and could cement API chief Jack Gerard's position as one of Washington most influential players.
Gas Industry’s War on the Public
Sep 6, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chris Saeger

Kathleen Sgamma of the lobbying group Western Energy Alliance (WEA) published a piece in the Congress blog last week that misconstrued the facts on natural gas waste and its impact on American taxpayers.
EPA Pledges New Guides On Weighing Environmental Justice In Policies
Sep 4, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss

EPA is promising to craft new training materials and other guides aimed at better integrating environmental justice (EJ) concerns into rulemakings and other agency action, following a report from its Inspector General (IG) that says repeated delays of EJ guidances have weakened the agency's use of equity considerations.
Federal District Court Judge Limits EPA CWA Rule Injunction To 13 States
Sep 4, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

A federal district court judge has limited the scope of his recent injunction halting EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule so that it only applies in the 13 states that asked the court to block the agency implementing the rule, a victory for EPA which said the narrow application was vital to avoid prejudicing other suits over the rule.
Carbon Cuts So Sharp Even California Democrats Are Divided
Sep 4, 2015 | The New York Times
By Adam Nagourney

With President Obama back from a trip to Alaska in which he portrayed the fight against climate change as an urgent international priority, California is showing how hard it can be — even in a state overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats — to get an ambitious carbon reduction bill passed.
California’s Climate-Change Push Heats Up
Sep 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alejandro Lazo

Democrats in California, which already has the toughest climate-change rules in the U.S., are pushing to strengthen them drastically, an effort that has spurred business groups to mount an intense opposition campaign.
Yet Another U.S. Cracker Project Is Announced
Sep 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander Tulio

Even after a dozen firms have announced multi-billion-dollar U.S. ethylene cracker projects, the rush to build petrochemical plants to take advantage of cheap and plentiful shale gas shows no sign of abating.
Bonn Climate Talks See Late Movement
Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman

Five days of United Nations climate negotiations wrapped up Sept. 4 with the first signs of compromise on a key issue emerging amid widespread calls that negotiations were still moving too slowly.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Full Text of Stories Below

Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Michelle Malkin: Eric Cantor and Jeb Bush Deserve Each Other, But Republicans Don’t

Sep 6, 2015 | Noozhawk

By Michelle Malkin

My sides are still aching after the comical recent announcement by Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush that he had snagged the coveted endorsement of notorious electoral rejectEric Cantor, the former House majority leader kicked to the curb by disgusted voters in Virginia’s 2014 primary election.
Newsflash to GOP elites: Getting Cantor’s support is not like landing a prized marlin. It’s like hooking one of those hideous bottom-feeding blobfish named the world’s ugliest creature.
Inside the Beltway, The Washington Post reported, “Cantor remains well-liked and respected in the Virginia business community and among the Republican donor class in the commonwealth.”
But outside the Beltway, the failed Republican revolutionary-turned-Wall Street influence-peddler is a snortle-inducing spectacle on both sides of the political aisle.
In Cantor’s endorsement statement Thursday, he praised Bush as a “true conservative leader” who “can re-energize our nation and recapture our greatness.” That’s empty babble coming from the epitome of an out-of-touch, self-aggrandizing, revolving-door ruling class.
Bush and Cantor share the same smug condescension toward Americans who believe in strict immigration enforcement and putting American workers first.
Cantor fecklessly lied to voters during the campaign season about his position(s). He showered his district with anti-illegal immigration fliers that fraudulently portrayed him as standing up to President Barack Obama on amnesty.
But on Capitol Hill, he championed the DREAM Act for illegal alien students, huge H-1B visa increases to quench Big Tech’s appetite for cheap foreign workers and the collaboration between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO on massive immigration expansions.
While Cantor lip-synced to the limited-government Tea Party message, he boogied in backrooms with his pork-barrel pals. He assailed Obama’s bloated stimulus and then celebrated the high-speed-rail boondoggles in his state funded by it.
As a celebrated “young gun” on the right, Cantor preached fiscal responsibility while blowing nearly $170,000 on fancy steakhouse dinners across the country in his last year in office.
Like Bush, the former Florida governor, (and Gang of Eight cheerleader Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida), Cantor was the beneficiary of — and water carrier for — generous Silicon Valley and Big Business contributors.
Cantor’s biggest donors included New York financial conglomerates the Blackstone Group ($65,500) and Goldman Sachs ($26,000) and Redwood City tech company Oracle ($25,000).
By contrast, the biggest donors to Cantor’s successful challenger, libertarian economics professor Dave Brat, were Virginia couple Gerry and Karen Baugh of Baugh Auto Body ($5,400), Michigan writer and artist Louis McAlpin ($5,200) and retired Virginia couple Martha and Kenneth Schwenzer ($5,200).
One outside group, the American Chemistry Council, spent a whopping $300,000 on soft-money ads to protect Cantor — an amount that exceeded Brat’s entire campaign funding.
Likewise, while Bush fashions himself a champion of the American worker, he pompously pushes the Gang of Eight amnesty as the only “adult” plan in the room.
While he poses as a champion of American parents, students and “school choice,” he trashes activist moms and zealously crusades for failed Fed Ed rackets and data-mining schemes masquerading as “higher standards.”
And while he stumps for the ordinary American’s “right to rise” through conservative principles, he has parlayed his political career into a multimillion-dollar collection basket from liberal special interests and corporate cronies who fund his Common Core advocacy — including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the GE Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Intel and Pearson Education.
Bush and Cantor seem to think everyone else will suffer from sudden election amnesia syndrome and grant big-spending, open-borders Republicans blanket amnesty for their betrayals, but what Brat told voters in Virginia about Cantor goes for voters nationwide as Bush flounders.
“Eric Cantor doesn’t represent you,” Brat bluntly warned. “He represents large corporations seeking a never-ending supply of cheap foreign labor. He doesn’t care about how this will affect your livelihood, your schools, your tax bills or your kids’ chances of finding a job.”
The disgraced seven-term representative from Virginia’s affluent 7th Congressional District, who turned his back on grassroots constituents in favor of cashing in on power, now promises to work closely with Bush “as they chart a course to the White House.”
Here’s to Cantor's success in helping Bush navigate his same path to loserdom. Bon voyage!

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA FY16 Report Language May Be Tied To Formaldehyde Study Proposal

Sep 4, 2015 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

A proposal to test a controversial 2010 study of Chinese workers exposed to formaldehyde may have spurred congressional report language for draft fiscal year 2016 EPA spending bills that calls on the agency to fund an effort to replicate the study, which undergirds the agency's draft assessment saying formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) formaldehyde assessment has remained in limbo after a 2011 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report criticized the agency's draft assessment and faulted IRIS procedures generally, prompting EPA to re-work the draft assessment largely from scratch.
The congressional report language, however, suggests that a new draft may be released next fiscal year, and again raises concerns about the controversial 2010 study that led EPA -- as well as the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer -- to conclude that exposure to formaldehyde could cause leukemia. "The Committee understands that EPA is likely to include the findings of the Zhang et al (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; Jan; 19(1):80--88) study for scientifically significant decisions in fiscal year 2016. The study, however, has drawn criticisms about its methods and interpretations," the reports from both the House and Senate appropriations committees say.
Industry has mounted an attack on the study, arguing that it has not been replicated, that its findings are unique and implausible, without a biological explanation. Several years ago, one industry source explained that while most would agree that exposure to formaldehyde could cause nasal cancer, the leukemia finding was more concerning to industries that make and use formaldehyde because of the much higher prevalence and risk associated with leukemia.
At an EPA workshop last year on formaldehyde, several speakers called for a replication of the Zhang study to definitively answer whether formaldehyde is a leukemogen.
The House Appropriations Committee appears to take up that call, directing EPA in its report to "develop a peer-reviewed protocol to replicate the scientific findings of this study. Following development of the protocol, the Agency is directed to issue a request for proposals and award a contract to conduct this replication study. Further, EPA is directed to incorporate the results of the replication study into any draft or final scientific assessments prior to making such assessments publicly available."
An emeritus University of Vermont medical professor, Richard Albertini, says he presented the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) months earlier with a proposal he says will test the Zhang study's findings. Albertini proposed developing a new cohort of formaldehyde exposed-workers, taking blood samples from them, and then submitting those samples to a test called the colony forming unit-granulocyte/macrophage (CFU-GM) assay.
Chemicals Assessment
The assay is used as a screen to predict the hematotoxic potential of chemicals, according to the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, which like a U.S. counterpart including EPA, validates new cellular, computational and other non-whole animal toxicity testing approaches.
In a recent interview, Albertini explains that the advantage of his approach is that it will distinguish whether any occurring aneuploidy -- too few or too may chromosomes in a cell -- arose in the workers, or occurred only after their cells were grown in petri dishes in the laboratory for the CFU-GM analysis.
"The way in which the [Zhang] study was conducted you can't tell if the aneuploidy was already present in the subjects or it came about only after the cells were out of the body and growing on the dishes," Albertini says. "If the study were done in a different way, and if the assertion that the aneuploidy actually did arise in the subjects' bodies [is correct], the distribution of the cells with aneuploidy will have a definite pattern."
Under Albertini's approach to the CFU-GM assay, when the cells taken from the workers are grown in the lab to test them, the individual colonies of the original cells would be maintained. Testing would be performed by cell colony, which would allow the researchers to determine the distribution of any aneuploid cells within and across cell colonies.
If there are colonies in which all of the cells are aneuploid, it is likely that the individual cells taken from the subjects already had the aneuploidy, Albertini explains. In this case, the chromosome changes really did arise in the bodies of the subjects.
But if the aneuploid cells are distributed in a way that a small number of them are found in all of the colonies but no colony is made up entirely of aneuploid cells, it is most likely that the aneuploidy arose in the dishes during the cells' outgrowth and the cells with aneuploidy did not originate in the workers, Albertini says.
Differing Results
He contrasts this approach with that used by Zhang and colleagues, who he says appear to have merged all of the cells from all of the colonies and then looked for aneuploid cells in the mixture. The result was then apparently compared to a mixture of cells from unexposed control subjects. But Albertini says it is aneuploid colonies, not cells, that is the marker of aneuploidy that arose in the body, and therefore of interest in a study to determine if formaldehyde has these chromosome effects on blood forming cells in humans.
"This cannot be determined from the study of Zhang et al," Albertini says, adding that the researchers should be congratulated for introducing the issue. "The importance of this question should push for a repeat study of formaldehyde exposed workers but performed in a manner where the important distinction between changes in the body or changes on petri dishes can be determined."
Albertini, who also attended EPA's formaldehyde workshop last year, says that researchers should stop arguing about the results of the Zhang study and their meaning, and instead, undertake the test he proposes. It would require finding a set of workers to sample, setting up a study review board which Albertini says should include Zhang or members of her team, EPA representatives and uninterested scientists to oversee the project. Further, he recommends that the CFU-GM testing be undertaken by a disinterested medical lab, such as one at the University of Cincinnati specializing in leukemia. Additionally, the analysis should be performed by uninterested, third-party statisticians, he says.
In his proposal to ACC, Albertini estimates that the study would cost around $200,000.
Albertini says that ACC asked EPA to fund the study, and the agency declined.
Asked to comment, an ACC spokeswoman did not respond to the question, saying only, "[w]e fully support the replication of the Zhang study and encourage the EPA to follow-through on the NAS 2011 report and the 2014 workshop recommendations that the findings must be reproduced."
An EPA spokesman did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Additional Research
Zhang and colleagues at the University of California Berkeley have attempted to further investigate the findings of their earlier study with additional research. The most recent publication appeared in the journalCarcinogenesis in January, performing a broader chromosomal analysis to samples saved from the same workers included in the 2010 study. The study concludes that "our findings strengthen the evidence that leukemia-related aneuploidies and structural changes, especially in chromosomes 5 and 7, can arise in the myeloid progenitor cells of healthy workers exposed to [formaldehyde], and may be a potential mechanism underlying [formaldehyde]-induced leukemia."
Zhang and colleagues' newest publication -- which also employed the CFU-GM approach -- addresses Albertini's concern that the anueploidy observed in their studies could have occurred in vitro, rather than in vivo. The study acknowledges it as "a potential limitation of our study," but suggests that if so, this occurrence still supports the argument that formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia.
"These events would therefore reflect a greater tendency for CFU-GM cells from workers exposed to [formaldehyde (FA)] to develop chromosomal abnormalities during cell growth compared to control workers who were unexposed to FA," the research team writes in the discussion section of their January publication. "Their significant association with FA exposure clearly shows the potential for FA-related genetic damage or DNA--protein crosslinks to manifest as leukemia-related chromosome changes in subsequent generations of myeloid cells arising from committed and early progenitors. Given the dynamic proliferation of stem cells and progenitor cells in human bone marrow during hematopoiesis, a greater tendency to develop chromosomal abnormalities would also support the leukemogenic potential of FA."
One of Zhang's co-authors, Martyn Smith, also a professor at Berkley, questions Albertini's approach in an email to Inside EPA. "His proposal to use a CFU-GM assay as we did, but to analyze single colonies instead of pooled ones, is interesting but would be much harder to do in practice (it is already very challenging to perform CFU-GM assays in the field) and would add little additional information in my view," Smith writes. "The important point is that the FA exposed workers had higher levels of aneuploidy in these CFU-GM cultures compared to matched unexposed controls. Replicating this finding would be of scientific interest but is not essential to regulatory action on formaldehyde in my view."
Smith adds that the research team shared the findings of their latest publication with EPA team conducting the formaldehyde IRIS assessment. "The science is clear in my view," Smith says. "Multiple studies have shown that formaldehyde causes chromosome damage in human blood cells and it is a reproductive toxicant harming the testes. If it can reach the testes to do harm, it can reach the bone marrow to cause leukemia."

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Solana Beach to Consider Polystyrene Ban

Sep 4, 2015 | The San Diego Union-Tribune

By Phil Diehl

The Solana Beach City Council is set to talk Wednesday about possible ways to ban polystyrene, the omnipresent plastic found in food containers, toys, auto parts and much more.
Dozens of California cities have already banned the expanded form of the plastic, commonly known as Styrofoam, but so far none in San Diego County. The Encinitas City Council agreed last year to study the issue, and a proposed ordnance is set to go to the council in October that would eliminate polystyrene containers typically used for takeout food.
Encinitas Councilman Tony Kranz said Friday he supports the idea, especially after participating in a recent beach cleanup at the mouth of Cottonwood Creek, where there seemed to be bits of old plastic mixed with the kelp everywhere.
“Polystyrene ends up in the ocean a lot, and I’m opposed to having plastic in the ocean,” he said.
The material doesn’t break down in the environment, can last for hundreds of years and has become one of the most-widespread pollutants in the world. It’s especially prevalent in marine environments, where it chokes fish and birds, and endangers other sea life that often mistake the broken bits for food.
Solana Beach Councilman Peter Zahn said he suggested his city consider a ban.
“I have trouble with the idea that a lot of us go into a restaurant, we get our food in one of these containers, and it may have a useful life of 15 minutes,” Zahn said. “We throw it away, and it sits in a landfill for hundreds of years, maybe thousands of years.
“Maybe there’s a better way,” Zahn said. “There are other containers, that’s where I’m coming from.”
The coastal North County city has made headlines before for its environmentally friendly policies. In 2012, Solana Beach became the first city in the county to ban single-use plastic bags.
Terrie Boley, who owns Claire’s bakery and cafe on Cedros Avenue with partner Claire Allison, said Friday she would support a polystyrene ban.
“I’m surprised that anybody in Solana Beach uses Styrofoam — we’ve never used it and we’ve been open six years,” Boley said, adding that the cafe belongs to the Green Restaurant Association and that Styrofoam is the group’s “No. 1 unforgivable sin.”
“With the ban on plastic bags, I can’t believe Solana Beach still allows it,” Boley added.
Industry groups such as The American Chemistry Council, a trade association for chemical companies, have advocated for recycling the plastic and not banning it.
But recycling can be difficult for several reasons, including the material’s heat resistance.
Zahn suggested Solana Beach review the available information next week and decide on a direction. Restrictions on polystyrene could take many forms.
“We have to be realistic,” he said, and there can be emergencies or hardship situations where plastic containers are still the best choice.

Return to headline | Return to top
California to List Glyphosate, Pesticides as Carcinogens

Sep 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment plans to identify the herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, and three pesticides as carcinogens under Proposition 65.Under Proposition 65, businesses must provide consumer warnings on produce labels when exposing the public to unsafe levels of listed chemicals linked to cancer or reproductive harm.Glyphosate (CAS No. 1071-83-6), tetrachlorvinphos (CAS No. 22248-79-9), parathion (CAS No. 56-38-2) and malathion (CAS No. 121-75-5) are being listed under the state's landmark Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 via an administrative process, OEHHA said.The law's “labor code mechanism” allows listing of chemicals already linked to cancer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.A document IARC published on its website earlier this year concluded malathion and glyphosate are probably carcinogenic to humans and classified the other two pesticides are possible carcinogens, OEHHA said (59 DEN A-10, 3/27/15).“California's taking an important step toward protecting people and wildlife from this toxic pesticide,” Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said of the proposed listing of glyphosate Sept. 4. “More than 250 million pounds of glyphosate are used each in the United States, and the science is clear that it's a threat to public health and countless wildlife species.”OEHHA is accepting comment on the proposed listings through Oct. 5.

Return to headline | Return to top
Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show

Sep 5, 2015 | The New York Times

By Eric Lipton

At Monsanto, sales of genetically modified seeds were steadily rising. But executives at the company’s St. Louis headquarters were privately worried about attacks on the safety of their products.
So Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, and its industry partners retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a rarefied group of advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of impartiality and weight of authority that come with a professor’s pedigree.
“Professors/researchers/scientists have a big white hat in this debate and support in their states, from politicians to producers,” Bill Mashek, a vice president at Ketchum, a public relations firm hired by the biotechnology industry, said in an email to a University of Florida professor. “Keep it up!”
And the industry has.
Corporations have poured money into universities to fund research for decades, but now, the debate over bioengineered foods has escalated into a billion-dollar food industry war. Companies like Monsanto are squaring off against major organic firms like Stonyfield Farm, the yogurt company, and both sides have aggressively recruited academic researchers, emails obtained through open records laws show.
The emails provide a rare view into the strategy and tactics of a lobbying campaign that has transformed ivory tower elites into powerful players. The use by both sides of third-party scientists, and their supposedly unbiased research, helps explain why the American public is often confused as it processes the conflicting information.
The push has intensified as the Senate prepares to take up industry-backed legislation this fall, already passed by the House, that would ban states from adopting laws that require the disclosure of food produced with genetically modified ingredients.
The efforts have helped produce important payoffs, including the approval by federal regulators of new genetically modified seeds after academic experts intervened with the United States Department of Agriculture on the industry’s behalf, the emails show.
Charla Lord, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company’s longstanding partnership with academics helped demystify the science. “It is in the public interest for academics to weigh in credibly, not only to consumers but to stakeholders like lawmakers and regulators as well,” she said.
But even some of the academics who have accepted special “unrestricted grants” or taken industry-funded trips to help push corporate agendas on Capitol Hill say they regret being caught up in this nasty food fight.
“If you spend enough time with skunks, you start to smell like one,” said Charles M. Benbrook, who until recently held a post at Washington State University. The organic foods industry funded his research there and paid for his trips to Washington, where he helped lobby for labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients.
On the other side, the biotech industry has published dozens of articles, under the names of prominent academics, that in some cases were drafted by industry consultants.
Monsanto and its industry partners have also passed out an undisclosed amount in special grants to scientists like Kevin Folta, the chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, to help with “biotechnology outreach” and to travel around the country to defendgenetically modified foods.
“This is a great 3rd-party approach to developing the advocacy that we’re looking to develop,” Michael Lohuis, the director of crop biometrics at Monsanto, wrote last year in an email as the company considered giving Dr. Folta an unrestricted grant.
Dr. Folta said that he had joined the campaign to publicly defend genetically modified technologies because he believes they are safe, and that it is his job to share his expertise. “Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think,” he said, adding, “Every point I make is based on evidence.”
But he also conceded in an interview that he could unfairly be seen as a tool of industry, and his university now intends to donate the Monsanto grant money to a food pantry. “I can understand that perception 100 percent,” he said, “and it bothers me a lot.”
Players in a Safety Debate
The moves by Monsanto, in an alliance with the Biotechnology Industry Organization and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are detailed in thousands of pages of emails that were at first requested by the nonprofit group U.S. Right to Know, which receives funding from the organic foods industry.
The New York Times separately requested some of these documents, then made additional requests in several states for email records of academics with ties to the organics industry.
There is no evidence that academic work was compromised, but the emails show how academics have shifted from researchers to actors in lobbying and corporate public relations campaigns.
The fight between the competing academics is not focused on questions about the safety of genetically engineered seeds themselves. The sides are fighting mainly over the safety of herbicides used in so-called genetically modified organism, or G.M.O., crops. The organic food proponents argue that herbicide use has surged, and that some of these herbicides may be unsafe. The biotech companies say that data relating to herbicide use on genetically engineered crops is being misinterpreted — and that these new crops, more resistant to pests and disease, are helping to feed the world.
So far, the anti-G.M.O. community has been winning the public relations war. Major brands like Chipotle and original Cheerios have moved to reduce or eliminate their use of genetically engineered ingredients, based in part on a marketing judgment that this is what the American public wants. That poses a threat to companies like Monsanto, which had $15.9 billion in global sales last year.
“Misinformation campaign in ag biotech area is more than overwhelming,” Yong Gao, then Monsanto’s global regulatory policy director, explained in an April 2013 email to Dr. Folta as the company started to work closely with him. “It is really hurting the progress in translating science and knowledge into ag productivity.”
Dr. Folta is among the most aggressive and prolific biotech proponents, although until his emails were released last month, he had not publicly acknowledged the extent of his ties to Monsanto.
He has a doctorate in molecular biology and has been doing research on the genomics of small fruit crops for more than a decade. Monsanto executives approached Dr. Folta in the spring of 2013 after they read a blog post he had written defending industry technology.
“We really appreciate independent scientists working to educate the public,” Keith Reding, a microbiologist who helps Monsanto manage its relations with regulatory agencies, wrote in an April 2013 email to Dr. Folta.
A few weeks later, the Council for Biotechnology Information — controlled by BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical, DuPont and Monsanto — asked Dr. Folta and other prominent academics if they would participate in a new website,GMO Answers, which was established to combat perceived misinformation about their products. The plan was to provide the academics with questions from the public, such as, “Do GMOs cause cancer?”
“This is a new way to build trust, dialogue and support for biotech in agriculture that will help explain in an independent voice what GMOs are,” an executive at Ketchum wrote to Dr. Folta.
But Ketchum did more than provide questions. On several occasions, it also gave Dr. Folta draft answers, which he then used nearly verbatim, a step that he now says was a mistake.
“It was absolutely not the right thing,” he said, adding that he now insists that he write his own responses.
Kate Hall, a spokeswoman for the biotechnology council, said that the scholars were free to revise the scripted responses, and that the group offered these draft answers in only a few dozen cases, compared with the nearly 1,000 responses on GMO Answers to date.
Dr. Folta, the emails show, soon became part of an inner circle of industry consultants, lobbyists and executives who devised strategy on how to block state efforts to mandate G.M.O. labeling and, most recently, on how to get Congress to pass legislation that would pre-empt any state from taking such a step.
While Dr. Folta was not personally compensated, biotech companies paid for his trips to testify in Pennsylvania and Hawaii. “I should state upfront that I have not been compensated for any testimony,” he said at a public hearing in Hawaii, before adding, “The technology is safe and is used because it helps farmers compete.”
Dr. Folta routinely gave updates on his travels — and his face-to-face encounters with opponents of genetically modified crops — to the industry executives who were funding his efforts.
“Your email made my day!” wrote Cathleen Enright, an executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, after Dr. Folta gave her a written update on the October 2014 legislative hearing in Pennsylvania. “Please send all receipts to us whenever you get around to it. No rush.”
In August 2014, Monsanto decided to approve Dr. Folta’s grant for $25,000 to allow him to travel more extensively to give talks on the genetically modified food industry’s products.
“I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,” Dr. Folta wrote in an email to one Monsanto executive.
Dr. Folta is one of many academics the biotech industry has approached to help it defend or promote its products, the emails show.
The company, in late 2011, gave a grant for an undisclosed amount to Bruce M. Chassy, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, to support “biotechnology outreach and education activities,” his emails show.
In the same email in which Dr. Chassy negotiated the release of the grant funds, he discussed with a Monsanto executive a monthslong effort to persuade the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon its proposal to tighten the regulation of pesticides used on insect-resistant seeds.
“Is there a coordinated plan to maintain pressure and emphasis on EPA’s evolving regulations?” Eric Sachs, the chief of Monsanto’s global scientific affairs group, wrote in a related email to Dr. Chassy. “Have you considered having a small group of scientists request a meeting with Lisa Jackson,” referring to the E.P.A. administrator at the time.
In an interview, Dr. Chassy said he had initiated the fight against the E.P.A. plan before Monsanto pressed him. But he conceded that the money he had received from the company had helped to elevate his voice through travel, a website he created and other means.
“What industry does is when they find people saying things they like, they make it possible for your voice to be heard in more places and more loudly,” he said.
Dr. Chassy eventually set up a meeting at the E.P.A., with the help of an industry lobbyist, and the agency ultimately dropped the proposal.
In 2013, Monsanto also asked David R. Shaw, the vice president for research and economic development at Mississippi State University, to intervene with the Department of Agriculture to help persuade the agency to approve a new type of genetically modified soybean and cottonseeddesigned by Monsanto.
Organic farmers argued against this move, convinced that approval of the new seeds would lead to an increase in potentially harmful herbicide use. Monsanto wanted Dr. Shaw, whom the company has supported over the last decade with at least $880,000 in research grants for projects he helped oversee, to refute these arguments, the emails show.
“Our Regulatory Affairs and Government Affairs groups feel it is important thatUSDA hear from folks like you on the key issues since there is a high probability that many negative voices will be heard during these calls,” said a June 2013 email from John K. Soteres, then Monsanto’s head of weed resistance programs. “Your voice not only counts from the standpoint of presenting scientifically based viewpoints but also to a degree from a numbers standpoint.”
Dow Chemical made a similar pitch this year, with one company executive first reminding Dr. Shaw in an email about the industry’s financial support for the university. Then the executive asked Dr. Shaw to intervene with the Agriculture Department to urge it to approve Dow’s new genetically modified cottonseed, which was designed to be treated with a Dow-produced herbicide.
Dow’s and Monsanto’s requests to the Agriculture Department have since been approved. Dr. Shaw declined to comment. But a university spokesman, Sid Salter, described Dr. Shaw as “a highly ethical researcher.”
Why Not ‘Mommy Farmers’?
At times, the scientists themselves questioned whether they were the best advocates for the companies.
“What the situation requires is a suite of TV spots featuring attractive young women, preferably mommy farmers, explaining why biotech derived foods are the safest & greenest in the history of ag and worthy of support,” wrote L. Val Giddings, a senior fellow at Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit food policy research group in Washington, in an October 2014 email to a Monsanto lobbyist. The company was debating how to defeat labeling campaigns last year in Colorado and Oregon.
Dr. Folta, included in the email chain, agreed.
“We can’t fight emotion with lists of scientists,” Dr. Folta wrote to Lisa Drake, the Monsanto lobbyist. “It needs a connection to farming mothers.”
But Ms. Drake flatly rejected their arguments. Monsanto had already run television ads with mothers who were farmers. They fell flat.
“Doesn’t poll as well as credible third party scientist,” she said. “I know hard to believe, but I have seen the poll results myself, and that is why the campaigns work the way they do.”
Emails and other documents obtained by The Times from Washington State, where Dr. Benbrook served until earlier this year, show how the opponents of genetically modified foods have used their own creative tactics, although their spending on lobbying and public relations amounts to a tiny fraction of that of biosciences companies.
The organic foods industry has a direct financial interest to raise consumer concerns, because federal law requires that any product labeled organic in the United States be free of ingredients produced from genetically modified seeds. So if consumers move away from G.M.O.-based sources, they sometimes switch to organic alternatives.
Like the biotech companies, organic industry executives believed they could have more influence if they pushed their message through academics.
“I am a business guy, not a scientist,” said Gary Hirshberg, the chairman and former president of Stonyfield Farm, which produces organic yogurt, who leads an industry lobbying effort called Just Label It. “So of course it helps to have an academic scientist explain it.”
That is why Dr. Benbrook, who had served as chief scientist at the Organic Center, a group funded by the organic foods industry, resigned his job and sought a university appointment, he said.
“I was working for an organization affiliated and funded by the industry, and people were just not listening,” he said.
At Washington State, Dr. Benbrook was supported by many of the same financial backers, including Organic Valley, Whole Foods, Stonyfield and United Natural Foods Inc. The companies stayed closely involved in his research and advocacy, helping him push reporters to write about his studies, including one concluding that organic milk, produced without any G.M.O.-produced feed for the cows, had greater nutritional value.
At least twice, Mr. Hirshberg’s group also paid for Dr. Benbrook to go to Washington so he could help lobby against a federal ban on G.M.O. labels. And his research suggesting that herbicide use in G.M.O. crops has surged has been a central part of the organic industry’s argument for mandatory labels.
Dr. Benbrook, whose research post at Washington State was not renewed this year, said the organic companies had turned to him for the same reasons Monsanto and others support the University of Florida or Dr. Folta directly.
“They want to influence the public,” he said. “They could conduct those studies on their own and put this information on their website. But nobody would believe them. There is a friggin’ war going on around this stuff. And everyone is looking to gain as much leverage as they can.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Monsanto “Science” Ignores Weed Killers Linked To Cancer

Sep 5, 2015 | Environmental Working Group

By Scott Farber

As the New York Times reveals today, the “science” served up to legislators considering whether to block state and federal GMO labeling has been cherry-picked by GMO labeling opponents.
What’s missing from the story they tell Congress – but included in today’s story in the Times – is clear and convincing evidence that GMO crops have led to an explosion in weed killers linked to cancer.
Since GMO corn and soy were first introduced two decades ago, the amount of glyphosate used by farmers has increased 16-fold -- to 280 million pounds a year. What’s especially troubling is that glyphosate was recently classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by cancer experts at the World Health Organization.
Because weeds have grown resistant to glyphosate, farmers are now turning to a mixture of glyphosate and 2, 4-D, another weed killer linked to cancer and other health concerns, including Parkinson’s disease and reproductive problems. Experts estimate that 2, 4-D use will increase seven-fold over the next few years.
EWG analyses show that 3,200 elementary schools and 12,000 churches are located near fields where GMO corn and soybean are likely grown. What’s more, an EWG survey of athletic fields and parks in a six-state sample shows that more than 90 percent of these fields are within 1,000 feet of a farm field where weed killers could be sprayed.
No wonder nine out of ten Americans want the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown. But, Congress is considering legislation that would block state and federal GMO labeling. Now’s the time to let Congress know you want the right to know.

Return to headline | Return to top
Environmental Protection Agency Proposes To Halt Health Care Facilities From Flushing Some Drugs Down The Drain

Sep 7, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Jessica Morrison

Health care facilities including hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes, and veterinary clinics would be banned from flushing certain unused pharmaceuticals under a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The proposal is intended to protect waterways and reduce waste mismanagement in the health care industry, EPA says.
If finalized, the rule will affect certain unused drugs that, when they are discarded, are considered hazardous waste under federal law because they are particularly reactive or toxic. Examples include the chemotherapy drug mitomycin and pharmaceuticals with more than 0.3% warfarin as the sole active ingredient, such as the anticoagulant Coumadin. Because they are ignitable, pharmaceuticals prepared with alcohol may also be classified as hazardous waste under the nation’s waste disposal law, the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act. Other drugs are considered hazardous waste because they are corrosive.
Except for ignitable products, down-the-drain disposal of unused pharmaceuticals that are hazardous waste “is presently an allowable and common disposal practice among health care facilities,” according to EPA.
By the agency’s estimates, a ban on disposing of these drugs down sinks or toilets would prevent more than 6,400 tons of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals from entering waterways annually.
Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response, says the proposed rule “will improve the safety and health of our communities.”
Groups representing drugmakers and health care facilities offered no comment on the proposal.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Chemical Safety Board Gets New Chief

Sep 7, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Jeff Johnson

With two weeks on the job, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, the new chair of the Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), on Sept. 2 announced an organizational review that she says will lead to an “agency wide improvement plan” in three months.
The board’s top slot had been vacant since March, when former chair Rafael Moure-Eraso resigned at the urging of President Barack Obama. His departure followed a lengthy Republican-led congressional investigation of mismanagement charges at the small agency that investigates chemical-related industrial accidents.
At her first public briefing last week, Sutherland underscored the need for organizational efficiency, a long-running problem for CSB.
“With a 40-person staff and a roughly $11 million budget coupled with the number of chemical accidents that I have seen come through my in-box, it really is important for me to understand operationally how we are best positioned to execute our mission to investigate accidents, share what we find, and really be a voice domestically and internationally on chemical safety.”
Her role during the next 90 days, she said, is to “listen closely, try not to talk too much, and to distill what I learn into my first set of priorities.”
In the next month, the board will hold a public hearing in Houston to release its report on the November 2014 accident at a DuPont facility in La Porte, Texas, which killed four workers. Also, the board will vote for a second time on whether to accept a report about a 2009 accident at the Caribbean Petroleum Corp. in Puerto Rico. In July, the only two members on the board at that time split their votes on the report, so final action was put off until new board members were in place.
Sutherland is the past chief counsel for the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, a regulatory authority that is 10 times CSB’s size. Sutherland has worked as a corporate attorney for Altria, the parent company of tobacco-related businesses.
When quizzed about her lack of chemical industry experience, she stressed her management skills and legal experience, which Sutherland said will come in handy at the board. Sutherland pointed out that she holds an M.B.A. and has a technical background.

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

Energy Bill Not Expected on Floor Until October, Aide Says

Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter and Jonathan Nicholson

House energy legislation that was expected to be brought to the floor this month may be pushed to October, a Republican leadership aide told Bloomberg BNA.The delay comes as the majority and minority members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are still negotiating about what the final bill will look like. It also comes as the House floor schedule in September is already packed with action expected on items such as Iran sanctions and government funding legislation, as well as Pope Francis' visit.The energy bill, which includes measures that would streamline the federal citing process for interstate natural gas pipelines and allow the Energy Department to take certain measures during “grid security emergencies,” is expected to be marked up by the Energy and Commerce Committee later this month.The legislation, which has yet to be formally introduced, was easily approved by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power in July after controversial measures were stripped out of the bill (141 DEN A-13, 7/23/15).Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and other Republican leaders on the committee, are negotiating with the committee's minority to add provisions that would block the Energy Department from implementing energy efficiency standards for furnaces (RIN 1904-AD20).Other provisions that could be added to the bill include a repeal of a 2007 law requiring federal buildings to phase out the use of fossil fuels by 2030, language that would eliminate the requirement for presidential permits for cross-border energy projects such as pipelines and transmission projects and a measure that would expedite the licensing process for hydroelectricity projects.Democrat Support WantedHowever, Democrats have voiced opposition to those measures, creating a conflict with Upton's goal of gaining enough Democratic support to get the bill to President Barack Obama's desk.“I think a bunch of that stuff goes out the window,” Mike McKenna, Republican lobbyist tracking the legislation, told Bloomberg BNA. “This whole thing started off as they are going to have a bill the president can sign. They want as many Democrats as humanly possible.”Previously, Upton had said he intended to mark up the bill by mid-September. A committee aide told Bloomberg BNA that negotiations on the bill were ongoing and no updates on timing were available.

Return to headline | Return to top
States Argue Power Plan Deadlines Need Court Review

Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

A federal appellate court should review the legality of the Clean Power Plan now—before it is published in the Federal Register—because the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule sets a specific deadline for states to submit compliance plans, which imposes immediate burdens on regulators, statessaid (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1277,response filed 9/4/14).Rather than setting the deadline for states to comply calculated from the date of the rule's publication in the Federal Register, the EPA in its Clean Power Plan requires states to demonstrate by Sept. 6, 2016, steps to comply with the carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants regardless of when the rule is eventually published, 15 states told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a response filed Sept. 4. The states argue this is a deliberate attempt to forestall legal challenges to the rule.“The purpose of this stratagem is plain: the longer it takes for publication, the greater the benefit to EPA as states work to meet their date-certain deadlines with no ability to seek an ordinary stay of the rule,” they said.The EPA expects the final rule will be published in the Federal Register by “late October,” the agency told the court in its Aug. 31 opposition to the states' request for a writ to block implementation of the Clean Power Plan (170 DEN A-2, 9/2/15).The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), released Aug. 3, sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based targets for the power sector in each state. State regulators will be tasked with developing plans to meet the targets, which will be phased in through 2030.Fifteen states, led by West Virginia, have asked the D.C. Circuit to issue an extraordinary writ under the All Writs Act to block the rule, arguing it's illegal and exceeds the EPA's Clean Air Act authority.States Could Suffer ‘Irreparable Harm.'“With EPA's response to this court's briefing order, it is now clear that the states will suffer months of irreparable harm before they can possibly obtain a stay under the ordinary statutory procedures,” the states said. “EPA has been forced to admit that it believes the rule will not be published until mid-to-late October.”The EPA has argued the court can't address challenges to the Clean Power Plan until the rule is published in the Federal Register.Several states and some industry groups also have asked the EPA to administratively stay compliance with the Clean Power Plan. The agency is currently reviewing those requests (see related story).

Return to headline | Return to top
State Lawmakers Challenge Air Resources Board's Power over Climate Change Rules

Sep 5, 2015 | Los Angeles Times

By Chris Megerian

Top members of Gov. Jerry Brown's staff hosted more than a dozen Assembly members recently to take their temperatures on hotly contested environmental legislation.
Instead, the meeting became a gripe session about the California Air Resources Board, the powerful government regulator that would implement proposed rules for slashing the use of gasoline on state roads.
"There was some anger," said Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale), one of the participants. He said the administration response was, "Get back in line, you naughty kids."
The tension reflected the degree to which concerns about the board, a favorite among environmentalists and a boogeyman for industry opponents, have threatened to scuttle legislation to advance California's pathbreaking policies on climate change.
The debate turns on questions of how the state can meet its environmental goals with the right balance between the executive branch, which prizes the ability to act independently, and state lawmakers, who want their own stamp on government programs.
With the regular legislative session set to end Friday, state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) has added more board oversight to a measure she is carrying that would set new targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
Similar steps are being considered by Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), who has legislation setting three goals for the next 15 years: generating half of the state's electricity from renewable sources, doubling energy efficiency in existing buildings and cutting in half the amount of petroleum used for transportation in California.
Both bills have passed the Senate but are facing resistance in the Assembly, where lawmakers are debating how much leeway the Air Resources Board should be allowed in pursuit of environmental targets.
Oil companies that oppose the legislation say regulators may resort to gas rationing or penalties for those who drive more than others —accusations that board officials deny. They say the goal could be met by ramping up existing programs supporting initiatives such as electric vehicles, mass transit and fuels that contain less carbon.
Mary Nichols, the board's chairwoman, said she knows lawmakers, many of whom will be serving longer in the Capitol because of term limits changes that voters approved a few years ago, want to play a larger role in how regulators do their job.
"We have a new generation of legislators who are not just going to sign a blank check," she said.
Nichols is a longtime ally of Brown — she served in his first administration in the 1970s — and the governor's office is wary of attempts to constrict the board's powers.
"There's a wide gulf between ensuring appropriate legislative oversight — which the administration is, of course, willing to discuss — and erecting real barriers that prevent the hard work necessary to fight climate change," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.
The board, created in 1967 under Gov. Ronald Reagan, has a record of pace-setting environmental action, including the imposition of stringent standards on fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions.
Supporters view the board as a champion for green policies and don't want to see it constrained by political considerations.
"Why make it harder to do the mission the public wants to see done?" said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California. "And what the public wants is clean air."
Some Assembly members want to force the air board to seek legislative approval before implementing new regulations. De León has ruled that out, obtaining a memo from the Legislature's lawyer saying that any "legislative veto … would be unconstitutional" and violate the separation of powers.
De León said he sympathizes with concerns about oversight, saying he's had his own "battle royale" with the air board over how money is spent on anti-pollution programs.
But he described questions about the regulators' power as "an incredible narrative that's been perpetuated by Big Oil" to derail the legislation.
Gatto disagreed, noting that he's never taken campaign money from the oil industry but remains skeptical about the measure.
He said legislative attempts to rein in the board can be difficult, noting that the agency successfully opposed his proposal to tweak an ethanol program to guard against certain negative effects.
"That's tremendous arrogance," Gatto said. "I think every member [of the Legislature] has had an experience like this."
Assemblyman Ian Calderon (D-Whittier) said lawmakers are ready to reassert their authority in a Capitol that has been dominated by Brown in recent years.
"I don't want to give up any of my authority to an unelected bureaucracy," Calderon said.
The 12-member board, which is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate, includes experts in fields such as transportation and agriculture, as well as representatives from certain regions.
A spokesman for the board declined to comment.
The Air Resources Board is well-known for developing and running the cap-and-trade program that charges fees to polluters. There's an ongoing legal battle over whether the board exceeded its authority in imposing those fees, and business interests are wary of new regulations.
Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said the experience with cap and trade "gives us pause on what could be coming next on a whole host of new policies that would be needed to achieve the goals."
With just days left for lawmakers to finish their work, environmental advocates are nervous about whether the Air Resources Board will emerge with enough authority to keep pushing the state toward lower gasoline use.
"Accountability is one thing," said Steve Chadima of Advanced Energy Economy, an association of clean energy companies. "Micromanagement is another thing."

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Unmoved by Administrative Stay Requests

Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

The Environmental Protection Agency stopped short of denying several administrative requests to stay its Clean Power Plan, but urged a coalition of states and a mining group against filing premature lawsuits, according to responses obtained by Bloomberg BNA.In Aug. 7 responses to the stay requests, the EPA defended its plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants as “fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend towards cleaner and lower-polluting American energy” while also responsive to concerns raised by states and other groups during the public comment period.“The Clean Power Plan provides national consistency, accountability and a level playing field while reflecting each state's energy mix,” Avi Garbow, general counsel for the agency, said in the letters. “The EPA will take your application under consideration, and this letter should not be construed as a denial of your application.”Sixteen states and the National Mining Association petitioned the agency to stay its final rule almost immediately after EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed it Aug. 3. They argued the EPA's approach exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act and would devastate state economies around the U.S.(151 DEN A-5, 8/6/15).More recently, Texas and New Jersey have also separately petitioned the agency to stay its final rule pending the resolution of legal challenges.The final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, sets a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state. The standard would be implemented by state regulators and is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.EPA Advice UnheededDespite the urging of the EPA for groups not to challenge the final rule until its formal publication in the Federal Register, 15 states, many of which also sought the stay, have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an extraordinary writ to block implementation of the rule.They argued the Clean Power Plan imposes an immediate and costly requirement for state regulators to begin work on implementation plans (see related story).Echoing its replies to the administrative stay petitions, the EPA told the court Aug. 31 that the Clean Air Act offered ample opportunity for lawsuits upon the rule's formal publication, which the agency said to expect in “late October” (170 DEN A-2, 9/2/15).Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 4 his group expects “to get a less ambiguous and more favorable result from a federal judge” than the EPA's response to the administrative stay request. The West Virginia Attorney General's Office did not respond to request for comment.

Return to headline | Return to top
Kerry Defends Arctic Drilling Plan

Sep 4, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

Secretary of State John Kerry is defending the Obama administration’s approval of an oil drilling expedition in the Arctic Ocean.
Royal Dutch Shell is exploring for oil in the Arctic on leases it purchased before President Obama was in office, Kerry said in an interview with The Huffington Post.
He said the oil that could come from the Arctic is “cleaner oil than others," alluding to sources like Canada's tar sands, which requires a lot of energy to make it ready for consumption."
It will take “20, 30, 40 years” to switch to non-carbon sources of energy, Kerry said, and in the meantime he would prefer using American oil to meet the demand rather than foreign sources.
"Shell and other companies are going to be drilling somewhere over the course of these next years, because we're not going to suddenly be weaned from oil," he said.
But, “I think in the long run, we have to wean ourselves from a carbon-based economy,” Kerry said.
“We absolutely have to. We have to do it much faster than we are right now. I think the president understands that, I understand that. We're advocating as powerfully as we can.”
Kerry’s comments largely echo what Obama has said about his administration’s decision to approve Shell’s exploration plan in the Chukchi Sea off the northwestern coast of Alaska. The administration has also looked to highlight the safety precautions it’s taking as Shell looks for oil there.
Environmentalists have blasted the administration for allowing Arctic drilling to move forward, saying it risks a spill in the region and arguing the oil needs to stay underground in order to slow climate change.

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Industry Braces for Obama’s Final Climate Push

Sep 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

The oil and gas industry is hunkering down to weather the final stretch of the Obama administration.
Industry groups and their backers had hoped President Obama would use his trip last week to Alaska to say something about the need for more oil and gas drilling in the United States.
Instead, Obama kept his focus on global warming, leaving oil interests in a familiar position: left out and on the defensive.
Obama has pledged to keep oil and gas part of the nation’s energy mix, but has also moved to crack down on the industry as part of his fight against climate change.
Warning against over-regulation, industry officials have opposed those efforts and stressed that they need more support from federal officials — be it from regulators, members of Congress, or even a new president in 2017.
“That would be a shift because there are some agencies that fail to recognize the potential Alaska has,” Alaska Oil and Gas Association President Kara Moriarty said.
“So it just constantly feels like we have continual roadblocks, and that there doesn’t seem a willingness to get more development from the federal lands we do have.”
Oil groups had hoped Obama would at least tip his cap to potential development of Alaska’s vast oil reserves during his visit to the state.
But he kept to the topic at hand: climate change and its effects on the state. His only mentions of oil were to reiterate his opposition to drilling in the state’s Bristol Bay — something he blocked last December — and to declare that the U.S. has become a leader in oil and gas production during his time in office.
Louis Finkel, the American Petroleum Institute’s executive vice president for legislative affairs, said the administration’s approach to oil has “clearly evolved” during Obama’s presidency.
Obama took office in the depths of a recession, and mostly left the industry alone, Finkel said, allowing it to build both its production volume and its employment rolls
“There was a lot of promise in the administration’s early kind of rhetoric, on the heels of the economic downturn, as they were trying to rebuild the economy, talking about the all-of-the-above energy policy,” he said.
But as the administration has increasingly focused on policies to combat climate change, Finkel said his industry has suffered.
“We’ve seen the administration move more and more towards picking winners and losers, showing preferences for certain renewables” over oil and gas, he said.
To be sure, Obama hasn’t abandoned his all-of-the-above energy philosophy, earning him scorn from green groups who say he’s still giving away too much to fossil fuel interests, especially in his decision to allow Royal Dutch Shell to explore for oil in the Arctic Ocean.
He’s told audiences — including Alaskans last week and a green energy crowd in Las Vegas the week before — that decarbonizing the energy sector is going to take time, and that oil and gas, especially from American sources, will remain in the mix.
But over time, Obama adds, that should change.
“We are the number one producer of oil and gas,” Obama said in Kotzebue, Alaska on Wednesday.
“But we’re transitioning away from energy that creates the carbon that’s warming the planet and threatening our health and our environment, and we’re going all in on clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar. And Alaska has the natural resources to be a global leader in this effort.”
Still, even amid the climate push, Obama hasn’t completely shut out oil and gas.
Industry supporters say the administration has been hinting at its willingness to support lifting the crude oil export ban. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) last week released a reportpromoting the economic benefits of easing the ban.
Obama’s Interior Department in January proposed opening up new areas of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans for oil exploration. And he took heavy criticism from green groups for approving Shell’s drilling permit, something the administration has vigorously defended.
But oil industry advocates say that’s not enough.
Drilling has slowed on federal lands, they say, because of delayed decisions from federal regulators. They also scorn Obama’s handling of the Keystone XL pipeline, which is stuck in a protracted administration review.
The industry was incensed when Obama’s finalized power plant rule diminished the role of natural gas. The administration is also pushing a slate of new regulations — new hydraulic fracturing rules, renewable fuel standards and limits on ozone and methane emissions at natural gas production sites — that gas interests warn will be expensive to implement.
“There is this broad avalanche of regulation that is out there,” Finkel said. “We’re in a situation where it’s death by 1,000 cuts.”
The industry has defended itself. Finkel said API has a grassroots network 35 million people strong that supports its policies and pushes back against new government rules.
Oil’s backers in Congress have also looked to pressure Obama on production.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) sent Obama a letter last month highlighting several green energy projects in her state, while also encouraging him to support more oil production there.
“Many renewable energy projects in our state were made possible with state revenues derived from oil production,” she wrote. “As you will see, Alaska has developed institutions and programs that maximize the benefits of resource production to improve the lives of our people.”
Murkowski, along with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), a Democrat from an oil state, are pushing a bill lifting the crude oil export ban, something Congress is expected to consider this fall.
Heitkamp said in a statement that the administration “doesn’t follow through” on an all-of-the-above strategy, and plugged the export bill as a way to support the oil sector.
“The administration has taken some good steps when dealing with the development and use of various energy resources, but there seems to be no comprehensive plan or vision as to how we can best harness all of the nation’s energy resources in a responsible and environmentally sound manner,” she said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Sources: Oil, Natural Gas Lobby Groups in Merger Talks

Sep 4, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Anna Palmer and Darren Goode

The American Petroleum Institute and America's Natural Gas Alliance are in talks to merge, according to multiple sources close to the organizations, a move that would bring together two of nation's largest oil and gas industry groups and could cement API chief Jack Gerard's position as one of Washington most influential players.
It was not clear how advanced those discussions are. A spokesman for ANGA declined to comment, and API said its spokesman was not available on Friday.
With oil prices hovering near their lowest levels in more than six years and natural gas prices at a fraction of the levels seen in the last decade, some companies represented by both organizations have complained about having to pay dues to both, and they have argued they would be better served if the two consolidated, sourcessaid.
The positions and priorities for API and ANGA have grown more closely aligned in recent years, particularly in lobbying for greater latitude in exporting natural gas and oil amid the boom in production from the shale fields in states like Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Texas.
API and ANGA also have ties at their highest levels. ANGA's Marty Durbin was executive vice president at API and worked as Gerard’s No. 2 for nearly three-and-half years before becoming the gas group's president and CEO in May 2013.
Gerard, who API paid $13.3 million in 2013 according to federal financial disclosure forms, had long ago cemented his role as one of the most influential national energy policy players, especially among Republicans. He was widely rumored to be a leading candidate for a top energy position by Mitt Romney if the Republican nominee had won the White House in 2012.
Durbin made more than $803,000 from the gas association and related entities in for the eight months he worked there 2013, as well earning more than $250,000 from API that year, according to tax filings from that year, the most recent available.
API had a 2013 revenue of more than $225 million, nearly four times the $57 million ANGA took in that year, according to the tax filings.
API has spent at least $3.4 million and ANGA at least $750,000 on lobbying expenditures so far this year through July, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. API spent more than $9 million in lobbying last year, while ANGA spent $1.4 million, according to CRP.
API has also revived and expanded its Vote4Energy voter education campaign this year, an initiative aimed at increasing support for federal and state candidates who favor lifting the 40-year-old U.S. oil export ban, ending the ethanol blending requirement, expanding offshore drilling and other pro-oil causes. The campaign doesn’t endorse or donate to candidates.
API has a separate PAC that has donated $43,500 so far to federal candidates this year, with 90 percent going to Republicans. ANGA’s PAC has contributed $16,500 so far to federal candidates this cycle, with about 60 percent going to Republicans, according to CRP.

Return to headline | Return to top
Gas Industry’s War on the Public

Sep 6, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Chris Saeger

Kathleen Sgamma of the lobbying group Western Energy Alliance (WEA) published a piece in the Congress blog last week that misconstrued the facts on natural gas waste and its impact on American taxpayers. Echoing the same over the top rhetoric we’ve become accustomed to hearing from industry lobbyists, Sgamma asserted that common sense limits on natural gas waste somehow constitute a “war” on her industry.
But the truth is, an overwhelming majority of westerners support reasonable rules to put a stop to natural gas waste. A Western Values Project poll from last year found that upwards of 69 percent of voters in Colorado, New Mexico and Montana—a solid bipartisan majority—support a rule to address this problem, particularly on our nation’s public lands. The claims in Sgamma’s piece, however, appear to not only be out of touch with the will of a majority of Western voters, they also distort the reality of the problem at hand.
To start, Sgamma presented an incomplete picture of natural gas emissions in America. She claims that emissions from natural gas have fallen while production has increased. What she failed to mention is that methane emissions from the processing, transmission, and storage stages—which are equally significant stages of natural gas extraction and generation—have all increased dramatically since 2005.
The real facts speak for themselves. Natural gas and petroleum systems account for at least 29 percent of natural gas waste and emissions. That number makes natural gas and petroleum the nation’s largest contributor, and beats out emissions from coal mining and landfillscombined.
WEA’s attacks on American leaders’ efforts to put a stop to the waste are particularly troubling given westerners’ widespread support for a possible rule from the Bureau of Land Management to end natural gas waste on America’s public lands. A huge portion of natural gas waste across the West is due to the wasteful practices of “venting” and “flaring” by oil companies that literally burn off our natural gas resources by venting or leaking them into the atmosphere.
On public lands companies vent, leak and flare our natural gas without paying a dime in royalties on these wasted resources to hardworking American taxpayers—the ones who are most affected by oil and gas development on public lands. A recent report found that, from 2006 to 2013, taxpayers lost out on over $380 million in royalties due to the wasteful practice of venting and flaring.
In 2013, the amount of gas leaked, flared, or vented, by WEA members alone, totaled an equivalent of $5 million in lost revenue for American taxpayers. Perhaps $5 million doesn’t sound like much compared to the absurd annual profits that oil companies haul in, but this figure becomes much more significant after assessing what $5 million represents for a state budget.
$5 million would have allowed Colorado to add 155 new teachers in their public school systems. They didn’t. In New Mexico, 100 new police officers could have been hired with that money. They weren’t. And in Montana, $5 million could have been used to pay 105 more firefighters to fight this summer’s devastating wildfires. But it wasn’t.
Fortunately, some in the energy industry view the new compliances as an opportunity to promote innovation, increase jobs, and bring in higher profits. The Center for Methane Emissions Solutions (CMES) found that, every year, nearly $2 billion worth of methane is lost due to equipment problems and inefficient practices. CMES and its partner groups are working to find innovative solutions that cut down on methane waste, while at the same time increasing American jobs.
That’s why westerners are behind American leaders’ efforts to limit this waste, and look forward to a rule that the BLM is considering to put a stop to this waste on our public lands. Conservative estimates show that American taxpayers stand to lose $800 million over the next ten years without such a rule.
As Sgamma calls new compliance standards a “war on natural gas,” her members’ wasteful practices beg the question: Who’s really waging the war on natural gas? American leaders who want to protect our resources—in many cases, taxpayer-owned resources—or oil companies that are burning those resources without paying Americans a penny?
Saeger is director of the Western Values Project (WVP).

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Pledges New Guides On Weighing Environmental Justice In Policies

Sep 4, 2015 | Inside EPA

By David LaRoss

EPA is promising to craft new training materials and other guides aimed at better integrating environmental justice (EJ) concerns into rulemakings and other agency action, following a report from its Inspector General (IG) that says repeated delays of EJ guidances have weakened the agency's use of equity considerations.
In a response to the Sept. 3 IG report, “EPA Can Increase Impact of Environmental Justice on Agency Rulemaking by Meeting Commitments and Measuring Adherence to Guidance,” James Jones, head of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), agrees to revise training material for the agency's recently finalized guidance on integrating EJ into the rulemaking process, and reaffirms a February 2016 target for a companion technical guide.
“By December 2015, the Agency will review and revise the current training materials for the EJ in Rulemaking Guidance to ensure they reflect the final version of the document and will make the revised training available to the Agency,” the response says.
The rulemaking guidance, which EPA released May 29, focuses on helping regulators meet environmental and civil rights laws' regulatory standards, as well as Executive Order 12898 on incorporating equity considerations into agency policies, and also for EPA's internal policies.
The document explains what disproportionate impacts and EJ concerns are, how EJ populations can be identified, when to perform EJ screening analyses in rulemaking and how to achieve meaningful public and EJ involvement in rulemaking, as well as providing rule writers a checklist for integrating EJ into the rulemaking process.
But the IG report says EPA has yet to update its EJ training to reflect the final guide, and is instead using material based on a 2010 interim version of the document, which Jones in his response promises to remedy.
The report also faults EPA for delaying the complementary technical guidance that informs rule writers how to incorporate EJ into rulemaking, which was scheduled for release in 2015 but is now targeted for February 2016.
Reviewing Comments
Jones' response says the delay is necessary to weigh comments issued in April by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). “In the three months since the SAB report was released, the Agency has met with senior management several times to seek input on key policy decisions, and plans to hold a second internal review of the revised Guidance prior to its release in February 2016,” he writes.
However, he admits that another delay is possible, and says that if the guidance is postponed to August 2016 or later then the agency Office of Policy -- part of the EPA administrator's office -- will craft a memo detailing reasons for the delay and new targets for development milestones. Jones adds that EPA plans to issue training materials for the technical guidance within a month of issuing the final guide.
Finally, he says, EPA is planning to update its template for “Action Memoranda,” memos released alongside agency actions that summarize “the substance of the action, the internal process used to develop the action, and possible concerns of external stakeholders,” to include EJ issues, no later than December.
Those actions could help assuage environmentalists' concerns over EPA's draft EJ plan for the next five years, known as Plan EJ2020, which some groups have argued is inadequate because it proposes voluntary measures rather than linking Civil Rights Act authorities to regulatory action.
The draft framework, which EPA is still taking public comment on, calls for the agency to emphasize three goals over the next five years that focus on "making a visible difference in overburdened communities."
The goals are to: "deepen environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and environment of overburdened communities; collaborate with partners to expand our impact within overburdened communities; and demonstrate progress on outcomes that matter to overburdened communities."

Return to headline | Return to top
Federal District Court Judge Limits EPA CWA Rule Injunction To 13 States

Sep 4, 2015 | Inside EPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

A federal district court judge has limited the scope of his recent injunction halting EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule so that it only applies in the 13 states that asked the court to block the agency implementing the rule, a victory for EPA which said the narrow application was vital to avoid prejudicing other suits over the rule.
The Sept. 4 order from the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Southeastern Division's Chief District Judge Ralph Erickson is a significant set-back for the coalition of 13 states, including North Dakota, that had urged the court to expand the injunction's reach nationwide. Critics of EPA's rule argued they were likely to succeed in their call for the court to vacate the rule, and said a national injunction would provide regulatory consistency.
But Erikson's order means that the agency can continue with its previously announced position that in the 13 states covered by the injunction, it will not implement the rule and instead use George W. Bush-era guidance on making CWA determinations. In all other states the agency implemented the final rule effective Aug. 28.
In his order, the judge acknowledges that there are “compelling reasons” to either extend the injunction nationally as the states urged or to restrict it to the 13 states in the suit, as EPA and the Army Corps pf Engineers are seeking.
Erickson concludes in his order that, “As the matter is left to the sound discretion of the court, it suffices to recognize that the decision involves balancing the interests of competing sovereign entities, as well as undermining the ruling of other courts,” the order says. “Under these circumstances, the court declines to extend its decision beyond the entities that are actually parties in this litigation,” Erickson writes.
Still, it remained unclear at press time whether EPA will appeal the injunction itself. The agency's narrow application of the injunction -- and its apparent plan to use a similarly narrow approach if other courts issue injunctions -- could hasten Supreme Court review of the rule if the agency appeals the order, observers say.
Erickson issued the injunction Aug. 27, finding that the district court had authority to issue the injunction and that it was necessary to prevent “irreparable harm” to the states when the rule went into effect Aug. 28.
EPA in turn responded with a statement that it would apply the injunction only in the 13 states that filed the suit he is overseeing, applying Bush-era guidance on CWA jurisdiction in those states.
In all other states, EPA said it plans to implement its rule, which critics say expands the reach of the law beyond Congress' intent. The states involved in the litigation are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico and North Dakota.
Erickson opened the issue of the scope of the injunction for briefing by Sept. 1, asking both parties to weigh in on whether the injunction should apply on a nationwide scale or be limited to the states that sued.
Narrow Injunction
EPA argued in its Sept. 1 brief that imposing the injunction across the United States would unfairly influence the outcome of other pending cases against the CWA regulation, and that the order can only apply in the states that asked for Erickson's injunction.
Moreover, EPA argued, expanding the injunction nationally would be improper given that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick Division, have already denied requests in suits over the rule seeking injunctions, because those courts found that challenges to the rule should be heard in the appellate courts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit is also poised to hear a host of consolidated challenges to the rule, but has not yet ruled on whether it is the proper venue to review the regulation. The question of venue arises because section 509 of the CWA is vague on the issue of what types of rules may be reviewed by appeals courts.
The states countered in their Sept. 1 brief filed with Erickson's court that EPA says the rule is designed to provide national consistency on the CWA's reach and therefore any injunction against the policy should apply nationally and not on a limited geographic basis. “Nationwide rules with nationwide implications should be applied consistently throughout the Nation. Failing to do so would detract from the integrated scheme of regulation for our Nation’s waters created by Congress under the Clean Water Act,” the states argue.
The BCCA Appeal Group, a Texas-based group of energy companies that advocates for regulatory consistency, in a Sept. 2 motion to file amicus curiae backed the call for a nationwide injunction. The group argued that “EPA should not be allowed to arbitrarily translate this Court’s decision -- that a nationwide rule must be enjoined -- into a determination that an invalid rule may still be applied in thirty-seven states.”
In his Sept. 4 order, Erickson clarifies that he believes he has the authority to nationally apply the injunction, noting that “Courts have broad discretionary power in crafting a preliminary injunction, including the authority to provide for nationwide applicability of the injunction.”
But the order also points out the court is not required to nationally extend such an order, citing a 1952 Supreme Court ruling, Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., which held that the district court may use injunctive powers for those “properly before it” or “outside its territorial jurisdiction.”
The order says, “there are significant prudential reasons to limit the scope of the preliminary injunction to the entities actually before the court.”
Erickson appears to base his decision largely on the outcome of the ongoing litigation in other venues, noting that the courts in Georgia and West Virginia have found they lacked subject matter jurisdiction, with other courts deferring their decision until the judicial panel for multi-district litigation rules on whether to consolidate the cases. He also acknowledges that seven states and the District of Columbia have moved to intervene of behalf of EPA and the Corps in the 6th Circuit litigation.

Return to headline | Return to top
Carbon Cuts So Sharp Even California Democrats Are Divided

Sep 4, 2015 | The New York Times

By Adam Nagourney

With President Obama back from a trip to Alaska in which he portrayed the fight against climate change as an urgent international priority, California is showing how hard it can be — even in a state overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats — to get an ambitious carbon reduction bill passed.
The state has been at the forefront of global efforts to battle greenhouse gases, enacting mandates to force sharp reductions in emissions over the next 35 years. Its environmental record was applauded by Mr. Obama last week, and Pope Francis invited Gov. Jerry Brown to discuss the fight against global warming in the Vatican this summer.
But a centerpiece of California’s long-term campaign against emissions — legislation requiring a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by Jan. 1, 2030 — has set off a fierce battle here, pitting not only a well-financed oil industry against environmentalists, but Democrat against Democrat. The bill easily passed the Senate, but it is faltering in the Assembly because of opposition by moderate Democrats, many representing economically suffering districts in central California. A vote is expected early this coming week.
The legislation faces an onslaught by the Western States Petroleum Association and other oil industry advocates that, in ads and mailings, assert that a 50 percent cut in petroleum use could result in gas rationing and a ban on minivans.
“This law will limit how often we can drive our own cars,” a narrator in one advertisement says urgently, an assertion the bill’s sponsors say is groundless. The oil industry has tagged the bill “the California Gas Restriction Act of 2015.”
A defeat would be a setback for Mr. Brown, who has made a battle against global warming a centerpiece of his final years in public life, and for environmentalists who have looked to California to lead the emissions fight at a time of strong skepticism about global warming in Washington. Mr. Obama urged California lawmakers to enact the bill in a recent speech in Las Vegas, signaling the importance he is attaching to the issue in his final years in office.
The environmental fight here comes on the eve of the United Nations climate change conference in Paris, set to take place in the fall. There, Mr. Brown and Kevin de León, the State Senate Democratic leader who led the fight for the bill in his chamber, are planning to outline for an international audience California’s campaign against greenhouse gases. On Wednesday, the Legislature passed and sent to Mr. Brown a measure requiring the state’s public pension funds to divest from coal companies.
“The rest of the world is watching very closely what is happening in California, and I think so far they see a success story,” Mr. de León said. “Our economy has grown — we are adding jobs, and we are reducing our carbon emissions. Therefore it is absolutely crucial that this measure passes, because it will be a big blow to the rest of the states and the whole world if it doesn’t.”
California has mandated an 80 percent cut in emissions by 2050, using 1990 emissions levels as a baseline. The goal has been championed by Democrats like Mr. Brown and Republicans like former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. This bill on petroleum, one of several the Legislature is voting on to put these limits in place, is intended to ensure that California meets its target.
The legislation, Senate Bill 350, leaves it to the state’s Air Resources Board to determine how the 50 percent mandate would be met; it does not mention gas rationing or a ban on minivans. It also includes no penalties in case the mandate is missed. Opponents, in defending the warnings about rationing, noted that the bill is short on specifics on how the reduction would be achieved; they said they saw no other way the mandate could be met.
“I can’t figure out any other way to reach a 50 percent reduction in that frame without doing some pretty dramatic measures,” said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association. “If it isn’t gas rationing, what is it? I keep hearing what it isn’t.”
Mr. Brown said in an interview in his office here that the oil industry was using fear tactics to try to derail the effort before the Legislature adjourns on Friday, but that he was confident of eventual success.
“You’ve got the oil companies fighting Pope Francis,” he said. “Fighting the scientists of the world. Fighting the governor of California. They are engaged in literally a life-and-death struggle, and I have no doubt who is going to be the victor.”
He added: “It’s a shameless effort to maintain their revenue stream — regardless of what the impact is on everyone else. There is no rationing in the bill. Read it. None.”
The concerns have come not only from Republicans, but also from moderate Democrats who represent communities in central California. Many of these communities are struggling with high unemployment and slow economic growth.
“So much of our economy is driven by the use of petroleum,” said Assemblyman Henry T. Perea, a Democrat from the Central Valley and a leader of moderates in his house. “We don’t know what impacts S.B. 350 will have on it. We don’t know because we don’t know what the plan is. What does that look like? We haven’t heard that answer to that. And in the absence of information, you create your own.”
Kristin Olsen, the Assembly Republican leader, said her party was eager to find ways to curb harmful emissions. “My son has asthma — of course I want clean air,” she said.
But she questioned why California had to be a leader in an effort that she argued had such significant economic costs.
“We want to be leaders,” she said, “but not when there are no followers. And at some point we have to look at the fact that no one is following California’s lead. We are less than 1 percent of the world. At some point we should work on reasonable, cost-effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to improve our air quality. But not at the cost of jobs.”
Ms. Boyd of the petroleum association said the bill’s sponsors had erred in trying to push the measure through without explaining how it might work. “We think there should be a lot more detail,” she said, “and it should be articulated pretty clearly about how one thinks they are going to be about this super-aggressive mandate.”
Backers of the bill said reductions would be achieved by, among other things, bolstering the fuel efficiency of existing cars and increasing the number of electric cars on the roads, while pushing urban planning policies that help enable people to walk to their jobs and to shopping districts.
“We don’t have a choice — we have to make these changes,” said Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager and environmental advocate who has been championing the bill. “In listening to these people talk about how there is going to be rationing, I’m like, ‘Stop making up stories, and start telling us what will happen under your scenario.’ ”
“We are in the process of changing how we use energy in the United States of America,” Mr. Steyer added. “The way this happens is, the private sector comes up with new ideas, and people either like them or not.”
Mr. de León, the leader of the State Senate Democrats, said he was preparing amendments to his bill to try to ease concerns. One amendment would give the Legislature more say over the final recommendation by the Air Resources Board.
Even if the bill fails, Mr. Brown said, enough other legislation is already in place that he is confident of long-term victory.
“This is not the whole battle,” he said. “This bill has become a lightning rod. It’s important. But California is way down the road in terms of the thrust and momentum that has been building up for over a decade.”

Return to headline | Return to top
California’s Climate-Change Push Heats Up

Sep 4, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

By Alejandro Lazo

Democrats in California, which already has the toughest climate-change rules in the U.S., are pushing to strengthen them drastically, an effort that has spurred business groups to mount an intense opposition campaign.
A proposed state law would cut petroleum-fuel use by 50%, require utilities to get half their power from renewable sources, and increase energy efficiency in buildings by 50%—all by 2030, using 2016 levels as the starting point. A second measure would mandate an 80% reduction in state greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, from 1990 levels.
The bills are backed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and billionaire environmentalistTom Steyer, who say that California must begin taking serious steps to curb its use of fossil fuels.
Business organizations and the energy industry say the effort would hurt the state economy and hit residents’ wallets.
Both measures have passed the California Senate, though none of the 14 Republicans in the 40-member body voted for them. Bob Huff, the former state Senate minority leader, called reducing greenhouse gases a “noble” goal, but said “those gases don’t end at California’s border.”
The legislation would have to be approved by the California Assembly, where Democrats also dominate—though some have withheld support over concerns about their economic impact, making the bills’ fate in that chamber too close to call, observers say.
While the energy sector doesn’t have a specific figure for how much the proposed policies would cost the state economy, a June study commissioned by the petroleum industry estimates 184,100 Californians received a total of $23.3 billion in pay and benefits from the oil and gas industry in 2013.
Both sides of the issue are stepping up their game trying to sway lawmakers’ and voters’ opinions.
An opposition campaign from the oil industry is warning state residents in television, radio and mail advertisements that the mandates would result in fuel rationing and driving restrictions.
“If you can afford a Tesla [electric car], then this message won’t really matter to you,” a woman says in one of the television ads for the group California Drivers Alliance, which is backed by the Western States Petroleum Association.
Mr. Brown has raised his rhetoric in response, saying in a news conference on the shores of Lake Tahoe in August that “the oil industry is in deep trouble” because it sells a “product that is highly destructive.” At another event in Oakland last month, the governor said climate change has exacerbated the state’s wildfires and refuted the oil industry’s argument, saying: “This is not about rationing. As a matter of fact, if you’re in the business of selling a product that the state says we want you to sell half as much, obviously they’re going to do everything they can to prevent that.”
The governor said he is working with the bills’ critics, which include the California Chamber of Commerce. “But I can tell you this: that I have no intention of backing down.”
The measures don’t lay out specific ways to reach the targets; the details would be left to California’s Air Resources Board. The hope is that setting the goals would spur industry innovations, including in zero-emissions vehicles and biofuels.
The Western States Petroleum Association spent $2.5 million lobbying California lawmakers through the first half of the year on a host of legislation, including the two climate-change bills, lobbying reports show. Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the group, said the petroleum-reduction mandate was “a very poorly conceived and reckless attempt to slash how much fuel is available for Californians to use.”
The new legislation would add to California’s efforts already in place to fight climate change, which include populating the state’s freeways with electric cars and other low-emission vehicles, increasing biofuels in gasoline and building a high-speed train line from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
California produces about 1.5% of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions. But the state has long been a bellwether on environmental regulations, passing landmark laws that are copied by other states and become templates for federal environmental rules.
President Barack Obama recently cited the state’s proposed 50% curb on petroleum use by motor vehicles as an example of how states could act to combat climate change. Among the proposals’ biggest backers is Mr. Steyer, a former San Francisco hedge-fund manager who has become one of the Democrats’ most generous donors nationally and has begun using his fortune to shape environmental policy in California.
Mr. Steyer spent $29.6 million to bankroll an initiative in 2012 that uses corporate taxes to fund energy upgrades at schools and other buildings. His NextGen Climate organization has spent close to $730,000 lobbying California lawmakers on legislation including the two climate-change bills, lobbying records show.
“If we can afford to get our message out, our message wins,” said Mr. Steyer, who is also paying to send mailers supporting the two bills into the districts of Assembly Democrats.
Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, said he sees reducing petroleum fuel use by 50% in the state as a “long-shot,” requiring major advances in biofuels, or a rapid expansion of low-emission vehicles on California’s roads. Other experts say the goals are achievable.
“This focus on California reducing our own greenhouse gases, without really thinking hard about how the rest of the world is reducing greenhouse gases, is misguided,” Dr. Borenstein said. “I think what we should refocus on is this: helping develop the technologies that China and India, and the rest of the developing world, would actually adopt.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Yet Another U.S. Cracker Project Is Announced

Sep 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Alexander Tulio

Even after a dozen firms have announced multi-billion-dollar U.S. ethylene cracker projects, the rush to build petrochemical plants to take advantage of cheap and plentiful shale gas shows no sign of abating.
Formosa Petrochemical, a subsidiary of Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics, has launched a feasibility study for a $9.4 billion petrochemical complex that would be built in St. James, La. The project was unveiled through the office of Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican presidential candidate, who visited Taiwan last year in a bid to win the project for his state.
Formosa envisions a two-stage project. The first phase would feature an ethane-based ethylene cracker, as well as high- and low-density polyethylene, ethylene glycol, polypropylene, and other plants. The second phase would double capacity.
Assuming a final go-ahead, Formosa plans to begin construction next year and begin hiring plant workers in 2018. It hopes to start construction on the second phase in 2022.
Another Formosa unit, Formosa Plastics, is already building a new cracker in Point Comfort, Texas. It is slated for startup in 2017.
Separately, PTT Global Chemical is progressing on its proposed cracker complex in Mead Township, Ohio. The Thai petrochemical and bio-based plastics maker says it plans to spend $100 million on front-end engineering and design and has already picked Fluor Corp. and Bechtel Enterprises Holdings as contractors.
The project, which is slated to have Japanese trading firm Marubeni as a partner, would feature a 1 million-metric-ton-per year ethylene cracker. It would draw ethane feedstock from the Utica and Marcellus shale formations.
Ohio governor John R. Kasich, who is also running for president, says the project marks a major step for Ohio in participating in the shale gas revolution. The cracker would be on the site of a coal-fired power plant that was shuttered in 2011.
“Building an ethane gas cracker in Eastern Ohio has the ability to be a real game changer for our economy as we make our state a hub for the energy industry,” Kasich says. PTT plans to make a final investment decision in 12 months.

Return to headline | Return to top
Bonn Climate Talks See Late Movement

Sep 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Eric J. Lyman

Five days of United Nations climate negotiations wrapped up Sept. 4 with the first signs of compromise on a key issue emerging amid widespread calls that negotiations were still moving too slowly.The late progress came in the area of Loss and Damage, an initiative that would act as a kind of insurance policy for poor countries that suffer the impacts of climate change. At least two Loss and Damage proposals were announced Sept. 4: one from the Group of 77, a union of developing countries, and another from a group of industrialized countries, including the U.S.The most important difference between the two is the G-77 proposal would place Loss and Damage squarely in the Paris agreement, making it legally binding, and the developed country proposal would make it a decision approved by delegates at the Paris talks, making it easier to approve but giving it a weaker legal standing.The conclusion of the latest round of negotiations leaves only five negotiating days—Oct. 19-23 in Bonn—remaining before delegates gather in Paris starting Nov. 30 to finalize the terms of the world's first global climate agreement.The latest round of negotiations got under way with delegates looking to whittle down some of the language in the 76-page “negotiating tool” unveiled a month earlier by Ahmed Djoghlaf and Daniel Reifsnyder, co-chairmen of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action negotiating track (168 DEN A-2, 8/31/15).But no significant changes were made to the text, and Djoghlaf and Reifsnyder instead were given a mandate from delegates to produce a new document, to be called a “basis text,” in the first week of October.The July negotiating tool was a reorganization of existing language proposed by parties, but the new “basis text” will instead include consolidated and streamlined language. Additionally, rather than being divided into three sections—the first for language that would appear in some version in the Paris agreement, the second for proposed language to appear in the political outcome from the Paris talks and the third for proposals that could go in either category—the “basis text” will include only the first two categories, though some proposed language could appear in both categories.Figueres Brushes Aside CriticismDespite the lack of movement on the text, Christiana Figueres, the UN's top climate change official, brushed aside criticism about the pace of talks: “The important thing is that we are moving in the right direction and that all the elements are included, and that is the case,” Figueres said.Djoghlaf and Reifsnyder agreed. Reifsnyder said the meetings were “incredibly productive,” even if it wasn't obvious.His fellow co-chair vowed that the process they have overseen since January would yield results. “I promise you, we will have a draft text ready to be negotiated in Paris,” Djoghlaf said.Still, many participants and observers—including United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who complained Sept. 2 from New York that discussions in Bonn were moving at a “snail's pace”—said the talks should be moving faster .“Many delegates are just itching to get started on the actual drafting of text,” said Elina Bardram, head negotiator for the European Union.Bardram and others said that would change when the basis text comes out in October. For his part, Reifsnyder promised the new document would be “comprehensive, concise, consistent and coherent.”October Round Predicted to Move QuicklyLaurence Tubiana, special representative to the Paris Climate Conference from the host French government, predicted the October round of talks would move quickly.“We have discussed this enough that we now know everything about every position,” Tubiana said. “It's like a pressure cooker now, and when we come back in October, it will be ready to burst.”But many observers were nonetheless cautious: “It now seems apparent we will have a true negotiating text in October and an agreement in Paris,” said Mohammed Adow, a climate campaigner with Christian Aid. “What is not apparent is whether or not it will be a good agreement. That has yet to be determined. That is what we must still fight for.”One area that is sure to be a battleground in October concerns review periods. Among major emitters, the European Union and China have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)—each country's promise of climate-related action after 2020—that end in 2030(144 DEN A-8, 7/28/15)India, which has yet to submit its INDC, is expected to do the same.Most INDCs End in 2025But most other INDCs, including that of the U.S., end in 2025 and environmental groups have been calling for the earlier year to be used so the INDCs can be adjusted quicker to reflect technological advances or changing political circumstances.The European Union has opposed the 2025 date, but Bardram said the EU was increasingly open to a midway five-year review period. But it's still far from clear how such review periods would be structured and what incentives they would include to make countries more likely to take on more ambitious targets.Another piece of news from the last day of the talks in Bonn was that Algeria, the home country for co-chairman Djoghlaf, submitted its INDC, which offered a wide range of emissions reduction targets—between 7 percent and 22 percent by 2030—depending on external support.Counting the 28-member European Union as separate countries, the total number of countries to have submitted their INDCs now stands at 58, accounting for about 70 percent of the world's emissions.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested