Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/19
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry is the Best Indicator of EM Outlook – And the Outlook is Not Good
May 19, 2016 | Financial Times
By Paul Hodges
Capacity utilisation (CU%) in the chemical industry has long been the best leading indicator for the global economy. The IMF’s recent downward revision of its global GDP forecast is further confirmation of the CU%’s predictive power. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Poised to Pass Sweeping Reform of Chemical Law
May 19, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Darryl Fears
Congress is on the cusp of passing the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. chemical safety laws in 40 years, a rare bipartisan accord that has won the backing of both industry officials and some of the Hill’s most liberal lawmakers. -
(ACC Mentioned) Level of Data Requirements 'Out of Step' with Other Countries
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
Public responses to consultation paper two on the reform of Nicnas – Australia’s national chemicals regulation scheme – show growing industry concerns. -
EPA Backs Draft Bill to Amend Chemicals Law
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Draft legislation the Environmental Protection Agency has seen that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act “is a clear improvement over current law,” an agency spokesman told Bloomberg BNA late May 17. -
TSCA Talks Near the Finish Line
May 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
A deal to overhaul the badly outdated Toxic Substances Control Act is nearly complete, but members of Congress and the Obama administration may have to decide whether to force it through over the objections of at least two key House Democrats. -
Pallone Defends Opposition as TSCA Talks Continue
May 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
House and Senate negotiators are continuing to hash out final details of legislation to update the nation's chemicals law, including an unresolved dispute over how the proposal would address some of the most significant known hazards. -
House TSCA Supporters Predict Victory Over Some Democrats' Concerns
May 18, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
House lawmakers supporting a final compromise Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill are predicting they have enough bipartisan backing to advance the bill to President Obama for his signature, and will not make changes to the bill to appease some House Democrats who now oppose it and claim it is weaker than current law. -
Fossil Fuels Find a Friend in Barack Obama
May 18, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
... Also today, TSCA package said to be close, making sense of the EIA’s forecasts and the nuclear bills making progress in Congress today. -
House Democrats Urge Stricter Animal-Testing Laws in TSCA Reform
May 18, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Last year, both the House and Senate passed versions of reform to the decades-old Toxic Substances and Control Act. Now, members of both chambers are in negotiations to hammer out a new version that reconciles differences between the two bill. -
States Split as Calif., N.J., Ariz. Weigh Take-Home Liability
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
As high courts on the East Coast and West Coast ponder premises owners' duty to people exposed to toxins brought home on a worker's clothing, the states remain divided over whether to allow such claims, and if so, by whom. -
ECHA: 65,000 Substances Could Require Full REACH Registrations
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency has published a list of nearly 65,000 substances for which full registrations would likely be required under the European Union's REACH regulation, even if the substances are registered in volumes as low as one to 10 metric tons a year. -
(ACC Mentioned) Olson's Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule Clears Committee
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Implementation of the 2015 ozone standards would be delayed by eight years under a bill (H.R. 4775) approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. -
House Committee Votes to Delay Ozone Rule
May 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House committee on Wednesday passed a bill to delay the Obama administration’s new ozone pollution rule and change the way the federal government writes future air pollution rules. -
EPA Pushes Air, Climate Rules in Obama's Remaining Time
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers and Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency has an aggressive slate of climate change and air pollution rules left to complete as it looks to lock in emissions reductions from power plants, refineries and the transportation sector in the Obama administration's remaining time in office. -
House Expected to Pass Defense Bill Speeding LNG Permitting
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House was expected to vote to approve Defense Department reauthorization legislation that would expedite the Energy Department's permitting process for liquefied natural gas export projects among other energy- and environmental-related riders. -
House Weighs Response to Senate 'Riders'
May 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
A key House lawmaker signaled yesterday that Republicans are still weighing a strategy for conferencing with the Senate on the chambers' competing energy bills. -
Chemical Plant Safety Plan Deemed Insufficient
May 19, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Christine Todd Whitman, who ran the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under former President George W Bush, is warning that the plan the agency unveiled in February to improve the safety and security of US chemical facilities is inadequate. -
House Panel Approves Bill Boosting PHMSA Funding
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Transportation Department agency charged with regulating pipeline safety would receive $256 million in fiscal year 2017 under a $58.2 billion transportation-housing appropriations bill unanimously approved by a House Appropriations subcommittee May 18. -
Senate THUD Bill Moves Through the Express Lane
May 18, 2016 | Politico (Morning Transportation)
By Martine Powers
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to wrap up the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill by the end of this week — in alignment with the get-’er-done strategy he outlined last week as part of his mission to get back-to-back bills pushed through the Senate floor in quick succession. -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from this Surprising Source Could Doom the Paris Climate Accord Goal
May 18, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
By now, almost anyone can pick the world’s biggest polluters out of a lineup: power plants, automobile tailpipes and factories.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry is the Best Indicator of EM Outlook – And the Outlook is Not Good
May 19, 2016 | Financial Times
By Paul Hodges
Capacity utilisation (CU%) in the chemical industry has long been the best leading indicator for the global economy. The IMF’s recent downward revision of its global GDP forecast is further confirmation of the CU%’s predictive power. As the first chart shows, the CU% went into a renewed decline last October, negating hopes that output might have stabilised. March shows it at a new low for the cycle at just 80.1 per cent, according to American Chemistry Council (ACC) data. By comparison, the CU% averaged 91.3 per cent during the baby boomer-led economic supercycle from 1987 to 2008.
This ability to outperform conventional economic models is based on the industry’s long history and wide variety of end-uses. It touches almost every part of the global economy, enabling it to provide invaluable insight on an almost real-time basis along all the key value chains – covering upstream markets such as energy and commodities through to downstream end-users in the auto, housing and electronics sectors.
Chemical industry production growth provides similar real-time insight into the major economies, using a year-on-year comparison. Current data for the Bric economies is particularly revealing, as the second chart highlights.
China’s post -2008 stimulus programme had provided critical support for all four countries. But as discussed on beyondbrics last year, China’s adoption of its New Normal economic policies during 2013 initiated a Great Unwinding. Chemical industry production growth has nearly halved since 2014 to just 5.7 per cent a year today. And as discussed last month, much of this output is now aimed at boosting exports (to preserve jobs) rather than to supply domestic demand. There are an increasing number of key products, such as PVC and polypropylene, where China has moved from being the world’s major importer to a net exporter – with a consequent negative impact on global margins.
Brazil was the early loser from China’s change of economic direction. Its monthly output declined very sharply in early 2014 as China’s stimulus-related infrastructure and construction demand slowed, and growth turned negative in June 2014. Output then staged a minor recovery in the middle of 2015, but has since fallen back to -4.6 per cent again. And in a further sign of the slowdown underway, Brazil now no longer needs to import major polymers such as polyethylene, and has instead become a net exporter.
Russia was similarly impacted by China’s policy reversal, and its monthly output went negative in mid-2014. The collapse of the rouble then temporarily mitigated the downturn, by supporting exports and increasing the attractions of local production versus more expensive imports. But output growth has since staged a precipitate decline since last summer, falling by more than two-thirds from September’s peak of 14.9 per cent to just 4.2 per cent in March.
India has seen similar volatility. Output growth turned negative during 2014, but then staged a mild recovery in 2015 before a renewed decline took place, leaving March output barely positive at 0.4 per cent. In principle, India’s domestically oriented economy should make it more resilient to China’s slowdown, but it is still impacted by the second-order effects of increased competition in Asian markets. Not only is China ramping up its own exports of key products, but companies that had formerly relied on exporting to China are now having to find new homes for their product.
These developments in capacity utilisation and output confirm that major changes are taking place in the global economy and the formerly high-flying Bric economies. Policymakers would perhaps do better with their forecasts if they looked beyond their theoretical models and focused instead on the chemical industry’s proven ability to provide real-time insight into the underlying transformation taking place in global demand patterns.
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2016/05/19/chemical-industry-is-the-best-indicator-of-em-outlook-and-the-outlook-is-not-good/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Poised to Pass Sweeping Reform of Chemical Law
May 19, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Darryl Fears
Congress is on the cusp of passing the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. chemical safety laws in 40 years, a rare bipartisan accord that has won the backing of both industry officials and some of the Hill’s most liberal lawmakers.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, which has not been reauthorized since President Gerald Ford signed it into law in 1976, regulates thousands of chemicals in everyday products including detergents and flame retardants. It has come under sharp criticism as ineffective from all quarters, including environmentalists who back stronger federal oversight and chemical companies that are now subject to a patchwork of more stringent rules in some states.
The compromise lawmakers were working to finalize Wednesday night will provide the industry with greater certainty while empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain more information about a chemical before sanctioning its use. While some environmental groups have opted to remain neutral or have faulted the final details, the measure has the tacit approval of the Obama administration and the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
The overhaul will have major impact on Americans’ lives because chemicals are so interwoven into their daily experience, from the shampoo they use in the morning to the containers of food they eat at night. Most consumers assume these chemicals have been tested for safety, when the reality is that only a tiny fraction of them have.
The improbable deal, which both sides have pursued since President Obama first took office, gives the EPA the power to require companies to provide health and safety data for untested chemicals and to prevent substances from reaching the market if they have not been determined to be safe. Under current law, the agency must prove a chemical poses a potential risk before it can demand data or require testing, and these substances can automatically enter the marketplace after 90 days.
In the past four decades, the EPA has required testing for just 200 of thousands of chemicals, and it has issued regulations to control only five of them. More than 8,000 chemicals are produced in the United States at an annual rate of more than 25,000 pounds each, according to the agency.
In return, chemical manufacturers will be subject to a single regulatory system, although states will still have the right to seek a federal waiver to impose their rules on a given chemical. Currently, states such as California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have placed their own restrictions on some chemicals in the face of federal inaction.
American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley, whose group represents dozens of chemical companies as well as major U.S. automakers and manufacturers of consumer goods, said his members were willing to disclose more information about their products in exchange for a more uniform standard. The organization has lobbied hard for the bill for at least eight years, at points circulating drafts of legislation to lawmakers.
“Not having one federal regulation guiding products onto the national marketplace is really problematic,” Dooley said in an interview. The bill “does strike what we see as an appropriate balance.”
Environmentalists, by contrast, remain split. Throughout negotiations, a key question has been whether states can regulate chemicals already undergoing a safety review by the EPA. While the federal government retains that sole power, Boxer and committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) have crafted a compromise to allow state intervention under certain circumstances. It allows states to restrict a chemical’s use if a federal risk review and determination takes more than three-and-a-half years.
“We are very pleased with the package that is emerging here,” said Richard Denison, the Environmental Defense Fund’s lead senior scientist. If the EPA “is dragging its feet, states should be able to make decisions in their own interest.”
But officials from the Maryland Public Interest Research Group contend that the agency’s approval process can take years, during which time any advocacy by state lawmakers or green groups to block a chemical’s path to market could be stalled.
“It’s really not a feasible way to protect Marylanders from chemicals while the EPA is assessing them,” said Juliana Bilowich, public health organizer for Maryland PIRG. “Some of these chemicals are acutely unsafe.”
Maryland, for example, helped to lead the way in banning a chemical called Bisphenol A, an endocrine disrupter linked to cancer that has been used to make infant bottles and other plastic products.
“Maryland is just one of many states that has stepped up in the absence of federal protections,” said Bilowich, noting that the state also has restricted heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, as well as toxic flame retardants in baby products.
[BPA’s chemical substitute may also pose a health risk]
Denison argues that concerns about states’ rights need to be weighed in light of the fact that current law lets chemicals go to market after three months even without a thorough federal review.
“I’ve been working on this for 15 years,” he said. “It fixes every major problem with the current law.”
The bill’s provisions include prioritizing the review of chemicals stored near drinking water as well as those that are human carcinogens and highly toxic with chronic exposure.
The negotiations have involved high drama at times. The late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) had worked out a compromise with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) shortly before Lautenberg’s death in 2013. Boxer had rejected that compromise as too weak. Vitter, who pledged to carry on the effort, then joined forces with Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), and modified the measure significantly to attract broader support.
In recent weeks, White House officials have played a supportive role in the talks, while the EPA has offered technical assistance.
White House spokesman Frank Benenati said in an email that “we are encouraged by the progress that’s being made” on the bill. “We believe the latest draft represents an improvement over current law, and we’re hopeful that House and Senate negotiators continue to work to finalize a strong TSCA bill for the president to sign.”
Still, activists such as Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president for governmental affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, said his organization was still waiting to see what the final negotiations yielded.
“This has been 40 years in the making, and we want to make sure we get it right and have a bill that truly protects public health as much as possible,” Sittenfeld said. “We feel encouraged by many of the changes that have been made over the years, but we still want to see further improvements.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-poised-to-pass-sweeping-reform-of-chemical-law/2016/05/18/0da5cd22-1d30-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Level of Data Requirements 'Out of Step' with Other Countries
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
Public responses to consultation paper two on the reform of Nicnas – Australia’s national chemicals regulation scheme – show growing industry concerns.
These focus on the proposed treatment of cosmetic ingredients, the non-acceptance of US EPA assessments and the inclusion of endocrine disruptors (EDCs).
Cosmetics Europe says the high level of information required to import formulated cosmetics will discourage companies – particularly SMEs – from innovating in Australia. This, it says, will increase complexity and is "out of step with other global economies".
It is also worried by:"prohibitively small" volume thresholds;the focus on end use; andthe requirement for full hazard categorisation to qualify a chemical as exempt.
Estée Lauder says the proposals only increase complexity and cost for industry. Its main concern is "the level of data requirements and the extremely conservative approach on evaluating chemicals, especially the low risk chemicals used in formulated cosmetic products."
NGO Cruelty Free Australia (CFA) uses the EU REACH Regulation as an example of a hazard-focused regulation. It says that "tremendous administrative effort is expended to fill the hazard endpoints of the Iuclid database, while exposure considerations receive little attention.
"This has led to a heavy burden on industry, including an increase in unnecessary and misdirected animal testing."
Submissions almost universally emphasised the importance of data sharing. They urged Nicnas again to consider the use of US EPA risk assessments.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and others want Nicnas to remove all references to a list of endocrine disruptors (EDCs) because "an authoritative list … does not exist." It says any lists available "use inappropriate and inconsistent definitions and criteria, and have often labelled or listed chemicals as EDCs when, in fact, they have no endocrine activity."
https://chemicalwatch.com/47477/australias-reform-proposals-will-increase-burden-say-industry-groups
-
EPA Backs Draft Bill to Amend Chemicals Law
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Draft legislation the Environmental Protection Agency has seen that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act “is a clear improvement over current law,” an agency spokesman told Bloomberg BNA late May 17.
EPA's spokesman referred to draft legislation that would reconcile the House and Senate's separate TSCA bills: the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) in the House and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in the Senate. Originally numbered S. 697, the Senate bill passed as an amendment to H.R. 2576.
The bills would update TSCA, which hasn't had its core provisions changed since 1976, when gas cost 56 cents a gallon.
The draft of the reconciled legislation would address fundamental flaws that have hindered the EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment from chemical risks, the agency spokesman said by e-mail.
The agency understands that parties continue to work on further improvements to the draft, and the EPA stands ready to support the effort to finalize strong legislation to protect public health, the spokesman continued.
Next Legislative Steps
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the Senate majority whip, told Bloomberg BNA May 18 that he hopes to move compromise legislation revamping TSCA before the chamber breaks for its Memorial Day recess.
“We're very close,” Cornyn said.
Over in the House, after the negotiated text is finalized and introduced, the Rules Committee would establish time limits or other conditions of the floor debate.
House legislators plan to vote on the bill the week of May 23 without the support of some top House Democratic negotiators, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) told reporters May 17 (96 DEN A-2, 5/18/16).
Pallone, Tonko Raise Concerns
Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, issued a May 17 statement that called the result of negotiations a “troublesome legislative framework that we simply cannot support.”
Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas) and Diana DeGette (D-Col.), both members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, plan to support the negotiated text.
“For many years, we have worked to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect Americans from harmful chemicals,” Green and DeGette said in a statement.
“Right now, we are closer than ever before to making reform a reality,” the said. “The proposal released yesterday is a clear improvement over current law and addresses the fundamental flaws of TSCA that expose the public to dangerous chemicals. It is long past time that Congress update this law, and we stand ready to work toward a final compromise that will have broad, bicameral support.”
The draft bill, according to a copy obtained by Bloomberg BNA, is called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to honor the late Democratic senator from New Jersey who sought for many years to modernize TSCA.
The draft bill includes many of the provisions and approaches from the previous Senate bill.
Boosting EPA's Chemicals Management
Elements of the negotiated text that would help the EPA manage chemicals include those that would:
• require the EPA to evaluate chemicals in commerce against a risk-based safety standard with clear and enforceable deadlines;
• require the EPA to affirmatively determine that new chemicals meet the safety standard before those substances could be made, sold or distributed in the U.S.;
• give the EPA more authority to require companies to submit or, when necessary, generate new health and safety data for untested chemicals;
• increase the public transparency of chemical information; and
• authorize fees to help the EPA carry out its new responsibilities.
State-Federal Relationship Provisions
State laws and regulations likely to require chemical manufacturers to produce the same information that the EPA could mandate under certain provisions of the proposed law would be preempted under the draft text describing the State-Federal Relationship (Sec. 13).
Otherwise, similar to both the House and Senate bills, the negotiated text would grandfather existing state laws and regulations addressing chemicals.
The negotiated text also would allow states to “adopt or enforce any rule, standard of performance, risk evaluation, scientific assessment, or any other protection for public health or the environment” that it adopted to comply with another federal law.
Similar to the bill the Senate passed unanimously Dec. 17, the draft text would establish a “regulatory pause” preempting states from regulating chemicals once the EPA defined the scope of a chemical risk evaluation.
States can “continue to enforce any statute enacted, or administrative action taken, prior to the date on which the administrator defines and publishes the scope of a risk evaluation,” the negotiated text said. Similar language was in the Senate bill.
States Could Seek Waivers
In addition, while the EPA conducts its risk evaluation, states could seek waivers allowing them to manage a chemical's risks for certain reasons. For example, a state could seek a waiver if it has compelling conditions that warrant its need to protect the health of its residents or its environment.
Once the EPA would complete its risk evaluation and issue a final rule or other action addressing a chemical, states would, typically, be preempted from passing new laws and regulations under the negotiated text.
The draft legislation distinguishes between information that is protected from disclosure, meaning neither the EPA nor states could release that information, and information that could be disclosed (Sec. 14).
Information that can be claimed confidential includes the specific identify of a chemical; information describing how the chemical is made or processed; marketing and sales information; information identifying a supplier or customer; the formulas of chemical mixtures; and the specific volume of a chemical that a company makes or imports.
Emerging Chemical Assessment Technologies
The draft legislation's provisions on chemical testing aim to reduce the number of laboratory animals sacrificed or injured for toxicity tests (Sec. 4).
Ways the draft legislation would accomplish that goal include directing the EPA to the extent practicable and scientifically justified to use existing toxicity, computational, modeling and other information to evaluate chemicals.
The draft bill also would require the EPA, within two years of the law's enactment, to develop a plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal tests. The draft includes illustrative types of technologies and tiered testing methods that could help reduce the use of experimental animals.
The EPA would be required to report to Congress every five years concerning its progress in implementing that plan.
Initial Reaction
Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of environmental, health and other organizations, issued a statement describing benefits and concerns the coalition has about the draft legislation.
The draft “contains several reforms that would empower EPA, but it also restrains EPA and especially state governments in new and unacceptable ways,” Igrejas said.
“There are loopholes for imported products that mean toxic chemicals could hitch a ride into our homes through toys, furniture and clothing made overseas. Recent and pending state restrictions on toxic flame retardant chemicals will be nullified in favor of federal rules that are years away and which may be weaker than what states are proposing right now,” Igrejas said.
The Toy Industry Association, by contrast, issued a statement congratulating both chambers for their compromise bill.
“Reform of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) will strengthen the federal chemical regulatory system and is a top policy priority for the toy industry,” the Toy Industry Association said.
“We continue to seek a federal uniform policy for regulating chemicals across all 50 states that keeps American children and families safe while fostering innovation. This compromise bill proves we are moving in that direction,” said Steve Pasierb, the association's president.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89972383&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89972383&jd=89972383
-
TSCA Talks Near the Finish Line
May 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
HOUSE DEMS WALK AS TSCA DEAL NEARS HOME: A deal to overhaul the badly outdated Toxic Substances Control Act is nearly complete, but members of Congress and the Obama administration may have to decide whether to force it through over the objections of at least two key House Democrats. Pro’s Darren Goode has all the details. First, Reps. Frank Pallone and Paul Tonko said “it would be better for us to not act at all” than for Congress to pass a negotiated bill being negotiated by House Republicans and senators from both parties. Within a few hours, those negotiators responded with their own statement saying they were “finalizing a TSCA reform bill” that improves on the versions that already cleared both chambers. Among the 11 senators and two House members who signed on were five Senate Democrats, including Barbara Boxer and Cory Booker (with whom Pallone has been feuding over the bill, H.R. 2576).
Story Continued Below
EPA digs the deal: “The TSCA legislative draft that EPA has seen is a clear improvement over current law and is largely consistent with the Administration's Principles for TSCA Reform,” an agency spokesman said via email. “Critically, the bill would address the fundamental flaws that have hindered EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment from chemical risks. We understand that parties continue to work on further improvements to the draft, and EPA stands ready to support the effort to finalize strong legislation to protect public health.”
Pelosi a wildcard: Sources tracking the negotiations told Darren that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi stands as one of the biggest question marks in the process. On the one hand, she may be loath to abandon Pallone and Tonko, the top Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee and its environment subpanel. On the other, fellow Californian Boxer has secured concessions related to EPA preemption of state chemical laws that are a huge priority in their home state. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has personally reached out Pelosi, who hasn’t decided whether to join the revolt or seek additional concessions.
So what’s in there? A source familiar with the contours of the deal tells ME it establishes a mandatory duty for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with enforceable deadlines and requires the agency to determine that new chemicals are safe before they enter the market, among other provisions. Negotiators have said they hope to have a bill on the president’s desk before Congress leaves town at the end of next week for its Memorial Day recess.
WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY! I'm your host Eric Wolff, and in honor of today's POLITICO meeting between scientist Ernest Moniz and nigh-scientist Darius Dixon, I'd like to highlight yesterday's announcement of the discovery of a new form of light, which is pretty neat. Send your tips, quips, and comments to ewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
GREENS AGHAST AT TRUMP DESIRE TO ALTER PARIS DEAL: Environmental groups reacted harshly to Donald Trump's desire to renegotiate the Paris Climate deal if he becomes president. "I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else," Trump told Reuters. The 195-nation climate deal struck in December has been hailed by environmentalists as a major step forward in fighting global climate change, and Obama considers helping to secure the deal a major achievement. "Trump's denunciation of the Paris climate accord is not only short sighted, but would be terribly costly for America and our ability to lead the world," billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer said in a statement.
Trump's desire to re-open negotiations would face major headwinds from other nations, and he may be too late: If enough countries sign on quickly, the agreement could go into force before Trump could take office. "This is another example of Trump’s dangerous lack of judgment," said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski. "Fortunately, Trump's rhetoric is not going to stop the Paris agreement, nor should it given the benefits of action and the costs of ignorance.”
EXXON ALLIES BASH PROBES IN NYT AD: The Competitive Enterprise Institute took out a full page ad in today’s New York Times bashing a coalition of Democratic attorneys general who are investigating ExxonMobil and its allies over climate change. “Regardless of one’s views on climate change, every American should reject the use of government power to harass or silence those who hold differing opinions,” the ad says. “This intimidation campaign sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the rights of anyone who disagrees with the government’s position — whether it’s vaccines, GMOs, or any other politically charged issue.”
Forty-three individuals associated with a slew of well-known conservative, libertarian, free-market and climate skeptic groups signed onto the ad. Many of the signers have been targeted by a subpoena from U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker to Exxon requesting records of communications with 100 prominent climate skeptics. Walker has separately subpoenaed CEI and the PR and lobbying firm DCI Group as part of his investigation into whether Exxon lied to the public and its shareholders about the threat of climate change. Attorneys general from New York, Massachusetts and California have launched similar probes. Walker has strongly defended his subpoenas, noting that the First Amendment doesn’t protect against fraud. CEI declined to say how much it spent on the ad, but full-page ads in the Times can run well over $150,000.
OBAMA WRITING RULES AS FAST AS HIS PEN WILL LET HIM: The methane rule for new oil and gas sources isn't the only rule the Obama administration is churning out as fast as possible. Under a tight deadline imposed by the Congressional Review Act, the administration has banged out 195 new rules, more than President Bill Clinton in his final year, though somewhat fewer than President George W. Bush's 218, Labor Pro's Timothy Noah reports. Energy Pros are familiar with the CRA, because Congress passed resolutions disapproving of the EPA's carbon rules, but as is typical, Obama vetoed them. But at the end of a presidential term, Congress could stall the resolutions long enough to allow a new, and potentially more friendly, president to sign the resolutions and kill rules.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/05/tsca-talks-near-the-finish-line-trump-aim-to-renegotiate-paris-deal-unnerves-greens-obama-regs-race-to-get-in-under-the-cra-wire-214359
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook -
Pallone Defends Opposition as TSCA Talks Continue
May 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
House and Senate negotiators are continuing to hash out final details of legislation to update the nation's chemicals law, including an unresolved dispute over how the proposal would address some of the most significant known hazards.
But even though the finish line appears close, high-profile divisions are emerging. Yesterday, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, defended his decision to oppose the emerging compromise.
The question of how to treat substances on U.S. EPA's so-called Work Plan Chemicals list is among the final unresolved aspects of the negotiations to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Lawmakers are working to reconcile two bills, S. 697, known as the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," and H.R. 2576, dubbed the "TSCA Modernization Act."
A source provided E&E Daily with a copy of the bill circulating among interested parties. House and Senate aides did not confirm whether the text had changed.
EPA started its Work Plan Chemicals program in 2012 in a bid to make the most of its existing authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, even as it pushed for changes to the law.
The program completed five chemical assessments of substances like flame retardants, paint strippers and dry cleaning solvents. Another review is forthcoming. Six are pending. And dozens more are on the waiting list.
Under compromise language, EPA would have to give states waivers allowing them to continue enforcing a statute or administrative action under certain conditions. In other words, the agency would not be able to push states aside.
However, the state's waiver request would have to come within 18 months of EPA's designation of a chemical as high or low priority, or when EPA publishes the scope of a risk assessment for a chemical, whichever happens first.
In addition, the legislation would require EPA to begin risk evaluations on at least 10 chemicals from the Work Plan Chemicals program within 180 days.
The agency would be able to select the chemicals that are already the furthest along. But because the agency has already published documents for those substances, the clock would start ticking earlier, and states would already be out of time to forge their own path, advocates said.Faster reviews
A Senate aide said the compromise legislation continued a focus on getting EPA to complete reviews of the chemicals faster.
"The only reason it's early pre-emption [of states] is because we're expediting them through the process so [the chemicals] get regulated faster," the aide said, referring to the Work Plan Chemicals.
A source involved in the negotiations said states had expressed concern about the provision blocking them from acting on Work Plan Chemicals pending EPA review, including Democratic Sen. Ed Markey's home state of Massachusetts, and that the pause was still under discussion.
A separate Democratic aide from the Environment and Public Works Committee said, "Every effort has been made from the start of discussions to remove the pause. We are hopeful additional improvements can be made."
Andy Igrejas, director of the group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said the policy stems from what he sees as the Senate bill's tilt in favor of the chemical industry.
"We appreciate that it helps that Senator Boxer got this grace period," Igrejas said, "but it actually doesn't apply to the Work Plan Chemicals, whether EPA picks them or whether the industry requests the assessment of them."
EPA has selected certain chemicals as part of an effort to maximize existing resources, Igrejas said, underscoring the need to allow all options to protect the public from exposure.
The substances are "some of the worst ones out there," Igrejas said. "They're also the ones that states just acted on or other states are about to act on."
He added: "It's what allows us to really be able to say with confidence the bill will expose people to toxic chemicals that otherwise would not be exposed to toxic chemicals, because these policies would be suspended."Top Democrats divided
Pallone yesterday disputed reports that he wanted to deny Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) credit for protecting animals from chemical testing (E&ENews PM, May 17).
"As far as I know, the animal testing issue is largely resolved," Pallone told E&E Daily, "and we were all of the opinion that animal testing should only be as a last resort, so I don't understand what the issue is."
Pallone said his concerns about the plan had to do with how it would affect state laws.
"The problem is that the Republicans have made this bill, from what I understand, the sort of draft that they're proposing is weaker than the current law," Pallone said. "So there wouldn't be any point in having it."
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) is also opposed to the emerging compromise.
But two other high-ranking Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee spurned Pallone and Tonko's position yesterday.
In a joint statement, Reps. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Gene Green of Texas rejected the contention that the legislation was worse than current law.
Green is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and Oversight, while DeGette is the top Democrat on the Subcommittee on Investigations.
"Right now, we are closer than ever before to making reform a reality," the lawmakers said. "The proposal released yesterday is a clear improvement over current law and addresses the fundamental flaws of TSCA that expose the public to dangerous chemicals.
"It is long past time that Congress update this law, and we stand ready to work toward a final compromise that will have broad, bicameral support."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/19/stories/1060037531
-
House TSCA Supporters Predict Victory Over Some Democrats' Concerns
May 18, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
House lawmakers supporting a final compromise Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill are predicting they have enough bipartisan backing to advance the bill to President Obama for his signature, and will not make changes to the bill to appease some House Democrats who now oppose it and claim it is weaker than current law.
“We'll get some Democrats, we won't get as many as we would have liked,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) in a May 18 interview with Inside EPA when asked about prospects for the House approving the bill.
The House only needs to approve by simple majority the final TSCA deal, and Shimkus -- who introduced the lower chamber's TSCA reform bill, H.R. 2576 -- is optimistic that enough lawmakers will back it, even with some Democrats opposing. The legislation also needs to clear the Senate, but that is seen as all but certain after Senate environment panel ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced she supports the final deal.
“Because of the way the Senate moves bills,” negotiations are “more fragile, and we didn't want to give a reason to break apart, especially when Boxer got on board,” Shimkus said in the interview, signaling he would oppose any changes to the bill to win over remaining opponents to the final deal. “It would be silly to break that portion of the coalition apart. . . . In the end, the coalition within the Senate is strong,” he said.
Shimkus said lawmakers could initiate plans to move on a final bill as soon as the next few days, saying “it's full steam ahead,” and EPA has indicated it is preparing for Congress to act soon on the bill.
EPA toxics chief Jim Jones told a May 18 meeting of an agency pesticide advisory committee that action on TSCA could happen soon, saying he had to leave the meeting early to work on issues related to TSCA reform. “Set your Google alerts” for TSCA reform, Jones told members at the outset of a two-day meeting of the agency's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee in Arlington, VA. “There might be interesting stuff” happening, he said.
The administration is also signaling it is likely to back the final TSCA deal, with EPA issuing a statement saying, “The TSCA legislative draft that EPA has seen is a clear improvement over current law and is largely consistent with the Administration's Principles for TSCA Reform. Critically, the bill would address the fundamental flaws that have hindered EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment from chemical risks.”
The statement adds, “We understand that parties continue to work on further improvements to the draft, and EPA stands ready to support the effort to finalize strong legislation to protect public health.”
Several House Democrats have indicated tentative support for the pact, which reconciles H.R. 2576 with the much-broader Senate-approved TSCA reform bill S. 697. The pact is said to address major issues of contention, including the extent to which states could regulate chemicals before being preempted by EPA policy-making.
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), a member of the House energy panel's environment committee, told Inside EPA May 18 that he is still looking at the bill and talking with members but, “I'm more likely to support it than not.”
Green added that “I feel comfortable with it,” but warned that “may not reflect a lot of our members” and their positions on the deal. He said while he has not yet done any “whip work” he has been in talks with House energy panel ranking member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Paul Tonko (D-NY).
Democrats' Objections
Pallone and Tonko, ranking member on the energy committee's environment panel, announced in a May 17 press release that they will oppose the current compromise language unless “significant changes” are made.
“After over a year of bipartisan negotiations to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our Energy and Commerce Committee Republican counterparts walked away from a bipartisan deal we agreed to last month, and are working with Senators on a troublesome legislative framework that we simply cannot support,” the lawmakers said in the press release. “Unfortunately, at this point, it would be better for us to not act at all than to pass the deal that Energy and Commerce Republican leaders and Senate negotiators are proposing,” they said.
A congressional source says the main sticking points for Tonko included preemption and polychlorinated biphenyls. Meanwhile, Pallone has not elaborated on his objections, but House Democrats have urged him to resolve an apparent dispute over language crafted by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) aiming to limit toxicity testing on animals.
It is not clear whether House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will side with Boxer, given that the compromise language was aimed at addressing concerns over preemption raised by California officials, or with the House energy minority leadership -- and Shimkus said he has not discussed the issue with her.
“I don't want to get in the way of Democrats deciding how to vote,” he told Inside EPA, noting that Pelosi presumably has not only House Democrats' concerns to consider but also Boxer's position.
Shimkus has previously rejected concerns by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families -- a coalition of environmental groups advocating for broad TSCA reform -- that the compromise language “would force states to delay protections on toxic chemicals for up to four years,” creating a greater time frame for exposure to hazardous chemicals.
In an earlier May 12 interview with Inside EPA, Shimkus said the deal would delay preemption in order “give states time to get caught up” if they begin looking at a chemical for possible new regulation at the time EPA launches a safety review of a chemical under new TSCA authority -- which would trigger preemption of new requirements under the S. 697 bill. “As far as I understand it, I'm supportive” said Shimkus of the deal struck with Boxer and Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK).
In response to a question about the concerns raised by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Shimkus pointed out that the compromise is the result of lengthy negotiations between Boxer and Inhofe. “If you can't trust Sen. Boxer to support and be protective of public health, I don't know who you trust,” he said.
EPA in its statement also signals general support for the final deal, which would create new requirements for EPA such as a mandate to evaluate the risks of existing chemicals; expanded agency power to collect health and safety data on untested chemicals; and a requirement that EPA affirm the safety of new chemicals before they enter the marketplace; and more.
The Toy Industry Association said in a May 18 statement that it “applauds Congress for working together to reach an effective compromise on a very complex piece of legislation.”
Pending Legislation
A host of lawmakers issued a statement May 17 that said negotiators are finalizing a bill that represents improvements over both the House and Senate bills to reform TSCA in key aspects.
“Current federal law only provides very limited protection. We are hopeful that Congress will be taking action soon on reforming this important environmental law,” says the statement from Shimkus, Boxer, Inhofe, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), and Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), David Vitter (R-LA), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Edward Markey (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Booker, Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).
One of the major hurdles for prior efforts to advance TSCA reform was whether, and how, the bills should preempt existing and future state chemicals programs, an issue that has stymied prior attempts at TSCA reform. Boxer had previously threatened to block the Senate bill if its preemption was too sweeping.
Negotiators knew at the start of informal conference talks to reconcile the Senate-approved TSCA reform bill S. 697 and the narrower House-approved measure H.R. 2576 that preemption would be an issue, Shimkus said in the May 17 interview, adding that the House Democrats “never really liked” the Senate language.
In the Senate bill as it was approved in the upper chamber, preemption of new state laws and administrative requirements would take effect beginning when EPA publishes and defines the scope of a safety assessment and safety determination of a high-priority substance, and end when either the deadline of three years expires or the safety determination is published.
However, the House bill took a narrower approach and only preempts new state restrictions when EPA uses its TSCA authority to restrict the same substance under section 6.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-tsca-supporters-predict-victory-over-some-democrats-concerns
-
Fossil Fuels Find a Friend in Barack Obama
May 18, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
Today’s AgendaDonald Trump is “not a big fan” of the Paris climate accord, because other countries won’t adhere to it, and “China is spewing into the atmosphere,” he told Reuters. Trump said that at a minimum he would renegotiate the pact; or he could just “do something else.” What that would be the article doesn’t say. And trying to figure that out is the parlor game for interest groups and lobbyists working on energy in Washington. Today, Laura Curtis and Jennifer Dlouhy will be interviewing Rep. Kevin Cramer, the North Dakota congressman writing white papers for the Trump campaign on energy issues. Tomorrow, we will have more on what Cramer will be advising Trump to do.
Climate activists are rallying outside of Norman Bay’s apartment, as they try to get FERC to stop approving gas pipelines, and Wyoming coal producers are complaining they pay more in taxes than they make in profit. Fossil fuel producers need someone to stand up for them. How about Barack Obama?The White House rejected a petition — signed by 108,590 people — to halt drilling, fracking and mining on public lands. “Even as we move full steam ahead towards cleaner energy, the United States will still need to use fossil fuels in the near term,” the administration’s We the People Team wrote in its response. (To be sure, the examples it then included were of ways the administration is curtailing fossil-fuel extraction.)
Even in Wyoming the commitment to greater coal extraction is far from universal. Connie Wilbert, director of the Wyoming chapter of the Sierra Club, told us a surprising number of climate activists had testified at the BLM hearing in Casper, Wyoming in favor of revamping the coal-leasing program. “I’m encouraged by the number of people in coal country speaking on behalf of reform,” she said.
The coal forces may have been depleted because they feel the game is rigged against them. Richard Reevy of Cloud Peak Energy compared the event to a Soviet show trial, according to Ben Storrow of the Casper Star-Tribune. Sen. Mike Enzi pleaded with BLM to “apply the brake of commonsense,” and drop the moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands: “This administration has continued to hit this industry with regulations meant to cripple it.”
Sellus Wilder, a Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky is willing to say that coal-mining jobs aren’t coming back, and Grist thinks that’s a sign that Kentucky politics are no longer “charcoal black.” After Wilder got trounced by Jim Gray and Clinton lost all of in eastern Kentucky to Bernie Sanders, color us skeptical.
Matt Salmon doesn’t want a flexible federal bureaucracy. He proposed legislation that would eliminate grants for yoga classes for federal employees. “This bill is about sending a simple message: The government isn’t Google, so stop trying to be,” he said. State and Energy spent $168,000 on yoga and Pilates in the last five years, he said. (But what perks do the We the People Team get?) Also today, TSCA package said to be close, making sense of the EIA’s forecasts and the nuclear bills making progress in Congress today.Quotable
“And if SolarCity completely flops? Well, New York State will still own the world’s largest solar-panel manufacturing facility,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow E.J. McMahon wrote in City Journal.
“This case is about abusing the power of the subpoena to force Exxon to turn over many decades’ worth of records, so an attorney general with an agenda can pore over them in hopes of finding something incriminating,” Texas AG Ken Paxton said of the investigation of Exxon’s climate research. “It’s a fishing expedition of the worst kind, and represents an effort to punish Exxon for daring to hold an opinion on climate change that differs from that of radical environmentalists.”The Predictor
EIA’s forecast for coal use through 2040 will be shown to be too optimistic before the end of this year.Contact Us
Send us your comments, tips and your questions for Rep. Kevin Cramer.Shoot us an e-mail: Mark Drajem is the editor (mdrajem@bloomberg.net or@drajem), Catherine Traywick (ctraywick@bloomberg.net or @ctraywick) and Laura Curtis (lcurtis7@bloomberg.net or @LouKCurtis) cover Congress and regulation.Bloomberg Government subscribers can get this and any of our eight other newsletters in their inbox every morning. Click here to modify your subscriptions. Contact Peter Hsu at 202-416-3035 or yhsu24@bloomberg.net for more information or if you have colleagues that would also value access.Chart of the Day
EIA’s Energy Outlook is a projection, not a prediction
Natural gas use is going to be growing, and coal use falling over the next two decades, but the fate of the Clean Power Plan is going to decide how much, according to a forecast issued by EIA. In a preview of its annual energy outlook, the agency said that with the CPP natural gas use would jump 67%; coal’s share of electricity production sinks to 18%. Without the CPP coal use is basically flat. Of course, as with all things EIA, take these with a healthy dose of skepticism. EIA itself cautioned that this “is not a prediction of what will happen, but rather a modeled projection of what might happen given certain assumptions and methodologies.” Could we request a projection based on what it assumes will happen?
One group that’s willing to make predictions is the Rhodium Group. John Larsen sent us his third paper on the impact of the Clean Power Plan on energy markets. It finds that states’ decisions on whether to use a mass-based or rate-based approach could have big implications on the greenhouse-gas impacts. Read the full report here.
Liam Denning is skeptical that the world can or will get to 120 million barrels a day of oil production, as the EIA forecast. EIA says production would need to grow by the equivalent of two Saudi Arabias. “Consider: A fifth of Nigeria’s output is off-line due to attacks, Venezuela is reverting to a candle-based economy, Libya and Iraq are barely in control of their own territory, and Saudi Arabia is contemplating a less oily future. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest OPEC will really struggle to add more than the equivalent of another Saudi Arabia to its output over the next 25 years,” he wrote.Inside the Beltway
Norman Bay’s Breakfast Guests When FERC Chairman Norman Bay steps out of his Dupont Circle apartment this morning, he’ll be greeted by a motley crew of anti-fracking protesters determined to accost each of the agency’s commissioners on their own turf. Members of the group Beyond Extreme Energy told us they planned to camp out in front of Bay’s house, just as they did with Tony Clark on Sunday. The group, which usually has its camp set up outside FERC’s headquarters, is planning to visit the homes of each commissioner this week to urge them to stop “rubber stamping” oil and gas infrastructure projects. “We are going with signs, banners and our own notice of eminent domain, similar to the orders used to seize land for pipelines for transporting fracked gas,” Melinda Tuhus, the group’s spokesperson, said in an e-mail. They pasted “wanted” posters around the Ashburn, Virginia neighborhood of Clark, saying he was “complicit in the deaths of 100 million people” put at risk from climate change.
House to Move TSCA Bill Minus Key Democrats: Shimkus Lawmakers expect to release compromise language “in the next day or two” overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act and plan to vote on the legislation the week of May 23 without the support of top House Democratic negotiators, who have been holding up talks, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) told reporters May 17. Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) are objecting to provisions in the emerging deal concerning animal testing, how the Environmental Protection Agency handles new chemicals and preemption of state regulations and statutes, according to Shimkus, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. House and Senate negotiators have been trying to bridge gaps between a broad Senate overhaul (S. 697) of the nation’s primary chemicals law and a narrower House version (H.R. 2576).
Senate EPW Votes on NRC Reform Nuclear developers such as NuScale, Oklo and TerraPower would gain under an NRC permitting bill up for a vote today by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Oklo CEO Jacob DeWitte endorsed S. 2795 at a hearing yesterday, arguing that a staged licensing process is critical to managing the costs of developing advanced nuclear projects, such as the 2 MW compact fast reactor his company is devising. The committee also plans to vote on Sen. John Hoeven’s coal ash management bill (S. 2446), Sen. Tom Carper’s bill to reauthorize EPA’s diesel reduction program (S. 2816), and Jane Nishida’s nomination to be EPA Assistant Administrator of the Office of International and Tribal Affairs. That’s at 9:30 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
T-HUD Winners Airlines and Carnival Corp. stand to benefit as House appropriators drafted a $58.2 billion Transportation-Housing and Urban Development spending measure that omits language aimed at stopping flights and cruises to Cuba. While the House bill last year contained language aimed at stopping flights and cruises to Cuba, House Appropriations Transportation-HUD Subcommittee Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican fervently opposed to Castro regime, appears to be bowing to reality. President Barack Obama re-established relations with Cuba, traveling to the island in March with his family to “bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas.” The process of sending cruises and regularly scheduled flights is already under way. Carnival began a cruise-to-Cuba service this month. JetBlue and American Airlines have applied to the government to provide direct flights to Havana from the U.S. under anagreement with Cuba inked earlier this year.
Nuclear Technology to get Boost Today, Ozone Fight Continues The full House Energy and Commerce Committee will mark up two bills this morning, and the one that would spur development of advanced nuclear reactors is likely to sail through. The other one, which would exempt certain businesses from the EPA’s national ambient air quality standards and give states more time to comply with the ozone rule was approved in subcommittee last week along party lines. None of the three amendments offered by Democrats were adopted.
Yesterday at opening statements, Republican Bob Latta, co-sponsor of H.R. 4979, said the bill will help the nuclear industry maintain a “reliable, clean, base-load power option” and requires NRC to establish a regulatory framework for approving advanced nuclear technologies. As for H.R. 4775, the committee’s top Democrat, Frank Pallone, said he considers it an “attack that strikes at the heart of the Clean Air Act.” Pallone said he is concerned the legislation would “allow polluters to override scientists.” The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Exxon’s Subpoena The Washington Times posted a copy of the subpoena from Virgin Islands AG Claude Walker issued to ExxonMobil as part of the climate probe. The company was directed to provide documents from 1977 to the present concerning studies, research or reviews “regarding the certainty, uncertainty, causes, or impacts of climate change.” Texas AG Kenneth Paxton is trying to quash that probe, FuelFix reported.Outside the Beltway
Utah Activists Disrupt BLM Auction of Oil and Gas Leases: Salt Lake Tribune As BLM auctioneer Glen Parker began soliciting bids on a handful of Utah oil and gas leases Tuesday, some 40 visitors chanted softly in two-part harmony, the latest effort by climate activists to disrupt sales of hydrocarbon minerals under public lands. The auction, which proved to be a near-total bust, went on after Salt Lake City police peeled singers off the floor and escorted them from the meeting room at the city’s main library while the chanting grew louder.
Green-Energy Advocates Will Appeal Ruling on Solar Sales: Charlotte Observer A Durham advocacy group said it will appeal the state’s decision in a test case of third-party sales of solar energy. NC WARN said the state Utilities Commission made several errors in its ruling against the group and that it will take the case to the N.C. Court of Appeals. WARN had challenged the ability of solar energy developers other than utilities to sell electricity directly to their customers. The group installed solar panels on the roof of a Greensboro church and sold the church the electricity generated. Investments in large solar farms by Duke Energy, which opposed WARN before the commission, have helped make North Carolina the third-largest solar state. But WARN claims Duke is trying to squelch the growth of smaller, rooftop arrays that could be offered to homeowners with little upfront investment.
Massachusetts Failed to Adopt Greenhouse Gas Limits, Court Says: AP The state’s highest court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling and sided with environmental groups that sued Massachusetts for failing to adopt strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Lawyers for the Conservation Law Foundation, the Massachusetts Energy Consumer Alliance and four Boston and Wellesley teenagers had asked the courts to rule that the state hasn’t lived up to its 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act. The groups said the law requires the Department of Environmental Protection to set strict greenhouse gas emissions limits to help the state meet its goal of reducing those emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
Albany Joins New York Communities Opposing Oil Pipeline: AP Albany has joined 25 other communities officially opposing the Pilgrim Pipeline, which would carry crude oil from Albany to New Jersey refineries and return it as fuel products. The Common Council passed a resolution Monday night denouncing the proposed 178-mile pipeline as an environmental risk and public health danger. The measure isn’t legally binding. The line would be fed North Dakota crude oil carried by trains. Connecticut-based Pilgrim Holdings LLC says it’s a safer alternative to Hudson River barge transport south. But environmentalists say it would likely mean more oil trains crossing the state to Albany.Electricity and Renewables
Caution, Acrophobes: Fastest-Growing U.S. Job Not For You Wind-turbine service technicians, who must work at extreme heights during temperamental weather, occupy a job category projected to expand more than any other through 2024, outpacing health-care and technology, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Congress ensured wind would remain the nation’s quickest-growing source of electricity when it approved a five-year extension of tax credits for the industry in December. States are also fueling the gains; Hawaii plans to generate all its energy from renewable sources by 2045, and California and New York plan on 50 percent by 2030.
New California Gold Rush Beckons Wind Developers Off Coast When turbines start spinning at the first U.S. offshore wind farm near Rhode Island later this year, some energy developers will already be eyeing a bigger prize.There’s a steadier, harder wind blowing off the California coast. Those reliable Pacific gusts could yield nearly a terawatt of electricity, 13 times the capacity of all the wind turbines now installed on land in the U.S. — without consuming real estate or blocking anyone’s views.Oil, Gas and Coal
Market Wrap: Oil held gains near the highest close in seven months as U.S. industry data showed crude stockpiles declined, trimming a glut. West Texas Intermediate for June delivery gained as much as 27 cents to $48.58 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange and was at $48.41 at 8 a.m. London time. The contract gained 59 cents to $48.31 on Tuesday, the highest close since Oct. 9. Natural gas on the Nymex was little changed and trading at $2.049/mmBtu at 7:30am London time.
Plains All American Indicted for Last Year’s Oil Pipeline Spill Plains All American Pipeline LP and one of its employees were indicted by a grand jury in California over a spill last year that leaked 500 barrels of oil into the Pacific Ocean.The indictment included 46 counts of alleged violations of California law, the Houston-based pipeline owner said Tuesday in a statement. Plains said that it has spent more than $150 million in response and cleanup efforts after the accidental release of crude from its Line 901 on May 19.
Phibro to Refurbish Clean-Coal Plant to Make Cheap Fertilizer Phibro LLC and a group of investors are buying an Indiana coal gasification power plant made redundant by the shale gas revolution and converting it to produce fertilizer for area farmers. They agreed to buy the plant from the Wabash Valley Power Association, Phibro Chief Executive Officer Simon Greenshields said in an interview with Naureen Malik. Terms were not disclosed. Until recently the plant produced synthetic gas and steam from coal. Once the conversion is complete, the Indiana plant will be able to produce 1,500 metric tons a day of ammonia fertilizer using petcoke that costs about 50 cents per million British thermal units purchased under a 10-year contract, he said. Petcoke costs about 75 percent less than gas.
The clean coal plant opened in the 1995 in a mostly rural area on the Wabash River near West Terre Haute to replace a conventional coal generator. It cost $438 million, half of which was provided by the Department of Energy. Like other coal plants, it’s been pressured by a surge in shale output that caused gas prices to plunge about 85 percent from 2008 highs.
Peabody Bankruptcy Judge to Approve Loan With Changes Peabody Energy Corp. got approval for an $800 million loan package to help it through bankruptcy after resolving complaints by a creditors’ committee and successfully fending off objections raised by hedge funds in a group holding $1.7 billion of the coal miner’s debt. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Barry Schermer said he was prepared to approve the financing subject to a final draft that includes concessions agreed to at the outset of Tuesday’s hearing in St Louis. Changes were made to it.Up for Debate
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
By Alex Epstein
Is humanity’s continuing—and expanding—use of fossil fuels a moral choice or an immoral choice? If you think about that from the standpoint of trying to maximize humankind’s well-being, the answer is clear: “It is an absolutely moral choice.”
There is nothing inherently immoral about changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from .03% to .04% (its present level) to .05% or .06%. It depends on the effect of those CO2 concentrations on human beings combined with the positive impacts of the affordable, reliable energy use that produced the CO2. Whether continued fossil fuel use is moral, then, is a function of whether, when we look carefully at both the benefits and costs of fossil fuel use versus the benefits and costs of abstaining from fossil fuels use, which is the alternative that better serves human life.
Here are some relevant facts:
– There are 7 billion people in the world who need cheap, plentiful, reliable energy to flourish. Some 3 billion have virtually no energy by our standards.
– In the past and present of energy technology, only three methods of energy have proven able to produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy on any significant scale. These are hydrocarbon (fossil fuel), nuclear, and hydroelectric power.
– Two of those methods—nuclear and hydro—are not carbon-based. The biggest opponent by far of both of these technologies is the green movement—the movement that claims to care the most deeply about reducing CO2 emissions.
This indicates that the opposition to fossil fuels is not about CO2 emissions—it is about the Green ideal of minimizing our impact on the planet. Applying the Green philosophy, we treat the “natural” sun and wind as moral sources of energy, while impacting nature by splitting an atom, damming a river, or adding CO2 to the atmosphere is considered inherently immoral. Note that our obsession with the climate impact of CO2 goes not by “climate catastrophe” but “climate change,” assuming that man-made climate change as such is bad.
If we look at what has been scientifically demonstrated, versus what has been speculated, the warming impact of CO2 has proven mild and manageable—despite 35 years of predictions of runaway, catastrophic warming. This should not be surprising given the rarely publicized facts that CO2 levels and temperatures are very low from a geological perspective, that the greenhouse effect is a logarithmic (decelerating) effect, and that the natural variability in weather from hour to hour, day to day, season to season is far more perilous than a one-degree change in the average temperature.
Because climate danger is overwhelmingly a natural problem, the key to fighting it is man-made climate protection through a durable, climate-controlled civilization. And that requires cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, which for most people means fossil fuels.
The data are definitive: Since catastrophic warming predictions began in the 1980s, the rate of climate-related deaths, deaths from extreme heat, extreme cold, storms, drought, and flood, is down 50%. It’s down 98% since major CO2 emissions began 80 years ago. If we truly look at energy from a human perspective, we find that fossil fuels, used properly, are healthy for every aspect of life—including safety from climate effects. It is the philosophy and policies of its Green opponents that are toxic.
Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) is the author of ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.’
Why We Need to Stop Burning Fossil Fuels
By Elliott Negin
By any standard—be it scientific, economic or moral—Alex Epstein’s assertion that continuing to burn fossil fuels is “healthy for every aspect of life” is ludicrous. Epstein says that when making choices about energy sources “we shouldn’t minimize our impact on the planet, we should maximize our well-being.” In fact, given what scientists know about the threat posed by fossil fuels, minimizing their impact on the planet would maximize our well-being.
First, Epstein ignores the damage caused by toxic fossil fuel pollutants, such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulates, which have been linked to a whole host of diseases as well as millions of premature deaths around the world every year.
Then he claims that “climate danger is overwhelming a natural problem” and so far the “warming impact of CO2 has proven mild and manageable.” He’s wrong on both counts.
It is an indisputable fact that human activity—mainly burning fossil fuels—is driving up average world temperatures. And “mild and manageable” is hardly how anyone would describe what is happening right now. For example:
– Average global sea level has increased 8 inches since 1880, and is rising much faster on the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. Coastal communities in Bangladesh already have had been abandoned, and there will likely be millions more climate refugees.
– Dangerously hot weather is occurring more frequently than it did 60 years ago, and scientists expect heat waves to become more frequent and severe as global warming intensifies. In 2003, a heat wave in Europe killed more than 70,000 people.
– The number of large wildfires is increasing and the wildfire season has doubled in length in the western United States and Canada.
Epstein’s argument is also absurd from an economic perspective, at least according to 750 leading economists surveyed by the World Economic Forum earlier this year. They ranked the failure to address climate change as the biggest threat to the global economy, more so than weapons of mass destruction, water crises and energy price shocks.
Moreover, fossil fuels may be plentiful, as Epstein points out, but they are definitely not cheap. Take coal. If you factor in the impact it has on miners, public health, the environment and the climate, its “life cycle” cost in the United States alone, according to a 2011 Harvard Medical School study, is at least $345 billion a year.
Fortunately, wind and solar are now cheaper than building new coal and nuclear plants and are coming on line at a record pace. Last year, renewables made up roughly half of all new global electricity capacity and provided 10.3 percent of the world’s electricity. Add hydro and nuclear power, and carbon-free energy sources amounted to 33 percent.
The fact is, we have the technology today to dramatically curb carbon emissions. What we need is political will, which all too often is undermined by undue fossil fuel industry influence. Finally, Epstein has the nerve to wrap his argument in the mantle of morality. Please. Would it be ethical to condemn future generations to the worst possible consequences of climate change when we have the means to mitigate them? And given the disingenuous claims Epstein makes in his column, I also would argue it is unethical for a reputable news organization to publish it. It is long past time the news media stopped indulging climate science deniers and focused on solutions to what is arguably the biggest crisis facing mankind. We don’t have time to waste.
http://about.bgov.com/blog/fossil-fuels-find-a-friend-in-barack-obama/
-
House Democrats Urge Stricter Animal-Testing Laws in TSCA Reform
May 18, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Last year, both the House and Senate passed versions of reform to the decades-old Toxic Substances and Control Act. Now, members of both chambers are in negotiations to hammer out a new version that reconciles differences between the two bill.
Earlier this month there were indications that negotiations were nearly complete. But now there signs the process could be running into trouble.
Recently, 39 House Democrats wrote a letter to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), a ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, saying that they are “concerned that the animal testing language is still not reconciled.”
The House bill does not address the issue of animal testing. But according to Bloomberg BNA, the Senate bill includes rules that aim to reduce toxicology testing on animals and instead use:existing toxicity studies;emerging types of toxicity tests such as computer-based toxicity predictions and automated cell-based toxicity assays;phased-in testing strategies;the formation of industry consortia that jointly conduct testing; andnew types of tests as they are developed and found to be scientifically reliable and relevant.
The Senate’s animal-testing language has earned support from several NGOs such as the Environmental Defense Fund, and according to the letter from House Democrats, is in line with chemical regulation policies of foreign governments, including the EU.
While it is unclear if the animal testing language will make it into the bill, Pallone had previously objected to the Senate animal-testing provisions.
Now it is unclear if Pallone will have any further role in negotiations at all.
Just yesterday, Pallone and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said that the negotiations have resulted in a draft bill that’s worse than current regulations. Because the talks are happening behind closed doors, it was unclear what aspects of the bill the Congressmen were unsatisfied with.
Both Democrats indicated that they are pulling support for the bill.
But others involved in the negotiations said they plan to move ahead without the support of Pallone and are still hoping to have a bill on Obama’s desk before the Memorial Day recess.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/05/house-democrats-urge-stricter-animal-testing-laws-tsca-reform
-
States Split as Calif., N.J., Ariz. Weigh Take-Home Liability
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
As high courts on the East Coast and West Coast ponder premises owners' duty to people exposed to toxins brought home on a worker's clothing, the states remain divided over whether to allow such claims, and if so, by whom.
Plaintiffs' and defense counsel agree that as the workers directly exposed to asbestos have died off, an increasing percentage of asbestos suits are being brought by plaintiffs indirectly exposed, at home.
While defense counsel say take-home exposure suits threaten “limitless liability,” plaintiffs' attorneys say a focus on the method of exposure is misplaced.
Spouses are the most common plaintiffs in third party take-home actions, but suits have also been filed by other family members—children, nephews and grandchildren—and in at least one case, a worker's girlfriend.
That lawsuit, brought by the girlfriend of an employee who allegedly brought beryllium home on his work clothes, was recently argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp., N.J., No. 076195, argued 4/25/16.
Bright Lines, Vehicles
“We're just beginning to see more of these claims being asserted,” defense counsel Carter Strang with Tucker Ellis LLP in Cleveland told Bloomberg BNA.
“Until courts draw a bright line, these will continue,” he said.
“Where do you cut off liability?” asked Professor Lester Brickman—a critic of asbestos lawsuits—at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
“When you expand liability, what about fourth parties?” he asked. “What if a maid who launders asbestos-laden clothes lives with a man in another house and he gets mesothelioma?”
But plaintiffs' counsel see the “limitless liability” argument as an attempt to evade responsibility.
“The premise of the defense argument is ‘we may sicken so many people there will be no end to it,’ ” asbestos plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan Ruckdeschel with the Ruckdeschel Law Firm in Ellicott City, Md., told Bloomberg BNA.
“Everybody agrees that if you're spewing pollutants you're responsible for them. But defendants say that if the vehicle on which the pollutant leaves the factory is the workers' clothes then they're not liable. That doesn't make any sense,” Ruckdeschel said.
Patchwork of Rulings
Louisiana, New Jersey, Tennessee and Washington are among the states that have recognized a premises owner's obligation to household members.
But courts in Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Kentucky haven't found a duty.
California courts have allowed premises owner suits by third parties, but the state's appeals courts split on the issue.
The California Supreme Court is set to consider premises owner duty in Haver v. BNSF Ry. Co., Cal., No. S219919 as well as product manufacturer duty in Kesner v. S.C. (Pneumo Abex), Cal., No. S219534 (84 DEN A-10, 5/1/15).
The cases have been consolidated for oral argument and placed on the September 2016 calendar.
The Arizona Court of Appeals is considering a take-home asbestos suit brought by the child of a worker in a case set for oral argument May 25, Quiroz v. Alcoa, Ariz. Ct. App., No. 15-0083,argument scheduled 5/25/16.
“The divide is over the issue of ‘foreseeability,' ” Brickman said.
“Courts that reject expanding a duty, such as New York, view duty as independent of foreseeability,” Brickman said. “ The states that chose foreseeability as the standard for determining take-home liability end up finding liability.”
“But the words ‘duty' and ‘foreseeability' are really ways of the judges expressing their personal preference,” he said. “Courts are giving rhetorical reasons for scope of liability.”
Will Accuratus Expand Liability?
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Olivo v. Owens-Illinois Inc., 895 A. 2d 1143 (2006), ruled that a spouse's suit could proceed because it was foreseeable that asbestos might be brought home on a worker's clothing. The court in Accuratus is now weighing whether Olivo extends to the girlfriend of a worker who brought beryllium home on his work clothes.
During oral argument April 25, the court in Accuratus asked whether a “family” includes a non-married couple.
Defense attorney William A. Ruskin with Gordon & Rees in New York asked where the line should be drawn.
“Do you draw the line at family members? Should a bus driver be able to sue if workers from the Exxon plant get on a bus? What about a babysitter?”
“Plaintiffs argue that duty should be determined by what is foreseeable. But by that measure, it's limitless,” Ruskin told Bloomberg BNA.
“I don't think the issue that's important with take-home cases is about non-traditional families,” he said.
“If this was a married gay couple, I wouldn't foreclose a remedy. What's important is whether take-home exposure cases—particularly premises owner—should be expanded in ways courts seem to be expanding this,” Ruskin said.
No Slippery Slope
Ruckdeschel, however, says the fear of limitless liability is unfounded.
“The law has a mechanism against the slippery slope—the well-developed law of causation in toxic torts,” he said.
“What does it matter if Mrs. Johnson is a wife or a nurse? If she can establish exposure, why shouldn't they be liable?”
“Necessarily, the defendants are conceding that causation is established, but they should get a walk anyway,” Ruckdeschel said. “They're asking for a windfall that shifts the burden from the wrong-doer to the sick person and ultimately to the taxpayers.”
Silica, Talc and PCBs
Attorneys say take-home suits comprise a greater percentage of asbestos litigation than they did 15 years ago, but quantifying the suits by exposure type is difficult.
“There are fewer total asbestos suits being filed. But as the more heavily-exposed workers have died, what we're seeing now are wives and children who had a longer and lighter exposure with a longer latency period getting sick,” Ruckdeschel said.
“I believe there has been an uptick in take-home cases, but it is not yet a dramatic one,” said defense attorney William Anderson with Crowell and Moring in Washington, D.C.
The number of filings by take-home plaintiffs is difficult to track because courts don't report their asbestos case dockets in that way, Anderson said.
“The trend line for mesothelioma would indicate that as a greater percentage of persons with the disease increasingly are women (because the asbestos-exposed male worker cohort is aging out), we will see more female and thus more take-home cases,” Anderson said.
As asbestos litigation continues, attorneys say the universe of take-home liability may be expanding.
While the bulk of premises liability take-home cases have been asbestos suits, similar claims could also be brought for other toxins.
“It could be possible to make these claims in silica cases,” Anderson said. “And if talc cases take off, we could see those becoming take-home as well.”
“We could see take-home suits for silica, talc and PCBs,” Strang agreed.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89972345&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89972345&jd=89972345
-
ECHA: 65,000 Substances Could Require Full REACH Registrations
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency has published a list of nearly 65,000 substances for which full registrations would likely be required under the European Union's REACH regulation, even if the substances are registered in volumes as low as one to 10 metric tons a year.
The chemicals agency said May 18 that the listed substances were likely to be considered hazardous under REACH, meaning they are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB).
Because of their hazardous properties, any low-volume registrations for those substances, meaning registrations for volumes of one to 10 metric tons, would not benefit from an exemption in REACH that allows less information to be submitted for “substances where there is no predicted risk,” the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said.
Companies that manufacture substances in the EU or import them in annual volumes of one to 100 metric tons must submit registration dossiers to ECHA by May 31, 2018. The deadline is the third under REACH, with the previous deadlines in 2010 and 2013 applying respectively to registration of substances in the 1,000-plus and 100 to 1,000 metric ton annual volume bands.
For non-hazardous substances in the one to 10 metric ton range, REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) allows registrants to submit registration dossiers that omit toxicological and ecotoxicological information.
Preparations for 2018
ECHA said the list of 65,000 substances would be relevant for the 2018 deadline, when many registrations are expected for low-volume substances.
The 65,000 substances represent about half the 110,000 substances that are in principle subject to registration under REACH. Those substances are known as phase-in substances, meaning they were pre-registered ahead of the first REACH registration deadline in 2010 (245 DEN A-5, 12/22/08).
So far, of the 110,000 phase-in substances, 14,137 “unique substances” have been registered, according to the ECHA online database.
The chemicals agency told Bloomberg BNA May 18 that for the 2018 deadline, it expected “up to 60,000 registrations will be prepared for up to 25,000 substances,” which would be “three times more than for either of the previous deadlines.”
It is impossible to predict how many of the registrations would benefit from the lower information requirements for non-hazardous substances at low volumes, however, ECHA said.
Companies that believe they might benefit from the reduced information requirements for non-hazardous low-volume substances should check against the list of 65,000 substances, the agency said.
Even if substances do appear in the list, companies “may still benefit from the reduced requirements,” if they can provide suitable justifications in their registration dossiers, ECHA said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89972379&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89972379&jd=89972379
-
(ACC Mentioned) Olson's Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule Clears Committee
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Implementation of the 2015 ozone standards would be delayed by eight years under a bill (H.R. 4775) approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The committee approved the bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), during a May 18 markup on a vote of 30-23. The legislation was approved over the objections of Democratic members of the panel, including Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who described the legislation during his opening statement as “an attack that strikes at the heart of the Clean Air Act.”
H.R. 4775 would delay the deadline for states to make recommendations on areas that don't meet the Environmental Protection Agency's 70 parts per billion standards, one of the first steps in implementing a national air standard, from October 2016 until October 2024. The legislation also would make various changes to the EPA's process for reviewing national ambient air quality standards, including a provision that would allow it to conduct those reviews less frequently and allow the agency to consider technological feasibility in the decision on where to set those standards.
Olson said during May 17 opening statements that the legislation would not alter the fundamental goals of the Clean Air Act to protect public health and the environment, but rather it would make some necessary revisions to the law.
“State after state is telling us what we already know: The Clean Air Act is hugely important, but it's also imperfect,” Olson said.
During the markup, the committee also advanced a bill (H.R. 4979) that would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear energy technology. (See related story.).
Democratic Amendments Rejected
The committee spent much of the nearly two-hour markup considering a series of Democratic amendments that sought to remove or alter various aspects of the bill, all of which were ultimately rejected. The committee did approve of two Republican amendments by voice vote.
One of the approved amendments, introduced by Olson, altered the bill's definition of preconstruction permit to ensure that permitting language applied to both major sources and minor sources of pollution under the Clean Air Act. Olson said his amendment was necessary to ensure that all stationary sources of pollution are treated equally under the new source review permitting program, which applies to new and modified facilities.
The other approved amendment, introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), added a requirement that the EPA conduct a study on the atmospheric formation of ozone and effective control strategies. The required study would include assessments of man-made and naturally occurring ozone precursors, the most cost-effective control strategies to reduce ozone levels and wintertime ozone formation.
States and industry organizations have urged the EPA to do more to quantify the effects of uncontrollable background ozone on air quality, including an improved understanding of winter-formed ozone and air quality at high altitudes (67 DEN A-3, 4/7/16).
Industry Groups Offer Support
H.R. 4775 is supported by hundreds of industry associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council .
Greg Bertelsen, senior director of energy and resources at the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a May 18 statement that lawmakers are now taking action to address many industry concerns with the new, more stringent ozone standards, including excessive regulatory costs and issues with uncontrollable background ozone levels.
“As this legislation passes one more milestone, we encourage all members of the House and Senate to listen to the concerns expressed by manufacturers, state regulators and hundreds of other business organizations and work to provide much needed relief from this burdensome regulatory program,” Bertelsen said.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers also urged the House to pass H.R. 4775. Chet Thompson, president of the association, said in a May 18 statement that Olson's bill would provide a “common-sense implementation plan” that allows for improvements in air quality without unnecessary negative economic effects.
H.R. 4775 is opposed by a number of environmental and public health organizations, including the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society. Those organizations sent a May 10 letter to lawmakers urging them to vote against H.R. 4775, which they said would “permanently weaken” the Clean Air Act's ability to protect the public from exposure to dangerous levels of air pollution.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89972377&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496407500&searchid=27628019&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
House Committee Votes to Delay Ozone Rule
May 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House committee on Wednesday passed a bill to delay the Obama administration’s new ozone pollution rule and change the way the federal government writes future air pollution rules.
The Wednesday vote along party lines in the House Energy and Commerce Committee sends the bill to the full House for its consideration.
The legislation would delay last year’s ozone rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by up to eight years.
In the future, the EPA would be allowed to consider new rules on ozone and other air pollutants every 10 years instead of every five years, the current time period, and the EPA would for the first time be allowed to consider the costs of new standards, not just the health impacts.
“No one opposes clear air and clean water,” Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), one of the sponsors of the bill, said.
“This legislation provides states more time to implement the new standard, which was key for ensuring that we do not stifle the incredible investments made in the energy, manufacturing and chemical sectors,” he said.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said the legislation “will allow states to implement EPA’s ozone standards in a manner that is more practical and cost-effective,” and ensures states don’t have to think about how to comply with two standards at the same time.
Ozone is a component of smog and is linked to respiratory ailments like asthma. It is a byproduct of various pollutants from burning fossil fuels, so limiting it can hit the energy industry, manufacturers and similar sectors.
Democrats said the bill would effectively gut the Clean Air Act. They objected particularly to the provision that would allow the EPA to consider costs, threatening the current law that says ozone rules are based only on health and environmental considerations.
“Let’s not pretend that the legislative changes in this bill are simply tinkering around the margins of the Clean Air Act,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (N.J.), the panel’s top Democrat. “This is radical change. Weakening protections of the law won’t make air pollution go away.”
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said the bill “eliminates the core Clean Air Act principle that air pollution should be capped at a level that is protective of human health. Instead, the bill injects economic and technological considerations into what’s always been a strictly science-based product.”
The panel rejected numerous Democratic amendments meant to preserve some of the health and environmental protections in the current law that they said were threatened by the GOP’s bill.
Numerous states and energy interests are suing the EPA with the goal of having the ozone bill overturned, while some environmental groups are suing to have it strengthened.
The Energy and Commerce Committee also passed Wednesday, by voice vote, a bipartisan bill meant to encourage development of advanced nuclear energy technologies through reforms to Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards and other measures.
The committee’s subpanel on energy and power passed both bills last week.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280363-house-committee-votes-to-delay-ozone-rule
-
EPA Pushes Air, Climate Rules in Obama's Remaining Time
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers and Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency has an aggressive slate of climate change and air pollution rules left to complete as it looks to lock in emissions reductions from power plants, refineries and the transportation sector in the Obama administration's remaining time in office.
The administration will look to cement its reputation on climate change by issuing its second phase of greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks (RIN:2060-AS16) this year as well as completing its finding that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft endanger the public and the environment and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act (RIN:2060-AS31), according to the regulatory agenda updated May 18. Both of those rules have been pushed back one month from the regulatory agenda released last fall with the aircraft endangerment finding now expected in July and the final truck rule slated for August.
Along with those rules, the EPA also plans to complete regulations limiting the use of some refrigerants with significant global warming potential and continue its efforts to curb methane emissions with updated standards for landfills. Additionally, the agency will continue to push for reductions of conventional air pollutants through new guidance on implementing its updated air quality standards for ozone and another rule requiring additional nitrogen oxides emissions reductions from power plants.
No Date for Aircraft Proposal
Though the regulatory agenda says the EPA will issue its endangerment finding this summer, it did not say when the agency would actually propose greenhouse gas emissions limits for aircraft, which are expected to follow international standards currently under development. The final endangerment finding is currently under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (89 DEN A-2, 5/9/16).
Along with the aircraft and truck rules, the EPA plans to issue new final methane emissions limits for landfills (RIN:2060-AM08; RIN:2060-AS23) in July. Those rules will follow similar methane standards the agency just issued for new and modified oil and natural gas wells (94 DEN A-1, 5/16/16).
The agency will also target hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which were intended to replace ozone-depleting substances but are potent greenhouse gases. The final rule (RIN:2060-AS80) phasing out use of some HFCs used in the refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion protection industries is expected in October (96 DEN A-22, 5/18/16).
That month the EPA also anticipates issuing final updates (RIN:2060-AS60) to its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule requirements in an effort to improve the program's efficiency for dozens of industries (246 DEN A-1, 12/23/15).
Updated Transport Rule Planned
In addition to its climate-related activity, the EPA also plans to issue several air regulations in the final months of the Obama administration, including a rule that would require power plants to achieve additional reductions in nitrogen oxides emissions.
The rule (RIN:2060-AS05) would update state emissions budgets included in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to address interstate transport under the 2008 national ozone standards of 75 parts per billion. A proposal released in November 2015 would set new emissions budgets for power plants in 23 states, a move that the agency projected would cover 913 power plants and cost the utility sector $93 million annually.
Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, told state regulators in April that work on the new transport rule would be completed by the end of Obama's term. The EPA's regulatory agenda projects that the final rule will be issued by September (70 DEN A-9, 4/12/16).
Ozone Implementation Rule Coming
The agency in September also plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (RIN:2060-AS82) to address implementation requirements for the 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion. The rule would include information on the timing of state plan submissions, attainment demonstrations and administration of the nonattainment New Source Review program.
The EPA has been criticized for its timeliness in issuing implementation rules and guidance for previous national ambient air quality standards. For example, the agency did not issue the final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standards until early 2015.
McCabe, in a memo that accompanied the final rule that set the 2015 ozone standards, outlined plans to offer states an array of implementation assistance in a more timely manner than in the past (192 DEN A-5, 10/5/15).
Regional Haze Rule Planned for October
The EPA projects that it will issue a final rule (RIN:2060-AS55) to revise its regional haze regulations by October.
An April proposal issued by the agency would provide states with an additional three years to submit revised plans for addressing visibility in national parks and other protected areas. The agency said that additional time would give states an opportunity to coordinate their regional haze plans with other significant air pollution control initiatives, including the Clean Power Plan and revised national standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide (81 DEN A-1, 4/27/16).
The EPA is currently accepting comments on the regional haze proposal until July 5.
The agency projects it will release a final rule (RIN:2060-AS53) in June to amend its regional consistency regulations. The rule would establish an exception for federal court decisions under the Clean Air Act not issued by the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which have exclusive jurisdiction over nationally applicable actions taken under that law.
An August 2015 proposal would have allowed some regional offices to implement local and regional court decisions, while other EPA regional offices would not be required to follow suit. The fall 2015 version of the regulatory agenda estimated the final rule would be issued by April 2016, but the agency failed to meet that projection (152 DEN A-5, 8/7/15).
Other Air Rules Expected
Other air rules planned for release in the final months of the Obama administration include:
• a final implementation rule (RIN:2060:AQ48) for the 2012 particulate matter standards. The final rule is currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget and is projected to be released by August;
• a final rule (RIN:2060-AS02) to streamline and clarify requirements under the EPA's exceptional events policy, which allows for air quality data influenced by wildfires and other uncontrollable events to be excluded from consideration when determining compliance with national air standards. The final rule is projected to be released by September; and
• a final decision (RIN:2060-AQ44) on whether to revise or retain the national lead standards of 0.15 microgram per cubic meter. The agency proposed to retain the standards in 2014 and is set to issue its final decision by September.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89972384&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89972384&jd=89972384
-
House Expected to Pass Defense Bill Speeding LNG Permitting
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House was expected to vote to approve Defense Department reauthorization legislation that would expedite the Energy Department's permitting process for liquefied natural gas export projects among other energy- and environmental-related riders.
The National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), which was expected to pass late May 18, would require the Energy Department to issue a final decision on a liquefied natural gas export application within 30 days of completion of mandatory environmental reviews. No time limit currently exists, according to the Energy Department.
The 1,300-page bill also includes provisions that would weaken or roll back endangered species protections for the American burying beetle. The oil and gas industry says the beetle's protected status required protections for its habitat that could impact their operations.
In addition, the bill includes language that would “undermine” state and federal cooperative efforts to protect the greater sage grouse and lesser prairie chicken, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which cited those provisions among the reasons it was issuing a veto threat for the bill.
“Congressionally-mandated removal from the Endangered Species List, delays in determining species status, and State control over Federal public lands undermine the science-based decision-making at the core of the ESA, are unnecessary for military readiness, and are ill-advised for purposes of public land management,” the White House said in a statement of administration policy. “These provisions are non-germane to the NDAA, would impair the protection afforded by the ESA, and undermine years of collaborative conservation work with private landowners, States, and other stakeholders.”
Other Energy-Related Amendments
Other energy-related measures in the bill include language mandating the Energy Department to construct a more than $47 billion Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility that the Obama administration wants to terminate.
The facility, being constructed at DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina by a consortium that includes Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV and Areva SA, would turn 34 metric tons of plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors as part of a 2000 nonproliferation agreement between the U.S. and Russia.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89972371&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89972371&jd=89972371
-
House Weighs Response to Senate 'Riders'
May 19, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
A key House lawmaker signaled yesterday that Republicans are still weighing a strategy for conferencing with the Senate on the chambers' competing energy bills.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the Energy and Power Subcommittee that wrote the House bill (H.R. 8), told E&E Daily that no decisions have been made on how the lower chamber will respond to the Senate's passage of its own energy package (S. 2012) last month.
"I don't know how exactly we're going to do it because they have a lot of riders that I'll refer to over there, that we certainly didn't have and that's going to be a dicey issue to deal with," he said. "But I think everything has to be on the table and both sides hopefully can make a good faith effort to come out with something productive."
With a legislative calendar truncated by the election year, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has hoped for a quick conference with a goal of getting a bill to the president's desk before the August recess.
But the timeline for the House to move to conference appears to be continuing to slip (E&E Daily, May 17).
Whitfield said yesterday that conferees may be named after the Memorial Day recess, although he later added it's possible that it could happen next week.
However, he also said that it's not out of the question that a formal conference won't materialize and that the chambers could informally ping-pong agreed-to provisions.
"I think anything's possible," Whitfield said. "There may be a combination of both. We're going to have informal meetings, but we're going to have formal sit-downs as well."
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, took a decidedly pessimistic view of the prospects for a conference yesterday.
"I don't even know if we're going to have a conference," he told E&E Daily. "The problem is that neither the Senate nor the House bills are acceptable to me. I don't know how we effectively have a conference. We'd have to have major changes in the bills. We would have to provide some resources for infrastructure. Right now, neither of the bills accomplishes much of anything."
Murkowski on Tuesday said her House counterparts had indicated they hoped to send the chamber's response to the Senate this week but conceded next week was more likely.
"I'm not sure how things are going over there," she said. "Once we get the response then we can take the next steps."
She acknowledged the challenges a conference faces in the House, where the Senate's permanent reauthorization has rankled some conservatives, including House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
However, Murkowski said she had a "very encouraging" meeting with Bishop and Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) last week.
"Kind of knowing where they're coming from and how much space they have on a few issues is important for us to know and to gauge," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/19/stories/1060037527
-
Chemical Plant Safety Plan Deemed Insufficient
May 19, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Christine Todd Whitman, who ran the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under former President George W Bush, is warning that the plan the agency unveiled in February to improve the safety and security of US chemical facilities is inadequate. In a letter sent to the current EPA chief Gina McCarthy, Whitman urged the agency to ‘strengthen’ the rule, particularly by requiring numerous high-risk chemical facilities to transition to so-called inherently safer technologies (IST). These technologies involve modification of plants’ chemical processes to reduce or eliminate hazards, rather than simply control them.
Whitman, who currently runs the energy and environmental consultancy Whitman Strategy Group, suggested that such a shift to IST is needed to reduce the public health and safety threat posed by the accidental or deliberate release of hazardous substances from chemical plants. She also called on the EPA to broaden IST analyses to more high-risk facilities, such as water treatment plants and all chlorine plants. In addition, Whitman argued that all of these analyses should be submitted to the EPA, and completed much sooner than the four years required in the agency’s proposed rule.
Furthermore, Whitman also advised the EPA to create a publicly accessible source that contains detailed information about safer chemical processes and substances, including details about the implementation, cost, efficacy and feasibility of such alternatives.
Coincidentally, Whitman’s letter arrived the same day as investigators from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced that the fatal explosion in the West Fertilizer plant in Texas was an intentional crime, and not an accident as was originally believed.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/05/us-chemical-plant-safety-plan-insufficient
-
House Panel Approves Bill Boosting PHMSA Funding
May 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Transportation Department agency charged with regulating pipeline safety would receive $256 million in fiscal year 2017 under a $58.2 billion transportation-housing appropriations bill unanimously approved by a House Appropriations subcommittee May 18.
The funding in the draft Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill represents a $6 million increase over current levels for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which regulates natural gas and oil pipelines, as well as the shipment of oil, ethanol and other hazardous materials.
The Senate is currently considering a version of the bill (H.R. 2577) that would appropriate $259 million for the agency (78 DEN A-7, 4/22/16).
In addition, the Senate legislation would require PHMSA to issue a final rule mandating that railroads shipping crude oil by rail file comprehensive oil spill response plans by December.
The rule (RIN:2137-AF08), which would affect railroads such as BNSF Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., would probably require more thorough response plans, specific shipping information and alternative tests to better prepare for and deal with spills.
An agency spokeswoman previously told Bloomberg BNA the pipeline agency has begun the rulemaking process, and a notice of proposed rulemaking is undergoing interagency review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89972380&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89972380&jd=89972380
-
Senate THUD Bill Moves Through the Express Lane
May 18, 2016 | Politico (Morning Transportation)
By Martine Powers
IN THE EXPRESS LANE: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to wrap up the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill by the end of this week — in alignment with the get-’er-done strategy he outlined last week as part of his mission to get back-to-back bills pushed through the Senate floor in quick succession. To that end, cloture was filed on Tuesday evening to the substitute and the underlying bill.
Latest developments: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) submitted an amendment Tuesday night that would combat changes to the controversial trucking hours-of-service rule, instead returning the regulations to the Obama Administration's previous 60-hour weekly driving limit. The Senate also passed a series of amendments by voice vote, including one by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) aimed at enabling airport runway repair projects, and another by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) that addresses eligibility for federally-funded construction projects related to passenger rail.
AT THE SAME TIME, House Republican appropriators unveiled their $58.2 billion draft fiscal 2017 spending bill for transportation and housing that offers 3 percent more federal dollars than the Senate counterpart. DOT would get a $540 million boost over current levels. Check out Lauren’s story to parse out some of the numbers; in short, FAA, FRA, and Amtrak get roughly the same lump sum as what they received under the Senate version. Subcommittee Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.): "This bill provides for our nation's transportation and housing needs, while making tough choices to protect hard-earned taxpayer dollars." Ranking Democrat David Price of North Carolina: “It's enough of an allocation to let us work on it cooperatively, and that's exactly what we've done."
Keep on trucking: Two issues may become legislative sticking points, and they both have to do with trucking: One is the reappearance of the controversial provision on superseding state laws for meal and rest breaks for commercial truckers that nearly tanked the FAST Act and also reared its head during the House FAA bill process.
Same problem, different solution: The other point of tension results from efforts to fix a drafting error in the fiscal 2016 omnibus on trucker rest breaks. The Senate came up with their own controversial add-on, and the House is tackling the problem, too — but it’s got a different fix. “The House change ensures the 34-hour restart rule in effect before the Obama administration proposed new hours of service rules in 2011 would apply to commercial truckers,” Lauren writes, “and it would prohibit regulators from enforcing two requirements the administration finalized in 2013.”
House T&I ranking Democrat Peter DeFazio said he wouldn't comment on whether he'd support the 73-hour cap contained in the Senate bill. “You know, I upon occasion work 82 hours a week, and you're getting pretty rummy by the end of 82 hours. And particularly something like truck driving? Not a great idea.”
IT’S WEDNESDAY: Good morning and thanks for tuning into POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on all things trains, planes, automobiles and ports.
Happy Hump Day! Reach out: mpowers@politico.com or @martinepowers.
“I know where I'm goin' and I know where I'm from … Yeah we're at the airport out/D-Glock from the block where everybody air-forced out.”
‘IT’S NOT ABOUT CASTING BLAME’: As the National Transportation Safety Board voted Tuesday to approve its final report on the Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia, member Bella Dinh-Zarr proposed to make the absence of positive train control a main probable cause — more than just a contributing factor as originally drafted. "The government and industry have not acted for decades on a well-known safety hazard," Dinh-Zarr said, suggesting that the NTSB is "limiting ourselves by this institutional inertia" and referring to the "linear and formulaic" way that probable cause is determined. "This isn't about casting blame. It's about how we as an agency can make the greatest difference," she said.
No go: The rest of the board shot her down. "I don't see it as a causal factor,” member Robert Sumwalt said. “Definitely had it been enforced, in place, this accident would not have occurred. But I don't think it was the spark that ignited this accident sequence.”
Final recommendations: Our own Kathy Wolfe has the rundown: The NTSB wants “the FRA to install devices and develop procedures that would help crews identify their locations in areas where PTC won't be active, to collect more data about the number of crew members in a cab during an accident. The board also reiterated the need for greater occupant protections, including restraints and strengthened windows. It also made several recommendations for improving initial and recurring training for crew multi-tasking in ‘prolonged atypical situations.’”
Reaction from FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg: "While Congress has given railroads at least three more years to fully implement PTC, the public deserves it sooner. FRA will continue to do everything it can to ensure this life-saving technology is fully implemented as soon as possible.” And from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): “The Senate is about to pass a bill that includes $200 million to implement PTC on more commuter railroads like Metro-North and I will keep fighting until it’s operational on every passenger rail service in Connecticut and across the country.”
Freight’s response: From AAR’s Ed Greenberg: “Freight railroads have spent more than $6.5 billion on PTC. Final costs for PTC are estimated to be about $10.6 billion for freight railroads. This technology is not off-the shelf and isn’t just about plugging in or turning on components. It is a complex step-by-step process, both in terms of safety, engineering and implementation. … The freight rail industry remains on schedule at having PTC fully implemented across the country and in accordance with the extension passed by Congress.”
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2016/05/senate-thud-bill-moves-through-the-express-lane-trucking-provisions-garner-attention-in-house-appropriations-thune-on-tsa-thanksobama-214360
-
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from this Surprising Source Could Doom the Paris Climate Accord Goal
May 18, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
By now, almost anyone can pick the world’s biggest polluters out of a lineup: power plants, automobile tailpipes and factories. Together they push nearly 70 percent of heat trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Not surprisingly, the trio drew considerable attention during the late 2015 Paris climate talks to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, by the end of the century.
But a new study released Tuesday says the agreement reached by governments after the United Nations talks will fail if they fail to confront another major source of greenhouse gas emissions: agriculture. Based on some estimates, meat, dairy and crop production emit as much greenhouse gas pollution in the form of methane and nitrous oxide as automobiles emit carbon. The study said farm emissions must fall by a billion tons per year by 2030.
[U.S. and 170 countries sign historic climate agreement]
According to the study, current regulations for agriculture will fall up to 5 percent short of what’s needed. “This research is a reality check,” said Eva Wollenberg, leader of the CCAFS Low Emissions Development research program at the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute for Ecological Economics. “Countries want to take action on agriculture, but the options currently on offer won’t make the dent in emissions needed to meet the global targets agreed to in Paris.”
The U.N.’s current solutions call for more water efficiency in rice production, better forestry practices and lowering food waste. But the study’s authors said governments will have to do better than that. The study advocates identifying specific breeds of cattle that produce less methane, along with a dietary inhibitor that reduce the gas by more than 25 percent.
The study, two years in the making, was published in the journal Global Change Biology. Its more than 20 authors represent research institutions from around the world, including the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, the French National Institute for Agricultural Research in Paris, the International Rice Research Institute in Los Baños, Philippines, and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Cali, Colombia.
“Part of the purpose is to stimulate people to think about these options,” Wollenberg said. “I think it just takes the political will.”
On Earth Day last month, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and the leaders of more than 170 nations signed an agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions at the U.N. headquarters in New York, “the largest number of countries ever to sign an international agreement in a single day,” Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on the occasion.
[5 things you should know about the historic Paris climate agreement]
Ban called the global effort to fight global warming “a race against time.”
But the effort will fall short without “massive investment, information sharing and technical support to enable a global-scale transition” to address emissions from agriculture, according to a statement from the University of Vermont announcing the study. Agriculture had a 300 million ton carbon footprint in 2012 from food waste alone.
“Promising technical innovations on the horizon include recently developed methane inhibitors that reduce dairy cow emissions by 30 percent without affecting milk yields, breeds of cattle that produce lower methane and varieties of cereal crops that release less nitrous oxide,” the statement said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/18/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-this-surprising-source-could-doom-the-paris-climate-accord-goal/
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested