Preview Newsletter

acc 9/18

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Non-Recycled Plastics: A New Energy Resource
Sep 17, 2015 | R&D Magazine
By Lindsay Hock

Over the past few decades, recycling programs have expanded both in terms of communities served and what items can be recycled. Yet, despite progress, approaches to integrated waste management have only begun to evolve.
(ACC Mentioned) US Government Sets First Food Waste Reduction Goal
Sep 17, 2015 | Big News Network

In the first-ever national food waste reduction goal, United States has called for cutting food loss and waste by 50 percent over next 15 years.
(ACC Mentioned) PE Producers Make a Move on US Prices
Sep 17, 2015 | ICIS News
By Lane Kelley

US polyethylene (PE) producers appear to be following an old football proverb of the best defense being a good offense by attempting to raise prices in October, sources said on Thursday.
(ACC Mentioned) Study to Sort out Hurdles of Recycling Flexible Packaging
Sep 17, 2015 | Plastics News
By Catherine Kavanaugh

A new study aimed at keeping flexible packaging out of landfills and getting it through recycling centers, where it can be recovered like the glass and aluminum containers it is replacing, is bringing together brand owners, manufacturers and other industry leaders.

Chemical Management News

Textile Uses of Two Flame Retardants Need EPA Review
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers and processors that make, sell or import two similar forms of a flame retardant for use in consumer textiles must have the Environmental Protection Agency review of that intended use before proceeding, under a final significant new use rule the agency released online Sept. 17.
Pepsi Agrees to Lower Levels of Chemical in Drinks
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lisa Helem

PepsiCo Inc. by Jan. 1, 2016, will ensure that soft drinks shipped for sale to California won't contain levels of an alleged potential carcinogen that exceed the state's safe threshold level under Proposition 65, according to a consent agreement between the Center for Environmental Health and the beverage maker.
ECHA Opens Hazardous Chemical Substitution Website
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Sept. 17 opened a new section of its website with information on the substitution of hazardous substances used in products and manufacturing processes with safer alternatives.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) After Tianjin
Sep 18, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Mark Peplow

A fire rages out of control, lighting up the night sky above a shipping yard in the Chinese port city of Tianjin. Suddenly, an explosion shakes the ground and gouts of fire race upwards, chasing a mushroom cloud of dense smoke.
Advocates Fear Status Of EPA Small Business Review Suggests RMP Delay
Sep 17, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Advocates are raising concerns EPA may miss an announced September deadline for proposing revisions to its Risk Management Plan (RMP) industrial facility accident prevention program, noting a review of the rule's potential costs to small businesses has yet to begin, although an industry source says the review could occur after revisions are proposed.

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) The Keys to Expanding Benefits of Pa.'s Shale-Energy Revolution
Sep 18, 2015 | Philly.com
By David Spigelmyer

Pennsylvania is at the forefront of America's energy revolution. As a result of our abundant shale resources, the United States has surpassed both Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's leading oil and natural-gas producer in 2014.
Oil Export Bill Passed, Clearing Way for Floor Action
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Sept. 17 to approve H.R. 702, legislation that would repeal the ban on most crude oil exports.
Miles to Go for Crude Exports Push
Sep 18, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey

Crude exports backers notched another win yesterday with House Energy and Commerce Committee approval of a bill to end the longstanding ban, but the markup also offered a preview of some of the knots that must be untangled in getting the measure signed into law.
Democratic Amendment Signals More Possible Changes to Oil Export Bill
Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor

The House Democrat who on Thursday successfully added an amendment to a GOP bill repealing the ban on crude oil exports says his may be only the first tweak to the measure before it gets a vote on the floor.
Energy Fight Led to Bill's Postponement
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

A fight over power grid reliability language that could require the use of more coal and a provision that would bar the Energy Department from participating in the development of energy efficiency building codes were among the reasons a broad House energy bill was pulled from markup, lawmakers and lobbyists told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 17.
Energy Bill Stalls as Time Runs Short
Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode

An ambitious bipartisan energy package stalled in the House on Thursday, caught between Democrats desire for stronger climate change language and conservative Republicans’ effort to derail the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.
No Appetite for EPA Head's Impeachment in Senate
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

Republicans in the Senate strongly oppose Environmental Protection Agency regulations being developed under Administrator Gina McCarthy, but they aren't supporting an effort by some in the House to impeach her, senators said Sept. 16 and 17.
EPA to Publish Oil, Gas Methane Standards
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The Environmental Protection Agency will accept comments until Nov. 17 on a proposal to set the first performance standard for methane emissions from new oil and gas wells. The EPA will publish the proposed new source performance standard (RIN 2060-AS30) in the Federal Register Sept. 18.
Draft EPA 'Aggregation' Policy Prompts Criticism From Industry, Advocates
Sep 18, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA's draft rule to determine when oil and gas sector emissions must be "aggregated," or combined, for Clean Air Act permitting purposes is drawing criticism from industry sources who question the tests the agency will use to decide aggregation and from advocates who say the rule could allow some operations to avoid aggregation.
GOP Senators Move to Overturn Obama’s Water Rule
Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Nearly the entire Senate Republican caucus sponsored legislation Thursday that would overturn the Obama administration’s regulation asserting its authority over streams and wetlands.
Eleven House Republicans Introduce Climate Resolution
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

Eleven House Republicans, led by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), introduced a resolution (no number) Sept. 17 to promote “economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address” the impacts of climate change.
Many Large Companies Obstructing Climate Policy: Report
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Eckhouse

Almost half of the world's 100 largest companies, including Procter & Gamble Co. and Duke Energy Corp., are “obstructing climate change legislation,” according a study released Sept. 16.
Biden: U.S., China Must Show Will to Cut Emissions
Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

The U.S. and China must show the world they have “the will and capacity” to achieve the carbon emissions reduction targets included in the joint agreement signed last November, Vice President Joe Biden said Sept. 17 in Los Angeles.
Clinton: Keystone Position Coming 'Soon'
Sep 18, 2015 | The Hill - Briefing Room
By Jesse Byrnes

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday night that she would announce her long-expected position on the Keystone XL pipeline "soon.”
Clinton: I'll Give My Keystone Pipeline Opinion 'Soon'
Sep 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Karni

Hillary Clinton again refused to state her position on the Keystone XL pipeline Thursday at the beginning of a three-day swing through New Hampshire, but she promised to voice her opinion on it “soon.”
API-Backed Poll Shows Strong Project Support
Sep 17, 2015 | E&E PM
By Manuel Quiñones

A poll released by the American Petroleum Institute today shows support for the Keystone XL oil pipeline as the permitting process for the project hits its seventh year.
Acting Faster on Climate
Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bill Eacho

“We’re not acting fast enough.” President Obama said four times in a 24-minute speech recently in Alaska urging the world do more to combat climate change.

Transportation News

Nominee Vows Big Fines for Carriers that Miss Safety Deadline
Sep 18, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly

Railroads that fail to meet a Dec. 31 time table for implementation of automated safety systems could face daily fines of up to $25,000 for each violation, acting Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg said at a confirmation hearing yesterday marked by her insistence that only Congress can provide relief.

Full Text of Stories Below

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Non-Recycled Plastics: A New Energy Resource

Sep 17, 2015 | R&D Magazine

By Lindsay Hock

Over the past few decades, recycling programs have expanded both in terms of communities served and what items can be recycled. Yet, despite progress, approaches to integrated waste management have only begun to evolve.
“While production and consumption are still dominated by a linear model, where goods are manufactured from raw materials, sold, used and then discarded, the growing population of middle-class consumers has created a rise in demand for good that’s challenging the sustainability of this system,” says Jeff Wooster, Global Sustainability Leader at Dow Chemical Company.
Today, the concept of a “circular economy” is rapidly capturing attention as a way to reconcile economic growth with environmental responsibility. “In fact, circular supply chains that increase the rate of recycling, reuse and remanufacture have the potential to generate more than $1 trillion a year by 2025,” says Wooster.
In the U.S. we create about 254 million tons of trash each year. And while recycling programs have expanded, more than half all U.S. trash—approximately 134 million tons—ends up in landfills. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), almost one-fifth is from plastic items used every day, but aren’t recycled. “One key gap is the failure to address changes in the composition of the recycling stream and find a way to capture value from many of the materials that are growing in use, such as lightweight multi-material plastic packaging,” says Wooster.
However, emerging technologies offer solutions that divert non-recycled plastics from landfills and “recycle” them into feedstocks, valuable energy resources and other plastic products. In fact, if the U.S. took all the paper, wood, plastics, old clothes and other garbage that goes into landfills and converted them into useable energy, the U.S. could power nearly 14 million homes every year, according to the American Chemistry Council.
Non-recycled plastics as an energy resource
Believe it or not, plastic is a valuable energy resource. And, through energy recovery, companies can recover the embedded energy content of this valuable resource.
Through a collaborative effort to explore an alternative for plastic waste, Dow co-sponsored a three-month pilot program in Citrus Heights, Calif., with Agilyx to convert non-recycled material and low-value plastics collected in purple bags into a high-value synthetic fuel.
And according to a recent report by the Flexible Packaging Association, if recycling programs like Dow’s Energy Bag Pilot were implemented across the U.S., we could keep more than 4 million tons of plastic waste out of landfills, enough to produce one billion gallons of fuel every year. Additionally, the American Chemistry Council reported making synthetic crude oil from plastics reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 70% compared to conventional extraction of crude oil.
“Our Energy Bag Pilot used pyrolysis to convert non-recycled plastics into 512 gallons of synthetic crude oil, recovering nearly 12 barrels of oil, but other recovery technologies can also be used to capture the energy value of plastics,” says Wooster.
Pyrolysis is a resource recovery technology that uses heat in the absence of oxygen to chemically transform plastic into end products, including synthetic crude oil, synthetic wax and syngas. The crude oil can be further refined and made into valuable products for everyday use such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oil and lubricants. It can even be transformed back into plastic.
“Energy recovery technologies like pyrolysis (plastic to oil) are complementary to mechanical recycling because they allow value to be captured from additional materials,” says Wooster. “Many materials that can’t be easily recycled provide other lifecycle benefits which lead to their selection for use, and those materials have an embedded energy value even after they have served their primary function.”
Yet, a key challenge for any recovery process, whether energy recovery or mechanical recycling, is collecting a sufficient quantity of materials to provide the scale needed for beneficial economics. Due to plastic’s light weight, it takes combining materials from many households to provide enough material to make their collection and processing worthwhile.
“Since there isn’t an established infrastructure supporting the recovery of plastic for energy, new programs must fit within the constraints of existing recycling and municipal waste management systems,” says Wooster.
The Energy Bag Pilot
The idea of a collection pilot has been a few years in the making, according to Wooster. And Dow has been actively reviewing new energy-recovery technologies, and analyzing the quantity and quality of non-recycled plastics available for recovery.
In 2014, Dow partnered with Republic Services and they connected the City of Citrus Heights, allowing Dow to have a resource management expert and an engaged community to start the pilot. Agilyx had a pyrolysis facility located relatively close to Citrus Heights and accepted the invitation to process the materials from the pilot. The pilot was also supported by Reynolds, the Flexible Packaging Association and the American Chemistry Council. “It’s extremely exciting to have organizations working together to find solutions for current challenges,” says Wooster.
During the three-month pilot program in Citrus Heights, which included six collection cycles, neatly 8,000 purple Energy Bags were collected; approximately three tons of non-recycled items diverted from landfills; and 512 gallons of synthetic crude oil produced from the conversion.
“There was a strong level of citizen participation, with 30% citizen participation in the pilot,” says Wooster. “The city’s leadership was enthusiastic in their support of the pilot program because they saw the value in the opportunity offered by this program to divert more materials from landfills, and 78% of citizens said they would be likely to participate if given another chance.”
The key result of the pilot program proved that non-recycled plastic items—like juice pouches, candy wrappers and plastic dinnerware—could be collected and converted into an energy resource.
The future energy benefits
The Energy Bag Pilot Program is just a first step towards changing the way the U.S. handles waste. “We will share the success of the pilot with the industry and other communities with the hope that municipalities and industry stockholders will adopt programs like Energy Bag to move the potential for large-scale plastics-to-energy conversion forward,” says Wooster.
In an effort to achieve this, Dow recently announced ambitious 2025 Sustainability Goals.
“The Energy Bag Pilot is a story about the power of collaboration—how companies, communities, organizations and everyday people can work together to make the changes the world wants to see—and that’s what we hope the industry takes away from this,” says Wooster.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) US Government Sets First Food Waste Reduction Goal

Sep 17, 2015 | Big News Network

In the first-ever national food waste reduction goal, United States has called for cutting food loss and waste by 50 percent over next 15 years.
Food loss and waste in the United States accounts for approximately 31 percent or 133 billion pounds of the overall food supply available to retailers and consumers, according to government estimates.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg Wednesday announced that the federal government will lead a new partnership with charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, the private sector and local, state and tribal governments to achieve the 2030 target to improve overall food security and conserve the nation's natural resources.
The announcement comes ahead of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York next week to address sustainable development practices, including sustainable production and consumption.
As the global population continues to grow, so does the need for food waste reduction.
"The United States enjoys the most productive and abundant food supply on earth, but too much of this food goes to waste. An average family of four leaves more than two million calories, worth nearly $1500, uneaten each year," said Vilsack.
"Our new reduction goal demonstrates America's leadership on a global level in getting wholesome food to people who need it, protecting our natural resources, cutting environmental pollution and promoting innovative approaches for reducing food loss and waste."
Food loss and waste is single largest component of disposed US municipal solid waste, and accounts for a significant portion of US methane emissions. Landfills are the third largest source of methane in the United States.
Experts have projected that reducing food losses by just 15 percent would provide enough food for more than 25 million Americans every year, helping to sharply reduce incidences of food insecurity for millions.
"Let's feed people, not landfills. By reducing wasted food in landfills, we cut harmful methane emissions that fuel climate change, conserve our natural resources, and protect our planet for future generations" said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
The food waste reduction campaign is part of efforts in recent years to educate consumers about food date labels and safe food storage, as well as partnerships with food companies to address food insecurity.
An estimated 14 percent of US households are considered food insecure they don't have enough food to sufficiently feed themselves.
Several food companies, including grocery chain Albertson's, grocery-delivery service FreshDirect and food services company Sodexo have expressed keenness to lend expressed their support Albertson's said that it's working to divert food to hunger-relief organizations and repurposing scraps and leftovers for things like animal feed.
Research has shown that common reasons for food waste include consumer concerns about eating fresh and safe food. But those use-by and sell-by dates on food packages can be misleading.
Sell-by dates are solely for the use of grocers to know how long to display a product for, while use-by dates refer to peak food quality, the USDA says. But once either date passes, it doesn't necessarily mean food is bad or unsafe to eat.
A survey by American Chemistry Council earlier this year revealed that most American households throw away about $640 worth of food every year.
Of the 1,000 adults who participated in the survey, most admitted scant concern about the environmental impact of trashed leftovers piling up in landfills. Around 76 percent admitted to throwing out left over or unused food articles at least once a month.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) PE Producers Make a Move on US Prices

Sep 17, 2015 | ICIS News

By Lane Kelley

US polyethylene(PE) producers appear to be following an old football proverb of the best defense being a good offense by attempting to raise prices in October, sources said on Thursday.
“They’re just trying to halt the slide,” a buyer said of proposals by Dow Chemical, Westlake and other producers to raise prices in October.
“That’s all defense,” a trader added of the proposed increases.
The slide for PE producers this year has brought three reductions in monthly contracts totaling 14 cents/lb – in January, February and August – and only one increase, of 5 cents/lb, in May.
And the consenus holds that the slide will continue inSeptember, with prices expected to go down by 4 cents/lb.
Prices reached historic highs in the second half of 2014 and then dropped with the plunge in oil prices, though the falloff in PE has been slowed by four months of prices rolling over.
Asian PE prices fell much lower because of the crude plunge and also have not recovered. With Asian prices now 10-20 cents/lb cheaper than most US PE grades, American producers have had little choice but to keep lowering prices rather than risk competition with imports.
Sources said producers who issued increases for July and August, which the market ignored, have recycled those measures for October.
“I’m hearing all the producers are doing that,” a trader said, adding that the tactic has prompted some customers to buy more material this month to avoid getting stuck with the October hike.
But most sources doubted that October PE increases will generate much, or any, acceptance next month.
“It’s hurricane insurance,” a trader said. “If one hits, they (the producers) already have them out there and can push the increases through immediately.”
US buyers say resin remains plentiful, supported by the latest industry figures from the American Chemistry Council that show estimates of PE inventory in August to be 55m lbs higher – roughly 25,000 tonnes more – than in July.
“The price just has to come down here,” a buyer said.
But the slide in PE prices hardly reflects a weakened industry.
A trader this week said PE plants had recently scaled back to where they are still running at more than 95% capacity.
Year to date PE data show healthy 4-8% production and sales increases for the two most popular grades (high density and linear low density PE). But what sticks out is the 27% increase in HDPE exports. In August, HDPE exports jumped almost 65%.
Another trader said the data reminded him of the first two rules of PE production.
“The first rule is: Run full-out; you’re making a lot of money,” the trader said. “The second rule is: Export what you can’t sell on the domestic market.”

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Study to Sort out Hurdles of Recycling Flexible Packaging

Sep 17, 2015 | Plastics News

By Catherine Kavanaugh

A new study aimed at keeping flexible packaging out of landfills and getting it through recycling centers, where it can be recovered like the glass and aluminum containers it is replacing, is bringing together brand owners, manufacturers and other industry leaders.
Flexible packaging is often blamed for gumming up the equipment at material recovery facilities (MRFs) so the initial phase of this first-of-its-kind study — called Materials Recovery for the Future — will monitor how these items move through sortation technologies, like screens and optical scanners, at recycling centers.
The test methodology developed by consulting group Resource Recycling Systems calls for adding a representative mix of the flexible packaging used by consumers — resealable food packages, soup and tuna pouches, pet food bags and snack bags — into a stream of recyclables going through the sorters. The amount of flexible packaging that is captured in the resulting bale then will be measured to determine the sorting effectiveness.
“We believe that data from this collaborative research will help us learn how to recover and divert more valuable resins from landfills,” Diane Herndon, sustainability manager for Nestle Purina PetCare Co., said in a news release.
Nestle USA, PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble are among the project sponsors along with Dow Chemical Co., Sealed Air, SC Johnson, the Association for Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, the Flexible Packaging Association and the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. The group’s goal is to enhance recovery solutions for flexible film and packaging using existing technologies.
The packaging is becoming increasingly more popular for a variety of reasons, according to Jeff Wooster, global sustainability director for Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics.
“Flexible packaging offers many benefits we take for granted,” Wooster said in the news release. “It typically uses less energy and materials than other packaging options, helps extend food shelf life and minimize spoilage, and reduces waste by preserving and protecting products until they are consumed. This new sortation research is critical in helping to close the recovery loop for flexible packaging and we are committed to this collaboration to drive solutions for increased recovery rates.”
The research will be a part of a series of projects to create a mainstream recovery system for flexible packaging using technology currently in place. The results are expected to be published in the second quarter of 2016.
A non-profit group called the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects, which was established by the American Chemistry Council, launched the Materials Recovery for the Future project. Newsletter Signup

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Textile Uses of Two Flame Retardants Need EPA Review

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers and processors that make, sell or import two similar forms of a flame retardant for use in consumer textiles must have the Environmental Protection Agency review of that intended use before proceeding, under a final significant new use rule the agency released online Sept. 17.
The rule (RIN 2070-AJ88) also affects companies importing “articles,” textiles and upholstered or similar textile-containing manufactured goods, if they are treated with the flame retardants hexabromocyclododecane (CAS No. 25637-99-4) and 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane (CAS No. 3194-55-6). The rule refers to both chemicals collectively as HBCD.
Importers may need to take additional steps to determine whether HBCD is part of the articles they are importing. The requirement would apply whether the article is intended for consumers or other purchasers, the rule said.
Motor Vehicle Uses Excluded
Floor mats and other textiles used in motor vehicles are exempted from the final rule, which will be effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The agency expects the rule to be published the week of Sept. 21.
The EPA proposed the new use rule March 26, 2012, (77 Fed. Reg. 17,386; .
Significant new use rules, or SNURs, require the EPA to be notified 90 days before a chemical is used in any way the rule designates as new. In this case, that means being used for consumer textiles or being contained in imported textiles or articles. That notification allows the EPA to review the proposed new use and determine whether controls are needed.
Flame Retardant Subject to Global Restrictions
The EPA issued the rule because HBCD can harm aquatic organisms and is considered a hazard to human health because of its reproductive toxicity and potential neurodevelopmental toxicity.
The use of HBCD is restricted globally as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) covered under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants treaty. Canada, Japan and other nations that are party to that treaty have proposed or issued regulations to implement those restrictions.
The United States is not a party to the Stockholm Convention. The international regulations, however, along with industry-wide practices restricting chemicals of concern, could make it easier for companies to know whether HBCD is in textiles or articles they import into the U.S., the EPA said.
‘Consumer Textile’ Definition Clarified
In response to public comment on its proposed rule, the EPA said the final rule clarifies its definition of “consumer textile.”
“Consumer textile means any cloth, fabric, or other item produced during a milling process for textiles (including spinning, weaving, knitting, felting, or finishing), that is sold or made available either as a product or as part of a product, to a private individual who uses it in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, during recreation, or for any personal use or enjoyment. Consumer textiles can include, but are not limited to, bolts of cloth and draperies, as well as textiles that are part of upholstered household furniture and mattresses,” the EPA final rule said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Pepsi Agrees to Lower Levels of Chemical in Drinks

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Lisa Helem

PepsiCo Inc. by Jan. 1, 2016, will ensure that soft drinks shipped for sale to California won't contain levels of an alleged potential carcinogen that exceed the state's safe threshold level under Proposition 65, according to a consent agreement between the Center for Environmental Health and the beverage maker (Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Pepsi Beverages Co., Cal. Super. Ct., No. RG 14-711020, 9/17/15).Within 10 days of the effective date of the agreement, PepsiCo also agreed to pay $385,000 as a settlement payment over the caramel-color additive.More than half of that amount is slated to go to the Center for Environmental Health (CEH). The balance is allocated for reimbursement of a portion of CEH's attorneys' fees and costs, according to the deal.Judge George C. Hernandez approved the agreement in a Sept. 17 ruling in the California Superior Court for Alameda County.The nonprofit environmental health group filed a January 2014 complaint against PepsiCo Inc. and Pepsi Beverages Co. (collectively “PepsiCo”) alleging that Pepsi products contain above-threshold levels of 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MeI, and that PepsiCo violated Prop 65 because it failed to warn consumers of “carcinogenic hazards associated with 4-MeI exposures.”The 4-MeI chemical is formed when caramel color used as an ingredient in certain soft drink products is heated or otherwise processed, according to a statement in the settlement on which the parties agreed.The threshold level of the chemical under Prop 65 is 29 micrograms per day, Charles Margulis, a CEH spokesman, said Sept. 17.Parties Agree to Stay Federal ActionElsewhere, parties agreed to stay a consolidated, proposed class action that makes similar allegations against PepsiCo and that is pending in a federal court in California.The parties agreed to stay the case through Dec. 14 while settlement talks proceed and to file a joint report on the status of settlement discussions no later than Nov. 9, according to a joint stipulation and proposed order filed Sept. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of California hasn't yet ruled on that filing.In June, the court ruled that a number of claims in the case could go forward, in Sciortino v. PepsiCo Inc., 2015 BL 178953 (N.D. Cal. 2015).Lexington Law Group represented the Center for Environmental Health.Arnold & Porter LLP represented PepsiCo Inc.

Return to headline | Return to top
ECHA Opens Hazardous Chemical Substitution Website

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Sept. 17 opened a new section of its website with information on the substitution of hazardous substances used in products and manufacturing processes with safer alternatives. The replacement of hazardous chemicals with substitutes that cause less damage to the environment and human health is one of the main objectives of the European Union's REACH regulation (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals). ECHA said its substitution Web pages included “business cases, videos and articles about the benefits of substitution from different perspectives including consumers, academia and companies.” The ECHA Web pages complement theSubstitution Support Portal, which nonprofit organizations including the International Chemicals Secretariat (ChemSec) established in 2012 to encourage substitution of hazardous substances (64 DEN A-7, 4/4/12). Peter Pierrou, ChemSec communications manager, told Bloomberg BNA that the ECHA substitution initiative was “something ChemSec really supports. The more organizations and institutions working to spread the message of substitution the better for everyone.” The ECHA substitution Web pages are available at http://bit.ly/1Kj44SU. The Substitution Support Portal ishttp://www.subsport.eu/.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) After Tianjin

Sep 18, 2015 | Chemistry World

By Mark Peplow

A fire rages out of control, lighting up the night sky above a shipping yard in the Chinese port city of Tianjin. Suddenly, an explosion shakes the ground and gouts of fire race upwards, chasing a mushroom cloud of dense smoke. It is already a disastrous conflagration, but there is more to come. Just 16 seconds later, another explosion creates a vast fireball that dwarfs the residential towerblocks nearby, raining thousands of flaming gobbets across the district. It takes several more seconds for the immense force of the blast to reach the eyewitness videoing the horrific scene. The denouement comes after another 30 seconds, as a third, even larger explosion pummels the eyewitness’s apartment and sends him fleeing for his life.
The Tianjin disaster on 12 August killed at least 160 people, injured more than 700 and destroyed buildings and cars for kilometres around. It is already clear that Rui Hai International Logistics, which owned the chemical storage warehouses responsible for the inferno, had grossly violated safety regulations; and that corruption involving Rui Hai employees and local officials had enabled those violations to go unpunished.
Tianjin starkly illustrates that such corruption, a widespread blight in China, can have deadly consequences. But chemical safety in China is not just a problem for the Chinese to deal with. It damages the reputation of the global chemical industry as a whole, and raises difficult questions for western companies that deal with Chinese chemical suppliers, and for anyone who buys products that rely on those chemicals. Terrifying tinderbox
Rui Hai’s 11-acre shipping yard contained about 700 tonnes of sodium cyanide, some 70 times more than it was authorised to store. It also housed 1300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate and potassium nitrate, along with 500 tonnes of magnesium and stocks of sodium metal, calcium carbide and more. This tinderbox was less than a kilometre away from a railway station and an apartment complex, far closer than regulations allow. And a lack of information about the chemicals stored there meant that firefighters were ill-prepared to tackle the blaze – they may have actually worsened the situation by dousing the site with water. Officials had apparently turned a blind eye to these transgressions. (It is probably no coincidence that one of Rui Hai’s founders is the son of the port’s security chief).
This is far from an isolated incident. At least three more major chemical explosions have occurred in China since Tianjin, according to media reports. And endemic corruption underlies countless examples of such regulatory failure: just think of the widespread contamination of milk products with melamine, for example, which sickened tens of thousands of babies. As Neal Langerman, a safety consultant at Advanced Chemical Safety in San Diego, California, told me: ‘Tianjin is a symptom of a systemic failure of China’s government to develop a culture that includes safety.’
The problem is not that China’s chemical safety laws are inadequate. Indeed, the state has been busily adopting regulations on manufacture and handling that are modeled on those used in the US and the EU. But these rules are often not enforced by China’s chemical industry, particularly at the plant development and planning stages.
Ultimately, it falls to China’s government to tackle corruption and clean up its chemical industry. But the global chemical industry, as well as chemists and educators in China, have a responsibility to help.Shared responsibility
China’s chemical industry must undergo a major culture change, and that could take a generation. So whether they study in Beijing or Boston, the Chinese students who will become the leaders of tomorrow’s industry must be trained to see process safety as a core part of their jobs, and to understand the dreadful consequences of flouting safety protocols.
And although Rui Hai is a logistics company, it is undoubtedly part of the international chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade body of the US chemical industry, states in its Responsible Care Product Safety Code that its members have a responsibility to ensure safety throughout the value chain, from manufacture and shipping to disposal. These companies could help to improve adherence to regulations in China by exerting economic pressure, refusing to trade with Chinese firms that do not have a verifiable safety record.
Most multinational chemical manufacturers also have bases in China that adhere to the same standards that EU or US regulators demand. In principle, these companies already provide an object lesson in how to run a safe operation, and they directly influence safety culture by properly training and monitoring Chinese employees. But managers at these facilities could do more to reach out to their counterparts in Chinese firms, offering assistance to help ensure their compliance with regulations. That needs a top-down push from chief executives to empower managers to begin having those conversations.
The ACC, along with other professional and trade bodies, could help that process by actively encouraging their members to share best practice and restate their safety expectations of commercial partners in China. One way to achieve that is through forums such as the Institution of Chemical Engineers’ Safety Centre, which opened in 2014 in Melbourne, Australia, and brings together chemical companies to pool their expertise and collaborate on solving safety problems.
The benefits of globalisation and international trade must go hand in hand with these shared responsibilities. When it comes to chemical safety, we’re all in this together.

Return to headline | Return to top
Advocates Fear Status Of EPA Small Business Review Suggests RMP Delay

Sep 17, 2015 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Advocates are raising concerns EPA may miss an announced September deadline for proposing revisions to its Risk Management Plan (RMP) industrial facility accident prevention program, noting a review of the rule's potential costs to small businesses has yet to begin, although an industry source says the review could occur after revisions are proposed.
For months, environmental, labor and public interest groups have urged EPA to speed issuing proposed revisions for the RMP program to ensure the changes are final before President Obama leaves office and not derailed by a future administration.
Now sources with the Center for Effective Government (CEG) and the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters (CPCD), which are pressing EPA to revise the RMP to require facilities use certain safety measures where feasible, say that the agency has not yet begun a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) of the proposed revisions, which suggests further delay is possible.
The review is "supposed to happen before EPA issues the proposed rule, so that's why I have been very concerned," a CEG source says. "It has significant implications about whether or not they get the rule out this month."
The source says CEG has asked EPA whether the review has started but has not received a response.
EPA announced in June that it would conduct an SBAR to consider potential costs of RMP revisions to small businesses and set a July 3 deadline for representatives of small businesses, governments and nonprofit organizations to apply for the panel.
But EPA's website, updated Aug. 21, shows the SBAR of EPA's plans for modernizing RMP is still listed as a "Potential SBAR Panel," which triggered the advocates' concern.
The agency website says the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires EPA to convene the panels for regulations that could have a potential adverse impact on small business.
In an email to Inside EPA, an agency spokeswoman confirmed the review has not yet begun, but declined to answer whether the SBAR must occur prior to the rule's release, and whether EPA will announce revisions in September, a deadline the agency announced in a notice published in the unified agenda late last year.
"EPA is proceeding with pre-panel activities for the RMP SBAR panel," the spokeswoman's email says. "Once the agency officially convenes the panel, EPA will update the website accordingly to indicate that the panel is underway."
SBAR Nominees
An industry source says EPA and the Small Business Administration (SBA) are currently weighing nominees to participate in the SBAR, and also consulting with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which is conducting a similar review of possible changes to its own facility safety rules.
Since the reviews of the RMP and OSHA rules will require many of the same experts, the industry source says federal officials are likely trying to figure out how to efficiently coordinate both processes.
EPA's overhaul of its RMP is part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama's executive order on improving the safety and security of industrial plants. Obama's Aug. 1, 2013, order tasks federal agencies with improving communication and coordination, and weighing new policies, rules and standards.
Federal officials outlined plans for implementing Obama's order in a June 6, 2014, report, "Executive Order 13650 Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security -- A Shared Commitment," which says EPA will begin modernizing the RMP program within one year, and will consider additional revisions in the coming years.
EPA took comment through October on a request for information (RFI) on strengthening RMP. The RFI suggests potentially sweeping changes to the rule, ranging from covering new chemicals and requiring new process safety analysis or review of past near-accidents, to scrapping the program in favor of a new approach.
The RMP rule currently requires facilities to report holdings of threshold levels of certain chemicals and to reduce the risk of their accidental release.
Advocates say that in revising RMP, EPA should require, where feasible, that companies use inherently safer technologies (IST), usually alternative chemicals or process changes, they say reduce the likelihood or consequences of an attack.
RMP Revisions
In meetings with agency officials and letters to Obama, advocates have argued that EPA is not moving fast enough to revise RMP to ensure changes are final before Obama leaves office.
Most recently, in a July 10 letter, advocates sought a meeting with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to press their call for the agency to use authority under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to require facilities to use IST where feasible, though the sources say they have not yet scheduled a meeting.
A source with CPCD says it is concerning that the small business review has yet to begin. "It could lead to a delay, which would be a serious threat to the success of any new regulations," the source says. "We met with [EPA] in February and said they need to expedite this process, but still the foot-dragging continues."
But the industry source says EPA, SBA and OSHA are working to avoid duplicate efforts since both reviews will likely involve many of the same outside experts. The source also says that EPA could issue proposed revisions at the same time it announces the panel's membership and begins the review, thereby avoiding further delay.
For the EPA review, "it may well be empaneled concurrently with the release of the proposed rule," the industry source says. "It's my understanding that OSHA and EPA and SBA representatives are trying to figure out, 'how do we make all of this work in the right way?'"

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) The Keys to Expanding Benefits of Pa.'s Shale-Energy Revolution

Sep 18, 2015 | Philly.com

By David Spigelmyer

Pennsylvania is at the forefront of America's energy revolution. As a result of our abundant shale resources, the United States has surpassed both Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's leading oil and natural-gas producer in 2014.
But what does that mean for manufacturers and small businesses here at home?
It's absolutely clear that safe shale development is stimulating new manufacturing opportunities, delivering for consumers, and creating environmental benefits, all while providing us with a reliable source of energy.
Numerous household goods are produced with clean-burning natural gas: cameras, footballs, batteries, life-sustaining medications, tape, computers, curtains, deodorant, air mattresses, bandages, ink. And homegrown shale gas has reduced home-heating and utility costs by half over the past several years.
Manufacturers are also regaining a competitive edge in the global marketplace and producing more "Made in U.S.A." goods once again. At the same time, new natural-gas power plants are being built - helping to create tens of thousands of construction and building-trade jobs - to keep our economy moving and our air clean.
With shale's benefits extending throughout the commonwealth, it was a natural fit for Philadelphia to host a world-class forum this week - Shale Insight 2015 - that was focused on further expanding these environmental, economic, and national security benefits.
In fact, not only do Philadelphia-area consumers benefit from natural-gas extraction in other corners of Pennsylvania, but the region plays a key - and growing - role in expanding natural-gas end-use opportunities.
For example, Delaware County's Marcus Hook Industrial Complex - and the countless hardworking families that rely on the facility for employment - is experiencing a complete transformation.
Sunoco Logistics' proposed Mariner East pipeline will deliver natural-gas liquids to Marcus Hook - a project that the Laborers' International Union of North America called a "lifeline to good union jobs with family-supporting pay." This project is expected to generate nearly $4.2 billion in economic activity, support 30,000 construction jobs, and produce nearly $62 million in tax revenues for the commonwealth, according to a recent Econsult Solutions study.
Beyond Marcus Hook, pipeline projects like Mariner East are critical to delivering shale's end-use benefits to commercial and consumer users. According to a Brookings Institution report, in fact, affordable natural-gas supplies have "improved the economic well-being of consumers by $74 billion per year." Additional consumer benefits will be realized as more natural gas is safely produced and moved to market.
Reliable and affordable natural-gas supplies - a key manufacturing feedstock - give Pennsylvania manufacturers a critical competitive advantage. The American Chemistry Council has stated that "shale development has reversed the fortunes of the U.S. plastics industry" and ensured that manufacturers are "re-shoring" jobs once lost to foreign nations with lower energy costs.
Our environment is improving due to greater natural-gas use, too. Federal government data shows that the nation's carbon dioxide emissions are at a 20-year low and power-generating emissions are at a 27-year low, all due in large part to clean-burning natural gas.
For consumers, building trades, manufacturers, and our environment, responsible shale development is delivering a stronger future for Pennsylvania, which will be closely watched as our industry matures and weathers these difficult global commodity market headwinds.
This week's dialogue at Shale Insight 2015, rooted in facts and science, was laser-focused on ensuring that the economic equation is right for our state and its citizens to maximize the broad-based benefits tied to this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Export Bill Passed, Clearing Way for Floor Action

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Sept. 17 to approve H.R. 702, legislation that would repeal the ban on most crude oil exports.
The 31-19 vote clears the way for consideration by the full House as soon as month's end. Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas), Kurt Schrader (D-Oregon) and Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-Calif.) crossed party lines to vote in support of the bill.
The legislation's passage came after the committee adopted an amendment by Green that would give the president authority to halt oil exports “in cases where it is not in our nation's best interest or poses a risk to national or economic security,” according to a summary. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
In a statement, Green said more amendments could be forthcoming when the bill reaches the floor.
“Any legislation that passes out of the House needs to be bipartisan and protect American jobs and families,” Green said in a statement after the vote. “Not only do we need the presidential protections we provided today, we need to have a process established at the Department of Commerce and provide opportunity for our maritime community.”
More Democrats Wanted
Committee passage of the legislation, which is supported by oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and Hess Corp., was widely expected, but how much Democratic support it would receive had been an open question, analysts said.
“We are going to reach out” to Democrats, Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told reporters after the vote.
“There are a lot of other Democrats on the committee that want to vote for this bill. The pressure from the environmental groups and some of the union groups is pretty intense,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the bill's author, told reporters after the vote. “We are going to keep talking to them.”
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the committee's ranking member, and other Democrats on the committee prior to the vote said factors related to the environment, consumer protection and the maritime shipping industry need to be considered before the 1970s-era export ban is lifted.
“We should take the long view to ensure we fully understand and consider the enduring consequences of our actions and choose the cleanest, most sustainable path forward,” Pallone said.
Ban Put in Place in 1975
The ban, which was put in place in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, doesn't apply to refined products such as gasoline and jet fuel and also makes exceptions for crude from Alaska and California and crude destined for Canada.
Proponents of lifting the ban say the trade prohibition is no longer relevant in the wake of booming U.S. oil production. Opponents include refiners such as Valero Energy Corp. The Energy Information Administration in an analysis projects the bill could reduce refiners' profits by $22 billion a year in 2025.

Return to headline | Return to top
Miles to Go for Crude Exports Push

Sep 18, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey

Crude exports backers notched another win yesterday with House Energy and Commerce Committee approval of a bill to end the longstanding ban, but the markup also offered a preview of some of the knots that must be untangled in getting the measure signed into law.
Just three Democrats joined Republicans in backing the bill (H.R. 702), although multiple Democrats suggested they're not philosophically opposed to the legislation if additional provisions are included (Greenwire, Sept. 17).
One such Democrat was Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who noted interest among Senate Democrats in a compromise to lift the export ban.
"I certainly hope that we can find a path for more conversations" as the bill moves to the floor, he said during yesterday's markup.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) made clear he was holding out his support until he receives assurances from industry leaders that they'll move to expand diversity in hiring and contracting practices.
Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), who voted for the bill, suggested to his Democratic colleagues that provisions to help renewables and fight climate change may be forthcoming in the Senate.
Bill sponsor Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said Democrats are becoming increasingly aware of the positive economic and geopolitical implications of lifting the ban.
"There are a lot of other Democrats on the committee that want to vote for this bill," he told E&E Daily after the markup. "The pressure from the environmental groups and some of the union groups is pretty intense, and I understand that. I don't want this to be political."
He said discussions with Democrats will continue.
"We're going to keep talking to them," Barton said. "We're not going to call names, we're not going to make this a partisan fight. We're just going to keep providing information and pointing out the facts, and I think on the floor, I can't tell you how many Democratic votes we're going to get, but it will be a substantial number."
Barton secured the support of one key Democrat -- Texas Rep. Gene Green -- by agreeing to support the oil patch lawmaker's amendment allowing the president to halt exports during emergencies.
Green said his agreement with Barton -- sealed the night before the markup -- addressed one concern about the bill's impact on refiners.
However, he told E&E Daily he's still concerned that Section 3 of the bill -- which states that "no official of the Federal Government shall impose or enforce any restriction on the export of crude oil" -- is "way overboard."
"I think before we get to the floor of the House, we'll add some more specificity there," Green said. "That's a commitment that the chairman told me."
Barton said Republicans will continue to discuss the issue but continued to draw a line in the sand over possible changes.
"We're always willing to improve the bill," he said. "I'm not going to accept things that take away from the basic market principle. You cannot have a lot of bureaucratic restrictions and expect to compete in the international marketplace. You have to leave that mechanism alone. But other than that, yes, we're open."Jones Act hurdle
Yesterday's markup also touched on another aspect of the exports debate that may pose challenges ahead -- the Jones Act.
The nearly 100-year-old law requires goods shipped within the United States to be moved on American-owned vessels crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. Export critics have suggested that lifting the export ban without accompanying changes to the Jones Act would put U.S. refineries at an economic disadvantage over their foreign competitors (E&E Daily, July 15).
To address the issue, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) offered an amendment requiring a U.S. Maritime Administration study of the effect of lifting the ban on oil transportation costs. But the amendment, co-sponsored by Green, was withdrawn after Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) protested that it was beyond the panel's jurisdiction.
Green expects the amendment to be included in the bill when it hits the floor, saying there were no objections from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
However, in a sign that the issue remains unresolved, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) this weekwrote Energy and Commerce Committee leaders to recommend that exports of oil and natural gas should be subject to Jones Act requirements.
"We can do much more for our national security by requiring that oil and LNG exports be on ships built in American shipyards and sailed under American flags by highly experienced officers and crews," wrote Garamendi, who sits on the Transportation and Armed Services committees, where support for the Jones Act runs deep.Deal?
While there's plenty of appetite for negotiating a deal to move the exports bill to the president's desk, those discussions still appear to be at an informal, preliminary stage.
"There have been conversations about how do we proceed with oil exports, and of course we watch what's going on with the House side," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told E&E Daily this week. "But have there been sit downs to say, 'OK, I've got this to trade with that?' No. Or if there have, I have not been advancing those."
However, Murkowski said she welcomes the interest in a deal.
"I have told everybody, anybody, 'Let's talk about this, let me give you my case as to why we need full-on repeal, just completely pull this ban back. And you talk to me, let's have that,'" she told E&E Daily. "So that's what I'm encouraging right now."
Asked about the prospect of bringing renewable tax credits into the mix -- as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has suggested -- Barton said that was a decision "above my pay grade."
But he said he saw room for negotiations even in White House press secretary Josh Earnest's comments this week opposing his bill (E&ENews PM, Sept. 15).
"I would have rather the president enthusiastically endorse Congressman Barton-Cuellar's bill," Barton said, referencing his lead Democratic co-sponsor, Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar. "He didn't do that. He didn't say he was going to veto it. He said he'd rather do it through the Commerce Department. They want to do it in a more bureaucratic way. We want to do it in a market-oriented efficient way. So there's a deal to be made there."
Barton also noted his legislation has many more stops on its way to the president's desk.
"I think it gives the president some leverage and negotiating room, and we're going to go to the floor, and the Senate's going to act on it, and there will probably be a conference committee between the House and the Senate, and of course in the caucus the president's going to be engaged," he said.
But one key House Democrat -- New Jersey's Rep. Frank Pallone, the ranking member on Energy and Commerce -- signaled yesterday that he's dug in against the bill.
"The problem here is that Republicans are not willing to just deal with the administration," he said after the markup, noting that the administration has authority to allow exports, which it has exercised in recent months. "I don't think it's necessary. I don't think the bill is necessary because the Obama administration is allowing more and more exports when they think it's appropriate given those guidelines. So I don't know if we can get to the point where the bill is acceptable to Democrats."

Return to headline | Return to top
Democratic Amendment Signals More Possible Changes to Oil Export Bill

Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Elana Schor

The House Democrat who on Thursday successfully added an amendment to a GOP bill repealing the ban on crude oil exports says his may be only the first tweak to the measure before it gets a vote on the floor.
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) threw his support behind the oil-export bill that cleared the Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday after its Republican author agreed to add language giving the White House authority to reimpose restrictions on foreign sales of U.S. crude in the event of an emergency. And Green suggested in an interview that he isn't done mulling safeguards that might be added, telling POLITICO that he would turn back against the bill if he doesn't think the final product lets the nation "manage reasonably exporting crude oil."
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) authored the bill that would repeal most restrictions on oil exports, but Green's amendment added back a presidential layer of review in case of emergency, and he said further changes might be made before the bill reaches a floor vote that GOP leaders are planning in the next few weeks.
"Someone needs to mind the store," Green said. "[I]f we’re exporting a lot of crude we’re producing, someone needs to look at it from a national interest point of view."
Any changes Green and Republicans agree to make to the export bill would offer an additional political benefit to the oil industry by creating an opening for the White House to reverse its current opposition to the House legislation. That opposition stems from its resistance to the effort to remove Commerce's long-standing authority to review applications for crude export exemptions.
Yet changing the House bill also could peel off support from industry executives and conservatives who want to see the export ban repealed without caveats. One lobbyist tracking the issue pointed to the two-track review process for proposals to export liquefied natural gas, which would represent a stark contrast with the speedy process for exporting crude if Barton's bill becomes law.
"I'm not sure there's a reason for oil to be expedited" while LNG export projects must still go through review processes at both the Energy Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the lobbyist said.
As for industry opposition to extra reviews being added to the House bill, he added, crude producers would agree that "being allowed to export oil pursuant to a sensible regulatory process is preferable to the status quo."

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Fight Led to Bill's Postponement

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

A fight over power grid reliability language that could require the use of more coal and a provision that would bar the Energy Department from participating in the development of energy efficiency building codes were among the reasons a broad House energy bill was pulled from markup, lawmakers and lobbyists told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 17.
Other hang-ups remaining over H.R. 8 include whether to include a provision, opposed by committee Democrats, that would repeal a 2007 law requiring that all new and significantly renovated federal buildings phase out the use of fossil energy by 2030, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, told Bloomberg BNA.
“At this point we can't get the Democrats to agree to any one of the two or three things we view as important,” Whitfield said. “We've bent over backwards.”
The legislation, which would streamline the federal siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines and allow the Energy Department to take certain measures during “grid security emergencies,” was abruptly postponed from consideration on the eve of a House Energy and Commerce Committee markup scheduled for Sept. 17 (180 DEN A-18, 9/17/15).
Whitfield and others said they hoped to have the bill before the committee in the next few weeks, possibly by the end of September.
Its delay comes amidst ongoing negotiations between minority and majority members of the committee.
Clean Power Plant Provision
“We were moving too fast, we didn't really have any input,” Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Power Subcommittee, told Bloomberg BNA.
The reliability language, which is being championed by Whitfield in response to Environmental Protection Agency regulations on power plants, would require state regulatory authorities to consider “policies to ensure that each such electric utility incorporates sufficient baseload generation into its integrated resource plan,” according to legislative text.
Baseload power sources include coal and nuclear energy, according to the bill
“EPA has been overly aggressive in the [Clean Power Plan], and most experts say it is affecting reliability down the road,” Whitfield said. “It's about requiring continuous fuel for power. You can't be totally reliant on intermittent electricity, so that's what this reliability section is about.”
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), finalized in August, sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based targets for the power sector in each state, but it tasks state regulators with developing plans to meet the targets.
DOE's Role ‘Eviscerated.'
Democrats also are opposed to a provision led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and backed by groups such as the National Association of Home Builders and the American Gas Association that would limit the federal government's role in setting energy building codes.
The provision, which was stripped from an earlier version of the bill, “eviscerated DOE's historic role” in developing building codes by barring it from participating in steps related to their development, evaluation and adoption, Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington-based nonprofit, previously testified before the committee (84 DEN A-14, 5/1/15).
The provision also would weaken the certification process for state code submissions to the point where it would be “essentially an ‘automatic' certification by DOE regardless of whether or not efficiency criteria are met,” Callahan added.
Still Lack Agreement
“We still don't have an agreement on some important provisions,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the committee's top Democrat told reporters. “We agreed we would only do the bill if we had agreement, and we still have work to do.”
While Republicans on the committee have the votes to pass the legislation, committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has sought bipartisan support for the legislation. This will likely be his last chance at a broad energy bill before he is required to give up the gavel at the end of this congressional session because of Republican rules limiting how long a single representative can serve as chair of a committee.
“The conundrum that Upton is facing is he has some red meat Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee,” an energy lobbyist tracking the bill told Bloomberg BNA. “Basically what it came down to is Upton could have a nothing burger bill that would result in a fight on the House floor over amendments. Upton clearly feels he's got to wait until he's got these negotiations completed.”
A committee spokesman said work on the bill was ongoing.
“Energy policy is complex and the committee remains committed to carefully balancing the needs of the members and issues involved,” Dan Schneider said in an e-mail. “We launched this process over a year ago and while we have made great strides we need a little more time as negotiations continue.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Bill Stalls as Time Runs Short

Sep 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Darren Goode

An ambitious bipartisan energy package stalled in the House on Thursday, caught between Democrats desire for stronger climate change language and conservative Republicans’ effort to derail the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.
It remains to be seen whether the energy bills crafted in the House and Senate this year can make it to the floor of either chamber, and sponsors aren't making any promises. In the House, negotiations are stuck where they have been for months, and one of the energy bill's key architects is nearly ready to abandon the push for a bipartisan deal.
“Well, we’ve been doing that for three, four weeks now and it’s pretty obvious that these areas that we consider so important so far they’re not moving on,” Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said. “We’re going to pass a bill. It’s either with them or without them.”
If the House energy bill were to pass with mostly Republican votes, it would become more difficult to maintain sufficient support in the upper chamber and to avoid a presidential veto threat. Meanwhile, the 2016 campaigns are kicking into high gear, and more pressing items are crowding the legislative calendar, including the need to pass a new spending bill this month and raise the debt limit later in the fall.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee punted plans to mark up its four-part energy bill Thursday as both Chairman Fred Upton and ranking member Frank Pallone said they are trying to keep a promise to one another to preserve bipartisan compromise. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee advanced a companion bill before the August recess, but no floor time has been set aside for it.
"It is ready to go on the floor as soon as floor time opens up," said Robert Dillon, spokesman for Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski. "There’s a lot of stuff stacked up before the end of the year."
While the Senate bill emerged from committee with bipartisan support, House Democrats are seeking significant changes to the lower chamber's version, which sailed out of Whitfield’s subcommittee this summer with the understanding that both sides would need to flesh it out more before it hits the full panel. Pallone said panel Democrats need the bill to better address energy efficiency and infrastructure improvements, among other requests, to help the energy sector reduce its carbon footprint, with the understanding that Republicans do not want language specifically targeting climate change.
“Obviously, they don’t want to use the term climate change but if we can address some significant efficiency and infrastructure issues, I think they’ll have a positive impact on reducing greenhouse gasses,” the New Jersey Democrat told reporters. “So you call it what you’d like.”
Democrats want “to make this a more robust bill and we still don’t have an agreement on some important provisions,” Pallone added.
Whitfield said it was Democrats who refused to compromise on GOP priorities, including strengthening FERC's ability to determine whether EPA rules threaten electric reliability and reducing the federal government's ability to influence state and local building codes. He said the issues were all relatively minor.
“It’s everything that we want. We’ve given them what they want. But they’re not willing to give us anything,” Whitfield told reporters. “Every time you talk it’s about climate change. It’s the number one issue facing mankind according to Barack Obama.”
Upton, meanwhile, may have to fight off other Republican attempts to add amendments that could threaten Democratic support or provoke a White House veto threat.
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) is peddling an amendment that would require the Energy Department to study the effects of EPA ozone and renewable fuel regulations. He offered and then withdrew it Thursday when the energy committee marked up a separate bill to lift the 40-year-old crude oil export ban.
“We’ll find the right spot, I’m fine with this not being the right spot,” the Kansas Republican told POLITICO, referring to the export bill. “The broad bill might fit better. … I think most members agree but we’ll see.”
Pompeo spokeswoman Caroline Taylor added in an email that he is "looking at all options" and has "multiple amendments drafted for when we do take up" the energy bill. "And we'll make strategic decisions on which ones to offer when we get to that point," she said.
Still, Upton and Pallone Thursday pledged to try to barrel through the energy bill, which would represent a bipartisan compromise that has eluded lawmakers for at least eight years — even if it still is taking a bit longer than expected.
“We’re still talking but we weren’t quite ready to go today,” said Upton, who will be term-limited from serving as energy chairman again next Congress. “It’s still on our front plate.”
The Michigan Republican said Barton's oil export bill will come to the House floor before the energy bill. He didn’t give a timeline for moving the bigger bill through committee.
Whitfield — who may be flexing his conservative muscles as he gears for a run to succeed Upton as full committee chairman — distanced himself from Upton when asked whether the chairman supported his wish list for the bill. “I don’t know you’ll have to talk to him about it. But as subcommittee chairman, this is my position,” Whitfield said.
Pallone also was not sure how quickly the bill could move. “It’s hard to say; we’ll see if we can do it in another week or so,” he said. When asked whether it would happen this year, he said, “Oh yeah, this is something that we’re trying to do as quickly as we can.”
“We’ll figure it out,” he added.

Return to headline | Return to top
No Appetite for EPA Head's Impeachment in Senate

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

Republicans in the Senate strongly oppose Environmental Protection Agency regulations being developed under Administrator Gina McCarthy, but they aren't supporting an effort by some in the House to impeach her, senators said Sept. 16 and 17.
“I think she's doing a terrible job, but I think at the end of the day the responsible person for those policies is the president of the United States, not the EPA administrator,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the Senate Republican leadership, told Bloomberg BNA. “So, I don't expect to see much happen on that.”
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) introduced articles of impeachment (H. Res. 417) against McCarthy on Sept. 11 with the support of 20 other House Republicans for alleged perjury committed during congressional testimony on a Clean Water Act regulation.
More than a dozen observers, including former Republican aides and experts in impeachment, previously said Gosar's effort wouldn't succeed even if it garnered modest Senate Republican support (178 DEN A-1, 9/15/15).
Impeachment would be a two-step process. First, a majority of House members would need to pass articles of impeachment and then two-thirds of the Senate would have to convict that official to force removal. Just one Cabinet-level official has ever been successfully impeached—in 1876—and he resigned before the Senate acted.
House Won't Act
A senior House aide said Sept. 17 the chamber was unlikely to act on Gosar's resolution. Matt Sparks, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Bloomberg BNA, “There is no plan to impeach Gina McCarthy.”
Senate Republicans emphasized how much they objected to McCarthy's regulatory efforts, but none of the nearly dozen senators voiced support for Gosar's tactics.
“That's not the tactic I'd take,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told Bloomberg BNA. “I don't agree with her, I don't like what's she doing to my state, but she's the president's appointee and I think that's his prerogative.”
The office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), one of the agency's biggest critics, didn't respond to several requests for comment.
Other senators said they were not familiar with the allegations leveled against the administrator but said their focus remained on broader institutional problems like transparency and accountability at the EPA.
Sullivan Raises Leadership Issue
“Leadership begins at the top,” Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) told Bloomberg BNA. “To me, agency actions have to be authorized by Congress or by statute. They are the poster child of an agency that doesn't abide by that core function of our government. I have a lot of concerns about them.”
Still, Sullivan said he would continue to focus on EPA oversight and did not voice support for Gosar's impeachment push.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA to Publish Oil, Gas Methane Standards

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

The Environmental Protection Agency will accept comments until Nov. 17 on a proposal to set the first performance standard for methane emissions from new oil and gas wells. The EPA will publish the proposed new source performance standard (RIN 2060-AS30) in the Federal Register Sept. 18. The EPA estimates its proposal will reduce emissions of methane—a potent but short-lived greenhouse gas—by between 340,000 short tons and 400,000 short tons by 2025. The standards are projected to cost the industry between $320 million and $420 million. Along with the performance standards, the EPA will also publish a proposed rule (RIN 2060-AS06) on when oil and gas facilities should be aggregated for permitting purposes as well as a proposedfederal implementation plan (RIN 2060-AS27) for minor emissions sources on Indian lands. The EPA released the proposed rules Aug. 18 (160 DEN A-1, 8/19/15).

Return to headline | Return to top
Draft EPA 'Aggregation' Policy Prompts Criticism From Industry, Advocates

Sep 18, 2015 | Inside EPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA's draft rule to determine when oil and gas sector emissions must be "aggregated," or combined, for Clean Air Act permitting purposes is drawing criticism from industry sources who question the tests the agency will use to decide aggregation and from advocates who say the rule could allow some operations to avoid aggregation.
The agency's Aug. 18 proposed source determination rule includes two options for determining when sources are "adjacent" and therefore considered as a single source and subject to aggregation under one permit. One option is a controversial "functional interrelatedness" factor that would lead to more aggregation than current policy, and the second is a more conservative "physical proximity" test that EPA says is its preferred option.
Whether facilities are aggregated is a concern for industry because combining sources can push their total emissions over the threshold for stricter "major" air permits rather than weaker "minor" source permits.
EPA says the proposal, which is slated for publication in the Sept. 18 Federal Register, would clarify how properties in the sector are determined to be adjacent in order to assist permitting authorities and permit applicants in making consistent source determinations in the prevention of significant deterioration and new source review programs. The regulation is the result of lengthy litigation over agency headquarters and regional office policies on aggregation.
EPA says its "preferred option" is the approach based on physical proximity. Under this aggregation test, the agency is proposing to define "adjacent" in terms of proximity as sources separated by a distance of one quarter mile or less.
The agency appears to have done "really an about face from what the Obama EPA has touted for so long," says one industry source, because it now appears to backing the more conservative approach to determine aggregation long supported by the sector. "After this huge fight, it seems like EPA is capitulating the whole thing." The physical proximity test is industry's preferred option because it provides a "bright line test," the source says.
A second industry source says of the physical proximity test that, "It's our preference and how it's been implemented for years. I don't think the agency can ignore that in the proposed rule."
In addition to the industry-favored physical proximity test, EPA is also taking comment on an alternative option to define "adjacent" by either proximity or if it is "exclusively functionally interrelated."
The agency says, "Exclusive functional interrelatedness might be shown by connection via a pipeline or other means, because of the physical connection between the equipment." For example, EPA says, exclusive delivery of product from one group of equipment to the other via truck or train and facts such as whether one group of equipment would be able to operate if the other group of equipment was not operating.
'Adjacency' Determinations
"The EPA and states would make a determination of adjacency based on a consideration of the interrelatedness of emitting activities in addition to the distance between them," the proposed rule says. Therefore, sources would be considered adjacent if they are separated by a distance of one quarter mile or more and there is an exclusive functional interrelatedness; or if they are separated by distance of one quarter mile or less.
By highlighting the physical proximity option as the preferred approach, EPA appears to be stepping away from allowing adjacency to be defined by solely functional interrelatedness -- a test first detailed in a 2009 memo from then-agency air chief Gina McCarthy to determine whether to combine emissions from dispersed oil and gas operations for permitting purposes. The memo said EPA assesses whether facilities are contiguous or adjacent; whether they are in common control; and whether they are part of the same industrial grouping.
McCarthy's memo revoked an earlier Bush-era memo by then-acting air chief William Wehrum stressing that proximity was the most important factor to determining adjacency. Industry groups sued over the memo in litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling in Summit Petroleum v. EPA., which essentially revived the Wehrum memo's focus on proximity in states covered by the court.
The 6th Circuit in 2012 rejected EPA's efforts to use an informal policy memo to codify the functional interrelatedness test, saying that unless the test was codified in EPA regulations, adjacency must be determined based solely on physical proximity, which is less likely to trigger aggregation.
EPA's rule includes as one option the functional interrelatedness test, which the first industry source says "does not work in the oil and gas context" because so many disparate sources on oil and gas development sites are connected by pipelines, resulting in sources being aggregated that should be considered separately.
The proposed rule would retain the three main factors EPA has long used in determining whether to aggregate: whether facilities are under common control, whether they are part of the same industrial grouping, and whether they are contiguous or adjacent. A third industry official cautions that the approach could have unintended consequences by potentially requiring sources with no relationship to one another to be considered as a single source. But other sources say EPA would still have to consider the other two factors: common control and industrial grouping.
Environmentalists' Concerns
Environmentalists who have long pushed EPA to codify the functional interrelatedness test in a formal rule welcome the existence of the proposal, but are identifying what they see as several flaws.
An environmentalist cautions however that "what's missing in EPA's proposed rule is an assessment of what 'adjacent' should mean in the context of protecting clean air." Specifically, EPA mentions air quality protection but makes clear that the majority of protections will be achieved through the new source performance standards and air toxics rules. "That makes sense, but these programs only go so far," the source says.
Among the flaws in the rule, the source says the quarter-mile test is "completely arbitrary" and argues EPA should instead craft an "approach that makes interrelatedness the primary means of assessing adjacency," where an activity that is "dependent on another in any way, it should be considered interrelated and aggregated."
The environmentalist also says that the "exclusive" functional interrelationship approach EPA outlines in the proposed rule is "a bit extreme" because it would only require aggregation if pollutant emitting activities are 100 percent dependent on each other for their operation. "We've challenged this approach in the past," the source says. The environmentalist cites a 2010 permit challenge to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) in In re:BP America Production Company, Florida River Compression Facility, in which environmental groups challenged EPA Region 8's finding that adjacency was not established due to a lack of "exclusive or dedicated interrelatedness."
The groups argued in the suit, which was later settled, that "Although EPA has held on numerous occasions that pollutant emitting activities should be considered adjacent based on their interrelatedness, in this case, EPA took the relationship between interdependency and adjacency to an absurdly extreme end."
Since the EAB suit, Region 8 has been offering similar rationale in its permitting, but has slowed down its permits, at least under Title V, "in large part because of the uncertainty around this issue," the source says.

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Senators Move to Overturn Obama’s Water Rule

Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Nearly the entire Senate Republican caucus sponsored legislation Thursday that would overturn the Obama administration’s regulation asserting its authority over streams and wetlands.
The resolution, led by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), takes advantage of the Congressional Review Act, which gives lawmakers a streamlined method to block regulations.
The senators complain that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waters of the United States rule, which was made final in May, greatly expands the federal government’s authority over waterways and land that has been under private or state control.
“This ill-conceived rule ignores the thoughtful comments and serious concerns raised by farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and small businesses across the county,” Ernst said in a statement.
“Furthermore, its expanded definition causes confusion, uncertainty and unnecessary red tape. Simply put, this one size fits all method is the wrong approach that puts our agriculture community at a disadvantage.”
Forty-six senators had signed on as co-sponsors as of late Thursday.
In order to block the rule, the House would also have to pass a disapproval resolution and President Obama would have to sign it — an unlikely scenario, given the high stakes of the regulation.
The Obama administration has argued that the rule is necessary to clarify protections under the Clean Water Act for headwaters, ponds, small streams, wetlands and other small bodies of water.
The regulation took effect last month, but a federal judge in North Dakota blocked it for 13 states while legal challenges are being worked through.

Return to headline | Return to top
Eleven House Republicans Introduce Climate Resolution

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

Eleven House Republicans, led by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), introduced a resolution (no number) Sept. 17 to promote “economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address” the impacts of climate change.
The resolution does not specifically address the role of human activity in contributing to climate change but says “there is increasing recognition that we can and must take meaningful and responsible action now to address this issue.”
“All too often, the conversation about appropriate and balanced environmental stewardship gets caught up in partisan politics,” Gibson said in a statement. “I believe the most important first step forward is recognizing that this is also a fundamentally conservative issue, and finding common ground on how to address it.”
Joining Gibson are Republican Reps. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Patrick Meehan (Pa.), Michael Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Ryan Costello (Pa.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Frank LoBiondo (N.J.).
Bloomberg BNA first reported the group's plans to introduce the resolution on Sept. 15 (179 DEN A-2, 9/16/15).
‘Very Good Start.'
What impact the resolution may play remains unknown, but many observers said it was an important first step in kick-starting the long-stalled debate over climate change solutions in Congress.
“We're going to need bipartisan leadership on this issue and this is a very good start,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a leading advocate of strong action on climate change, told reporters.
Former Republican Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), now executive director of the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, which advocates for free enterprise solutions to climate change, told Bloomberg BNA the resolution was “great to see,” because it will push the House to more openly discuss the issue.
“What's happening here is the leadership of these 11 folks will begin, in the House, a conversation about solutions,” Inglis said. “They are bringing on the solutions conversation that can actually get us somewhere.”
House Democrats thanked the small group of Republicans ready to discuss solutions to climate change, but said they were “disappointed” so many in the Republican caucus continue to deny the how significantly human activity contributes to the problem.
‘Courageously Stood Up.'
“I applaud this small group of my Republican colleagues who have courageously stood up for the planet and for our role in protecting it,” Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Safe Climate Caucus, said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA.
“I hope that the bold leadership of these 11 Republicans and of Pope Francis in his call for environmental action can finally give the political cover for forward movement by other members of the Republican caucus who I know agree with this resolution but are hesitant to make waves within their party or upset their fossil fuel industry campaign donors,” Lowenthal continued.
Environmental groups, too said the resolution's introduction was a “welcome step.”
“We hope this coalition's efforts spark a substantive discussion in the Republican caucus about actually acknowledging that climate disruption is caused by humans and tackling it with all the speed that is required to protect our communities and our families,” Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA in a statement.
Skepticism of Resolution's Impact
Others said the makeup of the lawmakers, who hail from moderate or swing districts, indicates the resolution may have more political motivations.
“This is a tiny minority of the House Republican caucus, just as, ultimately, the number of Republicans from truly competitive general election districts is also a minority of the caucus,” Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan political newsletter produced by the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told Bloomberg BNA. “[The Sept. 16] Republican debate was a better barometer of where the party is on climate change.”
All of the 11 members associated with the resolution either represent districts that Obama won or Republican nominee Mitt Romney just barely won in 2012, according to Kondik. There are just 26 House Republicans currently representing districts won by Obama in 2012, meaning the resolution's supporters are some of the most moderate Republicans in the House.

Return to headline | Return to top
Many Large Companies Obstructing Climate Policy: Report

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Eckhouse

Almost half of the world's 100 largest companies, including Procter & Gamble Co. and Duke Energy Corp., are “obstructing climate change legislation,” according a study released Sept. 16.
The study, released by the London-based nonprofit group InfluenceMap, evaluated companies’ public statements and membership in trade groups, and said that corporations have a significant impact on policy that is often hard to track.
“More and more, we're seeing companies rely on their trade groups to do their dirty work of lobbying against comprehensive climate policies,” Gretchen Goldman, an adviser to InfluenceMap, and the lead analyst for the Center for Science & Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, said in a statement. “Companies get the delay in policy they want, while preventing nations from acting to fight climate change.”
InfluenceMap released the study a week before world leaders including Pope Francis are scheduled to meet in New York for the United Nations general assembly, where climate change is expected to be one of the main topics. Less than three months later, more than 190 nations are sending envoys to Paris for UN-organized climate negotiations. After years of talks, this meeting is expected to end with a binding pact to limit carbon emissions.
Positive Influencers
Google Inc., Unilever NV and Cisco Systems Inc. were listed as having the most positive influence among the 100 companies measured. Google plans to triple its purchases of renewable energy over the next decade.
Duke, the largest U.S. utility owner by market value, was given an F grade. Procter & Gamble received an E-.
Procter & Gamble, which hadn't seen the study, has “made meaningful progress in reducing our own emissions and have signed on to broader calls to action,” Julie Desylva, a spokeswoman in Cincinnati, said in an e-mail. “With many associations there will be diverse points of view, and we will not agree with positions taken by each association on every issue.”
Procter & Gamble plans to cut the greenhouse gas emissions produced from its facilities by 30 percent by 2020 to minimize their impact on climate change. The company, maker of Bounty paper towels and Pampers diapers, will focus on energy conservation and renewable energy use, according to a statement.
InfluenceMap evaluated statements and messages that companies—and trade associations with which they are affiliated—have disseminated on their websites and through social media, such as Twitter. The nonprofit is backed by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
Duke criticized this methodology.
Environmental Policies
“We question the credibility of a report that appears to compile an Internet search to mischaracterize the company's position and our real work to lower our carbon footprint,” said Paige Sheehan, a spokeswoman in Charlotte, N.C. “We take an active role to support environmental policies that will result in reasonable decreases in greenhouse gas emissions that balance the impact to customer rates and reliability.” She said that Duke had replaced 40 coal-fired plants with ones that burn natural gas.
Some of the graded companies have revealed little about their roles and positions on climate change policy. “We'd expect that their political advocacy on climate change would match their actions,” said Thomas O'Neill, research director at InfluenceMap. “We expect sustainability leaders to take political advocacy positions in the lead-up to Paris.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Biden: U.S., China Must Show Will to Cut Emissions

Sep 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

The U.S. and China must show the world they have “the will and capacity” to achieve the carbon emissions reduction targets included in the joint agreement signed last November, Vice President Joe Biden said Sept. 17 in Los Angeles.
Speaking at the close of a two-day climate summit in Los Angeles, Biden said the two nations need to pave the way for an ambitious, effective and durable global agreement to emerge from the Paris climate talks this fall.
“As the world's two largest economies and biggest emitters, the U.S. and China have an overwhelming self-interest as well as shared interest and shared responsibility to lead the world,” Biden said in remarks closing the Sept. 15-16 U.S.-China Climate Leaders Summit.
For others to follow, “we have to engage all levels of governments—our cities, our states, our provinces as well as the private sector to reduce emissions,” he said. “We have to work together and find solutions and lead the world in setting achievable targets ahead of the UN climate conference in December.”
The two-day summit and Biden's address come a week before Chinese President XI Jinping's meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington.
Biden cited the emissions reductions pledges made by cities, states and other local jurisdictions in both countries announced at the Los Angeles summit as the type of cooperative efforts needed to develop solutions to address climate change and spur global action (179 DEN A-17, 9/16/15).
Protecting Trade Secrets
The vice president also stressed the importance of information- and technology-sharing agreements, like the one the U.S. has with China, in helping other countries curb carbon emissions.
Biden said he and Obama will do everything possible to support such partnerships.
“Our joint efforts generate so many possibilities,” Biden said of the bilateral partnership between the U.S. and China.
“Our leadership is vital in achieving a successful global climate agreement in Paris,” Biden said. “But we must reach an agreement that is ambitious, effective and drives down global emissions.”
All countries must step up to the plate, Biden said.
A successful climate agreement must include provisions to ensure transparency and accountability and articles that are durable and dynamic enough to adapt as the world and its economies change, he said.
Also, the global agreement must protect the intellectual property and trade secrets of the private businesses that will be developing the technologies and tools to reduce carbon emissions, Biden said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Clinton: Keystone Position Coming 'Soon'

Sep 18, 2015 | The Hill - Briefing Room

By Jesse Byrnes

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday night that she would announce her long-expected position on the Keystone XL pipeline "soon.”
“I have been waiting for the administration to make a decision,” Clinton said during a town hall in New Hampshire, according to multiple reports.
“I can't wait too much longer. And I am putting the White House on notice. I am going to tell you what I think soon because I can’t wait," Clinton said.
Clinton has repeatedly declined to weigh in on the controversial pipeline, citing her involvement working on the project as secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Environmental activists and Democratic rivals such as former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley have dinged Clinton for not expressing a position on the proposed pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
"If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question," Clinton said during a town hall in July. Later that month, she again declinedto voice her position.
“No other presidential candidate was secretary of State when this process started, and I put together a very thorough, deliberative, evidence-based process to evaluate the environmental impact and other considerations of Keystone,” Clinton said during an Iowa speech on climate change.
O'Malley said after those comments that "real leadership means forging public opinion" and "I know where I stand on Keystone XL."
The White House denied in late August that a decision was near on the controversial pipeline, saying the State Department is still reviewing the application nearly seven years after the Canadian company applied for permits to build across America's northern border.

Return to headline | Return to top
Clinton: I'll Give My Keystone Pipeline Opinion 'Soon'

Sep 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Annie Karni

Hillary Clinton again refused to state her position on the Keystone XL pipeline Thursday at the beginning of a three-day swing through New Hampshire, but she promised to voice her opinion on it “soon.”
“Keystone Pipeline, one of my favorite issues,” Clinton said when asked about the proposed oil pipeline at a friendly town hall here in the first-in-the-nation primary state, where she is seeking to regain her polling lead over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “I have been waiting for the administration to make a decision … I can’t wait too much longer. I’m putting the White House on notice, I’m going to tell you what I think — soon.”
The contentious pipeline project is still under review at the State Department, and Clinton has said for months that because the process was started under her watch, she should not “second guess” President Barack Obama’s eventual decision. Her refusal to say whether she supports approving or rejecting the pipeline has been criticized from both sides as a lack of leadership on an important issue to the Democratic Party’s grassroots.
The Keystone question was lobbed at Clinton at the end of what devolved into a lightning-round town hall at the Boys and Girls Club, where attendees shouted out the general topic of their questions — immigration, autism, Russian President Vladimir Putin, climate change, and more — with Clinton offering a quick-fire round of answers that did not probe much deeper than what she says in her stump speech.
The evening event — Clinton’s second of the day — was attended by many New Hampshire voters who said they were deciding between Clinton and Sanders for the Democratic nomination. By the end, she appeared eager to tick off quick hits on national and international issues rather than engage in longer back-and-forth discussions that some attendees had been anticipating.
Clinton had already listened a lot throughout a day that kicked off with a discussion about substance abuse in Laconia, a picturesque city between two lakes where the community has struggled with pervasive problems of drug and alcohol addiction. She was joined by Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has become a choice endorsement from Sanders' home state for Clinton to tout in neighboring New Hampshire (where Sanders is leading Clinton by 7 points, 43 percent to 36 percent, in a Monmouth Poll released earlier this week).
The morning discussion and setting could not have provided a starker contrast with Clinton’s Wednesday night appearance on “The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon,” where she gamely poked fun at Donald Trump and herself, part of a recent charm offensive in an attempt to show off a softer side. But at the sober event with grieving parents and recovering addicts, Clinton was somber again as attendees poured out their personal stories.
Two mothers shared stories of losing their sons — one to a drug overdose and one to suicide. Another woman, Jane Sparks, told Clinton she has been in recovery since 2009, and said her 21-year-old son has been sober for two weeks and is living with her.
None of the teary testimonials ended in a question — and Clinton didn’t jump in to reclaim the narrative or offer any more specifics about her $10 billion, ten-year plan to help combat drug abuse that she unveiled earlier this month. Instead, she took a back-seat role and listened, offering her sympathy from the center of the room. "This is a disease," she said in her opening remarks. "It has to be interrupted and treated and prevented, if possible. We have to equip law enforcement with the ability to save people from overdoses." Clinton has proposed that first responders carry naloxone — which reverses the effects of opiods — to help prevent overdoses. "Untended, it's only going to get worse ... the heartbreak and the tragedies are only going to increase."
Clinton’s New Hampshire swing continues Friday morning, with a community forum on college affordability in Durham and a Democratic dinner in Plymouth Friday night.
Many New Hampshire voters who came out to see her speak on Thursday said they were still undecided — but that had nothing to do with the email controversy that has been dogging Clinton's campaign, or even any dislike of the former Secretary of State. It had more to do with facts about Clinton that she has little power to change, they said.
“I am on the fence,” said Glenda Guzouskas, a retired teacher. “I like Hillary a lot. What nags at me a little bit is that the establishment doesn’t really tend to get very far and do very much. I keep wondering, how are you going to be different? Bernie Sanders says things that are really for the everyday person right now. And he’s not an establishment person.”

Return to headline | Return to top
API-Backed Poll Shows Strong Project Support

Sep 17, 2015 | E&E PM

By Manuel Quiñones

A poll released by the American Petroleum Institute today shows support for the Keystone XL oil pipeline as the permitting process for the project hits its seventh year.
The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive Inc., shows 67 percent support for building KXL. It also says 66 percent of respondents are more likely to support a political candidate who backs KXL.
In a conference call, API's Cindy Schild decried an "unprecedented delay" in the Obama administration's permitting for the project that would bring Canadian oil sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries.
It's "baffling," she said, that the administration is working to facilitate Iranian oil hitting the market following the nuclear deal with Iran, while delaying a decision on Canadian oil.
The poll also found 83 percent of respondents believe the president shouldn't have sole authority to decide projects like KXL, 79 percent said U.S. policy should support Canadian oil at least as much as Iranian oil, and 78 percent said the pipeline would create jobs.
Harris polled 907 registered voters by telephone Sept. 10 to Sunday. The survey had an error margin of 3 percentage points.
Environmental groups that oppose KXL are confident President Obama is preparing to reject KXL. But Schild said, "The Keystone debate is far from over."

Return to headline | Return to top
Acting Faster on Climate

Sep 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Bill Eacho

“We’re not acting fast enough.” President Obama said four times in a 24-minute speech recently in Alaska urging the world do more to combat climate change.
Scientists agree. While the president has done everything he can using the limited executive branch tools at his disposal, we will fall far short of achieving his goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.
Globally, even if every nation achieves the reductions each has pledged going into this December’s Paris conference on climate change, the reductions will be less than half those required to keep average temperature increases below levels most experts say could trigger crop failure, flooding and sea level rise.
Putting a price on carbon emissions is the cheapest and fastest way forward. Almost 40 nations and more than 26 sub-national jurisdictions have adopted carbon pricing, and these programs cover 12 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. British Columbia has had one since 2008 and has reduced fossil fuel consumption by 16 percent, while use in the rest of that country has risen by 3 percent. Meantime, British Columbia’s GDP growth has outperformed Canada’s.
The United States should join them. To find out if a carbon fee has political potential, the nonprofit that I helped establish, the Partnership for Responsible Growth, sat down individually with 175 Congressional offices, focusing on those who serve on the committees with jurisdiction over tax, environmental, and energy matters. These conversations strongly indicate there is bipartisan receptiveness to carbon-funded tax cuts, provided that the business interests most affected publicly endorse this solution.
Major oil companies are also open to the idea. In June, the CEOs of the six largest European oil companies wrote the UN requesting a dialogue about how to set an international price on carbon.
In the U.S. a carbon fee would have to be approved by Congress. A fee could start at $30 or $40 per ton of CO2, perhaps doubling over ten to fifteen years. It should be levied “upstream” where carbon fuels are introduced into commerce (either upon extraction or upon the first sale). Such a fee could be levied using an existing administrative structure at about 2400 locations where carbon fuels are already measured for other purposes. This approach is simple to envision and execute. Like any fee, it would be passed along, raising energy prices.
Politically, the most significant question is how to allocate the proceeds of the fee. To keep it revenue-neutral, we suggest half of the revenue be used to bring the corporate tax rate from 35 percent (the highest in the industrialized world) to 25 percent. In recent years, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom have reduced their top rate to keep companies from moving jobs and factories to lower-cost countries. Lowering the corporate tax rate produces economic growth which more than offsets any drag from higher energy prices. The remaining revenue could be returned to low- and middle-income families to offset higher energy costs.
Since climate change is a global problem and we need to motivate our trading partners to join us in pricing carbon, we should impose a border adjustment tax on imports and include a refund for energy-intensive exports when trading with nations that don’t match us. This would give other countries the choice of enacting their own price on carbon, keeping the revenue for themselves, or having their exporters pay it to the U.S as the price of entry into our markets -- an easy choice for any government. And, of course, as it becomes global, the competitiveness of American manufacturing is enhanced.
The bill could include a suspension of the Clean Power Plan rule, perhaps for six or seven years, to let the carbon fee prove it can reduce emissions faster and more cheaply than EPA regulation. In the unlikely event it fell short, the rule-making would be reinstated.
Recently Congressman John Delaney (D-Md.), a former business executive, introduced a carbon fee bill. So did Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). There are other bills, as well. We believe the best window for enactment may be 2017, after national elections.
This market-based response to climate change would foster economic growth, create jobs, end the long-standing deadlock over tax reform and replace an expensive and unpredictable regulatory mechanism with a cheaper, faster, more predictable and more effective solution.
The president is right -- we aren’t doing enough. Let’s harness the power of the marketplace and put a global price on carbon.
Eacho is a visiting professor of the practice at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and co-founder of the Partnership for Responsible Growth.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Nominee Vows Big Fines for Carriers that Miss Safety Deadline

Sep 18, 2015 | E&E Daily

By Sean Reilly

Railroads that fail to meet a Dec. 31 time table for implementation of automated safety systems could face daily fines of up to $25,000 for each violation, acting Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg said at a confirmation hearing yesterday marked by her insistence that only Congress can provide relief.
"I do not have the authority to extend the deadline," Feinberg told members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. "We will work with this committee in any way that we can, but are not able to do it ourselves."
More alarming to senators than any government penalties, however, are some freight railroads' warnings that they will halt passenger traffic and toxic chemical shipments on their tracks without an extension for "positive train control" (PTC) implementation.
"This is a looming economic and safety disaster that is completely avoidable," Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said. But while Thune called on policymakers to work together, the hearing produced little evidence of agreement on a way out of the impasse.
The current deadline -- which most freight and commuter railroads won't meet -- is embedded in a 2008 law. Legislation passed by the Senate in July would grant an extension until 2018. The House, however, has taken no action; as part of a broader transportation bill unveiled earlier this year, the Obama administration proposed to allow extensions on a case-by-case basis tied to individual railroads' progress and other factors. But the bill has not come out of committee, and Feinberg yesterday voiced doubt about the feasibility of negotiating extensions with some 40 railroads. Instead, the administration wants the flexibility to work with carriers after December to phase in "portions of PTC before waiting for an entire system," she said.
Absent congressional action, Feinberg also reiterated that FRA will launch enforcement action Jan. 1 against railroads that continue to operate without an up-and-running positive train control system. Under heated questioning from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Feinberg said the penalties could include "very significant" fines, coupled with other steps such as requiring larger train crews.
Pressed by McCaskill on why she could not be more specific, Feinberg replied that railroads are making daily progress on PTC implementation. "To give a railroad a specific amount that we will fine them today may have nothing to do with where they are 3 ½ months from now," she said.
Endorsing the administration's preference for a tailored strategy was Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who said he would oppose any attempt to include an open-ended postponement in the continuing resolution that must pass to keep the government running past this month.
"I believe that approach is simply an invitation to disaster," Blumenthal said.
Feinberg has been serving as acting Federal Railroad Administration chief since January; President Obama nominated her in June to keep the job on a Senate-confirmed basis. A West Virginia native, she was warmly introduced at the hearing by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a committee member who said he had served with her father decades ago in the state Legislature.
Despite the shower of sparks that flew during the ensuing 90 minutes, Thune indicated that the committee could vote on her nomination within a few weeks.
"I thought she handled herself well today," he told reporters afterward. "We need somebody in there."
Positive train control is an umbrella label for an approach that uses wireless communications to help provide an automated safety backup to a locomotive's engineer. The current deadline was mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act, passed in 2008 after a collision between freight and commuter trains near Los Angeles killed 25 people. The undertaking has proved to be more expensive and technologically challenging than first anticipated, but the administration maintains that some railroads have worked harder than others to meet the existing deadline.
Without an extension of some kind, McCaskill said, the resulting "mess" is "going to be very damaging to our economy; it's going to cost jobs; it's going to be 'Exhibit A' of why Congress is so unpopular because we can't manage to do something [more] simple than recognize the obvious here."

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested