Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/9/2016
-
Energy Subcommittee Hearing- Department of Energy Oversight: Office of Fossil Energy
May 11, 2016 |
By 2318 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00
Subcommittee on Energy (114th Congress) -
The New Faces of American Manufacturing
May 12, 2016 | U.S. House Small Business Committee
By Location: 2360 Rayburn / 11:00 AM
Chairman Steve Chabot has scheduled a hearing of the Committee on Small Business titled, "The New Faces of American Manufacturing." The hearing will beheld on May 12, 2016 at 11:00 AM in Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building. -
Local and State Perspectives on BLM’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule
May 12, 2016 | U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
By Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 2:00 PM
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations -
(ACC Mentioned) Advancing Responsible Care
May 9, 2016 | Chemical Week
By Robert Westervelt
Continued enhancements to the product and process safety codes as well evaluating how to engage with external parties, including key retailers, on chemical management topped the discussion at ACC’s 2016 Responsible Care Conference, held April 25–27 in Miami. -
(ACC Mentioned) CN Wins American Chemistry Council Prize
May 6, 2016 | Materials, Management & Distribution
By MM&D Online Staff
CN has been recognized as one of the three recipients of the prestigious Responsible Care Partner of the Year award of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Transatlantic Trade: What the Latest Leak Means for Science-Based Safeguards
May 6, 2016 | The Equation: Union of Concerned Scientists
By Yogin Kothari
On Monday, Greenpeace Netherlands released 248 pages of leaked documents from the ongoing negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union. -
(ACC Mentioned) Roundup of Recent OEHHA Updates on Chemicals and Enforcement Actions
May 7, 2016 | National Law Review
By Kendra Lounsberry and Levi Heath
The following are changes implemented by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) regarding chemicals, and a summary of enforcement actions during the first quarter of 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) 'We Have Reached an Agreement' on TSCA Reform -- Inhofe, Boxer
May 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Two key senators said late Friday they reached an agreement on legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, breaking a significant impasse that has stalled conference negotiations and ending what had been years of disagreement. -
Senators Reach Deal On TSCA Reform 'Key Sticking Points'
May 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
Senators working to craft a long-sought compromise on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) legislation announced May 6 that they have reached an unspecific compromise on “key sticking points” that were holding up agreement, and are planning on working with House lawmakers... -
Retailers, Chemical Users Weigh in on TSCA Reform
May 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Retailers and companies that purchase chemicals are among the many lobbyists weighing in on a possible update of the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Manufacturers Report Toxic Chemicals in Wide Range of Household Products
May 6, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Newly disclosed information shows toxic hormone-disrupting chemicals are used in a broader range of household products than previously known. -
On Mother’s Day, Give Moms What They Really Want: Protect Our Kids from Toxic Chemicals
May 6, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
It’s Mother’s Day weekend and that can mean only one thing - fathers and children are asking themselves “What does Mom really want?” I will fill you in on a little secret. It’s actually quite easy. We all just want sleep. -
Jury Says Monsanto Not Liable for Plaintiff's PCB Impact
May 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Siciliano
A California Superior Court jury has acquitted Monsanto Inc. of responsibility for the non-Hodgkins lymphoma two plaintiffs say they contracted after being exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used in its products... -
Week Ahead: Senate Looks for Way Forward on Energy, Water Bill
May 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Lawmakers returning to Washington after a weeklong recess have a tough challenge ahead as they try to find a way to move a stalled appropriations bill for energy and water development. -
Clinton Agenda Eyes Executive Powers, Not Hill -- Advisers
May 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
If she's elected president, expect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to wield the power of the executive branch and work with states to address climate change rather than to seek a big solution through Congress, top advisers to the Democratic candidate said Friday. -
The U.S. Natural Gas Export Boom Means Pipelines and LNG
May 8, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
Increased flow, transportation and electricity projects continue to make a more robust North American natural gas market place. Less imports from Canada and more exports to Mexico mean that the U.S. will become a net exporter of natural gas this year or next. -
GOP States Benefiting from Shift to Wind and Solar Energy
May 9, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post
By Michael Biesecker
If there’s a War on Coal, it’s increasingly clear which side is winning. Wind turbines and solar panels accounted for more than two-thirds of all new electric generation capacity added to the nation’s grid in 2015, cording to a recent analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy. -
Chemical Breakdown: Part 1
May 7, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Mark Collette and Matt Dempsey
Just outside Pearland, theater patrons come and go within 200 feet of a warehouse that stockpiles a pesticide so toxic it seeped into a family’s house in Utah and killed two little girls. -
Wave of Fossil Fuel Project Cancellations Follows Keystone XL Rejection
May 9, 2016 | InsideClimate News (In Real Clear Energy)
By Zahra Hirji
Six months after the Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, at least 20 other proposed energy projects—mines, pipelines, plants, related rail projects and export terminals—have been canceled, rejected or delayed, according to research... -
Oil Spill Case Against CSX Subsidiary Stays on Track
May 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Tort claims may proceed against a CSX subsidiary for a railroad derailment that caused an oil spill, explosions and fires last year, a federal court ruled May 5 (Sigman v. CSX Corp., 2016 BL 143992, S.D. W.Va., No. 15-cv-13328, 5/5/16). -
U.S. on Track to meet Paris Reduction Goals -- McCarthy
May 6, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The United States "could not be in better shape" to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions that the Obama administration pledged in the run-up to the Paris climate agreement, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said today. -
Inside the War on Exxon
May 8, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
On Nov. 3, ExxonMobil dispatched its top lobbyists to Capitol Hill on an urgent mission — tamping down an escalating campaign aimed at making the country’s largest oil company pay a legal and political price for its role in warming the planet. -
EPA, Advocates Seek to Transfer Texas Haze Air Plan Suit to D.C. Circuit
May 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and environmentalists are ramping up their push for judges to transfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit litigation over the agency's haze air plan for Texas, while the state and utilities want the case heard in the 5th Circuit...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Energy Subcommittee Hearing- Department of Energy Oversight: Office of Fossil Energy
May 11, 2016 |
By 2318 Rayburn House Office Building / 10:00
Subcommittee on Energy (114th Congress)
Department of Energy Oversight: Office of Fossil Energy
Hearing Charter
Witness
The Honorable Chris Smith
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy114th Congress
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/energy-subcommittee-hearing-department-energy-oversight-office-fossil-energy
-
The New Faces of American Manufacturing
May 12, 2016 | U.S. House Small Business Committee
By Location: 2360 Rayburn / 11:00 AM
Chairman Steve Chabot has scheduled a hearing of the Committee on Small Business titled, "The New Faces of American Manufacturing." The hearing will beheld on May 12, 2016 at 11:00 AM in Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Witness List:
John Ratzenberger
Emmy-nominated actor and Made in America advocate
Dustin Tillman
President & CEO
Elite Aviation Products
Dr. Ray Perren
President
Lanier Technical College
Kim Glas
Executive Director
BlueGreen Alliancehttp://smallbusiness.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=399103
-
Local and State Perspectives on BLM’s Draft Planning 2.0 Rule
May 12, 2016 | U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
By Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building / 2:00 PM
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=400405
-
(ACC Mentioned) Advancing Responsible Care
May 9, 2016 | Chemical Week
By Robert Westervelt
Continued enhancements to the product and process safety codes as well evaluating how to engage with external parties, including key retailers, on chemical management topped the discussion at ACC’s 2016 Responsible Care Conference, held April 25–27 in Miami.
Responsible Care, industry’s signature environmental, health, safety, and security initiative, plays a critical role in advocacy and improving performance as US chemical investment ramps up thanks to the stronger cost position driven by the shale-related surge in natural gas and natural gas feedstock supplies, says ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley. ACC is tracking $164 billion in new chemical investment, consisting of more than 260 projects. Roughly 61% of the new projects are foreign direct investment.
Dooley also told attendees that prospects are good for the long-awaited reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and modernizations of US chemical management policy. “It is a critical opportunity to ensure that we have a regulatory construct that ensures that we are providing absolute certainty about the safety of our chemicals in commerce,” Dooley says. “At the same time, it ensures that we have a regulatory process that gives US chemical manufacturers an advantage in terms of knowing they can bring new and innovative chemicals to the marketplace.”
“When I’m talking to members in Congress, I can make a very compelling argument that there’s not another industry which is creating more jobs, adding more to the GDP, and that is investing more capital than the US chemical industry,” Dooley says.
Responsible Care could be well positioned to address one of industry’s most pressing advocacy challenges, expanding private sector involvement in chemical management. “We look at Target, Walmart, and the standards-setting bodies as perhaps having the greatest influence in terms of how our chemicals are able to enter into the marketplace,” Dooley says.
While Responsible Care has long been the foundation of industry’s environment, health, safety, and security practices, the program’s scope could expand, Dooley says. “We also recognize that there is an interest and a need in the marketplace for people to have more information about environmental sustainability and social issues.” Industry needs to assess whether Responsible Care can help address this challenge. “If industry and ACC don’t take a more aggressive leadership position, ensuring that we are at the forefront and involved in a constructive way in the discussions and development of these assessment tools, somebody else is going to do it.”
Dooley notes that third-party standards and tools—including Cradle to Cradle and GreenScreen—are introducing assessments that do not align well with industry policies and practices. “As a consequence, these assessment tools are based primarily on hazard,” Dooley says. “They’re not giving adequate consideration to the exposure at the product level. And they’re not giving adequate consideration to the performance attributes of the chemicals in those products that are contributing to greater environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.”
Over the next few months, ACC will work with industry leaders to develop a strategy to help members be more successful and effective in collaborating and developing assessment tools required in the market today. “This is going to perhaps include how we look at Responsible Care,” Dooley told attendees. “With your leadership, the role that you play, and the industry’s Responsible Care program, we have an important role.”
Enhancing process, product safety
ACC has expanded Responsible Care’s requirements in the process safety and product safety codes in the past three years. While those codes were a strong step, there is still room to grow in these critical areas, says Michael Graff, chairman and CEO of American Air Liquide Holdings and current ACC Responsible Care committee chair.
ACC’s board reviewed metrics last year, noting some troubling trends in the areas of process safety and occupational safety, he says. “One had to with process safety incidents,” Graff says. “We saw, while not a decline in performance, that we were no longer able to make steady progress in the improvement of process safety. We had kind of stabilized, and this was a concern for us. We had expected ongoing significant improvement in process safety numbers. At the same time, from an occupational safety standpoint, we actually saw an uptick in the numbers themselves. This drove a great concern.”
Graff says an ACC-led task force has been working on the issue since December 2015 and is expected to deliver a set of recommendations to the ACC board this June. One initiative under consideration includes confidential forums where members can share information on process safety incidents to learn from one another. Another is developing new protocols for tracking and reporting on occupational and process safety indicators. “We want to develop some new protocols to better understand how we track indicators to ensure that when we measure and think about process safety, we do that not only in a consistent way but in a way that we can all benefit from,” Graff says. Other plans include initiating voluntary site-level process safety assessments and occupational safety mentoring programs.
Responsible Care and efforts to continue improving will pay dividends and help better industry’s image. “I don’t think we could have success in dealing with issues like TSCA reform without the umbrella and the halo effect of Responsible Care,” Graff says.
http://www.chemweek.com/sections/other/79172.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) CN Wins American Chemistry Council Prize
May 6, 2016 | Materials, Management & Distribution
By MM&D Online Staff
CN has been recognized as one of the three recipients of the prestigious Responsible Care Partner of the Year award of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The award recognizes the strong performance and safety record of companies involved in the transportation, handling and marketing of chemicals.
Responsible Care is the chemistry industry’s commitment to sustainability – it is a global voluntary initiative to guide member organizations in safely managing chemicals through creation to manufacturing to disposal or recycling.
CN has also earned a 2015 National Achievement Award from Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER) in recognition of its ongoing work to help communities understand the movement of dangerous goods and what is required in the event of transportation incidents.
Through TRANSCAER, whose sponsors include the ACC and the Association of American Railroads, CN works with partner chemical companies to support communities with information sessions and training and simulations for community leaders and first-responders about hazardous commodities.
The national award recognizes extraordinary achievements that support the organization’s emergency preparedness efforts. CN has won a National Achievement Award for seven consecutive years.
Jim Vena, CN executive vice-president and chief operating officer, said: “We are honoured to receive the Responsible Care Partner of the Year Award and the National Achievement TRANSCAER award. CN is committed to operating a safe railway, to handling chemicals and all commodities safely, and to working closely with the communities where we operate to share information about dangerous goods and be ready to respond quickly and comprehensively to any incident.”
In 2015, CN conducted almost 300 TRANSCAER events in Canada and the United Statesinvolving more than 6,000 participants. Such events included rail-related training sessions for firefighters the Moncton, N.B., region and South Bend, Ind., area.
http://www.mmdonline.com/awards-and-recognition/cn-wins-american-chemistry-council-prize-144682/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Transatlantic Trade: What the Latest Leak Means for Science-Based Safeguards
May 6, 2016 | The Equation: Union of Concerned Scientists
By Yogin Kothari
On Monday, Greenpeace Netherlands released 248 pages of leaked documents from the ongoing negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union. The documents reveal a lot of interesting information, and also seemed to confirm some of the concerns my UCS colleagues and many of our partners have had about this trade deal.
One of the leaked chapters divulges how the U.S. and Europe could address the process of developing standards, such as protecting consumers from toxic chemicals or from unsafe drugs and medical devices, in a potential trade deal. What seems clear is that the U.S. wants the E.U. to adopt a regulatory system akin to ours. That’s not necessarily a good thing, considering that we often see important science-based public health and safety standards weakenedor delayed due to the structure of our system.
Following the leak, I reached out to Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen and an expert on the rulemaking process, for his thoughts on the leaked regulatory cooperation chapter, and what it might tell us about the future of the negotiations. Weissman has followed the negotiations closely.
A transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Yogin: One of the concerns many people have with TTIP is whether it could undermine science-based safeguards and increase special interest influence over the process to develop public protections. Does the newest leak confirm these fears? How so?
Weissman: It does confirm those fears. If you focus on the regulatory cooperation chapter, it is evident that the U.S. is trying to impose its regulatory system on the Europeans. There are a lot of conflicts in the regulatory rulemaking culture between the U.S. and the E.U., but I think it’s fair to say first that the U.S. system in practice is heavily tilted towards corporate interests. At the core of the U.S. system is cost-benefit analysis [learn more here], which is in extreme tension with the core of the E.U. system, the precautionary principle [learn more here]. The U.S. cost-benefit system claims to elevate science but in fact it’s the precautionary principle that is much more grounded in science. The U.S. system says where there is uncertainty, it’s very difficult to act and regulate, and the E.U. system is much more motivated towards regulatory action to deal with uncertain but very real risks. You see that in all kinds of areas including science and non-science based regulation. You see it in financial areas, consumer protection areas, etc.
Corporations are able to use the endless analytic requirements in the U.S. rulemaking process to delay and often block the issuance of rules. These analytic requirements looking at costs typically require regulators to rely on industry estimates, even though there is abundant evidence [see silica] that industry routinely inflates costs because they fail to account for innovation and economic dynamism. So the U.S. system makes it very hard to get rules out to deal with problems big and small and it will be a very bad thing if TTIP exports that system to the E.U.
Yogin: What do you think the impacts will be on the process of putting stronger science-based health and safety protections in place if TTIP includes the language revealed by the leaked papers?
Weissman: We don’t know. The proposals from the U.S. and E.U. are not contradictory but they’re very different. The U.S. proposal is much more aggressive. It aims to impose U.S. processes on the E.U. We would absolutely see big changes in the E.U. where corporations would be given multiple bites at the European rulemaking process that they now get in the U.S. And it wouldn’t just be that they would get the right to provide input, it would be that the decision-making criteria for regulators would change and follow the U.S. style cost-benefit approach. It’s an unfortunate fact that in environmental and consumer health protection, European standards are now more stringent than the U.S., whereas the U.S. was the gold standard in many of these areas a few decades ago [see thalidomide]. We’ve been surpassed by the E.U., as well as others. But the ability of Europe to continue innovating new protective standards based on new science, technologies, challenges, and possibilities, would be greatly diminished if the U.S. proposals were put into place.
Yogin: What is your greatest concern with TTIP? Did the leaked documents make you more or less worried?
Weissman: The greatest concern is that TTIP is a disguised anti-regulatory corporate empowering agreement. The component of TTIP that is somewhat different than other trade deals is the real emphasis on the regulatory process. That is a signature concern and it’s particularly concerning because of the European partial reliance on the precautionary principle and the practice of having stronger standards than the U.S. The other most troubling feature of TTIP is the investment chapter, the creation of an investor-state dispute settlement process, which would empower tens of thousands of European companies to sue the U.S. directly over regulatory practices and equally empower tens of thousands of American companies to sue European governments over those standards. But that chapter wasn’t leaked. On the regulatory cooperation portion we did learn a lot. It shows that the U.S. proposal is quite aggressive and there’s great reason for concern. The good thing that came out of the leaks was not the text itself but the state of play memo that had been authored by the E.U., which shows that in fact the two sides are much further apart than the negotiators have been stating publicly which means that although they have worrisome issues the conclusion of the negotiations is not eminent.
What does this mean?
Besides increasing special interest influence, text in the leaked regulatory chapter suggests that the U.S. proposed deal would also impose another requirement that would require regulators to consider the impact of trade on new standards. This additional obligation could add to the delays we already face in developing important public protections.
So, for example, if the EPA attempted to improve air quality in the U.S. or regulate a chemical (assuming thepending TSCA reform legislation passes), it would now have to factor in this additional requirement that would be mandatory as a result of TTIP. Specifically, regulators could be required to justify the trade impacts of new science-based safeguards. For our European friends, if they try to manage a chemical using their gold-standard REACH program, which says chemicals have to be proven to be safe before they are sold, it may have to go through similar hurdles before being regulated.
A 2015 UCS report found that the American Chemistry Council and its European counterpart effectively lobbied to influence TTIP negotiations as part of a larger strategy to slow science-based rulemaking in the U.S. and E.U. The latest leaked language could be a boon to the chemical industry and its stated goals.
We can’t continue in this direction
If we try to export our current regulatory regime to Europe, it could undermine science-based public health, safety, and environmental protections across the Atlantic, and most likely at home too. If included in a final deal, this language could open the door for special interests to have enormous influence over a process that should benefit the public. Already in the U.S., we see trade associations rigging the game and undermining science-based protections, as they have done with chemical safety andadded sugar. This trade deal could expand the current broken system in the U.S. and create even more opportunities for corporate interests to spread misinformation, weaken critical public protections, and challenge important health and safety standards, even at the state level and local level.
The latest leak confirms what we believed all along – that TTIP will probably mean science-based safeguards that are less protective of the public and more beneficial for special interests. In practice, this could mean weaker chemical safety protections and regulation of drug and medical devices, and the deal could severely impede the ability of states and the federal agencies to improve public health and safety standards.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/yogin-kothari/transatlantic-trade-what-the-latest-leak-means-for-science-based-safeguards
-
(ACC Mentioned) Roundup of Recent OEHHA Updates on Chemicals and Enforcement Actions
May 7, 2016 | National Law Review
By Kendra Lounsberry and Levi Heath
The following are changes implemented by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) regarding chemicals, and a summary of enforcement actions during the first quarter of 2016.
Chemicals Recently Added to the Prop 65 List
1. Bisphenol A (BPA): Labeling Required by May 11, 2016
On May 11, 2015, OEHHA added BPA to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity. BPA was initially listed in 2013, then was almost immediately delisted as the result of a lawsuit brought by the American Chemistry Council and a resulting preliminary injunction. There is not currently an established safe harbor level for BPA. OEHHA expects to be able to define a safe harbor level once a series of federal studies has been completed, possibly as early as 2017. In the meantime, as of May 11, 2016, Prop 65 labeling will be required for effectively all exposures to BPA.
On April 1, 2016, due to the widespread use of BPA, OEHHA issued a “notice of emergency action” and a proposal to promulgate an emergency regulation to allow temporary use of a standard point-of-sale warning** message for BPA exposures from canned and bottled foods and beverages. The proposed emergency regulation would expire after 180 days. During that period, OEHHA will commence a regular rulemaking process to adopt a regulation as an interim measure for a one-year period from date of adoption.
Another proposed regulation related to BPA is a Proposed Adoption of a Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) for Dermal Exposures to BPA from Solid Materials, which would establish an MADL (a.k.a. a “safe harbor level”) of three micrograms/day for dermal exposure to BPA in solid materials. Comments to both regulations are due by May 16.
2. Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP)
DINP was officially placed on the California list of Prop 65 chemicals on December 20, 2013. The statutory safe harbor expired on December 19, 2014. Insofar as OEHHA did not identify a safe harbor level for DINP, warnings became required for essentially any products containing DINP as of December 20, 2014. In response to the substantial number of notices sent by private citizen enforcers, OEHHA received four Safe User Determination (SUD) requests, all relating to DINP in different products: vinyl flooring, specific vinyl carpet tiles, outdoor furniture products, and PVC roofing membrane products.
On November 25, 2015, OEHHA issued an SUD for the use of DINP in certain single-ply PVC roofing membrane products. More recently, on April 1, 2016, OEHHA updated its list of “no significant risk levels” (i.e., safe harbor levels) to include an NSRL of 146 micrograms/day for DINP, meaning that no labeling is required for products that expose consumers to less than 146 micrograms of DINP per day.
3. Styrene
Although OEHHA issued a notice of intended listing for styrene on February 27, 2015, it has received substantial opposition to this intended listing. In the most recently updated Prop 65 list dated April 8, 2016, styrene was still not listed.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/roundup-recent-oehha-updates-chemicals-and-enforcement-actions
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'We Have Reached an Agreement' on TSCA Reform -- Inhofe, Boxer
May 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Two key senators said late Friday they reached an agreement on legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, breaking a significant impasse that has stalled conference negotiations and ending what had been years of disagreement.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement issued late in the afternoon that they had reached a way forward. The Senate still must reconcile its bill -- S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" -- with a related House proposal, H.R. 2576, or the "TSCA Modernization Act of 2015."
"We have negotiated in good faith and are extremely pleased that we have reached an agreement on key sticking points of the TSCA reform bill," the lawmakers said. "We have an incredible team that is working tirelessly, and we look forward to finalizing the deal with House negotiators."
In a statement, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), an original co-sponsor of S. 697, said the news is "very welcome, and is the result of a lot of hard work by the Senate negotiators."
House lawmakers negotiating on H.R. 2576 -- Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and their Democratic counterparts, Reps. Frank Pallone of New Jersey and Paul Tonko of New York -- later on Friday released a statement pledging to consider the deal.
"This is an important step forward and we'll work through the weekend reviewing the language," the statement said. "We look forward to keeping the momentum going."
Inhofe and Boxer did not release the text of the agreement or provide any information on its contents. But during the nearly three years since the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) put forward the first bipartisan TSCA reform bill in 2013, the issue of how the plan would impact state laws has been among the toughest to nail down.
Conservatives and industry groups have argued for a strong federal system, in which U.S. EPA decisions would preclude state actions, even, perhaps, when EPA has started but not completed a safety assessment of a chemical. Meanwhile, some environmental groups and Democrats have supported legislation to boost EPA's authorities while leaving states' enforcement powers untouched. Over time, pre-emption in the Senate and House bills has been narrowed but not removed.
Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said he had not seen the language of the deal but that it likely involved state pre-emption.
Anne Kolton, a spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council, said she had also not seen the deal's contents.
"The agreement that Senator Inhofe reached with Senator Boxer builds upon the work of Senators Vitter, Udall, Markey and others and paves the way for final passage," Kolton said in a statement. "We look forward to a swift resolution with the House and passage soon thereafter."
Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a supporter of the Senate proposal, said in a statement the group was pleased the lawmakers had found common ground.
"We look forward to seeing the details and are more hopeful than ever that Congress will be able to move quickly to pass comprehensive, health-protective reform legislation and send it to the president's desk," Denison said.
Boxer in 2013 and 2014 used her position as chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee to delay action on the bill over its impact on states, including California, that sought to maintain chemical review programs. After being relegated to ranking member in 2015 after Democrats lost their Senate majority, Boxer used the threat of procedural barriers to push for changes in the bill.
Boxer said at an Environmental Working Group event last year that even though this made her unpopular, even among members of her party, the tactics were worth it because she "didn't come here to be popular" (E&E Daily, Dec. 3, 2015).
In a deal reached last fall, Boxer agreed to let the bill come to the floor but sought assurances she could participate in future negotiations. At the time, Boxer said she would "stay intimately involved as the bill moves forward, and I will share my views openly" (E&E Daily, Dec. 18, 2015).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060036877/search?keyword=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
Senators Reach Deal On TSCA Reform 'Key Sticking Points'
May 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
Senators working to craft a long-sought compromise on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) legislation announced May 6 that they have reached an unspecific compromise on “key sticking points” that were holding up agreement, and are planning on working with House lawmakers to finalize the deal.
“We have negotiated in good faith and are extremely pleased that we have reached an agreement on key sticking points of the TSCA reform bill,” said Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and panel ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in a May 6 press release.
Details of the deal were unavailable at press time and it is not clear when a final bill will be released, but the lawmakers say they “look forward to finalizing the deal with House negotiators.”
Both the Senate's TSCA reform bill, S. 697, and the narrower House bill, H.R. 2576, were approved with broad support in floor votes last year, though the two measures have major differences.
For example, the bills differ greatly on how to treat states' restrictions on chemicals that were previously not subject to federal TSCA regulations but which EPA later asserts authority over.
S. 697 would “grandfather,” or preserve, states' existing chemicals laws as of its passage, but any such restrictions enacted after TSCA reform is implemented would be preempted as soon as EPA defines and publishes the scope of a safety assessment and safety determination under its TSCA section 6 authority to review existing chemicals' risks.
However, the House bill -- which is shorter than the Senate bill -- takes a narrower approach and only preempts new state restrictions when EPA uses its TSCA authority to restrict the same substance. It would also include a grandfathering clause similar to the Senate bill, and would preserve state toxic tort claims even after EPA takes final action on regulating a chemical, unless they “actually conflict” with the new federal requirement.
Both chambers approved their respective bills last year and since then lawmakers have been working to reconcile the significant differences between the measures and craft a final compromise bill that will go before both chambers in order to enact a long-sought overhaul of the chemicals law. Normally, a formal conference committee would convene to negotiate the compromise language. But for TSCA reform, lawmakers and their staff members mounted informal talks in hopes of resolving their conflicting approaches without a formal committee.
EPW member Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) told Inside EPA last month that “ongoing and fragile negotiations” were continuing between House and Senate lawmakers on trying to craft a final compromise TSCA reform bill, adding that EPA has been offering its support in the long-running bid for a deal.
In response to Boxer and Inhofe's May 6 announcement, Dr. Richard Denison, Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist, said, “We welcome the announcement that Senators Inhofe and Boxer have found common ground on chemical safety reform legislation. We look forward to seeing the details and are more hopeful than ever that Congress will be able to move quickly to pass comprehensive, health-protective reform legislation and send it to the president’s desk.”
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/senators-reach-deal-tsca-reform-key-sticking-points
-
Retailers, Chemical Users Weigh in on TSCA Reform
May 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Retailers and companies that purchase chemicals are among the many lobbyists weighing in on a possible update of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The more than 100 organizations that lobbied Congress about TSCA reform during the first quarter of 2016 include Boeing Co., Disney Worldwide Services Inc., Ford Motor Co., the General Motors Co., Hanesbrands Inc., Nike Inc. and the Target Corp., according to lobbying disclosure forms.
Many trade associations representing retailers and companies that purchase chemicals to make goods, commonly called downstream users, lobbied on TSCA during the same quarter. These include the American Apparel & Footwear Association, American Coatings Association, Association of Global Automakers Inc., Auto Care Association, International Sleep Products Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association and the Toy Industry Association.
These organizations are weighing in on two bills: the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) which would narrowly amend TSCA and passed 398-1 in June 2015, and the more sweeping TSCA overhaul that passed unanimously in the Senate in December, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Originally numbered S. 697, the Senate bill passed as an amendment to H.R. 2576.
There is no deal yet, but House and Senate lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA April 28 they continue to make progress combining the two bills into a single piece of legislation that could be released as early as the week of May 9 (83 DEN A-1, 4/29/16).
Both bills address, in different ways, several issues that could affect retailers and downstream users including:
• the extent and timing of federal preemption of state regulations of chemicals;
• the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to get chemical data from companies; and
• the scope of EPA's authority to regulate products, called articles, containing chemicals.
Federal Preemption Key Issue
The Toy Industry Association held a TSCA Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill in April.
Asked about its priorities for TSCA reform, the Toy Industry Association (TIA) provided Bloomberg BNA an e-mail May 6 saying TSCA has been outdated for decades.
“An updated federal chemical program with strong preemptive language continues to be the toy industry's highest priority,” the association said.
“TIA is hopeful that strong preemptive language will be maintained in a final bill. This would curtail unnecessary state-specific regulatory programs that result in complex and costly compliance procedures without increasing the safety of children's products. Ultimately, product safety will be enhanced by a single, federal standard that applies across all 50 states rather than a conflicting and confusing patchwork of state laws,” the toy association said.
Coatings Association
The American Coatings Association, which represents companies making paints and car finishes,highlighted in January reasons it supports TSCA reform.
The bill, the coatings association said, “makes important improvements to the current TSCA law,” including:
• strengthening the law's safety standard,
• giving the EPA more authority to obtain information it needs to evaluate chemicals,
• protecting confidential business information for industries that provide information to EPA; and
• creating strong federal preemption provisions.
The American Alliance for Innovation is the broadest industry coalition lobbying on TSCA reform. The dozens of trade associations it represents include edible oil, frozen food, can makers, and building material manufacturers.
In a Feb. 29 letter to key House and Senate legislators, the alliance listed its priorities including limiting EPA's regulation of articles to situations in which the chemicals released posed a health or environmental concern only if there is reasonable potential for exposure to the chemical.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89102554&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89102554&jd=89102554
-
Manufacturers Report Toxic Chemicals in Wide Range of Household Products
May 6, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Newly disclosed information shows toxic hormone-disrupting chemicals are used in a broader range of household products than previously known. For the first time, manufacturers of paints and cleaning products available across the country have been required to disclose their uses of hormone-disrupting chemicals called phthalates (THAL-eights), revealing phthalates use as a fragrance ingredient in these products.
A new national report — What Stinks? Toxic Phthalates in Your Home — presents data generated by a Maine chemical-use reporting requirement, for products sold across the country. The report was conceived and authored by the Maine-based Environmental Health Strategy Center and Prevent Harm and is cosponsored by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and Safer States, Breast Cancer Fund, Ecology Center, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and Women’s Voices for the Earth.
In addition to the first-time disclosures about toxic phthalates in specific paints and cleaners, manufacturers reported the use of phthalates in vinyl clothing, shoes, and fragranced personal care products. Reporting companies included 3M, which revealed phthalates in the fragrances of cleaners, disinfectants, and deodorizers, and the Gap, Inc. which reported phthalates used to soften the plastic tips of shoelaces and drawstrings.
“This data provides new examples of products that are letting these hormone-assaulting chemicals infiltrate our bathrooms, kitchens, schools — and, ultimately, our bodies,” said Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Maine-based Environmental Health Strategy Center and Prevent Harm, lead sponsors of the new report. “To protect public health, manufacturers and retailers should move quickly to replace phthalates with safer substitutes.”
Chemical-use disclosure required by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection is the basis for the report, and shows 14 manufacturers reported the use of four phthalates in 130 products.
Phthalates are tied to reproductive harm, learning disabilities, and asthma and allergies — even at low levels of exposure. Strong science linking phthalates to health hazards has led to strong restrictions throughout Europe, and several phthalates are prohibited in children’s products in the United States.
A growing number of states, including California, Maine, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, have passed laws that authorize mandatory disclosure of chemicals in products that may harm the health of babies and children. But reporting requirements still exempt many types of common household products.
“That means it’s likely the data reported represents just the tip of the iceberg for uses of phthalates in household products,” Belliveau said. “It also is very likely that many manufacturers are illegally failing to disclose their uses of phthalates.”
Phthalates are mainly used as plasticizers, making vinyl plastic flexible. However the most prolific data in the Maine reporting came from manufacturers using phthalates as a fragrance ingredient.
Phthalates were reported as an ingredient in fragrance for more than half of the products. “Fragrance” can include dozens of chemicals, and there is no requirement that companies must disclose these ingredients publicly. In more than a third of the products reported in Maine, phthalates use is as a plastic softener in clothing, toys, and home maintenance products.
Among the priority chemicals Maine requires for disclosure are four types of phthalates: diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP).
“This new report can help retailers identify the types of products where phthalates are still hiding on store shelves,” said Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “Big retailers should use their purchasing power and influence to drive these unnecessary toxic chemicals out of fragrance and plastics.”
“In the absence of any federal laws requiring ingredient disclosure for cleaning products and fragrance ingredients, this new data provides crucial information women can use to reduce their exposure to chemicals like phthalates that can cause reproductive harm,” said Erin Switalski, executive director of Women’s Voices for the Earth. “We urge the cleaning product companies that have reported using phthalates to commit to the elimination of this toxic chemical.”
“This report shows that our families are being exposed to dangerous ingredients that are hiding in the products we use every day,” said Janet Nudelman, Breast Cancer Fund Director of Program and Policy. “Consumers have an urgent right to full disclosure of all, and not just some, of the chemicals such as phthalates in their personal care and cleaning products so they can make safer, more informed purchases.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/manufacturers-report-toxic-chemicals-in-wide-range-of-household-products/
-
On Mother’s Day, Give Moms What They Really Want: Protect Our Kids from Toxic Chemicals
May 6, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
It’s Mother’s Day weekend and that can mean only one thing - fathers and children are asking themselves “What does Mom really want?” I will fill you in on a little secret. It’s actually quite easy. We all just want sleep.
But not just any sleep. We want the “pre-baby sleep.” That blissful, sound, uninterrupted sleep. Don’t get me wrong, after your kids reach a certain age, you can get the hours of sleep back, but can you never get the deep sleep that you are able to get before children.
Something happens when you become a mom. Not only do you think about your children throughout the day, but they are even in your thoughts as you sleep. What starts often as a sense of heightened anxiety - “Is the baby breathing?” - turns into a constant awareness of another’s wellbeing. Even when your children are grown, leading lives of their own, the recurring question on mom’s mind is “Are they safe?”As moms we do everything we can. We analyze ingredients labels with a fine toothcomb. We read Amazon reviews before buying products our kids use. We pray we have prepared them for the world and hope they will be safe. But we also know we simply cannot control everything.
When it comes to the air we breathe, the food our families eat, and the products our children use, we often have to trust the government to ensure they are free from toxic chemicals and our families are protected from preventable harms caused by exposure dangerous substances. But lately our trust in our government has been called into question.
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan has not only shattered the trust of the residents of Flint, but also sent a shockwave of fear across the country as more and more communities learn of elevated lead levels in their water. Last year, asbestos - a known human carcinogen - was found in children’s crayons. And just this week, a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a woman who linked her ovarian cancer diagnosis to talcum in the company’s baby powder.
As more families question how the government failed to protect us from these dangerous substances, they are learning that the law governing chemicals in our country, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 , is broken and potentially hazardous chemicals remain in our schools, homes, and consumer products.
My trust was forever broken the day my husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused cancer. Like most American families, we were blissfully unaware chemicals in our country were largely unregulated by our government. I had never heard of TSCA and had no idea one of the most important laws in our country had been rendered essentially ineffective decades ago. But I quickly learned TSCA was so weak that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wasn’t even able to ban asbestos.
I also learned asbestos was the tip of the iceberg. Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the EPA recently stated, “More than three and a half decades since the passage of TSCA, the EPA has only been able to require testing on just a little more than 200 of the 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory and has regulated or banned only five of these chemicals.”
The U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives are in the midst of finalizing a bill to reform TSCA. This legislation will shape the future of chemical safety for decades to come. If the Committee focuses their efforts on protecting public health and the environment, their work will greatly improve the safety of American families across our country.
The members of Congress working on the final bill have the facts and data, but they need to hear from moms and dads about what’s really at stake. Join me in calling on Congress to protect our families. Tell Congress that the final TSCA bill should be focused on ensuring the safety of our families.
And if you are like me and not willing to wait on Congress, download the Environmental Working Group’s Healthy Living App, where you can find ratings for more than 120,000 food and personal care products. This amazing app gives you information you need to make smart, safe purchases.
Congress may not be able to give us “pre-baby sleep,” but they can help us sleep more soundly by restoring our trust that the government is working to protect our families from toxic chemicals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-reinstein/on-mothers-day-give-moms-_b_9859046.html
-
Jury Says Monsanto Not Liable for Plaintiff's PCB Impact
May 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Siciliano
A California Superior Court jury has acquitted Monsanto Inc. of responsibility for the non-Hodgkins lymphoma two plaintiffs say they contracted after being exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used in its products (Paul Brownlee v. Monsanto Co. , Calif. Sup. Ct., No. BC497582, jury verdict 5/5/16).
Plaintiffs Paul Brownlee, Fred Steele and Arutyun Karabadzhakyan sued in December 2012 saying they had developed lymphoma through exposure to PCBs used in Monsanto products.
They argued that Monsanto, “was aware that its continued production and sale of PCBs would result in probably dangerous consequences in the form of environmental degradation and significant health risks for users and others exposed to its PCBs, and Old Monsanto deliberately chose to market its PCBs over the course of decades, despite this knowledge.”
The complaint also named Southern California Gas Company as a defendant for its use of PCBs in natural gas pipelines to which the plaintiffs said they were exposed.
The trial only addressed the claims of Steele and Karabadzhakyan.
Responsible for Most PCB Production
The complaint said Monsanto was responsible for 99 percent of the PCBs manufactured and sold in the United States before it was banned by Congress in 1977.
Charla Lord, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company was pleased with the verdict.
“While we have sympathy for the plaintiffs, we are pleased the jury in Los Angeles found for Monsanto and against claims that the historic sale of PCBs or the conduct of the former Monsanto in manufacturing a useful project caused the plaintiffs harms,” she said.
Lord said it was the fourth such jury verdict to reach “the same conclusion.”
According to Lord, the substance was employed “between 40 and 80 years ago” as a safety fluid to modulate overheating in electrical equipment, plastics and other construction applications.
“The companies who used PCBs in their products controlled the ultimate use and disposal of those products by countless people over many decades, and not the former Monsanto Company,” she said.
Petitioners were represented by Scott Frieling of Dallas-based Allen Stewart PC.
Monsanto was represented by Anthony Upshaw of McDermott Will & Emery. Neither attorney returned requests for comment on the case.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89102570&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89102570&jd=89102570
-
Week Ahead: Senate Looks for Way Forward on Energy, Water Bill
May 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Lawmakers returning to Washington after a weeklong recess have a tough challenge ahead as they try to find a way to move a stalled appropriations bill for energy and water development.
The bill was bipartisan throughout the Senate's entire legislative process. But before leaving town the first week of May, Democrats refused to allow the bill to go forward due to a dispute over an amendment from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) regarding the purchase of heavy water, a material that can be used to make nuclear weapons, from Iran.
The Obama administration says buying the heavy water would reduce Iran's ability to build nuclear weapons, but Republicans say doing so would give Tehran money for its program.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried twice to move the energy and water bill forward, but Democrats refused both times to give him the 60 votes needed.
McConnell could try again, or the two parties could attempt to come to some sort of compromise to move the $37.5 billion energy spending bill forward.
Elsewhere, congressional committees have hearings planned on Obama administration policies and other matters.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will meet Thursday with Susan Beard to consider her nomination to be the Department of Energy's inspector general. She's currently an attorney in the Energy Department, but President Obama tapped her last month to be the top internal watchdog.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, the House Science Committee's energy subcommittee is planning a Wednesday hearing on the Energy Department's office of fossil energy. Lawmakers are likely to discuss the research and development priorities of the office, including carbon capture technology, and Obama's request to reduce its funding.
Chris Smith, the assistant secretary for fossil energy, will be the sole witness.
The House Natural Resources Committee's oversight subpanel will meet Thursday for a hearing on the Bureau of Land Management's ongoing efforts to revamp how it plans resource development on its land, a process it's dubbed Planning 2.0.
The committee's federal land subpanel will also meet that day to discuss various bills to adjust the borders of specific federal land holdings.
Off Capitol Hill, the Alliance to Save Energy will hold its annual Energy Efficiency Global Forum Wednesday and Thursday. Among the keynote speakers will be Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency.
The Energy Department will host its Better Buildings Summit Monday through Wednesday. Top speakers will include Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro and other executive branch officials.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279043-week-ahead-senate-looks-for-way-forward-on-energy-water-bill
-
Clinton Agenda Eyes Executive Powers, Not Hill -- Advisers
May 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
If she's elected president, expect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to wield the power of the executive branch and work with states to address climate change rather than to seek a big solution through Congress, top advisers to the Democratic candidate said Friday.
Her priorities include safeguarding U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, completing a review of fuel efficiency standards and making gains on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said.
"I still hold out the hope that Congress will become a real partner with any president when it comes to climate action," Podesta said, "but the prospects of that, particularly I think in the House, are undeniably still some years off, and this is simply too important to wait for Congress to get with the program."
To track the effects of global warming in the United States, Podesta said that Clinton is contemplating the creation of a "climate map room" in the White House if she's elected. He also suggested she would select a point person on climate change to coordinate policies across the government.
At the same time, Clinton could embark on a program similar to the Race to the Top fund -- which put $3.4 billion on the table for states for reforming education standards -- to push states to create industrial clusters to build products that will reduce the U.S. carbon footprint, said Jennifer Granholm, a senior partner on energy policy in the Clinton campaign and former Democratic governor of Michigan.
"Given the Congress appears to be gridlocked and may be gridlocked into the next administration, what can we do?" Granholm said. "Keep calm and go around. What was one of the Obama administration's most effective policies that caused massive change in states across the nation, voluntary changes? Race to the Top in education."
Clinton's use of the executive branch would be a continuation of the way the Obama administration has approached climate change in its second term. In June 2013, President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan, which provided the impetus for EPA's program to reduce carbon pollution from power plants.
That followed an unsuccessful attempt during the Obama administration's first term to seek a cap-and-trade program from Congress.
Both Podesta and Granholm predicted that Democrats would take the Senate in November and that the House will remain Republican, though some of the most conservative tea party members may be voted out of office.
While a carbon tax remains the climate policy of choice for Clinton, the split Congress would make it unlikely to get such a sweeping economywide "grand climate fix" through to the president's desk, based on Obama's experience, Podesta said.
"You can hold a lot of fascinating and persuasive economic seminars about what a carefully designed economywide carbon pricing scheme could achieve," Podesta said, "but it's just not that simple."
He predicted that climate change is likely to be more debated in this election compared with prior ones given the huge divide between the Democratic candidates and Republican nominee Donald Trump on climate change. Trump has said that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese.
The elevation of the issue during the election, Podesta predicted, would allow the new president to move swiftly on climate change policies "within the earliest days of the transition."
Both Podesta and Granholm said that a White House point person on climate change is necessary to coordinate activities of all the federal agencies in the areas of climate change and energy. Podesta served as Obama's top adviser on climate change; Brian Deese currently holds the position.
The climate map room in the White House would be akin to the room in which President Franklin Roosevelt conducted mapping activities during World War II, Podesta said.
"I think she got that idea because she walked back and forth many, many, many times in the ground floor of the residence through the war room," Podesta said.
The room, Podesta said, would allow White House officials "to be able to see where effects are taking place, to develop strategies, to make it real time, to use the technology that might be available -- to kind of imagine what is happening in the natural world and what the impact of that's going to be on the economy and society."
As for policies, the next president, Podesta said, would need to be committed to ensuring that states moving early on the Clean Power Plan's targets receive support, despite the action by the Supreme Court to stay the program while litigation is resolved.
Energy, transportation sectors
The transportation sector would likely be a key target for emissions reductions, he also suggested. Podesta ticked off fossil fuel leasing on public lands, methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations, and hydrofluorocarbons as other key areas for the next president to look for further greenhouse gas reductions.
With Congress likely to remain divided, Granholm said that Clinton would also likely take the opportunity to work with governors and mayors on climate change and energy.
Clinton has previously proposed a $60 billion challenge to states on clean energy. Granholm outlined some details of the plan Friday.
She said that a Race to the Top-style program would set a baseline for states interested in accessing the money, such as having a strong renewable portfolio standard, energy efficiency financing mechanisms and the latest green building codes.
Governors would then apply for rewards to fund state-specific industries in products to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In North Carolina, for example, the program may fund utility-scale batteries and biogas, while in Michigan it may fund smart buildings and solar, Granholm said.
Of course, the program would require $60 billion from Congress.
"If you can't get $60 billion from Congress to challenge the states," Granholm said, "you might have a private-sector challenge to Congress to be able to get to a number that is robust enough that would make the governors jump."
"Believe me -- I know them," Granholm added. "They would totally jump at this."
While a grand climate plan likely won't be possible at least at the beginning of a Clinton administration, her advisers are looking for areas where it may be possible to make some deals: clean energy investment and research.
Dan Reicher, a former assistant secretary of Energy during the Bill Clinton administration, said that there could be "broad bipartisan support" for a long-term research and development financing package in the next administration.
Red states that also have big renewable energy industries -- such as Texas, which is the No. 1 wind producer in the nation -- could help pave the way for accomplishing energy financing and research goals, Reicher predicted.
"This agenda will get done a lot more quickly if Democrats take both houses," Reicher said, "but I think there's a decent probability that some of what we need to get done can get done."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/09/stories/1060036871
-
The U.S. Natural Gas Export Boom Means Pipelines and LNG
May 8, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
Increased flow, transportation and electricity projects continue to make a more robust North American natural gas market place. Less imports from Canada and more exports to Mexico mean that the U.S. will become a net exporter of natural gas this year or next.
U.S. piped gas to Mexico has more than tripled since 2010 to about 3 Bcf/day. By 2019, 15 new pipelines will more than double capacity to Mexico to around 15 Bcf/day. This is far more than anticipated imports, but extra pipeline access that would help Mexico meet peak demand.
This is important because there’s basically no storage available in Mexico, lacking mature fields, aquifers, and saline domes to store natural gas. Mexico has liquefied gas storage of about 3 days, far lower than the average storage capacity for OECD countries of nearly 85 days. Since 2010, Mexico’s gas consumption is up 22%, but its production is down 11%.
Moreover, Mexico is a free trade country, so U.S. gas exports to Mexico are declared in our national interest and thus essentially automatic (a designation problem that the U.S. LNG export business is struggling with). The gas surge in Mexico comes fromeconomic growth, a concerted effort to displace oil with gas, and amanufacturing sector that continues to expand due to lower wages, “integration with and dependence on the U.S. market,” and manufacturers looking to get away from a more problematic China (more distant, unions, rising pay, etc.).
With gas now accounting for 60% of Mexico’s electricity, per capita use rates are about 70% lower than the other OECD nations. Given the statistically significant connection between power use and economic development (see my article here), Mexico’s government therefore has a clear obligation to increase personal consumption rates.
This will all translate into more imported gas from the U.S.: despite significant energy reforms to bring in outside investors, shale gas in Mexico has potential but won’t really begin until 2020 at best. No matter what, a shift to gas in Mexico will be difficult because the country has historically been an oil-focused producer, with petroleum constituting 80% of hydrocarbon production versus 20% for gas.
Mexico does have 3 LNG import terminals, but these generally bring in higher priced supplies from more remote nations (WoodMac says shipping Australian LNG cargoes all the way to Mexico is “inefficient”), which is a very serious problem because Mexico wants lower cost U.S. shale to grow and attract manufacturing (here).
Contrary to the shale boom in the U.S., Canada’s gas production has quietly fallen 20% in the past decade to about 14.6 Bcf/day. Further declines are expected: prices wallow near an 18-year low and drilling is forecast to reach a virtual standstill this summer (here). The U.S. now imports just 7 Bcf/day of gas from Canada, down 30% since 2008, and this could fall to less than 4 Bcf/day by 2020.
In fact, Canada’s gas industry is in great danger of losing its own gas markets to U.S. shale suppliers. Nearly 70% of Canada’s gas production occurs in Alberta, a western province far removed from the 70% share for both population and manufacturing that resides in the eastern part of the country (here, here).
For example, the not-so-distant Marcellus shale play centered in Pennsylvania produced 17.4 Bcf/day in March, or about 20% more than the entire country of Canada produces. Toronto is about 12 times closer to the northern edge of the Marcellus than western Canada suppliers.
Access to abundant, low cost American shale for Ontario is critical: I’ve already shown how higher electricity prices are crippling the province’s business climate (here), and 62% of Ontario’s 4 million homes use natural gas for heating (here).
With pretty much all of Canada’s gas production going to areas now within reach of the Marcellus, Canada could also have trouble supplying the U.S. Midwest, the nations manufacturing hub and recipient of 55% of Canada’s gas to the U.S. Last August, the Rockies Express Pipeline was partially reversed, sending Marcellus shale gas into Chicago and other parts of the area.
To illustrate, natural gas is Illinois’ largest source of energy (here), and a whopping 93% of homes use gas for heating (here). Residential use can swell 12-fold in Winter for heating over Summer to 3 Bcf/day (here). From 2014-2020, the REX reversal could lower sales of gas from the Rocky Mountain region into the Midwest by 1.3 Bcf/day. Meanwhile over the same period, sales into the area from the Marcellus could increase by 7 Bcf/day.
The numbers should scare Canada and explain why the escape valve of LNG to Asia off the coast of British Columbia has been deemed so crucial for its gas industry (here).“The best thing the Canadian Government can do to support the industry is enhance the approval process.” By 2020, combined production in the Marcellus and Utica (Ohio) shale plays could reach 25 Bcf/day.
Over 50 pipeline infrastructure projects including: “backhaul, bi-directional flow, reversals, expansion of capacity, extension of market reach, and greenfield projects,” with the total capacity for all projects approaching 30 Bcf/day.
Continued from page 1
For example, the not-so-distant Marcellus shale play centered in Pennsylvania produced 17.4 Bcf/day in March, or about 20% more than the entire country of Canada produces. Toronto is about 12 times closer to the northern edge of the Marcellus than western Canada suppliers.
Access to abundant, low cost American shale for Ontario is critical: I’ve already shown how higher electricity prices are crippling the province’s business climate (here), and 62% of Ontario’s 4 million homes use natural gas for heating (here).
With pretty much all of Canada’s gas production going to areas now within reach of the Marcellus, Canada could also have trouble supplying the U.S. Midwest, the nations manufacturing hub and recipient of 55% of Canada’s gas to the U.S. Last August, the Rockies Express Pipeline was partially reversed, sending Marcellus shale gas into Chicago and other parts of the area.
To illustrate, natural gas is Illinois’ largest source of energy (here), and a whopping 93% of homes use gas for heating (here). Residential use can swell 12-fold in Winter for heating over Summer to 3 Bcf/day (here). From 2014-2020, the REX reversal could lower sales of gas from the Rocky Mountain region into the Midwest by 1.3 Bcf/day. Meanwhile over the same period, sales into the area from the Marcellus could increase by 7 Bcf/day.
The numbers should scare Canada and explain why the escape valve of LNG to Asia off the coast of British Columbia has been deemed so crucial for its gas industry (here).“The best thing the Canadian Government can do to support the industry is enhance the approval process.” By 2020, combined production in the Marcellus and Utica (Ohio) shale plays could reach 25 Bcf/day.
Over 50 pipeline infrastructure projects including: “backhaul, bi-directional flow, reversals, expansion of capacity, extension of market reach, and greenfield projects,” with the total capacity for all projects approaching 30 Bcf/day.Recommended by ForbesMOST POPULARPhotos: The Most Expensive Home Listing in Every State 2016TRENDING ON LINKEDINEasy Tips On How To Create A Brand Position For Your Product Or ServiceRoberto CoinVoice:Top Five Spring Jewelry Trends For 2016
Even California and the U.S. West, which gets 35% of Canada’s gas to the U.S., is at risk of moving away from Canadian supplies. Colorado’s gas production has boomed to 4.7 Bcf/day, and the Colorado Supreme Court last week ruled against local fracking bans. The Niobrara shale in the state could have as much as 30 Tcf available. And many states in the region, particularly California, have some very ambitious renewable energy goals to lower gas and fossil fuel usage.
Eventually though, over 60% of U.S. gas exports will likely be in the form of LNG. With LNG exports to Brazil and ethane shipped to Europe, the U.S. LNG boom has commenced and is set to really take off post-2017. Most proximate, the Dominion Cove Point LNG Terminal on the Maryland coast will send some 0.8 Bcf/day of Marcellus gas to India and Japan next year, with three more set to being shipments in 2018 and 2019 (here).
Most of our projects under construction have much of their planned output already contracted to sell over 20 years. Exacerbated by oversupply and the collapse in commodity prices, nobody expects most of our approved and proposed LNG export projects to come online any time soon, but it’s practical to think that the U.S. could be shipping 8-10 Bcf/day of LNG by 2020, mostly off from the Gulf Coast region.
And don’t forget, with 34 LNG importers, WoodMac says “more than 50 additional countries have the potential to be LNG importers by 2025.”
But with over half of U.S. LNG slated for Europe, I do find it very odd that there’s been no proposal to export LNG from the Marcellus proximate Delaware Cove to reach our “friends across the pond.” In fact, not long ago BP had the idea of putting an LNG import terminal in the area but was struck down back in 2008 (here).
Yet, with many long-term oil-based LNG contracts are set to expire in a few years, Asia could rapidly become our focus, particularly if prices rise. After delays, the $7 billion Panama Canal expansion is finally set to open June 27. The long awaited opening will slice 7,000 miles off of the shipping distance for U.S. Gulf Coast LNG to Asia and“reduce freight costs by more than 40%.”
Despite a much reported on “economic slowdown,” I’ve already documented why it’s surely only logical to be quite bullish on China’s gas demand: usage increased 15% in 1Q 2016, compared to a 2.3% gain for all of 2015. In March, LNG imports increased 26% y-o-y.
Easily the most energy deprived nation on Earth, with over 300 million people living without electricity, “India LNG Market Projected to grow at a CAGR of More Than 21% During 2016-2025.”
India’s current re-gasification capacity of about 3.5 Bcf/day is underutilized, with utilization rates 60-66%. And with us having lower prices, rising supply, a stable political system, less risky tolling agreements, and more flexible contracts, “India’s Gail looks to swap U.S. LNG cargoes.”
Of note, almost unimaginable 24 months ago, landed LNG prices in the consuming markets have converged (here).
The good news is that not that long ago the U.S. was widely projected to become a major LNG importer, so our business has already invested over $100 billion in coastal infrastructure. At around 20 Bcf/day, the U.S. actually has the 2nd largest re-gasification capacity in the world (after Japan), although utilization rates are now just 1-2%.
The shale gas boom, however, changed all of this, and these import facilities can now be more easily and cheaply reconfigured to export LNG, giving us a critical leg up over the new, from scratch projects that must be installed by other competitors like Australia and eventually Canada. These lower costs give U.S. LNG suppliers the critical benefit of being able to offer better contract terms. In fact, our brownfield projects can just simply be expanded to outcompete and push out more expensive LNG suppliers (a must read here).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/05/08/the-u-s-natural-gas-export-boom-means-pipelines-and-lng/#bca79c742345
-
GOP States Benefiting from Shift to Wind and Solar Energy
May 9, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post
By Michael Biesecker
If there’s a War on Coal, it’s increasingly clear which side is winning.
Wind turbines and solar panels accounted for more than two-thirds of all new electric generation capacity added to the nation’s grid in 2015, according to a recent analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy. The remaining third was largely new power plants fueled by natural gas, which has become cheap and plentiful as a result of hydraulic fracturing.
It was the second straight year U.S. investment in renewable energy projects has outpaced that of fossil fuels. Robust growth is once again predicted for this year.
And while Republican lawmakers in Washington have fought to protect coal-fired power plants, opposing President Barack Obama’s efforts to curtail climate-warming carbon emissions, data show their home states are often the ones benefiting most from the nation’s accelerating shift to renewable energy.
Leading the way in new wind projects are GOP strongholds Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, home to some of the leading critics of climate science and renewable energy incentives in Congress. Republican-dominated North Carolina trails only California in new solar farms, thanks largely to pro-renewables polices enacted years ago under a Democratic legislature.
The most dramatic change has been seen in the plummeting cost of emissions-free wind energy, which has declined by two-thirds in the last six years thanks to the availability of cheaper, more efficient turbines. An annual analysis by the investment firm Lazard determined that wind energy is now the lowest-cost energy source, even before federal green-energy tax incentives are factored in.
“We are entering the era of renewables,” former Vice President Al Gore said Thursday at the Climate Action 2016 conference in Washington. “It’s a very exciting new reality.”
Billions of dollars in private equity are going to construct massive new renewables projects, especially in the Sun Belt and Great Plains. Thousands of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines are also under construction to send power from the wind and sun from the sparsely populated areas where it is collected to the urban centers where it’s needed.
Even with the surge in new projects, energy from such renewable sources as wind, solar and water accounted for only about a tenth of total U.S. power generation last year.
Still, the U.S. leads the world in wind energy with about 48,800 utility-scale turbines operating across the country, generating enough electricity to power about 20 million homes. By 2030, the Energy Department estimates wind will provide a fifth of the nation’s electricity.
“Wind energy is very low-cost and not subject to the fuel price risk that both natural gas and coal face,” said Michael Goggin, senior director of research at the American Wind Energy Association, an industry trade group. “Adding wind is cheaper than new gas or new coal. It is by far the lowest-cost resource.”
Coal has dropped over the last decade from providing half of all U.S. electricity to about one-third.
Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company, last month joined a growing list of major mining firms forced to seek bankruptcy protection. Wall Street appears to also be writing coal’s financial obituary. JPMorgan Chase recently announced it will no longer finance new coal mines or coal-fired power plants, following similar announcements from other big banks.
While new clean-air regulations and tax incentives for renewables are having a negative impact on coal, the plummeting cost of cleaner-burning natural gas made possible by fracking is largely driving the closure of many old coal-fired power plants. Exports of coal to foreign customers such as China also are down.
“We didn’t see the decline coming this fast and this deep,” said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, an industry trade group.
Meanwhile, the long-promised potential of Clean Coal technology has yet to be realized. A model power plant in Mississippi designed to capture the carbon dioxide generated from burning coal has encountered repeated delays and multibillion-dollar cost overruns.
Closures mean America’s coal mines now employ about only about 56,700 people, down from a peak of more than 10 times that. By contrast, the fast-growing solar industry now employs more than 210,000 workers. Wind energy accounts for another 77,000 by federal estimates.
Political giving by the big coal companies and their executives has declined, but the industry still spends heavily to protect its interests in Washington. Pro-coal interests spent at least $11 million to influence the 2014 Congressional midterm elections, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. More than 95 percent of that went to support Republican candidates.
Among them is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who rarely misses an opportunity to blame Obama’s “War on Coal” for killing mining jobs. Nearly all of the 27 states that have sued to stop the administration’s carbon emissions-cutting Clean Power Plan have GOP governors.
For Republicans from areas benefiting from renewable energy, the political calculus can be complicated. An increasing number of them try to balance criticizing Obama’s environmental efforts with quietly supporting the federal tax incentives helping drive investment in renewables.
GOP leaders compromised with Democrats and a growing number of pro-renewables Republicans to include a five-year extension of tax breaks for wind and solar projects as part of a federal budget agreement approved in December.
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, among the earliest boosters of government support for wind power, points out that fossil fuels and nuclear plants have long benefited from tax credits. Last month, MidAmerican Energy announced plans to invest another $3.6 billion to add new turbines in Iowa, which already gets about a third of its electricity from the wind.
“We’ve seen the economic success story behind renewables up close and personal,” Grassley said as the new project was announced. “There are more than 6,000 good wind jobs in Iowa.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/gop-states-benefiting-from-shift-to-wind-and-solar-energy/2016/05/06/663459fe-135d-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html
-
May 7, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Mark Collette and Matt Dempsey
First in a series
Just outside Pearland, theater patrons come and go within 200 feet of a warehouse that stockpiles a pesticide so toxic it seeped into a family’s house in Utah and killed two little girls.
A metal forging company about a half-mile from Cy-Fair High School stores 27 chemicals, including titanium, a material that blew up at a golf club manufacturer in Los Angeles and leveled a city block.
And in Crosby, a public sports complex is close to a plant that houses explosive organic peroxides, a class of chemicals used in terror attacks in Paris and Brussels.
All over America and across greater Houston, capital of the nation’s petrochemical industry, hundreds of chemicals pose serious threats to public safety at facilities that may be unknown to most neighbors and are largely unpoliced by government at all levels, a yearlong Houston Chronicle investigation reveals.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration doesn’t inspect most facilities; when it does, it’s often due to an accident or complaint. The Environmental Protection Agency ignores entire classes of hazardous chemicals when looking at which sites to scrutinize. Texas and other states have made accessing information about chemical stockpiles more difficult. Local emergency planning groups are in many cases unfunded and, in the most extreme instances, staff lists include people who have died.
The danger is real. Since November 2014, when four employees died after a gas leak at a DuPont plant in La Porte, there have been 12 explosions, fires and toxic releases widely reported around greater Houston, including one on Thursday that destroyed a Spring Branch packing facility that handles hazardous materials. That’s one every six weeks. Nationally, at least 17 people have died and 573 have been hospitalized in more than 93 incidents involving hazardous chemicals in the last year and a half.
In response to the DuPont accident, the Chronicle obtained the chemical inventories of more than 2,500 businesses in greater Houston. Chemical safety experts at Texas A&M University’s Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center then ranked the potential of each facility to kill or injure people and cause property or environmental damage should an incident occur. The analysis was based on the properties and quantities of the chemicals and the size of the surrounding population.
The results – adjusted for OSHA violations and company responses – found 55 facilities with the highest potential for harm to the public. Close to 600 scored in the medium tier, storing chemicals dangerous enough to impose serious harm in an accident. Nearly 80 percent of the facilities in those tiers have 10,000 or more people within a 2-mile radius.
One medium-tier plant: The DuPont facility in La Porte, where the 2014 leak involved methyl mercaptan, a highly flammable chemical that never found a spark. If it had, the explosion could have hurled debris, piercing tanks of hydrogen fluoride. That could kill and injure people up to 25 miles away, encompassing an area with more than 2 million residents, according to information DuPont and its spinoff company, Chemours, disclosed to the EPA. Such an accident nearly happened at an ExxonMobil plant in California, where flying debris narrowly missed a hydrogen fluoride tank, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board reported.
Sam Mannan, who heads the O’Connor center and is one of the nation’s preeminent experts on chemical safety, watches the same root causes play out again and again in accidents – lack of assessed risks, communities kept in the dark, inattention to zoning. “We are literally running from disaster to disaster without a well thought-out plan,” he said.
It’s only a matter of time, Mannan said, before an accident reaches beyond a plant’s fenceline to claim lives.
The Texas A&M analysis
Degesch America’s pesticide warehouse is surrounded by a chain-link fence north of Pearland. The Pearl Theater is across the street. The only signs of potential danger at Degesch are two diamond placards near the front door, marked with colors and numbers that, to first-responders, offer important warnings: reacts with water, highly flammable, fatal if inhaled.
The aluminum phosphide inside is so toxic it can’t legally be used within 100 feet of a building that could be occupied by living creatures.
Degesch ranked second for potential harm in the A&M analysis, partly because of the pesticide’s toxicity and also because it can house up to 75,000 pounds. It took less than 2 pounds of aluminum phosphide pellets placed in the ground around a home in Utah to produce enough gas to slowly kill a 4-year-old and her baby sister in 2010.
“There’s 1,200 chemical pesticides out there, and I’d put this one at the top of the list of things that scare me,” said Dave Stone, an environmental toxicologist and former director of the National Pesticide Information Center at Oregon State University.
The A&M analysis does not measure the risk of an accident happening, where a problem is likely to occur or the safety of the operations at a given facility.
Mannan noted that the properties that make chemicals dangerous also make them inherently useful. He hopes the analysis will inspire industry and government to better manage the risks.
Facilities across the country would likely produce similar results, in terms of the percentages in each tier, if the same methodology was applied, Mannan said.
Federal law requires companies to file inventories that include any of more than 500,000 hazardous products. Based on the data collected from greater Houston companies, A&M evaluated 983 substances. But under the EPA’s Risk Management Program, its chief accident prevention strategy, the agency looks at only 148 chemicals, ignoring places like Degesch.
The A&M study does not cover all of greater Houston.
Many facilities that produce or house hazardous chemicals couldn’t be identified by the Chronicle because the state allowed local governments to withhold inventories, citing a Texas law that restricts information that might be useful to terrorists. Brazoria and Galveston counties, home to some of the largest concentrations of chemical plants in the world, refused the paper’s request. So did Fort Bend and Waller counties.
A federal right-to-know law mandates disclosure, under the theory that the public is better protected by being informed. The law is not enforced.
Degesch rejected interview requests from the Chronicle – two employees hung up on reporters – and an inquiry to the company’s German headquarters went unanswered.
Peter van Nifterik, president of the Pearl Theater, knew nothing about the pesticide stored at Degesch. He assumed the facility was as benign as the plumbing place next door.
If an incident happened at Degesch during a show, Van Nifterik said he wouldn’t know whether to take shelter or evacuate.
Pearland neighbors
Degesch is in a light industrial park, with warehouses, crane suppliers and machine shops, and is about three quarters of a mile from Shadow Creek Ranch.
The suburban community of up to 12,000 homes with sought-after schools is the kind of place where people live precisely because it’s nowhere near the Houston industrial complex.
But other sites of concern are on either side of the industrial park. AkzoNobel Surface Chemistry operates a 45-acre plant southwest of Degesch that, among dozens of other hazardous materials, stores up to 2 million pounds of ethylene oxide, a highly flammable, explosive and toxic gas.
The plant has tanks and a couple of towers, but it doesn’t look like its massive counterparts on Houston’s east side. People with extensive experience in Pearland real estate – two salespeople for home builders and one agent – said prospective buyers almost never ask about AkzoNobel, yet most of Shadow Creek Ranch is within two2 miles, the range used in the A&M analysis. Many in the neighborhood took notice of the plant as a suspect after an offensive odor materialized last year. State officials are investigating possible sources, including a nearby landfill.
The company is confident the plant isn’t the source of the odor, spokesman George Nolan said, and has invited nearby residents for site visits.
For ethylene oxide and other hazardous materials, AkzoNobel often does more than federal safety and environmental standards require, Nolan said.
East of Degesch, tucked among the trees on Hooper Road, Syntech Chemicals occupies little more than three3 acres, and stores up to 50,000 pounds of formaldehyde solution, considered highly corrosive, toxic and flammable. It also has about a dozen other hazardous chemicals.
In 2002, fire ignited several 10,000-gallon tanks of methyl alcohol. Explosions destroyed most of the plant and sent a plume of black smoke toward the Sam Houston Tollway, snarling rush-hour traffic. Investigators attributed the blaze to an overheated oil reactor. Three months later, one of the tanks caught fire again. OSHA fined the company more than $100,000 for violating chemical process safety standards.
Three years ago, OSHA inspectors – prompted by a complaint – found hoses attached with hanger wires or patched with duct tape because clamps were damaged or missing. Employees told investigators that a worker damaged his eyesight after being sprayed with chemicals when he disconnected a hose.
Syntech Vice President James Gordon, in an email, attributed the 2002 fire to a faulty valve. The company rebuilt the plant, upgrading to the most modern equipment and safety features, he said.
Syntech then ran it for 11 years, OSHA found, without properly inspecting certain pressure relief valves, the last line of defense against fires, explosions and toxic releases.
The company reported that it fixed the problems from the 2013 inspections within one year, OSHA data shows. Gordon called the company’s compliance record in the last 15 years exemplary. “We at Syntech do not take safety lightly or as an afterthought,” he said.
Syntech, Degesch and AkzoNobel were in place long before Shadow Creek Ranch’s developers broke ground in 2001. None of the facilities will be visible above the treeline from the neighborhood’s new sports complex, under construction less than a mile from Syntech and a couple thousand feet from the other plants.
Dangers hit home
In Pasadena, east of Houston, residents who live near the Houston Ship Channel know that a myriad of chemicals could cause the next fire, explosion or release. Most are employed at the plants or at related service companies. For them, the pipes mean prosperity.
An October explosion at SunEdison (formerly known as MEMC) near Highway 225 burned four workers, one so severely that he needs long-term care. The blast resulted from a release of silane gas, one of several hazardous substances used to produce silicon wafers for the electronics and solar industries. A Harris County report said it appeared a valve leaked during maintenance.
The company didn’t respond to inquiries about the A&M findings, which placed it on the high-potential-harm list for another substance, an aluminum compound that ignites upon exposure to air.
After the fall explosion, spokesman Gordon Handelsman said earlier incidents had triggered enhanced inspection, maintenance and safety programs.
Fifteen workers went to hospitals after a release of corrosive fumes in 2008, and that same year, a loose pipe fitting resulted in a fire shutting down the silane unit for a week. In 2011, OSHA cited SunEdison for cracked valves in that unit and for failing to provide workers with a way to lock valves, exposing them to hazards.
Another Pasadena plant near the top of the A&M study, LyondellBasell (also known as Houston Refining), had a fire on April 8. No one was hurt, but schools and homes nearby were told to shelter-in-place for an hour. The plant had 11 violations during a 2009 OSHA inspection, many related to the mishandling of hazardous chemicals.
“We take our commitment to safe operations and compliance with federal and state regulations very seriously,” LyondellBasell spokesman George Smalley said by email. We regularly meet with our community and local officials and strive to be a good neighbor at all times.”
LyondellBasell can house more than 10 million pounds of methyl mercaptan. That’s more than 430 times the amount that spewed into an enclosed building at DuPont.
DuPont knew for years that hazards at its pesticide plant were capable of killing not only workers, but nearby residents, yet problems with clogged pipes and fire protection weren’t fixed, the CSB said last fall over company objections. The plant had not seen an OSHA inspector since 2007.
DuPont is closing the plant and spun off part of it into a new company, Chemours. It has up to 2.1 million pounds of toxic hydrofluoric acid, which tops the list of chemicals that advocates want industries to replace. When released, the acid forms a dense, rolling cloud of gas that hangs close to the ground, potentially sending lethal concentrations for miles. In 2012, a South Korean plant released 8 tons of it, killing five workers and triggering emergency treatment for more than 3,000 people in towns downwind.
Sergio Serrano, 76, and his wife have lived near such dangers for 40 years. They sleep to the ceaseless hum of chemical plants in Pasadena, like giant vacuum cleaners running in their back yard. Booming explosions or wailing sirens indicating chemical releases have pierced some nights – more times than Serrano can recall.
Nearby, there’s Goodyear, with sodium sulfide, a dangerous chemical in rubber production.
In 2008, a heat exchanger exploded at the plant, killing one worker with flying debris and spraying six others with toxic ammonia. OSHA fined the tire giant $43,000. A year earlier, OSHA had cited the plant for violating a rule that requires companies to take action in response to their own hazard analyses, and for having infrequent inspections of processing equipment.
Over the years, chemical giants have bought out Serrano’s neighbors and tried to buy his 860-square-foot home. No one has offered more than $15,000 and that’s not enough to afford a move, said Serrano, who is retired after years of washing hospital linens. So here he remains, looking out across weed-covered lots, sleeping to the hum.
‘Operating responsibly’
East of downtown, a park, a community center and three schools are within half a mile of Palmer Logistics, a chemical distributor.
The location epitomizes Houston’s haphazard zoning.
Palmer has held dangerous chemicals there for more than 30 years, but has not had a major release. It stores but does not process chemicals like paraformaldehyde. Nonetheless, chemical disasters have influenced president Brett Mears and his colleagues.
Palmer has decided to move all its hazardous chemicals to a new facility in an industrial area in Baytown, even though the lease is about 50 percent more expensive.
“Maybe the regulations say it’s acceptable to put a hazmat facility in a neighborhood,” Mears said, “but if you could be 5 miles from the closest houses, wouldn’t that be better?”
The Chronicle followed up with all the high-potential-for-harm facilities to learn what they do to prevent releases. Most responded with general comments about safety, maintenance and monitoring programs. Some went deeper. For example, the AkzoNobel facility in La Porte, which ranked highest in the A&M analysis, described precautions for triethylaluminum.
People who handle it are specially trained, wear customized, stringently tested protective suits and work with constant surveillance, site director Allen Tribble said. The company conducted research and safety studies to develop best-handling practices, including eliminating contact with air and moisture, which leads to fires.
The East Harris County Manufacturers Association weighed in on behalf of many facilities.
Craig Beskid, executive director of EHCMA, said its member companies regularly share best practices and assess hazards and risks, and use state-of-the-art technologies.
“We understand that the public wants to have confidence that our industry is operating responsibly, which is why we have multiple layers of safety protection in place,” Beskid said. “Assessing the risks without factoring in these safeguards is similar to assessing the risks of driving a car without factoring in speed, seat belts, anti-lock brakes, safety glass and other car safety improvements.”
At KMCO in Crosby, northeast of Houston, new owners made changes in recent years to improve safety.
The plant, near the sports complex, a restaurant and a church, stores organic peroxides, which can burn and explode. A similar substance called TATP is increasingly favored by terrorists because it can be made with household chemicals. Harris County sued the KMCO plant in 2008 for spills and fumes that gave neighbors headaches. The lawsuit ended in 2009, with a permanent injunction requiring KMCO to pay $100,000 in civil penalties and to give investigators easy access to the facility and prompt notification of releases.
The plant has dozens of OSHA violations since 2010, and an explosion in 2011 sent two workers to a hospital.
Kelly Nidini, the plant’s safety manager, said the company has significantly upgraded its facilities since 2013, has won multiple industry awards and will invest millions, primarily for safety and environmental concerns.
“We have no higher priority than ensuring safe and compliant operations,” Nidini said.
Hazards near two schools
At a facility in northwest Houston, Wyman-Gordon Forgings makes components for aircraft, missiles, power plants, and the nuclear and petrochemical industries. The company uses titanium, a volatile metal that caused two explosions in Los Angeles in 2010. Those blasts blew out fire engine windows, injured four firefighters and launched molten debris hundreds of feet.
On the other side of U.S. 290 from Wyman-Gordon, more than 5,000 students attend Arnold Middle School and Cy-Fair High School.
Company and school officials said they do not talk to each other about possible dangers from the plant.
In a statement, the school district said each campus has an emergency operation plan. “We conduct mandatory crisis drills for sheltering in place and evacuations,” assistant superintendent Nicole Ray said.
The facility isn’t without problems. In 1996, an explosion of a pressurized nitrogen tank killed eight workers, blew a jagged hole in the roof and propelled a piece of equipment that weighs as much as a Honda Civic more than 200 yards and more than 5 feet into the ground. The company agreed to pay $1.8 million in OSHA fines and promised to improve safety. In 2011, it was cited by OSHA for not recording worker accidents. The company paid a $2,000 fine. In 2014, OSHA cited it for exposing a worker to hazardous chemicals. The company paid a $100 fine.
Wyman-Gordon, like many large plants, has its own safety staff. The company has a full-time safety manager, a 31-member emergency response team, a certified EMT and a “confined space” rescue team.
It also recently started working with the Cy-Fair Volunteer Fire Department to improve the safe storage and use of titanium metal and to prepare for a fire. Company spokesman Jay Khetani described its recent OSHA violations as minor.
“The facility’s primary focus is the safety of its employees and ensuring that all members of its team return safely to home each night,” Khetani said.
Southeast of Wyman-Gordon on 290, Chem One is housed in a plain, single-story building. The company stores up to half a million pounds of reactive and toxic potassium permanganate.
Many facilities with hazardous chemicals look just as innocuous.
Near Oak Forest: International Paint, which can store an equal amount of flammable copper oxide.
Near Hobby airport: Buffalo Flange, with just as much toxic and flammable iron carbonyl.
Near George Bush Intercontinental Airport: Enduro Composites.
Walter Dunn lives about 2,000 feet from Enduro’s plant, which houses up to 5,000 pounds of cumene hydroperoxide – explosive and reactive and a chemical he’d never heard of.
“Small people have no say in where this stuff goes,” said Dunn, who was hunched over and working on his car on a warm spring day. His dog, Jack, greeted passersby, and down the street, teenagers played basketball.
If he wanted to move, Dunn said, where would he go?
“There’s no safe place,” he said. “It’s all over this town.”
Coming soon: An industry left to police itself
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/chemical-breakdown/1/
-
Wave of Fossil Fuel Project Cancellations Follows Keystone XL Rejection
May 9, 2016 | InsideClimate News (In Real Clear Energy)
By Zahra Hirji
Six months after the Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, at least 20 other proposed energy projects—mines, pipelines, plants, related rail projects and export terminals—have been canceled, rejected or delayed, according to research compiled and mapped by InsideClimate News.
Sustained grassroots resistance and public opposition have played a role in at least some of these decisions; other influential factors include unfavorable economic conditions such as low oil prices, as well as governments' environmental concerns and project siting issues.
Proposed in 2008, the Keystone XL was originally slated to transport Canadian oil sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries. Federal regulators rejected the project for its potential climate impact and minimal economic benefits—and activists hailed the decision as a victory for their years of action against the project.
Since then, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected two project applications—for the Oregon-based Jordan Cove LNG project and Pacific Connector Pipeline—and delayed the decisions on two other facilities. For five of the projects, the bids or key permits were rejected by either a federal panel or state or local officials. Companies chose to cancel five other projects, including Arch Coal's abandoning its planned Otter Creek coal mine in Montana and Kinder Morgan's pulling the plug on its Northeast Energy Direct pipeline. The remaining facilities are delayed.
According to Tom Sanzillo, director of finance for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), what's driving the coal decisions is straightforward: No one is willing to financially support these projects anymore.
So far this year, the nation's two top coal companies, Peabody Coal and Arch Coal, announced bankruptcy. "The bankruptcies have just rocked the industry," said Sanzillo, who cited a roster of investors who are "walking away" from coal: bankers, equity markets, venture capitalists and hedge funds.
For the oil and gas industries, it's more complicated. According to Sanzillo, "there should be a concern that the utilities are building too many pipelines and the [regulators] should be concerned about how consumers pay for it." Sanzillo co-authored a recent report detailing the risks of overbuilding pipelines in Appalachia.
Energy companies themselves are often blaming the economy when they pause or cancel projects. In a few cases, however, companies will acknowledge local resistance. One recent example was Kinder Morgan's decision last month to suspend construction on the Palmetto Pipeline in the Southeast. In that case, the company cited the Georgia legislature's passage of new restrictions on pipeline permitting and eminent domain; these limits on industry were strongly supported by landowners in the state.
Over the last six months, multiple natural gas pipelines have also been approved, including two such projects in New Jersey, and the Sunbury Pipeline project in Pennsylvania. The federal government also approved the extension of Enbridge's Alberta Clipper oil sands pipeline.
Fossil fuel companies generally blame market forces, not public opposition, on the project setbacks, Bold Nebraska founder Jane Kleeb told InsideClimate News. "Everything they say is about demoralizing what we do at the local level and not giving any credit to the people power of this fight," she said. "In reality, I think it has a lot to do with the people power on the ground."
Community, environmental justice and green groups from 12 countries are hosting more than 20 local protests and rallies from May 3-15 as part of theBreak Free campaign, which was first announced at the Paris climate talks. Protesters are going to the sites of operating or planned fossil fuel projects, demanding that they be shut down or canceled, in some cases risking arrest.
The protests and acts of civil disobedience are aimed at drawing attention to the "gap between what our world's politicians are doing, and what we know is actually necessary to combat the climate crisis," said one of the campaign's planners, Lindsay Meiman, a spokeswoman for 350.org.
The Keystone campaign helped people understand the role of high-carbon energy infrastructure in the climate crisis, according to Kleeb.
"These actions," she said, referring to the Break Free campaign, "they start helping tell the story that this particular compression station or this particular pipeline or this particular tar sands mining project, it's all connected to the impacts of climate change, which I think before Keystone XL was not a story being told at all."
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/06052016/fossil-fuel-projects-cancellations-keystone-xl-pipeline-oil-coal-natural-gas-climate-change-activists
-
Oil Spill Case Against CSX Subsidiary Stays on Track
May 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Tort claims may proceed against a CSX subsidiary for a railroad derailment that caused an oil spill, explosions and fires last year, a federal court ruled May 5 (Sigman v. CSX Corp., 2016 BL 143992, S.D. W.Va., No. 15-cv-13328, 5/5/16).
Brandy Sigman and 95 other plaintiffs sufficiently stated negligence, nuisance and trespass claims against CSX Transportation, Inc. and its contractor, Sperry Rail Co., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia said.
The 109-car derailment spilled crude oil into the Kanawha River in West Virginia, causing explosions and water service interruption. It also forced the evacuation of approximately 300 families in Mount Carbon, W.Va., according to the complaint.
The companies argued the negligence claims stated economic losses not allowed under state law, but the court disagreed. The complaint also alleged personal injuries, such as breathing harmful chemicals, the court said.
The public and private nuisance claims were sufficient because the evacuation stated a “special injury” supporting the claims, and the alleged release of harmful contaminants stated a trespass claim, the court said.
CSXT and Sperry also asserted the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 and the Federal Railroad Safety Act preempted the claims.
But the case doesn't impinge on the ICCTA—a law dealing with economic regulation of railroads—and the FRSA “does not completely preempt all state law tort claims directed at railroad safety,” the court said.
In a separate ruling, the court dismissed claims against CSX Corp. the parent corporation of CSXT. The court agreed that CSX had insufficient contacts with West Virginia and control over CSXT to create personal jurisdiction.
Chief Judge Robert C. Chambers wrote the opinion.
The laws offices of P. Rodney Jackson and the Griffith Law Center represented the plaintiffs.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, as well as Crowell & Moring represented CSX Corp. and CSXT Transportation, Inc.
Kay Casto & Chaney represented Sperry Rail, Inc.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89102552&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89102552&jd=89102552
-
U.S. on Track to meet Paris Reduction Goals -- McCarthy
May 6, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The United States "could not be in better shape" to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions that the Obama administration pledged in the run-up to the Paris climate agreement, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said today.
McCarthy told an audience of international climate leaders that the pause in the Clean Power Plan put in place by the Supreme Court would not affect the country's ability to meet its target. The Obama administration pledged that the United States would reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
"Over the last decade, the U.S. has reduced more carbon pollution than any other nation in the world, and we are going to continue that pace," McCarthy said.
McCarthy's remarks came during an onstage interview this afternoon with Bill Nye, the "Science Guy," at the Climate Action 2016 summit in Washington, D.C. The summit brought together many of the international leaders at the center of the negotiations that resulted in the Paris climate agreement.
Whether the United States will be able to meet its targets has been a key question in the months after the Paris climate negotiations. The Supreme Court in February put a stay on EPA's program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the key piece of the Obama administration's domestic climate agenda, until complex litigation is resolved.
"What we have is a pause in the Clean Power Plan," McCarthy said. "If anybody knows anything about EPA and writing rules, we rock at it. We do it legally. We do it on the basis of sound science."
McCarthy said the markets would continue to drive a transition away from coal-fired electricity to renewables. The administrator argued that that transition began decades ago and to deny it is "to deny current economic conditions."
"If you look at how money is being spent, you will see that utilities are spending significantly more money on renewable energy and the delivery of energy efficiency than they are on fossil energy today."
She acknowledged that, while energy jobs on the whole may grow, some coal communities in places like West Virginia "may get left behind."
"Coal will be around for a while in the U.S.," McCarthy said, "but the challenge we have is to actually invest in those communities today so they can be better prepared for the future."
While McCarthy highlighted the actions EPA has taken to address greenhouse gas emissions, she declined to answer whether she supports an economywide carbon tax. But she conceded that regulations were not "the most elegant tools available to us."
As McCarthy praised domestic efforts to move away from coal-fired power, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan earlier in the day issued a call for international partnerships on adaptation.
"Together, we can better define the risks posed by climate change, find these risks and design with these risks in mind," Donovan said in a keynote speech at the summit. "It's not an academic exercise. It's a leadership imperative."
Donovan said a memorandum that OMB quietly issued a week ago was an example of U.S. efforts on adaptation. The document is meant to coordinate and improve climate adaptation plans of federal agencies that were required by a 2009 executive order.
The memo requires agencies to complete a survey on their adaptation plans by June 30 and send representatives to meet personally with OMB, the Council on Environmental Quality and other White House offices to discuss their adaptation efforts by July 31.
Using the surveys and interviews, OMB and CEQ plan to identify "concrete actions" for agencies to take to make progress on adaptation plans. Agencies will be required to report on their progress.
Donovan today also used the stage to announce that the Obama administration would deploy a new cohort of the Resilience AmeriCorps program, which embeds AmeriCorps VISTA members to help local communities develop preparedness plans for climate change risks.
Nye aims to 'debunk the deniers'
As administration officials touted U.S. efforts, Nye highlighted the results of a recent survey by the University of Maryland that found large majorities of the American public favor domestic and international efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, May 4).
Nye, who addressed a small audience in a town hall setting at the summit, has taken an increasingly prominent role in pushing back against doubters of man-made climate change, including making bets worth thousands of dollars and appearing in a video clip in a new documentary that's skeptical of human-caused global warming (E&E Daily, April 15).
Today, he vowed to keep up his campaign until the November elections.
"Recently, I've gone after the deniers in a new way," Nye said. "Instead of working hard to show people the science, which is settled, I'm working now to debunk the deniers. I plan to do that until the election."
Nye said he was encouraged by the news that a small group of Republicans in Congress are ready to embrace climate change action (E&E Daily, April 19). But he believes congressional redistricting remains a huge issue, leaving doubters in Congress and impeding more people who would take on the issue from becoming lawmakers.
The science educator called on people who are concerned about climate change to head to the polls in November. He expressed concern about the upcoming presidential elections.
"This year in 2016, if we get a climate denier in the U.S. presidency, the whole world is headed for trouble," Nye said, adding that climate advocates should press the issue at town halls leading up to the elections.
Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, has said he believes climate change is a hoax. Still, Nye said he wouldn't be surprised if Trump changed his tune on climate once the Republican presidential convention was over.
"Don't be surprised if the conservative Donald Trump says: 'Well, I've been really concerned about climate change all along. It's just another issue. I just told people what they wanted to hear,'" Nye said. "On the other hand, he says so many extraordinary things that he seems to change his mind about, that I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come back around."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/06/stories/1060036863
-
May 8, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
On Nov. 3, ExxonMobil dispatched its top lobbyists to Capitol Hill on an urgent mission — tamping down an escalating campaign aimed at making the country’s largest oil company pay a legal and political price for its role in warming the planet.
The meeting marked a striking shift in Exxon’s handling of the controversy. The notion of holding oil companies responsible for global warming, in the same way tobacco companies had to pay billions of dollars in damages over the health effects of cigarettes, had long been seen as a quixotic quest led by scruffy, oil-hating extremists. But POLITICO’s interviews with dozens of activists, industry officials and lawmakers suggest that support for a legal crusade against Exxon is growing far beyond the political fringe — and now poses the biggest existential threat the company has faced in decades.
Just five days before the meeting on Capitol Hill, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton had urged the Justice Department to investigate whether the petroleum giant spent decades deceiving the public about the threat of climate change. State attorneys general had Exxon in their sights as well, preparing to issue subpoenas that would eventually rope in virtually all of Washington’s conservative policy apparatus. A four-year effort by green activists, scientists and lawyers to turn Big Oil’s biggest player into the poster child for climate change — deliberately patterned after the successful campaign to take down tobacco — was shaking the descendant of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil empire to its core.So the four Exxon executives arrived at the office of California Democrat Rep.Ted Lieu with one job: convincing four of their most vocal congressional critics that the company wasn’t the polluting villain its enemies were making it out to be.
Exxon supports “sound climate policy” and has tripled its greenhouse-gas cuts since 2008, the executives boasted to the lawmakers in a 10-page glossy presentation, later obtained by POLITICO. Exxon was even on record in favor of a tax on carbon emissions — a climate remedy more radical than anything President Barack Obama has proposed.
The company left empty-handed, though, after refusing to directly answer questions about whether it had suppressed internal research that underscored the threat of climate change while publicly sowing doubt about climate science, according to people in the room.
The presentation made at least one thing clear, however: After years of shrugging off pressure from eco-activists, Exxon was showing signs of worry.
And Exxon wasn’t the only one with reasons to be nervous.
Interviews with advocates on both sides of the feud reveal how quickly the anti-Exxon movement has sprouted, to the point that it’s now consuming op-ed pages, airwaves and courtrooms across the country. Once merely intent on shaming the oil giant into better behavior, environmentalists are pursuing a strategy to discredit the company, weaken it politically and perhaps make it pay the kinds of multibillion-dollar legal settlements that began hitting the tobacco industry in the 1990s.
The campaign — led by some of the same climate activists who defied Beltway wisdom by killing the Keystone XL oil pipeline — has mushroomed into far more than a greens-versus-Exxon feud.
Just last week, a leaked subpoena from the attorney general in the U.S. Virgin Islands revealed a vast probe that demanded Exxon’s communications with more than 100 free-market think tanks, conservative consulting firms and climate-skeptic scientists — proof, the company’s supporters say, that environmentalists are using the legal system to launch a broad attack on their political opponents. The subpoena targets Exxon’s dealings with parties including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, the Hoover Institution, George Mason University and scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Alabama and the University of Delaware.
The first subpoena to Exxon came from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who used his state’s powerful consumer fraud law to hit the company with legal papers just a day after the lobbyists’ meeting on the Hill. AGs in California and Massachusetts have also launched investigations into the company.
Members of Congress have weighed in too, with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urging DOJ to consider bringing civil racketeering cases against oil companies.
“Obviously, we take it extremely seriously,” Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers told POLITICO, noting that the company is complying with the New York subpoena while it fights the racketeering summons from Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker. The greens’ campaign is built on “distorted reports that they have commissioned and a distorted history of climate research that we’ve done openly with government bodies,” Jeffers added.
Both sides describe the political stakes of the campaign as huge.
“Exxon’s been able to work its political will for a quarter of a century — they shouldn’t be able to,” said climate activist Bill McKibben, a leader of the fight against Keystone. “They should be a toxic political brand.”
“Exxon is taking this real seriously, and that tells you something, doesn’t it?” Matt Pawa, a Massachusetts lawyer who has repeatedly gone after Exxon in court, said in an interview. “Maybe they’ve got something to hide.”
Even rival oil companies that disdain Exxon’s support for a carbon tax are spooked about how far the greens’ campaign has gotten, especially when the industry is already reeling from a huge slump in fuel prices.
"Industry doesn’t look at this and say, ‘Too bad for Exxon,’” one fossil-fuel lobbyist said. “We say it’s very chilling, a horrible precedent, and no one wants to see themselves next.”
Underscoring the industry’s anxiety is the breadth and intensity of the counterattack it has mounted. Industry consultants are accusing the state AGs of colluding with environmentalists, and have questioned the role of foundations created by the Rockefeller family — petroleum heirs turned anti-oil activists — in helping bankroll some news organizations' Exxon investigations.
The industry is even exploring the idea of launching a counter-probe: A lobbyist for one of Exxon’s industry rivals told POLITICO he has reached out to red-state attorneys general to gauge their interest in probing where environmental groups are getting their funding. No takers have emerged so far.
But industry backers’ main argument is that the greens are assaulting the constitutional rights of anyone who dissents from mainstream climate science. Heritage Foundation fellow Hans von Spakovsky has denounced Schneiderman’s probe as a “Soviet-Style investigation,” while conservative columnist George Willcalled it an example of “gangster government.”
“Instead of honoring legitimate academic and scientific inquiry, the far-left has gone to extremes to silence those who disagree,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said Wednesday. He added, “This is nothing more than a misuse of power to score cheap political points.”
Exxon itself has made similar arguments, fighting the Virgin Islands subpoenas in court as an infringement on the company’s free-speech rights. But Walker, the territory’s AG, dismissed that reasoning.
“The First Amendment is not a defense to fraud,” Walker told POLITICO through a spokesman, and “the Constitution provides no right to mislead shareholders.”
“The tobacco companies,” he added, “raised exactly these arguments. … That was soundly rejected by the courts.”
***
The seeds of the Venus flytrap closing around Exxon were planted in June 2012 in the wealthy seaside town of La Jolla, Calif., where two dozen scientists, lawyers and academics huddled for a scholarly conference on an issue that had vexed the environmental movement for decades: How, on a planet filled with 7 billion people, do you hold oil companies liable for their role in worsening climate change?
“This wasn’t a strategy session,” said Peter Frumhoff, a conference organizer and the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This was a kind of first cut at, for lack of a better word, an exercise in applied scholarship.”
But attendees emerged with two strategies that would set the tone for today’s anti-Exxon fight.
First, they underscored the importance of building a catalogue of peer-reviewed research making the case that individual corporations could be held responsible for their contributions to climate change, a step that could serve as Exhibit A in future legal action. That tactic took a page from Exxon itself, which funded research after its 1989 Valdez spill arguing that Alaska’s Prince William Sound was already recovering from the damage.
Richard Heede, a climate researcher who helped organize the La Jolla conference, said the attendees realized the “value” of having credible peer-reviewed research.
Working with other academics like Naomi Oreskes, whose book "Merchants of Doubt" drew parallels between the climate and tobacco fights, Heede published articles in peer-reviewed journals that placed the responsibility for climate change at the feet of major fossil fuel companies. In a November 2013 study, for example, Heede estimated that 63 percent of worldwide emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane came from a group of 90 “carbon major” entities.(ExxonMobil was prominent in the list.) Environmental groups like Greenpeace immediately trumpeted the research.
“For a long time, fossil fuel companies have benefited from the idea that everyone is responsible for climate change — and if everyone is responsible, then nobody is responsible,” said Carroll Muffett, the president of the Center for International Environmental Law. “Now the science is moving into a much finer resolution.”
Second, the La Jolla attendees agreed that obtaining and publicizing internal corporate documents was the key to turning public opinion against the oil companies and eventually securing a legal victory.
“A key breakthrough in the public and legal case for tobacco control came when internal documents came to light showing the tobacco industry had knowingly misled the public,” the 2012 conference organizers wrote in a memo on the meeting. “Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups, and there are many possible approaches to unearthing them.”
Exxon’s opponents are likely to get hold of more internal records as the attorneys general proceed with their investigations. Schneiderman’s aides are culling through tens of thousands of pages of documents from the company, according to a person familiar with the probe.
“I’d be amazed if there aren’t several paper trails that will be found through subpoenas,” said veteran lawyer Richard Ayres, one of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s co-founders and an attendee at the 2012 conference. “Once subpoenas are answered, the trails will begin to be more visible and people will find this idea of litigation a lot more appealing.”
The source familiar with Schneiderman’s probe said the wide leeway afforded by his state’s financial fraud law, the Martin Act, aided his request for documents. Those include records of Exxon’s internal research into climate change’s causes, the role of climate information in business decisions, and marketing, advertising and company communications.
From the start, Exxon’s critics drew heavily on the lengthy legal crusade against tobacco companies that culminated in a massive settlement in 1998 totaling hundreds of billions of dollars.
Tobacco critics made little headway in the 1950s, when few Americans knew of the dangers of smoking. But the anti-tobacco fight gained steam as studies directly linked cigarettes to cancer and other ailments, eventually allowing the states to collect huge windfalls from the tobacco companies as compensation for smoking’s health costs.
For the people gathered in La Jolla, even getting to the lawsuit stage would be a victory. “No matter what the outcome, litigation can offer an opportunity to inform the public,” anti-tobacco litigator Sharon Eubanks said at the meeting, according to the meeting notes.
At the heart of any legal strategy is proof of a conspiracy or fraud — in this case, an alleged effort by oil companies to conceal their internal knowledge of their product’s contributions to climate change. The activists’ big break came in September and October, when the nonprofit investigative website InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times published stories alleging that Exxon’s scientists had known as far back as the 1970s that the company’s fossil fuels would cook the planet, even as its executives hid that knowledge.
The stories, citing internal Exxon documents, didn’t make an immediate splash in Washington. Lieu and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) didn’t ask DOJ to launch an investigation until Oct. 15. Exxon addressed the controversy for the first time on Oct. 21, singling out InsideClimate as “an anti-oil and gas activist organization” — the first of many times that the industry would slam the news outlet for taking money from the anti-fossil-fuel Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund.
Then the activists scored a political coup on Oct. 29 by injecting the issue into the mainstream of the presidential race. Responding to a question at a New Hampshire town hall, Hillary Clinton told an activist from McKibben’s climate group that the Justice Department should look into Exxon’s activities, saying, “There’s a lot of evidence they misled.”
Days later, Exxon’s lobbyists were taking the meeting in Lieu’s office with Lieu, DeSaulnier and two other liberal House Democrats. They aimed to “show the source documents that we think are the complete opposite of what the media reports have showed,” Exxon spokesman Jeffers said afterward.
Their message: Exxon “believes in climate change, they believe it’s largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels and human activity, and they support a fee on carbon,” Lieu recalled in an interview. “That is the company line.”
But when Lieu asked if Exxon supported any current proposal to tax the carbon in its nearly 25 billion barrels in proved worldwide oil reserves, the lobbyists said no. Nor would the company admit to the greens’ accusations of deceiving the public.
“The basic questions were not at all resolved or seriously addressed in the meeting,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) told POLITICO. DeSaulnier called Exxon’s pitch an attempt at "damage control," rather than an effort to be "open and honest and corrective.”
***
American oil companies are coping with the anti-Exxon campaign at a uniquely vulnerable time, with oil prices dropping to a 13-year low in February. Exxon lost its top-ranked credit rating last month thanks to a debt load that has more than tripled since 2012 and earnings that fell by 50 percent last year.
To be sure, Exxon’s status as one of the world’s most profitable companies remains unshaken. Its market value is nearly double that of Chevron, the nation’s second-biggest oil and gas company.
But as the greens’ campaign matures, Washington’s conservative firmament is broadcasting its fury at what it sees as a fishing expedition aimed at ferreting out embarrassing information about the company.
Among those fighting back is CEI-affiliated conservative activist Chris Horner, who has used public records requests to uncover internal documents about coordination between activists and state attorneys general. Horner, who runs an anti-environmentalist research machine called E&E Legal, released emails last month that showed the attorneys general consulting with an anti-Exxon lawyer and an official at the Union of Concerned Scientists before holding a news conference in March with former Vice President Al Gore.
Two BakerHostetler litigators, David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman, have also founded a project called Free Speech in Science accusing the environmentalists of attacking climate skeptics’ constitutional rights.
“You don’t normally choose a target first, based on their speech, and say you’re going to pursue all theories” available to attack that target, said Grossman, also an adjunct scholar at the conservative Cato Institute. “What’s really going on here is intimidation.”
Leaders of the Federalist Society, an alliance of conservative lawyers that counts Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as members, have penned lengthy attacks on Schneiderman and other attorneys general investigating Exxon. National Review, Reason, Powerline and others followed suit in defending the oil giant, as have members of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
Exxon is "considering all of our options" for potential legal action against InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times or activist groups, spokesman Jeffers told POLITICO.
Aside from the company itself, the most vocal resistance to the greens has come FTI Consulting, a firm filled with former Republican aides that has helped unify the GOP in defense of fossil fuels. Under the banner of Energy in Depth, a project it runs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, FTI has peppered reporters with emails that suggest “collusion” between green activists and state AGs, and has raised questions over InsideClimate’s Rockefeller grants.
The intensity of Energy in Depth’s counter-assault reflects the degree of potential pain the entire industry faces from Exxon’s troubles. IPAA senior vice president Jeff Eshelman said its efforts “haven't been to defend one company or interest, but rather to showcase [InsideClimate’s] ongoing attacks on the American oil and gas industry that seem to be funded by multi-million-dollar activists.”
InsideClimate News, which was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist last month for its Exxon stories, says it has received $25,000 from the Rockefeller Family Fund, or about 2 percent of the company's budget. The idea that the funding is influencing its news coverage is “an easy accusation, but it’s completely baseless,” founder and publisher David Sassoon told POLITICO. “Our funders have no access to our editorial and they never have.”
As for Exxon, he said: “They have never asked us for a correction. They don’t dispute the authenticity of the documents that our report is based on.”
***
While nearly 200 nations hammered out a global climate agreement in Paris in December, many establishment environmentalists took a victory lap. But the anti-Exxon forces were girding for their next fight.
On the sidelines of the United Nations conference in Paris, Pawa — the Massachusetts lawyer — delivered a private talk to activists that McKibben described as his “opening argument in the case” against Exxon. Columbia Law School professor Michael Gerrard also spoke that day at Pawa's request about what he described as "some of the defenses that would be raised" by a corporation facing legal threats linked to its greenhouse gas emissions.
Pawa is a veteran Exxon antagonist, having won a $236 million judgment against Exxon in 2013 for polluting New Hampshire’s groundwater. He helped an Alaskan Inuit village sue the company in 2008 over the rising seas that threatened the local economy.
And the previously unreported closed-door huddle in Paris wasn’t the only place Pawa has touted his legal theory of Exxon’s culpability.
He delivered a courtroom-style presentation titled “What Exxon Knew About Global Warming, and What it Did Anyway” in March at an environmental law conference in Oregon. Later that month, he led a closed-door briefing with Democratic attorneys general and their staff, according to emails obtained by Horner’s conservative think tank.
Pawa’s central role in the escalating bombardment of Exxon has made him a target, as the company’s allies liken him to a puppet master orchestrating the campaign behind the scenes. But he told POLITICO that he is not formally involved in any state investigations, even as he suggested that more AGs could jump into the fray.
“There will be a successful outcome some day, whether it’s my or another generation of lawyers,” Pawa said. He added: “I do think we will be successful. I hope it’s in the short term.”
Activists plan to make a public stand at Exxon’s annual shareholder meeting May 25, where several resolutions intended to force the company into acknowledging the climate threat will come to a vote.
The calls for a DOJ racketeering investigation from Clinton, Sanders, Lieu and Whitehouse, a former state attorney general, are also paying off. The Justice Department told Lieu in March that it had referred the requests to the FBI, a move that doesn’t preclude DOJ later filing a civil complaint.
Walker, the Virgin Islands’ AG, predicted that his Exxon probe will take longer than the four months it took for his office to secure an $800 million settlement in a separate case against Hess Oil. But otherwise, he said, a thorough inquiry “takes time, and my job is to get it done right, not fast.”
Oil companies may face yet another headache if Democrats regain the Senate in November: Lawmakers such as Whitehouse told POLITICO they will push to hold hearings like those in the 1990s where tobacco executives had to testify under oath.
The prospect of intensifying political trouble for Exxon and other major oil companies while a legal case drags on is an integral design feature of activists’ campaign against the company. Whether the endgame is the type of multibillion-dollar settlement that crippled cigarette makers, or whether it’s a Beltway surrender that forces the company to do more on climate change, no longer matters.
What matters, the company’s critics say, is sending a message to the industry that its days of climate obstructionism are over.
In the meantime, Whitehouse is betting that the flood of internal Exxon documents emerging as a result of the investigations will uncover damaging information.
“It wouldn't surprise me if some of these organizations were busily scrubbing their files to get rid of culpatory materials,” he said.
Meanwhile, the industry’s seemingly united pro-Exxon front belies a paradox: Other American oil companies are frustrated by the company’s stated advocacy of a “revenue-neutral” carbon tax. No Democrat or environmentalist takes that stance seriously, but Exxon’s willingness to even utter the phrase makes it an outlier among U.S. drillers and refiners, which fear that a levy on greenhouse gases could gain momentum if Clinton wins in November.
Many in the industry are also skeptical of Exxon’s ties to the Democratic front-runner: The company’s Washington office includes senior lobbyist Theresa Fariello, who bundles contributions for Clinton’s campaign, and former Democratic aide Dan Easley, both of whom attended the Election Day meeting in Lieu’s office.
"Exxon was one of the first companies out of the gate on a carbon tax, and they’ve made no secret they want to get along with the Clinton guys,” said one fossil-fuel lobbyist unaffiliated with the company. “Their chickens are coming home to roost.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/05/inside-the-green-war-on-exxon-111295
-
EPA, Advocates Seek to Transfer Texas Haze Air Plan Suit to D.C. Circuit
May 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and environmentalists are ramping up their push for judges to transfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit litigation over the agency's haze air plan for Texas, while the state and utilities want the case heard in the 5th Circuit -- a fight over court venue seen as a test for the future of the haze program.
In a recent filing in the 5th Circuit on EPA's behalf, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that the federal implementation plan for Texas qualifies as a rule of “nationwide scope or effect” that must be heard in the D.C. Circuit, because of its multi-state impact and the precedent it sets for haze planning. While the D.C. Circuit hears suits over EPA rules with national effect, other appellate courts can hear suits over EPA rules without such effect.
Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in a separate filing with the 5th Circuit in the case State of Texas, et al. v. EPA say that once EPA has made a determination that a rule has a nationwide scope or effect -- as it did with the Texas plan -- then suits over that rule must be heard in the D.C. Circuit.
Texas and power companies are suing EPA in the D.C. Circuit, 5th Circuit and 10th Circuit over EPA's Jan. 5 rule that disapproved Texas and Oklahoma's state implementation plans (SIPs) showing how they would comply with the agency's regional haze program, which aims to restore visibility to natural conditions in “Class I” national parks and wilderness areas by 2064. EPA determined that Texas' plan would require no additional pollution cuts, and that this is insufficient to meet the haze program's required “reasonable further progress (RFP).”
The inadequacy of Texas' plan, EPA reasoned, meant that neighboring areas of Oklahoma cannot meet their haze reduction goals either, so the agency also disapproved the Oklahoma SIP.
In place of the plans, EPA imposed a federal implementation plan (FIP) that requires Texas power plants to install new pollution controls on several coal-fired power plants. The FIP is seen by observers as a test case of EPA's methodology for achieving RFP, and also of its policy of treating state plans together where emissions cross state lines to affect Class I areas. The rule also includes a FIP to cut emissions in Oklahoma.
Industry critics of EPA's interpretation of RFP in the Texas plan say that the agency unlawfully changed the basis for calculating RFP from broad categories of emissions sources to certain, selected individual sources, resulting in the mandate to impose more controls. RFP will be the focus of a coming wave of SIPs that will implement the second phase of the haze program, covering the period 2018-2028.
The outcome of litigation against the Texas FIP is therefore important to setting the rules for RFP for many other states, and at press time the appellate courts had not decided which would hear the suits over EPA's FIP.
Court Venue
DOJ in in its April 28 brief in the 5th Circuit case on EPA's behalf says that Texas and industry groups cannot challenge the FIP in other appellate courts because the agency made a requisite determination that the rule has “nationwide scope or effect,” because of its multi-state impact and the precedent it sets for haze planning.
The court “must either dismiss the petitions for review or transfer them to the D.C. Circuit because Congress has clearly provided that these petitions 'may be filed only' in the D.C. Circuit,” DOJ says.
“Petitioners and Intervenors fail to show that Congress intended courts to second-guess EPA’s determination that one of its actions is of 'nationwide scope or effect' or that EPA’s finding that the Final Rule is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect is deficient in any way,” the filing says.
EPA, not the court, is entrusted with making the determination of nationwide scope or effect, but even if the determination were judicially reviewable, that review would have to take place in the D.C. Circuit, DOJ argues. EPA's determination is further bolstered by the fact that the rule applies to two states in two different judicial circuits -- the 5th Circuit that includes Texas, and the 10th Circuit that includes Oklahoma.
Also, “the Final Rule sets forth EPA’s legally-binding interpretation of the Haze Rule’s visibility-transport provisions to assist States in developing regional haze SIPs in future planning periods,” making it a guide for states to follow nationally, DOJ argues.
Sierra Club and NPCA in their brief agree with EPA that the court must dismiss the case or transfer it to the D.C. Circuit. “The statute does not require 'a finding by the court,'. . . that the rule is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Indeed, it requires no finding by a court at all,” the advocates say.
Pending Litigation
EPA makes the same arguments in a May 2 brief in the 10th Circuit case, Luminant Generation Company, et al. v. EPA, et al., saying, “even if EPA’s 'nationwide scope and effect' finding is subject to judicial review as Petitioners assert, such review should be had only in the D.C. Circuit because it is the only Court in which the petitions may be filed in the first place, and to hold otherwise would perpetuate the very forum shopping Congress sought to avoid.”
Although states and industry petitioners in Luminant say that the litigation should be transferred to the 5th Circuit, Sierra Club and NPCA in a separate May 2 brief with the 10th Circuit say this is based on a misreading of the Clean Air Act. “Petitioners have taken the position that these proceedings must be transferred to the Fifth Circuit” under a “mistaken view” that all cases must be transferred to the circuit in which petitions were first filed.
The court should not delay dismissing or transferring the case to the D.C. Circuit while jurisdictional issues are resolved, as EPA's opponents request, the environmental groups say.
“Petitioners' suggestion that the Court should order the parties to brief the jurisdictional issue as part of the merits and defer ruling on the jurisdictional issue has no legal basis,” they say. “Given that no party has advanced a legal theory under which venue is proper in this Court, it would be a waste of judicial resources to consider the parties' briefs on the merits.” Nor should the court stay the case while jurisdictional issues are resolved in other circuits, the environmentalists say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-advocates-seek-transfer-texas-haze-air-plan-suit-dc-circuit
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested