Preview Newsletter

PM ACC 6/15/2016

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Global Growth Forecasts Downgraded but Auto Opportunities Remain
Jun 15, 2016 | ICIS
By Mark Victory

We’ve been warning in the global automotive report for some time now of the dangers of low labour participation rates in the US and elsewhere, as well as the current precariousness of global macroeconomic conditions.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Eminent Domain, Chevron Deference and Paul Ryan’s Other Dilemma
Jun 15, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem

House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plan to revamp the federal regulatory state had the unmistakable whiff of 1994’s Contract With America. But not every plan to curtail bureaucrats yields a clean victory for business.
Will New Chemical Regulations Keep Toxics off Our Plates?
Jun 15, 2016 | Civil Eats
By Elizabeth Grossman

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the chemicals that get added to our food and sprayed on or around it while it’s growing. But science shows that even if we removed the pesticides and additives, we’re all eating and drinking a number of other chemicals...
Is This New Reform a Toxic Waste?
Jun 15, 2016 | OtherWords
By Jill Richardson

There should’ve been an overhaul in how we regulate toxic chemicals years ago. Like when the 2010 President’s Cancer Panel report concluded that babies are now born “pre-polluted.” Or when it came to light that a common flame retardant used in household items actually...
IL Watchdog: New Toxics Rules Bad For States
Jun 15, 2016 | Progress Illinois

One step forward, two steps back. That's how some Illinois environmentalists describe new federal rules on toxic substances that could limit the state's own protections.
Pesticide Industry Critical of Endocrine Disruptors Criteria
Jun 15, 2016 | EurActiv
By Sarantis Michalopoulos

The pesticide industry is “extremely disappointed” with the European Commission’s proposal to identify endocrine disruptors that was presented on Wednesday (15 June).
ECPA "Disappointed" with EC Proposals
Jun 15, 2016 | Euro Fruit
By Carl Collen

The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) has expressed its disappointment with the European Commission’s long awaited proposal setting out criteria for endocrine disruptors.
Europe Walks Tightrope With Proposal for Chemicals in Pesticides
Jun 15, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Jonathan Stearns

he European Commission proposed more detailed regulation of hormone-damaging chemicals in pesticides, leaving both the industry and environmentalists crying foul.
PFCs in Drinking Water Link to Human Blood Levels
Jun 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies

Californian researchers have found a possible link between blood levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), in the general population, and concentrations in drinking water.
In Some Zip Codes, 1 in 7 Children Suffer from Dangerously High Blood Lead levels
Jun 15, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis

In one city after another, the tests showed startling numbers of children with unsafe blood lead levels: Poughkeepsie and Syracuse and Buffalo. Erie and Reading. Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Echa to Evaluate Rubber Filling Risk in Synthetic Turf
Jun 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch

The European Commission has asked Echa to evaluate the potential risks to human health of substances in rubber granules, used as infill in synthetic turf in sports grounds.

Energy News

Senate Dems: Chamber Board Opposes Own Lobbying
Jun 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is out of step with its own board of directors on its lobbying positions in two key areas, according to a new report from Senate Democrats.
Elevated Cancer Risks Surround Oil and Gas Drilling -- Report
Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Umair Irfan

More than 200 counties across 21 states face elevated cancer risks from toxic emissions stemming from oil and gas production in the United States, according to a new report from the Clean Air Task Force.
Western Govs Stress States-Rights For ESA, Say Directional Pad Drilling, Fracking Limit Impact
Jun 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec

Among seven resolutions passed on Tuesday, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) adopted strong states-rights stances in two of them, regarding the need for statutory changes in the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and future policies aimed at energy use...
A Rare Tour of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Jun 15, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid

The world’s largest emergency stockpile of crude oil is quickly falling apart. The stockpile’s infrastructure, which currently stores 695.1 million barrels at four sites along the US Gulf Coast, is nearing the end of its design life and in need of a roughly $2 billion makeover...
Divestment a Flawed Decision for Endowments, Pensions
Jun 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jeff Eshelman

Activists have gone to new lengths this year to promote fossil fuel divestment, occupying New York campus libraries and holding protests at the offices of major pension funds.
SAB Weighs Advising EPA to Better Quantify Fracking Study Conclusion
Jun 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA's full Science Advisory Board (SAB) is weighing how the agency could better quantify its controversial draft study that finds no widespread, systemic adverse impacts to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing, though the SAB is for now opting against the rare step...

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

Transportation News

Freight Railroads Are Braking for Regulatory Creep
Jun 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Edward R. Hamberger

Economic forecasters are projecting the slowest expansion in four years, slashing expectations for the year to only 1.8% in overall GDP growth, according to a new surveyfrom the National Association for Business Economics. Thus continues the weakest recovery...
Oil Train Tank Cars Are Getting Safer but What About the Tracks?
Jun 15, 2016 | KUOW News & Information
By Tony Schick

Just after noon on June 3, the two-man Union Pacific crew hauling 96 cars of Tacoma-bound crude oil felt a tug on the train as they passed through the Columbia River Gorge.

Environment News

House Appropriators Clear $32 Billion Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jun 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Alex Guillen and Annie Snider

The House Appropriations Committee today approved its $32 billion Interior-EPA spending bill for 2017, though it remains unclear whether the package will get to the floor given broader fights over funding and a ticking clock.
Why Won't Clinton Support a Carbon Tax? Trump
Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton isn't talking about one of the biggest policies on climate change, reinforcing what some say is a division among Democrats about how to achieve great cuts to carbon dioxide emissions...
Clock Ticking on Ambitious N.Y. Climate Bill
Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball

An ambitious climate bill that passed New York's Assembly earlier this month is running out of time to become law.
Judge Orders EPA to Prepare 'Good Neighbor' Plan for Texas
Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly

U.S. EPA must impose a federal air pollution implementation plan on Texas to meet a "good neighbor" requirement to limit releases of fine particulates that cross state lines, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
This Gas Leak Was So Massive That NASA Saw It from Space
Jun 15, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney

The massive Aliso Canyon methane gas leak of late last year was already one for the record books.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Global Growth Forecasts Downgraded but Auto Opportunities Remain

Jun 15, 2016 | ICIS

By Mark Victory

We’ve been warning in the global automotive report for some time now of the dangers of low labour participation rates in the US and elsewhere, as well as the current precariousness of global macroeconomic conditions.

This view was given further weight at the beginning of June by the OECD lowering its global GDP growth forecast. This should be of concern to global automotive markets since car sales are inexorably linked to GDP and disposable income - if real-term income is falling you’re less likely to make discretionary large purchases such as a new car and more likely to prolong the life of your existing vehicle.

On 7 June, the World Bank also revised down its 2016 global growth forecast to 2.4% from 2.9% projected in January, which it attributed to sluggish growth in advanced economies, low commodity prices, weak global trade and diminishing capital flows.
According to the World Bank, 40% of the downward revision was the direct result of the failure of commodity-exporting emerging market and developing economies to adapt to the low price of crude oil and other key commodities.

Furthermore, global automotive sales remain driven by China stimulus, as John Richardson discusses in detail in this month’s global automotive report.

Nevertheless, there remain opportunities for petrochemical players, not least from the expanding usage of plastics as a substitute for metals.

Plastics are continuing to substitute metals in automobiles, to the point where the chassis may be among the few components of a vehicle made of the material, an executive with US-based styrenics and synthetic-rubber producer Trinseo said on Tuesday 7 June.

Automobile producers are eager to replace heavier metal components with those made of plastics to lighten the weight of their vehicles, in an attempt to meet stricter emission standards.

In 1960, an automobile had an average of 40lb (18kg) of plastics, mainly in knobs and handles, said Kevin Swift, chief economist of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Now, the average vehicle has 350lb of plastics.

Material substitution is helping automakers remove several pounds of weight from their vehicles, said Martin Pugh, chief operating officer for Trinseo. He made his comments on the sidelines of the ACC's annual meeting.
Asian automotive-linked petrochemical markets broadly expect prices to fall in June – with Asia the most bearish of all the major regional markets on June prices, as shown by the quick reference table on market sentiment below.  Nevertheless, the downwards sentiment is linked to traditional trading patterns which sees weak demand during the Ramadan fasting period, rather than wider macroeconomic malaise.
Asia is already the region with the lowest ICIS Basket of Automotive Petrochemicals (IBAP), and the firmer downward sentiment on prices in Asia compared with the rest of the world suggests that this gap could widen further.
Coupled with the lower price of steel in Asia, as highlighted in Macquarie Wealth Management’s May 2016  Commodities Compendium and discussed further in the Asia macroeconomics section of this report, the lower IBAP suggests that Asia has a significantly lower automotive production cost basis than other regions in the world. Petrochemicals make up more than one third of the raw material cost of an average vehicle.
Prices are further under pressure from industrial overcapacity, and China’s macroeconomic conditions remain precarious.
Given broadly rising crude oil prices, for petrochemical producers, falling prices will be unwelcome news as this would likely lead to value being lost somewhere in the chain. For automotive companies, however, this could help boost profitability – which has been disconnected with sales volumes -  provided macroeconomic conditions and struggling global growth do not choke off demand, which remains a significant risk.
The June outlook for US auto-linked petrochemical prices is as uncertain as macroeconomic conditions, with markets pulling in different directions depending on localised conditions.

Nevertheless, it is the markets with the larger usage in automotives which typically have the most bearish sentiment – excepting isocyanates – with polypropylene (PP), nylon and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyethylene (PE) prices all under pressure. This suggests that the IBAP may fall in June.

Macroeconomic indicators remain confused in the US – with uncertainty growing as the US election approaches.

This is a typical facet of financial markets in all major economies in an election year – although potentially heightened in the US by the markedly different approaches of the US presidential candidates, and this may mute confidence in the US economy until at least after the election.

Lack of confidence appears to be directly impacting US light vehicle sales, which turned negative for the second time in 2016 and with passenger car sales remaining negative throughout the year to date.

Europe is the most bullish on June prices of the three major auto producing regions, reflecting comparatively better macroeconomic conditions in the region.
The bullish expectation on prices is reflected in the newly launched Europe May Chemical Market Confidence Index (CMCI), which is positive on all forward looking indicators except profitability – despite some gathering macroeconomic storm clouds.
Nevertheless, sentiment in the European polypropylene (PP) has turned bearish on prices, which is also reflected in the polyolefins CMCI, which is overwhelmingly bearish on future profitability.
Negativity on profitability is likely related to firmer crude oil prices and macroeconomic uncertainty.
The Europe ICIS Basket of Automotive Petrochemicals (IBAP) has been increasing for the past three months, but this has largely been the result of increasing crude oil prices. With crude oil continuing to broadly trend upwards, and unstable macroeconomic conditions, players may be concerned with their ability to pass expected upstream cost increases down the chain.
The Europe IBAP hit an eight-month high in May and closed the gap with the US IBAP in dollar terms.
Although macroeconomic conditions and automotive sales remain broadly positive, and the European Central Bank (ECB) has revised its 2016 growth forecast higher as a result, there is still great uncertainty over the potential impact and direction of the British EU referendum, and the background contagion risk of any potential downturn in global growth conditions.
Overall, though, European markets appear to be enjoying more favourable trading conditions and more certainty on both sides of the chain than there US and Asian counterparts.
All of these trends are discussed in detail in the June ICIS global automotive report.
The automotive industry is a major global consumer of petrochemicals which contributes more than a third of the raw material costs of an average vehicle. ICIS tracks the movement of petrochemical raw material costs in auto production both globally and regionally with the weighted ICIS Basket of Automotive Petrochemicals (IBAP).

ICIS produces a monthly Global Automotive report covering the major automotive chemicals markets, the auto-industry, the IBAPs and macroeconomic trends. For more information on the report and details on how to subscribe, please click here
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/06/15/10007945/insight-global-growth-forecasts-downgraded-but-auto-opportunities-remain/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Eminent Domain, Chevron Deference and Paul Ryan’s Other Dilemma

Jun 15, 2016 | Bloomberg Government

By Mark Drajem

Today’s Agenda
House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plan to revamp the federal regulatory state had the unmistakable whiff of 1994’s Contract With America. But not every plan to curtail bureaucrats yields a clean victory for business.
Two decades ago Newt Gingrich wanted regulators to perform a cost-benefit analysis before drafting new rules and to consider the effect on small businesses before issuing new rules. Both of those are now common practices for the federal government, but House Republicans say that hasn’t imposed enough of a check on President Obama. His rules are strangling job growth and have resulted in a weak economic recovery. “You just have to look at the energy industry” for a primary example, House Whip Steve Scalise said at a press conference in front of the Labor Department. Oil and gas production on federal lands and offshore is falling, while its thriving on private lands, Rep. Rob Bishop added. (If you slice it the right way, that’s accurate.)
The Ryan plan is largely a buffet spread of pieces of legislation that have already come up for a vote in the House — and then died because of inattention in the Senate — and a veto threat from Obama. Ryan wants lawmakers to vote yay or nay on major rules; for agencies to have a budget on issuing new regulations; and for government bureaucrats to have a “shot clock” to review and rule on permit or environmental reviews. “No major regulation should become law unless Congress takes a vote,” Ryan said. (Ryan also pledged to keep trying to scrap Obama’s climate rules.)
But a couple of ideas the GOP is pushing got us thinking of Miles’ Law, named after the Eisenhower-era bureaucrat (uh oh!) Rufus E. Miles who coined the phrase: “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” For example, GOP efforts to curtail Obama now would also curtail his successor. (Given the state of the race, that might not be a glitch. But we digress.)
The full 57-page economy document includes a shout out to legislation, H.R. 4768, that would mandate courts give less judicial deference to agencies. Relying on the 1984 Supreme Court Chevron decision, judges give regulators leeway in interpreting statues if their meaning isn’t crystal clear. Chevron deference has been a key part of the administration’s arguments in court to defend everything from Obamacare to EPA’s cross-state pollution rule. We asked the man who lost in the Chevron case, David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, what curtailing bureaucrats’ ability to interpret the law would mean for a Trump administration.
“There isn’t a president of any party who would favor this legislation,” Doniger said. And there’s another twist, according to Doniger: Conservatives have long fought judicial activism, but this law would empower it.
A similar dynamic is at work with the House Natural Resources markup today of H.R. 3062 that would limit of the use of eminent domain, and isaimed at the Plains and Eastern Clean Line transmission line to bring cheap wind power from Oklahoma and Texas to the Southeast. But eminent domain has been used with great success by Donald Trump, and its importance was highlighted in the Washington Post article about rural Virginia residents fighting the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. If the U.S. needs a bunch of new pipeline projects, as CRS analyst Paul W. Parfomak said yesterday, then using eminent domain is going to become a more important tool for energy companies. Cutting its use may be popular with property owners and their advocates, but not with most business interests.
Also today, Wyoming agrees to sell a parcel of land in the Grand Tetons  to the federal government. Sec. Sally Jewell said the sale would prevent the land at the foothill of the mountains being developed with condos, homes or parking lots, the Casper Star Tribune reported. And, the Department of Energy backs advanced nuclear research, Sen. Udall says he can’t back the Interior approps package, Hatch is OK with getting the clean-energy tax “fix” done this year and why utility M&A’s are booming.Drajem’s Don’t Miss
We’ve gotten used to the House Science committee issuing subpoenas for records from scientists at NOAA or the AGs investigating Exxon. Today it takes a kinder, gentler approach, as its energy panel looks at solar energy and energy storage. The committee says it’s examining the Basic Energy Sciences program within the Department of Energy. Look for everyone to agree on the need for more basic research. The hearing is at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.Quotable
“The truth is, we need rules—clear, firm rules that all of us can live by. The question is, what’s the best way to write them? To keep our air and water clean, to protect consumers from scams and rip-offs—but also to create jobs and expand opportunity. It does not have to be an either-or,” Ryan said in front of the Labor Department. “We can have both.”The Predictor
U.S. crude oil stockpiles may fall due to stronger refinery demand and sliding production, BI analyst Vincent Piazza said. The consensus estimate is a 2.1 million-barrel drop in U.S. oil inventories in the week ended June 10.Lobbying
The Long and Winding Road  Cal Dooley has accomplished something that’s become a rarity for a Washington lobbyist: achieve a bipartisan legislative victory. The former Democratic congressman took over as the president of the American Chemistry Council in 2008, and went to work pushing for an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Eight years later it passed both bodies of Congress by overwhelming margins.
On many levels the vote is an outlier: Republicans in Congress and President Obama both wanted the measure; an industry was pushing to give EPA more authority to regulate it; and it emerged not as part of a last-minute budget deal but as stand-alone legislation developed in hearings and negotiations that spread out over years.
In a telephone interview Dooley laid out some of the keys to the success.
The first was getting his industry united behind the idea that TSCA reform was needed, and then laying out principles for what that would mean. A top priority was giving EPA the authority to trump state regulations. “Letting EPA have more authority means less disruptions at the state level,” Dooley said.
Once the chemical makers were on board, ACC linked up with representatives for manufacturers that use chemicals and retailers that sell those products. The American Alliance for Innovation, as the group was named, didn’t have a website, high-priced outside consultants or a P.R. campaign. “TSCA was not something that many members of Congress spent a lot of time talking about in town hall meetings,” Dooley said. “This didn’t lend itself to a broader communications or media strategy.” The focus was inside the Beltway: “We spent time trying to educate members and regulators.”
And part of that attention went to lawmakers not usually allied with industry: Democrats such as Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. “Members became interested in trying to be more supportive of the process,” he said.
The last thing Dooley needed was patience. TSCA was primed for passage in December, but got hung up in an unrelated dispute over the Land Water Conservation Fund. Then, in the last weeks, a UC request was held up by Sen. Rand Paul. “There were a lost of peaks and valleys over the last six months,” Dooley said. “But when you have legislation you know the White House would sign, and broad support in Congress, we knew it would find a way to pass.”Inside the Beltway
Conferencing About Holding a Conference  We may know today whether Congress will vote on conferencing S. 2012. Senate Energy leaders Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell met with their House counterparts Fred Upton and Frank Pallone last night to discuss how (or whether) the chambers will go to conference on their energy packages. Cantwell seems to be the wild card, as she’s been vocal about her opposition to the House bill. In a Senate Energy hearing yesterday, she took every opportunity to criticize the House measure while promoting the many merits of the Senate energy bill.
Interior Approps Bounces Back to the House  Today the $32.1 billion Interior-EPA spending bill gets a full markup in the House Appropriations Committee, and we’ll be keeping an eye on funding for EPA’s chemical safety programs as the revamped Toxic Substances Control Act heads to the president for his signature. We’ll also be on the lookout for controversial amendments — in addition to the riders on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, Clean Water Rule and methane rule already in the bill — to be added during the markup. That’s at 10:30 a.m. in 2359 Rayburn.Even though Senator Tom Udall praised the “adequate funding” for TSCA implementation in the Senate version of the bill debuted yesterday, he said he won’t support the bill. Udall said the $32.034 billion draft spending bill contains several “poison pill riders” that would block rules including WOTUS, the Stream Protection Rule and put several limitations on how the Fish and Wildlife Service can use the Endangered Species Act. Full text of the bill will be released at a full committee markup tomorrow.
Both the House and Senate versions of the bill are sure to draw a veto threat from the White House.
Opening the Hatch to the ITC ‘Fix’  Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch is backing an extension of the ITC. Section 48 tax breaks for fuel cells, small wind, geothermal and CHP should be renewed before year’s end, after being left out of last year’s budget deal, Hatch said during a hearing yesterday. It’s a bit of a reversal for the Utah Republican, who did his best to stay out of earlier negotiations to add the tax extension to an FAA bill. The issue now will be finding the right vehicle, he said. For what it’s worth, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is still holding out hope of attaching the tax break to an FAA bill, though he conceded yesterday that “we’re a long way from that.”
Advanced Nuclear Technologies Get DoE Funding Boost   The Energy Department announced more than $82 million in awards for nuclear energy research, facility access, technology development and infrastructure development. The funding goes to 93 projects in 28 states, and is from various DOE programs, including $36 million from its Nuclear Energy University Program and more than $11 million from its Nuclear Science Users Facilities for research and development of these next generation nuclear technologies. Also, the DOE is funding $21 million for six Integrated Research Projects, which would focus on nuclear waste immobilization, the agency said in a statement today, Rebecca Kern reports.Outside the Beltway
Maine Utilities Commission Approves Efficiency Plan: AP   Environmental groups say an energy efficiency settlement plan approved by the Maine Public Utilities Commission doesn’t go far enough to save Mainers money. The state’s Efficiency Maine Trust had originally submitted a three-year plan with projected lifetime savings of $875 million. The approved plan saves about $250 million less. In a statement, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, which signed onto the settlement, said it is glad efficiency programs won’t be disrupted. But the group said the commission worked to reduce energy efficiency spending by reducing a legislature-approved cap on such spending and relying on “confidential energy price forecasts” instead of a regional estimate used by other New England states, AP reported.
R.I. Budget Provision Removed That Critics Say Would Benefit Wind-Energy Developer: Providence Journal   House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello intends to remove from the budget bill, headed for a House vote Wednesday, a provision that could cost electricity rate payers millions of dollars by reversing a decision by state regulators that upset a wind-energy developer who is also a big campaign donor. This is the statement he issued Tuesday on his reason for removing the densely worded “renewable energy’ provision, known as Article 18: “Our House Rules require the budget to sit on the desk for seven days to gather input from our House members and the public. Over the past several days, I have received feedback on Article 18 and have reached the conclusion there are pieces of the article that do not need to be in the budget.”
Maryland Regulators Revoke Permit for Planned South Baltimore Trash Incinerator: Baltimore Sun   Maryland energy regulators have revoked a key permit for a controversial waste-to-energy power plant in South Baltimore, shelving the project indefinitely. The Public Service Commission on Monday ruled that Energy Answers International violated the terms of its permit by halting construction activity at the plant site in Fairfield for more than 18 months. The regulators rejected arguments from the Albany, N.Y.-based company that it should nonetheless retain its license for the $1 billion project.
Anti-Wind Power Group Claims Victory in Protecting Moosehead Lake from Developers: Bangor Daily News   Industrial wind power projects will be more difficult to site on the west side of Moosehead Lake, after a state planning board voted unanimously on June 8 to remove six unincorporated areas from an expedited wind permitting area. The Land Use Planning Commission’s 9-0 vote removed 14 townships and plantations from the area, where environmental reviews of wind projects are fast-tracked to encourage development.Electricity and Renewables
Con Edison Bundles Rooftop Solar, Storage to Supply Grid Power   SunPower Corp. and Consolidated Edison Inc. plan to offer rooftop solar panels bundled with batteries to more than 300 New York residential customers, creating a system that will be able to store energy to feed the grid.The so-called virtual power plant will have about 1.8 megawatts of generating capacity and 4 megawatt-hours of battery storage, the companies said in a statement Monday, the largest residential distributed-energy storage program in the U.S.Oil, Gas and Coal
Market Wrap:  Oil fell a fifth day, heading for the longest run of declines since February, as U.S. industry data showed crude stockpiles expanded, exacerbating an oversupply. West Texas Intermediate for July delivery fell as much 94 cents to $47.55 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange and was at $48.12 at 9:46 a.m. London time. Natural gas on the Nymex was little changed at $2.601/mmBtu at 7:59am London time.
Output From U.S. Shale Gas Fields Again Confounds Forecasters  U.S. natural gas output is slowing from shale formations, just not as fast as forecasters had thought, Naureen Malik reports. The top six shale deposits will produce 46.2 billion cubic feet a day of gas this month, or 0.5 percent more than the previous forecast, the Energy Information Administration said in its drilling productivity report Monday. Production estimates have been revised upward every month this year as the agency incorporates actual market and weather conditions, according to Jozef Lieskovsky, a senior analyst with the agency in Washington.“In any environment it is difficult to have accurate estimates,” Lieskovsky said in an interview Monday. “With the current market dynamics, it is almost impossible given that we do not consider weather and infrastructure impact.” June production from the Marcellus deposit, primarily in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, has been stronger than previously expected. This follows a “huge revision” in January and February output after the completion of a pipeline expansion, Lieskovsky said.
http://about.bgov.com/blog/eminent-domain-chevron-deference-and-paul-ryans-other-dilemma/

Return to headline | Return to top
Will New Chemical Regulations Keep Toxics off Our Plates?

Jun 15, 2016 | Civil Eats

By Elizabeth Grossman

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the chemicals that get added to our food and sprayed on or around it while it’s growing. But science shows that even if we removed the pesticides and additives, we’re all eating and drinking a number of other chemicals with unintended consequences every day.
Flame retardants known as PBDEs are turning up regularly in meat and poultry and other animal products, mercury is in now most wild seafood, and phthalates are turning up in fast food—just to name a few.
But a bill approved last week by the Senate could help change all that. Eventually. The new bill revises the Toxic Substances Control Act, (TSCA) our nation’s main chemical safety law. This is the first update of the law since it was first enacted in 1976. And, as you might guess, a lot has changed since then.
This legislation comes after years of debate. But the final bill, approved overwhelmingly by Congress, is being welcomed by the chemical industry. And while many environmental advocates say the bill falls short of what is needed to truly protect Americans from dangerous chemicals, groups on all sides appear to agree that it’s an important improvement.
When it comes to concerns about toxics in food, Patty Lovera, assistant director at Food & Water Watch says, the big question is whether the bill is “new and improved enough to prevent dangerous chemicals from … getting into the environment and into food and water?”
If you’re worried about industrial toxics like flame retardants, PCBs, and perfluorinated chemicals turning up in food and drinking water, here’s what you need to know:
What TSCA Does (And Doesn’t Do)
The universe of chemicals that TSCA regulates is enormous; it now includes more than 80,000 chemicals. And while TSCA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate chemicals used commercially in the U.S., it does not regulate pesticides, cosmetics, or drugs. TSCA also regulates many chemicals that end up being used as food additives and in food packaging and containers but it does not regulate how those chemicals can be used with food. Those explicit uses (of chemicals like Bisphenol A (BPA) in food can linings and PFCs in pizza boxes, for example) are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under other laws.
But many chemicals, such as BPA, have multiple uses that can result in exposure through food even when they’re not put into food or used in food packaging. And many chemicals not intended to be used anywhere near food—such as perchlorate, for example—often end up in food and drinking water after they’re released into the environment.
What Will the New TSCA Bill Do?
The big shift is that this bill gives the EPA new authority to request safety testing information from chemical manufacturers before chemicals go onto the market. It will also require the EPA to test all chemicals, beginning with those considered a “high priority” because of their potential hazards. Under the old law, the vast majority of chemicals were allowed to be used without full information about their environmental and health impacts.
For example, if the TSCA had required the EPA to determine whether PBDEs were persistent chemicals that can build up in fat tissue before they went onto the market, they might not be turning up in food worldwide. The same could be said of the waterproofing, nonstick and stain-resistant coating chemicals known as PFCs, which are likely absorbed by pizza and donuts purchased in boxes treated with the chemical.
Now, TSCA will require the EPA to make regulation of chemicals that can persist in the environment and build up in human bodies a priority. The new law also will require EPA to make the safety evaluation of chemicals stored near drinking water sources a priority.
This step will be important for preventing industrial chemicals from contaminating drinking water sources as has happened with perchlorate, trichloroethylene, and many other chemicals in communities from California to New York–both through regular industrial use and in catastrophic accidents like the chemical spill that shut down Charleston, West Virginia’s water system in 2014.
As Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) senior scientist Richard Denison explained, the new TSCA bill will require “EPA to look at what are now called ‘conditions of use,’ the range of uses of a chemical, and everything associated with the lifecycle of the chemical.” This includes what happens if the chemical gets into the environment during manufacturing, is released from a finished product while it’s being used, and what happens during disposal. An essential part of such a review is considering human “exposure through food and water,” he explains.
The new law also requires the EPA to consider the impacts of chemicals on what are considered the most vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. It will also limit chemical manufacturers’ ability to claim chemical information as trade secrets and thus bar access to details essential to protecting people from toxics.
For example, chemicals identified as endocrine disruptors—such as BPA and phthalates, among others—have been shown to have prenatal effects. Pregnant women and children are regularly exposed to these chemicals through food. Under the new TSCA, EPA will have to explicitly consider such exposures. The agency did not have to do so before.
Questions (Like Chemicals ) Persist
Just how effectively EPA will be able to do all this under the new law depends heavily onhow well it will be funded, says Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).
Environmental Working Group (EWG) legislative attorney Melanie Benesh is also concerned about how quickly the EPA will be able to address the tens of thousands of chemicals TSCA regulates for which the agency lacks full safety information. “The pace is very slow. So it will probably be a decade before we see new regulation under this bill,” she says. Yet the agency does have deadlines, which EDF’s Denison says will keep the EPA on task.
EWG is also concerned about the new bill’s safety standard. Like the law that has been in effect for the past 40 years, the new TSCA bill continues to make the cost of regulation a consideration in determining whether a chemical will be restricted. Historically, that has kept hazardous chemicals—asbestos, for example—from being fully banned. How the new bill interprets this standard “remains to be seen,” says Benesh.
Another big question is how the new law will affect state regulation of chemicals. In the absence of effective action by EPA, states have been acting to restrict use of hazardous chemicals, often spurred into action by consumers and advocacy groups concerned about health effects.
For instance, it was largely consumer pressure that moved states to act on BPA, by pushing many products off store shelves. It was also state action (in California) that haschanged furniture standards to no longer require the use of flame retardants. And states like Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, which require manufacturers to report on chemical use, have also been key in pushing manufacturers and retailers to use fewer, and less-hazardous chemicals.
The new law imposes some limits on how and when a state can regulate a chemical, limits that are tied to the EPA’s action on that chemical. For this reason, Representative Pingree was one of the 12 House members who voted against the bill.
“Because I come from a state that has been quite forward-thinking about [chemicals], I wanted to register my concern that we were limiting our opportunities, and that in the future states could be prevented from acting because they have to wait for the federal agency decision,” says Pingree.
“When problems happen, states are at the forefront,” says Safer States national director Sarah Doll. “Because states have been asking the questions about exposure, I expect them to be continue to be on the frontline of protecting their citizens,” she says. In addition, says Doll, “States have played a critical role in creating market transparency, demanding that companies tell us what is in our products.” That role—and that of consumers who’ve been pushing companies to remove toxics from products—remains as important as ever, she says.
The bottom line? The new bill gives EPA many useful new tools with the potential to keep toxics out of the environment, food, and water. But that change will not happen overnight.
The updated TSCA now goes to President Obama who has already endorsed it and is expected to sign it into law.
http://civileats.com/2016/06/15/will-new-chemical-regulations-tsca-keep-toxics-off-our-plates/

Return to headline | Return to top
Is This New Reform a Toxic Waste?

Jun 15, 2016 | OtherWords

By Jill Richardson

There should’ve been an overhaul in how we regulate toxic chemicals years ago. Like when the 2010 President’s Cancer Panel report concluded that babies are now born “pre-polluted.” Or when it came to light that a common flame retardant used in household items actually causes cancer.
Finally, our infamously ineffective Congress has passed a landmark toxic chemical reform.
Or did it only happen on paper?
The original 1976 law on toxic chemicals — which covered everything except food, drugs, and pesticides — was written with the help of the chemical industry. It was designed to be weak.
And it was.
In fact, the law often served to prevent the government from testing new chemicals for safety. It only gave authorities a 90-day window to run toxicity tests before companies could take the new substances to market.
The end result? In the four decades the law was in effect, the EPA only succeeded in regulating five harmful chemicals before they got to the public. Once a chemical made it to market, it was generally too late.
Under the new law, the government now has a backlog of 90 high-priority chemicals to investigate, including obvious culprits like arsenic and asbestos that should’ve been dealt with years ago.
That’s as good a place as any to start. But the Environmental Working Group estimates that it could take 35 years to perform those assessments and implement new regulations.
Could that be exactly what the industry groups who helped draft the new legislation want?
What on earth would make chemical companies ask for new regulations, you might wonder? After all, if they’re worried about the toxicity of their own product, they don’t need a law to do the right thing. They can just take it off the market. So what’s in it for them?
Consumer confidence, that’s what.
If the public hears new regulations have been passed, they’re more likely to trust that the government is doing its job to regulate new chemicals on the market. That means less public pressure for “retailer bans, consumer boycotts, and state regulations,” Bloombergreports.
Aha.
Furthermore, the new law actually prevents states from passing new regulations that are stricter than federal rules. The only silver lining, thankfully, is that existing state-level rules get to stay in place.
Is this new law an example of the value of compromise? An inspiring tale about the power of consumer pressure? Or is it a depressing confirmation that nothing gets done in Washington unless the fox is invited into the henhouse?
I can’t help but agree with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. The chemical watchdog group applauded the legislation while telling states, consumers, and retailers to stay vigilant, and stay involved.
We’ll know whether we just achieved a huge victory — or got hoodwinked — when we see if the government can finally protect us from asbestos, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals that we shouldn’t even have to talk about in 2016.
Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding — and all of the other everyday products that contain the chemicals under review.
OtherWords columnist Jill Richardson is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It. OtherWords.org.
http://otherwords.org/is-this-new-reform-a-toxic-waste/

Return to headline | Return to top
IL Watchdog: New Toxics Rules Bad For States

Jun 15, 2016 | Progress Illinois

One step forward, two steps back. That's how some Illinois environmentalists describe new federal rules on toxic substances that could limit the state's own protections.
Congress this week sent a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act to President Obama's desk. It's the first update to the act in 40 years, and expands the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to study and test thousands of chemicals.
But Abe Scarr, director for the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, PIRG, says the proposed rules would also place new restrictions on how states can manage potentially toxic chemicals.
"It does take some good steps in the right direction," he says. "It creates a better framework for toxic chemical regulation, which is sorely, sorely needed. But in the process of doing that, it had set a ceiling on what states can do, and we think federal regulations should be a floor, not a ceiling."
Scarr says Illinois has passed laws that protect families from toxic chemicals in consumer products. He says those moves would be undermined by the new rules, if they're made law by the president.
The new toxics rules will allow the Environmental Protection Agency to work through a backlog of tens of thousands of untested chemicals. But the agency will only be required to assess 20 chemicals at a time.
Scarr is hopeful this is just the first step in enacting stronger protections in the future.
"It has been decades since Congress has taken action to improve our federal toxic laws," he says. "So, hopefully, now that we've become unstuck we'll be able to continue improving our toxic laws at the federal level and create even stronger protections for consumers."
Environmental protection advocates are asking Obama not to sign the new rules. Instead, they are urging lawmakers to revise the proposal to keep state authority intact.
http://www.progressillinois.com/news/content/2016/06/14/il-watchdog-new-toxics-rules-bad-states

Return to headline | Return to top
Pesticide Industry Critical of Endocrine Disruptors Criteria

Jun 15, 2016 | EurActiv

By Sarantis Michalopoulos

The pesticide industry is “extremely disappointed” with the European Commission’s proposal to identify endocrine disruptors that was presented on Wednesday (15 June).
The Commission presented a long-awaited science-based set of criteria for identifying substances with endocrine disrupting properties of plant protection products and biocides.
Endocrine disruptors are still not regulated in Europe, as no formal criteria for identifying them in pesticides and biocides have been established so far.
Once adopted, the EU regulatory system will be the first worldwide to define scientific criteria for endocrine disruptors in legislation, confirming the Commission’s commitment to ensuring the highest level of protection of both human health and the environment, an EU source told EurActiv.com.
The same criteria will also apply to products imported into the EU, and that is the reason why they will be notified to the World Trade Organisation.
“Today, Europe took a big step forward in safeguarding the health of its people,” the source added.
The European Commission carried out an impact assessment to set criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors, a process that has been postponed since December 2013 claiming a lack of scientific consensus on the issue (See background).
The European Parliament recently slammed the executive for its inaction, and adopted a resolution on 8 June, demanding immediate action on the definition of endocrine (hormone) disruptors “in an objective manner” and not at the expense of public health.
“The specification of scientific criteria can only be carried out in an objective manner on the basis of scientific data related to the endocrine system, independently of any other consideration,” the non-binding resolution reads.
Adoption of WHO definition
The European Commission said that the scientific criteria are based on the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) definition of an endocrine disruptor, “for which there is a wide consensus”.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines an endocrine disruptor as “an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations”.
In order to speed up the procedures, as well as test EU agencies’ readiness to apply the new criteria, the executive requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECA) to examine whether already approved individual substances that show indications of being endocrine disruptors could be identified as endocrine disruptors according to the criteria in the draft texts presented today.
A ‘hazard-based’ approach
According to the Commission, the ‘hazard-based’ approach of the Pesticides Regulation will be maintained, meaning that substances are banned on the basis of hazard, without taking into account exposure to the substance. On the other hand, a risk-based approach would also include exposure.
This decision will most likely please countries like France, which insist on an approach “based on the intrinsic properties of hazard, without taking into account the potency” of the substance.
n the other hand, a solely ‘hazard-based’ approach is against the will of the pesticides industry.
Contacted by EurActiv, European Crop Protection, a trade group representing the pesticides industry, said that the Commission’s proposal was disappointing.
“We are extremely disappointed with this proposal from the European Commission. After 6 years of hard work with input from EFSA, scientific, experts, and various stakeholders the criteria are no more than the WHO/IPCS definition, developed over a decade ago. We still consider this definition to be a sensible starting point, but this alone is not appropriate for regulatory purposes,” ECPA’s spokesperson Graeme Taylor stressed.
However, the executive noted that “grounds for possible derogations have been adjusted, so they are based on scientific knowledge and make the best use of available scientific evidence including information related to exposure and risk”.
“Regulation by derogation is not acceptable, nor scientific, and expanding the derogations is essentially signaling a flaw in the criteria,” Taylor added.
POSITIONS
President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said: "Endocrine disruptors can have serious health and environmental impacts and even if many substances containing them are already banned as a result of existing legislation on pesticides and biocides, we have to remain vigilant. The Commission is committed to ensuring the highest level of protection of both human health and the environment, which is why we are today putting forward strict criteria for endocrine disrupters – based on science – making the EU regulatory system the first worldwide to define such scientific criteria in legislation."
The Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness Jyrki Katainen declared: "The scientific criteria for endocrine disruptors presented today will contribute to the objectives of minimizing exposure to endocrine disruptors and to bringing legal certainty. Today’s Communication outlines the issues we have considered in this process, it defines the scope of what is relevant to determining the scientific criteria, and sets out the implications of setting these criteria – for the two pieces of legislation directly concerned and for other parts of the EU regulatory framework and actions.”
Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis, said: "The scientific criteria that the Commission is presenting today guarantee that the high level of protection of human health and of the environment set in our legislation on plant protection and biocidal products is maintained. The plant protection products and biocides' legislation are among the strictest in the world because of their prior approval system, their extensive data requirements, and their hazard approach for decision making. The Commission reinforces today its commitment to protect people's health in the European Union."
Jean-Charles Bocquet, Director General of ECPA, said: “These criteria fail to distinguish between those substances which may cause actual harm and others which pose no threat to safety. In our view, this could lead to bans on crop protection products with the same endocrine disrupting properties found in everyday products like coffee. We certainly recognise the significant public interest in this topic but believe we need a proposal that targets only those substances which cause actual harm otherwise we risk taking away tools from farmers which they need to sustainably produce our safe, healthy, affordable food”.
Lisette van Vliet, senior policy officer at the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) noted: “What the Commission has proposed today will not prevent diseases related to endocrine disrupting chemicals. The requirements are so strict, the burden of proof so high that we’ll have years of harm to health before we can remove them. This is not what the legislation requires, which is, that EDCs may cause adverse effects are banned.”
“Even worse, it would cripple the use of accumulated (and future) knowledge about effects on animals, which should be used to prevent harm to human health. A scientific consensus (3) exists on how best to identify these harmful chemicals (Option 3 of 4 in the roadmap (4)) but the College of Commissioners have not chosen to follow it,” she added.
Marco Mensink, Director General of the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) stressed: “Scientific criteria are needed to identify those endocrine disruptors of regulatory concern, and enable harmless substances to bring value to society. Unless potency is taken into account, we will fail to address only those substances that cause harm. Many years down the road, we now have a restatement of the WHO definition. This provides further clarity, but it is not sufficient. We need to ensure the highest standards of protection and also allow for innovation."
Karl-H. Foerster, Executive Director of PlasticsEurope, said: “Finally, the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors are out. We still lack a commonly accepted working criteria that would allow differentiating between a substance of regulatory concern and a substance of no or low concern.”
Sylvia Maurer, Head of the Sustainability and Safety Department at the European Consumer Organization (BEUC), underlined:
“An EU definition of hormone-disrupting chemicals needs to identify all the chemicals that may harm consumers’ health, this means both the chemicals we know are EDCs and those we suspect. This is the only way the EU can protect consumers from these harmful chemicals found in products we use every day such as cosmetics, clothes, and food packaging,”
“This proposal will not properly protect consumers from harmful endocrine disruptors as only a few substances would be defined and regulated as EDCs. This goes against the precautionary principle where protective action should prevail even in the face of scientific uncertainty. Sadly today’s package seems to confirm our concerns that the Commission has lowered its ambition concerning strong EDC criteria so as not to jeopardise the TTIP talks with the US,” she noted, adding that the Commission is heading down a dangerous path of ignoring chemicals’ toxic effects.
BACKGROUND
The European Commission was supposed to define test criteria for potential endocrine disruptors by December 2013. These chemical substances are present in a large number of everyday products: foods, cleaning products, food containers, etc.
But the initial deadline was missed, and still no official definition has been reached. Without a definition of endocrine disruptors, it is impossible to legislate on the subject.
The Commission has promised to publish this definition by summer this year.
TIMELINE
8 July: Βiocides expert committee due to discuss the proposal
11-12 July: Pesticides Standing Committee due to discuss the proposal
http://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/pesticide-industry-critical-of-endocrine-disruptors-criteria/

Return to headline | Return to top
ECPA "Disappointed" with EC Proposals

Jun 15, 2016 | Euro Fruit

By Carl Collen

The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) has expressed its disappointment with the European Commission’s long awaited proposal setting out criteria for endocrine disruptors.
According to the ECPA, the criteria fails to distinguish between those substances which cause actual harm and others which pose no threat to human safety.
"The safety of crop protection products – for both human health and the environment – is of primary importance to the industry which also understands the significant public interest in endocrine disruption," the ECPA noted.
"By its own admission the Commission have not considered socio-economic impact when defining the criteria. We believe it would be counter-productive to ban substances that provide valuable benefits to farmers – which enable them to produce safe, healthy, affordable food – if that did not make any positive contribution to human health and environmental safety."
The group said that after six years of work with input from EFSA, scientific experts and various stakeholders, the criteria are no more than the WHO/IPCS definition, developed over a decade ago – a definition the ECPA still sees as "a sensible starting point", but not appropriate for regulatory purposes on its own.
ECPA had hoped that the Commission would take into account all available and relevant scientific information – including potency, which is one of the most important factors – when evaluating a substance for its potential endocrine-disrupting properties.
"We understand that the Commission has proposed derogations based on risk and exposure for plant protection products. Regulation by derogation is not acceptable, nor is it predictable and expanding the derogations is essentially signalling a flaw in the criteria," the group continued. "An unpredictable regulatory framework only increases uncertainty for product development and innovation."
It remains the Association's view that endocrine disruptors can and should be treated like most other substances of potential concern and subject to risk assessment which considers both hazard and exposure.
Jean-Charles Bocquet, Director General of ECPA, said: “This criteria fail to distinguish between those substances which may cause actual harm and others which pose no threat to safety. In our view, this could lead to bans of crop protection products with the same endocrine disrupting properties found in every day products like coffee.
"We certainly recognise the significant public interest in this topic but believe we need a proposal that targets only those substances which cause actual harm otherwise we risk taking away tools from farmers which they need to sustainably produce our safe, healthy, affordable food," he added.
The proposal will now be put forward for agreement by Member States and subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The industry trusts that its important role in producing a safe, sustainable and affordable supply of food will be taken account of during these negotiations.
http://www.fruitnet.com/eurofruit/article/169033/ecpa-disappointed-with-ec-proposals

Return to headline | Return to top
Europe Walks Tightrope With Proposal for Chemicals in Pesticides

Jun 15, 2016 | Bloomberg

By Jonathan Stearns

he European Commission proposed more detailed regulation of hormone-damaging chemicals in pesticides, leaving both the industry and environmentalists crying foul.
The commission, the European Union’s regulatory arm in Brussels, presented draft rules for determining whether pesticides contain so-called endocrine disruptors. The proposed criteria, which would replace interim standards under seven-year-old EU legislation on plant-protection products, are based on the World Health Organization’s definition of an endocrine disruptor.
The pesticides industry has said that EU cereal production risks being cut by stricter regulation of endocrine disruptors because tougher rules could force key farm chemicals off the European market.
“The criteria fail to distinguish between those substances which cause actual harm and others which pose no threat to human safety,” the European Crop Protection Association, which represents producers such as BASF SE, Bayer AG and Dow Chemical Co., said in a statement on Wednesday in Brussels after the much-awaited proposal. “This could lead to bans of crop-protection products with the same endocrine disrupting properties found in everyday products like coffee.”
Risk versus Hazard
Endocrine disruptors in pesticides have been in the firing line in Europe since 2009, when the EU approved legislation that shifted the safety gauge. The rules went from being “risk-based,” which is an industry-friendly stance that considers the likelihood of human exposure to dangerous chemicals, to being “hazard-based,” a more catch-all approach based on the intrinsic ability of substances to cause harm.
In 2012, the United Nations Environment Program and WHO sounded an alarm over endocrine disruptors, linking them to a global rise in diseases and disorders including cancers, low semen quality in young men, earlier breast development in young girls, obesity and diabetes. At the same time, the two organizations said improved methods are needed for assessing the risks of endocrine disruptors.
“Endocrine disruptors can have serious health and environmental impacts,” commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in a statement on Wednesday in which he also claimed the EU regulatory system is the first worldwide to define such scientific criteria in legislation. “We have to remain vigilant.”
The commission said that, while it was maintaining the hazard-based regulatory approach under the new measures, “the grounds for possible derogations have been adjusted so they are based on scientific knowledge and make the best use of available scientific evidence including information related to exposure and risk.” That part of the package upset Green groups.
‘Shameful Proposal’
“The only guiding priority under EU law should be to address the major public health problems caused by these chemicals,” said Bas Eickhout, a Dutch member of the European Parliament’s Green Party. “However, the commission is continuing to put the bottom line of a few agrochemical companies ahead of public health.”
The proposal must be approved by EU governments under a decision-making procedure that also gives the 28-nation Parliament a veto right. Eickhout held out the possibility of a rejection by the assembly.
“We will now have to build the necessary majorities in the Parliament to veto this shameful proposal,” he said.
The main European agricultural-lobby group, Copa-Cogeca, reacted to the commission’s proposal by echoing the concerns of the pesticides industry. Copa-Cogeca urged a risk-based approach to EU regulation and said more restrictions would undermine the competitiveness of European farmers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/europe-walks-tightrope-with-proposal-for-chemicals-in-pesticides

Return to headline | Return to top
PFCs in Drinking Water Link to Human Blood Levels

Jun 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Emma Davies

Californian researchers have found a possible link between blood levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), in the general population, and concentrations in drinking water.
Meanwhile, eating fish from PFC-contaminated waters may also push up human PFC levels, according to a Norwegian study.
Led by Susan Hurley from the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, researchers analysed blood PFC levels for 1,566 women enrolled in a California teachers' study. They then used US EPA data on PFCs in water supplies, collected between 2013 and 2015 under an unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR3).
Using participants' postcodes, the researchers linked drinking water concentrations to blood levels of four PFCs: PFOS, PFOA, perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).
They found that average PFC blood concentrations were 30-40% higher in women living in areas with detectable PFC levels in drinking water, compared with those without detectable levels.
The researchers claim that their study is the first to demonstrate an association between blood PFC levels and chemical detection in drinking water, for a population with no previously recognised water contamination.Drinking water link
Although human blood samples from around the globe routinely contain PFCs, researchers are still working to understand all of the exposure routes. They can enter water systems from a variety of sources, including biosolids applied to agricultural land and aqueous fire fighting foams, used at airports and military sites.
The EPA's UCMR3 data show that 40% of combined PFOS and PFOA concentrations, from postcodes in the Californian study, exceed the EPA's drinking water health advisory level for the chemicals, published in May 2016. Meanwhile, 16% of the concentrations exceed the level based on PFOS alone.
"Given the health implications of these results, validation of our approach and replication of these findings in other study populations with biomonitoring data should be a research priority," write the researchers inEnvironmental Science and Technology Letters.
"This study shows that toxic and highly persistent fluorochemicals are making their way from drinking water into California women's bodies," said Arlene Blum, from the Green Science Policy Institute. "It underscores the importance of reducing the use of these chemicals whenever possible to protect our drinking water and our health."Fish consumption
Meanwhile, Norwegian researchers have found that eating fish from waters known to be polluted with PFC-containing firefighting foams can raise blood PFC levels in humans.
The study, led by Solrunn Hansen from the Arctic University of Norway, found a positive correlation between levels of fish consumption and blood levels of PFOS, PFHxS and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).
Writing in Environment International, the researchers call for further studies on dietary exposure to other PFCs present in firefighting foams and the consequences for human health.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48037/pfcs-in-drinking-water-link-to-human-blood-levels

Return to headline | Return to top
In Some Zip Codes, 1 in 7 Children Suffer from Dangerously High Blood Lead levels

Jun 15, 2016 | Washington Post

By Brady Dennis

In one city after another, the tests showed startling numbers of children with unsafe blood lead levels: Poughkeepsie and Syracuse and Buffalo. Erie and Reading. Cleveland and Cincinnati.
In those cities and others around the country, 14 percent of kids — and in some cases more — have troubling amounts of the toxic metal in their blood, according to new research published Wednesday. The findings underscore how despite long-running public health efforts to reduce lead exposure, many U.S. children still live in environments where they're likely to encounter a substance that can lead to lasting behavioral, mental and physical problems.
"We've been making progress for decades, but we have a ways to go," said Harvey Kaufman, senior medical director at Quest Diagnostics and a co-author of the study, which was published in the Journal of Pediatrics. "With blood [lead] levels in kids, there is no safe level."
Kaufman and two colleagues at Quest, the nation's largest lab testing provider, examined more than 5.2 million blood tests for infants and children under age 6 that were taken between 2009 and 2015. The results spanned every state and the District of Columbia.
The researchers found that while blood lead levels declined nationally overall during that period, roughly 3 percent of children across the country had levels that exceed five micrograms per deciliter — the threshold that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers cause for concern. But in some places and among particular demographics, those figures are much higher.
In certain regions of the country, including parts of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, more than 1 in 7 children tested for elevated levels of lead in their blood. Minnesota had the highest overall rate of young children with disturbing blood lead levels, at 10.3 percent. That was followed by Pennsylvania (7.8 percent), Kentucky (7.1 percent), Ohio (7 percent) and Connecticut (6.7 percent).
"It’s a tragedy that anywhere in the United States of America, we have 14 percent of children with lead levels above the CDC threshold," said Leonardo Trasande, associate professor of pediatrics at New York University School of Medicine. "Lead is the most obvious tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to environmental health threats. Often where there is childhood lead exposure, there are other environmental hazards of great concern."
So why are kids in certain places more at risk of lead poisoning?
Living in an area with a high proportion of pre-1950s construction — an area when lead-based paints were widely used and lead pipes were still the norm in some places — increases potential exposures for children. So older housing stock equals more risk.
But being poor also plays a role. Wednesday's study showed that children living in Zip codes with higher poverty rates had a greater proportion of elevated blood lead levels, while children in more affluent Zip codes were "much less likely" to suffer that fate.
The news wasn't entirely bad. States such as California and Florida had the lowest rates of elevated blood lead levels in children, at 1.4 percent and 1.1. percent, respectively. And over the six years included in the study, New Hampshire saw the largest absolute decline in high blood lead levels, from 9.7 percent to 2.6 percent.
Quest's study does acknowledge some limitations. The researchers were confined to tests that were actually ordered by physicians, and only those conducted by the company rather than its competitors. It's also possible that certain populations or certain places deemed at higher risk are being tested more frequently. But overall, Kaufman said, the data include a huge number of samples across every state, and repeat specimens were omitted, all of which help to eliminate aberrations in the findings.
A federal advisory committee in 2012 estimated that there are nearly a half million children in the United States with blood lead levels that exceed the CDC threshold. While the most substantial threats are still lead-based paint and lead contamination in soil, the recent water crisis in Flint, Mich., has highlighted the many pathways of exposure. There, an estimated 9,000 children under age 6 have been exposed to lead in drinking water, and officials have identified hundreds with elevated blood lead levels.
Public health officials have long warned that lead is unsafe at any level in the blood. Even small amounts can contribute to a range of problems, including lower IQs, shortened attention spans, antisocial behavior and health issues such as hypertension, anemia and damage to the kidneys and reproductive organs.
A recent Reuters investigation found that in much of the country, lead testing isn't required for young children and infants. And even when it is, those blood tests often aren't done. In addition, Trasande said many pediatricians "have taken their eye off the ball" when it comes to testing, because elevated lead in blood isn't as widespread as it once was.
"It’s easy to lose sight of this ongoing and insidious battle," he said. "It's not as if we can write a prescription for this problem. The prescription is prevention."
That battle, of course, is not a new one. In 2000, the federal governmentreleased a multifaceted plan "to eliminate childhood lead poisoning in the United States as a major public health problem by the year 2010," largely by abating lead hazards in homes and expanding blood lead screening and follow-up care for at-risk children. But in part because of a shortage of congressional funding for abatement programs, lead risks remain a reality for millions of U.S. children.
A more recent government initiative has a new goal — eliminating elevated blood lead levels in children by 2020. But that's an unlikely target in the absence of even more aggressive measures.
"We really need to keep the pressure on policymakers and others to keep driving lead out of our homes and our environment," said Kaufman, "so that kids and pregnant women are safe."
For those interested in more history on the nation's lead poisoning problem, HBO's John Oliver dove deep into the issue in a recent episode of "Last Week Tonight," complete with a musical number alongside the cast of Sesame Street:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/06/15/in-some-zip-codes-1-in-7-children-suffer-from-dangerously-high-blood-lead-levels/

Return to headline | Return to top
Echa to Evaluate Rubber Filling Risk in Synthetic Turf

Jun 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch

The European Commission has asked Echa to evaluate the potential risks to human health of substances in rubber granules, used as infill in synthetic turf in sports grounds.
The granules, also known as "crumb rubber", are obtained from end-of-life tyres.
The agency will aim to:
· identify any hazardous substances in the recycled rubber filling that may pose a health risk. In particular, it will look at the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These are already extensively restricted by EU legislation; and
· assess the risk resulting from skin, oral and inhalation exposure to these substances, from recycled rubber filling used on both open air and indoor sports grounds.
The Commission will forward the agency relevant studies already conducted by member states. It asks that Echa should take into account international and regional activities in this area, including recent research launched by the US EPA and other US agencies.
Echa will finalise its preliminary evaluation by January 2017 as a risk management option analysis (RMOA). Its conclusion will be made public in PACT a month later.
The Commission will then consider asking the agency to prepare an Annex XV dossier for restriction. The precise scope of this will be discussed, once the preliminary evaluation is in.
In the US, consumer concern around a possible correlation between exposure to crumb rubber and cancer has led to local bans on installation of new fields or playgrounds containing the material. Members of Congress have also called for further research.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has beenstudying possible chemical exposures from crumb rubber, since last year.

Echa is collaborating with the US authorities and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (Fifa) in its evaluation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47983/echa-to-evaluate-rubber-filling-risk-in-synthetic-turf

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Senate Dems: Chamber Board Opposes Own Lobbying

Jun 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is out of step with its own board of directors on its lobbying positions in two key areas, according to a new report from Senate Democrats.
A survey from a group led by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) found that no one on the Chamber’s board would openly endorse the organization’s positions on climate change and tobacco.
The Chamber is lobbying to overturn President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. It is also working to promote the tobacco industry abroad and fight foreign laws which could hurt tobacco, the Democrats said, citing a New York Times report on the efforts.
But out of the 108 board members surveyed for the investigation, no one backed the Chamber’s stance, the Democrats said. About half of the companies represented on the board have publicly taken pro-climate or anti-tobacco policies, in an apparent direct clash with the Chamber.
Nonetheless, the Chamber has publicly stated that it supports efforts to fight climate change and it is not pro-tobacco.
The report aims to shame companies whose individual policies do not align with the Chambers, and points to two major companies — Apple and CVS Health — that left the group over the clashes.
“Chamber members, many of whom act commendably on their own, undermine their own efforts by affiliating with an organization that actively and aggressively undermines efforts to reduce tobacco use and tries to prevent action to address climate change,” the eight senators who backed the investigation wrote to the Chamber in a letter accompanying the report.
“By lending tacit support to an organization that has spearheaded a decades-long effort against policies to address both problems, member companies become de facto promoters of tobacco and adversaries of climate action.”
In a statement to the Times, the Chamber called the Democrats’ report a “partisan line of attack” that was “egregiously false” and recycled “old myths and tired talking points.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283556-senate-dems-chamber-lobbying-clashes-with-its-own-board

Return to headline | Return to top
Elevated Cancer Risks Surround Oil and Gas Drilling -- Report

Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Umair Irfan

More than 200 counties across 21 states face elevated cancer risks from toxic emissions stemming from oil and gas production in the United States, according to a new report from the Clean Air Task Force.
Titled "Fossil Fumes," the paper uses U.S. EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment and National Emissions Inventory projections out to 2017. Looking at probable carcinogens like formaldehyde and benzene, the report found that 238 counties housing 9 million people face cancer risks above EPA's one-in-a-million concern threshold level.
The counties facing highest risks were in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Colorado, regions with a high degree of oil and gas extraction infrastructure.
The report joins an online mapping tool released this morning from the Clean Air Task Force, Earthworks and the FracTracker Alliance. The tool maps 1.19 million oil and gas wells, compressors and processors, drawing a half-mile threat radius around each site.
The mapping tool includes video testimonials from people living in afflicted regions and geotagged infrared video of oil and gas facilities, showing billowing white wisps of gas pouring out of smokestacks and squirting through cracks in pipes.
The aggregated threat region adds up to an area greater than the state of California and envelops more than 11,000 schools.
"This was three years in the making," said Alan Septoff, strategic communications director at Earthworks. "The pollution that we're talking about is associated with the release of methane."
Methane is the dominant component of natural gas and is also found in many oil wells. It burns cleaner than coal while producing less carbon dioxide. However, methane itself is a potent greenhouse gas, and many methane sources also contain volatile organic compounds like benzene.
These compounds make breathing more difficult and increase cancer risks. "The dose and response relationship here is well-known," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director at the Clean Air Task Force. "Once you know the dose, you can generate the risk quotient."
This complicates the picture for natural gas as a solution to climate change and for policies like the Clean Power Plan, which invokes the health provision of the Clean Air Act. Toxic pollution from oil and gas extraction, not just from where it's burned but from where it's extracted, alters the overall health profile of these fuels.
"We want to make sure that trade-off is beneficial," Schneider said. "All we're asking to do is stop the leaks. We want safeguards."
The findings come after EPA issued new rules for controlling methane emissions last month (ClimateWire, May 13).
Septoff said the report and the mapping tool are not intended to find violations, since they are merely snapshots in time, but to help people living near oil and gas infrastructure understand the threats they may face. "What we expect to come of this is more attention across the country to this issue and more pressure and clamor and protection for communities from this kind of pollution," he said.
Joost de Gouw, a research physicist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who was not involved in either project, noted that there are a number of variables at play when it comes to emissions of carcinogens from natural gas sources.
"In different production regions, we do see that benzene can be elevated due to the production of oil and gas," he said. "The extent depends on the composition of the gas that's being produced, so it can be very different place to place."
In addition, benzene in the air can arise from tailpipe emissions from cars or from burning biomass, like forest fires. "Those are sources that need to be distinguished," said de Gouw.
Erik Milito, group director for upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, noted in an email that oil and gas firms have steadily improved their performance in controlling methane leaks.
"Recent EPA data show emissions of methane from field production of natural gas since 2005 have dropped, even as oil and natural gas production has risen dramatically, thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies," he wrote. "Additionally, increased use of natural gas has helped drive carbon emissions to more than 20-year lows."
Septoff said Earthworks is now working on incorporating census data into the map so that users can differentiate risk by income brackets, ethnicity and age.
This story also appears in ClimateWire.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/15/stories/1060038850

Return to headline | Return to top
Western Govs Stress States-Rights For ESA, Say Directional Pad Drilling, Fracking Limit Impact

Jun 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Richard Nemec

Among seven resolutions passed on Tuesday, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) adopted strong states-rights stances in two of them, regarding the need for statutory changes in the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and future policies aimed at energy use and development during the conclusion of the association's three-day annual meeting in Jackson, WY.
While the WGA acknowledged it indirectly, another regional organization, the Western Energy Alliance (WEA), along with the Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW), separately on Tuesday released a report concluding that wildlife and other conservation concerns are being advanced because of technological advances in oil/gas operations. The report said horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) have lowered the industry's surface disturbance by 70%.
WGA advocates changes in the ESA that result in what it calls "broad bipartisan support" while maintaining the federal act's intent of "protecting and recovering" imperiled species. For energy development, production and transmission, the governors want states to be free to develop their own policies that reflect their varying resources.
The eight-page ESA resolution is the result of Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead's 12-month WGA initiative (see Daily GPI, Aug. 27, 2015) focused on the federal species protection act in his year of chairing the association, including a provision that federal agencies accept "variability in state approaches for conservation of species, particularly for species with a wide geographic range."
WGA wants federal government recognition that the states are capable of managing species, even ones impacted by future conditions, and they should be viewed as "full partners in all ESA decision," the resolution states. As such, WGA is calling for Congress to amend and reauthorize the 1973 ESA. They want the federal law to cover both "protecting and recovering" imperiled species.
The revised ESA should be implemented through a "full partnership" with states, local governments and private landowners, WGA articulated in its long resolution. With this, the resolution asks for the federal government's role to be the articulation of "clear and quantifiable" recovery goals for species.
"If you want people to support conservation, if you want them to do conservation work as well, you also have to have the appropriate 'finish line,’ showing that the job can be done," Mead said.
Noting that energy policy/development is a major priority for every western governor, the WGA resolution stated that each state takes a slightly different approach. WGA refers to the West as the nation's "energy breadbasket." The resolution also cited the three-year-old WGA 10-year Energy Vision that established six goals, ranging from energy security to making the West an international leader in energy education and development (see Daily GPI, July 2, 2013).
Another WGA goal, "protecting western wildlife, natural resources and the environment" is addressed in the WEA study, "Gaining Ground: Industry Innovation Reduces Impacts on Sage-Grouse and Big Game," noting that today a single horizontal well can take the place of eight to 16 vertical wells and up to 32 directionally drilled wells can be clustered on one pad.
"Healthy wildlife populations are a major part of the culture and economy of the West," said Kathleen Sgamma, WEA vice president for government and public affairs. "Companies are now able to do more with less to minimize impacts on species and the landscapes they depend upon. Increased use of horizontal and directional drilling have significantly lowered surface disturbance."
WEA officials said the report, done in conjunction with PAW, demonstrated that oil/gas development can coexist with robust wildlife populations, concluding that since drilling advances began in recent years potential impacts have been significantly reduced on the habitat of the sage grouse, mule deer, elk, pronghorn and other big game.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106762-western-govs-stress-states-rights-for-esa-say-directional-pad-drilling-fracking-limit-impact

Return to headline | Return to top
A Rare Tour of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Jun 15, 2016 | Platts

By Brian Scheid

The world’s largest emergency stockpile of crude oil is quickly falling apart.
The stockpile’s infrastructure, which currently stores 695.1 million barrels at four sites along the US Gulf Coast, is nearing the end of its design life and in need of a roughly $2 billion makeover, US Department of Energy officials claim.
“We’ve had several significant equipment failures over the last couple years that have affected our operational capability,” said Bob Corbin, the DOE deputy assistant secretary who oversees the stockpile, formally known as the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
In April, a water pipe at the DOE’s Big Hill site in Winnie, Texas failed, less than a year after a crude oil storage tank failed at the Bryan Mound SPR site near Freeport, Texas.
Throughout the system, pipes are corroding, tank floors need to be replaced, wells are failing mechanical integrity tests and pump motors, after decades of dealing with harsh weather and salty air off the Gulf of Mexico, are breaking down beyond repair, DOE officials claim.
Corbin said these issues complicate the ability of DOE to both drawdown and distribute crude oil at times of severe supply distributions, which is the primary reason the SPR was created more than four decades ago. They also complicate US’ ability to meet obligations under international agreements and could endanger energy security.
Last week, Corbin led a media tour of the Bryan Mound SPR site, the largest of the four SPR sites in Texas and Louisiana.
Bryan Mound is a 500-acre site which currently holds 245 million barrels of crude (2.1 million barrels below its design storage capacity) in 19 operational storage caverns. The SPR has two types of caverns in salt domes: SPR-designed caverns (the long, green caverns in the model) and Early Storage Reserve-caverns (the flatter, reddish-colored caverns in the model). The ESR caverns are typically repurposed salt domes and have operational restrictions the more current SPR-designed caverns do not have. The ESR caverns at the Bryan Mound site were originally used by Dow Chemical to store magnesium. The entire SPR has 49 SPR-designed caverns and 11 ESR caverns.
Cavern 5 at Bryan Mound is the largest crude oil storage cavern in the world and can store up to 37 million barrels of crude. DOE claims that underground caverns, which are roughly 2,000 to 2,200 feet in depth and 200 feet in diameter, can be built for about 1/5 of the cost of conventional surface tanks and have operating costs of less than 30 cents/barrel. The SPR primarily holds light crude, but has 75 million barrels of medium sour, roughly 10.8% of its total inventory. It currently hold 266.1 million barrels of light sweet crude, 38.3% of its inventory, and 354 million barrels of light sour, or 50.9%.
Bryan Mound currently holds 68.6 million barrels of sweet crude in six caverns and 176.4 million barrels of sour crude in 13 other caverns. The site has 45 operational wells and connects to four crude oil distribution sales points: Freeport terminal ship docks; Jones Creek pipeline; Texas City terminal ship docks; and Texas City terminal pipeline.
Congress has approved sales of millions of barrels of SPR crude to help pay for unrelated transportation plans and a modernization effort for the SPR. These sales, which will continue through fiscal 2025, could take the SPR from its current inventory of 695.1 million barrels to 530 million barrels, a threshold DOE needs to stay above in order for the President to maintain statutory authority to approve emergency releases from the stockpile.
“If you get below 530 million barrels…that would basically take away the authority of the president to conduct limited drawdowns, which means small disruptions, not even huge disruptions, would be difficult, if not impossible to respond to as a result,” Corbin said.
Corbin (pictured above) said while millions of barrels of SPR crude will be sold off over the next nine years, he’s not sure if that crude will ever be replaced.
“Buying and selling oil at the same time, from a net inventory result, I think is counterproductive, but you just don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said.
In a report Corbin authored, DOE is expected to recommend an ideal size for the SPR, in light of the ongoing growth of US shale oil. Corbin declined to comment on that recommendation, but said the SPR will be “smaller than it is today” but its exact size is yet to be determined. The report is expected to be released within a month.
The SPR’s drawdown rate, the pace at which crude can be pushed out of storage caverns to pipelines, is designed to be 4.415 million b/d over 90 days before the rate begins to fall. But a smaller SPR could reduce that rate dramatically, hindering the ability of DOE to bring crude to a distressed global market.
“As you reduce your inventory levels, and reduce the number of caverns that oil is stored in, because of flow hydraulics, it changes both the drawdown rate and the maximum duration that you can sustain that rate,” Corbin said.
At the same time, the SPR is also losing as much as 2.4 million barrels per year by both natural creep, caused by the force of the earth pushing on the caverns, and induced creep, which occurs when a cavern needs to be depressurized for maintenance, he said.
“The creep issues will continue going forward, there is nothing anybody can do about those,” Corbin said. “The question becomes, from a planning perspective how does creep impact your storage capacity going forward and how does it impact your requirements for storage capacity going forward?”
Each SPR site uses a system where water is injected into caverns, displacing stored oil and brine and pushing it into crude pipes and eventually sent into pipelines and ships to the Gulf of Mexico.
The ability of that system to work, however, has been complicated both by the SPR’s aging infrastructure and changes to how crude oil now moves in the US. DOE is pushing for dedicated marine terminals in order to ship out crude at times of supply shocks so that crude which would otherwise be sent out from existing marine facilities would not be displaced. Details of this request will be featured in DOE’s upcoming report, Corbin said.
e SPR was established through the Energy Policy & Conservation Act of 1975 and is beginning to show its age. The floor of this tank (pictured above) has corroded and needs to be replaced.
During the tour, a crew worked on repairing a well of one cavern which had failed a state-mandated mechanical integrity test.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 calls for sales between fiscal 2017 through 2020 totaling $2 billion from the SPR to pay for the effort to address many of these issues. But Congress still needs to appropriate the funding for this effort.
DOE warns that if sales do not take place over the next four fiscal years additional, larger volumes will need to be sold in later years when other sales are already scheduled to take place.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/06/15/rare-tour-strategic-petroleum-reserve/#more-23808

Return to headline | Return to top
Divestment a Flawed Decision for Endowments, Pensions

Jun 15, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Jeff Eshelman

Activists have gone to new lengths this year to promote fossil fuel divestment, occupying New York campus libraries and holding protests at the offices of major pension funds. The activity has led to some headlines, but few have asked the right questions: how much does divestment actually cost, and what do the people who stand to be impacted the most by these policies actually think about them?
To date, no tangible effort has been made to capture what pensioners – the folks that are directly impacted by the performance of their retirement funds -- actually think about fossil fuel divestment. To help answer this important question, IPAA commissioned a new survey to capture the views of nearly 800 individuals from all across the United States, all beneficiaries of pension-fund disbursements, such as federal government personnel, retired teachers, fire and police officers.
According to the survey, nearly two out of three respondents said they could not support divestment if doing so could lead to lower returns. Respondents in energy producing states like Texas said they would actively oppose divestment, with 88 percent of respondents saying they would actively oppose divesting from oil and gas companies, and large majorities registered the same position in Pennsylvania (77 percent), Ohio (71 percent) and New York (72 percent).
Pensioners are right to be wary of the impact of divestment on their returns. According to a new report by a researcher at Arizona State University, divestment carries substantial “frictional costs” by way of transaction and management costs. According to his research, these costs have the potential to rob university endowment funds of as much as 12 percent of their total value over a 20-year timeframe. These same costs would apply to a pension fund that, much like universities, are invested in mutual funds, commingled funds, and private equity funds. In turn, to truly give up fossil fuel holdings requires the sale of a large portion of the overall fund, not just the energy stocks included within it – a significant cost to undertake.
So if divestment carries significant costs for endowments, and a majority of pensioners oppose it, why did places like UMass and the Washington, D.C. Retirement Board give up their holdings in fossil fuels? That’s because, for the most part, they didn’t.
The Washington, D.C. Retirement Fund, for instance, is invested in private equity firms focused on the upstream oil and gas sector. These types of investments, alongside many others, would be considered “direct holdings” in fossil fuels and are therefore not part of the recent “divestment” announcement.
UMass, which announced its plan to divest its endowment from “direct holdings” in fossil fuels in May, is also only giving up its direct holdings in fossil fuels, about $5 million of its roughly $770 million endowment. In other words, UMass is committed to divesting less than one percent of the entire endowment of the school system. Not exactly a big change, but one you may have missed given the media attention around the decision.
No matter how you slice it, divestment is a flawed strategy. Energy plays a critical part in the global economy. It powers our daily lives, fueling our cars, lighting our homes, and heating our food. Giving up a financial stake in this critical part of the economy is not only a costly strategy; it is ineffective at generating anything more than a headline. But for pensioners relying on their retirement benefits or students relying on financial aid, this costly decision to make a symbolic divestment choice may carry an unintended consequence.
Jeff Eshelman is a Senior Vice President of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Director of the association’s DivestmentFacts.com campaign.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/283463-divestment-a-flawed-decision-for-endowments-pensions

Return to headline | Return to top
SAB Weighs Advising EPA to Better Quantify Fracking Study Conclusion

Jun 15, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA's full Science Advisory Board (SAB) is weighing how the agency could better quantify its controversial draft study that finds no widespread, systemic adverse impacts to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing, though the SAB is for now opting against the rare step of sending the report back to an SAB panel for further review.
At the conclusion of a June 14 SAB meeting in Alexandria, VA, panelists accepted a motion that says David Dzombak of Carnegie Mellon University -- chairman of the 30-member panel charged with reviewing the draft fracking study -- along with several lead reviewers from the full chartered SAB, would make revisions to the panel's draft report ahead of final approval from full SAB Chairman Peter Thorne, of the University of Iowa.
The SAB members briefly discussed taking the rare step of sending the draft report back to the SAB panel to reconvene and reach consensus on the revisions after the panel had previously failed to do so. The full SAB ultimately decided that the revisions did not rise to the level of requiring the panel's re-review.
EPA's draft study has drawn heated debate for the conclusion that, “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
The panel's April 26 draft report said that the majority of members were concerned with several of the draft study's conclusions on water impacts given that EPA acknowledges serious data limitations. “Of particular concern in this regard is the high-level conclusion statement” on “widespread, systemic impacts.”
The draft report said that most members of the panel found that the statement did not clearly define “systemic,” widespread” or “impacts,” and that EPA should consider clarifying language, such as adding “modifying adjectives.”
But four of the members of the panel dissented from the majority finding, saying that the conclusion was accurate and clear, sending a divided review to the full SAB that considered it at this week's meeting.
“The way it reads now, it can almost be interpreted as a value judgment,” said SAB member Charles Werth, of University of Texas at Austin, about EPA's draft finding on water quality impacts, echoing concerns from other panelists.
During the meeting, several SAB members hinted that the fracking panel's draft advice stopped short of what was needed to adequately address the concerns that the statement is vague.
SAB's Reaction
Gina Solomon, of the California Environmental Protection Agency cited public comments the SAB heard June 14 and during a previous meeting June 8 to say that some groups found that the statement was factually true, some felt the terms were vague and poorly defined and some felt it was overly broad and under-supported by data.
Still another subset found that “widespread” and “systemic” may not be appropriate metrics for determining whether or not fracking impacts drinking water resources, Solomon said.
Addressing the SAB fracking panel's draft advice that EPA modify the language, she added, “I had trouble with the majority opinion saying, add some modifying adjectives, it seems to be tinkering around the edges” of the problems identified with the draft conclusion. “That makes me uncomfortable . . . that you see different things depending on how you look at it; I'm not sure that's okay for a scientific document,” she said.
Referencing Solomon's remarks that the statement can be interpreted in different ways, Werth added that EPA could try to quantify the statement. “It needs numbers, they may not be complete, and that can be explained in the details,” he said.
Werth suggested that the agency could look at using data from parts of the draft study to add numbers such as how many cases were studied, how many wells were looked at or the number of instances of problematic well casings included in the assessment.
In response to the comments, Dzombak said, “I think that would be something the panel can agree on,” because the panel had extensive discussion around how EPA could have better quantified various factors in the draft study.
Dissenting Opinions
SAB members also suggested that the final panel report should lessen the focus on the dissenting opinions from the SAB fracking panel, given that the panel had been charged with reaching consensus.
Kimberly Jones, of Howard University, said that as written in the panel's report, “the dissent stands out more than the many, many recommendations agreed on” by the panel.
Former SAB Chairman Deborah Swackhamer said that one of the two dissents -- authored by Elaine Faustman of University of Washington -- was “confusing” and unclear as to why Faustman's comments were included in a dissent.
Faustman wrote, “I disagree with the characterization that the EPA did a 'generally comprehensive' job in developing the draft Assessment Report,” and that the draft study was extensive but “lacking in multiple critical areas” and the “information that is missing is serious and is of concern.”
Swackhamer noted that it would not be inappropriate to ask Faustman for further clarification, saying the dissenting opinion “seems more mysterious than helpful.”
The second dissenting opinion, authored by Stephen Almond, of Fritz Industries; Shari-Dunn-Norman, of Missouri University of Science and Technology; John Fontana, of Vista GeoScience; and Walt Hufford, of Talisman Energy said that EPA's conclusion on “widespread, systemic impacts,” is “accurate, clear, concise, unambiguous, and supportable with the facts EPA has reviewed.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/sab-weighs-advising-epa-better-quantify-fracking-study-conclusion

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Transportation News

Freight Railroads Are Braking for Regulatory Creep

Jun 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

By Edward R. Hamberger

Economic forecasters are projecting the slowest expansion in four years, slashing expectations for the year to only 1.8% in overall GDP growth, according to a new surveyfrom the National Association for Business Economics. Thus continues the weakest recovery from a recession since World War II.
One explanation for this sluggish performance may be the increasing regulatory burden on American industry, including freight railroads. A web of regulations drove the freight-railroad industry to the brink of financial ruin in the 1970s. Regulatory creep since then—and damage caused by rules that create disincentives for railroads to modernize—threatens to hobble the industry again.
The cost of the paperwork alone to be in compliance with safety regulations issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is about $1.5 billion a year, according to analysis by my organization, the Association of American Railroads. That accounts for some 25 million hours worked in the freight-railroad industry in 2015, about 5.3% of the total. And that doesn’t include time spent doing paperwork for the myriad other agencies that oversee industry safety. Nor does it include compliance costs beyond paperwork and the impact of the regulations, which can distort the marketplace and disrupt railroads’ incentives and ability to invest in infrastructure to meet future demand.
For railroads, two proposed rules epitomize the government’s troubling approach to developing regulations. In one, under the guise of safety, the FRA would require railroads to run every train with at least a two-person crew unless special permission is granted based on unspecified criteria. Crew size has never before been considered a matter for safety regulation, and instead has been addressed between the railroads and their employees under collective bargaining.
When issuing the rule in March, the FRA acknowledged that it lacks any data to support the assertion that two-person crews are safer than one-person crews. In fact, the FRA noted that “it is possible that one-person crews have contributed to the improving safety record” of the rail industry.
This rule was proposed with railroads closing in on implementing a multibillion-dollar safety system known as Positive Train Control—an automated system that stands between human mistakes and accidents, and that will make the world’s safest freight rail system even safer. But the FRA’s proposed rule deprives railroads of the efficiencies that come with such a system, stranding that aspect of their investment. It effectively freezes the evolution of railroad operations that might affect crew size.
In another proposal under consideration at the Surface Transportation Board, some companies that move goods by rail want to force railroads to open up their tracks and facilities to other railroad competitors in order to obtain lower shipping costs. Doing so would upend the logistical efficiencies that today benefit all customers using the U.S. rail system to move their goods.
Railroads purposely concentrate and move traffic along certain routes to maximize operational efficiencies and fluidity. The railroads’ routing practices—honed over the three decades since partial deregulation in 1980—take into account the effectiveness of the entire network. Undoing efficiencies for the benefit of a few shippers would hurt the great majority of businesses that rely on rail.
The importance of the railroad industry to the U.S. economy is hard to overstate. In 2014, major U.S. railroads supported approximately 1.5 million jobs, $274 billion in annual economic activity, nearly $90 billion in wages and $33 billion in tax revenues, accordingto Towson University’s Regional Economic Studies Institute. Railroads have also invested $25 billion annually on average in their own infrastructure in recent years—a huge public benefit considering the crumbling state of many publicly funded transportation enterprises.
These achievements have been hard won against a powerful and haphazard regulatory tide. The federal regulatory process is in dire need of repair. The Federal Railroad Administration and Surface Transportation Board should develop regulations that adapt to and promote innovation and industry investment in infrastructure, not undermine them.
Mr. Hamberger is president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/freight-railroads-are-braking-for-regulatory-creep-1465943599

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Train Tank Cars Are Getting Safer but What About the Tracks?

Jun 15, 2016 | KUOW News & Information

By Tony Schick

Just after noon on June 3, the two-man Union Pacific crew hauling 96 cars of Tacoma-bound crude oil felt a tug on the train as they passed through the Columbia River Gorge.
The train’s emergency brakes triggered unexpectedly, according to railroad union leaders, indicating bad track or equipment failure could be to blame. The crew looked back and saw smoke — the beginnings of a fire that would burn for much of the night.
Union Pacific’s investigation later determined track was in fact the cause— multiple fasteners connecting the rail line to the ties had failed, allowing the track’s gauge to widen and derail the train. It spilled 42,000 gallons in Mosier, Oregon, prompting an evacuation order.
Derailments have been on the decline over the past few decades. The railroad industry says over 99 percent of its hazardous material shipments reach their destination safely. But that margin of error has included several fiery oil train crashes.
Not all hazardous shipments are the same: regulators and railroaders say they are learning mile-long crude oil trains are difficult to handle and put a burden on tracks other freight does not.
“In the slowing down and speeding up, you will have a sloshing of the oil,” said Jason Lewis, a policy advisor for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, which oversees railroads in the state.
“That does put more pressure and strain on the track than what we’ve seen before. So we’re more aware of potential risks because of that,” Lewis said.
Track problems are the leading cause of derailments and have caused the majority of oil train wrecks. But in all the calls for increased safety and federal action on crude by rail that have echoed in the days following the crash in Mosier, little of the focus has been given to what can be done to improve track maintenance to prevent derailments.
Meanwhile, enforcement of track safety is minimal and recent surveys of railroad track inspectors call into question the industry’s touted safety commitments. Government inspections, spread thin across an expansive network, serve as infrequent spot checks of rail activity.
State and federal records show fewer than 5 percent of all defects flagged by inspectors result in violation findings. Safety experts say standard fines for those violations are too low to be effective. Records show they are routinely negotiated down to lesser amounts.
Federal officials are being urged to finalize oil train rules that phase out flawed tank car models, require better braking systems, and put new requirements on train routes, speed and notice to local governments. Lawmakers from the Northwest have introduced bills aimed at speeding the phase-out of those flawed tank cars, as well as reducing the volatility of oil moved, increasing fines for hazardous material violations and providing better training and information for first responders along oil train routes.
None of those rules focus on improved track conditions, but federal and state regulators are quietly trying to ramp up inspections for crude oil routes.
“The thinking behind that was if you’re going to have a major incident with an oil train, because of the size and the weight of those, you’re going to have an incident that involves track,” said Hal Gard, rail administrator for the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Some attempts have been made to mitigate oil train damage through using stronger tank cars and making the oil less volatile. But these measures have proven insufficient to prevent spills and fires. In Mosier, for instance, the tank cars involved were not the notorious DOT-111 models, but a sturdier version with more shielding. The oil also met a new conditioning standard in North Dakota meant to make it less volatile.
“There were no intervening obstacles. The oil was not as volatile as some forms of oil, the tank cars had been upgraded, you name it. But still, it derailed and exploded,” said Eric de Place, policy director for the Sightline Institute. The Seattle-based think tank has produced several reports critical of the transportation of oil and other fossil fuels through the Northwest.
“The industry simply cannot operate these trains in a safe manner,” he said.
Questions about inspections
Thomas Frederick, a longtime railroad engineer in Seattle, said trains with 100 or more cars of exclusively crude oil can be harder to handle than a train carrying mixed freight.
Railroaders are used to hazardous materials, he said, but the most cars he ever handled of other hazardous materials, such as chlorine gas, was 10 or 15 — not a mile-long trainload. An oil train is heavy, and the cars slosh with any curves or flaws in the tracks.
When 100 cars of flammable crude oil are rolling by, any defects in the track become higher stakes.
“I’ve pointed out several locations where the track is pretty rough and I’ve put it on our safety hotline and it just kind of gets swept under the rug,” Frederick said.
Frederick’s claim of defects going unaddressed is not a rare one, according to surveys done by a labor union and government regulators.
In them, railroad track inspectors describe feeling rushed to complete inspections.
In one survey done by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, 30 percent of inspectors reported railroad management had pressured them not to report defects. Additionally, 35 percent reported railroad management had, without making any repairs, overruled their orders to reduce speed or close lines temporarily.
“The track inspectors are, basically, in the hot seat,” said Rick Inclima, safety director for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, representing track inspectors.
“They have a very high level of responsibility to the public and to the railroad. But they are pressured by their superior officers. Their interest up at the top is to run trains and run them fast,” Inclima said.
Inclima said oil trains should be allowed to travel only on track that meets the highest maintenance standards and required to travel at a slower speed than trains carrying other types of freight.
High costs for maintaining rail infrastructure
Russ Quimby, a rail consultant and former investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board, believes railroads are among the safest modes for hauling crude oil.
“They do as much as they can to try and prevent track-related accidents,” he said, adding that the idea of zero derailments is “like saying we’re going to sell you a car that’s never going to break down.”
Railroads cite the millions of dollars they spend on infrastructure as an indication of their commitment to safety.
Two days before the Columbia Gorge derailment, Union Pacific Railroad announced plans to spend $34 million on infrastructure in Oregon, adding to a total of $193 million since 2011.
“That includes new rail, bridge inspections, everything. With safety being a priority, we’re constantly investing in our infrastructure to ensure it’s as safe as possible,” Union Pacific spokesman Justin Jacobs said.
George Gavalla, a rail consultant and former safety administrator for the Federal Railroad Administration who has spent four decades in the industry, said such numbers should be viewed more as a necessary business expense than a testament to safety.
“If you’ve got tens of thousands of miles of track, that’s normal. That’s normal maintenance,” Gavalla said.
Railroads inspect their own track much more frequently, sometimes in excess of federal standards. Union Pacific has 23 inspectors in Oregon and Washington.
But inspections can miss dangerous defects, like the failing bolts in Mosier that eluded Union Pacific inspectors as recently as four days before the derailment.
Before Mosier, the railroad visually inspected track twice a week. It ran automated inspections to detect internal rail defects only once every several months. The test that could have caught the defect in Mosier was done less than once a year. After the derailment, the railroad announced increased inspections along that route.
A push for better oversight
After Mosier, state and federal regulators announced plans to inspect oil train routes in the Columbia River Gorge.
Since oil began moving on the rails a few years ago, regulators at the state and federal levels have tried to increase their oversight of track safety. Washington and Oregon both hired new inspectors. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission identified known oil train routes with a history of derailments, so it can focus on high-risk areas.
The Federal Railroad Administration launched a new inspection program in 2015 for known crude oil routes, in which it sends dozens of additional inspectors to focus on track conditions in a specific region during a two-week span.
In response to one oil train crash, the agency also issued a safety advisory urging railroads to conduct closer inspections of their own and provide their inspectors with better training. It is also considering standards for when rail becomes too worn and needs to be replaced.
But overall, enforcement of track safety remains light.
The FRA has over 350 inspectors across the U.S. including 50 in the Pacific Northwest. The agency said that is its highest total ever. But that total is only few more people than the 347 the agency had in 2013, when it estimated its inspectorsobserved only 1 percent of railroads’ operations.
Oregon has three track inspectors, with a goal of seeing every mile of track in the state at least once per year.
Over the past three years, the Oregon Department of Transportation inspectors flagged 6,441 defects in 5,089 miles of track inspected. Of those, 22 were recommended to the FRA for violations and civil penalties, as the state agency cannot issue fines.
“Defects range from something pretty minor that can be corrected on the spot. Or they can be pretty major that will require follow-up inspections and can, if it’s not attended to, turn into a violation,” said Gard, Oregon’s rail administrator.
In that same time span, federal inspectors found more than 780,000 defects across the country during railroad inspections, including track. About 23,000 — or 3 percent — were recommended for violations.
“If you want to write a higher percentage of fines, you’re going to be doing a lot more time doing paperwork,” said Gavalla, the former FRA safety administrator. “If you want to see 75-80 percent defects to fines, and you still want significant time in the field, you’re going to need a big increase in the number of inspectors in the agency.”
Gavalla and others in the rail industry say civil penalties issued by the FRA are not a deterrent for safety violations and amount to the cost of doing business for the country’s large railroads.
In 2008, Congress capped the amount the FRA could fine railroads for a single violation at $25,000. In 2014, Union Pacific reported a net profit over $5 billion.
Last year, the FRA issued $21 million in fines. After settlements, railroads collectively paid $15 million of that.
That recovery rate was a result of stepped-up enforcement this past year. The FRA had never before recovered that much of its original fines.
“They’re so far out of kilter of what they were 50 years ago, it just doesn’t have the same impact that it used to,” Gavalla said about federal fines for railroads. “Whether they collect a fine or not of a few thousand dollars, I personally felt that FRA’s ability to fine doesn’t make all that much difference.”
http://kuow.org/post/oil-train-tank-cars-are-getting-safer-what-about-tracks

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

House Appropriators Clear $32 Billion Interior-EPA Spending Bill

Jun 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Alex Guillen and Annie Snider

The House Appropriations Committee today approved its $32 billion Interior-EPA spending bill for 2017, though it remains unclear whether the package will get to the floor given broader fights over funding and a ticking clock.
The vote, along party lines, was 31-18.
The bill shaves EPA’s budget by $164 million, down to just under $8 billion, while policy riders go after a number of EPA and Interior regulations.
Lawmakers approved several Republican amendments, including one that would block the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from finalizing new air quality rules for offshore oil and gas operations until studies assess their affects. Another would block Interior from deciding whether the greater sage-grouse or the lesser prairie chicken need Endangered Species Act protections.
The committee also voted largely along party lines to include a controversial California drought measure. Golden State Republicans are eager to get Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat leading negotiations over drought assistance for the upper chamber, to conference. They have included their bill as an amendment to a number of other measures as well, including the House energy and water appropriations bill and the House’s energy bill.
An amendment that would have removed 33 policy riders, called “poison pills” and “veto bait” by Democrats, also ailed in the appropriations mark up — as did an amendment that would have appropriated $385 million for water delivery in Flint, Mich.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is slated to mark up its own $32 billion Interior-EPA spending bill on Thursday.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy

Return to headline | Return to top
Why Won't Clinton Support a Carbon Tax? Trump

Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

By Evan Lehmann

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton isn't talking about one of the biggest policies on climate change, reinforcing what some say is a division among Democrats about how to achieve great cuts to carbon dioxide emissions in almost every facet of our powered life.
The policy is a carbon price. The party's disagreements over promoting one or supporting executive orders to address rising temperatures could be illuminated as the Democratic platform is hammered out over the next five weeks, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's opponent for the nomination, promising to prioritize policies like a carbon tax.
Pricing carbon has been a cornerstone of the climate solution since at least 2003, when Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman, the now-retired independent from Connecticut, introduced a bill to cap national emissions.
The policy has been beaten legislatively at least three times. But many climate advocates and economists say it's still the key to cutting enough emissions to avoid damaging warming around the globe. It could be needed in 10 years or earlier, many say.
"I do think it's the indispensable tool," said Nat Keohane, a former climate adviser to President Obama who is now a vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund.
A carbon price is omnipresent in climate circles. Early goals to cut carbon might be met without it, like Obama's pledge in the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025. But after that, many experts assume some kind of price on emissions will be used to eliminate all but the most difficult sources. The effort would whittle down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to just 20 percent of what they were in 2005 by 2050.
You won't find Clinton talking about that this year. She withstood Sanders' criticisms about not supporting a carbon tax throughout the spring primary contests in part because promoting that policy could expose her to politically damaging attacks by presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, observers say. Clinton has supported carbon pricing in the past.
"You're going to choose the path of least resistance," said one Democratic climate strategist. "No one wants to get into a debate on a carbon tax."
A discussion about the country's long-term climate goals, and the prospects for a carbon price, could be thrust into the open if Sanders insists on including a carbon tax in the platform. The policy is generally disliked by voters, said Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. While the platform isn't binding for the nominee, it could give ammunition to Trump.
"This might be one of the more visible discussions we've had beyond more wonky circles of this idea [of pricing carbon] in some time," said Rabe, who is writing a book on the subject.
Platforms change on climate
Sanders' appointment of Bill McKibben to the Platform Drafting Committee ensures that the senator will be represented by a fellow Vermonter and like-minded environmentalist who is better known for civil disobedience than for working within the political establishment.
McKibben suggested in a recent email that he intends to push for a carbon tax when the 15-member committee begins negotiating the language of the document. He was one of roughly 20 people to meet with Sanders at his home in Burlington on Sunday.
"He's talked about it at every possible opportunity, so I'd be surprised if he didn't want it in the platform," McKibben said of a carbon tax in the email last week. "It's one of the, um, keystones of his stump speech!"
The idea of pricing carbon stumbled badly in 2010. A year earlier, the House barely passed a bill to cap emissions in most sectors of the economy. But when it arrived in the Senate, the policy crashed after failing to receive a vote. It was one of Obama's chief campaign promises in 2008, and it would be the last time Congress took up a climate bill. So far.
The Democratic platform in 2008 described climate change as "the planet's greatest threat," and it explicitly supported a cap-and-trade program. That changed in 2012. The platform called global warming "one of the biggest threats of this generation," and it omitted any mention of carbon pricing.
Then, in July 2013, Obama formalized the transition away from carbon pricing. He launched his Climate Action Plan, which promoted executive actions like the Clean Power Plan.
But there are limits to its reach. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer who served as chief climate counsel to the Sierra Club and is now a scholar with the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank that promotes a carbon tax, says the Clean Power Plan will have to be strengthened under the next president to achieve the 2025 carbon reductions promised by Obama.
As the regulations tighten on power plants, and as new ones are proposed for refineries and other carbon sources, that could prompt Republicans in Congress to pursue legislation, he says. He believes it would be a carbon price. In exchange, the regulations would be pre-empted.
"Clinton knows full well that there's going to have to be carbon pricing, but she's not going to say that because she doesn't want to have to deal with that in the general [election]," Bookbinder said. "The last thing she needs is a carbon tax label being hung around her neck.
"Will Clinton's view 'evolve'?
Keohane of EDF is also optimistic that Clinton would support an economywide program to cap emissions and price carbon. He says there's global momentum for broader policies that tap into financial markets to help drive technological advances, and future U.S. presidents will be pulled into that current.
He said Obama's climate regulations are a "vital start" to meeting the nation's long-term carbon goals. But more is needed.
"We know we need greater ambition and more reductions in the power sector than the Clean Power Plan will deliver," said Keohane. "And we need those reductions in industrial sectors, we need them in transport, we need them across the economy. So to get the kind of ambition we need, in the U.S., we're going to need an economywide price and limit on carbon."
Clinton's campaign wouldn't say that yesterday. A spokesman didn't respond to questions about whether she believes a carbon price is needed to meet future climate goals and whether she supports language in the platform about a carbon tax.
"As President, Hillary Clinton will take aggressive steps to reduce carbon pollution both at home and around the world while accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy," campaign spokesman Tyrone Gayle said in an email. "Her plan won't just meet the goals the U.S. set in Paris, it will exceed them, putting the country on a path to slash greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and leading the world in the fight against climate change."
Clinton has promised to defend and expand Obama's regulatory efforts like the Clean Power Plan. She is also proposing a $60 billion investment in solar power and other clean energy sources that would require approval from Congress.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) is a Clinton supporter who hopes the platform calls for a carbon price.
But he acknowledges that goes against the views of his party's nominee.
"Everybody's view, especially on climate, continue to evolve," Schatz said in an interview. "If we want to win, then we have to allow for every public leader, from mayor to senator to president, to continue to move toward what I think will eventually be the consensus position."
He says that's a carbon price.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/15/stories/1060038843

Return to headline | Return to top
Clock Ticking on Ambitious N.Y. Climate Bill

Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

By Elizabeth Harball

An ambitious climate bill that passed New York's Assembly earlier this month is running out of time to become law.
The "New York State Climate and Community Protection Act," which would require zero emissions from the state's major greenhouse gas sources by 2050, passed the Democrat-led Assembly on June 1 with a solid majority of votes. But New York's legislative session could end as soon as tomorrow, and the bill was not named as one of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's end-of-session priorities in a letter he sent to the Legislature on Monday.
Activists and their allies, however, said they are not giving up hope of seeing a vote. Assemblyman Steve Englebright, a Democrat who introduced the bill, yesterday joined groups in saying there is still time for lawmakers to act.
"In a very real way, they have time to do this, and they should," Englebright told ClimateWire. "It's a responsible thing to do."
Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York, agreed, saying, "There's plenty of time for political will to be expended to bring this thing to the floor."
The bill sets ambitious greenhouse gas targets, mandating a 50 percent reduction in the state's emissions from large sources by 2030 and a 100 percent reduction by midcentury. This would include limits on the state's manufacturing sector, refineries and natural gas pipelines, and would allow for a market-based mechanism like a cap-and-trade system.
It would also make legally enforceable a target Cuomo set forth last year directing the state to get 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
Englebright called the targets "realistic and necessary," adding: "I hope that we are able to see it become law. There are implications when New York does major policy -- it's often that other states and jurisdictions emulate what we do."
Iwanowicz said he didn't view the fact that the bill was not among Cuomo's end-of-session priorities as a sign the governor doesn't support the bill.
"These are goals and standards that his administration has supported," he said. "We think if the Legislature passes this, there will be a high likelihood that the governor will sign it into law.
"Business groups blast bill as 'unrealistic'
The bill is backed by a group called NY Renews, a broad coalition of environmental advocates, unions and environmental justice groups.
Some of the bill's language is aimed at ensuring New York's green targets do not disproportionately affect disadvantaged populations, said Clarke Gocker of the Buffalo, N.Y.-based People United for Sustainable Housing, which is part of the NY Renews coalition.
While low-income communities or people of color are likely to be affected "first and worst" by climate change, Gocker said, "our fear is that a transition to a 100 percent renewable energy, zero-emission economy in New York would leave a lot of communities behind."
The bill includes a provision to set aside 40 percent of any funds collected under a market-based mechanism instituted under the law to be used to benefit disadvantaged communities, such as by increasing access to energy efficiency and renewable energy. It also would establish a Disadvantaged Communities Working Group to advise the state on environmental justice issues.
The Business Council of New York State Inc. opposes the bill, calling it "simply unworkable and unrealistic" in a legislative memo.
"It would result in the end of manufacturing, farming, busses, trucks, cars, and finally people," it stated.
The council supports efforts to reduce the economy's carbon intensity, the memo said, but the group believes the bill "will lead to massive carbon leakage, meaning its impact on aggregate emissions will be minimal."
Englebright responded to the council's statement by saying it "really misses the point."
"This is an issue that we need to address for major anthropogenic emitters of carbon dioxide and methane, and we need to do that in a methodical and thoughtful way," he said. "It's unfortunate because they really are asking for us to just have business as usual."
To say that by "being responsible we are going to cause an end to all businesses and even life in New York is really absurd," Englebright added.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/15/stories/1060038826

Return to headline | Return to top
Judge Orders EPA to Prepare 'Good Neighbor' Plan for Texas

Jun 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

By Sean Reilly

U.S. EPA must impose a federal air pollution implementation plan on Texas to meet a "good neighbor" requirement to limit releases of fine particulates that cross state lines, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
The ruling by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly gives EPA until late next month to lay out a schedule for adopting the plan pegged to compliance with the 1997 ambient air quality standards for such particulates, followed by status reports every three months.
Her decision came in response to a Sierra Club lawsuit originally filed in 2010, which also alleged that EPA had failed to prepare a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the 1997 ozone standard after Texas had failed to do so. That issue has since been settled in a partial consent decree, according to yesterday's ruling.
EPA lawyers had argued for dismissal of the remaining claim over the fine particulate standard, saying the agency's release of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule had rendered it moot. Kollar-Kotelly disagreed, saying the agency failed to clear the high bar needed to justify that conclusion.
Fine particulates are those less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or one-thirtieth the diameter of a human hair. Often called PM2.5, they are linked to early death and aggravation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. According to the Sierra Club's suit, Texas was originally supposed to have submitted a plan for meeting the interstate transport requirement of the 1997 fine particulate standard by 2000.
In a statement, Elena Saxonhouse, Sierra Club senior attorney, welcomed the decision, adding that Texas's coal-fired power plants "are some of worst polluters in the nation because they have not installed modern pollution controls." A spokesman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality could not immediately be reached for comment this morning.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/15/stories/1060038874

Return to headline | Return to top
This Gas Leak Was So Massive That NASA Saw It from Space

Jun 15, 2016 | Washington Post

By Chris Mooney

The massive Aliso Canyon methane gas leak of late last year was already one for the record books.
Recent research suggests that the Los Angeles-area leak poured 97,100 metric tons of the powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere between late October 2015 and February. The study also found that the leak, if translated into automotive tailpipe emissions, would be equivalent to the effect of the yearly greenhouse gas emissions from 572,000 cars.
Now, new research from NASA and its partners has underscored in a different way how big it was: A satellite-based instrument was able to identify and isolate the leak from space, the first time this has ever been accomplished for a single-source emission of methane.
The observations of the plume of gas were first detected by a device called the Hyperion spectrometer, which is carried by NASA’s Earth Observing-1 satellite. The spectrometer measured what the scientists call the “infrared signature” of methane three separate times, and then the observations, and their accuracy, were separately confirmed by NASA aircraft.
The findings were just published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters by NASA’s David Thompson and a team of colleagues with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, the Hemholtz Centre Potsdam in Germany and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
“For the first time — to our knowledge, anyway — we’ve been able to see the methane plume from space,” Thompson said. “And this is important because it sort of presages the possibility of using other instruments that are focused on methane in order to do similar things on a much wider scale.”
Here’s an image that NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory released to accompany the research:
The Hyperion spectrometer is an optical instrument that scans in “many hundreds of wavelengths,” Thompson said, which allows for the identification of specific gases.
“Every gas leaves its fingerprint on the light that passes through it,” he continued. “So what the algorithms we applied do is they examine the imagery from the spacecraft to see the very unique spectral signature of methane, and then map it over wide locations.”
This was possible even though the spacecraft that carries Hyperion is currently drifting in its orbit, having long since run out of fuel, and despite the fact that the spectrometer was not designed to make measurements of methane. All of this meant that the instrument was “severely handicapped,” the researchers write. So future, more strategically tailored methane measurements could be considerably more accurate.
The work comes at a time when remote imaging technologies, more and more, are helping scientists understand the global distribution and major sources of air pollution. Recently, another satellite-based study identified dozens of new, major sources of sulfur pollution around the globe.
Improving methane leak observations will not only allow more precise estimates of how much countries are contributing to the atmospheric greenhouse gas burden — a key goal of the Paris climate agreement — but will help track the hardest hitting gases in particular, such as methane. While it has a far shorter atmospheric lifetime than carbon dioxide, methane causes far more warming than an equivalent amount of CO2 while it lasts, making large releases particularly consequential.
The space-based gas spotting trend will only increase, based upon the new research and further improvements of it. “Future satellite systems that focus on methane could be much more sensitive to an event like this one,” Thompson said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/15/this-gas-leak-was-so-massive-that-nasa-saw-it-from-space/

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested