Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 1/20/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Runs Ads For Shimkus
Jan 20, 2016 | National Journal
By Kimberly Railey
CA-17: 2014 congressional candidate Joel VanLandingham (R) is considering running for Rep. Mike Honda’s (D) seat and will decide next month. (Politico) -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Says Plastics Makers Seek to Improve the Benefits of Packaging by Increasing Recycling and Recovery
Jan 20, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Recycling Today Staff
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has issued a statement in response to the release of a new report titled "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics," which looks at... -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: More Plastic Than Fish in the World's Seas by 2050
Jan 20, 2016 | Plastics News
A new report has claimed that by the middle of this century there will more plastic, by weight, in the world’s oceans than fish. -
(ACC Mentioned) Can We Solve the Flexible Film Recovery Puzzle?
Jan 20, 2016 | Greener Package
By Anne Marie Mohan
Industry groups have begun to explore strategies to develop multilayer flexible film recovery systems. But can they overcome the challenges that exist in every step of the process? -
By 2050, There Will be More Plastic than Fish in the World’s Oceans, Study Says
Jan 20, 2016 | Washington Post
By Sarah Kaplan
There is a lot of plastic in the world’s oceans. -
Socma Criticises Senate TSCA Bill Provisions
Jan 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Language in the TSCA reform bill, that passed the Senate, last month, would “discourage” submitters of pre-manufacture notices for new chemicals from conducting health and safety studies of chemicals... -
NY County Toy Bans Bring 'Inconsistency and Confusion', Says Industry
Jan 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
'Toxic toy' laws, slated to take effect at the county level in New York, have raised industry concerns over their consistency and enforceability. There is also a legal challenge against one of the measures, citing federal preemption. -
Seeing Red on Food Dyes
Jan 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
The Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) “Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes” report, released yesterday, makes clear that certified colors added in food not safe at the current levels that children consume them. -
Grid's Cyber Rules are About to Change, Again
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will act tomorrow on the latest revisions to the cybersecurity rules for the interstate electric grid, including a proposal to extend anti-hacking safeguards to the vendors supplying utilities. -
Energy Will Fund $23M in Cybersecurity Research
Jan 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By David Perera
The Department of Energy said today it will award $23 million for electricity grid cybersecurity research and development. -
Mayor Calls for Federal Aid in Water Emergency
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The mayor of Flint, Mich., appealed to state and federal officials for help in coping with a public health disaster linked to lead in the city's drinking water system. -
Explosion at PeroxyChem Plant Shouldn't Come as a Shock
Jan 20, 2016 | Houston Press
By Diana Wray
Houston is one of the world's largest manufacturing hubs of chemicals and petrochemicals, and this has been a part of the city's economy for decades. But the plants and refineries in and around Houston come at a price... -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs Senate Bill's Efficiency Provisions
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Business interests are urging Senate leaders to bring the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's bipartisan energy bill to the floor for a vote, citing the measure's efficiency provisions as an economic boon. -
API's Gerard Talks Future of U.S. Industry Amid Market, Regulatory Challenges
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E TV
As crude oil prices continue to decline and natural gas faces increasing competition from the clean energy sector, how are the U.S. oil and gas industries adjusting to the changing market dynamics and shifting their long-term plans? -
FERC Calls for Solid Modeling to Help Weigh Reliability
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission offered guidance yesterday for developing modeling tools that states and electric utilities might use in deciding how to cut carbon emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Western States' Group Releases Carbon-Cutting Calculator
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A Colorado-based group coordinating Clean Power Plan talks in the West yesterday released the first phase of a modeling tool for states and utilities. -
House Agriculture Panel Calls EPA's McCarthy to Testify
Jan 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Catherine Boudreau
The House Agriculture Committee has announced a Jan. 26 hearing on the impact of EPA regulations on the rural economy. -
Activists Press Admin to Crack Down on Oil and Gas Leasing
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Climate activists are pushing for changes to the federal oil and gas leasing program in the wake of the Obama administration's decision to freeze and scrutinize future coal leases. -
New Methane Proposal Incoming
Jan 20, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
The Interior Department’s landmark fracking regulations are on pause while a federal judge decides on a challenge by industry groups, but that’s not stopping the agency from moving ahead with... -
It’s Official: 2015 ‘Smashed’ the Global Temperature Record. It Wasn’t Even Close
Jan 20, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Last year shattered 2014’s record to become the hottest year ever recorded, based on data going back to 1880, two U.S. government science agencies announced Wednesday.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Runs Ads For Shimkus
Jan 20, 2016 | National Journal
By Kimberly Railey
CA-17: 2014 congressional candidate Joel VanLandingham (R) is considering running for Rep. Mike Honda’s (D) seat and will decide next month. (Politico)
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/385496/american-chemistry-council-runs-ads-shimkus
-
Jan 20, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Recycling Today Staff
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has issued a statement in response to the release of a new report titled "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics," which looks at the economic and environmental attributes of plastic packaging. The report was a released by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the U.K.-based Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
The ACC states:
“WEF’s new report highlights that plastics and plastic packaging are an integral and important part of the global economy. According to the report:
“‘Plastic packaging not only delivers direct economic benefits but can also contribute to increased levels of resource productivity—for instance, plastic packaging can reduce food waste by extending shelf life and can reduce fuel consumption for transportation by bringing packaging weight down (page 7).’
“WEF also underscores opportunities to improve plastics’ environmental profile by recovering more postuse plastics for recycling or energy conversion and by preventing used plastics from ending up in our oceans.
“A 2014 life cycle inventory study conducted by Franklin Associates across the U.S. market confirms the benefits of plastic packaging. The 2014 study, “Impact of Plastics Packaging on Life Cycle Energy Consumption & Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States and Canada,” found that replacing six types of packaging with nonplastic alternatives in the United States would require 4.5 times as much packaging material by weight, increasing the amount of packaging used in the U.S. by nearly 55 million tons (110 billion pounds); increase energy use by 80 percent—equivalent to the energy from 91 oil supertankers; and result in 130 percent more global warming potential—equivalent to adding 15.7 million more cars to our roads.
“America’s plastics makers are working to increase plastics’ recycling and to recover for energy those plastics that cannot yet be economically recycled. Today in the United Sates, we recycle over 6 billion pounds of plastics annually. Plastics makers actively support programs designed to dramatically increase plastics recycling, especially for newer categories, such as rigid and film plastics. Recycling of rigid plastics—a category that includes wide-mouth containers, tubs, caps and lids—has tripled since just 2007. Film plastics recycling, which includes a variety of flexible wraps and bags, has doubled since 2005. Individually, both categories have grown to over 1 billion pounds annually, and plastics makers are partnering with organizations including the Association of Plastics Recyclers, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, the Recycling Partnership and Keep America Beautiful to further boost plastics recycling across the United States.
“In addition, plastics associations around the world have committed to address plastics ocean debris by committing to a series of principles known as the Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter. Signed by more than 60 plastics associations in 34 countries, the plastics industry has launched over 185 projects to address marine litter since 2011.
“We in the plastics industry welcome additional opportunities to partner with others in the shared effort to recycle and recover more plastics and to keep plastics out of the marine environment.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: More Plastic Than Fish in the World's Seas by 2050
Jan 20, 2016 | Plastics News
A new report has claimed that by the middle of this century there will more plastic, by weight, in the world’s oceans than fish.
The World Economic Forum/Ellen MacArthur Foundation study, "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics," said that while delivering many benefits, “the current plastics economy has drawbacks that are becoming more apparent by the day..
In a statement the foundation, created by the British sailor who twice set a world record for solo circumnavigation of the globe on a sailboat, said: “Given projected growth in consumption, in a business-as-usual scenario, by 2050 oceans are expected to contain more plastics than fish (by weight), and the entire plastics industry will consume 20 percent of total oil production and 15 percent of the annual carbon budget.
“In this context, an opportunity beckons for the plastics value chain to deliver better system-wide economic and environmental outcomes, while continuing to harness the benefits of plastic packaging.
“The New Plastics Economy envisages a new approach based on creating effective after-use pathways for plastics; drastically reducing leakage of plastics into natural systems, in particular oceans; and decoupling plastics from fossil feedstocks.”
The 118-page report claimed that 95 percent of plastic packaging — worth between $80 billion and $120 billion — was lost to the economy every year.
“A staggering 32 percent of plastic packaging escapes collection systems,” the report went on, “generating significant economic costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural systems such as the ocean and clogging urban infrastructure.
“The cost of such after-use externalities for plastic packaging, plus the cost associated with greenhouse gas emissions from its production, is conservatively estimated at $40 billion annually — exceeding the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool. In future, these costs will have to be covered."
The American Chemistry Council noted in a statement Jan. 19 that the U.S. plastics industry already is working to increase recycling —with 6 billion pounds recycled annually now — and recover energy from plastics that cannot be easily recycled.“Plastics makers actively support programs designed to dramatically increase plastics recycling, especially for newer categories such as rigid plastics and film," the ACC said.
The U.S. group also called attention to the international Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter, a 2011 manifesto signed by more than 60 plastics industry related associations in 34 countries that has helped launch more than 185 projects addressing marine litter.
“We in the plastics industry welcome additional opportunities to partner with others in the shared effort to recycle and recover more plastics, and to keep plastics out of the marine environment,” the statement read. -
(ACC Mentioned) Can We Solve the Flexible Film Recovery Puzzle?
Jan 20, 2016 | Greener Package
By Anne Marie Mohan
Industry groups have begun to explore strategies to develop multilayer flexible film recovery systems. But can they overcome the challenges that exist in every step of the process?
Multilayer, mixed-material flexible film packaging is a sustainability conundrum. Lighter in weight, using less material, and resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than alternative packaging formats such as glass, aluminum, and rigid plastic, flexibles seem like the most eco-friendly packaging choice. But, unlike glass, aluminum, and rigid plastic, mixed-material flexible film* cannot be recovered at end of life.
For some sustainability diehards, the fact that the only place for multilayer flexibles at the end of their use is the landfill is a deal-breaker—despite all of their sustainability advantages. For the those companies that supply and use this material, however, understanding the challenges associated with flexible film recovery and moving toward feasible solutions have become a priority, especially as the use of flexible packaging grows.
According to a 2015 report from PMMI, The Association for Packaging and Processing Technologies,“The unique benefits of flexible packaging have made it the second largest packaging segment in the U.S. [representing 19% of the total $164 billion packaging market]. The format has grown considerably in popularity over the last decade and has continued to take market share in the packaging industry.” It adds that while this growth may be starting to plateau, the market is expected to continue to expand at a healthy rate into the future. (Source: PMMI 2015 Flexible Packaging Market Assessment Report.)
Consulting firm Freedonia estimates in its 2015 study, “Converted Flexible Packaging,” that demand for mixed-material film packaging will rise 3.3% annually through 2019, to $20.7 billion, due to the cost and performance advantages of lightweight bags and pouches. In addition, it says that “converted flexible packaging’s source reduction, space savings, and lower production and transportation costs…will drive further conversions from rigid to flexible formats.”
Currently there are no systems in the U.S. to collect and recover multilayer flexible films. To put such systems in place will involve solving technical and commercial challenges at every stage of the process—collection, sorting, and end markets—with the development of each depending on the success of the others.
Drivers of change
While it is true flexible films represent a large chunk of the packaging materials market, their percentage of landfill waste does not: multi-material laminates accounted for just 1.6% of the total municipal waste stream in 2012, according to the Flexible Packaging Assn. Even though this number has increased since then and will continue to grow as the market expands, there are other pressing reasons why the packaging industry is taking on the challenge of flexible film recovery.Alan Blake, Executive Director of PAC Next, a part of Canadian association PAC, Packaging Consortium, that was founded to create a vision of “A World Without Packaging Waste,” says the group initially became interested in finding ways to recover flexible films due to Canada’s Extended Producer Responsibility laws. Under EPR requirements, all stakeholders pay a fee based on the quantity of packaging materials they put into the market. PAC NEXT’s Multi-Layer Laminated Films & Bags project is focused on initiating and completing a pilot to recycle post-consumer recycled multilayer laminated film from a Municipal Recycling Facility (MRF).
“Given EPR, there’s this pressure to see what can be done to avoid materials going to landfill and what can be done to find solutions,” Blake says. “People become a bit emotional when they start seeing increasing levels of materials going into the waste stream that are non-recyclable, such as multilayer, mixed-plastic laminates.”
Jeff Wooster, Global Sustainability Director of Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics, which is involved in many initiatives around flexible film recovery, explains the growth in interest in flexible film recovery this way: “The development of the recycling infrastructure for any material follows the introduction of that material and its growth to a scale where it makes sense to invest in a recycling infrastructure.”
For example, he says, when aluminum cans and PET bottles were first introduced, they were not recycled. But as the markets for these materials grew, recycling followed. “With flexible packaging, because it’s more difficult to mechanically recycle and because the weight of each individual package is much lower than it is for other materials, there are some additional challenges that other materials don’t have to the same extent.”
Consumer pressure is definitely also a driver, he adds: “Consumers don’t like to see packaging going into the landfill, and neither do we.”
One of the projects Dow is involved with is Materials Recovery for the Future, an initiative of theResearch Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects, established by the American Chemistry Council. The project has brought together brand owners, manufacturers, and packaging industry organizations interested in creating recovery solutions for flexible packaging. Its first goal is to study the movement of films and flexible plastic packaging at U.S. MRFs.
“Our motivation for this is to close the resource loop and make sure that our materials continue to deliver value for as long as they can,” Wooster says. “We know it’s of great interest to companies, NGOs, and well-informed consumers to try to recover the value of their materials instead of putting them into a landfill.”
Collection: curbside or store drop-off?
The first step in any packaging materials recovery system is its collection from consumers. Single-stream curbside collection is available in many municipalities for a range of materials, including PET, glass, aluminum, paper, and cartons. Single-layer polyethylene bags, such as grocery, newspaper, and dry cleaning bags, are also collected for recycling through store drop-off programs. Currently, there are 18,000 locations across the U.S. that collect PE films. In 2013, 1.14 billion lb of PE film were recovered for recycling, according to the “2013 National Postconsumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report,” from ACC.Blake says adding multilayer flexible films to the materials collected through store drop-off systems is one option. “If you could get those materials together, then they are relatively easy to sort because of weight and density,” he says. “The plastic bags will just sort of float away. You could skim them off.”
However, he believes retail stores are somewhat reluctant to expand these programs due to fears about contamination and dirt. “Retailers are concerned about people bringing all this stuff to their front-of-store; they don’t want it to turn into a garbage dump,” he says. “You’d have to make a bigger effort in terms of defining areas where the material could be brought, making it clear to consumers, and keeping it clean.”
With current single-stream curbside collection in the U.S., consumers often mistakenly throw flexible films into the bin, believing that they are—or should be—recyclable. Once in a MRF sorting system, the two-dimensional flexible films play havoc with the MRF’s mechanical systems. “The material wraps around screens and other rotating equipment, it gets caught in places it’s not supposed to be, and it contaminates the paper stream,” explains Wooster.
Ultimately, the collection system adopted for flexible packaging will depend on the development of MRF sorting systems. “If MRFs had technology to adequately separate bags and not have processing problems, then the material wouldn’t be a contaminate, it would be a raw material,” Wooster days. “If we can implement technology that makes more of the things already in the bin into raw materials, we can ask for even more materials to be put into the bin. Then we can have a system with higher recovery rates.”
Sorting: technology available, but costly
Sorting technology for flexible films does exist—at a significant cost. The challenge is finding the most efficient systems and making them financially viable for MRFs. In order for MRFs to make the investment, there needs to be enough material collected, and viable end markets must be developed for the recovered material.According to Blake, even if the challenges of collection are overcome, it will still take a lot of material to make sorting it worthwhile. “The recycling industry works on weight,” he explains. “To make a bale of flexible laminates, you need a ton of material. Just fathom this: To create a bale of rigids—and these are just approximate numbers—you need 10,000 containers. Since laminates weigh 80-percent to 90-percent less than rigid containers, you would need approximately 100,000 multilayer flexible laminates to make up that same bale, to achieve that same weight.”
In terms of end markets, because flexible films comprise a mix of polymers, there are currently no commercial uses for the recovered material. Said Nadine Kerr, Acting Manager of Processing Operations for the city of Toronto in a webinar sponsored by PAC Next, “Even when flexible film packaging is sent to a processor, it is difficult to recycle. Recycling is complicated, and it can yield a plastic with poor physical properties because it contains a variety of materials and is often contaminated with food.”
Before tackling the development of end markets, however, the Materials Recovery for the Future project is first trying to determine how flexible materials can be sorted. Dow initiated the project by commissioning Resource Recovery Systems to conduct a study to understand what it would take technically and financially to sort flexible films at a MRF. Upon completion of the study, Dow invited brand owners and packaging producers to join the project and drive it forward.
The first phase involves studying the movement of films and flexible plastic packaging through the MRF. So far, project members have gathered a representative assortment of flexible packaging present in the marketplace. These will be mixed with paper and other materials commonly found in a MRF and run through the sorting systems typically used for paper.
As Wooster explains, MRFs use modern optical sorters based on infrared technology that can identify the composition of the polymer types to sort 3D HDPE and PET bottles. “It’s not in use for plastic films or flexible packaging, however, but there are a few facilities that use this type of equipment to sort paper,” he says.
The hope is that the technology used to sort paper can be employed to separate out flexible films. “Paper is a two-dimensional object when it goes through the MRF, whereas a bottle is a three-dimensional object, so there’s quite a bit of handling and processing differences between the two,” Wooster says. “Flexible packaging and films though are two-dimensional like paper, so our hypothesis is that we’ll be able to use the sorting equipment that’s currently used for paper to sort the flexible film from the paper. What the project really entails is a series of experiments with equipment manufacturers and MRF operators to figure out how to use this equipment to properly sort the materials.”
Meanwhile, PAC Next has identified a company in Canada, TeTechS, that is using terahertz wave technology to sort different polymer types based on spectral signals. TeTechS has proved out its Rigel™ technology on a lab scale, but is looking for a venture capital partner to invest in the technology for commercial scale use. “This is an interesting sorting technology that might be the sort of thing that could help identify flexible films,” says Blake. “Then, using a sort of optical sorting air-blowing collection system, the materials could be shot into a recovery system.”
End-use markets: a range of opportunities
The development of end-use markets for recovered flexible films is really the linchpin upon which the rest of the recovery system depends.One possible end market is energy recovery. This includes technologies such as:
• Gasification, which converts feedstock into clean, synthetic fuel gas that can be used to generate electricity.
• Engineered solid fuels, in which plastics and other waste is turned into fuel pellets to generate power.
• Pyrolysis, a technology that transforms plastics into energy feedstock, such as industrial wax, lube stock, and synthetic crude oil.Says Wooster, recycling options include a mechanical-type technology that allows the material to be turned into another article without changing the nature of the plastic, and chemical feedstock recycling, where the plastic is broken down into its chemical components so that the feedstock can be used to make other materials.
PAC Next is working to bring together industry partners to help advance technologies from Zzyzx Polymers and Greenable Technology. As Blake explains, the extrusion-like technologies allow PCR laminates to be reprocessed as is or as blends with virgin materials.
Zzyzx uses solid-state sheer pulverization technology to compatibilize resins and reduce and disperse contaminants. The end product is pellets that can be used in injection molding and compression molding to create new films.
Equipment supplier Greenable has developed a range of compounding extruder machines engineered to reprocess PCR laminated film, which can be used to manufacture products such as dimensional lumber.
PAC Next has done pilot work with both companies, but the biggest challenge has been collecting enough materials to run larger-scale trials.
Single-material laminates: a work-around
To circumvent the challenges of recovering mixed-material flexible packaging, some companies and projects are focused on designing multilayer films that use a single material, PE, or combinations of materials that can be collected through store drop-off programs.In the U.K., the REFLEX project, led by Axion Consulting and co-funded by the U.K.’s innovation agencyInnovate UK is working on designing new film constructions—in addition to helping develop a recovery infrastructure. “The aim of the REFLEX project is to create a circular economy for post-consumer flexible packaging,” explains Liz Morrish, Principal Consultant for Axion. “There are a number of key elements to the project, including the redesign of current packaging so that it is recyclable and investigating and optimizing technologies for sorting recyclable packaging from the waste stream.
“A key output of the project will be a set of design for recycling guidelines, to help brand owners, packaging designers, and convertors design flexible packaging that can be recycled.”
According to Morrish, over the last year, the REFLEX project has made significant progress in redesigning flexible packaging for food and household products to make them potentially recyclable, while ensuring the packaging structures and designs still achieve their required barrier and mechanical properties, and ease of handling on packaging lines.
Closer to home, Dow and film converter Accredo Packaging recently collaborated to help launch a multilayer stand-up PE pouch for Seventh Generation’s dishwash detergent pods. Another reverse-printed multilayer PE SUP—which also sports a unique cube-shape—was designed by ConservaCube, LLC for Mountain View Seeds.
At least a decade away
Despite a multitude of challenges, there is a way forward for multilayer flexible film recovery, but it will not happen overnight. “It takes an awful lot of time to get the momentum and the critical mass to drive change through the packaging industry,” says Blake. “People forget how many decades it took to get decent systems in place for the recovery and recycling of PET. We would say that PET is a big success story. Yet if you look at the overall recycling rates even for PET, you’d argue that there’s significant room for improvement, but it’s taken decades to get where we are today with PET.“Multilayer flexible films, despite their growth and despite the fact that they’ve been out in other regions of the world for some time, are still a relatively young packaging format in North America, so it’s going to take time to find solutions for these materials and find end markets, which by the way, unfortunately is still a challenge globally.
“I think it will probably be at least a decade before you’ll start to see the kind of investments needed to recover these films. I don’t think it will be any sooner than that.”
Says Wooster, “It’s really going to take a lot of people working together to solve this challenge. It’s not an easy challenge to solve, or it would already have been fixed, but we recognize that it’s important, so we’re committed to doing it.”
-
By 2050, There Will be More Plastic than Fish in the World’s Oceans, Study Says
Jan 20, 2016 | Washington Post
By Sarah Kaplan
There is a lot of plastic in the world’s oceans.
It coagulates into great floating “garbage patches” that cover large swaths of the Pacific. It washes up on urban beaches and remote islands, tossed about in the waves and transported across incredible distances before arriving, unwanted, back on land. It has wound up in the stomachs of more than half the world’s sea turtles and nearly all of its marine birds, studies say. And if it was bagged up and arranged across all of the world’s shorelines, we could build a veritable plastic barricade between ourselves and the sea.
But that quantity pales in comparison with the amount that the World Economic Forum expects will be floating into the oceans by the middle of the century.
If we keep producing (and failing to properly dispose of) plastics at predicted rates, plastics in the ocean will outweigh fish pound for pound in 2050, the nonprofit foundation said in a report Tuesday.
According to the report, worldwide use of plastic has increased 20-fold in the past 50 years, and it is expected to double again in the next 20 years. By 2050, we’ll be making more than three times as much plastic stuff as we did in 2014.
Meanwhile, humans do a terrible job of making sure those products are reused or otherwise disposed of: About a third of all plastics produced escape collection systems, only to wind up floating in the sea or the stomach of some unsuspecting bird. That amounts to about 8 million metric tons a year — or, as Jenna Jambeck of the University of Georgia put it to The Washington Post in February, “Five bags filled with plastic for every foot of coastline in the world.”
The report came a day before the start of the glitzy annual meeting arranged by the World Economic Forum to discuss the global economy. This year’s meeting in Davos, Switzerland, is centered on what the WEF terms “the fourth industrial revolution” — the boom in high-tech areas like robotics and biotechnology — and its effect on the widening gulf between the wealthy and the world’s poor.
But the plastic situation — fairly low-tech and more than a century old at this point — is a reminder that we still haven’t quite gotten the better of some of the problems left over from the first few “industrial revolutions.”
According to the report, more than 70 percent of the plastic we produce is either put in a landfill or lost to the world’s waterways and other infrastructure. Plastic production accounts for 6 percent of global oil consumption (a number that will hit 20 percent in 2050) and 1 percent of the global carbon budget (the maximum amount of emissions the world can produce to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius). In 2050, the report says, we’ll be spending 15 percent of our carbon budget on soda bottles, plastic grocery bags and the like.
Once it gets washed into waterways, the damage caused by plastics’ presence costs about $13 billion annually in losses for the tourism, shipping and fishing industries. It disrupts marine ecosystems and threatens food security for people who depend on subsistence fishing.
Besides which, all that plastic in the water isn’t too great for the animals trying to live there.
The data in the report comes from interviews with more than 180 experts and analysis of some 200 studies on “the plastic economy.”
The report was published on the same day that a study came out in the journal Nature Communications asserting that the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization is drastically underestimating the overfishing of the oceans. The study, from researchers Daniel Pauly and Dirk Zeller of the University of British Columbia’s Sea Around Us project, found that global catches between 1950 and 2010 were probably 50 percent higher than previously thought — meaning that damage to the world’s fish stocks was also much worse.
Overall, it was not a good news day for anyone with fins.
But both reports gave some signs for optimism. Pauly and Zeller told The Washington Post that the underestimation of how much humans were fishing means the U.N. also underestimated how much fish the oceans can provide.
“If we rebuild stocks, we can rebuild to more than we thought before,” Pauly said. “Basically, the oceans are more productive than we thought before.”
And the World Economic Forum report, though not quite so sunny, suggests that there are ways to offset all this plastic we’re making and discarding. Countries can implement incentives to collect waste and recycle it, use more efficient or reusable packaging and improve infrastructure so that less trash slips through the system and into the seas.
-
Socma Criticises Senate TSCA Bill Provisions
Jan 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Language in the TSCA reform bill, that passed the Senate, last month, would “discourage” submitters of pre-manufacture notices for new chemicals from conducting health and safety studies of chemicals they are considering manufacturing, says the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates.
Bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) passed the House by a 398-1 vote, last June (CW 24 June 2015), and the Senate by a unanimous voice vote, last month (CW 18 December 2015).
In a letter to key House and Senate members on 8 January, Socma said it prefers the House bill, which is clear that TSCA does not authorise the disclosure of “data that disclose formulas (including molecular structures) of chemical substances or mixtures”.
The Senate bill was revised, before passage, to state that chemical identity in health and safety studies “shall not be protected from disclosure”, said the trade body, adding that it would oppose any final bill that emerges from reconciliation of the House and Senate versions that contains the Senate language.
Its members, it added, rely on protection of chemical identity to “remain in business against domestic and foreign competitors”.
On pre-manufacture notices, Socma urged congressional negotiators to “resist calls to adopt an approach that would prevent a submitter from commencing manufacture, until EPA issues its determination, even if EPA missed its 90/180-day deadline”.
As for fees that the EPA is allowed to charge PMN submitters, Socma opposes the Senate language.
It does not “contain any provision linking fees to the costs of the relevant programme and could, for example, result in PMN submitters being charged fees, used to support the costs of implementing section 4 or 6 [of TSCA].”
Section 4 gives the EPA authority to require manufacturers or processors to test chemical substances and mixtures. Section 6 deals with import and export requirements, applicable to some specific chemicals.
The House bill preserves language, limiting fees relating to section 5 to persons who submit data under that section, Socma said, thus, not authorising fees for those exempted from submitting data.
“By contrast, the Senate bill specifically authorises fees for exemption requests.”
Socma said the issues it has raised “must be carefully and seriously considered, for the consequences of ignoring them or making the wrong conclusions will, we fear, result in irreparable harm to our industry”.
-
NY County Toy Bans Bring 'Inconsistency and Confusion', Says Industry
Jan 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
'Toxic toy' laws, slated to take effect at the county level in New York, have raised industry concerns over their consistency and enforceability. There is also a legal challenge against one of the measures, citing federal preemption.
Four counties have passed similar, but varied, laws that would ban the sale of children's products containing such substances as lead, cadmium and benzene, once the rules take effect (CW 13 July 2015).
Steve Lamar, executive vice president to the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), says that the patchwork system of rules “breeds confusion”, not only over how the different laws will be enforced, but with consumers who may begin to doubt the safety of products that meet federal regulations.
'Patchwork' rules, effective dates
Ongoing litigation, brought by a coalition of trade groups, has, thus far, stayed enforcement of Albany County's ban (CW 9 June 2015). Last month, the county passed an amendment – “Local Law P” – which prohibits products that fail to meet chemical content limits that mirror federal rules, but it is not scheduled to take effect until 1 July.
With Albany's law stalled, Rockland had been poised to be the first county where a ban comes into effect. However, the county legislature on 15 December passed an amended version of its law, which bans products that fail to meet existing federal regulations.
Westchester County's ban, however, remains slated to take effect on 11 May. The law prohibits the sale of children's products containing any of eight substances – without a defined de minimis concentration.
Suffolk County's sales prohibition is set to take effect shortly after, on 1 July.
Meanwhile, the New York City Council has begun consideration of a local law, using a still different approach. Their measure would define toys separately, and place different requirements on those to other children's products.
Preemption, compliance concerns
Children's products are regulated by the Consumer Products Safety Act (CPSA) and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), among others. These federal laws, say industry representatives, preempt the measures being adopted at the county level.
Jennifer Gibbons, senior director of state government affairs at the Toy Industry Association (TIA), says that while Albany's adopted amendment “does move in the right direction” on preemption, the trade group “still sees some challenges there in terms of compliance”, including confusion over how the county's law would be enforced.
Westchester's rule also raises compliance concerns, particularly surrounding the law's failure to define a threshold at which a product qualifies as “containing” a banned substance.
According to Julie Vallese, managing director of public and government affairs at the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), one of the “biggest challenges” is this regulation of naturally occurring elements.
“These laws will direct state regulators to remove safe and reliable products, desired by consumers, from store shelves,” she added.
Ms Gibbons echoed that the toy industry “is not sure how compliance is even possible with the Westchester law”.
The TIA remains hopeful, however, that dialogues with legislators can lead to compromise like that passed in Rockland.
A broader approach
New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, pledged, in this month's 2016 State of the State report, to work with the state legislature to pass the Child Safe Products Act, which would phase out the use of certain chemicals in children's products.
Ms Gibbons says that the toy industry would hope that a state-level law would include a provision to preempt the “patchwork of county legislation”.
Mr Lamar added that reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would provide more robust controls at the federal level, and avoid the “inconsistency and confusion” brought by county and state-level rules (CW 11 January 2016).
-
Jan 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
The Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) “Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes” report, released yesterday, makes clear that certified colors added in food not safe at the current levels that children consume them. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the food industry, and consumers should take action to protect children from the behavior problems associated with these chemicals.
What are color additives?The FD&C number on a color means it is a “certified” color pursuant to 21 CFR Part 74. These colors are synthetically made from oil or coal. Decades ago, FDA determined they were safe and only certifies that each batch meets quality standards and does do not contain particularly dangerous contaminants.A color additive is not safe unless there is “convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use.”FDA labeling rules maintain that all added colors to food are artificial. Technically, there are no natural colors – not even beet juice – since they mask the natural color of the food.FDA does not limit the amount of a certified color that can be added to food except in one case. The food manufacturer decides how much is needed.
Last Friday, FDA released a stream of five consecutive tweetstelling people why certified artificial color additives, commonly known by their FD&C number, are used and how to avoid them if people are sensitive to them. The tweets, while true, said nothing about who may be sensitive to the chemicals. They should have said that any child may be sensitive and that the 6.4 million children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) appear to be particularly sensitive.
So what prompted FDA’s tweets? Most likely the agency anticipated CSPI’s report “Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes” issued January 19. It follows on the organization’s 2010 “Food Dyes: Rainbow of Risks” report and its 2008 citizens petition calling on the agency to: 1) revoke its approvals of eight synthetic food dyes; 2) require warning labels on the package in the interim; and 3) correct statements about the dyes on its website and other materials.
While FDA has yet to take action on the citizens petition, the marketplace has already passed judgment. In 2015, leading food manufacturer and restaurants committed to reformulating their iconic brands to remove certified artificial colors. They follow the lead of major retailers who reformulated their private brands to remove the chemicals.
According to FDA’s regulations, a color additive is not safe unless there is “convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use.” In addition, the law requires the agency to consider “the cumulative effect, if any, of such additive in the diet of man or animals, taking into account the same or any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” in determining safety.
The standard is the most protective of any chemical use. It is similar to the one for food additives except that the evidence of safety must also be “convincing.”
CSPI’s report makes a compelling case that FDA effectively stacked the deck when it sought advice from the agency’s Food Advisory Committee in 2011 in response to CSPI’s citizens petition. The agency asked whether or not a causal relationship between consumption of certified color additives in food and hyperactivity in children in the general population had been established. Causality a much higher scientific burden of proof than the actual safety standard required by the law.
Not surprisingly, the advisory committee did not find causal evidence and as such did not recommend FDA act to restrict use. If the committee had instead been given the actual safety standard for color additives and asked whether there was convincing evidence the chemicals were safe, CSPI maintains the committee would have recommended that FDA remove the colors from foods, or at a minimum, require a warning label similar to the one used in Europe.
CSPI’s report also cites post-2011 scientific evidence that strengthens the association between ADHD and certified color additives and demonstrates that food marketed to children contains higher levels of colors than previously assumed.
Will FDA follow the lead of the marketplace and act to protect children from the risk associated with the use of these chemicals? A proper interpretation of the law demands it.
Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director.
-
Grid's Cyber Rules are About to Change, Again
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will act tomorrow on the latest revisions to the cybersecurity rules for the interstate electric grid, including a proposal to extend anti-hacking safeguards to the vendors supplying utilities.
At the same time, the industry group that drafts the standards that go before FERC, the North American Electric Reliability Corp., or NERC, will return to several older rules in search of greater clarity around how they should be applied.
The confusion and uncertainty about parts of NERC's Critical Infrastructure Protection Version 5 standards (CIP v5) are not new. One grid industry veteran calls it the "NERC CIP roller-coaster."
The uncertainty has raised questions about how compliance with the latest standards will be judged when inspections by NERC's industry auditors begin April 1. Auditors have the authority to cite companies for violations, which could lead to heavy fines, and they can issue non-penalty advisories.
People inside and outside of the industry are asking a number of questions. For example, if definitions in the rules are unclear, can auditors justify penalties? And how can a standard set of cyber rules be pinned on an industry with so many different operating procedures, facing ever-changing cyberthreats?
Still, FERC's requirement is to ensure rules are on the books to protect against threats.
FERC issued its proposal to approve seven of NERC's pending revisions to CIP v5 last July and stated its intention to write cyber rules for the utilities' supply chain vendors. The seven revised standards will be known as CIP version 6.
Industry trade associations led by the American Public Power Association and Edison Electric Institute urged FERC last year to approve the revisions by year end, so that they would become effective with the rest of the cyber standards on April 1 of this year.
"This would avoid having CIP V5 become effective on April 1, 2016 and then having the V5 Revisions become effective on July 1, 2016 or later," the trade associations said. Having to implement two different versions of the rules within a few months "will unnecessarily complicate the ongoing transition to the new versions and increase the administrative transition burden with no tangible benefits to security" or the grid's reliability, the trade groups said. That deadline was missed.
The effective date of the new CIP v5 revisions is one of the issues facing industry auditors. The other is the uncertainty about key issues in the regulations, an issue that NERC took up yesterday in a webinar with industry participants.
Tobias Whitney, NERC's general manager of CIP compliance, noted that the organization's committee responsible for the transition to version 5 has met weekly for 18 months, seeking consensus on guidance that NERC could give to grid utilities on how to comply with the cyber requirements. A group of utilities volunteered as guinea pigs to take a trial run at compliance, flagging issues for NERC that they encountered. The result was a long list of "lessons learned" and "frequently asked questions" representing a common industry response to the compliance requirements.
But still there are a limited number of remaining issues on definitions and coverage of the rules that could not be clarified, the industry participants and NERC found. These would have to be turned over to a NERC standards drafting team to develop new language, which then must work its way through the NERC and FERC approval process, a three- to four-year trip.
One aspect that regulators are wrestling with is the definition of cyber assets on the high-voltage grid: what is covered by the rules, and what's not. Another issue is the definition of "programmable" communications channels and devices, which are potentially more vulnerable to hacking than non-programmable "serial" or point-to-point communications, NERC officials said.
In addition to attempting to clarify those and other existing definitions, NERC is asking the standards committee to come up with an entirely new proposal for "virtual" grid servers -- multipurpose computers that may handle a utility's commercial data on one channel that wouldn't require cyber defenses, and on another channel, critical operating data that must be protected. This technology, an outgrowth of the spread of big data computer systems, was nowhere on the radar three or four years ago when the drafting of version 5 rules began, according to NERC officials.
The drafting of these newest standards won't begin until the April 1 audits have begun, Whitney said.
The events around the version 5 cyber rules seemed to underscore the comments of FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur last July: "The work that NERC, the industry, and the commission do on cybersecurity must obviously continually evolve to meet the changing nature of the cybersecurity threat, which we all see in the news practically daily."
-
Energy Will Fund $23M in Cybersecurity Research
Jan 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By David Perera
The Department of Energy said today it will award $23 million for electricity grid cybersecurity research and development.
The grants will fund “next-generation tools and technologies” intended for wide adoption by the electricity sector, said Patricia Hoffman, assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability. The announcement is the latest in a series of funding opportunities for grid cybersecurity work the department says has totaled more than $150 million since 2010.
Cybersecurity experts warn that the U.S. grid is vulnerable to a remote attack, although they downplaythe likelihood of a sustained outage.
Energy’s announcement today comes amid a planned outpouring of money, including up to $220 million directed to national laboratories for R&D in energy storage and other areas. Applications for the cybersecurity grants are due by March 21.
-
Mayor Calls for Federal Aid in Water Emergency
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The mayor of Flint, Mich., appealed to state and federal officials for help in coping with a public health disaster linked to lead in the city's drinking water system.
Speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C., Mayor Karen Weaver (D) said Republican Gov. Rick Snyder's apology to Flint at his State of the State speech was a positive step, but not enough.
"Flint needs more help," Weaver said.
Weaver, who met with President Obama and White House aides yesterday, said her economically battered city needs financial assistance.
Flint -- a city of about 100,000 people devastated by the departure of auto manufacturing in the 1980s -- is now faced with high lead levels in its water system linked to a switch in water sources. In a cost-saving move, the state-appointed emergency manager decided in 2014 to start drawing water from the Flint River instead of buying Lake Huron water from Detroit.
The city has since switched back to Detroit water, but the Flint River's corrosive supply is believed to have caused lead pipes to leach the brain-busting toxin into the taps.
Estimates to fully repair the damage go as high as $1.5 billion.
During his State of the State speech, Snyder took responsibility for the crisis and pledged to release his emails from 2014 and 2015.
Snyder spokesman David Murray said the email release would occur today, although no time had been determined. Snyder's emails are exempt under Michigan's public records law, but advocates had pressed the governor to waive the exemption to make clear what he knew about the water-source switch.
"The government failed you -- federal, state and local leaders," Snyder said (E&E Daily, Jan. 20).
Earlier this month, Snyder deployed the National Guard to distribute bottled water in Flint. Despite the actions so far, a long-term solution is unclear for how to address health concerns for people who may have been exposed to harmful lead levels for more than a year.
Weaver said she was uncertain whether U.S. EPA Region 5 should share blame for the delayed response. But she said it was appropriate for state officials to take action first as the directly responsible party.
Weaver said she would wait for investigations to end before determining whether Snyder should have moved faster to intervene in Flint.
"There's enough blame to go all the way around," Weaver said.
Some politicians and activists have said Michigan would not have changed the water supply in a more affluent city. In addition, the state would have responded faster to eliminate the risk of lead exposure once suspicions were raised, they contend.
Several protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement interrupted the news conference as Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) was introducing the event. As Rawlings-Blake, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) and then Weaver spoke, a woman holding a sign calling on Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) to resign over the city's handling of a 2014 police shooting stood directly in front of the podium as other protestors wove through a bank of more than a dozen television cameras.
"They don't care about you all!" a protestor yelled as Weaver described Flint's relationship with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Weaver said the state should have listened to her and other Flint residents who warned the plan to use river water was a bad idea.
"It didn't take a scientist to tell us brown water is not good," Weaver said.
-
Explosion at PeroxyChem Plant Shouldn't Come as a Shock
Jan 20, 2016 | Houston Press
By Diana Wray
Houston is one of the world's largest manufacturing hubs of chemicals and petrochemicals, and this has been a part of the city's economy for decades. But the plants and refineries in and around Houston come at a price: It's never a question of if there will be an accident or an explosion, it's only a question of when and where. The latest fatal accident happened at PeroxyChem Plant, in an explosion that reverberated through the area, killing one person and injuring three.
The explosion occurred on Saturday when a tank holding an oil-based cleaning solution exploded. One contract worker, Ricky Giddens, 62, died at the scene while three others, two contractors and one employee, were injured when something went wrong involving the transfer of chemicals at the plant, according to KTRK.
Relatively speaking, PeroxyChem isn't one of the big players like Dow or DuPont. The company employs 600 people and produces hydrogen peroxide, ammonium persulfate, peracetic acid, and other products for cleaning and sanitation, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, oil and gas production, pulp and paper, electronics and the environment. The Pasadena plant had a fairly clean record and the company has placed an emphasis on safety, according to the company's own 2014 report:
"Safety is our first and foremost priority. Extreme diligence and focus must be placed on safety at all times, in all areas, and all functions. Last year we again incurred recordable incidents, and although we are fortunate none were serious or life threatening, when compared to 2013 numbers, we did not improve our incident rate year-over-year," the company's 2014 report stated. "We are cognizant that our injuries spanned across functional areas, reminding us that our focus on safety must extend past the traditional manufacturing setting, and incidents can happen anywhere, anytime. In our effort to be a top-tier safety company we are committed to operating safely and strive to obtain and maintain an incident-free workplace. No amount of time or money justifies the risk and impact of unsafe practices on our people, the community or the environment.What's more troubling about all of this is that it keeps happening. The injuries and the deaths are a fact of life that those who work in these industries simply accept. Some are on the job for decades without any incident while others — through mistakes, through lack of training, or because of faulty equipment or some other whim of fate or bad luck — sustain injuries that are often fatal.
As we've reported before, many of the people who work in the plants and refineries know the risks. Brian Johns, the man we wrote about in our 2013 feature story "Chemically Burned", used to tell his son about the dangerous chemicals he worked with at the Deer Park plant owned by Dow Chemical.
Kathryn Rodriguez's father, Ray Gonzalez, died from burns sustained in an accident at the then-British Petroleum Texas City refinery in September 2004. Over the years as he worked in the refinery industry would tell his wife how easily a minor situation could turn deadly, but he hid that fact from his daughters, Rodriguez told us in 2015. "He didn't want us to worry. If we had known we would have worried all the time," she said.
But even though the risks are known, these types of industry are left with very little regulatory oversight, until something catastrophic happens. The regulatory agencies that should be stepping in are caught in situations that make actual regulation difficult if not impossible, as we've noted before.Occupational Health and Safety Administration officials were on the scene investigating the PeroxyChem accident as of Tuesday morning, but it was the first time OSHA had been on the premises in a decade, according to the Houston Chronicle.
And that's actually completely normal in the world of plant regulation. OSHA simply isn't big enough. Some states have established their own agencies to regulate worker safety, but Texas is among those that have chosen to rely on federal regulators instead. Today there are about 2,200 inspectors at OSHA who oversee more than 130 million workers at more than 8 million workplaces, making it impossible for agency investigators to get to every company before incidents like the explosions PeroxyChem happen.
(Besides, the chemicals and materials dealt with on a day-to-day basis in these industries are so volatile and unpredictable, and the processes are so complicated it's possible that even the most rigorous OSHA inspections would miss something.)
OSHA officials are overextended and underfunded, so even though the creation of this agency was hailed as a giant stride forward in labor safety back in the 1970s, it really can't do much more than show up after there's been a serious injury or a death and issue fairly meaningless fines.
Meanwhile, the Chemical Safety Board is also looking into the details of the explosion and the gathering information. However, the CSB is charged with investigating incidents like this one but the CSB has no regulatory authority. Plus, the CSB is also a relatively tiny organization that has been tasked with overseeing incidents in thousands of companies and plants across the country.
The CSB shows up on site and investigates the big disasters like the Texas City refinery explosion in 2005 that killed 15 workers, and the explosion at the fertilizer plant in West, Texas in 2013 and the deaths of four workers killed by the leak of toxic substances in DuPont's La Porte facility in November 2014. The DuPont La Porte accident was such a mess that the CSB took an unusual step and made its report public before the report was finished, as we noted at the time, because DuPont hadn't fixed the problems in the facilities but the company was about to start up production again. And in instances like that, the CSB can make its power felt.
But the reality is CSB is too small an organization to show up and investigate the deaths of every worker, like the worker who was killed at Dow Chemical in July or the four who died at SunEdison in Pasadena in October or the others that have died since.
We don't yet know much about the accident that killed Giddens and injured three others. Unfortunately, there's one thing we can be sure of: It wasn't the first and it won't be the last.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs Senate Bill's Efficiency Provisions
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Business interests are urging Senate leaders to bring the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's bipartisan energy bill to the floor for a vote, citing the measure's efficiency provisions as an economic boon.
In a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council and several other companies outline a number of efficiency provisions in the bill (S. 2012) they call a "win-win approach."
"We support low to no-cost, no-mandate bills that advance energy efficiency, while preserving the critical role of government oversight," the coalition wrote today. "American taxpayers save money on their energy bills and businesses thrive when we reduce regulatory burdens, increase transparency, and focus on the federal government as a first mover."
Specifically, the letter lauds the inclusion of provisions from the long-stalled efficiency bill championed by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
"Some of the sections we are most enthusiastic about include the federal energy related provisions and the building codes section, which was developed through a bipartisan, transparent process and does not include state mandates," they wrote. "We urge lawmakers to retain the current language supporting strong, updated model building energy codes."
The underlying bill, which also includes sections to boost renewables, energy infrastructure and natural gas exports, may be the Senate's next business after the chamber votes this afternoon on a procedural motion on a bill to impose new screening procedures on Iraqi and Syrian refugees.
Senators yesterday indicated they're already considering amendments to the energy bill (E&E Daily, Jan. 20).
But the Senate first has to determine whether to debate the refugee bill, which is opposed by the White House and many Democrats.
Reid today signaled Democrats would be willing to begin debate -- if Republicans agree to four politically perilous amendment votes.
The first would "denounce Donald Trump's reprehensible proposal to impose a religious test on admission into the United States," while the remainder would bar people on the no-fly list from being able to purchase firearms and increase funds for local law enforcement anti-terror efforts and airport security, along with a Democratic "anti-ISIS security bill."
"Democrats are committed to opposing the vile views of Donald Trump and providing the American people with solutions that make our nation safer," Reid said in floor remarks this morning. "And we think it's past time for the Senate to vote on these policies."
Reid also noted McConnell's frequent pledge to allow an open amendment process for the chamber.
McConnell later said he would speak with Reid "about a way forward on the bill," which is slated for a procedural vote at 2:30 p.m.
-
API's Gerard Talks Future of U.S. Industry Amid Market, Regulatory Challenges
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E TV
As crude oil prices continue to decline and natural gas faces increasing competition from the clean energy sector, how are the U.S. oil and gas industries adjusting to the changing market dynamics and shifting their long-term plans? During today's OnPoint, Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, discusses the oil and gas outlook, his organization's focus on natural gas ahead of the elections, and the impact presidential politics could have on industry growth.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. Jack, thanks for coming back on the show. Nice to see you.
Jack Gerard: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Jack, during his final State of the Union address the president made a statement about fossil fuels. In particular, oil and coal. It was a bit unclear even to industry insiders what exactly he meant. What action are you anticipating from this administration on the management of oil and coal?
Jack Gerard: Well, unfortunately, we expect the president will continue the trend, which we've seen over the past few years. That is overregulation. Simply stated, a lot of people might not realize, but over the last year -- so we've dealt with close to 100 new regulations from this administration on oil and natural gas.
Yet, at the same time, we've been able to achieve record production in this country that's created thousands of high-paying jobs and literally moved the epicenter of energy from around the world to the United States.
So we wish the president and his team would reconsider what they're thinking about hindering or discouraging this great American energy renaissance and would actually come forward with proposals that would say, "How do we work together as Democrats, as Republicans, as the Executive Branch or the Congress and really realign global energy so the U.S. can achieve its potential?"
Unfortunately the president's statement suggests it's going to be more of the same. It's going to be overregulation. It's going to be hindering our activities or placing burdens on as such that discourages the very activity that would create the jobs the country needs.
Monica Trauzzi: So API has taken several steps in recent months that could be seen as a pivot to natural gas and away from oil. You've taken over America's Natural Gas Alliance and you recently said natural gas would be at the forefront of API's messaging heading towards the elections. Have you shifted your focus to natural gas?
Jack Gerard: No. Our focus has always been oil and natural gas. The API has always represented the oil and natural gas industries as well as the refinery sector, et cetera.
When you think about it, the API is the only association that represents all aspects of America's oil and natural gas industry.
What the addition of the ANGA activities will do for us is refocus more of our activities in the market development area. So we'll be doing a lot more outreach, if you will, to the state PUCs, to the public utility commissions, as they implement the Clean Power Plan in making sure that natural gas is not disadvantageous.
It's unfortunate because the second round, the final round of the administration's Clean Power Plan actually advantages solar and wind over other energy sources. WE believe that was very unfortunate.
Natural gas has brought us to where we are today by lowering carbon emissions to a near 20-year low. It's the fuel of choice. It's low cost. It's affordable. It's clean burning. It's reliable. Those are all the things that we'll be advocating to make sure regulators, states and others give natural gas an equal opportunity.
Monica Trauzzi: And state PUCs are digging in right now to compliance plans --
Jack Gerard: They are.
Monica Trauzzi: -- and what things are going to look like. What are you hearing from them? Are they giving natural gas the same look as they are renewables?
Jack Gerard: Well, what we're seeing early on is the recognition because the market has really moved us there. If you look at the American energy renaissance today we hear about -- we call it the U.S. model. We actually have record production of oil and natural gas and yet our carbon emissions are at a near 20-year low.
People say, "Well how can that be if you're producing all this fossil fuel yet at the same time you're reducing your carbon emissions?" The answer is this is primarily driven by natural gas consumption.
So most of the state PUCs already understand it, and the reason they understand it is because they're consumer-focused. They're focused on what does this mean to the ratepayer. What does this mean to Monica and her home when she pays for energy on a monthly basis?
What it shows is because we've had this significant increase of production, the supply out there is such the price has come down dramatically. So now natural gas is not only affordable and competitive across all other fuels, but it's a cleaner-burning choice.
So we think we've got a great story to tell. We just want to make sure people don't disadvantage it. We're not asking for any special provisions. We're not asking for handouts. We're just asking for an opportunity to compete and let natural gas do what it does so well.
Monica Trauzzi: So it sounds like in some sense you believe that the future of natural gas is in peril. You're ramping up your messaging. You're having all these conversations with the state PUCs. The natural gas industry is in a very different place than it was a couple years ago.
Jack Gerard: Monica, I wouldn't say it's in peril. I think it's unfortunate that some regulators and including this administration have indicated they're going to do what they can to disadvantage it.
It was very unfortunate when they put out the final Clean Power Plan rule, one of the statements made by the president was, "Well this is going to eliminate the dash to gas or the rush to natural gas." Well why would you eliminate an affordable fuel, a cleaner-burning fuel that's reducing your carbon emissions?
It can only be explained in one way. The administration has their preferred choices of energy, and they're choosing solar and wind over all other energies.
The unfortunate thing is those are more costly energies. They have to be backed up by natural gas because they're intermittent sources, and the American public we don't believe is going to stand for significant increases in their energy costs.
So once again we're going to be out there talking reason to local regulators, to state regulators and just reminding them if you want to benefit consumers like we are today, the $2 -- $1,200 a year per American family because the price has dropped, if you want to continue to clean the environment, lower carbon emissions, natural gas is your preferred choice and you can do it without hurting consumers.
Monica Trauzzi: So what do you think happened over the eight years of this administration to account for the shift in tone on natural gas because early on in the administration there was definitely a lot of support for natural gas. Natural gas was see as this bridge fuel. Then with the Clean Power Plan, definitely more of a focus on clean energy. What happened?
Jack Gerard: Well, it's unfortunate because I think what happened is when the president and his advisers made a decision to break from the standard democratic processes, and what I mean by that, is you remember a few years ago the decision was made, "Well I've got my own pen. I've got my own paper. I'm going to go this alone."
At that point you see a breakaway from what I believe were good consensus-built decisions or policies, such as let's go to an affordable, reliable energy like natural gas. Unfortunately they moved to the shrill fringes of society in terms of political ideology and now they're taking, in my view, extreme positions.
By trying to push or disadvantage natural gas is not in the United States' best interest. It is not in the public's best interest, and it's clearly not in our interest as you think about this globally from an energy security standpoint.
So why would they move there? I don't want to suggest I understand their motivation. I will tell you the extreme elements of that base though suggest that we shouldn't produce any fossil fuels. They've got this new mantra they call keep it in the ground. Well that's a very extreme position.
Unfortunately it appears that some of the policies of the administration have migrated in that direction.
Monica Trauzzi: The cost of renewables has gone down though, and storage solutions --
Jack Gerard: It has.
Monica Trauzzi: -- storage technologies continue to improve and we're expecting continued advancements on that front as well. Will there come a point where natural gas can't compete or has difficulty competing with renewables because the cost comes down so much?
Jack Gerard: I don't think so. If you look at even the experts, if you look even at the administration's economic and energy projections going forward, even they will tell you today that by 2040, 80 percent of all the energy we'll consume in the United States will still be fossil fuels.
It's great that we've moved the renewables where we are today and we're for all energy sources. We support solar. We support wind. We support improved energy efficiencies. We believe you need a true all of the above.
So our purpose is to not denigrate or downplay those energy sources. We just believe everybody should have equal opportunity to compete because it's the marketplace that brings the price down. It's the marketplace that drives efficiency, that drives technological innovation.
It was the marketplace that allowed us today to find these vast resources we have in the United States and to produce them so cost-effectively.
When you bring regulation into it, you have a tendency to freeze the technology where it is today because prescriptive regulation says well, here's how you do that. So what happens? You chill innovation.
If you let the market take over, what you'll find is we'll find affordable, reliable, cleaner-burning energy sources all the time and the great beneficiary is the American public, the American consumer.
Monica Trauzzi: Which presidential candidate do you believe would best advance the natural gas industry's agenda?
Jack Gerard: Well we haven't identified any one individual candidate. We've talked to all of them from all political parties and all political philosophies.
We believe overall that the role of natural gas will play a dominant role in the energy equation moving forward just like oil will continue to.
So we're hopeful they'll get over their political divisiveness and at some point sit down and say, "Let's look at U.S. interests. Let's look more globally. What is this opportunity we have to realign the epicenter of energy power in the world and to bring it home here to the U.S.?"
All you have to do is look at what's going on in the Middle East today. Just a few short years ago with that anxiety, if you will, between the Saudis and Iran and others, you have seen the price of oil spike. It doesn't spike today and why is that? Because you've got reliable, ample supplies like in the United States which the global marketplace says, "You know what? We've got alternatives now."
I would hope our politicians, our leadership would come together and become more American-focused in their energy policy because I think that's a very compelling case for oil, for natural gas and for all energy forms because we're truly all of the above.
Monica Trauzzi: I want to talk about just one question on Keystone XL. We've talked about that a lot over the years. Of course the president officially said no to building the pipeline --
Jack Gerard: Very unfortunate.
Monica Trauzzi: We see TransCanada now in the midst of a lawsuit against the administration, but again here, do the market dynamics no longer support the construction of this pipeline, and if a new president comes in, a Republic president who is a Keystone supporter, do the economics for building the pipeline still make sense?
Jack Gerard: No, the market conditions support building a lot of pipelines. Keystone just happened to be the poster child for whatever reason this administration chose.
But let me show you the irony of a decision like has been made. That product, the oil sands of Canada, is still moving to the Gulf Coast to Mexico to be refined by U.S. refiners. The difference is it's moving by alternative forms of transportation. It's moving by rail, by barge, et cetera.
You know what that does? By the State Department's own analysis that was part of this decisionmaking process where the president denied the pipeline, carbon emissions will increase by 42 percent because of that denial.
That's why for some of us we find it hard to reconcile but for the motivation of an ideology on the administration's part, it's hard to reconcile how you can stand up and say well, we're concerned about carbon emissions so we're going to deny a safe pipeline and force the increase of 42 percent increase in carbon emissions. It doesn't make a bit of sense to us. We think it's an unfortunate decision.
There's $1.15 trillion on the sidelines today ready to be invested, private capital in building infrastructure in the United States. That decision has a chilling effect on those investment dollars. If you want jobs in the United States, if you want an efficient energy system, make us the world leader. We're going to have to get over these ideologies and focus more on geology.
We're hopeful politicians will start to do that.
Monica Trauzzi: But this president also signed off on lifting the ban on crude oil exports at the end of last year. This was something that the industry pushed heavily for, but again, with the current market conditions, how beneficial will this actually be to the U.S. industry in terms of numbers?
Jack Gerard: Well, two points, Monica. First is the president signed the bill even though every day prior to its enactment he through his spokespeople expressed opposition to the policy.
So he signed the bill, frankly, because he needed to. It was part of the broader package. One can suggest, well, he did it for this reason, that reason, whatever.
But more importantly about the change in that policy, it is very significant because after 40 years the United States said we're going to take advantage of looking to the global marketplace for opportunity.
Because of the low price today and the market conditions today you might not see a big uptick in it today, but longer term we have sent a signal to U.S. producers. We're going to give you access to the markets. We're going to let you compete with everybody around the world and we're going to let you compete with the Iranians, which under the administration's deal, they're going to lift the sanctions on Iran and allow Iran access to that global market. It's high time we let the U.S. producer have that same opportunity.
That's why that policy change is so important. It tells the rest of the world, "We're serious about this." Unrest in the Middle East doesn't cause a spike in oil price today. Why? Because now we have alternatives called good old US of A production.
Monica Trauzzi: There's been a lot of talk about town since API took over ANGA that you have become the most powerful lobbyist in Washington. Is that how you see yourself?
Jack Gerard: No. I think what we see is the American voter at the end of the day is empowered to lead this country. They do it through a democratic process through elected officials.
We believe the best public policy comes from engaging the American voter. We don't see ourselves as a powerful industry. We see ourselves as an essential industry. We're Americans like everybody else. We live in the communities with everybody else.
Our hope is to work with the American people and really make this American energy renaissance a chance in a lifetime to reposition the U.S., to create good-paying jobs, provide ample energy and make us the superpower of the world.
Monica Trauzzi: Way to punt on that question.
Jack Gerard: That's how we see our ... good to talk to you Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for coming on the show.
Jack Gerard: You bet.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
-
FERC Calls for Solid Modeling to Help Weigh Reliability
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission offered guidance yesterday for developing modeling tools that states and electric utilities might use in deciding how to cut carbon emissions under U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
FERC has no direct role in the climate regulation, under which power-sector carbon dioxide emissions would fall 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. But the agency is supposed to work with EPA and the Department of Energy to ensure a reliable grid and prevent power outages as states implement the regulation.
FERC says it will need good modeling to fulfill that assignment.
States are tasked with writing plans to cut carbon by varying levels, and they also must show how they have considered reliability issues.
The 18-page white paper from FERC staff identifies "four guiding principles that may assist transmission planning entities, which may include regional transmission organizations (RTOs), independent system operators (ISOs), electric utilities, or other interested stakeholders, in conducting effective analysis of the CPP and associated state plans, federal plans or multi-state plans."
Those principles are: transparency and broad engagement, study methodology, study inputs and sensitivities, and tools and techniques.
In other words, FERC says it wants "robust analysis of the reliability impacts of the CPP," and that requires scientific, transparent studies.
Evaluating potential reliability impacts "presents a number of challenges for transmission planning entities," FERC staff said. "Because all states in the continental United States are required to comply with the CPP, state-by-state variations in compliance approaches may add additional uncertainty and complexity, particularly for transmission planning entities that cover multiple states or states with multiple transmission planning entities."
All states except Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska have Clean Power Plan goals to meet.
"The use of inconsistent models, or inconsistent modeling inputs, may suggest reliability problems where none exist, or may mask problems that do exist," staff added.
The challenges to studying potential reliability problems can be reduced with appropriate modeling tools and techniques, according to FERC.
The white paper also suggests future studies on "resource adequacy, production cost, integrated gas-electric systems simulations, powerflow and transient stability analysis, and frequency response."
The paper is the first step in informal but "significant outreach" that FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable told E&E Publishing her agency would start conducting soon (ClimateWire, Jan. 12).
-
Western States' Group Releases Carbon-Cutting Calculator
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A Colorado-based group coordinating Clean Power Plan talks in the West yesterday released the first phase of a modeling tool for states and utilities.
The tool, developed under the guidance of the Center for the New Energy Economy (CNEE), covers five states: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Montana.
A later version will model seven additional states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona and Nevada.
The firms Energy Strategies LLC and Fovea LLC created the modeling platform to show how various carbon-cutting actions might help states meet U.S. EPA's assigned goals.
A number of consulting companies have made similar toolsfor individual states and the entire country, but Jeff Lyng, a senior policy adviser for CNEE, said "the reason that this model is important and that we're undertaking this effort is that it establishes a common platform for evaluating compliance in the West."
"Speaking a common language is really very important," Lyng said. The tool does not estimate costs, and Lyng noted that state decisionmakers may eventually need to move toward a more sophisticated model that does.
CNEE is one of several nongovernmental organizations managing multistate discussions about the rule and has involved state officials, electric utilities and environmental interests in all of the states in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
The modeling tool uses information verified by utilities operating in the five states. CNEE is raising funds to expand to the second set of states but will exclude California from that group.
No single modeling tool can do everything, the creators noted during a webinar yesterday. Theirs, called the Western States Clean Power Plan Evaluation Model, can assess rate- and mass-based compliance. It can examine options by unit, by utility and at the state and multistate levels. A future version will allow users to see how decisions might affect co-owners of coal plants. Many large coal plants in the West are owned by a number of utilities.
Phase 2 will also allow users to evaluate what will happen if a state does not comply and EPA establishes a federal plan. It will show how renewable energy and energy efficiency might replace coal-fired plants that retire and what that would mean for emissions reductions.
For more resources and tools related to the Clean Power Plan, see our Power Plan HubToolbox.
-
House Agriculture Panel Calls EPA's McCarthy to Testify
Jan 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Catherine Boudreau
The House Agriculture Committee has announced a Jan. 26 hearing on the impact of EPA regulations on the rural economy.
Chairman Michael Conaway said the EPA has seemingly ignored the voluntary conservation efforts of farmers and ranchers and Congress' intent when crafting rules, according to a statement today.
"Next week, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will be called on to explain her agency’s decisions and discuss with members of Congress how we might work together to ensure that future actions by the EPA do not harm American agriculture," Conaway said.
The announcement of the hearing comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's expected veto of a congressional resolution to roll back the EPA's "waters of the United States" rule, which defines the waters protected under the Clean Water Act.“
-
Activists Press Admin to Crack Down on Oil and Gas Leasing
Jan 20, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Climate activists are pushing for changes to the federal oil and gas leasing program in the wake of the Obama administration's decision to freeze and scrutinize future coal leases.
The activists, who are part of a broader "Keep It in the Ground" movement, characterized the Obama administration's Friday announcement as a big step forward but said the Department of the Interior must also address climate impacts of its oil and gas program.
The group WildEarth Guardians, long a leader in the fight against coal, today petitioned DOI to put in place a similar moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands.
Several organizations this week also vowed to protest every local oil and gas lease sale scheduled for this year by the Bureau of Land Management.
"Even more so than the coal program, it's really time that they step up and look at the full climate impacts for the oil and gas program," said Tim Ream, climate and energy campaign director at WildEarth Guardians.
"And we think that the approach the administration is taking," Ream said, "that's exactly the kind of approach that we've been charting out for them to take on onshore oil and gas."
On Friday, the Obama administration froze the leasing of federally owned coal to mining companies pending the completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement to analyze how the administration awards coal leases and how environmental and public health concerns factor into the decisionmaking process.
The environmentalists calling for Obama to extend that decision to oil and gas leasing activities are part of the growing "Keep It in the Ground" movement, which aims to halt all oil, gas and coal extraction on public lands in the United States.
While activists have been working the court system for years to inject climate change into leasing decisions on public lands, the broader movement went mainstream only last fall.
Climate activists who had for years been fighting the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada turned to Keep It in the Ground once Obama rejected the controversial project.
"Ever since Keystone, the movement's been moving from iconic fights to larger policy," said Jason Kowalski, policy director for 350.org.
"The keep-it-in-the-ground mantra was there during the Keystone fight. We were only applying it to one pipeline, but we knew that fight wasn't just about one pipeline," he said.Movement 'extreme' -- industry
Energy industry leaders have called the movement "extreme" and warned the federal government stands to lose a revenue stream worth billions of dollars. The National Mining Association last week said that the Obama administration's decision to halt coal leasing "defies credulity."
Republicans have vowed to fight the coal decision. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also yesterday slammed the broader Keep It in the Ground movement.
"Think about what that says for not only energy security but national security," Murkowski said. "When you think about your access to energy resources and your competitiveness worldwide, I am concerned our policies would take offline our resources that allow us to be in the game."
But environmental groups say fossil fuels owned by the federal government must remain in the ground for Obama to cement his climate legacy and for the United States to do its part under the international climate deal negotiated in Paris last month.
The agreement called on nations to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 C.
A study released last year by the groups Friends of the Earth and the Center for Biological Diversity said ending leasing on taxpayer-owned lands and offshore areas would prevent the release of 450 billion tons of carbon pollution.
"Addressing both coal, and oil and gas, would really deliver on his promise to be the climate president and leave behind a strong climate legacy -- moreso than anything else he has done," said Marissa Knodel, climate change campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "If he wants to make good on the climate mitigation targets, the best way to do that is to reform how we lease publicly."
Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said about the recent announcement: "It's a big step forward in terms of hopefully keeping a large amount of coal in the ground -- but to be clear, it doesn't end the coal program."
Spivak said, "The federal fossil fuel program still contributes a significant amount of carbon pollution that's incompatible with meeting the president's climate goals, and we think oil and gas must be looked at next."'Climate change rationale'
Today's 40-page petition by WildEarth Guardians argues that the "climate change rationale" for last week's coal decision "applies with an equally great urgency" to federal oil and gas leasing. DOI has never conducted a programmatic environmental impact statement of the oil and gas leasing program.
"With today's filing, we are asking the Department of the Interior to live up to its legal obligation to study the environmental and social impacts of its oil and gas leasing program," said Aaron Adams, principal author of the petition and certified law student with the University of California, Irvine, School of Law's Environmental Law Clinic. "This one's a no-brainer."
Ream said movement sympathizers would continue protesting every BLM oil and gas lease sale this year after successfully getting the agency to postpone three such sales.
"That is something that we are going to do this year," he said, "and we're going to do every time this year that the administration tries to lease more oil and gas and goes across that red line that was drawn in Paris."
Activists have rallied around legislation introduced by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which would stop new leases and the renewal of all nonproducing leases for fossil fuels on federal lands, as well as halt offshore leasing activities.
Merkley said he supported efforts to inject climate change into oil and gas leasing decisions. "I would want for them to continue exploring similar parallel efforts," Merkley said of the administration.
"Certainly the same logic applies to coal leases, in terms of aggravating global warming and in terms of our partnering with the world to take on this challenge, applies to other fossil fuels," he said.
Environmentalists point to a paragraph in Obama's recent State of the Union speech that they believe signals that the administration will take up oil and gas leasing before he leaves office.
"I'm going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources," the president said in last week's speech, "so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet."
Ream said he had "no doubt" that the president "very consciously used oil and coal in the same phrase."
The Interior Department today indicated that a moratorium on oil and gas leasing similar to coal was unlikely at this point.
In an interview yesterday, Murkowski expressed concern that the climate movement would gain more of a foothold. "We have just started to see first oil out of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska," she said. "It would be a shame, it would be a travesty if we were to see a moratorium put on federal lands."
Reporter Dylan Brown contributed.
-
Jan 20, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
INCOMING! INTERIOR’S METHANE CRACKDOWN: The Interior Department’s landmark fracking regulations are on pause while a federal judge decides on a challenge by industry groups, but that’s not stopping the agency from moving ahead with another major fracking proposal that could hit the streets as soon as today. Sources tell ME that Interior's Bureau of Land Management is expected to propose new rules for the disposal of methane emissions while fracking on federal lands sometime this week. And given that Interior Secretary Sally Jewell is set to leave for Africa tomorrow, the Obama administration has good reason to get BLM’s proposal out in the open today. Remember that methane, and its global warming impact more than 20 times the size of carbon dioxide's is considered one of the president’s last pieces of unfinished climate-policy business during his last year in office …
… and Pennsylvania's on the case: Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, whose 2014 election was one of the few successful bets by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, put methane in the headlines Tuesday with a new vow to streamline oil and gas permitting while requiring both new and existing drilling operations to use the best available technology to capture methane and spot leaks of the greenhouse gas. Wolf’s announcement thrilled greens who lamented a decision to target only new sources that Obama’s EPA made last year. Pro's Elana Schor had the full details on Pennsylvania’s methane moment.
Industry makes nice(r than usual): Wolf's announcement spurred a flurry of reactions, but missing from the maelstrom was direct criticism from the industry group, Marcellus Shale Coalition. "We welcome Governor Wolf’s efforts to expand new manufacturing opportunities ... through affordable home-grown natural gas and are committed to working with lawmakers as well as state officials to focus on common sense policies that encourage job-creating natural gas development,” coalition President David Spigelmyer said in a statement.
WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY! I'm your host Eric Wolff, and I got a few proposals for naming this snowstorm bearing down on D.C., but so far I like Snownado and Cupcake. Which name you prefer depends on your feelings about snow, I suppose. As a snow lover, I look forward to Cupcake's arrival, but I'm still open to other naming ideas. If you have other suggestions, or energy-related tips, quips, and comments toewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
SNYDER'S CAREER FLOUNDERS IN FLINT'S POISONED WATER: Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder was once a rising star who could plausibly have been Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012, or a presidential contender himself this cycle or in 2020. Now, Snyder is sinking in the quick sand of an appointee who ordered what turned out to be contaminated water to the people of Flint and an environment department that spent two years of denying that there was a problem. As Pro's Annie Snider and Darren Goode report.
Snyder's Mea Culpa: Snyder apologized in his State-of-the State address last night, and outlined plans to spend more than $20 million to help Flint. He also promised to release two years’ of emails relating to the crisis. "You deserve accountability. You deserve to know that the buck stops here with me," he said.
Dems: That's not enough: Rep. Dan Kildee, who may run for governor in two years, quickly blasted Snyder’s request as “a fraction of the money city residents have paid for poisoned water that they cannot drink.”
Ben Carson first to weigh in from GOP field: "Unfortunately, the leaders of Flint have failed to place the well-being of their residents as a top priority," Carson said in a statement to The Huffington Post, which noted he also criticized federal officials but did not mention the governor.
SENATE ENERGY BILL MAY SEE ACTION: The Senate may take up its energy bill as soon as today if Senate Democrats filibuster a bill related to Syrian refugees today. The bipartisan bill, which passed committee last summer, would expedite natural gas exports, modernize infrastructure and promote energy efficiency, among other things. Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski said the energy bill was “one of the big topics of discussion” at last week’s bicameral Republican retreat and could come up today, although she said that had not been confirmed.
-
It’s Official: 2015 ‘Smashed’ the Global Temperature Record. It Wasn’t Even Close
Jan 20, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Last year shattered 2014’s record to become the hottest year ever recorded, based on data going back to 1880, two U.S. government science agencies announced Wednesday.
“2015 was by far the record year in all of the temperature datasets that are based on the instrumental and surface data,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, which made the announcement jointly along with NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“It really underlines the fact that the planet really is still warming, there is no change in the long term global warming rate, and we know why that is,” he said.
Specifically, the year was 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 degrees Celsius) hotter than 2014, the prior record year, according to NASA. The measurement recorded by NOAA was slightly worse: 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit (0.16 degrees C) hotter than 2014.
“A lot of times, you actually look at these numbers, when you break a record, you break it by a few hundredths of a degree,” said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. “But this record, we literally smashed. It was over a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit, and that’s a lot for the global temperature.”
Overall, NOAA said, 2015 was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.
NASA and NOAA both keep independent global surface temperature datasets, measuring temperatures over both the land and the oceans using thermometers, ocean buoys and ship readings. The datasets do not always agree perfectly, but they showed relatively little disagreement this year, Schmidt said.
The new record means that 2014 — the previous record year — only officially held that title for one year. 2014 came by its record by a relatively narrow margin — for instance, NASA gave 2014 a 38 percent chance of having been the warmest year on record, still reserving a nontrivial chance that the real warmest year had been 2010 or 2005. (NOAA gave a 48 percent chance that 2014 had, at the time, been the warmest year.)
This year, in contrast, there is little need for citing percentages or a statistical photo finish. Buoyed by a powerful El Niño event, 2015 shattered the 2014 record. NASA’s Schmidt suggests there’s only a 5 percent possibility that any other year on record was actually warmer.
Fifteen of the sixteen hottest years on record have now occurred in this century, according to NASA.
2015’s record heat — enhanced, especially in later months of the year, by a strong El Niño event that released warmth from the Pacific Ocean — was apparent long before the official declaration of the current record, which comes as little surprise to climate scientists.
Every month in 2015 except for January and April was the hottest of that month on record globally, according to NOAA. In other words, September of 2015 was the hottest September in 136 years, as was October of 2015, November of 2015, and so on.
NOAA also announced Wednesday that for December, the “temperature departure from average was also the highest departure among all months in the historical record and the first time a monthly departure has reached 2°F.”
It became almost a kind of ritual as the year wore on: Each month the agency would announce that the prior month had been the hottest June, or July, or August on record for the globe.
From a climate policy perspective, the warmth of 2015 is also highly significant. Global leaders in Paris agreed in December that the planet should not be allowed to warm 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures — and ideally, warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible. Based on 2015’s temperature record, though, we’re already half way to 2 degrees.
“This is the first year where the record is clearly above 1 degree Celsius above the 19th century,” said NASA’s Schmidt. NOAA’s data also show that the planet is now more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than the average temperature between 1880 and 1899, said the agency’s Karl.
2015’s El Niño enhanced heat was accompanied by dramatic weather events across the globe, including a new record for the number of Category 3 or greater tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere. That tally includes Hurricane Patricia, the most intense hurricane ever recorded by the National Hurricane Center.
In some ways most ominously of all, 2015 was the year that scientists announced that an entirely new sector of Greenland — one containing over three feet of potential sea level rise — appeared to have been destabilized. The region is centered on the Zachariae and Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glaciers of northeast Greenland, which together comprise the endpoint of the northeast Greenland ice stream, which drains 12 percent of the vast ice sheet.
2015’s record warmth also included a major anomaly — very cold temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean to the south of Greenland. Monthly NOAA temperature maps repeatedly showed a blue colored ‘blob’ of cold in this region, a development that is sparking increasing scientific interest, because of the suspicion that it could represent a sign of a change in the overturning circulation of the ocean.
“In the northern North Atlantic, temperatures were colder than normal, and that was really pretty much the only part of the world that had a sizeable area with below average temperatures,” Karl said.
It certainly isn’t the case that the 2015 temperature record can be entirely attributed to the warming of the globe by human greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change has never meant that every successive year will be warmer than the next, and the powerful 2015 El Niño unlocked immense heat from the Pacific Ocean that drove up the global temperature.
But at the same time, 2015 was also considerably hotter than 1998, another major El Niño year that was, at the time, the hottest year on record. Now, in contrast, it’s fifth or sixth on the list, depending on which agency you consult. And that, say experts, is how the warming of the planet makes itself felt.
“It’s breaking the record because we also have this unusually strong El Niño, but at the same time we know the ocean is now absorbing two times more heat than around the last time we had a big El Niño, which is quite a while ago,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University.
There has been some talk in scientific circles that 2016 could be even hotter overall than 2015 — which would lead to three record years in a row. The reasoning here is that there is usually a significant lag between when El Niño peaks and when the warming of the globe does in its wake. Thus, 1998 was the hottest year of the 1997-1998 El Niño event.
Britain’s Met Office recently forecast that 2016 could be “at least as warm, if not warmer” than 2015, in the words of research fellow Chris Folland.
“In previous El Niño years, they peak in the wintertime … [and] the warmest temperatures are in the subsequent year,” said NOAA’s Karl. “If 2016 continues like we’ve seen in the past, that would suggest 2016 is going to be very close to a record or even a new record.”
However, not all scientists agree. “My guess is that 2016 may not be warmer than 2015,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate change and El Niño expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He thinks the current El Niño may already have begun to peak (or have peaked) and thus that the second half of 2016 may cool down again somewhat.
In 2015, record warm temperatures and a growing focus on addressing global warming seemed in curious sync. It was the year that Pope Francis released his historic encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si, and the year in which the United States moved to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the generation of electricity, their largest single source.
Most significant, as heat records over the year accumulated, nations of the world assembled in Paris to forge a global climate agreement that will serve as the template for locking in cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades.
It’s hard to say that 2015’s warmth directly contributed to these human decisions, and yet it’s also hard to entirely separate the two. The stark warming of the globe in 2015 clearly imparted a newfound sense of policy urgency.
“NASA has been talking about the existence of global warming in public since 1988,” said Schmidt. “1988 was also a record warm year for the time. Just so that people understand, it is now 23rd in the rankings.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested