Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/5/16
-
NCBFAA Submits Letter to CBP About Toxic Substance Control Act
Oct 5, 2016 | American Journal of Transportation
By AJOT
The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA) recently submitted a letter to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the requirements to file a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) certification when importing chemical products. -
Activists Warn That PCBs — Toxic Industrial Chemicals — Contaminate Thousands of U.S. Schools
Oct 5, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Emma Brown
Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are industrial chemicals so toxic that Congress banned them 40 years ago. Research has shown that they can cause a range of health concerns, including cancer and neurological problems such as decreased IQ. -
(ACC Blog) Setting the Record Straight on BPA (Again)
Oct 5, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges
The topic of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has been popular lately with many “experts” weighing in with their opinions on everything from the basic definition of EDCs to what to do about them. -
EPA Defends Draft RDX Cancer Risk Assessment in Peer Review IRIS Draft
Oct 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA’s latest draft assessment of human health risks from royal demolition explosive (RDX) defends its conclusions of RDX’s cancer risks from criticisms from a retired National Toxicology Program (NTP) scientist that it understated cancer risk and continues its defense of competing Defense Department (DOD) claims that the agency overstated risk. -
Massachusetts TDI High Hazard Designation to Take Effect
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Amendments to Massachusetts’ Tura Regulations will designate several toluene diisocyanates (TDI) as Higher Hazard Substances (HHS). -
Sen. Markey, Cindy Crawford Decry PCB Exposure in Schools
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Millions of schoolchildren may still be exposed to highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), despite a decadeslong ban on the chemicals, according to reports released today by the Environmental Working Group and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). -
Echa Management Board Voices Concerns on Nano Website
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa's management board has warned the agency that unless the European Commission speedily introduces REACH dossier requirements that explicitly address the nanoform of substances, the nano webpages Echa has been asked to create will contain little new information. -
#RaiseTheBar With EWG VERIFIED™
Oct 5, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Violet Batcha
The average American woman uses more than 12 different personal care products with more than 160 different chemicals daily. Some of these chemicals, such as phthalates and parabens, have been linked to serious health problems, including endocrine disruption and reproductive harm. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump's Energy Entourage
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Donald Trump has been fleshing out his energy team, tapping a mix of industry executives, political operatives, agency experts and some polarizing personalities to guide his campaign and transition operation. -
Legal Experts: Climate Case Won't Turn on Constitutional Questions
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The constitutionality of the Clean Power Plan tends to generate headlines and hot takes. But another matter is more likely to prove decisive in the fight over President Obama's signature environmental law: the extent of U.S. EPA's carbon-cutting authority. -
Va. Utility Could Nearly Double Emissions Under Clean Power Plan
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Virginia's biggest power company could increase carbon levels 83 percent while still meeting federal climate standards. -
Judges Appear Skeptical of Freezing Pipeline
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In the latest legal showdown over the Dakota Access pipeline, federal judges seemed skeptical today of American Indian tribes' arguments for extending a work freeze on a contentious stretch of land in North Dakota. -
N.D. Report Confirms No Cultural Sites Disturbed — Pipeline Lawyers
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Lawyers defending the Dakota Access pipeline say a recent report bolsters their position that developers have not disturbed cultural sites along the project's route. -
New York and the Standby Tariff: A Breakthrough for Clean, Distributed Energy
Oct 5, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Marc Rauch
For New Yorkers wanting more clean, distributed energy, the recent Con Edison rate case offers some good news. -
Industry Sees Stronger Markets Ahead — and More Opposition
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The liquefied natural gas industry is finally seeing daylight after being dragged down by low natural gas prices. But there's some concern that restructured markets and public backlash against oil and gas projects could spread more pain to LNG. -
West Virginia Chemical Leak was Preventable
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The massive chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the tap water of about 300,000 local residents in January 2014 could have been prevented if Freedom Industries had conducted appropriate inspections and repairs, the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has concluded. -
Pipeline Rule Would Allow More Systematic Safety Approach
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Pamela King
The Department of Transportation's pipeline-safety regulator is poised to issue regulations that will allow it to react with greater speed when it uncovers problems with the nation's oil and gas network. -
Donald Trump Can't Negotiate Climate Change Away
Oct 5, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Rhea Suh
The European Union moved this week to follow the United States and more than 60 other countries in formally signing onto the Paris climate accord, setting the world on course for the epic clean energy shift we need to fight the central environmental challenge of our time.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
NCBFAA Submits Letter to CBP About Toxic Substance Control Act
Oct 5, 2016 | American Journal of Transportation
By AJOT
The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA) recently submitted a letter to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the requirements to file a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) certification when importing chemical products.
NCBFAA stated that current CBP regulations require a TSCA certification for all chemical substances or mixtures, whether they are subject to TSCA or not. That is, the certification must state that either 1) all chemical substances in the shipment comply with TSCA or 2) all chemicals in the shipment are not subject to TSCA, a so called negative certification. Prior to ACE, the positive or negative certification could appear as a printed or stamped statement on the commercial invoice or entry document, or as an attachment thereto. Or, a blanket certification could be filed annually at the port of entry.
Now, as entry filing in ACE becomes an option for imports subject to TSCA, CBP is proposing to eliminate the blanket certification process altogether and to require certification information to be provided at entry filing not only for chemical imports subject to TSCA, but for all all chemical imports NOT subject to TSCA, as well, even if they are clearly identified as non-TSCA regulated products. This would include such products as pesticides, food, food additives, drugs, cosmetics or devices, nuclear material, firearms and ammunition. All of these products are already subject to reporting to EPA or to other agencies under other laws.
In NCBFAA’s view, requiring a negative certification for these non-TSCA products is an overreach that is incompatible with Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s Businesses, which aims to simplify and streamline trade processes at the border. CBP dismisses the economic impact of providing the additional data elements for an estimated 2.5 million TSCA positive certifications and 230,000 negative certifications, saying the cost will be minimal. EPA’s own regulations implementing section 13 of TSCA (40 CFR 707.20(b)(2)(ii)) only requires the submission of a negative certification when a non-TSCA regulated chemical import is not clearly identified as a pesticide or other chemical not subject to TSCA. NCBFAA urges CBP to include an exemption from the negative certification for chemicals that are clearly identified as a pesticide or other chemical not subject to TSCA.
NCBFAA notes that CBP also proposes to require submission of additional information relating to the certifying individual, including name, phone number and email address. For entries filed electronically in ACE, this additional information should only be required at the header level, rather than provided for each TSCA line. The distinction is important to filers for two reasons: A line level requirement means re-inputting the same data over and over again. One entry can have dozens (even hundreds!) of lines. It would make no sense to impose a repetitive manual task of this nature when the information can be provided once at the Entry header level. A line level requirement also increases the file size. We already have to worry about reaching the 8 mb and 999 line limit for each entry. This would only exacerbate that problem.
Therefore, NCBFAA further implores CBP to require the contact information only at the header level. NCBFAA also claims that NPRM also does not address how TSCA certification requirements will apply to Informal Entries (valued at $2500 or less) or Section 321 entries (shipments of de minimis value, which was set at $200, but has been increased to $800 by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act signed into law on February 25, 2016). With the de minimis threshold increase to $800, lower-value shipment volumes will likewise increase. The statute (15 USC 2612) and regulations (19 CFR 12.121) are very clear that no chemical product subject to TSCA shall enter the US unless it complies with TSCA and is certified as complying by the importer.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, the NCBFAA represents more than 1,000 member companies with 110,000 employees in international trade - the nation’s leading freight forwarders, customs brokers, ocean transportation intermediaries (OTIs), NVOCCs and air cargo agents, serving more than 250,000 importers and exporters. Established in 1897 in New York, NCBFAA is the effective national voice of the industry. Through its various committees, counsel and representatives, the Association maintains a close watch over legislative and regulatory issues that affect its members. It keeps them informed of these and other related issues through its weekly Monday Morning eBriefing, and various meetings and conferences throughout the year.
https://www.ajot.com/news/ncbfaa-submits-letter-to-cbp-about-toxic-substance-control-act
-
Activists Warn That PCBs — Toxic Industrial Chemicals — Contaminate Thousands of U.S. Schools
Oct 5, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Emma Brown
Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are industrial chemicals so toxic that Congress banned them 40 years ago. Research has shown that they can cause a range of health concerns, including cancer and neurological problems such as decreased IQ. And yet, because they were commonly used in building materials for decades, they continue to contaminate classrooms in between 13,000 and 26,000 schools nationwide, according to Harvard researchers.
No one knows exactly how many schools are affected — nor how many children are being exposed to these toxic chemicals — because many schools don’t test for PCBs. Under federal law, they don’t have to.
Now activists are mounting a campaign to change that, lobbying Congress to close what they say is a dangerous loophole that could be harming millions of children. The effort comes in the aftermath of the Flint water crisis, amid new scrutiny of schoolchildren’s exposure to another toxic substance for which schools are not required to test: lead in drinking water fountains.
“Parents have the right to know what their children are being exposed to in school,” said Jennifer deNicola, a parent in Malibu, Calif., who helped lead a years-long effort to rid that community’s schools of PCBs in window caulk and other materials, eventually filing a lawsuit against the school district. People can be exposed to the chemicals when they touch contaminated substances, eat contaminated food or breathe air contaminated with PCB-laden dust. The caulk in Malibu schools had concentrations of PCBs that in some instances were thousands of times higher than the federal limit.
The legal battle in that tony seaside community — which ended last month, when a federal judge ordered the school district to remove PCBs from its schools by Dec. 31, 2019 — drew national attention to the issue, not least because supermodel Cindy Crawford pulled her children out of the school system and became a spokeswoman for the cause.
“This isn’t my normal day job, but it just didn’t make sense to me, and it didn’t seem fair,” Crawford told reporters Wednesday morning. “My children are being homeschooled, but that is not an option for most people.”
Schools also have grappled with the problem elsewhere, including in New York, Massachusetts and Washington. A school in Hartford, Conn., was closed indefinitely for cleanup last year after it was found to have airborne PCB levels nearly 2,000 times greater than the federal limit, according to the Hartford Courant.
Now deNicola and Crawford are turning their attention to undetected PCBs in schools nationwide. “We need to make this a political issue bigger than us,” said deNicola, who started the nonprofit America Unites for Kids to address the problem.
They have joined forces with the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization that specializes in public health. They are lobbying Congress to make clear that the Environmental Protection Agency must require schools built between 1950 and 1979 — when PCBs were commonly used not only in window caulk, but also in school fluorescent lighting fixtures, paint and floor finishes — to test for contamination.
They have an ally in Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who on Wednesday released areport on the extent of PCB contamination in the nation’s schools and called on Congress to provide the money that schools need to test for, and respond to, the problem. Markey also called for mandatory PCB testing in schools, for parents to be notified when PCBs are found in their children’s schools, and for the Environmental Protection Agency to begin urging inspections of schools built or renovated during the PCB era.
According to Markey’s report, EPA has received 286 reports of PCB contamination in 22 states during the past decade, affecting thousands of schools. But that likely represents just a tiny fraction of the problem because testing is random and piecemeal, according to the report.
“Absent a requirement to test or inspect schools for PCB contamination, the discovery of PCB hazards in schools occurs by chance,” the report says.
“Right now at the rate of current enforcement and inspection activities by states and the EPA, it would take at least 32 years to inspect schools that may have PCB-containing caulk,” Markey said Wednesday, and even longer to inspect all potentially contaminated materials.
EPA officials said they do not currently recommend inspections at all such schools because that blanket approach would not be appropriate or effective at every school. Instead, they recommend reducing chances of contamination by removing PCB-based fluorescent light fixtures, by removing caulk and other materials during planned renovations, and by keeping PCB-laden dust to a minimum by mopping and using wet rags.
That approach is the most effective way for schools to use limited resources to deal with potential PCB contamination, said Jeff Morris of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, who also emphasized that current laws and regulations do not give EPA the authority to require testing. “We’re not saying that this is a trivial thing at all,” he said. “It is in a lot of buildings, it’s true.”
EPA is working to create a new rule that would require schools to get rid of all fluorescent lights with PCB-based ballast. And — highlighting how much remains unknown about the chemicals despite their long-standing reputation as dangerous — government scientists are working to better understand what should be considered acceptable levels of PCB air contamination.
Schools must stay below thresholds of between 100 and 600 nanograms per cubic meter, depending on the age of the students, according to the EPA. But some experts — including one that the Malibu parents hired to fight the school district there — argue that research has shown evidence that PCBs can be harmful to children at far lower levels.
Morris, the EPA official, said the levels the agency has set are based on the best available PCB science. “But the big caveat is that PCB science needs to be improved,” he said.
EPA guidance is critical because schools turn to the agency for help in understanding and responding to environmental health risks while complying with the law. The Malibu school district was found to have violated the Toxic Substances Control Act because of the illegally high levels of PCBs in window caulk. But district officials said that they had consistently complied with EPA guidance and requirements, and the judge in the case agreed.
“We’re education experts,” said Gail Pinsker, spokeswoman for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, who said the district is confident that its classrooms are, and always have been, safe. “The district is a public agency that is following the law and following the EPA guidelines that have been sent to us.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/05/activists-warn-that-pcbs-toxic-industrial-chemicals-contaminate-thousands-of-u-s-schools/
-
(ACC Blog) Setting the Record Straight on BPA (Again)
Oct 5, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges
The topic of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has been popular lately with many “experts” weighing in with their opinions on everything from the basic definition of EDCs to what to do about them. With scientific issues like this, the words attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan bear repeating: “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
A recent example is an article in the online publication MedPage Today titled “EDCs: An Area of Growing Concern,” and subtitled “Expert: too little testing of BPA, phthalates.” While the article focused on comments from an “expert,” it would have benefited immensely from some editorial fact-checking.
Whether chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA) are EDCs is a controversial question that has not yet arrived at a consensus answer. But what’s most shocking about the MedPage article is that the “expert” stated that “chemicals that come into contact with food (e.g. plastic water and food containers, cans, etc.) are not regulated by the FDA, since they’re not actually added to food and beverages.” This is unequivocally false.
The basic definition of a food additive, taken directly from the 1958 legislation that provides the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulatory authority on this matter, is:
A food additive is defined in Section 201(s) of the FD&C Act as … including any substance intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food.
Since 1958, FDA has amassed almost 300 pages of regulations that specifically apply to materials that come into contact with food. Included are sections on plastics, as used in water and food containers, as well as sections on materials used in food and beverage cans.
Since 1997, when Congress updated the legislation to streamline FDA’s process for regulating food-contact substances, well over 1,000 food-contact notifications have been submitted to FDA on new food-contact substances or applications. Without question, chemicals that come into contact with food have been well-regulated by FDA for almost 60 years.
The claim that there is too little testing of BPA is farfetched. A quick search of PubMed, a readily available biomedical literature database operated by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), reveals over 10,000 scientific studies on BPA.
Most importantly, this number includes a set of 30 comprehensive safety studies conducted by independent U.S. federal government scientists from FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNL). The studies were designed to answer key questions and resolve uncertainties about the safety of BPA, and include the largest study ever conducted on BPA.
The results of these and other studies reveal that:
Consumer exposure to BPA is extremely low;
BPA is rapidly eliminated from the body; and
There is no risk of health effects at typical consumer exposure levels.
Collectively, federal government studies provide strong support for the safety of BPA and underpin FDA’s current perspective on BPA. In answer to the question “Is BPA safe?”, the unambiguous answer from FDA is “Yes.” Many other government bodies around the world agree with this conclusion based on their own review of the science.
It’s disappointing that a publication promoting itself as “a trusted and reliable source for clinical and policy coverage that directly affects the lives and practices of health care professionals” could be so wrong. Fortunately the true experts at FDA have spoken.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/10/setting-the-record-straight-on-bpa-again/
-
EPA Defends Draft RDX Cancer Risk Assessment in Peer Review IRIS Draft
Oct 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA’s latest draft assessment of human health risks from royal demolition explosive (RDX) defends its conclusions of RDX’s cancer risks from criticisms from a retired National Toxicology Program (NTP) scientist that it understated cancer risk and continues its defense of competing Defense Department (DOD) claims that the agency overstated risk.
The agency on Sept. 23 released its second public draft of the RDX Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment, reiterating the quantitative risk estimates from the first draft released last March for public comment. Inthat earlier draft, EPA proposed a reference dose, or the greatest amount of RDX it anticipated could be ingested daily for a lifetime without adverse effect, of 0.003 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg-day).
According to a Sept. 29 Federal Register notice, a peer review comprised of EPA’s Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee members plus experts with specific expertise relevant to RDX toxicity will meet Nov. 17 “to learn about the development of the agency’s draft IRIS [RDX assessment] and to discuss the draft charge questions for the peer review of the document.”
The notice adds that the peer review panel will meet in Washington, D.C., Dec. 12-14 to begin their review of the assessment for RDX, also known by its technical name, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine.
EPA’s latest draft repeats the same reference dose as the first draft. It also proposes the same cancer potency estimate for ingesting RDX as the March draft, of 0.04 per milligram per kilogram bodyweight per day. In neither draft does EPA calculate inhalation risk estimates, citing a lack of data to support risk analysis.
The agency is also maintaining the cancer risk classification of “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” previously proposed in the March draft. It was this classification which led to critical comments from the retired NTP toxicologist Ron Melnick for understating the risk. But it also drew criticism from DOD representatives during a public meeting on the assessment in May 10 and in earlier comments that data show RDX is unlikely to be carcinogenic.
“I was surprised and shocked when I read EPA’s cancer weight-of-evidence (WOE) conclusion for [RDX],” Melnick wrote in May 9 comments on the earlier draft. “It is obvious to me that the WOE determination for RDX is inconsistent with both the data that are summarized in the [Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)] Draft Toxicological Review of RDX and with the cancer descriptors provided in EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.”
While EPA proposes classifying RDX as showing “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,” Melnick said “the data for RDX matches the descriptor ‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ because it ‘induced dose-related increases in tumors in two species (mouse and rat), in both sexes, and at two sites (liver and lung).’”
Response To Comments
In an appendix to the new draft, EPA provides responses to public comments received on the March draft. For example, the agency argues that Melnick misinterprets EPA’s cancer risk assessment guidelines.
“Melnick’s assertion that EPA assigns cancer descriptors based on a set of criteria does not accurately characterize the selection of descriptors as discussed in the Cancer Guidelines. . . . [T]he bullets included under each cancer descriptor are examples that are illustrative of the combinations of evidence consistent with each of the five descriptors,” EPA says. “As the Cancer Guidelines note, ‘[t]he examples are neither a checklist nor a limitation for the descriptor.’”
However, EPA adopts some changes that Melnick suggested, such as his argument that “[t]he incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas in male rats, identified in the Toxicological Review as showing a statistically significant positive trend, should also have been compared to historical controls because it is a rare tumor in the F344 rat.”
EPA indicates it agrees with the comment and a pair of others and says it makes this and other changes Melnick recommended, although the revisions do not alter the document’s conclusions about RDX’s carcinogenicity.
By contrast, prior official NTP comments from Oct. 27, 2014, released last March, indicate few concerns with the assessment, including its cancer classification.
EPA in an earlier response to interagency comments defended the cancer classification from criticisms from DOD that EPA overstated the cancer classification and should not calculate a cancer potency estimate for RDX because DOD believes the evidence indicates it isn’t carcinogenic.
EPA’s March 2016 response to interagency comments, posted in May, argues that its descriptor of not likely to be carcinogenic to humans is “appropriate only when the available data are considered robust for deciding that there is no basis for human hazard concern. In light of the dose-related increases in benign and malignant tumors in the liver and lung of mice and in the liver of rats in 2-year dietary studies, EPA disagrees with DOD’s recommendation to consider a descriptor for RDX of ‘unlikely to be carcinogenic.’”
In response to DOD’s concerns, EPA said it would include a question to the panel of experts who will peer review the panel about the cancer classification.
Charge Questions
The newly released charge questions to the peer review panel includes the following question: “There are plausible scientific arguments for more than one hazard descriptor. . . . The draft assessment concludes that there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential for RDX, and that this descriptor applies to all routes of human exposure. Please comment on whether the available human, animal, and mechanistic studies support this conclusion.”
Similarly, another charge questions ask the panel to opine on EPA’s decision to calculate a cancer potency value for a contaminant with suggestive carcinogenic potential.
“As noted in EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, ‘When there is suggestive evidence, the Agency generally would not attempt a dose-response assessment, as the nature of the data generally would not support one; however, when the evidence includes a well-conducted study, quantitative analyses may be useful for some purposes, for example, providing a sense of the magnitude and uncertainty of potential risks, ranking potential hazards, or setting research priorities,’” the question asks.
It continues, “Does the draft assessment adequately explain the rationale for quantitative analysis, considering the uncertainty in the data and the suggestive nature of the weight of evidence?”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-draft-rdx-cancer-risk-assessment-peer-review-iris-draft
-
Massachusetts TDI High Hazard Designation to Take Effect
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Amendments to Massachusetts’ Tura Regulations will designate several toluene diisocyanates (TDI) as Higher Hazard Substances (HHS).
Under Massachusetts’ Toxic Use Reduction Act (Tura), facilities that use HHS in large volumes are required to:
report on their chemical use;
conduct toxics use reduction planning every two years; and
pay a fee.
Effective from 1 January 2017, the following substances are designated HHS, with a reporting threshold of 1,000lbs:
2,4-TDI;
2,6-TDI; and
TDI mixed isomers.
TDI is used in the production of polyurethane resins, paints, adhesives, sealants and flexible foam products. As laid out in a policy analysis, compiled by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (Turi) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, the substance is a potent dermal and respiratory sensitiser. It is also reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.
The TDI designations follows this year's additions of 1-bromopropane, hydrogen fluoride, cyanide compounds and dimethylformamide as HHS. Methylene chloride was designated as such in 2014.
The Tura Science Advisory Board (SAB) has announced plans to review hazard information on long- and short-chain perfluoroalkyl substances, including perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
The SAB’s primary role is to consider petitions to add or delete chemicals from the Tura chemical list and make recommendations accordingly.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50107/massachusetts-tdi-high-hazard-designation-to-take-effect
-
Sen. Markey, Cindy Crawford Decry PCB Exposure in Schools
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Millions of schoolchildren may still be exposed to highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), despite a decadeslong ban on the chemicals, according to reports released today by the Environmental Working Group and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
PCBs may lurk in unsafe levels at up to 26,000 elementary, middle and high schools in the United States, the EWG report found, citing a February study from Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
As many as 14 million students could be exposed, EWG said.
"This morning, the bells are ringing in tens of thousands of schools across the country to signal the start of classes, but the alarm bells should be going off warning families that millions of children are potentially starting their days in classes that contain ... PCBs," Markey said on a conference call this morning.
PCBs are a family of chemicals once used widely in plasticizers, hydraulic oils and electrical equipment before being banned by Congress in 1976 due to health concerns. PCBs are probable carcinogens that have also been linked to immune and nervous system damage, as well as impaired thyroid function.
Supermodel Cindy Crawford, who joined Markey and EWG representatives on the conference call, said she first became aware of PCB contamination when multiple teachers at her children's school were diagnosed with thyroid cancer.
"The fact that people aren't talking about this, that this isn't at the top of everyone's list ... is mind-blowing," she said.
In schools, EWG said, PCBs are found most often in old caulk as well as fluorescent light ballasts. As caulking decays or ballasts leak, children, teachers and parents could be exposed to the toxins, the nonprofit warned.
Recent testing at two schools in Malibu, Calif., revealed PCBs in caulk at up to 570,000 parts per million, far surpassing U.S. EPA's legal limit of 50 ppm. Environmental health groups sued the school district for failure to clean up the compounds, though EPA sided with the district (Greenwire, May 18). A federal judge ordered all PCBs removed from the schools last month.
The study from Markey's office says that up to 30 percent of schoolchildren across the country are still exposed to the chemical.
The senator said that most PCB contamination cases are discovered by accident and that schools have no mandate to inform parents.
"These data demonstrate that PCBs in schools are a national problem," Robert Herrick, lead author of the Harvard study, said in a statement. "And while the scope of the problem remains poorly characterized, it is clear that where people look for PCBs in schools, they are very likely to find them. ... [I]t is essential that this source of PCB exposure be eliminated from our schools."
Herrick noted that as U.S. industries ramped up their use of the chemicals from the 1950s through the 1970s, the country was also building schools at its most rapid rate.
PCBs were manufactured by agrochemical giant Monsanto Co. — purchased last month by German chemical firm Bayer AG (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
EWG representatives suggested that Bayer could still be sued over PCB contamination if affected communities decided to pursue that course. "A company that has done wrong in the past does not get absolved of those wrongs just by ... merging companies," said EWG legislative attorney Melanie Benesh.
In its report, EWG charges that EPA "does not require schools to test for the presence of PCBs." The report recommends that EPA "quickly conclude" a rule that would bar schools from continuing the use of PCB-containing light fixtures.
EPA spokeswoman Monica Lee said the agency is reviewing the reports.
"EPA is concerned about PCB exposures to children ... because PCBs can cause a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer," Lee said.
She added that resolving the issue "is a challenge" because the chemicals "were widely used" in schools for decades.
EWG's report also recommends that schools "test for PCBs in caulking, air and dust," and encourages parents to hold school districts accountable.
"This is a nationwide problem affecting many communities," Benesh said. "Without mandatory testing and reporting, it's impossible to know with certainty which communities or groups of schoolchildren are most adversely affected by PCBs in schools."
Markey said he would encourage his colleagues in Congress to tackle the problem.
"In the coming months, I will be introducing legislation requiring schools to inspect and test for PCBs, both now and after potential remediation projects, as well as require the notification of students, parents, teachers, and employees of potential PCB hazards in schools," he said in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043876
-
Echa Management Board Voices Concerns on Nano Website
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Echa's management board has warned the agency that unless the European Commission speedily introduces REACH dossier requirements that explicitly address the nanoform of substances, the nano webpages Echa has been asked to create will contain little new information.
The webpages – named the “nano observatory” – will aim to collate existing information on which nanomaterials are on the market. It was the Commission's preference to an EU register, based on new information submitted by companies.
The observatory is one of three actions on nanomaterials the European Commission has promised to take. The others are to revise the information requirements for registrations – as set out in the REACH Regulation annexes – so that they take explicit account of nanomaterials, and also the Commission's regulatory definition of what is a “nanomaterial”.
Echa and its management board see the three as an integrated package, with the annex changes and revised definition together helping to ensure the registration database will be populated with much better information.
Echa and the Commission co-hosted a meeting in April to discuss ideas for the observatory. And the Commission has submitted a “delegation agreement” to Echa's executive director, Geert Dancet, setting out the resources the agency will receive for the project. These, says Echa, will be less than €1m per year for five years and the equivalent of three full-time extra staff.
But progress on the other actions remains slow, with proposals still being examined by the Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Some member states are asking the Commission for an explanation of why it has “repeatedly delayed its work”.
The whole package
Echa executive director, Geert Dancet, told Chemical Watch that, during its meeting last week, management board members were concerned about what would happen if the observatory went ahead but there was continued delay in implementing the other two measures.
“The board was worried, and said the package should move ahead together so that Echa is not exposed to the criticism that ultimately little information is available in the database if the annexes are not reviewed,” said Mr Dancet.
“This is a message that I am passing back to the Commission – that I need the rest to move ahead as well as soon as possible. I understand that there are more steps to be done on the two others, but I'm assuming that they will be done in the shortest possible time.”
According to Mr Dancet and some board members, the meeting also heard concerns that the resources offered by the Commission – and on which Echa has no room to negotiate – may not be enough to ensure that the information published in the observatory is of sufficient quality.
“With that kind of resources,” said Mr Dancet, “you cannot make miracles happen.”
There were doubts that Echa would be able to deliver a product that can satisfy expectations, given that the legal obligations to registrants hasn’t been clarified yet, said board member Henrik Søren Larsen of the Danish EPA. “I and others expressed dissatisfaction with the progress on nanomaterials and that the observatory probably wouldn’t be the right instrument to tackle the challenge with nanos – but what the board was asked to do was advise the director on whether to accept the request or not. In that situation, the board believed it was a better option to accept the request from the Commission than not.”
“An incomplete observatory with inconsistent information could be a reputational risk for Echa and might disappoint people,” said another board member.
Chemical Watch understands that the Commission representatives at the meeting said the observatory could also take information from EU member state databases. However, the point was made that much of this information is confidential.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50073/echa-management-board-voices-concerns-on-nano-website
-
#RaiseTheBar With EWG VERIFIED™
Oct 5, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Violet Batcha
The average American woman uses more than 12 different personal care products with more than 160 different chemicals daily. Some of these chemicals, such as phthalates and parabens, have been linked to serious health problems, including endocrine disruption and reproductive harm.
But EWG is helping raise the bar for cosmetics with its EWG VERIFIED™ program.
In order to qualify for the EWG VERIFIED™ mark, products must be free of substances that have been banned by U.S. or international government agencies, or other authoritative public health bodies, such as the World Health Organization. Companies must also fully disclose product ingredients – including the specific chemicals that make up their fragrance mixtures – and follow good manufacturing practices.
What can you do to help raise the bar?
Share your support of healthier cosmetics using the hashtag #RaiseTheBar. Use it when you want to share about a verified product or to encourage companies to get their products verified.
Make sure to use the hashtag #RaiseTheBar in your posts so we can find them and share them with our social media audience.
Please also check that your post is public and you own the rights to any images.
Together we can make a difference and push the market toward healthier products.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/10/raisethebar-ewg-verified
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump's Energy Entourage
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Donald Trump has been fleshing out his energy team, tapping a mix of industry executives, political operatives, agency experts and some polarizing personalities to guide his campaign and transition operation.
Meanwhile, Trump is pledging on the campaign trail that he'll be a champion for the environment.
"I believe firmly in conserving our wonderful natural resources and beautiful natural habitats," he recently told an oil and gas industry gathering in Pittsburgh. "My environmental agenda will be guided by true specialists in conservation, not those with radical political agendas" (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
Here's a look at some of the energy experts playing a part in the Trump campaign and in the transition, and who could wind up having top jobs in a Trump administration, if the Republican presidential nominee wins the White House.
Harold Hamm: The Oklahoma oil tycoon and founder of Continental Resources Inc. is sometimes referred to as the "fracking king" and is a top energy adviser to Trump. Hamm was previously an adviser to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, and he's widely rumored to be a leading contender for Energy secretary if Trump wins the White House. Hamm has praised Trump's energy platform — which he helped develop — on the campaign trail, vowing that a GOP White House would "embrace American energy independence" while developing "America's most strategic weapon: crude oil" (E&ENews PM, Aug. 23).
Carl Icahn: The billionaire investor and Trump donor is also reportedly influencing Trump's energy policies. Icahn appeared to sway the Trump campaign on renewable fuels policies, for example. In September, the Trump campaign posted a policy document about renewable fuel credits that echoed Ichan's views, although that language was soon scrubbed from the campaign's website (Greenwire, Sept. 16).
Robert Murray: The coal magnate and Murray Energy Corp. CEO is also said to have Trump's ear on energy policy. Murray hosted an invitation-only fundraiser for Trump in West Virginia in June. Murray has said Trump would undo the Obama administration's regulatory agenda and has described the GOP nominee as deeply interested in policy. "With his courage, intelligence, caring and passion, Donald Trump will be the best president of our lifetimes," he said (E&E Daily, June 29).
Stephen Moore: The former Wall Street Journal columnist is advising Trump on economic policy, and he's pushed the GOP presidential nominee to spend more time talking about natural gas and oil development on the campaign trail. Some of the concepts in his book "Fueling Freedom" — which he co-authored with Hartnett White — made it into the pro-energy-development speech Trump delivered earlier this year in Bismarck, N.D. (E&E Daily, Sept. 7).
Kathleen Hartnett White: The former Texas environmental regulator is a member of Trump's economic advisory council and is rumored to be a possible contender for Trump's U.S. EPA administrator. She's director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and was previously commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. She told Rolling Stone that she'd "love to serve" in a Trump administration, and that she's drawn to Trump because of "his optimism" — the kind of optimism that will propel him to fully exploit America's "extraordinary energy bounty."
Donald Trump Jr.: Trump's son, an avid hunter, said in a January article inPetersen's Hunting that he'd like to be the next Interior secretary. "You can be assured that if I'm not directly involved, I'm going to be that very, very loud voice in his ear," Trump Jr. told the magazine. "And we are going to do whatever we can to make sure that any kind of Trump presidency is going to be the best since Theodore Roosevelt for outdoorsmen, for hunters, for our public lands, and for this country as it relates to anything in the great outdoors" (E&E Daily, May 12). Trump Jr. also told The New Yorkerthat he supports keeping public lands public. Despite his having an eye on the Interior job, an anti-nepotism law first passed in 1967 (a few years after President Kennedy appointed his brother as attorney general) makes it illegal for government officials to employ their relatives and appears to bar Trump from naming his son head of Interior.
Kevin Cramer: The North Dakota Republican congressman, who calls himself a climate skeptic, has been looking to sway Trump on energy policy. The Trump campaign has said Cramer is one of many people advising the GOP nominee on energy issues. Cramer has suggested that Trump should roll back a number of energy-sector regulations during the first 100 days of his presidency. The congressman has also expressed support for a small carbon tax to replace the Clean Power Plan, but Trump quickly rejected that idea. "I will not support or endorse a carbon tax!" Trump tweeted earlier this year (E&ENews PM, May 13).
Andrew Wheeler: The former aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is now an attorney at Faegre Baker Daniels and co-leader of the firm's energy and natural resources practice. He started his career at EPA, where he worked on toxic chemical issues. Wheeler is one of several former Senate staffers now advising Trump's campaign on energy issues. During his stint as a congressional aide, he worked on legislation including the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the "Clear Skies Act," which died in Congress.
Jeff Wood: The former environmental aide to Trump supporter Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is now a partner at the law firm Balch & Bingham. He's also advising the Trump campaign on energy issues. While on Sessions' staff, Wood worked on issues including energy, agriculture, forestry and other environmental topics. He was also Republican staff director for the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety and the GOP staff director for the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife. Wood was previously a corporate attorney with Ingram Barge Co., an inland waterway transportation corporation.
Myron Ebell: The director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute is spearheading Trump's transition plans for EPA. Ebell is a polarizing figure in the energy and environment world known for his prolific writings that question what he calls climate change "alarmism." His selection infuriated environmentalists and others on the left, who warned that he's far out of the mainstream. Some Trump supporters, however, welcomed Ebell's role in the transition as a promising sign that a Trump administration would be looking to upend President Obama's environmental policies (E&E Daily, Sept. 26).
David Bernhardt: The co-chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck is heading Trump's Interior transition effort. He led the Interior agency review team for Romney's 2012 transition operation after serving as Interior's solicitor during the George W. Bush administration. He held several other high-level jobs at the department and was also appointed by Bush to lead the International Boundary Commission between the United States and Canada.
Mike Catanzaro: The lobbyist at CGCN Group is leading the Trump transition team's energy policy team, helping with preparations to implement Trump's agenda should the Republican nominee clinch the White House. Catanzaro previously helped lead the environmental transition operation for Mitt Romney's campaign during the 2012 election. He was the top energy aide in then-House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office and was a top staffer to Inhofe on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was associate deputy administrator and chief of staff to then-EPA deputy chief Marcus Peacock during George W. Bush's presidency and worked as associate director for policy at the White House Council on Environmental Quality in 2005. Since he joined the GOP lobbying shop in 2014, Catanzaro's clients have included the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, Devon Energy Corp., America's Natural Gas Alliance, General Motors Co., Koch Cos. Public Sector LLC and many others (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
Mike McKenna: The president of MWR Strategies is leading Trump's Energy Department transition team. McKenna is a well-known lobbyist in Republican energy circles. He was director of policy and external affairs for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality under then-Gov. George Allen (R) and was an external relations specialist at the Energy Department during the George H.W. Bush administration. His lobbying clients in 2016 include Koch Cos. Public Sector LLC, Southern Company Services, Dow Chemical Co. and Competitive Power Ventures Inc., according to public disclosures.
Rebecca Rosen: The vice president of policy and government affairs at Oklahoma-based oil and gas company Devon Energy Corp. is also advising the campaign on energy issues. Rosen, too, advised Romney on energy and environmental policy during his 2012 presidential campaign. She was formerly a staffer on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee under Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). She's said to be working on the energy policy transition with Catanzaro.
The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043795
-
Legal Experts: Climate Case Won't Turn on Constitutional Questions
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The constitutionality of the Clean Power Plan tends to generate headlines and hot takes. But another matter is more likely to prove decisive in the fight over President Obama's signature environmental law: the extent of U.S. EPA's carbon-cutting authority.
That conclusion, delivered by a panel of legal experts during a forum at the Bipartisan Policy Center yesterday, followed last week's marathon oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The attorneys' views offered a stark contrast to the heated rhetoric often employed in public and came as both sides parse the judges' comments for clues as to how they will rule.
EPA's authority to regulate power plants' carbon dioxide emissions is not at issue, the quartet agreed. The disagreement centers over the limits of EPA's powers. Industry and coal-reliant states argue the agency's authority extends only to individual power plants. Environmentalists contend the government has the right to regulate pollution on an industrywide basis.
Where the 10 judges come down on that question will likely determine how they rule (ClimateWire, Sept. 28).
By contrast, the constitutionality of the plan is least likely to influence the court's decision, the panelists said. Much has been made publicly of whether EPA's carbon-cutting strategy cuts constitutional mustard.
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who once mentored President Obama, made considerable news two years ago when he charged EPA with "throwing the Constitution overboard." He argued a government agency cannot require a transformational shift in one sector of the economy without express approval of Congress. Tribe is representing Peabody Energy Corp., the world's largest private-sector coal company, in opposing the rule.
Industry attorneys were quick to qualify their remarks yesterday. The Clean Power Plan does raise constitutional questions because it would force coal-reliant states to transform their electricity sectors against their will, said Allison Wood, who appeared at the forum and is representing a group of utilities in the case.
Yet she conceded the challengers were less likely to prevail on constitutional grounds.
"Having something declared unconstitutional is a heavier lift than saying something doesn't comply with the Clean Air Act," Wood said in an interview following the forum.
Listening to the experience of the Northeast?
Indeed, the constitutionality question generated little debate yesterday. David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, joked that "the Constitution remained unburned" and said such arguments appeared to hold little sway with the D.C. Circuit.
"If some incidental impact on a state's regular work on permitting power plants or deciding on just and reasonable rates, if some incidental impact was a showstopper, then every federal pollution regulation would be dead," Doniger said in an interview.
The panelists instead focused much of their attention on the limits of EPA's authority. The two sides differed over whether the rule represents business as usual or a transformational shift in how Washington, D.C., regulates the power sector.
Industry lawyers said the rule effectively requires utilities to shift away from coal toward other fuel sources. The government has never before tried to implement an industrywide shift from one fuel to another, said Jeff Holmstead, an industry lobbyist who worked at EPA under President George H.W. Bush. That differs from past regulations, which sought to regulate individual sources of pollution, Holmstead argued.
"They've never before directly said to the owner of a regulated facility we're going to require you to invest or subsidize some other plant that has nothing to do with your own facility," he said.
Proponents countered, saying EPA was merely exercising its responsibility to regulate carbon emissions. The Clean Air Act gives the agency the power to regulate dangerous pollutants. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held EPA has authority to regulate carbon, they noted.
Industry's arguments about shifting from coal to other fuels is more academic than practical, said Christophe Courchesne, director of the Massachusetts attorney general's Environmental Protection Division, which has intervened in support of EPA in the case.
The experience of nine Northeastern states involved in a regional cap-and-trade system, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and California has shown states can make significant carbon reductions without drastic increases in electricity prices, he said.
"The experience of those programs is not lost on the court," Courchesne said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043853
-
Va. Utility Could Nearly Double Emissions Under Clean Power Plan
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Virginia's biggest power company could increase carbon levels 83 percent while still meeting federal climate standards.
That's according to one of five scenarios Dominion Virginia Power will present to the State Corporation Commission at a hearing today in Richmond.
Plan B, which the company has suggested would be the best compliance plan for customers, would keep coal facilities running, build new natural gas plants and add a smaller amount of solar power. It would be the cheapest alternative, according to Dominion, but it would also dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions, state environmental groups note.
Carbon emissions from the company would increase from 26.7 million tons per year in 2012 to 49 million tons per year in 2041 under the plan, according to data from Dominion.
Glen Besa, the former director of the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter, said although Dominion would still be able to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan, the company would be making it harder for the United States to meet the Paris Agreement, an international accord to reduce greenhouse gases.
"Dominion is going in the wrong direction, and if the State Corporation Commission allows Dominion to proceed with this plan ... then we'll have no way of actually complying with the Paris Agreement," Besa said.
Dominion, on the other hand, said in an emailed statement that while state officials will ultimately decide how to comply with the Clean Power Plan, the company's Plan B "would provide the most flexibility and lowest rate impact for our customers."
Dominion's preliminary thinking confirms the worst fears of climate advocates around the country. Many have worried some utilities might circumvent the Clean Power Plan's ultimate goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have warned that if state officials agree to write plans to meet an emissions rate, rather than capping carbon levels outright, that greenhouse gas emissions may rise.
Coal a key 'element of diversity'
Dominion says it's not formally picking a preferred plan because of the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Clean Power Plan. The Supreme Court has halted implementation of the rule while legal battles play out. And GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has said he would rescind the regulation if he's elected.
But under the plan that environmental groups contend Dominion favors, the company would keep coal plants running, build several more natural gas plants totaling 7,000 megawatts of power and construct 2,100 MW of solar energy. That plan would cost $5.1 billion through 2041.
Dominion said in a regulatory document that even though coal use has declined because of environmental regulations and competition from cheap natural gas, coal has been the "backbone" of the company's portfolio and has helped maintain fuel diversity and kept power bills stable in Virginia and where it operates in North Carolina.
"As Virginia and the nation transitions to a low carbon future this element of diversity must not be lost," said the document, called an integrated resource plan. "The Company's goal is to find ways to efficiently add to its generation fleet diversity while maintaining its coal fleet."
Under a rate-based plan, Dominion could do that. The company could add natural gas plants and bring down its carbon intensity while actually raising its overall carbon contributions to the atmosphere, state environmental groups noted in a press call yesterday.
The group Consumers Union said in a statement that Dominion's proposal "presents an unrealistically high-cost approach to comply with a Clean Power Plan that independent analyses show can be met, and even exceeded, at far lower cost to consumers."
Consumers Union said Dominion also "excludes and ignores lower-cost imports of cheaper and cleaner power from out of state and suggests unjustifiably high costs for integrating solar power even as solar costs continue to rapidly fall."
The 7,000 MW of new natural gas Dominion could build would be on top of recent plants that have come online, Besa noted. He said the new natural gas plants and other infrastructure would soon become "stranded assets" that utility customers would have to keep paying for even after the U.S. transitions away from natural gas because it is a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming.
Environmental groups have been lobbying the company and state leaders to avoid relying too much on natural gas, which has a smaller carbon footprint than coal but substantial methane emissions.
Besa argued the 2,100 MW of new solar power Dominion proposes over 25 years is not very ambitious. He said nearby North Carolina built about 1,000 MW of solar just last year.
Besa also thinks Dominion is overestimating the amount of power its customers will need. The company is predicting a 1.5 percent increase in demand each year, which spokesman Dan Genest said is because Virginia is growing while other parts of the country are not. He said those figures typically come from the regional grid organization, the PJM Interconnection LLC.
A wait-and-see game on trading
Regulatory protocol requires Dominion to lay out its possible plans every year. This year, Dominion put forth five options. One assumes the Clean Power Plan won't take effect, but the others look at different compliance options the state could pursue.
Dominion says it "considers it likely that there will be future regulation requiring it to address carbon and carbon emissions in some form beyond what is required today, even with the exact future of the CPP, at present, undetermined."
Climate advocates don't want Dominion to use a rate-based plan. They would prefer the state cap carbon emissions from existing and new plants (ClimateWire, Jan. 27). But Dominion says that would be the most expensive option, at a cost of $12.8 billion. And it still would raise emissions about 14 percent above 2012 levels.
To comply with that kind of plan, Dominion looked at adding about 4,500 MW of natural gas, 8,000 MW of solar and 1,450 MW of nuclear power. Besa called the strategy, Plan E, a "red herring," saying Dominion didn't look for the cheapest ways to cap emissions and should consider more energy efficiency possibilities and renewable power.
Dominion's planning document also doesn't consider buying cleaner power out of state or buying carbon credits in a trading system.
With carbon trading, companies that exceed their goals could sell carbon credits to other utilities that fall short of EPA's expectations. That might mean Dominion could buy credits for zero-carbon power, rather than build new natural gas, although Dominion argues it will need its own new plants to meet demand.
Dominion said via email that its plans do not factor in trading because the company is "unable at this time to know what the other states are going to do."
"We support trading, however, and believe that once we are able to have a better picture of what other states are going to do we will be able to factor in trading," Dominion added.
Click here to see Virginia's Clean Power Plan requirements and read more about the state's response to the rule.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043851
-
Judges Appear Skeptical of Freezing Pipeline
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In the latest legal showdown over the Dakota Access pipeline, federal judges seemed skeptical today of American Indian tribes' arguments for extending a work freeze on a contentious stretch of land in North Dakota.
A panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments over an emergency request from the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes to pause construction within 20 miles of Lake Oahe, a culturally significant stretch of the Missouri River.
According to the Sioux, cultural artifacts and burial grounds along the pipeline's path are now at risk because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to adequately consult with tribes or consider the indirect effects of its approval of water crossings by the 1,178-mile oil pipeline.
But the three-judge panel seemed to be grappling with just how broad the Army Corps' consideration of indirect effects should be.
"How far down the pipeline route do you look?" Judge Thomas Griffith, a Republican appointee, asked Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who represents the Standing Rock Sioux.
Judge Nina Pillard, a Democratic appointee, also sought to define the limits of such indirect effects and said she was "flummoxed" that Hasselman resisted defining the scope of appropriate review.
"Where does it stop?" she asked, adding later: "How do we define that? If we're going to issue an injunction, we need to say where it stops."
A lower court last month rejected a broader injunction request from the tribes, prompting both an appeal to the D.C. Circuit and the emergency request for a work freeze. While that request is pending, the court has instituted an administrative injunction to briefly pause work in the area.
Today's arguments centered on the emergency injunction request — which, if granted, would block activity within 20 miles of the lake while the D.C. Circuit reviews the underlying injunction denial from the lower court. The Obama administration has already asked Dakota Access to voluntarily hold off on work in the area, but the company has indicated a desire to move forward.
Hasselman maintained that the emergency injunction is necessary to prevent further damage on the portion of the pipeline's path where major construction activities have not yet occurred.
He argued that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Army Corps to look "beyond the water's edge" of the crossings it approves. Government lawyers acknowledged the requirement to consider indirect effects but maintained that they justifiably considered effects within a 1-mile radius of work areas related to the proposed crossing.
Republican appointee Judge Janice Rogers Brown questioned whether the Sioux were cooperative enough during the consultation process to point out areas of cultural interest.
The judges were tough on Army Corps and Dakota Access lawyers, too, with Griffith asking whether Dakota Access was "forcing your hand" by seeking to continue construction just outside a zone that is currently off-limits while the Army Corps decides whether to grant an easement.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorney Miguel Estrada, representing Dakota Access, argued that the company will lose money for every week and month that construction is delayed, so it wants to continue building on every available section, with "faith" that the Army Corps will ultimately grant the easement.
"The status quo," he said, "is that we're in the middle of building a pipeline."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043889
-
N.D. Report Confirms No Cultural Sites Disturbed — Pipeline Lawyers
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Lawyers defending the Dakota Access pipeline say a recent report bolsters their position that developers have not disturbed cultural sites along the project's route.
In a letter yesterday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Dakota Access lawyers argued that a recently completed report from the State Historical Society of North Dakota confirms that no burial grounds or other cultural sites were disturbed by construction activities on private land near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
The report, first circulated last week, comes from seven state archaeologists who surveyed the contested area two weeks ago and found no evidence of cultural artifacts. Their findings contrast to claims from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its allies that "historically and religiously important stone features and graves" lie in the area. According to the report, cultural sites identified by tribal representatives are outside the pipeline's corridor.
The battle over potential burial grounds in the area is part of a broader fight tribes are waging to reform infrastructure planning — a process that they say often brushes aside concerns from tribes that lived on the affected lands for centuries before being sent to reservations. Thousands of tribal members and allies have camped out in North Dakota in recent months to protest the 1,172-mile Dakota Access line, which would carry as much as 570,000 barrels a day of Bakken crude from North Dakota to Illinois.
In yesterday's letter, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorney Miguel Estrada argued that the recent state report adds to a large body of archaeological research for Dakota Access' route.
"The relevant pipeline route runs adjacent to an existing natural gas pipeline," he wrote. "The University of North Dakota surveyed the gas pipeline route for cultural sites in conjunction with construction of that pipeline in the early 1980s, finding no cultural sites that would be harmed by the work; and more recent cultural surveys by professional [archaeologists] between 2014 and 2015 confirmed, with the concurrence of the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, that no historic properties were present or would be affected by the pipeline."
Earthjustice lawyers representing the tribe filed a response last night, arguing that the state report failed to consider artifacts cleared from the area from last month's construction activity.
Tribal representatives last week reiterated their belief that the area contains artifacts and argued that state archaeologists lack expertise to identify Sioux cultural sites.
"Archaeologists don't see these things," cultural specialist and former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Tim Mentz Sr. said in a statement. "People from the State Historical Society just walked right past those, because they don't have the connection that we have to this land and to our history and stories."
In a statement yesterday, Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II noted that the tribe "will not rest" until the area — which is not part of the reservation but includes ancestral homelands — is permanently protected. Given the private nature of the property at issue, it's unclear what a solution might be. The Obama administration next week kicks off a new consultation process with tribes to better understand tribal concerns about infrastructure projects (EnergyWire, Sept. 26).
Today, the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments over whether a work freeze along 40 miles of the pipeline's route should be extended. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. EST before a three-judge panel comprising two Republican appointee judges, Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith, and Democratic appointee Judge Nina Pillard.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043845
-
New York and the Standby Tariff: A Breakthrough for Clean, Distributed Energy
Oct 5, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Marc Rauch
For New Yorkers wanting more clean, distributed energy, the recent Con Edison rate case offers some good news.
Presented to New York’s Public Service Commission (NYPSC), which regulates utilities in the state, a rate case is a process utilities use to adjust policies and set rates charged to customers. A rate case occurs once every few years and provides an opportunity for state and local governments, along with consumer and environmental advocacy groups, to seek cleaner, cheaper, and more customer-friendly electricity.
The Con Edison rate case is considered a bellwether for similar proceedings involving electric utilities throughout New York State – which is part of why a recent filing with the NYPSC is so important. Along with more than 20 other parties (including Con Edison, the Real Estate Board of New York, the New York Energy Consumers Council, and several environmental advocacy groups), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) on September 20thfiled a joint proposal with NYPSC that (among other recommendations) calls for changes to the current standby tariff that are likely to be approved by the Commission.
The standby tariff is a special rate charged to commercial and industrial customers who produce some of their own electricity, but remain connected to the grid. It has been a significant roadblock to widespread deployment of distributed generation, such as combined heat and power (CHP) systems, because it imposes burdensome costs and complex regulations on businesses and institutions that produce some of their own electricity independently from the utility.
The joint proposal filed by EDF, Con Edison, and others presents several solutions for improving the standby tariff that will make it easier for people, businesses, and institutions to invest in clean, distributed energy resources.
Exemptions for “Efficient CHP”
Together with the Pace Energy and Climate Center (the Pace Center), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called for changes to the standby tariff that favor clean, distributed generation, i.e. customer-sited power sources that emit low or zero greenhouse gases and greatly reduce nitrous oxides (NOx), which are harmful pollutants. This is an important distinction, since some distributed generation – like diesel generators – actually contribute to pollution and harm public health. That’s why EDF and the Pace Center recommended that clean distributed energy resources be given preference in qualifying for exemptions from the standby tariff.The joint proposal recommends a much longer exemption for combined heat and power systems. Known more commonly as CHP, combined heat and power systems are most likely to be installed by businesses, industry, and institutions such as universities and hospitals. CHP systems recapture waste heat from natural gas-fired electricity generators and use it to produce steam or hot water for space heating, domestic hot water, or industrial processes. By recapturing waste heat for useful purposes, CHP can cut fuel costs and simultaneouslyreduce greenhouse gases and NOx pollution.
As defined in the standby tariff, “Efficient CHP” means CHP systems that meet minimum standards of efficiency (currently 60 percent average annual efficiency) and maximum limits on NOx emissions (currently 4.4 lbs./megawatt hour). Efficient CHP systems are currently exempted from the tariff for four years, which is not long enough to recoup the multimillion dollar investment typically needed to install CHP systems. The joint proposal pushes the exemption to 10 years, which would make for a much more attractive investment and spur greater investment in CHP systems.
Importantly, the new exemption would tie the length (and therefore, financial value) of the exemption to the degree of efficiency achieved by the CHP system: the more efficient the system, the longer the exemption. CHP systems that achieve average annual efficiencies of 63 to 65 percent will be entitled to a 7-year exemption, and systems that achieve average annual efficiencies of 63 percent or greater and achieve peak efficiencies of 65 percent or greater will be entitled to the full 10-year exemption.
The new standby tariff exemption would be available for up to 50 megawatts of new or expanded efficient CHP between now and 2019. A recent report by Sue Tierney of the Analysis Group suggests, based on data showing current deployment of distributed generation , that this new exemption could increase deployment of CHP systems in New York City by at least a third in just the next few years, as CHP developers race to bring their projects within the 50 megawatt cap and meet the 2019 application deadline.
Benefits of expanding Efficient CHP
Stronger efficiency standards are critical for fighting climate change because the more efficient the CHP system, the less fuel that must be burned (and the lower the corresponding greenhouse gas emissions) to produce the same amount of electricity and usable heat energy.An additional benefit of the new exemption is that it would improve public health because only CHP projects that can reduce NOx emissions to 1.6 lbs. per megawatt hour or less will qualify for the exemption, resulting in a projected reduction of 64 percent in permitted emissions of this pollutant.
The new exemption incorporates several concepts advocated by EDF and the Pace Center and would likely spur rapid growth of clean distributed generation because it recognizes that up to 10 years of freedom from the onerous standby tariff may be needed to spur greater investment in Efficient CHP systems.
New exemptions for batteries
EDF and the Pace Center also proposed a standby tariff exemption for energy storage technology, specifically batteries. Energy storage is a vital part of clean, distributed energy systems because it helps balance the intermittency of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. As a result of our advocacy, the joint proposal contains an exemption from the standby tariff for battery storage systems up to 1 megawatt, and a further exemption for battery storage systems larger than 1 megawatt (available for up to 25 new megawatts in total of this kind of battery storage). 1 megawatt of battery storage is enough capacity to significantly reduce peak electricity demand in commercial buildings, operate emergency lighting and other safety systems in the event of a power outage, or supply the power needs of a few hundred homes.A Promising Future
New York is in the midst of a promising effort to reinvent its electricity system called Reforming the Energy Vision. The measures outlined in the September 20th joint proposal are integral to its success.\Assuming the Public Service Commission approves our recommendations in the Con Edison rate case, New Yorkers can look forward to a burst of new clean distributed generation that could reduce air pollution, curb climate emissions, and strengthen our 21st century grid.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/10/05/new-york-and-the-standby-tariff-a-breakthrough-for-clean-distributed-energy/
-
Industry Sees Stronger Markets Ahead — and More Opposition
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The liquefied natural gas industry is finally seeing daylight after being dragged down by low natural gas prices. But there's some concern that restructured markets and public backlash against oil and gas projects could spread more pain to LNG.
"We think the forecast price for LNG and LNG demand are conservative, today," Anatol Feygin, chief commercial officer and executive vice president of Cheniere Energy Inc., told gas industry stakeholders this week in Washington, D.C.
Industry has suffered from an unexpected supply glut stemming from weak Chinese demand and surging global supplies from new export facilities in Australia and the United States.
As natural gas prices have been tugged sharply downward by the oil price crash, developers have struggled to get new projects off the ground, as have LNG shippers with uncontracted cargoes to offload.
But this week, several speakers at the North American Gas Forum, an annual gathering hosted by Energy Dialogues LLC, suggested that LNG markets could start to tighten in 2022 as current supplies are met with new demand and that prices could even spike too dramatically unless new export development starts soon.
"If you want 2021 volumes, you've got to start signing on this dotted line so you don't see that [supply-demand] gap opening up too wide and we don't see what was happening earlier in this decade," Cheniere's Feygin said, recalling the high prices seen in some markets just two years ago.
Cheniere has reason to be bullish on the U.S. industry, as the owner of the only new U.S. export facility to have reached commercial production. Its Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Louisiana started up earlier this year and currently has two LNG processing trains completed, with four more to be built (EnergyWire, May 3).
Feygin said the startup of the first two trains has involved the production of test volumes of LNG that were handed off on short notice from the construction contractor to Cheniere's marketing team. "It's really a global marketplace, and we've had absolutely no issue with placing those volumes," Feygin said.
Octávio Simões, president of Sempra LNG & Midstream, which is building the Cameron LNG project in Louisiana, expressed a similarly rosy market view, suggesting that market demand is currently underestimated. He highlighted a litany of benefits from LNG, including a cleaner emissions profile than coal, geopolitical strengths in pushing back against Russia's gas-based influence in Europe, and its potential to supply power in areas that are currently underserved.
Rick Smead, managing director of advisory services with RBN Energy, said LNG players without long-term contracts are exposed to considerable price risk, but that the market will continue to call for cost-effective new projects. "For a lot of reasons, I don't think [the price difference between U.S. natural gas prices and world LNG rates] can get much worse on a sustained basis," he said. "Longer-term, as the markets level out a little bit, those firms that can execute within a tight price structure will do fine. Firms with high costs will not."
Much as low oil prices have pushed U.S. producers to find cost savings, the domestic LNG industry is now looking at how it can cut costs to deliver successful projects.
The first cut, several people said, is simply to pick the right location for a project. The United States has a wealth of so-called brownfield sites, where existing LNG import terminals offer a head start for potential export projects in terms of permitting, access to pipelines and local support. Greenfield development and environmentally sensitive areas can be a harder lift.
Don Hill, senior vice president of LNG operations for LNG engineering and construction with the Dutch firm CB&I, said projects also need to cut out "nice to have" features and focus on minimizing project scope. While new technologies can be appealing, he said, companies should be mindful of the risk they bring and "recognize when good enough is good enough."
Cheniere's Feygin pointed to a coming wave of optimization from shipping changes, as the LNG portfolios of big players come fully online and allow cargo deliveries to be swapped between facilities on different continents to minimize travel costs.
'A disconnect'
While most in the LNG and natural gas industries are focused on how to move forward out of a rough financial patch, some are concerned they may be moving into a period of more intense public scrutiny.
Already, many said, public opposition and legal challenges have doubled the timeline for natural gas projects to be built from what it was a decade ago.
Yesterday, a panel on stakeholder engagement focused on the opposition that companies can increasingly expect for all types of projects.
Sarah Sandberg, chief operating officer for the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, put it bluntly: "There is a disconnect between our production, our consumption and our way of life."
Sandberg said the framework established nearly a decade ago at the start of the shale revolution, pitting against each other the "bumper sticker" slogans of "Drill, baby, drill" and "No fracking," primed both sides to lose.
"We set up an entire structure that was failed to begin with," Sandberg said. "We all fled to our margins and sort of pointed fingers at each other."
Today, she said, industry and its opponents can't even agree on what the word "fracking" means, with the public often using the term to describe the entire oil and gas production process. No wonder that the two sides can't have meaningful discussions of the issue, Sandberg said.
Michael Crothers, who leads North American development of unconventional fuels for Shell Upstream Americas, said building trust is crucial to maintaining public support for the oil and gas industry.
"We've allowed ourselves to get into a conversation making it an 'or' conversation, environment or development. It's got to be both," Crothers said.
And while those who work in energy might be frustrated by a lack of public understanding around the trade-offs involved, it is important to engage. "It's easy for us to be arrogant, as technical people. It's easy for us to say, 'This is ridiculous.' Well, it isn't," Crothers said.
Ben Ratner, who directs corporate partnership activities with the Environmental Defense Fund, agreed that trust is fundamental to operating license and said companies can build positive discussions by focusing on how to address negatives instead of denying them.
"Too often, the approach of many in industry when they're confronted with concerns about climate change, concerns about wastewater disposal, other concerns is 'just say no,'" Ratner said. Many trade groups, he said, respond to legitimate concerns by redirecting toward how much people rely on fossil fuels. The industry can build trust and goodwill by taking those concerns seriously, acknowledging climate change, and taking steps to address problems, he said.
Developers of a greenfield LNG project near Brownsville, Texas, said working with communities to ensure local benefits is important, but no project will be free of opposition.
Sandberg urged industry to be proactive and responsive to public opinion.
"You're at the table or you're on the menu. So choose to innovate, choose to engage, choose transparency, choose to be part of the solution," she said. "It's tough work, but it's all of our job to do it."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043856
-
West Virginia Chemical Leak was Preventable
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The massive chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the tap water of about 300,000 local residents in January 2014 could have been prevented if Freedom Industries had conducted appropriate inspections and repairs, the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has concluded.
The tanks, one of which leaked an estimated 38,000 litres of crude (4-methylcyclohexyl)methanol (MCHM) mixed with propylene glycol phenyl ethers into the Elk River, hadn’t been internally inspected for at least 10 years before the incident, the CSB found.
In its final report, the CSB said the tank had two small holes on its floor, caused by pitting corrosion, through which the MCHM mixture escaped into the Elk River. The water company and local authorities were also unable to effectively communicate the risks to affected residents, in part because of Freedom Industries’ inability to provide immediate information about the characteristics and quantity of spilled chemicals.
For example, Freedom initially reported that the release comprised 3800 litres of crude MCHM, but over the following days and weeks that figure increased to 38,000 litres. In addition, the presence of polyglycol ethers in the spill was not made public until 13 days after the initial leak was discovered. That delayed decisions to issue a ‘no not use order’ for local tap water.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/west-virginia-chemical-leak-was-preventable/1017520.article
-
Pipeline Rule Would Allow More Systematic Safety Approach
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Pamela King
The Department of Transportation's pipeline-safety regulator is poised to issue regulations that will allow it to react with greater speed when it uncovers problems with the nation's oil and gas network.
A lot of the problems with older pipelines have been around for years, and the regulations will allow the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to address them on a broad basis, rather than just reacting to individual leaks and spills, said Richard Kuprewicz, an engineer in Redmond, Wash., who specializes in pipeline safety.
"They're looking for systematic issues," Kuprewicz said.
For instance, several high-profile leaks have happened on pipelines built with older, outdated welding techniques. The proposed regulations could help PHMSA correct problems on those lines, Kuprewicz said (EnergyWire, March 16, 2015).
The change was required as part of this year's overhaul of pipeline safety regulation, known as the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act. The law gave PHMSA the ability to impose emergency restrictions and take other actions if it discovers pipeline flaws that affect multiple operators (E&E Daily, June 14).
PHMSA could use that authority in cases where it discovers a manufacturing flaw in a type of pipe, or if an accident reveals that the industry is using an unsafe procedure, the agency said in a news release. The agency plans to publish an interim final rule to carry out that section of the PIPES Act in the next seven to 10 days.
"This new authority gives PHMSA the ability to act quickly to address urgent safety concerns, and to protect people and the environment," PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said in the release.
Under an interim final rule, the regulations become effective once they're published in theFederal Register. Normally, federal regulations take months to enact because the agencies writing them solicit and respond to public comments.
Industry groups will be watching to ensure the process for comment on the final rule is meaningful, said John Stoody, spokesman for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
"We'll be reviewing the interim final rule in detail to ensure PHMSA has followed the direction of Congress to limit the extraordinary authority to only what it can show is necessary to address an imminent hazard," Stoody said.
PHMSA was criticized earlier this decade for failing to conduct studies mandated by Congress and for its slow response to large-scale pipeline accidents. The agency has 600 employees to police 2.6 million miles of pipelines, along with other facets of the transportation system such as railroad tank cars (E&E Daily, July 20, 2015).
Its portfolio is growing, too. The United States recently began exporting liquefied natural gas, which falls under PHMSA's jurisdiction, and the PIPES Act required the agency to write rules for the country's aging underground gas storage facilities.
Dominguez, who was appointed in 2015, has said she wants to increase PHMSA's staff by 25 percent and is rethinking how the agency uses data to prioritize its work (EnergyWire, May 16, 2015).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/05/stories/1060043847
-
Donald Trump Can't Negotiate Climate Change Away
Oct 5, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Rhea Suh
The European Union moved this week to follow the United States and more than 60 other countries in formally signing onto the Paris climate accord, setting the world on course for the epic clean energy shift we need to fight the central environmental challenge of our time.
With the agreement set to take effect early next month, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has vowed to “cancel” it if he’s elected president. That fits his pattern of reckless threats to walk away from U.S. commitments worldwide but it’s not in our national interest any more than his loose talk about breaking U.S. promises to defend our NATO allies or make good on the national debt.
Turning our back on the United Nations agreement inked last December in Paris would put official U.S. policy at odds with basic science, world opinion and the more than 6 in 10 Americans who expect real climate action from our government.
It would hurt our coastal communities, heartland ranches, wildlife, waters and farms. And it would set us back a generation in a fight for our future we can’t afford to lose.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton understands the stakes for the country. She’s laid out sound proposals to advance climate progress and create clean energy jobs.
Trump has no plan to fight climate change or seize the promise of a clean energy future. He wants, instead, to roll back the gains we’ve made. He can’t decide, for that matter, whether climate change is a hoax or a political punch line:
It’s neither. Climate change is a threat to the natural systems that support all life. It touches, or will touch, every facet of our world. We need to act against it — and now.
We just finished the hottest summer since global record-keeping began in 1880. The hottest year on record was 2015; this year has been even hotter. And 15 of the hottest years ever recorded have all occurred in this century.
By burning vast amounts of coal, oil and gas, we’re choking the Earth’s atmosphere with industrial levels of climate-disrupting carbon dioxide, up 25 percent since just 1960.
A global mess needs a global fix. That’s what the Paris agreement is all about.
It sends an important message to a united world: we’re not stuck with dirty fossil fuels that do more harm than good — and we won’t abandon our children to pick up the tab for bad habits that put them at risk.
Trump would toss all that aside and lock our kids and grandkids into more and more fossil fuel hazard and harm.
U.S. leadership was key to securing the climate pact. We’re cutting our carbon footprint at home, because that’s what’s best for our people, and our friends around the world are watching.
That’s why President Obama was able to lead his counterparts from China, India and more than 180 other countries to put pledges on the table in Paris to cut fossil fuel use in favor of cleaner, smarter ways to power our future.
China is the world’s biggest carbon polluter. It’s also the largest investor in clean energy, with a third of global spending on wind and solar power last year. Through the Paris accord, China has pledged to cap the growth of its carbon emissions by 2030 and begin scaling down from there.
We’re already seeing signs of real progress: China’s coal consumption fell the past two years in a row.
Gathering China with the rest of the world around common pledges to accelerate the shift to clean energy is a win for the United States. It exemplifies exactly the kind of global cooperation U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have sought since the end of World War II.
It’s in our interest to work with other nations, not mindlessly shatter hard-won global consensus in favor of some rudderless Lord of the Flies approach where it’s every country for itself.
The Paris agreement aims to hold global temperature rise below the 2 degrees Centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) that would trigger the worst effects of rising seas, expanding deserts, raging floods, wildfires and storms — more, in other words, of exactly the kind of climate chaos we’ve begun to see worldwide.
The agreement has teeth, requiring countries to share information about their carbon pollution and what they’re doing to cut it. And the accord supports the global transition to a low-carbon economy.
Coal, oil and gas make up 80 percent of world energy use. That needs to change — on our watch.
Over the next two decades, investors will pump some $50 trillion into energy systems worldwide. The Paris agreement provides a framework that helps target that investment so we improve energy efficiency worldwide, speed the production of all-electric and hybrid cars and get more clean power from the wind and sun.
We’re on our way. More than $300 billion of global investment last year went to clean energy. It’s creating entire new industries and generating millions of good-paying jobs — 2.5 million in this country alone.
The Paris accord provides the global framework we need to fight climate change and create the low-carbon global economy of tomorrow. That’s progress for us to build on — not cancel.
Rhea Suh is president of the NRDC Action Fund, an environmental advocacy group.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/299396-donald-trump-cant-negotiate-climate-change-away
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested