Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 9/6
-
(ACC Mentioned) Inadequate Data Should Yield TSCA High-Priority Designation
Sep 6, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemicals for which adequate data is not available should be presumed high priorities for risk evaluation under reformed TSCA, consumer advocacy and governmental groups have said. -
Conference Huddle to Offer Clues on Reform Prospects
Sep 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
With the clock ticking on the 114th Congress, House and Senate conferees will sit down this week for the first time in public to see whether they can buck the odds and pass the first comprehensive energy reform package in nearly a decade. -
Trickiest Energy Bill Fights May Come Over Water Provisions
Sep 6, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
When House and Senate negotiators sit down Thursday to begin to try to hammer out an agreement on the first major energy policy bill in years, it may not be energy issues that are most driving the conversation. -
The Price Of Cutting Carbon: More Natural Gas To Back Up Green Energy
Sep 6, 2016 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
Regardless of how the U.S. presidential race turns out, the global community is addressing climate change and so too, is this country, led in particular by California and New York. But can the planet run more successfully on more renewable energy and can the electric grid handle the variability? -
Maryland Balks At Push For Deeper Cuts To Power-Plant Carbon Emissions
Sep 5, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Fenit Nirappil
Maryland officials are resisting a push to deepen carbon-emission cuts as part of a regional agreement to reduce power-plant pollution. -
U.S. Companies Tout Climate Policies, Fund Climate Skeptics
Sep 6, 2016 | Reuters
By Richard Valdmanis and Grant Smith
U.S. companies that have expressed the most fervent public support for President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda are also funding its biggest enemies - the scores of U.S. lawmakers who are climate change skeptics and oppose regulation to combat it, according to a Reuters review of public records.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Inadequate Data Should Yield TSCA High-Priority Designation
Sep 6, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemicals for which adequate data is not available should be presumed high priorities for risk evaluation under reformed TSCA, consumer advocacy and governmental groups have said.
The stakeholder feedback was given to the US EPA during its development of a procedural rule governing how it will:prioritise the assessment of existing substances; anddesignate these as high- and low-priority substances.
The rulemaking is one of several deadlines required by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), which amends TSCA.
In its comments, Washington State's ecology department said a "pillar" of the prioritisation process must be that the EPA does not include the assumption it used previously that if no data is available, then it assumes a chemical is safe until proven otherwise.
"It is rapidly becoming the international standard that, if no data is available for a chemical, it cannot be used until its impacts upon human health and the environment have been established," said the department.
NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said "any 'overinclusion' of chemicals in the high-priority category is far more acceptable than a 'false negative' designation of a chemical as a low priority".
The former will be subject to a full risk evaluation before any regulatory decision is made, it said, whereas low-risk designations will remain in place unless new information arises.
Higher bar
As reformed by the LCSA, TSCA defines high-priority substances as those the administration finds an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" due to its hazard and potential route of exposure under conditions of use.
The law further defines a low-priority substance as one which "based on information sufficient to establish, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors" does not meet the standard of a high-priority substance.
in its comments the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said Congress did not intend this low-priority designation to be an "extraordinarily high hurdle", provided the EPA deems as sufficient the information supporting the designation.
But the EDF said that demonstrating the absence of harm is an inherently higher bar to clear than to positively demonstrate the potential of harm. It said more data is needed to arrive at a low-priority designation than a high-priority designation.
The statute bars the EPA from requiring a minimum data set for prioritisation purposes. But the EDF pointed out there is nothing in it prohibiting the agency from requiring minimum information as a basis for designating a chemical low-priority.
"Without such a minimum, EPA risks equating absence of evidence of harm with absence of (potential) harm," added the NGO.
NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggested that the agency should not equate low exposures with low risks. "In some cases, particularly with regard to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, low-dose exposures to a chemical can be just as dangerous as, or more dangerous than, high-dose exposures", it said.
The EDF pointed out that the LCSA allows the EPA to revise a low-priority designation. It urged the agency to include in the prioritisation rulemaking 'express authority' for the agency to revisit low-priority substances. And it said under what circumstances it should do this.
The EDF said such authority is clearly needed, given how production or uses of a substance may change over time, and in light of new information that may arise in the future.
Low-priority substances
The EPA is required to designate at least 20 high- and low-priority substances within three and a half years of the LCSA's enactment.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) urged the EPA to move quickly to designate low priority chemicals. And, it added, to “outline timely, scientifically sound, and efficient approaches for designating chemicals or categories of chemicals as low priority".
For identifying low-priority substance candidates, the ACC encouraged the EPA to look beyond the Safer Chemical Ingredient List (Scil).
It proposed the agency look at the substances that were considered for inclusion as work plan chemicals, but were set aside due to lower scores. It also suggested reviewing the 19,000 substances set aside under the Canadian prioritisation process.
The API also proposed that chemicals or groups of chemicals already comprehensively addressed by existing regulations should be considered for low priority, as well as substances exempt for use and exposure reporting under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49382/inadequate-data-should-yield-tsca-high-priority-designation?q=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
Conference Huddle to Offer Clues on Reform Prospects
Sep 6, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
With the clock ticking on the 114th Congress, House and Senate conferees will sit down this week for the first time in public to see whether they can buck the odds and pass the first comprehensive energy reform package in nearly a decade.
The chairmen and ranking members on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Natural Resources Committee spent weeks this summer discussing whether going to conference was worth the trouble.
Wary Senate Democrats eventually voted to launch the formal talks in July after a general agreement emerged that all the principal lawmakers wanted to reach a deal President Obama would sign (E&E Daily, July 13).
Informal staff discussions continued over the long August recess. But one Senate Democratic aide said that, as expected, they yielded no "breakthroughs."
Staff talks were meant to lay the groundwork for conferees to hit the ground running this month. Aides indicated they hoped to soon "close out" discussions on some provisions but noted that members would have to make any final calls.
Speaking during a renewable energy event near Fairbanks, Alaska, last month, Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said the conference push had already defied expectations.
"They said, 'Lisa, you can't do it in an election year,' and I said, 'Time's a wastin'. We've gotta move,'" she said.
Thursday's inaugural meeting will not include debate over specific amendments or provisions, and members will be limited to two minutes of opening statements (Greenwire, Sept. 2).
Still, those statements will likely offer hints about whether the two chambers can reach a deal in the coming weeks. Even though key negotiators have fielded plenty of reporters' questions in recent months, the views of rank-and-file members are less known.
Top conferees include Murkowski and her ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.).
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a conferee, told E&E Daily in July that he was cautiously optimistic about the prospects for an agreement.
"I'm not going to tell you it's going to be easy, but at the end of the day, I think we've got a solid chance at getting reasonable minds to agree that this is a step forward," he said on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland (Greenwire, July 22).
Environmentalists, who urged Senate Democrats to vote against going to conference, are decidedly less optimistic about the prospects for a deal.
One environmentalist following the deliberations said there appeared to be few signs of tangible progress from the weeks of recent staff discussions.
"It is very clear there was not a lot of action over recess in terms of any meaningful attempt to conference these two bills," said the activist. "And so it's difficult to see how those two bodies get to yes, and whether or not, in fact, at least on the House Republican side, they want to get to yes."Potential sticking points
Bishop, who opposes the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the Senate bill, is said to be steadfast in his position on the program.
He wants to see reforms included in any LWCF provisions. Bishop has also noted that last year's spending and tax deal extended the program for three years.
But the LWCF provisions in the Senate bill, S. 2012, attracted a large number of members from both parties to vote for the package in April. LWCF may be key to keeping that coalition intact.
The Senate and revised House legislation, H.R. 8, also contain key differences in the efficiency realm, and advocates last month urged negotiators to favor the energy-saving provisions in S. 2012 (Greenwire, Aug. 15).
Separately, major utility groups urged conferees over the recess to overhaul the permitting process for hydropower, which they said can take more than a decade to navigate (Greenwire, Aug. 17).
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, meanwhile, outlined provisions in both bills they'd like conferees to get rid of altogether (Greenwire, Aug. 8).
One wrinkle in the conference process is the surprise decision by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) to retire from Congress effective this evening (Greenwire, Sept. 1).
As chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Whitfield played a major role in assembling the House bill. Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), the panel's vice chairman, is considered a leading contender to replace Whitfield atop the panel.
Olson, who is already an energy conferee, will lead tomorrow's Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing on the Federal Power Act.
A spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Friday he will select a replacement for Whitfield on the conference committee.
Schedule: The meeting is Thursday, Sept. 8, at 9:30 a.m. in 106 Dirksen.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/06/stories/1060042332
-
Trickiest Energy Bill Fights May Come Over Water Provisions
Sep 6, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
When House and Senate negotiators sit down Thursday to begin to try to hammer out an agreement on the first major energy policy bill in years, it may not be energy issues that are most driving the conversation.
As energy bills wended their way through both chambers over the last year, they quietly accumulated a mountain of water provisions. At first the additions were largely parochial — approval of a water-sharing deal among farmers and communities in Washington's Yakima river basin, tweaks to help cobble back together a failed water-sharing agreement along the Oregon-California border — but then House Republicans added a political lightening rod to the mix in May. Before voting to go to conference, the House stuck several extra pieces onto its initial bill, H.R. 8, including California drought provisions over which lawmakers have been deadlocked for more than two years.
Story Continued Below
Now, despite casting the measure as the first major energy policy bill since 2007, aimed at modernizing the country's infrastructure, it is the water provisions that many of the most powerful players at the table care most about as the House and Senate launch formal negotiations over two wildly different bills.
A case in point: When the Senate in April finally passed its version of the energy bill, S. 2102, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee who had labored over the measure for months with Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, heralded the measure in a press release not as energy legislation, but as "Cantwell’s Yakima Water Bill."
Another major point of contention is the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which would be made permanent under the Senate bill, and is a priority for Cantwell and Murkowski. House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), a leading member of the conference committee, has said that provision is a nonstarter.
“That’s important for the Senate side to have that in, as a means of being able to point to some positives for a number of senators, but it’s a no go and Bishop is a formidable opponent,” said one environmental lobbyist tracking the negotiations.
As Congress returns for a scant few weeks of work between summer recess and October campaigning, lawmakers face a packed to-do list. Job No. 1 is approving a new spending deal before government funding expires Sept. 30, and Republicans are divided over whether they should punt the biggest fights to a lame duck session, or push for a continuing resolution that extends into next year. A lame-duck session seems likely and could provide necessary time to finish an energy bill and other items lawmakers don't get to this month.
Pressure is also building to approve a Zika funding package, as the virus spreads in Florida and threatens to appear in water-logged Louisiana. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has teed up a vote for Tuesday, but the measure is the same one that Democrats have filibustered twice already over controversial provisions, and it is expected to face a similar fate this go-around.
But in the shadow of these top-line prerogatives, lawmakers may end up doing some of the most substantive work on water policy issues in years — and not just in the energy bill conference committee.
In the Senate, McConnell is preparing to call up a $10.6 billion water infrastructure measure for floor consideration after the Zika vote, aides tell POLITICO. That package includes a $220 million deal to help Flint, Mich., recover from its lead contaminated drinking water crisis, along with the most significant changes to the country's drinking water and wastewater programs in years. The Water Resources Development Act also gives the go-ahead to 25 lock, dam, levee and ports projects, as well as several regional restoration programs including for Lake Tahoe, Long Island Sound and the Delaware River Basin.
Giving the bill precious floor time in a crunched session could help Republican leaders bolster their campaign argument that they alone can deliver a functioning Congress. It's not the first time Republican leaders have turned to a water infrastructure bill to make that pitch. House Republicans turned to the previous iteration of WRDA as their first substantive order of business after the politically disastrous 2013 government shutdown.
But it is unclear whether leadership of either party is equally invested in the energy bill, which faces even longer odds of making it to the president's desk. The White House threatened to veto H.R. 8, which passed mostly along party lines, and had a more mixed reaction to the bipartisan S. 2012, praising its focus on energy efficiency and infrastructure but raising concerns about efforts to rein in Energy Department programs or limit environmental reviews. Virtually every major environmental group opposed both bills for promoting liquefied natural gas exports and not doing enough to confront climate change.
Conference negotiations also may be shaped by a new proposal from DOE last week to set efficiency standards for gas furnaces. Lawmakers had tried to shape that rule with language in both the House and Senate bills that attempted to address concerns from the gas industry. Friday's new proposal apparently did not satisfy gas utilities — American Gas Association President Dave McCurdy said DOE ignored technical problems that would harm low-income consumers in the south and threatened to sue "if we do not see major changes to this rule."
Before voting to go to conference in July, Democrats secured an agreement from Republican conferees that the most controversial provisions would be off the negotiating table. But aides say they did not lay out specifically which provisions fell into that category.
The California drought language could prove the most contentious of those provisions. Golden state lawmakers in the House, led by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, have been desperate to get their Senate counterpart to the negotiating table. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein is leading drought negotiations for the upper chamber and has her own measure in the Senate, but has not yet been able to move it through the Energy committee — in part because its leaders are focused on the energy bill.
Adding their bill, which was passed by the House in 2014 on a largely party-line vote, to the energy package could be House Republicans' best shot for getting to the negotiating table before the all-important winter rainy season begins in California. Their bids to add drought language to the end-of-year spending bill the last several years have consistently come up short and been blasted on the local editorial pages.
But there's one problem: Feinstein doesn't sit on the conference committee. A spokeswoman did not respond to questions asking whether the senator has been looped into preliminary energy bill negotiations.
Meanwhile, Cantwell's Yakima language faces its own challenges, with the provisions scored as totaling nearly $60 million over the first five years and $240 million after that.
Those numbers stand to be a tough swallow for budget-conscious House Republicans.
But the power dynamics could be muddled if Republican leaders are invested in reaching a deal. With the most conservative House Republicans unlikely to vote for any negotiated product that lacks the red meat of the lower chamber's version, GOP leaders would need to rely on Democrats to carry the measure over the finish line. Notably, those Democrats would need to be delivered by a northern California Democrat: Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/09/trickiest-energy-bill-fights-may-come-over-water-provisions-128408
-
The Price Of Cutting Carbon: More Natural Gas To Back Up Green Energy
Sep 6, 2016 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
Regardless of how the U.S. presidential race turns out, the global community is addressing climate change and so too, is this country, led in particular by California and New York. But can the planet run more successfully on more renewable energy and can the electric grid handle the variability?
It’s one thing to say that reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of more wind and solar energies and it is quite another to equip the infrastructure to handle intermittent power sources: If the weather doesn’t always cooperate, those same green fuels must have back ups ready to kick on in a moment’s notice so that businesses and consumers always have electricity.
Along those lines, China just approved the COP21 agreement reached in Paris last December — the one to try and keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius by mid century. The pact becomes official once it is ratified by 55 countries representing 55 percent of the globe’s emissions. With Europe and the United States on board, China makes it almost a done deal.
Here in this country, Hillary Clinton has said that she will press on with it whileDonald Trump has said he will it “tear it up” — an odd response from a candidate who was unaware of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which is a primary component of US energy policy. Indeed, it’s the replacement of coal by natural gas that has enabled this nation to notably cut its carbon emissions.
The showcase: California and New York, which now say that green energy must comprise half of utilities’ generation portfolios by 2030. Doable, and without causing economic harm?
To be clear, a lot rides on how clean energy sources are defined. In California, it excludes such things as nuclear energy and energy efficiency while in New York, it includes those things. But California is already on its way to blowing past its 33 percent goal by 2020 and by most accounts, utilities are sure they can hit the higher threshold but they are worried about potentially rising costs.
“When you started getting into those ranges at least five or six years ago when they were doing it, it got to be sort of expensive in the 25 to 30 percent range,” says Ron Litzinger, president of the Edison Energy Group, at a symposium moderated by this journalist.
“I think that’s come down a lot. I see the same trend as we go to 50 percent,” adds Litzinger, whose division is part of Edison International EIX +1.38%. “But through smart communications and quick communications and control, the other generators on the system are adjusting accordingly to make up for your fluctuation.”
The National Energy Renewable Laboratory generally agrees with those sentiments, saying that a low-carbon grid is both achievable and affordable. Cutting emissions by 50 percent below 2012 levels by 2030 is possible, it adds. But the mechanisms have to be place to allow utilities to communicate directly with their customers to reduce demand during peak periods. That would ease constraints and allow all electrons to pass through, avoiding brownouts.
Success, though, is contingent on access to electric generators that can rev up when the wind dies down or the sun doesn’t shine. But not all such generators are created equal, meaning that coal plants were never intended to be used as back up and thus create more emissions if they are cranked on and off.
But modern natural gas units are built to meet those needs, albeit they too create pollution in the process — just not as much as coal. So it is ironic that green energy and natural gas are symbiotic, at least until energy storage would become commercial and widespread.
California, too, is working on that: In 2013, its public utilities commission enacted an energy storage mandate to necessitate PG&E Corp., Sempra Energy and Edison International to buy 1,325 gigawatts by 2020 — something to facilitate the use of more such technology to store electrons and release them later when they are needed. Now, it is considering measures to increase that standard.
Until that comes along, though, natural gas is the immediate answer. And according to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a 1 percent increase in “fast-reacting” fossil fuel technologies leads to a .88 percent increase in renewables over the long run.
“It’s our job to react to what the customers need,” says Barry Nicholls, US lead for Siemens Power and Gas Division, in an email exchange. “If they need more wind turbines in response to this plan, we’re in that business. If they want more gas plants, we’re in that business. If they want to build more transmission lines, we’re in that business.”
“I’m partial to natural gas,” adds Joe Mastrangelo, chief executive of GE Power Systems.
Market forces are, in fact, reacting to the demand for low-to-zero-carbon fuels. So why are some policymakers hesitant to get behind the so-called New Energy Economy? Reliability, of course, is at the heart of the global electric system. Some are simply concerned about the pace of change and the risk that would it pose to international commerce.
California and New York will be case studies. And so too will Europe and specifically Germany. China, meanwhile, will become a proving ground. Here in this country, market forces are up against political forces, which are protecting certain interests that — understandably — do not want to sacrifice market share.
Ultimately, it’s hard to resist consumer demand. Becoming cleaner and greener, however, isn’t risk free: It requires a modern grid and fast-reacting back-up generation, or natural gas. It can be costly and create carbon, although it is also the price of progress.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/09/05/the-price-of-cutting-carbon-more-natural-gas-to-back-up-green-energy/#d3f338460fe3
-
Maryland Balks At Push For Deeper Cuts To Power-Plant Carbon Emissions
Sep 5, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Fenit Nirappil
Maryland officials are resisting a push to deepen carbon-emission cuts as part of a regional agreement to reduce power-plant pollution.
The nine East Coast states that make up the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are negotiating new terms for the pact, set to expire in 2020. Massachusetts has joined environmental advocates pushing for a cap on carbon emissions from power plants that would fall 5 percent a year for the next decade, or twice the current rate.
Maryland Secretary of the Environment Ben Grumbles said the proposal could result in higher power bills for Marylanders and harm the state’s economy. If adopted, he said, Maryland would consider pulling out of the regional pact for the first time since it formed in 2008.
“I’m sure every single state could agree if the caps are too stringent for that particular state . . . then those states would be very vocal in saying, ‘We can’t accept that,’ ” Grumbles said.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative creates a local cap-and-trade system that limits how much plants can pollute, and holds auctions where energy producers bid against each other for rights to emit carbon. Proceeds from the auctions fund clean-energy initiatives aimed at combating climate change.
In addition to Maryland and Massachusetts, the pact includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. New Jersey pulled out of the pact in 2011.
The Boston Globe was the first to report that Maryland was reconsidering its role in the regional pact. Grumbles says leaving is a last resort, and called the greenhouse-gas reduction program a success that should be expanded with additional states.
Unlike other states in the agreement, Maryland is on the same power grid as coal-heavy states that never signed on to the initiative, including West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. That means energy companies in Maryland are competing against producers in nearby states who aren’t abiding by the same restrictions on emissions and use cheaper, non-renewable energy sources.
Complicating matters further is the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would require each state to draw plans to shift away from fossil-fuel powered plants. The plan would reduce the pressure of intra-state competition, but it’s on hold pending a U.S. Supreme Court challenge and could be changed under the next president.
[Supreme Court freezes Obama plan to limit emissions]
“While we are pushing for environmental leadership in the state . . . we want to reduce the risk of having other neighboring states being able to provide dirtier and cheaper energy to the citizens of Maryland,” said Grumbles, a member of Gov. Larry Hogan’s cabinet.
Officials in the administration of Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) have indicated that they don’t want to derail the pact by going too far with emission cuts.
“We’re definitely not strong-arming anyone to do anything,” Energy Secretary Matthew Beaton told the Massachusetts State House News Service last week.
A spokesman for Beaton said the state is committed to reducing carbon emissions and power bills, but wouldn’t say if it would continue pushing for steeper cuts to carbon emissions.
But in Maryland, local environmental advocates are continuing to make that case. Scores of activists urged lower emissions at a meeting last week seeking feedback on the greenhouse-gas initiative at the Department of Environment offices in Baltimore.
“With the support of neighboring states, we hope Maryland steps up to the plate to help the region meet the goals it needs to create good-paying, clean-energy jobs and curb climate disruption,” said Johana Vicente, an organizer for the Maryland League of Conservation Voters.
Democratic lawmakers have also expressed support for 5 percent annual cuts in allowable emissions.
“We have to be sensible about [reductions] and we have to phase it over a period of time in order to be affordable, but it’s always preferable to be ambitious,” said Del. Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery), who chairs the House of Delegates committee that oversees environmental issues.
Carbon emissions from states in the pact have fallen dramatically, from 122 million tons in 2009 to 83 million tons in 2015.
The reduction is 16 percent greater than in states that haven’t joined the initiative, according to an analysis by the Acadia Center, which advocates for clean energy. The analysis also says electricity prices have decreased 3.4 percent on average for participating states, while rising elsewhere.
Industry observers say lower demand for energy during the economic downturn and the rise of natural gas, which results in lower carbon emissions than coal, also drove the decrease.
Hogan (R), in office since 2015, has a mixed record on the environment. He signed legislation this year that requires Maryland to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 40 percent below 2006 levels by 2030, and forged a deal to reduce the amount of runoff from Eastern Shore chicken farms into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Hogan’s office says this year’s budget includes a record $53 million for a state fund for restoring waterways.
But the governor irked environmentalists by vetoing legislation to require 25 percent of the state’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, and by rolling back some regulations meant to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.
Some advocates said Maryland’s reluctance to sign on to more ambitious carbon-emission cuts is an example of the Hogan administration’s resistance to major environmental initiatives.
“Massachusetts, with a Republican governor, is out front here in combating climate change,” said Mark Kresowik, a deputy regional director for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “You certainly see some hostility from Governor Hogan to good programs that reduce pollution and advance clean energy.”
Hogan spokesman Doug Mayer dismissed such criticism as unfounded.
“Governor Hogan has a strong record of enacting key environmental reforms to improve Maryland’s air and water quality,” Mayer said. “Anyone who questions his commitment to preserving and improving Maryland’s environment and natural resources simply doesn’t know the facts.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-balks-at-push-for-deeper-cuts-to-power-plant-carbon-emissions/2016/09/05/eca093e6-7063-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html
-
U.S. Companies Tout Climate Policies, Fund Climate Skeptics
Sep 6, 2016 | Reuters
By Richard Valdmanis and Grant Smith
U.S. companies that have expressed the most fervent public support for President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda are also funding its biggest enemies - the scores of U.S. lawmakers who are climate change skeptics and oppose regulation to combat it, according to a Reuters review of public records.
Ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential and congressional elections, the donations from companies including PepsiCo, Dupont, and Google reveal a disconnect between how these companies present themselves to the public on environmental issues, and how they manage their political contributions to support business-friendly policy.
(Click here for a graphic: tmsnrt.rs/2bWl9dN)
Many companies active in U.S. politics spread their political donations broadly on both sides of the aisle and consider multiple issues when deciding whom to support.
But inconsistency between a company's environmental positions and its political giving may point up a need for better oversight, according to Jon Lukomnik, head of the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute.
"There really needs to be a process that looks at these issues ... at C-suite and board levels on a periodic basis," Lukomnik said.
The Reuters review covered donations made during the 2016 election cycle by the political action committees (PACs) of 30 of the biggest publicly traded U.S. companies that signed Obama’s “American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge” in 2015, a public promise to enact climate-friendly corporate policies and support strong climate change oversight like the global climate accord signed in Paris.
The review found that 25 of the 30 companies are funding the campaigns of lawmakers featured on a "climate deniers" list that was put together by Organizing For Action, a non-profit created by former Obama campaign aides to advocate his agenda.
The list includes more than 130 members of Congress, nearly all Republicans, and is a who's who of the biggest opponents of Obama's plan to combat climate change. Some of those on the list dispute the label "denier" and describe themselves as climate change "skeptics".
The list includes Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, an energy advisor to presidential candidate Donald Trump who once argued the Earth was cooling not warming, and Republican U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who last year held up a snowball on the Senate floor as evidence global warming does not exist.
The review found PepsiCo and DuPont's political action committees gave about half or more of the money from their top donations in support of senators and congressmen on the list. That amounted to $56,500 from the Pepsi PAC's 29 donations of $2,500 and above, and $40,000 from the DuPont PAC’s 19 donations of $2,000 and above.
Other signatories to the American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge that gave more than a third of their top political contributions to lawmakers on the list include Google, AT&T, GE, Verizon, and Mondelez, according to the review.
Those levels of donations given to climate skeptics are relatively high given that the list covers about a quarter of U.S. Congress members.
Officials from PepsiCo, Google, AT&T, and Verizon did not respond to requests for comment. DuPont declined to comment, and Mondelez referred Reuters to the press release announcing its participation in the climate pledge.
A GE spokeswoman said the company supports "elected officials based on a wide range of issues, but we have consistently been outspoken about the need to address climate change and have invested over $17 billion in cleaner technology R&D over the last 11 years.”
PepsiCo has also been working to become more energy efficient, and now operates the country's largest fleet of electric delivery trucks. But it still has a sizeable carbon footprint: It produced some 4.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2013, down 2 percent from 2012, according to its website. A more recent figure was not available.
DuPont, also working to increase its energy efficiency, emitted 16.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2013.
POLITICALLY CHARGED
Congressman Cramer, a self-described climate skeptic who opposes Obama's climate agenda but has taken donations from companies that signed the climate pledge, said companies tend to consider issues like tax policy, national security, and regulatory policy when picking who to support - as opposed to a single issue like the environment.
He, like other lawmakers featured on the Organizing For Action "climate deniers" list, said the debate over climate change was not as clear cut as Obama's allies depict it.
"It is not a black and white issue, like if you agree with Obama you're enlightened, and if you don't you're in the dark," he said. "It is more of a spectrum."
A spokeswoman for Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, another lawmaker featured on the list, said he had "done more than almost any other member of Congress to increase the use of clean energy" sources like wind and biofuels.
But she added he was opposed to Obama's climate change initiatives, like the Clean Power Plan to curb carbon output, because he felt that it could hurt the competitiveness of U.S. businesses globally.
Senator Inhofe, who said he doesn’t mind the label “climate denier”, suggested that some companies had signed the American Business Act on Climate Change pledge for superficial reasons.
"These are competitive companies, and the board might have said ‘Look, right now it might be a popular thing to join this, and there’s no downside since we’re not really committing to anything.’ That absolutely goes on," he said.
The five companies reviewed by Reuters that did not fund opponents to Obama's climate change agenda either had no political action committee, like Apple, or made only a small number of contributions, like Coca Cola.
Lauren Compere, managing director at sustainable investment manager Boston Common Asset Management, said consistency between policy and political giving was becoming increasingly important to environmentally-minded investors.
"No company should want to be perceived as espousing progressive climate policies on the one hand, while funding climate deniers on the other," she said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-climate-donations-idUSL8N1BB4QU
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested