Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 11/4/2016

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices Drop, PET Bottle Resin Rises
Nov 4, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito

North American polypropylene resin prices reversed course in October like an ice skater with a bad case of vertigo.
(ACC Mentioned) Green Biologics Announces Partnership With HOC Industries
Nov 4, 2016 | Biomass Magazine

Green Biologics Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Green Biologics Ltd., a U.K. industrial biotechnology and renewable chemicals company, recently announced its strategic partnership with HOC Industries, a custom blender, packager and distributor...

LCSA News

‘Constellation’ of Factors to Shape Success of Chemicals Law
Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

A Donald Trump (R) presidency could place obstacles before the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to implement the amended industrial chemicals law, according to Bloomberg BNA interviews with former agency officials who worked with the EPA in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Obama’s New Law on Animal Testing Will Put an End to Cruel Treatment in Laboratories
Nov 4, 2016 | Holidog Times

On June 22 of this year, President Barack Obama signed a new law that was a giant step of progress for animal activists around the world, and especially in the United States.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) Listening to the Science on BPA with Greek Scientists
Nov 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Hentges

With so much scientific review of bisphenol A (BPA) having already taken place, you might think that there would be little to learn from further review.
EPA Proposes Expanded Use of New Herbicide, Enlist Duo
Nov 3, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Heather Hollingsworth

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed more than doubling the number of states allowed to use a new version of a popular weed killer on genetically modified crops despite its earlier concerns.
EPA on Notice for Not Regulating Some Tap Water Contaminants
Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

Failure to regulate several drinking water contaminants could land the Environmental Protection Agency in court again. This would follow resolution of a lawsuit over its failure to regulate perchlorate, an ingredient used in rocket fuel and fireworks.
A Different Vote–One That Could Have an Impact on Lead Exposure
Nov 3, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt

There’s a vote coming this month you should know about and it doesn’t involve Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. This month, the International Code Council (ICC) will consider a simple proposal to reduce lead exposures.
EU Member States Back CLP Changes
Nov 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton

EU member states have approved amendments to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP).
Impact of Benzene Exposures on Cancer to Be Examined: UN
Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Benzene's cancer classification will be updated in 2017 with particular attention paid to the adverse health effects linked to different levels of exposure, the United Nation's cancer research agency announced Nov. 3.
As Seizures Top 400 in US China Carfentanil Trade Thrives
Nov 3, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Erika Kinetz and Raphael Satter

Seizures of the deadly chemical carfentanil have exploded across the United States, with more than 400 cases documented in eight states since July alone, The Associated Press has found.

Energy News

Explosion Stokes Fears over Aging Network
Nov 3, 2016 | Wall Street Journal (In E&E Greenwire)
By Alison Sider and Nicole Friedman

The deadly explosion this week of Colonial Pipeline Co.'s Alabama pipeline has people raising concerns about aging oil and gas infrastructure.
EPA Extends Comment Deadline for Refinery Air Rule
Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending from Dec. 2 to Dec. 19 the deadline for public comments on its proposal to reconsider aspects of the agency's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule limiting air toxics from oil refineries, and is also announcing a hearing on the issue Nov. 17...
NPS to Boost Oversight of Oil and Gas Operations
Nov 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar

The National Park Service today announced that it will increase oversight of oil and gas operations in and around parks in every state but Alaska.
What the Election Outcome Will Really Mean for Climate and Energy
Nov 3, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney

You haven’t heard it much in the media, but this election is likely to have large consequences for how the United States, and perhaps the world, addresses climate change. A
Energy Influence: Energy PACs Steer Clear of Presidential Race
Nov 3, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen

The presidential race has seen huge fundraising numbers for both candidates — but it’s not because of the energy sector. Energy PACs barely gave to either candidate, according to a POLITICO review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission
Texas Would Be Exempt From Emissions Trading Under Proposal
Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq

Texas would no longer be required to participate in a federal emissions trading program for power plants nor would the state be considered a significant contributor to downwind air pollution under an Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule.
Time to Move the Standing Rock Pipeline
Nov 3, 2016 | New York Times
By Editorial Board

President Obama has pointed a way out of a dangerous standoff over an oil pipeline being built in North Dakota. He told an interviewer on Tuesday that the Army Corps of Engineers was looking for a new pipeline route, presumably away from...
Dakota Access Pipeline is No Cultural or Environmental Threat
Nov 4, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Craig Stevens

The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172-mile oil pipeline that will safely transport crude from the Bakken fields of North Dakota to Illinois for domestic U.S. consumption, was for years a project no one could fairly call “controversial.”
Big Oil Slowly Adapts to a Warming World
Nov 3, 2016 | New York Times
By Clifford Krauss

In a warming world, Big Oil doesn’t look quite so big anymore.

Chemical Security News

Cybersecurity: Building Resiliency Together
Nov 3, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jeh Johnson and Thomas J. Donohue

National Cyber Security Awareness Month has concluded, but we continue to urge everyone—individuals, businesses, and governments—to do more to protect themselves and our organizations against cyber incidents.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Paris Climate Agreement Becomes International Law
Nov 4, 2016 | AP (In the Washington Post)
By Michael Astor

The Paris Agreement to combat climate change becomes international law on Friday — a landmark demonstrating that countries are serious about tackling global warming amid growing fears that the world is becoming hotter faster than scientists expected.
GOP Senators Warn Negotiators: US Climate Goals Might Not Last
Nov 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

A group of Republican senators on Thursday advised American negotiators to warn their international counterparts that President Obama’s climate goals might not survive the next administration.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices Drop, PET Bottle Resin Rises

Nov 4, 2016 | Plastics News

By Frank Esposito

North American polypropylene resin prices reversed course in October like an ice skater with a bad case of vertigo.
Meanwhile, regional PET bottle resin prices for the month notched another minor increase.
Regional PP prices slid 1.5 cents per pound in October, following a similar price decrease in polymer-grade propylene feedstock. PP prices had soared a total of 9.5 cents per pound in August-September as inventories tightened. But those hikes came only after prices had fallen for five straight months — knocking a total of 10 cents off of PP prices — because of a big increase in availability of imported PP.
Taking into account prior increases and decreases, regional PP prices now are up a net of 1.5 cents per pound since Jan. 1.
Propylene prices are falling as inventories are trending up, according to Scott Newell, a market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. Supply/demand balances have improved for propylene monomer, he added.
Steam crackers and refineries are returning from planned and unplanned outages, Newell said, and a PDH propylene unit operated by Dow Chemical Co. in Texas also is up and running. Additional propylene price cuts could be seen in November and December, he added, which could cause PP resin prices to drop as well.
North American PP sales were up 0.8 percent in the first nine months of 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales essentially were flat for that period, while export sales surged almost 38 percent.
Although the overall domestic PP market was flat, some end markets did experience sales growth through September. In the sheet market, sales were up almost 5 percent. Domestic sales of PP into injection molded rigid packaging were up more than 2 percent. The injection molded rigid packaging category includes cups, containers, caps and closures.
PET prices up again
Regional prices for PET bottle resin ticked up an average of 1 cent per pound in October, matching a similar increase in September. Higher feedstock prices played a role in the increase, as did temporary shutdowns of regional PET production because of Hurricane Matthew.
PET maker DAK Americas LLC operated under force majeure conditions at its plants in Fayetteville, N.C.; and Columbia and Charleston, S.C., from Oct. 10 until Nov. 1, a company spokesman said. Market sources added that rail deliveries of PET from the region also were affected by the storm.
Prior to the back-to-back 1-cent hikes, regional PET prices had slipped by 1 cent per pound in August. For the year, PET prices in the region now are up a net of 2 cents per pound.
Regional PET sales are expected to be flat at best in 2016, as increased sales into bottled water struggle to offset ongoing drops in the carbonated soft drink market.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161103/NEWS/161109934/pp-prices-drop-pet-bottle-resin-rises

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Green Biologics Announces Partnership With HOC Industries

Nov 4, 2016 | Biomass Magazine

Green Biologics Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Green Biologics Ltd., a U.K. industrial biotechnology and renewable chemicals company, recently announced its strategic partnership with HOC Industries, a custom blender, packager and distributor of consumer and government products, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.
“HOC is an ideal partner for Green Biologics,” said David Anderson, global vice president of marketing for Green Biologics. “The company’s packaging capabilities combined with its extensive business relationships with leading, nationally recognized retailers fit perfectly into Green Biologics’ strategy to drive growth through value added, formulated products that meet the needs of consumers.”
Green Biologics is in the process of starting up its first commercial production facility for renewable n-butanol and acetone in Little Falls, Minnesota, and aims to begin commercial shipments to customers by late 2016. The company is a member of the American Chemistry Council and is building its new green solvents facility to meet Responsible Care standards. In addition, Green Biologics has received USDA BioPreferred status for multiple products in its increasing portfolio of specialty chemicals.
“Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of chemicals in their everyday lives, and our objective is to offer safe, natural and high performance alternatives to currently available products,” added Anderson. “HOC has the capabilities, retail history and credibility to support our market strategy.”
“HOC is excited to partner with Green Biologics," said Luke Nath, vice president of HOC Industries. “Its technology and our capabilities are well suited to meeting the growing demands of our retail client bases, which are moving toward new products that combine performance with sustainability.”
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/13871/green-biologics-announces-partnership-with-hoc-industries

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

‘Constellation’ of Factors to Shape Success of Chemicals Law

Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

A Donald Trump (R) presidency could place obstacles before the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to implement the amended industrial chemicals law, according to Bloomberg BNA interviews with former agency officials who worked with the EPA in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Trump's election alone, however, is highly unlikely prevent the EPA from carrying out its legal obligations, said these individuals who participated in the implementation of the original 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
Given her background in children's health advocacy, a Hillary Clinton (D) administration would likely be more supportive of a rigorous implementation of TSCA as amended June 22 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), the individuals said.
Her administration, however, could not guarantee the EPA will be able to achieve the law's goals of protecting public health by collecting more information about new chemical products or increasing its ability to regulate harmful chemicals already in commerce, they said.
“Presidents matter, court cases matter, individuals matter. The success or failure of a law depends on a constellation of influences,” Jim Aidala, who began his career at EPA as an intern in 1975 and became a program analyst for the assistant administrator of pesticides and toxic substances by 1979 before leading that office under the William Clinton administration. He now works for Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. in Washington
A central argument driving the congressional update of the 1976 chemicals law was the original TSCA was fundamentally flawed.
Why the original TSCA failed to manage chemicals as well as its crafters intended elicited a variety of responses and reasons.
One reason some former midlevel management EPA staff cited was Ronald Reagan's (R) presidency, which they said sought to undermine all EPA regulations.
Looking Back, Then Forward
The original statute and the amended chemicals law have a shared quirk. Both statutes were written by Congress, with the assistance of federal staff from one administration. Within months of enactment, however, their implementation did—or will—occur under a different administration.
In the lead up to the original passage of TSCA in 1976, it was largely crafted with the input of the Richard Nixon (R) and Gerald Ford (R) administrations, but initially implemented under Jimmy Carter (D) and further under Reagan.
Likewise, in 2016, the amended law largely was crafted with the technical input of EPA officials during President Obama's administration, but it will be implemented under a Clinton or Trump administration.
One of the six people Bloomberg BNA contacted, J. Clarence “Terry” Davies, helped write the original law while he worked at the Council on Environmental Quality from 1970–1973. The others worked either for EPA during in the 1970s or 1980 or interacted with it on behalf of industry or environmental organizations.
Information also came from 10 oral histories in which senior management EPA officials shared their experiences with TSCA's implementation. This histories were compiled by the Chemical Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit museum and archives located in Philadelphia.
Orphan Law
Based on those interviews and histories, many factors including the original statute's language; turf wars within the agency and between federal agencies; early agency decisions; anti-regulatory positions held by Carter then Reagan; and court rulings, were among the factors that undercut TSCA's effectiveness.
But one reason was cited more than any other: the original TSCA was abandoned.
“TSCA was a political orphan from the very beginning,” Davies told Bloomberg BNA.
The AFL-CIO was the only organization that strongly supported passage of TSCA, said the union's Peg Seminario, a view confirmed by other people Bloomberg BNA interviewed.
“It was never anybody else's high priority,” Davies said. “That's a significant difference between then and now.”
Transitions
Like the original TSCA, the amended law will pass from one administration to another while the regulatory requirements and policies the statute mandates still are in development.
Neither the Clinton nor the Trump campaigns responded to Bloomberg BNA's queries about their positions on the amended chemicals law or chemicals policy generally.
Public statements they have made, however, show that Clinton has long been concerned about the effect chemicals could have on children, particularly those living in low-income communities and in communities of color.
With the exception of asbestos, Trump has voiced few opinions on chemical policy.
The presidential transition that occurred months after original TSCA was enacted shook up agency efforts to implement the law, according to EPA managers serving then.
Glenn Schweitzer, director of EPA's Office of Toxic Substances from 1973 to1977, said agency staff held a meeting and discussed ideas for implementing various sections of TSCA, Schweitzer recalled.
The EPA received many kudos for its preparation, according to Schweitzer. “Then when the new [Carter] administration came in, they said: ‘We're starting over again,’” he said.
“The Democrats said the Republicans couldn't do anything right, so therefore we're going to do it from scratch. We're just going to do it our own way,” was the perspective, he said.
Robert Sussman, an attorney and principal at Sussman & Associates based in Washington, said the EPA could lose momentum in implementing the new law as the administration changes.
“That won't be good,” said Sussman, who represented chemical manufacturers during TSCA's early years in lawsuits challenging the EPA's regulations that would have required companies to provide toxicity data to the agency. Among other clients, he now advises Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families—a coalition of consumer, environmental, health and labor organizations.
Building Infrastructure
After Carter's administration came in, it took years to set up the infrastructure to implement TSCA, according to the EPA staff employed there at the time.
The reasons include internal battles among agency staff; the new law regulating products developed by an industry the EPA did not understand well; and the science of toxicology was new enough so that it was not clear what types of toxicity tests would be appropriate for risk reviews, they said.
“In the earliest days, everything was new, everything was a precedent, and there were a lot of questions about'what should we do?’” Aidala told Bloomberg BNA.
That context stands in contrast with the decades of benchmarked toxicity tests and regulatory testing protocols that exist today. As yet another contrast, Bloomberg BNA was told the EPA had few toxicologists when original TSCA became law. Now the EPA's chemical scientists are respected leaders developing high throughput toxicity and exposure tests.
Yet this area remains somewhat in flux as the Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to develop a strategy to move away from animal tests toward “scientifically valid test methods” that would replace them yet generate “equivalent or better scientific” data.
Another milestone was reached in May 1979 when the agency published its initial TSCA inventory listing 55,103 chemicals in commerce including 686 substances with generic names because their manufacturers claimed the chemicals’ identities should remain confidential.
The incoming administration will have regulations and policies it will—or won't—develop, but it will not have to build an entire testing and review infrastructure, Aidala said.
If Carter had been re-elected, the EPA might have picked up the pace on TSCA implementation, he added.
Reagan's Gorsuch Burford
While it is impossible to know whether TSCA's implementation would have picked up steam under a second Carter administration, what is clear is that the Reagan administration brought about EPA's nadir.
Reagan's first EPA Administrator was Anne Gorsuch Burford, who served from 1981 to 1983.
“She was not interested in using EPA's authority nor doing much regulation, and so the entire agency was in disarray for a couple of years,” Sussman said.
Her management of Superfund resources was the subject of a congressional investigation carried out by the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell (D-Mich.), and she eventually resigned.
In her oral history, Marilyn Bracken, who worked in EPA's Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances from 1978 to 1983 under Carter and Reagan's initial years, recalled the Gorsuch administration.
Reagan's appointees were concerned that “under the Democratic administration, there was too much mandatory … too much regulation. And under this new administration, there was going to be more voluntary” compliance efforts, she said. “There was no incentive to try and get the regs out, and do things that we were responsible for doing,” she said. “I just found it hard to do my job.”
Reagan's second EPA administrator, William Ruckelshaus, was praised by several individuals for bringing back some movement on chemical risk reviews through a team that included Jack Moore as one of the senior toxics officials.
Robert Scala, a toxicologist at ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences from 1965 to 1991, described Moore as a “straight arrow” and “fellow scientist” who took a reasonable approach to regulations.
Davies said the stereotypes of Carter and Reagan—that Carter was “gung ho” about the environment and Reagan was against regulations—do not explain why the original TSCA failed achieve its goals.
Fears of Lawsuits, 1976 TSCA
The perception that court challenges would undermine EPA efforts led the agency's general counsel to narrowly interpret what the agency could do under the original law, Davies and Aidala told Bloomberg BNA.
“We had huge arguments with the Office of General Counsel,” Aidala recalled. The first regulation that would have required chemical manufacturers to test chemicals in commerce went through 35 drafts, he recalled.
“EPA did trip over themselves,” Aidala said.
Jacqueline Manney Warren, an attorney who represented the Natural Resources Defense Council during original TSCA's early implementation, said the environmental group's lawsuits had mixed results.
Even when NRDC won and the agency was required to regulate polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as the original law mandated, the agency's implementing regulations did not have the effects the group hoped for and PCBs—which have a range of cancer and developmental health effects—continued to be pervasive in the environment, she said.
The chemical industry also brought multiple lawsuits challenging the EPA on the regulations it put out requiring them to test chemicals, Warren told television news commentator Bill Moyers in 2001.
Ultimately, during the early years, the agency was so “cowed by the prospect of industry litigation that many of the chemicals that [it] studied never got out of the front door, the regulations never came out,” Warren told Moyers.
Big Chill
Then one critical EPA regulation got out the door. The 1989 rule sought to ban most uses of asbestos, which can cause lung cancer and other diseases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned that rule in 1991 saying the agency had not met TSCA's requirement to prove it had selected the least burdensome regulatory option (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, 33 ERC 1961 (5th Cir. 1991)).
The Lautenberg Act no longer requires the agency to select the least burdensome option.
“The office was completely demoralized,” said EPA toxics attorney Mark Greenwood in his oral history. The chilling effect of the Fifth Circuit's Corrosion Proof Fittings ruling had on agency morale and initiative is echoed in nearly every oral history.
Staff worked for almost 10 years to manage the risks of something they knew was harming people, “on something they felt desperately was important,” Greenwood said. “Suddenly, it was taken away.”
“Does the president have an impact? Yes,” Aidala said. “Is the president the driver? No.”
Clinton, Trump
Asked how a Clinton or Trump administration could influence the EPA's implementation of amended TSCA, Davies said, “We have to assume he will be negative and do as little as possible.”
“We haven't ever had someone who didn't believe in democracy,” said Davies, who served under both Nixon and George H.W. Bush (R).
While Clinton may not emphasize chemicals as much as some of her supporters might want, she is likely to focus on the new law because of her concern for children's health, Davies said.
Sussman said “I have to believe a Clinton EPA is going to be committed to strong implementation of the new law.”
“I won't even comment on a Trump EPA. I can't imagine that would be a good experience for anybody,” he said.
Ivanka Trump's Influence?
Andy Igrejas, who leads the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, Clinton's potential impact is straightforward.
“She's always been supportive of these issues and the EPA,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
Trump's impact is harder to predict, Igrejas said.
Trump voices general hostility toward the EPA and regulations, but doesn't provide a lot of specifics, he said.
Yet, if Trump listens to his daughter, Ivanka Trump—an entrepreneur who targets young shoppers—he may recognize the market advantage that the amended TSCA could give companies that use safer chemicals, Igrejas said.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families will be able to adjust its three-pronge strategy—to work at the federal, state and marketplace level—based on who is elected and where its members think they can be most effective, Igrejas said.
Courts in the Spotlight
In light of the Corrosion Proof Fittings case, Warren said the courts will have a closely watched role in implementing the Lautenberg Act.
Unlike the original law, the Lautenberg Act has many statutory deadlines, she said. “If an administration came in that didn't want to support the law, with deadlines you can still take the agency to court,” Warren said.
“Any side can take the agency to court. I don't think even a Trump administration could sit on it and not let EPA do anything at all.”
Aidala said: “The ways EPA uses its authorities could be challenged by the right or the left.”
A Trump administration could decide to do less than Clinton might, yet chemical manufacturers could sue to force more federal rulemakings to pre-empt state laws, Aidala said.
A central reason chemical manufacturers supported TSCA reform is that they wanted EPA rulemakings to put the brakes on the growing number of state chemical laws and regulations.
Environmental groups also could challenge EPA if it issues too few or only weak chemical controls, he said.
And a Clinton administration could aggressively use the amended law's authorities only to have its statutory interpretations challenged because of the power of the courts, Aidala said.
During a Nov. 1 webinar, Charles Franklin—an attorney with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP—said the Lautenberg Act: “Opens up 40 years of case law to new interpretation, basically wipes the slate clean.”
Lacy Lawrence, also with Akin Gump, said the Lautenberg Act may not wipe all TSCA case law away, but it could call previous rulings into question. That is because in the future the agency's final decisions will be subject to different standards for evidence for rulemakings, she said.
Also, the amended statute provides EPA different legal authorities, she said.
For example, under the Lautenberg Act the EPA is authorized to order chemical manufacturers to provide toxicity and other data. Previously, the agency had to obtain such information through rules.
Updated Law, Same Legal Standard
Aidala said the amended law requires the EPA to justify why it uses order authority rather than rules to obtain data, and that could be challenged in court.
Judges, however, will review the new law using the same judicial standard they used under the original TSCA, he said.
The judicial standard for review used in most environmental statutes is the Administrative Procedure Act standard of “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
TSCA, however, uses a standard that requires the agency to achieve a more stringent judicial standard by requiring EPA to have “substantial evidence” supporting its chemical regulations.
The court cases and decisions are yet to come, but most individuals Bloomberg BNA interviewed said the new statute was crafted to address problems the old one created.
“The Lautenberg Act is a much better law than original TSCA, and I say that as the guy who wrote the original TSCA,” Davies said. “And, you've got more political support now.”

At some point no law could weather everything, but the amended TSCA will weather a Trump administration as well as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act would, Davies said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100011190&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100011190&jd=100011190

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama’s New Law on Animal Testing Will Put an End to Cruel Treatment in Laboratories

Nov 4, 2016 | Holidog Times

On June 22 of this year, President Barack Obama signed a new law that was a giant step of progress for animal activists around the world, and especially in the United States.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was revised and the new law contains, for the first time in any broader health or environmental protection statute, a decree from Congress to minimize testing on animals. This new law upgraded a 40-year-old federal law that regulated the use of chemicals on animals.
Animals will no longer be at risk to having chemicals, biocides, pesticides, cosmetics and other potentially harmful substances tested on them in laboratories. This law follows another progressive measure in which the National Institute of Health announced the end of all scientific testing on primates in government-owned research facilities.
Obama’s signing of the law is a sign that the American government is starting to embrace 21st century scientific methods and may soon resort to alternative practices which do not place animals in harm’s way. They are starting to move away from outdated methods that are slow, expensive and, most importantly, dangerous for animals.
Another step indicative of this progress was that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced earlier this year to drastically reduce the use of animals in pesticide testing. The Humane Society International (HSI) reports that six short-term animal tests will be affected: eye and skin irritation testing in rabbits, skin allergy tests in guinea pigs or mice, and lethal poisoning tests in rodents or rabbits via oral force-feeding, forced inhalation and skin exposure.
Dr. Catherine Willett, director of regulatory toxicology, risk assessment and alternatives for the HSI, said:
Science has advanced dramatically since the 1920s and 40s when rat lethal poisoning tests and rabbit eye and skin irritation tests were first conceived. We commend (the) working to replace this obsolete and especially cruel form of animal testing, and look now to pesticide regulators in Brazil, Canada, India and Japan and other major markets to follow the U.S. example.
This is good news for animal lovers all over the world, even if it represents a small step in a much bigger fight. We hope that other countries will soon follow that U.S’s example in denouncing and putting an end to animal cruelty in government-run laboratories.
If you’d like to support the Humane Society International in their goal to free all animals from cruelty and especially testing labs, click here.
http://www.holidogtimes.com/obamas-new-law-on-animal-testing-will-put-an-end-to-cruel-treatment-in-laboratories/#gs.Ymo3Jtg

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) Listening to the Science on BPA with Greek Scientists

Nov 4, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters

By Steve Hentges

With so much scientific review of bisphenol A (BPA) having already taken place, you might think that there would be little to learn from further review. Numerous government bodies around the world have recently reviewed the science on BPA and independently reached similar conclusions on its safety. But if you thought there’s nothing new under the sun, you’d be wrong.
A group of Greek scientists recently published their assessment of BPA in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and concluded that “exposure to BPA does not pose any significant threat according to most realistic exposure scenarios.” This isn’t exactly a new conclusion. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), based on its assessment, answers the question “Is BPA safe?” with the straightforward answer “Yes.” Similarly, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that “BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels.”
What is new is the way they reached their conclusion – which is a substantial build on what others have done. And, it strongly reaffirms the conclusions of FDA, EFSA and others.
In simple terms, safety assessments involve estimating exposure to a chemical and comparing that value with a science-based safe limit established by government scientists. If actual exposure is less than the safe limit the chemical can be considered safe as it is being used. There’s a lot more to it, but that’s it in a nutshell.
What the Greek scientists did was focus on the exposure side of the equation with several complementary approaches. The consistency of results from the different approaches, not all of which have been applied to BPA before, is what makes their conclusion particularly noteworthy.
The approaches applied by the Greek scientists include:
·         Estimation of total intake of BPA (i.e., how much goes in) from all sources, and comparison with the current safe intake level set by EFSA;
·         Comparison of the measured amount of BPA in urine, which is how people efficiently eliminate BPA from the body (i.e., how much comes out), with a threshold level known as a “biomonitoring equivalent” that is based on the EFSA safe intake level;
·         Estimation of blood levels of BPA (i.e., how much is in the body) and comparison with a threshold level known as a “biologically effective dose” based on EFSA’s safe intake level; and
·         Comparison of estimated levels of BPA in blood with a threshold level known as a “biological pathway altering dose.”
The last approach is particularly novel and relies on sensitive, state-of-the-art test data generated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to calculate the threshold level. As stated by the Greek scientists, “there is no reason for concern based on either individual or aggregate scenarios of BPA exposure.”
You’ll be in good company if you join the chorus who are now singing the same song. With apologies to Cole Porter and his lyrics:
And that’s why FDA does it, EFSA does it
Even scientists from Greece do it

Let’s do it, let’s listen to the science on BPA
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/11/listening-to-the-science-on-bpa-with-greek-scientists/

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Proposes Expanded Use of New Herbicide, Enlist Duo

Nov 3, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)

By Heather Hollingsworth

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed more than doubling the number of states allowed to use a new version of a popular weed killer on genetically modified crops despite its earlier concerns.
Environmentalists are outraged with the proposal to increase from 15 to 34 the number of states that could use Enlist Duo, saying the EPA sought court authority last year to withdraw approval of the weed killer.
An EPA spokeswoman took issue with that characterization, saying in an email Thursday that the agency had "asked the court to vacate" the weed killer's registration. The EPA had cited information from manufacturer Dow AgroSciences that indicated Enlist was probably more toxic to other plants than previously thought.
But the agency said this week that its review determined Enlist "does not show any increased toxicity to plants and is therefore not of concern." Dow Chemical Company said in a statement Thursday that it was "pleased" with the proposal.
George Kimbrell, senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety, accused the EPA of "capitulation to the agrichemical industry."
The Washington-based advocacy group was among the environmental and food safety groups that sued to rescind approval of Enlist, which is a combination of glyphosate and an updated version of an older herbicide named 2,4-D. Enlist is aimed at use with seeds engineered to resist the herbicide, as farmers look for new options as many weeds become resistant to older pesticides.
Enlist is currently approved for use on soybeans and corn. The EPA proposal would also allow cotton.
The EPA is seeking comment through Dec. 1.
The EPA had approved Enlist Duo for use in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
The proposal would allow it to be used in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/03/us/ap-us-weed-killer-expansion.html?_r=1

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA on Notice for Not Regulating Some Tap Water Contaminants

Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

Failure to regulate several drinking water contaminants could land the Environmental Protection Agency in court again. This would follow resolution of a lawsuit over its failure to regulate perchlorate, an ingredient used in rocket fuel and fireworks.
The Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. notified the EPA on Nov. 3 that it will sue the federal agency within 60 days for missing 10 mandatory deadlines for regulating and monitoring contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
If the EPA fails to act, the agency will be sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said Reed Super, principal and founder of New York City-based Super Law Group, who is representing the alliance.
Specifically, the Waterkeeper Alliance wants the EPA to revise national primary drinking water regulations for acrylamide, epichlorohydrin, tetrachloroethylene (PERC), trichloroethylene (TCE), and chromium that are long overdue. The nonprofit also wants the EPA to issue a regulatory determination to move forward with developing rules for strontium.
Missed Deadlines Alleged
The alliance said the EPA has missed deadlines to publish the latest iterations of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMRs), regulatory determinations and reviews of all existing drinking water regulations.
The EPA has been “perpetually behind schedule” in implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996, the group said.

“With health crises caused by dangerous contaminants in tap water in numerous communities on the minds of many Americans—for example, lead in Flint, Mich., microcystin in Toledo, Ohio, and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in Hoosick Falls, N.Y.—EPA's extensive delays put the public at unnecessary risk,” the group said in a Nov. 3 statement accompanying its notice to the EPA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100011192&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100011192&jd=100011192

Return to headline | Return to top
A Different Vote–One That Could Have an Impact on Lead Exposure

Nov 3, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Jack Pratt

There’s a vote coming this month you should know about and it doesn’t involve Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. This month, the International Code Council (ICC) will consider a simple proposal to reduce lead exposures. This admittedly less monumental vote could nonetheless have a significant impact on public health and deserves our attention.
The proposal before the ICC would change the model building and residential codes to require that contractors present proof of lead-safe certification when they apply to do work on pre-1978 homes. Lead paint was banned in 1978, meaning homes built before that time are significantly more likely to contain lead paint. The certification itself is nothing new, it is already required at a federal level. Yet, most localities do not require any proof of certification when issuing permits to renovate these homes.
Two places that do require such proof of certification are Rochester NY and the state of Minnesota. Today Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-Rochester NY) and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) announced a letter, signed by them and 23 of their colleagues, that encourages the ICC to adopt the proposed policy.
Lead is a powerful neurotoxin, particularly dangerous to young children even at low-levels of exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) requires that contractors doing disturbing paint in more than de minimus amounts on pre-1978 homes be certified by EPA (or one of 14 states with delegated authority) and be trained to and actually use lead-safe work practices. The training helps ensure that renovators check that lead dust, debris and residue generation was minimized when paint is disturbed and does not remain after a job is done—residue that could put children in the home at risk.
Requiring contractors to provide the code official with a copy of the firm’s certificate issued by EPA or the state. This gentle but firm nudge will better ensure compliance with this policy. In fact, after Minnesota adopted such a requirement, EPA saw a 30% jump in contractors getting certified.
Not every problem demands grand policy proposals or huge government programs. In this case the ICC could make a big impact on our kids with a minimal change. They should heed the call of Rep Slaughter, Sen. Franken and others to adopt the amendment to protect our kids.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/11/03/another-vote-that-could-have-an-impact-on-lead-exposure/

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Member States Back CLP Changes

Nov 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Luke Buxton

EU member states have approved amendments to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP).
The changes were approved at a meeting of the REACH Committee on 26 October.
Member states voted after discussions on the 10th adaptation to technical and scientific progress (ATP), which introduces new and revised entries for the harmonised classification and labelling of 37 substances.
The amendments include new harmonised acute toxicity estimates (ATE) values in Annex VI. These determine the classification for human health acute toxicity of mixtures containing substances classified as such.
According to the draft Regulation text, these ATE values will "facilitate the harmonisation of the classification of mixtures and provide support for enforcement authorities". The inclusion of harmonised ATE values in the entries listed in Annex VI will apply from 1 June 2017.
The measure will now go to the European Council and Parliament. After that the Commission will formally adopt the Regulation and publish it. This is expected to take place in February 2017. With a transition period of 18 months, the entry into force of the harmonised classification would therefore be around August 2018.
However, suppliers can voluntarily apply the new harmonised classifications and adapt labelling and packaging before the deadline for compliance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50735/eu-member-states-back-clp-changes

Return to headline | Return to top
Impact of Benzene Exposures on Cancer to Be Examined: UN

Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Benzene's cancer classification will be updated in 2017 with particular attention paid to the adverse health effects linked to different levels of exposure, the United Nation's cancer research agency announced Nov. 3.
Benzene occurs naturally in crude oil and gasoline. It also is used to make chemicals and pharmaceuticals such as styrene, phenol and ethylbenzene, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Workers involved with the storage, transportation and dispensing of fuels may be exposed to benzene as could workers at chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. Employers are currently required to limit exposures below 1 parts per million averaged over eight hours or to less than 5 ppm for short-term 15 minute exposures, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
U.S. production volume of benzene in 2011—the most recent year for which EPA data is available—was 24 billion pounds. The dozens of companies making or importing benzene that year included BASF Corp., Chevron Corp., DuPont, Koch Industries Inc., Sunoco Inc., and Marathon Oil Corp.
Benzene is registered under Europe's REACH regulation as being produced in volumes ranging between one million and 10 million metric tons (2 billion to 22 billion pounds) annually, according to information from the European Chemicals Agency. The dozens of REACH (for the regulation, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals regulation) registrants include BASF, the Dow Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
Benzene has long been classified as a known human carcinogen by IARC, the U.S.’ Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. National Toxicology Program.
The cancer agency said its review—scheduled for Oct. 10-17 in Lyon, France—will “consider quantitative exposure-response relationships based on the range of published data.”

Scientific data the cancer agency should consider can be submitted until Sept. 1, 2017. Organizations wanting to observe the agency's meeting should request observer status by May 15, 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100011176&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100011176&jd=100011176

Return to headline | Return to top
As Seizures Top 400 in US China Carfentanil Trade Thrives

Nov 3, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)

By Erika Kinetz and Raphael Satter

Seizures of the deadly chemical carfentanil have exploded across the United States, with more than 400 cases documented in eight states since July alone, The Associated Press has found.
Fueled by a thriving trade out of China, the weapons-grade chemical is suspected in hundreds of drug overdoses in the U.S. and Canada. An AP investigation last month showed how easily carfentanil can be purchased online from China. Of the 12 companies that initially offered to export carfentanil around the world, just three have stopped since the report was released. Nine continue to offer carfentanil for sale, no questions asked, and the AP identified four additional companies willing to sell the drug, some of which claimed to have U.S. addresses.
Asked for comment, most denied they’d ever made the offers.
Jilin Tely Import and Export Co. initially boasted in an email that carfentanil was one of its “hot sales product.” After being named in AP’s story , the company’s website vanished and it denied ever producing carfentanil.
All these vendors profit from a loophole in the global regulation of a substance whose toxicity has been compared with that of a nerve agent. Carfentanil is a controlled substance in the U.S., where it can be used legally to immobilize large animals like elephants. But it is not controlled in China, the top source of fentanyl-related compounds that end up in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
“It’s a loophole that needs to be closed because even small quantities can have a terrible lethal effect,” said Andrew Weber, who served as U.S. assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs from 2009 to 2014. “Terrorists could acquire it commercially as we have seen drug dealers doing.”
Some 5,000 times stronger than heroin — and 100 times stronger than fentanyl itself — carfentanil is so toxic that an amount smaller than a poppy seed can kill a person. It was researched for years as a chemical weapon and used by Russian forces to incapacitate Chechen separatists in 2002.
The AP did not buy carfentanil from the vendors and did not test whether the products on offer were genuine.
DEA and State Department officials have discussed carfentanil’s dangers with Chinese authorities, who have already controlled 19 fentanyl-related compounds, and urged them to blacklist it. But China has yet to act.
The DEA says the carfentanil spreading through illicit drug markets in the U.S. is not being diverted from legal domestic supplies. “The carfentanil that has been seized in multiple U.S. states is believed to be arriving from foreign sources via illicit networks,” Russell Baer, a DEA special agent in Washington, said by email.
China’s Ministry of Public Security did not respond to requests for comment.
Since July, when carfentanil was first identified in the U.S. drug supply, the DEA has confirmed at least 407 carfentanil seizures in eight states, according to data obtained by the AP that did not include details on quantities seized. Dealers cut carfentanil and other synthetic opioids into illicit drugs like heroin, cocaine and fake prescription pills to boost profit margins.
The main geographic cluster centers on Ohio, which has been hardest hit, with 343 confirmed carfentanil seizures. The drug has also spread through the surrounding states of Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan and Illinois. Carfentanil has been seized at least 34 times in Florida, the second-hardest hit state, and has been identified in Georgia and Rhode Island. DEA is waiting on confirmation from cases in West Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania.
The resulting wave of human misery has been overwhelming. In just 21 days in July, paramedics in Akron, Ohio, logged 236 overdoses, including 14 fatalities, with suspected links to carfentanil, according to the DEA. In the first six months of this year, in contrast, they dealt with a total of 320 overdoses of all kinds. In September, the Ohio coroner’s office confirmed eight carfentanil overdose deaths in Cincinnati, the DEA said.
The true scope of the problem is likely bigger. The seizure data from the DEA only reflects samples confirmed as carfentanil by federal, state and local forensic laboratories. Some local authorities may not have tested specifically for the drug — not all labs even have the capacity to do so — and toxicology tests can lag for months as coroners struggle with a backlog of autopsies, according to the DEA.
Direct exports of fentanyl-related chemicals from China arrive in the United States as air cargo or postal shipments, but are difficult to identify, according to congressional testimony obtained by the AP.
“Standard field kits do not accurately detect fentanyl,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske said in answers to committee questions. He added that information from Chinese authorities on shipments destined for the U.S. could help customs more effectively intercept illicit packages.
For now, vendors appear brazenly confident about their ability to evade customs. Some even guaranteed delivery.
Shanxi Jinwei Technology Co. offered carfentanil and other drugs for export to the U.S. and Europe. “Please don’t worry,” the company said in an email. They added that they’d hide everything in aluminum bags and reship packages that failed to arrive. The company didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Carfentanil vendors also take advantage of loose oversight on major trading platforms like South Korea’s EC21.com and China’s LookChem.com marketplaces.
EC21 claims to host 3 million products. Among them are carfentanil, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and ketamine, the AP found. A spokesperson for EC21 who refused to give a name said the site screened more than 700 keywords. “Every day we spend lots of time and effort to block” illegal products, EC21 said by Skype chat.
But companies evade those keyword controls with the lightest touch of subterfuge. Like misspelling.
A search for “fentanyl” yielded zero results. But “fentanyll” yielded 806 products from 422 suppliers on EC21. A search for “cocainee” tapped 35 suppliers and “heroinn” produced 21 suppliers.
One company, Apex Special Chemical Medicine Trade Co., whose listed address was in Guangzhou, China, pulled its listings for carfentanil and other products from EC21 after being contacted by the AP. But at least six companies linked by email address or phone number to Apex appeared on the site this year, most of them in October. These new companies posted U.S. addresses — except one — and offered a cornucopia of illicit drugs. Emails requesting comment received no reply. Listed phone numbers did not work.
LookChem, a chemicals trading platform headquartered in Hangzhou, China, screens its product listings once or twice a year, based on Chinese regulations, according to company spokesman James Li. “We audit every product from vendors, a human audit,” he said. “It is not like people can sell anything they want.”
Yet the AP found four audit-approved vendors offering illicit sales of substances on LookChem. One is Shiyan Furuiyang Biological Technology Co., which offered by email to export carfentanil and fentanyl to the U.S. Fentanyl is a controlled substance in China. Search for it on LookChem’s site and nothing comes up, but Shiyan Furuiyang simply printed “fentanyl” in red letters across multiple photographs of baggies plump with crystalline powder.
“Fentanyl has a big market in USA,” a Shiyan Furuiyang sales manager who called herself Susie said in a Skype chat. “We sent there before.” Contacted later on Skype, another saleswoman, who advertised fentanyl on her profile, told the AP, “No comment, no explanation.”
All this just describes sales on the open internet. The darknet, a collection of shadowy websites invisible to most internet users, is also a vibrant marketplace for drugs. One darknet search engine yielded 118 listings of carfentanil for sale.
China’s actions can have a profound impact on global narcotics markets. After Beijing controlled 116 new synthetic drugs last October, U.S. seizures of key narcotics plunged, DEA data show.
The reverberations of that law can still be felt. A sales manager named Eric from Shanghai Golden Time Biological Technology Co. refused to produce fentanyl and acetylfentanyl, both of which are controlled substances in China. “I can’t make it,” he said.
But he was happy to export the far more potent, unregulated carfentanil for $8,000 a kilogram.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/china-carfentanil-trade-thrives-as-seizures-top-400-in-us/2016/11/03/16a52d42-a1aa-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Explosion Stokes Fears over Aging Network

Nov 3, 2016 | Wall Street Journal (In E&E Greenwire)

By Alison Sider and Nicole Friedman

The deadly explosion this week of Colonial Pipeline Co.'s Alabama pipeline has people raising concerns about aging oil and gas infrastructure.
Over 60 percent of fuel pipelines in the United States were built before 1970, according to federal figures.
The pipeline involved in the explosion this week was first operational in 1964. This explosion was related to a two-week shutdown in September, which caused a spike in fuel prices across the East Coast (Greenwire, Nov. 2).
Motorists again began to worry this week when the pipeline, which supplies about one-third of the East Coast's consumed gasoline, was shut down after an explosion and fire that killed one person and injured several others.
Although this is just one of a recent string of incidents along the aging pipeline, this one was the most serious. Since 2005, the Colonial pipeline has had 183 reports of problems (EnergyWire, Nov. 3).
Carl Weimer of the advocacy group Pipeline Safety Trust says pipelines can operate safely for decades if they are well kept. After about 40 or 50 years, however, corrosion becomes a problem.
"Clearly, operators don't have a complete handle on how to operate these older pipelines," Weimer said (Sider/Friedman, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 2).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/03/stories/1060045224

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Extends Comment Deadline for Refinery Air Rule

Nov 4, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending from Dec. 2 to Dec. 19 the deadline for public comments on its proposal to reconsider aspects of the agency's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule limiting air toxics from oil refineries, and is also announcing a hearing on the issue Nov. 17 in Houston to take input on the proposed rule.
In a Nov. 3 Federal Register notice, EPA says that groups requested the reconsideration with the “claim that the public was not afforded an adequate opportunity to comment” on the proposal.
The agency's rule, proposed Oct. 18, would revise EPA's December 2015 rule that imposed tougher controls on refineries, including stricter requirements to ensure more efficient combustion of toxics in flares, updated provisions to reduce emissions from pressure relief devices (PRDs) and a first-time fenceline monitoring requirement. The agency originally set a Dec. 1 deadline for public comment on the reconsideration.
Environmentalists and industry petitioned EPA for reconsideration of aspects of the 2015 rule, on the basis that EPA has given insufficient opportunity for public input, and EPA granted reconsideration of several issues.
On the work practice standards for PRDs, EPA asked for input on the number and type of devices subject to the standards, and those exempted, and also the definition of a “force majeure event” that would qualify a release for regulatory exemption. EPA further asked for comments on the recordkeeping and reporting measures associated with the work practice standard.
EPA asked for comment on its work practice standard applicable for flares when operating in excess of their “smokeless capacity,” or beyond the point at which they can operate without generating smoke, including recordkeeping and reporting measures.
Also, the agency requested comment on its finding in the final refinery MACT rule that the health risks presented by the refinery sector are essentially the same under the work practice standards as they would have been under the more-stringent proposed version. EPA found the risks under both the proposed and final versions to be “acceptable.”
Additionally, EPA sought input on its provision of a compliance alternative for certain types of decoking units for which proposed pressure monitoring would not be required, because of other steps taken to contain any leaking contents.
Finally, EPA asked for comment on its inclusion in the final rule of measures that allow refineries to step down their fenceline monitoring obligations. EPA included in its MACT requirements for plants to set up air quality monitoring for unplanned “fugitive” air toxics emissions, with mandates for plants to investigate and mitigate releases that resulted in violations of a threshold level of 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter of benzene.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-extends-comment-deadline-refinery-air-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
NPS to Boost Oversight of Oil and Gas Operations

Nov 4, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar

The National Park Service today announced that it will increase oversight of oil and gas operations in and around parks in every state but Alaska.
The final regulations, which represent the first update to the agency's oil and gas rules in more than 37 years, will directly affect 534 operations in a dozen parks. Oil and gas production is allowed to occur in those parks because they are "split estates," in which the United States received property from landowners who either didn't own the mineral rights underneath the property or opted to keep the minerals for themselves.
NPS predicted that the updated regulations could also affect up to 30 additional parks where drilling hasn't yet occurred but could happen in a tighter energy market.
"We have a fundamental responsibility to conserve park resources and the values for which these parks are created for the enjoyment of future generations," National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis said in a statement. "The rule clarifies the process for oil and gas development in the small group of parks where current operations exist, and for parks that may have to manage oil and gas operations in the future."
NPS decided to at least temporarily exclude Alaskan parks from the rule due to a lack of drilling there now and legal uncertainty about the Frontier State's uniqueness when it comes to federal regulation of public lands. Specifically, the agency is waiting to see the final outcome of the Sturgeon v. Frost case, which pits a moose hunter and his hovercraft against the Park Service's ban on the use of such vehicles (Greenwire, March 22).
The other changes made to the final rule appear to be relatively minor, such as expanding the definition of waste and adding wetlands, seepage areas, springs and shallow water aquifers to the list of natural features the rule is intended to protect.
The main effect of the rule will be to close a loophole that has allowed 60 percent of operators to produce fuels in the park system without oversight. NPS oil and gas regulations currently apply only when "access is on, across or through federally owned or controlled lands or waters," which has allowed 78 operations on park borders to avoid regulation. The current rules also grandfathered in 241 operations (Greenwire, Oct. 26, 2015).
Other changes will make producers more accountable for cleaning up well sites and spills. Current regulations limit the amount NPS can charge a producer to insure against potential cleanup costs at $200,000 per park, no matter how many operations that producer has in a given park. This has led to a bonding gap of over $12 million, according to an NPS cost-benefit analysis.
The rule eliminates that bonding cap and allows NPS to set bonds "equal to the reasonable cost of reclamation." It also holds operators accountable for spills until a new producer completes a lease transfer and posts the appropriate bond amount.
Furthermore, the rule will allow NPS to charge producers fees for accessing lands outside their mineral rights and add a list of prohibited acts that park managers could fine producers for violating.
With 174 operations, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area in Texas is the park with the most oil and gas activity. The Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area on the Tennessee-Kentucky border is the only other park with more than 100 operations.
The other parks that will be immediately affected by the rule are Aztec Ruins National Monument in New Mexico, Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park and Obed Wild and Scenic River in Tennessee, and Gauley River National Recreation Area and New River Gorge National River in West Virginia.
In the Lone Star State, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Big Thicket National Preserve and Padre Island National Seashore also have some oil and gas operations.
The updated regulations will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow and take effect Dec. 5.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/03/stories/1060045254

Return to headline | Return to top
What the Election Outcome Will Really Mean for Climate and Energy

Nov 3, 2016 | Washington Post

By Chris Mooney

This story has been updated.
You haven’t heard it much in the media, but this election is likely to have large consequences for how the United States, and perhaps the world, addresses climate change. And that is simply because the candidates’ positions contrast sharply on the matter, and because the world has begun an ambitious emissions reduction regime under the Paris climate accord that only one of the candidates wants to continue.
Donald Trump, in an interview with the Washington Post’s editorial board in March, said he is “not a big believer in man-made climate change.” And Trump has said that if elected he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement – which enters into force on Friday, Nov 4. He has also stood up strongly for the U.S. fossil fuel industries, and especially the struggling coal sector.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, wants to continue and extend Obama’s climate policies, including striving to reach the U.S.’s Paris agreement target of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent or more below 2005 levels by 2025. She also wants to, as she has put it many times, make the U.S. a “clean energy superpower” by stoking growth of the solar and wind industries.
That’s quite a contrast. But at the same time, and as many have noted, the mainstream presidential election discussion of the past two months, and especially the presidential debates, has tended to ignore all of this. (I was fortunate enough to participate in an exception to this trend Wednesday on the “Diane Rehm Show.”)
So let’s look more closely at how it is that Earth’s most momentous and depressing environmental problem has somehow stayed mostly out of what some would say is Earth’s most momentous and depressing election – and what the implications for climate and energy would be, depending on who wins on November 8.
Climate silence?
First let’s think back about two weeks. (I know it’s hard.) Environmentalists, and liberal pundits, were aghast. The third presidential debate had ended, concluding a presidential debate season in which the topic of climate change wasn’t asked about by any of the moderators, and only came up relatively briefly as a Hillary Clinton talking point.
The real subtext here: A lot of people on the left wanted to see Donald Trump try to defend his stance of climate change doubt, even as Clinton prosecuted the case that such a view is denying science, etcetera, etcetera. Bring popcorn, right?
But I would assert to you that even if it had happened, that would not have been a major moment in this election. Here’s why.
The truth is that in this race, Hillary Clinton has made much of the climate issue, brought it up repeatedly, campaigned with Al Gore in Florida and linked a changing climate to ferocity of Hurricane Matthew, and much more. That’s far more than President Obama did in 2012. Unlike Obama, apparently, Clinton saw it as a political winner for her, particularly with millennials and Bernie Sanders followers.
All in all, you could argue it’s a very substantial change for the issue of the climate in recent U.S. elections. It’s an elevation and a prioritization. It’s just that it has happened during a race that has been extremely scandal-focused, extremely negative, and obsessed in all ways with Donald Trump – and that has been a unique aspect of this election.
If Clinton had been running against Marco Rubio, or John Kasich, or Ted Cruz, it’s likely the subject would have come up even more. So as I wrote earlier, in this election, there’s just really “no oxygen left for a serious debate about carbon.”
Climate and energy under a President Clinton
So what might we have heard, if the debates had explored these topics more extensively?
The truth is that we actually kind of know: While energy and environment matters barely came up in the presidential debates, the University of Richmond School of Law recently hosted an energy and environment debate between Clinton and Trump campaign advisers, and it was pretty illuminating. And indeed, there’s a huge gap between the contenders, especially on the existence and seriousness of human-caused climate change, although there are also interesting areas of agreement, like on nuclear power. (For a more thorough rundown of this debate, read Brad Plumer here.)
If Clinton wins, let’s face it: We know it’s going to be more of Obama. This is certainly one case where she represents the status quo.
Under Clinton, we can assume that the Paris process goes full speed ahead, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan advances (assuming it survives its current legal challenges), and much more. Clinton has also made extremely bold clean energy pledges, such as her promise (as her campaign website explains) to, within 10 years, “generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.”
n this scenario, many fascinating questions arise. For instance, it’s far from clear that generating all of our home electricity from intermittent renewables (wind and solar) is going to be feasible, given the nature of power grids and the fact that you can’t always count on the sun shining and the wind blowing. We will have to start asking, for instance, how much wind and solar power can grids handle in the U.S., especially in states like California, and how much will they need to back that up with energy sources that can fire up quickly when renewables slump. Those sources could be either natural gas, or, in the future, enormous grid batteries.
Another major question will depend not only on whether Clinton is elected president, but also the composition of the Senate and the House, and therefore, what is politically feasible. But the truth is that a centrist policy consensus has been emerging in recent years on how to fix climate change, in the wake of the political failure of cap-and-trade early in the Obama years.
Let’s not forget that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan arose in a context in which it seemed impossible for Obama to actually get a piece of major climate legislation through Congress. But beyond EPA regulatory action, there seems to be general agreement, especially among economists, on the need to set a price on carbon dioxide emissions. This would likely take the form of what is known as a revenue-neutral carbon tax, in which emissions are taxed but that revenue to the government is offset with tax reductions elsewhere, or paid back to citizens in the form of dividends.
The question is whether Clinton would pursue such a policy, if she finds herself with a Congress at all favorable to it. And it’s important to note that this is closely tied to another key energy question: What happens to two key low carbon energy sources — nuclear power and coal plants that have been designed so that their emissions can be captured and stored underground (so-called “carbon capture and storage”) — which many analysts believe will be needed to supplement wind and solar. Both electricity sources have been struggling — and both would be more competitively priced with a tax on carbon.
The politics of taxing carbon could get pretty interesting, as we see in Washington state, which has a carbon tax on the ballot as an initiative and actually, we’re seeing that some environmentalists and denizens of the political left are uncomfortable with it. One key divisive issue is the revenue-neutrality: These groups would like to use emissions reductions policies to also promote clean energy investments, rather than return revenues to taxpayers.
“If it passes, it’s going to be important, it’s going to be path-breaking, it’s going to set an example that will get attention in other states and importantly in Washington, D.C.,” Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, told me recently of the Washington state carbon tax push. But if that push fails, it may suggest that even the coalition of interest groups behind climate action is too fractious for certain policy approaches. So we’ll have to very closely watch this initiative and how it fares.
Finally, if Clinton is elected, perhaps the biggest battle is going to be over natural gas and fossil fuel infrastructure, as she draws pressure from the left and the anti-fracking crowd, which believes that the transition away from fossil fuels has to be super fast and that even relying on lower-emitting natural gas is a luxury we can’t afford. “The climate movement has to elect Hillary Clinton — and then give her hell,” writes the movement leader and journalist Bill McKibben.
Because of this push, we can expect continuing debates over whether or not natural gas is a “bridge fuel,” and how much fugitive methane emissions undermine that role, and whether regulating those away will be enough. In general, the question of methane — how much we’re emitting from fossil fuels, as opposed to from other sectors, like agriculture, and how much that matters — will continue to be a major debate in coming years, in significant part because the issues here remain more uncertain than are those surrounding the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
Thus, under Clinton, we should expect the U.S. executive branch to take every step that it can to try to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and advance the global climate process — but we should also expect a series of hard questions to arise when it comes to the precise nature of the transition to less carbon-intensive energy in the U.S., and what that means for natural gas, nuclear energy, and just maybe, a cleaner way of burning coal.
It’s worth noting, incidentally, that this runs in an interesting parallel to what other countries that are committed in a major way to grappling with climate change through their energy systems, like Germany, are now facing.
Climate and energy questions in a Trump presidency
Trump is expected to try to withdraw from, or simply not participate in, the Paris process. One question is precisely how Trump would attempt to extricate the U.S., given that the agreement will be in force and its language states that a party cannot withdraw for three years, followed by a one-year waiting period. A lot of analysts have spun out scenarios for how this would occur.
In the video above, Trump energy adviser Kevin Cramer, a U.S. representative from North Dakota, argues that a Trump administration would submit the agreement for ratification to the Senate — something the Obama administration argues is not required for this type of agreement — and that it would likely fail there. Yet it isn’t clear what happens in this case, since the U.S. has already, in an international context, formally joined the accord.
Legal points aside, it’s pretty obvious that a Trump administration could simply fail to participate in the Paris process — just not engage — and there’s not much that the world could do about that, other than very loudly disapprove. At that point, a key question would be whether there is so much global perception of urgency that we would see other nations move forward anyway, even without the United States, with the hope of waiting out a Trump administration and banking at least some emissions cuts in the meantime.
Meanwhile, back at home, Trump has repeatedly pledged to try to help the domestic coal industry. And an enormous question is how he would actually go about doing that. Given that Trump has tended to misdiagnose that industry’s problems – pinning them rather exclusively on EPA regulations, rather than also crediting the surge in competition from natural gas, which has changed the economics for utility companies – it’s not clear that he could succeed.
Interestingly, Trump often talks about “clean coal.” And it’s true that the climate concerns about burning coal would lessen greatly if large percentages of the emissions were being captured and sequestered in some way, but the industry just isn’t ready to do that at a large scale at this point. Would Trump invest further in clean coal technology and even consider carbon pricing, to help carbon capture-and-storage compete?
Trump would also presumably try to thwart the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, if it survives the courts — though it’s not entirely clear how that scenario plays out either. Based on some analyses of what this would look like, it sounds like most courses of inaction, such as trying to create a new and different regulation that would be weaker, or failing to enforce the plan, would probably end up with environmental groups suing the EPA and throwing matters to the courts.
But let’s remember that the compliance period under the Clean Power Plan doesn’t start until 2022 anyway. And renewables and natural gas have so much momentum right now that U.S. emissions could actually continue to decline without it ever taking effect – perhaps even more so if electric vehicles continue the kind of growth we’ve been seeing.
After all, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have been declining during the Obama years, without any Clean Power Plan in place, in part because of more burning of natural gas and also, increasingly, more renewables:
o see why renewables could advance even under Trump, consider the state of Texas, a state that regularly votes Republican in presidential elections, but also leads all of the United States in the amount of wind energy generating capacity that it has installed. And in fact it’s not even close: Texas has over 18 gigawatts (or billion watts) of wind capacity right now, with another 5 on the way. The second two states, Iowa and California, were around 5 to 6 gigawatts.
So it’s quite possible that Trump could come into office, reject climate change, reject the international climate process, and we could still actually see U.S. emissions tick down at least somewhat over the course of four years, thanks simply to the free market and technology.
Granted, it’s dubious this would be at a rate that would match Paris climate targets, or anything like what Clinton would achieve by actively trying to produce such an outcome. And given that the world is in urgent need to ramp up its pace of emissions cuts, those differences could have major implications for international climate cooperation (to say nothing of the physical climate system).
And there’s perhaps one more thing to point out. Today we’re seeing a pretty dramatic conflict over a piece of fossil fuel infrastructure: the Dakota Access Pipeline. In recent years a “keep it in the ground” movement has arisen that has increasingly targeted such projects. Under Trump, it seems likely that such demonstrations would increase, perhaps markedly, as a lack of climate action through policy would spur more attempts to push climate action through protests.
Most of all, we should expect climate change to be a far more salient political issue under a Trump presidency — a major source of sharp conflict — simply because of the obvious high-profile political and international conflagrations that would ensue if he keeps his campaign pledges.
Oh, and one more thing: We’ve had a run of very hot years lately, but we can also expect that the years of the next presidency will likely keep pace with the warmth of the 2010s so far — if not bringing still more records.
In that case, maybe by 2020, a debate moderator would indeed ask about climate change.
This article draws on remarks Chris Mooney gave on Oct. 31 at the 2016 annual meeting of the National Association of Science Writers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/03/what-the-election-outcome-will-really-mean-for-climate-and-energy/

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Influence: Energy PACs Steer Clear of Presidential Race

Nov 3, 2016 | PoliticoPro

By Alex Guillen

ENERGY PACS ON PRESIDENTIAL RACE — NO THANK YOU: The presidential race has seen huge fundraising numbers for both candidates — but it’s not because of the energy sector. Energy PACs barely gave to either candidate, according to a POLITICO review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Hillary Clinton raised just over $61,000 from energy and environmentalist PACs, out of a total of more than $513 million raised, while just $21,000 of Donald Trump's $255 million haul came from energy PACs. Break it down:

Clinton: Clinton's biggest energy PAC donor was FuelCell Energy, which gave her a total of $10,000. The company's director of government affairs, Mike Levin, seems to be a fan; he personally gave Clinton more than $4,000 and hosted a clean energy roundtable in July with Clinton adviser Trevor Houser. She received $7,700 from Renewable Energy Systems Americas and $7,500 from St. Louis-based utility Ameren.
Plus, Clinton got smaller amounts from Absolute Energy, AGL Resources, Dow Chemical, Edison Electric Institute, Growth Energy, Horizon Wind Energy, POET, the NRDC's Action Fund and a Sierra Club committee. Records also show that the GiveGreen project, an NRDC Action Fund and League of Conservation Voters Action Fund venture that funnels money from eco-minded contributors to select candidates, raised $238,000 for Clinton from more than 2,400 individuals.
Trump: Coal interests were among Trump's top donors. The Republican candidate received a total of $10,000 from Murray Energy's PAC, $2,700 from coal mining equipment maker JH Fletcher & Co. and $1,000 from the Ohio Coal Association. He also received $2,500 from the Western Energy Alliance and $5,000 from ethanol producer POET.
ABOUT OUR DATA MINING: POLITICO compiled the spending data of nearly 375 energy PACs covering 2015 and 2016 — in all, more than 77,000 data points representing $140 million in spending this cycle. That includes contributions to federal candidates, state-level candidates, national GOP and Democratic campaigns and other PACs, as well as spending on office space, staff, supplies, fundraising efforts and more.
The smallest expenditure was $0.01, a contribution refund made by the Loews Corp. Energy PAC. The largest expenditure was a tie, two $3 million checks from the NextGen Climate Action Committee to its California branch and to For Our Future, a PAC backed by NextGen and several big labor groups.
WELCOME TO ENERGY INFLUENCE, our newsletter for Pro subscribers on campaign finance issues in the energy world. In this pre-election edition, we check in on this year’s competitive Senate races, break down money going to the Climate Solutions Caucus, review whether renewables run red or blue and find out which former Obama official made his first-ever political contribution — to a Republican.
Have tips or suggestions? Email me at aguillen@politico.com, or follow me on Twitter: @alexcguillen.
SENATE UPDATE — ENERGY PACS FAVOR REPUBLICANS, INCUMBENTS: In all but one of the 12 Senate races that are even remotely competitive or in which the seat is expected to change hands, energy PACs have heavily favored the incumbent Republican or the Republican candidate for open seats. POLITICO analyzed Senate races in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Richard Burr of North Carolina edged out Missouri's Roy Blunt and Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey for most energy PAC money, landing just under $334,000. Burr's Democratic challenger, Deborah Ross, got only $8,000, all from the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund. Blunt, in second place on our list, got $332,000 from energy PACs, while challenger Jason Kander got $3,500 from a Sierra Club PAC and $1,000 from MidAmerican Energy. Toomey, in third, got $331,000 — though his challenger Katie McGinty, a former environmental adviser in President Bill Clinton's administration, brought in $63,000 from energy or environmentalist PACs, the most of any non-incumbent Democrat.
The rest, ranked by energy PAC money raised by the Republican candidate:
New Hampshire: Kelly Ayotte, $277,000; Maggie Hassan, $8,000
Florida: Marco Rubio, $237,000; Patrick Murphy, $51,000
Nevada: Joe Heck, $203,000; Catherine Cortez Masto, $49,000
Illinois: Mark Kirk, $177,000; Tammy Duckworth, $8,000
Arizona: John McCain, $168,000; Ann Kirkpatrick, $15,000
Indiana: Todd Young, $153,000; Evan Bayh, $22,000
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson, $145,000; Russ Feingold, $21,000
Iowa: Chuck Grassley, $141,000; Patty Judge, $3,000
The winning Democrat: The only Democrat to best his or her Republican opponent in energy money is Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. While his seat was seen as a GOP pickup opportunity after Mark Udall’s 2014 loss, Bennet emerged strongly early on when Republicans failed to recruit a top-tier challenger. Bennet landed nearly $195,000 from energy PACs, including oil and gas trade groups and companies (API, AGA, INGAA, Anadarko, BP, Cheniere, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Marathon Oil, Noble Energy, Pioneer Natural Resources and Tesoro), utilities (NRECA, Atmos, Dominion, NextEra, NRG, PG&E), and renewables and biofuels (AWEA, Iberdrola, Horizon Wind Energy, POET, RES Americas and Growth Energy). Republican Darryl Glenn, meanwhile, got just $3,500, split between the Western Energy Alliance and Denver-based Whiting Petroleum.
In total, the Republicans running in these 12 races got $2.5 million from energy PACs, while the Democratic candidates got $446,000 (of which 43 percent went to Bennet alone).
GiveGreen raises significant green: The GiveGreen project also reported raising significant money for many of the Democrats in these races. Nevada's Cortez Masto leads among Senate candidates receiving support from the LCVAF-NRDCAF venture, according to the group's site, with $570,000 raised. McGinty was close behind, at $524,000. Not all do so well: Judge received just $12,000 in support of her long-shot bid to unseat Grassley in Iowa. As of Wednesday, GiveGreen reported raising a total of nearly $8.2 million for a swath of federal and state candidates.
ALL QUIET ON THE CALIFORNIA FRONT: One Senate race that was unusually quiet: California, where the state’s unusual blanket primary means two Democrats are vying to replace the retiring Barbara Boxer. Kamala Harris, the front-runner, got only a $2,500 check from Southern Co.’s PAC. Energy PACs didn’t report any giving to Loretta Sanchez. Two reasons it’s so quiet: Harris has been considered to have the race in the bag pretty much from day one, and environmentalists were better off focusing their dollars on much needier campaigns.
CHAIRMAN WATCH
Shimkus v. Walden: Energy groups have poured nearly twice as much money into Rep. John Shimkus’ reelection campaign as they have the campaign of his rival for the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee gavel, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.). Biofuels industry interests in particular have favored Shimkus, the environment subcommittee chairman whose southern Illinois district is among the country's top corn producers. ICYMI, check out our story breaking down giving to Shimkus and Walden.
Murkowski: Unsurprisingly, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources chairwoman continues to be a powerhouse fundraiser from the energy sector. PACs reported giving $395,000 to her since the beginning of 2015, and they include oil and gas explorers, coal and mining interests, utilities, nuclear companies and clean energy groups. A separate review of Lisa Murkowski's filings that includes campaign contributions from energy executives shows Murkowski amassed almost $1.2 million since the start of 2015 from energy PACs and individual contributors — or 28 percent of her total haul of $4.2 million.
Bishop: House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop raised a little over $950,000 this cycle, 22 percent of which ($210,000) came from energy PACs and executives. One notable name to appear in Bishop’s accounts receivable: Bob Abbey, President Barack Obama’s first-term BLM chief. Abbey, who gave Bishop $250, is now a partner at Abbey, Stubbs & Ford, a land and energy consulting firm. According to FEC data, this appears to be the first time Abbey has made a political contribution.
CLIMATE CAUCUS CASH: House Republicans who have signaled their willingness to do something about climate change continued to rake in sizable contributions from the oil and gas industry and received no support from major environmental groups, according to a review of contributions to members of the bipartisan “Climate Solutions Caucus.” The coalition’s 10 Republicans took in $189,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies, more than a third of the $552,760 those members raised from energy interests. For the 10 Democrats in the climate caucus, oil and gas companies contributed $20,600, or about 5 percent of the $391,113 they raised from energy companies and green groups. Environmentalists who donated via affiliates of the League of Conservation Voters or Sierra Club contributed $123,263, the largest single share.
Utilities that derived less than half their electricity from coal outspent their coal-heavy peers — regardless of the recipients' party affiliations. Utilities that were more than 50 percent dependent on coal, as well as trade associations such as the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, contributed $59,500 to Republicans, compared to $142,000 from utilities that more heavily weighted toward natural gas, nuclear or renewable. For Democrats, the split was $42,750 from coal-heavy utilities compared to $89,500 from others. (Utility fuel-mix was based on figured included in the annual Benchmarking Air Emissions report.)
CALIFORNIA DREAMIN’: The largest single recipient of funds from Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action Super PAC was another Steyer-affiliated Super PAC in his home state. At least $13 million from the PAC went to the NextGen California Action Committee, according to FEC records. That’s twice as much as the $6.5 million that went to the next-highest recipient, For Our Future, a get-out-the-vote project that Steyer is funding with the AFL-CIO and other unions. California is among the safest states for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, and it is guaranteed to pick a Democrat for Boxer's seat. Steyer is widely suspected to be laying the groundwork to run for governor in two years, although the billionaire megadonor insists he is not yet looking beyond this campaign cycle.
MURRAY SHAKES IT UP: Bob Murray, the owner of Murray Energy, has been shaking it up this year, spending more from his corporation than from his super PAC. Murray reduced his PAC spending by 28 percent to $345,000, but his corporate giving is up to $780,000, including a $250,000 donation to the Cleveland 2016 Host Committee. The corporation also sent $100,000 to the pro-Kirk/anti-Duckworth super PAC Independent Voice for Illinois; $90,000 to a super PAC backing Toomey in Pennsylvania; and, in February, $30,000 to a pro-Kasich super PAC.
KOCHS DIALING BACK? NOT SO MUCH: Charles and David Koch, the politically active oil billionaires, were reported this spring to be planning a step down their political spending, but that didn’t really stretch to their company’s primary PAC. It gave about as much this year as it did in 2012, $3.1 million. Though the figure is a slight drop from the 2014 mid-term cycle, in which KochPAC spent $3.3 million, there's still time to ratchet that up before Nov. 8. The brothers have given heavily to Republican Party efforts, including donations to GOP Senate and Congressional committees, and backing for Toomey in Pennsylvania. Overall, of course, much of the Kochs network’s political spending occurs behind closed doors via groups like Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners.
VALERO DOES PULL BACK: Valero Energy seems to be pulling its punches this cycle, spending $1.2 million to date, 40 percent less than it did in 2012 and 34 percent less than in 2014. In addition to its refining operation, Valero is also the third largest U.S. ethanol producer.
Others in the biofuels sector are spending more, including a 15 percent increase by POET PAC, to $752,000, and a small increase from Growth Energy PAC.
RENEWABLE PACS LEAN SLIGHTLY RIGHT: The American Wind Energy Association’s PAC giving, which totaled $216,250 this cycle, was almost evenly divided between political parties, skewing slightly more red with 53 percent going to GOP races. In battleground state of Illinois, AWEA PAC gave $6,000 to Kirk, who is struggling to keep his seat in Illinois. AWEA gave $10,000 to McGinty in Pennsylvania and $5,000 to incumbent Ohio Sen. Rob Portman. In Nevada, AWEA's PAC gave $6,000 to Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, who hopes to take retiring Minority Leader Harry Reid's seat. The PAC also gave $6,000 to Republican Nevada Sen. Dean Heller — who isn't even running for reelection yet.
Like AWEA, the Solar Energy Industries Association PAC tilted slightly in favor of Republicans, who received $39,000 of its $75,000 in contributions. SEIA's PAC put $10,000 each toward Reid's Searchlight Foundation and the campaigns of Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina and New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is in line to succeed Reid.
Unlike its trade association, SolarCity skewed slightly more blue and outpaced SEIA in spending. The rooftop solar leasing giant contributed $127,060 to congressional campaigns, about 53 percent of which went to Democrats. But SolarCity CEO and Founder Lyndon Rive dedicated about a quarter of his contributions toward McCain, or about $10,400 of the $40,500 he put into this election cycle. Rive gave a combined $14,700 toward Democrats, including $1,000 for Hassan in New Hampshire. And he put another $10,000 toward the SolarCity PAC. Rive's contributions included $2,700 to the Clinton campaign.
SolarCity’s competitor Sunrun contributed $15,810 in this election cycle, with only 38 percent going to Republicans, including Reps. Patrick Meehan and Tom Reed, who have sponsored bills to extend energy tax credits. Sunrun also appeared to be torn on who to support in New Hampshire, giving $1,000 this spring to Ayotte but then more than doubling down for her competitor later in the year, with $2,750 to Hassan.
2016 IS SO 2014 — PACS ARE ALREADY GIVING FOR 2018 ELECTION: In classic Washington style, some PACs are already moving on to the next election, or even looking two cycles ahead to 2020. The PACs tracked by POLITICO coded nearly 1,300 contributions for candidates to apply to primary or general elections in 2018 or 2020. While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell received a tidy sum over the past two years — $91,000 from energy PACs for his 2020 reelection — a Democrat had him bested: Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. She’s up for reelection in 2018 and nabbed an impressive $96,000 this cycle for upcoming (and sure to be contentious) campaign. Other top future candidates include Sens. Martin Heinrich ($60,000), Jim Inhofe and John Barrasso ($50,000 each), Deb Fischer ($46,900), Orrin Hatch ($42,000) and Dean Heller ($41,000).
Citizen Kaine —> Vice President Kaine? A number of PACs gave to Tim Kaine’s Senate campaign before he was picked as Clinton’s running mate, to the tune of $42,200. If he’s elected vice president, that money might get returned, or he could hold onto it for potential future campaigns.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/11/energy-influence-energy-pacs-steer-clear-of-presidential-race-135846

Return to headline | Return to top
Texas Would Be Exempt From Emissions Trading Under Proposal

Nov 4, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Nushin Huq

Texas would no longer be required to participate in a federal emissions trading program for power plants nor would the state be considered a significant contributor to downwind air pollution under an Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule.
The EPA proposal (RIN:2060-AT16), released Nov. 3, would withdraw federal implementation plans that require certain electricity generating units in Texas to participate in the federal Cross-State Air Pollution Rule's trading programs for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions.
The cross-state rule is intended to aid downwind states in complying with federal air quality standards by curbing emissions from power plants in upwind states.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is reviewing the proposal, Brian McGovern, a spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA.
As part of the proposal, the EPA said Texas power plants do not contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate matter in downwind states.
If the proposed rule is adopted, the EPA will not issue a new federal plan for Texas in regards to transported particulate matter pollution under the Clean Air Act related to the air quality standards. The federal plan, issued in lieu of a state plan, would impose new air pollution control requirements on Texas power plants.
The proposed rule is a result of a July 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which found that the EPA required states to implement emissions controls beyond what was needed to reduce pollution by the amount necessary for all downwind areas to achieve national air quality standards.
The court sent several emissions budgets back to the EPA for reconsideration. These include the sulfur dioxide budget for Texas (EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 2015 BL 239912, 80 ERC 2005 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
Trading No Longer Option for Haze
While the EPA proposed rule means that these plants no would longer be considered significant contributors to air pollution in downwind states, it also means Texas no longer would be eligible to rely on these federal trading programs as an alternative to certain regional haze obligations, which are intended to protect visibility in public parks and wilderness areas.

Any of those remaining obligations would have to be addressed through other state or federal implementation plan actions, the proposed rule said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100011195&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100011195&jd=100011195

Return to headline | Return to top
Time to Move the Standing Rock Pipeline

Nov 3, 2016 | New York Times

By Editorial Board

President Obama has pointed a way out of a dangerous standoff over an oil pipeline being built in North Dakota. He told an interviewer on Tuesday that the Army Corps of Engineers was looking for a new pipeline route, presumably away from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, whose members and allies have been protesting the project for months, saying it threatens the tribe’s sacred lands and water supply.
It was a welcome hint of good news in an intensely bitter confrontation that came wrapped in historic injustice and seemed destined to end in grief. The $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline is meant to carry crude oil from the Bakken fields of western North Dakota to Illinois, 1,170 miles to the east. It would not enter tribal land but it would pass close enough for the Sioux to fear grave damage from a leak or spill. Its current proposed route runs less than half a mile north of the reservation and under the Missouri River, a source of drinking water. Though the pipeline would mostly cross private property, the tribe also argues that these have been the Sioux’s ancestral lands since antiquity, and construction would damage sites of deep cultural and historic significance, including burial grounds.
A federal judge in September denied the tribe’s request for an injunction to block construction, but the tribe has continued to press the Army corps to withhold permits, which the builders need because the pipeline would cross a navigable waterway. The Sioux accuse the corps of being a rubber stamp for the oil industry, of ignoring its objections and of illegally issuing permits in violation of the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and other federal laws — charges that the corps denies.
The tribe’s sense of grievance is understandable, given that the pipeline was shifted in its direction, away from Bismarck, N.D., because federal regulators saw it as a potential threat to that city’s water supply.
The Dakota and Lakota of the Standing Rock tribe would hardly be the first American Indians to pay the price for white people who want to move environmental hazards out of sight, out of mind and out of their water faucets. If the federal government shifts the pipeline route again — perhaps closer to Bismarck — maybe that will prompt a full, meaningful discussion of the pipeline’s merits, with a fairer assessment of its true costs.
A pipeline may well be the most profitable and efficient way to move a half-million barrels of crude oil a day across the Plains. But in a time of oil gluts and plummeting oil prices, is it worth it? Is it worth the degradation of the environment, the danger to the water, the insult to the heritage of the Sioux?
The law-enforcement response to the largely peaceful Standing Rock impasse has led to grim clashes at protest camps between hundreds of civilians and officers in riot gear. The confrontation cannot help summoning a wretched history. Not far from Standing Rock, in the Black Hills of South Dakota, sacred land was stolen from the Sioux, plundered for gold and other minerals, and then carved into four monumental presidential heads: an American shrine built from a brazen act of defacement.
The Sioux know as well as any of America’s native peoples that justice is a shifting concept, that treaties, laws and promises can wilt under the implacable pressure for mineral extraction. But without relitigating the history of the North American conquest, perhaps the protesters can achieve their aim to stop or reroute the pipeline.
“We are monitoring this closely,” Mr. Obama said. “I think as a general rule, my view is that there is a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans.” Of course there is. There has to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/time-to-move-the-standing-rock-pipeline.html?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top
Dakota Access Pipeline is No Cultural or Environmental Threat

Nov 4, 2016 | Real Clear Energy

By Craig Stevens

The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172-mile oil pipeline that will safely transport crude from the Bakken fields of North Dakota to Illinois for domestic U.S. consumption, was for years a project no one could fairly call “controversial.” It proceeded through the regulatory process without incident. The company building it worked with landowners and local officials to address any concerns before construction began. The project was halfway finished when, suddenly this summer, a small group emerged to protest the entire pipeline.
The protests originated not far from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota and were based on several allegations from that tribe. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had consulted the Standing Rock Sioux on potential cultural impacts at that and other locations along the route. Having been unable to provide any evidence that the pipeline would harm any historic sites or artifacts, tribal leaders nonetheless demanded that the corps order a halt to all work not just near their reservation but along the entire route.
Corps officials explained to tribal leaders that the Corps has no jurisdiction over the vast majority of the pipeline and cannot halt construction. When discussions failed to convince the Corps to issue an order it had no authority to issue, the protests began.
Protesters demand that the Obama administration shut down the pipeline even though it runs almost entirely along private land over which the federal government has no authority. They continue to make two sweeping claims. 1) They say the pipeline is a threat to the environment. 2) They say the entire route should be subject to tribal inspection because it threatens Native American historical sites.
What is the evidence to support these claims? Well, there is the trouble. There is none.
Let’s take the environmental concern first. Protesters say they fear water contamination from pipeline spills. But they ignore a few crucial facts. The most obvious is that the Missouri River (the water body in question) is already crossed by at least eight pipelines. Those existing pipelines pump hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil every day without incident.
In fact, the Dakota Access Pipeline location where the protests started is the site of an existing natural gas pipeline. The Dakota Access line route runs thorough that pipeline’s corridor.
Furthermore, pipelines are proven to be the safest way to transport oil. The Bakken crude oil that would be carried by the Dakota Access Pipeline is now shipped by train. Pipelines are 4.5 times safer than rail for transporting oil, a 2015 Canadian study found.
“Pipelines transport the lion's share of crude oil because they are the safest, most environmentally friendly and least expensive way to transport large volumes of energy products,” Brigham McCown, the first administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, told Scientific American in 2013.
Transporting Bakken oil via pipeline will increase public and environmental safety, not decrease it. Now, what about the historic sites claims?
It turns out that the Standing Rock Sioux took the Army Corps of Engineers to federal court over those claims. In September, the court found that the tribe had provided no evidence that the pipeline would jeopardize any historic sites. In fact, the court found that the Corps worked with the pipeline company to reroute the line when a potential historic location was identified. The tribe appealed and again lost.
The Corps consulted with leaders of 55 tribes — including the Standing Rock Sioux — to identify and work around any potential impacts. Its findings of no historic impact were verified by state historic preservation officers.
Protesters claim that there might be historic sites along the route where the Corps does not have jurisdiction. But there is no evidence to support that speculative claim. And the federal government has no legal authority to shut down a pipeline based on speculation that it might cross a historic site at some point.
There just isn’t any evidence to support the protesters’ claims that this pipeline is a threat to the environment or Native American historic sites. The pipeline has passed every regulatory review at the state and federal level, and the claims against it have been denied by two federal courts.
This is not the case of a rogue company running afoul of the law or a regulatory agency. This pipeline was found environmentally safe and historically appropriate by four states and the federal government. It is already 77 percent complete at a cost of $3 billion. The protesters have no case, which might be why they have turned from the courtroom and to the picket line.
Craig Stevens, a former senior advisor to U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, is the spokesman for the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now Coalition.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/11/04/dakota_access_pipeline_is_no_cultural_or_environmental_threat_110104.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Big Oil Slowly Adapts to a Warming World

Nov 3, 2016 | New York Times

By Clifford Krauss

In a warming world, Big Oil doesn’t look quite so big anymore.
A global glut of oil and natural gas has sent prices tumbling over the last two years, and profits are evaporating. Improving auto fuel efficiency standards threaten to depress oil consumption eventually, and fleets of electric vehicles are gradually emerging in China and a few other important markets.
Perhaps most troubling for oil companies over the long term is the goal — agreed to last December by virtually every country in the world at a climate conference in Paris — of staving off a rise in average global temperatures of more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, has said that to reach that goal, two-thirds of the global coal, oil and natural gas reserves still underground may never be burned without some improbable technological breakthrough in dealing with the carbon emissions. This position has been echoed by Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England.
The oil industry has experienced global crises, booms and busts for over a century, and few energy experts think it faces an existential threat in the immediate future. The world will still need oil and gas for decades, and normal declines in existing fields oblige further drilling. But change is almost certainly coming.
“Any energy company in the world that makes its strategy without considering climate change policies is making a major mistake,” Mr. Birol said in an interview, “not only a major mistake for the climate but also for their own profits and for their own shareholders, because climate change policies represent a fundamental challenge to business as usual.”
The International Energy Agency’s projections of future global oil demand include one possibility in which demand could drop more than 20 percent from today’s levels, to 74 million barrels a day by 2040, if measures are put in place to keep global warming at levels proposed at the Paris conference. As coal burning declines precipitously and renewable energy grows steadily, natural gas demand will rise only modestly by 2040 even as the global population grows, if the world truly wants to come to grips with climate change.
Not surprisingly, many oil executives view a different path as more likely. Exxon Mobil, for example, projects that global demand for oil will keep growing — by just over 13 percent from today, to 109 million barrels of oil a day by 2040.
At the same time, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and many other companies are investing heavily in natural gas as a lower-carbon answer to growing global energy needs. They view gas as a clean fuel of the future.
“We continue to believe fossil fuels will have a significant and important role to play for as far as we can see,” Exxon Mobil’s chief executive, Rex W. Tillerson, said at the company’s annual shareholders meeting in May.
Which way the world will turn is still in doubt. Most oil executives and independent experts agree that the ambitious Paris target will be challenging to reach, and that reduced burning of fossil fuels will require big technological and policy shifts.
Governments will probably need to be more proactive in deploying nuclear power, which is virtually carbon-free, many experts say.
Coal-fired power plants will need to be equipped with costly carbon capture and sequestration systems. Higher prices for carbon-based fuels are needed in countries like the United States to depress demand and encourage investments in nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration.
Advanced biofuels must be developed to produce renewable fuels without competing with food supplies. Better and cheaper batteries are needed to make electric cars affordable, while recharging stations need to be deployed far more widely.
All of those strategies are costly, politically charged or technically challenging. Big scientific breakthroughs will be needed.
Oil companies have tried to offer solutions to remain relevant. Exxon Mobil, for instance, has financed research into carbon capture and sequestration and lobbied for a carbon tax. Shell has been a big investor in Brazilian biofuels, while Chevron has long been one of the biggest investors in geothermal energy. The French oil company Total is making a major effort in solar power.
Several oil and gas companies have already moved quickly to reduce emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from their exploration and transmission operations. Some farsighted executives have even suggested that their natural gas production could eventually be a major source of hydrogen for fuel cells because methane is hydrogen-rich.
But it’s just a start. With their scientific and engineering prowess and capital muscle, many oil companies have the capacity to retrofit their business plans if and when they are forced to.
Jeremy Bentham, Royal Dutch Shell’s vice president for global business environment, said Shell and other oil companies could adapt and prosper to meet the world’s energy needs, which should continue to grow.
“Our portfolio mix would adjust over time,” he said, “such that the level of the demand for oil would be met and the level of demand for overall energy would be met.”
Mr. Bentham acknowledged that the world must leave some fossil fuels in the ground, but that the global community and not just oil companies must take action to reduce demand for carbon-based fuels.
“To have a demand at a much lower level you need a significant restructuring of mobility systems with more compact cities and with more public transport that can be electrified,” he said. “You’ve got to have hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles that can take a longer range — a whole restructuring that isn’t driven by energy production.”
The restructuring of a new energy system is years if not decades away, and signs that important change is coming have been uneven.
The electric car market is growing slowly in the United States and most of Europe because of high costs and range limitations, although it is advancing faster in China. Toyota, Hyundai and Honda already offer hydrogen fuel-cell cars in select markets, and other companies are testing models that would emit nothing but water from the tailpipe, but major market penetration could be decades away.
Automobiles are becoming far more efficient, although cheap gasoline is causing a surge in consumer demand in the United States for pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.
As for the petroleum industry, even as the price of oil has ticked up modestly in recent months, there are multiple signs of stress in a world of cheap hydrocarbons and rising environmental concerns. What once looked like a rush to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic has stalled. Investments in Canada’s oil sands have slowed, partly as a result of low commodity prices, but also because environmentalists have been successful in opposing the Keystone XL and other pipelines.
Likewise, the hydraulic fracturing revolution that led to a frenzy of drilling in the United States is taking off in Argentina, but hardly anywhere else. The collapse in oil and natural gas prices has led to scores of bankruptcies, mounting debts and the slashing of exploration budgets. Attorneys general in several states are investigating charges that Exxon Mobil raised doubts about climate change while its scientists warned about the dangers of carbon emissions.
In this new world, European companies have been relatively more responsive to change. Many have embraced shareholder proposals to acknowledge the need to limit the rise in global temperatures and to test operations to see how they would perform in a carbon-constrained world. Such proposals have mostly been rejected by the American majors.
Statoil, the Norwegian national company, has agreed to accelerate its investments in renewable energy, announcing new investment decisions totaling more than $1 billion. Among these are the world’s first floating offshore wind park and one of the world’s largest venture funds dedicated to renewables. The projects in Statoil’s renewable energy portfolio now have a combined capacity to power more than one million European homes.
“We recognize that only a certain amount of CO2 can be emitted to reach the 2-degree target,” said Bjorn Otto Sverdrup, Statoil’s senior vice president for sustainability. “Then you have to accept the idea of a carbon budget. You need to have ideas that are not only consistent with your organization’s goals but also with climate science.”
Independent energy experts are either skeptical of or only cautiously optimistic about the will of the oil companies to change.
“Oil companies are moving slowly but surely,” Mr. Birol of the International Energy Agency said. “Some are moving faster, and some are moving much, much slower, if at all.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/energy-environment/big-oil-slowly-adapts-to-a-warming-world.html?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Cybersecurity: Building Resiliency Together

Nov 3, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Jeh Johnson and Thomas J. Donohue

National Cyber Security Awareness Month has concluded, but we continue to urge everyone—individuals, businesses, and governments—to do more to protect themselves and our organizations against cyber incidents. Everyone using the Internet has a role to play in our nation’s cybersecurity.
Numerous cyber incidents over the past three years alone have affected countless people and inflicted immeasurable costs. Whether it is major hacks making the front page news or the day-to-day incidents and attempted intrusions that every organization faces, enhancing cybersecurity is a critical issue for our nation and its businesses.
Malicious cyber activity aimed at businesses are increasingly launched by sophisticated hackers, organized criminals, and state-sponsored groups. These attacks are growing in scope and complexity. A few years ago, our banking institutions were defending against simple brute force denial-of-service attacks. Today, we see hackers successfully using ransomware to extort hospitals and other businesses after cutting off access to their systems and data.
We all have to do our part to prevent successful cyberattacks. The most secure systems and the strictest polices are meaningless if organizations and individuals do not take responsibility for their online actions and safety. Business leaders need to build cybersecurity into their risk management plans and treat cybersecurity as a valuable investment. Employees need to take their cybersecurity as seriously as they take their physical security. Just as you wouldn’t accept a package from a stranger on the street, you shouldn’t open a link from an unknown source. Just as you lock your doors at night, you should secure your online accounts by setting strong passwords and using multifactor authentication. It takes just one person to make an entire system vulnerable.
Together, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security are focused on promoting sound cybersecurity practices among businesses of all sizes and sectors in our country. Working together, government and industry can foster partnerships among key stakeholders.
For businesses, this means adopting the tenets provided in the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Cybersecurity Framework, which consists of standards, guidelines, and practices to enhance the protection of networks and systems. It also involves participating in DHS’s information-sharing efforts, specifically, the Automated Indicator Sharing program. Automated Indicator Sharing is the cornerstone of DHS’s effort to create an information-sharing ecosystem. The moment a company or federal agency observes an attempted compromise, indicators associated with that incident are shared in near real time with organizations that are members of the program, protecting them from that particular threat.
Congress helped us take a big step forward last year by passing the Cybersecurity Act of 2015. Among other key provisions, this law provides liability protections for companies sharing indicators with DHS.
We urge Congress to take further action and ensure that DHS is resourced and organized to meet the growing cyber threat and the potential for large-scale or catastrophic physical consequences as a result of a cyberattack.
We urge all businesses to take advantage of the information and resources that DHS, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others have made available to strengthen our cyber, economic, and national security. Most important, if individuals and businesses make online safety a part of their daily lives and approach cybersecurity as a normal part of their operations, they can more easily adapt and respond to cyber threats.
Jeh Johnson is Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Thomas J. Donohue is President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/304163-cybersecurity-building-resiliency-together

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Paris Climate Agreement Becomes International Law

Nov 4, 2016 | AP (In the Washington Post)

By Michael Astor

The Paris Agreement to combat climate change becomes international law on Friday — a landmark demonstrating that countries are serious about tackling global warming amid growing fears that the world is becoming hotter faster than scientists expected.
So far, 96 countries, accounting for just over two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have formally joined the accord, which seeks to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Many more countries are expected to come aboard in the coming weeks and months.
U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon plans to commemorate “this historic day for both the people and the planet” by holding a conversation with civil society organizations about how they can contribute to the objectives of the Paris agreement.
“For years, he warned that we are the first generation to really feel the effects of climate change - and the last that can meaningfully prevent its worst consequences,” Dujarric said. “His push for action was backed by government officials, scientists, faith leaders, business executives and civil society activists around the world who understood that the future of our common home is at stake. They made today possible.”
Scientists praised the speed at which the agreement, signed by 192 parties last December in Paris, has come into force, saying it underscores a new commitment by the international community to address the problem which is melting polar ice caps, sending sea levels rising and transforming vast swaths of arable land into desert.
“It took more than seven years for the Kyoto Protocol to go into effect while less than a year for the Paris climate agreement to achieve the same,” said Dr. Feng Qi, executive director of the School of Environmental and Sustainability Sciences at Kean University in New Jersey. “While the real effect of the agreement after it goes into effect is still uncertain, it is a simple sign that the international society is much more open to alter economic and political behavior to control climate change, which is by all means positive.”
But scientists and policy makers say the agreement entering into force is just the first step of a much longer and complicated process of transitioning away from fossil fuels, which currently supply the bulk of the planet’s energy needs and also are the primary drivers of global warming.
“Climate change is a marathon not a sprint and the agreement sets a course for the marathon in the years ahead,” said David Sandalow, inaugural fellow at the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy and a former under-secretary of energy in the Obama administration.
While the Paris agreement is legally binding, the emissions reductions that each country has committed to are not. Instead, the agreement seeks to create a transparent system that will allow the public to monitor how well each country is doing at meeting its goals in hopes that this will motivate them to transition more quickly to clean, renewable energy like wind, solar and hydropower.
The agreement also requires governments to develop climate action plans that will be periodically revised and then replaced with new, even more ambitious, plans. Many of these details will begin to be addressed at the COP22 meeting next week in Marrakech, Morocco.
France’s U.N. Ambassador Francois Delattre said he remained optimistic that the agreement signed in his country’s capital would foster change.
“The challenge we have in front of us is unprecedented. We need a massive reorientation of global public and private investment toward a low carbon economy,” Delattre said, adding that he was encouraged by a series of meetings with the business leaders.
“They understand that there’s a major shift here. They want to be part of it, both to reduce the cost but also to increase their opportunities,” he added.
Still, there are those who worry that for all the speed at which the Paris Agreement has been approved it may still be too late.
A report by the U.N. Environment Program released Thursday projects that annual emissions must be kept below 42 billion tons of CO2 (carbon dioxide) by 2030 for the world to have a chance to meet the goals set out in the Paris agreement. However, the agreement itself foresees emissions reaching 54 billion-56 billion tons in 2030, setting the world on a course to exceed the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/paris-climate-agreement-becomes-international-law/2016/11/04/e40c5b22-a243-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Senators Warn Negotiators: US Climate Goals Might Not Last

Nov 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

A group of Republican senators on Thursday advised American negotiators to warn their international counterparts that President Obama’s climate goals might not survive the next administration.
In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, the senators, led by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), noted that American commitments to the international Paris climate deal aren’t binding and could be undone by an unfriendly Congress or Republican presidential administration.
“Joining international agreements using ‘sole executive agreement authority’ leaves the door open for any future administration to alter its course,” the senators wrote.
“Understanding this is especially important in the context of climate change policies, because Congress’s unwillingness to support the president’s international efforts is not the result of gridlock — it is the result of explicit opposition.”
Negotiators meet next week in Morocco to discuss how to implement the climate agreement reached in Paris last year. The deal — which formally kicks in on Friday — has countries set non-binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, including an Obama administration goal to cut emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025.
Republicans in Congress oppose the deal and have voted to undo parts of it, but since it isn't a binding treaty, the Senate didn’t need to ratify it.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has also promised to undo — or at the very least, ignore — the Paris deal if he’s elected president. GOP opposition means the stakes for the climate deal are high in next week’s presidential election.
“I think there is a great deal of interest, not just domestically, but internationally, in terms of what the election outcome will be,” John Morton, director for climate and energy at the White House National Security Council, told reporters Thursday.
“The candidates have very different views on climate.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/304249-gop-senators-warn-negotiators-us-climate-goals-might-not-last

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested