Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/11/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Economists See Election-Induced Uncertainty Harming U.S. Economy
Aug 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
For the first time in this election cycle, most economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal believe uncertainty from the coming election is crimping economic activity. -
(ACC Mentioned) Vindicated: Plastics Are Green After All
Aug 11, 2016 | EEPM
By Rose Brooke
Plastics have an unfair reputation as a scourge on the environment but a new study has revealed the plastic option is actually the most sustainable for consumer goods and packaging compared to traditional materials. -
Predatory Lawsuits Suck the Life Out of California Businesses
Aug 11, 2016 | OC Register
By Jeffrey Campbell
CNBC’s most recent “America’s Top States for Business” survey shows that California, well, isn’t. California’s steadily growing thicket of mandates and taxes have inadvertently turned it into one of the least business-friendly states in the union. -
At Costco Members Get Good Prices, Organic Produce, and Toxic Flame Retardants
Aug 10, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Randi Abrams-Caras
Does anyone out there watch Modern Family? There’s an episode when the characters Cam & Mitch go to Costco. Cam is all about Costco, while Mitch thinks it’s a ridiculous proposition – who could possibly need or use all that stuff? By the end, Mitch wants to buy a shed... -
To Curb Climate Change, Looking Beyond Carbon Dioxide to Your AC
Aug 11, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Daniel Cohan
Even as global temperatures shatter records in 2016, the year's biggest opportunity to curb further warming hinges on little-noticed negotiations addressing little-known chemicals. -
UK Authority Seeks Views on REACH 2018 Impacts and Needs
Aug 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The UK REACH competent authority is asking British firms, and those with UK components to their supply chains, to let it know of potential impacts and needs in relation to 2018's final REACH registration deadline. -
Greens Fret over Colorado's Anti-Fracking Fight
Aug 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
As the oil industry prepares to seize on bipartisan opposition to anti-fracking ballot measures in Colorado, environmentalists alarmed by the multimillion-dollar campaign against the proposals — which could force Hillary Clinton to the center on the issue... -
Ending Oil Tax Breaks Saves Money But Not the Environment — Report
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E News Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
The federal government would have billions more in cash if the oil and gas sector in the United States gave up its tax preferences. -
Industry Lawsuit Targets 'Keep It in the Ground'
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Oil and gas producers are taking the Obama administration to court over a slowdown in lease sales that they say is linked to the "keep it in the ground" movement. -
Let Nuclear Power Play a Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Aug 11, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mark J. Perry
Nuclear energy was conceived in hope: hope that the peaceful use of the atom would provide reliable and affordable electricity for millions of Americans and improve our quality of life. That hope has come closer to realization than anyone could reasonably... -
Hackers and Bureaucrats: Can They Get Along?
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Lorrie Cranor, chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, had never picked a lock, so hackers at the BSides security conference in Las Vegas last week offered to teach her. -
Group Seeks to Link Pipelines with Lower Consumer Costs
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A national advocacy group's new campaign looks to promote pipeline construction as a pocketbook issue for families and businesses, in hopes of countering what it called the environmental movement's success in blocking energy infrastructure around the country. -
Feds Announce Final Rule for Flammable Liquids, Tank Cars
Aug 11, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration(FRA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced yesterday a final rule that amends regulations related to the transportation of flammable liquids by rail.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Economists See Election-Induced Uncertainty Harming U.S. Economy
Aug 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
For the first time in this election cycle, most economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal believe uncertainty from the coming election is crimping economic activity.
While every election spurs some economic uncertainty, more than 80% of respondents to the Journal’s latest survey of economists rate the current cycle as presenting an unusual muddle. A majority—57%—said the economy has suffered, at least somewhat, as a result.
“This election introduces a Mount Everest of uncertainty,” saidKevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
Economists have long believed that, in general, uncertainty has the potential to restrain consumer spending and business investment, if people and businesses have significant questions about the taxes and regulations they will face down the road. Until this month’s survey, however, the majority of economists thought even an election like this year’s didn’t rise to the level of posing a macroeconomic problem.
Views shifted after a report last month from the Commerce Department showed that business investment through June declined for the third consecutive quarter.
“Investment spending clearly shows the detrimental impact of the election,” said Sean Snaith, director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness at the University of Central Florida.
Initially, many had attributed the decline to possible fallout from lower oil prices, which had crimped investment among U.S. oil producers.
But during her June press conference, Federal Reserve ChairwomanJanet Yellen noted the decline in investment was broader than could be explained by energy.
“Business investment outside of energy was particularly weak during the winter and appears to have remained so into the spring,” she said.
Data since then has confirmed that investment weakness had, indeed, continued.
The Journal surveyed 62 business, financial and academic economists from Aug. 5 to Aug. 9, though not every economist answered every question.
The respondents trimmed their forecasts for economic growth over the course of 2016. The panel now expects growth of 1.8% over the course of 2016, down from an estimate of 2% last month and 2.5% at the beginning of the year. Their forecasts for the unemployment rate were little changed.
While 1.8% growth would be another disappointment, it shows most economists think the uncertainty will crimp but not cripple the U.S. The average estimate for the odds of the U.S. entering a recession over the next year was 21%, compared with 22% last month. Still, the figure was double the estimate from a year ago.
At the heart of businesses’ uncertainty is the question of what government policy changes might occur in coming years.
“Never have the options for policy been less well understood in an election cycle,” said Amy Crews Cutts, chief economist for the credit-rating firm Equifax.
On trade, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have opposed the 12-nation Pacific trade deal that the current administration negotiated, and both have expressed doubts about the two-decade-old North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mrs. Clinton has proposed higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Mr. Trump has proposed large tax cuts without proposals to reduce spending, a shift many economists believe would balloon the deficit.
Mr. Trump has proposed dramatic policies to curtail immigration, withdraw from trade pacts and label China as a currency manipulator, moves that by design would have far-reaching economic consequences. Mrs. Clinton is scheduled to give a speech on the economy Thursday that is expected to spell out her stances in more detail.
This year, it is also unusually tricky to gauge how their proposalswould translate into actual policies.
Even if Mrs. Clinton wins the election, she seems likely to have a House of Representatives still under Republican control, which has shown little inclination to embrace the policies she has discussed thus far. Mr. Trump’s ideas could prove difficult to pass, as many of his ideas cut against the views of many congressional Republicans. Further adding to the uncertainty is the fate of the Senate, which either party could potentially win in November.
“The range of potential political outcomes is much greater in the abstract,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP. “The market has doubts about how that uncertainty will translate into concrete action.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-see-election-induced-uncertainty-harming-u-s-economy-1470924003?mg=id-wsj
-
(ACC Mentioned) Vindicated: Plastics Are Green After All
Aug 11, 2016 | EEPM
By Rose Brooke
Plastics have an unfair reputation as a scourge on the environment but a new study has revealed the plastic option is actually the most sustainable for consumer goods and packaging compared to traditional materials.
Findings published by leading international environmental research organisation Trucost and commissioned by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) revealed that the environmental cost of using plastics in these applications is nearly four times less than alternative materials.
Titled 'Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement', Trucost researchers build on previous reports and compare the environmental costs of using plastics to alternative materials and identify opportunities to help lower the environmental impact of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging.
Based on 'natural capital' accounting methods, which measure and value environmental effects including water consumption and emissions, the study offers a different perspective, as these factors are not factored into financial accounting records normally. Moreover, unlike other reports by organisations such as the World Economic Forum Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey and Company, the report does not rely solely on calculated environmental costs.
We are very excited to present ‘Plastics and Sustainability,’ the largest natural capital study ever conducted for the plastics manufacturing sector," said Libby Bernick, Senior Vice-President – North America for Trucost. "This report provides the clearest picture to date of the relative costs and benefits of plastics compared to alternative materials as well as important opportunities to enhance the environmental performance of using plastics in consumer goods."
The findings could be described as disruptive, as they contradict common opinion that plastics are the most unsustainable option. Instead, the data reveals that by using alternative materials to plastics in consumer goods and packaging, the environmental costs rocket from $139 billion (€124.6 billion, £107 billion) to $533 billion annually. This is because plastic materials are durable, strong and can do more with less material than the alternatives, providing environmental benefits throughout the entire product lifecycle.
Moreover, the research found that while environmental cost of alternative materials may be lower per tonne of production, they are greater in aggregate due to the larger quantities of material required to do the same job as less plastic material.
Products such as Milacron's Klear Can, which are lighter and can be transported in greater numbers using less fuel, are one example of plastics proving to be the green alternative.
The report authors include steps to help reduce plastics' environmental costs further in the study, citing low-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transportation, increasing energy conversion and recycling and developing even more efficient plastic packaging.
"We now have a fuller picture of the environmental benefits of using plastics," commented Steve Russell, ACC Vice-President. "From lighter, more fuel-efficient cars to smart packaging that helps our favourite foods last longer; our industry is committed to on-going innovations that will advance sustainability across major market sectors and the globe."
"This report emphasises the importance of product innovation and eco-friendly after-life solutions such as sustainable municipal waste collection and management practices. It also highlights the responsible role of mechanical recycling in creating a circular economy and reducing plastics marine litter," added Craig Halgreen, Vice-President, Corporate Sustainability, Borouge.
http://www.eppm.com/industry-news/vindicated-plastics-are-green-after-all/
-
Predatory Lawsuits Suck the Life Out of California Businesses
Aug 11, 2016 | OC Register
By Jeffrey Campbell
CNBC’s most recent “America’s Top States for Business” survey shows that California, well, isn’t. California’s steadily growing thicket of mandates and taxes have inadvertently turned it into one of the least business-friendly states in the union.
To further complicate matters, businesses trying to succeed in the state also face the threat of predatory lawsuits for failure to comply with some of these regulations. Three in particular – the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the state’s accompanying Unruh Civil Rights Act – permit opportunistic bounty hunters to manipulate the spirit of the law and make a career collecting settlements at business owners’ expense.
Proposition 65 requires public spaces and products to warn consumers if they contain chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” Not only do the labels fail to communicate the context of risk, so that a pair of flip flops and a can of flammable paint thinner carry the same warning, but California has also developed its own flawed method of adding chemicals to the list which often ignores the best available science.
Californians are so inured to Proposition 65 warnings that the ubiquitous signage has become meaningless. The rate of cancer in the state is no different than any other, suggesting that the warnings have no impact. But just because California’s citizens aren’t paying attention doesn’t mean the lawyers have turned a blind eye. In 2015 alone, companies paid more than $26 million in Proposition 65 settlements and suits. But the trial lawyers are the real winners. They take home about 70 percent of all money paid by businesses.
These settlements can cripple or kill small businesses. Florida-based Garden of Life, LLC paid out $175,000 in settlements and legal fees, roughly a fifth of its estimated revenue. A few years back, when I was CEO of Burger King, I saw first-hand how franchisees struggled to deal with competitive pressures and thin profit margins. Legal muggings like this can spell disaster for small businesses.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has also proven to be a trial lawyer’s dream and a small business’s nightmare. It was intended to preserve the rights of the disabled by ensuring the existence of handicapped parking spaces and doors and walkways wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair. But in safeguarding disabled Americans, the ADA has fallen victim to the law of unintended consequences. A few dozen trial lawyers and high-frequency litigants have taken to suing small businesses for minor infractions, turning the good intentions of others into profit centers for themselves.
In one such case, Lee Ky, manager of Doughnuts To Go, was targeted for handicapped parking signs which didn’t communicate the “Minimum Fine $250” for noncompliance. Ky, who herself is confined to a wheelchair, had never experienced accessibility problems at her own store. She made the compliance updates and settled with the prosecuting firm to make the lawsuit go away.
The problem is compounded in California, where ADA suits are coupled with a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, allowing plaintiffs to claim triple the awarded damages – and a minimum of $4,000. Consequently, though California is home to only 12 percent of the nation’s disabled persons, nearly 40 percent of ADA suits are filed here.
To some degree, legislators recognize the abuse and have passed reforms to protect against predatory suits. Select businesses with fewer than 25 employees now have two weeks to post appropriate signage after being presented with a Proposition 65 violation to qualify for a reduced fine. Several laws have been passed by the California Legislature to dissuade serial litigants from filing multiple suits.
But it’s not enough.
Shortly after opening the first of over 300 planned California locations in 2012, Dunkin’ Donuts was hit with a Proposition 65 lawsuit over its coffee. A warm welcome, indeed, for a major brand poised to employ thousands of Californians.
The onslaught doesn’t stop there. Many business issuing thermal receipts must now post warnings. And ADA lawsuits have actually increased since legislation to cut settlement payouts went into effect. (After all, plaintiffs now have to sue more businesses to maintain their prior income.)
While California’s excessive regulatory climate generates headlines, its impact on small businesses, which create two-thirds of new jobs, should not go overlooked. State legislators must reform these laws to serve constituents, not bounty hunters and trial lawyers.
Jeffrey Campbell is the former CEO of Burger King, ex-chairman of the Pillsbury Restaurant Group, and current Executive-in-Residence at San Diego State University’s School of Hospitality and Tourism.http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-725358-businesses-proposition.html
-
At Costco Members Get Good Prices, Organic Produce, and Toxic Flame Retardants
Aug 10, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Randi Abrams-Caras
Does anyone out there watch Modern Family? There’s an episode when the characters Cam & Mitch go to Costco. Cam is all about Costco, while Mitch thinks it’s a ridiculous proposition – who could possibly need or use all that stuff? By the end, Mitch wants to buy a shed (sold at Costco) to hold the boxes and boxes of diapers and other stuff they absolutely must have.
That episode pretty much sums up how I went from Costco disdainer to Costco lover. My husband and I had our wedding invitations printed there, bought our first lawn mower there, get our tires replaced there and yes, have bought a considerable amount of diapers there too (but not enough at one time to put in a shed).
We have made a conscious decision to go to Costco over other big box stores, because of their commitment to paying living wages to their workers, the selection of more affordable organic fruits and vegetables and of course, the samples. Beet hummus?! What kind of wondrous world we’re living in! Of course we need a gallon!
Now that I’ve established my Costco fan girl bona fides, I have a bone to pick with our favorite Pacific Northwest company. Part of the “Costco Code of Ethics” is to “take care of our members.” It turns out that they aren’t taking care of their members when it comes to toxic chemicals. They have yet to announce a policy to restrict harmful chemicals in the products they sell, even though other big box retailers like Sam’s Club and Target have established such chemical policies. Sam’s Club and Walmart recently announced major progress in implementing their policy.
Those retailers and others have identified over 1,000 chemicals of concern and are using their considerable purchasing power to make a difference with their suppliers. Costco is a model corporation in so many ways, but lags behind its competition when it comes to protecting its members from chemicals that have been linked to cancer, lower IQs and reproductive harm.
Washington Toxics Coalition has been encouraging Costco to be a leader in selling safer products free of harmful chemicals as part of the national Mind the Store Campaign. And while we are encouraged that they have expanded their offering of furniture free of toxic flame retardants (although we would like to see a comprehensive policy on flame retardants) and have made progress on reducing the use of BPA in their canned goods, we know they can do better when it comes to clothing and other product categories. According to their Code of Ethics, “Our members are our reason for being – the key to our success. If we don’t keep our members happy, little else we do will make a difference.”
Well, Costco, as a member, I’m telling you that I’m not happy that you aren’t doing everything you can to ensure your suppliers sell safer products free of unnecessary toxic chemicals. I expect more from you.
Are you a Costco member? Join me and let Costco know you would be happier if they announced a policy to restrict harmful chemicals in their products.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/08/10/at-costco-members-get-good-prices-organic-produce-and-toxic-flame-retardants/
-
To Curb Climate Change, Looking Beyond Carbon Dioxide to Your AC
Aug 11, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Daniel Cohan
Even as global temperatures shatter records in 2016, the year's biggest opportunity to curb further warming hinges on little-noticed negotiations addressing little-known chemicals.
International negotiations in Vienna last month neared a deal for curtailing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These refrigerants substitute for ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in air conditioners and refrigerators.
Since HFCs don't contain chlorine, they don't destroy ozone. Replacing CFCs under the Montreal Protocol is already helping to heal the ozone layer. Scientists expect the ozone layer will recover to natural levels over the next few decades.
Despite their ozone benefits, HFCs are greenhouse gases, too. This may not seem like a weighty matter for climate: Global emissions of HFCs are about 30,000 times less than those for carbon dioxide. That's roughly the ratio between a pygmy mouse and a lion.
But pound for pound, HFCs cause over 1,000 times as much warming as carbon dioxide. That's not quite as potent as CFCs, but still a major concern for climate.
HFCs play a small role in warming today. However, as air conditioning use grows, so too will emissions. Air conditioners are expected to become far more prevalent as consumers grow wealthier in hot climate countries like India. Worldwide, 1.6 billion air conditioners could be installed by 2050, dwarfing today's numbers.
Berkeley National Laboratory reports that more climate-friendly refrigerants coupled with more energy-efficient air conditioners could save the equivalent of 98 billion of carbon dioxide cumulatively by 2050. That's nearly three years worth of global emissions from fossil fuels.
No single substitute can replace HFCs in all products and weather conditions, and some options remain under development. Transitioning to alternative refrigerants could be costly at first.
Nevertheless, HFCs may prove easier to control than carbon dioxide. Whereas HFCs are used in a limited number of products, carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels provide over 80 percent of the world's energy. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions thus requires massive investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon energy sources throughout the energy economy. Fossil fuel producers may resist efforts to slash emissions quickly.
By contrast, the chemical industry could prove a powerful advocate for replacing HFCs. Companies like Dupont and Dow see opportunities to develop and sell the replacements for HFCs, much as they profited from replacing CFCs under the original Montreal Protocol. Industry and environmentalists could find common ground in promoting progress.
That's not to say we can ignore carbon dioxide, the leading cause of ongoing warming. Still, controlling HFCs can contribute to a comprehensive climate strategy.
Scientists predict that replacing HFCs with more climate-friendly alternatives could curb warming by 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. That's a lot, considering that the Paris Agreement aims to keep total warming below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Temperatures in 2016 are already nearing the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold.
The Vienna talks did not reach a final agreement. However, the talks set the stage for the annual Montreal Protocol meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, in October. Negotiators there will aim to amend the ozone-saving protocol to enhance its benefits for climate.
A coalition of 35 countries, including the United States, seeks ambitious measures to curtail HFCs. However, some other countries remain skeptical about how quickly they can transition to alternative refrigerants. Details remain unresolved about the timetables for phasing down HFC use. Nevertheless, negotiators in Vienna agreed to use the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund to support developing countries in making the transition.
Headlines about climate policy will likely remain focused on the November U.S. presidential election and the annual United Nations climate conference in Morocco later that month. But don't be surprised if history shows the October meeting in Rwanda to be 2016's most consequential brake on ongoing warming.
Cohan is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/291076-to-curb-climate-change-looking-beyond-carbon-dioxide-to
-
UK Authority Seeks Views on REACH 2018 Impacts and Needs
Aug 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The UK REACH competent authority is asking British firms, and those with UK components to their supply chains, to let it know of potential impacts and needs in relation to 2018's final REACH registration deadline.
The authority comprises the environment ministry (Defra) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). In July, following the UK's vote to leave the EU, it made it clear that in relation to implementing and enforcing REACH it is business as usual.
The authority is currently analysing which firms will need to comply with the REACH deadline through a number of different approaches. These include 'top-down analyses' of pre-registrations and other information, and asking firms directly about their intentions to register.
It has also established a REACH registration 2018 sub-group of its advisory Chemicals Stakeholder Forum. This will take a 'bottom-up' approach in consulting trade associations and firms directly on their views on a number of issues. Specifically, it is asking British firms and those with supply chains in the UK that may be affected to respond to the following questions:
· which are the vulnerable sectors/ products/ substances/ substance groups that you are already aware of?
· what is the best way of identifying any other vulnerable downstream sectors/ products/ substances/ substance groups that might present a supply chain risk but are currently unknown?
· what actions and support activities would be most helpful from the competent authority, including steps to help ensure the minimisation of animal testing?
· how might your organisation, or others, work with the competent authority to reach those downstream of pre-registrant companies to gather further intelligence? and
· are there any immediate practical ideas or suggestions you would want the UK competent authority and/or Echa to consider that would help you with the 2018 REACH registration deadline?
Responses should be directed to the UK competent authority by 25 August
https://chemicalwatch.com/49077/uk-authority-seeks-views-on-reach-2018-impacts-and-needs
-
Greens Fret over Colorado's Anti-Fracking Fight
Aug 11, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
As the oil industry prepares to seize on bipartisan opposition to anti-fracking ballot measures in Colorado, environmentalists alarmed by the multimillion-dollar campaign against the proposals — which could force Hillary Clinton to the center on the issue — are privately hoping they don’t come before voters.
Whether that changes Clinton’s politically delicate support for fracking with stricter regulations remains to be seen, especially since she leads Donald Trump by double digits in the latest Colorado polls. In fact, both Clinton and Trump have embraced the spirit behind the ballot initiatives, but the risk that the oil industry would successfully beat back that sentiment with a barrage of TV ads is high enough that even some spiritual allies of the anti-fracking campaigners hope they fail to make the ballot.
"If I were a betting person, I would not bet they would get on the ballot," one Colorado environmentalist said of the anti-fracking initiatives, insisting on anonymity to speak candidly.
"If they don’t get on the ballot, I think it’s better for the environmental movement, because if they do get on the ballot, the oil and gas industry will just pummel this state. Democrats and moderate Republicans won’t want to touch this issue for quite some time."
Another environmental advocate in the state agreed that the initiatives have "a pretty tough path to victory" if they do make it on the ballot, adding: "I’d rather not see the measures crushed at the ballot box."
Environmentalists and drillers alike already are preparing for a torrent of industry-backed ads and lobbying over the fracking initiatives if the ballot fight is officially joined. Activists would find themselves badly outspent by the oil and gas industry and are so far finding little support from the green establishment.
Industry officials aren't divulging their plans to fight the measures without knowing whether they will make the ballot. But they will have ample resources available and have already been testing out messages that could resonate with voters.
Two oil and gas companies with large footprints in the state, Noble and Anadarko, gave more than $11 million this year to Protect Colorado, an umbrella group launched to fight the initiatives. That represents the bulk of the more than $15 million that has been raised overall by supporters of the industry.
“If these measures somehow make the ballot, Colorado voters will know exactly what’s at stake: private property rights, more than $1 billion in state and local taxes that help pay for schools, parks, libraries and roads, energy security for our nation, and the good-paying jobs of more than 100,000 working families across our state," Dan Haley, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, whose members include Noble and Anadarko, said in a statement this week after activists submitted the initiatives for approval.
Protect Colorado had $9.1 million cash on hand at the beginning of the month, money it could spend on advertising, mailers and organizing ahead of the November election. For now, the group remains skeptical whether the initiatives will get on the ballot. "Was it all a publicity stunt to advance their agenda or a serious attempt to ban fracking in Colorado?" the group asked in a statement Tuesday. "Your guess is as good as ours."
The anti-fracking campaign, meanwhile, had raised just $424,000 as of Aug. 1, including $25,000 from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), the wealthy entrepreneur-turned-lawmaker who donated 30 times as much money to a campaign for anti-fracking initiatives back in 2014. After the most recent campaign finance reports were filed with the Colorado Secretary of state, the Sierra Club announced a $150,000 donation, making it the largest single reported contributor to the anti-fracking effort.
Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who spent $8.5 million in Colorado during the 2014 election, has not donated to the anti-fracking campaign, and there are no signs he plans to get involved if the measures make the ballot. The League of Conservation Voters' Colorado chapter has endorsed one of the two initiatives, but it is not committing money. The Environmental Defense Fund is also sitting out the effort.
Anti-fracking activists say they have submitted more than 100,000 signatures, apparently leaving themselves little room for error if any of those are found to be invalid. The Colorado Secretary of State's office has until Sept. 7 to verify that at least 98,492 of those signatures came from registered voters in the state and certify the pair of initiatives to appear on the ballot. If the anti-fracking measures pass a 5 percent random sampling to determine the validity of their signatures, the office would issue an official statement that opponents could challenge within 30 days in Denver’s state court, petitions lead Jeff Mustin said in an interview.
A spokeswoman for the office, Lynn Bartels, rankled activists by appearing to cast doubt on their likelihood for success on Tuesday with a Twitter post that noted: “Proponents of fracking measures turned in lots of boxes with very few petitions in them.”
Despite their sparse resources, organizers are confident in their prospects of making the ballot under a framework for amending the state constitution that has been in use since the early 20th century.
“It was a really amazing effort, especially in response to the intimidation that was going on in terms of convincing people not to sign,” said activist Joellen Raderstorf, who helped organize the Yes for Health and Safety Over Fracking campaign.
It's not just the oil industry that would like to see the initiatives defeated in November, if they make it on the ballot. A number of prominent Colorado Democrats have come out in opposition, including former Obama administration Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Wellington Webb, the ex-mayor of Denver, both affiliated with the long-running Coloradans For Responsible Reform.
Clinton aligned with the ballot initiatives in principle during an interview with Denver's NBC station last week, promising to enable more local control over fracking if she wins the White House. Trump embraced more local control over fracking in his own exchange with a Colorado station last month, although he said he supports more oil and gas production. The Republican candidate has been relying on fracking titan Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, as a key energy adviser.
Industry sources in Colorado say they are not worried about Trump's position on fracking and see the ballot initiatives offering an opportunity to pressure Clinton and other Democrats.
"These fracking measures are a game changer for the election in Colorado. It puts Colorado right back in play and exposes a rift in the Democratic Party on energy issues," said one oil industry consultant in the state. "This is the last thing Hillary Clinton and Sen. [Michael] Bennet [D-Colo.] want to have happen going into the fall."
Clinton has close ties to the state's Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, who was instrumental in orchestrating a deal that kept 2014's anti-fracking initiatives off of the state ballot.
Hickenlooper criticized Initiative 78, the ballot measure that would require a 2,500-foot distance between fracking operations and high-traffic areas such as parks or hospitals, at a POLITICO event during the Democratic National Convention last month. "[I]f you ban fracking within 2,500 feet or you say you can’t drill anything within 2,500 feet," he said, "in essence you’re taking away somebody’s private property, almost no matter where you do it."
The other measure, Initiative 75, would update the state constitution to allow for more local control over fracking, including letting cities ban the practice altogether.
Top Hickenlooper policy aide Alan Salazar joined the Clinton campaign in June, and appears to align with his former boss in support of fracking's economic benefits to the state. "On fracking [Bernie] Sanders keeps it simple (minded)," he tweeted in March during a Democratic debate between Clinton and her primary opponent. "He opposes it. Does he also oppose cheaper gasoline?"
Another former aide to Hickenlooper, Tracee Bentley, is part of the industry's fight against the initiatives as the head of the American Petroleum Institute's Colorado chapter.
Over the next several weeks, as the secretary of state's office nears its deadline for certifying the signature count, Colorado's major Democratic players are likely to face further pressure to weigh in on the anti-fracking measures. Polling is scant, but a 2014 survey showed state voters supportive of more local control over fracking. Bennet, considered one of his party's most vulnerable members facing reelection this year, indirectly pointed to the challenge that the anti-fracking measures pose for Democrats by agreeing with both sides of the battle.
"In general, I'd rather decide these things in a conversation in our state than have them on the ballot and in our Constitution," Bennet told Denver’s ABC station last week. But he also acknowledged the “reasonable concern” by locals about oil and gas development nearing residential property, adding that "we've got to work through those kind of conflicts."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/08/greens-bet-on-their-own-failure-in-colorados-anti-fracking-fight-126341
-
Ending Oil Tax Breaks Saves Money But Not the Environment — Report
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E News Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
The federal government would have billions more in cash if the oil and gas sector in the United States gave up its tax preferences.
That's according to a new discussion paper published by the Council on Foreign Relations.
"The big takeaway here is that we can free up $4 billion a year in the federal budget without doing any appreciable harm to the domestic oil and gas industry," said author Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of economics at Tufts University.
This challenges some of the conventional wisdom around the idea that the United States could become more dependent on foreign energy and become more vulnerable to commodity price shocks if the tax subsidies were lifted, leading to domestic drillers facing higher operating costs.
"There's been very little analysis of this question," Metcalf said.
The Obama administration has scrubbed tax breaks for fossil fuels in every budget it has proposed, but Congress has rejected those attempts. The federal government created these subsidies to help the fledgling oil and gas industry in the United States get off the ground and create a secure supply of domestic energy.
Opponents of oil and gas tax breaks like to point out that the fossil fuel subsidies are permanent, unlike subsidies to solar energy through the investment tax credit and subsidies to wind under the production tax credit.
But with the oil and gas industry now fully mature, critics question why the sector continues to receive subsidies even as the United States maintains a dominant global position in the market.
In the new paper, Gilbert examined three major tax preferences for the oil and gas sector: percentage depletion, intangible drilling costs and the manufacturing deduction.
These three exemptions, the oldest dating back to 1916 and the newest to 2004, add up to more than 90 percent of the value of tax breaks for oil and gas companies.
Metcalf found that removing these tax breaks would barely move the needle in terms of energy security by increasing the global price of oil 1 percent by 2030. Oil production in the United States would fall an estimated 5 percent.
With natural gas, domestic prices would rise between 7 and 10 percent, while production and consumption would each fall by 3 to 4 percent, the paper found.
The American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Oil & Gas Association did not respond to requests for comment.
This minimal impact on the industry also means limited effects on the environment. Metcalf found that global carbon emissions would scarcely budge, since prices wouldn't rise enough to lead consumers and industries to rethink their oil and gas use. Increasing the price at the gas pump by 1 or 2 cents wouldn't do much to dissuade driving, for example.
"It's not like this is the solution to climate change by getting rid of these subsidies," Metcalf said.
On the other hand, removing tax incentives for oil and gas would give the United States additional leverage in negotiating emissions treaties with other countries. Fossil fuels are subsidized around the world, for both producers and end-users, so the United States would have greater credibility in asking other nations to reconsider their support for coal, oil and gas if it moved first, Metcalf said.
The International Energy Agency noted in a 2015 report that fossil fuel subsidies around the world on average subsidize carbon dioxide emissions to the tune of $115 per metric ton.
Given the Obama administration's lack of success at removing subsidies for oil and gas, the prospects of changing these rules are dim. "It's always hard to get tax breaks out of the tax code, but getting tax breaks out is the only way we can produce tax reform," Metcalf said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/08/11/stories/1060041466
-
Industry Lawsuit Targets 'Keep It in the Ground'
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Oil and gas producers are taking the Obama administration to court over a slowdown in lease sales that they say is linked to the "keep it in the ground" movement.
The Western Energy Alliance filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, challenging the Bureau of Land Management for failing to hold quarterly oil and gas lease sales, as required by the Mineral Leasing Act. The industry has blamed multiple delays and cancellations of lease sales on the environmental movement targeting fossil fuel development on public lands.
"Notwithstanding the bluster of special interest groups that disregard the contribution independent producers make to domestic prosperity and national security, the overlooked point is that the 'keep it in the ground' approach is inconsistent with controlling law," said Mark Barron, a BakerHostetler attorney representing WEA. "With this lawsuit, we seek to ensure that Congress' explicit legal directive — not cute lobbying slogans — drives federal land administration."
The lawsuit lists a slew of examples of BLM state offices that have held lease sales with what industry considers inadequate frequency. The New Mexico state office, for example, held just two lease sales in fiscal 2015, while the Montana/Dakotas office will hold no more than two during fiscal 2016. The Colorado office was just a tick ahead, with three lease sales in fiscal 2015 and two for 2016.
Critics of the agency's approach say less frequent lease sales actually take a toll on the environment.
"The failure to hold regular lease sales consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act's mandate results in unnecessary delays for — and can completely halt — development of certain federal minerals," BakerHostetler attorney Alex Obrecht said in a statement. "But more important, limiting leasing restricts operators' ability to plan projects so that waste is reduced and development is executed in the most environmentally sensitive manner."
WEA represents more than 300 oil and gas producers and service companies operating across the West.
"Through protests and petitions, the Keep-It-in-the-Ground movement is trying to coerce BLM into violating the law by stopping all leasing on federal lands," WEA's Kathleen Sgamma said in a statement. "Yet without doing anything, activists could achieve the same goal just by leaving BLM to its own devices. Western Energy Alliance is simply asking the courts to compel BLM to follow decades-old law and hold quarterly lease sales in every oil and natural gas state."
BLM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/11/stories/1060041499
-
Let Nuclear Power Play a Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Aug 11, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mark J. Perry
Nuclear energy was conceived in hope: hope that the peaceful use of the atom would provide reliable and affordable electricity for millions of Americans and improve our quality of life. That hope has come closer to realization than anyone could reasonably have expected when the process began more than 60 years ago.
Notwithstanding opposition from anti-nuclear environmentalists, nuclear energy is too important to let slip away. It is vital to ensuring a dependable supply of electricity, helping to maintain a diverse energy mix that keeps electric rates as low as possible and ensures that consumers and businesses are not overly reliant on just one or two sources of electricity. The U.S. fleet of about 100 nuclear reactors generates nearly 20% of the nation’s electricity without polluting the air or emitting greenhouse gases. Based on national averages, each reactor employs between 400 and 700 highly skilled workers, has a payroll of about $40 million and contributes $470 million to local economies.
But these achievements are now in danger. Due to the availability of low-cost natural gas as a result of the shale revolution – and generous subsidies and mandates for wind and solar power – we can no longer take for granted that some nuclear plants will continue to operate much longer.
According to a Bloomberg study, 56% of U.S. nuclear energy will be unprofitable within three years. Since 2012, utilities have either shut down or announced plans to close 13 power reactors around the United States, the most recent being the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. As with nuclear plants that have already been prematurely retired, the loss of additional nuclear-generating capacity would be replaced largely with electricity generated from natural gas plants.
From an environmental standpoint, natural gas is less friendly than nuclear energy, which is a zero-carbon source of energy that supplies well over half of the nation’s carbon-free power. It’s also the only zero-emissions energy source that can produce large amounts of electricity around the clock. In contrast, natural gas plants account for one-fourth of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production, and the amount of carbon dioxide and methane emissions will increase as the use of natural gas grows.
To prevent the loss of several nuclear plants, the New York State Public Service Commission recently adopted a Clean Energy Standard requiring investor-owned utilities to pay for the value of carbon-free emissions from nuclear plants by purchasing zero-emission credits from those plants. These payments will help financially support New York’s nuclear power plants and allow them to continue operating during the state’s transition to the clean energy standard that will require utilities produce 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030.
Other states with nuclear plants at risk of being closed should do likewise. Once a nuclear plant closes, it cannot be restarted. Consider what would happen if the price of natural gas were to rise significantly in the years ahead. Imagine the impact on local communities if one or more reactors is shut down.
A study by two economists, Lucas Davis of the University of California-Berkeley and Catherine Hausman of the University of Michigan, found that after the two-unit San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California closed in 2012 electricity generating costs rose by $350 million during the year following the shutdown. And carbon emissions rose by 9 million metric tons, which is equivalent to putting 2 million additional cars on the road.
Currently, nuclear energy is at a disadvantage in states with renewable portfolio standards requiring that solar, wind and other renewables supply up to 50 percent of the power. But none of these states credits nuclear energy, even though it’s carbon-free. States should replace their renewable electricity standards with a carbon electricity standard that provides fair treatment for nuclear energy.
These are practical initiatives that would allow nuclear energy to compete fairly in electricity markets. Eliminating market distortions would save consumers money, protect billions of dollars in nuclear power investment and preserve well-paying jobs. It’s past due time to make the changes so that nuclear energy gets equal treatment.
Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics at the Flint campus of The University of Michigan and a scholar at The American Enterprise Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/291067-allow-nuclear-energy-to-play-a-role-in-reducing
-
Hackers and Bureaucrats: Can They Get Along?
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Lorrie Cranor, chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, had never picked a lock, so hackers at the BSides security conference in Las Vegas last week offered to teach her.
"It didn't take very long," Cranor recalled yesterday at an Atlantic Council event on more familiar turf in Washington, D.C. "I now know how to pick locks — watch out."
She describes her trip to three back-to-back cybersecurity conferences last week as "chaotic, but a good experience." It was her first time joining thousands of hackers and security professionals who brave the summer heat for the BSides, Black Hat and DEF CON conventions each year.
Cranor aimed to recruit top hacking talent and raise interest in new FTC initiatives, such as an effort to protect consumers from the fast-growing and vulnerable "internet of things" (EnergyWire, Aug. 9). The FTC wasn't the only agency out to catch the security community's attention in Sin City last week, nor is this the first year the feds have attended. But experts say there are signs that hackers are starting to be more receptive to Uncle Sam's overtures, from participating in "bug bounty" programs to commenting on new policies and regulations in theFederal Register.
"We're seeing a change from a completely adversarial relationship between government and the hacker community," said Cris Thomas, a strategist at Tenable Network Security who in years past was known only by his hacker nickname Space Rogue. "It hasn't completely thawed, but it's getting there."
Recent National Security Agency spying programs, as disclosed by the former contractor Edward Snowden, have left many in the hacking community on bad terms with the U.S. government. The two camps also don't see eye-to-eye on encryption, with U.S. law enforcement favoring a universal "back door" that hackers see as fundamentally incompatible with security.
Yet shared policy challenges from critical infrastructure and internet-of-things vulnerabilities have inched the two communities closer together. At DEF CON, the "spot the fed" competition to name and shame government workers has given way to U.S. officials such as Cranor unabashedly sporting the names of their agencies on T-shirts. Jeff Moss, who founded the Black Hat and DEF CON conferences and goes by the hacker name Dark Tangent, even helped organize a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in Las Vegas last week, injecting politics into what has traditionally been an apolitical — if not outright rebellious — event. A spokeswoman for the conference felt compelled to point out that "vendor and political neutrality has always been our stance for the community and always will be. Period."
"We used to have to go to D.C. to testify, and now it's coming to us," said Jason Healey, director of the Atlantic Council's Cyber Statecraft Initiative.
Healey, a former cyber policy director at the White House, helps to organize DEF CON and spoke to attendees this year about the U.S. government's policy for keeping certain prized cybersecurity vulnerabilities a secret. He said he was "really worried about that talk" and felt lucky to avoid getting heckled.
"Here I was, a former NSA guy, a former White House guy, delivering this message that the U.S. government is less evil than you think," he said.
The government, for its part, has started to see hackers as less evil, although the FBI hasn't eased up on prosecuting those who cross the line. The Department of Defense this yearcompleted its first-ever "Hack the Pentagon" bug bounty program to reward researchers who discover vulnerabilities in certain military networks. The Department of Commerce has beensoliciting hackers' input on the ever-growing internet of things in a bid to secure products ranging from smart thermostats to autonomous vehicles.
Even skeptical DEF CON attendees have admitted that the internet of things is an area of shared concern.
"For the security challenges in connected devices to start dwindling, our government and private-sector leaders absolutely need to start understanding the implications of these issues and start advocating for some security," said Ted Harrington, executive partner at Independent Security Evaluators, who put together the "IoT Village" at DEF CON.
However, Harrington quickly added that "regulation is not the solution."
Beau Woods, another Las Vegas security pilgrim and cyber safety advocate at the grassroots group I Am the Cavalry, said yesterday that finding the right policies for securing the internet of things "might be a challenge coming up" for both communities.
"What worked for the first 5 billion [devices] might not work for the next 5 trillion that we're putting on the net," he said.
Woods noted that "in the past few years, there's been a noticeable imposition from D.C. on what we consider our home, where we play and where we work."
He encouraged other hackers to come to terms with the shift and try to work with their government to shape its approach to cybersecurity. "Like it or not, policy is here to stay," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/11/stories/1060041463
-
Group Seeks to Link Pipelines with Lower Consumer Costs
Aug 11, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A national advocacy group's new campaign looks to promote pipeline construction as a pocketbook issue for families and businesses, in hopes of countering what it called the environmental movement's success in blocking energy infrastructure around the country.
Pipeline construction could allow oil and natural gas to flow more easily across the country, leading to lower electric and fuel costs for families and small businesses, David Holt, president of the Houston-based Consumer Energy Alliance, said in an email.
"Increasingly, we're seeing that pipelines are becoming harder and harder to permit and demand for energy continues to go up," Holt said. "If you have more infrastructure and more ways to deliver abundant energy, it's going to lower prices, it's going to lower costs."
The CEA has been around since about 2006 and has typically worked on broader energy issues like the need for more oil and gas production. A pipeline case in Georgia served as a wakeup call for the group, Holt said.
The Georgia Legislature passed a bill blocking a proposed interstate natural gas pipeline until the state could study siting and other issues. Kinder Morgan Inc., the project's sponsor, shelved the proposal in March (EnergyWire, March 31).
It was one of several high-profile victories for pipeline opponents, who have used the projects as a chokepoint to slow down the growth of the fossil fuel industry. As in other cases, the Georgia Legislature was swayed by a vocal minority, Holt said, and pipeline proponents need to do a better job educating the public and government officials.
The "Pipelines for America" campaign will include a website, social media, paid advertising, and outreach to legislators and regulators, Holt said.
Holt declined to say how much CEA will spend on the pipeline initiative. The group, which is funded by about 100 energy, construction and manufacturing companies, had annual revenue of $2.4 million in 2015.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/11/stories/1060041457
-
Feds Announce Final Rule for Flammable Liquids, Tank Cars
Aug 11, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration(FRA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced yesterday a final rule that amends regulations related to the transportation of flammable liquids by rail.
The rule amends the federal hazardous materials regulations to codify certain requirements of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act), USDOT officials said in a press release.
In May 2015, USDOT officials announced a final rule that included new, enhanced tank car standards and a risk-based retrofitting schedule for older tank cars carrying crude oil and ethanol. The rule also required trains transporting large volumes of flammable liquids to use a new braking standard; employ new operational protocols such as routing requirements and speed restrictions; share information with local governments; and provide new sampling and testing requirements designed to improve classification of energy products that are being transported.
The requirements codified by the final rule announced yesterday builds on the May 2015 rule. In accordance with the FAST Act, the rule expands the requirements to use the enhanced tank car for shipping all flammable liquids, regardless of train length.
In addition, the new final rule requires all new tank cars be equipped with a thermal protection blanket, and that older tank cars retrofitted to the new design standard be equipped with top fittings protection and a thermal protection blanket.
Moreover, the FAST Act mandates a modified phaseout schedule for older U.S. DOT-111 tank cars transporting highly flammable liquids that is based on the type of product. When shipping highly flammable, unrefined petroleum products that require a certain level of packaging protection, the FAST Act requires a faster phaseout of the older tank cars.
The final rule soon will be published in the Federal Register.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Feds-announce-final-rule-for-flammable-liquids-tank-cars--49113
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested