Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 9/16/16
-
Balancing Act Required as EPA Selects First 10 Chemicals to Review
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency must balance the expectations of a broad range of groups concerned about the amended Toxic Substances Control Act with resource limits and other practical considerations as it selects the first 10 chemicals for risk evaluation, an attorney told Bloomberg BNA. -
(ACC Blog) NIEHS Celebrates 25 Years Of Endocrine Disruptor Research – We Ask, What’s To Celebrate?
Sep 15, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
For the past three decades, the rate of innovation among the world’s leading chemical manufacturers has accelerated at a globally competitive pace. Consumers often reap the benefits of this innovation firsthand: we see a larger number and greater variety of products appearing on store shelves; upgraded products that outperform their predecessors; and new technologies that often satisfy a need we never knew we had. For many, this kind of innovation is something to celebrate. -
BASF, Dow, Others Named in $90 Billion False Claims Act Suit
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schwartz
Four of the country's largest chemical companies face a lawsuit seeking more than $90 billion because they allegedly knew for decades that exposure of the skin to even minor amounts of different types of isocyanate chemicals can cause permanent respiratory damage to human beings -
MSC Adopts Opinion On Annex XIV Draft Recommendation
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC) unanimously agreed its Opinion on Echa's latest draft recommendation for substances to be added to REACH’s Annex XIV for authorisation, at its meeting on 13 September. -
(ACC Mentioned) CEO Says Cheap Natural Gas Drives Chemical Industry
Sep 15, 2016 | Argus Media
Growth in chemical manufacturing in the US has been driven largely by hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, a trade association head said at a conference yesterday in Washington. -
Enviro Leader Arrested At Interior Headquarters Protest
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The head of a Western environmental group and several others were arrested today during an anti-fossil-fuels demonstration at Interior Department headquarters. -
Trump Calls For Scrapping RFS Component, Slams 'Big Oil'
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Only days after reiterating his vow to protect the renewable fuel standard, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump today called for dismantling a key component of the program, asserting that it gives "Big Oil" an advantage over small and midsize refineries. -
Trump Economic Plan Calls for More Fossil Fuel, Fewer Rules
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
More coal, oil and natural gas production and fewer environmental regulations—including the end of the Obama administration plan to cut carbon dioxide from power plants—would be priorities, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said in an economic policy speech Sept. 15. -
Pallone Eyes Grid, Pipeline Investments In Reform Bill
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) yesterday said a final energy bill should include funding for hardening the electric grid and repairing or replacing miles of aging, leaky gas pipelines underlying major cities. -
Republicans Hit EPA Methane Regulations, Tout Voluntary Moves
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
House Republicans sharply questioned the need to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector yesterday, arguing at a hearing that voluntary efforts are enough. -
EPA Methane Effort Not Supported by Science: House Witnesses
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency's methane regulatory efforts related to the oil and gas industry aren't supported by science, would have minimal environmental impact and would slaughter the economy, witnesses said Sept. 15 at a House Subcommittee on Environment hearing. -
House GOP Faults EPA Oil & Gas Methane Regulations
Sep 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
House Republicans are faulting EPA's final new source performance standards (NSPS) limiting emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new oil and gas sector operations and a data request that could inform similar first-time standards for existing operations, saying the agency is “cherry-picking” data to justify the rules. -
No Need For Legislative Spur On Export Approvals — Moniz
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told lawmakers today that the Obama administration has approved exports of liquefied natural gas in as little as a day and doesn't need an energy bill provision to make the process go faster. -
Faster-Than-Expected Corrosion Led To Pa. Pipeline Blast, Says Spectra
Sep 15, 2016 | AP (In Fuelfix)
Faster-than-expected corrosion caused a Pennsylvania natural gas pipeline blast that scorched 40 rural acres in April and badly burned a man whose home was destroyed, the Texas energy company that owns the pipeline said. -
Why Do Oil Trains Derail More Often than Ethanol Trains?
Sep 15, 2016 | Desmog
By Justin Mikulka
“Sloshing is an issue. It increases in-train forces. It would be like having a heavy box in the back of your SUV that is not tied down. If you have to slam on the brakes, what happens? The box slides forward into the back of the seat in front of it.” -
EPA's Stricter Ozone Ambient Air Standard Faces Competing Legal Attacks
Sep 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) is facing competing legal attacks in federal appeals court, with some states and groups representing major industries claiming the agency lacked justification for the move, while environmentalists say scientific data warrants an even-stricter limit. -
Ozone Implementation Rule Reasonable, EPA Tells Court
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A regulation governing implementation of the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion contains reasonable requirements and should be upheld, the Environmental Protection Agency told a federal appeals court. -
Washington Rule to Curb 19 Million Tons of Greenhouse Gases
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington state's largest greenhouse gas emitters will be required to cap and gradually reduce their emissions beginning in 2017 as the governor makes good on a pledge to use his executive authority to address climate change. -
PCB Cleanup Costs California Utility $1.25 Million
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Imperial Irrigation District spent $1.25 million cleaning up polychlorinated biphenyls found at power substations in California's Coachella Valley. -
G-20 Panel Works on Business Climate Reporting Plan
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
An international task force aimed at improving transparency in how companies report their climate change risks met in Paris this week to take steps toward creating a framework for voluntary standards.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Balancing Act Required as EPA Selects First 10 Chemicals to Review
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency must balance the expectations of a broad range of groups concerned about the amended Toxic Substances Control Act with resource limits and other practical considerations as it selects the first 10 chemicals for risk evaluation, an attorney told Bloomberg BNA.
The agency is going to need to address congressional and other expectations while being realistic about its capacities and the workload staff already have as they implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended TSCA, Trent Doyle, an attorney with Keller and Heckman LLP, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 14.
Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of more than 400 environmental, health and labor organizations, told Bloomberg BNA the agency must include one or more chemicals presenting an urgent health threat among the first 10 chemicals it evaluates.
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and other organizations have urged the agency to include asbestos as one of the first 10 chemicals it will evaluate. In an Aug. 9 letterto the EPA, the Safer Chemicals coalition also urged the agency to assess lead, cadmium, styrene and other chemicals.
These senators and organizations are referring to the Lautenberg Act's requirement that the EPA be assessing 10 chemicals by December. The 10 chemicals must be selected from the agency's 2014 “Work Plan” list of approximately 90 chemicals the EPA's toxics office had planned to evaluate prior to passage of the Lautenberg Act.
EPA Assessing While Writing Rule
The same EPA office that will be conducting the assessments also will be developing four rules, including a regulation on how risk evaluations are conducted, Doyle said. “It's having to do this work while it's writing the rule about how to do the work,” he said.
EPA's chemicals office has limited staff and will have to be realistic about its capacities while addressing congressional and other expectations, he said. The agency will have to be careful lest it set itself up for failure, Doyle said.
EPA's staffing resources likely will begin to increase after the agency issues an industry fee rule that it expects to complete by June 2017.
To be successful, the EPA is likely to select chemicals for which it already has analytic work and extensive information, Doyle said.
The EPA already asked an expert panel to peer review its draft risk assessment of 1-bromopropane (CAS No. 106-94-5), a solvent.
Other Chemicals Under Evaluation
Other chemicals the agency has begun to evaluate include:
• a group of chemicals called chlorinated phosphate esters, which are used as flame retardants in furniture foam and textiles;
• a group of cyclic aliphatic bromides which are used as flame retardants in polystyrene foams and products;
• tetrabromobisphenol a and related chemicals, which are used as flame retardants in plastic and printed circuit boards;
• brominated phthalates, which are flame retardants for polyurethane foams; and
• 1,4-dioxane, a solvent.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250428&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250428&jd=97250428
-
(ACC Blog) NIEHS Celebrates 25 Years Of Endocrine Disruptor Research – We Ask, What’s To Celebrate?
Sep 15, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
For the past three decades, the rate of innovation among the world’s leading chemical manufacturers has accelerated at a globally competitive pace. Consumers often reap the benefits of this innovation firsthand: we see a larger number and greater variety of products appearing on store shelves; upgraded products that outperform their predecessors; and new technologies that often satisfy a need we never knew we had. For many, this kind of innovation is something to celebrate.
Not everyone seems to feel that way.
Indeed, why does it seem like some individuals and organizations only feel like celebrating when innovation (and consequently, job and economic growth) takes a step backward, rather than progressing forward? Why do some seem to welcome consumer products disappearing from store shelves, applaud the introduction of substitute products that do not perform as well as their predecessors and for which the health risks may be less understood, and laud the creation of an overly restrictive regulatory path that hinders rather than helps companies bring new, potentially game-changing technologies to market?
It’s possible that one such celebration will take place next week when the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) hosts a three-day conference to “celebrate” (their world) 25 years of research into substances that can interact with the endocrine system – so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
It’s an odd choice of words, celebrate.
Today, misinformation and public confusion over EDCs runs rampant, and a slew of products ranging fromsunscreen to plastic food containers are potentially at risk of disappearing from store shelves based on that misinformation. On top of that, serious consideration is actually being paid to regulatory approaches that are based on weak science at the expense of overlooking very solid, science-based initiatives that have been around for nearly 20 years.
So, we ask – what is there to celebrate?Rampant confusion over endocrine active and endocrine disrupting chemicals
Over the last three decades, the NIEHS has missed one critical opportunity after another to help the public recognize the important difference between substances that can interact with the endocrine system safely(“endocrine active chemicals“) and substances that can cause harm (“endocrine disrupting chemicals”).
Here’s what people need to know: endocrine active substances can interact with the endocrine system but, like caffeine, do not illicit harmful effects. By definition, an endocrine disruptor must cause an adverse effect via alteration of the endocrine system. If a chemical alters the functioning of the endocrine system, but this does not result in an adverse effect, by definition, it cannot be identified as an EDC. And yet, time and again, you will see individuals and even some global organizations attempt to categorize, label and list them as such.
Activists coined the term “endocrine disrupting chemicals” at least as far back as the 1980s when it was still unclear whether chemicals could even cause harm through an endocrine mode of action. The wording was strategic. It implied harm. It gave a sense of urgency to an issue that all but guaranteed its placement in the media and public policy spotlight.
As a result, substances with no proven endocrine-related adverse health effects have been unfairly mischaracterized and stigmatized, putting several products at risk of disappearing from store shelves without scientific justification.
For consumers and businesses alike, this unnecessary loss of innovation and consumer choice isn’t something to celebrate.
Serious consideration being paid to unscientific, hazard-based lists
Today, there are typically two sides to the debate on EDCs – those who see chemical safety across all three dimensions of risk assessment – hazard, dose and exposure – and those who can see only one: hazard. The fact that a one-dimensional, hazard-based approach to regulating EDCs is actually being considered by governments around the globe isn’t something to applaud.
First, it’s important to understand what hazard is and what it is not. Hazard refers to the inherent properties of a substance that make it capable of causing harm to a person or the environment. Everything around us, including the entire human body and everything we eat and drink, is entirely made of up chemicals. And all chemicals have inherent properties that can be described by hazard – even water and oxygen (it’s possible to drink too much water, and oxygen can explode).
Even though all chemicals can be described by inherent hazard, the mere presence of a chemical ingredient does not automatically mean it will cause harm. The actual chance of harm from exposure to a chemical ingredient depends on a variety of factors – including how much of the chemical ingredient is in a product; how the product is used; and what kind of exposure to the chemical typically occurs from using a product that contains the chemical.
Here’s the problem: the hazard-based approach often leads to the creation of arbitrary ‘lists’ of chemicalswhich carry a veneer of authority that masks the capricious and unscientific process by which they are created and which allows organizations to parade them around as science. These lists, which the public and value chain often take at face value, can in turn result in even more products disappearing from store shelves with no scientific justification.
In fact, the hazard-based approach to regulation only worsens the confusion between endocrine activeand endocrine disrupting chemicals by giving consumers the false impression that no substance can interact with the endocrine system safely.
When the public doesn’t fundamentally understand the science, you work to fix it – not celebrate it.Downplaying the accomplishments and scientific progress that has been made to date
There’s a better way to protect public health than confusing the public or arbitrarily limiting consumer choice: thoroughly assessing chemicals for health risks and, if present, adopting appropriate management measures. We believe NIEHS and others should do more to call attention to this scientifically validated process.
Risk assessment, as practiced in countries like the U.S., Canada and Japan, draws a more complete picture of chemical safety by incorporating real-world factors like dose and exposure. It is the more sensible way to protect human health and the environment while encouraging innovation. It’s easy to understand why.
Common substances like water, caffeine and soy can be toxic or “endocrine disrupting” at sufficient doses and exposures, but we have learned to manage those risks while continuing to enjoy the benefits the substances bring to our health and our daily lives.
While the NIEHS is the federal agency sponsoring this week’s conference, one could argue that it is the Institute’s sister organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that has been doing the bulk of the work in screening and testing endocrine active chemicals for safety.
By the time its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) launched in 1998, the EPA had already been using standardized test methods to assess chemicals for endocrine disruption. The EDSP simply marked a new direction for how the Agency would assess certain chemicals for safety in the future.
The complexity of the science required that EPA scientists follow a methodical process to make sure they got it right. By helping to pioneer the practice of risk assessment, EPA created the foundation for the EDSP as we know it today – credible, validated, and protective.
On Monday, EPA Senior Scientist Amy Blankinship is scheduled to provide a summary of the EDSP programto NIEHS conference attendees. This is a step in the right direction, because if there’s something that deserves special recognition this week, it’s the strong commitment to safety that industry and leading government agencies such as the EPA share through initiatives like the EDSP.
The NIEHS also has an opportunity this week to bring more balance and scientific rigor back into the debate on endocrine active and endocrine disrupting chemicals.
If the NIEHS were successful, that would truly be something to celebrate.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/09/niehs-celebrates-25-years-of-endocrine-disruptor-research-we-ask-whats-to-celebrate/
-
BASF, Dow, Others Named in $90 Billion False Claims Act Suit
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schwartz
Four of the country's largest chemical companies face a lawsuit seeking more than $90 billion because they allegedly knew for decades that exposure of the skin to even minor amounts of different types of isocyanate chemicals can cause permanent respiratory damage to human beings
The law firm of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP (KBT&F) served the companies with the lawsuit Sept. 14. The companies are BASF Corp.; Bayer MaterialScience LLC; the Dow Chemical Co.; and Huntsman International LLC.
The firm brought a qui tam suit under the federal False Claims Act, positioning itself as an agent working in the federal government's interest. They initially filed suit in May 2015 and then filed an amended suit Sept. 24, 2015. Under court rules, such suits are kept under seal while the government decides whether to participate.
In this case, the government opted against active participation but takes the position of an interested party. The government filed an order to unseal the suit Aug. 19, leading to the four companies being served with the suit.
Lawsuit Without Merit, Dow Says
A Dow spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA the qui tam complaint is meritless.
Dow has complied with all the federal laws and requirements referenced in the complaint, the spokeswoman said. “The False Claims Act does not allow a claim for unassessed civil penalties,” she said.
“It is noteworthy,” she added, “that the law firm provided these allegations to the United States Department of Justice, which declined to intervene or take any action in support of the lawsuit.”
The suit claims that between 1979 and 2003, all four companies collected human and other data that showed that several types of isocyanates could cause significant harm to human beings at much lower levels than previously known. The companies, according to the suit, violated the Toxic Substances Control Act by failing to report these findings to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Three Types of Chemicals Named
The suit names three types of chemicals—methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), polymeric MDI and toluene diisocyanate.
According to the suit, it has long been known that exposure to these chemicals can pose a danger. However, the companies allegedly had extensive data showing that people whose skin was exposed to even a drop, or 50 microliters, of any of these chemicals could cause permanent respiratory damage.
The suit sought a little less than $30 billion in damages, but the False Claims Act allows for treble damages. The suit also seeks penalties or forfeitures of $5,500 to $11,000 for each violation, which adds up to about another $1 billion.
Under federal law (31 U.S.C. 3730(d)(2), the party bringing the suit in cases where the government opts not to intervene is entitled to between 25 percent and 30 percent of the total damages. In this case, then, KBT&F could be entitled to as much as $27 billion.
An attorney with KBT&F, speaking on background Sept. 15, said that this suit stems from material it uncovered while prosecuting earlier product liability suits against the companies.
With assistance from Pat Rizzuto
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250422&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250422&jd=97250422
-
MSC Adopts Opinion On Annex XIV Draft Recommendation
Sep 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC) unanimously agreed its Opinion on Echa's latest draft recommendation for substances to be added to REACH’s Annex XIV for authorisation, at its meeting on 13 September.
The 11 substances listed are:dihexyl phthalate;cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride, cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride;hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride and hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride;1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, dihexyl ester, branched and linear;sodium perborate;sodium peroxometaborate;lead monoxide;lead tetroxide·pentalead tetraoxide sulphate;tetralead trioxide sulphate; andtrixylyl phosphate.
The list is unchanged, since recommendations were published for consultation in November last year.
MSC chairman Watze de Wolf said that at the next stage in the process, where additional aspects will be considered by the member states, some will not support the addition of the four lead substances to Annex XIV.
This is because they have doubts about the proportionality and effectiveness of doing this, and because they believe the need for further regulation should be considered against the benefits offered by their use in batteries for storing renewable energy.
Moreover, said Mr de Wolf, some members think the occupational exposure limit (OEL) for lead is out of date and should not be used for risk assessment. They want the European Commission to analyse the basis for setting new OELs, before deciding on exemptions which would allow them to assess whether these could achieve the same level of protection as the authorisation process.
Following public consultation, the priority of scoring of the anhydride compounds had been “somewhat reduced”, Mr de Wolf said, but the MSC nevertheless decided they should be included.
The MSC Opinion will now be passed to Echa, which will decide on its seventh recommendation to the European Commission for additions to REACH Annex XIV – the list of substances to be phased out except for authorised uses.
None of the substances listed in Echa's fifth and sixth recommendations, which were sent to the Commission in February 2014 and July 2015, have yet been added to Annex XIV.
The MSC meeting was only one day as the result of a planned summer break in the progress of substance and dossier evaluations. Candidate substances of very high concern (SVHCs) are only scheduled for the June and December meetings.
The committee discussed stakeholder observer participation, leaving it unchanged with seven seats for industry bodies and seven for NGOs and trade unions.
The MSC also discussed the design of extended one-generation reproductive toxicity tests (Eogrts) for inclusion in its manual of decisions, which captures recurring decisions the committee makes for future reference. However, it did not reach a conclusion.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49677/msc-adopts-opinion-on-annex-xiv-draft-recommendation
-
(ACC Mentioned) CEO Says Cheap Natural Gas Drives Chemical Industry
Sep 15, 2016 | Argus Media
Washington, 15 September (Argus) — Growth in chemical manufacturing in the US has been driven largely by hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, a trade association head said at a conference yesterday in Washington.
Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said that inexpensive gas has prompted $170bn of new investment in the US in the sector. More than $100bn of that amount was foreign direct investment.
One example is Shell‘s planned 1.6mn t/yr ethylene cracker and polyethylene plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, which sits in the Marcellus and Utica shales, near many pipelines for natural gas and natural gas liquids.
Dooley spoke at a conference held by Indiana University to recommend ways the next US president could help the manufacturing sector.
US natural gas priced at $3/mmBtu makes the US the lowest cost location for chemical manufacturing in the world, he said. The fuel is 85pc of chemical industry feedstock.
Low feedstock costs will lead to a positive trade balance in chemicals for the US, Dooley said. But the decline in natural gas prices could be temporary, he said.
"We need a Congress and an administration that wants to maximize the production of natural gas in the US," Dooley said. "That would send a strong message for a second wave of investments in the industry."
Meanwhile, local bans on hydraulic fracturing have had little impact on gas production. "I hope over time we can demonstrate how fugitive methane emissions and wastewater emissions are benign," Dooley said.
Donald Elliott, co-chair of the environmental practice group at law firm Covington & Burling, said at the conference that almost no Pennsylvania localities have chosen to use their power to ban the drilling technique.
http://www.argusmedia.com/news/article/?id=1313302
-
Enviro Leader Arrested At Interior Headquarters Protest
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The head of a Western environmental group and several others were arrested today during an anti-fossil-fuels demonstration at Interior Department headquarters.
WildEarth Guardians Executive Director John Horning was among at least a dozen protesters arrested after refusing to leave Interior's lobby. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, a group of more than 40 gathered in the lobby chanting, "Keep it in the ground."
"John took this action to send an unmistakable message," WildEarth Guardians said in a statement. "To protect our climate, our future, and our public lands, President Obama must end the obsolete and controversial program of leasing our public lands and waters to dirty energy companies."
Leaders from the Rainforest Action Network, Earthworks and Friends of the Earth were also among those arrested.
Earlier in the day, a larger group demonstrated in front of the White House and delivered a petition with more than 1 million signatures calling on Obama to end fossil fuel leasing on public lands.
The demonstration comes three weeks after "keep it in the ground" activists launched their biggest legal effort yet to rein in development. WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility in August sued Interior for allegedly failing to weigh the climate impacts for nearly 400 leases in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming since 2015 (EnergyWire, Aug. 26).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/09/15/stories/1060042915
-
Trump Calls For Scrapping RFS Component, Slams 'Big Oil'
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
Only days after reiterating his vow to protect the renewable fuel standard, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump today called for dismantling a key component of the program, asserting that it gives "Big Oil" an advantage over small and midsize refineries.
In a speech to the New York Economic Club, Trump said he would end U.S. EPA's Renewable Identification Number program as part of a regulatory overhaul that would also target the Clean Power Plan, clean water rules and ground-level ozone standards. He would also eliminate Food and Drug Administration food safety regulations.
"One of the keys to unlocking growth is scaling back years of disastrous regulations unilaterally imposed by our out-of-control bureaucracy," Trump said in the speech.
In particular, he pointed to EPA's RIN program, which requires refiners or gasoline and diesel fuels to add renewable fuels like ethanol to each gallon of product they produce. Refiners that opt not to must purchase credits from refiners that do incorporate renewable fuels.
"These [blending] requirements have turned out to be impossible to meet and are bankrupting many of the small and midsize refineries in this country," Trump's campaign stated in an accompanying document. "These regulations will give Big Oil an oligopoly by destroying the small to midsize refineries."
The message echoes a plea from billionaire investor Carl Icahn to EPA last month, in which Icahn said that refiners could go bankrupt if the program were not reformed.
"The RIN market is the quintessential example of a 'rigged' market where large gas station chains, big oil companies and large speculators are assured to make windfall profits at the expense of small and midsized independent refineries which have been designated the 'obligated parties' to deliver RINs," Icahn wrote in a letter reported by Reuters. "As a result, the RIN market has become 'the mother of all short squeezes.'"
Advocates of renewable fuels split over whether Trump's latest proposal indicates a shifting position just days after he told voters in Iowa that he would guard the RFS if elected to the White House.
"We are going to end the EPA intrusions into your family homes and farms; we are going to protect the RFS, corn-based ethanol, eliminate job-killing regulations like the Waters of the U.S. rule, and provide desperately needed tax relief," Trump said at a Tuesday event, according to Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based KGAN-TV.
Renewable Fuels Association CEO Bob Dinneen pointed to Trump's recent comments to say the Republican has not changed his mind on the program, which is meant to reduce foreign oil imports and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
"This shouldn't be interpreted as a reversal of support for the RFS. Just this week, Trump restated in Iowa that he would protect the RFS," Dinneen told E&ENews PM in a statement.
But Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor disagreed, suggesting Trump's latest proposals are "inconsistent" with his past support for the RFS.
"It is clear the RFS is working as designed, and industry participants are taking advantage of the opportunity to offer higher ethanol blends and refiners are currently profiting from that blending. Now is exactly the wrong time to be changing course, as it would only interrupt America's progress toward making clean, renewable biofuels available to consumers, and the cost to the environment is too great to turn back," Skor said.
She added: "The RFS is very straightforward and has been in place for a decade — refiners can blend more renewable biofuels and profit in doing so, or choose not to blend and then must purchase credits necessary to comply with the law. There is no need to rewrite the rules to accommodate those who are unwilling to follow them, especially when so many others have invested billions into America's growth as a world leader in biofuels."
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment clarifying other changes Trump would endorse to the renewable fuel program.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/09/15/stories/1060042914
-
Trump Economic Plan Calls for More Fossil Fuel, Fewer Rules
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
More coal, oil and natural gas production and fewer environmental regulations—including the end of the Obama administration plan to cut carbon dioxide from power plants—would be priorities, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said in an economic policy speech Sept. 15.
“If we lower our taxes, remove destructive regulations, unleash the vast treasure of American energy, and negotiate trade deals that put America first, then there is no limit to the number of jobs we can create and the amount of prosperity we can unleash,” Trump said at the New York Economic Club, according to a text of the speech.
Trump said his economic team estimated that under his plan, 25 million jobs would be added and the economy would growth by 3.5 percent annually over the next decade. The plan calls for $4.4 trillion in tax cuts for all income groups, reduced regulations, more energy production, changes in trade policies to put “America first” and a requirement to reduce all spending other than defense and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by 1 percent every year. All of it would be budget-neutral, Trump said.
Cut Climate Plan
Regulations Trump said he would eliminate include the Clean Power Plan, which sets carbon dioxide limits on power plants and is the centerpiece of the Obama administration climate strategy; the Clean Water Rule, which clarifies which waters and wetlands would fall under federal protection; and the more stringent 2015 ozone standards.
One detail in a fact sheet about the Trump economic plan showed how federal agencies would work in a Trump administration: They would be required to rank all regulations by how much they contribute to growth, health and safety, with a goal of cutting unnecessary ones and “strengthening the useful ones.”
Regulations are developed to implement federal laws. Trump said his administration would end those “that are not compelled by Congress or public safety,” adding in his speech that he also would “eliminate all needless and job-killing regulations now on the books.”
Fossil Fuel Expansion
The energy and regulatory sections of the speech included mainly positions Trump has taken in the past, with few details about the extent of his plans or how they would be achieved. Oil, gas and coal production would expand as “unnecessary restrictions” are lifted, according to the fact sheet. It added that a Trump administration would allow energy production on federal lands “in appropriate areas” and open up “vast areas” off the coasts for offshore production.
Trump also said he would streamline permitting for energy projects and support research into advanced energy technologies based on “the free market” rather than government policy.
On biofuels, Trump appeared to support shifting the obligation to purchase Renewable Identification Numbers away from refineries. Refineries must purchase the credits if they don't blend enough biofuels into their products. Trump said the program penalizes refineries but didn't suggest an alternative.
‘Food Police.’
The policy also would eliminate what the fact sheet called the Food and Drug Administration “food police, which dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food.”
It didn't specify any new agricultural policies or specific rule changes. Rules Trump criticized were those that “govern the soil farmers use, farm and food production hygiene, food packaging, food temperatures and even what animals may roam which fields and when,” the fact sheet said. The FDA, it said, “also greatly increased inspections of food ‘facilities,’ and levies new taxes to pay for this inspection overkill.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250423&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250423&jd=97250423
-
Pallone Eyes Grid, Pipeline Investments In Reform Bill
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) yesterday said a final energy bill should include funding for hardening the electric grid and repairing or replacing miles of aging, leaky gas pipelines underlying major cities.
But the congressman didn't say how much that effort would cost.
Speaking at an Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing yesterday, Pallone said he was championing two proposals stemming from the Energy Department's Quadrennial Energy Review, a road map of policy suggestions the Obama administration released last year to capitalize on a transformed energy landscape while reducing its contribution to climate change.
The QER calls for the creation of a $3 billion to $5 billion grant program for states that can show innovative approaches to improving the resilience and reliability of the electric grid.
It also touts a $3.5 billion request in President Obama's fiscal 2016 budget for an interagency grid modernization initiative (Greenwire, April 21, 2015).
The QER proposes allocating $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion over a decade to repair aging natural gas pipelines and replace old lines.
It also recommends spending more than $2 billion to improve rail and highway infrastructure used to transport energy and other commodities. The effort would leverage up to $5 billion in private investment.
Pallone had signaled last week that pipelines and wires would be a major focus, a move that sparked a partisan debate among members over the amount of money at play in the competing House and Senate bills.
A committee Democratic aide last week said Pallone would make a "strong push" for "guaranteed" infrastructure funding in the final energy bill, but was unclear whether there was a specific dollar amount under discussion (E&E Daily, Sept. 9).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/16/stories/1060042935
-
Republicans Hit EPA Methane Regulations, Tout Voluntary Moves
Sep 16, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
House Republicans sharply questioned the need to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector yesterday, arguing at a hearing that voluntary efforts are enough.
The industry has already "drastically" cut emissions of the heat-trapping gas, Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment, said at the outset. Technological advances now in the works "will only lead to further reductions, without the need for costly and burdensome [U.S.] EPA regulations," he added.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the full committee, accused EPA of cherry-picking data to justify new rules. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) questioned the agency's rationale for action, citing research findings that temperatures have increased little in 18 years.
Playing defense at the sparsely attended hearing was Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), the subcommittee's ranking member. She led off by pointing to the leak from a natural gas storage facility outside Los Angeles that took almost four months to plug after its discovery last October. The Aliso Canyon blowout, which forced the evacuation of thousands of nearby residents and led to enormous methane releases, highlighted the importance of EPA's rules, she said. While the hearing's title labeled those regulations "a solution in search of a problem," methane releases and leaks "are a real problem for many Americans all over this country," Bonamici said.
Under New Source Performance Standards announced in May, EPA regulators are requiring new and heavily modified oil and gas operations to check for and stanch leaks of methane, which is many times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Those standards are part of a White House push to cut industry emissions by as much as 45 percent by 2025 in comparison with 2012 levels. EPA is now moving ahead with plans to curb methane release from existing sources.
In keeping with the hearing's title, however, three of the four witnesses were critical in varying degrees of the agency's game plan.
Erik Milito, upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute, touted the "energy resurgence" that has boosted domestic production of both oil and natural gas. But even as natural gas output has boomed, industry emissions of methane — the main ingredient in natural gas — have declined over the last 20 years, Milito said, showing that innovation is preferable to a "command-and-control regulatory approach."
API is among a host of trade groups now suing to scuttle the New Source standards. The Alison Canyon leak is "completely unrelated" to rules for production facilities, Milito said.
While methane emissions are a serious environmental issue, a market-based strategy offers a better way of addressing them, said Bernard Weinstein, associate director of Southern Methodist University's Maguire Energy Institute in Dallas.
"Methane has value, so why wouldn't you want to capture it?," Weinstein asked. With oil and gas companies now under stress, he said, "I'm not sure it would make a lot of political sense to apply new regulations, new costs."
Globally, methane releases are on the rise, with one recent study suggesting that oil and gas production might be responsible (ClimateWire, Sept. 13).
In the United States, the sector accounts for one-third of all emissions, making it the largest single industrial source, said Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund.
EPA, moreover, has been recalculating the scope. The agency's latest inventory released this April put the 2014 sector total at 9.8 million metric tons, or 34 percent more than previously estimated. Even that figure may be an understatement, Holstein said.
Federal regulations and other steps to cut methane releases are inexpensive, Holstein said, adding that they are important "in stopping the worst effects of climate change."
"We can't afford to wait for the industry to play catch-up with the science," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/16/stories/1060042932
-
EPA Methane Effort Not Supported by Science: House Witnesses
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency's methane regulatory efforts related to the oil and gas industry aren't supported by science, would have minimal environmental impact and would slaughter the economy, witnesses said Sept. 15 at a House Subcommittee on Environment hearing.
Bernard Weinstein, associate director for Southern Methodist University's Maguire Energy Institute, alleged that wetlands and agriculture are “the main culprits” for methane emissions releases--not the oil and gas industry. Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, said that costs of an EPA rule regulating new, modified and reconstructed equipment, processes and activities in the oil and natural gas sector exceeded the benefits.
The hearing centered on the EPA's methane regulatory efforts, methane as a greenhouse gas and how the oil and gas industry is limiting emissions now. This included the agency's final rule (RIN:2060-AS30) aiming to limit methane emissions from new, reconstructed and modified sources in the oil and gas industry that is being challenged in court by several states and gas groups, and the agency's draft information collection related to the oil and gas industry's existing sources.
“EPA's methane rule relies on faulty scientific evidence and data and the final rule constitutes an abuse of authority,” House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said, arguing the regulations end up harming consumers through cost increases. “The methane rule is more of the same from the EPA: a costly and burdensome regulation that is all pain and no gain.”
The Right Approach?
Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, and Democrats disputed much of the opposing witnesses’ remarks and supported the EPA's efforts to limit methane emissions. He argued that methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas that is causing 25 percent of global warming, and regulating those emissions is a prudent step toward preventing the worst impacts of climate change.
Subcommittee ranking member Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) cited Southern California Gas Co.’s four-month natural gas leak in Aliso Canyon in the Los Angeles area to highlight the importance of the EPA's methane regulations. The leak forced thousands of nearby residents to relocate.
Milito countered that it would be inappropriate to conflate Aliso Canyon with methane emissions from production facilities, since underground storage regulations are under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's jurisdiction, and that agency is acting.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) had a back-and-forth with Milito over his assertion that the EPA's final methane limits for new and modified wells were more costly than beneficial. Edwards questioned whether the estimates had included public health in its cost calculations.
Says Methane Not Toxic Pollutant
Initially, Milito said, “Methane is not a toxic pollutant. This is a climate question that we're talking about, and we're looking at whether or not we are achieving methane emission reductions without the costs imposed by regulations.”
At the end of the hearing, he said: “We did in fact look at the benefits of reducing methane emissions. In one case our estimates showed they were greater than what the government showed, but at the same time we saw the costs appreciably higher.”
There wasn't agreement across the aisle or across the three-to-one witness split on how to handle methane emissions appropriately. For example, Milito said the oil and gas industry is proactively working to lower methane emissions with ever-improving technology and would continue to do so without the EPA regulation on methane. Holstein disputed that methane emissions could be reduced adequately without regulation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250425&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250425&jd=97250425
-
House GOP Faults EPA Oil & Gas Methane Regulations
Sep 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
House Republicans are faulting EPA's final new source performance standards (NSPS) limiting emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new oil and gas sector operations and a data request that could inform similar first-time standards for existing operations, saying the agency is “cherry-picking” data to justify the rules.
At a Sept. 15 House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology environment panel hearing on the methane regulations, Democrats nevertheless touted the importance of the standards. An environmentalist testifying at the hearing also said this year's massive natural gas leak in California shows the need for strict regulation of the sector.
EPA's final rule updating its NSPS for the sector set first-time limits on methane from future oil and gas operations, but the regulation faces legal challenges from groups who fault the basis for the rule.
The agency also recently issued for public comment an information collection request outlining a planned multi-stage process for obtaining information from the oil and gas industry about methane emissions from existing sources, a measure that could determine whether and how the next administration will regulate the sources.
At the hearing, environment subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) claimed the NSPS was based on a flawed cost-benefit analysis using a “cherry picking of science, issues of data integrity,” and GHG inventory estimates that did not specify emissions sources.
In response to a line of questioning from Bridenstine on whether the benefits of the rules outweigh the costs, Bernard Weinstein, a professor and associate director at Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, said, EPA's regulatory impact analysis left “costs unaccounted for” and that the regulation does not target areas such as orphan wells that are greater sources of emissions than others.
Anthony Ventello, executive director of Progress Authority said in response to questions from full House science panel Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that the NSPS is expected to have a substantial impact on the cost of improving and completing wells and industry's ability to move natural gas along the sales line.
Committee Democrats, however, sought to use the hearing to highlight the importance of the rule, especially given the massive natural gas leak at the California Aliso Canyon storage facility. For example, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), asked witness to address how the leak might illustrate the need for stronger emissions rules.
Although the Aliso Canyon leak did not involve a new facility, it helps emphasize the importance of a leak detection and repair set of protocol, a key tenet of the NSPS rules, that should be put in place “before a leak becomes a three or four month disaster,” said Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund.
But Erik Milito, upstream and industry operations director at the American Petroleum Institute, said in response to Bonamici's question that the California facility leak is “completely unrelated” to the NSPS rules, and that the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is the agency with oversight over the Aliso Canyon leak. “It's wrong to conflate Aliso Canyon with [EPA] rules at production facilities,” Milito said.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/house-gop-faults-epa-oil-gas-methane-regulations
-
No Need For Legislative Spur On Export Approvals — Moniz
Sep 15, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told lawmakers today that the Obama administration has approved exports of liquefied natural gas in as little as a day and doesn't need an energy bill provision to make the process go faster.
Appearing on Capitol Hill for the second time this week, Moniz rejected accusations from Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power that the Department of Energy is dragging its feet on approving LNG exports.
DOE, he said, has approved almost all applications after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wraps up its environmental reviews of the export terminals within a matter of days.
"The idea that we're somehow dragging this out is simply incorrect," Moniz told Republican Rep. Pete Olson of Texas.
Olson, who chaired the hearing following the departure of Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) from Congress this month, said he'd like to see all permits approved within a day.
Both the House and Senate energy bills contain language setting a 30-day deadline for DOE to make final decisions on exporting LNG to non-trade partners, a provision that has drawn strong support from companies and lawmakers while sparking concern among environmentalists.
The full committee's top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, questioned whether forcing DOE's hand on an export decision could have "unintended consequences." The "arbitrary" timeline of 30 days made little sense, he said, given the department's track record, especially in light of FERC's recent rejection of an export project on the West Coast.
FERC rejected the Jordan Cove LNG project in Oregon earlier this year along with a feeder pipeline. The pipeline would have supplied up to 6.8 million metric tons per year of gas to a new LNG facility targeting small markets in Alaska and Hawaii, as well as major demand centers like Japan, South Korea and China (EnergyWire, March 14).
Moniz told reporters after the hearing that forcing DOE to make a decision without sufficient information from FERC could indeed result in a rejection. DOE should have more information, not less.
"We have consistently said we have no need for this ... and as you said, I think very correctly, there could be unintended consequences," Moniz said. "In fact, we should go in the opposite direction."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/09/15/stories/1060042907
-
Faster-Than-Expected Corrosion Led To Pa. Pipeline Blast, Says Spectra
Sep 15, 2016 | AP (In Fuelfix)
GREENSBURG, Pa. — Faster-than-expected corrosion caused a Pennsylvania natural gas pipeline blast that scorched 40 rural acres in April and badly burned a man whose home was destroyed, the Texas energy company that owns the pipeline said.
Andy Drake, the vice president of operations and environmental health and safety with Houston-based Spectra Energy Corp., shared those findings Tuesday night in Salem Township, Westmoreland County. The 30-inch pipeline burst there April 29.
The pipeline showed some corrosion during a 2012 inspection but not enough to warrant action until 2019. That’s because officials anticipated corrosion would grow 2 to 3 percent annually. Instead, the line corrosion increased about five times faster, or 10 to 15 percent each year, said Drake, who apologized for the failure.
“We’ve never seen anything like this before,” Drake told the township’s board of supervisors, as well as federal and state regulators, at a meeting that drew about 80 residents.
“This is the challenge we’ve put to ourselves: Imagine a person standing next to this pipe — your son, your mother. Are we comfortable that this pipe is absolutely safe everywhere?” Drake said.
Spectra is reviewing 625 other sites along the 265-mile pipeline that runs from a gas transmission station in nearby Delmont to Lambertville, New Jersey. Spectra has dug up 400 of those sites where potential problems have been found and repaired problems found in about a third of those areas. But the company hasn’t found corrosion comparable to what caused the blast, officials said.
The company estimates the digging and repairs will eventually cost $75 million to $100 million.
Preliminary findings by the federal Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration show pipeline welds coated with a protective tape failed, causing the explosion. Spectra officials said the tape was mostly used from 1975 to 1985. The pipeline was installed in 1981.
Drake said there were some factors unique to the Salem Township site that might have caused the blast, including the fact that the gas being pumped there is warmer than most because it’s closest to the transmission station. Other factors with the ground in the area could have caused the kind of wet-dry cycling known to cause the pipes to rust more quickly, too.
Spectra plans to inspect lines more frequently — every three years instead of every five — and lower the threshold for the kinds of corrosion that should prompt immediate repairs.
Carol Webb, the aunt of James Baker, the 26-year-old man burned in the blast, said he was released from the hospital last month and is “doing well,” though he still cannot walk.
She urged the company to respond more quickly when it finds corroded pipes.“If there’s something wrong — the slightest thing that’s wrong — get people out there,” she told Drake. “Make sure it never happens again. That’s all I want. I don’t ever want a family to go through what we’re going through.”
“We share that with you,” Drake said.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/09/14/faster-than-expected-corrosion-led-to-pa-pipeline-blast-says-spectra/
-
Why Do Oil Trains Derail More Often than Ethanol Trains?
Sep 15, 2016 | Desmog
By Justin Mikulka
This is part two in a DeSmog investigative series examining why oil trains derail at higher rates than ethanol trains. More ethanol was moved by rail from 2010-2015 than oil, but oil trains derail at a higher rate and with more severe consequences. Part one addressed train length as a potential factor in derailments.
“Sloshing is an issue. It increases in-train forces. It would be like having a heavy box in the back of your SUV that is not tied down. If you have to slam on the brakes, what happens? The box slides forward into the back of the seat in front of it.”
That was former locomotive engineer and rail safety consultant Bill Keppen describing the effects of “sloshing,” a phenomenon which happens when the liquid contents of incompletely filled rail tank cars start to move — or “slosh” — back and forth during transport. According to Keppen and others in the rail industry, that can potentially increase the chance of a train derailing.
Tim Hammond has 25 years of operations and management experience in the rail industry and currently works as the Chief Transportation Officer at Honeycomb Cargo. Hammond is confident sloshing is a real issue that can increase the chance of derailment and explained to DeSmog one way this can happen:
“If you have any type of sloshing forces that are going to slam forward, especially with the slack, it only lifts those wheels a half inch and you get a derailment.”
Slack, or “slack action,” refers to the level of free movement between a train's loosely coupled cars that allows the train to bend around curves, and can be another risk factor when operating trains.
Hammond also commented on how sloshing can increase the severity of an accident, saying, “The surging or sloshing makes the derailment 10-fold worse just because it keeps pounding [cars] forward and piling them up.”
Keppen and Hammond — people with extensive experience operating trains and managing rail operations — believe sloshing is a legitimate issue that can lead to derailments in general. Could it be one of the reasons that oil trains, in particular, derail more often than ethanol trains?Slosh Factors
One simple reason that sloshing might be more of an issue with oil trains than with ethanol trains is that crude oil is heavier than ethanol. Train tank cars have a total weight limit that regulations say can’t be exceeded. Individual tank cars carrying ethanol, a lighter cargo, are more likely to be filled nearly completely without surpassing the total weight limit. Fuller cars leave only a small amount of headspace, or “outage,” for the contents to slosh around.
However, the total weight limit for trains carrying crude oil, which varies in weight but can be significantly heavier than ethanol, can be reached before the tank car is full, creating more headspace.
As Hammond explained to DeSmog, “What happens is you gross out on the weight prior to filling up the vessel. Maybe the top 20 percent is air. It creates a lot of room to move back and forth — where ethanol is lighter and you have a full vessel and you don’t have the effect.”
Gabe Claypool is president of Dakota Plains Holdings — an oil-by-rail company that loads Bakken oil trains in North Dakota. This past July, at a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) roundtable on rail tank car safety, Claypool made it very clear that the industry is not filling tank cars all the way.
“We take a very systematic approach as an industry to loading these cars and they are all underloaded,” he said.
Is systemic underloading of cars increasing the risk of derailment for Bakken oil trains?
In response to a question about the differences between potential sloshing in ethanol tank cars versus crude oil tank cars, rail safety consultant Keppen told DeSmog, “If the level of oil in a tank car is lower than the level of ethanol, I would say the propensity for sloshing will increase — it’s just physics.” Sloshing in Tank Trucks on the Highway
Bill Keppen’s example of having a loose box in the back of your SUV illustrates how having loose cargo could affect the handling of a motor vehicle on the road. Not surprisingly, sloshing is a well-known risk for tanker trucks carrying oil.
Sloshing forces can cause a tanker truck to roll over on a highway. In testimony for a case in which a gasoline truck flipped over and exploded on a California highway, engineer Don Margolis explained why tanker trucks were unique compared to trucks carrying other types of cargo.
“Loads can shift on all trucks, but the instability of a tanker truck is something that has been recognized for a long time,” said Margolis, a professor of mechanical engineering at UC Davis.
Tanker truck instability due to sloshing has been recognized for a long time. No one denies that. What is surprising, then, is that the rail industry claims sloshing is not an issue when it comes to oil-by-rail accidents.
One interesting thing to note is an actual “note” in a 2010 publication by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) called the “Field Guide to Tank Cars.” On page 30 of that publication, it states the following:
Note: Unlike highway cargo tanks, tank car compartments are not constructed by applying interior walls within a single tank. Further, unlike some cargo tanks, tank cars do not have interior baffles to control lading surges. (emphasis added)
Apparently the AAR was aware in 2010 that rail tank cars have issues with “lading surges,” which is another way to say “sloshing,” and the organization also noted that highway cargo tanks use baffles to control the flow of fluid cargoes, but rail tank cars do not.
Of course, in 2010 no one was worried about bomb trains because at that point, the oil-by-rail business was almost non-existent, and no other liquid products were being moved in large volumes in unit trains of over 100 tank cars.
Yet nowadays regulators, academics, and industry are making assurances that they have studied the issue of sloshing and determined it not to be a risk factor in derailments. However, each group has shown great reluctance either to explain this position or provide any of the studies allegedly supporting it. RailwayAge Denied Access to Regulators
RailwayAge has been publishing news about the rail industry since 1856, making it transportation’s oldest trade magazine.
This particular publication became interested in the issue of sloshing in oil trains after Sarah Feinberg, who at the time was acting chief of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), told reporters on March 13, 2015 that the FRA was looking into sloshing as a potential cause of derailments.
Intrigued by this, RailwayAge submitted questions to the FRA on sloshing, and shortly thereafter sought:
“any documentation it may have on tank car slosh factors, specifically, ‘speed, acceleration, deceleration, curvature of track, grade of track, quality of track, degree of car loading (percent full), center of gravity (tank cars do not have heavy center sills that would lower the center of gravity; the tanks are the structural members), viscosity of contents.”
As RailwayAge reported, the FRA responded with an offer to “make its experts available for an interview.”
On the day of the interview, RailwayAge was told that these experts had issues with travel plans and that the interview would have to be rescheduled. After repeated attempts to reschedule the interview, David Thomas, contributing editor for RailwayAge, was unable either to obtain an interview or have his questions answered. Finally, Thomas sent the following message to the FRA:
“I would like to invite you for a third and final time to schedule an interview with your tank car slosh-factor experts. If I don’t hear from you soon, I will have to proceed with the article without FRA input. I would nonetheless have to mention that it was your Acting Administrator who raised the issue in the first place. It would seem she was all alone on this, without any support from FRA staff. I sincerely hope to avoid having to write the story without your technical insight.”
Thomas never got that technical insight.
DeSmog contacted the FRA requesting information on whether its study on sloshing had been completed or if the FRA had a “a position on the potential for sloshing to cause derailments.”
FRA spokesperson Matthew Lehner responded with the following:
“FRA continues to look at every aspect that we can to improve crude by rail safety. That includes FRA and VOLPE’s ongoing study of whether the sloshing of liquid inside a tank car has a significant effect on the probability of derailment.” VOLPE is the National Transportation Systems Center.
As DeSmog has noted, this “ongoing study” approach to oil-by-rail risk factors has been used to delay action on several known risks, including oil volatility, braking systems, and the risks of unit trains. Oil has been transported by rail via tank cars since the 1860s. It would seem reasonable to expect that the issue of the physics of oil in a tank car should be resolved and not require further study, but that is apparently not the case. Industry Expert and Lobbying Group Says Sloshing Is Not An Issue
However, while the FRA continues to study this issue, the rail industry at large has concluded that sloshing isn’t an issue at all. In July, for hearings on the proposed Tesoro Savage oil-by-rail facility in Vancouver, Washington, Dr. Christopher Barkan testified in support of the project and commented on the issue of sloshing:
“Studies have been done. I’ll say roughly half a dozen or so studies have been done over the last three decades at least looking for an effect. Nobody has ever found a significant effect.
The railroad industry themselves, last year, re-asked this question because of the concern about some of the recent derailments and again looked through all of the literature that they could find and all of the tests and could find no evidence that this was having an effect.”
Dr. Barkan is a professor of civil engineering with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and leads research on rail safety, with funding from the railroads. Prior to Dr. Barkan’s current position, he worked for 10 years for the AAR, the rail industry’s top lobbying group.
Both industry and industry-funded researchers appear to have concluded that sloshing is not a factor in oil train derailments.
However, despite what appears to be consensus on the issue, DeSmog has been unable to obtain copies of the studies or the recent industry literature review which Dr. Barkan referenced in his testimony.
BNSF, one of the companies funding Dr. Barkan’s research and the train company that would be moving the oil to the proposed Tesoro Savage facility, responded to an inquiry, saying, “Your questions are best answered by the team at Vancouver Energy.”
BNSF failed to confirm whether they were involved in the recent industry literature review Dr. Barkan mentioned.
Vancouver Energy responded by saying, “As we are currently still in the adjudicative review process, it would be most appropriate for us to point you to the information Chris Barkan provided during his expert testimony.” That information did not include details of the alleged half dozen studies performed on this topic in recent decades.
Dr. Barkan did not respond to two email inquiries requesting information on these “half a dozen or so studies” he claims support the idea that sloshing is not a risk factor in oil train operation.
A spokesperson for the Association of American Railroads said with regard to these studies, he was “not in a position to release industry research at this time as it contains proprietary information.” However, he did say that “this is something that has been studied over the decades and continues to be monitored, but, evidence to date indicates sloshing does not have an effect on overall train handling.”
If research in the form of multiple completed studies has determined that sloshing is not a risk factor in oil train derailments, then where are these studies and why aren't they available?
One place to look for insights into the world of rail operations is anonymous message boards such as the one on trainorders.com in which a conversation about sloshing occurred long before today's Bakken oil trains. While this online conversation is filled with stories about the impacts of sloshing, the comment that sums up the issue best cuts to the chase: “To make a long story short, when it came time to stop for the red signal, I almost crapped all over myself.”
Lobbyists say sloshing isn’t an issue. People operating trains have a different story. Sloshing — It’s Just Physics
Could sloshing of partially filled oil train tank cars be contributing to increased derailments among oil trains? If oil tank cars aren’t being filled completely and ethanol tank cars are, then sloshing seems more likely to occur in oil trains, perhaps helping account for the difference in derailments between the two cargo types.
However, a clear disconnect exists between what the industry says officially and what independent, experienced rail people such as Bill Keppen and Tim Hammond say about whether sloshing is a factor at all, regardless of the type of liquid in the tank cars. The industry, while failing to provide any supporting data or documentation, claims evidence abounds and concludes that sloshing is not a factor in derailments. They hold this position despite the Association of American Railroads having acknowledged the existence of “lading surges” in tank cars as recently as 2010.
While public relations officials and a professor currently funded by the rail industry and formerly employed by a rail lobbying group both contend that sloshing isn’t an issue, people like Tim Hammond see things a little differently.
“You’re talking about some extreme forces,” he said, “and when you throw that sloshing back and forth on top of it, and it doesn’t necessarily have to lift the wheels — that is just one of the ways you can have a major incident. Sloshing is definitely an issue and not just an issue that creates derailments, but it is a major issue in many cases I’ve investigated that makes a small derailment a big derailment.”
Or, to repeat former locomotive engineer Bill Keppen, “It’s just physics.”
While we await the results of the industry's and government's studies —150 years after the first oil tank car rode the rails — we should keep in mind the warning of Christopher Hart, current head of the National Transportation Safety Board.
“We’ve been lucky thus far that derailments involving flammable liquids in America have not yet occurred in a populated area,” Hart said. “But an American version of Lac-Mégantic could happen at any time. Instead of happening out in the middle of a wheat field it could happen in the middle of a big city.”
The Bakken oil train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada, killed 47 people.
As these safety issues are ignored, dismissed, or continued to be studied, an important question remains: How long until that luck runs out?
http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/15/why-do-oil-trains-derail-more-often-ethanol-trains
-
EPA's Stricter Ozone Ambient Air Standard Faces Competing Legal Attacks
Sep 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) is facing competing legal attacks in federal appeals court, with some states and groups representing major industries claiming the agency lacked justification for the move, while environmentalists say scientific data warrants an even-stricter limit.
Various petitioners that filed suit over the Oct. 1 rulemaking submitted briefs Sept. 14 in consolidated litigation over the standard pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, titled Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA. Although the groups are attacking the standard as either too stringent or too weak, the court in other suits has shown significant deference to the agency's review of its NAAQS.
EPA's rule tightened the ozone limit from the 2008 standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb. The agency applied the same standard to both the primary NAAQS, required by the air law to protect human health with an “adequate margin of safety,” and the secondary NAAQS that is aimed at protecting the environment.
Industry groups and some states claim that there is inadequate scientific justification for the move, and warn that high levels of naturally occurring “background ozone” -- which is impossible to regulate -- will frustrate their attempts to attain the standard. EPA has said it does not believe background ozone will create such problems.
Environmentalists support a tighter NAAQS but say that data on ozone's adverse health and environmental impacts means a stricter limit is vital to meet the Clean Air Act's standard for how to set the limits.
EPA has defended the decision as satisfying the mandate that the NAAQS be set at a level requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and its scientific advisors backed the limit. But the pending lawsuits attacks the agency's decision separately as too stringent and too weak.
The Clean Air Act and Supreme Court precedent, EPA argues, require the agency to set NAAQS without regard to the costs of implementation. EPA says it takes these costs into account later, when setting rules for implementation. Critics of the ozone limit say, however, that EPA cannot disregard whether the rule can actually be achieved.
Background Ozone
In their Sept. 15 brief, industry groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute say, “EPA asserts that background ozone levels will not prevent attainment of the standard. But that assertion refers to background ozone levels by themselves. EPA ignores that background levels can so significantly contribute to total ozone in some parts of the country that, in combination with some allowance for man-made U.S. emissions (which cannot be reduced to zero, as EPA does not dispute), they effectively preclude attainment.”
They further claim that Congress' intent that NAAQS be achieved through regulation of domestic sources means that “achievability can and must be considered in setting the standards.”
The groups fault as inadequate EPA's suggested options for mitigating background ozone. The agency has cited its “exceptional events” rule as one such tool, enabling states to exclude air monitoring data gathered during unusual events such as dust storms or wildfires from counting toward NAAQS attainment. EPA is now revising the rule to make it function more effectively, after complaints from states that the rule places too much burden on state regulators to prove the events in question qualify as “exceptional,” and that EPA has been too slow to process state's requests to exclude data. The agency plans to release its revised rule in final form this fall.
But the industry groups argue that these options fall short, citing states' concerns in their separate brief that they are not sufficiently comprehensive, disqualifying too many events from “exceptional” status, for example. Nor does the exceptional events rule help states avoid nonattainent. “Instead, they merely lighten certain punitive restrictions that a nonattainment area faces,” the states argue in their brief.
Cost Concerns
In their brief, the industry groups also refute EPA's argument that all consideration of costs in the NAAQS-setting process is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's landmark 2001 ruling in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, and revive the notion that costs that impact public health should legitimately be considered.
The ruling “does not foreclose consideration of the public’s tolerance for and acceptability of the incremental risks that would be addressed by lowering the standard. Because the overall adverse social, economic, and energy impacts of a lowered standard can, and likely would, affect that acceptability, those factors can and should be considered in this context,” they say -- although environmentalists say the ruling outright bars EPA weighing any costs.
Some EPA critics note that the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which advises the agency on the level of the NAAQS, is charged by the Clean Air Act with advising EPA of the social, economic and energy impacts of its NAAQS rules. However, it has never done so, and both CASAC and the agency have until now insisted that the obligation does not pertain to the setting of individual NAAQS.
The industry petitioners also argue that EPA did not respond adequately to their argument that the agency failed to explain its shift in thinking from the review that produced the 2008 ozone NAAQS to that for the 2015 standard, with respect to key scientific studies on both human health and plant growth.
The coalition of 10 states opposed to the tougher standard in its separate Sept. 14 brief makes many of the same points as the industry filing. “More than a poor reading of the statute, the clash EPA has created between what States can 'achieve' and what is 'requisite' for the 'public health' invites a cascade of resulting harms, including a constitutional infirmity in the Clean Air Act itself. This Court should insist that the Agency reasonably address the problem of uncontrollable ozone and thereby reconcile the respective obligations of EPA and the States,” the states say.
The states -- Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wiscison -- criticize EPA's claim that it tightened the NAAQS based on a “forest of evidence” of ozone's harmful effects. They say that the agency's scientific “conclusions rest overwhelmingly on a single study riddled with limitations,” referencing a study showing adverse effects to healthy adults when exposed to ozone while exercising.
Environmentalists' Criticisms
Environmentalists led by Sierra Club, however, take a starkly different view of the scientific evidence, and a very different interpretation of the Clean Air Act, in their reply brief. Although advocates are defending the decision to tighten the NAAQS from 75 ppb, they argue the agency should have tighened it down to 60 ppb.
“EPA affirms that most healthy adults exposed in a controlled human experiment to such ozone levels experienced adverse effects,” the groups say of the 70 ppb standard in their Sept. 14 brief.
Further, they say, EPA admits that both the level of the NAAQS, and its “form,” which allows ozone levels to exceed the NAAQS multiple times over a three-year period without triggering a violation, will expose thousands of vulnerable groups, such as children and asthmatics, to harmful effects.
The NAAQS is also “independently arbitrary,” and hence unlawful, because EPA gave “irrational explanations” for finding that 72 ppb was the lowest level at which ozone causes adverse effects, they claim.
EPA has said a 70 ppb limit provides the requisite margin of safety, but CASAC has twice unanimously backed a NAAQS within a range of 60 ppb to 70 ppb. CASAC “repeatedly provided scientific evidence” that sensitive populations “virtually certainly experience adverse effects” at levels below 70 ppb, the brief says.
The environmentalists further claim that EPA unlawfully “reverse engineered” its secondary standard to be the same as the primary NAAQS, despite having earlier floated a distinct secondary standard using a different form based on effects over the summertime ozone season.
Environmentalists in their brief do not address the arguments raised over background ozone by industry and states, except to say in a footnote that, “proximity to background is legally irrelevant in standard-setting.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-stricter-ozone-ambient-air-standard-faces-competing-legal-attacks
-
Ozone Implementation Rule Reasonable, EPA Tells Court
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A regulation governing implementation of the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion contains reasonable requirements and should be upheld, the Environmental Protection Agency told a federal appeals court.
The EPA, in a brief filed Sept. 13, defended its regulation from legal challenges raised by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the local pollution regulatory agency for the Los Angeles area, and a coalition of environmental advocates that includes the Sierra Club and the Conservation Law Foundation. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
The implementation rule (RIN:2060-AR34), issued in 2015, established various requirements for state pollution plans outlining strategies to bring areas into compliance with the 2008 ozone standards. The rule also revoked the Clinton-era 1997 ozone standards.
One of the challenges advanced by the environmental petitioners is that the EPA irrationally decided to revoke the 1997 ozone standards, a decision that the groups argued would waive consequences for areas that fail to attain the standards by deadlines set by Congress. However, the EPA argued in its brief that the agency does have the authority to revoke standards that have been “superseded” as a result of mandatory five-year reviews of national ambient air quality standards, or NAAQS.
“The 1997 eight-hour NAAQS was superceded by the identically structured and clearly more stringent 2008 eight-hour NAAQS,” the agency said. “Because it is mathematically impossible to attain the 2008 NAAQS without first attaining the 1997 NAAQS,” the 1997 standards have been “rendered ‘largely superfluous from a health protection standpoint.’”
Anti-Backsliding Language Defended
The EPA said its implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standards imposes 17 anti-backsliding requirements that are “more than adequate” to ensure that air quality doesn't deteriorate as a result of the revocation of the 1997 ozone standards.
The agency also defended its treatment of “orphan nonattainment areas,” which are areas that are designated as being in nonattainment for the 1997 standards but are in attainment for the 2008 standards. The environmental petitioners argued that the EPA unlawfully waived a Clean Air Act requirement that those areas adopt plans providing for maintenance of the ozone standards.
The environmental coalition's arguments related to the orphan nonattainment areas fail because those areas aren't subject to anti-backsliding requirements, the EPA argued. Those areas are deemed to have met the 1997 ozone standards for anti-backsliding purposes due to their attainment status under the 2008 standards, which are more stringent, according to the EPA.
EPA: Court Decision Guided Approach
The EPA also disputed an argument raised by Los Angeles-area air regulators against the implementation rule's provisions governing “reasonable further progress” obligations under the 2008 ozone standards. The Clean Air Act requires moderate and serious nonattainment areas, which have more serious pollution problems, to show how they will achieve annual incremental pollution reductions.
The EPA wrongly concluded that it can't allow states to meet those reasonable further progress requirements by taking credit for pollution reductions from sources outside of a nonattainment area, the South Coast Air Quality Management District argued.
However, the EPA said it made a reasonable interpretation of statutory language following a 2009 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held the EPA must show that reasonable available control technology-level emissions reductions are achieved within a nonattainment area Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 69 ERC 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
The EPA is represented by Heather E. Gange, an attorney with the U.S. Justice Department's Environment & Natural Resources Division. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is represented by Barbara Baird, the agency's chief deputy counsel, while the environmental petitioners are represented by Earthjustice attorney Seth Johnson.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250426&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250426&jd=97250426
-
Washington Rule to Curb 19 Million Tons of Greenhouse Gases
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington state's largest greenhouse gas emitters will be required to cap and gradually reduce their emissions beginning in 2017 as the governor makes good on a pledge to use his executive authority to address climate change.
The Clean Air Rule, adopted Sept. 15 by the state Department of Ecology, is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 19 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035. Beginning in 2017, it requires entities that emit more than 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases to achieve an annual average reduction of 1.7 percent by 2020 from a five-year baseline period ending in 2016. The cap will diminish by 5,000 metric tons every three years and thus sweep new businesses into the regulatory program.
The ecology department has identified several businesses potentially covered by the rule, including refineries such as BP - Cherry Point, Phillips 66 - Ferndale, Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co. - Anacortes, Shell Puget Sound - Anacortes and U.S. Oil and Refining Co. - Tacoma.
The rule could also cover natural gas distributors such as Avista Corp., Cascade Natural Gas Corp. and Puget Sound Energy. Other well-known names listed by the department include Alcoa Wenatchee Works, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Kaiser Aluminum Washington and Tyson Fresh Meats Inc.
Some Industries Get Extra Time
Businesses can also comply with the reduction requirements by purchasing allowances called emission reduction units from others in the state program or from other approved carbon markets. But the program set limits on the percentage of an entity's regulatory compliance that can be obtained through purchasing allowances, starting with 100 percent and decreasing to 50 percent by 2026 and 5 percent by 2035.
Emission reduction units can be earned by a business reducing its emissions beyond the levels required by the rule. And businesses not required to participate in the program can do so voluntarily, cutting their emissions and earning credits that can be banked or sold.
An earlier iteration of the rule was withdrawn after complaints from business—particularly from energy-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) sectors. The final rule gives extra time to petroleum importers and energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries such as aluminum smelting, cement kilns and pulp mills by allowing them to enter the program in 2020 with their first emissions reduction due by 2023.
The energy-intensive businesses also receive consideration under the rule for past emission reductions. Average energy intensive industries are required to cut emissions by 1.7 percent per year; less efficient ones by 1.8 percent to 2.7 percent per year and the most efficient ones by .7 to 1.6 percent annually.
Governor Flexes Executive Power
Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said in July 2015 that he would take executive action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under existing authority of the state Clean Air Act after the Republican-controlled Senate stymied his proposals to institute a cap-and-trade proposal and set low-carbon fuel standards in the 2015 legislative session. Inslee ordered the ecology department to adopt a rule that would cap greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition to carbon dioxide, other regulated greenhouse gases include:
• Nitrous Oxide;
• Methane;
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
• Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs);
• Sulfur hexafluoride; and
• Nitrogen trifluoride.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250424&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250424&jd=97250424
-
PCB Cleanup Costs California Utility $1.25 Million
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Imperial Irrigation District spent $1.25 million cleaning up polychlorinated biphenyls found at power substations in California's Coachella Valley.
The cleanup effort stemmed from a 2015 enforcement action and settlement involving alleged improper disposal of PCBs, the Environmental Protection Agency said Sept. 14 in announcing completion of the project.
As part of the settlement, Imperial paid $379,000 in civil penalties for violating the Toxic Substances Control Act in addition to the cleanup costs, the EPA said.
“Through cooperation, IID was able to reduce penalties and instead use those funds towards clean-up of the Indio and Coachella substations and the replacement of older equipment,” the utility told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Imperial removed 1,863 tons of tainted soils and debris from its decommissioned substation in Indio and another 31 tons from the former Coachella substation. The utility also commissioned an independent study of nine additional substations in Indio, Mecca, Brawley, El Central and Calexico. It replaced older PCB-containing electrical equipment with newer PCB-free equipment at its active facilities.
The project removed 78,530 pounds of PCBs from the environment, the EPA said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250429&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250429&jd=97250429
-
G-20 Panel Works on Business Climate Reporting Plan
Sep 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
An international task force aimed at improving transparency in how companies report their climate change risks met in Paris this week to take steps toward creating a framework for voluntary standards.
The Group of 20 Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures met Sept. 13–14 in a closed-door plenary at the Paris headquarters of French insurance multinational AXA to refine a set of recommendations for companies to better disclose their climate risks within the context of their financial filings, a spokeswoman said.
Risks could include such things as energy companies that might in the future be forced to leave fossil fuel reserves unextracted because of new regulations on carbon emissions.
Segolene Royal, French ecology minister and current president of the United Nations climate talks process, said she discussed with the task force some of the challenges to raising money to fight climate change, a crucial issue in last year's Paris climate talks.
‘Need for Transparency.'
The 31-member G-20 panel is scheduled to meet again Oct. 11–12 in London to work on the recommendations behind closed doors, followed by a public event Oct. 13 in Amsterdam.
In November, it will present the recommendations to the G-20 Financial Stability Board, a body launched to contend with the aftermath of the global financial crisis, she said.
The board created the task force late last year to address a lack of a coherent framework for disclosure among G-20 countries—leading rich and developing nations—and to provide access to clear and comparable information on climate-related risks for investors, lenders and insurers, as well as regulators, a U.S. regulator said earlier this year.
Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg BNA parent Bloomberg L.P., is chairman of the task force.
The task force presented a Phase 1 progress report to the Financial Stability Board in March looking at how such information has been disclosed in G-20 countries. The new recommendations will be included in a Phase 2 report scheduled for release in December, the spokeswoman said.
French Green Bonds
In other news, Royale said France plans to become the first country to issue state “green bonds” starting next year. The ministry previously said France aims to raise as much as 9 billion euros ($10.2 billion) over several years, if the market is receptive.
Royal said green finance projects must be transparent and there should be a clear definition of what qualifies as such a project.
“Sectoral targets for greenhouse gas reductions are needed to assess” results of such projects, she said.
Royal said nearly 1 billion euros ($1.13 billion) of investment funds have obtained France's official label Energy and Ecological Transition for the Climate that the country launched six months ago. She said an AXA fund of some 100 million euros had obtained the label.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97250417&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97250417&jd=97250417
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested