Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/03/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) One Company's Travails in Trying to Recycle Polystyrene
Oct 3, 2016 | Waste 360
By Barry Shanoff
Evergreen Partnering Group (Evergreen) believed it could succeed where others had failed. Its goal was to turn a profit by recycling polystyrene products. Under its business model, Evergreen, founded by Michael Forrest in 2000, would collect, for a fee, used polystyrene products, process them into a recycled polystyrene resin, and sell its resin to converters to use in a "green foam" line of new polystyrene products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Stop Putting All Of Your Grocery Bags Under The Sink Or In The Curbside Bin. Here’s What The City Wants You To Do With Them
Oct 3, 2016 | Charlotte Agenda
By Kylie Moore
A recent survey done by city officials brought to light the fact that most of Mecklenburg County still isn’t sure where or what they should be recycling. -
EPA Sends TCE Degreasing TSCA Rule For OMB Review
Oct 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its proposal to regulate use of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) used as a vapor degreaser to clean various parts and components, one of three novel rules the agency is crafting under its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6 power. -
California Lists Furfuryl Alcohol Under Prop 65
Oct 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed furfuryl alcohol as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. -
(ACC Blog) National Academies of Science Report The Need To Optimize Research And Development In Catalysis Technologies
Oct 3, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Michelle Orfei
In March 2016, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) conducted a workshop to better understand how changes in the availability and use of natural gas and natural gas liquids resulting from the rise in U.S. shale gas production can motivate research investment in new catalysis technologies and processes. -
With CPP Oral Arguments Over, Experts Reading The Tea Leaves
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Followers of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were hard-pressed to recall an oral argument that lasted as long or attracted as large a crowd as last week's session over the legality of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Labor Groups Urge Action On Stalled Pipeline
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of labor groups is urging the Obama administration to move forward on the embattled Dakota Access pipeline. -
Unions Push Obama To Approve Dakota Access Pipeline
Oct 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Five trade unions are pushing President Obama to move forward on the stalled Dakota Access Pipeline Project. -
Gas Group's LaRossa Talks Challenges To Modernizing, Expanding Infrastructure
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
With new technologies and lower-cost renewables playing a larger role in the United States' energy mix, what are the challenges facing the natural gas industry as it works to modernize and expand its infrastructure and workforce? -
DHS Cyber Response Plan Gets Long-Awaited Makeover
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
When the Department of Homeland Security first published its flagship cyber incident response plan in 2010, experts were piecing together how the infamous Stuxnet computer worm wreaked havoc on Iran's nuclear program. Policymakers had just started to grapple with the notion that a digital weapon like Stuxnet could cause real-world, physical damage. -
DNV Partners With Oil, NatGas Sector to Buffer Cybersecurity Challenges
Oct 3, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
To protect oil and natural gas installations against cybersecurity threats, DNV GL is partnering with Royal Dutch Shell plc, Statoil ASA and others to develop an industry best practice. -
FRA Issues Directive For Flawed DOT-111 Tank Cars
Oct 3, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) late last week issued a new directive to owners of certain DOT-111 tank cars built between 2009 and 2015 that they may have "substantial weld defects" that could result in the release of hazardous materials. -
E.U. Vote Tomorrow Will Make Global Accord A Reality
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Paris Agreement on climate change is expected to meet all criteria to enter into force Wednesday when the European Union submits its ratification papers to the United Nations.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) One Company's Travails in Trying to Recycle Polystyrene
Oct 3, 2016 | Waste 360
By Barry Shanoff
Ultimately, Evergreen found itself unable to attract customers who would pay it to remove their waste products or pay a premium for polystyrene products containing recycled resin.
Evergreen Partnering Group (Evergreen) believed it could succeed where others had failed. Its goal was to turn a profit by recycling polystyrene products. Under its business model, Evergreen, founded by Michael Forrest in 2000, would collect, for a fee, used polystyrene products, process them into a recycled polystyrene resin, and sell its resin to converters to use in a "green foam" line of new polystyrene products.
By charging converters a commission on the products sold containing its resin, Evergreen hoped to keep the price of its resin competitive with virgin resin, and it believed the commission reflected the market's willingness to pay a premium for "green" products. Moreover, Evergreen envisioned a system where suppliers of used polystyrene would themselves purchase polystyrene products made from their transformed feedstock.
Starting in 2002, Evergreen began seeking partnerships with polystyrene converters. Over the next several years, it contacted several small companies without success. Evergreen set up its first independent recycling plant in Norcross, Ga., in 2005. The following year, a Georgia school district, Gwinnett County Public Schools began paying Evergreen to collect its used polystyrene lunch trays. Evergreen then began targeting what it believed to be the five largest converters of polystyrene products —Dart Container Corp. (Dart), Dolco Packaging (Dolco), Genpak LLC (Genpak), Pactiv Corp. (Pactiv) and Solo Cup Co. (Solo) – referred to hereafter as the Big Five.
Initially, Dolco and Genpak showed interest in working with Evergreen. Forrest approached Dolco in mid-2005 about the distribution company Sysco's interest in an “Earth Plus” product line containing Evergreen's resin. Dolco appeared receptive and representatives from Sysco, Dolco, and Evergreen met about a possible deal in November 2005. A month later, Dolco made a formal proposal to Sysco and told Evergreen it would be willing to pay a royalty to use its recycled resin as long as the relationship could be profitable. Sysco, however, eventually backed out and the deal fell through.
Genpak began making lunch trays using Evergreen's resin in late 2006 and submitted a bid to Gwinnett Schools (who was already paying Evergreen to remove their trays) to supply it with trays for the 2007-2008 school year. Gwinnett Schools subsequently selected Genpak which had outbid Pactiv for the contract.
In 2007, Forrest approached Genpak's president, Jim Reilly, about financing a new Evergreen recycling plant in California as well as upgrades to Evergreen's Norcross facility. Reilly told Forrest he should submit his funding proposal to the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) a subgroup of the trade association, American Chemistry Council (ACC). The Big Five were members of the PFPG at one time or another. At the time, PFPG was particularly concerned with local and state initiatives to ban polystyrene products due to the perception that polystyrene was not recyclable.
In mid-May, 2007, PFPG held a conference call with Forrest to discuss Evergreen's intention to expand to California. About a week later, Forrest submitted two proposals to PFPG Senior Director, Michael Levy, requesting that PFPG help Evergreen expand its operations to California. As a follow-up, PFPG members held a conference call on May 31, 2007, to discuss Forrest's proposals. Afterwards, Levy notified Forrest that PFPG had rejected all of his proposals. Forrest later submitted two additional proposals to PFPG, which were also rejected. Without funding and nowhere else to turn, Evergreen did not build a California recycling plant.
Forrest became suspicious that, during the conference call, the PFPG members not only rejected funding Evergreen's proposals, but also agreed that no individual converter would make deal with Evergreen that involved the payment of commissions. Moreover, Forrest believed the call produced an agreement among the PFPG members to promote a sham competitor called Packaging Development Resources of California, LLC (PDR) —a California-based polystyrene recycler whose business model relied entirely on selling its recycled resin and had no commission component —to block Evergreen's access to polystyrene end users.
Meantime, Evergreen continued to negotiate with the Big Five to try to obtain an agreement that included both the purchase of resin and the payment of commissions. Genpak and Dolco entered a joint funding agreement with Evergreen in July 2007, each agreeing to provide Evergreen with $75,000 and to purchase any "acceptable quality" resin that Evergreen produced for $0.85 per pound but rejecting any commission requirement. Evergreen also began negotiations with Solo, which later purchased resin to test in May 2008 but stated it would not accept any deal that included a commission payment. For their part, Pactiv and Dart tested samples of Evergreen's resin throughout 2008 and 2009 without reaching an agreement.
Ultimately, Evergreen found itself unable to attract customers who would pay it to remove their waste products or pay a premium for polystyrene products containing recycled resin. Genpak unsuccessfully bid to supply Gwinnett Schools with trays containing Evergreen's resin for the 2008-2009 school year. Pactiv won the contract with a lower bid. Left without any converter partners, Evergreen shut down its Norcross facility in May 2008 and opened a smaller recycling plant in Lawrenceville, Georgia. The smaller facility closed in October 2008 and Evergreen ceased operations.
In 2011, Evergreen and Forrest filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the Big Five and the ACC (collectively, the “defendants”) agreed to boycott Evergreen in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Act is a landmark federal statute passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities deemed to be anticompetitive, including “... every contract ... or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.” A Sherman Act violation may occur when a group of independent competing firms engage in a concerted refusal to deal with a particular supplier, customer, or competitor. However, the Act covers only “agreements” but not independent decisions, even if they lead to the same anticompetitive result as an actual agreement might have done.
In essence, Evergreen claimed that the defendants conspired to prevent its recycling model involving commission payments from becoming viable by rejecting any agreements that involved commissions and by blocking its access to other customers through the promotion of PDR. Evergreen argued that these actions constitute a group boycott prohibited by the Act.
Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in their favor, and the district judge granted their motion. Summary judgment was appropriate if there were no important facts in dispute about whether the defendants entered into an illegal conspiracy that injured Evergreen. The district court concluded, with guidance from a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision, that Evergreen failed to present evidence excluding the possibility that each polystyrene manufacturer independently chose not to partner with Evergreen. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the district court's reasoning and affirmed the ruling against Evergreen.
Evergreen relied primarily on a deposition statement made by Robert Kingsbury of Dow Chemical that the PFPG "wanted to pick a winner" during the May 31, 2007, conference call. Evergreen argued that Kingsbury's statement must be interpreted to mean that the PFPG intended to pick PDR as the winner, leaving Evergreen as the loser. In short, the defendants agreed to promote PDR, thus denying Evergreen access to end users of polystyrene products.
“We do not think Kingsbury's statement about picking a winner can reasonably —let alone unambiguously —be construed as meaning that [PFPG] decided to throw its support behind PDR to Evergreen's detriment during the conference call,” the appeals court concluded. “In context, Kingsbury's statement cannot be interpreted as referring to winners and losers in any kind of anticompetitive sense ... [only] that [PFPG] wanted to support proposals that would be successful —i.e., those that would be successful in combating polystyrene bans by showing that polystyrene was recyclable.”
Although Evergreen claimed that the PFPG blocked its access to polystyrene end users who could either supply used polystyrene products (which Evergreen could recycle into resin) or purchase polystyrene products containing Evergreen's recycled resin, its only evidence was that the PFPG introduced PDR to polystyrene users – not that the PFPG discouraged these users from
working with Evergreen, let alone interfered with Evergreen's access. “We note that antitrust laws allow trade associations to make nonbinding recommendations about businesses and products,” the opinion stated.
Evergreen argued that, even without direct evidence of a conspiracy, the court could reasonable infer a conspiracy from the overall circumstances, including the fact that each of the defendants refused to pay commissions on any products sold containing Evergreen's recycled resin and each of them had economic motive to collude.
“[I]n the context of price-fixing schemes, ‘[m]ere parallelism … does not even create a [superficial] conspiracy case.’ * * * This principle is equally applicable to group boycotts —that is to say, universal refusals to deal alone are insufficient to support an inference of conspiracy,” the appellate panel stated. “Moreover, even if in isolation, [a] defendant's refusal to deal might well have sufficed to create a triable issue, the refusal to deal ha[s] to be evaluated in its factual context. * * * Where the challenged conduct is as consistent with permissible competition as with illegal conspiracy, a plaintiff must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently.”
Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. v. Pactiv Corporation, et al., No. 15-1839, 1st Cir., Aug. 2, 2016.
http://www.waste360.com/legal/one-companys-travails-trying-recycle-polystyrene
-
Oct 3, 2016 | Charlotte Agenda
By Kylie Moore
(Note: Our Green City series is brought to you by Sealed Air, creating a better way for life. Sealed Air Re-imagines the industries they serve to create a world that feels, tastes and works better.)
A recent survey done by city officials brought to light the fact that most of Mecklenburg County still isn’t sure where or what they should be recycling.
According to the city, just half of those surveyed knew that certain plastic items, like plastic bags and wraps, are supposed to be taken to grocery and retail stores like Harris Teeter instead of put in curbside bins.
“When plastic bags or wraps are put in curbside bins, it makes recycling more difficult, time consuming, and expensive, which winds up costing all of us more money,” Chairman Trevor Fuller, one of the officials heading the movement, said in a press release. Recycling these items at retailers avoids them going to the landfill and makes it possible to create useful, new products like new grocery bags and benches as a part of the Recycle the Wrap program.
Fuller, along with other officials, is asking citizens to get involved and think before throwing out things like grocery bags in order to support the City’s Environmental Focus Area goals that include making Charlotte a model in environmental sustainability. The movement is made up of organizations like the American Chemistry Council’s Flexible Film Recycling Group and GreenBlue/the Sustainable Packaging Coalition.
Look for bins like these and see a full list of participating locations here.Here’s what retailers will accept:
Grocery bags
Newspaper bags
Produce bags
Bread bags
Dry cleaning bags
Zipper bags
Bubble wrap
Shipping pillowsThey’ll also accept plastic wrap from:Water bottle casesDiapersToilet paperPaper towels
Items must be clean, dry and placed in the appropriate bins.You can learn more about the program, as well as exactly where and what to recycle here.
https://www.charlotteagenda.com/67528/plastic-bag-recycling-charlotte/
-
EPA Sends TCE Degreasing TSCA Rule For OMB Review
Oct 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its proposal to regulate use of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) used as a vapor degreaser to clean various parts and components, one of three novel rules the agency is crafting under its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6 power.
White House officials Sept. 30 received the rule for review, and OMB reviews generally take 90 days but sometimes longer. EPA officials have said they hope to propose the rule in October.
During a Small Business Advocacy and Review (SBAR) panel convened in June to assess the rule's potential impacts on small businesses, EPA officials indicated that the agency is weighing whether to ban use of TCE as a vapor degreaser in parts cleaning, or whether certain restrictions on such operations are sufficient to protect workers.
Industry officials have faulted EPA's risk review supporting the rule, and argued that the agency's TSCA rules generally, infringe on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) jurisdiction.
According to OMB's website, the rule would affect dozens of sectors, ranging from commercial baking and printing operations to soap and detergent manufacturing to iron and steel forging and motor vehicle brake system manufacturing.
The rule is one of three that EPA is pursuing under its first bid to regulate an existing chemical under section 6 authority of the 1976 TSCA since its failed attempt to restrict asbestos in 1985 -- a rule that a federal appeals court struck down, hampering attempts to limit other substances with the Section 6 authority.
The other two rules EPA is developing under TSCA section 6 are of TCE used as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in consumer aerosol spray degreasers, and another on certain uses of methylene chloride, also a halogenated solvent like TCE.
EPA selected TCE as one of the first substances to undergo review under a novel TSCA workplan review program that sought to more strictly regulate chemicals already in commerce under the law's existing authorities prior to the landmark overhaul of TSCA that President Obama signed in June. The agency's 2014 TCE TSCA review found certain uses pose risk to workers and occupational bystanders at small degreasing facilities.
Industry officials have pushed back on EPA efforts to more strictly regulate certain TCE uses. Small businesses participating in EPA's SBAR argued EPA's toxicity findings are at odds with a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, and that the agency's assumptions about how vapor degreasing shops operate overstate risks.
TCE producers have also argued in meetings with OMB this summer that EPA's TSCA rules encroach on OSHA authority to protect worker health and safety.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-sends-tce-degreasing-tsca-rule-omb-review
-
California Lists Furfuryl Alcohol Under Prop 65
Oct 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed furfuryl alcohol as a carcinogen under Proposition 65.
Furfuryl alcohol is used as a foundry binder and can be formed in food processes during the dehydration of sugars, among other uses.
It was added under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism, based on a 2014 EPA cancer assessment of furfural and furfuryl alcohol. This showed sufficient evidence from animal testing to conclude that the substance is likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
Several industry groups protested to the listing proposal. They said a carcinogenicity designation was not a final action of the EPA, and therefore does not meet Oehha's listing criteria.
But Oehha disagreed with this interpretation, as outlined in its response to comments. The EPA's identification of the substance as a carcinogen, it says, requires its listing under Prop 65.
Furfuryl alcohol was listed as a substance known to the state to cause cancer effective 30 September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50038/california-lists-furfuryl-alcohol-under-prop-65
-
Oct 3, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Michelle Orfei
In March 2016, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) conducted a workshop to better understand how changes in the availability and use of natural gas and natural gas liquids resulting from the rise in U.S. shale gas production can motivate research investment in new catalysis technologies and processes. Catalysts are added substances that enable more efficient conversion of hydrocarbon feedstocks, or raw materials, into higher-value chemical products. Catalysts also have the added benefit of reducing CO2 emissions by lowering energy demand in the chemical conversion process.
Key discoveries in the field of catalysis have shaped our modern world – from the Haber-Bosch process that facilitated the increased production of synthetic fertilizer to the invention of Ziegler–Natta and Phillips polyolefin catalysts. Polyolefins are everywhere, from socks to reusable food storage containers to secure currency.
The potential of catalysis is largely untapped. Achieving key breakthroughs in our current understanding of fundamental catalytic processes and engineering could yield next-generation sustainable chemical methods and processes for broad industrial use and application. With this in mind, the goal of the NAS workshop was to identify gaps in current research related to catalytic design and engineering and provide recommendations on how the research community and U.S. funding agencies can target efforts on the most important advances in catalysis.
The NAS workshop report notes that “game-changing” advances in catalytic processes and technologies for the benefit of society can be achieved, but only through a concerted and coordinated effort between industry, academia, and the government. A sustained, interdisciplinary, cross-cutting effort is needed to truly advance fundamental breakthroughs in catalysis. The NAS workshop summary report can be found here.
Here, ACC lays out the 4 steps need to fully realize all of catalysis’s broad-reaching benefits:
To learn more about ACC’s efforts on catalysis, please click here.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/10/national-academies-of-science-report-reinforces-the-need-to-optimize-research-and-development-in-catalysis-technologies/
-
With CPP Oral Arguments Over, Experts Reading The Tea Leaves
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Followers of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were hard-pressed to recall an oral argument that lasted as long or attracted as large a crowd as last week's session over the legality of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
But the roughly seven hours of back and forth between the 10 appellate judges and more than a dozen attorneys has not satisfied some, as the postmortems begin this week to predict what may happen next.
On Tuesday, the Bipartisan Policy Center hosts a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., that it promises will "unpack" the arguments presented in court.
The panel will consist of Christophe Courchesne, chief of the Environmental Protection Division with the Massachusetts attorney general's office; Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell LLP; Allison Wood, a partner at Hunton & Williams LLP; and David Doniger, director of the Climate and Clean Air Program for the Natural Resources Defense Council. The eventwill be streamed live.
On Wednesday in Logan, W.Va., Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) will hold a field hearing on the local impacts of EPA regulations such as the Clean Power Plan. She chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.
Witnesses include Robert Pasley, president of the Wayne County Commission; Eugene Trisko, counsel to the United Mine Workers of America; Karan Ireland, a statewide solar advocate; and James Van Nostrand, director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at West Virginia University College of Law.
On Thursday, the Center for Progressive Reform and the Hoover Institution will host an online panel discussion offering reactions to and analysis of the oral arguments, as well as panelists' views on what the future holds for the Clean Power Plan.
Presenters include David Driesen, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law; Kirsten Engle, a professor at the University of Arizona College of Law; Andrew Grossman, a partner at BakerHostetler; and Patrick Wyrick, solicitor general for the state of Oklahoma.
In case you missed it:
· With time to reflect on the oral arguments on EPA's Clean Power Plan, some opponents of the rule think the agency is in the driver's seat as the D.C. Circuit deliberates (EnergyWire, Sept. 30).
· D.C. Circuit court judges told state opponents of the EPA rule that it was premature to raise questions about compliance difficulties posed by carbon trading (ClimateWire, Sept. 29).
· Richard Lazarus and Jody Freeman, professors at Harvard Law School, discussed the reactions after attending the oral arguments (E&ETV's OnPoint, Sept. 28).
· As they left the court Tuesday, observers on both sides of the legal struggle said EPA's arguments had the edge (ClimateWire, Sept. 28).
· Here's the blow-by-blow roundup of the nearly seven hours of oral arguments over the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Sept. 28).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060043737
-
Labor Groups Urge Action On Stalled Pipeline
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of labor groups is urging the Obama administration to move forward on the embattled Dakota Access pipeline.
In a letter to President Obama today, the heads of five trade unions slammed the administration's decision last month to intervene in the project and withhold a necessary easement while agencies conduct further review.
"The intervention by the Departments of Justice, Interior, and the U.S. Army to indefinitely halt a project that is more than halfway constructed and has received state and federal approval raises serious concerns about the future of infrastructure development in America, and the livelihoods of our members," the letter says.
"We urge you to adhere to the well-established regulatory process for permitting private infrastructure projects and approve the easement for the remaining section of the Dakota Access project without delay," it continues.
Signing onto the letter are James Callahan of the International Union of Operating Engineers, James Hoffa of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Terry O'Sullivan of the Laborers' International Union of North America, William Hite of the United Association, and Lonnie Stephenson of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
The union leaders say the administration's involvement in the project is creating delays that are putting members of the pipeline's all-union workforce out of a job.
"Our members make careers out of jobs created by projects like Dakota Access, and our jobs depend on the investments of conscientious employers," the letter says. "If companies like Energy Transfer Partners cannot trust that the regulatory process outlined in federal law will be upheld, who will continue to invest in America?"
The groups say the Obama administration should allow the court system to address complaints from tribes and environmental groups opposed to the pipeline.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over whether a work freeze in a contested area in North Dakota should be extended while the judges review a lower court's decision.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/03/stories/1060043734
-
Unions Push Obama To Approve Dakota Access Pipeline
Oct 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Five trade unions are pushing President Obama to move forward on the stalled Dakota Access Pipeline Project.
The unions complain in a Monday letter to Obama that the decision last month to halt consideration of a key federal permit for the oil pipeline project threatens the livelihoods of their 3.5 million members.
“The intervention by the Departments of Justice, Interior, and the U.S. Army to indefinitely halt a project that is more than halfway constructed and has received state and federal approval raises serious concerns about the future of infrastructure development in America, and the livelihoods of our members,” says the letter signed by the heads of the International Union of Operating Engineers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Laborers' International Union of North America, the United Association and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
“We urge you to adhere to the well-established regulatory process for permitting private infrastructure projects and approve the easement for the remaining section of the Dakota Access project without delay,” they wrote.
The letter represents the strongest pushback yet by labor, a traditional Democratic ally, against the Obama administration’s reconsideration of Dakota Access.
The three federal agencies are holding off on granting the permit for the pipeline to go across the federal Lake Oahe in North Dakota, while they consider whether they’ve probably taken into account the concerns of American Indian tribes, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux.
The decision to delay came after international attention to the project, thanks in part to protests at the pipeline site and in numerous cities organized by American Indians, environmentalists and their allies.
The administration has given little sign of when decide on the easement.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/298990-unions-push-obama-to-approve-dakota-access-pipeline
-
Gas Group's LaRossa Talks Challenges To Modernizing, Expanding Infrastructure
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
With new technologies and lower-cost renewables playing a larger role in the United States' energy mix, what are the challenges facing the natural gas industry as it works to modernize and expand its infrastructure and workforce? During today's OnPoint, Ralph LaRossa, chairman of the board at the American Gas Association and president and chief operating officer of PSE&G, discusses the safety and climate challenges facing his industry.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Ralph LaRossa, chairman of the board at the American Gas Association. Ralph is also president and COO of PSE&G in New Jersey. Ralph, thank you for joining me.
Ralph LaRossa: Thanks for having me, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: Ralph, the conversation on natural gas has shifted pretty dramatically over the last few years with some heated debates now occurring over infrastructure. What do you believe are the biggest challenges facing your members on infrastructure?
Ralph LaRossa: I think it's the continuous need for us to prove the safety and reliability of the system. And I think we've done a really good job of that. It's not really spoken about a lot or talked to in many areas because with media the way it is today and so many different channels any incident that takes place is publicized very quickly and repeated.
But the major incidents in our industry are down over 40 percent over the last 10 years alone, and so we have done a really good job of replacing our facilities. We install replacement mains whenever we can in certain areas, and we've also extended our facilities as well. So we were actually operating a much safer system than we have in the past, and we just need to continue to tell that message.
Monica Trauzzi: So there are safety concerns. There are also climate concerns. Do you think that there should be a climate test whenever you're talking about building new infrastructure?
Ralph LaRossa: Well, I think that that's a conversation that some folks bring to the table, but we do need some source of energy. I know there's been a real challenge for the coal industry that's gone on and really we're not in competition with the renewables industry. If you look at it, we really complement each other and we're expanding both industries right now. So we don't see it necessarily as a need for a test, but we do need to see a reliability test and a resiliency test, and I think that's where the FERC and local agencies come into play.
Monica Trauzzi: It's a dynamic time for energy policy overall in the U.S. Certainly the rise of renewables has changed the conversation and fueled new questions among policymakers and consumers as well. Why is natural gas a better choice for fueling homes and businesses?
Ralph LaRossa: Well, it's a real simple equation. It's a direct-use conversation. When you look at natural gas and if you're in your home and were to convert electricity and the fuel source in an electric home, we're just a much cheaper and much more efficient fuel source for the heaters in your home, the water heaters in your home, and your ovens and your cooking. So it's very clear when you look at that.
In fact, I think if you look at the average home that was all natural gas and all electric, we'd be about $840 cheaper for that home in any given year.
Monica Trauzzi: But are you confident that you'll always stay less expensive?
Ralph LaRossa: Well, I think right now that's a function of the natural gas prices and our ability to source it at about $4 of MMBtu versus where we were in the past. So we're confident that we'll always have an advantage at some point with that difference that we have may shrink to some degree, but that when you step back and look at the advantages that we bring with that direct-use efficiency, it's going to be hard to beat us in the long term.
Monica Trauzzi: How many homes are heated with natural gas in the U.S., and what are your industry's projections for where that number will grow to or stay at?
Ralph LaRossa: Yeah. I think you really have to look at that. I don't know the number exactly on the USA basis, but I look at each of the different regions that are accessed to natural gas. I can talk specifically for our company in New Jersey. And we're at about 86 percent heating of homes in Jersey in our service territory, and we've grown about a percent a year, a little bit at a time, as folks continue to change over their oil furnaces.
But there's opportunities that are out there for us to continue to expand the system. The classic example for me is out on Long Island where we operate the electric system and National Grid has the gas system, but they still haven't been infiltrated the eastern shore of Long Island because we really haven't had the opportunity to build the pipelines out there.
So we're still burning oil to heat the homes to there, much higher costs and much different impact on the environment.
Monica Trauzzi: When you took over as chair earlier this year, you made workforce development a key mission. Where's the industry lacking on this?
Ralph LaRossa: So I think really we need to tell the story to the youth really that are out there and kids that are graduating today. There are good jobs in the gas industry. If you step back and look at your opportunities as you went to the workforce, someone that joins our company as an example, right out of high school, we'll train them to work in our gas distribution locations or actually go into homes and work on appliances. And they have an opportunity to make six figures within a couple years. And we'll provide all that training. And folks still to this day really think the only track for folks to take is the college side.
So I tell the story everywhere I go about when I sat down with my dad coming out of college and I said, "Well, I had couple offers. One in the steel industry, one in the natural gas industry." My dad worked in the garment industry, and we saw that industry leave the United States, and we sat back and said, "Well, geez, where's the right place to go?"
And looked at natural gas and what supplies looked like and I said, "That'll probably be OK for my career." Well, now we're sitting here with 100 years' worth of supply in natural gas and a continued growth plan. And we need to get that story out to the kids as they make their decisions about our industry.
Monica Trauzzi: So what are your plans for expanding the workforce?
Ralph LaRossa: So we're attacking out of multiple fronts. We're working with local schools and local colleges to continue to educate them about the opportunities. We're working with community colleges to build in some programs across the industry where we'll actually train people on utility degrees and they'll get a two-year degree and then join the local company on that front.
And we're also trying to really expand the conversation with the diverse work areas that we can. We still have not done as good a job as we can to look like the customers that we provide our service to, and I think that the more that we get the message out to diverse constituents, the better it's going to be to raise a good workforce in that area.
Monica Trauzzi: Very interesting conversation. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate it.
Ralph LaRossa: Thanks, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/2016/10/03
-
DHS Cyber Response Plan Gets Long-Awaited Makeover
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
When the Department of Homeland Security first published its flagship cyber incident response plan in 2010, experts were piecing together how the infamous Stuxnet computer worm wreaked havoc on Iran's nuclear program. Policymakers had just started to grapple with the notion that a digital weapon like Stuxnet could cause real-world, physical damage.
Now, six years later, DHS is seeking input on a long-awaited update to its National Cyber Incident Response Plan. The agency circulated a draft of the plan to industry partners on Sept. 22 before posting a public version of the document to its website Friday.
Authors of the plan cast it as a high-level strategic effort to bring some clarity to the way the U.S. government would handle a major cyberattack on critical infrastructure. The document is built on the premise that a cyberattack on key systems, such as the power grid, water treatment plants or major financial institutions, could jeopardize U.S. national security. The Department of Defense, DHS, a slew of other federal agencies and private-sector experts all contributed to the development of the latest draft.
While cybersecurity experts told EnergyWire that they were still reviewing the nearly 60-page document Friday, early examinations suggest it casts a wider net than its predecessor. Christian Beckner, deputy director of the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University, tweeted that it's "much broader / less tactical than 2010 version," which, by contrast, delved into minutiae in the DHS hierarchy, among other details.
Some other key points from the newer version:
· The cybernetic triad: The new plan draws heavily on this year's Presidential Policy Directive 41, which also goaded DHS into completing the document. In keeping with the policy directive, the plan appoints three lead agencies in any "Cyber Unified Coordination Group" set up during an emergency (EnergyWire, July 27). DHS would take the helm for recovering from the cyberattack and sharing information outside of government. The Department of Justice would investigate and potentially expose or arrest hackers. Finally, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence would fill any gaps in first responders' knowledge amid the digital fog of war.
· Hello, governors: Critics of the previous cyber plan lamented that the document did not go far enough to encourage state, local, tribal and territorial governments to get involved in cyber incident response — particularly governors, who are able to request assistance from entities like the National Guard. The latest draft DHS plan goes further than its predecessor in spelling out the potential for cyber-savvy guardsmen to assist "at the direction of the State Governor and Adjutant General."
· Tell one, tell all: In an attempt to brush away confusion about whom companies should contact in the event of a major cyberattack, the cyber plan lays out how any federal agency notified "will rapidly notify other relevant federal agencies" to organize a "unified" response. In practice, turf wars and privacy concerns among three-letter agencies have historically curbed the speed of intra-governmental information sharing.
· Yet keep secrets: The document strives to reassure executives who may be worried by the public relations fallout that can accompany a major data breach. DHS promises that the federal government "will safeguard details of the incident" whenever it can, and coordinate with affected entities "to the extent possible" if the crisis is severe enough to merit a public statement. The government likely included this caveat because most of the nation's critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector.
· Going global: "The transnational nature of the Internet" leaves the federal government with little choice but to engage international partners in responding to cyberthreats — even domestic ones, according to DHS. Under the updated DHS plan, the Department of State would bring its "vital" diplomacy to bear at overseas embassies during any significant cyber incident.
· Energy gets involved: While the Department of Energy may not be the first agency to come to mind for countering hackers, the DOE can play a central role in threat response, according to the cyber plan, "particularly when the incident involves their contractors and possible nation-state affiliated cyber actors." Legislation passed last year would also grant DOE the authority to step into grid control rooms in the event of a major cyberattack on the electric sector.
· Plan, plan, plan: A large portion of the DHS draft is devoted to laying out the nation's "core capabilities" when it comes to cyber response, including information sharing, public warning, operational communications and planning. That last category calls for working closely with critical infrastructure sectors long before a cyberattack takes place in order to "identify and prioritize" key systems to defend. The end goal is to support "restoration of critical infrastructure ... across multiple jurisdictions and sectors" when needed.
· Only YOU can prevent cyber fires: The cyber plan highlights the importance of individuals in national-level cyber emergencies, noting that "engaged and educated" computer users "can greatly reduce the impact, disruption, and damage caused by a cyber event" with proper hygiene. For instance, there is evidence that recent "distributed denial of service" attacks on a leading cybersecurity blogger's website took advantage of poorly configured and designed household devices such as "smart" web cameras and routers.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/03/stories/1060043733
-
DNV Partners With Oil, NatGas Sector to Buffer Cybersecurity Challenges
Oct 3, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
To protect oil and natural gas installations against cybersecurity threats, DNV GL is partnering with Royal Dutch Shell plc, Statoil ASA and others to develop an industry best practice.
The joint industry project (JIP) is designed to produce a recommended practice for industrial automation and control systems in 12 months, according to DNV. Initial participants also include Lundin Petroleum, Siemens, Honeywell, ABB, Emerson and Kongsberg Maritime. Other oil and gas firms have been invited.
"Dealing with cybersecurity challenges has become a key focus area for the oil and gas sector," said DNV's Pal Borre Kristoffersen, principal consultant for oil and gas. "Attacks are becoming increasingly costly and harder for companies to recover from. This JIP will lower the risk of cybersecurity incidents and trim costs for operators, contractors and vendors by reducing the resources needed to define requirements and by driving a standardized approach."
Cyber crimes cost energy and utilities companies around $12.8 million every year in lost business and damaged equipment, according to DNV. cybersecurity, as in other industries, has become a growing concern for the oil and gas sector because critical network segments in production sites, which once were isolated, now are connected to networks.
A survey conducted a year ago of oil and gas information technology professionals found that 82% had seen an increase in successful cyberattacks in the preceding 12 months, while 69% were not confident that their organizations were detecting all attacks (see Daily GPI, Jan. 15).
More operators have moved to remote operations, remote maintenance and tighter interoperability with centralized process data and plant information. Old and outdated installations are at particular risk and require risk mitigation actions.
cybersecurity standards now exist within the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission's (IEC) 62443. DNV and its partners want to tailor the rules for the oil and gas industry.
IEC 62443 defines what a business can do, while the JIP guideline would describe how. If the JIP results in a standard as hoped, DNV said it could reduce the risk of cybersecurity incidents and lead to cost savings for operators, contractors and vendors, as well as simplified audits for authorities and auditors.
"We see that cybersecurity incidents are increasing with attempted attacks on a daily basis," said Shell's Rune Waerstad, control and automation engineer. "By collaborating with others in the industry, we can ensure that we end up with one globally applicable regulation that is suitable for the oil and gas sector."
DNV now is assisting Total E&P Norge with cybersecurity risk management for the Martin Linge field development and associated operations offshore Norway. DNV work includes the day-to-day management and coordination of cybersecurity during the project phase and through preparations for operation, with a specific focus on integrated control and safety systems. The project also aims to raise awareness of cybersecurity risks and to train personnel to take simple preventative measures.
In related news, the World Energy Council (WEC) has issued a report about managing cyber risks, taking into account the changing nature of the energy industry and its infrastructure.
The report, the third in a series by WEC, was prepared with Swiss Re Corporate Solutions and Marsh & McLennan Cos., with insights from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
"Greater resilience to cyber risks of energy systems is crucial for energy security," WEC researchers said. "Increased digitization lead to more efficiency and opportunities for grid and pipeline management and exploration and production activities.
"Yet, at the same time energy assets become more vulnerable to cyber-attacks," particularly because of automating industrial control systems. Attacks on ICS "could lead to loss of control of key equipment, with potential machinery breakdown, fire, explosion or injuries."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107953-dnv-partners-with-oil-natgas-sector-to-buffer-cybersecurity-challenges
-
FRA Issues Directive For Flawed DOT-111 Tank Cars
Oct 3, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) late last week issued a new directive to owners of certain DOT-111 tank cars built between 2009 and 2015 that they may have "substantial weld defects" that could result in the release of hazardous materials.
The cars of concern were built by American Railcar Industries and ACF Industries. The potential flaws were found in the welds at the bottom of the car where two components allow for product to be offloaded. Some of the welds don't meet federal safety regulations or industry specifications, FRA Administrator Sara Feinberg wrote in the U.S. Department of Transportation's"Fast Lane" blog.
"The good news is these flawed welds have been found in only a small portion of the U.S. tank car fleet" that were manufactured by American Railcar and ACF between 2009 and 2015, she wrote.
The directive requires tank-car owners to act immediately to determine if their fleets contain any of these cars, and if so, to repair them.
As of Sept. 30, the FRA began requiring tank car owners to:
• determine within 30 days if their fleet contains any of the tank cars and report those to the FRA;
• visually inspect the cars to ensure safety and that there is no visible leak; and
• put the identified cars through ultrasonic and surface inspections to examine the welds, and if flaws are detected, immediately remove the cars from service and repair them.
Tank cars with confirmed flaws that carry hazmat must be tested and repaired faster than cars that carry other products, Feinberg said.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/FRA-issues-directive-for-flawed-DOT-111-tank-cars--49653
-
E.U. Vote Tomorrow Will Make Global Accord A Reality
Oct 3, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
It's a deal.
The Paris Agreement on climate change is expected to meet all criteria to enter into force Wednesday when the European Union submits its ratification papers to the United Nations.
The move brings to a close an effort by the Obama administration, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and others to set the global climate deal into motion before key leadership in certain countries — most obviously the United States — changes hands. In finally moving the deal over the finish line that called for 55 countries totaling 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, European leaders sought to reassert their climate leadership after months of internal wrangling.
"They said Europe is too complicated to agree quickly," E.U. Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete said in a statement Friday after environment ministers from all 28 member states granted informal approval that the European Union could join without waiting for members to ratify the agreement. The European Union had previously warned that its internal processes would not allow ratification before 2017.
"They said we had too many hoops to jump through," Cañete said. "They said we were all talk."
László Sólymos, minister for the environment of Slovakia, which is currently president of the E.U. Council, said the European Union "showed its responsibility, its engagement and interest in slowing down the warming of our planet." Calling the European Union "one of the founders of the Paris agreement," he said it was important that it ratify quickly.
The European Parliament is now expected to formally endorse the deal tomorrow in Strasbourg, France, and submit official papers to the United Nations on Wednesday.
Environmental groups celebrated the development, but some said the European Union was shamed into accelerating ratification.
"Clearly the issue was that the E.U. felt under pressure," said Wendel Trio, director of the Climate Action Network Europe. After the United States and China joined the deal last month, a 2016 entry into force seemed more likely than not, even without Europe's involvement. The European Union — which almost single-handedly kept the Kyoto Protocol afloat through a second commitment period and pushed for ambition throughout 21 years of negotiations — faced a crisis of self-image, Trio said.
"Unfortunately, in the E.U., many people [are] still in the old era of thinking they are the front-runners and the only ones that are acting on climate change, and the rest of the world is far behind," he said. "This ratification process has proven that that is not really the case, that the rest of the world with the Paris Agreement has recognized that we all need to move forward."
Europe's speedy entry ensures the union a seat at the table when nations meet for their next round of U.N. negotiations in Marrakech, Morocco. If the agreement takes force this year, Marrakech will be the first official meeting of parties to the Paris Agreement.
But it doesn't mean that all of the bloc's emissions can be counted toward the deal's 55/55 threshold. Only seven E.U. countries have completed their domestic processes so far, including France, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Malta. The World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington, D.C.-based environmental think tank, estimates that those countries will bring an additional 5 percent of the world's emissions into the deal.
But that's enough. Sixty-one countries have already joined the Paris Agreement, and the European additions bring that number to 68. Meanwhile, India's ratification of the deal yesterday brought the global emissions covered by parties up to 52 percent of the world's total.
So barring unforeseen complications in Strasbourg tomorrow, the European Union will push the count up to 57 percent of emissions and spur entry into force next month — that is, unless Canada or Japan rushes to ratify early this week, as well, in which case the tally will be higher.
Europe's zeal to defend its global image as a climate leader comes against the backdrop of a bloc still reeling from the United Kingdom's decision to withdraw from the union earlier this year. Leaders were wary of trampling national authorities at a time when skepticism about the European Union is gaining ground. So even as they warned that E.U. credibility was "on the line," as Cañete put it, if ratification wasn't forthcoming, they also promised that national governments would play an appropriate role.
Poland and Italy tried to use the urgency other members felt to gain leverage over legislation that will determine which countries must deliver what share of the European Union's promised emissions reductions. The bloc pledged to cut its carbon output by 40 percent compared with 1990 levels by 2030. Those cuts are to be delivered via a reformed emissions trading scheme and through an "effort-sharing" plan that would require Italy to cut its emissions by a third by 2030 and Poland to slash its emissions by 7 percent.
The two countries have complained about the effect they say the cuts would have on their economies, and proposed that in exchange for their support for a faster track to ratification, the union agree that the effort-sharing legislation be adopted only with the unanimous consent of all countries rather than a weighted majority. This would have allowed countries to veto legislation that assigned them emissions cuts they weren't prepared to make. But the bid failed after other E.U. countries expressed a willingness to wait to ratify Paris until after national parliaments acted rather than compromise the stringency of the European offering to Paris.
While only seven E.U. countries have ratified the deal thus far, more may do so in the coming weeks, and they would be parties to the deal in time for the gathering in Marrakech. Any that do would earn a seat at the table when negotiations begin on a host of rules and decisions governing how Paris will be implemented.
India 'committed' but not bowing to pressure
Europe wasn't the only country to take a last-minute decision to join Paris. India until just a week ago had refused to even discuss whether it would join this year, and declined to appear in a video montage put together by U.N. staff that featured governments — including the European Union — promising to join quickly.
Then, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the world's third-largest greenhouse gas emitter would indeed join the deal on Oct. 2, the birthday of Mohandas K. Gandhi.
Those familiar with India's climate positions say its move wasn't prompted by a fear of being among the last to join so much as by a determination to move at its own pace. They pointed to Modi's statement almost a year before Paris that collaboration between the United States and China "does not impose any pressure" on India (ClimateWire, Jan. 26, 2015).
"But there is pressure," Modi said at the time. "When we think about the future generations and what kind of world we are going to give them, then there is pressure."
Andrew Light, a former top U.S. climate negotiator now at WRI, said that by tying ratification to the birthday of the hero of Indian independence, Modi sought to elevate the issue and show India's commitment.
"India's a strong, independent country," he said. "They don't operate by reacting simply to the pressure they get from other countries. But I think Modi's committed to this issue. And I think he's going to do things on his calendar, and it's great that he's doing it now."
Jake Schmidt, international climate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said India would probably prefer to join the deal before it goes live.
"It's like showing up at 2:30 when the party ends at 2 a.m.," he said. "No one remembers you were there."
India is currently throwing its weight around in discussions ahead of a meeting of parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer this month in Kigali, Rwanda, which seek to deliver an amendment that would phase down the production and use of hydrofluorocarbons used in air conditioning and cooling (ClimateWire, Sept. 23).
While most other countries appear to be coalescing around an ambitious agreement that would pair an early freeze date with assistance to help poor countries make the transition, India has insisted that poor countries should be allowed to grow their HFCs for another 15 years.
But Durwood Zaelke of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development said Modi would need to communicate his commitment on the HFC issue to his environment team if India were to avoid being viewed as an obstructor in this process. He also noted that financial luminaries including Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates have backed a more stringent amendment in line with proposals advanced by the United States and other countries, which would freeze emissions for poor countries much sooner than India has envisioned.
Gates, hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer and others have offered funding pledges to help poor countries make a swift transition to less climate-forcing coolants.
"If Modi wants to be included among the big guys on climate, he has to step up his game," Zaelke said.
Canada, Japan poised, too, to jump aboard
Canada is also expected to finish its ratification process this week after the House of Commons votes on Wednesday. If it takes an additional day or two to submit its paperwork, Canada will join the deal after the European Union pushes it over the emissions threshold. It brings an additional 2 percent of the world's emissions to the deal.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made improving Canada's climate track record a hallmark of his first year in office, but his government didn't ratify the deal ahead of Ban's U.N. summit last month.
Laurence Blandford, director of international policy analysis at the Center for Clean Air Policy, noted that in contrast to the United States — where the administration joined the deal without involving Congress — the Canadian process required an act of Parliament.
"I would see this as pretty speedy ratification for any treaty, from a Canadian perspective," said Blandford, a former Canadian negotiator himself.
Trudeau's government surprised many last month when it announced it would not tighten the Paris commitment put forward last year by the previous Conservative government. That calls for Canada to slash its carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, a target that some analysts have dismissed as inadequate despite the fact Canada already relies very heavily on renewable power.
"The reductions in Canada are primarily costly ones just because of the fact that the electricity sector is already basically resolved," said Blandford.
Canada has raised the hackles of environmentalists by advocating for its oil sands industry, including by promoting infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL oil pipeline. But it is on the verge of adopting a federal economywide carbon price floor, which the United States shows no signs of doing anytime soon.
Japan may also ratify as soon as this week. The deal is on the Diet agenda for the session that begins this week, but it's unclear how quickly the parliamentary body will vote on it.
The list of countries that haven't ratified is long and varied. Schmidt called Russia a "wild card," noting that while it hasn't given any indication that it's planning to ratify Paris, "they could just do it today and trump everybody."
Some countries that have yet to ratify are among the deal's strongest supporters, like climate-vulnerable Costa Rica — home of former U.N. climate chief and Paris architect Christiana Figueres.
"It takes time," said Monica Araya, a former Costa Rica negotiator and founder of the nonprofit group Nivela. The parliament has already debated the deal and passed it once, but it requires a constitutional review that finished two weeks ago. A second debate is now required for Costa Rica to join.
"So ratification will happen this year," she said. "It is important to highlight that it was not a matter of opposition or hesitation but the sheer weight of slow institutional processes."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/03/stories/1060043736
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested