Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
Mathew Brainerd: Aging Federal Law Poisons Chemical Industry
Sep 17, 2015 | Tulsa World
By Mathew Brainerd
For nearly 40 years, the system that regulates everyday chemicals has essentially allowed states like California to decide what we can or can’t use in Oklahoma. -
Groups Urge Quick Action on Senate TSCA Bill
Sep 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Eight NGOs have urged the US Senate leadership to bring the bill updating the country's chemical management law to the floor for consideration as soon as possible (CW 18 August 2015). -
Should Sportsmen (And Women) Worry About Toxic Chemicals?
Sep 17, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Eating one meal of sport fish or game will likely not make people sick. However, consuming game and fish not sold in markets may have long-term health effects. -
No Link Between Prenatal Phthalate Exposure and Child Obesity
Sep 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Prenatal exposure to phthalate metabolites does not result in an increase in children’s weight or obesity, according to two recent US studies. -
Microbeads Adsorb POPs from Sea
Sep 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Microbeads, used in personal care products, appear to adsorb persistant organic pollutants (POPs) from the sea in a similar way to microplastic fragments, produced by the degradation of litter, according to a study by Plymouth University, UK. -
7th Circuit Leaves Door Open For 'Differential Etiology' In Toxic Tort Cases
Sep 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is indicating that courts should not categorically exclude in toxic tort cases a method known as "differential etiology" to prove either general or specific causation -- a position that could potentially aid plaintiffs when making arguments in future toxic tort litigation related to less-studied chemicals. -
Crude Exports Bill Clears House Committee
Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Legislation to end the decades-old ban on U.S. crude exports cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee today with three Democrats crossing the aisle to vote yes alongside all Republicans. -
House Moves One Step Closer to Lifting Ban on Crude Oil Exports
Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Energy and Commerce Committee took a major step Thursday toward allowing crude oil exports from the United States. -
House Panel Sends Crude Exports Bill to Floor
Sep 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The House Energy and Commerce Committee today approved legislation to end the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, setting the stage for a floor debate in the coming weeks. -
EPA Seeks Input On Proposed Oil & Gas Emissions Rules
Sep 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Sept. 18 Federal Register its suite of proposed oil and gas sector emissions rules that includes first-time limits on the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new drilling operations, voluntary guidelines for reducing ozone-forming pollutants from existing operations, and a proposal to clarify air permitting. -
Clinton Opposes Bill to Lift Oil Export Ban
Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton opposes a House GOP effort to lift the federal ban on crude oil exports. -
Are Oil Exports Becoming the New Keystone XL?
Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Backed by the might of the oil industry, Republicans are touting a plan to decrease the global influence of fuel-rich Russia and the Middle East while creating jobs at home. -
Climate Concerns Upend Markup of House Omnibus Bill
Sep 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A rift among Republicans and Democrats over climate change, electricity markets, and the fate of coal and nuclear plants appeared to derail a House committee's plans to mark up comprehensive energy legislation in the lower chamber today. -
Green Construction Projected to Support More Jobs, Produce More Savings
Sep 17, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
The green building sector will continue to grow faster than the rest of the construction industry, bringing in billions of dollars in energy and water savings and accounting for a third of construction jobs in 2018, found a new report. -
Industry Faults EPA Toxics Water Criteria For Washington
Sep 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
Industry groups are criticizing EPA's newly proposed human health water quality criteria for toxics in Washington state that would significantly increase the fish consumption rate and maintain current cancer risk calculations, arguing that the agency has overstepped what is meant to be a statewide process.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
Mathew Brainerd: Aging Federal Law Poisons Chemical Industry
Sep 17, 2015 | Tulsa World
By Mathew Brainerd
For nearly 40 years, the system that regulates everyday chemicals has essentially allowed states like California to decide what we can or can’t use in Oklahoma.
Outlandish as it sounds, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act hasn’t been modernized since it was passed. For the past decade, Congress has been working to reform this outdated law, and, thanks in large part to the leadership of U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, we are on the precipice of a solution.
When I became the president of Brainerd Chemical in 1979, the federal law was still in its infancy. Over the last 30-plus years, the role of chemicals in our daily lives has grown exponentially. Chemicals are used in virtually every household product and are essential to maintaining our society’s advancements in health care and public safety.
Unfortunately, the government’s ability to review those chemicals has not kept up. Many states have looked to fill the vacuum with rules and regulations of their own. The resulting patchwork of existing state regulations and the handful of states that frequently introduce new restrictions make navigating the regulatory landscape untenable for small businesses like mine with customers in 20, 35 or even 50 different states.
When a state bans a chemical, manufacturers often respond by halting sale of the chemical nationwide. When states like California unilaterally choose to ban or highly regulate certain chemicals, the state is effectively dictating what manufacturers in other states will produce, what chemical distributors like mine in Tulsa will distribute, and which chemicals are available for use in safety gear, medical devices and other important consumer and industrial applications. This happens to chemicals that are well tested, safe and are used in products that make our lives better.
That trickle-down effect has severe consequences on the economy. American chemical distributors generate more than $31 billion in sales and supply essential industries, from food processing and water purification to paints and sealants. These job-creators are often small businesses with an average of 26 employees.
At Brainerd Chemical, we are very proud of our work to expand our product line into many new markets. It is responsible for our growth from a local supplier to a major regional supplier of chemicals for industrial plants, oil and gas production, agricultural operations and durable and non-durable goods manufacturing. Our 80-plus member team safely and efficiently delivers more than 15 million pounds of products per month by rail, truck and common carrier. But for the company to continue to thrive, we need Toxic Substances Control Act reform to remove the regulatory uncertainty.
Fortunately, Inhofe has worked tirelessly to build support for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Alongside his colleagues Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., they have built strong support on both sides of the aisle and with industry and environmental groups alike.
Once passed, the greatest accomplishment of the Lautenberg Act will be its update to the rules for assessing and regulating chemical substances, ensuring that scientists have the appropriate tools necessary to make certain the safety of everyday products used by Oklahoma families.
The Lautenberg Act will also ensure that other states will no longer be able to dictate how we do business in Oklahoma, spurring needed cooperation between state and federal regulators while establishing an across-the-board standard for how we manage chemicals.
With strong bipartisan support for the Lautenberg Act in the Senate and passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act Modernization Act of 2015 in the House of Representatives, Congress is closer than ever to reforming our outdated chemical law. We must not let this opportunity go to waste.
I urge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring this critical bill to the floor for a vote and capture this historic opportunity for reform.
Mathew Brainerd is the chairman and CEO of Brainerd Chemical headquartered in Tulsa, and the chairman of the board of directors of the National Association of Chemical Distributors.
-
Groups Urge Quick Action on Senate TSCA Bill
Sep 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Eight NGOs have urged the US Senate leadership to bring the bill updating the country's chemical management law to the floor for consideration as soon as possible (CW 18 August 2015).
The public health, environment, animal welfare and workers' groups say that the Udall-Vitter bill (S 697) should be an urgent priority.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) they write that the Toxic Substances Control Act is "badly broken".
America desperately needs the new legislation, they write, because it would:require safety evaluations of all new and existing chemicals;give the EPA stronger testing authority;modernise testing methods; andremove the barriers that have prevented the EPA from regulating known dangers like asbestos.
With 52 co-sponsors the bill is expected to get strong support on the Senate floor.
The signatories to the letter are:the Environmental Defense Fund;the Humane Society of the United States;National Wildlife Federation;Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine;Moms Clean Air Force;March of Dimes;North America's Building Trades Unions; andthe International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
-
Should Sportsmen (And Women) Worry About Toxic Chemicals?
Sep 17, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Eating one meal of sport fish or game will likely not make people sick. However, consuming game and fish not sold in markets may have long-term health effects. So should sportsmen (and women) worry about toxic chemicals?
The chemicals found in sport fish and game are often persistent and bio accumulative. Although you may not see effects after eating it once, the chemicals will build up in your body and could show their negative side effects over time.Chemicals often found in sport game and fish:Mercury, which can have adverse effects on the nervous systemLead, which can have adverse effects on physical growth and mental development of specifically childrenPCBs, which can have adverse effects on memory and learning abilityDioxins and furans, which can have adverse effects on skin and reproductive abilityCadmium, which can have adverse effects on kidneys, bones, and blood
At this point, you may saying “I’ve been eating sport game and fish all my life. And I’ve never gotten sick.” That’s true. Not everyone will be negatively affected or experience unpleasant side effects.
But some people will.
Because there is currently no way of keeping track of all the chemicals you’ve been exposed to during your life, and there is no way of knowing who might get sick from these chemicals, it is best for everyone to make good choices when it comes to eating fish.Tips for healthy sport fish consumption, courtesy of the Department of Health:Avoid or eat less of fish that have been proven to contain higher mercury levels – largemouth and smallmouth bass, northern pike, pickerel, walleye, and larger yellow perchAvoid or eat less fish that have been proven to contain higher PCB and dioxin levels – American eel, bluefish, carp, lake trout, salmon, striped bass, weakfish, white and channel catfish, and white perchProperly skin and trim your catch to eliminate as much fat as possible (since that is where some of these chemicals reside)Avoid pan and deep frying and consuming cooking liquidsFish in freshwaterSpace out your fish meals to not overload your body with potential exposure to these chemicalsChoose smaller, therefore younger, fish since they have had less time to accumulate contaminants in their bodiesKeep harvested fish coldWear gloves and wash hands & surfaces often when dealing with sport fishConsider “catch and release” fishing if want to completely eliminate risks of eating contaminated sport fishTips for healthy game consumption:Wash hands after loading lead bulletsNever put lead sinkers in your mouth while reloadingDo not handle or eat any game that appears sick, acts strangely, or is found deadWear rubber or latex gloves when handling gameUse separate dedicated knives for handling gameAvoid handling brain and spinal tissuesIf you are not aware of the proper game handling procedures, have someone else process the meat
Even though men are the primary group that fish and game for sport, everyone is at risk. Pregnant women, nursing babies, and children are especially at risk and should follow safe eating guidelines set by their individual states.
-
No Link Between Prenatal Phthalate Exposure and Child Obesity
Sep 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Prenatal exposure to phthalate metabolites does not result in an increase in children’s weight or obesity, according to two recent US studies. Both papers were recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Exposure to phthalates has been linked to obesity in children (CW 4 February 2013) but this may be due to a high food intake and other lifestyle factors, which contribute to a high phthalate exposure.
The latest research suggests that weight gain is not related to a child’s early exposure in the womb.
The first study, by a research team from the University of North Carolina, took urine samples from New York women in the last three months of pregnancy. Levels of nine phthalate metabolites, derived from six different phthalates, were measured, including four metabolites of DEHP.
Some 180 of the children born to the mothers were followed up several times at between 4 and 9 years-old and their fat mass measured. In total, 363 child visits were recorded. On average, 21% of the children were classified as obese during at least one follow-up. The percentage fat mass increased with age and there was larger variation among girls than boys.
No association was found between high prenatal phthalate levels and children’s body fat. In fact, the researchers concluded that for the sum of DEHP metabolites, the mothers in the highest third of exposure levels had children with 3% lower fat levels than those in the lowest third.
The second study was conducted by scientists from Columbia University in New York city. The same nine phthalate metabolites were measured in urine samples, taken again during the last three months of pregnancy, but the women in this study were self-identified as of African American and Dominican origin.
The children’s height and weight were also assessed at ages 5 and 7 years, and fat mass and waist circumference at age 7. About 330 children were followed up on each occasion; 19% were obese at age 5 and 25% at age 7.
The results were analysed using a principal components analysis, which identified a DEHP and a non-DEHP component. In boys, a high maternal non-DEHP score was significantly associated with a lower body mass index (BMI) [corrected by z-scores to account for child development], lower percentage fat and waist circumference. But this correlation did not hold for a high maternal DEHP component, and in girls no significant correlation was observed at all.
The two studies are only consistent in the lack of a relationship between obesity and prenatal phthalate exposure. Although both suggest a relationship with lower weight, they disagree on whether this is DEHP or non-DEHP phthalate exposure.
The two papers also conclude with differing opinions. The first study emphasises its results support the hypothesised anti-androgenic effects of DEHP exposure. The second says its results support suggestions that phthalates interfere with fat metabolism.
-
Microbeads Adsorb POPs from Sea
Sep 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Microbeads, used in personal care products, appear to adsorb persistant organic pollutants (POPs) from the sea in a similar way to microplastic fragments, produced by the degradation of litter, according to a study by Plymouth University, UK.
The research suggests that studies on microplastics could apply directly to little-studied microbeads.
Microplastics are known to pass through sewage treatment works and to enter water systems, although few studies have studied chemical adsorption and subsequent desorption to marine organisms.
There is no way of effectively removing microplastics from the environment, write the researchers. The small particle size makes them accessible to organisms with a range of feeding methods, from filter to deposit feeders such as lugworms. Commonly blue or white in colour, the plastic particles resemble plankton, a primary food source for surface-feeding fish.
Like microplastics, microbeads are also thought to be able to pass through sewage treatment to enter water systems.
The Plymouth team bought six brands of facial scrubs at a local supermarket, all listing polyethylene as an ingredient, and measured the size distribution of microbeads in the samples. In a separate but related study, the scientists removed microbeads from shower gels and tested how two common persistent organic pollutants, DDT and phenanthrene, attached to the particles.
They showed that the microbeads were able to take up both phenanthrene and DDT from seawater. Their analysis revealed that rough microbeads were more efficient at adsorbing POPs from seawater than smooth ones, probably because of their increased surface area.
Although it appears that microbeads adsorb lower concentrations of POPs than polyethylene particles, “broadly speaking, it would appear that results from previous studies on transport of chemicals by sorption on to plastic are comparable with the transport potential on microbeads,” they write in the Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Several US states have imposed bans on microbeads in personal care products (CW 6 July 2015). While most cover only non-biodegradable plastics, California and Erie County, New York state, have imposed bans on all intentionally added plastic microbeads, under 5mm in size (CW 16 September 2015).
In a viewpoint article in Environmental Science and Technology, a team led by Chelsea Rochman from the University of California Davis, US, points to numerous microbead applications other than personal care products, such as cleaners.
In addition, what causes confusion is how the term biodegradable is defined, they suggest. “New wording should ensure that a material that is persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic is not added to products designed to go down the drain,” they suggest.
-
7th Circuit Leaves Door Open For 'Differential Etiology' In Toxic Tort Cases
Sep 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is indicating that courts should not categorically exclude in toxic tort cases a method known as "differential etiology" to prove either general or specific causation -- a position that could potentially aid plaintiffs when making arguments in future toxic tort litigation related to less-studied chemicals.
While the pronouncement in a recent decision by the court is non-binding because it is contained in dicta, the position is similar to one taken by the 2nd Circuit, and one attorney familiar with toxic tort cases says the statements are an "important signal in the 7th Circuit from one panel" that differential etiology will have a potential place in a future case.
Differential etiology, often termed differential diagnosis by other courts, refers to a method of distinguishing the probable cause of a disease when various causes could present similar symptoms.
In the case, C.W. & E.W. v. Textron, Inc., the 7th Circuit late last month ruled against the plaintiffs, affirming a district court decision, and finding the lower court did not abuse its discretion "in excluding the appellants' experts based on the reliability of their methodology." The appellate court agreed with the lower court in faulting the plaintiff experts' differential etiology.
The plaintiffs filed the case against Textron, alleging Indiana tort-law claims of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, according to the decision. Specifically, the suit was filed by the parents of two young children, alleging that Textron exposed the children to vinyl chloride through drinking water, causing illnesses and significantly increasing their risk for cancer and other adverse effects. Textron for many years up until 2006 operated a fastener manufacturing plant in Rochester, IN, which released vinyl chloride, a toxic gas that migrated into nearby residential wells, including the plaintiffs', according to the opinion.
While the court affirmed the district court's rejection of the lawsuit, it warned that "we must part ways with the district court's rationale in granting summary judgment. For we think the court unnecessarily foreclosed an issue better left open for future litigants in other cases," the 7th Circuit says.
"The district court held that differential etiology 'cannot be used to support general causation,'" the 7th Circuit says. In a footnote, the district court reiterated this, saying "'Differential [etiology] is admissible only insofar as it supports specific causation, which is secondary to general causation . . . .'"
According to the 7th Circuit's Aug. 26 decision, general causation "examines whether the substance -- in this case, vinyl chloride -- 'had the capacity to cause the harm alleged[.]'" Specific causation "examines whether the substance did, in fact, cause the harm alleged," it says. Courts require both general and specific causation for there to be negligence, the toxic tort attorney says.
The circuit court says it disagrees with the lower court's "categorical exclusion of differential etiology as a method to establish general causation. Indiana recognizes the important role that differential etiology plays in toxic-tort cases," it says.
"[T]here may be a case where a rigorous differential etiology is sufficient to help prove, if not prove altogether,both general and specific causation," the court says. It notes that the 2nd Circuit already applies this approach.
The attorney says the use of differential etiology is most important in situations where the chemical at issue lacks a robust amount of scientific literature. The source notes there are tens of thousands of chemicals that lack that level of scientific study.
-
Crude Exports Bill Clears House Committee
Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Legislation to end the decades-old ban on U.S. crude exports cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee today with three Democrats crossing the aisle to vote yes alongside all Republicans.
The bill is expected to reach the House floor as soon as this month, although the White House already has declared its opposition. The final committee vote was 31-19, with Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) and Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.) joining the GOP in supporting it.
Before approving the bill, the panel agreed to a Green amendment to allow the president to re-impose restrictions on crude exports in the event of a security-related emergency. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the export bill's chief sponsor, spoke in favor of the Green proposal.
Most committee Democrats indicated significant resistance to a proposal they portrayed as benefiting the oil industry rather than the American public. Top Energy and Commerce Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone (N.J.) called Barton's bill "a blunt object," warning that "increasing crude exports means increasing domestic production," which could pose environmental threats.
Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) stopped short of outright opposition to allowing exports, and DeGette called to offset the climate impact of increased oil production, a proposal that is unlikely to gain much traction among Republicans.
-
House Moves One Step Closer to Lifting Ban on Crude Oil Exports
Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Energy and Commerce Committee took a major step Thursday toward allowing crude oil exports from the United States.
Three Democrats joined all of the Republicans on Thurday in voting for a bill that would lift the decades-old ban on exports. The tally was 31-19.
The vote sends the legislation to the full House for final passage, something that Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said would happen in the coming weeks.
Republicans said the bill would benefit the economy, jobs, national security and other areas, while most Democrats decried it as a giveaway to oil companies that would threaten energy prices.
“America wins when we support free trade and open markets, and this bill would lift the 40-year-old restrictions on oil exports that President Ford signed into law in 1975. Much has changed since 1975 when these restrictions were imposed but the dramatic growth in domestic oil output over the last decade has flipped the script,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the committee’s chairman.
“Creating jobs, keeping energy affordable, boosting energy production, and improving our energy security — these are all important to folks in Michigan and across the country and a bill that accomplishes all four is worthy of all our support,” he said.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the bill’s sponsor, said the United States needs the ability to take advantage of increases in international oil demand, and that domestic producers are uniquely able to do that if the export ban is lifted.
“If we don’t lift the restrictions on crude oil exports, we cannot utilize our strategic advantage in oil production,” he said.
Reps. Gene Green (Texas), Kurt Schrader (Ore.) and Toyn Cardenas (Calif.) were the only Democrats voting in favor of the measure.
Other Democrats said last week that they had hoped to negotiate changes that would allow them to support the bill, but most did not have their concerns met.
“H.R. 702 is a blunt object with broadly undermines 40 years of protections for national security, our economy, consumers and the environment. This bill looks backwards, rather than even considering the possibility of new energy solutions for our nation’s future,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the panel’s top Democrat.
The committee only passed one amendment to the bill through a voice vote. The amendment, from Green, says that the president retains his ability to stop oil exports for national emergencies, severe supply disruptions or for other purposes, similarly to nearly every other commodity that is exported.
President Obama is likely to threaten to veto the bill.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said this week that the Obama administration supports the current export restrictions, which the Commerce Department has the authority to ease, and opposes the House’s bill.
-
House Panel Sends Crude Exports Bill to Floor
Sep 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The House Energy and Commerce Committee today approved legislation to end the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, setting the stage for a floor debate in the coming weeks.
The panel approved H.R. 702 on a 31-19 vote, with Texas' Gene Green, Oregon's Kurt Schrader and California's Tony Cárdenas the lone Democratic backers.
While the minority largely opposed the bill, multiple Democrats suggested they would be willing to support exports at a later date.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) voted no but said the international ramifications of allowing exports merit further discussion. "This is not something we should slam the door on, that we should continue to look at it from a geopolitical view," he said.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said he's keeping "an open mind" about the bill but wanted to see minorities, veterans and women benefit from exports.
But Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the committee's ranking member, took a dim view of the legislation, which he described as "a blunt object which broadly undermines 40 years of protections for national security, our economy, consumers and the environment."
"This bill looks backward rather than even considering the possibility of developing new energy solutions for our nation's future," he said at the outset of the markup. "And H.R. 702 does not just undermine current protective authorities related to crude oil, the legislation also prohibits any federal official from taking any action at any time if it might restrict, or enforce a restriction on, the export of oil. This is very troubling to me."
The panel adopted by voice vote a Green amendment that would provide the president explicit powers to halt exports in the case of a national emergency.
"If we have a national emergency, obviously we want the president of the United States to be able to halt exports," Green said.
Bill sponsor Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) also supported Green's amendment.
A second amendment, offered by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) and Green, would have required a Maritime Administration study of the effects of exports on oil transportation costs. Green said the amendment was intended to address concerns about the effects of the bill on the Jones Act, which requires commodities to be shipped on U.S.-owned vessels largely crewed by U.S. citizens (E&E Daily, July 15).
However, the amendment was withdrawn after Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said it was outside the panel's jurisdiction. Green told Greenwire after the markup that he expects it to be included in the bill by the time it hits the floor.
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) offered and withdrew an amendment that would require an Energy Department study of the effects of the renewable fuel standard and national air quality standards for ozone on the refining sector.
Barton applauded the purpose of the amendment but suggested it should first be the subject of a hearing and ultimately attached to a different legislative vehicle.
The committee today also postponed markup of its broader energy package because of squabbling between the two parties over amendments (see related story)).
-
EPA Seeks Input On Proposed Oil & Gas Emissions Rules
Sep 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Sept. 18 Federal Register its suite of proposed oil and gas sector emissions rules that includes first-time limits on the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new drilling operations, voluntary guidelines for reducing ozone-forming pollutants from existing operations, and a proposal to clarify air permitting.
Following publication, the agency will take comment for 60 days on the rules, and then will analyze the feedback before crafting final versions of the rule that it could issue before President Obama leaves office.
The proposed new source performance standards (NSPS), issued Aug. 18 with the other measures targeting air releases from the sector, expands on requirements the agency first imposed in its 2012 NSPS for the industry. The 2012 rule only targeted emissions of VOCs but had a co-benefit of also reducing methane. The new proposal would build on that regulation by granting environmentalists' request to set a hard limit on methane emissions.
The rule would also regulate some sources not covered by the 2012 NSPS, such as hydraulically fractured oil wells and downstream compressors and other equipment, to set first-time controls for both VOCs and methane.
EPA is also publishing its proposed source determination rule that specifies when oil and gas facilities should be “aggregated” -- treated as a single source -- for air permitting purposes.
That proposal includes two options for when sources are “adjacent” and therefore considered as a single source: a controversial “functional interrelatedness” factor that would lead to more aggregation than current policy and a more conservative “physical proximity” test that the agency says is its preferred option.
EPA is also publishing a proposed federal implementation plan for managing emissions from true “minor” rather than “major” emissions sources engaged in oil and natural gas production.
Finally, the agency is also seeking comment on its draft control techniques guidelines for reducing ozone-forming VOCs and other pollutants from the sector in areas with high ozone levels.
In addition to seeking written comment on the regulations, EPA will also hold hearings Sept. 23 in Denver and Dallas and Sept. 29 in Pittsburgh to seek public comment on the policies.
-
Clinton Opposes Bill to Lift Oil Export Ban
Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton opposes a House GOP effort to lift the federal ban on crude oil exports.
A campaign spokesman confirmed Wednesday night that the Democratic front-runner does not support the House bill. But the campaign didn’t say whether or not she could support the lifting the ban if some type of deal were struck or whether she’s opposed to crude oil exports in principle.
Clinton’s opposition comes the day after the White House said it does not support the House bill, one of a few major proposals moving through Congress to lift the 1970s-era crude oil export ban.
The White House said it lets the Commerce Department take the lead on oil exports. Commerce has the power to approve limited crude exports in certain scenarios.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will mark up the chamber’s oil export bill on Thursday. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he will bring the legislation to the House floor for a vote within weeks.
He pushed back against Obama’s opposition on Tuesday, saying he thinks the legislation couldwin a veto-proof majority in Congress.
At a National Journal event on Tuesday, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) wouldn’t say whether Clinton would support lifting the export ban as president. Heitkamp, who is pushing the bill in the Senate, said she hopes to reach a compromise on the issue and pass it during Obama’s presidency rather than wait until 2017 or later.
-
Are Oil Exports Becoming the New Keystone XL?
Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Backed by the might of the oil industry, Republicans are touting a plan to decrease the global influence of fuel-rich Russia and the Middle East while creating jobs at home. But the White House doesn’t want Congress involved, and greens want the oil at issue to stay underground.
That scenario once described the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline — but lately it’s more reminiscent of the volatile politics of crude exports. As Republicans push to end the decades-old ban on overseas sales of U.S. oil, a Keystone-esque battle is taking shape between industry and greens, with a handful of moderate Senate Democratic votes once again hanging in the balance.
The next skirmish arrives on Thursday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is expected to approve Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton’s bill to lift the export limits, relying mostly on GOP votes.
President Barack Obama and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, neither of whom have taken a firm position on Keystone, both came out against the Barton export bill this week.
At the heart of the pro-exports campaign is a national security argument broadly similar to the case for Keystone, which would mostly carry crude extracted from oil sands deposits in Alberta, Canada. Republicans and industry interests pitch secure supplies of both U.S. and Canadian oil as valuable geopolitical assets that can insulate America and its allies from threats including Russian aggression in the Ukraine and Iran's imminent return to the global oil market. Backers of both exports and Keystone also promise job creation and lower gasoline prices as new fuel reaches the market, while their opponents warn that China would benefit most from putting all that new oil on the global market.
Of course, the oil-export debate is far from a word-for-word rerun of Keystone. Congress’ pipeline bill would have approved only one Canada-to-Texas oil project, versus the upheaval of long-term policy that would come with allowing crude exports. And the oil industry is benefiting from the much quieter role climate activists have played in the oil-export fight after losing several rounds to greens in the David-and-Goliath battle over Keystone.
Stephen Brown, vice president at the independent refiner Tesoro, questioned the wisdom of environmentalists’ low-key presence on exports. “There’s potentially a lot of oil coming out of the ground” if exports are approved, he said in an interview, “and their goal is to keep it in there.”
Perhaps the biggest question facing the oil-export bill, then, is whether it will evolve into the New Keystone — a symbol of fossil-fuel dominance that Democrats oppose as a means to burnish their climate credentials and Republicans support as an issue to slam Obama — or if it will break the streak of failed deal-making on energy legislation during his administration.
The pool of moderates considered in play for crude exports is slightly different than the swing voters heavily lobbied on Keystone in recent years, but Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Angus King (I-Maine) have been closely eyed on both fronts.
In fact, one industry lobbyist active on exports lamented “the irony” that oil interests have been more successful wooing Democrats on the issue than they were with Keystone, even though “the politics are not nearly as good for them and the policy is” potentially more environmentally harmful than approving a single pipeline.
Environmental activists say they’re poised to escalate their presence on oil exports in a major way as legislation works its way to the House floor, perhaps as soon as this month.
“The nice thing about the Keystone battle for us is that it’s going to have lasting impact,” Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s fuels campaign, said in an interview. “So we expect that lawmakers are going to hear more from their constituents about [oil exports] in the next few months as we increase our efforts around it and the environmental community begins to see what a giant threat this is.”
Industry players have worked Capitol Hill for months to woo Republicans on oil exports, and they point to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s stated openness to a deal as a crucial sign that their efforts will pay more dividends than the long-stalled drive for Keystone.
“There is not an nationally organized effort to keep the export ban in place for environmental reasons like you had on Keystone XL,” said one private-sector crude export advocate, who noted that the pipeline sparked “ideological opposition” from Reid way back in the fall of 2011. “You don’t have Tom Steyer cutting ads and air dropping in, funding opposition groups. Keystone XL was also an election issue.”
While billionaire environmentalist Steyer has stayed silent on crude exports, the White House this week came out against Congress’ bid to end the ban. The Clinton campaign followed suit Wednesday, a sharp contrast with her silence on Keystone.
Despite industry whispers that they’ve been slow out of the gate on exports, climate activists exude Keystone-level confidence that they can defeat the legislation.
“Republicans this session have not had a great track record of getting their leadership's priorities to the president's desk despite their campaign promises,” League of Conservation Voters lobbyist Zach Drennen said.
Natural Resources Defense Council oil campaigner Franz Matzner said that "the oil industry effort to end the crude export ban reveals a lot of the same issues as Keystone,” adding that "Republicans moved to this because they’re trying to have a ‘no fossil fuels left behind’ policy.”
Industry backers of exports see several factors playing to their advantage that broke for green groups during the battle over Keystone. The most obvious divergence is marketing: Keystone is a multi-billion-dollar target, easy to demonize on a protest sign or in a TV ad, while crude exports are not.
On Keystone, "the answer is either yes or no," GOP energy lobbyist Mike McKenna observed. "Exports can be graded and shaded and nuanced."
"The symbolic nature of the pipeline isn't quite there with crude export regulations," acknowledged David Turnbull, campaigns director at the climate activist group Oil Change International.
As environmentalists further develop their anti-export push, Turnbull added, they anticipate seeing Keystone-like opportunities in the local impacts of new fracking and drilling that ending the ban is expected to promote. Anti-pipeline ranchers in the red state of Nebraska helped propel the Keystone campaign by amplifying their own local concerns.
Tesoro's Brown offered a prediction for exports that might also have applied to Keystone before Mitch McConnell — who endorsed the oil-sales bill on Wednesday — took the majority leader's title.
“At the end of the day, it passes the House but I don't see a path forward yet for it in the Senate,” Brown said. “It’s not impossible, just really challenging given the handful of vulnerable Republicans running for reelection.”
-
Climate Concerns Upend Markup of House Omnibus Bill
Sep 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A rift among Republicans and Democrats over climate change, electricity markets, and the fate of coal and nuclear plants appeared to derail a House committee's plans to mark up comprehensive energy legislation in the lower chamber today.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) told Greenwire that the House Energy and Commerce Committee scrapped plans to take up a voluminous energy bill after disagreements surfaced on a number of fronts, with climate being a primary one. The panel, however, did move forward with a vote on H.R. 702, legislation that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) introduced to lift a 1970s ban on exporting crude oil. The committee approved that bill on a 31-19 vote (see related story).
The committee had originally announced it would mark up both measures together.
Whitfield, who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has been trying to shepherd through a bipartisan bill, but disagreement cropped up over Democrats' concerns with the bill's ability to lower emissions, among other things.
"When you talk about energy and Democrats' primary concern is climate change ... you can't reach an agreement," Whitfield said. "[Upton] will continue his efforts to reach an agreement, and if not, one option for us is to proceed with our amendments, put what we want in the bill and move forward."
Advertisement
Whitfield said the two sides could not agree on "simple things" like Democrats' opposition to language that would repeal a ban on the federal government using energy from fossil fuel until 2030. Another point of contention, he said, is Republicans' push to ease the government's role in setting building code standards.
"States are complaining to us that instead of being in a dialogue, the DOE is suddenly using influence to determine what they are," Whitfield said. "We want to change that, they're not interested in that."
Democrats are also opposed to addressing ailing baseload generators -- coal and nuclear plants -- in organized energy markets, Whitfield said.
"We've bent over backward for them, taking money from the [Strategic Petroleum Reserve] to help on infrastructure development, putting up jobs, training programs for certain groups in the energy sector, even providing money for it," he said. "But yet we've not received anything."
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the panel's ranking member, provided fewer details, saying only that it was understood the bill was "skeletal" and that the committee was planning to beef up the language with amendments after the August recess. But Pallone was quick to note Republicans' position when asked whether climate change was central to the decision to punt on the bill.
"Many on the other side don't recognize climate change as an issue, but I think when we talk about energy efficiency, when we talk about improving the energy infrastructure ... that those do, actually, if you do them in the right way, will actually help to reduce greenhouse gases," he said. "Obviously, they don't want to use the term 'climate change,' but if we can address some significant efficiency and infrastructure issues, I think that'll have an positive impact on reducing greenhouse gases."
House and Senate leaders have been careful to leave out divisive issues while moving their bills to the floor, but today's vote may show the difficulty of that task.
Even so, some Democrats expressed hope that agreements on thorny points could be reached to advance the bill, which the House Energy and Power Subcommittee passed unanimously in July by voice vote (Greenwire, July 22).
"I'm optimistic we can reach common ground on those issues," Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois said during opening statements.
-
Green Construction Projected to Support More Jobs, Produce More Savings
Sep 17, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
The green building sector will continue to grow faster than the rest of the construction industry, bringing in billions of dollars in energy and water savings and accounting for a third of construction jobs in 2018, found a new report.
Green buildings are designed to use water and energy more efficiently by combining techniques like electricity from renewable sources, better insulation or even green roofs. A subset of buildings comply with the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, certification standards.
USGBC, an industry nonprofit, commissioned consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton to put some numbers on the sector's growth.
Last year, around 2 million Americans held jobs somehow related to green construction, as architects, electricians, manufacturers or even truck drivers, according to the report. That is more than the jobs supported by the film and television industry, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.
Green construction jobs could swell to 3.3 million by 2018, the report found, which would represent around a third of all construction jobs.
Spending on green construction could rise around 15 percent each year for the next three years, the report found, to $224 billion by 2018 from around $130 billion last year. That would continue the double-digit growth the sector has seen for the past decade. The overall construction industry has grown at around a similar pace to the general economy.
The team built its projections on industry data from Dodge Data & Analytics.
"We realized [green] construction is happening right now, and this research not only solidifies that but shows just how exponential the growth over the next few years will be," said Marisa Long, the communications director for USGBC.
The spread of more resource-efficient construction could bring billions in savings in energy, trash, water and maintenance. Energy savings alone could amount to $2.4 billion, something the report notes could have a negative impact on some energy suppliers.Seeking new building codes, tenant demands
The sector's growth could also cut carbon emissions; the projected energy benefits of green buildings up to 2018 would be equivalent to taking around 3.4 million passenger cars off the roads, the report finds.
The rise of green or LEED buildings comes as no surprise to Michael Deane, vice president and chief sustainability officer of Turner Construction Co. His firm is one of the green construction industry leaders, having built many LEED-certified sports stadiums, data centers, offices and other buildings.
"As big of an impact as LEED has had over the past 15 years, we're still only touching around 10 percent of the market," Deane said. "There's a lot of upwards potential, as codes become more rigorous, as the market becomes more aware, as the designers gain more experience. It's only going to go up."
The report cites the increased emphasis that cities, states and the federal government are placing on energy efficiency and sustainable development as one of the drivers of sector growth. As regulations on energy efficiency become even more stringent, new construction will have to automatically incorporate many green principles. In California, Deane said, new building codes are already stricter than some LEED certificates.
Customers are also directly calling for more green construction, he added.
"Any market sector driven by tenant demand, residential or commercial, if they're sensitive to maintaining high quality workers, for example, those are the sectors where demand will be highest," he said.
As higher education institutions look to attract top students, for example, many want to differentiate themselves by pursuing LEED certification, he said.
The largest increase in LEED construction could come in single-family residences, the report found, with around 30 percent growth projected year to year for the next few years. That reflects a "historically small market penetration," according to the report.
The report also broke down the industry's growth by state, information aimed at local policymakers.
The largest contributions to gross domestic product from green construction come in states like California, Texas and New York. States including Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island and West Virginia were expected to see the largest increases in green construction economic impact in the next few years.
-
Industry Faults EPA Toxics Water Criteria For Washington
Sep 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
Industry groups are criticizing EPA's newly proposed human health water quality criteria for toxics in Washington state that would significantly increase the fish consumption rate and maintain current cancer risk calculations, arguing that the agency has overstepped what is meant to be a statewide process.
“EPA has short circuited the process of developing Washington's water quality standards by proposing to impose more restrictive federal criteria for the state,” said the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) in a Sept. 11 statement.
AF&PA's criticism echoes some of the concerns the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)raised earlier this year about EPA Region 10's displeasure with state-proposed criteria. NACWA, which represents publicly owned treatment works, argued the agency's objection to the state's draft cancer risk levels oversteps EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to oversee states' development of such standards.
State officials earlier this year proposed water quality criteria for toxics that would have increased the fish consumption rate (FCR) to 175 grams per day (g/day) from the current EPA default level of 6.5 g/day but at the same time would have lowered the cancer risk calculation to 10^-5 from the current value of 10^-6.
EPA repeatedly raised concerns about the proposed changes to the cancer risk rate, saying it did not fully reflect the best available science and did not provide appropriate risk protection for all Washington citizens, including tribal members. “By using a 10^-5 cancer risk level, the state has substantially offset the environmental benefits of raising the fish consumption rate for carcinogenic human health criteria,” EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran wrote in a March 23 letter to the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program's Cheryl Niemi.
Although Gov. Jay Inslee (D) continued to defend the state's proposal, he withdrew it in late July after the state legislature failed to act on a legislative package that was intended to control toxic releases in concert with the new criteria.
And EPA moved forward with a federal proposal that would increase the FCR to 175 g/day and maintain the current cancer risk calculation of 10^-6. The agency says in its proposal, which appeared in the Federal RegisterSept. 14, that the fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day contained in the 1992 National Toxics Rule was based on available national data at the time, but current best available data demonstrate that fish consumers in Washington state, including tribes, consumer more fish than 6.5 g/day.
“Our industry is disappointed by this federal intrusion into what is meant to be a state-based solution. Governor Inslee should have protected Washington state's interests by sending to EPA the state's plan, which had the support of local businesses and was protective of human health water quality criteria,” the AF&PA statement says. “It is unfortunate that Washington, D.C., will now decide what is in the best interest of Washington state's local communities.”
EPA has repeatedly said that its preference is for the state to develop its own criteria. And in a Sept. 2 press release, Region 10 said that if the state should submit to EPA its new final criteria to review before it finalizes its own proposal, the agency will review and act upon the state's submission “in a timely manner and prior to any final action on the federal criteria.”
EPA is accepting comments on the proposal until Nov. 13.
Meanwhile, local environmental groups largely praised EPA's action following its publication in the Federal Register.
“We applaud EPA for stepping in to provide leadership on water quality standards. The Washington State Department of Ecology has failed for years to set standards that adequately protect the people of this state,” Wendy Steffensen of North Sound Baykeeper said in a Sept. 3 statement.
“We are pleased to see that EPA has moved to make water quality in Washington state a priority. We encourage Ecology to uphold the same high standards as EPA, to protect our water quality and the health of the people of Washington state,” Puget Soundkeeper Executive Director Chris Wilke said in the statement.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested