ACC AM 9/29/16

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Valiant Organics Coming With An IPO To Raise Rs 21.23 Crore

   Sep 28, 2016 | Mint Market Info

   Valiant Organics is coming out with an initial public offering (IPO) of 9,64,800 equity shares of face value of Rs 10 each for cash at a fixed price of Rs 220 per equity share.

LCSA News

2. (ACC Mentioned) States Told Don't Worry About Preemption of Toxics Efforts

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Lee
   
   
   The recently passed overhaul of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act shouldn't discourage states from forging ahead with their own homegrown regulations, a group of environmental officials said Sept. 27.

Chemical Management News

3. New Toxicity Tests Must Offer Solutions, Companies Say

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto
   
   
   Alternative toxicity testing strategies must reduce liabilities, lead to the selection of safer molecules or have other concrete benefits to be used widely, pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers told federal agencies Sept. 27.
4. EPA Weighs Response To Advocates' Call For Adding 25 Chemicals To TRI

   Sep 28, 2016 | Inside EPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo
   
   
   EPA is planning to respond within 12 months to environmentalists' petition asking the agency to add 25 chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) that requires some companies to report releases of substances, with the advocates saying the chemicals all have either emerging or known adverse effects that warrant their listing on TRI.
5. Institute Reviews Possible Small Brominated Alkyl Alcohols Restriction

   Sep 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   The Öko-Institut has launched a stakeholder consultation to review a possible restriction of small brominated alkyl alcohols under the EU Directive on the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS2).
6. Searchable List of EU Chemicals Available for Companies

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   The European Chemicals Agency released a searchable list of about 7,000 chemicals that identifies lead registrants, allowing other makers of the same compound to collaborate in preparing for the May 31, 2018, European Union REACH registration deadline.
7. EU Regulation Encourages Switch to Non-Animal Chemical Tests

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner
   
   
   Chemical companies will have more leeway starting next month to use data derived from non-animal tests to meet European Union regulatory requirements on substance safety.

Energy News

8. Pennsylvania Focused on Attracting More NatGas End-Users

   Sep 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Jamison Cocklin
   
   
   Some of Pennsylvania's leading private and public sector economic development organizations are stepping-up their efforts to expand markets for natural gas in the state as the upstream and midstream booms of years past are increasingly giving way to more downstream opportunities.
9. Greens Lay A Gas Trap For Clinton

   Sep 29, 2016 | PoliticoPro

   By Elana Schor
   
   
   Hillary Clinton has won stalwart support from green activists who once doubted her commitment to fighting climate change — but if she can get past Donald Trump in November, she'll face a political minefield over natural gas.
10. The Latest Attacks On The EPA’s Plan For Clean Power Make No Sense

    Sep 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    By Editorial Board
    
    
    IN WHAT may lead to the definitive word on President Obama’s signature climate-change policy, the nation’s second-most prominent court heard several hours of arguments Tuesday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan.
11. Clean Power Plan Fate Rests on Congressional Intentions

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrew Childers
    
    
    The fate of the Obama administration's carbon dioxide limits for power plants will likely turn on whether federal appellate judges believe Congress clearly granted authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate that broadly, attorneys who argued the case said.
12. Divided Court Appears To Make Partisan Outcome In ESPS Suit Less Likely

    Sep 28, 2016 | InsideEPA

    The 10 appellate judges that heard arguments over EPA's signature power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule Sept. 27 appear closely divided on many of the threshold legal issues they are considering, suggesting the outcome of the landmark suit may not be as predictable as the partisan makeup of the court may suggest.
13. Power Sector Would Save Millions Under Reporting Change: EPA

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    Changing reporting requirements under federal power plant emissions standards could save the utility sector about $4.2 million per year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
14. Supporters of Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures in Colorado End Campaign

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Tripp Baltz
    
    
    Supporters of two anti-fracking ballot measures in Colorado said they are dropping their 2016 campaign but will turn their attention to defeating a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it harder for future citizens’ initiatives to succeed.
15. Enviros Vow To Block Colo. Measure That Could Aid Drillers

    Sep 29, 2016 | E&E News PM

    By Jennifer Yachnin
    
    
    Colorado environmentalists along with a coalition of progressive organizations announced today they will work to block a November ballot measure aimed at making it more difficult to amend the state's constitution, including recent efforts to curtail oil and gas production in the state.
16. North Dakota Chief Archaeologist Finds No Artifacts in Pipeline Route

    Sep 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec
    
    
    A recent inspection by North Dakota Chief Archaeologist Paul Picha turned up no artifacts or burial remains in a disputed part of the four-state Dakota Access oil pipeline route near a Native American reservation in the south-central part of the state.

Chemical Security News

17. Federal Board Finds Fault in 2014 W.Va. Chemical Spill

    Sep 28, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Kris Maher
    
    
    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Wednesday that a chemical spill that contaminated the drinking water of 300,000 people in Charleston, W.Va., in early 2014 could have been prevented with storage-tank inspections and that better local coordination could have mitigated the disruption.
18. Williams Slapped With $13.6M Jury Verdict for Plant Blast

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Nushin Huq
    
    
    A Louisiana jury found that pipeline company Williams Cos. bore the brunt of the blame in a deadly 2013 plant explosion in Louisiana and awarded four injured workers a $13.6 million verdict (Thompson v. Williams Companies Inc., La. Dist. Ct., No. 72701, 9/26/16).

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

Environment News

19. More Than 1.8 Million Exposed to Risks From Oil Sites: Report

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rachel Leven
    
    
    More than 1.81 million Latinos live within a half-mile of an existing oil and natural gas facility, exposing them to health risks such as asthma and cancer from related air pollution, according to a report released Sept. 28.
20. Advocates Sue EPA To Force Action On PM2.5 Air Plans

    Sep 29, 2016 | Inside EPA

    Environmentalists are suing EPA over numerous deadlines the group says the agency has missed for implementation of its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), including requirements to decide on whether to approve states' revised plans for reducing pollution in order to meet the standards.
21. The Carbon Tax Is Not Just Political; It's Ineffective, Too

    Sep 29, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits

    By Benjamin Zycher
    
    
    In a recent editorial in support of a carbon tax, The Washington Post complains that "Americans are burning record amounts of gasoline," arguing that "one of the most glaring ... flaws" of the "Environmental Protection Agency fuel-efficiency mandates" is the reality that the regulations "cannot control how much people drive or what type of vehicles people buy."
22. Think Tank Urges Conservatives To Consider Carbon Tax

    Sep 29, 2016 | E&E Daily

    By Hannah Hess
    
    
    Conservatives should consider a revenue-neutral carbon tax rather than "command-and-control" regulations to address pollution, a free-market think tank argued in a study released today.
23. Congress Shouldn’t Consider TPP During Lame Duck Session

    Sep 28, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.)
    
    
    The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be the largest free trade agreement in history, with 12 nations representing 40 percent of the global market. In this context, the potential impact on the economy, the environment and American jobs is huge.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Valiant Organics Coming With An IPO To Raise Rs 21.23 Crore

   Sep 28, 2016 | Mint Market Info

   Valiant Organics

   Valiant Organics is coming out with an initial public offering (IPO) of 9,64,800 equity shares of face value of Rs 10 each for cash at a fixed price of Rs 220 per equity share.The issue will open on September 29, 2016 and will close on October 04, 2016.The shares will be listed on SME platform of BSE.The share is priced at 22 times of its face value of Rs 10.Book running lead manager to the issue is Aryaman Financial Services.Compliance Officer for the issue is Prashant Gaikwad.

   Profile of the company

   Valiant Organics is a chemical manufacturing company with focus on manufacturing and marketing of different types of chlorophenol which is a chemical which has several applications mainly into agro-chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, dyes industry, manufacturing of cosmetics and veterinary drugs. It operates a single location manufacturing facility at Sarigam Industrial Estate having an installed capacity of 4,800 metric tonnes per annum.

   This business was originally begun in the year 1984 as a partnership concern in the name and style of Valiant Chemical Corporation and the company was incorporated as a private limited company in 2005 with an object to acquire this partnership firm and subsequently the business is being run in the company. In 2015, the company was further converted into public limited company.

   The company’s factory is well equipped with latest technology and advanced instruments in order to meet the international standards of quality which is well accepted not only by Indian customers, but also by its overseas customers in Europe, United States of America and Asia. It also offers customised specification of Chlorophenols as per the customer needs. The company’s manufacturing unit is strategically located at Sarigam in UmbergaonTaluka in Valsad District which is approximately at a distance of 180 kms from its main export port - NhavaSheva Port (JNPT) and approximately 155 kms from its office in Mumbai.

   Proceed is being used for:

   The object of the offer is to achieve the benefits of listing the Equity Shares on the Stock Exchanges and to carry out the Offer for Sale. The listing of the Equity Shares will enhance the company’s brand name and provide liquidity to the existing shareholders. Listing will also provide a public market for the Equity Shares in India. The company will not receive any proceeds from the offer and all proceeds from the offer shall go to the selling shareholders.

   Industry overview

   The global chemicals industry has grown steadily over the past several decades. Chemical industry data cited by OECD indicate that global chemical industry output was valued at $171 billion in 1970. In 2010, industry sources valued global output at $4.12 trillion. These figures are not adjusted to account for inflation on or price changes, so they do not represent the real growth of the industry. In real terms, information on growth is available through production indices calculated by the industry. In the decade 2000 to 2010, the Global Chemical Production Regional Index calculated by the American Chemistry Council shows that total production increased 54 per cent. Certain countries experienced particularly rapid growth; for example, in China, production nearly tripled over that time period. In 2010, China was the largest chemical producing country, with sales of $754 billion.

   The chemical industry in India is a key constituent of Indian economy, accounting for about 2.11 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP). In terms of volume of production, Indian chemical industry is the third largest producer in Asia and sixth largest in the world. Indian chemical industry generated business worth US$ 118 billion in 2014. Bulk chemicals account for 39 per cent of the Indian chemical industry, followed by agrochemicals (20.3 per cent) and specialty chemicals (19.5 per cent). Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology accounted for the remaining share.India’s growing per capita consumption and demand for agriculture-related chemicals offers huge scope of growth for the sector in the future. Lured by the size and returns of the Indian market, foreign firms have strengthened their presence in India. From April 2000 to May 2015, total foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into the Indian chemicals industry (excluding fertilizers) were $10.49 billion.

   The Government of India has been supportive to the sector. 100 per cent FDI is permissible in the Indian chemicals sector while manufacturing of most chemical products is de-licensed. The government has also been encouraging Research and Development (R&D) in the sector. Moreover, the government is continuously reducing the list of reserved chemical items for production in the small-scale sector, thereby facilitating greater investment in technology up-gradation and modernisation. The Government has launched the Draft National Chemical Policy, which aims to increase chemical sector’s share in country’s GDP.

   Pros and strengths

   Unique product portfolio: The company manufactures mono chlorophenols, namely Para Chlorophenol and Ortho Chlorophenol and di-chlorophenols, namely 2,4 Di-chlorophenol and 2,6 Di-chlorophenol. The chlorophenols it manufactures are mostly used in agrochemical, dyes and pharmaceutical industry as intermediates. There are not many dedicated manufacturers of this product in India or in its export markets and hence it is able to price its products without substantial competition. The company’s unique product portfolio coupled with its ability to customize when required, provides it a competitive advantage in its sector.

   Fully integrated manufacturing facility: The company carries on all of its core manufacturing activities in-house and there is no substantial dependence on job-work of external manufacturing. The company manufacturing unit is fully integrated and self-sufficient. The raw materials and consumables are readily available. Further, all other utilities like fuel, power and human resources have posed no hurdle till date. All the equipments required for manufacturing the products in place.

   Existing well established goodwill and client relationships: The company constantly tries to address customer needs with a variety of products. Its existing client relationships help it to get repeat business from its customers. This has helped it to maintain a long term working relationship with its customers and improve its customer retention strategy. The company has existing client relationships with companies which get it repeat orders. The company’s existing relationship and goodwill amongst its buyer markets represents a competitive advantage in gaining new clients and increasing its business with existing clients.

   Risks and concerns

   Significant revenue from limited number of customers: The company derives its entire operational revenues from sale of chlorophenols in the domestic as well as overseas market. It depends on a limited number of customers for a significant portion of its revenues. Revenue from its top 10 customers constituted 82.08% and 74.78% of its net sales for fiscal 2015 and 2016 respectively. The company’s sales are on order basis and it does not have any contractual sales Demand for its products is related to customer’s requirements which are further related to factors such as demand of products where chlorophenols are applied in the manufacturing process and also the quality of products supplied by it. Further, the company faces competition from overseas manufacturers in the international market. However, the company has good relationship with its customers, any loss of customer base, out of its existing customers, will impact its overall sales, resulting in a sharp decline in its revenues. Also, any reduction in orders from its existing clients may result in a decline in its revenues. While, the company is constantly striving to increase its customer base and reduce dependence on any particular customer, there is no assurance that it will be able to broaden its customer base in any future periods or that its business or results of operations will not be adversely affected by a reduction in demand or cessation of its relationship with any of its major customers.

   Geographical constraints: The company’s manufacturing operations have been geographically concentrated in the State of Gujarat. Though, the company has customer relations in various parts of India, its export market is limited to a few regions in U.S.A., Europe and Asia. Its total export sales for the financial year 2015-16 amounted to 44.35% of the total sales. The company’s business is therefore significantly dependent on the general economic condition and activity in the domestic and international market in which it operates along with the Government policies relating to chemical industry in all these regions, including central, state and local government policies in India. If the company undertakes operations in different geographical locations than those currently is; it may be affected by various factors, including but not limited to adjusting its products to the new geographic area, ascertaining the creditworthiness of the buyer and maintain credit terms with the same, obtaining necessary government and other approvals in time or at all, failure to realize expected synergies and cost savings, attracting potential customers in a market in which it does not have significant experience, and cost of hiring new employees and absorbing increased costs.

   Competition: There are very few manufacturers of chlorophenol in India. The company sees Chinese manufacturers of chlorophenols as its primary competitors. It faces substantial competition on the basis of product range, product quality, and product price including factors, based on reputation, needs, and customer convenience. Growing competition may result in a decline in its market share and may affect its margins which may adversely affect its business operations and its financial condition.

   Outlook

   The company is a chemical manufacturing company with focus on manufacturing and marketing of different types of chlorophenol which is a chemical which has several applications mainly into agro-chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, dyes industry, manufacturing of cosmetics and veterinary drugs. It operates a single location manufacturing facility at Sarigam Industrial Estate having an installed capacity of 4,800 metric tonnes per annum. On the concern side, the company depends on a limited number of customers for a significant portion of its revenues. The loss of a major customer or significant reduction in production and sales of, or demand for its products from, its major customers may adversely affect its business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The company’s revenue derived from sales in the exports market is limited to few regions. Its growth strategy to expand into new geographic areas outside India and within India poses risks. It may not be able to successfully manage some or all of such risks, which may have a material adverse effect on its revenues, profits and financial condition.

   On performance front, the company’s total income decreased 11.22% to Rs 53.48 crore in FY16 as compared to Rs 60.24 crore in FY15, due to lower revenue from sale of products as compared to last year as well as overall drop in commodity prices. However, the company’s net profit surged significantly by 41.82% to Rs 10.31 crore in FY16 as compared to Rs 7.27 crore in FY15, on the back of better efficiency and effective cost management of the its overall expenses. From the shareholders’ perspective, the company’s Return on Net worth ratio has increased significantly to 45.30% in FY16 from 33.98% in FY15 and 29.73% in FY14, indicating that it has utilized the shareholder’s investment in very well manner to create returns for them. In focus areas, the company has constantly enhanced its production capabilities. It plans to increase its installed capacity from existing 4800 MTPA to 21600MTPA over the period of the next three years. It currently operates at almost full utilizations of its installed capacities. The enhanced capacity will aid the company in establishing market leadership and increase more customers.

   http://money.livemint.com/news/ipo/analysis/valiant-organics-coming-with-an-ipo-to-raise-rs-21-23-crore-493832.aspx
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

2. (ACC Mentioned) States Told Don't Worry About Preemption of Toxics Efforts

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Lee

   The recently passed overhaul of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act shouldn't discourage states from forging ahead with their own homegrown regulations, a group of environmental officials said Sept. 27.
   

   Those overhauls have sparked concerns among states with active chemical programs about the impact of federal preemption.

   In Washington state, for example, the Department of Ecology recently sponsored legislation that would grant it the authority to ban the chemicals it determined were most dangerous. Some of those chemicals are found in roofing materials and chalk children use to draw on the sidewalk, said Maia Bellon, the agency's head.

   “We thought we were being creative in coming up with our own way of dealing with these things, because our federal partners were having a hard time catching up to what we think the needs are of our state,” Bellon said during a panel discussion convened by the Environmental  Council  of the States in Wheeling, W.Va. “Preemption was on my mind. Would TSCA eviscerate the statute we were going to adopt?”

   The Washington bill didn't pass, but nevertheless, states “should continue doing the important work that they've been doing in partnership with EPA,” Rachel Massey, senior associate director at the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, said on the same panel.

   In June, Congress passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which requires the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate some of the thousands of chemicals that have never been assessed before.

   Preemption Tied to EPA Activity

   “The take-home message is that there is preemption in this law, but there is a lot of scope for states to continue to do their important work on chemicals,” Massey said.

   One key reason states should keep moving forward is that the Lautenberg Act's preemption only applies to chemicals that the EPA is actively working on, which will never be more than a handful, according to Massey. The agency must only identify 10 chemicals on which it wants to start conducting risk evaluations by Dec. 19.

   “Preemption is tied to the pace of EPA activity,” agreed panel member Andy Igrejas, national campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

   Panelist Jim Jones, the EPA's assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said the Dec. 19 date will be a pivotal moment for states.

   “Once it's clear to you, as states, what we're doing, you can then make choices with your eyes wide open,” Jones told the audience of state agency officials. “You can choose to work on the same [chemicals], you can choose to work on different ones. Once you know what we're doing, it becomes easier for you to make those choices.” Some of the details about the preemption provisions of the Lautenberg Act are detailed in EPA's summary of the law.

   Massey also said state work is important because the states are “laboratories for figuring out the best, most creative ways to address chemicals.”

   To panelist Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the  American Chemistry Council , the recent growth of state regulatory systems served to highlight the shortcomings of the old chemicals legislation. 

   Chemistry   Council  Explains Support for TSCA

   Anti-chemical public awareness campaigns by advocates influenced state legislatures, and retailers emphasized the old chemical law's weaknesses, Walls said.

   “Retailers are increasingly engaged in the regulatory market,” he said. “What we saw were a number of decisions being made, principally on the basis of hazard. We get why people want to make decisions on a hazard basis alone; it's relatively easy. It's harder to make a risk-based decision.”

   The erosion in public confidence in the federal regulatory system was a primary driver for the industry trade association to support reform of the toxics law, Walls said.

   Jones also said the EPA is working to implement, as soon as possible, a fee structure that will help finance the program.

   “There's not a statutory deadline on it, but we're pretending that there is,” Jones said.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007446&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=498896500&searchid=28509523&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

3. New Toxicity Tests Must Offer Solutions, Companies Say

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto

   Alternative toxicity testing strategies must reduce liabilities, lead to the selection of safer molecules or have other concrete benefits to be used widely, pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers told federal agencies Sept. 27.
   

   More regulatory agencies around the world also must accept data from alternative tests, said companies on the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods.

   “The vast majority of testing we do can't be done in an alternative fashion because of regulatory requirements,” said Lawrence Milchak, senior manager of toxicology and strategic services at the 3M Co. “I can't emphasize enough how important the global regulatory perspective is. We're often in a situation where we'd like to use an alternative method here, but know down the road we'll have to do an animal test.”

   Milchak was among the scientists advising the National Toxicology Program's Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, which is developing a national strategy to replace animal-based safety tests of chemicals and potential drugs with tissue, cellular, organ-on-a-chip and other tests. The toxicology program's center serves aninteragency committee with officials from 15 member departments such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission that conduct toxicity research, use it and/or make decisions based on it.

   The center and interagency committee aim to further the vision expressed in “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy,” a report the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released in 2007. That report envisioned toxicology moving from an expensive, labor-intensive, animal-based testing approach to detect harm to a quicker, more automated effort based on biological information, and human tissues, cells and gene lines that would predict toxicity.

   In the nearly 10 years since the report was issued, biological and computational sciences have advanced so quickly that predictive tests are available for divergent applications, John Bucher, the toxicology program's associate director, said. “Today we want to talk about obstacles to their greater use,” he said. 

   Institutional Resistance

   Warren Casey, director of the toxicology program center, said “regulatory toxicology is not built to change quickly” yet the center and interagency committee are working to spur a strategy that would “fundamentally change how we do toxicology.”

   He invited the advisory committee's perspectives on why such a strategy should be done and how—including how to overcome barriers and institutional resistance.

   “It's not just regulators that have a hard time getting used to new technologies, industry does too,” Casey said. “All sides need to change.”

   The center and interagency committee will focus on a domestic, instead of an international, strategy, Casey said. Gaining global acceptance of non-animal tests is critical, but simply getting U.S. agencies to agree on a strategy and a road map will be hard enough. “Throwing in the international community is going to be impossible,” he said.

   Pam Spencer, scientific director at the Dow Chemical Co., summarized some of the reasons the company already has invested significant resources in the equipment and training that allows its researchers to use alternative tests.

   A huge driver in the chemical industry, she said, is to have more human-relevant models that predict human-relevant outcomes.

   Many chemical manufacturers already are using alternative tests to decide whether to make “no go” decisions about whether to further research and develop a molecule, Spencer said. 

   Pharma Sees Pros, Cons of Alternatives

   Brian Berridge, director of animal welfare and research at GlaxoSmithKline plc., said he believes laboratory animals have served a valuable purpose protecting people from potential medications that could have harmed health had they been further developed.

   Nevertheless “I have come to believe in tissue technology in particular,” Berridge said. I believe we're getting to point of making this more predictive.”

   The costs of developing drugs spurs both a desire for new testing methods and a resistance to new, unproven technologies, he said.

   “In pharma in particular, we're in place where there is no fluff. There's an incredible motive to change the way we do our business,” Berridge said.

   For example, “the most influential part of our business is designing the molecule. We're not doing a good job identifying liabilities at that stage,” he said. Yet that is an area where these technologies could make a difference in deciding whether his company further develops a potential drug or not, Berridge said.

   The resistance relates to cost, he said, because there is “little room to make any change unless it's impactful.”

   Casey, committee members, company representatives and animal welfare organizations that spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting offered ideas about ways to address the barriers to broader acceptance. Those ideas included: 

   • Asking the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to convene a group of high-level government officials to draft a road map;

   • Asking the National Academies to hold workshops on particular regulatory, cultural and other barriers to the the use of alternative toxicity tests;

   • Training and education, because a survey presented at the meeting showed that the more familiar scientists are with the technologies, the more viable they believe them to be; and

   • Metrics concerning animal use to document areas where progress was being made and where more attention is needed.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007452&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007452&jd=98007452

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. EPA Weighs Response To Advocates' Call For Adding 25 Chemicals To TRI

   Sep 28, 2016 | Inside EPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo

   EPA is planning to respond within 12 months to environmentalists' petition asking the agency to add 25 chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) that requires some companies to report releases of substances, with the advocates saying the chemicals all have either emerging or known adverse effects that warrant their listing on TRI.

   According to the agency's "Action Initiation List" of rulemakings launched in June -- but only released publicly on Sept. 14 -- the agency within 12 months or less will propose its formal response to the petition that the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) filed with the agency on May 6, 2014. EPA is currently evaluating whether the substances meet the criteria for listing them on TRI, which covers chemicals that have significant health effects.

   The petition lists 25 chemicals the group says are "known and well documented chemicals of concern" that should be reported and monitored through TRI, including formamide, N-methylformamide, n propyl bromide (nPB) Cyclododecane, 2,5-dinitrotoluene and 20 other substances.

   TRI was created by the Emergency Planning & Community Right To Know Act, and requires affected companies to annually report their toxic releases of more than 650 listed chemicals. The agency's website says the inventory covers larger facilities from the electric power generation, chemical manufacturing, and other sectors.

   Under section 313 of EPCRA, EPA has the authority to initiate a rulemaking to subject facilities within an industry sector to TRI. In order to justify adding a sector, the agency must be able to demonstrate that the planned reporting is "warranted on the basis of toxicity of the toxic chemical, proximity to other facilities that release toxic chemicals or to population centers, [and] the history of releases of such chemical at such facility," among other factors.

   To implement the statutory requirements, EPA has developed a three-prong test that it uses to determine whether to add a sector for TRI reporting: whether TRI-listed chemicals are "reasonably anticipated" to be present at facilities within a sector, whether facilities manufacture, process or otherwise use the chemicals and whether adding a sector to TRI would be anticipated to increase the information made publicly available.

   TRI's thresholds for reporting to the inventory are 25,000 pounds or more of the toxic chemical in the reporting year for manufacturers or processors, and 10,000 pounds or more for chemicals otherwise used.

   TURI, a Massachusetts-based group that works to reduce the use of hazardous substances, says in its May 6, 2014, petition that it relies heavily on EPA's maintenance of TRI to inform its own list of chemicals for reporting and planning purposes.

   "In recent years, however, we are increasingly observing that substances with emerging and known adverse health and environmental effects are not included on those lists," the petition says.

   For example, the group points to its research in Massachusetts noting that there were 30 known or suspected carcinogens that were not on the state's Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) list of toxic or hazardous substances, which consisted largely of the lists of chemicals already covered by the TRI.

   The group also highlighted concerns over the potential for what it says are regrettable substitutions that occur when companies move away from TRI-listed chemicals and substitute those that may not be on the list but may still have adverse health or environmental effects. "For example, n propyl bromide (nPB) is a solvent that is largely unregulated by the EPA, but has recently been added to the TURA chemical list," the petition says. 

   http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-weighs-response-advocates-call-adding-25-chemicals-tri
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Institute Reviews Possible Small Brominated Alkyl Alcohols Restriction

   Sep 28, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   The Öko-Institut has launched a stakeholder consultation to review a possible restriction of small brominated alkyl alcohols under the EU Directive on the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS2).

   This comes as part of a Danish EPA study that assessed the possibility of grouping brominated flame retardants (BFRs).

   The consultation is aimed at the following groups:EEE (electrical and electronic equipment) industry;EEE industry federations;consultancies;research institutions and universities;NGOs; andpublic administrations.

   It will run for six weeks from 23 September to 4 November.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/49899/institute-reviews-possible-small-brominated-alkyl-alcohols-restriction
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Searchable List of EU Chemicals Available for Companies

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   The European Chemicals Agency released a searchable list of about 7,000 chemicals that identifies lead registrants, allowing other makers of the same compound to collaborate in preparing for the May 31, 2018, European Union REACH registration deadline.

   The agency's list provides the chemical names, European Community number, Chemical Abstracts Service number, type of registration underway, lead registrant's name or how it can be obtained, and whether or not the lead dossier on the compound has been submitted.

   The list, released Sept. 28, is designed to help chemical manufacturers that are not part of a group that is registering a specific substance know whom they can contact to begin to negotiate access to information that will be in the joint registration dossier. It also can help companies know if the chemical it makes or uses does not have a lead registrant.

   Chemicals that are not registered by the 2018 REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) deadline are not allowed to be made in or imported into the European Economic Area, which consists of the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007454&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007454&jd=98007454

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. EU Regulation Encourages Switch to Non-Animal Chemical Tests

   Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner

   Chemical companies will have more leeway starting next month to use data derived from non-animal tests to meet European Union regulatory requirements on substance safety.
   

   A regulation published in the EU Official Journal will let companies use non-animal tests to obtain data on skin irritation and allergic reactions to substances, if the data is equivalent to that derived from animal tests. The regulation will amend the annexes of the EU's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), which previously required animal tests for skin sensitization data.

   The amending regulation also will allow companies that register chemicals under REACH to carry out fewer tests than previously required for skin sensitization where they can “scientifically justify the omission of tests.”

   A switch to greater use of non-animal tests, and a reduction in the overall testing requirements for skin sensitization was possible because “in recent years, significant scientific progress has been made in the development of alternative test methods,” according to the regulation.

   The regulation complements amendments to the REACH annexes finalized in June that made non-animal testing the default option for providing information on eye and skin damage caused by chemicals.

   The new requirements for data on skin sensitization take effect Oct. 11. The amending regulation was published in the EU Official Journal Sept. 21.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007441&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007441&jd=98007441

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

8. Pennsylvania Focused on Attracting More NatGas End-Users

   Sep 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Jamison Cocklin

   Some of Pennsylvania's leading private and public sector economic development organizations are stepping-up their efforts to expand markets for natural gas in the state as the upstream and midstream booms of years past are increasingly giving way to more downstream opportunities.

   The Marcellus, Utica and Upper Devonian shales have helped make Pennsylvania the nation's second largest natural gas producer, churning out 4.6 Tcf in 2015 (see Shale Daily, Feb. 22). Public and private officials that spoke at last week's Shale Insight conference in Pittsburgh believe the best has yet to come from the state's shale development. Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said the downstream phase of development could be the most lucrative for the state.

   Denise Brinley, special assistant to the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), said Gov. Tom Wolf's administration "recognizes the sensitive balance of managing the environmental challenges and economic opportunities surrounding shale resource development and the need to promote efforts to enhance Pennsylvania's energy infrastructure." The DCED, she said, continues to strengthen its focus on maximizing the economic opportunities from the state's energy industry.

   "To the maximum extent possible, we want to use this natural resource that is in Pennsylvania for the benefit of Pennsylvania first," she said.

   Brinley, along with DCED Secretary Dennis Davin, announced a new initiative at the conference to help transform shuttered coal-fired power plants across the state into industrial sites that could consume more natural gas. Using more than $1 million in federal grants, the DCED will work to better identify mothballed coal plants, their geographical and logistical strengths, and draw up "playbooks" for potential developers that would help them understand the liabilities and opportunities of each.

   "We've gone to these energy companies that have these shuttered coal-fired power plants and we'll work with them to revitalize these properties," Davin said. "A lot of these coal-fired power plants are on rivers, they're on rail, they're on highways; they're great development sites for what we think is going to happen. We want to be in a position to develop these sites."

   Some of the Appalachian Basin's brownfields have already been transformed into logistical and storage hubs for the oil and gas industry. The DCED's work would build off the Wolf administration's Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force, which earlier this year released a final report with 184 recommendations on how to better facilitate pipeline development (see Shale Daily, Feb. 18). The state expects 25,000 miles of gathering lines and up to 5,000 miles of transmission lines to be built over the next decade.

   Davin added that DCED is also working with private economic development organizations, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development and Team Pennsylvania Foundation, to explore the economic opportunities that could come with Royal Dutch Shell plc's multi-billion dollar ethane cracker (see Shale Daily, June 7). Shell said in June that it would start construction on the facility late next year. Davin said DCED has commissioned a study and implementation plan to take advantage of the cracker.

   "We need to know going into the next budget cycle what we need to be prepared to do," he said. "We want to know exactly what type of companies would come as a result of this."

   Davin pointed to the larger companies already operating in the state as an example of what shale gas can do for the bottom line. Procter & Gamble Co. has one of the largest manufacturing facilities in the state in Wyoming County, where it's been located for decades. The facility is in the heart of the Marcellus in Northeast Pennsylvania, and Davin said the company has saved $26 million annually by using natural gas for its power needs.

   "When we're going around the state and we're going around the country talking about the benefits that Pennsylvania has, when we can talk about a single company saving $26 million a year in operating costs, that gets people's attention," Davin said. "We want to promote that, we want to look at that and talk to other companies about that as much as we can."

   Richard Harshman, CEO of Allegheny Technologies Inc., which manufactures parts and materials for the aerospace, defense, energy and chemical industries, said shale gas played a major role in the company's decision to build a $1.2 billion processing facility about 20 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. Harshman said the facility uses anywhere from 9 to 12 MMBtu of natural gas per year, which is important to the global company's bottom line.

   "Obviously, a $1 movement in the cost of natural gas has an important impact on our financial statements and cost structure," he said. "We manage that through hedges, but really, from a long-term perspective, our interest is in having a locally competitive, safe, reliable source of energy and natural gas is a very important component of that."

   State lawmakers approved a proposal by Wolf in the 2015-2016 budget that provides millions of dollars for a fund to build more natural gas distribution lines for industrial end-users. Davin said DCED is focused on creating similar programs and securing funding to ensure more of the state's shale gas stays at home. 

   http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107907-pennsylvania-focused-on-attracting-more-natgas-end-users
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Greens Lay A Gas Trap For Clinton

   Sep 29, 2016 | PoliticoPro

   By Elana Schor

   Hillary Clinton has won stalwart support from green activists who once doubted her commitment to fighting climate change — but if she can get past Donald Trump in November, she'll face a political minefield over natural gas.

   The thorny politics of natural gas have created a schism in the Democratic base that's only occasionally visible these days, as Clinton touts her commitment to confront climate change to unite the party against Trump, whose campaign has struggled since Monday's debate to define his position on the topic. But if she wins, Clinton will have to make peace between emboldened climate activists pushing for more constraints on gas development and labor unions who see fossil fuel development as a rich source of jobs.

   Story Continued Below

   The Sierra Club, which pounced on Trump's false denial that he had denied the existence of man-made climate change, is already laying the groundwork to challenge a potential Clinton administration on several fronts related to natural gas. The group is gearing up to spend at least $5 million on an expanded multi-state campaign against what it estimates are 221 new gas-fired power plants in the works, according to details shared with POLITICO. And it's planning to escalate its challenges to proposed new gas pipelines and the process that governs gas infrastructure approvals on the federal and state levels.

   Sierra’s campaign will focus initially on organizing, legal and communications work in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania and potentially California, as well as adding new hires in D.C., Sierra executive director Michael Brune said in an interview.

   “We want to expand [Clinton's] ability to hasten the transition away from fossil fuels,” Brune said.

   The group’s strategic reorientation to targeting natural gas will involve some of the same staff behind its long-running Beyond Coal project, which has prevented scores of new coal-fired power plants from being built and helped to usher more than 230 existing plants into early retirement. The anti-coal work has received more than $100 million alone from outside donors, including a $50 millioninfusion from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and $26 million from natural gas producer Chesapeake (a company the group has since repudiated).

   That dwarfs the anti-gas investment that a Sierra spokesman described as a first step toward expanding the group's existing work to stop new gas infrastructure.

   The anti-gas campaign’s ethos is directly aimed at Clinton, who’s campaigned on a promise to regulate fracking so strictly that there won’t “be many places” where it still happens, as she put it in a March Democratic primary debate, and Brune acknowledged their plans “would change some” if Trump wins.

   Green activists would find little traction in a Trump administration likely to be staffed by former oil and gas executives who dismiss concerns about climate change. But Brune said the new money would still flow to fighting gas projects on the local level. “Homeowners, in red states and blue, don’t want to see fossil fuels in their backyard.”

   Clinton has also defended natural gas as a bridge to renewables and credited it with strengthening the Obama administration's hand in international climate talks by displacing coal and helping to reduce U.S. carbon emissions.

   “Hillary Clinton believes that with strong safeguards in place, natural gas can play an important role in our transition to a clean energy economy by reducing carbon pollution and improving air quality while keeping energy costs low and creating good paying jobs,” campaign spokesman Tyrone Gayle said in a statement.

   Brune and his compatriots are worried about another consequence of the recent gas surge: carbon emissions from natural gas are set to surpass those from coal for the first time in 44 years, the Energy Information Administration projected last month. Environmentalists worry that further promoting gas ultimately would undo any gains reaped by shutting down coal plants.

   "It's become very clear that that was a climate mistake" to encourage utilities to shift from coal to gas, said 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, who is not directly involved in the new Sierra Club campaign. Between "methane leakage and discouraging renewables, gas is a dramatic warming villain.”

   The Sierra Club plans to focus its national efforts on agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, all of which will be making decisions next year on gas projects, regulations or permits. FERC is responsible for signing off on individual gas pipelines, such as the $3.2 billion Sabal Trail pipeline in Florida that the club has fought at the commission and in court.

   The Army Corps is set next year to reauthorize nationwide general permits that govern construction of oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission wires. And EPA is working on rules to limit methane emissions from existing fracking operations that will not be finished before the next president comes into office.

   Labor unions, another key Democratic constituency, may find themselves divided over Sierra's escalating anti-gas campaign. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka took flak from sections of his federation this month for slamming environmentalists for "trying to make climate policy by attacking individual construction projects" as he backed the Dakota Access oil pipeline.

   The United Steelworkers, by contrast, has aligned with green groups in supporting the job-creation benefits of the Obama administration's methane regulations on the industry through the Blue Green Alliance, which it cofounded with the Sierra Club.

   Regional resistance to natural gas pipelines and export facilities has been rising for years, thanks to an anti-Keystone XL effort that gave environmental groups a template for grassroots organizing against individual fossil-fuel infrastructure projects. The new Sierra effort is aimed at uniting and building on those disparate threads of activism, giving greens an agenda to say yes to even as they keep saying no to natural gas.

   Clinton has released a methane-cutting plan that sought to appeal to both blue-collar workers and green-minded activists. It called for the replacement and repair of aging pipeline infrastructure and promised to build on EPA regulations on methane from new fracking operations that the Obama administration implemented in May.

   Committing to expand those regulations to existing sources is "an example of how you can sow environmental progress on an issue that’s really thorny,” said Heather Zichal, the former Obama administration climate aide now informally advising Clinton’s campaign.

   The oil and gas industry already has pressed Clinton for more clarity on her vow to regulate fracking into rarity and is certain to fight any new anti-gas work by the Sierra Club, as hard as it has fought Obama-era regulations.

   Clinton’s prospective administration will still be stuck in court defending more narrow rules for fracking on public lands after a federal judge sided with industry and struck them down in June. Any further Clinton attempts to regulate natural gas facilities are all but guaranteed to face similar legal challenges that could tie them up for years.

   "I find it rather ironic that many people in the industry have said, 'We can’t deal with this patchwork of regulations, it’s going to kill us,'" Zichal said. “But this is one instance where they say, 'Never mind, we can deal with this patchwork, we don’t want a national policy.'"

   Gas isn’t the most natural enemy for Sierra. Brune told POLITICO less than 18 months ago that “we acknowledge that we still need some gas,” and his arrival at the storied environmental group in 2010 ended three years in which Sierra courted controversy by taking gas-industry cash to fight coal.

   Asked about the group’s past ties to gas, Brune noted that Sierra “repudiated that position several years ago.”

   The falling costs and rising market share of wind and solar have made it economically feasible to attack the gas industry now, he said. “We've never before been able to make the case that renewables can compete with gas — now we can.”

   It remains to be seen how deeply a more intense campaign against new gas plants would affect states' ability to comply with the power-plant emissions regulations finalized by EPA last year. Veteran analyst Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, said that EPA's models for its Clean Power Plan assume "little new construction" would be needed to comply with emissions-cutting targets.

   Still, Book added that nixing new gas capacity could have "the undesirable effect" of driving up fuel prices and, in turn, affecting the market for wind, solar, and other renewables. "Low gas prices have been masking the costs incurred by adding renewables and distribution infrastructure," he said.

   https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/09/greens-lay-a-gas-trap-for-clinton-131452
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. The Latest Attacks On The EPA’s Plan For Clean Power Make No Sense

    Sep 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    By Editorial Board

    IN WHAT may lead to the definitive word on President Obama’s signature climate-change policy, the nation’s second-most prominent court heard several hours of arguments Tuesday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Buoyed by an unexpected and unusual Supreme Court stay on the plan issued this year, opponents of the policy argued that the Obama administration stepped beyond the boundaries of the law to impose regulations of breathtaking audacity and scope, reshaping the electricity sector by executive fiat. In fact, the EPA has taken a wholly reasonable path, and the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should affirm it.

    The underlying problem is that the EPA is attempting to apply the Clean Air Act — a law written in the 1960s, when air pollution issues involved toxic pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide — to the climate issue, which requires different remedies. Dealing with carbon dioxide is not as easy as installing scrubbers in smokestacks. The sources of the country’s electricity must shift away from carbon-rich fuels such as coal toward cleaner ones. Citing a section of the law that allows the EPA to require the “best system of emissions reduction” for certain air pollutants, the agency created the Clean Power Plan, which requires states to draw up emissions-cutting strategies not plant by plant, as previous Clean Air Act rules have done, but across the whole electricity system. That might mean limiting or shutting down coal plants in favor of natural gas and renewables.

    The EPA’s opponents cannot reasonably argue that the agency is forbidden from using the Clean Air Act to reduce power-sector carbon dioxide emissions. The Supreme Court has already settled that dispute; greenhouse emissions are pollutants subject to Clean Air Act regulation. The only question left is how the EPA can regulate those emissions. Though there is little doubt that addressing the electricity sector as a whole is the best “system” for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, EPA critics argue that the law’s language permits the agency only to regulate “inside the fence” of existing power plants, which would severely restrict the emissions-cutting options. This argument suggests that the law demands that greenhouse emissions be regulated but also requires that those regulations be ineffective. This would be a bizarre message for the courts to send.

    We do not begrudge anyone, such as D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, for wishing that Congress had tailored a policy to address the novel threat of climate change instead of watching the EPA jury-rig the Clean Air Act to deal with the issue. Congress, in fact, still could pass a simple carbon tax, which would offer the cheapest route to greening the economy. But the Clean Air Act was not a temporary authorization to deal with a few toxic air pollutants; it was a comprehensive law meant to address a range of air pollution challenges, including those its writers did not anticipate. The Supreme Court has already said the EPA may apply it to greenhouse emissions. The D.C. Circuit should have a hard time rebuking the agency for attempting to do so rationally.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-latest-attacks-on-the-epas-plan-for-clean-power-make-no-sense/2016/09/28/ab02bffa-84fd-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html?utm_term=.413e0837b5bc

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Clean Power Plan Fate Rests on Congressional Intentions

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Andrew Childers

    The fate of the Obama administration's carbon dioxide limits for power plants will likely turn on whether federal appellate judges believe Congress clearly granted authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate that broadly, attorneys who argued the case said.
    

    “That was the biggest thing that came out of the day. Does there have to be clear congressional authorization,” West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin, who helped argue against the Clean Power Plan, said at a Sept. 28 discussion held by Georgetown Law.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard nearly seven hours of argument Sept. 27 over the EPA's rule (RIN:2060-AR33), which sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector in each state. The rule is being challenged by more than two dozen states, which are charged with implementing the standards, as well as several utility and industry groups (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir. en banc, No. 15-1363, 9/27/16).

    “If you think it's OK to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon from power plants, this is a really sensible, cost-sensitive, pragmatic way to do it in light of how the industry already operates,” said Sean Donahue of the law firm Donahue & Goldberg LLP in Washington, who represented environmental groups in the case.

    The Clean Power Plan was issued under Section 111(d), a rarely used provision that requires the EPA to determine the “best system of emission reduction,” which states then implement. Previously, the EPA interpreted that to mean pollution controls that can be adopted by individual sources. But under the Clean Power Plan, the EPA has read “system” far broader than before, arguing the entire interconnected grid network constitutes a single system and the best means of controlling carbon dioxide pollution is by shifting electricity generation from coal-fired utilities to cleaner alternatives.

    Did Congress Speak Clearly—Or at All?

    “It is a fundamentally and qualitatively different use of the Section 111(d) power and I think the court got that,” Lin said.

    Opponents of the rule argue that the EPA's reading of its power is so expansive and the Clean Power Plan is so transformative for utilities that it should not be subject to the usual judicial deference afforded to agencies interpreting statutes, an exception known as the major questions doctrine. They also argue that Congress must clearly grant the EPA such broad authority.

    “That's the point of the clear statement doctrine,” Lin said. “If the power being exercised is so transformative and large, that's the kind of power courts assume Congress wouldn't have delegated implicitly through ambiguity” in the provisions of Section 111(d).

    Not only will judges have to consider Congress's intention when it last updated the provisions of Section 111(d) in 1990; the court may also consider the fact that legislators have failed to act on climate change, including a nationwide cap-and-trade bill that failed to pass the Senate in 2010, said Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington, who represented electric cooperatives in the litigation.

    “What do we take from congressional inaction over the years?” he asked.

    But Supreme Court Has Spoken

    Although Congress has never explicitly told the EPA it has the power to address climate change, the U.S. Supreme Court has, including in a 2011 decision that specifically cited the same provision the EPA used for the Clean Power Plan (Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2011 BL 161239, 72 ERC 1609 (2011)).

    Utilities in that instance had supported the EPA's Clean Air Act authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under Section 111(d) rather than face several common law claims brought by states, but power companies now oppose how the EPA has structured the Clean Power Plan.

    “They're trying to parse that now to say if it's done in a certain way there's no deference given and you have to give it another standard of review,” said Morgan Costello, an assistant attorney general in the New York attorney general's office, which has supported the EPA.

    But opponents of the rule argue it's not a matter of whether the EPA can use that authority to regulate power plants, but rather that the structure of the Clean Power Plan far exceeds what is permissible under the statute.

    “Is that tool a sledgehammer or a jeweler's hammer?” Lorenzen asked.

    He predicted the court will not issue a decision until January at the earliest.

    “The D.C. Circuit is going to be looking for as near to a unanimous decision as they can in part because this is an important case and in part because the Supreme Court is irretrievably fractured,” he said.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007442&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007442&jd=98007442

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Divided Court Appears To Make Partisan Outcome In ESPS Suit Less Likely

    Sep 28, 2016 | InsideEPA

    The 10 appellate judges that heard arguments over EPA's signature power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rule Sept. 27 appear closely divided on many of the threshold legal issues they are considering, suggesting the outcome of the landmark suit may not be as predictable as the partisan makeup of the court may suggest.

    “While it is always difficult to determine how one judge, let alone ten, might rule based on oral argument, the court appeared to telegraph internal disagreement on several key issues,” says James Rubin, a former Department of Justice attorney now with Dorsey & Whitney.

    Brookings Institution scholar Philip Wallach, who attended the Sept. 27 arguments, made a similar claim, noting in a blog that the issues being decided are so difficult and important -- the rule is the centerpiece of President Obama's climate agenda -- that some believe the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that heard the case, West Virginia, et al., v. EPA, et al., may ultimately decide to vote their party.

    “Many observers assume that this case is so important that it will come down to the judges siding with their political loyalties,” he wrote in a blog post published while the arguments were continuing.

    If so, that would provide a significant advantage for EPA and its supporters, as Judge Nina Pillard decided last weekto hear the case, ensuring that six of the 10 judges hearing the case are Democratic appointees, though her decision also opened the door to an evenly divided court.

    But Wallach downplayed the likelihood that a party line ruling may occur, writing that during the portions of the arguments he attended, several Democratic appointees -- Obama appointees Patricia Millett and Sri Srinivasan, as well as Clinton-appointee David Tatel -- were asking the government “hard questions” that suggested they were uncomfortable with various aspects of the rule.

    In addition, Wallach says that a Department of Justice attorney arguing on behalf of EPA seemed “more than a little flummoxed” by pushback from several of the judges when he was defending the rule against' opponents' claims that its novel approach prompts separation of powers concerns.

    While litigants expressed confidence they will ultimately prevail, they nevertheless agreed with Rubin, hedging on how they believe the court will ultimately rule on the lawfulness of EPA's power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS), also known as the Clean Power Plan.

    “The Clean Power Plan had a very good day. But we aren't taking that to the bank just yet,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a group that is strongly supporting EPA.

    And West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who led the petitioners challenging the rule, told Inside EPAthat he would “reserve judgment” on how the D.C. Circuit will rule, noting that though the judges asked a “number of good questions,” it is difficult to know “whether they're asking questions just to probe the other side to learn about weakness” in the arguments.

    Reserving Judgment

    Rubin noted that several of the judges appeared receptive to arguments from opponents that the power plant rule is unlawful because Congress did not speak directly on the matter, and has not given the agency authority to require generation shifting as an emissions reduction approach.

    The latter ties directly to critics' charge that EPA unlawfully expanded its authority by crafting standards for the ESPS based on actions “beyond the fenceline” of regulated power plants.

    “On these issues, the Court seemed split, though not always along expected lines,” Rubin writes.

    The issue stems from the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling on another EPA GHG program, Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, which warned against finding broad authority in vague statutory language.

    Frequently cited was the opinion penned by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote: “When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a 'significant portion of the American economy,' we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. . . . We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast 'economic and political significance.'”

    Millett, as well as several other judges, found difficulty reconciling the UARG ruling with other high court rulings over EPA's authority, including in Massachusetts v. EPA -- the landmark ruling holding that GHGs are a regulated pollutant.

    Millett said she was “betwixt and between” because of the conflicts between the rulings, noting that whileMassachusetts and a later 2011 ruling in American Electric Power (AEP) v. EPA appear to tell the agency to “go forth” and regulate, the UARG ruling raises doubts about EPA's authority here.

    While some Democratic appointees raised tough questions on the issue, some Republican-appointed judges appeared skeptical of opponents' charges that the ESPS is so “transformative” that it requires Congress to act.

    For example, Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed by George W. Bush, said the rule “doesn't sound to me to be transformative” because it would only require marginally fewer GHG emissions from coal plants than what market trends would achieve.

    With that view, he suggested the “major question” doctrine of the UARG ruling, and other cases, may not apply to the ESPS.

    Both Republican- and Democratic-appointed judges appeared heavily skeptical of one of opponents' threshold arguments -- that EPA cannot regulate power plants carbon emissions under section 111 of the Clean Air Act because it already regulates their air toxics' emissions under section 112.

    Cherry Picking

    Perhaps underscoring the D.C. Circuit panel's internal divisions, both supporters and opponents of the ESPS seemed to cherry pick portions of the arguments that favored their side to tout in post-argument comments.

    Critics of the rule were quick to emphasize apparent doubts from several of the judges over EPA's authority to regulate, given no “clear statement” from Congress on the issue.

    Meanwhile, supporters of the rule pointed to judges' skepticism over the 111/112 statutory arguments, as well as comments from Griffith and other judges that suggested they do not feel the rule is as “transformative” as critics argue.

    West Virginia's Morrisey, in his comments to Inside EPA following the arguments, noted a lot of discussion and concern about the “beyond the fenceline” argument and said he feels “very strong” about opponents' argument that the rule is unlawful because Congress never gave a clear statement to EPA, as well as their more technical challenges to the rule.

    There are some “serious difficulties for EPA to overcome,” Morrisey said, adding that he would “rather be in our position than in EPA's.”

    He added: “While I can't predict where and when, our legal arguments will ultimately prevail.”

    Morrisey did not, however, mention critics' 111/112 arguments. When asked whether any of opponents' charges fell flat during the arguments, he noted that he “stand[s] by all the arguments,” adding that it “just takes prevailing on one of our arguments” to bring down the rule.

    Industry attorney Jeff Holmstead told Inside EPA in the halls of the courtroom that the judges seemed most interested in the “beyond the fenceline” arguments, which he said appears to be “probably the central issue.”

    Conversely, supporters of the rule pointed to comments from the judges that suggested they understood the ESPS targets were based on ongoing trends in the energy sector and that they were achievable.

    Sean Donahue, who argued the case for environmental intervenors, said Griffith's statement downplaying the rule as “transformative” was key to setting the tone for the arguments. He added that opponents' constitutional claims “didn't seem to get much traction” with the judges.

    Supporters and opponents may have to wait a while before the court rules, however, Rubin suggests. “The court will now undertake the formidable job of wading through the multiple briefs and argument and seeing on what issues it may put together a majority,” he said, adding “this is likely to take some time.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Power Sector Would Save Millions Under Reporting Change: EPA

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    Changing reporting requirements under federal power plant emissions standards could save the utility sector about $4.2 million per year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which limit emissions of hazardous air pollutants, required power plant operators to report emissions and compliance information electronically using two different systems. The agency, in a proposal scheduled for publication Sept. 28, seeks to allow utilities to instead use a single e-reporting system to submit all required compliance data.

    Under the proposal, utilities would submit all data required under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards using the same system that they have used to submit data under the Acid Rain Program since 2009. Allowing power plants to use a single data-submission system would reduce the compliance burden on plant operators and make it easier for the EPA and the public to review that data because it would all be submitted in a consistent format, according to the proposal.

    The agency's proposal (RIN:2060-AS75) also would increase the frequency of required compliance reports from twice a year to quarterly. However, even with that increase, the agency projects its proposal would reduce the overall burden of complying with the standards by 43,194 hours across the industry. Nothing in the proposal would affect the stringency of the limits on mercury and other hazardous pollutants contained in the MATS rule (RIN:2060-AP52).

    The transition to a single e-reporting system for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards is expected to be completed by January 2018, according to a fact sheet that accompanied the proposal. The agency will accept public comments on the proposal through Oct. 31. Comments can be filed athttps://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.

     http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007450&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007450&jd=98007450

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Supporters of Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures in Colorado End Campaign

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Tripp Baltz

    Supporters of two anti-fracking ballot measures in Colorado said they are dropping their 2016 campaign but will turn their attention to defeating a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it harder for future citizens’ initiatives to succeed.
    

    The advocates of Initiatives 75 and 78—which the oil and gas industry called de facto bans on hydraulic fracturing—said Sept. 28 that after weighing the extensive costs, they wouldn't challenge a recent ruling by the Colorado secretary of state that they hadn't submitted a sufficient number of signatures to get the proposed amendments on the November ballot.

    Micah Parkin, spokeswoman for 350 Colorado, one of the organizations supporting the anti-fracking measures, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 28 the campaign decided it would make more sense financially and practically to save its resources to bring the proposals again in 2018 rather than to pursue an appeal now.

    The Yes for Health and Safety Over Fracking campaign said it would turn to defeating Initiative 71, known as the “Raise the Bar” amendment, which it called an industry-backed effort to make it harder for other citizens’ initiatives, such as future grassroots campaigns to restrict fracking and other drilling activities via ballot measure. 

    Gearing Up for Next Round

    “We may have run out of time to make it onto this year's ballot, but volunteers are working against 71 now and gearing up for the next round, because ultimately we have no choice but to keep fighting to protect our communities, state and democracy itself,” Tricia Olson, executive director of the Yes for Health and Safety Campaign, said in a statement.

    Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams (R) determined Aug. 29 the number of valid signatures in support of initiatives 75 and 78 fell short of what was needed for the proposals to qualify for the ballot. The group said the time and cost associated with filing a court appeal of Williams’ decision would be too great to move forward.

    Protect Colorado, the issue committee that took the lead in opposing initiatives 75 and 78, said they were de facto bans on fracking and other drilling activities. Initiative 75 would have given local governments expanded authority to regulate, even ban, fracking. Initiative 78 would have increased the current statewide setback from 500 feet to 2,500 feet. The setback is the minimum distance required between wells and occupied buildings such as homes, schools, and hospitals. 

    $1 Million Raised

    Olson said Protect Colorado receives primary funding from two of the largest oil and gas operators in Colorado, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Noble Energy Inc. to oppose initiatives 75 and 78. The group has now raised $1 million for the “Raise the Bar” amendment, she said.

    “Should the initiative pass in November, it would make grassroots initiatives prohibitively expensive in Colorado due to stringent distribution requirements,” OIson said.

    “Raise the bar is an effort to prevent future initiatives designed to protect communities from fracking,” said Razz Gormley of Frack Free Colorado in a statement. “This is corporate money, primarily from the oil and gas industry, being spent to take direct democracy away from citizens.”

    Karen Crummy, spokeswoman for Protect Colorado, told Bloomberg BNA the group receives financial backing from 34 funders, not just Anadarko and Noble. The “Raise the Bar” campaign isn't just about stopping anti-drilling initiatives but also about addressing the problem of how easily Colorado's constitution can be amended. Colorado's constitution has been amended more than 150 times by citizens’ initiative, legislative referenda and other means, according to the Raise the Bar campaign. By comparison, the U.S. Constitution has 27 amendments. 

    Signatures Required for Ballot Measure

    Colorado law requires gathering nearly 100,000 signatures to place a proposed amendment on the ballot, but those signatures can come from registered voters anywhere in the state. The initiative would require campaigns to collect signatures from 2 percent of registered voters in each of the state's 35 senate districts. Additionally, ballot issues would need 55 percent of the voters to pass instead of a simple majority.

    “The Raise the Bar campaign would be offended by the idea that oil and gas is running the show,” Crummy said. “They've been going for quite some time. They started this campaign before we had any involvement.”

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007456&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007456&jd=98007456

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Enviros Vow To Block Colo. Measure That Could Aid Drillers

    Sep 29, 2016 | E&E News PM

    By Jennifer Yachnin

    Colorado environmentalists along with a coalition of progressive organizations announced today they will work to block a November ballot measure aimed at making it more difficult to amend the state's constitution, including recent efforts to curtail oil and gas production in the state.

    A spokeswoman for Conservation Colorado slammed Amendment 71 as tool for blocking future environmental efforts in the state.

    "It is the wrong choice for Colorado and for our efforts to enact policies that protect our environment and public health," Conservation Colorado spokeswoman Jessica Goad said in a news conference along with representatives of New Era Colorado Foundation, the Colorado Fiscal Institute and the Bell Policy Center.

    "The ultimate effect of Amendment 71 is that grass-roots efforts to make Colorado a better place to live would have a harder time raising the funding to get on the ballot, but corporations, industries and special interests who might run anti-environment or anti-conservation initiatives, including the oil and gas industry, would be able to easily pay to play and get their measures on the ballot," she added.

    The amendment, which is formally known as the Raise the Bar, Protect Our Constitution campaign and has been endorsed by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), would create stricter requirements to put ballot initiatives before voters.

    Instead of submitting ballot petitions with signatures equal to 5 percent of the total votes cast in the last election, amendment sponsors would need to gather signatures from 2 percent of registered voters in each of Colorado's 35 state Senate districts.

    In addition, the amendment would require a supermajority of 55 percent to pass any new amendments to the Colorado Constitution, rather than the simple majority under current law.

    Goad noted that while Conservation Colorado is open to discussions about how to make the constitution more difficult to amend, the group will conduct an education campaign to oppose Amendment 71.

    It has yet to be decided, however, how much money the environmental group will pump into its fight, or whether it will fund any advertising.

    "Those conversations are going on right now. Certainly, we will do everything in our power to make sure that Amendment 71 does not pass this year," she said. New Era Colorado's Lizzy Stephan said the group also will raise the issue in a canvassing operation that aims to contact 100,000 young voters in the coming weeks.

    Raise the Bar reported raising $2.7 million for its campaign as of Sept. 19, according to state campaign finance records.

    According to an analysis of campaign contributions from Conservation Colorado, more than $1.7 million of that total came from oil and gas companies or related firms.

    Among the major donors is Protecting Colorado's Environment, Economy and Energy Independence, which gave $1 million earlier this month. The group, whose major donors include Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Noble Energy Inc., backs state and local ballot initiatives that support responsible oil and gas development.

    Similarly, Vital for Colorado, a coalition of business and civic organizations that advocates for "responsible oil and gas policy" in the state, has given $600,000.

    Environmentalists have sought to curb the practice of hydraulic fracturing in the state in recent cycles with a series of ballot initiatives aimed at options such as increasing setback limits for new wells or allowing local communities to ban the practice.

    The most recent efforts failed to secure enough signatures to make the ballot last month (Greenwire, Aug. 29).

    http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/09/28/stories/1060043573
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. North Dakota Chief Archaeologist Finds No Artifacts in Pipeline Route

    Sep 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec

    A recent inspection by North Dakota Chief Archaeologist Paul Picha turned up no artifacts or burial remains in a disputed part of the four-state Dakota Access oil pipeline route near a Native American reservation in the south-central part of the state.

    Picha said in a memo dated Sept. 22 the results of a cultural resource survey the state completed on a 1.36-mile portion of the pipeline route in Morton County. The work was requested by a joint law enforcement task force formed to investigate the $3.8 billion Dakota Access project, which has come under fire from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and various environmental organizations.

    "No cultural material was observed in the inspected corridor," Picha said. "No human bone or other evidence of burial was recorded in the inventoried corridor."

    Noting that locations adjacent to but outside the construction corridor that Sioux archaeologist Tim Mentz had surveyed were inspected and photographed by the state team, Picha said there were no indications of any violations of state laws pertaining to moving human remains or culturally significant sites.

    Pipeline backers pointed out that the pipeline route earlier had been reviewed for archaeological/cultural impacts prior to gaining approvals. A federal judge turned down two injunction requests from the Standing Rock Sioux, noting that the tribe had "largely refused" to engage in consultations during the permitting process.

    Nevertheless, the Sioux tribe and its supporters continue to allege that pipeline construction crews have destroyed cultural resources and burial sites.

    While a well-known North Dakota political commentator, Rob Port, obtained a copy of the Picha memo and published it on his blog, officials with the state Historical Society and Morton County Sheriff's Department have declined to release the memo, noting it is part of an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

    In the meantime, a joint federal agencies process is now under way to examine the issue of consultations with Native American tribes regarding infrastructure projects, and there are still pending federal court cases brought by the Standing Rock Sioux.

    http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107911-north-dakota-chief-archaeologist-finds-no-artifacts-in-pipeline-route
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

17. Federal Board Finds Fault in 2014 W.Va. Chemical Spill

    Sep 28, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Kris Maher

    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Wednesday that a chemical spill that contaminated the drinking water of 300,000 people in Charleston, W.Va., in early 2014 could have been prevented with storage-tank inspections and that better local coordination could have mitigated the disruption.

    On Jan. 9, 2014, an estimated 10,000 gallons of a chemical mixture used in coal processing leaked from a storage tank and made its way into the Elk River and the state capital’s drinking water intake 1.5 miles downstream. Residents were unable to use their tap water for up to nine days, before distribution pipes were cleared. The case exposed gaps in federal regulation.  

    The safety board, an independent federal agency charged with investigating chemical accidents, said in its 125-page investigative report that storage-tank operator Freedom Industries failed to internally inspect its corroding tanks before the accident, and the company had no leak detection system in place. Maintenance could have prevented the spill, the agency said.

    Representatives of Freedom, which filed for bankruptcy shortly after the accident, couldn’t be reached to comment.

    The board also concluded that companies that provide drinking water nationwide “have likely not developed” programs to identify potential sources of chemical contamination or plans to respond to accidents like the Charleston spill.

    “The public deserves and must demand clean, safe drinking water,” said Johnnie Banks, the board’s supervisory investigator. “We want water systems throughout the country to study the valuable lessons learned from our report and act accordingly.”

    The report said that pitting corrosion in the storage tank caused two holes, each less than an inch in diameter. It blamed extreme cold for helping to open the holes in the corroded tanks. The chemical mixture leaked for roughly 24 hours before it was detected, the report found.

    After the spill, a heavy licorice smell permeated the air over Charleston and hundreds of people sought medical treatment from potential exposure to tainted water in their homes, with many complaining of rashes, nausea and respiratory problems. The safety board noted that state and federal health officials concluded they couldn’t confirm whether the symptoms were related to the chemical spill.

    “We’re not seeing any complaints of chronic long-term illnesses,” Mr. Banks of the safety board said Wednesday.

    Safety board members were set to vote on whether to approve the accident report after a public meeting in Charleston on Wednesday night.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-board-finds-fault-in-2014-w-va-chemical-spill-1475096325
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Williams Slapped With $13.6M Jury Verdict for Plant Blast

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Nushin Huq

    A Louisiana jury found that pipeline company Williams Cos. bore the brunt of the blame in a deadly 2013 plant explosion in Louisiana and awarded four injured workers a $13.6 million verdict (Thompson v. Williams Companies Inc., La. Dist. Ct., No. 72701, 9/26/16).
    

    The district court jury found that the Tulsa, Okla.-based company was 95 percent responsible for the Geismar, La., plant explosion that killed two people and injured 114 others. The jury assigned the 3 percent blame to the local subsidiary, Williams Olefins LLC. A plant official and plant supervisor were each assigned 1 percent blame. The suit was brought on behalf of four contractors injured in the explosion.

    Williams plans to appeal the decision, company officials told local media after the jury verdict. This is first case to go to trial in a series of suits filed against Williams Cos. in relation to the explosion, Houston-based Arnold & Itkin LLP, said in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA. Founding partner Kurt Arnold represented the four plaintiffs in the trial.

    The explosion at the Williams Olefins Geismar plant took place on June 13, 2013, in the area of the refinery known as the propylene fractionation area when pressure built up and ruptured the reboiler, the second amended petition said.

    Citations Issued to Company Previously

    The Williams plant had received citations in the past for releasing an excess amount of ethylene and, in 2012, the refinery had to be shut entirely down because of a propylene leak, the complaint said. The explosion occurred due to negligence caused by Williams, the complaint said. The company received notice that the propylene piping was corroded but continued to run propylene through it.

    The four plaintiffs were employees of Turner Industries Group. Williams planned to increase its ethylene production capacity from 600 million to 1.95 billion pounds, the complaint said. Williams Cos. hired Turner to perform construction work for the expansion in the area where the explosion happened.

    Neither Williams nor Turner shut down processes in the piping where the construction was taking place, allowing highly flammable propylene to be run through in an area where active construction, including hot work, was taking place, the complaint said. When the propylene leaked, the explosion occurred.

    Response to Verdict

    Arnold hopes the verdict sends a message to Williams Cos. management that they have to rethink how they manage safety.

    “Williams Companies takes profits and resources from communities all over the country and then tries to limit its liability when it kills and injures people,” Arnold said. “It's not right.”

    Williams said in a statement sent to Bloomberg BNA: “Nothing about the tragic accident at the Williams Olefins facility in Geismar on June 13, 2013 was intentional. We believe there is sufficient Louisiana case law that supports our legal position, and we will appeal the jury verdict rendered in the 18th Judicial District Court.”

    The next civil case is set for trial on Nov. 2, a spokesman for Arnold & Itkin told Bloomberg BNA. There are more than 100 other plaintiffs awaiting their civil suit to be heard by the court.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007458&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007458&jd=98007458

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

Environment News

19. More Than 1.8 Million Exposed to Risks From Oil Sites: Report

    Sep 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rachel Leven

     More than 1.81 million Latinos live within a half-mile of an existing oil and natural gas facility, exposing them to health risks such as asthma and cancer from related air pollution, according to a reportreleased Sept. 28.
    

    At the same time, Latinos are less able to deal with these risks due to high levels of poverty and low levels of health insurance coverage, the report by the Clean Air Task Force, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Hispanic Medical Association and Earthworks said. The report is the first to specifically examine oil and gas facility risks exclusively for Latinos.

    “With millions of Latinos facing threats to their health as a result of living in close proximity to environmental hazards, it is important that action be taken to ensure the best health outcomes for Latinos,” LULAC National Executive Director Brent Wilkes said in a statement. “By pinpointing the location of these environmentally at-risk communities, we can adequately prioritize policies that will address the health issues facing the Latino community.”

    The Environmental Protection Agency should propose methane standards for existing oil and gas facilities, the report, “Latino Communities at Risk: The Impact of air pollution from the Oil and Gas Industry,” said. The report also proposes solutions such as companies providing vouchers for inhalers.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98007465&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98007465&jd=98007465

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Advocates Sue EPA To Force Action On PM2.5 Air Plans

    Sep 29, 2016 | Inside EPA

    Environmentalists are suing EPA over numerous deadlines the group says the agency has missed for implementation of its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), including requirements to decide on whether to approve states' revised plans for reducing pollution in order to meet the standards.

    The suit, filed Sept. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Center for Environmental Health, claims that the agency has failed to act by statutory deadlines on reviewing modifications to state implementation plans (SIPs) that states have either submitted to the agency, or neglected to submit, to implement its 2006 and 2012 NAAQS for PM2.5.

    In 2006, EPA tightened its 24-hour NAAQS for the pollutant down from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 35 ug/m3. The 2012 NAAQS is 12 ug/m3 annually, tougher than the prior level of 15 ug/m3.

    The suit cites 24 states as failing to fully implement the PM2.5 standards: Alaska, Arizona, California, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

    Specifically, Maricopa, AZ, Local Air Agency; Pima, AZ, Local Air Agency; and Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District-Jefferson County, KY, have failed to submit SIP modifications to include in their regulations PM2.5 “increments,” or specific amounts of pollution used to determine when NAAQS will be exceeded, following a 2010 EPA rule setting increments that triggered requirements for the areas to act, the groups say.

    Advocates say EPA should have issued “findings of failure to submit” the SIPs in January 2013, starting a two-year deadline for states to either submit the required plan or EPA to issue its own federal implementation plan (FIP) instead.

    The environmentalists also say EPA has failed to either approve or disapprove SIP submissions from the North Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District in California; Imperial County, CA; and Oklahoma.

    They further allege that 18 states have failed to submit SIPs to satisfy the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” requirement with respect to the 2012 NAAQS. The provision requires that states mitigate emissions that cause or contribute to NAAQS violations downwind. EPA has not issued the requisite findings of failure to submit, the groups charge.

    EPA has also failed to act on New Jersey's 2014 good neighbor SIP, and has failed to issue a FIP for aspects of Wyoming's clean air plan that it has already disapproved, the groups claim.

    The pending suit also alleges that the agency has failed to determine whether a number of areas designated in “moderate” nonattainment of the 2006 NAAQS attained the standard by the operative deadline. A finding that they had not attained should trigger a “bump-up” to “serious” nonattainment status under the air law, giving them longer to comply but imposing tougher emissions control requirements.

    The areas in question had an attainment deadline of Dec. 31, and EPA should have issued an attainment determination by June 30, but failed to do so with respect to: Nogales, AZ; West Central Pinal, AZ; Chico, CA; Imperial, CA; Sacramento, CA; San Francisco Bay Area, CA; Logan, UT-Idaho; Liberty-Clairton, PA; Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN; Logan, UT; Provo, UT; and Salt Lake City, UT, the groups say.

    “The EPA and states are ignoring their duty to clean up our skies to protect all of us from dangerous pollution,” said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at CBD, in a press release on the lawsuit. “The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful tools for saving lives, protecting wildlife and reducing the haze of toxic soot pollution, but it can’t help if the EPA and the states don’t do what it requires.”

    http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/advocates-sue-epa-force-action-pm25-air-plans
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. The Carbon Tax Is Not Just Political; It's Ineffective, Too

    Sep 29, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits

    By Benjamin Zycher

    In a recent editorial in support of a carbon tax, The Washington Post complains that "Americans are burning record amounts of gasoline," arguing that "one of the most glaring ... flaws" of the "Environmental Protection Agency fuel-efficiency mandates" is the reality that the regulations "cannot control how much people drive or what type of vehicles people buy."

    That the absence of such coercion is viewed casually as a "flaw" illustrates the descent of thePost editorial board into the totalitarian mindset that is the very definition of modern environmentalism. Moreover, the Post seems not to understand even the basics of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards regulating gasoline mileage for passenger cars and light trucks: They are promulgated not by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but by theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Instead, the EPA measures actual fuel consumption for the auto manufacturers' respective fleets, and promulgates regulations on various emissions, which in principle are coordinated with the NHTSA mileage regulations.

    But never mind. The Post favors "a policy that [would] encourage individuals and businesses to account for the environmental impacts of driving ... or doing anything else that involves fossil fuels. This policy is a steadily rising carbon tax ... [that would] encourage every other piece of the economy to green up over time."

    The Post presumably has heard of the Clean Air Act and the federal and state regulations achieving national ambient air quality standards. Compliance is far from costless, so that this massive regulatory framework indeed does force "individuals and businesses to account for the environmental impacts of" using fossil fuels, at least as a first approximation. Since a carbon tax conceptually would apply to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) rather than such conventional effluents as carbon monoxide, the tax at least directly would have little to do with air quality as usually defined; instead, it would be an effort to reduce the (asserted) future temperature and other climate effects of increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.

    And so what can we say about a carbon tax and future climate phenomena? Quite a lot, actually, beginning with the perhaps-surprising observation that whatever one believes about the underlying science and evidence on climate issues, the effect of such a tax on future temperatures would be effectively zero.

    Consider the Obama administration's climate action plan, intended to reduce U.S. emissions of GHG 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and let us assume that the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, under which the U.S. is committed to reduce its emissions an additional 10 percent by 2025, while China pledges to achieve a peak in its emissions by 2030, is meaningful. (It is not: Neither Chinese emissions in 2030 nor after that year are quantified.) The U.S. contribution to reduced global temperatures in 2100 would be about 0.03 of a degree, using the EPA's own climate model, under assumptions that exaggerate the effectiveness of the policies. Note that the standard deviation of the temperature record is about a 0.1 of a degree, so that the U.S. effect would not be measurable against normal variation.

    In the larger context, even the notional worldwide reductions in emissions supposedly to be achieved under the 2015 Paris Conference of Parties (COP)-21 "breakthrough" agreement would yield trivial temperature effects in 2100. Let us instead be really bold and assume emissions reductions far greater than those promised in Paris. If we assume that China will reduce its emissions by 20 percent by 2030 (rather than merely reach a peak), we get a temperature reduction by 2100 of 0.20 of a degree. The same effect is predicted by the EPA climate model for a 30 percent reduction by 2030 for the rest of the industrialized world. Add an impossible 20 percent cut in emissions by the rest of the developing world; that yields another 0.1 of a degree at most. So the total effect including that noted above for the U.S. would be a bit more than half of a degree.

    Note that the Paris "breakthrough" reduction promises are nothing of the kind. Almost all are defined relative to "business as usual" baselines, which are driven by economic growth assumptions a decade and more in the future. If growth proves lower than assumed, the emissions promises will be fulfilled without any actual changes in underlying emissions behavior at all. Voilà!

    And so the first dimension of the Post's confusion is straightforward: The proposed tax would have only a trivial effect on temperatures — zero, as a matter of statistical significance — that is, on the assumed underlying externality, a reality that belies the common assumption that such a tax would improve the efficiency of resource allocation. Instead, the proposed tax is almost entirely a revenue device, about which more below.

    There is more. The Post endorses a carbon tax as a policy that, again, would "encourage individuals and businesses to account for the environmental impacts of driving." That suggests that the tax should be chosen so as to reflect the social cost of carbon, or, a bit more rigorously, the social costs not reflected in market prices. (Note that the Obama administration estimate of the social cost of carbon is deeply flawed analytically.) A tax too low or too high is inconsistent with the efficiency goal of such an externality ("Pigouvian") tax.

    And so the question that follows immediately is simple: Are there reasons to predict that government would choose the efficient tax even if it were known? After all, to say that uninternalized externalities result in private sector inefficiency is very different from saying that government policy will yield net improvement.

    Note that fuel taxes, excise taxes on tires, and the like finance more than roads and other services the demands for which are complementary with the demand for fuel; they pay also for urban transit systems and bicycle paths and debt service and education and other such programs and special-interest boondoggles of far less interest to those paying fuel taxes. At the same time, state fuel taxes and other such fees do not cover the costs of highway spending, and federal fuel taxes and earmarked outlays do not make up the difference. This net subsidy issue is complex, but the Post's carbon tax has nothing to do per se with that issue.

    In any event, a carbon tax from a political perspective is a revenue device. Do policymakers in Congress or the executive branch have incentives to choose the tax that yields the efficient emissions level for GHG? Or is it far more likely that revenue would prove to be the driving maximand? After all, taxes are politically painful, an effect that spending on favored constituencies can salve.

    And that is not all: Would the chosen tax rate maximize the present value of the revenue stream over a shorter or longer time horizon? It is not hard to predict the former, as the marginal members of the majority coalition in Congress are those most endangered in the next election; for them, greater spending in the here and now is certain to be an attractive tool for reelection purposes, and efficiency in environmental policy or resource allocation is an irrelevant abstraction.

    That is why the common assumption that an emissions tax as a vehicle for achievement of reduced effluent levels would be more efficient than command-and-control regulation is far from obviously correct. Because the tax yields politically useful revenues, it is likely to be too high, especially given the short time horizons shaping congressional outcomes. At the same time, the bureaucracy is an interest group with both budget and ideological incentives to expand its regulatory authority; accordingly, regulations are likely to be too stringent unless there is a requirement that Congress approve them. Without additional revenues to sweeten the regulatory pot, the complex bargaining process that yields congressional actions would impose appropriate constraints upon the regulatory process by subjecting it to a crude "market" test, a topic for another day.

    The Post gives the game away with its proposal that the carbon tax rise "steadily." If the tax is intended to force "individuals and businesses to account for the environmental impacts of" using fossil fuels, it is not quite clear why it should rise over time. Basic climate science tells us that the radiative (temperature) effect of an additional ton of GHG falls as atmospheric concentrations of GHG rise, and those concentrations are certain to rise over the course of this century. (The radiative forcing effect is logarithmic.) This means that the tax should fall over time as GHG concentrations increase (although the ensuing distortions in investment behavior and the like would be a serious problem to be avoided with a constant tax). Amusingly, the Post, in its green ideological fervor against autos, has ignored the science while publishing op-eds accusing climate "skeptics" (actually, lukewarmers) of doing the same!

    Like Sherlock Holmes's dog that failed to bark, one searches the Post editorial in vain for a proposal to cut other taxes in exchange for the new carbon tax, so to make the system revenue neutral. Accordingly, it is easy to conclude that the environmental rationale for the Post's proposal is a charade, intended to mask yet another attempt by the political class to justify this latest attempt to extract resources from the private sector.

    And since the Post prefers that "individuals and businesses" account for the environmental effects of their consumption and production activities, let us recognize how very dirty "clean" energy actually is: Land-use both massive and ghastly in its unsightliness. Toxic metalpollution. Flicker and noise effects. The destruction of wildlife. And increases — yes, increases — in the output of conventional pollutants, due to the need to cycle conventional backup units up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, so as to preserve system reliability. Will the Post editorialize in favor of an environmental tax on wind and solar power? Don't hold your breath.

    That the Post's proposal is largely political is illustrated by its use of the term "carbon," which is political propaganda designed to cut off debate before it begins by assuming that there is something sinister about GHG. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas a certain minimum atmospheric concentration of which is necessary for life itself. It is not "carbon," or soot. By far the most important GHG in terms of the radiative properties of the troposphere is water vapor; does anyone call it a pollutant? Of course not; but that cannot be because ocean evaporation is a natural process. So are volcanic eruptions, but the massive amounts of toxins and particulates emitted by volcanoes are pollutants by any definition. Yet again the Post is happy to embrace intellectual confusion in pursuit of a purely political goal, an orientation endemic in the Beltway.

    Zycher is the John G. Searle scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/298285-the-carbon-tax-is-not-just-political-its-ineffective
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Think Tank Urges Conservatives To Consider Carbon Tax

    Sep 29, 2016 | E&E Daily

    By Hannah Hess

    Conservatives should consider a revenue-neutral carbon tax rather than "command-and-control" regulations to address pollution, a free-market think tank argued in a study released today.

    The R Street Institute's Catrina Rorke suggests a "modest carbon price" of about $20 per ton, which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would reduce emissions 8 percent and allow the government to collect an estimated $1.2 trillion over the first decade.

    "This isn't a radical policy that seeks to transform the economy overnight, but rather a steady expression of carbon risk through a transparent signal that lets the market decide how best to reduce emissions over time," Rorke wrote.

    The success of an emissions trading program in the federal government's fight against acid rain in the 1990s is offered as a "winning example" of how a market-based trading system could bring more ingenuity to focus on combating pollution.

    Rorke, who directs energy policy as a senior fellow for R Street, contends pricing carbon would be a less expensive solution than the Obama administration's regulatory approach to tackling climate change.

    That "scattershot approach" to emissions reductions — U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards, regulations on oil and gas development, and energy efficiency programs — carries costs that range from 21 cents to $125.15 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, according to an illustration in the report.

    Lifting those costs would empower markets to find innovative solutions, Rorke says.

    Striking a different tone from some Republicans on Capitol Hill, Rorke notes the "clear consensus" is that the climate is changing, humans are largely responsible and the impacts are more than likely to be negative.

    The best policy puts future generations in a position to adapt and afford the future damage of climate change, she writes, such as melting glaciers, sea-level rise, and more frequent and dangerous storms.

    R Street and other conservative proponents of a carbon tax, like former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, want to sway more GOP lawmakers to rally around the contentious concept.

    The House adopted a resolution this summer expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be "detrimental" to the American economy (E&ENews PM, June 10).

    http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/29/stories/1060043594
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Congress Shouldn’t Consider TPP During Lame Duck Session

    Sep 28, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

    By Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.)

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be the largest free trade agreement in history, with 12 nations representing 40 percent of the global market. In this context, the potential impact on the economy, the environment and American jobs is huge.

    We cannot afford to get this wrong.

    Unfortunately, TPP as written will have devastating consequences for American workers, environmental safeguards, and human rights across the globe.

    International trade can be a useful tool for economic expansion and job creation. However, this version of the TPP sets dangerous precedents that will be all but impossible to undo.

    One of the most alarming aspects of TPP is the expansion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process, giving corporations a legal weapon to enforce their agendas on sovereign nations.

    This allows private businesses to sue nations over laws that hurt their corporate bottom line. That’s any laws - for anything - even legislation designed to improve social health, protect the environment or enhance worker rights.

    Corporations have already used ISDS to bring over 700 lawsuits against more than 100 governments around the world. For example, when Australia attempted to reduce smoking by mandating graphic packaging, companies like tobacco giant Philip Morris filed suit. And when California banned the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline because it was polluting groundwater, a Canadian company sued, costing the state and federal government millions of dollars to defend the case.

    Profits will trump public health in a post-TPP world. They will also trump the environment.

    The ISDS process, integral to TPP, will allow companies to steamroll national sovereignty on critical areas like environmental protection. Costa Rica was sued under these provisions in CAFTA by real estate developers for having environmental regulations that prevented future profits. 

    Yes, future, unrealized profits.

    Companies have used these suits to try to avoid paying for oil pollution in Ecuador and remove regulations on coal-fired power plants in Germany, and just this year, TransCanada announced a $15 billion lawsuit against the United States for rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Under TPP, over 9,000 additional companies would be allowed to bring similar lawsuits.

    We cannot cede such great power to those who will aggressively undermine public prosperity and security in their narrow-minded pursuit of maximizing profits.

    We also must be thoughtful about how much authority we cede in our efforts to combat human rights abuses. TPP fails to safeguard against human rights abuses and, on the contrary, will reward some state abusers by inviting them into this agreement.

    TPP lacks strong provisions to deal with countries with repulsive human rights abuses including human trafficking and intolerance of the LGBT population, among others. For example, Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei fail to meet a basic standard of protection for their LGBT populations. Consensual same-sex sexual relations are still criminalized. Yet TPP welcomes these nations with open arms.

    TPP similarly lacks clear and enforceable labor protections to stop labor abuses. Nations with a poor track record of labor rights will have no incentive to stop exploitive practices.

    Despite the ostensible - and laudable goal - of economic expansion, I am concerned that too many workers will actually get left behind. While this agreement requires nations to implement minimum wage laws, nothing in TPP prevents them from setting the wage as low as 5 cents an hour.

    Not only does this threaten the well-being of working people around the world, it threatens jobs right here in the United States, as American businesses would be even further incentivized to move work overseas.

    That, in turn, threatens the wages, benefits, and collective bargaining rights of American employees. I am concerned the rules – written by corporate executives behind closed doors – have been skewed to increase profits at the expense of the working class.

    Wealthy shareholders and CEOs would profit while Americans lose their jobs and foreign workers suffer in substandard working conditions.

    Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have evaluated each free trade agreement based on whether it ensures strong, clear, and enforceable labor, environmental, and human rights standards.

    Building closer economic ties with our partners in the Pacific Rim is an important goal. However, it cannot come at the cost of atrocious human rights violations, destroying the livelihoods of American workers, and destructive environmental practices.

    I do not believe that the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that was sent to Congress meets my standards. It does not deserve to be considered during a lame-duck session. 

    As it is currently written, TPP should not be brought up, period. 

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/298392-congress-shouldnt-consider-tpp-during-lame-duck-session
    

    Return to headline | Return to top