Preview Newsletter

PM ACC 6/28/2016

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Why Pending New Chemical Regulations Won't Hurt DuPont, Dow, or 3M
Jun 28, 2016 | Motley Fool
By John Bromels

If you had to pick an adjective to describe chemical companies' relationships with the Environmental Protection Agency, I'm betting "collegial" wouldn't be at the top of the list.
Reformed TSCA Will Not Constrain Many State-Level Actions
Jun 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

States will continue to play a “significant role” in managing chemicals of concern in consumer products under a reformed TSCA, according to advocacy groups and regulators.
Reformed Bill Gives EPA Teeth to Tackle Toxic Chemicals
Jun 28, 2016 | AG Professional
By Ben Potter

Back in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was first enacted. But it’s never had the power it truly needed until President Obama signed a bipartisan bill into law that reforms TSCA so it requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear, enforceable deadlines.
The Energy and Commerce Committee: Getting the Job Done
Jun 28, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)

Legislation to protect seniors’ access to their Medicare doctors, to strengthen and improve chemical and pipeline safety, to reform our nation’s mental health system, and to revolutionize our healthcare ecosystem to facilitate 21st Century Cures.
NTP Preparing to Assess Glyphosate's Carcinogenicity in Toxicology Study
Jun 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is preparing to assess the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide worldwide, amid ongoing debate about EPA's process for re-registration of the chemical and following an international body's...
Echa Appoints Senior Official as Brexit ‘Contact Point’
Jun 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts

Echa has responded to the Brexit crisis by appointing Andreas Herdina, head of its communications and outreach directorate, as its “contact point” for British companies and for its own British staff.
5,300 U.S. Water Systems are in Violation of Lead Rules
Jun 28, 2016 | CNN
By Sara Ganim

Eighteen million Americans live in communities where the water systems are in violation of the law. Moreover, the federal agency in charge of making sure those systems are safe not only knows the issues exist, but it's done very little to stop them...

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) UC Irvine Chemists Find New Method for Recycling Common Plastics as Fuel
Jun 28, 2016 | Forbes
By Janet Burns

If you still lack the motivation needed to kick-start your recycling efforts but appreciate energy efficiency, a team of chemists may have just the innovation to get your engines revving.
North America to Aim for 50% Zero-Carbon Grid by 2025
Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden

The United States, Mexico and Canada will make a joint pledge tomorrow to draw half the continent's power from non-emitting sources by 2025.
Environmental Groups Plan Appeal of US Fracking Decision as Debate Swirls over Impact
Jun 28, 2016 | Platts
By Brian Scheid

Environmental groups said Monday they will appeal a federal judge's decision to overturn the Obama administration's rules over hydraulic fracturing, a ruling an attorney for these groups said will have far-reaching impacts over future regulation of US oil and gas operations.
A Second Wave of Texas LNG Export Projects Could Take Off in the Next Decade
Jun 28, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum

The United States became an exporter of liquefied natural gas this year with Cheniere Energy's first shipments from Louisiana, but a glut of LNG globally is creating questions about when a "second wave" of LNG export projects will move forward.
Federal Appeals Court Rebuffs Challenges to FERC LNG Approvals
Jun 28, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon

A federal appeals court issued two opinions this morning rejecting claims by Sierra Club that FERC had violated environmental review laws when the agency approved liquefied natural gas export facilities.
To Kauffman, N.Y. Grid Reform Has to Make Money for Everyone
Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim and Peter Behr

Gov. Andrew Cuomo had his man. It was January 2013, and the New York governor was giving his State of the State address in Albany. Just months before, Superstorm Sandy had thrown a roundhouse punch to the power grid in New York and New Jersey...
Is Alaska, Another Oil State, The Next Frontier for Climate Action?
Jun 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Kate Zerrenner

On a recent flight to Anchorage, Alaska, a man in the seat next to mine mentioned that the city only had two “bad” days of winter this year. Temperatures had hit a remarkable 70 degrees in March.
Banning Fracking is the Only Rational Option
Jun 28, 2016 | Baltimore Sun
By Gina M. Angiola

Unconventional gas development using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, has been intensely debated in our state for almost a decade.

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

Transportation News

Freight Trains Collide Head-On, Explode into Flames in Texas Panhandle
Jun 28, 2016 | Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III

A pair of freight trains collided head-on and exploded into flames Tuesday morning in the Texas panhandle, and there were unconfirmed reports that one or more crew members died in the crash.

Environment News

House Committee Says Politics Driving EPA Science Decisions
Jun 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch

An investigation by the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has found that the EPA "intentionally ignores" good science and "cherry picks" the science that fits its agenda.
White House Analysis 'Has Gotten Weirder' -- Ex-EPA Official
Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess

U.S. EPA's first policy chief under the Obama administration today criticized White House regulatory reviews for continuing a Reagan-era practice of using cost-benefit analysis as the guiding framework.
Conservative Greens' Poll Shows Voters Keen on Climate Solutions
Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin

A majority of voters would be less likely to support political candidates who describe climate change as a "hoax," according to a new poll sponsored by conservative environmental organizations.
Science Groups to Congress: Climate Change is Real Threat
Jun 28, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Seth Borenstein

Thirty-one of the country’s top science organizations are telling Congress that global warming is a real problem and something needs to be done about it.
On a Heating Planet, ‘Gasland’ Filmmaker Josh Fox Lets Go and Loves
Jun 27, 2016 | New York Times
By Andrew C. Revkin

Josh Fox’s first and second films, “Gasland” and “Gasland Part 2,” were high-octane polemics aimed at ending fracking, shorthand for the revolutionary method of fracturing deep layers of shale to liberate natural gas and oil previously deemed unreachable.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Why Pending New Chemical Regulations Won't Hurt DuPont, Dow, or 3M

Jun 28, 2016 | Motley Fool

By John Bromels

If you had to pick an adjective to describe chemical companies' relationships with the Environmental Protection Agency, I'm betting "collegial" wouldn't be at the top of the list. Indeed, most industries have rocky relationships with the government agencies that oversee them.
So you can only imagine what kind of reaction the big chemical companies had to new legislation that strengthened the EPA's powers over regulation of chemicals. Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group that includes heavy hitters DuPont (NYSE:DD), Dow Chemical (NYSE:DOW), and 3M (NYSE:MMM), summed up the industry feeling nicely: "We applaud President Obama for signing this legislation into law."
Wait, what?
Surprising as it may seem, this new regulatory authority isn't bad for the industry and might actually be to its benefit. Here's why.
Time for a change
It's been 40 years since the last major overhaul of the country's chemical regulations. Back in 1976, Gerald Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act into law. The TSCA gave the EPA the authority to regulate all chemicals manufactured in or shipped to the U.S. -- well, almost all. Some 60,000 chemicals that were already in use were grandfathered in and assumed to be safe.
This presumption of safety even applied to new chemicals until evidence emerged that a chemical was hazardous. Moreover, the TSCA required the EPA to perform cost-benefit analyses to industry before proposing regulations, and to prove that a substance was an "unreasonable risk" before taking any action. Chemical companies could also withhold information from the EPA, citing trade secrets. And there was no requirement for a chemical company to test the safety of its products before beginning to sell them.
Because of these and other restrictions, numerous hazardous chemicals still found their way into commercial products and the environment. These included the known carcinogen asbestos, which kills 15,000 people each year yet is still not banned outright in the U.S. -- in 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a 1989 EPA ban under the TSCA.
However you might feel about this situation, it can't be denied that it generally benefited chemical companies such as DuPont. Being forced to test every chemical for safety before using or introducing it would have been costly, and the lack of a grandfather clause could have forced companies to scramble to come up with new alternatives to standard products, or take a huge hit if such an alternative couldn't be found.
Taking matters into their own hands
Gradually, however, individual states began to step in with legislation of their own. Currently, 28 states have enacted or are considering bans on some chemicals in consumer products. This situation has created a patchwork of different laws, which are difficult for manufacturers and retailers to navigate.
Regulation of the chemical BPA, for example, varies greatly state by state. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have banned BPA in baby bottles or sippy cups. But New York has also banned its use in pacifiers. Massachusetts and Minnesota have banned it in any reusable children's food containers. Connecticut has banned its use in thermal receipt paper. And Vermont and Washington ban it in any type of reusable plastic bottle, whether manufactured for children or not.
For large chemical companies such as 3M or Dow, situations like this are problematic. Essentially, a ban on a chemical in any state has the practical effect of banning it in every state for a manufacturer or retailer serving a national market. And that's the situation the new law will change.
Good for business
The law's unwieldy title is the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," named after the late U.S. Senator who championed its passage. One of its most important provisions -- at least from an investor's standpoint -- is that it dictates that EPA rulings about chemicals will pre-empt individual states' regulations. States will still be able to regulate a chemical before an EPA review is completed, but ultimately, they must conform to the agency's final decision. That will end the current problem of patchworks of differing regulations.
But some of the features of the new law will require additional costs to chemical manufacturers. For example, the EPA will now be able to collect fees from the industry to pay for its evaluations. It will also be able to require a manufacturer to perform additional safety testing on chemicals regardless of whether it can prove a substance is hazardous.
Time will tell
Another major facet of the law is that it requires the EPA to evaluate all chemicals -- even those previously grandfathered in. New chemicals must be evaluated before coming to market, and health and environmental concerns are the only factors that can be considered when evaluating risk.
You might think this situation poses a substantial risk to chemical companies. After all, if an existing chemical is now deemed hazardous, it can be regulated or even banned. This kind of environment could seriously disrupt a chemical company's operations and affect the bottom line.
But in fact, the risk is small. Congress didn't allocate any more money toward the EPA's enforcement efforts, so there will be a limit to how many chemicals it can evaluate at any given time. The law specifies that it must evaluate a minimum of 20 chemicals at a time, but each evaluation can take up to seven years, and once a decision is issued, industry has up to five years to comply. And with 80,000 chemicals on the market -- only a few hundred of which have already been evaluated -- it could literally take centuries for the EPA to evaluate them all. So the immediate risk to any given chemical company is very, very small.
Foolish takeaway
nvestors tend to get nervous when they find out about additional regulations on companies in which they have a stake. And often, they have good reason to worry. However, the Lautenberg Act presents a lot of upside for chemical companies such as DuPont, Dow, and 3M and very little downside.
The major chemical companies were all supportive of the new law, and it passed with broad bipartisan support. Essentially, everyone found something to like in it. Don't let the word "regulation" fool you: This development isn't a loss for investors in chemical companies.
Forget Brexit: 10 stocks we like better than 3M
When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*
David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the ten best stocks for investors to buy right now… and 3M wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/28/why-pending-new-chemical-regulations-wont-hurt-dup.aspx

Return to headline | Return to top
Reformed TSCA Will Not Constrain Many State-Level Actions

Jun 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

States will continue to play a “significant role” in managing chemicals of concern in consumer products under a reformed TSCA, according to advocacy groups and regulators.
Sarah Doll, national director of NGO Safer States, says that work will continue in some of the gaps where TSCA does not have jurisdictions – such as food contact materials, cosmetics, and increasing disclosure of substances in products – but also efforts on individual chemical bans.
“This is work states have done for years, and will continue to do so – thus reflecting more a continuation than a shift,” she says.
NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families national campaign director, Andy Igrejas, adds: “TSCA reform is finally here and it falls demonstrably short of what’s needed to fully protect public health and the environment. [S]ervice at the state level … is still critical.”
Contested provision
The extent to which state activity is preempted under TSCA remained hotly contested throughout the bill’s development.
Even in the final hours of negotiation between House and Senate leaders, several state environmental officials called on Congress to roll back the preemption provisions, saying that under the proposed bill, “state authorities are excessively and unnecessarily preempted in exchange for the promise of federal protection that is too meagre.”
California EPA (CalEPA) – which did not co-sign the letter – says that it, nonetheless, “remains concerned about how the preemption provisions in the bill will be implemented”. It also was not happy “that the legislation does not provide federal EPA with sufficient funds to fully utilise its new authorities”.
“The workload for providing needed protection is considerable, with more than 80,000 chemicals in commerce and more being created every year. We would all benefit from a strong federal partner,” it adds.
Mr Igrejas echoes California’s concerns with the EPA’s pace. “No one, no one, can credibly argue that [TSCA] takes the place of state chemical regulatory activity … The pace of chemical reviews will simply be too slow to make that claim stick.”
But because preemption, in the bill, is tied to the rate at which the EPA can review chemicals, he notes that state authority “is preserved in full for the vast majority of chemicals”.
Prioritisation
Dr Davies says that, for the immediate future, Ecology will move forward as planned with the substances they’ve identified for prioritisation.
It was a “big help” that the final bill incorporated a provision that the first ten chemicals, evaluated by the EPA, would not be subject to pause preemption, she adds, as the state knows it can continue to work on substance-specific regulations, regardless of which substances the EPA first addresses.
But once the EPA begins setting priorities and beginning risk evaluation, she says, the state is likely to work on substances not being addressed federally.
“If EPA acts and does something – if we don’t have to have state action – that’s great,” she says.
But advocacy for restrictions on chemicals, known to be on EPA’s radar, are likely to continue as well.
According to Ms Doll, the pace of evaluation under the final bill, known as the “Lautenberg” Act, is so slow that “we don't anticipate the pause coming into play for several years.” Implementing bills to restrict substances of concern in the interim, she says, “will create actual protections (and drive the market for safer alternatives, as manufacturers reformulate products), while simultaneously serving to set priorities for federal action”.
“States are not encumbered by the burdens of proof and analysis that will still weigh the federal programme down,” points out Mr Igrejas. “So state action, even on a chemical EPA has just prioritised, will often make sense and it will still be possible under the bill.”
NGO Environmental Defense Fund has produced a short summary of what is, and what is not, preempted under the final bill.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48287/reformed-tsca-will-not-constrain-many-state-level-actions

Return to headline | Return to top
Reformed Bill Gives EPA Teeth to Tackle Toxic Chemicals

Jun 28, 2016 | AG Professional

By Ben Potter

Back in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was first enacted. But it’s never had the power it truly needed until President Obama signed a bipartisan bill into law that reforms TSCA so it requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear, enforceable deadlines.
“Forty years after TSCA was enacted, there are still tens of thousands of chemicals on the market that have never been evaluated for safety because TSCA didn’t require it,” says EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. “And the original law set analytical requirements that were nearly impossible to meet, leaving EPA’s hands tied, even when the science demanded action on certain chemicals.”
McCarthy points to asbestos as a prime example – this chemical was easily determined unsafe but proved difficult to ban - it is, in fact, still being used today in things like automatic transmission components and vinyl floor tiles. During the 40 years since TSCA was enacted, McCarthy says only five chemicals have ever been banned.
But with this newest reform, that all could change.
“Within a few years, EPA’s chemicals program will have to assess at least 20 chemicals at a time, beginning another chemical review as soon as one is completed,” McCarthy says.
Also, McCarthy notes that under the old law, EPA was unable to take action to protect public health and the environment, even if the agency could prove that a chemical posed a known health threat.
“Under the new law, EPA will evaluate chemicals purely on the basis of the health risks they pose, and then take steps to eliminate any unreasonable risks we find,” she says.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund, says what comes next is just as important as getting the bill signed into law in the first place.
“It’s vital that its implementation lead to improved public health protection as well as a restoration of public confidence, after decades of erosion of that confidence under a badly broken chemical safety system,” he says. “That means the EPA needs to be given some breathing room, to get a new system up and running, and to get some points on the board early that demonstrate its ability to make decisions and take needed actions.”
EPA has conservatively estimated there are more than 12,000 agricultural chemicals used in the U.S. each year, with more than 80,000 total chemicals used in the U.S. annually.
http://www.agprofessional.com/news/reformed-bill-gives-epa-teeth-tackle-toxic-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top
The Energy and Commerce Committee: Getting the Job Done

Jun 28, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)

Legislation to protect seniors’ access to their Medicare doctors, to strengthen and improve chemical and pipeline safety, to reform our nation’s mental health system, and to revolutionize our healthcare ecosystem to facilitate 21st Century Cures.
What do all of these have in common?
One thing: Big, bipartisan votes in the House Energy and Commerce Committee to help usher these critical pieces of legislation through regular order here in the House, and eventually into law.
At a time when Congress seems to be more stuck than ever, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I chair, has come together and advanced meaningful legislation that makes a real difference in the lives of each and every American. These five landmark bills represent just a fraction of the hard work our Members – both Republican and Democrat – do in Washington.
It’s a good-news story the media doesn’t always seem interested in telling, but it’s an important story to tell nonetheless.
Here at E&C, we call it our #RecordOfSuccess. Since I became Chairman in 2011, we’ve rolled up our sleeves and gotten to work for the American people. In that time, we’ve seen over 130 pieces of bipartisan legislation move through our committee, sail through the House and onto the Senate, and then to the White House to be signed by President Obama.
H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, was a bipartisan, bicameral effort to permanently fix the Medicare payment formula known as the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Our committee worked over several years, and multiple Congresses to enact real reforms that would fix this flawed payment formula and protect seniors’ access to their Medicare physicians. It strengthened Medicare for seniors now and for future generations and also protected and expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Our committee advanced this common sense legislation by a bipartisan 51-0 vote. It passed the House and the Senate and President Obama signed it into law.
Chemical safety reform was long overdue, with the last real update coming in 1976, and – again – after several years and multiple sessions of Congress, we were able to come to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on legislation that will make real reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act. The end result was the Frank L. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which was advanced by our committee 47-0-1. It passed the House and the Senate and President Obama signed this chemical safety measure into law on June 22, 2016. This landmark legislation marked the most meaningful update to issues involving environment and the economy in decades.
Pipeline safety has long been a priority for our committee. In 2011, we first passed legislation to improve and strengthen the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) so that the free flow of critical energy continues, keeping costs low for families and businesses across the country. That law needed to be reauthorized and also needed some fine-tuning so we worked in tandem with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and constructed the PIPES Act, which our committee advanced by a unanimous vote earlier this month. It was passed in the House and Senate and President Obama recently signed this important bill into law.
Reforming our nation’s mental health system has also been another multi-year, multi-Congress priority for our committee. H.R. 2646, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, introduced by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), is a good piece of legislation that will make a real difference for countless Americans. Those suffering from mental illness need the attention of this Congress, and we acted: H.R. 2646 advanced through our committee by a 53-0 vote. The landmark mental health reform package now awaits a vote by the full House, which is expected in the coming months.
Finally, we come to 21st Century Cures. This bold idea – fostered by myself and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) – aims to improve our nation’s health care innovation ecosystem and was the result of a year-long listening tour that took members of our committee across the country to hear directly from patients, families, doctors, and researchers. What we learned is that when there is a gap between the science and the laws that regulate – we all lose – but especially patients and families who need cures now. What we came up with was H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act which advanced in our committee by a 51-0 vote, was passed the House by a sweeping margin, and now awaits a vote in the Senate.
Working together, the Energy and Commerce Committee members have continued to deliver results for the American people time and time again. The proof is in the pudding, and we’re going to keep getting the job done for the American people. Cooperation, collaboration, and bipartisan results may not achieve the boldest headlines, but they have the boldest impact for everyday Americans. And that’s what matters most.
To learn more about the Energy and Commerce Committee’s bipartisan #RecordOfSuccess please visit energycommerce.house.gov/recordofsuccess.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/285026-the-energy-and-commerce-committee-getting-the-job-done

Return to headline | Return to top
NTP Preparing to Assess Glyphosate's Carcinogenicity in Toxicology Study

Jun 28, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is preparing to assess the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide worldwide, amid ongoing debate about EPA's process for re-registration of the chemical and following an international body's finding last year that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.
NTP scientist Stephanie Smith-Roe said at a June 15 meeting of NTP's Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) that she and colleagues are preparing to undertake short-term cancer related toxicology tests of glyphosate, including both the active ingredient and a formulation or multiple formulations of the finished product, with an eye to providing information quickly to unnamed decision makers.
Smith-Roe described the plan as containing "rapid screening of glyphosate and at least one formulation . . . then short-term in vivo testing. We propose a very focused approach . . . in order to provide decision makers with information very quickly, hopefully within a year."
EPA is planning to issue for public comment draft risk assessments supporting its registration review of glyphosate by the end of the year, and the agency is facing much external pressure as advocacy groups press the agency to ban the chemical's use. The groups complain that EPA relies solely -- and too heavily -- on information supplied by the manufacturers, biasing the agency's decision-making process.
Meanwhile, EPA's ongoing efforts to re-register glyphosate are under congressional scrutiny, following the agency's release in April and then subsequent withdrawal from its public electronic docket of a review finding glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer. The move prompted House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) to begin an inquiry into the agency's handling of the cancer review, seeking documents and interviews with agency scientists.
In addition to concerns that EPA relies too heavily on industry-sponsored research, advocates have questioned EPA's approach of evaluating only pesticide products' active ingredients, rather than product formulations, and failing to capture real-word exposures. As a result, EPA failed to adhere to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act standard precluding unreasonable risks to human health and the environment in evaluating pesticides' human health and ecological risks, the groups claim.
NTP's Evaluation
NTP's evaluation follows that program's 13-week study of glyphosate fed to rats, published in 1992, which found that lab animals "exposed to fairly high doses, presented no gross lesions. [Results were] negative in micronucleus assays and also in mutagenicity tests, Smith-Roe said.
But last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate probably causes cancer in people, leading NTP to reconsider whether to conduct further testing. The IARC conclusion has been widely cited by advocacy groups in their efforts to ban glyphosate's use.
Industry counters by pointing to recent evaluations by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Food Safety Authority, which concluded that glyphosate does not pose a public health risk. Industry groups argue that advocates' claims that glyphosate causes cancer are based on a study that has been widely criticized for using incomplete data sets.
Smith-Roe acknowledged these conflicting findings in her remarks to the BSC. "Whether glyphosate causes cancer has become a high profile issue," she told BSC members, noting the IARC determination and EPA's ongoing re-registration process. She said that the differences between conclusions by IARC and the other agencies could be due to their different processes and purposes -- IARC's purpose is hazard identification, while the regulatory agencies are conducting risk analyses with dose-response calculations.
Other differences could be the regulatory agencies' "greater access to confidential data -- these groups are looking at different data sets to make their conclusions. Risk assessments are limited to active ingredients, whereas IARC looked at glyphosate formulation," Smith-Roe added.
She continued, "We have worked to put together a work group to formulate how we might put together a problem formulation on glyphosate. There are very few studies where [the active ingredient] and formulation are compared. Turns out formulations seem to be more toxic."
'Key Factors'
"Two of the key factors used to inform the IARC classification were studies suggesting that glyphosate and various formulations were genotoxic and induced oxidative stress," according to NTP background documents. "Furthermore, where glyphosate was compared directly to glyphosate-based formulations, the formulations were generally more toxic than glyphosate alone."
Though early in the planning stages of the study, Smith-Roe said that the work group has already concluded that "while we see information related to cancer endpoints, there is very little information about other endpoints that we might be concerned about."
One of the BSC members, charged with reviewing the project, noted his interest based on the widespread use of the chemical, and the potential for residues on produce eaten by the general public. "While I have some enthusiasm for the project, it is significantly dampened by the [fact that] agencies that have more experience with the chemical and more data" reached other conclusions than IARC's, said George Corcoran, chairman of pharmaceutical sciences at Wayne State University.
John Bucher, associate director of NTP, sought to assure Corcoran that "We do bring all of our thoughts to our agency partners. This isn't being done in isolation."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/ntp-preparing-assess-glyphosates-carcinogenicity-toxicology-study

Return to headline | Return to top
Echa Appoints Senior Official as Brexit ‘Contact Point’

Jun 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Geraint Roberts

Echa has responded to the Brexit crisis by appointing Andreas Herdina, head of its communications and outreach directorate, as its “contact point” for British companies and for its own British staff.
His task will be to ensure that Echa takes a “single consolidated position” towards British companies and staff and that he acts as a reference point on Brexit matters.
Companies in the UK, the rest of the EU and further afield have been thrown into an era of great uncertainty about their legal obligations, under EU chemicals law, by last Thursday’s referendum, which saw the UK vote by the narrow margin of 52% to 48% to leave the EU.
In a statement, Echa says that, until the withdrawal negotiations (that is, the UK invokes Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union), the UK remains a member of the EU, with all the rights and obligations that go with it.
The status of UK companies with regard to REACH remains, for the time being, unchanged, it adds. The withdrawal negotiations will determine the extent to which REACH and other EU chemicals legislation will apply in the UK.
“At this moment, we cannot draw any conclusions, but, in any case, those British companies that will continue to sell their chemicals and products to the EU will need to comply with EU requirements.”
Brits abroad
A key question for Echa, other EU agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority, and the European Commission, is whether their British staff will have to be replaced and, if so, at what point in the legal proceedings. The same also applies to British MEPs and Council of Ministers officials.
UK government officials and national experts have been involved, working with Echa, in shaping the implementation of REACH and other chemicals legislation. This includes membership of the agency’s Management Board, committees and expert groups. In addition, around five per cent of Echa’s own staff – roughly 25 people – are British nationals. These include Echa’s senior scientific adviser Derek Knight, who reports directly to the agency’s executive director, Geert Dancet, and deputy executive director, Jukka Malm.
When the UK leaves the EU, this direct cooperation will change, says Echa, but it is too early to speculate how. It is also too soon to say how its British staff will be affected. Echa is participating in the network of EU agencies and will “follow a common approach when available”.
Echa makes the point that countries outside the EU but members of the European Economic Area (EEA) – Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - participate in the work of the agency, and that third countries can be invited to do so, subject to the agreement of Echa’s Management Board. Norway has also been involved in the preparation. Echa has some full time staff members from some of these countries.
All EEA countries have full access to the single European market and also allow the free movement of people. But press reports say that whether the UK can negotiate continued access to the former, and square it with promises by some leading Leave politicians to restrict the latter, looks highly doubtful.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48300/echa-appoints-senior-official-as-brexit-contact-point

Return to headline | Return to top
5,300 U.S. Water Systems are in Violation of Lead Rules

Jun 28, 2016 | CNN

By Sara Ganim

Eighteen million Americans live in communities where the water systems are in violation of the law. Moreover, the federal agency in charge of making sure those systems are safe not only knows the issues exist, but it's done very little to stop them, according to a new report and information provided to CNN by multiple sources and water experts.
"Imagine a cop sitting, watching people run stop signs, and speed at 90 miles per hour in small communities and still doing absolutely nothing about it -- knowing the people who are violating the law. And doing nothing. That's unfortunately what we have now," said Erik Olson, health program director at Natural Resources Defense Council, which analyzed the EPA's data for its report.
In this case, the "cop" is a combination of the states and the EPA. States are the first line of enforcement, but when they fail -- as they did recently in Flint, Michigan -- the EPA is supposed to step in. But in many cases, the agency hasn't.
More than 5,300 water systems in America are in violation of the EPA's lead and copper rule, a federal regulation in place to safeguard America's drinking water from its aging infrastructure.
Violations include failure to properly test water for lead, failure to report contamination to residents, and failure to treat water properly to avoid lead contamination. Yet, states took action in 817 cases; the EPA took action in just 88 cases, according to NRDC's report.
What's worse, the report reveals that the EPA is also aware that many utilities "game the system," using flawed or questionable testing methods in order to avoid detecting high levels of lead.
That means there could be many more communities violating the laws, exposing residents to dangerous levels of lead. And the public has no idea.
Even Flint, a city with the most notorious case of lead in water discovered, is still not listed as having violated the EPA's lead and copper rule.
Many of the drinking water systems that NRDC cites in its analysis are already working to resolve past violations and return to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, in consultation with state regulators or EPA.
In response to the report, the EPA said it works closely with states "who are responsible for and do take the majority of the drinking water enforcement actions and are the first line of oversight of drinking water systems."
The agency added that, "it's important to note that many of the drinking water systems that NRDC cites in its analysis are already working to resolve past violations and return to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act in consultation with state regulators or EPA."Gaming the system for years
A Virginia Tech researcher credited with exposing two of the nation's largest lead-in-water crises -- in Washington D.C. in the early 2000s, and in Flint last year -- said he noticed several years ago that the EPA was turning a blind eye to the "cheating" by local water utilities.
"Cheating became something you didn't even hide," researcher Marc Edwards told CNN.
Among the bad practices adopted by water utilities: selectively testing homes that are unlikely to have high levels of lead, asking residents to "pre-flush" their taps, and taking water samples "slowly," which reduces lead levels.
He wrote a paper on this in 2009. Then in 2011, Edwards said he overheard a local water official openly brag about cheating on the lead and copper rule.
"Right in front of EPA," Edwards said. "And I went back after that conference and I wrote EPA and I said, "How can you allow this to occur? I mean, what are you going to do about this?" He later shared that letter in congressional testimony. It concludes with a line saying the EPA, "does not care whether children are lead poisoned from public drinking water."
The EPA says it's working on strengthening the lead and copper rule, and "focusing on enhanced oversight of the states, including implementation of the existing rule."
But Alan Morrissey, former senior attorney in the EPA's office of water enforcement, told CNN that addressing the problem could create even more violations for the already-strapped EPA water department. Morrissey left the EPA in 2015, frustrated by a lack of emphasis on water.
"If you fix the problem of the game in the system, you now have hundreds -- and thousands perhaps -- of municipalities that have direct violation," he said.What's happening in Philadelphia
Experts say Philadelphia is a perfect example of the EPA unwilling to act, and having too cozy a relationship with local regulators.
The city has come under scrutiny recently for only testing less than 40 of an estimated 50,000 homes with lead service lines. City officials say that's all they could find after putting out 8,000 requests to residents. Seven homes had high lead levels.
After the Flint water crisis, the EPA in February issued new guidance instructing water authorities to stop pre-flushing taps and other practices that were considered "cheating."
A class-action lawsuit alleged that Philadelphia "tests an inordinate amount of low risk homes, diluting its testing pool and skewing the results in such a way as to paint a woefully inaccurate picture of the City's overall lead contamination."
The director of Philadelphia's water system, Gary Burlingame, said the EPA's language is merely "guidance," so it didn't have to be followed. Burlingame has been required to work with consultants who the EPA has hired on four separate occasions since 2000.
The EPA should at least "issue immediate alert to the people in Philadelphia to let people know it is very possible that the results are not reliable and that people should protect themselves," said Yanna Lambrinidou, a Virginia Tech researcher who has been advocating for a change in the city's policy.
The EPA says enforcement of Philadelphia was left to the state of Pennsylvania. The federal guidelines are only guidelines and can't be enforced. The Philadelphia Mayor's office says it will follow the EPA's new guidelines in the next round of testing -- that's in 2017.
"Meanwhile you have an entire city that hasn't been protected," Edwards said.
There are other cities like Philadelphia. Almost 97 percent of lead-related violations recorded by the EPA are for failing to properly monitor lead levels.
"I think that the basic problem is that the federal EPA and the water officials, and a lot of communities across the country are very tight. And the EPA has been very reluctant to take enforcement action against them in most cases. They're friends, they hang out with each other, they ask for each other's advice, and you get close after a while," Olson said.No action
Flint illuminated an invisible infrastructure problem.
Under the ground, in front yards across the nation, the service lines that bring water to our homes are, in many cases, made of lead. Though toxic, lead used to be preferable for its durability.
But just as science eventually told us that lead paint and leaded gasoline were bad ideas, so too we gradually began to realize that lead pipes should not be used to carry our drinking water. Federal regulations now mandate that water systems have an anti-corrosion plan, typically consisting of treating the water with an orthophosphate agent that forms a film to protect water moving through lead pipes.
In Flint, the lead pipes began leaching toxins into the water after the state of Michigan decided to switch the financially ailing city's drinking water source, and failed to properly treat the water with orthophosphates. To make matters worse, officials who could see the lead water levels rising didn't say anything for months. Meanwhile, families continued drinking the water.
CDC report reveals magnitude of Flint water crisis
There is no safe level of lead, but the EPA set a threshold back in 1990 of 15 parts per billion (ppb) -- the level at which regulators are supposed to step in and force water utilities to correct a contamination problem.
While Flint's astronomically high lead levels -- some homes more than 10,000 ppb -- appear to be the worst case scenario, the city is not alone.
EPA data collected by the NRDC reveals that a Utah water system serving 1,675 people had test results at 6,000 ppb. There are eight water systems in seven different states and territories with lead levels above 1,000 ppb. And 25 water systems with lead levels above 200 ppb.

CNN's Linh Tran, Nelli Black and Louise Simpson contributed to this report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/28/us/epa-lead-in-u-s-water-systems/

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) UC Irvine Chemists Find New Method for Recycling Common Plastics as Fuel

Jun 28, 2016 | Forbes

By Janet Burns

If you still lack the motivation needed to kick-start your recycling efforts but appreciate energy efficiency, a team of chemists may have just the innovation to get your engines revving.
Researchers from the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry (SIOC) and University of California, Irvine (UCI) have discovered a new way to process the millions of tons of waste plastic we produce each year into usable fuel. As described in an article published this month in Science Advances, the project involved developing a method for using byproducts of oil refining processes to break down polyethylene plastic, the most common commercially available type, into useful compounds of polymer molecules, including liquid fuel.
The new method poses an efficient way of tackling two of our biggest environmental concerns: disposing of potentially harmful, slow-dissolving waste, and securing access to cleaner, cheaper energy. “Synthetic plastics are a fundamental part of modern life, but our use of them in large volume has created serious environmental problems,” UCI chemist Zhibin Guan explained in a press release. “Our goal through this research was to address the issue of plastic pollution as well as [achieve] a beneficial outcome of creating a new source of liquid fuel.”
In recent years, researchers and companies around the world have been exploring how to better utilize certain waste products as resources, from re-imagining used cardboard to recycling unused nuclear fuel. The Ocean Recovery Alliance’s Doug Woodring and the American Chemistry Council’s Steve Russell told Live Science in 2012 that because plastics are predominantly made using energy feedstocks from oil or natural gas (typically the latter in the U.S.), the stuff is particularly suited for reclaiming some energy from our waste stream. They explained,
"The hydrocarbons that make up plastics are embodied in the material itself, essentially making plastics a form of stored energy, which can be turned into a liquid fuel source … [So it] makes sense that people are asking how to keep more of this valuable fuel in play, even after plastics are used, and how to keep it out of landfills."
The push to develop “waste-to-energy” options for our garbage has already had various companies processing plastic bags and bottles into liquid fuel, but methods-to-date have required the use of toxic, caustic chemicals (called “ radicals”) and large energy expenditures to break down the bonds between polymers, UCI and SIOC researchers point out. With their new method, waste plastics are instead broken down more efficiently through a process called cross-alkane metathesis, which uses “readily available” byproducts of oil refining as catalysts.
The team is still working to make the process even more efficient and to bring its costs down, but the project’s success is a happy harbinger for waste-to-energy recycling methods to come. A press release for the project noted, too, that the team is also looking ahead toward finding the right catalytic processes to “turn other plastic trash into treasure.”
A more detailed breakdown of the team’s innovative chemical process is availablehere from the experts at Science.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2016/06/28/uc-irvine-chemists-find-new-method-for-recycling-common-plastics-as-fuel/#6c613c4e4613

Return to headline | Return to top
North America to Aim for 50% Zero-Carbon Grid by 2025

Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden

The United States, Mexico and Canada will make a joint pledge tomorrow to draw half the continent's power from non-emitting sources by 2025.
President Obama, President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada will announce the ambitious target at the North American Leaders' Summit in Ottawa, Ontario, which will also address security issues and other concerns to the continent's three governments.
White House climate adviser Brian Deese described the pact as a sign of the growing bonds between the nations on climate and energy policies. He told reporters yesterday that the trio are cooperating more on those issues now than at any time in recent history.
"We find ourselves now at a moment where the alignment in terms of policy goals and focus on clean energy between our three countries is stronger than it has been in decades," he said.
The centerpiece of tomorrow's announcement will be the new clean generation target. It calls for the continent's power grid to draw 50 percent of its generation by 2025 from renewable energy, efficiency, nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage technology. The goal is continentwide, and it would require a steep increase in clean power and efficiency over the next nine years. Thirty-seven percent of North America's overall power last year came from clean sources.
Deese noted that the three countries have made pledges toward last year's landmark climate agreement forged in Paris, and meeting or exceeding those targets would require a substantial shift in power sourcing.
"We believe that this is an aggressive goal, but for all three countries one that we believe is achievable continentwide, and it's supported by domestic policies in all three countries," Deese said.
National policies drive low-carbon grids
Last December, Mexico enacted an Energy Transition Law that aimed to improve efficiency and bring more green power online. Trudeau's new government in Canada is formulating a national climate plan out of the patchwork of carbon and clean energy policies already enacted by provinces. The pan-Canadian strategy that Environment and Climate Minister Catherine McKenna must cobble together and present to Trudeau this autumn is expected to include a carbon price.
In the United States, Deese said, the Clean Power Plan will be the "central component" to meeting the goals, but he said other policies -- including federal tax incentives for renewables -- will help, too.
The federal production tax credit and investment tax credit will promote renewables while the Clean Power Plan faces litigation and is stalled under a Supreme Court stay, Deese argued.
The North American power grid is uneven when it comes to non-emitting energy generation, so it is unclear how the averaging provision will help deliver tomorrow's target. The United States drew approximately 32 percent of its power last year from non-fossil-fuel sources including nuclear, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that by 2025, that share will climb to 41 percent.
Renewables are projected to increase to 23 percent by 2025, while nuclear power is expected to decrease to 18 percent as some units are decommissioned.
Doug Vine, a senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, noted that those figures didn't include city and business action to decarbonize the power grid.
"I would say the U.S. target is ambitious -- it would require more ambition than under the business-as-usual case -- but I think it is possible," he said.
Mexico drew 22 percent of its power from non-fossil sources last year, meaning that either it would have to more than double its green production or other countries would have to compensate for any shortfall. It has the continent's smallest grid.
Canada has the continent's greenest grid, but it produces less than 600 terawatt-hours of energy to the United States' 4,000 terawatt-hours, a fact that limits its ability to pick up the slack if the United States and Mexico fall short of their goals. Eighty percent of Canada's power last year came from carbon-free sources, principally hydropower.
Clare Demerse of Clean Energy Canada called the target "meaningful" but added that all three partners are moving to greener grids anyway. Eighty-three percent of the new capacity Canada brought online was renewable, she said.
"To hit the target, we would need to see a really strong commitment to ensuring that new generation that comes online is renewable," she said.
She added that Canada stands to win economically from the continent's commitment to green energy. By the time the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented in 2030, the United States could be purchasing three times as much renewable power from Canada as it does today.
"Canada has a resource that is hopefully going to be in growing demand on the North American continent," Demerse said. After a decade of clashing with the United States on TransCanada Corp.'s proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, she said, "now we have a really productive and constructive conversation continentally because the conversation has changed to clean energy."
Amlan Saha, a policy adviser who analyzes the Clean Power Plan for M.J. Bradley & Associates, said the goal doesn't sound extremely difficult.
"Even just meeting the state RPSs [renewable portfolio standards] will bring a huge amount of renewables into the system," Saha said.
But Jeff Holmstead, an industry attorney and former U.S. EPA air chief, said the United States will not be able to meet the goal even when averaging its lower levels of zero-carbon power with Canada's higher ones. That's because Canada produces far less electricity than the United States.
He also had a word of caution about the Clean Power Plan. If it survives legal challenges, renewable energy development might be slower than the White House expects if the rule's early deadlines in 2022 are delayed.
Nuclear power is also a big part of the existing carbon-free electricity in the United States -- representing about 19 percent of the power mix.
Deese acknowledged that some nuclear plants are at risk of shutting down due to competition from cheaper natural gas and said the administration has taken that into consideration when devising the goals.
Energy efficiency will also play into the goals, and the three countries will work to achieve "greater harmonization" of their power-saving standards, Deese said.
But it is unclear how efficiency will factor into the commitments. Vine said flagging power demand across all three markets could work at cross-purposes with the new goal, making new investments in generation of any kind less profitable.
"It's going to be challenging to bring on any new generation in that kind of environment," he said.
Fossil fuel plants with carbon capture and sequestration could also count toward the 50 percent target, Deese said. That technology, however, is rarely used today by the industry.
Deese added that the three countries will focus on the transmission lines needed to pave the way for rapid clean energy development.
Also tomorrow, Mexico will join the United States and Canada in committing to reduce methane emissions by between 40 and 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector.
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp called the move a "turning point," adding that it would have an immediate impact on climate change. Methane has a strong short-term impact on warming.
"It is heartening to see leaders and countries coming together to find common solutions to shared environmental challenges, and realizing the economic opportunities that partnerships can provide," he said.
Reporter Elizabeth Harball contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/28/stories/1060039510

Return to headline | Return to top
Environmental Groups Plan Appeal of US Fracking Decision as Debate Swirls over Impact

Jun 28, 2016 | Platts

By Brian Scheid

Environmental groups said Monday they will appeal a federal judge's decision to overturn the Obama administration's rules over hydraulic fracturing, a ruling an attorney for these groups said will have far-reaching impacts over future regulation of US oil and gas operations.
The ruling, which US District Court of Wyoming Judge Scott Skavdahl issued last week, could make many of the existing regulations over fossil fuel production illegal and could severely hinder any future oversight of oil and gas operations, according to Mike Freeman, a Colorado-based attorney with Earthjustice.
"This is really just a long overdue update to the [US Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management's] oil and gas rules," Freeman said. "It's not some improper power grab."
Freeman is representing several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, who filed notice Monday with the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that they were appealing Skavdahl's ruling.
The Obama administration on Friday filed notice that they were also appealing the ruling.
"Obviously we disagree with the decision," Jessica Kershaw, an Interior spokeswoman, said in a statement Monday. "The fracking standards reflect today's industry practices and are aimed at ensuring adequate well control, preventing groundwater contamination, and increasing transparency about the materials used in the fracturing process. The standards are well within BLM's statutory responsibility to protect our public lands, and ensure that oil and gas operations are conducted safely and responsibly on those lands."
In his ruling last week, Skavdahl wrote that his decision did not deal with whether fracking is "good or bad for the environment," just whether Interior had authority to regulate the practice.
Skavdahl called Interior's fracking rule "in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law."
The decision centers on rules finalized by Interior's Bureau of Land Management in March 2015 that included new chemical disclosure, well construction and fluid disposal requirements for fracking operations on federal and Indian land. Production on those lands currently accounts for about 5% of total US oil supply, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
The ruling comes as many environmental groups have called for a domestic ban on both fracking and oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has said she would tighten federal regulations on fracking and would only support it under certain conditions, including chemical disclosure requirements.
Skavdahl's ruling stems from a case brought by industry groups and the states of North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah who argued that BLM does not have the authority to regulate fracking and that Congress removed this authority when it enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Mark Barron, a partner with Baker Hostetler who represented industry in the case, said Monday that environmentalists were overstating the scope of Skavdahl's ruling. He said the ruling was "fairly narrow" and would not have a broader impact on regulation of the oil and gas sector.

"That's really a 'sky is falling' scenario," he said of the argument that the ruling would have a broad impact. "That doesn't accurately represent the ruling."
Kathleen Sgamma, a vice president with the Western Energy Alliance, one of the industry groups which sued to have the fracking rules overturned, said Skavdahl's ruling "will not touch upon BLM's ability to regulate oil and natural gas development."
"It's really narrowly focused around the express congressional prohibition of federal regulation of fracking in particular," Sgamma said.
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/washington/environmental-groups-plan-appeal-of-us-fracking-26480072

Return to headline | Return to top
A Second Wave of Texas LNG Export Projects Could Take Off in the Next Decade

Jun 28, 2016 | Houston Chronicle

By Jordan Blum

The United States became an exporter of liquefied natural gas this year with Cheniere Energy's first shipments from Louisiana, but a glut of LNG globally is creating questions about when a "second wave" of LNG export projects will move forward.
Five U.S. LNG export projects are under construction, including ones in Freeport and Corpus Christi, but many others are awaiting both regulatory approval and corporate decisions on whether to invest billions of dollars during a market downturn.
Perhaps the most brazen project is The Woodlands-based NextDecade's Rio Grande LNG project in Texas. NextDecade proposes building what could be the nation's largest LNG export facility, with the first of three phases scheduled to come online in 2020. The $6 billion project would be constructed on 1,000 acres at the Port of Brownsville near the Mexican border.
"We want to be the leader of the second wave of export projects out of the U.S.," said NextDecade CEO Kathleen Eisbrenner, a former executive at Royal Dutch Shell before founding the company in 2010.
Despite the large supplies of natural gas coming from Australia, Russia and the Middle East, many industry analysts and executives expect LNG demand to pick up at some point after 2020 as countries reduce their reliance on coal, in part from international accords on climate change. The expansion of the Panama Canal, which will be able to accommodate LNG tankers, will make Asian markets more accessible to Texas and other Gulf Coast exporters.
"It's like a drug," Eisbrenner said. "Once a country gets a taste of LNG they never want to go back."
These projects are risky though, particularly since it remains unclear how long it will take for demand to work through the supply glut. Most analysts expect LNG demand and prices to rise over the long term, but it remains unclear when that might happen. So, for companies investing billions in projects that take years to complete, timing is everything.
Luana Siegfried, energy analyst with Raymond James in Houston, said it might take longer than many in the industry believe, noting weaker European demand, slowing growth in China, and the potential for Japan to return to nuclear power now that more than five years have passed since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
Spencer Dale, BP's chief economist, expects liquid natural gas supplies to grow by 40 percent over the next four years as new LNG facilities begin operations, meaning it could take another decade for demand to catch up and prices to rise. As a result, many new projects won't be profitable at first, he said.
But, he added, "Over a period of time, that big growth market in Asia is going to mean you're going to need a lot more gas. "
The shale boom turned the United States into the world's largest natural gas producer and drove energy companies to seek new markets. Transforming the gas into a liquid through a supercooling process known as liquefaction allows it to be shipped worldwide. LNG terminals that once accepted imports are being retooled to ship exports.
The first project online, developed by Houston's Cheniere Energy, began exporting in late February to South America, Asia and Europe.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in May began reviewing NextDecade's Rio Grande application. Eisbrenner hopes to begin construction as soon as September 2017 to bring the first of six liquefaction units, called trains, online by the end of 2020.
All six trains would produce 27 million tons of LNG a year or 3.6 billion cubic feet a day - roughly the same size as Cheniere's Sabine Pass project in Louisiana, if it's built to capacity.
The biggest challenge for NextDecade is locking in long-term contracts with LNG buyers. Without guarantees from customers to buy the LNG at set prices over periods of 20 years or so, the risk would be too great to secure the investment needed to build the project. NextDecade only has non-binding agreements thus far.
NextDecade has financial backing from a few New York firms and hedge funds - York Capital Management, Halcyon Capital Management and Valinor Management, NextDecade declined to disclose the amount it has raised.
Eisbrenner recently canceled NextDecade's proposed Pelican Island LNG project in Galveston partly because of concerns about not having enough property, as well as to keep the focus on Brownsville.
NextDecade is facing both competition and opposition in Brownsville. Two smaller LNG export projects, one by Houston-based Texas LNG, the other by Chicago's Exelon Corp. are also under review. Analysts expect only one proposal to move forward.
Environmental and community activists in the Rio Grande Valley also are pushing a "Save RGV from LNG" campaign to oppose all three projects.
Still, Eisbrenner believes future market demands and access to Texas' cheap and abundant shale gas are on her side.
"I like our timing," she said. "There needs to be a break between the first and second wave."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/A-second-wave-of-Texas-LNG-export-projects-could-8327466.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Federal Appeals Court Rebuffs Challenges to FERC LNG Approvals

Jun 28, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Darius Dixon

A federal appeals court issued two opinions this morning rejecting claims by Sierra Club that FERC had violated environmental review laws when the agency approved liquefied natural gas export facilities.
The first opinion from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was in Sierra Club v. FERC, 14-1249, which dealt with increased production at the Sabine Pass LNG export terminal in Louisiana.
The second interrelated opinion was in Sierra Club et al. v. FERC, 14-1275, where environmentalists had challenged FERC’s approval of the Freeport LNG export facility in Texas.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
To Kauffman, N.Y. Grid Reform Has to Make Money for Everyone

Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Saqib Rahim and Peter Behr

Gov. Andrew Cuomo had his man.
It was January 2013, and the New York governor was giving his State of the State address in Albany. Just months before, Superstorm Sandy had thrown a roundhouse punch to the power grid in New York and New Jersey, knocking out power to millions.
To him, Sandy was a harbinger of climate change. He wanted to respond, and not halfway. First, he said New York should build the country's top clean-energy economy. Second, he said it should redesign the grid so it could take a punch.
"We want to create a Cabinet-level energy czar to marshal all the assets and do this in a comprehensive, holistic way. And we want to attract a national star to lead our efforts, and we did," he said, calling out a man in the audience.
"It is my pleasure today to introduce you to Mr. Richard Kauffman, former senior adviser to the United States secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. He's leaving Washington. He's coming to New York. He's going to lead our efforts. We couldn't have a better man in the country."
Three years hence, Cuomo's plan has crystallized into one of the country's most total efforts to reshape the grid: what he calls Reforming the Energy Vision, or REV.
Under Kauffman, regulation is changing to reward utilities for taking on new roles as middlemen, who make it possible for companies to sell customers new energy services like home retrofits or community solar. Utilities have launched pilot projects to see whether this new identity can work.
By the end of this month, utilities must file initial plans for how they'll work with third-party vendors and encourage the development of distributed energy resources across their systems. The state's $5 billion Green Bank wants to stimulate flows of private investment into clean-energy technologies, including solar and microgrids.
All Kauffman's being asked to do is oversee the biggest transformation of the power system since it was born in Manhattan more than a century ago. Cuomo wants New York to have 50 percent renewable power and 40 percent less greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. At the same time, the state's grid has to get more decentralized.
And the whole thing has to create value for all involved: ratepayers, utilities, clean-tech companies and the government.
Changing 'a system of systems'
Kauffman, who spent nearly two decades in finance before joining government, said it can be done.
"I think it's very clear that the reason we're not building the grid of the future that we've seen pictures of a million times is because we have a policy and regulatory structure that has the incentives to rebuild the old system as opposed to build the new system," said Kauffman, chairman of energy and finance for New York and chairman of the board of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
"The stuff we're doing involves a change in a system of systems," Kauffman said in an interview with EnergyWire. "It's not just one thing that has to change, everything has to change." To Kauffman, the reason is simple: Business as usual is unsustainable.
"Nobody's completely happy with the current situation," he said.
In 2014, New Yorkers had the country's fourth-highest average electricity prices, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Power demand isn't growing much, but the "peaks" in demand are getting more severe.
Utilities have a simple formula for handling that: Build power plants and wires, and get repaid for that by ratepayers. But that biases utility investment away from new, greener technologies and more efficient services, Kauffman said.
Under business as usual, utility customers will spend $30 billion just maintaining the grid over the next decade, according to the governor's office.
"Given a choice between investing in a pole and investing in software, the utility will invest in the pole," Kauffman said. It's not the fault of the utility, it's the regulatory structure, he said.
Still, dissatisfaction with the status quo runs deeper. A number of in-state power plants are making thin profits or just breaking even. Meanwhile, companies that sell "distributed energy resources" -- such as rooftop solar, batteries and smart appliances -- are making money, but they're concerned the rules of the road favor the bigger energy incumbents and stifle their growth potential.
"We have a system which is not only energy inefficient, it's also financially inefficient," he said.
So Kauffman and his team are trying to change the system.
Bona fide moneymakers
Last month, for example, the New York Public Service Commission made reforms that would expand the options utilities have for earning revenue by making the grid lower-carbon or more efficient (EnergyWire, May 27).
The private sector is also responding to calls to reform the system of systems. In another proceeding before regulators, solar companies and utilities -- two energy camps at odds in other states -- struck a tentative net-metering deal to bring more distributed solar onto the grid while ensuring utilities collect enough revenue to maintain the grid. The agreement preserves full retail electricity price credits for individual rooftop solar owners until 2020, while phasing in increased payments to utilities from developers of large solar installations (EnergyWire, April 20).
The state's investor-owned utilities are also advancing 10 demonstration projects meant to show how different business models can work for both electric utilities and third-party energy service companies. Over the next two years, the six large utilities will gather real-world data on how well Grid 2.0 is able to create revenue streams and seamlessly integrate distributed solar, digital technology and other ideas for saving energy and generating cleaner power.
Kauffman sees part of his job as clearing the way for clean energy to become a bona fide moneymaker.
"Energy efficiency, like demand response and like some of the other things I've talked about, have not been businesses for utilities," he said at a conference in New York City last week. "Energy efficiency programs have been programs for utilities. They are funded by customer funds, by customer surcharges. They do not come from utility shareholders. They are not a business.
"We are never going to achieve our climate goals if we keep doing this the same way," he said.
To drive these changes, Kauffman's been given a broad set of tools. He oversees the state's portfolio of energy agencies: NYSERDA, the state Department of Public Service, the New York Power Authority and the Long Island Power Authority. It's an expansive policy apparatus, touching on power regulations, the government's portfolio of clean-energy programs, state facilities and a pair of publicly owned utilities.
At two of these organizations, NYSERDA and the DPS, the top officials signed on the same year Kauffman did. Like him, both hail from the business world.
Kauffman is given to long pauses and considered responses. He describes himself as an outsider to government. After all, he spent the bulk of his career in finance, first in investment banking, then in clean-tech investing.
"One of the benefits that I brought to bear is that I've had a broad experience in business and finance across a range of industries, I've worked in federal government," he said.
"It's kind of sometimes easy when you come in from an outsider's perspective to see," he said. "I don't want to sound egocentric, it's sometimes easier to see things, right, when you're coming from the outside."
In a way, Kauffman brings fresh eyes to the energy business, too. He went to college during the 1970s energy crises, watching as Presidents Nixon and Carter struggled to keep a lid on global and domestic energy shortages and dramatic price fluctuations. By the early 1990s, Kauffman had made his way into high finance. Over 11 years at Morgan Stanley, he ascended to become vice chairman of one of its four major business segments. He then rose to the partner level at Goldman Sachs.
In 2006, he became CEO and president at Good Energies Inc., a private equity firm. It was one of the largest clean-tech investors at the time, each year managing $350 million to $400 million around the world, said Greg Kats, who was a managing director under Kauffman.
Kats said Kauffman came out of Goldman Sachs intent on doing something about climate change. "His passion had been to do something constructive in a societal sense," Kats said.
At Good Energies, Kauffman oversaw an "enormous span of investment," including renewables, energy efficiency and smart grid. The company invested in North America, Europe and Asia. Kats said some of the investments became major players in today's clean-tech industry: Q-Cells Co. Ltd., Tendril Inc. and Trina Solar Ltd. as examples.
Failure in market signals
But even as Kauffman searched for investments, he thought the market could be doing more.
"There are lots of companies, in fact, that have fantastic energy efficiency technology," he said at a Reuters climate conference in 2009, according to a transcript. Their problem? They don't have enough customers. "We know that this is a failure not in the underlying economics, it is a failure in market signals and regulation," he said.
"If we decided that it was really important to tackle our climate" and boost energy efficiency, he said, "then we have to change the incentives and the regulatory environment of electric utilities. There is no question in my mind."
In September 2011, Energy Secretary Chu hired Kauffman as a special adviser. "I wanted someone who was in finance, because finance in terms of energy investments is a huge part of how you get deployment, how you accelerate deployment," said Chu, now a professor of physics and molecular and cellular physiology at Stanford University.
Kauffman happened to start the same month the Silicon Valley solar company Solyndra declared bankruptcy, shifting attention to Washington, D.C., where Republicans in Congress sharply criticized the Obama administration's clean energy investments. One of Kauffman's key tasks was reviewing the portfolio of DOE's Loan Programs Office, the division that backed Solyndra to the tune of $535 million in loan guarantees.
While at DOE, according to Chu, Kauffman also studied markets for certain clean energy technologies, and he investigated whether there would be enough support for extending tax advantages enjoyed by oil and gas pipeline companies organized as master limited partnerships to renewable energy companies.
The scientist and the financier talked a few times a week. Chu said they were "kindred spirits" in how they approached problems. Pragmatically, he asserted. "He has a lot of good common sense," Chu said.
In 2013, Cuomo lured Kauffman to New York. To Chu, that means Kauffman gets to be the lead architect in the state's goal of creating a grid that gets 50 percent of its power from emissions-free sources. The first challenge had been driving down the cost of wind, solar, efficiency and other forms of distributed power. The next challenge is an integrated system, Chu said.
"The individual parts have become low-cost, now it's an integrated system. How you do provide the right financial incentives and the right investment atmosphere?" Chu said.
Acronym-fueled reform
Cuomo couches his energy plan in easy-to-understand terms: He wants to strengthen the grid, cut pollution and create clean-energy jobs.
But many of REV's nuts and bolts lie in key terms that can challenge even the seasoned energy observer: harrowing concepts like DERs, DSPs, DSPPs, DSIPs, DSPPs, EAMs and LMP+D.
"Nobody knows what a DSP really is," said energy executive Peter Fuller, referring to a "distribution service platform" -- REV's model of the future utility. "Nobody knows exactly how that's going to work," said Fuller, vice president for market and regulatory affairs at NRG Energy Inc., speaking at a conference this year.
"There was a fairly extensive period of time where it wasn't really clear what REV was, once you got past the elevator speech of how it works," said David Flynn, a partner at Phillips Lytle. "That is starting to fill out a little bit."
So part of Kauffman's task has been to explain how the grid of the future would work. Take the "platform" concept. In an interview with Vox in November, Kauffman made this analogy: "If you think about the iPad as a platform -- Apple wants third parties to develop apps, because a share of the revenue from the apps goes to Apple."
He went on, "So there's a virtuous cycle that takes place, where the more Apple invests in the platform to make it valuable to the app developers, the more Apple gets paid back in revenue."
Iberdrola USA, for example, is piloting an online "marketplace" through which it'll sell clean-energy products and target them to customers. "As REV is implemented and more DER options become available, the lack of a seamless platform would become a major barrier to DER penetration," the company wrote in its July proposal. "The Energy Marketplace proposal addresses this concern by establishing a platform that will enable customers and DER providers to directly interact."
But other stakeholders may need to be convinced that the new ways work better than the old ones.
Last year, when Kauffman trekked to Albany to testify on REV, some Republican senators asked what happened to their preferred plan: the "energy highway" Cuomo proposed in 2012. The initiative would have built transmission to connect power stations upstate with demand centers downstate (EnergyWire, Jan. 5, 2012).
Kauffman stressed -- to the lawmakers and to EnergyWire -- that it's not an either-or choice.
He said the goal is a "hybrid grid": one that enjoys the benefits of a centralized power system, but which also counts on distributed resources to benefit the entire system.
"When we think about building this grid of the future, this hybrid grid," he said, "[how] we're going to build that is by utilities giving price signals to build out the distributed nodes in locations where those distributed nodes are going to be good for not just those customers but for all customers."
How will we know when that grid exists? Kauffman frames it as an evolution; he declines to name deadlines or watershed events.
"We're talking about a change in business model, attitude and culture" for industry, regulators and customers, he said. "I don't know if there's going to be a single moment of epiphany. I don't know when that's going to happen.
"But there are so many things that are going on around the utility industry, that we see evolution in how the utilities are approaching this opportunity," he said. "Fundamentally, do they buy into the REV vision? I think they buy into the REV vision."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/28/stories/1060039494

Return to headline | Return to top
Is Alaska, Another Oil State, The Next Frontier for Climate Action?

Jun 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Kate Zerrenner

On a recent flight to Anchorage, Alaska, a man in the seat next to mine mentioned that the city only had two “bad” days of winter this year. Temperatures had hit a remarkable 70 degrees in March.
That was just the start. The following day, a boat captain noted that red salmon had arrived three weeks earlier than normal. And over the course of my trip, several people told me things like, “The last few winters have been the warmest I can remember.”
It struck me how similar these conversations were to those I’ve had with people in my home state of Texas. Except at home they speak of severe drought, hotter summers and extreme floods that seem to be occurring more often.
And just like in Texas, climate change is hitting vulnerable populations in Alaska harder than most.
The “melting glacier tour” no joke
I saw the most dramatic physical evidence of climate impacts on my Kenai Peninsula boat trip when we passed by Bear Glacier. This glacier marks the start of Kenai Fjords National Park, and it’s the largest glacier in the park at 13 miles long.
Before I left for Alaska, I had jokingly referred to it as the “melting glacier tour.” But it wasn’t so funny when I saw the evidence: This magnificent natural formation is receding rapidly.
With increasing average annual temperatures between the 1950s and 1990s, Bear Glacier retreated about one mile, creating a lagoon. Then, between 2000 and 2007, it retreated an additional two miles, releasing floating icebergs into the lagoon.
Making matters worse, in 2014, an outburst flood made the lagoon overflow into nearby Resurrection Bay. All this is having a direct impact on people living in Alaska.
Towns fleeing rising ocean water
The state is likely to see the first American climate refugees.
The 400-person town of Kivalina, home to the Inupiat people, and neighboring Newtok, where 350 Yupik residents live, must be moved as their homes and livelihoods will soon be under water.
As U.S. Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell noted, these towns are “washing away.”
The cost of the relocation could be as high as $200 million per town, and expenses could rise in coming years with 29 other towns in imminent danger. The cultural and social cost to the families that must be uprooted from their homes is immeasurable.
An unsustainable boom-and-bust oil economy
How is the state dealing with this remarkable challenge? The oil part of the equation makes dealing with climate change-related weather impacts even thornier.
Alaska state budgets rely heavily on oil revenues, with all its ups and downs. In 2014, 90 percent of Alaska’s state budget came from the industry. The following year, it dropped to 75 percent – a huge loss resulting from the recent oil price tumble.
That means there’s less of a buffer to pay for things like the relocation of communities, or to offset revenue loss fromfisheries and other industries affected by climate change.
The reality is, heavy reliance on oil is no longer sustainable from an economic or environmental perspective.
Frontier spirit can help Alaskans beat the odds
Fortunately, one of the hallmarks of frontier-spirited states such as Alaska is adaptability.
Embracing cleaner energy sources is one way the state is beginning to prepare for a more resilient future – and it can look to another oil state for inspiration and know-how.
So I was not surprised when I looked out the airplane window as we departed Anchorage and saw rows of wind turbines spinning against majestic, snow-covered mountains.
Alaska’s frontier, can-do attitude can help the state’s vulnerable populations and all Alaskans prepare for a safer, healthier future. Now’s the time to do so.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/06/28/alaska-another-oil-state-next-frontier-climate-action

Return to headline | Return to top
Banning Fracking is the Only Rational Option

Jun 28, 2016 | Baltimore Sun

By Gina M. Angiola

Unconventional gas development using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, has been intensely debated in our state for almost a decade. Initially promoted as a "clean" fuel that would provide cheap energy, create jobs and help the climate, fracked gas was embraced by politicians of both major parties. States like Pennsylvania and West Virginia welcomed the industry with open arms, setting in motion a vast public health experiment. Maryland wisely waited.
When Maryland began studying fracking in 2011, research on impacts was in its infancy. Yet by the end of 2015, there were almost seven hundred peer-reviewed articles on fracking impacts on air, water, seismicity, climate and human and animal health.
The emerging picture is clear:Fracking has no place in Maryland.
Fracking is bad for our climate. Fracked gas is largely methane, a greenhouse gas 86-times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. These next 20 years will be critical for stabilizing the climate. Methane leakage from gas development, production, distribution and well abandonment is much higher than previously understood, making fracked gas as bad or worse than coal or oil for climate impacts.
Climate disruption is a public health emergency.It threatens not only the nature, distribution, and intensity of disease, but also food supplies, national security, the economy and the foundations of civil society. Climate change cost estimates are in thetrillions of dollars. And climate disruption is accelerating rapidly. Permitting fracking now is immoral.
Fracking harms human health. While the research on health effects is still in its early stages (as would be expected due to time delays between exposure and development of illness), 84 percent of existing public health studies show risks or actual harms. In 2015, separate studies looking at health outcomes in Pennsylvania showed a significant association between proximity to fracking operations and premature births, and increased hospitalization rates for cardiac and neurological illnesses in heavily fracked counties.
In May of this year, in Dimock, Pa. — ground zero for fracking — the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that private well water had indeed been contaminated with a range of compounds that threaten health and safety.This month, researchers in Wyoming documented the presence of specific carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals both in local air emissions and in the urine of residents living near oil and gas operations.
Rather than address legitimate concerns, for years industry has tried to deny, distort and discredit claims of harm, or to buy the silence of those affected. The health harms we know about are likely the tip of the iceberg, but they are sufficient to justify a fracking ban.
Fracking destroys our environment. Building fracking infrastructure damages forests and soils, weakening the very ecological systems that stabilize the climate and purify air and water. Fracking also threatens farm lands and the health of our food supply.
To frack a single well requires millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals. Well leakage, spills and intentional discharges can irreversibly damage ecosystems. In North Dakota, over 3,000 fracking wastewater spills — roughly one for every three wells drilled — have led to widespread contamination of water and soil with salts, metals and radioactive compounds. Many bioaccumulate and persist for decades.
Water is removed from normal hydrologic cycles, a dangerous practice in times of worsening global droughts. Wastewaters injected deep underground for long-term storage are causing unprecedented earthquakes in Oklahoma and elsewhere. In Canada, earthquakes are being linked to the hydraulic fracturing process itself.
If we value our environment, a ban is the only rational option.
In 2015, rather than pass an eight-year moratorium with a scientific review in year seven, the Maryland General Assembly chose to pass a two-year moratorium with an automatic path to "regulated" fracking in 2017. This was unfortunate, as no regulations can adequately protect public health or the environment. This must be corrected with a ban in the next legislative session before fracking begins.
It's time to stop wasting taxpayer money and everyone's time developing and implementing impotent regulations for an outdated and destructive fuel source. Instead, all resources should be redirected to a real jobs program to enhance our economy and quality of life, while protecting our climate by moving rapidly to a 100 percent renewable energy-based economy, and restoring ecosystems and transforming land-use practices to allow biological systems to put atmospheric carbon back into soils where it's needed
Maryland is a beautiful state. Let's keep it that way. No fracking allowed.
Dr. Gina M. Angiola is a board member for Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-fracking-md-20160628-story.html

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Transportation News

Freight Trains Collide Head-On, Explode into Flames in Texas Panhandle

Jun 28, 2016 | Washington Post

By Ashley Halsey III

A pair of freight trains collided head-on and exploded into flames Tuesday morning in the Texas panhandle, and there were unconfirmed reports that one or more crew members died in the crash.
The collision was about five miles from the city of Panhandle on tracks that run alongside US Highway 60. Both trains were identified as belonging to BNSF, one of the nation’s largest freight railroads.
The trains’ haul had not been determined. Deep black smoke was billowing from the wreckage. Witnesses said most of the cars strewn around the crash site appeared to be box cars.
Investigators from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) arrived at the scene before noon, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was also dispatching a team.
BNSF has been a leader among freight railroads in embracing a technology intended to prevent just the kind of head-on collision that apparently occurred Tuesday. The system of on-board electronics and wayside towers known as Positive Train Control (PTC) would automatically apply braking systems if two trains were operating on the same set of tracks.
BNSF has notified the railroad administration that it intends to have its PTC system fully operational to meet a 2018 federal deadline, but some railroads have been turning their systems on piecemeal as the technology is put in place. It was unclear whether PTC was operational on the BNSF trains and the tracks on which they were traveling.
PTC, long sought by the NTSB and FRA, was the focus of an investigation last year in Philadelphia after an Amtrak train went into a curve at twice the post speed limit, derailing in a wreck that killed eight people an injured 159. If PTC had been turned on in the Amtrak system, investigators found, it would have slowed the train and prevented the accident.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/freight-trains-collide-head-on-explode-into-flames-in-texas-panhandle/2016/06/28/d6c9d18c-3d45-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

House Committee Says Politics Driving EPA Science Decisions

Jun 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch

An investigation by the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has found that the EPA "intentionally ignores" good science and "cherry picks" the science that fits its agenda.
This was according to a hearing, "Ensuring sound science at EPA", held to examine the science behind the EPA's recent regulatory activities.
Appearing as the sole witness, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy was faced with repeated questioning over concerns about the integrity of science governing EPA findings and rulings.
With an agenda focused mainly on clean water, clean air and renewable fuels issues, the hearing opened with a statement from Chairman Lamar Smith (R–Texas), who said the EPA has "become an agency in pursuit of a purely political agenda rather than an agency that protects the environment".
"When the science falls short, EPA resorts to a propaganda campaign designed to mislead the public," he added.
Questions were also raised by Representative Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) about the EPA’s apparent retraction of a final Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) report for glyphosate in April.
Mr Lucas said that the impact of such decisions is "dramatic", and expressed concern that an agency decision was being "overruled" or "backed-up". This is of "grave concern", he said.
Ms McCarthy responded that the report was not the final agency action, but rather a step in the process. The CARC had decided the issue warranted further agency review and it was "extremely unfortunate" that the report, which was not ready for public review, got released by a contractor, she said.
The final report, she says, will be released in the autumn. "We want to make sure that we get the science right," Ms McCarthy said.
Concerns were also raised about the committee not getting the cooperation it needs, as evidenced by the agency’s failure to respond to its letters. Ten letters with 35 total requests have been sent and, so far, the agency has only fully responded to one letter, it said.
Ms McCarthy assured the committee that the agency was doing everything it could to respond, and information would be provided as quickly as possible.
Earlier this year, the committee solicited information from the EPA about its progress with implementing reforms to its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The request was repeated earlier this month, when the agency had apparently failed to furnish the information by the committee’s deadline.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has also probed the EPA on its conflict of interest policy, when appointing experts to serve on its Science Advisory Board.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48296/house-committee-says-politics-driving-epa-science-decisions-

Return to headline | Return to top
White House Analysis 'Has Gotten Weirder' -- Ex-EPA Official

Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

By Hannah Hess

U.S. EPA's first policy chief under the Obama administration today criticized White House regulatory reviews for continuing a Reagan-era practice of using cost-benefit analysis as the guiding framework.
Lisa Heinzerling, now a law professor at Georgetown University, said "many people, including me, thought this administration" might change the longstanding practice of relying on Office of Management and Budget review of costs.
However, she said, the practice "has deepened in this administration."
OMB's cost-benefit analysis "has gotten weirder over time," Heinzerling said during a Capitol Hill forum hosted by the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. She was part of a panel looking at lessons learned and challenges ahead from the Obama administration's agenda.
Heinzerling served as a senior climate adviser to former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson from 2009 to 2010, advising Jackson on a suite of greenhouse gas regulations and emissions standards that were a precursor to the Clean Power Plan.
She was also lead author of the states' briefs in Massachusetts v. EPA, the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case that established that greenhouse gases endanger public health.
Since parting ways with the Obama administration, Heinzerling has blasted OMB for undermining efforts at federal agencies, including EPA.
As a fellow at the Center for Progressive Reform, she has called attention to the fact that major environmental laws, including the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, assign EPA the task of regulating emissions, and few of those laws direct it to base the rules on a cost assessment (E&ENews PM, April 1, 2013).
On climate change, Heinzerling said today that the Obama administration had made "very strange assumptions" about the social cost of carbon.
At about $40 per metric ton, the figure is meant to help federal agencies quantify the estimated economic damage associated with an increase in carbon emissions in a year.
"We have discounted social cost over centuries, so [the] future is trivialized," Heinzerling said.
Since President Reagan first started looking at the cost of implementing and enforcing regulations, the White House has become more aggressive in policing agency actions through OMB control, she charged.
The Obama administration, Heinzerling said, is "doubling down."
One example of "weird results" is the economic analysis for EPA's rules on toxic air pollution, she said. It says the effects of mercury exposure on children's' IQ is in one respect a good thing for the government's pocketbook.
"Think of the money we save by not further educating children who have lost IQ points as a result of mercury exposure," she said.
Heinzerling said this part of the mercury rule analysis has become "really important to bury" to make it publicly acceptable. Communicating the disconnect has become Heinzerling's mission since she left the Obama administration.
Asked how to make the case against Washington, D.C.'s anti-regulatory push, Heinzerling acknowledged cost-benefit analysis "sounds utterly commonsensical."
However, she added, to the extent people can become more aware of examples like the mercury rule analysis, "part of your messaging challenge is lightened."
EPA's mercury rule has been caught up in litigation over whether the agency did enough to calculate its costs and benefits.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/28/stories/1060039537

Return to headline | Return to top
Conservative Greens' Poll Shows Voters Keen on Climate Solutions

Jun 28, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

By Jennifer Yachnin

A majority of voters would be less likely to support political candidates who describe climate change as a "hoax," according to a new poll sponsored by conservative environmental organizations.
The national energy innovation survey released today also showed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with a 5-point lead over presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump -- who has often posited that climate change is a hoax, as well as "nonsense" and "bullshit."
"November is increasingly shaping up to be an energy election in America. While there are visible political divisions in the country, it's clear that likely voters in both parties are prepared to support candidates who present a detailed clean energy policy agenda," Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions Executive Director James Dozier said in a statement. "Voters clearly view clean energy as a way to bolster domestic job creation, strengthen our national security, and ensure clean air and water for communities across America."
CRES sponsored the survey along with ConservAmerica, the Conservation Leadership Council, Opportunity.us, the R Street Institute, Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, the Niskanen Center, republicEn and the Citizens' Climate Lobby.
The June 14-18 survey, conducted by TargetPoint Consulting Inc. and Just Win Strategies, included 2,000 likely voters nationwide. The survey had a 3.1-point margin of error.
While voters rated issues including terrorism and national security as well as jobs and the economy among their top concerns, environmental and climate change policy topped social issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage as well as immigration policy.
Voters also overwhelmingly agreed that Congress should focus on energy policy, particularly "the exploration and development of renewable energy sources."
Among those polled, 75 percent said Congress should put a "very high" or "somewhat high" priority on energy policy, while 23 percent said it should not make the issue a top concern.
A memo accompanying the poll results noted voters across all political groups agreed on the importance of energy policy, with 64 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents saying Congress should focus on the issue. Voters likewise offered majority support for federal action to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, with 68 percent endorsing unspecified government "steps" to address carbon dioxide and other gases.
"The fact that 7 in 10 voters support a role for the federal government in reducing carbon emissions is encouraging for the conversations we need to have about America's energy future," said Citizens' Climate Lobby Executive Director Mark Reynolds. "There are important immediate actions that can be taken today from energy efficiency, to investments in clean energy R&D, to updates in our energy infrastructure that will have a positive impact on our carbon footprint."
The survey also found voters are more likely to support political candidates who believe that human activity is contributing to climate change and less likely to back a candidate who voices skepticism about climate science.
Among those polled, 55 percent said they would be more likely to support a candidate who agrees human activity contributes to climate change, while 32 percent said they would be less inclined to support such a candidate.
Similarly, 64 percent said they would be less likely to support a candidate "who believes climate change is a hoax," while 26 percent said they would be more likely to do so.
"This data represents a path forward for Republicans to change the narrative on energy and environmental issues in this country, and move away from arguments over climate and towards solutions that will strengthen our economy and national security," ConservAmerica President Rob Sisson said in a statement. "Voters across the board support common-sense action and the GOP has an opportunity to make inroads across the board through proactive leadership."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/28/stories/1060039535

Return to headline | Return to top
Science Groups to Congress: Climate Change is Real Threat

Jun 28, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)

By Seth Borenstein

Thirty-one of the country’s top science organizations are telling Congress that global warming is a real problem and something needs to be done about it.
The groups, which represent millions of scientists, sent the letter Tuesday, saying the severity of climate change is increasing and will worsen faster in coming decades.
Eighteen groups sent a similar letter in 2009. But Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the climate problem has increased and scientists are even more confident about the harm.
“There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources and human health,” the letter states. It mentions extreme weather, water shortages, heat waves, wildfires, It mentions extreme weather, water shortages, heat waves, wildfires, sea level rise, and disruption of ecosystems in the United States.
Those signing the letter include the world’s largest scientific society, American Chemical Society, and groups that represent meteorologists, public health experts, biologists, Earth scientists, oceanographers, geologists, crop researchers, bug, fish and reptile experts, as well as mathematicians and statisticians.
Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said the situation is like a doctor telling a patient he has cancer, with the patient saying he doesn’t. The doctor then gets every oncologist in the hospital to tell the patient it is cancer, but is treatable. It’s up to the patient.
“We told you everything we could,” said Hayhoe. “We are like Pontius Pilate, metaphorically washing our hands.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/science-groups-to-congress-climate-change-is-real-threat/2016/06/28/be5500e4-3d41-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html

Return to headline | Return to top
On a Heating Planet, ‘Gasland’ Filmmaker Josh Fox Lets Go and Loves

Jun 27, 2016 | New York Times

By Andrew C. Revkin

Updated, 6:21 p.m. | Josh Fox’s first and second films, “Gasland” and “Gasland Part 2,” were high-octane polemics aimed at ending fracking, shorthand for the revolutionary method of fracturing deep layers of shale to liberate natural gas and oil previously deemed unreachable. From “The Cove” (on Japan’s dolphin hunts) to “Pandora’s Promise” (on the benefits of nuclear energy) this strategy, meshing a film and a campaign, has become commonplace.
The fracking campaign succeeded in blocking fracking in theDelaware River watershed, Fox’s focal point, and ultimately led to a ban in New York State in 2014. But this method of extracting gas and oil has become so widespread that the United States Department of Energy recently stopped describing it as “unconventional.”
Now he’s tackling global warming, but in a fresh and engaging way.
In an interview at The Times last week, Fox said his focus on human-driven climate change emerged as he grappled, after that small fracking success, with the unrelenting demand for fossil fuels and emerging impacts of warming temperatures, made emblematic by Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
The film’s sprawling title — “How to Let Go of the World and Love All The Things Climate Can’t Change” — reflects the sweep of the documentary itself, which takes viewers on Fox’s world-spanning learning journey examining how local campaigns and individual innovators can tweak troubling environmental trajectories toward progress.
The documentary has its HBO debut tonight at 9 p.m. and in “house party” viewings around the country.
Here’s a portion of our interview, with more to come when I have time to edit the video:
Sometimes in person, sometimes online, Fox and I sharply differed on natural gas and fracking. But count me a fan of “Let Go of the World” (My proposed shorthand). The film has heaps of dark notes and a solid dose of finger pointing, but it doesn’t focus on the stale heroes-and-villains framing that has long been a bad fit for global warming. (Who’s the villain, the companies extracting fossil fuels or the societies living better lives because of all that cheap energy?)
His personal journey almost founders as he runs into a wall of despair conveyed by analysts warning of mass extinction, forced migration and more. He illustrates his emotional nadir by using a drone-lofted camera to show himself as a shrinking dot sprawled in a snowy field, paralyzed.
But from that point forward, the film does something rare — laying out a philosophy for sustained engagement on environmental solutions while acknowledging the enormous scope of humanity’s interwoven climate and energy challenges. (For one thing, centuries of climate change and coastal retreats are essentially baked in already based on the greenhouse gases that have already been released.)
Yes, there’s likely some confirmation bias in my thumbs-up, given that I’ve long argued that “urgency and patience” must somehow be meshed in pursuing climate progress. So be it!
The film also valuably focuses on examining one’s own values, choices and actions, with Fox doing so by positioning himself as the central character. In his trademark deadpan narration, Fox describes what he was seeking: “What are the things climate change can’t destroy? What parts of us are so deep that no storm can take them away?”
In our chat, he explained the importance of examining your internal climate this way:
A lot of people ask you, ‘Oh my God, climate change; where to I have to move?’ Well you have to move six inches inside your brain, inside your heart, to figure out what, emotionally, you’re going to do.
Over and over (perhaps a few too many times), from the Peruvian Amazon to the South Pacific, he finds instances in which community action aims to save the day, if not the climate. His examples often don’t end up with a clear victory — instead finding the victory in the effort itself.
There was one big missed opportunity. He didn’t examine evidence that people who might forever debate the dangers posed by climate change are often surprisingly in synch on sensible clean-energy choices, even the merits of a carbon tax.
It would have been great, for example, if Fox had traveled to Woodward, Okla., which one survey found is the most skeptical county in America when it comes to views on global warming, but where the CNN video journalist John Sutter found an oil-company executive pursuing solar-powered independence from the grid.
But that just means there’s room for a sequel.
Here’s the trailer:
hope you’ll watch the film and perhaps even host a viewing party to discuss its many meanings.
Postscript | I’d intended to include a link to Heidi Hutner’s post about the film and videotaped interview with Josh Fox. Hutner directs the sustainability studies program at Stony Brook University.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/on-a-heating-planet-gasland-filmmaker-josh-fox-lets-go-and-loves/?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested