Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 10/25/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brian Blake Seeks Re-election To House Seat
Oct 25, 2016 | Chinook Observer
Before being appointed to the House in 2002, Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, 56, worked as a logger, and as an environmental specialist for the state Department of Corrections. -
(ACC Mentioned) How TSCA Modernization May Harm Innovation, And What Companies Can Do In Response
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Warren Lehrenbaum and Preetha Chakrabarti
On June 22, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act (the Lautenberg Act). This legislation, which capped several years of difficult negotiations on Capitol Hill, is intended to modernize the 40-year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and completely overhaul how chemical products are regulated in the U.S. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Protests Consideration Of ‘Unprecedented’ Prop 65 Listing
Oct 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of seven industry groups says that listing “nitrite in combination with amines or amides” as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 would be “unprecedented”, and unsupported by science. -
(ACC Mentioned) Brexit Could Mean More Risk-Based Chemicals Regulation, CIA Says
Oct 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A post-Brexit UK could mean chemicals legislation that brings a more risk-based approach to policy, the Chemical Industries Association (CIA) says. -
(ACC Mentioned) Endocrine Disruptors Cost U.S. Billions Due to Health Care and Lost Wages
Oct 25, 2016 | eNews Park Forest
Last week, a study, Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population-based disease burden and cost analysis, published in The Lancet journal, concludes that exposure to pesticides and other chemicals found in common household items, such as toys, makeup and detergent, costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually in health care costs and lost wages. -
EU, US Complete GHS Analysis In TTIP Negotiations
Oct 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The EU and US have completed a technical analysis of differences in the classification rules for mixtures in safety data sheets (SDSs), during the latest set of negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). -
Solvent Controls Being Reviewed Under Revived EPA Authority
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted to the White House a proposed rule to control two solvents under chemical authorities the agency hasn't successfully used since 1991. -
For “Organic” Cosmetics, Find The Seal
Oct 25, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Lots of companies add the word “organic” to cosmetics and other personal care products. But, if you want to be sure that cosmetics are free of risky chemicals, look for the U.S. Department of Agriculture organic seal. -
Gore Opposes Pipeline As Clinton Stays Mum
Oct 26, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has yet to respond to pleas from green groups to publicly oppose the $3.78 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline, but that's not stopping a possible adviser, former Vice President Al Gore, from taking a stand. -
Gore Slams 'Dangerous' Dakota Pipeline Project
Oct 25, 2016 | The Hil - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Former Vice President Al Gore on Tuesday praised demonstrators protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline project in North Dakota, calling the project “dangerous.” -
‘Economics Will Eventually Win Out’ For Pipelines Facing Delays, Analysts Say
Oct 26, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
When it comes to the recent string of negative headlines for midstream projects facing opposition and delays, Raymond James & Associates Inc. said this week it thinks market fundamentals “and straightforward economics will eventually win out.” -
Clinton, Trump Advisers Face Off Over Energy Policy
Oct 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Advisers to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump clashed strongly Tuesday over major energy policy questions, like whether the Paris climate agreement is good for the country and what the future of coal should be. -
Clinton, Trump and Obama’s Energy Legacy
Oct 25, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Jay Hakes
Three presidential debates provided scant mention of energy. So voters’ assessments of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the subject will likely reflect their views of Barrack Obama’s energy record. -
U.S. to Unveil Path to Decarbonize by 2050 in Morocco
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The U.S. will unveil a sweeping plan to decarbonize its economy by 2050 at next month's climate summit in Morocco, giving other nations a template to draw up their own plans for quickly shifting away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources, the top U.S. climate negotiator said Oct. 25. -
Record Green Power Installations Beat Fossil Fuel for First Time
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
Renewable energy reached an important turning point last year with record new installations of emissions-free power surpassing sources that burn fossil fuel, according to the International Energy Agency. -
Chemical Spill At Hopewell Plant Causes Roadway Closure
Oct 26, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The “all-clear” has been given after a chemical leak at a Hopewell plant temporarily shut down a roadway. -
CSB Deploys to Kansas Chemical Leak That Injured 125
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal accident investigators are looking into a chemical leak that sent a plume of mixed chemicals across a Kansas town last week, injuring 125 people and shutting down nearby highways, according to local news reports. -
Climate Left Out of Cove Point LNG Review: Sierra Club Filing
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department failed to analyze the indirect climate impacts of Dominion Resources Inc.'s Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility in Maryland, the Sierra Club said in a federal appeals court brief that is part of a broader set of legal challenges against such facilities (Sierra Club v. Dep't of Energy, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1186, brief filed 10/24/16). -
States, Industries Warn Of Costs, Delays With EPA Air Permit Reform Plan
Oct 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and groups representing major industries are warning that EPA's proposed overhaul of the process for petitioning the agency to oppose Clean Air Act Title V permits could add costs and delays to the permitting process, while environmentalists say the plan fails to fix fundamental problems that disadvantage permit objectors. -
Climate Envoy Warns Against ‘Backsliding’ From Paris Pact
Oct 26, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The United States’ top climate change diplomat warned Tuesday against potential attempts at “renegotiation” of the Paris climate agreement. -
Climate’s On The Ballot Like Never Before
Oct 25, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sean H. Donahue
Each election is the most important ever for climate policy. As greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere, climatic warming and ocean acidification intensify, and the time to act dwindles.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brian Blake Seeks Re-election To House Seat
Oct 25, 2016 | Chinook Observer
Before being appointed to the House in 2002, Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, 56, worked as a logger, and as an environmental specialist for the state Department of Corrections. He has been reelected six times. Blake holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies from Evergreen State College. He and his wife, Debra Thomas-Blake live in Aberdeen. Blake is chair of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, and also serves on the Business and Financial Services and Commerce and Gaming committees. Blake takes a special interest in issues involving natural resources, access to public lands and gun rights. If re-elected, he says he would work on preserving local jobs, resolving the state’s school funding dilemma, and advocating for the commercial fishing industry.
How has your approach to the job changed over time?
Being chair of Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee has allowed me more control over the policy that moves through the legislature. With time, I’ve gotten better and built more relationships. I just have a lot more gravitas in the process, in seeing how legislation is crafted, and in advocating for the district.
What do you feel your strengths are as a representative?
Being a good listener and being transparent with fellow legislators. Other legislators trust that I’m not sneaking around their back to do things — that I’m communicating with them what my agenda is for my district. I think it’s gained me friendships and respect on both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers.
What have been some of your pet projects or causes?
I’m a huge proponent of public access to public land. We were able to completely rebuild the library and Pace building down there in Ilwaco. I’m always working towards preserving existing jobs. In Ilwaco and in the Long Beach area, the benefits of good long clam seasons. I’ve been working to see if we can’t get more clam digs.
What have you accomplished during your most recent term?
I think the $4.5 billion dollars put towards K-12 education. It’s a heavy weight on our shoulders. We said it would take several years to pay for it, and it has. We’re getting close now.
What do your critics say about you?
There’s a fairly large contingent of sports fishermen that are angry that I won’t destroy the commercial industry to benefit the sports fishing industry. I think that’s the biggest criticism you’ll hear out there from folks — “Come on Blake, throw the commercial fishermen under the bus and so we can catch another salmon!” I just refuse to do that.
In terms of quality of life in the 19th LD, what do you think has gotten better during the last few years? What has gotten worse?
I’m seeing change in the way K-12 teaching is delivered to students. Except for the problems with the domoic acid, increasing the razor clam season is helping to stabilize the economy in the district. With the investment the timber industry has made in bridges and culverts, you’re going to see some increase the recovery of natural spawning salmon. There have been what? Seven new bridges in Pacific County that have been constructed? We’re struggling to find bridges on our state highway system that still need replaced in the 19th District.
What do you see as the district’s greatest needs right now?
It’s a tough one to talk about, but we have a heroin epidemic in this state. We’ve got to mobilize all the resources that we have to stop this. It seemed like it was always an urban problem, and it truly has become more statewide. We’re losing kids, and it’s a crisis.
What do you think LD19 legislators could be doing better?
I don’t know about here in Long Beach, but in both Cowlitz County and in Aberdeen, I’m seeing a homeless problem that I’ve never seen before in my 56 years. There’s a lot of folks that are hurting, and don’t have healthy places to live. I’m a big fan of the housing trust fund and other efforts to get people housing. We’ve got to do more as a state to solve this crisis.
We’ve had the same core group of legislators working for us for many years now, and some citizens feel their legislators have gotten too complacent. How do you respond to that criticism?
It’s come up in the campaign this year — the “Good Old Boys’ Network.” I don’t think it was planned at all. I will remind folks that I wasn’t the insiders’ “Chosen One.” I think there’s too much made of that situation, although I will admit it’s unfortunate there have been so many appointments in recent history.
Some women’s advocacy groups say LD19 reps have done only a mediocre job of advocating for women, in terms of things like equal pay, family leave, domestic violence policy and access to healthcare. How do you think you have done at serving your female constituents?
I think I have been an advocate for every one of those things. I think women’s issues are priority issues for the House Democrats. I don’t serve on the health care committee, so I don’t tend to focus on on bringing those bills forward, but co-sponsoring those types of bills. Maybe it’s a fair observation on their part, and something that I’m going to have to reevaluate, but I guess I’m just not seeing it.
In the primary, your Republican opponent got 38 percent of the district-wide vote, and 65 percent of the Lewis County vote. Were you surprised by the support for him?
I’m not surprised about the numbers. I’m very well aware of the Lewis County political demographics. I think in the general election, when more people actually get the voters’ pamphlet, and look at his statement and my statement, my numbers will go up.
Why should people who are on the fence vote for yet another Democrat?
Because I am a moderate, and effective. I work very closely with the House Republican leadership on making sure that they feel like they have an effective voice in the process. Rational, moderate voters recognize my ability to get things done.
Since January 2015, you have voted against the majority of Democrats 12 times. Do you ever catch any heat for not being Democratic enough?
Yeah, occasionally, there’s times. Individual freedom is a big deal for me. So sometimes, I do get sideways with the majority of my caucus.
What do you mean by “individual freedom”?
Freedom to marry, freedom to control your own body. I got sideways with some of my caucus because they wanted to force parents to have their children vaccinated. I very much believe in vaccinations, but I’m uncomfortable forcing a parent to have their child vaccinated. I am strongly pro-gun.
Judging by their campaign contributions, the NRA is strongly pro-Brian Blake.
Yeah. I’m a life endowment member of the NRA. I will listen to the ACLU when they make a good argument on individual freedom. I will probably be 100 percent with a group like NARAL, and I’m gonna be 100 percent with the NRA. On the gun issue, you’re gonna have to make a pretty cogent argument that the legislation you’re proposing, one, will be successful, and two, constitutional.
What are you doing to stay in touch with your constituents in rural parts of the district?
Well, except during the legislative session, I stay out of Olympia and stay in the district! Here locally, I make my cell phone available. I’m on Facebook and encourage people to contact me. If I have time tonight before the storm hits, I’d like to swing by and talk to the folks at the Naselle hatchery.
What specific issues do you see as being important to Pacific County citizens?
Jobs. Local elected officials are concerned about their ability to deliver services. That’s a big concern of mine. Over time, these local governments have been squeezed. As we went through the 2007-2008 recession, the state was forced to make some decisions and shut down some key partnerships with local government. We’ve got to start a process of re-sharing those revenues, and rebuilding those partnerships.
How can we bring more sustainable, family-wage jobs to this area?
Tourism is a huge part of the economy, especially here in the south end of the district, so we’ve got to find ways to grow that. There’s been some concern about whether there’s enough broadband to support some of these businesses that are outside of the natural resources arena. I’m interested to hear from local folks, on whether the speed of broadband is up.
Do you think the potential economic benefits of bringing coal and oil through the region by river and by rail outweigh the health, safety and environmental risks?
Coal is much less risk to other users on the river, and I have not seen a deal-breaker to the Millennium Project up in Longview.
Oil? More concerns. I think we’ve got to be on top of increasing the regulatory functions that oversee that. So, real concerns, especially on the oil end of things.
Some of your biggest campaign donors have a lot riding the expansion of coal, gas and oil-related infrastructure and industry in this region. You’ve taken money from BNSF Railway, Alcoa and Millennium Bulk Terminal, which all have a stake in the “coal train” project, and the American Chemistry Council, which has a lot invested in shale gas development. Why do you think they support you?
I think that I’ve been willing to listen to what they have to say. It wasn’t that many years ago that I came out and said, “Absolutely no” to LNG coming in. I can understand how people would say, “That means Blake is gonna vote one way or the other.” I would say that’s not true. I’ve accepted money from tobacco and voted against their interests. I have voted against the interests of all those folks that have donated to my campaign.
In March, you did vote against a bill designed to keep vapor tobacco products out of the hands of kids.
Yes. Only because of the provision on cigars. I liked the bill, except for the provision that said the cigars had to be locked up, and only an employee could get you access.
Local communities are seeing some economic benefits of the marijuana industry, but they’re still not getting much tax revenue. What, if anything, can you do about that?
Communities are getting the revenues from the employees that are living here and shopping here. They’re getting the retail sales tax. My hope is to increase that. That’s one of the conflicts that I’ve had with my colleagues. I truly believe that a portion of that revenue stream should go back to communities that allow the commerce. They haven’t been able to get that past the finance and budget chairs, because of the McCleary decision and other reasons.
The infamous McCleary decision said legislators need to figure out how to fully fund education. In your view, what’s the best way to do that?
It’s very difficult to know how much revenue we need. The law is pretty clear that the local districts should not be paying for basic education. Some districts have taken it upon themselves to violate that, and pay for education. We’ve got to understand how that’s happened, and plug that hole. How? The economy is growing. I think that will be a large part of the solution. We may come to a point where we need to generate additional revenue, and I think some of the tax breaks that have been adopted over the years need to be reevaluated, to see if they’re delivering the economic benefit that they were granted in the first place.
When do you think it is appropriate to raise taxes?
There’s some truth to the folks who would say, “You increase revenue to provide services by growing the economy and business activity.” There is also some truth in that you have to have a tax system that works. Our tax system is a mess. Somehow, we’re going to have to find the fortitude to try again to develop a blue-ribbon panel or something, to propose how we would restructure it to provide adequate revenue. Frankly, right now the voters don’t trust either party to develop that system, and make that change, so we’re kind of in a holding pattern.
How would you describe your relationship with tribes in the region?
I would say very positive. I’ve been invited to the First Salmon Ceremony with the Chinook tribe several times, and have tried to attend whenever I could. [Former tribal chairman] Ray Gardner was such a close friend. I’m still grieving over that loss. I have a positive relationship with the current leadership in the Chinook Tribe, and Charlene Nelson at the Shoalwater Bay Tribe. I try to make them aware that they have representation at the state level.
Chinook leaders have said they need other influential people to support their fight for federal recognition. Have you done anything to support them?
Yes. I have actively in public stated my support. I worked with Congressman Baird in the drafting of his bill, and I have advocated with Congresswoman Herrera Beutler’s office that she should be introducing a similar bill.
If re-elected, what will be your top priorities during your next year in office?
Delivering the priorities of the district in the capital budget, and watching the transportation budget to make sure the priorities we’ve achieved in previous budgets are safe, or enhanced. Pacific County has seen a great investment in our transportation infrastructure. We’d love to do more. Just generally trying to look for ways to enhance jobs down here. Making sure that the investment in the Naselle Hatchery continues.
http://www.chinookobserver.com/co/local-news/20161025/brian-blake-seeks-re-election-to-house-seat
-
(ACC Mentioned) How TSCA Modernization May Harm Innovation, And What Companies Can Do In Response
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Warren Lehrenbaum and Preetha Chakrabarti
Warren Lehrenbaum is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Environment & Natural Resources Group in Washington, D.C.
Preetha Chakrabarti is an associate in Crowell & Moring's Intellectual Property and Environment & Natural Resources groups in New York.
On June 22, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act (the Lautenberg Act). This legislation, which capped several years of difficult negotiations on Capitol Hill, is intended to modernize the 40-year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and completely overhaul how chemical products are regulated in the U.S.
One of the justifications for industry support of TSCA modernization legislation was the promise that a more modern TSCA would spur innovation. Indeed, “promoting innovation” was one of the core principles of TSCA reform that the American Chemistry Council adopted to guide the chemical industry's participation. Distressingly, with the enactment of the Lautenberg Act, it appears that some of the changes that have been made to TSCA will actually have the opposite effect—impeding innovation in the chemicals industry and, therefore, industry in general.
Root of the Problem.
In the run-up to enactment of TSCA modernization legislation, much of the debate among stakeholders focused on the appropriate safety standard that the EPA should apply in conducting risk assessments on chemical substances. To be acceptable, the safety standard would have to adequately protect health and the environment; but from industry's perspective it also was essential that the standard not be overly-restrictive. Ultimately, Congress adopted a standard of no “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”
In addition to including this new safety standard in TSCA, the Lautenberg Act also shifted the burden to the EPA when applying that safety standard to a new chemical substance. Under the new TSCA, before a new substance can be placed on the market, the EPA must make an affirmative determination that the substance satisfies the safety standard.
Previously, the agency was not required to make such an affirmative determination; instead, manufacture (and import) of a new chemical substance could commence following completion of a 90-day review period, unless the EPA concluded that the substance did present an unreasonable risk. In such circumstances the agency was empowered to impose restrictions on the new substance or require the submission of additional data as a condition of allowing commercialization of the substance.
These changes to TSCA—specifically, the fact that the EPA is now required to apply a new safety standard and to make an affirmative determination that the safety standard will be met before commercialization of a new substance is allowed—will likely slow the agency's pace of new chemical reviews. Despite all the attention these changes received, however, during the legislative process, the real threat that new TSCA poses to innovation in the chemical industry is not the new safety standard, nor the requirement that the EPA make an affirmative safety determination. Instead, the greater challenge lies with the requirement that the agency makes this positive safety determination with respect to the “conditions of use” of the new chemical and how that term is defined under new TSCA.
Specifically, the new law defines conditions of use to include all foreseeable uses of a chemical substance. Previously, under “old” TSCA, when the EPA would review a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) for a new chemical substance, the agency would focus its risk assessment on the intendeduses for the substance, as identified by the PMN submitter. This allowed the EPA to conduct a relatively focused risk assessment, which in turn helped to facilitate its completion of the review.
Now under the new law, the EPA will have to conduct a risk assessment that addresses all foreseeable uses of a new chemical—which could exponentially expand the scope of its review, as well as the time needed to complete it. In particular, the EPA will first have to identify the foreseeable uses of the new substance and then assess the potential exposures associated with each of those foreseeable uses in order to evaluate the risks.
The net effect of this expanded review will likely be delay, particularly for chemicals with any degree of toxicity and especially for highly functional substances with multiple foreseeable uses. Thus, it can be expected that, overall, it will take the EPA longer to complete pre-market review of new chemical substances, and therefore, will take longer to reach the market under new TSCA. Accordingly, for new substances it appears likely that implementation of the new TSCA will have a negative effect on innovation in the chemicals sector, at least in the near term.
How Can Companies Respond?
A company that wants to bring a new chemical to market without undue delay may be able to limit the scope of the EPA's pre-market risk review—and thereby reduce the time required for that review—by crafting a PMN that expressly limits the potential uses of the new chemical to only those specific uses that are identified in the PMN.
A company can accomplish this by designating the uses identified in its PMN as a “binding option.” This would effectively establish what the conditions of use are for the new substance (by defining the universe of allowed uses of the substance), which would permit the EPA to focus its risk assessment only on the specific uses identified in the PMN, rather than having to evaluate “all foreseeable uses” of the substance and the potential exposures associated with those foreseeable uses.
While this binding option could prove helpful in expediting the EPA's review of new substances, the approach has important limitations as well. If a company submits a PMN for a new substance to the EPA and designates its intended uses of that substance as a binding option, then the EPA would enforce that limitation on potential uses of the substance by issuing an administrative order under TSCA Section 5(e) that would limit the allowed uses for the substance to those identified in the PMN.
Indeed, EPA officials have indicated that PMN submitters could be asked to agree to such orders more frequently, regardless of whether they choose the binding option in their PMNs, so that the agency can narrow the focus of its risk assessments rather than examining all foreseeable uses of the new substance.
In addition, once a Section 5(e) order is finalized, the EPA would be expected to promulgate a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for the new substance, under which any person who wants to manufacture, import or process the substance for a use other than the specific use(s) identified in the PMN first would have to submit a pre-manufacture notice (referred to as a significant new use notice or SNUN) to the EPA for review. Of course, the preparation of a Section 5(e) order and the promulgation of a SNUR are time-consuming and resource-intensive activities that will likely add to the overall amount of time the agency needs to complete its review of a PMN substance.
Thus, while the binding option approach could facilitate the EPA's review of a new chemical substance by defining a narrow set of conditions of use, the added steps of preparing a Section 5(e) order and promulgating a SNUR will still contribute to delay in the completion of its review.
Another weakness of the binding option in pre-manufacture notice submissions followed by issuance of a Section 5(e) order is the EPA's “approval” of the new PMN substance will extend only to the specific uses of the substance that are identified in the PMN.
Thus, if a promising new use for the substance were to be identified in the future, a new notification (a SNUN) would have to be submitted to the EPA for review before that new use could be commercialized. This places an inherent burden on innovation that did not exist under the “old” TSCA. Accordingly, although the binding option and Section 5(e) order provide an avenue for chemical manufacturers to reduce the time to market for a new chemical substance as applied to specific uses, it is not a panacea and it could still result in some dampening of innovation.
As the EPA continues the long process of implementing the new TSCA, it remains to be seen how exactly innovation will be affected. It is important, however, to remember that the underlying policy of TSCA is unchanged under the new law. Specifically, Congress directed that:
• authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this chapter to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Accordingly, it will be important for industry to keep an eye on the EPA's implementation of the new TSCA and to be as engaged as possible to help ensure that the underlying purpose and policy of the act are fulfilled.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99510187&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99510187&jd=99510187
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Protests Consideration Of ‘Unprecedented’ Prop 65 Listing
Oct 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of seven industry groups says that listing “nitrite in combination with amines or amides” as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 would be “unprecedented”, and unsupported by science.
In comments to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), the coalition contends that this substance grouping is not “a chemical”. Nor is it a well-defined mixture or even a specific product, both of which have been listed on Prop 65 in the past.
Instead, it says, the state’s Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) has been tasked with evaluating nitrite in combination with “tens of thousands of unidentified amines and/or amides”.
“We are unaware of any precedent for such a proposal or how such an undefined category could possibly meet the robust scientific standard the state’s qualified experts require for listing a chemical as ‘known to cause cancer,’” says the group.
The comments came in response to Oehha's consultation on hazard identification materials of the chemical. These, and the public comments received, will inform the CIC’s consideration of whether to list it under Prop 65 when the committee meets on 15 November.
The coalition – which includes the California Chamber of Commerce and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) – says that neither Oehha, the CIC nor the public have a list of all the chemical combinations covered in the grouping. And, “it is unlikely one could be compiled”.
It says this is a significant problem for regulated businesses. They “would need organic chemistry degrees” to determine if products contain any of the covered substances. And it says it would be unlikely the agency could determine a safe harbour ‘no significant risk level’ (NSRL) as a consequence.
Additionally, the industry groups contend that the combinations of nitrite with amines and/or amides have not been clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing, to cause cancer. Indeed, of the “virtually limitless” number that could be covered by the listing, fewer than forty have been subject to carcinogenicity in animals. And of these, the majority of tests came out negative, it says.
That these various circumstances are present simultaneously, “effectively rules out the prospect that nitrite in combination with amines or amides meets the listing criteria”.
And it says that any consideration, at the 15 November meeting, of either an individual combination or a subset of combinations of these substances is “inappropriate and premature”.
But in its announcement, Oehha said the CIC may then also examine whether a subset of chemicals of this class have been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing, according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer.
Oehha previously considered listing the chemical grouping via the authoritative bodies listing mechanism, per the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc). Although it found the criteria were not met for the spectrum of chemicals covered by the broad class, the law requires substances considered under this mechanism, but not listed under Prop 65, to be automatically routed to the CIC for review.
The role that Iarc plays in the US regulatory process has recently come under fire by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The National Institute of Health's funding of the international agency is also being investigated by a US House oversight committee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50513/industry-protests-consideration-of-unprecedented-prop-65-listing
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brexit Could Mean More Risk-Based Chemicals Regulation, CIA Says
Oct 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Brexit manifesto outlines key priorities for UK chemicals industry
26 October 2016 / EDCs, Europe, REACH, Risk assessment, United Kingdom
A post-Brexit UK could mean chemicals legislation that brings a more risk-based approach to policy, the Chemical Industries Association (CIA) says.
“The UK is one of the few European member states with a pragmatic approach to risk-based thinking,” Nishma Patel, director of chemicals management at the CIA, told Chemical Watch. “Brexit is an opportunity for the UK to try to encourage scientific progress and internal market growth for the chemicals industry.”
EU chemicals legislation has done a lot to help protect people and the environment, CIA says, but increasingly it sees rigorous science-based decision making being “undermined or damaged”.
For instance, the hazard of a product is being linked to a disease without any consideration for risk, it says.
A good example, Ms Patel says, is the recent debate on criteria for identifying an endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC). “There are endocrine-active substances where the substance exerts an effect on an endocrine system or there are endocrine-disrupting substances that actually cause harm or have an adverse effect.
“With the political and emotive pressure of the current debate, both are being lumped into one with no risk element to policy left, which has a detrimental impact on how science is being perceived in the EU.”
The UK is one of the very few member states that have grasped the difference between the concepts of endocrine-active substances and those that are endocrine disrupting, she says.
In the US, American Chemistry Council head Cal Dooley recently told a US congressional committee that the publication of hazard information is "not meaningful" and "often misleading". He argued that such information should only be considered "along with real-world exposure data to determine the actual risk that a substance or behaviour will cause harm".Post-Brexit policy
It remains to be seen if the UK will adopt a mirror version of REACH when it leaves the EU. With 40 years of EU law incorporated into the UK legal framework in most cases it is not within the best interests of the UK chemicals industry to completely change or overhaul that, Ms Patel says, because of the vast investment companies have put into complying with EU regulation.
“In the short term, the main priority is to ensure the UK’s chemicals legislation under Brexit doesn’t create an additional financial or bureaucratic burden.
“Brexit negotiators need to carefully consider that UK entities don’t face additional or duplicated compliance costs as a result of the exit from the EU. On the contrary, it is vital that existing compliance effort, such as REACH registrations, do not become invalid and a process is established to continue recognising contributions made by UK businesses without creating financial burden.”
CIA’s comments follow the publication of its Brexit manifesto, which builds on three priorities the association issued after the UK’s EU referendum. These were sent as an open letter to the Conservative party leadership candidates. A fourth priority was added later following consultation with CIA members and other stakeholders. The priorities are:tariff-free access to the single market;the availability of skilled people;the supply of competitive and secure energy; anda policy framework that encourages scientific progress, leading to sustainable growth.
The manifesto further explains the current situation for the UK chemicals industry and outlines key vulnerabilities and opportunities.
CIA’s policy priorities and the Brexit manifesto will be discussed at its Brexit conference on 17 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50524/brexit-could-mean-more-risk-based-chemicals-regulation-cia-says
-
(ACC Mentioned) Endocrine Disruptors Cost U.S. Billions Due to Health Care and Lost Wages
Oct 25, 2016 | eNews Park Forest
Last week, a study, Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population-based disease burden and cost analysis, published in The Lancet journal, concludes that exposure to pesticides and other chemicals found in common household items, such as toys, makeup and detergent, costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually in health care costs and lost wages. The chemicals in question, endocrine disruptors (EDCs), interfere with the body’s hormone system, which can lead to a variety of health problems.
According to Environmental Health News, the researchers estimate the costs by looking at exposure data and then projecting 15 medical conditions that are linked to endocrine disruptors and their associated health costs and lost wages. The findings came from calculations made by the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Environment Program. A group of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) were the worst offenders in the U.S., accounting for nearly two-thirds of estimated health problems. These chemicals were estimated to annually cause about 11 million lost IQ points and 43,000 additional cases of intellectual disability, costing around $268 billion. Pesticide exposure, the second most costly chemical group in the U.S., causes an estimated 1.8 million lost IQ points and another 7,500 intellectual disability cases annual, with an estimated cost of $44.7 billion.
Endocrine disruptors work either by mimicking naturally produced hormones, blocking hormone receptors in cells, or affecting the transport, synthesis, metabolism or excretion of hormones. These impacts can result in devastating effects on one’s health, including behavioral and learning disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), birth defects, obesity, early puberty, infertility, cardiovascular disease, and childhood and adult cancers. Nearly 100 percent of people have detectable amounts of EDCs in their bodies, according to the introductory guide to EDCs published by the Endocrine Society and IPEN.
According to Environmental Health News, the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, not surprisingly slammed the study, saying the research was speculative and the conclusions were based off of “cherry-picked” data. Leonardo Trasande, M.D., associate professor and researcher at the NYU School of Medicine, who is also the senior author of the study, countered that the estimates were actually on the conservative side. Researchers calculated the health-related costs from less than 5% of known endocrine disrupting chemicals. Philippe Grandjean, MD, a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, commented on the study, saying, “Of course it would be great to know more, but my prediction is that the calculated costs to society will increase substantially once we get better documentation on … additional substances and additional adverse effects.”
Previous studies have shown that endocrine disrupting chemicals and other pesticides place a large burden of cost on the public through resulting health effects. In 2015, Dr. Grandjean co-authored a studyshowing that exposure to EDCs results in approximately € 150 billion ($162 billion) in health care costs in the European Union each year. The analysis found (with 70-100% probability) that each year in Europe, 13 million IQ points are lost due to prenatal organophosphate exposure (pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and malathion), and 59,300 additional cases of intellectual disability are caused. Pesticides were found to be the most costly of the EDCs analyzed, accounting for € 120 billion ($130 billion) of the estimated € 150 billion ($162 billion) in healthcare expenditures each year. In July 2016, a study was released that showed lower IQ (intelligence quotient) in children born to mothers who during their pregnancy were living in close proximity to chemical-intensive agricultural lands where organophosphate pesticides were used. The researchers estimated that each one point decrease in IQ decreases worker productivity by approximately 2%, and reduces lifetime earnings of $18,000 (in 2005 market standards).
Ultimately, the widespread adoption of organic management is necessary to protect consumers in the long-term. While some may argue that organic is too expensive, the simple fact is that chemical companies are able to externalize the social cost of their products in the form of healthcare costs to consumers, and numerous other adverse effects. Consumers should not feel upset over paying the higher cost. In essence, organic shoppers are paying more to protect their health, the environment where the food is grown, the farmworkers that grow the food, the soil the food is growth in, and the pollinators and other wildlife in the area. If consumers paid the true cost of conventional food production, prices for conventionally grown goods would certainly be more expensive than organic products, which are certified through a process that protects human health and the environment. For the real story on the affordability of organic food, see our article here.
As we encourage more farmers to move toward organic, and more consumers to purchase organic foods, we must fight to keep organic strong. Consumers and producers can help maintain the integrity of the organic label, and thus protect the food we eat as well as the environment, by reading more about the issues. Currently, the National Organic Standards Board is accepting comments to protect organic standards until October 26. Click here to see the issues! For more information on the benefits of purchasing organic foods, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, which documents the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals used in conventional agriculture.
https://enewspf.com/2016/10/25/endocrine-disruptors-cost-u-s-billions-due-health-care-lost-wages/
-
EU, US Complete GHS Analysis In TTIP Negotiations
Oct 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The EU and US have completed a technical analysis of differences in the classification rules for mixtures in safety data sheets (SDSs), during the latest set of negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP).
They have agreed to start a broad consultation with member states and stakeholders, to determine whether the identified differences will lead to problems in practice.
The agreement came during the 15th round of talks, which took place in New York between 3 and 7 October. Talks continued despite a call in September from EU ministers to bring them to an end.
Outside of the GHS analysis, the majority of discussions focused on the text of the EU proposal for a chemicals sector annex. The US sought clarification on this as it continues work on its own.
EU officials have said a chemicals annex would strengthen cooperation, promote alignment with GHS and improve the exchange of information between the two countrys. During the most recent talks, the EU said the decision on whether this proposed annex would be part of the regulatory cooperation chapter, or stand alone, would be decided at a later time.
Also during discussions, US officials said they would soon publish information on one of the pilot projectson the assessment of priority substances.
Regarding cosmetics, EU negotiators reiterated their interest in developing and recognising, for regulatory purposes, alternative methods to animal testing.
They also proposed that the EU draft text for a cosmetics annex could provide a framework for cooperation on the safety assessment of ingredients.
The EU and US originally hoped to complete TTIP negotiations by the end of 2016. Discussions began in 2013 and the two parties have met quarterly since that time.
While a 16th round of negotiations is yet to be set, it is likely to be in early 2017.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50529/eu-us-complete-ghs-analysis-in-ttip-negotiations
-
Solvent Controls Being Reviewed Under Revived EPA Authority
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted to the White House a proposed rule to control two solvents under chemical authorities the agency hasn't successfully used since 1991.
The proposed rule (RIN: 2070-AK07) would restrict, require labeling for, or otherwise manage the risks of n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride when used in commercial and consumer paint and varnish strippers.
Both rules are being watched as they are the agency's first attempt to use the risk management authority provided under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, since 1991, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned an agency regulation issued in 1989 that would have banned most uses of asbestos.
Previous risk assessments EPA's chemicals office conducted found short-term, high exposures to methylene chloride-containing strippers could harm the central nervous system of consumers or workers, while chronic lower exposures increased their risk of liver toxicity, liver cancer and lung cancer. The children of pregnant women and women of childbearing age face developmental risks if their mothers were exposed to high concentrations of NMP-containing paint or coating strippers, the EPA said.
The proposed rule, which would address solvents, joins another proposed rule for trichloroethylene that also is under review by the White House office.
The agency has said it intends to propose both rules by the end of December.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99510194&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99510194&jd=99510194
-
For “Organic” Cosmetics, Find The Seal
Oct 25, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Looking for organic cosmetics?
Lots of companies add the word “organic” to cosmetics and other personal care products.
But, if you want to be sure that cosmetics are free of risky chemicals, look for the U.S. Department of Agriculture organic seal.
Only the USDA organic seal guarantees that cosmetics and other personal care products have been produced without harmful chemicals.
Cosmetics made primarily of farm products are allowed to carry the USDA organic seal if 95 percent or more of the ingredients meet federal organic standards, and the remaining ingredients are on an approved ingredient list and were not produced using prohibited methods.
As EWG reported last week, many companies use the word “organic” in product and brand names.
More than 5,000 products in EWG’s Skin Deep® database – about 20 percent of current product formulations rated on the site – use “organic” in the brand name, product name, product label or list of ingredients. But many of these products contained risky or hidden ingredients and received poor Skin Deep® scores.
Misleading uses of “organic” are not the only way some cosmetic companies deceive consumers. Companies are also making misleading “natural” and “unscented” claims.
So, if you want to be sure about your cosmetics and other personal care products, look for the USDA organic seal.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/10/organic-cosmetics-find-seal
-
Gore Opposes Pipeline As Clinton Stays Mum
Oct 26, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has yet to respond to pleas from green groups to publicly oppose the $3.78 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline, but that's not stopping a possible adviser, former Vice President Al Gore, from taking a stand.
Gore showed solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe today in opposing the Bakken Shale project and condemning the fossil fuel industry and developers of the pipeline for proceeding with a "dangerous project in blatant disregard of obvious risks to the Missouri River and with disrespect" for tribal nations.
"I stand with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline," Gore said in a statement on his website. "We have witnessed inspiring and brave acts by Native Americans and their allies who are defending and trying to protect their sacred sites and the safety of their sole source of water."
Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond when asked whether or how Gore's comments reflected the campaign's position.
The Democratic presidential nominee said earlier this month at a rally in Miami that she "can't wait" to have Gore advising her in the White House, while Gore cast Clinton as a climate advocate appropriate for millennials (ClimateWire, Oct. 12).
Green groups have been turning up the pressure on Democrats to refuse new fossil fuel infrastructure with a focus on Clinton and the Dakota Access pipeline. Bill McKibben, 350.org co-founder, said in a Sept. 7 editorial that the Democratic platform is "great" but is weakening each day Clinton remains silent on Dakota Access.
Many environmental groups and activists have cast the fight surrounding the Dakota Access project as the most high-profile climate debate in the United States. Actor and activist Mark Ruffalo will travel to the Standing Rock camp this week on behalf of an organization he founded, the Solutions Project, to deliver mobile solar panels to protesters.
More than 100 protesters recently set up tents and teepees on private land directly in the project's path in North Dakota (Greenwire, Oct. 25). Environmental activists, Native Americans and other allies are arguing the land rightfully belongs to Native Americans under a more than century-old treaty.
Gore said he supported the request of Standing Rock Chairman David Archambault II for the Justice Department to deploy observers to ensure the First Amendment rights of protesters are protected. Gore cast the tribe's fight as one of civil rights and religious freedom — and a turning point in sustainability.
"The non-violent resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline is also one of the frontline struggles that collectively mark a turning point in the decision by humanity to turn away from the destructive path we have been following and aim instead toward a clean energy future for all," Gore said.Tribal consultation
Tribal consultations with the Bureau of Indian Affairs continue to hack away at the issues brought up by the Dakota Access project.
Several Washington state tribes today released a five-point plan for consultation during a session with BIA in Seattle.
Among the steps are proposals for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a regionwide environmental impact statement for fossil fuel export plans, for President Obama to strengthen language in Executive Order 13007 on American Indian sacred sites to reflect the need for tribes to grant informed consent of infrastructure plans, and for Congress to pass legislation to update the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act to reflect to need of informed tribal consent.
Additionally, the plan asks the Army Corps to repeal Appendix C — "Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties" — from its procedure, noting that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation doesn't approve of Appendix C as an alternative to its regulations. Lastly, the tribes asked Obama to make sure proper and meaningful consultation is carried out for 14 infrastructure projects that are under a fast-track permitting system.
The Yakama Nation, Lummi Nation, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and Spokane Tribe agreed that the five changes would improve the project approval process and create a greater recognition of tribal rights.
Formal consultation sessions like this one are an effort by the departments of the Interior, Justice and the Army to see if new legislation is needed to promote tribal input and projects on their lands, resources and treaty rights. The sessions continue through November (E&ENews PM, Sept. 23).
"The only way for the U.S. to prove that it is not currently inciting genocide is to acknowledge that the proposed materialization of these projects is an attack on our very existence and to take action to eliminate such threats," said JoDe Goudy, chairman of the Yakama Nation.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/25/stories/1060044794
-
Gore Slams 'Dangerous' Dakota Pipeline Project
Oct 25, 2016 | The Hil - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Former Vice President Al Gore on Tuesday praised demonstrators protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline project in North Dakota, calling the project “dangerous.”
Gore said he is opposed to the $3.8 billion pipeline project and supports the fight to stop it in North Dakota, where the pipeline has become a rallying point for American Indian rights and anti-fossil fuel activists alike.
“The non-violent resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline is also one of the frontline struggles that collectively mark a turning point in the decision by humanity to turn away from the destructive path we have been following and aim instead toward a clean energy future for all,” Gore said in a statement on his website Tuesday.
“The courage and eloquence of the Standing Rock Sioux in calling all of us to recognize that in their words, ‘Water is Life,’ should be applauded, not silenced by those who are driven by their business model to continue spewing harmful global warming pollution into our Earth’s atmosphere.”
Gore’s denouncement of Dakota Access adds even more political clout to the opposition over the pipeline. Several Democratic members of Congress have written to President Obama asking him to block the project — which has been approved by federal regulators.
But Gore has also said he’s concerned with the increasingly tense protests over the pipeline in North Dakota, where 269 people have been arrested since August.
Law enforcement officials say protest camps near the pipeline route are disruptive and a threat to the region’s economy. They say they want to negotiate with demonstrators there, but pipeline opponents, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, have criticized what they consider heavy-handed policing tactics.
“I stand with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline,” Gore said in his statement.
“We have witnessed inspiring and brave acts by Native Americans and their allies who are defending and trying to protect their sacred sites and the safety of their sole source of water."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302755-gore-slams-dangerous-nd-pipeline-project
-
‘Economics Will Eventually Win Out’ For Pipelines Facing Delays, Analysts Say
Oct 26, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
When it comes to the recent string of negative headlines for midstream projects facing opposition and delays, Raymond James & Associates Inc. said this week it thinks market fundamentals “and straightforward economics will eventually win out.”
Even so, natural gas pipeline projects in the particularly problematic Northeast will likely continue to encounter “somewhat formidable opposition” that could leave the Marcellus and Utica shales “constrained for the mid-term,” the firm said in a research brief published Monday.
“Frankly, we can’t know for sure how it will play out given the multitude of different issues delaying or causing the cancellation of midstream projects today,” Raymond James wrote. “If it were one consistent hang-up -- issues with the FERC, for example -- then the situation would be clearer.
“However, [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] regulation is not typically the most difficult issue to navigate, and in many cases, the lack of ‘public convenience and necessity’ isn’t to blame on natural gas projects...Given this context, we don’t feel that the problem set slowing the current slate of projects is a sustainable problem, but instead more of a collection of one-off issues.”
On the crude oil side, Raymond James looked at the recent hangups and public scrutiny for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) (see Shale Daily, Oct. 20). The firm said it expects market need to win out in this instance as well, with DAPL offering a safer and more economic form of transporting crude out of the Bakken Shale compared to rail cars.
“Looking forward, we see production ramping modestly” in the Bakken “through the next several years (commensurate with our price deck) as takeaway capacity additions materialize, including DAPL in mid-2017...once production is able to ramp, this should push differentials back to around transportation costs (or around $4/bbl from the Bakken to Cushing, OK),” Raymond James wrote.
“...While we do not anticipate the cancellation of DAPL, the resulting lack of takeaway additions...would constrain the Bakken to an extent.” But given “significant rail capacity” differentials should remain “more or less flat without DAPL” until production increases further. “That said, if the absolute price of crude moves higher as we forecast, we could see some widening out of differentials,” the firm said.
On the gas side, Raymond James looked at several Northeast pipeline proposals that illustrate the myriad problems projects face in the region, including Atlantic Sunrise (see Daily GPI, Oct. 20), Constitution Pipeline (see Daily GPI, April 25), Northeast Energy Direct (see Daily GPI, April 21) and Access Northeast (see Daily GPI, Oct. 10).
Raymond James pointed out that, looking at the various obstacles slowing or stalling these projects, “FERC regulation is not typically the most difficult issue to navigate. In fact, most midstreamers are fairly adept” at following FERC’s procedures and meeting the agency’s requirements.
“Regrettably, the Northeast is also mired by other issues” such as “physical constraints due to population density and geological characteristics, intensely critical regulatory and environmental activism...and perhaps the most difficult obstacle, the stubborn regional electricity market structure,” Raymond James wrote.
The firm noted that “there are still plenty of projects coming” to the Northeast “to help narrow differentials to Henry Hub, but each project delay keeps us closer to the status quo (and is a medium-term positive for Henry Hub). We continue to view projects moving natural gas from the western Marcellus/Utica to the Midwest, Gulf Coast and Mid-Atlantic and Southeast as favorable, lower-barrier initiatives.”
Across the major U.S. producing regions the oil basins should have less trouble building out adequate infrastructure. DAPL should eventually get built, and “given Texas’s history as a very hospitable environment for energy projects, we do not anticipate serious issues arising as Permian [Basin] takeaway capacity is added or needed,” according to Raymond James.
Other plays, such as the Denver-Julesburg/Niobrara, the Eagle Ford Shale and the SCOOP (South Central Oklahoma Oil Province) and STACK (Sooner Trend of the Anadarko Basin, mostly in Canadian and Kingfisher counties) in Oklahoma, appear to have sufficient pipeline capacity, the firm said.
Moving forward, “asset footprints in key areas for both supply and demand are almost literally irreplaceable, and continue to increase in value as new infrastructure becomes more difficult to construct,” Raymond James said. “...Case in point, the U.S. Northeast has been a major source of [merger and acquisition] activity over the past 12-18 months as larger-scale entities secure their Northeast footprint.
“Only time will tell, but there is certainly value in strong, existing energy infrastructure assets -- especially in the Northeast for natural gas and the Permian and SCOOP/STACK for both oil and gas supplies.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108216-economics-will-eventually-win-out-for-pipelines-facing-delays-analysts-say
-
Clinton, Trump Advisers Face Off Over Energy Policy
Oct 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Advisers to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump clashed strongly Tuesday over major energy policy questions, like whether the Paris climate agreement is good for the country and what the future of coal should be.
Trevor Houser, the Democrat’s top energy adviser, argued for Clinton’s vision of a future in which low-carbon sources dominate the world’s energy markets.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), an adviser to Trump, repeatedly framed the Paris agreement as putting American interests subordinate to those of other countries, and pushed for a federal energy policy that is neutral to all energy sources.
The debate hosted by the University of Richmond’s law school provided a rare chance for representatives of Clinton and Trump to discuss energy policy, which got little attention at the presidential and vice presidential debates.
Cramer sought to put the Paris pact on par with major treaties Trump has criticized like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
“The acquiescence of American interests to global interests has been going on way too long. And the Paris climate accord is one more bad trade deal,” Cramer said.
Cramer complained that the United States is a relatively small greenhouse gas emitter, but it’s being relied on heavily to cut emissions.
“If the United States ceased to exist tomorrow … we wouldn’t affect the temperature in the next 50 years on the globe,” he said.
“So why are we having this political fight over something that’s frankly been blown way out of proportion when we can have a serious discussion about the core principles and the core responsibilities of environmental protection?”
Houser focused heavily on the position of Trump and most other Republican politicians that man-made climate change is not real.
“We have a candidate in Donald Trump who believes that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese,” Houser said.
“If Donald Trump actually believed that climate change was an issue that needed to be addressed, then maybe we’d be a little bit more interested in his views on the most successful international negotiating strategy. But this posture of ‘climate change isn’t real, but if it was real, this would be a better deal,’ is just a complete non-starter.”
The two campaign surrogates also clashed repeatedly over the future of coal. While Trump has promised to revitalize the coal industry, Clinton has argued that it will never return to its glory days.
“While the ‘war on coal’ narrative makes a good soundbite in coal country, while it’s easy for Donald Trump to show up to a rally and put on a hard hat and promise to return coal employment back to its glory days, we’ve been transitioning away from coal employment for a long time,” Houser said.
He then pivoted to a discussion about Clinton’s $30 billion plan to help coal country find new economic opportunities.
Cramer said that’s of little comfort to coal industry workers, and accused Clinton of trying to punish certain industries.
“This is the type of management that liberals like to utilize. They love to manipulate because of their political agenda, rather than a neutral, market-based solution,” said Cramer.
“The government should not be determining who gets a job and who gets a government program. They ought to be out of the business of determining those things and let the market decide.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302807-clinton-trump-advisers-face-off-over-energy-policy
-
Clinton, Trump and Obama’s Energy Legacy
Oct 25, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Jay Hakes
A quick look at the numbers regarding the Obama energy legacy
Three presidential debates provided scant mention of energy. So voters’ assessments of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the subject will likely reflect their views of Barrack Obama’s energy record.
An assessment of Obama’s legacy in energy can point to plenty of major trend lines moving in a positive trajectory during his time in office.
The numbers for U.S. energy production are stunning.
From the year before he took office (2008) – when the market was flooded with books raising alarms about “peak oil” – to the latest annual statistics (2015), production from all U.S. sources grew by a hefty 27 percent. This increase constitutes the greatest seven years for American energy producers in history.
The rising tide did not lift all ships. Coal production plummeted by 25 percent. This decline, however, was more than offset by increases in natural gas (up 35 percent), crude oil (85 percent), plant-based fuels (22 percent), wind power (233 percent), and solar energy (599 percent).
During this same period, U.S. consumption of energy dropped by 3 percent – a modest number but a break from the previous trend upward.
Big increases in domestic production paired with some reductions in energy use have provided many benefits. Net imports of oil, for example, were slashed in half. In 2008, energy comprised little over half of the total international trade deficit. By 2015, energy’s share had fallen to one-tenth.
Over this same period, emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 9 percent, enhancing the country’s clout at international climate negotiations. A sharp drop in coal consumption and significant gains in end-use efficiency helped reverse previous momentum toward higher emissions.
It’s fair to ask whether Obama has been mainly an observer or an instigator of the energy revolution on his watch. The short answer is some of both.
Work by government laboratories and private industry on technologies for extracting oil and gas and for wind and solar began decades before Obama took office. The high-price environment during the first decade of the 21st century encouraged additional domestic production and helped dampen demand growth.
On the policy side, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 – passed with bipartisan coalitions and signed by George W. Bush – revived the government’s long dormant updating of auto efficiency standards. The law also revolutionized the lighting industry by virtually outlawing the iconic incandescent bulb, thereby locking in energy savings for residential and commercial buildings. No major energy legislation passed in the Obama years.
Obama’s contribution to the rise of domestic oil and gas production has been a form of benign neglect. He conceded to state authority over most regulation of hydro-fracturing (fracking). He’s been a bit more open to offshore drilling than the three presidents preceding him, despite the historic explosion of BP’s Macondo well and pressures from some environmental activists. He’s pushed regulation of methane emissions from fracking but only after the technology became well established.
On other matters, he’s been highly proactive, particularly in regulatory matters affecting climate change. After two rounds of negotiated rulemaking, automobiles and other light-duty vehicles sold in the United States are moving toward a required average of 55 miles per gallon by 2025 – a level hardly considered feasible by efficiency advocates when he ran for office. In August, the administration finalized new standards for large trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles.
Obama has been the most vigorous president so far in pushing for higher efficiency standards for a broad array of appliances, ranging from refrigerators to water heaters.
The Clean Power Plan, still under litigation, requires the electric power industry to cut carbon emissions 32 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2030.
Obama appointed two distinguished scientists, Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz, as Secretary of Energy. Besides overseeing the appliance efficiency program, Chu and Moniz have made wise decisions guiding federal investments in energy research and development – despite repeated Republican complaints that a few projects (like Solyndra) failed. Moniz is arguably the most prepared and effective leader of the department since Jimmy Carter established it in 1977. Obama has buttressed their efforts to grow wind and solar by negotiating extensions of existing tax incentives.
Obama violated environmental orthodoxy by engaging in bilateral climate negotiations with China and India outside a broken Kyoto process. As a result, these countries with immense energy needs are now cooperating with the United States to restrain emissions. The impact on the future arc of global emissions will be immense.
A new agreement, signed by about 150 countries in Rwanda, will sharply reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons, a powerful greenhouse gas used for refrigeration and air-conditioning. The Kigali agreement, strongly supported by the Obama administration, will phase in the reductions over the coming decades.
Just as President Obama benefited from actions previous to his inauguration, the next president will enjoy positive momentum from actions during the past eight years. Growth in oil production will likely slow in a low-price environment, but the U.S. fracking industry keeps lowering its cost with technological innovation. Natural gas exports to Mexico will likely grow with the construction of more pipeline infrastructure.
Existing rules and business focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy will result better batteries to handle the intermittency of wind and solar. Automobiles with variable compression, a new technology that improves efficiency by an estimated 20 percent, will enter the market. Direct drive motors will provide additional efficiencies for appliances.
On the whole, Obama’s “all of the above” approach toward energy has made valuable long-term contributions for national security, economic growth, and environmental protection.
Obama’s energy record challenges the prevailing Donald Trump narrative for energy. Trump asserts that things in general can’t get any worse. The decline of coal production is frequently cited as a case in point. Yet coal is an outlier. Other sections of U.S. energy production have experienced a boom.
Trump continues to allege that vast reserves of American oil and gas are not brought to market because of onerous government regulations. In reality, additional production is impeded mainly by the limits of demand and lower prices. If more federal lands were opened up, for instance, current prices would not justify producing on them.
Trump actually presents a threat to growth in natural gas production. If he blows up the relationship with Mexico, the industry might lose an important and growing market for its product.
Clinton has generally embraced the Obama approach to energy but not without turmoil, some of which is reflected in recent releases from WikiLeaks. At times, she’s embraced natural gas “as a bridge fuel” for dealing with climate change, a position consistent with Obama’s “all of the above” approach but anathema to some environmental activists.
These activists have emphasized local opposition to oil and gas pipelines over Obama’s much higher impact rulemaking and negotiations to reduce carbon emissions, missing a key point that reducing demand for fossil fuels is the best way to reduce their production.
Clinton pledges to build on Obama efforts to slow global warming. Trump argues the science is a hoax invented by the Chinese.
Those who find more positives than negatives in the Obama energy record will probably find Clinton an attractive candidate on energy. Those who believe we’re headed in the wrong direction may want to give Trump a try.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/10/25/clinton_trump_and_obamas_energy_legacy_110094.html
-
U.S. to Unveil Path to Decarbonize by 2050 in Morocco
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The U.S. will unveil a sweeping plan to decarbonize its economy by 2050 at next month's climate summit in Morocco, giving other nations a template to draw up their own plans for quickly shifting away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources, the top U.S. climate negotiator said Oct. 25.
Under the 2015 Paris climate pact, countries are to develop what negotiator Jonathan Pershing termed “mid-century strategies” to show how they'll halt rising greenhouse gas emissions and meet the accord's goal to keep global temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, compared to the pre-industrial era.
“We're in the process of developing technical projections for the longer term, not stopping in 2025 but looking out beyond that” to demonstrate how “we squeeze the vast, vast bulk of carbon emissions by 2050,” Pershing said at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center in Washington, D.C.
“The pathways we lay out which we plan to release in a couple of weeks in Morocco will detail scenarios in which the U.S. can build a very low-emission economy that lets us play our part in helping achieve our long-term global target of avoiding dangerous climate change,” Pershing said.
Such decarbonization plans could send a strong signal to energy investors in showing the world is headed away from fossil fuels-based economies in just a few decades to a dramatic uptick in wind, solar and other renewable sources.
Natural Gas Carbon Capture Key
For the U.S., that will require continued progress in driving down the cost of wind and solar energy, the U.S. special envoy for climate change said. But it also would likely require capturing and storing fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants but those fueled by cleaner natural gas.
Such technologies have yet to be widely deployed in the U.S.
“If I look out to 2050, gas is going to have to also be captured and stored,” Pershing said.
“So to me it's not a question of whether gas is good but if the carbon is good,” he said. “To me capture and storage becomes an essential technology” in any discussion about decarbonizing the U.S. economy, he said.
Plan to be Released in November
Pershing said the U.S. plan, to be released at the Nov. 7-18 UN climate summit in Marrakesh, will build on the pledge the U.S. made in the run-up to the Paris deal to cut its emissions by as much as 28 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels.
“I think it's going to be a big deal,” Pershing told reporters after the forum but declined to detail how far along the U.S. is in developing the plan. “But it's not done yet,” he said.
Negotiators will meet in Morocco to take the first steps to implement the Paris pact; the deal will have entered into force by then—much faster than expected—because of quick acceptance this year by enough countries, including big emitters such as the U.S., China and India.
Continued Progress Needed
Pershing said the U.S. is making progress toward its emissions reduction target due to declining prices in solar and wind but also booming production in natural gas, which is less carbon-intensive than coal.
“There's no way in which we could be down as far as we are without gas in the mix,” he said, noting that gas prices have declined from $13 per mcf—which denotes a thousand cubic feet of the fuel—to less than $4 over the last decade.
The nearly 200 nations struggled at the December Paris talks over whether to call on all countries to decarbonize their economies by 2050 as part of the climate pact.
But they landed on a compromise calling on parties to aim “to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible,” recognizing that those nations still developing “will take longer” to cap their emissions.
In June 2015, leaders from the Group of Seven largest industrialized countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S.—backed a goal to decarbonize the world economy by 2100.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99510206&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99510206&jd=99510206
-
Record Green Power Installations Beat Fossil Fuel for First Time
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
Renewable energy reached an important turning point last year with record new installations of emissions-free power surpassing sources that burn fossil fuel, according to the International Energy Agency.
New installations of renewable energy overtook conventional power for the first time in 2015, the Paris-based agency said Oct. 25 in its Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report. Global green power rose by a record 153 gigawatts, equivalent to 55 percent of newly installed capacity last year. Total installed capacity exceeded coal for the first time, the IEA said.
“We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables and, as is the case with other fields, the center of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said.
The report shows the acceleration toward clean-power generation was already picking up pace before governments agreed at the Paris climate talks in December to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Renewables will be the world's fastest-growing source of electricity over the next five years, according to the report.
The IEA raised its estimate of the amount of green energy on power grids by 13 percent, revising its forecast to 42 percent by 2021. About 500,000 solar panels were installed each day across the globe in 2015, according to the report.
Renewables capacity will be supported by falling costs, according to the agency. Solar panels are projected to be a quarter cheaper over the five year forecast period ending in 2021. Onshore wind-turbine prices may drop 15 percent.
Much of the growth will be driven by four countries, the IEA said, identifying China, the U.S., India and Mexico as clean-energy hotspots over the next five years. Growth rates in the European Union, an early policy supporter and adopter of clean-energy technologies, may decline.
The IEA's regional conclusions include:
CHINA
The nation is seen as the “undisputed global leader” and is expected to account for 40 percent of the future growth, according to the IEA. Public pressure stoked by rampant urban air pollution has prompted the government to accelerate policies favorable to clean energy. Last year, China's installation “corresponds to two wind turbines every hour,” said Paolo Frankl, head of the IEA's renewable energy division, in a conference call.
U.S
The U.S. government's solar and onshore wind tax-credit extension in December also support the industry. That decision was responsible for about 43 percent of the IEA's forecast revision. Even as the U.S. market initially slowed, with developers no longer rushing to close projects in time for the subsidy, the IEA expects it to have the second-largest global growth rate with a 50 percent increase in capacity over the forecast period ending in 2021.
INDIA
Renewables in India are projected to expand by 76 gigawatts by 2021, led by solar power which is seen growing eight-fold. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has set a target to install 175 gigawatts by 2022, up from 45 gigawatts presently. India has plans to bolster its solar manufacturing industry with $3.1 billion of state aid. Weak grid infrastructure and distribution risks may limit deployment, the IEA said.
MEXICO
Mexico's clean energy capacity is forecast to nearly double by 2021, adding 15 gigawatts. A recent reform of the power industry and the implementation of an auction system has resulted in some of the lowest prices on record for electricity generated from solar and wind.
EUROPE
The EU is expected to increase its installed renewables by 21 percent in the medium-term, down from 62 percent over the past six years. The IEA points to weak growth in electricity demand, as well as policy uncertainty. Brexit, Germany's measures to lower the cost of renewables on consumers and Poland's limits on wind and solar projects are seen as potential downside risks affecting growth. The trade bloc has a target to generate 27 percent of its energy consumption from clean sources by 2030.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99510205&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99510205&jd=99510205
-
Chemical Spill At Hopewell Plant Causes Roadway Closure
Oct 26, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
HOPEWELL, Va. — The “all-clear” has been given after a chemical leak at a Hopewell plant temporarily shut down a roadway.
Local news outlets report that emergency crews responded to AdvanSix, formerly known as the Honeywell Plant, Tuesday night after receiving a call about the leak.
Officials say the leak was quickly contained inside the plant, although State Route 10 was temporarily closed as a precaution. The road has since reopened.
News agencies report the chemical released is called Oleum, which is a strong sulfuric acid.
Officials say there is no longer a threat to the surrounding community. Crews are continuing to investigate what caused of the leak.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/chemical-spill-at-hopewell-plant-causes-roadway-closure/2016/10/26/6996061a-9b5c-11e6-b552-b1f85e484086_story.html
-
CSB Deploys to Kansas Chemical Leak That Injured 125
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal accident investigators are looking into a chemical leak that sent a plume of mixed chemicals across a Kansas town last week, injuring 125 people and shutting down nearby highways, according to local news reports.
U.S. Chemical Safety Board spokeswoman Hillary Cohen said a team of investigators were sent to the site of the accidental release in downtown Atchinson, Kan.
A mixture of chemicals leaked Oct. 21 from an MGP Ingredients plant, which is headquartered in the town, and manufactures specialty wheat proteins and starches for use in distilled spirits like bourbon, rye whiskey, gin and vodka as well as food products, according to the company's website.
Local news reports said an employee was delivering an unspecified chemical and poured it into the wrong tank, where a reaction occurred with another substance, causing a chemical cloud to disperse over the town around 8 a.m. on Oct. 21.
The Kansas City Star reported Oct. 22 that 125 people were hospitalized after the chemical leak and that all but two, one of whom is an employee at the plant, had been released from medical care.
“This incident underscores the very serious consequences that can occur when a chemical release goes beyond a facility's fence line and impacts nearby residents,” CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland said in a statement Oct. 24.
Since Sutherland was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2015, the CSB has sent staff to four other sites: Delaware City Refining Co. in Delaware City, Del., last December; Enterprise Product Partners LP in Pascagoula, Miss., in July; an Airgas nitrous oxide plant in Cantonment, Fla.,in August; and Sunoco Logistics Partners in Nederland, Texas, also in August.
In a statement, the CSB said it sent a four-person team to Atchinson with Supervisory Investigator Johnnie Banks coordinating the probe.
MGP Ingredients said in a statement Oct. 21 that officials “continue to work closely with the appropriate regulatory agencies to fully understand the cause and mitigate the chance of a similar incident occurring in the future.”http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99510207&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99510207&jd=99510207
-
Climate Left Out of Cove Point LNG Review: Sierra Club Filing
Oct 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department failed to analyze the indirect climate impacts of Dominion Resources Inc.'s Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility in Maryland, the Sierra Club said in a federal appeals court brief that is part of a broader set of legal challenges against such facilities (Sierra Club v. Dep't of Energy, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1186, brief filed 10/24/16).
The Sierra Club claims in its Oct. 24 brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that expanded LNG exports will increase U.S. natural gas production, processing and pipeline transportation. The Sierra Club said that these indirect environmental impacts can be reasonably foreseeable, while the Department of Energy has claimed they are not.
The lawsuit is one of several that the Sierra Club has filed against the Energy Department after the department denied the Sierra Club's petitions for rehearing following the DOE's approval of LNG exports to foreign countries from LNG export facilities.
“We're pretty confident in our case,” Pat Gallagher, the Sierra Club's legal director, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 24. “There are literally decades of case law under [the National Environmental Policy Act] commanding agencies to look at the growth-inducing impacts of federal approvals.”
Impacts Need Attention
He said that the Energy Department failed to adequately assess the indirect upstream impacts, involving natural gas production, processing and transportation, to feed the increased LNG export demands. He also said the department didn't fully assess the indirect downstream impacts, which would include increased greenhouse gas emissions from LNG exports.
Dominion has told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it plans to complete construction of its Cove Point LNG export terminal in Chesapeake Bay, Md., so that facilities may start service in June 2017.
The Sierra Club is taking a dual approach in filing lawsuits against the FERC and DOE, which both have roles in LNG export facility approvals.
FERC is the lead agency to conduct environmental impact statements before issuing approvals to site and construct natural gas export terminals. The Energy Department then uses these environmental impact statements when issuing its export authorizations permitting companies to sell liquefied gas to other countries.
One of Four Lawsuits Filed
The Cove Point LNG case is one of four lawsuits that the Sierra Club has filed in the D.C. Circuit against the Energy Department related to environmental reviews of LNG export facilities. The other ongoing lawsuits include Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P.'s Freeport LNG facility in Texas; Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Corpus Christi LNG facility in San Patricio County, Texas; and Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, La., which opened and began exports this year.
All of the cases against DOE are currently in different stages of the briefing process, and oral arguments have yet to be scheduled.
The Sierra Club has separately filed four petitions in the D.C. Circuit against the FERC's approval to begin construction of the Cove Point, Freeport and Sabine Pass LNG export facilities. The D.C. Circuit denied all of these petitions, finding that the indirect environmental impacts of LNG exports would be better addressed by the Energy Department. The D.C. Circuit hasn't issued a ruling yet on the Sierra Club's petition against FERC involving the Corpus Christi LNG facility.
Separately, the Sierra Club has filed 21 administrative challenges with DOE and 12 administrative challenges with FERC involving the agencies’ environmental reviews of LNG export facilities, Gallagher said.
The Energy Department's respondent brief in the Cove Point case against DOE is due Dec. 8.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99510215&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99510215&jd=99510215
-
States, Industries Warn Of Costs, Delays With EPA Air Permit Reform Plan
Oct 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and groups representing major industries are warning that EPA's proposed overhaul of the process for petitioning the agency to oppose Clean Air Act Title V permits could add costs and delays to the permitting process, while environmentalists say the plan fails to fix fundamental problems that disadvantage permit objectors.
The competing concerns, outlined in comments submitted recently to EPA, underscore the difficulty the agency will face as it crafts a final version of the proposal. The agency is trying to revise the process for allowing groups to contest Title V permits -- which are “umbrella” operating permits incorporating all applicable air permitting requirements -- after some states and industry groups called on EPA to clarify and standardize the process.
Title V permits alone do not impose substantive new emissions control requirements on industrial facilities. But they list applicable substantive requirements such as those imposed by prevention of significant deterioration permits, so they are frequently targeted because of perceived failings in the underlying permits.
Although EPA writes some Title V permits, many states write the permits under delegated air law authority and sometimes environmental groups then petition the agency to object to those permits.
In it Aug. 24 proposal, EPA floated the idea of providing the public with better notification of air permits and review deadlines, for example through posting on the websites of EPA regional offices when the agency receives a petition, and the corresponding deadline for submitting a petition.
Under the air law, EPA has 45 days to object to a proposed permit, and if it declines to do so, petitioners can ask EPA to object to the permit within 60 days. There is no statutory deadline, however, for EPA to respond to a petition, and petitioners have in many instances sued EPA, claiming unreasonable delay and seeking to force a response.
The agency's proposal would require that permitting authorities, usually states, “prepare complete permit records that are consistent with the requirements” of the air law “by requiring them to respond in writing to significant comments received during the public comment period” for draft Title V permits.
Permitting authorities would then have to provide that response in writing to EPA within the agency's 45-day review period, a move EPA says would assist the agency in evaluating permits.
Groups objecting to permits, meanwhile, would have to craft their petitions according to a standardized format, and must include certain information, including a description of exactly how petitioners believe the permit fails to meet applicable clean air law requirements. Petitioners must in their comments on a draft permit have raised with “reasonable specificity” the points they subsequently rely on in their petition to EPA.
States' Concerns
In Oct. 20 comments on the proposal, the Virginia Department Of Environmental Quality says that EPA's plan appears to eliminate the possibility for concurrent state review of public comments and assessment by EPA during the 45-day review period. The state says that under the plan, “the permitting authorities may no longer conduct a concurrent review, potentially slowing down the permitting process.”
Virginia also warns of additional cost from the proposed changes. “EPA proposes to require the permitting authority to issue a second round of notification within 30 days of sending the proposed permit to EPA.” The notice “imposes an inappropriate and undue burden” on states and permit applicants financially, the state says.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality in its Oct. 13 comments makes the same point about timing, but with greater concern. The proposed rule “would vastly increase the time necessary to issue permits,” in effect by a minimum of 45 days, and hence the state “strongly opposes” the requirement for states to submit a complete response to comments document to EPA prior to the 45-day review period.
The state says the proposal's treatment of any response to an EPA permitting objection as a new proposed permit “has the potential to further delay ultimate permitting decisions,” and maybe even “lead to delays of indefinite duration.”
However, the state agrees with EPA's requirement that documents be transmitted electronically, and that petitions conform to standard formatting requirements and contain mandatory content.Alabama and Nevada in their comments make similar observations about additional administrative burdens and delays that may occur.
New Jersey, meanwhile, in its Oct. 4 comments says it supports EPA's efforts to clarify deadlines applicable to permits and petitions, “and suggests that in addition to the date the proposed permit is received and the 60-day deadline, EPA should also post complete proposed permit records, including the Response to Comment (RTC) document, on its Regional Office Website.”
'Timely' Permits
Groups representing the utility and other sectors are using their written comments on the proposal to caution EPA against any steps that could lead to delays in granting permits for industrial facilities.
The Clean Air Strong Economy (CASE) coalition of industrial companies, based in Indiana, in its Oct. 21 commentsnotes that some states already have well-established ways of working with EPA to inform the agency of concerns raised over permits, and argues that the proposal should not disrupt such cooperation.
“EPA's proposed revisions must not impede the efficient and timely issuance of permits,” CASE says. Several states, including Indiana, are already required to respond to comments received during the public comment period on a draft Title V permit, “and have entered into well-developed written protocols with U.S. EPA that more than adequately address response/review of significant comments. These states should not have to step back and adopt inferior procedures that lengthen the time it takes to obtain a permit.”
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing the power generation sector, in its Oct. 22 comments says, “UARG supports revision of the rules to standardize petition content requirements and methods of submission, and to require that the petitioner provide the permit applicant a copy of any petition for objection at the same time as the permitting authority.”
The group “agrees that such standardization will make petitions easier to prepare, track, and respond to and that it will make the process more efficient for all interested parties.”
'Unacceptable Outcome'
However, at least one environmental group says the changes EPA is proposing do not go far enough to fix what it sees as a slow and cumbersome process for objecting to Title V permits. Environmentalists have criticized the process for petitioning EPA to object to permits as unclear and EPA's responses to petitions as far too slow. Nonetheless, environmental groups often use permit petitions to oppose industrial projects they oppose.
Advocacy group the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League in its Oct. 24 comments says, “In our experience, the petitioning of the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Title V of the Clean Air Act is an unsatisfactory procedural exercise with an unacceptable outcome.”
The group has filed several permit objections, but says the process rarely yields a positive outcome. EPA's “response to our petitions has been slow to non-existent. The deadlines required of the interested public to file petitions are cast in concrete, but the statutory deadlines applying to the agency are written in sand. The addition of an electronic submittal system alone will not suffice. The EPA must respond to petitions in a timely and substantive manner,” the group says.
The group further accuses EPA of siding with state permitting authorities when advocates object to a Title V permit, and not acting as a neutral arbiter of disputes.
Despite its criticism of EPA, the group supports the requirement in the proposal to require a more thorough response to comments from states. “These changes would provide more access to and better understanding of permitting decisions, and better protect public health,” the group says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industries-warn-costs-delays-epa-air-permit-reform-plan
-
Climate Envoy Warns Against ‘Backsliding’ From Paris Pact
Oct 26, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The United States’ top climate change diplomat warned Tuesday against potential attempts at “renegotiation” of the Paris climate agreement.
Jonathan Pershing, special envoy for climate change at the State Department, said preserving the principles of the 2015 agreement should be a top United States priority both at meeting of participating countries next month and into the future.
“We also need to guard against the renegotiation of Paris. In the parlance of these negotiations, we do not want any backsliding,” Pershing said Tuesday at an Atlantic Council event previewing next month’s international meeting in Morocco.
The main threat to the accord that Pershing identified was any push to reduce the obligations for poorer countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“We will not countenance any undermining of the basic principles that govern the agreement. In our view, we have moved beyond a bifurcated world in which developed and developing countries are in two buckets and set against each other,” he said. “We resolved that, we need to move beyond that.”
The differential between developed and developing nations is what doomed the Kyoto Protocol of 1992.
With that in mind, world leaders sought to prevent such a divide in negotiating the Paris agreement, and every country was asked to submit plans to limit or reduce emissions.
Pershing avoided speaking specifically to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign promise to “cancel” the agreement.
While it would be difficult for Trump to immediately pull the United States out of the pact, its emissions reductions are not binding, so he could refuse to comply as president.
But Pershing did urge the next president to keep up the pressure to cut emissions and to not fall back on President Obama’s promise to reduce the country’s emission of greenhouse gases 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025.
“The 26 to 28 percent that we’ve committed ourselves to is very much within grasp. It means you can’t let up on the accelerator,” he said. “It means you have to keep pushing these options forward.”
The next president will also be responsible for submitting new greenhouse gas goals to the United Nations for an expected 2020 meeting to update and strengthen the Paris agreement for the period beyond 2025.
Pershing warned that that task will be difficult.
“The next generation, beyond 2025, is harder. There, we have to think of a variety of things,” he said, listing research and development of clean energy as a central factor for future emissions cuts.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/302689-climate-envoy-warns-against-backsliding-from-paris-climate-pact
-
Climate’s On The Ballot Like Never Before
Oct 25, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sean H. Donahue
Each election is the most important ever for climate policy. As greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere, climatic warming and ocean acidification intensify, and the time to act dwindles. When George W. Bush and Al Gore squared off in 2000 (both promising to cut greenhouse gas emissions), carbon dioxide concentrations were at 370 parts per million and scientists were ringing alarm bells; they are now above 400 ppm (higher than they have been for millions of years). Meanwhile, nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000; average temperatures in 2015 surpassed the prior record (set in 2014), by a lot, and 2016 will likely break that record going away. Observed impacts of carbon pollution – from coastal floodingto disappearing polar ice to dying coral reefs – are more pronounced than 16 (or even four) years ago.
But the 2016 presidential election is especially momentous for reasons that go beyond the reality that “time’s a-wastin” if we want to preserve a climate congenial to human society, natural resources, and biodiversity.
Unlike prior presidential elections, this one takes place with substantive greenhouse gas control policies in place at the international and national levels: The December 2015 Paris Agreementprovides for long-term greenhouse gas reductions on a global scale linked to concrete climate milestones; enough large-emitting countries have already ratified it (including the United States, China, India, Brazil and the European Union) that it will enter into force on Nov. 4, 2016. And President Obama’s EPA has adopted, under the Clean Air Act, a series of national rules providing for significant reductions in carbon emissions in the United States.
These accomplishments did not come easily. The Paris Agreement emerged from years of difficult and often disappointing international negotiations as a striking breakthrough or even “miracle.” On the home front, the 2007 Supreme Court decision confirming that the Clean Air Act applies to control carbon pollution – itself the culmination of years of litigation – was followed by a decade of fighting about how to apply the Act to carbon pollution. Despite political attacks,repeated efforts to repeal EPA’s statutory authority, and seven solid years of all-out litigation from opponents, this Administration managed to finalize regulations securing major reductions in emissions from the largest categories of sources – cars and trucks, fossil-fuel burning power plants, and oil and gas production facilities. It has also required that federal agencies factor into their decisions the cost to society of carbon pollution.
When measured against the scale of the problem, even these big steps are modest. But for this most technically and politically challenging of pollution problems, this is what progress looks like. Together with the historic breakthrough in Paris (and more recent agreements on aviation emissions and hydrofluorocarbons), the domestic legal developments give reason for optimism that has been hard to come by in this area. They provide greater certainty for industry and investors, disprove opponents “parade of horribles” objections, and lay the groundwork for future measures.
Most of the hard work still lies ahead. The next President will play a central role in deciding whether the Paris accord develops into a robust global mechanism to avert the worst impacts of climate change, or falls apart amidst national rivalries and short-term politics. Defending the existing Clean Air Act policies against ongoing legal challenges, and devising cost-effective, durable ways of securing deeper pollution reductions will take dogged commitment and real skill.
Which brings us to the second thing that makes the 2016 election singularly important for climate: Never has there been such a gulf between the major parties’ presidential nominees on climate change policy.
For the first time since climate change became a political issue in the 1990s, one of the major-party tickets outright denies its importance (and sometimes even its reality). Both Donald Trumpand Mike Pence have repeatedly called climate change a hoax and a non-problem. Trump has vowed to “cancel” the United States’ participation in the Paris Agreement, and to rescindthe Obama Administration’s central power plant rule, the Clean Power Plan, as well as other core Clean Air Act regulations. His designated EPA transition chief is a climate skeptic andstaunch opponent of greenhouse gas regulation. Pence has insisted that the Earth’s atmosphere is cooling, had an exceptionally weak environmental record in Congress, and has supported legal efforts to invalidate federal carbon regulations. Trump’s and Pence’s open and notorious opposition to climate action is unprecedented in candidates so close to power – and at odds with most voters in their own party.
Hillary Clinton, in contrast, recognizes climate change as an “urgent threat,” has a keen interest in climate policy, and has developed an ambitious climate program. She strongly supports the Paris Agreement, and, as Secretary of State, helped to lay the groundwork for the negotiations that led to it. She has pledged to defend federal climate regulations, and to pursue additional means to reduce carbon pollution and promote renewable energy. Her campaign chair is a seasoned environmental policy expert and leading climate hawk. Nothing will be easy, but all indications are that she would make climate a top priority and build upon what has been achieved over the last decade, nationally and internationally.
Whoever wins on Nov. 8, the economic forces, state policies, and citizen concerns driving rapid growth in clean energy will not vanish. And there are legal constraints on a new Administration’s ability to undo regulations or defy statutory obligations. But the inertial power of a Chief Executive who really does not want to act is immense. Electing a President on a platform that dismisses climate change itself; promises to undo foundational policies that are already in place; and spurns an international consensus in favor of carbon control, would be a severe blow the entire climate change mitigation effort. At best, it would sacrifice time that we don’t have.
Sean H. Donahue has represented environmental and health organizations in litigation over greenhouse gas regulations, including litigation over the Clean Power Plan. He previously taught law at Washington & Lee, Iowa and Georgetown; was an attorney in the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/302609-climates-on-the-ballot-like-never-before
Industry and Association News
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