Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/4/2016

Industry and Association News

If the Trans-Pacific Partnership Crumbles, China Wins
Jun 2, 2016 | New York Times
By Roger Cohen

An American who has been a resident here for a few years said to me the other day: “You know, they still look at us here the way we want to be looked at. America equals opportunity, entrepreneurship and success. That’s not true in so many places anymore.”

Chemical Management News

Status of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Reform June 2
Jun 2, 2016 | National Law Review

Following 403-12 passage by the House of Representatives on May 24th, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, sought a May 26th Senate vote on H.R. 2576 under the fast-track unanimous consent procedure.
TSCA Reform Poised to Clamp Down on Mercury
Jun 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs

The Senate is set to clamp down on U.S. mercury commerce and storage regulations nationwide with Toxic Substances Control Act reform passage, a feat that eluded Senate lawmakers on May 26 but continues to be a priority in the chamber.
US, Canada Target Reductions of Eight Substances
Jun 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The US and Canada have agreed to target the reduction of eight substances of concern.
US, Canadian Agency Support for GHS Implementation to Continue
Jun 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) will continue to provide support for the implementation of the Hazard Communication Standard (Hazcom 2012). And additional guidance will be rolled out as early as this autumn.
US House Considers Modifying Fammability Standards in Car Seats
Jun 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

Congressman Jared Huffman (D–California) has introduced legislation to revise the federal flammability standard for children's car seats. This would allow it to be met without added chemical flame retardants.
Toxic Curve Ball: Why Outdated Assumptions to Determine “Safe Levels” of Toxicants Forfeit the Game
Jun 3, 2016 | Counterpunch
By Kristine Mattis

By now, a large number of consumers are aware of the hazards of the synthetic compound bisphenol-A (BPA). Effective May 11, 2016, under California state law Proposition 65, products containing BPA must possess a warning label indicating that exposure could result...
What’s Up with Microbeads? An Update on a Tiny Terror Wreaking Havoc in Our Waterways
Jun 2, 2016 | National Geographic
By Carl Safina

In March, I wrote about a new study with a scary conclusion: Experts estimate there are more than 165 million plastic pieces in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary, a region where fresh river water meets seawater close to shore.

Energy News

Clock Starts For Suits Over EPA Oil & Gas Air Rules
Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA plans to publish in the June 3 Federal Register its suite of final emissions rules for the oil and gas sector that includes first-time methane limits on new oil and gas drilling; an “aggregation” air permit rule; and a rule for permitting oil and gas on federal land..
Methane Emissions-Reduction Costs Much Higher Than Estimated in 2014, ICF Says
Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

A natural gas industry-backed assessment by ICF International found that the cost to reduce methane emissions from gas systems is $3.35/Mcf, almost five times higher than researchers had estimated two years ago.
World Leaders Expand Clean Energy Research Push
Jun 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

World leaders have agreed to double the clean energy research funding they pledged in December as part of an international push to reduce carbon emissions, the White House announced on Thursday.
California Reaches for Alternatives amid Blackout Threat
Jun 3, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon

Southern California needs all the help it can get to avoid rolling blackouts this summer, and it's turning to alternative energy to help bridge the region’s massive power gap.
Review: ‘Time to Choose’ Extols Renewable Energy to Combat Global Warming
Jun 2, 2016 | New York Times
By Stephen Holden

Charles Ferguson’s latest documentary, “Time to Choose,” is a sobering polemic about global warming that balances familiar predictions of planetary doom with a survey of innovations in renewable energy technology that hold out some hope for the future.
Renewable Energy is Now Inevitable, Energy Secretary Says, Citing Price
Jun 3, 2016 | Forbes
By Jeff McMahon

Climate change may have inspired the clean-energy revolution, but price has made it inevitable, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said Thursday, citing plunging prices in solar, wind and efficient innovations like LED lighting.
Trump's Parallel Universe of Energy
Jun 2, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Jay Hakes

Donald Trump’s highly promoted speech last Thursday on U.S. energy policy was the most anti-environment and most detached from the realities of energy markets of any ever delivered by a major presidential nominee in American history.
Save the Climate and Protect America: Build an ‘Underground Energy Interstate’ Now
Jun 3, 2016 | Washington Post
By Alexander MacDonald

The two greatest threats the United States (and other nations) face could be solved by a single infrastructure project that could be done now with existing technology.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

Rail Expansion Projects Spark Tensions
Jun 3, 2016 | Laura Stevens and Erica E. Phillips
By Wall Street Journal

The fate of BNSF Railway Co.’s new terminal near the Port of Los Angeles is now in jeopardy even though it has been in development for 10 years at a cost of more than $50 million and would provide badly needed rail capacity.
FERC OKs Elba Island LNG Export Terminal, Pipeline Project
Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher

FERC has approved Kinder Morgan Inc.'s (KMI) plan to add liquefaction and export capability to the existing Elba Island LNG Terminal near Savannah, GA, as well as make modifications to existing pipelines in support of the project.

Environment News

House Set to Vote Next Week on Olson's Ozone Delay Bill
Jun 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio

Legislation that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards by eight years will be on the House's floor agenda when it returns from the Memorial Day recess the week of June 6, according to the bill's sponsor.
High Court's CWA 'Jurisdiction' Ruling Spurs Debate on JD Policy Changes
Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss

Attorneys are debating how the Obama administration might respond to the Supreme Court's ruling that allows pre-enforcement suits over Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional determinations (JDs), with some predicting agencies will revise JD policies ...
Environmentalists Sue EPA Over Air Monitoring Rule Technical Revisions
Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

Environmentalists are suing EPA over the agency's technical changes to its air quality monitoring requirements, after advocates faulted as inadequate public comment provisions in the proposed version of the rule.
N.Y. AG Rips GOP Attempts to View Communications with Greens
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has "respectfully" declined a request by Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to provide documents related to climate change.
Alaska’s Huge Climate Mystery — And its Global Consequences
Jun 3, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney

In recent years, climate scientists have grown increasingly concerned about a carbon problem in the far north.

Industry and Association News

If the Trans-Pacific Partnership Crumbles, China Wins

Jun 2, 2016 | New York Times

By Roger Cohen

An American who has been a resident here for a few years said to me the other day: “You know, they still look at us here the way we want to be looked at. America equals opportunity, entrepreneurship and success. That’s not true in so many places anymore.”
Four decades after the war, in one of the world’s consoling mysteries, the United States enjoys an overwhelming approval rating in Vietnam, reflected in the outpouring of enthusiasm for President Obama during his three-day visit last month. In this fast-growing country of 94 million people, about one-third of them on Facebook, America is at once the counterbalance to the age-old enemy, China, and an emblem of the prosperity young people seek.
The best way to kick Vietnamese aspirations in the teeth, turn the country sour on the United States, and undermine the stabilizing American role in Asia, would be for Congress to fail to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama’s signature trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim countries including Vietnam but not China.
If T.P.P. falls apart, China wins. It’s as simple as that. Nonratification would signal that Beijing gets to dictate policy in the region, and the attempt to integrate Vietnam comprehensively in a rules-based international economy fails.
Obama’s decision to spend so much time here was an indication of the importance he attaches to this cornerstone of his so-called Asia “pivot.” The agreement — with countries accounting for close to 40 percent of the global economy — anchors the United States as a Pacific power and reinforces its critical offsetting role in Asia as China rises. By visiting Ho Chi Minh City and Hiroshima, Japan, Obama also made a powerful statement that past enmities can be overcome in the name of mutual prosperity — a signal to Cuba and Myanmar, among others.
But such long-term transformations, pulling hundreds of millions out of poverty in Asia, are not the stuff of an American election characterized by anger above all. Among the popular one-liners is this: International trade deals steal American jobs. Not one of the three surviving candidates backs the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Hillary Clinton was for it — and right — before she was against it — and wrong. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are simply against it, big time.
The trade agreement — with countries including Peru, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Malaysia — has flaws, of course. There are issues it does not address, like currency manipulation. Legitimate concerns have been raised about the impact that patent enforcement will have on affordable medicines.
The Obama administration has acknowledged that some manufacturing and low-skilled jobs will be lost, but argued this will be offset by job growth in higher-wage, export-reliant industries. The Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a report issued this year, found the accord would stimulate job “churn” but was “not likely to affect overall employment in the United States,” while delivering significant gains in real incomes and annual exports.
What the agreement will do, as Clinton noted when she backed the deal, is deliver “better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others.” It obliges countries like Vietnam to allow workers to form independent unions; it requires a minimum wage and higher health standards; it bans child labor and forced labor. It binds Vietnam to countries where the rule of law is arbiter rather than authoritarian diktat.
At a time when a drought in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam’s rice bowl, anda massive fish kill along the coast have sparked protests and sharpened concerns about global warming, the agreement is also designed to combat overfishing, illegal logging and other environmental scourges. It commits countries to shift to low-emissions economies.
To which, all Donald Trump has to say in a recent article in USA Today is that T.P.P. is “the biggest betrayal in a long line of betrayals” of American workers. But when pressed in a Republican debate on which parts of the deal were badly negotiated, he could only cite currency manipulation and “the way China and India and almost everybody takes advantage of the United States.”
China and India, of course, are not part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
As for Clinton, she believed in 2012 that the T.P.P. “sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” before decidinglast October that “I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.” The best that can be said about this is that it was probably a tactical cave-in she would reverse if she wins.
Developed economies face huge problems that have produced this season of rage. But the world has enjoyed growing prosperity over decades because of continuously reduced trade barriers. A reversal would be the road to conflict. Like the best trade accords, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is also a strategic boost to liberty and stability in the fastest-growing part of the globe. Congress should resist populist ranting and ratify it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/opinion/the-right-asian-deal-trans-pacific-partnership.html?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Status of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Reform June 2

Jun 2, 2016 | National Law Review

Following 403-12 passage by the House of Representatives on May 24th, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, sought a May 26th Senate vote on H.R. 2576 under the fast-track unanimous consent procedure. Inhofe’s motion would have allowed up to three hours of debate and a roll call vote on the House-passed bill without amendment, so long as no Senator objects.
During the Senator’s explanation of the motion on the Senate Floor, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) moved to block the floor vote and explained his reasoning. His block currently prevents the Senate from voting on the bill until he removes it (the unanimous consent procedure allows a bill to be passed without amendment unless a single Senator objects). Senator Paul’s concerns include the bill's preemption and criminal enforcement provisions. Click here to listen to the exchange between Senators Vitter, Inhofe, and Paul.
The Senate adjourned on May 26th without Sen. Paul removing the block, and the Senate is out of session the week of May 31st – June 3rd. It is unclear when the block will be removed after the Senate resumes legislative business on Monday, June 6th. In a recent interview, Sen. Paul stated that he would be speaking on the issue next week when Congress returns to session.
One possibility would allow supporters of the bill to file a cloture motion the week of June 13th if no progress is made before that time. Cloture — a process unique to the Senate to limit minority holds on legislation — is more popularly known as the only weapon against a filibuster. It could be invoked successfully to move the bill for a vote if three-fifths or 60 Senators support the motion. For more information on the cloture procedure, follow this link.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/status-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca-reform-june-2

Return to headline | Return to top
TSCA Reform Poised to Clamp Down on Mercury

Jun 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Dabbs

The Senate is set to clamp down on U.S. mercury commerce and storage regulations nationwide with Toxic Substances Control Act reform passage, a feat that eluded Senate lawmakers on May 26 but continues to be a priority in the chamber.
The roughly 15 pages of mercury language in the legislation, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576), would force the Energy Department to bar from export a list of mercury compounds, while encouraging the department to build a mercury storage facility for the chemical element and requiring a mercury inventory.
The mercury provisions are an outgrowth of a 2008 mercury export ban statute (Pub. L. 110-414), authored by then senator and now President Barack Obama, as well as a fulfillment of the Minamata Convention on Mercury obligations, experts told Bloomberg BNA.
The mercury language marks a compromise between lawmakers on Capitol Hill, as well as private sector stakeholders, David Lennett, senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA June 6.
“Environment and industry groups helped develop the mercury provisions in the package, and there's nothing particularly controversial because both sides support the final package,” he said in an interview.
High levels of mercury, known as quicksilver and labeled a neurotoxin by the Environmental Protection Agency, can cause a range of physical and cognitive impairments, particularly in its methylmercury form. The agency hasn't linked mercury exposure to cancer.
Mercury is a common by-product of gold ore mining.
Reid, Others Spearheaded Inclusion
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), along with Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) spearheaded the inclusion of the mercury language in TSCA reform, staffers for those lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA.
The TSCA mercury language is drawn from the proposed Mercury Use Reduction Act of 2012, legislation that failed to move in the 112th Congress. Whitehouse, then-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and others introduced the bill.
“As the TSCA bill seeks to protect the public from dangerous chemicals in commerce—like mercury—these provisions are sensible to include,” Richard Davidson, a Whitehouse spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA June 2.
Inventory Requirement
The TSCA legislation would require the EPA to publish an inventory of mercury supply, use and trade in the U.S. by April 1, 2017, and every three years thereafter.
That statutory mandate is necessary to further reduce dangerous mercury exposure nationwide and to comply with Minamata convention obligations for phasing out or reducing mercury use in products and processes, NRDC's Lennett told Bloomberg BNA. Minamata Bay in Japan is the site where industrial releases accumulated in seafood and led to birth defects and other severe health problems.
“There is no question we need these data,” he said. “EPA is now starting to collect the data; having the law direct EPA to do so helps get it done.”
Davidson echoed that assessment.
“The inventory provision will aid the United States in complying with the Minamata Convention on Mercury, to which we have agreed to join and which will go into effect next year,” the Whitehouse spokesman said.
The convention falls under the United Nations Environment Program.
Compound Export Ban
TSCA reform would bar mercury chloride or calomel, mercury oxide, mercury sulfate, mercury nitrate and mercury sulfide or cinnabar from U.S. export beginning Jan. 1, 2020.
The legislation also would allow the EPA to add compounds to the list, and the agency would then have to publish the list of banned compounds within 90 days of enactment of the law.
“The list is a good start, based on what we know so far, in preventing companies from circumventing the export ban on elemental mercury by converting compounds back to elemental mercury overseas,” Lennett said.
The ban wouldn't apply to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries that intend to dispose of the compounds in environmentally sound ways.
Legislation Follows Through on 2008 Deal
A spokeswoman for Reid, Kristen Orthman, said the language follows through on a deal struck in 2008 for mining companies to halt elemental mercury exports in exchange for shifting storage responsibility to the Energy Department.
The 2008 statute required the establishment of a permanent facility, but that has failed to take shape.
TSCA reform would reduce mining fees to reflect temporary storage costs if the permanent facility isn't operational by 2019.
The TSCA mercury provisions persevered through months of back and forth between the two chambers (22 DEN A-14, 2/3/16).
The Senate nearly polished off legislative work on TSCA May 26, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blocked expedited approval, leaving supporters to explore other routes to passage (106 DEN A-3, 6/2/16).
Comprehensive Update Needed?
TSCA reform supporters say a comprehensive update is necessary to evaluate the 80,000 chemicals in U.S. commerce, many of which may pose threats to human health and the environment.

The Minamata Convention on Mercury requires its signatories to cease production, domestic distribution, consumption and cross-border exports and imports of mercury, their derivatives and products such as thermometers and lamps by 2020. The Minamata treaty was adopted in 2013 and signed in the southern Japanese city of Minamata, the site of some of the first mass mercury poisoning cases in the world.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90892446&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90892446&jd=90892446

Return to headline | Return to top
US, Canada Target Reductions of Eight Substances

Jun 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The US and Canada have agreed to target the reduction of eight substances of concern.
The agreement was made under the Chemicals of Mutual Concern annex of the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
This outlines the countries' commitments to protecting human health and the environment. This will be done "through cooperative and coordinated measures to reduce the anthropogenic release of chemicals of mutual concern into the Waters of the Great Lakes."
The first chemicals of mutual concern (CMC) list agreed by the countries comprises:hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD);polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs);perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA);perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS);long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs);mercury;polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); andshort-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs).
Commitments to phasing down these substances include:reducing anthropogenic releases and products containing CMCs throughout their entire lifecycles;promoting the use of safer chemical substances and the use of technologies that reduce or eliminate the uses and releases of CMCs; andmonitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of pollution prevention and control measures for CMCs, and adapting management approaches as necessary.
The governments are also seeking nominations for substances to the second CMCs list. Consideration will be given to candidates submitted before 29 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47835/us-canada-target-reductions-of-eight-substances

Return to headline | Return to top
US, Canadian Agency Support for GHS Implementation to Continue

Jun 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Sylvia Palmer

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) will continue to provide support for the implementation of the Hazard Communication Standard (Hazcom 2012). And additional guidance will be rolled out as early as this autumn.
Aa product stewardship conference in Baltimore, Maureen Ruskin, a director with the office of chemical hazards, told attendees of the agency's development of new compliance resources to assist with implementing the standard. This has been updated to bring it in line with the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals.
The final compliance deadline for implementation in the workplace passed on 1 June. This ended a three-year transition period that allowed compliance with older versions of the hazard communication standard in the US. A recent survey, however, suggested some companies continue to face challenges to fully transition to the new standard.
Osha is partnering with the Department of Transportation (DOT), Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMIS) and the Canadian government, said Ms Ruskin. Together they will produce guidance that will include training modules on GHS labelling requirements and safety data sheets (SDSs). Instructions for site-specific information for workplaces will also be included.
She reported that Osha has also recently updated the hazard communication safety and health topic page on its website,. It now includes letters of interpretation and addresses other issues that have come up during implementation.
Ms Ruskin said she realises there may be areas in the regulatory text that lack clarity or are "onerous". The agency will be reviewing these to see where "more reasonable" text is warranted.Technical guidance development in Canada
At the same conference, Amira Sultan, manager of policy and external relations division at Health Canada, provided information about technical guidance that Canada is currently developing.
The country is halfway through its GHS implementation. The amended Hazardous Products Act (HPA) and the new Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR) came into force in February 2015. The transition to the new system – referred to as WHMIS 2015 – will take place over a four stage period. Deadlines range from 1 June 2017 to 1 December 2018.
The guidance which is "complex and technical", Ms Sultan said, will help Canadian manufacturers and importers of workplace hazardous products understand and comply with the requirements of WHMIS 2015.
The guidance will be released in two phases in 2016, in time to support manufacturers and importers with the June 2017 transition milestone. She said it is a key component of the Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Forward Plan to communicate and facilitate alignment of the GHS for workplace chemicals between the two countries, without reducing worker safety.
Discussion continues on developing guidance within the Health Canada-Osha working group. This is related to variances, coordination of future updates of guidance and alignment with the GHS Purple Book. Work will continue with Osha and stakeholders to identify issues/topics that may be considered for future joint Canada-US guidance, she added.
Health Canada will not consult on the guidance said Ms Sultan, consistent with the approach taken by Osha. The release of the guidance in final form will enable users to rely on it immediately for authoritative information in support of their compliance efforts.
But, she noted, stakeholder comments will be welcome after its release. It will be used to adjust future versions of the technical guidance, or to develop stand-alone guidance, as appropriate.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47830/us-canadian-agency-support-for-ghs-implementation-to-continue

Return to headline | Return to top
US House Considers Modifying Fammability Standards in Car Seats

Jun 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

Congressman Jared Huffman (D–California) has introduced legislation to revise the federal flammability standard for children's car seats. This would allow it to be met without added chemical flame retardants.
Bill HR 5359 would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to revise the existing flammability standards to measure a car seat’s smoulder resistance, rather than using an open flame test.
The measure would also direct the NHTSA to consider the methodologies laid out in California's Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013. This standard for upholstered furniture was updated in 2013 and removed the state's open flame test. It allows manufacturers to achieve compliance without added flame retardants.
Arlene Blum, executive director of NGO Green Science Policy Institute (GSPI) strongly supports the federal legislation. She says it would ensure that fire safety is "maintained and children's exposure to harmful flame retardant chemicals is reduced".
HR 5359 also has the backing of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), and NGO the Ecology Center. Both have called for a reassessment of federal flammability requirements.
"With the introduction of this legislation we are encouraged that legislators and regulators are proactively working to reduce the use of chemicals in juvenile products, while still maintaining high regulatory standards that continue to provide the highest protection available for families and children," says Kelly Mariotti, JPMA's executive director.
HR 5359's introduction comes amid fears that flame retardants are of concern to human health. A number of states have seen bills aimed at restricting their use in applications such as children's products and upholstered furniture.
The Massachusetts Senate recently advanced one such measure. Washington state and Washington, DC, both passed bans earlier this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47834/us-house-considers-modifying-flammability-standards-in-car-seats

Return to headline | Return to top
Toxic Curve Ball: Why Outdated Assumptions to Determine “Safe Levels” of Toxicants Forfeit the Game

Jun 3, 2016 | Counterpunch

By Kristine Mattis

By now, a large number of consumers are aware of the hazards of the synthetic compound bisphenol-A (BPA). Effective May 11, 2016, under California state law Proposition 65, products containing BPA must possess a warning label indicating that exposure could result in female reproductive impairment. Independent research on the endocrine disrupting effects of the chemical, commonly used in plastic bottles, the lining of metal cans, and customer receipts, among other applications, has consistently demonstrated toxic effects at low dose exposures. Two recent robust studies from Denmark concur, finding deleterious effects in rats exposed to BPA at doses lower than those considered safe for human ingestion, yet not at several higher doses. Nevertheless, regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conclude that BPA is safe at the levels at which it is currently in use.
Clearly, disagreement exists among academic researchers and regulators about safe levels of BPA, as well as of innumerable other chemicals. The discrepancy stems both from how data are derived to determine safe levels of exposure to known toxicants, and from whether safe levels are even derivable under traditional standards of appraisal.
When citizens inquire about the toxicity of their products, they are usually met with guarantees that hazardous substances within these items exist at levels that are too low to produce harm from routine exposures. After accidental releases of hazardous substances into our environment there is a time, either at the outset or when concentrations of the pollutant subside, that levels of the contaminant are deemed low enough to be safe for human exposure. When evidence of contamination in the municipal water system in Flint, Michigan first emerged, officials initially declared the water safe to drink. Likewise, when radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster crossed the Pacific and reached the West Coast of the United States,the public was met with assurances that the level of radiation was too low to do harm. “Safe levels” is a common refrain to assuage fears of chemical toxicants. Yet accumulating research, like that on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as BPA, reveals that the foundational principle of safe levels of chemicals at low-enough concentrations is a flimsily constructed one.
Current chemical risk assessment operates under the assumption that we can determine a lowest dose at which a compound produces negligible or no harm to human health – the Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL). The presumption is that at increasingly higher doses, the substance will be increasingly harmful; at lower doses, harm will be insignificant or nonexistent. (Only a select few substances are regarded as harmful at any dose.)
Our regulatory toxicological tests are based on this supposition of positive monotonic dose-response. Monotonic refers to the slope of the dose-response curve consistently progressing in one direction and never changing sign along the way. These positive monotonic dose-response curves are commonly linear, exponential, or sigmoid. But, this expectation of monotonicity upon which we base regulation has been strongly challenged not just by the newest papers on BPA, but by an accumulating consensus. Indeed, the dose makes the poison, but inunanticipated and unpredictable ways.
Numerous substances act in non-monotonic dose-response (NMDR) manners, in which the sign (positive or negative) of the response can change throughout the measurement of the dosages. Many essential vitamins and minerals serve as examples. At too-low doses they are insufficient at providing the necessary nutritional molecules needed for functioning. At too-high doses, many can be poisonous. The desirable level of vitamin intake falls at a crucial range in the middle. Their dose-response curves, in which the response examined is nutritional benefit, would resemble an inverted U-shape. Indeed,countless nutrients possess U- or inverted U- shaped NMDR curves.
According to Dr. Pete Myers, founder and chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, “NMDR curves are the default expectation for endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs).” As co-author, with the late Dr. Theo Colborn and Dianne Dumanoski, of Our Stolen Future, Dr. Myers wrote the seminal book on EDCs. EDCs are hormone mimics and as such, operate in several complex ways to trigger or suppress normal hormonal regulatory mechanisms. Consequently, they can produce negative effects at different doses, often at the very high and very low levels, rather than in-between. They act in a mode that contradicts the assumptions of low dose safety.
Dr. Myers estimates that at least 1000 EDCs are currently in use commercially, but because most chemicals in commerce have not been sufficiently tested for EDC activity, that number may be much higher. Besides BPA (and its replacement, BPS), other common EDCs of concern include: phthalates found in plastics, cosmetics, and fragrances; PCBs formerly used (and still found) in industrial applications as coolants, lubricants, and insulators; brominated flame retardant chemicals (PBDEs) in furniture and electronics; and the ubiquitous pesticides glyphosate and atrazine. Dr. Tyrone Hayes of the University of California Berkeley has conducted numerous studies on atrazine demonstrating the endocrine disrupting effects on various frog species. Perhaps the most alarming of all his findings may be thehermaphroditism and feminization of male frogs after exposure to atrazine at environmentally relevant doses – doses at or below those found routinely in rivers and streams in the United States.
While synthetic endocrine disruptors are the most commonly discussed examples of chemicals that exhibit NMDR patterns of toxicity, they are not the only substances that do. Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, selenium, arsenic, and manganese show NMDR patterns as well. In fact, even though the presumption of monotonicity pervades all of risk assessment, it is unclear whether even the majority of compounds actually do act in that simplistic manner. What is clear, as Pete Myers states, is that “by ignoring NMDR curves, risk assessment as currently practiced is deeply flawed and unquestionably allows people to be exposed to harmful chemicals at dangerous doses.”
One of the major flaws lies in the methods of chemical toxicity testing. Most toxicity tests utilize a maximum of three doses as reference points. As we know from basic algebra, plotting three points cannot possibly lead to an accurate estimation of any curve. In order to determine the level at which negative health effects might emerge, says Myers, “You need to have tested an extraordinarily wide range of doses and have, preferably, at least five doses across that range.” He adds, “You can’t say anything about the absence of (NMDR) with just three doses.” Thus, with such a small set of reference points, many substances could appear to follow monotonic dose-response with the attendant fall-back assumption of safety a very low levels of exposure. But, untested low doses could actually be the most harmful.
Further complicating determinations of safe levels of chemicals, dose-response curves are specific to precise endpoints. Endpoints are the biological outcomes – such as cancer, reproductive toxicity, or neurological impairment for which toxicologists test. Even if all of the possible endpoints could be or were tested for each chemical (which they are not), each chemical may follow a different curve for each endpoint assessed. For example, arsenic acts monotonically for cancer risk, but inflammatory markers in the umbilical cord of pregnant women are lowest at intermediate levels of arsenic exposure, demonstrating a NMDR curve for that endpoint. Hence, the same chemical may be both safe and unsafe at the same exact level of exposure, depending upon which health effect one examines.
Another issue with establishing safe levels of any single chemical through traditional toxicity measurements stems from the fact that cumulative exposures are not accounted for, nor are aggregate exposures. Chemicals in combination may act synergistically. Roundup herbicide, for instance, causes cell cycle dysfunction (which can lead to cancer) and apoptosis (programmed cell death) in certain product formulations which contain different “inert” (yet toxic) ingredients. These toxic effects are either not produced or produced to a much lesser degree from glyphosate (the “active” ingredient) alone.
Additionally, the time of exposure within the lifetime of an organism can determine whether or not the chemical produces toxic effects and at what dose. Early development and puberty/adolescence are critical stages of life (“windows of vulnerability”) at which exposure to toxic substances may generate greater harm than at other life stages. Lead exposure in children, particularly during embryonic, fetal, and postnatal periods, produces neurological deficits that do not occur in equivalent adult exposures. By overlooking additional complexities such as these in deriving safe levels, chemical testing protocols as they stand are greatly in need of repair to adequately reduce health risks.
In the face of such evidence that our notion of “safe levels” of toxicants is outdated, why are such antiquated modes of risk analysis still utilized to determine regulations? “Because too much money is at stake” says Dr. Myers. “Using procedures capable of detecting NMDR curves would be likely to require lowering a large number of reference doses so much that the chemical would be required to be removed from the market.” The removal of so many chemicals would more reliably ensure safety, but would impede commercial and industrial profits.
Given the inadequacy of the current risk assessment paradigm, changes are warranted to better protect public health. Tony Tweedale, founder of RISK (Rebutting Industry Science with Knowledge) Consultancy, suggests that studies must “test for the effects of real world doses” and “test the whole dose response curve,” rather than simply a few high dose points. He also advises drawing from the thousands of peer-reviewed academic studies for policy decision-making, because “tens of thousands more experimental and supporting etiologic and epidemiologic papers (are) being tragically ignored.”
Chemical regulations based on current unsound testing practices cannot possibly be considered adequate. In fact, in 2014, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) offered updates to the EPA’s traditional risk analysis methods to better address NMDR and other deficiencies in chemical risk assessment. Among their proposals is augmentation of risk evaluations to include “statistical considerations, uncertainty analysis, life stage or susceptibility issues, and modes of action.” The EPA has yet to act on these recommendations.
Because of the faulty paradigm under which current risk assessment and regulation proceed, one cannot confidently dismiss the contribution of the innumerable commercially utilized chemicals toward human diseases and negative health outcomes. As such, assertions by the FDA and EFSA about the safety of BPA or other toxicants at current levels should be taken with a note of skepticism. Cautions such as those now abundant in California should be heeded.
A society that values human health and safety over commercial growth would acknowledge the tremendous defects and scientific uncertainty implicit in our current paradigm of assessing chemical toxicity. We cannot even begin to approach a valid judgment of “safe levels” within the context of the more than 85,000 chemicals currently in commerce (of which only a small percentage have been tested for safety even under current protocols). Chemical regulation based upon the precautionary principle would not only be relevant under such conditions of uncertainty, it would be most the prudent option for the benefit of public health.
Kristine Mattis received her PhD in Environmental Studies. As an interdisciplinary environmental scholar with a background in biology, earth system science, and policy, her research focuses on environmental risk information and science communication. Before returning to graduate school, Kristine worked as a medical researcher, as a science reporter for the U.S. Congressional Record, and as a science and health teacher.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/03/toxic-curve-ball-why-outdated-assumptions-to-determine-safe-levels-of-toxicants-forfeit-the-game/

Return to headline | Return to top
What’s Up with Microbeads? An Update on a Tiny Terror Wreaking Havoc in Our Waterways

Jun 2, 2016 | National Geographic

By Carl Safina

In March, I wrote about a new study with a scary conclusion: Experts estimate there are more than 165 million plastic pieces in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary, a region where fresh river water meets seawater close to shore.
Many of those plastic pieces are exceedingly small in size—called, “microplastics,” they are less than 5 millimeters in diameter, or just about half the size of an eraser on the back of a pencil. Much microplastic is foam, but a significant amount is hard plastic pellets called “microbeads,” which are typically added to toothpastes, soaps and body washes to serve as a powerful scrubbing agent—this despite natural exfoliators, such as minerals and plant fibers, available for use by the hygiene and beauty industry.
I recently wondered, “When it comes to getting plastics out of freshwater and saltwater ecosystems, where are we now?” To get some answers, I called up environmental chemistry and microplastics expert Dr. Sherri Mason, who in April was awarded the title of EPA Environmental Champion for her research on microplastics. What follows is our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Why are microbeads such a large environmental problem?
It’s important to note that plastic pollution as an overall topic is ranked by the United Nations (UN) as only second to climate change as an environmental concern in terms of its effects upon ecosystems in the world. That’s because there is so much plastic released into the environment and because plastic is having a dramatic effect on organisms, sickening and often killing them.
Microplastics and microbeads, the area of research I’m focused on, doesn’t have dramatic immediate effects of most large pieces of plastic. Instead, it has subtler, long-term effects. Microplastics act like little poison pills that don’t immediately lead to death but when ingested harm organisms, often when they get stored in its tissues (especially fat cells), causing bigger longer-term health problems.
Are there any laws aimed at preventing microplastic pollution?
The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 was signed into law last December by President Obama. Manufacturers can no longer make products with microbeads starting in July 2017 and stores cannot sell beauty products with microbeads starting in July 2018. So, there is a U.S. ban in place but there are still products out there now and Americans will be using them for years to come.
Some states had been passing their own microbead rules. But what was happening was that some states’ laws had different meanings. So while the laws all shared the goal of switching product ingredients from plastic microbeads to “biodegradable alternatives,” was there was noone legal definition on what “biodegradable” means. In states where law verbiage was ambiguous, industry officials could argue that almost any substance could be biodegradable.
Any countries with similar bans?
Not yet. But the U.S. taking such a big step forward will likely inspire other countries to implement their own bans soon. I know the EU and Canada have been discussing similar legislation.
What can people do to help make sure they’re not using microbeads until products containing them are no longer manufactured or sold?
The main plastic being used in microbead-containing products is polyethylene—so, when buying [hygiene and beauty] a product that’s the main one to look for. Industry also likes to obscure the names of plastics in their products, so “acrylate copolymer” and “polypropylene” are two other words to look for and avoid.
People can also use the “Beat the Microbead” website and app. It’s something you can download and have on your phone in the grocery store to make sure you get products without microbeads. It’s as easy as scanning the barcode on a product or checking their product lists.
What needs to happen next in the U.S. to deal with ocean/freshwater plastic pollution?
Educating people of the problem is the first step: Many Americans don’t feel connected to the oceans, which is usually the water source we most associate with plastic pollution. But when people realize this is also happening in every river, lake and stream in the U.S., it hits home. When people see they are directly connected to the problem, that they’re bathing and drinking the problem, that’s when they start to care.
Plastic bags and plastic water bottles are becoming the next big target of legislation. A number of places have banned or put fees on plastic bags. These laws are huge in reducing the amount of plastic litter in the environment. Similar laws are happening with bottled water, such as in Grand Canyon National Park, which recently banned “disposable” bottles from being used there.
But next for in terms of microplastics legislation is dealing with microfibers. Every time we wash an article of synthetic clothing—which is made out of a plastic called polyester—a minimum of 1,900 plastic fibers falls off of it and goes down the drain. Like microbeads, these fibers go through wastewater treatment plants and get deposited into waterways.
So, we need to use washing machine filters and other technologies to prevent these fibers from escaping into the environment. But once those technologies are in use, we’d need legislation to make sure they’re used to prevent plastic pollution.
As part of the National Aquarium’s 48 Days of Blue campaign, which spans the 48 days between Earth Day and World Oceans Day on June 8, you can find daily challenges to benefit the seas on the aquarium’s website and we’ll be incorporating one challenge per week into our blog posts.
One challenge this week: Beat the bead! Armed with knowledge of what microbeads are and why they’re so harmful, you can now be extra vigilant about avoiding them. Bonus points for teaching your friends, family and coworkers how to beat the bead!
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/02/whats-up-with-microbeads-an-update-on-a-tiny-terror-wreaking-havoc-in-our-waterways/

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Clock Starts For Suits Over EPA Oil & Gas Air Rules

Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA plans to publish in the June 3 Federal Register its suite of final emissions rules for the oil and gas sector that includes first-time methane limits on new oil and gas drilling; an “aggregation” air permit rule; and a rule for permitting oil and gas on federal land, triggering a 60-day clock for groups to file legal challenges to the rules.
In addition, the agency also intends to publish in the same Register its proposed information collection request (ICR) seeking data on emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from existing oil and gas operations. Such data is expected to inform a potential future rulemaking to impose methane limits on existing facilities, something that EPA opted against pursuing in the suite of recent rules.
Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act says that agency air rules can be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for 60 days following their publication in the Register.
Among the suite of oil and gas rules that the agency will publish June 3 is EPA's final rule updating its new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector to impose first-time limits on methane from future oil and gas operations. EPA in the rule rejected long-running efforts by environmentalists to expand the universe of new and modified oil and gas sources that will be regulated, complicating advocates' efforts to have the agency regulate the source categories if it eventually issues parallel rules for existing facilities.
EPA will also publish and take comment on for 60 days its draft ICR outlining a planned multi-stage process for obtaining information from the oil and gas industry about methane emissions from existing sources, a measure that could determine whether and how the next administration will regulate the sources. As the ICR is only in draft form, it cannot be subject to legal challenge until the agency finalizes it.
However, EPA's critics could file suit over the agency's final federal implementation plan to implement Clean Air Act “minor” new source review permitting for oil and gas production on tribal lands. The regulation, to be published in the June 3 Register, aims to streamline the sector's pre-construction permitting process. But advocates say the rule eases administrative burdens rather than limiting emissions.
The agency will also publish its final rule on when to combine, or aggregate, air permits for oil and gas sector sources. The final rule narrows the scope of the aggregation policy in response to industry criticisms on the proposed rule and what the agency says is a declining need for such permits under the related NSPS. But EPA in the rule is offering states a legal basis to use a stricter aggregation test if they wish.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/clock-starts-suits-over-epa-oil-gas-air-rules

Return to headline | Return to top
Methane Emissions-Reduction Costs Much Higher Than Estimated in 2014, ICF Says

Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

A natural gas industry-backed assessment by ICF International found that the cost to reduce methane emissions from gas systems is $3.35/Mcf, almost five times higher than researchers had estimated two years ago.
The analysis, issued Thursday, was commissioned by ONE Future, a coalition of gas companies formed in 2014 that is focused on reducing methane emissions. The group is led by executives of AGL Resources Inc., Apache Corp., BHP Billiton, Columbia Pipeline Group, Hess Corp., Kinder Morgan Inc., National Pipeline Grid plc and Southwestern Energy Co.
"This new study provides cost estimates of methane abatement technologies that are more consistent with current market realities," ONE Future interim Executive Director Richard Hyde said. "These findings will assist ONE Future member companies in our shared efforts to reduce methane emissions to less than 1% of total natural gas production."
A plethora of research has been ongoing for several years regarding methane emissions by regulators, academia and independent groups. The latest ICF findings are based on a marginal abatement cost -- aka the MAC curve model -- that the Fairfax, VA-based firm developed for an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) study published in 2014 (see Daily GPI, March 3, 2014).
Two years ago ICF said adopting existing emissions-control technologies at the time could reduce methane emissions by 40% below projected 2018 levels at a cost of 66 cents/Mcf of methane produced, or less than 1 cent/Mcf of natural gas sold. The EDF study used a baseline year of 2018 and based future gas production growth on estimates by the International Energy Agency, which indicated a larger potential reduction of methane emissions.
In the new analysis, researchers estimated reductions for each segment of the natural gas industry using data compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2012 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, as well as updated cost and emission reduction data based on the "direct experience" of ONE Future member companies.
The updated MAC analysis identified reductions across the sector could total 88.3 Bcf/year of methane at a total annualized cost of $296 million, or $3.35/Mcf of methane reduced for all segments. Excluded from the study were costs to implement reductions in the distribution segment, because costs to replace cast iron gas mains was so high that they would have skewed the overall results. The reductions for the distribution segment were calculated separately and total 8.9 Bcf, ICF said.
An additional 12.3 Bcf of reductions were projected if operators applied reduced emission completions technology for gas wells that are hydraulically fractured. Emission completions technology at drilling sites was not required in 2012 "but is now legally required, and was therefore included as a reduction from the baseline but not as part of the MAC analysis," ICF said.
Overall, total industry-wide methane reduction was estimated at 109.5 Bcf from the 2012 baseline emissions. The goal of the new MAC analysis was threefold: Identify emission sources that provide the best opportunity for methane emission reduction from the gas system; Develop a comprehensive listing of known emission abatement technologies for each of the identified emission sources; and Calculate the cost of deploying each emission abatement technology with a MAC curve for these emission reductions.
The findings are to be used by ONE Future to develop segment-specific methane emission reduction goals that, when combined, would achieve a collective 1% or less emission target in the most cost-effective manner. The report also is to assist operators in customizing abatement strategies to fit particular emission profiles.
"Importantly, this analysis updates the list of known emission abatement technologies and provides revised costs estimates for each one," ONE Future said. "It also provides estimates of the total methane emission abatement potential associated with the various segments of the natural gas industry. At its core, the study incorporates new information on the cost of methane control technologies and practices and the ability of industry to monetize recovered gas."
The increased cost of methane reduction is higher mostly because of higher assumed costs for leak detection and repair, along with revised assumptions regarding the ability of midstream segments to monetize the value of recovered gas, ONE Future said.
"This in-depth analysis, which incorporated field data and extensive consultation with natural gas producers, midstream operators and distribution companies, confirms ONE Future's position that combining a performance target with a flexible pathway toward meeting the shared goal of further reducing emissions, gives companies the right tools to meet methane emissions reduction targets," Hyde said.
The Obama administration initially outlined its methane initiative in 2014, with a goal by 2025 of slashing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45% from 2012 levels (see Daily GPI,March 28, 2014). Last month EPA issued final New Source Performance Standards to reduce methane, volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants (see Shale Daily, May 12). ONE Future members and others are working with EDF on various methane reduction technologies (see Daily GPI, April 3, 2014).

"It's ironic," said EDF's Mark Brownstein, vice president of climate and energy, in response to the latest ICF findings. "After two years of arguing voluntary initiatives will get the job done, the oil and gas industry proudly crafts a report that shows why it's not in industry's economic self interest to reduce methane emissions." The report is "exhibit A for why regulations are necessary to require the oil and gas industry to significantly reduce the nearly 10 million metric tons of methane they waste every year."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106625-methane-emissions-reduction-costs-much-higher-than-estimated-in-2014-icf-says

Return to headline | Return to top
World Leaders Expand Clean Energy Research Push

Jun 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

World leaders have agreed to double the clean energy research funding they pledged in December as part of an international push to reduce carbon emissions, the White House announced on Thursday.
During the first meeting of the 21 countries involved in the Mission Innovation project this week, international members said they would increase the clean energy research and development funding the project is designed to facilitate.
According to the White House, member countries will now spend $30 billion per year by 2021 on clean energy research.
“Today's actions show that the transition to clean energy is inevitable,” Dan Utech, President Obama’s energy and climate change adviser, told reporters Thursday. "Every sector and every level of government is involved, and the United States is all in.”
When the Mission Innovation project launched in November 2015 on the sidelines of the United Nations’s climate change conference, the U.S. committed to spend about $10 billion on low- and zero-carbon energy technologies by 2021.
The Obama administration said that number will not necessarily grow as part of the new funding promised on Thursday. Foreign leaders, including the European Union and other new members, have decided to increase their funding for the research.
The announcement comes as international climate leaders meet in San Francisco to discuss clean energy deployment around the world. Increased research spending was one of a host of clean energy commitments made this week, including promises from the private sector to speed up deployment of renewables and a new push for state and local governments around the world to focus on lowering emissions.
“Our collaborations … focus on doing that faster — more broadly — so as to make sure that all of the countries that are participating are able to implement what they pledged” in the Paris climate deal reached in December, said John Elkind, the assistant secretary of the Energy Department’s Office of International Affairs.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282025-world-leaders-expand-clean-energy-research-push

Return to headline | Return to top
California Reaches for Alternatives amid Blackout Threat

Jun 3, 2016 | PoliticoPro

By Darius Dixon

Southern California needs all the help it can get to avoid rolling blackouts this summer, and it's turning to alternative energy to help bridge the region’s massive power gap.
The shutdown of Southern California Gas' Aliso Canyon natural gas facility after a huge leak means the region will be struggling to supply fuel for 17 power plants that generate as much as 9,800 megawatts of power — a shortfall that has sent the state’s regulators and utilities scrambling to secure electricity using everything from efficiency to batteries and renewables like solar and wind.
“I think this is a huge opportunity for distributed renewables, but also storage and load-shifting measures so that we don’t have to worry about this in the future," said Laura Wisland, a senior energy analyst based in Oakland, Calif., for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
And the scale of the problem is so large that the state is taking all comers.
“Aliso Canyon is so large a source of gas that it effectively takes away thousands of megawatts of generation. You’re not going replace that,” said Kit Konolige, a utility analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. “But obviously everything you can do — a couple hundred [megwatts] here and there — would be good.”
The gas-fired power plants fed by Aliso Canyon could supply enough to power nearly 10 million homes, and though the plants don't run at max capacity everyday, a technical report written by the state’s regulators and grid operator said most of it operates on hot days. And it warned there could be 14 days this summer where power supplies may not meet demand.
The same report suggested prioritizing energy efficiency projects, switching customers off gas-fired water heating systems and expanding efforts that call for cuts in consumption from air conditioning and large commercial users at critical times.
California’s utility regulator authorized $11 million for a campaign in the Los Angeles area to educate people about natural gas conservation and energy efficiency. FERC also approved a series of temporary changes to California's power market on Wednesday that were requested by the state's grid operator in the hopes of facilitating shipments of gas from distant sources.
Yet, officials are largely resigned to the fact that little can be done to keep the lights on during peak demand periods this summer without drastic cuts, and the supply problem could last into the winter as well.
"Longer term, we think we have options," Robert Weisenmiller, chairman of the California Energy Commission, the state's primary energy policy agency, told FERC leaders last month. "If we're looking at this summer, if we're looking at this winter, frankly, we don't have any options. That's the reality that we're facing."
On Tuesday, the California Public Utilities Commission authorized Southern California Edison to conduct an “expedited” selection of energy storage contracts. But those new batteries have until December 31 to go online.
Southern California’s energy providers have also stepped up their recruitment of demand response participants, who agree to ratchet down their power use during demand surges that threaten the grid.
"We're putting a lot of effort into expanding our demand response programs and we can call these programs as the [grid operator] needs them," Doug Parker, director of trading and market operations for Southern California Edison, told FERC leaders recently.
The utility is also pushing energy efficiency programs, he said, but those won't address the need for flexibility on the grid this summer.
"The nature of the issue this summer is balancing," he said. "It's not [that] load is too high. We can have critical reliability issues on a moderate day. ... Energy efficiency is really more just a blanket reduction of load in general. Very rarely, efficiency results in a strategic, targeted modulation of load, but demand response does."
And there's a lot of untapped potential in demand response, Wisland said. "And that’s something that California has been kind of weak on. I think this is a good opportunity to be a lot more aggressive on demand response than we have been in the past," she said.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power promised the CEC's Weisenmiller it could secure 30 more megawatts of demand response, a paltry number given the potential shortages. But, he said, "given the scale of the problem, I'll take every 30 megawatts I can get."
Konolige, the utility analyst, is skeptical that anything kicked off in the past couple of months can make a serious dent in the summertime needs. There could be a long tail to this situation, however.
“We’ve already seen — and I think the consensus is — that we’re gonna hold our breath and hope we get through the summer because realistically it’s not like there’s a lot of alternative stuff sitting out there just because we haven’t flipped the switch. It’s not available,” he said.
Wisland acknowledged that large new renewable energy systems aren't likely to come online in time for the summer, but getting homes and businesses to heat their water with solar energy rather than natural gas could go a long way.
The region's rising dependency on natural gas is raising larger questions for grid operations, and has triggered some soul-searching among those tasked with overseeing the reliability of the nation’s power network.
“I think there is a new branch in the fuel supply that we have not modeled and we have not had in our planning standards,” NERC chief Gerry Cauley told FERC commissioners this week. “I think there is an opportunity there with examples like Aliso Canyon. The fuel supply, [and] all of the interdependencies.”
And FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur said Wednesday she is also open to considering reliability standards for gas-electric coordination, and highlighted how she'd gotten pushback when she floated the question about whether the agency should look at reliability a few years ago.
“What I got overwhelmingly was, 'Oh, hell no, don't do that.' But we have had Aliso Canyon ... and we have to keep it in mind,” she said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/california-calls-on-new-fuels-and-negawatts-to-get-through-summer-117580

Return to headline | Return to top
Review: ‘Time to Choose’ Extols Renewable Energy to Combat Global Warming

Jun 2, 2016 | New York Times

By Stephen Holden

Charles Ferguson’s latest documentary, “Time to Choose,” is a sobering polemic about global warming that balances familiar predictions of planetary doom with a survey of innovations in renewable energy technology that hold out some hope for the future. Unless the carbon-based energy sources on which we have relied are replaced with solar and wind power (the movie doesn’t address nuclear energy), we are ruined.
Filmed on five continents, “Time to Choose” is divided into three chapters: coal and electricity, oil and gas, and land and food. Hopscotching from country to country, it begins in the United States with scenes of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and its destructive environmental effects. Much of the film’s power derives from devastating visual juxtapositions. The glamorous skyline of Shanghai at night is contrasted with daytime images of its smoggy harbor, crowded with ships carrying coal to fuel China’s insatiable energy appetite.
The fossil fuel industry and its advocates are seen as the enemy in a David and Goliath battle, and they are not giving up without a fight. The corporate leaders Mr. Ferguson invited to appear in the film all turned him down. Apocalyptic in their foreboding, the images of environmental despoliation — especially in China, Nigeria, Brazil and Indonesia — are more powerful than any words voiced by the film’s soft-spoken narrator, Oscar Isaac.
Facts and figures are spewed, and graphics are shown to illustrate the film’s life-or-death view of climate change. Images of the Niger Delta,polluted by international oil companies that have turned Nigeria into a corrupt petro-state, are, in a word, hellish.
Somewhat surprisingly, Mr. Ferguson’s two previous documentaries —“No End in Sight,” about the American occupation of Iraq, and “Inside Job,” about the global financial crisis of 2007-8 — were grimmer than “Time to Choose,” which spends roughly half its time examining the rapid growth of clean-energy technology. Its development and improvement have lowered production costs so dramatically that solar and wind power are becoming competitive with fossil fuels.
The biggest obstacle to change may be people’s assumptions that global warming is beyond human intervention.
In the language of Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, who works closely with Gov. Jerry Brown of California, one of the film’s heroes: “First people deny that they’re part of the problem. Then they deny there’s a solution. Then they tell you that if there is a solution, it’s too expensive.”
“Time to Choose” is not rated. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/movies/review-time-to-choose-extols-renewable-energy-to-combat-global-warming.html?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top
Renewable Energy is Now Inevitable, Energy Secretary Says, Citing Price

Jun 3, 2016 | Forbes

By Jeff McMahon

Climate change may have inspired the clean-energy revolution, but price has made it inevitable, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said Thursday, citing plunging prices in solar, wind and efficient innovations like LED lighting.
“The discussion about climate and climate science and mitigation and adaptation is very important, but the fact is that clean energy, the clean energy scaling, has an inevitability about it following Paris,” Moniz said at the close of the 7th Clean Energy Ministerial, a San Francisco gathering of 24 energy ministers.
“This is becoming inevitable. This is the direction we’re going.”
Michael Liebreich, the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has been calling the clean-energy transition inevitable for years, saying in 2013, for example, that “the inevitable conclusion is that at some point there will be a phase change, and clean energy will be the norm, not the exception.”
Liebreich said it again Thursday in San Francisco, and Moniz adopted it. But a few things had to happen before Moniz would acknowledge the “phase change.” The first was the Paris Agreement and climate conference last December that brought together an unprecedented international coalition of nations, innovators, and financiers. Secondly, the cost of clean energy and certain energy efficient products has fallen so fast that even the plummeting oil price has been unable to halt its growth.
Moniz reviewed a few indicators he had noticed at the Ministerial:
• Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) in the range of 3¢ to 4¢ per kilowatt hour for wind and solar energy, which have made renewables competitive. PPAs are the long-term sales contracts that set the price at which utilities buy power from energy producers. In its most recent analysis of the levelized cost of energy, last September, Lazard had wind starting at 3.2¢, solar at 4.3¢, natural gas at 5.2¢ and coal at 6.5¢. “I think we may become almost expectant about this,” Moniz said, “but if you think back a short time, this kind of development would have been viewed as completely remarkable—because it is.”\• Plunging prices for energy efficient products like LED lights. Moniz praised India’s success in reducing the price and increasing the efficiency of LEDs. The Indian government has distributed more than 50 million LEDs, using its purchasing power to drive down the price as it seeks to replace the country’s 770 million incandescent bulbs. Led lights cost about $35 just four years ago. In India, the price has fallen to about 80¢ for a 9-watt LED, Moniz said, “and the implications of that are pretty incredible.” Among those implications, low-energy LED bulbs demand less power from solar panels, extending the panels’ usefulness.
• Commitments by companies to power their operations using renewable energy, spurred in some cases by a campaign of the Clean Energy Ministerial led by Germany and Denmark.
“All 3 of those elements, I think, point to the way we are seeing a scaling in this clean energy realm,” Moniz said.
Just 15 minutes after the Clean Energy Ministerial adjourned, a meeting came to order of Mission Innovation, a coalition of 21 countries (and Bill Gates) that have pledged to double financing for energy research and development. The first panel at that meeting included an inventor, a venture capitalist, a utility-workers union representative and a utility executive—Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning.
Fanning extolled an all-of-the-above energy portfolio but acknowledged the “explosive growth” of renewables.
As that meeting too adjourned, Moniz said he was moving beyond Liebreich’s “inevitability” to a new phase uttered by Fanning:
“His words were ‘Can’t keep the waves off the beach,’” Moniz said. “I think that’s much better stated.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/06/03/renewable-energy-inevitable-energy-secretary-says-because-of-plunging-prices/#4ee2dc811ec9

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump's Parallel Universe of Energy

Jun 2, 2016 | Real Clear Energy

By Jay Hakes

Donald Trump’s highly promoted speech last Thursday on U.S. energy policy was the most anti-environment and most detached from the realities of energy markets of any ever delivered by a major presidential nominee in American history.
Fending off criticism in 1980 he was anti-environment, then candidate Ronald Reagan bragged about passing the nation’s strictest air pollution laws when Governor of California – an assertion that was factually correct. Until 2016, both parties, including the GOP of Reagan, have sometimes differed over the balance between energy and the environment but have generally agreed there had to be some balance. No longer.
Trump’s assault on American efforts to slow climate change could hardly have been more total. First, he wants to jettison the Clean Power Plan. He fails to realize that the Supreme Court in 2007 mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency deal with climate change. While the Court has yet to rule whether EPA’s current approach relies on correct legal reasoning, it will certainly require that the next president enforce something pretty much like it. Since the Obama administration has bent over backwards to protect coal-producing states in its plan, the irony is that any Trump success in scuttling the Clean Power Plan could well lead to rules even more stringent on coal.
Second, he pledges to ditch international agreements on climate, even though President Obama has been able to get India and China to pledge they too will act. Climate skeptics have long cited the slow responses from the Asian giants trying to raise their populations from poverty as reasons to slow American efforts, but now the skeptic-in-chief wants to scrap those hard-won agreements.
Trump’s tendency to blame all the ills of energy on environmental regulation produces some pretty tortured logic. Several analysts have already shown that Trump is incorrect in blaming the declines in the coal industry primarily on environmental protection. The evidence clearly shows that the attractive price of natural gas is a much bigger factor. If Trump really wants to help the coal industry, he’ll have to severely limit the fracking of natural gas, the big threat to coal.
Analysts have not been quite so observant that the major loss of coal mining jobs occurred well before the boom in American gas. When I entered the depths of a coal mine two decades ago, I found a couple of guys at computer consoles running giant trains that sheared and collected the coal from the cavern walls. Due to the expanded use of such robotic equipment, coal-mining jobs were disappearing even when the use of coal was growing. For Trump to fulfill his pledge to return mining employment to its historic peak, he’ll have to end environmental regulations on coal (bring back the sulfur and mercury!), sharply limit the domestic production of gas (sorry about that Texas!), and require miners to use traditional picks and shovels (be careful what you wish for!).
In Trump’s parallel universe of energy, President Obama has “done everything he can” to block the oil and gas industries, so they surely have suffered immensely during his time in office. And surely, customers must be paying more to fuel their cars. In the real world, Obama has presided over the biggest oil and gas boom in the nation’s history. We can expect some drop in domestic oil production in the near future, but this is due to overproduction and low prices, not regulation or the lack of places to drill. Another jolt of reality – on Friday, the Energy Information Administration announced that gasoline prices going into the Memorial Day weekend were the lowest since 2009.
In Trump’s world, Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are to blame for any drop in the number of rigs drilling for oil. American energy prices will no longer be affected by international markets. There will be no legal or judicial restraints on any of his proposed actions. Somehow a contribution to the Clinton Foundation probably led to Barrack Obama’s effort to try to keep us dependent on foreign oil. (Yes, Trump actually said that.) If all this is contained in what supposed to be Trump’s most serious speech on energy, we can wait with eager anticipation for his less serious efforts.
In his 2008 book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Thomas Friedman decried a growing mood of “dumb as we wanna be” in the American political dialog that stymied dealing with climate change and other national challenges. The primary question about Trump is not so much where he stands on the climate change spectrum as where he stands on the “dumb as we wanna be” spectrum.
Jay Hakes is an energy historian who has worked for three American Presidents on energy issues.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/06/02/trumps_parallel_universe_of_energy_109157.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Save the Climate and Protect America: Build an ‘Underground Energy Interstate’ Now

Jun 3, 2016 | Washington Post

By Alexander MacDonald

The two greatest threats the United States (and other nations) face could be solved by a single infrastructure project that could be done now with existing technology.
The threat the Democrats see is climate change. The threat the Republicans see is terrorism on a massive scale. There are weapons, called Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) nuclear bombs, currently in the hands of nations such as North Korea that could be in the hands of terrorists in 15 years. An EMP bomb placed high above Kansas City, Kan., could wipe out the U.S. electric system and much of our digital electronics.
A year without electricity (no food, no running water, no gasoline) could kill 100 million Americans or more. Even our friendly, life-giving sun could generate a solar storm that would have a similar devastating effect.
The core solution to both of these problems is a technology that was not fully ready five years ago but is ready now: an underground high voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission network. I have called it an “underground energy interstate.”
There are now commercial HVDC cables that can carry billions of watts of energy that could be buried beside interstate highways, along railroad rights-of-way or underneath existing electric transmission lines.
Underground transmission is better than overhead because it can be protected from EMP and solar storms and because the opposition to very large above-ground transmission is formidable and would likely stop progress for many years if not decades.
In a recent paper published in Nature Climate Change, my co-authors and I showed that an HVDC network would make large-scale use of wind and solar energy cheap and reliable enough that the United States could reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by up to 80 percent without an increase in electricity costs.
Similar studies show that this would also work for China and Europe and other areas of the world.
We have a short window of time to act — action to create large reductions in CO2 after 2030 is too late.
In installing the HVDC lines underground, the cables can be surrounded by a copper sheath and grounded every couple of miles. This and other protections would safeguard the underground network; the sheath adds too much weight for overhead lines, which, in addition, are more directly exposed to destructive intent.
The nature of alternating current (AC) dictates that power production and usage generally operate in small geographic areas of a few hundred miles across. I have studied weather my whole life and concluded about 10 years ago that the intermittency problem of wind and solar energy would go away if power could be moved in real time over an area big enough to encompass large weather energy scales. An area big enough that the wind is always blowingsomewhere is needed.
Our paper showed that an HVDC power network could provide reliable, low-cost, low-carbon electricity across a 48-state area. Creating such a market would turn America’s geographic size into an advantage, allowing production and delivery of electric power over a large market instead of the current patchwork of small monopolies.
In the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower led the creation of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, which was important to both the commercial and military well-being of the United States. A properly planned, multiply connected electric network can be designed to be highly robust; power produced anywhere over the contiguous United States can reach anywhere it is needed, moment by moment, using numerous different paths.
A protected underground HVDC network would be the core that allows power to get anywhere in the United States after an EMP attack or solar storm. Since the HVDC network is an overlay upon the existing AC transmission and distribution system, there would have to be efforts to harden selected parts of the existing electric system.
A nationally planned integrated HVDC transmission network should be built and maintained privately, in contrast to the publicly built U.S. interstate that took 35 years to complete. Individual segments could be open to private bidders, paid for by usage fees. The existing AC power distribution and retail systems, investor owned utilities, independent system operators and much of the regulatory structure could remain in place, making a smooth transition likely.
Our paper shows that the implementation cost, including new generation and transmission, would be low enough that it would not increase electricity costs to consumers. Investment at this level should be reasonably accommodated by private capital markets.
The threat of greenhouse gases to both the global ocean and atmosphere is real and will continue to ratchet up in coming years. A national electricity market is crucial to address this problem without causing economic harm. Nuclear plants could be placed far from cities to enhance safety and along with wind and solar generators would have continuous access to the full national market. Fossil fuel plants with CO2 sequestration could compete on a level playing field. A low carbon electric system would enable other energy segments, such as autos and space heating, to use electricity to decrease their carbon footprint. The market would ultimately decide on the best mix of generators as energy consumers and their technologies change through time.
Recent history shows that big things can happen, even in today’s legal environment.
Since the 1990s, an entire national network of fiber-optic cables was put in place. It used existing rights-of-way such as roads and had significant segments underground. The proposed primary HVDC network is also similar to the fiber-optic network in that it would not be funded by tax dollars — it is an infrastructure project that could start now, create millions of jobs, and leave the United States much less dependent on foreign oil.
There are HVDC cable manufacturing plants in the United States, and much of the project would be done by local contractors across the country — similar in scope to the building of the interstate highway system. The need to coordinate an integrated network design and sufficient legal authority for fast track implementation (i.e., built by 2030) requires robust enabling legislation.
Since solar and security threats, weather scales and the benefits of large markets are similar the world over, it is likely that such a system would work in Europe, China, India and other areas. The United States could lead the world in electric-system transformation, creating increased energy self-sufficiency, stabilizing long-term energy cost and supply, and lessening the likelihood of catastrophic power disruptions. The security, environmental, and economic primacy of those countries that take action soon will be enhanced for decades.
Alexander MacDonald recently retired as director of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory. He was president of the American Meteorological Society in 2015. He is currently director of Numerical Weather Prediction at Spire Global.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/02/save-the-climate-and-protect-america-build-an-underground-energy-interstate-now/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

Rail Expansion Projects Spark Tensions

Jun 3, 2016 | Laura Stevens and Erica E. Phillips

By Wall Street Journal

The fate of BNSF Railway Co.’s new terminal near the Port of Los Angeles is now in jeopardy even though it has been in development for 10 years at a cost of more than $50 million and would provide badly needed rail capacity.
In March, a judge halted the railroad’s plans, ruling its environmental review wasn’t properly done. Opponents of the project, which include nearby businesses, neighbors, air-quality regulators and the City of Long Beach, had dug in their heels over the expected increase in truck traffic, pollution and noise.
BNSF is now deciding whether to appeal, negotiate, or abandon the effort.
The project was already costly, and “it now appears as though it has become even more expensive,” said Stevan Bobb, the railroad’s chief marketing officer. With a price tag of $500 million, “the real spending was yet to come.”
Railroad expansion plans nationwide are running afoul of communities and environmental activists with increasing frequency. Permitting disputes are becoming prevalent, given the high stakes at some of the nation’s biggest ports where changes within the past year in industries such as crude-by-rail and world-wide shipping are increasing the need for rail capacity.
Federal regulators have flagged an 11-mile rail extension at Port Canaveral, Fla., as potentially “not reasonable or feasible.” In Maryland, officials last year put on hold an air-permit application for a crude-by-rail terminal in Baltimore pending more information on the developer. In Oakland, a new port-rail terminal already under construction is now facing opposition after nearby residents balked at its use for transporting coal to Asia.
Within the next five years, U.S. seaports and their private-sector partners estimate spending $155 billion on expansions and improvements—including on-dock rail infrastructure—to accommodate large ships.
In the last three years, as the world’s biggest ocean-shipping companies formed alliances to operate more efficiently they also began pooling their container cargo, sending it on bigger Post-Panamax ships, which will fit through the newly expanded Panama Canal.
Now when a ship arrives in Los Angeles, for instance, it is carrying larger loads, often double that of a smaller ship. From the docks, much of that cargo is trucked to a rail terminal.
As larger loads arrive, many in the industry say rail capacity needs to be increased to keep up with the inflow of containers. A lack of capacity can grind port operations to a halt as containers stack up and are unable to leave. Rail capacity is already tight at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with container volumes projected to grow 25% by 2020, and more than double by 2035. Railroads say they must get ahead of the growth.
BNSF and Union Pacific Corp. are the only two major railroads serving the Southern California ports. But both have run into trouble with their expansion plans. Currently, the closest BNSF terminal to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is roughly 25 miles away. Its new terminal would be 4 miles away from the ports. Meanwhile, Union Pacific has been locked in what it calls “environmental review purgatory” at the ports for nearly a decade as it tries to double capacity to handle 1.5 million containers annually.
Without rail, ports won’t be able to keep up and ships will go elsewhere, which “would have serious social and political as well as economic consequences for the region,” says global-trade economist Jock O’Connell.
The Panama Canal expansion, expected to bring bigger ships and more business for U.S. East Coast ports that are ready for them, is scheduled for completion this month. The Port of Baltimore is one of only a handful of East Coast ports with cranes and a deep-enough harbor to unload Post-Panamax ships carrying around 14,000 containers, saysJames J. White, executive director of the Maryland Port Authority.
But Baltimore doesn’t have enough rail capacity to handle the cargo volume those ships can bring, despite two decades of effort. “We’re probably the only major port from Florida to Maine that doesn’t have double-stack capability,” Mr. White said, referring to the ability to stack one container on top of another on rail.
CSX Corp. tried to build a $90 million rail terminal near the Port of Baltimore, a process that ended in 2014 after residents balked at expected noise and traffic. Now, the railroad and port are planning a $450 million project to lower the floor of an existing tunnel to accommodate stacked rail, the railroad said.
Louis Renjel, CSX vice president of strategic infrastructure, said public feedback is important and can help shape plans, but “it’s not uncommon for it to take twice as long to get the permit as it takes to actually construct a major infrastructure project.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rail-expansion-projects-spark-tensions-1464946201

Return to headline | Return to top
FERC OKs Elba Island LNG Export Terminal, Pipeline Project

Jun 2, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Joe Fisher

FERC has approved Kinder Morgan Inc.'s (KMI) plan to add liquefaction and export capability to the existing Elba Island LNG Terminal near Savannah, GA, as well as make modifications to existing pipelines in support of the project.
KMI's Elba Liquefaction Co. LLC and Southern LNG Co. LLC received authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the $2 billion Elba Liquefaction Project [CP14-103]. The first of 10 liquefaction units is expected to be placed in service in the second quarter of 2018, with the remaining nine units coming online before the end of 2018.
The project, which is supported by a 20-year contract with Royal Dutch Shell plc, received a favorable environmental review earlier this year (see Daily GPI,Feb. 8). When the liquefaction project is complete, the terminal will have the capability to both export and import liquefied natural gas (LNG). The liquefaction project is expected to have a total capacity of 2.5 million tonnes per year of LNG for export.
Additionally, Elba Express Co. LLC (EEC) and Southern Natural Gas Co. LLC (SNG) received FERC certificates for the EEC Modification Project [C14-115] and SNG Zone 3 Expansion Project [CP14-493], respectively. Together, these projects would cost about $306 million and include additional compression and related work for north-to-south capacity expansions on Elba Express Pipeline that will supply additional gas to industrials and utilities in Georgia and Florida and to Elba Island for liquefaction.
Facilities for these pipeline projects are expected to be placed in service late in the fourth quarter of this year.
The SNG Zone 3 project would add about 235 Bcf/d of firm capacity in Rate Zone 3 of the existing pipeline system. Zone 3 encompasses nearly all of Southern's system in Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Florida. Southern told FERC the project would provide seamless transportation from interconnections with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC (Transco) and Elba Express to the shippers' delivery points in Southern's Zone 3. The Zone 3 Expansion Project is supported by precedent agreements for firm service with 10 new and existing customers for all the capacity to be created.
To provide incremental service to Zone 3 customers, Southern has entered into a precedent agreement with affiliate Elba Express for 235 Bcf/d of firm capacity. The SNG Zone 3 project is dependent upon the EEC Modification Project. EEC Modification is fully subscribed, and will give shippers access to new markets and supplies, FERC said. "Further, the project will facilitate the bidirectional flow of natural gas on the Elba Express Pipeline and thus enhance flexibility and reliability for new and existing customers."
In 2012, the Elba Liquefaction Project received authorization from the U.S. Department of Energy to export to free trade agreement (FTA) countries. An application to export to non-FTA countries is pending but is not required for the project to proceed, KMI said.
Last year KMI bought Shell's equity interest in Elba Liquefaction Co. (see Daily GPI, July 16, 2015); however, earlier this year KMI executives said they were in talks to sell a stake in the
Elba project (see Daily GPI, Jan. 28). On Thursday a KMI spokesman said there was no update on that.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106622-ferc-oks-elba-island-lng-export-terminal-pipeline-project

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

House Set to Vote Next Week on Olson's Ozone Delay Bill

Jun 3, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Patrick Ambrosio

Legislation that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards by eight years will be on the House's floor agenda when it returns from the Memorial Day recess the week of June 6, according to the bill's sponsor.
“Pleased my bill [H.R. 4775] will be voted on next week bringing needed balance to states dealing [with] air quality issues,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) said in a June 2 tweet.
H.R. 4775 would move the deadline for states to make recommendations for areas that don't attain the 70 parts per billion ozone standards—one of the first steps in implementing a national ambient air quality standard—from October 2016 until October 2024.
The bill also would make several revisions to the Environmental Protection Agency's process for reviewing and revising national air standards for ozone, particulate matter and other pollutants, including a provision that would allow the agency to consider technological feasibility in its decision on where to set those standards.
The bill was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May over the objection of Democratic members of the panel. While Olson has described his bill as making necessary revisions to the Clean Air Act, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) called H.R. 4775 “an attack that strikes at the heart” of that law (97 DEN A-4, 5/19/16).

The House Rules Committee said it will likely meet sometime during the week of June 6 to consider a rule that may provide a structured amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4775. The committee set a June 6 deadline for members to submit amendments for consideration.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90892428&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90892428&jd=90892428

Return to headline | Return to top
High Court's CWA 'Jurisdiction' Ruling Spurs Debate on JD Policy Changes

Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA

By David LaRoss

Attorneys are debating how the Obama administration might respond to the Supreme Court's ruling that allows pre-enforcement suits over Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional determinations (JDs), with some predicting agencies will revise JD policies to avoid such suits while others say such a move would be at odds with the court's ruling.
The justices' unanimous May 31 decision in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. holds that the recipient of a JD, which gives regulators' findings on whether property contains waters subject to CWA permit mandates and other limits, may immediately sue to contest its findings. Both the Corps and EPA issue JDs, so the ruling is expected to subject future findings issued by both agencies to judicial review in some cases.
Court watchers say the opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, is at least partly based on a written agreement between EPA and the Corps requiring them to adhere to the findings of a JD, and it is uncertain how much of his ruling would stand if the agreement is revised -- which administration officials have already said is possible.
“It's a little bit unclear” how much of the Hawkes decision relies on the interagency memorandum of agreement (MOA), says one attorney who worked on an amicus brief supporting the JD challengers. “It's not totally clear to me how central that is to the decision” and how a change to the MOA and JD policies might affect that.
However, other court watchers say that if the agencies try to dodge the impact of the Hawkes decision by amending the JD policy to avoid subjecting the findings to litigation, they risk a backlash from at least four justices who joined concurring opinions that go beyond the basis Roberts set out in his decision.
The concurring opinions include one by Justice Anthony Kennedy saying JDs are needed to provide a measure of certainty on the CWA's “ominous reach.”
“While I don't think there's any doubt that the agencies can go back and revisit the MOA . . . they are not going to do that because it would be crazy after three justices of the Supreme Court have told you that the statute and your rules are unconstitutionally vague and you need some kind of particularized response like this to tell property owners what they mean,” says a second attorney involved with an amicus brief in the case.
Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court that the 2012 EPA-Corps MOA proves a JD is “final agency action” subject to court challenge because it requires the agencies to follow a JD's conclusions in all respects, including enforcement actions and other lawsuits for at least five years after its completion.
Thus, a determination that a property includes no jurisdictional waters grants “safe harbor” from federal CWA enforcement, while a determination that does find jurisdictional waters formally denies the property owner that safe harbor, Roberts continued.
But Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart told the justices at March 30 oral argument that if the high court were to base a ruling on the MOA, EPA and the Corps could “fix” the situation by crafting a new agreement with different terms, or even limiting the use of JDs -- potentially undermining the effectiveness of the ruling.
Policy Changes
With the Supreme Court's decision now final, some observers now expect the Obama administration to take the actions Stewart hinted at, especially scaling back the use of JDs to minimize the opportunity for stakeholders to sue.
“If I ran the Corps, and given a time of declining agency budgets, I would at the very least strongly consider eliminating the JD process” in response to the Hawkes ruling, attorney Seth Jaffe wrote in a May 31 post at the Law and Environment blog.
A third attorney who worked on Hawkes as an amicus told Inside EPA, “I think we may see the Corps slow-walk or even decline to issue approved JDs.”
However, other observers say such a move could backfire on the agencies, thanks to concurring opinions by Justices Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
For example, Ginsburg said the MOA should not have been part of the decision at all and JDs are final action subject to challenge without it, suggesting she would rule against any policy that tried to protect JDs from judicial review.
Kennedy -- joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas -- says JDs “have a significant bearing on whether the Clean Water Act comports with due process.”
Kennedy added that if EPA and the Corps remove JDs as a definitive statement on regulators' view of CWA jurisdiction in an attempt to shield the findings from judicial review, “the Act's ominous reach would again be unchecked by the limited relief the Court allows today.”
The second amicus attorney says that language is “a clear warning” to the White House that it should not try to dodge judicial review of JDs by reworking the MOA or scaling back the program.
“I don't think the agencies are going to back off at this point, despite Malcolm's threats, and I think the concurrence was deliberately aimed at that threat,” the attorney says.
'Central' Agreement
Ginsburg's concurrence also shows division among the justices over how deeply rooted Roberts' majority opinion is in the interagency MOA. She says the court should not have considered the agreement at all and only joins Roberts' decision “save for its reliance upon the Memorandum of Agreement.”
However, Justice Elena Kagan says in her own concurrence that she both agrees fully with the Roberts opinion and believes the MOA is “central” to holding JDs to be final action -- implying that in her view there is no part of the majority ruling that does not rely on that agreement.
The second amicus attorney says Ginsburg and Kennedy's opinions show a desire by at least four members of the high court to broaden the test for final action, focusing on the practical effects of an agency's actions rather than whether those effects are considered “legal obligations” as the high court's prior rulings have required.
It is likely that future suits invoking Hawkes will explore the limits of that test, the source continues. “Ginsburg is asking if the actions on the ground have some impact on people's legal rights and abilities. That suggests to me that the ruling here really has nothing to do with the MOU and could extend to other determinations that are less formal than approved JDs. We'll have to revisit that in future litigation.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/high-courts-cwa-jurisdiction-ruling-spurs-debate-jd-policy-changes

Return to headline | Return to top
Environmentalists Sue EPA Over Air Monitoring Rule Technical Revisions

Jun 2, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

Environmentalists are suing EPA over the agency's technical changes to its air quality monitoring requirements, after advocates faulted as inadequate public comment provisions in the proposed version of the rule.
In a lawsuit filed May 27 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, law firm Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club asks the court to review EPA's final rule published in the Federal Register March 28 and titled “Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other Requirements.”
EPA said the rule clarifies monitoring requirements, including quality assurance and other provisions, and will “help reduce the compliance burden of monitoring agencies operating ambient monitoring networks.”
The rule makes a series of technical changes to the criteria for states to consider when setting up air monitoring networks to measure Clean Air Act compliance with rules such as the agency's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and also includes provisions designed to ensure public input on states' monitoring plans.
However, Sierra Club and the American Lung Association (ALA) in Nov. 10, 2014, joint comments on the proposed version of the rule raised concerns that EPA did not go far enough with its public comment provisions.
“Requiring a public comment opportunity at the state level is plainly warranted, but EPA’s proposal does not go far enough ensure the public comment opportunity is meaningful or sufficient to comply with the Clean Air Act. To be meaningful, the comment opportunity must be preceded by adequate public notice, and must provide for adequate time after that notice for preparation and submission of comments. Merely posting a plan on the state’s web site along with a statement that public comment will be accepted is plainly not enough,” the groups said.
The rule requires that state monitoring plans be made available to the public 30 days before being sent to EPA for approval, but the groups said this is insufficient as it does not specify how long the public comment period should be. “Requiring adequate notice and comment opportunity is not merely good policy: It is required by the Act and existing EPA rules,” they wrote.
EPA's Response
EPA in the final rule rejects such criticism, however, saying, “Requiring at least 30 days of public participation and consideration of significant comments is consistent with the [air law] and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and, at the same time, affords monitoring agencies with the flexibility and discretion to provide for additional time and public participation procedures.”
Further, “EPA disagrees that state action on an annual monitoring network plan triggers the same public participation requirements applicable” to the adoption and revision of state implementation plans, which are blueprints outlining how states will comply with the NAAQS and other air law mandates.
Sierra Club and ALA in their comments also took issue with EPA regional administrators' roles on reviewing air monitoring plans, as defined in the proposal. “The proposal would allow the Regional Administrator to partially approve a monitoring plan and specify deficiencies to be corrected, but the proposal sets no time frame for correction of the deficiencies. Such an approach is unlawful and arbitrary. EPA has no authority to allow states to maintain deficient monitoring plans for an indefinite period,” they wrote.
They further questioned the basis for some technical monitoring changes EPA is making, such as its limitation of data certification requirements to a smaller range of “criteria” air pollutants subject to NAAQS, and not air toxics.
In the final version of the rule, however, EPA largely rejected the various concerns, saying, “EPA does not believe that the lack of a regulatory schedule for correcting deficiencies is unlawful or that it would be appropriate to establish one without having solicited comment on the topic in the proposal. Accordingly, no additional action was taken within the context of this rulemaking.”
On data certification, EPA says, “the proposed changes were made to protect the viability of the process in the face of a rapidly increasing volume of data subject to certification requirements versus the available resources at the monitoring agency and EPA level needed to meet the requirements and deadline. We continue to believe that the data certification process adds the greatest degree of value when focused on criteria pollutants.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-sue-epa-over-air-monitoring-rule-technical-revisions

Return to headline | Return to top
N.Y. AG Rips GOP Attempts to View Communications with Greens

Jun 3, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Reilly

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has "respectfully" declined a request by Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to provide documents related to climate change.
In a letter provided to E&ENews PM, the Democratic attorney general told the committee's GOP leader that the request for four years' worth of communications with other state attorneys general and environmental groups about the issue "raises serious constitutional concerns."
The request by Republicans "is premised on a series of incorrect statements and assumptions regarding the actions" of the New York attorney general, Leslie Dubeck, a counsel for Schneiderman, wrote in the May 26 letter.
Other recipients of the GOP letter have also declined to respond (E&ENews PM, June 1).
In March, Schneiderman led a coalition of 17 state attorneys general in announcing a multistate effort to tackle climate change and hold companies accountable for their statements related to climate risks.
Schneiderman has been investigating Exxon Mobil Corp. over allegations that, in the past, the company misled the public and shareholders about climate risks. The attorneys general of California, Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands have also launched their own investigations of the oil and gas giant.
A previous investigation by Schneiderman of Peabody Energy Corp. found that the company had made false and misleading comments about climate change. Peabody did not admit any wrongdoing but agreed to disclose financial risks due to climate change laws and regulations in future filings (Greenwire, Nov. 9, 2015).
In their May 18 letter requesting documents, Republicans on the Science, Space and Technology Committee accused Schneiderman and other state attorneys general of behind-the-scenes coordination with environmentalists in efforts to hold companies legally accountable for climate risks.
Led by Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas, they demanded that state attorneys general and environmental groups furnish by yesterday four years' worth of communications on climate change.
"Your office -- funded with taxpayer dollars -- is using legal actions and investigative tactics taken in close coordination with certain special interest groups and trial attorneys [that] may rise to the level of an abuse of prosecutorial discretion," the GOP members wrote to Schneiderman.
Schneiderman's response says that the GOP request is premised on "unfounded claims" about his motives. Through his counsel, Schneiderman responded that there is no basis for the Republicans' assertion that he and other attorneys general are trying to deprive individuals and groups who do not believe in climate change of First Amendment rights.
"Our investigation seeks to ensure that investors and consumers were and are provided with complete and accurate information that is indispensable to the just and effective functioning of our free market," the Schneiderman letter says.
Schneiderman also argued that Congress doesn't have the authority to demand documents and communications about the Exxon Mobil investigation because it's an exercise of state police powers.
The request from the House Science panel is unprecedented, his response says.
"We are not aware of any precedent supporting a congressional investigation or oversight of a state attorney general, as contemplated by the letter," Dubeck wrote.
Schneiderman today pledged to keep working to address climate change.
"With gridlock and dysfunction gripping Washington, it is up to the states to lead on the generation-defining issue of climate change," he said via a spokesman. "We stand ready to defend the next president's climate change agenda and vow to fight any efforts to roll back the meaningful progress we've made over the past eight years."
Separately, environmentalists today aimed to tie Republican attorneys general who are against the Obama administration's climate policies to fossil fuel money.
A report released by Americans United for Change and the League of Conservation Voters found that Republican attorneys general who are fighting U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan in court have received $2.9 million from the oil and gas industry. The Republican Attorneys General Association has received an additional $1.9 million from the industry since January 2014, the report found.
The groups also released emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showing that Republican attorneys general communicated with industry interests about the legality of the Clean Power Plan.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/02/stories/1060038225

Return to headline | Return to top
Alaska’s Huge Climate Mystery — And its Global Consequences

Jun 3, 2016 | Washington Post

By Chris Mooney

In recent years, climate scientists have grown increasingly concerned about a carbon problem in the far north.
The fear is that with the higher latitudes of the planet warming extremely rapidly, that heat itself, and some of its consequences — such as raging wildfires in northern forests — could unleash a climate disaster. Perennially frozen northern soils, known as permafrost, contain enormous amounts of carbon because the slow and cold chemistry of the Arctic makes them the repository of thousands of years of frozen plant remains. Warming could cause this plant matter to break down, be decomposed by bacteria and emit ancient carbon to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and methane.
And the amounts of carbon involved are enormous — one common estimate is that there’s more than twice as much carbon stored in northern permafrost as there is currently wafting about the planet’s atmosphere.
Now, though, a major and surprising new report from the U.S. Geological Survey would appear to undercut, significantly, this worry, at least for one key northern region: the U.S. state of Alaska. In the process, the document raises deep questions about what the true carbon consequences of Alaska’s ongoing warming will be — a mystery whose solution may also implicate still greater carbon stores across Arctic regions in Canada and Siberia.
Alaska alone, though, is massive enough. While it makes up 18 percent of the United States’ total area, the state stores 53 percent of all of the nation’s carbon, much of it in permafrost below the ground, the USGS study reports. Indeed, it adds that wildfires in Alaska give off more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere annually than all fires in the Lower 48 states.
Clearly, any change to this carbon in one direction — shifting it from the land to the atmosphere — would be disastrous. But is that happening?
To better understand the issues at stake here, it may help to have a quick refresher on some concepts that climate scientists live and breathe but that the rest of us do not. Researchers say that a particular region — in this case, Alaska — is a carbon “sink” if its lands, plants, waters and so on are pulling more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than they are putting into it. And conversely, researchers say that an area is a carbon “source” if the net result of everything happening there, across often very diverse types of landscapes and ecosystems, leads to more carbon ending up in the atmosphere.
Here’s where the USGS report comes in — and what’s new about it. Attempting to quantify the vast amounts of carbon stored in Alaska’s trees, waters and soils, the study finds that Alaska is a net carbon repository, or sink. The state is subtracting a relatively small amount of carbon from the atmosphere at the moment, about 3.7 million metric tons per year.
That’s good news for both the United States and the planet. But it’s just the beginning. The report also finds — perhaps more controversially — that heading out to the year 2100, the state of Alaska as a whole should wind up pulling even more carbon back out of the atmosphere than it is now, rather than expelling more of it there. In other words, the sink should strengthen.
The reason is that while Alaska’s boreal forest region is expected to see bigger and more intense wildfires that send up large amounts of carbon stored in trees and soils — and while permafrost will certainly degrade to some extent — other parts of Alaska are simultaneously expected to green up. There will be more carbon dioxide in the air (plants dig it), and less really cold weather, among other factors, leading to a phenomenon that has often been dubbed “Arctic greening.”
“The simulations show that the tundra increases in biomass, and carbon storage. And that’s both in northern and western Alaska,” said David McGuire, a U.S. Geological Survey researcher who edited the extensive report, which contains contributions from multiple scientists, along with the USGS’s Zhiliang Zhu.
For those who have been following the climate debate closely, it’s an unexpected conclusion — and one that climate change skeptics and doubters might trumpet as a classic case of an alarmist climate scenario not coming to pass after all. If you dig down into the fine print, though, there remain many uncertainties — and many continuing reasons for concern about what will happen to stored carbon in Alaska and across the frozen north.
“What I don’t want people to think is, everything’s all rosy,” McGuire said. “We’re not saying that.”
First of all, McGuire and Zhu noted in an interview, the study necessarily omitted some carbon sources that are not well understood, such as methane emissions from lakes. Their inclusion could, conceivably, tip the balance back into one where Alaska is adding carbon to the atmosphere, at least when it comes to assessing the state’s carbon balance in the present.
Or as the study puts it: “It is important to recognize that [methane] emissions from lakes have not been considered in this assessment, and it is likely that Alaska would be a source of greenhouse gases under all climate simulations if these emissions were considered in the assessment.”
Similarly, even though Alaska is storing carbon as a whole, some of the carbon that goes up into the atmosphere does so in the form of methane, a particularly powerful greenhouse gas. And there’s enough methane coming from wetlands in Alaska that it causes a modest net warming effect on the atmosphere anyway, McGuire and Zhu said. Thus, paradoxically, in this case a carbon sink can cause the planet to warm up slightly.
Some other Alaska and permafrost researchers, not involved in the current study, also said that there remain reasons for concern here.
“It’s important to remember that these models are predicting both losses of soil carbon as well as new plant uptake and so it’s going to be critical to assess whether stimulated plant uptake by rising CO2 and the other factors really will compensate for soil carbon losses, because that’s the process that offsets emissions to the atmosphere,” said Ted Schuur, a permafrost researcher at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. “This is the same question in global scale models too — and the jury is still out whether plant stimulation by rising CO2 will maintain over this century.”
“In my view, nobody really has a great understanding of what will happen to permafrost carbon as permafrost thaws over the coming century,” added Max Holmes, a permafrost researcher at the Woods Hole Research Center. “What is clear, however, is that the amount of carbon in permafrost in the Arctic and boreal region dwarfs the amount of carbon in vegetation.”
Thus, Holmes said that he remains concerned that permafrost thaw could outpunch plant growth from a carbon perspective. “I think it would be a huge mistake for policymakers to bank on the Arctic mitigating global warming over the coming century — the opposite still seems more likely to me,” he added.
Indeed, an expert assessment of the views of a large number of Arctic researchers recently found they tend toward the belief that “Arctic and boreal biomass should not be counted on to offset permafrost carbon release and… that the permafrost region will become a carbon source to the atmosphere by 2100 regardless of warming scenario.” Clearly, this tug of war — between permafrost pouring carbon into the atmosphere and new plant growth pulling it back again — will be a crucial determinant of how the Arctic shapes our planetary future.
Thus, the new U.S. Geological Survey study certainly does present surprisingly good news for Alaska’s role in climate change — but it also raises a lot of questions, as its authors fully admit.
“This is big progress that we’ve made in terms of getting this assessment out, but it shouldn’t be the last word on the Alaska problem,” McGuire said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/03/alaskas-huge-climate-mystery-and-its-global-consequences/

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested