Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/6
-
#BusinessCase: Dow Continues to Show Positive Return on Pursuing Sustainability Goals
Jul 6, 2016 | Sustainable Brands
By Jennifer Elks
Last week, The Dow Chemical Company released its 2015 Sustainability Report, which examined the company’s journey toward reaching its 2015 goals and what it’s already achieved looking ahead to 2025. -
DuPont: PFOA Cancerphobia Testimony Should Be Struck
Jul 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A jury should be instructed to disregard a bellwether plaintiff's arguments regarding fear of cancer in multi-district litigation against DuPont over drinking water contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), the company told a federal court (In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., S.D. Ohio, No. 13-md-02433, motion filed 7/1/16). -
Canada Aligns Microbeads Ban With U.S. Approach
Jul 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada designated plastic microbeads as a toxic substance and confirmed that it will align its controls on their use with those in the U.S. -
Lawmakers Plot Endgame on Spending; Energy Bill Appears Stuck
Jul 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Lawmakers are increasingly vocal about the likelihood of needing to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded past the end of the fiscal year. -
DOT Issues Proposed Regs For Hazardous Materials Transport
Jul 5, 2016 | Law 360
By Linda Chiem
The U.S. Department of Transportation has proposed new regulations for transporting hazardous materials, updating standards for the design and lifespan of cargo tanks, labeling and placards, the use of electronic manifests and other safety and accountability precautions. -
Tougher Standards on Oil Shippers Will Ensure Safety
Jul 5, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Dan McCoy
Every week, thinly walled rail cars that have been declared unfit transport crude oil carrying millions of gallons of explosive product on aging railroad tracks, threatening communities in New York from the Canadian border to Albany. -
Markey Says ‘Political Obstacles' Impede Broad Climate Bill
Jul 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Retaking control of Congress in November could provide a new window for Democrats to pursue climate change legislation.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
#BusinessCase: Dow Continues to Show Positive Return on Pursuing Sustainability Goals
Jul 6, 2016 | Sustainable Brands
By Jennifer Elks
Last week, The Dow Chemical Company released its 2015 Sustainability Report, which examined the company’s journey toward reaching its 2015 goals and what it’s already achieved looking ahead to 2025. I caught up with corporate VP and Chief Sustainability Officer Neil Hawkins to learn more.
The new report details the completion of your 2015 goals, which yielded a range of great results for Dow. What were your biggest takeaways along the way?
Neil Hawkins: The 2015 goals end a 20-year run of public goals with metrics of success, with public reporting. You know, we first started with our first set of goals in the mid-‘90s. Then in the mid-2000s we set the 2015 goals - this report is an annual report but it also gives the final tallies and results on the 2015 goals. I think we learned a lot in the first set of goals that led into the second set of goals: We learned that public goal-setting with metrics and public reporting is a very effective way to align an organization, to help everybody in an organization know what hills they’re trying to take so that you can get maximum leverage - the best success for customers, the best success for stakeholders - because you have clarity. For aligning 50,000+ employees, I think the 2015 goals were quite remarkable.
When you look at the results that we achieved - for example: We got to over 400 MW of clean power – that was through a sub-goal in the 2015 goals; we eliminated 75 percent of injuries from an already low number through a focus on safety. We reduced our greenhouse gases from over that 10-year period by 27 percent, which is remarkable because we continued to grow the company during that period of time. We increased our sales of products highly advantaged by sustainable chemistry, up to 25 percent of our sales - and we had started below 5 percent. And again it’s because we were able to align everyone, align our processes [and] our investments.
Two other things I’d mention - One: Again we showed, just like we did with our first set of goals, that we still continued to make money. There is a positive return in pursing sustainability goals both for the bottom line and for the top line. I already mentioned 25 percent of our sales are now highly advantaged by sustainable chemistry, but we had the breakthroughs to world challenges goal – we announced 4 breakthroughs to world challenges over the 2015 goal period: One dealing with a breakthrough of water - reverse osmosis, reducing its energy and carbon footprint; one in omega-9 oils, which are heart healthy - we’ve replaced more than one and a half billion pounds of unhealthy oils in the American diet with those; we reduced 23 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases because of our BETAMATE™ structural adhesives light-weighting cars; and last, we had a collaboration with LIFEBUOY™ soap, with Unilever– that soap reduces by 45 percent the pathogens that can cause disease, but it helped make it more cost-effective at the same time. So, those 4 breakthroughs - we’re just very pleased and thankful for these results. The people of Dow delivered them, and I think it’s a testimonial to the power of goal-setting with public reporting.Will you continue to build on the progress made with the 2015 goals? Or are you shifting into broader, more SDGs-aligned goals for 2025?
NH: Our first set of 10 year goals are what we call footprint-reduction goals, and they worked very well for us. Our second set of goals really were handprint goals, where we worked on improving the good we are doing through our products and operations – and this second set of goals also included a continuation of footprint reduction. And now with the current set of goals, our 2025 sustainability goals, we’re carrying forward the concepts and objectives of some of the handprint goals and some of the footprint goals into a new set of goals, and then add further collaborative emphasis on blueprint: Dow taking its expertise, its globality, its technology, its public policy expertise, our value chain knowledge, our relationships with NGOs, and making that available and helping motivate dialogues that can lead to breakthrough solutions to major world challenges - be it in clean water, affordable housing, clean energy. And so, the 2025 goals really take the best out of footprint reduction for a forward 10-year look; the best out of what we learned through the 2015 goals and how to do more goods through our products, through our sustainable chemistry; but then it really says that we will, beyond that, make ourselves vulnerable to help solve some of these major world challenges.When we spoke last year just after the goals were announced, you said you were particularly excited about the blueprint goal that you just mentioned. I know the initial blueprint is due at the end of 2017, but have you gained any insights from that process so far that you can share yet?
NH: I think the idea that there would be a single blueprint is not practical; it’s too big a chunk, so I think what you’ll end up seeing are a series of blueprints that we can convene and work on. And I’ve got a number of examples. We’re starting to work in the chemicals policy arena, you know, concern around chemicals and health – and I don’t know if you saw it the other day, but the new Toxic Substances Control Act just was signed byPresident Obama. I was there for that ceremony and that was an 8-year effort of convening and working together with stakeholders to get to a final solution that really will help ensure public health and consumer safety. So, that’s a good example of what we need to do in many areas, where we need to convene on: clean water, ocean waste, chemicals and their exposures, value chain, clean energy, the future of mobility. We have dialogues starting in virtually all those areas already. In some of these areas we have multiple dialogues going on. We’ve had dozens and dozens of customers and value chain partners reach out to us asking how they can get involved in some of these. So, I think if you give us until the end of this year, I think you’re going to see a lot of progress.
One particular goal in our 2025 goals is on circular economy - we’re the only material science company in The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Circular Economy 100. Virtually every other company involved is turning to us saying, ‘what can you do to help us design for a circular economy?’ because we have a materials solution for practically any problem. And so, even within that context, we’re already in quite a number of dialogues around how to have new prototypes for a circular economy, be it extensions of our energy bag concept in other cities, be it in designing pouches – we had a recent announcement on a new pouch with Seventh Generation that is recyclable, whereas other competing opportunities might have a layer of foil, , different types of plastics, and adhesives, etc. that make it hard to mechanically recycle. We also have our SafeChem chemical leasing and cleaning franchise out there, and the How2Recycle label that we’re promoting. I think the amount of energy on circular economy right now is huge. The amount of energy I see opportunities for greenhouse gas reduction are very large. So I’m very optimistic that the dialogue space is going to be rich, and how we summarize that – I’m guessing will be more threads of one tapestry versus a whole tapestry by the end of 2017.I know it’s only been a year since you launched the new goals, but have you come up against any major challenges around any of them?
NH: I’d say, any time you set goals like these – these are not simple true-false questions, or simple fill-in-the-blank questions, or simple mathematical questions – I would characterize it as challenging essays. Every goal has a leader, and each of those leaders is working on how can they deliver big. We have the billion-person goal, which is about mobilizing our employees in their volunteerism to positively impact a billion people, or a hundred million per year. We have the billion-dollar goal, where the leader has a portfolio of 30 projects, and is trying to figure out to make a billion dollars of value for Dow in projects that improve nature at the same time. In fact, we have probably this year already delivered $20-30 million in positive for nature projects that are also positive for Dow.
But our teams are making great progress; they’re coming across the kind of roadblocks you’d expect, but that is not impeding progress. Our employees – and our prospectiveemployees - are very motivated by these goals. We’re only five months into these goals, but I’m actually quite pleased at the progress – you know, we announced another major alternative energy deal since the beginning of the year, which puts us in the top five purchasers of clean power in the world. So we’re not losing any time, aggressively pursuing these goals.
The real answer is alignment. When you have the CEO, the Board of Directors, the senior management team, all backing clear goals and they have teams that are empowered to deliver, they’re going to go deliver. They’re not waiting around waiting for permission. So, I’m very proud of that.Yeah, alignment around sustainability is key - I know a lot of companies are still struggling to find that. Speaking of alignment, one of your goals involves “ engaging in 100 significant dialogues and establishing 10 new collaborations.” How could the SB community help with that?
NH: I think there’s a real opportunity here as we all work together to learn from each other. We’re a very metrics-driven place. You can bank on us doing our best to get it done, but I do think we want stakeholders like Sustainable Brands and your companies to help us make course-corrections in mid-stream; we’re flexible in that if we’re off track or we need to redo our metrics or whatever, we’re very open to that kind of feedback.
What I think would be an interesting topic, is how do you have metrics around something like blueprints? How do you help organizations align around an abstract concept like a blueprint? Because I don’t know the answer - but it [might] help us to get feedback from your vast expert audience. [Developing] metrics around the blueprint in and of itself is a blueprint, because it’s us working together to try to hash out ideas with others, collaborating with a goal of making big change happen. Our billion-person goal might be another one that would be interesting. I mean, we have a lot of metrics around STEM education and things like that, but, you know, really scaling up another 10x from where we are, we need to think through - how do you count that next level of secondary impact? We’ll never make it to one billion by measuring one person from Dow teaching someone else how to read over a one-year period. But if we totally change a method of learning science, and it’s leveraged to all science teachers in the world, how do you count that? These are the kinds of concepts we’re thinking about. And I tell you, it’s a really good thought process because it’s causing us to think out loud and ahead of time about how to maximize Dow people impact.
I think that the way we’ve constructed these goals, focusing really strongly on collaboration - with our value chain, with academia, government, stakeholders, communities – I couldn’t be more optimistic about the potential impact we’re going to have as we execute them. There’s an elegance to how they’re created, to how they’re written; we’ve got all the different groups out practicing their pieces and their parts - it’s almost like a symphony. But I think if we have this conversation in 10 years, we’re really going to see fruits of collaboration that are measureable.
So think of us as evolving, and our ultimate goal is to redefine how business engages with society. I mean, big sustainability question – not that we have all the answers, but we’re going to be part of it and help convene whole value chains to make a go of it. So to the extent that we can all work together, we want to do that. We want to collaborate.
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/collaboration/jennifer_elks/dow_continues_show_positive_return_pursuing_sustainabilit
-
DuPont: PFOA Cancerphobia Testimony Should Be Struck
Jul 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A jury should be instructed to disregard a bellwether plaintiff's arguments regarding fear of cancer in multi-district litigation against DuPont over drinking water contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), the company told a federal court (In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., S.D. Ohio, No. 13-md-02433, motion filed 7/1/16).
Counsel for David Freeman took inconsistent positions at trial regarding fear of cancer—abandoning and then rearguing the issue, DuPont said in itsmotion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Freeman asserted, dropped and reasserted during trial the allegation of fear of cancer based on the presence of PFOA in his blood, DuPont argued.
PFOA, also known as C8, was used in the manufacture of many products, including Teflon.
“Plaintiff's strategy of conveniently ‘flip-flopping' on the basis for his cancerphobia claim has severely and unduly prejudiced DuPont because the testimony surrounding the now abandoned claim will confuse jurors as to the compensable damages plaintiff seeks and mislead them as to the evidence actually relevant to plaintiff's remaining claims,” DuPont argued.
The MDL began as a class action filed in 2001 in West Virginia (Leach v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (W.Va. Cir. Ct.2001).
Douglas & London P.C., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and Cory Watson P.C. represent Freeman.
Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP represents DuPont.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93173166&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93173166&jd=93173166
-
Canada Aligns Microbeads Ban With U.S. Approach
Jul 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
Canada designated plastic microbeads as a toxic substance and confirmed that it will align its controls on their use with those in the U.S.
The order supports the Canadian government's proposed ban by 2020 of the manufacture, import and sale of personal care products containing microbeads, particularly those that exfoliate or cleanse.
The addition of plastic microbeads to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) includes designation that it applies to particles up to 5 millimeters in size, which aligns the coverage of Canada's approach with U.S. restrictions, Environment and Climate Change Canada said June 29.
The designation will enable the government to propose risk management instruments, either regulations or nonregulatory approaches, to manage the environmental risks that microbeads pose, the department said in the June 29 Canada Gazette, Part II.
The order finalizes a draft order published in August 2015.
A bill that the U.S. Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law two months ago prohibits the manufacture of products containing microbeads starting July 1, 2017, and phased in through the middle of 2019. The U.S. law applies to microbeads up to 5 millimeters in diameter.
Environment and Climate Change Canada said it rejected arguments by industry in response to the draft order that the upper size limit of 5 millimeters was excessive because microbeads in personal care products are generally smaller than that upper limit.
The order specifies the designation of “microbeads” refers to the term commonly used by the cosmetics sector. It said the term “plastic” excludes other types of microbeads, such as those made of silica, to more accurately reflect the microbeads used in personal care products.
A 2015 government survey found that about 100,000 kilograms of plastic microbeads were imported into Canada in 2014 in personal care products for exfoliating and cleansing, the department said. In addition, 1,000 to 10,000 kilograms of microbeads were used in Canada in 2014 to manufacture such products, it said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93173164&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93173164&jd=93173164
-
Lawmakers Plot Endgame on Spending; Energy Bill Appears Stuck
Jul 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Lawmakers are increasingly vocal about the likelihood of needing to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded past the end of the fiscal year.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said yesterday evening he would like to see a shorter CR to give lawmakers time to move forward with more spending bills.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) would not entertain questions about a CR yesterday. "We'll get back to that work and continue to move forward to get as much done as possible," he said. "I think we'll work all the way through to get as many as we can do before September 30."
The House and Senate have passed three of 12 spending bills, and lawmakers are scheduled to leave town next week for the summer recess and political conventions.
The House may finish work this week on the financial services legislation, which includes riders to block Obama administration climate priorities. The Senate may proceed today with its defense bill.
Rogers said he hoped to finish the bill to fund U.S. EPA and the Interior Department, which has for years been contentious, by next week. "I'm sure there will be debate," he said with a smirk.
Republican leaders' decision to change their strategy for passing appropriations bills will make it more likely the House will indeed finish work on the legislation. The Rules Committee now has more say over which proposed amendments reach the floor.
"I believe the House should do its work, and I think you'll see the House be very productive in appropriations, especially with the new structured rule," McCarthy said.
The House pulled its energy and water spending bill in May over a controversial Democratic amendment to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers (Greenwire, May 26).
Rogers said he was looking forward bringing the bill back up. "I want to. I hope to," he said, but couldn't provide a timeline for potential action.Energy talks
Also in limbo are talks to merge House and Senate versions of energy reform legislation. The House named conferees weeks ago, but the Senate has yet to act.
"We're sort of like the Maytag repairman. We're waiting for the call that they've named conferees," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) yesterday.
While it was always clear that work on a final bill wouldn't be completed before Labor Day, Upton said, "the only way to get to second base is to name conferees first."
Many Senate Democrats, however, are skeptical of moving forward with a conference committee as long as House lawmakers insist on pushing provisions that President Obama has threatened to veto.
"We'll be as flexible as we can," said House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
Bishop and Upton have been part of bicameral meetings to get the Senate on board with going to conference. But, as of last night, no meetings had been set.
New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of his party's leadership team, has suggested informal negotiations could produce a better product than a conference.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/06/stories/1060039823
-
DOT Issues Proposed Regs For Hazardous Materials Transport
Jul 5, 2016 | Law 360
By Linda Chiem
The U.S. Department of Transportation has proposed new regulations for transporting hazardous materials, updating standards for the design and lifespan of cargo tanks, labeling and placards, the use of electronic manifests and other safety and accountability precautions.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on Thursday issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend its hazardous materials regulations to address 20 petitions for rulemaking on a variety of topics.
The rulemaking addresses new guidelines requested by both the Compressed Gas Association and the Chlorine Institute, fixes inconsistencies with domestic and international hazardous materials labels and placards, allows electronic signatures for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency manifest forms and no longer requires that service pressure be marked on certain DOT cylinders, according to PHMSA.
“These proposed revisions are intended to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining or enhancing the existing level of safety,” PHMSA said in a statement.
The proposed rule also allows for alternative testing methods for aerosols, clarifies the permissions needed to transport limited quantities of ammonium nitrate, allows the use of plastic or metal pallets to transport materials classed and marked as limited quantities and lays out additional specifications for valves and protection caps, among other things.
The agency also said that the goal is to help facilitate international commerce and make its hazardous materials requirements easier to understand. The provisions in the proposed rule build on current regulatory requirements to enhance the transportation safety and security of shipments of hazardous materials transported by highway, rail, aircraft and vessel, thereby reducing the risks of an accidental or intentional release of hazardous materials and consequent environmental damage, PHMSA added.
The new rulemaking comes after Congress reauthorized PHMSA last month. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law in June, heaping more significant safety mandates on the agency's crowded regulatory plate, which experts have suggested could further slow PHMSA’s already sluggish and much-maligned rulemaking pace.
The Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016, or Pipes Act, is a four-year reauthorization of the PHMSA, whose most recent authorization expired in 2015. The legislation contained a grab bag of pipeline and oil by rail transportation safety initiatives and mandates, which are sources of rare bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill in the wake of several high-profile oil pipeline spills, gas leaks and oil train derailments.
In addition to having the agency work quicker to get its backlog of rules out, the reauthorization also mandated that PHMSA craft new rules for underground natural gas storage — a matter that has taken on greater urgency in light of the massive gas leak at Southern California Gas Co.'s Aliso Canyon storage facility in October, which displaced thousands of area residents, with the leak finally being sealed in February.http://www.law360.com/articles/813760/dot-issues-proposed-regs-for-hazardous-materials-transport
-
Tougher Standards on Oil Shippers Will Ensure Safety
Jul 5, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Dan McCoy
Every week, thinly walled rail cars that have been declared unfit transport crude oil carrying millions of gallons of explosive product on aging railroad tracks, threatening communities in New York from the Canadian border to Albany.
Three years ago, during a night in early July in Lac-Mégantic, 47 people died and the downtown burned when an oil train's parking brake failed. Seventy-six rail cars full of crude oil barreled into the center of the lakeside town, derailed and exploded, causing a fireball that destroyed downtown and resulted in the spill of 1.5 million gallons of crude oil in the area, in one of the worst oil train disasters in history.
Three years later, Lac-Mégantic continues to rebuild at a cost of nearly $3 billion — mostly borne by Canadian taxpayers. The people of Lac-Mégantic live every day with the tragedy and loss they endured.
The same threat exists almost daily in New York communities that lie between Albany and the Canadian border. These dangerous trains roll close to vibrant downtowns, businesses, homes, schools and drinking water sources. In fact, just last week at the Selkirk rail yard, we had a train derailment and while, thankfully, there was no leakage, it was a reminder that the possibility of a Lac-Mégantic type disaster remains high.
As a former first responder, I know that if an accident occurred here, it would be devastating. In 2014, I convened an Expert Advisory Committee to study the issue and to put forth recommendations on what we could do to address this growing crisis. I have submitted letters and testimony to the federal government asking for tougher standards for oil shippers and have asked the state to fully review the impact oil processing proposed for the Port of Albany would have.
I have filed a lawsuit against the federal Department of Transportation, challenging the agency's rulemaking in regard to oil trains and disclosure practices. That suit is pending, but given what we've seen in the past year, I am confident that we can make a difference and get the feds to review the rules relating to oil trains.
Last year, I brought first responders and officials together at The College of Saint Rose to hear from those who had lived through derailment disasters in Lac-Mégantic, Illinois and Virginia. We learned that there is no such thing as being fully prepared.
Over the last three years, 200 oil rail accidents have occurred across North America, including massive explosions in North Dakota, Ontario, West Virginia, Illinois and Virginia. We are fortunate that none of these resulted in the loss of life, but that does not ensure that future derailments would have the same result.
Just last month, more than 42,000 gallons of Bakken crude oil spilled along the Columbia River in Oregon. Investigators are still working to determine the cause of the accident, but reports have suggested the train was not speeding and that the accident may have been due to a broken bolt on the rail line.
I am concerned about the state of the rail lines in New York. Many of the bridges that carry train traffic between Montreal and Albany are antiquated and substandard. Additionally, the tankers involved in the Oregon crash were touted as a safer model of tanker car than those primarily used to transport crude oil here in New York. Yet the crash resulted in an explosion and an oil spill.
Specifically, I have called on Secretary Anthony Foxx and federal officials to act on the following recommendations:
• The schedule to replace dangerous DOT 111s and 1232s needs to be shortened with new car implementation much quicker.
• There must be a requirement for stabilization or conditioning of crude oil prior to its transportation to lessen its volatility.
• There must be a requirement of financial assurance.
• There must be a provision for local notification when trains carrying flammables are traveling to localities, when they arrive and if there is any release of materials (This notification can be modeled after the local notification requirement contained in the EPA's "Community Notification Act" regarding chemical materials).
• Positive Train Control should be required on all routes carrying flammable liquids and PTC must be implemented sooner than presently required under the new rules.
In memory of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, I call again on our federal officials to take immediate remedial action.
In Oregon, it took an oil train to derail and catch fire for elected leaders there to demand adequate protections for their people, economy and natural resources.
Here in New York, I've been calling for stricter standards and regulation for nearly three years. Together, we must advance the cause of safety and be sure that safety is indeed the first concern, here in New York, and across the nation. I will continue my forceful advocacy on behalf of our county residents to ensure that our communities remain safe and that shippers are putting safety first. There's too much at stake for us to do otherwise.
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Tougher-standards-on-oil-shippers-will-ensure-8341678.php
-
Markey Says ‘Political Obstacles' Impede Broad Climate Bill
Jul 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Retaking control of Congress in November could provide a new window for Democrats to pursue climate change legislation. But Sen. Edward Markey, who was either the primary author or co-sponsor of countless energy and environment statutes as well as cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House in 2009 but not the Senate, predicts that any new legislation must overcome staunch opposition in Congress, particularly from Republicans. The Massachusetts Democrat points to a recent House vote against a carbon tax that suggests broad legislation faces an uphill battle even if voters put the Speaker's gavel back in Nancy Pelosi's hands for the first time in six years.
Markey, who served 37 years in the House before a 2013 special election sent him to the Senate, sat down last week with Dean Scott, Bloomberg BNA's senior reporter for climate change, to discuss prospects for moving climate legislation if Democrats take the Senate in November. The senator was Pelosi's point person on climate change the last time the Democrats pursued a broad climate bill; today he is the top Democrat on two Senate subcommittees: the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight within the Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy within the Foreign Relations Committee.
This interview was edited for clarity and length.
Bloomberg BNA:
There seems to be growing optimism of enough Democratic wins to take back control of the Senate this fall. Do you think you are in a good position to retake the majority? And where does climate change fit into that?
Ed Markey:
Yes. And why is that? Because Donald Trump is a uniter and not a divider. Donald Trump in other words is going to unite the Democratic party in a way that they have not been united in a generation. The more that he calls climate change a hoax, the more that he relies upon Koch brothers-based science, the more clear it is that his climate science—Trump's climate science—is as bogus as a degree from Trump University.
So one, this is going to help us win the election; two it is going to help us inject the [climate] issue into this presidential campaign in a way that is going to be very advantageous for the Democratic party.
Bloomberg BNA:
And if Democrats take the majority, where will climate change in your mind rank as an agenda item? Where is this item relative to other competing issues if Democrats win and take over [the Senate] in 2017?
Markey:
I think climate change and a clean energy strategy are going to be near the top of the list of agenda items for the Democrats. And for the new president: President [Hillary] Clinton.
Bloomberg BNA:
Talking to Democratic senators on this issue but also some Republicans like Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), they say the way forward is through incremental change rather than broad climate legislation. Where do you see the Senate going on this issue: bills that take small bites of the issue, or is there some wind in the sails ahead for a comprehensive bill?
Markey:
To start, we have fuel economy standards on the books now to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. If Hillary Clinton wins, that goal is unlikely to change. The Obama Clean Power Plan affecting the utility sector is being challenged in court, yes, but we have high confidence that it will be upheld and that a President Clinton will continue to implement that plan. So in two major sectors, we're going to see a dramatic change in policy. The same thing is true in the renewable electricity sector.
Last year in the U.S. we added 8,600 new megawatts of wind and 7,500 new megawatts of solar, 6,000 megawatts of natural gas. All other sources including coal were at less than 500 megawatts [of new capacity]. In 2016, an estimated 14,500 megawatts of solar are to be installed, 9,000 new wind and 8,800 new megawatts of natural gas, but everything else combined will be negligible, meaning there is now a dramatic change that is taking place in the sources of electrical generation in America.
By the end of 2015, coal was down to 33 percent [of electricity generation]; natural gas was 33 percent; nuclear was steady at 20 percent but that will be declining; and hydropower was 6 percent and steady.
But wind and solar were up to 6 percent of all electrical generation in 2015. Combined, it's projected we will add a percent or a percent-and-a-half a year [of wind and solar] every year between now and 2030. Conservatively, one-third of electricity generation ultimately will be from renewable sources.
Bloomberg BNA:
What's needed to ensure the U.S. stays on that trajectory?
Markey:
We have to keep the tax breaks [for wind and solar] on the books. And we have to ensure that going forward, we add tax breaks for offshore wind; they were excluded from the deal that was cut in December of 2015. Offshore wind has enormous potential [and is] entitled to the same kind of tax breaks that onshore wind and solar are receiving if they [offshore wind sites] are going to fully maximize their potential.
So I am very optimistic about these multiple revolutions that are taking place, including the energy-efficiency revolution taking place.
Bloomberg BNA:
So what's missing there in terms of policies? Don't we still need steeper reductions in emissions to get them down to the level scientists say are needed by 2050?
Markey:
We need to continue to innovate. We need tax breaks for all-electric vehicles, we need tax breaks for new battery technologies; we need a continuation of tax breaks in wind and solar that are on the books. But also the fuel cell geothermal tax breaks have to be put back on the books, they were removed [in the 2015 omnibus deal between Obama and the Republican-controlled Congress].
Bloomberg BNA:
Do you subscribe to this idea that a significant legislative change would require a carbon tax or perhaps taking another run at cap and trade? Where are you on a carbon tax? And are you a pessimist or an optimist that we'll ultimately have a grand bargain of broad tax reform to include a carbon tax? Is a tax a better bet at this point than putting weight behind taking another run at a broad cap-and-trade bill?
Markey:
Well, I was not happy that every single Republican in the House voted for a resolution saying a carbon tax should never be adopted under any circumstances, joined by half a dozen Democrats. [The nonbinding resolution, H. Con. Res. 89, put the House on record as opposing an economywide carbon tax and was approved by that chamber June 10 by a vote of 237 to 163].
So that's a real challenge. And as we're moving forward, if there is a moment for comprehensive tax reform, and a carbon tax was included, we'd also have to make sure that the poor and the middle class were completely held harmless under that formula. That would also be a significant legislative challenge. But as long as the House remains in the solid Tea Party anti-carbon tax control, which is the case right now, then it just creates real logistical obstacles.
Bloomberg BNA:
So you don't think there's necessarily any more wind in the sails for a carbon tax versus a comprehensive climate bill?
Markey:
That vote in the House is just so recent. The nature of that vote informs us clearly on the political obstacles we'd have to overcome to move forward.
Bloomberg BNA:
On Waxman-Markey, the Senate never took up the bill passed by the House in 2009. If we ever get to the point of legislation moving through both chambers, would the Senate have to go first given there are long memories of that vote in the House, their vote on cap and trade was used against them in that campaign. Should the Senate have an obligation to move first or even politically, as a bellwether to show the House it can be done? If not, why would House Democrats put themselves on the line?
Markey:
When Nancy Pelosi is speaker next January, I would never tell her what she should or shouldn't pursue. Yes, Nancy Pelosi is going to be [House] Speaker in January. When she created the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and asked me to be the chair in January 2007, she made it clear that it was, for her, one of her flagship issues. So I don't question her zeal in continuing to ensure that comprehensive legislation ultimately passes. To some extent, you need both [House and Senate bills] to move in tandem, in order for this to be successful. But we could never have anticipated in 2009 the complexity of having a health-care bill pass the Senate that took far more time than any expert thought that it would. Health care wasn't finished until March 2010, which then left little time for the Senate to consider the climate legislation, which had been sitting there since June 2009 out in the House. But that was not something that was anticipatable in January 2009 [when President Barack Obama first took office.]
I don't think that people anticipated that the health bill would be more complicated than the climate bill, but that's ultimately what happened.
Bloomberg BNA:
On coal, there was a lot of discussion during the negotiations on Waxman-Markey that somewhere between $5 billion to $10 billion annually would have gone to the coal industry to deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for coal-fired power plants. In the years since, it's been said the coal industry made a mistake in not broadly supporting the bill and would never get the deal again. Do you agree? And when you look at the decline of the industry since then, to what degree would that deal have helped it compete with what has since been a rapid expansion in renewable energy sources?
Markey:
The way that Henry Waxman and I and Nancy Pelosi viewed the coal industry was that we were going to try to create a bridge for them to the clean energy era. To accomplish that, we needed significant investment in CCS so coal could be burned but the greenhouse gases could be sequestered and thus not add to the problem.
Toward that goal we built in a program that was between 2009 and 2050 worth approximately $200 billion dollars total, which was aimed at helping the coal industry make that transition. The Edison Electric Institute [representing investor-owned electric companies] as part of that negotiation agreed to endorse Waxman-Markey, which they did. But Peabody [Energy], Alpha [Natural Resources] and Arch Coal continued to oppose the bill on the sidelines, not withstanding the enormous amount of funding that we put into the bill for carbon capture.
So what I said at the time is true today. I said that they had to choose between legislation and regulation. I said that legislation was preferable because we had the flexibility to try to deal with the costs to industry, to workers and to other elements in the society as this transformation took place. I made it clear that if the alternative was just pure regulation—which is what the EPA's Clean Power Plan is—that that kind of flexibility would not exist.
The coal industry decided that they would run that risk. So today the Clean Power Plan is on its way to implementation but without the $200 billion, which could have helped dramatically to ensure that the coal industry had the technology to sequester the carbon and make it a more viable industry in the years ahead.
We worked in good faith with the United Mine Workers, with the coal industry and with the utility industry to fashion a provision which we thought would work. And in retrospect, I think maybe people wish they could go back in time, and take the deal that we offered them. Because coal in terms of electricity generation in America has fallen from 51 percent to 33 percent in total electrical generation in America, and that's with no Waxman-Markey on the books and no Clean Power Plan on the books. [EPA's Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court pending a lower court review].
So the renewable electricity and gas revolution have inflicted a tremendous market-based punishment on the coal industry that was at least partially avoidable—if they had accepted the investment in carbon capture and sequestration, which Henry Waxman and I were offering.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93173155&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93173155&jd=93173155
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested