Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/30/16
-
Boxer Targets Asbestos with New TSCA Bill
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation targeting asbestos. Boxer's bill would reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act mere months after Congress overhauled the law. It would direct U.S. EPA "to take action to eliminate human exposure to asbestos." -
Pharma Industry Says EDC Criteria Need a Risk-Based Approach
Sep 29, 2016 | Manufacturing Chemist Pharma
The European Commission’s long awaited criteria to determine which substances are endocrine disrupting (hormone changing) chemicals (EDCs) — and should therefore be banned under the European Union’s biocidal (BPR) and plant protection products (PPPR) regulations — should be based on risk not hazard, the pharmaceutical industry has warned. -
California SCP Seeks Feedback on Next Priority Product Candidates
Sep 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has begun the stakeholder engagement process for selecting new priority products under its Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
Free-Market Group Sues EPA Over Italian Lab Data FOIA
Sep 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
A free-market group has filed a lawsuit claiming EPA has failed to meet a statutory deadline for responding to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information that it believes the agency has on a controversial Italian toxicology research center whose data informed some contested EPA risk assessments. -
E&E's Gilmer and Reilly Give Behind-the-Scenes Take on Arguments, Reaction
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
What was the scene like inside the courtroom during the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's hearing of arguments in the lawsuit challenging U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan this week? During today's OnPoint, Ellen Gilmer, a reporter for EnergyWire, and Amanda Reilly, a reporter for Greenwire, give their behind-the-scenes perspectives of this week's oral arguments. They also discuss the various timeline scenarios for a ruling and subsequent legal action. -
Some Opponents Say EPA Looking Good After Oral Arguments
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
With time to reflect on the way Tuesday's nearly seven hours of oral arguments on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan unfolded, some of those aligned with opponents of the rule anticipate an uphill battle with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. -
Senate Hearing in W.Va. to Probe Climate Rule Impacts
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. senators who are technically on break until after the November elections will hold a hearing next week in West Virginia to get local input on federal climate standards for the power sector. -
House Dems Call for Do-Over of Federal Review
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Nineteen House Democrats called on President Obama yesterday to rescind federal permits for the controversial $3.7 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline and embark on a new environmental review of the project. -
U.S. Shale Companies Find a Market in China
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By May Ma
Natural gas is becoming the centerpiece of U.S.-China collaboration in the energy and climate sectors, top energy officials from both countries said at a joint oil and gas industry forum this week. -
Jordan Cove LNG Export Project Still on Track, CEO Says
Sep 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
It is not a matter of if, but when, the now-stalled Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project gets on track at FERC, the CEO in charge of the project for Calgary-based Veresen Inc. told an investor day audience in Toronto on Tuesday. -
The Americans are Coming! US Shale Gas Finds a New Market in Britain
Sep 30, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ellen Powell
The first shipment of US shale gas arrived in Britain on Tuesday, sailing into the competing winds of US economic growth, British job creation, and environmental concerns. -
House Approves Flint Aid; More Action on Lead Needed
Sep 30, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Wednesday night, the House of Representatives passed its version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) by a wide margin. -
Railroad Reregulation is Not What Congress Intended
Sep 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chuck Baker and David Tennent
On the heels of the first presidential debate, Americans remain critically focused on how best to stimulate the U.S. economy. Both Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to promote massive infrastructure investments, even if funding mechanisms remain vague. -
Paris Climate Deal Seen Taking Force This Year as EU Speeds Up Ratification
Sep 30, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Gabriele Steinhauser
A global agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is all but certain to enter into force in November, after European Union environment ministers agreed on Friday to speed up the bloc’s ratification of the agreement. -
Dear Speaker Ryan: Your 'Forward-Looking Agenda' Ignores Climate Change
Sep 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
House Speaker Paul Ryan spent much of this summer promoting the Republican policy agenda he calls “A Better Way.” He’s selling this repackaged mix of upper-income tax cuts and unregulated capitalism as a set of innovative, up-to-date solutions to our country’s ailments.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Boxer Targets Asbestos with New TSCA Bill
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation targeting asbestos.
Boxer's bill would reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act mere months after Congress overhauled the law. It would direct U.S. EPA "to take action to eliminate human exposure to asbestos."
Last month, Boxer urged EPA to evaluate asbestos under the new chemical legislation (Greenwire, Aug. 26).
The agency is widely expected to include asbestos among its list of priority chemicals that pose a tangible threat to human health or the environment. Under the 2016 TSCA reforms, the agency must name 10 urgent compounds by the end of this year.
From there, the agency can put restrictions in place.
Asbestos is a mineral that was once used extensively in building insulation and fireproofing. Its microscopic fibers infiltrate the lungs and can lead to lung cancer and mesothelioma.
It is unclear what new tools, if any, Boxer's bill would hand EPA to restrict use of asbestos, which is today used predominantly by the chloralkali industry to produce compounds such as chlorine and sodium hydroxide.
The bill has been referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee — where Boxer serves as the ranking member — but the text of the proposed legislation has not been released. With Congress on recess until a lame-duck session begins in mid-November, it is also unclear whether the bill will be on the committee docket later this year.
According to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the United States used 360 tons of asbestos in 2015. The mineral is mined primarily in Brazil.
EPA moved to ban asbestos in 1989, but courts later nullified the ban under TSCA.
"We've called for the ban of asbestos and other toxic chemicals for decades," said Alex Formuzis, spokesman for the Environmental Working Group. "Under the new TSCA regime ... we believe the EPA does have the authority to ban, finally, asbestos."
Formuzis noted that the mineral still kills up to 15,000 Americans a year, and that the mortality rate has not declined even though use of asbestos has plummeted over the last 30 years.
"The deadly legacy of asbestos remains," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/30/stories/1060043700
-
Pharma Industry Says EDC Criteria Need a Risk-Based Approach
Sep 29, 2016 | Manufacturing Chemist Pharma
The European Commission’s long awaited criteria to determine which substances are endocrine disrupting (hormone changing) chemicals (EDCs) — and should therefore be banned under the European Union’s biocidal (BPR) and plant protection products (PPPR) regulations — should be based on risk not hazard, the pharmaceutical industry has warned.
EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, recently unveiled the criteria in Brussels. He assured journalists that the ‘strict, science-based criteria’ would be implemented as soon as possible with the help of EFSA and the European Chemicals Agency.
The EC should have produced them by mid-December 2013, but only released its proposals in June, despite a 16 December ruling in the European Court of Justice’s General Court condemning the delay — which environmental groups claimed was caused by industry lobbying.
Choosing policy option two of four published in June 2014, the Commission has kept the 2002 definition proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO), stating that the substance is an endocrine disruptor if it adversely affects human health, has an endocrine mode of action and if there is a causal link between the adverse effect and mode of action. This definition will now be integrated into the EU chemical controls.
Sini Eskola, Director of Regulatory Affairs at the EFPIA, told Manufacturing Chemist that the industry welcomed the guidance and appreciated that the content was based on widely accepted WHO criteria, ‘but we have some reservations and see their application in practice leading to a number of ambiguous interpretations.’
Eskola argues that the criteria might be used in regulatory frameworks based solely on hazard identification considerations, whereas the actual risk, which includes the likelihood that humans or wildlife are exposed to EDCs, is neglected. ‘This inappropriate use of criteria might not only affect chemical substances, but also natural products in our food as well,’ she added.
Therefore, Eskola continued: ‘Industry has always proposed a risk assessment approach and we hope that when applying these criteria into various European regulation and legislation frameworks, the aspect of potency (strength of a dose) and risk will be applied.’
‘We still lack a commonly accepted working criteria that differentiates between a substance of regulatory concern and a substance of no or low concern,’ said PlasticsEurope Executive Director Karl H. Foerster
She hopes that the new rules won’t hinder patient access to medicinal products or lead to any bans: ‘As rigorous efficacy and safety testing enables all regulators, industry and healthcare providers to apply a strict risk/benefit approach for the approval and use of medicines under the medicinal products legislation, only those compounds that show a clear therapeutic benefit compared with potential safety risks are authorised for market access,’ Eskola said. ‘This also relates to medicines that impact the endocrine system in the sense of the Commission’s EDC criteria, with substitutions and process changes considered whenever possible.’
Chemists are concerned that certain compounds used to produce medicines may become unavailable because of the REACH chemicals legislation, she warned, saying that this latest development ‘will be monitored carefully and assessed with supply chain partners. The chemicals and plastics industries, key suppliers to the pharma sector, were also disappointed that the EC opted for a hazard-based approach to defining EDCs without taking potency into account, despite Commissioner Andriukaitis’s assurance to European Parliament environment committee MEPs in June that: ‘If a substance is identified as a hazard, it will be banned unless derogations apply.’
CEFIC addressed the problem in May: ‘Two painkillers may have very different potencies; unless potency is taken into account, we run the risk of considering a harmless substance as an ED, rendering the definition essentially meaningless.’
Meanwhile, many MEPs threaten to veto the proposals, which could mean that they might not even reach the statute books. Environment and consumer organisations say the rules mean that even if a product is classed as an endocrine disruptor, derogations would be allowed based on ‘negligible risk’ and not give consumers enough protection.
Czech socialist MEP, Pavel Poc, and Belgium green MEP and his group’s environment and health spokesperson, Bas Eickhout, say the Commission’s definition is ‘very restrictive’ as it only addresses biocides and pesticides, and will not protect consumers, including vulnerable groups, from EDCs in daily use products including medicines.
Non-governmental organisation Health and Environment Alliance’s Senior Policy Officer, Lisette van Vliet, went as far as saying she was ‘astounded by the proposal’ and that the EC should have ranked chemicals as ‘known, suspected or potential’ EDCs.
European consumer organisation BEUC’s Head of Sustainability and Safety, Sylvia Maurer, agreed, saying the definition must identify all known and suspected EDCs to protect consumers ‘from harmful chemicals found in clothes, cosmetics and food packaging.’
http://www.manufacturingchemist.com/technical/article_page/Pharma_industry_says_EDC_criteria_need_a_riskbased_approach/121605
-
California SCP Seeks Feedback on Next Priority Product Candidates
Sep 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has begun the stakeholder engagement process for selecting new priority products under its Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The agency will host a webinar on 15 November to get input on the implementation of its priority products work plan (PPWP). It aims to give stakeholders "an opportunity to provide information to, and help inform, DTSC in making decisions about the next priority products."
The webinar will focus on three topics:
the potential aquatic impacts of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), triclosan and some of their transformation products. Their use in cleaning, personal care and clothing products – as well as any other significant or emerging uses – will also be discussed;
nail salon products. Discussion will focus on determining what hazardous chemicals are present and the purpose these serve. Input is also requested on safer alternatives currently in use in the marketplace; and
the exposure potential from the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in carpets, rugs, upholstered furniture, and their care and treatment products. It will also discuss the hazard traits of short-chain PFASs, fluorinated ethers and other 'novel' PFASs.
The department says it will solicit further information and post background documents on each of these topics after the meeting.
Priority products
Manufacturers of product-chemical pairs named as priority products under the SCP programme are required to perform an alternatives analysis (AA). This will see if a chemical is necessary in a product, or if there is a safer alternative, while avoiding regrettable substitutions.
The first priority products rulemaking under the SCP is underway. It concerns children's foam-padded sleeping products containing the flame retardants TDCPP and TCEP.
In comments on the proposal, industry said the agency should increase its engagement with stakeholders before naming priority products. And NGOs criticised the narrow scope of the first product-chemical pairing.
The DTSC says it is finalising materials to begin the rulemakings for the other two potential priority products:
spray polyurethane foam containing unreacted di-isocyanates (dg); and
paint and varnish removers containing methylene chloride.
It also expects to release the full AA guide for public comment in the autumn. The stage 1 draft AA guidance came out last year.
The DTSC says it plans to address all comments on the guide before the children’s sleep products rule goes into effect. Therefore it does not expect to delay the AA requirements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49981/california-scp-seeks-feedback-on-next-priority-product-candidates
-
Free-Market Group Sues EPA Over Italian Lab Data FOIA
Sep 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
A free-market group has filed a lawsuit claiming EPA has failed to meet a statutory deadline for responding to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information that it believes the agency has on a controversial Italian toxicology research center whose data informed some contested EPA risk assessments.
The Energy & Environment Legal Institute's (E&E) suit filed Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, notes that the group filed its FOIA request on May 18 seeking EPA records discussing and analyzing work done by the Ramazzini Institute. “The requested records specifically related to the Institute’s analytical and toxicological methods and whether the Institute’s studies were being considered for use by the EPA.”
The complaint notes that E&E Legal on June 3 agreed to narrow the scope of the FOIA request at EPA's request to certain EPA offices and “to documents discussing the quality and credibility of the Ramazzini Institute’s work” -- but says it has had no further response after EPA on June 10 granted its request to waive FOIA fees. The suit asks a judge to find that EPA must release the requested documents and order the agency to do so within 20 days.
The Ramazzini Institute's studies of fuel oxygenate chemicals ETBE and MTBE, as well as methanol, led to outcry from industry representatives when EPA's research office used the data in what they considered strict draft risk analyses of the chemicals -- although the agency largely dropped its reliance on these studies.
In a Sept. 29 press release, E&E Legal indicates its interest in Ramazzini relates to glyphosate, a widely-used herbicide that environmentalists have urged EPA to ban, arguing its use poses significant ecological and human health risks. An EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) will meet in October to consider EPA's analysis of glyphosate's potential carcinogenicity, including novel use of human epidemiological evidence.
“Ramazzini has strong, and in fact by far the most dominant, connections to a document called [International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)] Monograph 112, which declared an active ingredient in the popular herbicide glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic,'” E&E Legal's statement says. “In late April, EPA posted a report, stamped 'FINAL,' concluding that glyphosate was not likely carcinogenic, then quickly pulled it offline the next business day. This strange move drew great public scrutiny and, ... months later, EPA affirmed the conclusion. What transpired behind this odd series of events is the subject of E&E Legal’s request at issue in the suit filed today.”
EPA earlier this month released documents for the SAP review concluding that available evidence suggests the substance is not likely to pose a risk of human cancer at relevant doses -- leading one pesticide industry source to argue that the finding should lead EPA to expedite the herbicide's long-stalled registration review.
E&E Legal in the new lawsuit adds that eight of the IARC glyphosate monograph authors are Ramazzini fellows. It argues that “Ramazzini staff, fellow and other relationships raise questions about its role in the movement seeking to reverse accepted research conclusions on glyphosate, long a target of the international environmental movement for its popularity given it kills weeds without killing crops.”
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
E&E's Gilmer and Reilly Give Behind-the-Scenes Take on Arguments, Reaction
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
What was the scene like inside the courtroom during the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's hearing of arguments in the lawsuit challenging U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan this week? During today's OnPoint, Ellen Gilmer, a reporter for EnergyWire, and Amanda Reilly, a reporter for Greenwire, give their behind-the-scenes perspectives of this week's oral arguments. They also discuss the various timeline scenarios for a ruling and subsequent legal action.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today are Ellen Gilmer and Amanda Reilly. Both are reporters here at E&E Publishing. Ellen, Amanda, thank you both for joining me today. It's nice to have you on set.
Ellen Gilmer: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: So you were both present for the D.C. Circuit's marathon day of oral arguments in the lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan. What are your key takeaways from the arguments and your week of reporting, Ellen?
Ellen Gilmer: It's been a busy, busy week. I would say the key takeaway from Tuesday's, like you said, marathon session, is that the court is going to have to grapple with this issue of what standard of review do they even apply to this rule. Does this rule trigger a stricter standard of review where the court has to decide whether the Clean Air Act actually is clear about giving EPA authority to do this?
Monica Trauzzi: Amanda?
Amanda Reilly: Yeah, I would — to piggyback off of that, the Supreme Court came out with a decision recently. It's actually one of the late Justice Scalia's last opinions where he said, you know, in cases where rules are economically and politically significant, you have to take them with a measure of skepticism. So this is kind of where all this is coming from. You know, did Congress clearly state that EPA should put out something like the Clean Power Plan?
Monica Trauzzi: And, Ellen, after the arguments, you reported that critics are likely not going to win on the question of whether the rule is transformative. There's pretty strong agreement among the environmental community about that. Talk about that story.
Ellen Gilmer: Certainly that's what the environmental community would say. They believe that, while the court will have to grapple with this issue and was asking a lot of questions to try to determine whether the rule should be subject to that stricter standard, the environmental community thinks that it's very unlikely that a majority of judges are going to conclude that they're going to end up deciding on that issue.
Monica Trauzzi: Amanda, talk a bit about your experience in the courtroom that day. I know everyone lined up very early in the morning. How was — take us inside the room. How was that day from a reporter's perspective?
Amanda Reilly: Sure. Well, I think Ellen and I arrived at about 6:30 a.m. to line up at the courthouse, and there were already dozens of people waiting to line up. I mean, it attracted basically the top environmental and energy attorneys and experts in the country, you know, all together in one courtroom. As you said, there was lots of standing in line, little food, no access to cell phones. I think it was just — it was quite the experience. It also attracted top Obama administration officials. U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy sat in on the arguments until about 1 in the afternoon. Other top agency officials were there the entire day. Brian Deese, one of President Obama's top advisers, was there in the morning as well.
Monica Trauzzi: Ellen, how was the day for you?
Ellen Gilmer: It was — I would agree it was a long day. What I thought was interesting in the courtroom, there were so many people jammed in there, the court marshals really applied the rule of law. There were top officials — maybe not top officials, but top attorneys on both sides who were being reprimanded for having a bottle of water, putting their feet up on the benches, you know, things like that. So they kept a really tight ship there.
Amanda Reilly: Also rows of people made to scoot in just a little bit closer to fit just a few more people into the courtroom.
Monica Trauzzi: So we've all heard many predictions about the outcome this week, but in terms of timing, what are the different scenarios we're looking at for how this may all play out, Amanda?
Amanda Reilly: Well, I think everyone kind of agrees that we're not going to see a decision before the election. So we're looking at some time after that, probably early 2017, but that is still up in the air. The timing of when the D.C. Circuit's decision comes out affects when the Supreme Court is going to decide whether to take it up because I think everyone expects that there will be — petitioners will — or EPA or depending on the outcome will ask the Supreme Court to take up the case. So, the court may decide to take it up in the spring or they may wait until their fall session to make that decision. So I think the long story short is this is going to be going on for quite a while still.
Monica Trauzzi: And, Ellen, then there's that question of whether there's a ninth justice by that point.
Ellen Gilmer: Absolutely. And by the fall of 2017, it's looking a lot more likely than if the court got to it sooner. It seems more likely that someone will be confirmed as the ninth Supreme Court justice, but there's always a lot of uncertainty with that question.
Monica Trauzzi: So you both did some fantastic reporting this week. What's the reaction been from our readers?
Amanda Reilly: Well, I think our readers like to see sort of the wonkier legal aspects of it, which is kind of what we do here. You know, in the courtroom we — or ahead of the arguments, we put together this little legal guide. We have information that's been on our website for months on the case. Saw some printouts of that in the courtroom the day of. I think Senator Markey was spotted wandering around the basement of one of the Senate buildings clutching one of our stories. Robin Bravender wrote one of the first stories, I think, out of the gate on kind of how the arguments were going.
Ellen Gilmer: And they're — our readers are definitely, like Amanda said, very into the wonky details. I wrote a story Tuesday night that laid out what happened in each section of arguments, which became so technical that nobody would read that other than an E&E reader. And I think that they were interested to know what it was like in the courtroom that day till the very end.
Amanda Reilly: I think, to add to that, you know, a lot of the reporters kind of had trickled out throughout the day, but we were among the few who sat through the entire argument.
Monica Trauzzi: You guys stuck it out. Well, listen, thank you for joining me, and I hope you both get some sleep this weekend.
Amanda Reilly: Thank you.
Ellen Gilmer: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2168/transcript
-
Some Opponents Say EPA Looking Good After Oral Arguments
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
With time to reflect on the way Tuesday's nearly seven hours of oral arguments on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan unfolded, some of those aligned with opponents of the rule anticipate an uphill battle with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"It appeared to me that it was going to be upheld, and I think that's the general consensus," said Ray Gifford, an energy lawyer with Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP and a former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
"You can count six or seven [judges in favor of EPA] pretty readily," he said of the 10-judge panel that heard the landmark case.
Gifford was in the courtroom the entire time on behalf of a client that filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners that want to see the rule to curb carbon emissions from power plants voided.
"EPA portrayed [the rule] as gradual, not radical, simple, achievable, flexible, and the D.C. Circuit really seemed to buy that. And you didn't have the counternarrative emerge that the petitioners would want that this is a totalistic transformation of the U.S. electric industry," Gifford said.
"Institutionally, the court was not poised to overturn this rule," he said.
An attorney aligned with public power interests who spent the day in court felt similarly.
"I never like to presume where judges are going to rule. But coming out of it, I do think EPA is more likely to win. But I would be surprised if they uphold their rule in its entirety. My gut says it may be a win for EPA, but it's going to be messy," the attorney said, noting that the D.C. Circuit "tends to be pretty deferential to federal agencies."
If opponents of the EPA rule are to prevail, it would likely be on the statutory argument that EPA does not have the authority to propose such an economically consequential rule without a clear statement from Congress, the attorney and Gifford agreed.
Neither came away from the courtroom believing the opponents had convinced the judges of the merits of arguments regarding the constitutionality of the rule, faulty notice or conflicting legislative wording in the Clean Air Act that's guiding the plan. "The judges didn't seem very receptive" to those arguments, the attorney said.
Gifford, a former electricity regulator, thought the discussion between the judges and attorneys "was so abstract it struck me that the court didn't fully appreciate what [this rule] is asking the states to do. The institutional ability [of states] to actually put this into effect is enormous, and I don't think anybody appreciates that."
"This is a helluva thin reed on which to premise a fairly elaborate and certainly ambitious regulatory system," Gifford said.
"Issues are going to break out in the states as this moves forward — I think we're going to see a lot of fights between utilities. The states that hate it the most are the ones that are going to have the most work to do, and they are going to be the most resistant to doing anything," he said.
Jim Matheson, the new CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said he thinks it's "dangerous to read too much into" the back and forth between the judges and the attorneys for the petitioners and respondents.
The fact that the arguments went so much longer than anticipated "reflects the complexity of the issue," said Matheson, a former seven-term Democratic member of the U.S. House from Utah who took on the NRECA job 10 weeks ago.
"It tells us that however this plays out over time, I don't think it's a big win or a big loss — I think there's going to be a nuanced and complex decision" by the D.C. Circuit that will lean in EPA's favor.
When he represented Utah as a Democrat in the House, Matheson voted against the Waxman-Markey bill that would have established a nationwide cap-and-trade regime for carbon dioxide.
"It wasn't equitable by any means" insofar as how emissions allowances were allocated among states, he said, calling the measure "a gift" to states with hydropower and nuclear plants. "I thought the interregional transfer of wealth and money wasn't fair."
Today, Matheson concedes that for NRECA's 950 members in 47 states, the electric generation and clean energy landscape is different than in 2009.
"There's a range of thought and opinion across all of them" on the Clean Power Plan because "across different members it has a different impact," especially because of a co-op's size.
Whether the tone of the oral arguments will influence states and utilities that are opposed to the rule to reconsider decisions to "put down their pencils" is unclear.
Some of the states that are petitioners "are still working on plans," the public power attorney said.
"Some folks probably will just wait it out, other folks may re-evaluate, and others have been [working on compliance] anyway," he said.
"I don't think that a state that has really dug in its heels is going to change its mind because the oral argument didn't go as well as they had hoped," he said. "It's the D.C. Circuit; it's pretty deferential. The odds are still in EPA's favor."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/30/stories/1060043673
-
Senate Hearing in W.Va. to Probe Climate Rule Impacts
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
U.S. senators who are technically on break until after the November elections will hold a hearing next week in West Virginia to get local input on federal climate standards for the power sector.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), head of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, will lead the field hearing Wednesday in Logan, a small city in the heart of mining country near the border with Kentucky.
Coal industry representatives invited by Republicans will testify alongside clean energy proponents invited by Democrats. Witnesses invited include a lawyer for the United Mine Workers; a coal miner from Delbarton, W.Va.; the Wayne County Commission president; the West Virginia Solar United Neighborhoods program director; and a law professor who heads a sustainable development center at the West Virginia University College of Law.
West Virginia's attorney general, Patrick Morrisey (R), is leading a 28-state challenge to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, and earlier this week he warned of job losses his state could face if the rule moves forward despite court challenges.
After daylong oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday, Capito said the regulation attempts to skirt the limits of the underlying statute, the Clean Air Act (E&E Daily, Sept. 28).
West Virginia uses almost all coal power. Its economy also largely relies on mining. The state would have to cut its rate of carbon emissions from power plants 37 percent below 2012 levels by 2030.
Environmental advocates have said West Virginia could ramp up solar power and energy efficiency efforts. They argue the benefits of the rule would outweigh the costs. Power companies operating in the state have said they would want to enter carbon trading systems to keep compliance costs down. They could then purchase allowances to keep some coal plants online while incentivizing more cleaner power overall.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/30/stories/1060043670
-
House Dems Call for Do-Over of Federal Review
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Nineteen House Democrats called on President Obama yesterday to rescind federal permits for the controversial $3.7 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline and embark on a new environmental review of the project.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, and his colleagues said the administration should go further than simply pausing construction on a portion of the line to require a new, more thorough review and tribal consultations.
"We applaud this pause and urge you to go further — like you did with your rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline — to require a full environmental review and expanded consultation along the full route of the Dakota Access Pipeline," members wrote.
Pointing to the increasing opposition to Dakota Access, triggering nationwide protests and demonstrations, the Democrats called the project an "assault" on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which has attempted to legally and physically block it from moving forward.
The Obama administration, they said, should ensure a comprehensive environmental review of the 1,134-mile project and "meaningful tribal consultations" before allowing construction to proceed. If built, the line would carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Dakotas to Illinois.
The Democrats' letter also criticized the means by which regulators vetted the pipeline under the Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit 12 program.
"The Clean Water Act's general permit program was not intended for massive interstate pipelines that transport hazardous fossil fuels for hundreds of miles through communities and water ways and pose grave risks of leaks, spills and explosions," they said.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires a full environmental impact statement for major actions that affect the environment, they added.
Also signing the letter were Democratic Reps. Jared Polis of Colorado; Earl Blumenauer of Oregon; Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey; Alan Grayson and Alcee Hastings of Florida; Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Ted Lieu and Jared Huffman of California; Luis Gutiérrez and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois; Steve Cohen of Tennessee; Louise Slaughter of New York; Hank Johnson of Georgia; Adam Smith of Washington; Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia; Donna Edwards of Maryland; and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/30/stories/1060043681
-
U.S. Shale Companies Find a Market in China
Sep 30, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By May Ma
Natural gas is becoming the centerpiece of U.S.-China collaboration in the energy and climate sectors, top energy officials from both countries said at a joint oil and gas industry forum this week.
Earlier this month, the United States and China officially committed to the Paris climate change agreement at the G-20 summit, a meeting of leading rich and developing nations. And natural gas might be the key for the two countries to comply with the agreement while ensuring that the business sector still has an opportunity to grow.
The United States has achieved great success in shale gas production, and China would like to see U.S. companies help explore and develop its gas industry, Li Fanrong, deputy administrator of China's National Energy Administration, told the U.S. oil company executives and government officials attending the forum.
China has the world's largest shale gas potential, with total reserves of 130 billion cubic meters, according to government data released last month. But the country's production of the fuel is still lagging behind — constrained by geological complexity, limitations of infrastructure and the service industry.
The state-owned energy companies are pushing harder to extract gas from shale. China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, aims to double domestic gas production within five years. The output, though, was not as promising as was hoped — the country missed its production target for last year.
But companies that have succeeded in drilling gas in U.S. shale fields are more than willing to help out as they see growing business opportunities in exporting existing technology.
Scott Donald, the vice president of global direct sales at Baker Hughes Inc., said extracting the deep-hidden Chinese shale requires high-tech equipment and services, and that is exactly what his company provides.
Donald said Baker Hughes has been working with all the Chinese energy majors, including Sinopec, and China is currently the No. 1 customer for the Texas-based oil services company. Although he isn't proficient in Chinese, his business card is printed in two languages: English and Chinese.
Chinese oil companies have become leaner during the oil-price downturn, and with budget cuts, they will choose to pay for technology rather than pay for research and development, Donald said. "It's far more effective for them to buy from American companies," he said.
Donald also welcomes more environmental regulations from the Chinese government, saying a strict rule would potentially benefit companies like Baker Hughes that focus on producing high-tech equipment. Donald introduced his company's environmentally friendly fracking liquid at the forum and said he was hoping to find a distribution outlet to sell in China.
"The legislation in China has changed. The Chinese government is asking companies to fully eliminate the use of diesel in the drilling fluid. But what I'm seeing is companies are not eliminating the diesel, but only reducing it," Donald said. "We've developed a tech used in the U.S. shale play which eliminates the whole of diesel."
Christopher Smith, assistant secretary for fossil energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, said the Chinese government makes its own decisions about how it approaches its regulatory reform, but there are areas where the two governments can collaborate. One of them is how to reduce the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is a main component of natural gas. Eliminating methane emissions is "consistent with the commitments we made in G-20," he said.
"The U.S. and China are the two biggest economies and two biggest emitters," Smith said. "We had a tremendous result last year in Paris; now it comes to the details: How do you move forward with actual verifiable steps that are going to ensure growth but at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions?"
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/30/stories/1060043674
-
Jordan Cove LNG Export Project Still on Track, CEO Says
Sep 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
It is not a matter of if, but when, the now-stalled Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project gets on track at FERC, the CEO in charge of the project for Calgary-based Veresen Inc. told an investor day audience in Toronto on Tuesday.
Elizabeth (Betsy) Spomer, CEO of Jordan Cove, said Veresen expected to hear from U.S. regulators by the end of this year on its request for rehearing of a denial of its LNG project application earlier this year (see Daily GPI, March 14). The motion for rehearing currently is on hold (see Daily GPI, May 10).
Spomer said there is no statutory time limit for FERC to act, but she is confident action is coming.
"We know that Jordan Cove is competitive on a delivered basis with Gulf of Mexico brownfield projects and that we are right-sized for current [global] market conditions. We have term sheets for 50% of the throughput, so I can't say when, but I know this project will happen," Spomer said.
The FERC denial in March centered on the connecting 232-mile, 36-inch diameter Pacific Connector transmission pipeline for bringing gas to the proposed export facility. Veresen has since filed agreements representing 77% of the pipeline's capacity. Prior to the denial, the Jordan Cove environmental assessment had absolutely no "show stoppers," said Spomer, noting that added to the surprise of the denial.
At the state level, she said the project continues to make progress. "The state of Oregon has been good as gold in giving us a fair opportunity; we got our air permits last summer, and we continue to make progress on other permits," Spomer said. All local county land-use permits are in hand, too.
Spomer said Veresen continues to emphasize its advantages over other U.S. exporters to the Far East with shipments to Tokyo taking just nine days, unlike the Gulf of Mexico projects that must negotiate the Panama Canal and face hurricanes for part of the year.
While she acknowledged that there is currently an LNG supply glut globally, Spomer said in Southeast Asia, energy demand is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 16% between 2016 and 2030.
"Southeast Asia demand is not only GDP growth and urbanization, it also is triggered by declines in domestic gas production and pipeline supplies," Spomer said, citing places such as Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh as all facing domestic supply and pipeline declines. "This factor is important because in each of these markets natural gas infrastructure is already in place."
Spomer said the barriers to market entry for LNG shipments have come down significantly in recent years. "Thailand doubled its LNG production last year to nearly 300 million tonnes, and Indonesia is expected to be a net LNG importer by 2023," she said.
Globally, an important issue to watch is the need to reposition LNG from a "premium fuel " ($18 MMBtu) to a fuel that can compete on a "baseload cost basis," Spomer said. "We think that U.S. LNG exports are an important enabler to this." She predicted that the United States will continue to push liquefaction costs lower.
"The U.S. LNG exports, if not the lowest, are clearly in the lowest priced quartile of delivered cost globally," she said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107927-jordan-cove-lng-export-project-still-on-track-ceo-says
-
The Americans are Coming! US Shale Gas Finds a New Market in Britain
Sep 30, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ellen Powell
The first shipment of US shale gas arrived in Britain on Tuesday, sailing into the competing winds of US economic growth, British job creation, and environmental concerns.
The shale gas was imported by INEOS, a chemical company that processes petrochemicals for use in packaging, in construction, and as fuels. The company has now established what it describes as a “virtual pipeline” for shale gas, using eight ships to move the gas from the United States to its processing plant in Scotland.
The marine pipeline – touted by the company as a means to boost production and protect jobs – has met with concern in parts of Britain. Fracking is currently under a moratorium in Scotland as independent research projects study its environmental, economic, and health effects. Some see shale as a route to economic prosperity, but some have a moral problem with importing shale gas that the United Kingdom is not willing to produce itself.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a gas extraction technique that injects water, sand, and chemicals into shale rocks that easily break apart the layers and release natural gas out of the rocks. Grangemouth, INEOS’ plant in Scotland, uses ethane from natural gas to create plastic pellets that can be used in manufacturing.
In the past, the plant had used ethane extracted from North Sea natural gas. The company says that over the past three or four years, however, supplies of North Sea gas have been diminishing. The plant has therefore been at half capacity, according to INEOS.
In the search for natural gas to process into plastic pellets, importing natural gas from the US has become increasingly attractive. US gas is already being exported to Portugal, Norway, Spain, and across Britain since a 40-year-old US export ban on crude oil was lifted in December 2015.
For advocates, the American experience with fracking, which transformed the country from a net energy importer to an exporter, shows that unconventional gas extraction can bring benefits for a country's economy. INEOS chairman and chief executive officer Jim Ratcliffe has said that Scotland, which spent £14.8 billion (about $19.3 billion) more than it raised in 2015-2016, would need to exploit shale resources if it wanted to be an independent state.
“I don’t see how the numbers can work at the moment without shale because the North Sea isn’t generating any revenue for Scotland and [independence] needs to have a profit and loss account which is in the black and not in the red,” he said, according to The Scotsman.
INEOS holds fracking licenses for more than 1 million acres of land across Britain. The company says that it plans to start test wells in the north of England next year. However, it cannot use the licenses until it gets planning permission from local authorities, many of whom are concerned about how the practice might effect the environment and public health, such as polluting the water table with waste and triggering earthquakes.
For US producers, new European markets are welcome. But European importers and critics alike have expressed concern about the double standard of opposing domestic shale production yet importing gas from shale fracked in the US.
“It is completely unacceptable to attempt to prop up INEOS’ petrochemicals plant on the back of human suffering and environmental destruction across the Atlantic,” Mary Church, head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth Scotland, said in a statement. She mentioned that the gas delivered to INEOS was supplied by Range Resources, a company that has been fined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for violating environmental protection regulations.
Complicating the picture are recent reports from Britain's Committee on Climate Change. A report released Tuesday says that Scotland is already feeling the effects of climate change. In July, the committee warned that Britain could not start exploiting shale on a large scale if it wanted to meet its commitment to reduce emissions at least 80 percent by 2050 – unless emissions were “strictly limited” throughout the process.
Some have framed the debate as a question of the future of UK energy. Labour and the Scottish National Party have called for a transition to a low-carbon economy.
“Fracking locks us into an energy infrastructure that is based on fossil fuelslong after our country needs to have moved to clean energy. So today I am announcing that a future Labour government [would] ban fracking,” shadow energy minister Barry Gardiner told the annual Labour Party conference on Monday.
But ethane, the fracking product used by the Grangemouth plant, is not used for energy but for plastics production. To use less gas, the UK would therefore have to use less plastic. In France, this reduction is already underway: the country’s recent ban on plastic cups, plates and utensils will go into effect in 2020.
What replaces plastic is less clear. Researchers are testing materials from milk to mushrooms to seaweed, looking for those that can substitute for different types of plastics.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0927/The-Americans-are-coming!-US-shale-gas-finds-a-new-market-in-Britain?cmpid=TW
-
House Approves Flint Aid; More Action on Lead Needed
Sep 30, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Wednesday night, the House of Representatives passed its version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) by a wide margin. Before the final vote, the House approved an amendment by Michigan Representative Dan Kildee that authorizes $170 million in infrastructure funding to address Flint’s lead contamination crisis. The bill will now be conferenced with the Senate’s version of WRDA, with votes expected on the resulting conference report when Congress returns to DC after the November election. A big thank you to all our supporters who have made phone calls so far!
The House vote is welcome in a week when we’re learning even more about the extent of the infrastructure needs in Flint, and hearing more evidence that U.S. problems with lead are not confined to Flint and are not just with our water systems.
The Flint water contamination crisis has been a wake-up call about the hidden dangers of lead in communities across the country. We are learning more about the number of water supplies that are at risk, and that there are legacy exposures to lead in the paint in older homes and in the yards of communities like East Chicago.
This week we read the latest report about a neighborhood in East Chicago, Illinois — more than a thousand residents of the West Calumet public housing complex are being forced to move because the EPA has detected dangerously high levels of lead in the soil in some families’ yards. Children have been told not to play outdoors because of the health threat. When the families leave, the buildings will be demolished.
The outrage of the East Chicago story is multi-layered. The fact that homes and an elementary school were built on such a polluted site is outrageous on its own. That EPA found the problem decades after the lead industry left town is alarming. The conflict between what the state of Indiana seems to have known about children’s blood lead levels and what the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reported in 2011 highlights a dangerous communication gap between the state and federal agencies that must be addressed. In February, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin introduced the TEST KIDs Act (S. 2586) to require states to report elevated blood lead levels to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate clusters of elevated blood lead levels.
When Congress returns to Washington after the election for a “lame duck” session, they will vote on a conference of the House and Senate versions of WRDA before it goes to the President’s desk. The conferees should deliver the most Flint aid as quickly as possible and should also adopt the provisions in the Senate bill that address other exposures to lead, including funding for the childhood lead poisoning prevention program, the Healthy Homes Initiative, and the Healthy Start Initiative.
Take our action and let your member of Congress know that the final water resources bill that goes to the President should include funding for Flint and funding to prevent future water crises in communities across the U.S.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/09/30/house-approves-flint-aid-more-action-on-lead-needed/
-
Railroad Reregulation is Not What Congress Intended
Sep 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chuck Baker and David Tennent
On the heels of the first presidential debate, Americans remain critically focused on how best to stimulate the U.S. economy. Both Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to promote massive infrastructure investments, even if funding mechanisms remain vague.
“Broken roads, unsafe bridges, antiquated water systems, power grids, flood controls, ports and aviation facilities – all threaten America’s economic health and quality of life,” writes political commentator Ron Faucheux. “Everyone agrees this is a problem. But, where will the trillions of dollars come from to solve it?”
Thankfully, one section of our nation’s infrastructure – privately owned freight railroads – do not face such difficult decisions. Smart public policies linked to partial deregulation in 1980 put railroads on equal footing with the rest of the private sector. Now, freight railroads invest an average of $26 billion in their networks annually. According to Towson University’s Regional Economic Studies Institute, these investments significantly impact the U.S. economy, supporting 1.5 million jobs across the economy, generating $33 billion in taxes and producing $274 billion in economic activity in 2014 alone. These are manufacturing-based, high skilled jobs that both candidates are pledging to support and grow.
So it is troubling to see the Surface Transportation Board (STB) move forward on reregulatory efforts through several proposed rules, including so called “reciprocal switching” and commodity reregulation, that would threaten the health and success of the freight rail network. Given past precedent and the potential for widespread disruption in the rail network, regulators should abstain from such efforts. Congress, which just reauthorized the STB for the first time since its creation, must exert its will as well, and ensure the STB is operating as Congress intended.
Reciprocal switching, or more accurately, forced access, would upend longstanding precedent. It would force railroads to switch traffic to competitors without any suggestion that the incumbent railroad failed to offer competitive services, or has otherwise engaged in any sort of unreasonable behavior.
A rash of new switches could possibly advantage a few, but in the aggregate it would strain a 140,000 mile network and degrade services for the majority of customers. “Forced access would slow rail shipments across the network, injecting increased complexities and inefficiencies into the network,” says transportation expert Anthony Hatch.
Perhaps more dangerously, this regulatory effort could greatly cut into capital spending by the railroads by decreasing the incentive for investment. Past analysis by the Association of American Railroads found that a similar proposal could affect an estimated 7.5 million car loads of traffic, placing nearly $8 billion in revenues at risk.
Reduced revenues mean reduced money for investment in the rail network and reduced manufacturing job growth. Rail supply jobs are generally high-paying and high-skilled manufacturing jobs that often support American-made production in our communities. Continued investments are critical not only for maintaining a safe and efficient rail network, but for job creation.
This approach should be soundly rejected by a Congress that has never advised the STB to embark on this path.
A separate commodity regulation would subject five commodity groups to STB economic regulation for the first time in two decades. This would come despite the fact that railroads face strong competition for the service from trucks and without any fact-based evidence. Most alarmingly, these commodity groups did not petition for a rule change.
The railroad supply community plays an integral role in maintaining the world’s safest, most efficient and highly competitive freight railroad system. Along with the railroads, suppliers are concerned that the STB has interpreted its reauthorization as a signal that Congress wanted the independent agency to regulate more.
A transparent and efficient STB is crucial in maintaining a proven regulatory structure and America’s impressive transportation network. But the STB’s recent trend of imposing regulations first, and discovering the consequences later, is no path forward.
The STB should stop this wayward path now, before the U.S. economy pays the price.
Tennent is Executive Director of the Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers Association (REMSA). Baker is President of the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, Inc. (NRC).
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/298470-railroad-reregulation-is-not-what-congress-intended
-
Paris Climate Deal Seen Taking Force This Year as EU Speeds Up Ratification
Sep 30, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Gabriele Steinhauser
A global agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is all but certain to enter into force in November, after European Union environment ministers agreed on Friday to speed up the bloc’s ratification of the agreement.
The Paris climate deal, which was sealed in December in the French capital, is one of the legacy projects for President Barack Obama. His administration—along with China—has worked hard in recent months to ensure that the agreement takes effect at the next climate summit in Marrakesh. Once that happens, countries that have joined are prevented from pulling out for four years, which would effectively stop the next American president from exiting the agreement.
EU environment ministers on Friday gave the go-ahead for the bloc to ratify the climate deal—even though only seven of its 28 member states have done so nationally.
“Our reputation was one the line,” said the EU’s climate and energy commissioner, Miguel Arias Cañete, explaining the unusual step.
So far, 61 countries—including the world’s two biggest emitters, China and the U.S.--representing some 48% of global emissions, have formally adopted the deal. To enter into force, at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of emissions have to ratify.
The EU represents some 12% of global emissions, although it isn’t yet clear whether those will count in full until all of its 28 member states have finished their national ratification procedures. The member states that have ratified—Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Portugal and Malta—make up about 4.6% of emissions.
India, which is responsible for 4.1% of emissions, has also announced it will formally adopt the Paris agreement on Oct. 2.
“This means that (the) EU and its member states will add their weight to trigger the entry into force of the Paris Agreement,” said Laszlo Solymos, Slovakia’s environment minister, who led Friday’s talks.
The U.S. push for an early entry into force created problems for the EU, which originally hadn’t planned to ratify the deal this year. Normally, the EU as a whole cannot ratify an international agreement such as the climate deal until national parliaments have had their say.
The unanimous decision to go ahead nevertheless came despite initial resistance from Poland and Italy, which are unhappy with a separate proposal on how much each EU member state has to reduce its emissions.
There were also some doubts over the position of the U.K., which is in the process of negotiating its exit from the EU and has opposed handing additional powers to the bloc’s institutions.
Under the Paris climate deal, participating countries commit to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to keep the rise in global temperatures below two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. In contrast to its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris agreement expects all countries—including developing states and emerging markets, such as China and India—to limit their emissions.
The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and later withdrew from the agreement.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-set-to-ratify-paris-climate-agreement-1475240342
-
Dear Speaker Ryan: Your 'Forward-Looking Agenda' Ignores Climate Change
Sep 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
House Speaker Paul Ryan spent much of this summer promoting the Republican policy agenda he calls “A Better Way.” He’s selling this repackaged mix of upper-income tax cuts and unregulated capitalism as a set of innovative, up-to-date solutions to our country’s ailments. The message: even if many Republicans don’t think Donald Trump can govern, House Republicans have a plan.
Unfortunately, their plan has a glaring flaw. No worthwhile agenda focusing on poverty, security, and economic growth can ignore the climate reality we all face.
Considering the much-touted centrality of poverty to Speaker Ryan’s thinking, you’d expect “A Better Way” to acknowledge the economic impacts of a changing climate. Unfortunately, not only would his agenda make climate change harder to combat, it would make life more difficult for many of the minority and low-income communities that climate change has already harmed.
As temperatures increase and sea levels rise, working families and those living below the poverty line will experience more severe climate impacts with less advance notice or preparation. Encroaching floodplains are already forcing vulnerable communities to relocate. American farmers and ranchers will increasingly feel the effects of shifting seasonal patterns.
Continued greenhouse gas emissions will only intensify these and other stresses on the very people Speaker Ryan says he’s trying to help. Just as seriously, by failing to prepare the U.S. workforce for a renewable energy future, his plan would place our domestic businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
His failure to address climate change’s national security impacts is just as glaring. “A Better Way” claims to “tackle new threats” of “our time and beyond,” but only mentions climate change by way of complaining that President Obama has supposedly prioritized it over “countering radicalization at home.” (In fact, he has rightly focused on both issues.) The Department of Defense now formally treats climate change as a “threat multiplier,” since erratic precipitation patterns, rising temperatures and extreme weather events will exacerbate global instability and increase circumstances that breed terrorism. Speaker Ryan’s agenda simply ignores this.
The danger of that approach is clear for anyone who cares to look. In the Horn of Africa between 2008 and 2012 – a period of severe drought – more than 144 million people were displaced by sudden onset disasters. Contrary to Republican orthodoxy, efforts to curb emissions and bolster U.S. security complement one another. Indeed, they often rely on each other to succeed.
Addressing climate change also makes perfectly good economic sense, as Speaker Ryan knows. As the century-old infrastructure and business model that’s sustained our fossil fuel economy shifts to support clean energy and smart technology, investor dollars around the world will flow toward economies that continue to lead the way. The stubborn belief that our country can only flourish through a continued dependence on fossil fuels insults the resolve and ingenuity of American workers. Over the last decade, the average cost of solar photovoltaic panels has decreased 60 percent as the U.S. has made gains in efficiency and manufacturing. Solar industry employment has increased 123 percent since 2010. Again, Speaker Ryan’s agenda pretends none of this is happening.
This silence suggests the Republican Party doubts our ability to operate more efficiently in the future than we have in the past. To claim that forward-looking climate policies hurt our economy or that they have no benefits – as Speaker Ryan does – is inaccurate and shortsighted at best. At worst, it’s frankly dangerous.
Promoting economic growth, defending our citizenry and addressing poverty should be bipartisan goals. While I may disagree with his approach, I believe Speaker Ryan was right to include them in the Republican agenda. However, his party’s track record of opposing sensible climate action at every turn greatly reduces that agenda’s credibility.
If the Speaker honestly wants to champion legislation that addresses the issues of our time, gaining an understanding of the science and significance of climate change is a necessary first step. Any governing agenda that wants to be taken seriously has to offer a meaningful climate plan. Pretending otherwise will waste the opportunity that now exists to make progress on areas of potential bipartisan cooperation.
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/298671-dear-speaker-ryan-your-forward-looking-agenda-ignores
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested