Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 10/18/2016
-
Common Household Chemicals Hurt Our Health ... And Cost Us Billions
Oct 18, 2016 | CNN
By Susan Scutti
Routine contact with plastic bottles, toys, food cans, cosmetics and flame retardants containing "endocrine-disrupting chemicals" results in ingestion, leading to a toxic buildup and potentially a variety of medical conditions. -
Companies Replace Triclosan with 'Unproven Chemicals'
Oct 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Substitutions used to replace banned substances triclosan and triclocarban, in consumer wash products, are not proven to be “safe and effective”, an NGO has claimed. -
(ACC Mentioned) Growing U.S. Industrial Natural Gas Demand
Oct 16, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
Power generation, LNG exports globally and pipeline exports to Mexico and Eastern Canada, and new industrial demand are the three rapidly growing baseload natural gas demand markets -
U.S. Shale Plays See Slowest Production Decline in Over a Year, EIA Says
Oct 18, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
The steep slide in oil production across major U.S. shale plays is moderating as drillers send more machines back into the oil patch, the Energy Information Administration says. -
EPA Proposes To Revise Refinery MACT Flaring, Monitoring Requirements
Oct 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to revise parts of its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for oil refineries, including work practice standards for flares and pressure relief devices and allowing plants to relax fence-line air monitoring requirements... -
If Clinton Wins, Advocates Plan To Seek Pledge On Tougher ESPS Targets
Oct 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A top environmentalist says that if Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wins the White House next month, advocates will urge her to make an early pledge to strengthen the targets under EPA's greenhouse gas regulation for existing power plants... -
Hacked Emails Show Fossil Fuels Not High Priority to Clinton, Said Protesters Should 'Get a Life'
Oct 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton privately told union members last year that anti-fossil fuel protesters should "get a life," and that the issue of fossil fuel extraction wasn't high on her list of priorities, according to illegally hacked emails released... -
(ACC Mentioned) Waste Plant Worker Averts Chlorine Disaster
Oct 18, 2016 | Water Online
By Sara Jerome
Quick thinking by a wastewater treatment worker averted disaster in an Illinois city last week. -
EPA Sends Accident-Response Rule to White House
Oct 18, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
After taking heat from both industry groups and safety advocates, U.S. EPA has sent its final draft of accident prevention and response regulations to the Office of Management and Budget for review. -
BLM Responds to a Lethal Trend in the Oil Field
Oct 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Bureau of Land Management officials didn't set out three years ago to make the oil field safer. -
It Could Be the Nation’s First Carbon Tax. And Environmentalists Are Fighting over It
Oct 17, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
A new initiative slated for the ballot in Washington state next month would create the first-ever carbon tax to be implemented in the United States. But while the initiative promises to fight climate change by making it more expensive to emit greenhouse gases... -
Clock Starts For Challenges To Lead NAAQS
Oct 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has published in the Oct. 18 Federal Register its final rule retaining its existing lead (Pb) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), triggering a Clean Air Act 60-day clock for groups to sue over the decision. -
Another Big Step on Climate
Oct 17, 2016 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
-
Podesta, Figueres Met with Wealthy Donors to Climate Causes, WikiLeaks Emails Show
Oct 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
John Podesta and Christiana Figueres apparently spoke to a private meeting of wealthy donors to climate change-focused foundations in March, according to emails allegedly hacked from Podesta and released today by WikiLeaks.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Common Household Chemicals Hurt Our Health ... And Cost Us Billions
Oct 18, 2016 | CNN
By Susan Scutti
Updated 1437 GMT (2237 HKT) October 18, 2016
Routine contact with plastic bottles, toys, food cans, cosmetics and flame retardants containing "endocrine-disrupting chemicals" results in ingestion, leading to a toxic buildup and potentially a variety of medical conditions.
Routine exposure to these chemicals adds up to annual costs in excess of $340 billion -- a whopping price tag that comes in the form of poor health, increased medical bills and lost income, according to researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center.
The largest single cost comes from chemical effects on children's developing brains, said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor at NYU Langone and lead investigator of the study.
Obviously, costs are not the main concern of families with growing children.According to Trasande, a few simple steps will limit exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the home.Families can eat organic; they can avoid the use of pesticides in their homes to get rid of unwanted creatures; they can avoid aluminum can food consumption; they can avoid microwaving plastic and machine-dishwashing plastic containers," Trasande said, noting that it is important to avoid plastic bottles with the numbers 3, 6 and 7 on the bottom.
Another easy fix for families is to "simply air out their homes every couple of days," Trasande said. This helps remove chemical dusts from electronics and other materials, especially flame retardants.
Chemicals and our hormones
By mimicking the body's natural sex steroid hormones, endocrine-disrupting chemicals interfere with the function of hormones. Increasing evidence over the past three decades shows how exposure to these chemicals has negative effects on human health, including neurobehavioral disorders, reproductive disorders, and obesity and diabetes, according to Trasande and his co-authors.
These chemicals include bisphenol A (BPA), which lines food cans made of tin; phthalates, which are used when manufacturing cosmetics and plastic food containers; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) found in the flame retardants added to furniture and packaging; and pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and organophosphates.
These chemicals include bisphenol A (BPA), which lines food cans made of tin; phthalates, which are used when manufacturing cosmetics and plastic food containers; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) found in the flame retardants added to furniture and packaging; and pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and organophosphates.
For the new study, appearing in the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, the NYU team reviewed the levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in blood and urine samples provided by volunteers participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Five thousand people have participated in this survey each year since 1999.
After collecting this data, Trasande and his colleagues used advanced computer models to estimate the total cases of disease that would result from exposure to the levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals they observed. The researchers also calculated the consequences of disease caused by chemicals: lost income, in addition to health care bills.
The grand total? Annually, it costs the United States $340 billion. Yearly exposure to highly toxic fire-resisting PBDE chemicals and pesticides accounted for nearly two-thirds of this total endocrine-disrupting chemical disease burden, said Trasande.
Worst of all, most of this financial burden resulted from neurological damage in unborn children.
"Typically, when policy discussions are had about regulation, the arguments are one-sided," Trasande said, noting that everyday people hear about the costs to manufacturers, but they never hear about the benefits -- and cost savings -- involved in regulating the use of damaging chemicals.This new analysis is intended "to facilitate a transparent dialogue about the real and substantial tradeoffs for human health that we make by failing to act to protect against the chemicals of greatest concern," said Trasande.
As such, it should come in handy for the days ahead.
Chemical policy decisions in the works
In June, President Obama signed into law a reboot of the Toxic Substances Control Act, "the major law that reviews chemicals for their safety and decides whether they should be allowed for use in the broad environment," including in personal care products, furniture and electronics, explained Trasande.
"That law presumed that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty," he said.he June reboot, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, means "the Environmental Protection Agency is on a fast timeline to deal with the requirements associated with that action," said Frankie Wood-Black, principal at Sophic Pursuits Inc., a boutique consulting firm specializing in environmental and safety regulatory compliance and an instructor at Northern Oklahoma College.
"All of us in the regulatory world" are interested in the EPA's timing, actions and priorities, said Wood-Black.
With the EPA articulating new policy, "there is an opportunity here to ensure effective implementation of the law," Trasande said.
That said, not everyone agrees with the Trasande team assessment.
"This report doesn't distinguish between endocrine action and endocrine disruption," said Dr. Joseph Perrone, chief science officer for the Center for Accountability in Science.He explained that many substances, including naturally occurring soy, can interact with the human endocrine system without causing harm. The report, he noted, does not distinguish between simple endocrine action, where a substance interacts with the human endocrine system, and endocrine disruption, where a substance causes harm to the endocrine system.
"This is an important distinction because activity does not by itself cause harm," said Perrone. The Center for Accountability in Science is a project of the Center for Organizational Research and Education, a nonprofit dedicated to the research of activist groups.
Another view of the work was presented by Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas at Austin. She explained how last year, Trasande and his team estimated costs based on predictions of exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union.
"It is important that they did a similar study in the US, because it shows that costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals to health are an international problem," Gore said, adding that the chemicals people are exposed to differ around the world, so "learning about exposures in one part of the world can inform decisions in other places that may be considering whether or not to allow or ban a chemical.
"Gore was not involved in the new study, though she is a co-author in a couple of the studies cited by Trasande.
According to Michele La Merrill, an environmental toxicologist and assistant professor at University of California-Davis, the authors used a definition of endocrine disruption that reflects the views of the Endocrine Society, a 100-year-old global membership organization representing professionals from the field."
These authorities have a broader definition of endocrine disrupting-chemicals than that used by the US EPA," said La Merrill, who did not participate in the research. "This exposes a weakness in the archaic US EPA definition and indicates a need for the US EPA to include endocrine-disrupting effects they currently do not consider, such as obesity."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/health/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-cost-billions/
-
Companies Replace Triclosan with 'Unproven Chemicals'
Oct 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Substitutions used to replace banned substances triclosan and triclocarban, in consumer wash products, are not proven to be “safe and effective”, an NGO has claimed.
The biocidal substances chloroxylenol, benzalkonium and benzethonium chlorides are commonly being used in antibacterial washes, following last month's US FDA ban on 19 major active ingredients.
But the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has raised concerns that the administration does not have enough evidence to prove they are safe substitutes.
NRDC staff scientist, Kristi Pullen Fedinick, said that people should “not be the testing ground for unproven chemicals”.
She added: “Chemicals with data gaps in safety and efficacy should not end up in the homes of unsuspecting consumers.”
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) spokesman, Brian Sansoni, refuted NRDC's claims. He said industry had given evidence to the FDA to support the use of the three active ingredients and would continue to submit further studies.
He told Chemical Watch: "We believe these are safe and effective ingredients and we hope the FDA will take a hard look at the data that will continue to be submitted."
The FDA has deferred ruling on the three substances for one year, to allow for the "development and submission of new safety and effectiveness data for these ingredients".
In line with this, the ACI has put together a work plan to generate safety and efficacy studies.
In Europe, benzalkonium and benzethonium chlorides are due to be assessed under the biocidal product Regulation's (BPR) review programme. The classification and labelling (CLP) legislation lists them as very toxic to aquatic life and causing severe skin burns and eye damage.
Chloroxylenol is classified as a skin and eye irritant, and an allergen under the CLP law.
Henkel and Procter & Gamble are among companies, which have chosen to use the three active ingredients in consumer products.
Director of corporate communications for Henkel, Natalie Violi, said all of the company's Dial-branded consumer antibacterial liquid and foam soaps had transitioned from triclosan to benzethonium chloride earlier this year.
Dial bar soaps will move to benzalkonium chloride in April, in time to meet the FDA deadline to phase out the banned substances by September 2017.
Ms Violi said: “We would be unable to speculate what would happen with substitutions.”
A spokesperson for P&G told Chemical Watch it used chloroxylenol in some antibacterial products. They said triclosan had been eliminated from all of its products “a few years ago”, and triclocarban was only used in “a few remaining products that will be replaced well in advance of the FDA deadline”.
Tricolsan and triclocarban were among 19 antibacterial active ingredients the FDA classified as not Generally Recognised as Safe and Effective (GRAS/GRAE) for use in consumer antiseptic wash drug products. The ban includes liquid, foam and gel hand soaps, bar soaps and body washes.
The ruling does not apply to consumer hand sanitisers, hand wipes, antiseptic products used in healthcare and in food handler settings.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50272/companies-replace-triclosan-with-unproven-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) Growing U.S. Industrial Natural Gas Demand
Oct 16, 2016 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
Power generation, LNG exports globally and pipeline exports to Mexico and Eastern Canada, and new industrial demand are the three rapidly growing baseload natural gas demand markets. Let me start off on an important tangent: You should know that these expanding markets effectively ensure that U.S. gas production will deliver. Because again, we already know that the gas resource and proven reserves are there (here).
The industrial sector is second after power generation and accounts for 28% of U.S. gas demand, compared to nearly 40% two decades ago. Many feel U.S. industrial gas demand might have peaked at 23.3 Bcf/day back in 1997, but I’m not so sure. Industry still builds the cement, asphalt, and steel that build our cities, where a rising 82% of all Americans live.
Industry also makes the appliances, vehicles, electronics, and even the agricultural products that we rely on every day. The industrial sector uses natural gas as a fuel and/or feedstock to meet numerous energy requirements, making chemicals, plastics, and other key products. Ethane is a key component of natural gas and used as the primary building block of most plastics.
In fact, a rapidly expanding middle class is creating massive global demand for plastics and other chemicals that will increase by more than 4% a year, double the demand growth rate for energy. The chemical sector will account for over half of all U.S. manufacturing spending this year, increasing production of ethylene and polyethylene – the world’s most common plastic. Manufacturing accounts for nearly 85% of total industrial gas demand, with the rest consumed primarily in the agriculture, construction, and mining sectors.
U.S. non-export natural gas demand should continually increase by 1-2% per year, or 6 Bcf/day every five years, particularly as environmental laws are enacted that favor gas and renewables. Not including exports, EIA has “industrial and electric power sectors make up 49% and 34% of this growth, respectively.”
Heating has industrial gas demand about 15-20% higher in winter than in summer. The market could be short this coming winter if projections are correct and it’s 12% colder than last year, possibly pushing total U.S. gas demand to a record 92.3 Bcf/d (here).
Indeed, after the warmest on record in the contiguous U.S., we are now seeing: “for 21 consecutive weeks natural gas inventories have risen by less than what we would expect in a normal summer and fall.”. From just a few days ago: “Natural Gas Price Jumps 3% on Storage Report.”
More normal winter weather (i.e., colder) could boost gas prices by 10-15%. But, U.S. industrial gas demand doesn’t appear to be as sensitive to prices as much as other sectors. Drastic decreases in gas prices over the past few years have not meant significantly higher industrial demand.
Overall, the connection between colder weather and more industrial gas use is changing because much of our manufacturing base is shifting from the colder midwest down to the warmer Gulf Coast. Not long ago, I did an analysis that indicated the Midwest region accounts for some 60-70% of manufacturing output.
Industrial Gas Demand Not Real Sensitive To Price Changes
Yet, U.S. Henry Hub natural gas prices have been persistently low and now expected to rise past $5.12 per Million Btu for as far as EIA projections are going. From 2011-2015, prices have averaged $3.49, compared to $7.70 from 2006-2010. U.S. manufacturing has thus seen a considerable uptick in recent years.
Manufacturing jobs account for about 9% of the U.S. workforce and 13% of U.S. GDP. This is an incredibly important sector because manufacturing has such a high “multiplier effect,” where 1 new manufacturing job creates 4-5 jobs across the broader economy. Low natural gas prices clearly give us a competitive advantage globally, which will mean even more industrial gas demand moving forward.“The surge in American natural gas production has lowered energy costs for manufacturers and driven job growth, with U.S. natural gas costs one-half that of Europe and one-third that Asia,” The White House, October 2016
The bulk of the plastics production in the years ahead will come along the Gulf Coast, where easy access to cheap natural gas is installing a petrochemical boom. Nearly 45% of the nation’s base chemicals are now produced in the Houston area, still the second fastest-growing city in terms of total residents added despite the collapse in oil prices (here). The American Chemistry Council reports that 275 petrochemical projects with a combined cost of $170 billion are in construction or planned across the U.S. over the next seven years, with some $55 billion in Texas alone.
In Pennsylvania, likely our most critical incremental natural gas producing state, Shell’s new $6 billion “cracker” plant will start construction next year. About 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh (home of the 2016 Stanley Cup champions, Pittsburgh Penguins!), this facility will break gas down into smaller molecules to create ethylene and polyethylene for plastics manufacturing and source from the Appalachian Basin, the lowest-cost shale gas basin in North America.
The location is ideal because nearly 75% of North American polyethylene customers, for instance, are within a 700-mile radius of Pittsburgh. This will be the first cracker in the shale hub of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania and the first major cracker to be built outside the Gulf Coast in the last 20 years.
Uptick in Manufacturing Jobs, Uptick in Industrial Gas Demand
Looking forward, not even rising gas prices are expected to slow down the rise in U.S. industrial gas demand. It’s been debated whether or not the U.S. is experiencing a “manufacturing renaissance,” but it appears the optimists are right. Since 2012 alone, the U.S. Manufacturing PMI, where above 50 indicates expansion in the sector, has averaged about 54, reaching as high as 58 ( here).
Natural gas is the dominant fuel source for industrial boilers for heat and steam. And even as the industrial sector expands, there are key opportunities to reduce GHG emission intensities and meet our environmental goals, namely by capturing the “critical and low-hanging fruit” of increased efficiency.
Industrial boilers typically have a very low turnover rate, and older units are less efficient than newer ones. For example, the pre-1985 fleet of boilers has an efficiency rate of 65-70%, while new boilers have rates of 77-82% and the new, super–high-efficiency units can reach efficiency rates of up to 95%.
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (here) reports that replacing older natural gas boilers with newer ones would decrease CO2 emissions by 4,500 to 9,000 tons or more per year per boiler. And there are obvious economic incentives to make these replacements, with annualized monetary savings of 20% and a payback period of 1.8 to 3.6 years for the new equipment.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/10/16/growing-u-s-industrial-natural-gas-demand/2/#5e19ef4b594d
-
U.S. Shale Plays See Slowest Production Decline in Over a Year, EIA Says
Oct 18, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
The steep slide in oil production across major U.S. shale plays is moderating as drillers send more machines back into the oil patch, the Energy Information Administration says.
In a report this week, the EIA said it expects seven plays in Texas, North Dakota and elsewhere to put out 30,000 fewer barrels each day in November, bringing combined output in those regions to 4.43 million barrels a day.
That’s the gentlest decline since the oil production numbers began falling in May 2015. And it’s well below the average drop of 110,000 barrels a day from December to August.
Drillers have redeployed 116 oil rigs into domestic fields since May, as crude prices have risen, and the activity may accelerate after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries reached a proposed agreement to cap output last month in Algiers.
At the OPEC meeting, the Saudi-led cartel signaled it would resume its role trying to manage global oil supply, a strategy change that marks a clear turning point for oil markets after Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies spent two years waiting for low energy prices to naturally curb high-cost oil production in the United States and elsewhere.
Michael Wittner, an oil market analyst at Société Générale said that reversal is likely more important than whether an OPEC deal to freeze actually materializes by the end of November, OPEC’s self-imposed deadline for ironing out the details of the agreement.
“They’ve gone beyond talking up the market,” Wittner said. “They’re trying hard to make a deal. It’s a very big signal to the market.”
“If you’re a producer or a service company, you want it to happen,” he said.
Société Générale believes domestic crude production, including from fields outside of the shale plays, will hit bottom in the second quarter of next year.
Several firms have said they’d increase oil field spending and boost drilling activity if crude rose to between $50 and $60 a barrel. British bank Barclays noted some U.S. oil explorers could see “double digit” growth in oil production without taking on new lines of credit if domestic crude prices stayed above $50 a barrel.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/10/18/u-s-shale-plays-see-slowest-production-decline-in-over-a-year-eia-says/
-
EPA Proposes To Revise Refinery MACT Flaring, Monitoring Requirements
Oct 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to revise parts of its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for oil refineries, including work practice standards for flares and pressure relief devices and allowing plants to relax fence-line air monitoring requirements, in response to calls by industry and environmentalists to reconsider the rule.
In an Oct. 18 Federal Register notice, EPA says it will take comment for 45 days on the planned revisions to its rule from late last year that updated a suite of emissions control requirements for various pieces of equipment at refineries. That rule revised two related air toxics rules known as MACT 1 and MACT 2 and also new source performance standards (NSPS) governing operation of flares, used to dispose of waste gases and destroy air toxics.
The rule set new, tougher requirements to ensure more efficient combustion of toxics in flares, and also updated provisions to reduce emissions from pressure relief valves -- although the final version climbed down from a ban on pressure relief device (PRD) releases that would have required construction of many more flares and more consumption of gas. Instead, EPA opted for non-numeric work practice standards to ensure proper operation of PRDs.
The rule further introduced a long-sought fenceline monitoring requirement for refineries to track emissions and inform local communities of pollution levels, using benzene as an indicator of other air toxics. However, the final version also provided a means for refineries to reduce their monitoring obligations if air pollution levels stay low, prompting pushback from environmentalists opposed to any relaxation of monitoring.
EPA in the Register notice proposes to reconsider five specific aspects of the MACT and NSPS rules, in response to petitions for reconsideration filed by environmentalists and industry.
Meanwhile, litigation brought by industry and environmentalists against the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), et al. v. EPA is in abeyance pending the final outcome of the reconsideration process.
Environmental law firm Earthjustice petitioned the agency for reconsideration of issues it says were not properly raised in the proposed version of EPA's refinery MACT rule, rendering the group unable to comment on them. These were work practice standards for PRDs and flares; alternative water overflow for delayed coking units; reduced monitoring provisions for fenceline monitoring; and adjustments to EPA's risk assessment for the sector to account for these new work practice standards. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and AFPM, representing the refining sector, meanwhile, petitioned EPA for reconsideration of some of the same issues.
Proposed Reconsideration
EPA says it granted reconsideration of these questions on June 16. In its Federal Register notice, EPA formally solicits public comment on the issues. For example, on the work practice standards for PRDs, EPA asks for input on the number and type of devices subject to the standards, and those exempted, and also the definition of a “force majeure event” that would qualify a release for regulatory exemption. EPA further asks for comments on the recordkeeping and reporting measures associated with the work practice standard.
EPA asks for comment on its work practice standard applicable for flares when operating in excess of their “smokeless capacity,” or beyond the point at which they can operate without generating smoke, including recordkeeping and reporting measures.
Also, the agency requests comment on its finding in the final refinery MACT rule that the health risks presented by the refinery sector are essentially the same under the work practice standards as they would have been under the more-stringent proposed version. EPA found the risks under both the proposed and final versions to be “acceptable.”
Additionally, EPA seeks input on its provision of a compliance alternative for certain types of decoking units for which proposed pressure monitoring would not be required, because of other steps taken to contain any leaking contents.
Finally, EPA asks for comment on its inclusion in the final rule of measures that allow refineries to step down their fenceline monitoring obligations. EPA included in its MACT requirements for plants to set up air quality monitoring for unplanned “fugitive” air toxics emissions, with mandates for plants to investigate and mitigate releases that resulted in violations of a threshold level of 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter of benzene.
“In the final rule, we included provisions that were not proposed that would allow for reduced monitoring frequency (after 2 years of continual monitoring) at monitoring locations with consistently low fenceline concentrations,” EPA says in the proposed reconsideration rule, requesting comment on the measure.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposes-revise-refinery-mact-flaring-monitoring-requirements
-
If Clinton Wins, Advocates Plan To Seek Pledge On Tougher ESPS Targets
Oct 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A top environmentalist says that if Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wins the White House next month, advocates will urge her to make an early pledge to strengthen the targets under EPA's greenhouse gas regulation for existing power plants, a sign groups are likely to ramp up their calls on this point in the coming weeks.
Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, said during an Oct. 17 event hosted by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) that within the “first 100 days or so” of a potential Clinton administration, he hopes there “will be a re-commitment to more ambitious targets and timetables” under the existing source performance standards (ESPS), also known as the Clean Power Plan.
“We need that,” he added. Such a move would offer a “clearer statement about where we're going to be in 2050, 2030 and perhaps 2020.”
He said that the rule's limits could prove “remarkably easy” in the coming years, but that they are nonetheless necessary as “signals” to industry about “the direction . . . as to where the nation is going.”
Holstein and other speakers at the event acknowledged that the outcome of pending litigation over the ESPSremains uncertain, though they generally agreed that at least part of the rule would withstand court scrutiny.
“If it is upheld, one of the issues that will be on the table will be making a plan as to when the Clean Power Plan targets may in fact be tightened,” Holstein said.
Discussion about stronger ESPS targets could be a reflection of supporters' optimism about the litigation following Sept. 27 oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Following the arguments, a wide range of analysts -- including some who side with rule challengers -- believe EPA has the edge in the litigation.
Contrary to that view, however, some industry attorneys are continuing to express optimism that their side will prevail.
Clinton -- who has enjoyed several weeks of positive poll numbers as GOP rival Donald Trump has made several highly controversial statements -- has pledged to defend the ESPS if she wins the Nov. 8 election.
One prominent climate consultant has suggested that a Clinton administration may find its most promising regulatory option for achieving domestic emissions commitments under the Paris climate deal is another round of GHG rules targeting the power sector, given smaller potential cuts available from other source categories -- though such an approach would depend on EPA's current rules surviving judicial review.
“You better be prepared for Clean Power Plan 2.0,” David Bookbinder of Element VI Consulting told a forum hosted by the United States Energy Association in Washington, D.C., earlier this year.
Judicial Review
Many observers also believe that a Clinton nominee to replace former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would be inclined to support the rule, a critical dynamic if and when the high court reviews the D.C. Circuit's ruling.
Holstein's remarks come as even some Republican opponents of the ESPS are predicting that the D.C. Circuit or the high court will not entirely scrap the rule.
“I think industry and the court want to move to a carbon-constrained future,” Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) recently told the Bismarck Tribune, adding that he believes the D.C. Circuit is likely to remand the ESPS to EPA for revision. Such a step would fall well short of vacatur, the remedy opponents are seeking.
Also during the CNAS event, former Bush administration National Security Council official Robert McNally said that if Clinton is president, the Supreme Court is likely to provide a “backstop” against litigation over the ESPS, meaning it “will be cemented in” as a national policy.
And Kevin Book of the consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners said that tightening the ESPS -- or other current rules -- is one key way in which a Clinton administration could close the “gap” between current climate policies and the Obama administration's GHG target under the Paris Agreement.
While Holstein offered a direct call for a Clinton EPA to pledge to issue tougher ESPS limits, other advocates have been laying the groundwork for such a move over the past several weeks.
For example, the Center for Climate & Energy Solutions (C2ES) in a Sept. 14 report found that market trends toward lower-carbon generation are easing compliance efforts, though they are not entirely negating the need for the regulation.
During a press call, C2ES President Bob Perciasepe acknowledged that the trends will likely spur calls for EPA to eventually strengthen the rule's targets. “Trends are all in a positive direction from an emissions mitigation perspective,” he said. “Over time, I think people would want to see that taken into account. How soon I think is an important question. Most people would like to see this play out and see what the courts say about it.”
Similarly, EPA's air chief Janet McCabe said that the agency is hearing “far and wide” that the rule's targets “may not be difficult to meet” because of the market trends. In response to a question on that issue, she acknowledged that the dynamic could lead to a future administration issuing tighter targets.
However, McCabe stopped well short of committing the agency to a stronger rule. Instead she couched her remarks as one potential outcome consistent with decades of history under the Clean Air Act that would be up to the next administration
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/if-clinton-wins-advocates-plan-seek-pledge-tougher-esps-targets
-
Hacked Emails Show Fossil Fuels Not High Priority to Clinton, Said Protesters Should 'Get a Life'
Oct 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton privately told union members last year that anti-fossil fuel protesters should "get a life," and that the issue of fossil fuel extraction wasn't high on her list of priorities, according to illegally hacked emails released by the group WikiLeaks.
The hacked emails also show the Clinton campaign grappled with the issue of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) earlier this year, during a key battle in Colorado with Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) for the Democratic Party's nomination.
'I want to defend natural gas'
According to WikiLeaks, Clinton campaign aide Varun Anand sent a partial transcript of Clinton's comments during a question and answer (Q&A) session that immediately followed a private meeting with the Building Trades Union on Sept. 9, 2015. The meeting was held about three weeks before she formally announced her opposition to the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline (see Shale Daily, Sept. 24, 2015).
"I have not said anything about Keystone because I wanted to give the president [and Secretary of State John Kerry] a chance to make their decision," Clinton said. "But I can't wait any longer. And you know from my perspective, this is just one of these issues...it's symbolic and it's not going to go away. They're all hanging on to it.
"So you know Bernie Sanders is getting lots of support from the most radical environmentalists because he's out there every day bashing the Keystone pipeline. And, you know, I'm not into it for that...My view is I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipelines we need to fuel our economy. I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances...I want to defend this stuff.
"And you know, I'm already at odds with the most organized and wildest [protesters]. They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?' No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know. So I want to get the right balance and that's what I'm [inaudible] about-- getting all the stakeholders together. Everybody's not going to get everything they want, that's not the way it's supposed to work in a democracy, but everybody needs to listen to each other..."
Moments later, she added "Idon't support the Keystone pipeline because I don't think we need to do that...I'm being hammered because I won't take a position. And I thought I was doing the right thing by not taking a position. I'll try to figure out the right wording...
"I want to be a champion for your members. Obviously I would love to have your endorsements...Whether you endorse me or not, I'm going to be your advocate and your partner. And I'm going to do what I tell you I will do. But I also don't want to mislead people and let them think that I'm going to support something when I can't. Because I don't think it's productive to support it, given all the other stuff."
It was unclear where the meeting took place, or whether it was hosted by North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU), which endorsed Clinton last December. NABTU spokesman Tom Owens told NGI on Monday that the organization is "not commenting on emails that were illegally hacked and released."
Later in the Q&A, Clinton said that despite protesters disrupting her town hall meetings, she didn't care if opponents of fossil fuel extraction supported another candidate for president; the issue of fossil fuels wasn't high on her list of priorities. She also hinted that she would not oppose exploration and production from public lands.
She said the protesters "hold up posters, they scream at me, and all the rest of that: 'Stop extracting fossil fuels, stop extracting on public lands, come out against nuclear, coal' you name it. They are after everything and I'm just talking through them. And of course they go support somebody else. That's fine and I don't particularly care. But I do think I have to say, look, given everything else we have to do in this country, this is not an issue for me that I'm going to say I support. I want to work on other stuff."
Clinton staffer: No Democrat wants complete fracking ban
The hacked emails allegedly provide a behind-the-scenes look into how the Clinton campaign responded to an ad posted by the rival Sanders campaign in Colorado earlier this year. In the ad, Sanders said he opposed fracking and Keystone XL.
On Feb. 23, Bradley Komar, who runs Clinton's campaign in Colorado, sent an email to Trevor Houser, an energy policy adviser to Clinton, and other campaign staffers to discuss an official response to Sanders' anti-fracking ad.
"I would prefer an ally...[who has] strong bona fides on the environment to whack [Sanders] for taking an irresponsible position and in doing so, threatening real progress on frack fluid disclosure and air quality regulations," Komar wrote, suggesting Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) and possibly the League of Conservation Voters as the "ally." He added, "This is yet another promise he can't keep."
"I think we will be forced to weigh in by [Sanders] and of course we have to state our position: it's a transitional energy -- and we need to go green. But that is a very soft response that sounds better if Bernie is being hit by the left. I would watch our tone and not sound too pro-fracking. A reluctant tone is a better fit for [Democratic] caucus goers (it's a transition energy. It's not great but it allows us to get to where we want to be)."
In a follow-up email, Houser said that after a private conversation with Komar, "We think the following posture makes sense: 'Bernie's call for banning all [fracking] is, extreme, unfeasible and ignores the contribution natural gas has made to our economy and our efforts to reduce carbon pollution. What we need to focus on is putting in place common sense safeguards to protect our air and water, like mandatory disclosure of fracking chemicals, closing the Halliburton loophole, regulations to reduce methane emissions from both new and existing sources.
‘Hillary has called for all of these things to make sure that those communities that choose to pursue natural gas development do so safely and responsibly. And she will stand by those communities that decide they don't want natural gas production to occur.'"
Houser added, "We are seeing if some progressive allies can hit Bernie for being too extreme on this."
Zeroing in on Sanders' claim that he is "the only candidate to oppose fracking," Komar asked Clinton campaign staffers "What does that mean? A complete 100% fracking ban. There is no elected [Dem] and I believe no enviro group that takes this position. In fact, such an extreme position threatens the progress of common-sense safety measures like frack fluid disclosure and methane capture/air quality regulations.
"The Denver Post editorial board could really smack him for this. This is tricky waters for caucus goers but his language may leave him vulnerable. Jared Polis is a regarded as a leader of the regulating fracking team in [Colorado] and his argument is reforms, not a ban."
Komar conceded that the subject of fracking is "still really tough for us to talk about."
Sanders went on to win the Democratic caucus in Colorado by a 59-40% margin on March 1, but he ultimately lost the nomination battle to Clinton.
Industry reaction
Responding to the hacked email controversy, the American Petroleum Institute (API) struck a cautious tone.
"Our focus right now is to make sure all candidates understand that the United States is leading the world in oil and gas production and reducing carbon emissions which are near 20-year lows," API spokesman Michael Tadeo told NGI on Monday. "The oil and natural gas industry also contributes billions in revenue to the government, and is strengthening the economy and national security.
"Domestic oil and natural gas development has been profoundly beneficial for the U.S. economy, American consumers, and the environment. Safe [fracking] is at the heart of that effort and has completely changed the U.S. energy narrative -- from one of scarcity and limitations to one of abundance and empowerment."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108137-hacked-emails-show-fossil-fuels-not-high-priority-to-clinton-said-protesters-should-get-a-life
-
(ACC Mentioned) Waste Plant Worker Averts Chlorine Disaster
Oct 18, 2016 | Water Online
By Sara Jerome
Quick thinking by a wastewater treatment worker averted disaster in an Illinois city last week.
The city of Pekin experienced a public health threat after chlorine leaked from a one-ton tank at the local wastewater treatment plant.
The police closed off at least one street and evacuated the area around the plant, according tothe Pekin Daily Times. The evacuation and the street closure wrapped after the city’s hazmat team, a part of the fire department, sealed the leak, the report said.
Fire Chief Kurt Nelson said he could smell the leak from a quarter-mile away. He added that there were no injuries.
A wastewater treatment plant worker noticed the chlorine leak and immediately took action. The worker shut off the main valve supplying chlorine to the tank, the report said, citing Nelson. That action slowed the leak while it was still being sealed.
“The leak began when a regulator came loose on the tank, one of four inside a ventilated building. Firefighters were called and evacuated the few workers present at the facility to its windward side and out of danger,” the report said.
A nearby business and home were both evacuated, the report said. The report pointed out the dangers of chlorine:
Chlorine, used to treat wastewater at the plant, becomes a respiratory irritant in its gaseous form "that doesn't take much to cause a real problem" and can cause death, Nelson said.
Federal guidelines on chlorine safety are available here.
Chlorine is sometimes criticized for posing safety hazards, but many water-industry professionals defend its use.
The Water Quality and Health Council, sponsored by the American Chemistry Council, points out that disinfection revolutionized drinking water treatment. The group notes that chlorine is a potent germicide, and treats taste, odor, biological growth, and chemicals.
The group pointed to the decline in the death rate “due to typhoid fever following the introduction of chlorine to U.S. municipal drinking water systems in 1908. As more cities adopted water chlorination, U.S. death rates due to cholera and hepatitis A also declined dramatically.”
“Worldwide, significant strides in public health and the quality of life are directly linked to the adoption of drinking water chlorination. Recognizing this success, Life magazine (1997) declared, ‘The filtration of drinking water plus the use of chlorine is probably the most significant public health advancement of the millennium,’” it continued.
For similar stories visit Water Online’s Resiliency Solutions Center.
http://www.wateronline.com/doc/waste-plant-worker-averts-chlorine-disaster-0001
-
EPA Sends Accident-Response Rule to White House
Oct 18, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
After taking heat from both industry groups and safety advocates, U.S. EPA has sent its final draft of accident prevention and response regulations to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
The agency had rolled out the initial proposal in February, with the latest version going to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Friday, according to the website RegInfo.gov. EPA officials hope to publicly release the final regulations by December.
As originally outlined, the plan would require thousands of chemical plants, refineries and other large industries to keep the public better informed of potential hazards and step up efforts to prevent serious accidents.
The rulemaking comes in the wake of a 2013 executive order issued after an ammonium nitrate explosion at a fertilizer storage and distribution facility in West, Texas, killed 15 people.
Among other mandates, EPA wants to require some plants to furnish local emergency planning officials with information on compliance audits and investigation reports (E&ENews PM, March 11).
Any plant that suffers a catastrophic accident would have to undertake a "root cause analysis" as part of the ensuing investigation; businesses that experience a reportable release of a regulated substance would have to undergo a third-party compliance audit.
Some 12,500 facilities that have filed risk management plans with EPA could fall under the regulations' umbrella. Even before releasing its initial draft, EPA was facing industry criticism that continued to show up in the public comments.
For industries, a major objection centered around the third-party audit requirement. Currently, regulated facilities can do "self-audits." But requiring third-party reviews could stymie "the kinds of internal checks and balances that are necessary for effective corporate environmental compliance assurance programs," John Flatley, executive director of the Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council, wrote in comments this past May.
If EPA sticks with the audit requirement, it should shield third-party safety and environmental management systems (SEMS) reports and reviews from public release via exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, said David McBride, vice president for global health, safety and environment at Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in a separate filing. So doing would protect confidential commercial information, McBride said, while "encouraging more meaningful disclosures and discussion between a subject facility and EPA."
But Paul Orum, a consultant who previously headed a community right-to-know advocacy group, said the proposal exempted water treatment plants, electric power generating stations and other facilities that collectively present risks to millions of people living around them. The draft also creates "needless information bottlenecks" affecting first responders, the public and others, Orum wrote.
"EPA cannot succeed in its mission without the informed interactions of many parties," he added, "and should facilitate rather than artificially impede those interactions."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/18/stories/1060044459
-
BLM Responds to a Lethal Trend in the Oil Field
Oct 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Bureau of Land Management officials didn't set out three years ago to make the oil field safer.
They'd taken a beating for years from the U.S. Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs who said their system for measuring oil and gas extracted from public land was shortchanging the taxpayers.
So BLM set out to revise that system, embodied in a series of "onshore orders" that hadn't been changed in more than two decades.
But as they worked, a lethal trend was emerging in the oil field. Men were dying on top of tanks while measuring oil. Federal officials say at least 10 deaths may have occurred when they opened oil tank hatches and were hit with blasts of toxic gases.
Yesterday, BLM announced one of the few regulatory efforts aimed at preventing such deaths (Greenwire, Oct. 17). As a small part of its revision to the measurement rules, the agency specifically authorized "automatic tank gauging," so that fewer workers will need to climb atop tanks to measure oil by hand.
Manual gauging will still be allowed, but the rules remove a de facto preference for the practice of opening hatches and lowering instruments into the crude on federal leases. The changes don't apply to private land, but many companies have leases on both federal and private land, so companies might have more incentive to move to automated systems.
Oil and gas trade groups yesterday were hostile to the overall revisions but praised the new flexibility on tank gauging.
"This change gives operators the opportunity to deploy a technology more broadly that protects workers," said American Petroleum Institute (API) Upstream and Industry Operations Director Erik Milito.
The rules authorize use of tank gauging for measuring oil and for preparing end-of-month inventories. They also incorporate a recently published API standard on alternative methods of tank measurement (EnergyWire, July 11).
Trade groups such as API and the Independent Petroleum Association of America said they were still reviewing the revisions to "Onshore Orders 3, 4 and 5." But they said they were concerned the rules would be overly burdensome.
The revisions of the orders are intended to ensure the accurate measurement, proper reporting and accurate recordkeeping of oil and gas produced from federal and American Indian leases in order to ensure that the royalties due are paid.
The rules won't be official until they are published in the Federal Register in a few weeks. They go into effect 60 days after publication. Officials don't expect that to happen until next year.
The more than 63,000 wells on federal lands account for 11 percent of the country's natural gas supply and 5 percent of its oil.
BLM estimates the changes will cost the industry $60 million in one-time costs, spread across the first three years, and about $27 million annually.
Quest for accuracy yields safety changes
Oil measurements determine how much royalties companies pay to the federal government. Federal minerals are one of the largest sources of non-tax revenue the government receives.
In 2010, GAO found BLM's regulations "do not provide reasonable assurance that oil and gas are accurately measured" and "do not address current measurement technologies." That's one of the reasons GAO included the government's management of oil and gas on its 2015 high-risk report.
That's what officials were trying to address. But at least one industry safety group pressed BLM to take safety into account. And as they learned more, BLM officials realized that their own inspectors could also be jeopardized by the toxic vapors.
All crude oil has compounds called volatile hydrocarbons such as benzene, butane and propane. Shale crude, such as the oil produced in North Dakota's Bakken play and Colorado's Niobrara, sometimes has more of these compounds than conventional oil. It's related to why shale crude is more prone to explode in rail cars.
The vapors can disorient people to the point that they're unable to escape the lethal effect of the vapors. And at high concentrations, the hydrocarbons can push oxygen out of the air to the point that they asphyxiate victims, even outdoors (EnergyWire, Sept. 14, 2015).
Beyond the threat of immediate death, testing by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has shown that tank gaugers can be exposed to unsafe levels of benzene, a carcinogen, and other petrochemicals (EnergyWire, Sept. 18, 2014).
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and others have issued safety alerts warning companies and their workers about the hazard. NIOSH repeatedly has recommended that crude should be measured without workers opening hatches and looking in. Critics questioned why that was still common in the smartphone era.
But BLM rules have discouraged automatic tank gauging. The current onshore orders require manual tank gauging unless operators employ a fairly expensive unit called a LACT (lease automatic custody transfer) or seek a variance to use another device.
Looking for more information
When the draft rules came out about a year ago, they did not authorize automatic tank gauging. They allowed one new kind of automatic measurement, called the Coriolis measurement. And they proposed a national "production measurement team" that could authorize new technologies, replacing a local, case-by-case variance system.
BLM officials said they had considered including automatic tank gauging, but they didn't have enough information to give it a formal thumbs-up. Instead, they asked industry to provide information about whether automated tank gauging can be accurate to meet the agency's needs.
"The BLM is specifically asking the public to comment on this issue and provide test and field data," the agency wrote in its environmental assessment of the proposed rule.
The results of that data request haven't been released. But formal comments indicated that ConocoPhillips Co. and other producers submitted positive results about a measurement technology called "guided wave radar."
And worker safety advocates pushed BLM to adopt the automated methods. NIOSH made comments in November 2015 pressing the point.
"Including automatic tank gauging can effectively remove the worker from hazards that NIOSH has conclusively identified," NIOSH wrote.
Two labor groups followed suit. And industry groups included statements of support for automated methods in their detailed comments on numerous aspects of the rules.
API released a new standard for alternative methods of tank gauging in July. That dovetails with the BLM move in the final rule away from detailed procedures and toward use of industry standards.
The final rule released yesterday represents one of the few regulatory moves on tank gauging. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and others have issued hazard alerts, but no requirements have been proposed. There are also state rules encouraging manual tank gauging, industry practice and plain habit. Some companies have long told their employees who measure crude to simply stand upwind after opening hatches.
But Dr. Robert Harrison, an occupational medicine specialist at the UC San Francisco Medical Center who has been researching inhalation hazards at oil sites, called the BLM move "a great step" for worker safety in the oil field.
"These new rules will go a long way toward protecting oil-field workers from inhaling toxic vapors," Harrison said. "Automatic tank gauging will decrease the risk of poisoning and sudden death."
Click here to view Onshore Order 3 (site security).
Click here to view Onshore Order 4 (oil measurement).
Click here to view Onshore Order 5 (gas measurement).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/18/stories/1060044423
-
It Could Be the Nation’s First Carbon Tax. And Environmentalists Are Fighting over It
Oct 17, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
A new initiative slated for the ballot in Washington state next month would create the first-ever carbon tax to be implemented in the United States. But while the initiative promises to fight climate change by making it more expensive to emit greenhouse gases, it’s caused an unexpected controversy among environmentalists.
Despite the endorsement of dozens of climate scientists and economists, many environmental groups have refused to support it at all, citing concerns about the proposal’s revenue projections, its approach to the involvement of disadvantaged communities, and a lack of true investment in clean energy.
Initiative 732 began as a grassroots campaign known as Carbon Washington, founded by environmental economist and stand-up comedian Yoram Bauman. If successful, it would become one of just a few ever to be implemented in North America and the first in the United States.
The idea of a carbon tax is to place a tax on the carbon that people or industries emit or on the fossil fuels they purchase, thus providing an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I-732 proposes a starting fee of $15 per ton of carbon, increasing to $25 in the second year, and then gradually growing over the next few decades to a maximum of $100 per ton.
The scheme is designed to be “revenue-neutral,” meaning it won’t produce any additional income for the state. Instead, the proposal calls for a reduction in other taxes, including the state sales tax, which many activists consider one of the most regressive taxes in the nation. Because Washington has no income tax, the sales tax currently provides a major portion of the state’s revenue, thereby forcing lower income households to pay a greater percentage of their total income in taxes.
“Our approach has been to directly put money back into the pockets of low-income people,” Bauman told The Washington Post.
While support from individual politicians has come largely from Democrats in the legislature, the initiative has garnered endorsements from a few key Republican state senators as well. It’s also gained substantial support from the scientific community. Last week, more than 50 climate scientists from the University of Washington published an open letter expressing their support for Initiative 732.
Environmentalists versus environmentalists
Nonetheless, the proposal has caused an unexpected controversy among local social and environmental groups. Many have expressed concerns about the initiative’s revenue projections, which they fear may actually end up costing the state money. Washington’s State Department of Revenue has estimated the proposal could reduce state income by about nearly $800 million in its first six years. The initiative’s organizers, on the other hand, predict a slightly revenue-positive effect.
An independent analysis by the Sightline Institute, a Northwest think tank focusing on environmental health and social justice issues, suggested the proposal would result in an annual shortfall of about $80 million, but it has also cautioned that this number comes to less than half a percent of the state’s overall tax revenue. Taking this into consideration, and keeping in mind the uncertainties associated with budget forecasting, the institute concluded that “I-732 is revenue neutral, to the best of anyone’s ability to forecast it” and added that “as an argument against I-732, therefore, the ‘revenue hole’ case is a red herring.”
Yet the issue remains a concern for some.
“Despite the initiative’s intent to be revenue neutral, the state Office of Financial Management has analyzed the policy and found that enacting it would create a $797 million hole over the next three biennia in the already insufficient state budget,” the Washington Environmental Council said in a statement affirming its decision not to support Initative 732.
The state chapter of the Sierra Club acknowledged the Sightline Institute’s projections, but has still decided not to support I-732, noting in a statement, “At a time when our state needs additional revenue to fund education, parks, environmental programs, and social services, we are concerned about any projected revenue cuts.”
Some groups have also expressed dissatisfaction with what they see as the initiative’s failure to adequately consult with disadvantaged communities about how the measure might best serve their needs. Bauman insists the proposal is designed to benefit disadvantaged communities by reforming a regressive state tax system and putting money directly back into the pockets of low-income communities.
“We think we have an incredibly strong case to be made that our policy is not only great climate policy, but great tax policy and great social justice policy,” he said.
Finally, one of the biggest complaints revolves around claims that the revenue-neutral proposal, by its very nature, doesn’t specifically funnel revenue back into investments in clean energy and other climate friendly policies. Because a carbon tax, by definition, uses the market to drive change, some groups have argued that its success at reducing fossil fuel consumption is uncertain unless it’s combined with additional green investment strategies. But the revenue couldn’t be used to offset other taxes if it was instead going to be spent on energy investments.
Carbon tax advocates fight back
Bauman, for his part, pointed out that a few environmental groups who have declined to support I-732 are currently involved in an agreement with the TransAlta Corp., which operates a coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Wash. The agreement, signed in 2012 and in force through 2025, calls for the plant to eventually transition away from coal burning and, during that process, for all participants to “accept and not oppose the sale of coal transition power from the facility to potential buyers.” Signers included Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council, Climate Solutions and the NW Energy Coalition.
Sierra Club’s senior campaign representative in Washington, Doug Howell, has said in a statement that “there is absolutely no connection between the historic Transalta transition agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding, which put Washington state’s only coal-fired power plant on a legally enforceable retirement schedule, and our stance on I-732. We took a ‘Do Not Support’ position because I-732 does not guarantee investments in clean energy, climate resiliency and green jobs creation are made — particularly in communities most vulnerable to climate change.”
Initiative 732 has still maintained the support of other environmental groups, notably the National Audubon Society’s Washington office. According to Gail Gatton, executive director of Audubon Washington, surveys suggested tabout 70 percent of the state’s membership supported the initiative.
“The message that we heard over and over from people was one of urgency,” she said. “People felt like they did not have time to wait for another solution. This is the only initiative on our ballot. It does what we need it to do, which is reduce the carbon emissions that are causing climate change. …I think for Audubon, climate policy isn’t really about money. It really is about what will reduce the carbon emissions.”
Other reports have also suggested that the Sierra Club’s official “Do Not Support” stance was contested by its Washington membership.
Advocates remain upbeat
For now, the future of the initiative remains uncertain as the vote approaches. But Bauman is optimistic. A recent poll suggested that 42 percent of voters were in favor, 37 percent opposed and 21 remain undecided. These numbers are slightly up from a separate August poll that suggested 34 percent in favor and 37 percent opposed.
As crunch time nears, a group of millennials from the I-732 campaign have published an open letter to the leaders of some of the national groups that have failed to support the initiative, calling on them to change their stance. Should the initiative pass, Bauman hopes that it will lead to similar measures on a national scale.
“We think we have a great shot at winning a policy that’s not only going to make a big difference in Washington State, but that can potentially set the stage for bipartisan action nationally,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/17/it-could-be-the-nations-first-carbon-tax-and-environmentalists-are-fighting-over-it/?utm_term=.37a3c3dc8968
-
Clock Starts For Challenges To Lead NAAQS
Oct 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has published in the Oct. 18 Federal Register its final rule retaining its existing lead (Pb) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), triggering a Clean Air Act 60-day clock for groups to sue over the decision.
The rule could potentially draw a legal challenge from environmentalists who support a stricter standard than the current NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). However, any such suit would face a high legal bar because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that would hear it has deferred to EPA's expertise in challenges to other NAAQS.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the final rule Sept. 16 but the 60-day window for filing suit did not start until the Oct. 18 formal publication of the rule in the Register.
EPA in the rule concluded its Clean Air Act-mandated review of the Pb standard and found that the current primary and secondary limits provide adequate protection for public health and the environment.
However, the agency also noted a great deal of scientific uncertainty associated with low-level lead effects on health and the environment. EPA noted “increasing uncertainty of risk estimates for lower air Pb concentrations,” with respect to health, and “substantial limitations in the current evidence that complicate conclusions regarding the potential for Pb emissions under the current, much lower standard to contribute to welfare effects.”
EPA's decision comports with advice received from the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which reviews EPA's scientific analysis and advises the agency on where to set the level of the NAAQS.
However, EPA's separate Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) has previously suggested a need to tighten the limit down to 0.02 ug/m3, the same level it endorsed during the last lead standard review that led to the 2008 limit. CHPAC has argued that evidence of harms to children under the current lead standard has “become even more compelling” since the panel called for the 0.02 ug/m3 standard.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/clock-starts-challenges-lead-naaqs
-
Oct 17, 2016 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
The answer to global warming lies not in one grand strategy but in a steady progression of measures deploying many different technologies. On Saturday, more than 170 countries took another important step when they agreed to phase out a powerful planet-warming chemical used in air-conditioners and refrigerators and to seek more benign substitutes.
The accord reached in Kigali, Rwanda, follows the ratification by enough countries of last year’s Paris agreement broadly reducing greenhouse gases to allow it to take effect, as well as a narrower agreement to limit emissions from aircraft. It completes a trifecta of diplomatic accords aimed at keeping the rise in global temperatures below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (two degrees Celsius) over the average preindustrial temperatures — a point beyond which the manifest consequences of climate change, including rising sea levels and droughts, are likely to become exponentially worse.
Saturday’s agreement takes aim at widely used chemical refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. Although they now make up only a small part of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, HFCs are extremely powerful heat-trappers and, if left unchecked, would make it hard not to exceed the 3.6 degree threshold. One factor driving the negotiations was the rapid growth of air-conditioning in nations like China and India.
HFCs were once seen as a technological godsend. They were developed in response to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a global agreement requiring nations and manufacturers to find a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, then the dominant refrigerant, which was destroying the planet’s ozone layer. The chemical industry replaced that chemical with HFCs, which don’t harm the ozone layer but, as it turned out, added greatly to global warming.
The new agreement took seven years and required many determined advocates — major Western governments, the small island nation of Micronesia, poor African nations that fear drought and even starvation and persistent environmental groups. It was hardly a slam dunk. Despite obvious threats to their populations from rising sea levels and droughts, some developing countries like India pushed back hard, in part because their people were on the verge of being able to afford air-conditioners powered by HFCs.
The outcome was compromise — resulting, in part, from the last-minute efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry. The richest countries, including the United States, will freeze production and consumption of HFCs by 2018; much of the rest of the world, including China, Brazil and all of Africa, will do the same by 2024; and a few nations, including India, will have until 2028. Several newer and less harmful refrigerants are available, although they may be more expensive in the short run. The timetable will allow poorer countries to wait until prices come down. But unlike the Paris agreement, which consists of voluntary pledges, this one will be mandatory, with trade sanctions for nations that do not comply.
Countries have an enormous amount of work to do on all climate-changing pollutants, chiefly carbon dioxide. But the HFC agreement makes the job a little bit easier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/another-big-step-on-climate.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=3797AE4CAD5E1571122555E72229705B&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion&_r=0
-
Podesta, Figueres Met with Wealthy Donors to Climate Causes, WikiLeaks Emails Show
Oct 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
John Podesta and Christiana Figueres apparently spoke to a private meeting of wealthy donors to climate change-focused foundations in March, according to emails allegedly hacked from Podesta and released today by WikiLeaks.
The gathering of donors "is designed to bring together a group of high-net-worth individuals who have already made very substantial philanthropic gifts to support work on climate and clean energy, and who have the capacity to continue or increase their pro-climate investments, personally or through their foundations," organizer and wealthy environmentalist Nat Simons wrote in a March email to Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.
A guest list for the event includes Nick and Susan Pritzker, relatives of Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker; Eric and Emma Gimon, members of the Hewlett family and affiliated with its foundation; and Nicole Systrom, founder of clean energy investment firm Sutro.
At the time, Figueres was still serving as executive secretary of the United Nations climate change body and had helped bring about the Paris agreement a few months earlier. She has since stepped down.
Senate Republicans have long savaged green groups for getting funding from wealthy donors who use foundations as a shield against transparency, all while criticizing conservatives for using the same tactics.
The Clinton campaign has declined to comment on the veracity of the emails, accusing WikiLeaks of aiding a Russian plot to help elect Donald Trump.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested