Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/17/16
-
CBI Claims Must Be Limited Under Inventory Reset Rule, Says EDF
Oct 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
As the US EPA develops a rule for a TSCA "inventory reset", NGO the Environmental Defense Fund has urged close examination of confidential business information (CBI) considerations. -
New Toxic Substances Control Act Requirements for Chemical Importers
Oct 17, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall and Sarah A. Kettenmann
Companies planning to ship chemical-based products to the United States should have a basic understanding of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),[1] the key U.S. chemicals law. -
EPA Taking First Actions to Restrict Existing Chemical Uses
Oct 17, 2016 | Lexology
By James G. Votaw
On October 11, 2016, EPA announced the start of expedited rulemaking to restrict the existing uses of five widely used chemicals that have been identified as being toxic, persistent and/or bioaccumulative in the environment (PBTs). -
Echa Biocides Committee Backs First Nanomaterial Approval
Oct 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) backed three approvals, and one non-approval, of active substance/product-type combinations, at its October meeting. -
Houston Execs Wary Of Trump
Oct 17, 2016 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
By James Osborne
Oil and gas executives in Houston have not readily financed the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, according to the data from the Center for Responsive Politics. -
Oil Bets Big To Hold GOP Congress, Sits Out Trump-Clinton Brawl
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oil and gas executives are pouring record amounts of money into electing Republicans this year, even though they're largely sitting on their wallets in the presidential race. -
Pipeline Politics At Play In State Favoring Dems
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Pennsylvania is not only poised to be a clincher in a tight presidential election — the state is also at the center of a pitched national debate about energy and climate change. -
Pa. Gas Industry Seeks To Block New Drilling Rules
Oct 17, 2016 | Philadelphia Inquirer In (E&E Energywire)
By Andrew Maykuth
The shale gas industry in Pennsylvania has filed a legal challenge to block controversial new rules that were designed to reduce the environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling. -
Enviros Fear Natural Gas Loophole In Clean Power Plan
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Environmental groups are worried a technicality could undermine the carbon-cutting goals of the Clean Power Plan in Virginia and beyond. -
What Happens To Clean Power Plan If EPA's New Plant Rule Falls?
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden
Opponents of the Obama administration's power-sector climate rules last week filed their first briefs against a regulation for new plants, arguing that it should fall and take the Clean Power Plan down with it. -
Health Effects Linger 8 Years After Chemical Leak
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ivan Penn
An 8-year-old chemical leak at a natural gas facility in southern Alabama is still causing health issues, according to residents who say they've been ignored by the government. -
Utility Gear Drafted Into Digital Armies, Officials Warn
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The rapidly expanding army of online devices known as the "internet of things" is emerging as a convenient accomplice for hackers, according to U.S. authorities. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Energy, Plastics Demand Will Push Emissions Up: XOM
Oct 17, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
The increasing demand for energy and plastics in the developing world will continue to increase global carbon emissions until about 2030, even though pollution levels are falling in the U.S., an ExxonMobil executive said last week. -
Why Are Greens Opposing A Carbon Tax?
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
A ballot measure in Washington state seeking to impose the first carbon tax in the United States faces an uncertain future due to an unlikely source of opposition: environmentalists. -
World Reaches Deal On Climate-Warming Coolants
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
A new global agreement clinched this weekend to curtail use of a class of highly warming chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration puts a check next to the last major item on President Obama's climate diplomacy bucket list.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
CBI Claims Must Be Limited Under Inventory Reset Rule, Says EDF
Oct 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
As the US EPA develops a rule for a TSCA "inventory reset", NGO the Environmental Defense Fund has urged close examination of confidential business information (CBI) considerations.
As amended by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the new TSCA requires the US EPA to designate substances on the TSCA inventory as 'active' and 'inactive'. A rule for this process must be finalised by June.
The agency has not opened a public docket for this rulemaking. However, it has published letters from the EDF and the American Petroleum Institute (API). Both raise concerns about CBI.
The new law says manufacturers wishing to maintain the confidential status of a substance on the inventory must reassert and substantiate those confidentiality claims during the reset process. And they cannot use it to make new confidentiality claims.
But the EDF says the rule should not only block attempts to move a substance from the non-confidential to confidential portions of the list. It should also ensure firms cannot make new CBI claims for a specific substance – even if it is already listed as confidential on the inventory. To ensure this doesn't happen, CBI requesters should have to document their prior claims.
It also urged the agency to specify deadlines and timetables for various aspects of CBI under the reset, including:setting a maximum time frame for the EPA to publish the identity of any active substances for which confidentiality claims are not reasserted during the reset. The EDF says this "can and should" happen simultaneously with the EPA deciding on the initial active substances list;indicating how it will pace its review of confidentiality claims to ensure it can review them all within the five-year review period prescribed by Lautenberg. The rule should also "explicitly describe" the circumstances by which the EPA may make use of a possible two-year extension provided for under the law; andspecifying the timing and content of the substantiation of CBI claims that companies want to maintain. The statute only prescribes that substantiation be submitted "at a time requested by the Administrator" for purposes of the CBI review.
The EDF also wants the agency to consider combining into a single rulemaking the rules it is required to promulgate for the inventory reset and for the CBI review plan.
Although the latter does not have to be completed until a year after the EPA compiles the initial list of active substances under the inventory reset, the EDF says a joint rule is needed "for overall efficiency and because of the closely related nature of the issues that need to be addressed."
At the very least, it says, the EPA should expedite the CBI review rule so it can begin addressing claims as soon as possible.
"This is important," it says, "given the long potential time frame for EPA to complete its review of chemical identity claims for the 'secret chemicals' on the TSCA Inventory, which could stretch out to ten years post-enactment."Industry view
In contrast, the API says the rule should include "ample safeguards for information that was previously claimed CBI any may be legitimately CBI.”
No information currently claimed as CBI should be disclosed unless, and until, the EPA notifies the original claimant. The EPA should give companies an opportunity to substantiate CBI claims before it decides to publish the information.
The API also wants a new mechanism to allow a third party outside the US to provide a substance notification without disclosing the chemical identity to the US customer. It says the role would be like that performed by only representatives (ORs) under REACH.
It also calls for the creation of a reporting portal to provide an in-progress active substance list, in real time, as substances are reported. "Once a chemical is flagged as active, additional reports for the chemical need not be required," it says.
However, the EDF says such an approach is not permitted by the law, nor would it "work in practice or necessarily be desirable" to industry.
"If the inventory reset process for a chemical could stop after the first notice is received, that could well mean that only that first notifier's CBI claim would be asserted – and even then only if that notifier had an existing claim and wished to reassert it.
"Under this scenario, requests to maintain existing CBI claims originating with other manufacturers of that same chemical might well not be received by EPA."Exemptions
The API also says to ensure consistency with previous inventory reporting regulations it is "vital" to keep reporting exemptions for:R&D substances;non-isolated intermediates;chemical substances imported as part of articles;impurities; andcertain byproducts.
But the EDF says there should be no exemptions, including any based on volume or other threshold cut-offs, because "the currency and completeness of this list is paramount to many other aspects of the law", such as informing prioritisation and risk evaluation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50320/cbi-claims-must-be-limited-under-inventory-reset-rule-says-edf
-
New Toxic Substances Control Act Requirements for Chemical Importers
Oct 17, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall and Sarah A. Kettenmann
Companies planning to ship chemical-based products to the United States should have a basic understanding of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),[1] the key U.S. chemicals law. That law was substantially amended in June 2016.[2] While a foreign entity is not subject to TSCA, its products generally cannot enter the U.S. without TSCA compliance by its U.S. trading partner who imports the products. This article presents an overview of TSCA as amended from the perspective of an importer. It addresses the scope of TSCA; who must comply; import certification; Inventory requirements; significant new use rules; prioritization, evaluation, and risk management; testing requirements; reporting and recordkeeping requirements; protection of confidential information; new requirements on formaldehyde in composite wood products; and enforcement and penalties.In Full:1. TSCA’s Scope
TSCA applies to chemical substances. It defines the term “chemical substance” in part as “any organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular identity, including any combination of such substances occurring in whole or in part as a result of a chemical reaction or occurring in nature and any element or uncombined radical.”[3] Polymers are subject to TSCA, although some regulatory exemptions may apply. The term “chemical substance” excludes pesticides, which are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; food, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices, which are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and related statutes; and radioactive materials, which are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[4] Because these materials fall outside the definition of “chemical substance,” they are excluded from TSCA. They would only be subject to TSCA if they had multiple uses, at least one of which is not excluded from TSCA. For example, if a chemical has both drug and industrial uses, then the industrial use would be subject to TSCA.
TSCA can apply to mixtures of chemical substances; to individual chemical substances in mixtures; and to mixtures and individual chemical substances in articles. An “article” is a manufactured item (such as an automobile) formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture whose end use functions depend in part on that shape and which does not react upon end use or, if it does so, the reaction product has no purpose separate from the article.[5] 2. Who Must Comply?
TSCA imposes most of its requirements on manufacturers of chemical substances. The term “manufacture” is defined to mean “to import into the United States …, produce, or manufacture.”[6] In other words, an importer is considered to be a manufacturer under TSCA and is subject to essentially all requirements that apply to a domestic producer of chemical substances. Processors and distributors of chemical substances in the U.S. also have some compliance obligations.
Several different U.S. entities may qualify as an importer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which implements TSCA, defines “importer” to include the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise or an authorized agent; the consignee; the importer of record; the actual owner (in some cases); and the transferee (in some cases).[7] The term can also include the “principal importer,” i.e., “the first importer who, knowing that a new chemical substance will be imported rather than manufactured domestically, specifies the identity of the chemical substance and the total amount to be imported.”[8] This may be the customer for whom the importer imported the chemical substance. 3. Import Certification
U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP), part of the Department of Homeland Security, is directed to refuse entry into the customs territory of the U.S. of any chemical substance, mixture, or article offered for entry if it fails to comply with any rule in effect under TSCA.[9] Every shipment of chemical substances sent to the United States is subject to an import certification requirement. The importer must submit a certification to CBP attesting that all chemicals in the shipment are either in compliance with TSCA (the affirmative certification) or that all chemicals in the shipment are not subject to TSCA (the negative certification).[10] Typically, the customs broker makes the certification on behalf of the importer.
The certification does not apply to chemical substances or mixtures in articles unless EPA has so provided in a rule.[11] As a result, imports of most articles are exempt from import certification requirements. However, as discussed below, EPA recently promulgated a rule requiring import certification for articles containing composite wood made with a formaldehyde-based resin, beginning in 2018.[12]
The import certification focuses on compliance with a limited number of EPA requirements under TSCA: Inventory requirements under sections 5 and 8(b); significant new use rules under section 5; and the formaldehyde in composite wood products requirements under Title VI.[13] Each of these requirements is discussed below.
CBP has proposed amendments to its TSCA import certification regulations.[14] Among other things, the amendments would delete the option for blanket certifications and would allow reporting via the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system currently being used for other forms of CBP reporting. 4. Inventory Requirements
a. Basic Requirement
An importer must ensure that the chemical substances it imports are on the TSCA Inventory or, if not on the Inventory, are subject to an exemption. The TSCA Inventory lists approximately 84,000 “existing” chemical substances, by Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number. “New” chemical substances are defined as those not on the TSCA Inventory.[15]
Most chemical substances are on the public Inventory, but some are on the confidential portion of the Inventory, to which access is limited. EPA makes the public Inventory and coded listings on the confidential Inventory available.[16]
It can be difficult to determine whether a chemical substance that does not appear on the public Inventory is on the confidential Inventory or is instead a new chemical substance. EPA has a mechanism by which a prospective importer may inquire, but it is data-intensive.[17]
b. Premanufacture Notification of New Chemical Substances
New chemical substances may be added to the Inventory after undergoing EPA’s premanufacture notification and review process.
Specifically, if a chemical substance to be imported is not yet on the TSCA Inventory and is not subject to an exemption, the importer must submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) to EPA at least 90 days before importing the chemical for non-exempt commercial purposes. EPA will hold the principal importer responsible for compliance with this requirement. If there is no principal importer, EPA will designate which entity otherwise qualifying as an importer is responsible for the PMN submission.[18]
The PMN form requires submission of existing information about the chemical substance.[19] Unlike in many jurisdictions, TSCA does not mandate that specific test data be submitted with the notice, such that the test data must be generated if not already available to the submitter. In the absence of test data, EPA will review the PMN using models and conservative assumptions to extrapolate data that is available on structurally analogous chemicals.
Currently, there is a $2,500 fee for submission of a PMN for chemicals other than intermediates; for intermediates, the fee is $1,000. There are reduced fees for small businesses.[20] Section 26(b) was amended to remove the ceilings on those fees. They are expected to increase in 2017, once EPA amends its regulation on fees.
c. Confidential Chemical Identities
If as part of a PMN the submitter asks EPA to keep the identity of a new chemical substance confidential, then special steps must be taken to ensure that confidentiality. The recent TSCA amendments provide that a claim for protection from disclosure of a specific chemical identity must include a “structurally descriptive generic name” and be substantiated.[21] EPA already has regulations meeting some those requirements.[22]
d. Exemptions
Some new chemical substances may be exempt from PMN requirements under certain conditions. For example, a new chemical substance imported as part of an article is exempt.[23] (Note that this exemption does not cover chemical substances intended to be removed from containers which are articles.) In addition, there are exemptions for a chemical substance that is an impurity (meaning that it is unintentionally present); a byproduct (meaning it was produced without separate commercial intent), but only for strictly limited uses); or imported solely for export.[24] New chemical substances may be imported for research and development purposes, if the importer meets certain administrative requirements.[25]
Some polymers may be eligible for a limited polymer exemption. EPA specifies criteria for what will qualify a polymer for the exemption and what will disqualify it. The exemption involves recordkeeping, certification, and reporting requirements. This exemption is self-implementing, meaning that the prospective importer or domestic manufacturer is not required to submit an application to EPA for its review.[26]
New chemical substances to be imported or domestically manufactured in amounts of 10,000 kg/year or less may be approved through submission of a low volume exemption application.[27]
e. EPA’s Assessment of PMNs
During the PMN review period, EPA may determine that a PMN substance presents an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, in which case it will proceed to rulemaking to restrict or ban the substance. Alternatively, EPA may decide that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, or that it meets certain other criteria, in which case EPA will issue an order or consent order banning or restricting the substance, or requiring the PMN submitter to conduct testing. Finally, EPA may determine that a PMN substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, in which case the PMN submitter may commence non-exempt manufacture or import of the substance.[28] In each case, EPA will post a summary of its determination on its website, subject to confidentiality claims.
The PMN review period is generally 90 days. If during that period EPA determines that the PMN substance is not likely to cause an unreasonable risk, EPA will so notify the PMN submitter, who can then proceed to commence manufacture or import without waiting for the 90-day period to expire.[29] Alternatively, EPA may identify a concern, which typically results in a request to the submitter to agree to suspend the review period to facilitate further review. If the PMN submitter does not agree, EPA may extend the PMN review period for up to an additional 90 days.[30] If the submitter is unable to resolve EPA’s concern, EPA will likely issue an order imposing restrictions on the chemical.[31]
A SNUR will apply to any importer, domestic manufacturer, or processor of the SNUR substance. At least 90 days before beginning to engage in the significant new use described in the SNUR, an affected person must submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA for review. The SNUN and SNUN review process are essentially identical to the PMN and PMN review process. As with a PMN, during the SNUN review period, EPA may determine that the SNUR substance presents an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, in which case it will proceed to rulemaking to restrict or ban the substance. Alternatively, EPA may decide that the SNUR substance may present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, or that it meets certain other criteria, in which case EPA will issue an order or consent order banning or restricting the substance, or requiring the SNUN submitter to conduct testing. Finally, EPA may determine that a SNUR substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, in which case the PMN submitter may commence non-exempt manufacture or import of the substance. In each case, EPA will post a summary of its determination on its website, subject to confidentiality claims.
In most cases, the importation of a SNUR substance as part of an article will be exempt from the SNUR.[33] In selected cases, however, EPA may decide to apply a SNUR to a SNUR chemical imported as part of an article.[34] Before doing so, due to a new provision of TSCA, EPA must determine that application of the SNUR to articles is necessary to protect against exposure the SNUR substance in articles.[35] 6. Prioritization, Risk Evaluation, and Risk Management
As amended, TSCA requires EPA to identify chemical substances that are high priorities for risk evaluations; evaluate the health and environmental risks of those substances; and decide, without regard to cost or other non-risk factors, whether a high-priority substance presents an unreasonable risk.[36] Importers and domestic manufacturers may also request that risk evaluations will be conducted for chemical substances that have not been identified as high priority,[37] subject to the requirement that they pay a fee to cover either 50% or 100% of the cost of the risk evaluation.[38] EPA will conduct a risk evaluation,[39] including notice and comment for draft evaluation report, and may promulgate a rule regulating the chemical substance.[40]
While EPA has discretion to select the chemical substances that it will assess, it must identify an initial ten substances by December 2016 from the list of 90 chemical substances and chemical categories on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan substances list.[41] At least 50% of the additional chemical substances it selects for evaluation by December 2019 must also be from that list.[42]
The risk evaluation will explain EPA’s determination that a chemical substance either presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under the conditions of use, or that it does not present such a risk.[43] If EPA finds that the chemical substance does present an unreasonable risk, it must adopt a rule mandating risk management, possibly including a ban.[44] 7. Testing Requirements
Unlike some other jurisdictions, TSCA does not include base set testing requirements. A recent amendment to EPA’s authority to require testing under section 4 provides that information required under that authority “shall not be required for the purposes of establishing or implementing a minimum information requirement of broader applicability.”[45]
Nevertheless, EPA can require manufacturers (including importers) and processors to conduct testing. Formerly, EPA could only do so through test rules or testing consent orders. Under the TSCA amendments, it may also do so by order.[46] This new order authority is expected to increase the amount of testing that EPA requires, since it is much more efficient than rulemaking.
If an importer is subject to a test rule or a test order, it may request a conditional exemption from the testing requirement, so long as others also subject to that testing requirement do agree to conduct the testing.[47] EPA’s grant of an exemption request may trigger a requirement to pay equitable reimbursement to those who conduct the testing[48] EPA has rules governing data reimbursement,[49] but historically, parties have worked out financial arrangements among themselves.
Once a PMN submitter begins manufacture or import after the end of the PMN review period, it must submit to EPA a notice of commencement of manufacture or import within 30 days of commencement.[32] This will cause EPA to add the PMN substance to the TSCA Inventory. 5. Significant New Use Rules
Following the end of the PMN review period, EPA may decide to promulgate a significant new use rule (SNUR) for the PMN substance. EPA may also adopt a SNUR for an existing chemical substance that did not go through the PMN review process.
8. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Under section 8, importers and others may be required to report information to EPA or to keep certain records.
Under section 8(a), every four years, importers and domestic manufacturers must report information on the quantities, uses, and other information about chemical substances that they import or manufacture above the applicable threshold, either 25,000 pounds/year or 2,500 pounds/year.[50] This Chemical Data Reporting rule (CDR) does not apply to polymers or to naturally-occurring chemicals, but most other chemical substances are covered. The most recent reporting deadline is October 31, 2016, covering 2012-2015. The next CDR report will be due September 30, 2020, covering 2016-2019. Information to be reported includes a signed and dated certification statement from the submitter company; company and plant site addresses and parent company name and Dun and Bradstreet DUNS number; and chemical-specific information.
Under section 8(b) as amended, importers and others must identify to EPA those chemicals that they imported or domestically manufactured during the ten years prior to enactment of the 2016 amendments.[51] EPA must adopt a rule implementing this requirement by June 2017, and reports will be due six months later. EPA will use the information to prepare an “active substances” list. Thereafter, prior to importing, domestically manufacturing, or processing a chemical substance not on that list, a person must notify EPA that it should add the substance to the list.
Under section 8(c), importers must maintain records of significant adverse reactions, both in health and environment. EPA has implementing regulations,[52] and may require submission of such records.
Importers may be required to list or submit health and safety studies for the chemical substances they import if those chemicals are subject to a rule adopted under section 8(d). EPA has implementing regulations,[53] but has not used this authority for several years.
Section 8(e) requires manufacturers (including importers) and others to report to EPA immediately any information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a chemical presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment, unless EPA is already aware of the information. EPA has implementing guidance.[54] This can create a reporting obligation for importers who also have access to such information submitted under REACH or other regulatory systems when EPA does not have access to the information.
Finally, an importer who subsequently exports chemical substances may also be subject to reporting obligations under section 12(b). EPA’s regulations limit reporting to the first export of certain listed chemicals to a particular country or the first export of other listed chemicals to a particular country in a calendar year.[55] The list of chemicals subject to export notification requirements at this time appears on EPA’s website.[56] 9. Protection of Confidential Information
The recent TSCA amendments substantially revised the requirements for protection of confidential business information in section 14. Claims made post-enactment must be substantiated,[57] and claims will last a maximum of ten years, subject to renewal.[58] Chemical identities claimed confidential must be accompanied by a structurally-descriptive generic name.[59] EPA will assign a “unique identifier” to information related to a confidential chemical identity.[60] 10. Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products
In July 2016, EPA adopted formaldehyde standards for composite wood products under section 601 of TSCA.[61]These standards set formaldehyde emissions limits for composite wood products based on similar requirements of California’s Air Resources Board.[62] However, EPA’s standards go beyond the California requirements.
EPA’s standards apply to both composite wood products and finished goods (or component parts of finished goods) that contain any amount of composite wood products. There is no exemption for a de minimis amount of composite wood products in a finished good, other than with respect to the labeling requirement. Among other things, the EPA standards require importers to submit TSCA import certifications to CBP, beginning in 2018. Importers must ensure that their foreign suppliers meet the testing, certification, and labeling requirements of the standards. Importers may be required to recall or otherwise address non-complying products. For additional information, see here.[63] 11. Enforcement and Penalties
EPA may bring an enforcement action against an importer or others for alleged civil violations of TSCA or EPA regulations. If contested, the enforcement action will be heard by an administrative law judge, subject to review by the EPA Environmental Appeals Board and then by a federal court of appeals.[64]
As amended, the maximum civil penalty under TSCA is $37,500 for each violation.[65] EPA considers that some violations, such as those under section 8(e), incur daily penalties. For PMN violations, EPA considers each day of importation of a non-exempt chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to be a separate violation. For PMN and some other TSCA violations, there is a five-year statute of limitations.[66] For section 8(e) violations, there is no statute of limitations, according to the Environmental Appeals Board.[67]
Criminal penalties may also be assessed for knowing or willful violations of TSCA or EPA regulations. Maximum criminal penalties are $50,000 per day and imprisonment for one year.[68]
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-toxic-substances-control-act-requirements-chemical-importers
-
EPA Taking First Actions to Restrict Existing Chemical Uses
Oct 17, 2016 | Lexology
By James G. Votaw
On October 11, 2016, EPA announced the start of expedited rulemaking to restrict the existing uses of five widely used chemicals that have been identified as being toxic, persistent and/or bioaccumulative in the environment (PBTs). The targeted chemicals are:Tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, used as a flame retardant in consumer products and other industrial uses;Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics and polyurethane foam;Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants and as a solvent;Pentachlorothio-phenol (PCTP), used as an agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses; and2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol, used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive.
This will be the first exercise of EPA’s authority to restrict or ban ongoing uses of chemicals under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in over 20 years. The proceedings will create important new policy and precedent. The 2016 TSCA Amendments eased EPA’s statutory burden of proof necessary to impose such restrictions. The Agency now has an affirmative mandate to screen all chemicals still in commerce for risk of harm and, where particular uses of chemicals present unreasonable risks, to restrict those uses by rule. EPA’s first efforts to exercise this authority were directed at the use of trichloroethylene (TCE) in dry cleaning and aerosol and vapor degreasers. The Agency is close to issuing a proposed rule finding that these particular uses of TCE presents unreasonable risks, which will include or be followed by rulemaking to determine the restrictions necessary to mitigate those risks to some reasonable level.
EPA’s action on the five PBT chemicals is different. The TSCA Amendments allow the Agency to skip the first risk evaluation phase, assume that the PBTs present an unreasonable risk, and move directly to instituting appropriate limitations and controls. As explained by EPA in its press release, “PBT chemicals are of particular concern because they remain in the environment for significant periods of time and concentrate in the organisms exposed to them. These pollutants can transfer among air, water, and land, and span boundaries of geography and generations.” The restrictions imposed arguably must prevent exposures to these PBTs to the full extent practicable, rather than to some risk-based exposure level that otherwise would be identified and used. EPA has a three-year deadline to propose these restrictions and must issue a final rule within 18 months after the proposal.
As an initial step in establishing PBT controls, EPA will do further investigation—consulting with industry, small businesses, tribes, states, and others—to identify where the five PBT chemicals are used, and how and to what extent people are exposed. Based on that work, EPA will then propose restrictions to prevent exposures to the extent practicable. Restrictions may include anything from warnings to complete bans of particular uses.
The initiative to regulate the existing uses of these PBT chemicals (and TCE in degreasers) obviously will be important to those who manufacture, distribute or use them in products. To protect their interests in the upcoming proceedings with robust information and advocacy, affected companies should be working now to understand where exposures may occur all along the value chain and to identify practicable means to prevent those exposures during important uses. Alternatively, where exposures associated with particular uses practicably cannot be prevented, suppliers and downstream users should be evaluating alternative, less regulated products to serve important functions.
These proceedings and EPA’s action on TCE are also important to the rest of industry, particularly those that use chemicals addressed in EPA’s 2014 Work Plan for Chemical Assessments, which reflects the Agency’s current priorities. EPA proceedings to establish exposure controls for TCE and the PBT chemicals will set policy and precedent for future risk mitigation rulemaking under Section 6 of TSCA. While the special status of the PBT chemicals will take some issues off the table for those chemicals, precedent is likely to be set in a number of areas. First, the TSCA Amendments changed the procedure for promulgating control rules, which formerly required a trial-like public hearing. Policy and precedent will be set concerning (1) how risks will be determined to be “unreasonable,” (2) the necessary extent and quality of exposure and control information, (3) how alternatives are identified and compared, (4) standards and proof for establishing financial and/or practical feasibility, (5) flexibility in the use of transition periods and exemptions, (6) whether to regulate articles, and (7) the scope, detail and complexity of control regimes used for enforcement. An extreme example would be EPA’s regulation of PCBs, a single class of chemicals that have spawned regulations running over 130 pages. The proceedings may also trigger EPA’s first exercise of its new statutory authority to unilaterally order testing to develop (among other things) exposure information. For these reasons, all companies and associations concerned with the manufacture and use of products should be monitoring these proceedings and, where warranted, becoming directly involved to help shape broader policy around EPA’s use of these regulatory tools.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eca2cbcc-3e84-4cbd-9ed3-a8fa7753508d
-
Echa Biocides Committee Backs First Nanomaterial Approval
Oct 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) backed three approvals, and one non-approval, of active substance/product-type combinations, at its October meeting.
They include the Committee's first opinion on a nanomaterial. The BPC supported the approval of pyrogenic, synthetic amorphous silicon dioxide for use in insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods (product-type 18).
The BPC's October meeting also backed the approval of:dichlofluanid for use in antifouling products (product-type 21); andsilicon dioxide (Kieselguhr) for use in product-type 18).
And it adopted an opinion for the non-approval of PHMB for use in drinking water disinfectants (product-type five).
The committee agreed that the environmental risks of PHMB for this use could not be mitigated.
For more detail on this story go to CW+BiocidesHub.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50326/echa-biocides-committee-backs-first-nanomaterial-approval
-
Oct 17, 2016 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
By James Osborne
Oil and gas executives in Houston have not readily financed the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, according to the data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Though industry officials have a history of supporting Republicans, the inconsistencies and quandaries of the 2016 campaign have led Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to raise more money from the Texas fossil fuel sector.
"For many multimillionaires and billionaires who traditionally give to GOP campaigns, Donald Trump doesn't strike them as a good bet," said Mark Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University. "He is not their ideal candidate."
Energy executives in Houston doled out over $3 million to failed Republican candidate Jeb Bush, but since Bush's loss in the GOP primary, they have spent their money on congressional races rather than the presidency (EnergyWire, Oct. 17).
Nationwide, the oil and gas industry has spent over $17 million on Republican candidates this year, but around 4 percent has gone to the Trump campaign.
"All business executives, you're trained to do risk management. The first part of the process is to identify your risks, and that's part of the problem," said Praveen Kumar, executive director of the University of Houston's Global Energy Management Institute. "If I sit down and say, 'What risks do I have with Trump?,' it's very ambiguous."
But under a Clinton presidency, "risks are clear and quantifiable," Kumar continued. "She behaves like a normal politician" (James Osborne, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 14). — GD
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044359
-
Oil Bets Big To Hold GOP Congress, Sits Out Trump-Clinton Brawl
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oil and gas executives are pouring record amounts of money into electing Republicans this year, even though they're largely sitting on their wallets in the presidential race.
Oil and gas has pumped more than $70 million into federal races so far this year, according to OpenSecrets.org. But Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump have picked up less than $1 million of that (Greenwire, Sept. 7). Clinton seems hostile to their interests, and although Trump offers kind words, the industry's politically active members figure he can't win.
So instead, they're pouring their money into the Republican effort to keep control of Congress.
"The executives of these companies are pragmatic," said one energy industry executive. "There's a recognition that you're going to have to work with the [Clinton] White House. So you put your money where you can make a difference."
He added that oil executives have many reasons to worry about Democratic control of Congress, or even just the Senate. They might shudder to think of climate change hawk Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) leading a committee.
"If Sheldon Whitehouse has a gavel, he's going to be hauling energy CEOs up there all the time for hearings," he said.
Overall, oil and gas contributions are up 50 percent over the $42 million the industry contributed by this point in 2012, according to OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan website run by the Center for Responsive Politics. That includes money to outside groups, but not so-called dark money.
The increase is largely from what's called "outside spending" — contributions to groups that disclose their donors but cannot coordinate with candidates. For example, oil and gas has put $4.25 million into the Senate Leadership Fund, which is working to defeat Democratic Senate candidates.
The industry's congressional giving is more partisan than ever, with 90 percent of the money from individuals and political action committees going to Republicans.
The previous high was in 2012, when 88 percent of contributions from oil and gas went to Republicans. In 1990, one-third of the money from oil and gas went to Democrats.
That reflects the increasingly partisan nature of the energy debate. But it also reflects the hollowing out of the middle in Congress, said Stephen Brown, vice president for federal government affairs at oil refiner Tesoro Corp. The centrist Democrats who supported fossil fuels are a vanishing breed.
"The industry has been and is comfortable giving to Democrats who support it on key issues," said Brown, a rare Democrat in the upper ranks of the oil business. "The challenge is that there are just fewer of them and thus no middle to grab onto anymore."
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was the early favorite among oil and gas executives for president. He soaked up nearly $10 million with million-dollar contributions to his super PAC from Kinder Morgan Inc. Executive Chairman Richard Kinder and Chief Oil & Gas Chairman Trevor Rees-Jones.
But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) got huge support from one oil and gas family: Dan and Farris Wilks, founders of Frac Tech Services, donated $15 million to a super PAC supporting him.
In the home stretch this year, billionaire oilman Harold Hamm hasn't been shy about stumping for Trump. But his financial support so far lags behind what he put into the unsuccessful effort to elect Mitt Romney in 2012.
Hamm, founder and CEO of Continental Resources Inc., has contributed $5,400 directly to Trump's campaign and has given about $233,000 to the Republican National Committee since endorsing Trump in April.
He gave nearly $1 million to the super PAC supporting Romney called Restore Our Future in April 2012.
Clinton has received $623,817 from oil and gas interests, according to the OpenSecrets.org analysis of Federal Election Commission data. Trump has received $320,621, about half as much as Clinton.
Trump Victory, the super PAC supporting Trump, has also gotten significant support from the former head of another oil company — in Russia. According to OpenSecrets.org, Simon Kukes gave $149,000 to Trump Victory. Kukes, who was born in Russia and became a U.S. citizen in his 20s, ran Yukos Corp. when it was owned by the Russian government. Yukos is now defunct.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044325
-
Pipeline Politics At Play In State Favoring Dems
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Pennsylvania is not only poised to be a clincher in a tight presidential election — the state is also at the center of a pitched national debate about energy and climate change.
Up and down the Keystone State ballot, candidates are running campaigns either pushing renewable energy or vowing to cut regulations to boost a struggling oil and gas industry.
Central to the debate: the role of domestic fuel from the state's massive Marcellus Shale play.
"In the same way Pennsylvania is a swing state in the local election, it's been crucial to the way the whole country deals with the environment and energy," said Josh McNeil, executive director of the Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania. "The oil industry started in Pennsylvania, the coal industry ran the state for decades, and now it's at the center of the argument around natural gas."
Given Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes, it was no surprise Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump traveled to Pittsburgh last month to personally woo the oil and gas industry with his top energy adviser, oil tycoon Harold Hamm (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
The TV personality and real estate mogul, hoping to erode his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's slight lead, vowed to roll back federal regulations, open public lands to drilling and advance gas projects facing increasing grass-roots pushback. The message appeared to resonate with local companies facing cratered gas prices that have been forced to shutter rigs and lay off workers.
But energy insiders in Pennsylvania say the state has an "all of the above and below ground" energy policy that includes renewable energy, offering an opportunity for Clinton and other Democrats to make headway by calling for more clean energy and climate action.
To that point, Clinton has called for a rapid expansion of solar power while maintaining natural gas as a bridge fuel in a carbon-constrained future. The candidate's comments, including a wary approach to the use of hydraulic fracturing, is energizing clean energy advocates and green energy groups in the state. McNeil said the message is also taking hold in other elections.
"It's a bellwether state," said McNeil. "When Pennsylvania moves toward clean energy and away from pollution, it's something the country takes notice of."
McNeil said the same issues are being debated in the state's neck-and-neck Senate race between Republican incumbent Pat Toomey and Democratic nominee Katie McGinty.
While McGinty, former head of the state's Department of Environmental Protection and a former top White House climate official, has attracted endorsements and support from political action committees supporting climate action, Toomey has been targeted for his connections to fossil fuels by groups like the League of Conservation Voters.
Here's a look at some of Pennsylvania's most pressing environmental and energy issues:Fracking
Few energy issues have reached such political heights as hydraulic fracturing, a practice that involves injecting fluids at high pressure into the ground to release natural gas stored within the rock.
In Pennsylvania, the technology has literally changed the landscape of northeastern and southwestern Pennsylvania.
While Trump has said he wants to cut regulations on fossil fuel production, he's perplexed energy executives by supporting local control of drilling. Hamm later said Trump didn't understand the concept and fully supports fracking.
Clinton, on the other hand, has called for careful gas production and said on CNN that "by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place."
The issue of fracking is likewise trickling into down-ballot elections between Toomey, a top recipient of oil and gas donations, and his rival McGinty, who has called for a more careful approach.
"My view with respect to fracking is we need to regulate it, zone it, tax it," McGinty said in July at the Democratic National Convention (Greenwire, July 26).
Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, has also raised fracking as a campaign issue in his race against state Sen. John Rafferty (R).
While Shapiro has called for measures to "get tough on frackers," including litigation and tougher penalties, Rafferty's campaign has cautioned against targeting a single industry or making commitments to strengthening one unit of the office.Pipelines
Along with the development of Pennsylvania's glut of oil and gas has come a growing fight over the expansion of natural gas pipelines, compressor stations and other infrastructure.
On tap is a legal battle targeting the $1.2 billion PennEast Pipeline project, which would stretch from the gas fields of Pennsylvania into New Jersey. Environmentalists who sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for approving the PennEast Pipeline say the agency's process violates the Constitution's due process requirements (Greenwire, March 3).
Earlier this month, FERC staff in a draft environmental impact statement found effects from the project could be reduced to "less than significant levels" if PennEast followed certain mitigation measures.
Trump, for one, has vowed to speed the government's approval of energy infrastructure projects, including gas pipelines needed to transport fuel from the shale plays to market. He's also called for streamlining the federal permitting process, accusing the Obama administration of holding up "billions of dollars in projects" that could have created jobs.
Activists opposed to the proliferation of gas and oil infrastructure are backing Clinton, who on the campaign trail in the Northeast criticized FERC for failing to fully weigh concerns about climate change and the impacts of energy development on communities, a move environmentalists praised.
Yet the issue has made for tricky footing for Clinton, who has stated her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline but refrained from taking a position on the Dakota Access pipeline project in North Dakota after the Obama administration moved to freeze construction on a part of the line.Severance tax
Another hot-button issue in the Keystone State is a severance tax on the oil and gas industry — or the lack thereof.
In its latest budget, the state avoided imposing new taxes on the natural gas industry, but Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf said he'll ask for one next year, and the Republican-led Legislature may come under pressure to allow it (EnergyWire, July 19).
Wolf was elected in 2014 after promising to crack down on the gas industry. One of his key talking points was the need for a tax on natural gas production, known as a severance tax.
McNeil said the state's Republican-led Legislature has worked hard to keep a severance tax from moving forward, and Pennsylvania is one of the only states that doesn't have such a mechanism. These days, statewide candidates are making it a campaign issue. McNeil said billions of dollars for the state is being left on the table even as schools close.
"It was something a lot of people ran on in the last cycle and something that hasn't happened in a state that's got serious financial difficulties," McNeil said. "Voters have found it astounding we don't have it yet."Poll vault
Pennsylvania hasn't voted Republican in a White House election since 1988, but it remains on the quadrennial swing state list. Celebrity Democratic strategist James Carville once called Pennsylvania "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between," and that is certainly reflected in its presidential voting patterns. The customary battleground is in the suburbs of Philadelphia, where moderate Republican women and independents usually hold the key. This time around, they are seen as more likely to favor Clinton than Trump. Here are the three most recent presidential polls in the Keystone State:
Bloomberg: Clinton 48 percent, Trump 39 percent. Poll of 806 likely voters taken Oct. 7-11, with a 3.5-point margin of error.
Susquehanna University: Clinton 44 percent, Trump 40 percent. Poll of 764 likely voters taken Oct. 4-9, with a 3.5-point margin of error.
CBS News/YouGov: Clinton 48 percent, Trump 40 percent. Poll of 992 likely voters taken Oct. 5-7, with a 4.2-point margin of error.Down-ballot races
The battle between Sen. Pat Toomey (R) and Democrat Katie McGinty may do more to determine which party controls the upper chamber than any other Senate contest in the country. Polls have been tight for months; Toomey has some built-in, institutional advantages but may not be able to overcome a big Clinton victory — if one develops.
Even though Pennsylvania has been considered a swing state for almost three decades at the presidential level, that is not reflected in its congressional delegation. Republicans controlled the most recent redistricting process, and it shows: The GOP holds a 13-5 edge among Pennsylvania's House members.
Still, there is one genuine competitive House race in the state, and a few others bear watching. Heading the list is the open-seat contest in the 8th District in the Philadelphia suburbs, where Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R) is retiring. The Republican nominee isBrian Fitzpatrick, a retired FBI agent and the congressman's brother. The Democrat is state Rep. Steve Santarsiero. President Obama and Mitt Romney essentially tied in the district four years ago.
In a district that stretches from the Philly suburbs to Reading, freshman Rep. Ryan Costello (R) is favored over Democrat Mike Parrish, a businessman and Iraq War veteran. Romney won that district, the 6th, by 6 points, but it could be affected by the presidential outcome this time.
The same is true in the southeastern Pennsylvania 16th District, where 10-term Rep. Joe Pitts (R) is retiring. State Sen.Lloyd Smucker (R) is favored overChristina Hartman (D), a consultant to nonprofit organizations. The district also favored Romney by 6 points.
An unusual contest is in the Altoona-based 9th District, where House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R) is seeking an eighth full term. Shuster's Democratic challenger is businessman Art Halvorson — who ran unsuccessfully against Shuster in the Republican primaries this year and in 2014. He became the Democratic nominee after no Democrat came forward to challenge the incumbent, and while he ran to the congressman's right on most issues, his populist message could have some appeal this year. Shuster must still be considered the favorite.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044366
-
Pa. Gas Industry Seeks To Block New Drilling Rules
Oct 17, 2016 | Philadelphia Inquirer In (E&E Energywire)
By Andrew Maykuth
The shale gas industry in Pennsylvania has filed a legal challenge to block controversial new rules that were designed to reduce the environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling.
The industry says that the state's laws already are among the nation's most stringent and that the new rules do not improve environmental protection.
"These shortcomings are immediately harmful to our industry because they affect our ability to conduct business and remain competitive," said David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
Pennsylvania approved the new rules in June after a five-year drafting process. Under the rules, drillers are responsible for any water contamination near a new well.
The state Department of Environmental Protection said the revisions "increase protection for public resources and water supplies, improve data transparency, enhance access to relevant information for the public, and help provide business certainty to the industry."
The coalition argues that the regulations would only add financial burden to the industry, which has been contracting over the years due to low energy prices. They estimate the new rules would increase costs by up to 30 percent, or $2 million per well (Andrew Maykuth, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 13). — MM
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044322
-
Enviros Fear Natural Gas Loophole In Clean Power Plan
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
RICHMOND, Va. — Environmental groups are worried a technicality could undermine the carbon-cutting goals of the Clean Power Plan in Virginia and beyond.
The state's major utility, Dominion, recently defended a plan to comply with U.S. EPA's climate rule that would not lower overall emissions. Green groups, meanwhile, urged a carbon action team assigned by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to seek deeper greenhouse gas reductions.
They worry Dominion plans to build a large fleet of carbon-emitting natural gas plants and still meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan.
"We cannot look at doing the bare minimum. ... We need this administration to act and actually reduce the pollution we're putting into the air," Michael Town, director of the Virginia chapter of the League of Conservation Voters, said at a meeting on the state Capitol campus.
"If we choose to go down a path where we're going to let the status quo take over, for the next 50 years we're going to be burning fossil fuels," he said.
Natural gas plants emit carbon at a lower rate than coal plants. So depending on their fuel mix, utilities around the country could theoretically add more gas plants to their portfolios and reduce carbon rates while increasing overall emissions. Some states may see that as a way to leave room for economic growth that might require more cheap power.
Green groups have long warned of that possibility, but their concerns are becoming more acute as companies dig into options.
"There's definitely a worry there," said Liz Perera, climate policy director for the Sierra Club.
Virginia offers a window into growing pains other states may face as they try to meet federal climate rules. Similar debates could reach governors' offices and air agencies around the country if the Clean Power Plan moves forward. Officials will have to vigilantly weigh environmental goals versus costs to make sure they're getting the best balance for consumers.An 83% emissions rise?
Virginia's GOP-controlled Legislature prohibited spending on Clean Power Plan work, so the governor assigned a group to look more broadly at carbon-cutting options.
Dominion thinks the state should focus on reducing the power sector's carbon intensity or rate, rather than overall carbon levels. With rate-based plans, some companies could build large amounts of natural-gas-fired power — a future environmental groups are fighting tooth and nail.
Power companies around the country are looking to natural gas as a cheap way to comply with the Clean Power Plan. PJM Interconnection, the Mid-Atlantic grid organization, noted in a presentation in Richmond last week that its states sit on top of two shale plays that have delivered inexpensive gas that has driven the market. This year, natural gas use is overtaking coal use in the power sector for the first time. Utilities are buying natural gas production companies and asking regulators to sign off on large pipelines that environmental groups are opposing because they think they will lock the country into gas use.
The Sierra Club challenges utilities step by step — when they write long-term plans relying on natural gas, when they seek to build individual plants and when they propose pipelines. In an ongoing legal saga, the Southern Environmental Law Center recently filed a motion with federal regulators opposing Dominion's route for the 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline that would stretch from West Virginia to North Carolina.
In Virginia, the local LCV chapter wants the state to cut overall carbon levels from existing and new plants 40 percent by 2030. EPA's targets, by comparison, would allow those levels to increase by 2 percent by then.
Environmental groups charged that using Dominion's rate-based plan instead and relying more on natural gas would increase carbon emissions 83 percent (ClimateWire, Oct. 5). Dominion had previously confirmed the data behind those calculations but later realized they were incomplete.
Still, the rate-based proposal the company says would be best for consumers would raise emissions 1 percent by 2041, while the strategy environmental groups prefer, to cap carbon from all power sources, would cut emissions 35 percent.
Dominion's numbers suggest the more effective carbon cap would be more than twice as expensive, totaling $12.8 billion rather than $5.1 billion (ClimateWire, Oct. 6).
Officials nationwide will have to sift through that kind of data if the rule overcomes legal challenges and the Supreme Court lifts a stay on implementation.
States could also cap emissions from existing power plants but leave out new ones, another option environmental groups oppose. Even states that cap all emissions might increase what they produce in-state by engaging in carbon trading to keep coal and gas plants online and buy credits from companies that build zero-carbon power elsewhere (ClimateWire, Feb. 18).Debating rate-based plans
Concerns about rate-based plans are not new, but they could become more pressing. Ivy League carbon economists noted in a paper on the draft rule in 2014 that "a state ... could potentially meet the EPA's requirement without lowering emissions" (ClimateWire, Nov. 17, 2014).
PJM suggests carbon levels would decline more and stay lower if its 14 states capped emissions. With carbon rates, emissions would decline at a slower speed until 2030 but then rise significantly.
Nonetheless, a handful of states, mainly in the southeast and western United States, may consider rate-based targets as a way to leave room for population and industry growth.
"It could be attractive to states to consider opting for a rate-based program to encourage economic growth in that state by adding new gas plants," said Maria Robinson, associate director of energy policy and analysis at the green business group Advanced Energy Economy. "It depends on what Virginia's end goal is, whether Virginia's primary goal is to reduce emissions or keep costs down, and it's really about balancing those two concerns."
Building new plants and creating jobs within a state might be tempting, for the economic value and the optics. But it could lead to much higher emissions, including in areas where vulnerable communities have historically dealt with more pollution.
Amlan Saha, vice president of the consulting firm MJ Bradley & Associates, noted states that might favor rate-based plans could still cap emissions in order to trade with neighbors.
"It is not a very straightforward calculus," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044319
-
What Happens To Clean Power Plan If EPA's New Plant Rule Falls?
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Interactive
By Emily Holden
Opponents of the Obama administration's power-sector climate rules last week filed their first briefs against a regulation for new plants, arguing that it should fall and take the Clean Power Plan down with it.
The two rules are separate, although U.S. EPA has acknowledged that a rule for new plants is a prerequisite for the Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut carbon from existing plants.
Jim Rubin, a partner with law firm Dorsey & Whitney, said the possibility that the Clean Power Plan could be caught in the new plant rule's crosshairs is a "sleeper issue."
"I think it's a pretty big deal," Rubin said.
EPA has argued that as long as at least a portion of the new plant rule is upheld, the Clean Power Plan will be on solid ground. The new plant rule, written under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, sets standards for new, modified and reconstructed coal and natural gas plants.
Jeff Holmstead, a partner representing challengers with the law firm Bracewell, said it's not clear whether the Clean Power Plan would just be on hold or if EPA would have to issue a new rule after fixing any issues judges found with the 111(b) regulation.
"But everyone agrees that the CPP would, at a minimum, be put on hold until EPA goes back and does a new rulemaking to set a lawful standard for new sources," Holmstead said.
It's also not clear whether opponents would have to sue to stop the Clean Power Plan if the 111(b) rule fails to meet legal scrutiny.
"I think there's a very good argument that the rule falls of its own accord, and [the Clean Power Plan] would not be enforceable by EPA with or without court order," said Thomas Lorenzen, a Crowell & Moring attorney representing industry against the rule.
A coalition of states and industry groups are fighting both the new plant rule and the Clean Power Plan. EPA issued both at the same time, but the Clean Power Plan challenges have moved through the courts faster.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is leading the charge against the Clean Power Plan, said last month before oral arguments at a federal courthouse that the case was only the first of many steps to thwart the regulatory agenda.
The new plant rule calculates goals for coal plants based on what they could achieve with carbon capture technology that challengers argue is not commercially available. Most carbon capture projects have been plagued with problems, although one near Houston seems to be on schedule and on budget (ClimateWire, Oct. 4).
Opponents, however, note EPA must prove the technology was available at the time the agency wrote the rule. EPA has a couple of months to respond.
E&E News reporter Amanda Reilly has more on the specifics of the new plant rule challengehere.
Today in Washington, D.C., the Center for a New American Security holds a panel discussion on energy issues facing the next president.
In case you missed it:
EPA chief Gina McCarthy felt the Clean Power Plan was "not going the way she hoped," just a month before its release, according to an email allegedly sent to climate strategist John Podesta and obtained by Wikileaks (ClimateWire, Oct. 14).
New to the Hub is recent modeling from PJM Interconnection on Virginia's Clean Power Plan goals. Read more about talks there in this morning's ClimateWire. PJM's Gary Helm, a lead market strategist, said the grid organization will be conducting more state-specific looks at the rule.
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060044326
-
Health Effects Linger 8 Years After Chemical Leak
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ivan Penn
An 8-year-old chemical leak at a natural gas facility in southern Alabama is still causing health issues, according to residents who say they've been ignored by the government.
Eight Mile, Ala., is a primarily poor African-American community where 500 gallons of mercaptan — a chemical added to natural gas as an odorant to help detect leaks — spilled into soil and groundwater in 2008.
Hundreds of residents are suing Mobile Gas Services Corp. over the spill, claiming they've suffered seizures, vomiting, nosebleeds, nausea, respiratory problems and other ailments.
And unlike the natural gas leak in Porter Ranch, Calif., that started last year and lasted until February, officials have declined to evacuate residents or launch an investigation in Alabama.
"Because we don't have the financial wherewithal to put pressure on these people, they simply turn their heads," said resident Carletta Davis. "Our children are sick. ... It's absolutely an outrage."
Though industry and government consider mercaptan safe, some independent studies show the chemical to be "toxic to the human body," according to Jeffrey Nordella, an urgent care physician in Porter Ranch.
Raquel Williams, who lives in Eight Mile, says her 11-year-old son Markell has "been hospitalized five times [this year] because his seizures didn't get any better."
Mobile Gas claims that water treatment systems have helped alleviate the contamination.
But residents are still concerned.
"My doctor told me that I need to get out of this area," said resident Jeremiah Hollins (Ivan Penn,Los Angeles Times, Oct. 15). — GD
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044357
-
Utility Gear Drafted Into Digital Armies, Officials Warn
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The rapidly expanding army of online devices known as the "internet of things" is emerging as a convenient accomplice for hackers, according to U.S. authorities.
Last Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a rare alert warning that certain Sierra Wireless industrial devices are at risk of infection from the "Mirai" malware that seizes on weak passwords.
The case illustrates the dilemma facing U.S. officials hoping to shore up cyberdefenses for the internet of things (IoT), which includes consumer-level devices like thermostats that help utilities control energy supply and demand.
"When you think about the deployment of connected devices in industrial control systems, in water treatment facilities, in the grid, IoT security is now a public safety issue. It's now a homeland security issue," said Robert Silvers, DHS assistant secretary for cyber policy, during an Atlantic Council event Friday.
While Silvers wasn't specifically speaking to the Sierra Wireless case, he said that "in a lot of instances, I think you're seeing products pushed out to market without security appropriately accounted for."
Mirai takes advantage of default or easily guessable passwords to hack into devices including cellular gateways and closed-circuit TV cameras. As ominous as that sounds, the malware is not out to harm the devices themselves. Instead, it exploits their computing power and internet access to help launch massive "distributed denial of service" attacks on other victims.
"Imagine being in a crowded room where everybody turns to you and starts to say your name over and over again," said Geoff Webb, who tracks disruptive technology trends as vice president of solutions strategy for Micro Focus, a global software firm. "It would be impossible to hold a conversation. That's what the DDOS attack feels like for the server."
Unknown hackers recently used a "botnet" of devices enslaved by the Mirai malware to flood the website of security blogger Brian Krebs. The attack leveraged tens of thousands of hacked devices and threw 620 gigabits, a measure of bandwidth, at Krebs' site each second, according to cloud host Akamai's post-mortem analysis. That's about 50,000 times more bandwidth than a typical home Wi-Fi setup can handle.
In a technical bulletin, Sierra Wireless acknowledged that some of its devices could be swept up in such attacks if they're left with their default passwords or configured improperly. Sierra's Chief Security Officer Larry LeBlanc said in an email that the affected wireless gateways could be found in smart grids, pipelines, industrial equipment and smart city infrastructure.
"Precise numbers of infected devices are hard to gauge because we do not have visibility to individual customer configurations," he said. "Rather than speculate, we turned to [DHS's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team] to help spread our advice on how to protect against Mirai to the widest audience possible."'Clearing their throat'
LeBlanc pointed out that new Sierra Wireless products are designed to protect against malware such as Mirai, and that last week's bulletin applied to older products. He also noted that last week's alert did not reveal any hardware or software flaws in Sierra products but was rather a password-related issue. Sierra separately alerted its customers last month.
"Security is an ongoing focus for Sierra Wireless and we continuously monitor the evolving state of industry best practice and work hard to incorporate those measures into our product line without excessive adverse impact to the installed base," LeBlanc said.
The attack on Krebs shows "how easy it is for very small vulnerabilities to be used incredibly aggressively by attackers," said Webb of Micro Focus. It also marks an opening salvo in what will likely be a pervasive threat in the coming years, he noted, with the market for IoT set to surpass 20 billion devices by 2020, according to one estimate from Gartner. "That was the attackers clearing their throat," Webb said.
He added that the potential opportunity for efficiency and data analysis brought on by IoT offers great opportunities, "if you can make it secure."
Experts say putting IoT technologies out of hackers' reach will always be a challenge as long as adding security to a product hinders its cost-competitiveness.
And in the case of the Mirai botnet, many victims are blissfully unaware that their own devices are busy harming someone else with their spare computing power.
"I'm not convinced that designers, manufacturers and consumers are accounting for the cost of [an IoT] security failure," said DHS's Silvers, "because A, they may not be thinking about it, or B, if they are thinking about it, they might not be the ones to bear the cost. So we need to think collectively about how we're going to take this on."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044327
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Energy, Plastics Demand Will Push Emissions Up: XOM
Oct 17, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
The increasing demand for energy and plastics in the developing world will continue to increase global carbon emissions until about 2030, even though pollution levels are falling in the U.S., an ExxonMobil executive said last week.
The world’s growing middle class, particularly in China and India, is creating demand for plastics and other chemicals that will grow more than 4% annually, double the demand growth for energy, Neil Chapman, president of Exxon Mobil Chemical, said at a luncheon presented by the National Association of Manufacturing, held at ExxonMobil’s corporate campus in The Woodlands, Texas.
Although carbon emissions are declining in the developed world due to increased energy efficiency, renewable power and natural gas replacing coal, the rapid growth of the developing world will mean global emissions will grow until roughly 2030, before slowly beginning to fall, he said.
“Climate change is an issue we have to address as a society,” Chapman said. “But, at the same time, there’s 1 billion people without electricity in the world.”
ExxonMobil is investing billions of dollars to increase the production of ethylene and polyethylene – the world’s most common plastic – at its Texas plants in Baytown and Mont Belvieu, Kallanish Energyfinds. The projects represent ExxonMobil’s first major U.S. chemical expansion in more than 15 years, with completion slated for the second half of 2017.
ExxonMobil also has a joint venture with the Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corp., known as SABIC. The companies will soon decide whether to build another chemical plant in southeastern Texas or Louisiana.
The demand for plastics is largely driven by rising incomes in China and other developing countries, where people are spending more of their money on consumer products, many of them made of, or packaged in, plastic.
Chemical industry trade group The American Chemistry Council estimates roughly 275 petrochemical projects are under construction or planned across the U.S. through 2023, costing $170 billion.
The chemical sector now accounts for 51% of all U.S. manufacturing spending in 2016, according to the National Association of Manufacturing.
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2016/10/17/global-energy-plastics-demand-will-push-emissions-xom/
-
Why Are Greens Opposing A Carbon Tax?
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
A ballot measure in Washington state seeking to impose the first carbon tax in the United States faces an uncertain future due to an unlikely source of opposition: environmentalists.
The rancor among Evergreen State greens threatens to sink a long-standing priority of U.S. climate activists. A recent poll showed those in favor of a tax with a 5-point lead, 42 percent to 37 percent, but fully 21 percent of Washington voters remain undecided.
Much of the conflict is personal. An attempt last year to reconcile the plan proposed by CarbonWA, the group behind the initiative, with one favored by the state's leading environmental groups ended in acrimony.
Still, the tumult hints at an emerging divide, one that extends beyond the personal proclivities of Washington greens. At a time when political consensus over the existence of climate change is slowly mounting, the question of how to best tackle a warming planet is becoming increasingly divisive.
"I would say this is a preview of coming attractions in which a carbon pricing debate might look less like a traditional environmental debate over regulation and more like a battle over taxes and budgeting," said Barry Rabe, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan who is writing a book about the politics of a carbon price.
In California, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has squared off with the Legislature over how to spend money generated by the auctions held under the Golden State's cap-and-trade scheme. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's proposal to institute a national carbon tax is already facing questions over how its revenues would be spent (ClimateWire, Oct. 4).
"I think it is safe to say most environmental groups have converged around this idea of a carbon price, but there may be disagreement over what that means," Rabe said.
So it goes in Washington, where part of the environmental civil war is being fought over carbon revenues.Split over appealing to the GOP or the liberal base
Initiative 732, as it is known officially, is revenue-neutral, much like the carbon-cutting regime it is modeled after in neighboring British Columbia.
The price on carbon would slowly increase under the plan, starting at $15 a ton in 2017, growing to $25 a ton in 2018 and then rising by 3.5 percent in inflation-adjusted terms each year thereafter. Part of the revenue would be used to refund the state's earned income tax credit, providing up to $1,500 annually to low-income families.
But most of the new revenues would be offset by tax cuts. Washington's sales tax would be cut 1.5 percent over two years. The business and occupations tax for manufacturers, assessed on firms' gross receipts, would be eliminated entirely.
Advocates say the plan would be a boon for both the climate and business. British Columbia has seen emissions decline by 5 to 15 percent since it imposed a carbon tax in 2008. The province's economy has outpaced much of Canada over that time.
"It is great climate policy, great tax policy in terms of addressing low-income households; it's just a great policy all around," said Yoram Bauman, an economist who helped draft the plan.
Many of Washington's largest environmental groups, including Climate Solutions, the Washington Environmental Council and the Sierra Club, aren't sold on it. They frame the measure as a missed opportunity to invest in clean energy, minority communities affected by climate change and a transition fund to aid workers in the fossil fuel industry.
Regional cap-and-trade schemes, like those employed in the Northeast and in California, have shown it is possible to generate a "double-dividend," pricing carbon through auctions and using the proceeds to invest in renewables and energy efficiency, they say.
"Really, our argument is that we need to be having a conversation about what a good carbon pricing policy looks like," said Becky Kelley, president of the Washington Environmental Council.
The Legislature is generally loath to amend citizen ballot measures, meaning initiatives often represent the high-water mark for major reforms in Olympia, she said.
Such policy disagreements only reflect a portion of the conflict, however. At its heart, the debate over Initiative 732 mirrors two differing political calculations about how to advance climate policy. Advocates believe a revenue-neutral model is critical for generating support for carbon-cutting policies among Republicans.
The GOP simply won't support climate policies chock-full of new spending on other Democratic priorities like education or housing, Bauman said. Better, he reasons, to offer a proposal that appeals to Republicans' free-market sensibilities but also attracts Democrats for its carbon-cutting potential.
"We're working to do this in a bipartisan fashion that can be a model for the nation," Bauman said. Of the measure's opponents in the environmental community, he added, "Climate change has become an issue the left uses to turn out their base, as opposed to an issue that everyone should be working on to try and save the world."
His opponents scoff at such claims. "I would give my right arm if that was the country and state we live in," said Climate Solutions Executive Director Gregg Small. "But the fact is large parts of the Republican Party don't believe in it at all."
Many of Washington's largest environmental groups have spent recent years building a coalition on the left, which features labor, minority and business groups. Climate change, they say, is transformative not just for the planet, but for large swaths of society. Poor communities are susceptible to sea-level rise, while workers could lose their jobs in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Sierra Club ultimately decided not to support the measure because its authors failed to include those groups in the policy's crafting.
"We're committed to striving toward these principles of equity and justice in how we shape these climate policies," said Cesia Kearns, deputy regional director for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.Inslee is a 'no' on carbon tax
Taxing carbon has long been a popular idea among climate activists and economists for its simplicity and effectiveness. A recent study by the University of British Columbia found that per-capita fuel consumption in the province would be 7 percent higher without the tax.
The Washington measure is important because it offers an opportunity to show the effectiveness of taxing carbon, said Christopher Knittel, an energy economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Many carbon-pricing schemes, like those employed in Europe, have failed to price carbon at a rate that reflects the greenhouse gas's true environmental cost, he said. Even in British Columbia, where the carbon price of 30 Canadian dollars ($23) has proved popular, there is debate today over whether it should be expanded.
What is impressive about the Washington proposal is how aggressive it is, Knittel said. Drivers would pay 15 cents more for a gallon of gas in its first year and 25 cents in its second. The cost would then continue to rise with the tax's annual increase in the years following.
"I think those that follow carbon pricing closely are excited that a bill has made it this far," Knittel said.
The Evergreen State generally is fertile ground for climate policy. The state's lone coal plant is slated to close by 2025. Lawmakers this year passed a measure designed to reduce the state's reliance on coal burned beyond its borders. And the Washington State Department of Ecology imposed a carbon cap in September at the direction of Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat who has built a reputation as a climate hawk (ClimateWire, Sept. 16).
But Inslee, who is seeking re-election this year, is opposed to the tax. A spokeswoman for the governor said he couldn't support the proposal because of its impact on the state budget. Revenues could fall by $797 million over six years, according to state budget projections.
Advocates dismiss those charges, saying the state double-counted the earned income tax credit. In any event, they argue, $797 million represents a small fraction of Washington's $47 billion budget.
The formal opposition campaign is being coordinated by the Washington Business Association, an industry group. The state's aluminum manufacturers and pulp industry are particularly opposed, saying the tax would create an uneven playing field for carbon-intensive businesses.
Yet the "no" campaign has struggled to raise money. Supporters of Initiative 732 have collected $1.3 million, compared to the $321,824 collected by opponents, according to state figures. Large local firms like Boeing Co. and Microsoft Corp. have stayed on the sidelines. And "yes" campaigners can point to support from across the political spectrum. Three Republican state senators; U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Seattle Democrat who is retiring after 28 years in Congress; and former Starbucks Corp. President Howard Behar all support the plan.
The big question mark is whether advocates can count other environmentalists in their rank. Small, the Climate Solutions executive director, is a case in point. He has spent 25 years advocating for environmental causes and favors putting a price on carbon. But he remains undecided over how to vote on the climate tax initiative. "This experience has been by far the most painful and difficult set of circumstances I've ever dealt with," he said.
The future of America's first carbon tax may well depend on what environmentalists like Small decide.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044310
-
World Reaches Deal On Climate-Warming Coolants
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
A new global agreement clinched this weekend to curtail use of a class of highly warming chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration puts a check next to the last major item on President Obama's climate diplomacy bucket list.
The amendment to the Montreal Protocol phasing down heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which was adopted in the early hours of Saturday in the Rwandan capital of Kigali, is in part the result of 7 ½ years of lobbying and maneuvering by the Obama administration, environmental advocacy community and U.S. industry bent on using the ozone treaty to phase down the climate-forcing chemicals.
Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in Kigali the agreement is "a monumental step forward."
"It represents multilateral patience and diplomacy and efforts over a long period of time," he noted.
It was also the final piece of the administration's trifecta of climate goals for 2016 — an agenda that also included facilitating the early entry into force of last year's Paris climate deal and the negotiation of a market mechanism to contain greenhouse gas emissions from commercial aviation.
All of these objectives have now been reached. One senior State Department official who worked on two of the recent agreements said negotiators were "a combination of giddy tempered by exhaustion."
"I think there's a tremendous sense of satisfaction that countries came together so successfully to build on the success of Paris and really address the problem of climate change," the official said. "But I don't think anybody will be sitting on their laurels."
This weekend's agreement by nearly 200 members of the Montreal Protocol will be legally binding, inviting trade sanctions for countries that fail to live up to their obligations. It would reduce global HFC levels by between 80 and 85 percent by 2047, helping the world avoid nearly half a degree Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
"We came to take a half a degree Celsius out of future warming, and we won about 90 percent of our climate prize," said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, who has worked toward the agreement for more than a decade. "The majority of the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and we'll get the rest through market forces."
The deal sets different baselines and timelines for developed countries and for two distinct groups of developing nations, including a group of more than 100 nations led by China that has committed to move quickly toward more climate-friendly alternative coolants and a more cautious group of high-ambient-air-temperature countries that has insisted on more time.
Developed countries, including the United States, would stop growing HFCs by 2018 and show their first 10 percent reduction in the chemicals' use by 2019 based on levels in 2011-13. An 85 percent decrease would come due in 2036.
The final version of the amendment saw all developing countries agree to tighter timelines and phase-down targets than they had proposed before the conference began last week. Members of the group of developing first movers, which includes China, South America, Africa and most other poor nations, would cap their production and use of HFCs in 2024 and begin ratcheting them down in 2029. Members of a second group of improbable allies, including Iran, Iraq, the Gulf Cooperation Council, India and Pakistan, would stop growing their share of the chemicals in 2028 and make their first cuts in 2032.
India in particular has resisted promising early cuts, saying that would harm its ability to give more of its population access to much-needed air conditioning and refrigeration. Before the conference, it had proposed language that would allow poor countries to grow their HFC use until 2031.
Indian experts say it's a matter of market access.
"Of all developing countries, India now has the highest rate of growth of the air conditioning sector," said Ajay Mathur, director-general of the New Delhi-based Energy and Resources Institute. The burgeoning demand forced India to push for more headroom in the rule that would allow the sector to grow, he said.
But advocates for the amendment say they expect even India and its cohort to transition more swiftly from HFC use than they currently project.
"Historically, the market has always moved ahead of the control schedule the treaty sets," said Zaelke, predicting that in this case it would "move the laggards very gracefully into an accelerated phase-down" of HFCs.
Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute President Stephen Yurek said it was understandable that poor countries wanted some wiggle room in the agreement. "Their markets are very much more immature," he said. "To freeze now would have made them go first in the technology or made it so their citizens wouldn't have had access to life-saving air conditioning and refrigeration."
But with 90 percent of the global air conditioning and refrigeration market now destined to start transitioning away from HFCs by the end of the next decade, the industry will also begin to shift, he said, bringing down the cost of alternative technologies. That in turn will make it more likely that India and its cohort will meet their targets early, Yurek said.
"Once there's broader use of the different alternative refrigerants, the prices are going to go down because manufacturers aren't trying to recover their research and development costs," he said.
The same trend occurred when the world phased out chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons under the Montreal Protocol to combat ozone thinning, he said, and that enabled countries to transition ahead of schedule.
But while the group of high-ambient-temperature countries was granted more time to shift to non-HFC alternatives under the deal, the extra three years appears to have come at a cost. The State Department official said they wouldn't be eligible for the $80 million in additional funding that rich countries and private financiers pledged last month to help poor countries comply with an "ambitious" phase-down schedule and upgrade the energy efficiency of their cooling and refrigeration systems in the process.
All developing countries will be supported by the protocol's Multilateral Fund, which rich countries are due to replenish next year as they do every three years. But that assistance is also calibrated to a country's obligations under the agreement, so India and its cohort will access a smaller share of those resources, as well.Obama administration seeks to shore up its legacy
For the U.S. delegation to Kigali — both government and nongovernmental organizations alike — this weekend marked the end of a long campaign.
"It's taken a while," agreed Zaelke, who has worked on the Montreal Protocol since its inception in 1987 and on the HFC amendment ever since Micronesia, Mauritius and Morocco — the three "M's" — put forward the first such amendment 10 years ago.
HFCs are chemicals that can be thousands of times as climate-forcing as carbon dioxide and that proliferated largely because the protocol tapped them as an alternative to ozone-depleting coolants. But not everyone agreed that the ozone treaty was the right place to address HFC proliferation, and China and India initially insisted that climate pollutants should be dealt with only under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The breakthrough came when Obama met with Chinese President Xi Jinping for the first time at the Sunnylands estate in California in 2013 and they agreed that the world's two largest economies would collaborate on two things — North Korea and a Montreal Protocol amendment on HFCs.
"That agreement set the stage not just for this HFC phaseout accord but for the broader Paris Agreement," said Paul Bledsoe, a White House climate adviser during the Clinton administration. The two powers would go on to broker deals in 2014 and 2015 that would pave the way for the world to come together on a deal last December in the French capital.
"In a way, HFC diplomacy bookended the beginning and the ending of the remarkable last three years of Obama's international climate success," said Bledsoe.
Zaelke credited Obama and his team — including Kerry, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and former Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern — with working to till the ground for an HFC amendment even as they worked toward other objectives, like the Paris deal.
"The president has a lot of his own prestige and a lot of his own power into this," he said. The Sunnylands summit was followed by meetings between Obama and Indian, South American and North American leaders, and by increasingly specific declarations over the last two years from the Group of Seven and Group of 20 countries, all calling for an HFC amendment.
"Each time that he met and negotiated with leaders and groups of leaders, he pushed for more explicit details, including finally to get an ambitious agreement in 2016," he said.
"History will credit President Obama for turning the U.S. from climate laggard to climate leader, by acting at home and forging the international consensus for global action that is now coming to fruition," said David Doniger, climate and clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Like Zaelke, Doniger has spent years pressing for an international amendment to phase down HFCs, and in emails from the return flight from Kigali he said he felt "great satisfaction that we are finally getting started at curbing dangerous climate pollution, while at the same time regret for the coming consequences of our lost time and delayed start. Our children and grandchildren will both thank us for acting and curse us for having waited so long."
The administration's determination to get an HFC amendment across the finish line before Obama leaves office this year could be seen in the involvement of three of his highest officials during last week's conference. An estimated 40 minister-level officials participated in the talks, but two of them were from the United States — Kerry and McCarthy, who headed the delegation.
Kerry spoke in the plenary, while McCarthy engaged in talks with small groups of key countries, the State Department official said. "It helped show the rest of the world why this was a very serious negotiation taking place and helped secure an agreement," the official said.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz supported their efforts with phone calls to fellow energy ministers.
Zaelke said the many years of discussion that proceeded this weekend's amendment allowed producers time to readjust their investment plans away from highly climate-forcing coolants.
"The smart money started moving when the discussions got serious a couple of years ago," he said. "What it has done is prepare for the implementation of the agreement to go very fast."
The U.S. coolants industry was an early supporter of an HFC amendment — a fact that Zaelke said would make it difficult for any future administration to walk back U.S. commitments to the deal, even if it wanted to.
Yurek recalls meeting with State Department and U.S. EPA officials during Obama's first term as part of a delegation of environmentalists and industry advocates to drive home the idea that HFCs should be addressed under the ozone treaty, not the broader U.N. climate process as some developing countries insisted.
That was after efforts on Capitol Hill to enact a carbon cap-and-trade bill stalled that would have also dealt with HFCs.
The broader climate negotiations also seemed to be in doubt in the years following the collapse of the 2009 talks in Copenhagen, Denmark. Meanwhile, the Montreal Protocol was lauded as the most successful treaty in history, complete with nearly 200 members, a Multilateral Fund to help finance actions by poor countries and a record of countries outperforming their targets.
"It's great that this is finally over," said Yurek. "But now we have the hard work as an industry of implementing this and making sure that we meet the obligations but hoping that we exceed them."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/10/17/stories/1060044335
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report
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