Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/10/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Sees 'Renaissance' Under Trump; Advocates 'Double Down'
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The nation's largest chemicals trade group praised the results of the 2016 election in a statement yesterday, promising to partner with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration to create "a manufacturing renaissance" based on the country's "vast shale gas reserves." -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Trade Group Adds to K Street Team
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The American Chemistry Council has brought on another prominent lobby shop. -
‘Major Changes’ Coming to TSCA Enforcement, Says EPA
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
There will be “major changes” to the EPA’s enforcement activities as a result of TSCA reform, according to remarks at the recent Chemical Watch regulatory summit from Greg Sullivan, acting director of EPA’s waste and chemical enforcement division. -
OMB Receives Prioritization Process Rule From EPA Under New TSCA
Nov 10, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On November 7, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) received a pre-publication proposed rule on Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. -
TSCA Rule on Nanoscale Substances May Turn Out to be a Big Deal: Nanoscale Materials Rule Under OMB Review
Nov 10, 2016 | Lexology
By Arnold & Porter LLP
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving swiftly forward with what could be the first federal environmental regulation to impose reporting requirements specifically for nanoscale materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Challenge Iarc Hazard-Only Identification of Carcinogens
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A group of scientists that includes academics, regulators and industry has published a criticism of carcinogen classifications, which are based only on hazard identification. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Agency Releases 2016 Nano Strategic Plan
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) has released its 2016 National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategic Plan. -
US EPA Issues Snurs for 57 Chemicals
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (Snurs) for 57 chemicals that were subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). Thirty four of them are subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. -
US EPA Received 71 PMNs in September, 57 in August
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 71 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in September. Of these, 48 had the name of the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI). -
Walmart Urges Removal of Hazardous Chemicals from Packaging
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Walmart has urged suppliers to remove hazardous chemicals from packaging in a new guidance document. -
Revised EDC Criteria Proposal Sent to EU Member States
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Commission has sent a revised proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) to member states. Early reactions by NGOs and industry reflect disappointment in the amendments. -
Echa Excludes Sensitisers from Authorisation List Proposal
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has removed the respiratory sensitisers, HHPA and MHHPA, from its latest final recommendation of substances it proposes should be added to REACH Annex XIV – the list of chemicals subject to the authorisation process. -
Eogrts Test Design Dominates Echa Dossier Evaluations
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Detailed discussions on the design of extended one-generation reproductive toxicity (Eogrts) tests featured in the consideration of six dossier evaluations, at the October meeting of Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC). -
Echa Round-Up
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has opened its consultation on the harmonised classification and labelling of dodecyl methacrylate. Germany is proposing a future entry of no classification. The deadline for commenting is 19 December. -
Trump's Energy Plan Likely to Put Pipelines in the Ground
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
With a President Trump in the White House, the nation's fossil fuel debate will likely shift from "keep it in the ground" to putting pipelines in the ground. -
Guest Columnist: Energy Policy Under President Trump: How Much Change is Possible?
Nov 10, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jim Krane
For the US energy sector, a Trump presidency portends less regulation for fossil fuels and a retreat from reducing carbon emissions to fight climate change. -
Trump’s “Good For America” Energy Plan
Nov 10, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dan K. Eberhart
Could President- Elect Donald Trump usher in a sensible energy policy that leads to independence from foreign imports, restores production in the Alaska national petroleum reserve, and even resurrects the possibility of the Keystone XL pipeline? -
Measures Targeting Oil and Gas Development See Mixed Results
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Oil- and gas-related ballot measures had mixed results at the polls yesterday, with two major proposals from opposing sides winning victories in Colorado and California. -
Monterey Ballot Vote is Rare Victory for Anti-Fracking Movement in Oil Country
Nov 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The national anti-fracking movement scored a victory in California this week as voters in Monterey County approved a ballot measure to ban fracking in one of the state’s biggest oil-producing counties. -
Corps Renews Calls for Construction Freeze, Citing Safety Concerns
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration expressed concern yesterday about the Dakota Access pipeline's steady march forward, despite ongoing federal review of a final approval needed to complete the controversial oil pipeline. -
Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipeline Projects Have Clearer Paths After Election
Nov 10, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Construction crews are mobilizing to complete the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and TransCanada said Wednesday that it “remains fully committed” to building the rejected Keystone XL pipeline. -
Here's What Could Happen Under Trump
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President-elect Donald Trump now has free rein to make good on his pledge to "cancel" last year's landmark climate deal. -
Trump's First Cut at EPA: Climate Action
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
Tuesday's victory for President-elect Donald Trump could bring a significant shift away from climate action at U.S. EPA — and perhaps a wider restructuring of the agency.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Sees 'Renaissance' Under Trump; Advocates 'Double Down'
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The nation's largest chemicals trade group praised the results of the 2016 election in a statement yesterday, promising to partner with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration to create "a manufacturing renaissance" based on the country's "vast shale gas reserves."
The American Chemistry Council congratulated Trump as well as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for "Republican victories in the House and Senate," saying the GOP "understand[s] the importance of the chemical industry to our country's economy." During the campaign, ACC released television ads praising five GOP candidates, four of whom won their races (E&ENews PM, Oct. 6).
ACC further pledged yesterday "to support robust and responsible energy and infrastructure development that will keep our industry and our economy on a path to strong growth."
Trump's victory comes as newly minted reforms to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act — signed into law this summer by President Obama — are being put to the test. Next month, U.S. EPA must identify 10 priority chemicals for stricter regulation (Greenwire, July 21), but exactly how the agency will manage the compounds may depend on whom Trump appoints to lead EPA.
Chemicals advocacy groups pledged to gear up for regulatory battles.
Scott Faber, vice president for government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, said the group would "double down on our efforts to ensure that EPA meets the deadline required by the new law."
"We'll be on guard for industry efforts to delay these long-awaited reviews," he continued. "While not perfect, the new law sets very tough deadlines for EPA and requires the agency to quickly review and, if warranted, regulate some of the worst chemicals in commerce."
In a blog post, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization castigated a 2012 tweet from Trump in which he claimed that "[i]f we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down."
ADAO President and CEO Linda Reinstein said the group would push Obama to ban asbestos before he left office.
"I am fearful about the Trump administration, but I don't work based on fear, I work based on fact," she said. "We'll fight Trump. We've got truth and science on our side, and we're not going to give up."
ACC, Reinstein noted, supports the chloralkali industry, the largest commercial user of asbestos in the United States.
EPA is widely expected to name asbestos as a priority compound next month.
Meanwhile, Erich Pica, president of nonprofit Friends of the Earth, warned supporters in an email that chemical giants Bayer AG and Monsanto Co. "are poised to take control of even more of our food system" and said a Trump administration "could unravel decades of hard-fought victories for people and the planet."
Bayer and Monsanto are prominent members of ACC. Bayer, a German chemical giant, bought Monsanto in September (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
ACC went on to trumpet hydraulic fracturing and the natural gas industry, saying shale gas has fueled $175 billion in new factories and bolstered production capacity for chemicals suppliers.
But the industry group also seemed to hedge on Trump's vociferous opposition to international trade deals during the campaign.
"We agree that trade should be fair, and also know firsthand that trade can unlock potential in our economy and create jobs here at home," ACC said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045588
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Trade Group Adds to K Street Team
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The American Chemistry Council has brought on another prominent lobby shop.
Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas has signed up for the chemical manufacturers' trade association to lobby on issues related to rail transportation and infrastructure, appropriations and scientific integrity, according to lobbying disclosure records released this week.
A dozen lobbyists at the firm are registered to represent the group, including Bruce Mehlman, a former senior George W. Bush administration official at the Department of Commerce, and David Castagnetti, ex-chief of staff for former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). The firm has been lobbying for the American Chemistry Council since Nov. 1.
The chemicals trade group has several lobbying firms working on its behalf, including Holland & Knight LLP, Ogilvy Government Relations and CGCN Group. The council has spent $6.16 million on lobbying so far this year, according to records.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045591
-
‘Major Changes’ Coming to TSCA Enforcement, Says EPA
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
There will be “major changes” to the EPA’s enforcement activities as a result of TSCA reform, according to remarks at the recent Chemical Watch regulatory summit from Greg Sullivan, acting director of EPA’s waste and chemical enforcement division.
Mr Sullivan said that, while the majority of changes that the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act will make to TSCA will be programmatic in nature, there will also be some to enforcement, including a potential change to the review period for pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) that result from enforcement activities.
One of the issues that the agency has seen with such PMNs, under the old law, he said, is that 90 days have to elapse before a determination can be made on the chemical, and before a manufacturer can release its existing stocks from quarantines, imposed by enforcement. This has been the case, even in situations where the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) will not identify any potential risk from the substance, he said.
But Mr Sullivan said that, under the new TSCA, “there’s some flexibility there”. And he said the agency is reading the law such that if a determination is made by OPPT that the substance, subject to a PMN, is not one with a significant amount of restrictions, the manufacturer should be able to release existing stocks.
“That’s all caveated by the case-specific factors that we’d be looking at,” said Mr Sullivan. “But it does add a little bit of flexibility, in those cases where the outcome was a little bit unfair, if there was really no concern about the chemical and it was being quarantined just because of its regulatory status. And yet everyone had to sit around and wait for the 90 days to run out. I think those days are over.”
He says the agency has yet to encounter such a scenario, but it looks forward to exploring this option.
“It seems like a fairer outcome,” he said.
Focus on chemicals of highest concern
More broadly, Mr Sullivan said he was hopeful that TSCA reform – and a review of the active status of the 80,000 chemicals on the inventory – will have “an impact of reducing the amount of noise in the system, [so that] the focus can be on the highest-risk chemicals and on those exposures that create real problems.”
If that’s the case, he said, “I think that will be better for everybody: to have a more focused look at those chemicals that are really the difficult ones.”
Mr Sullivan also pointed out that the new law’s removal of the “least burdensome” risk management requirement comes with “the potential for a lot more section 6 rulemaking”.
As the agency begins to implement these section 6 rules – which may include risk management provisions like restrictions, bans, or other requirements – there will potentially be more opportunities for enforcement, said Mr Sullivan.
“We will be watching that very closely.”
State co-enforcement
Mr Sullivan also said that, from the enforcement perspective, the role of states is “an important part of TSCA reform that I want to make sure that folks in my office are looking at.”
The new law says that states can be co-enforcers of the federal TSCA law. That’s an area, he said, he wants “to make sure that we build on and take advantage of, where it’s appropriate”.
In response to a query from Washington state ecology department official, Ken Zarker, on whether states and federal enforcement might begin to develop pilots or new initiatives to expand co-enforcement, Mr Sullivan said: “In the enforcement arena, the more the merrier.”
“I know the states have had their own efforts going on,” he said. But “to find a way of working together, leveraging what’s already been happening and supplementing as needed, I think that would be ideal.”
Maintaining a high level of transparency in enforcement activities also ranked among the agency’s priorities.
And the office will contribute to the EPA’s ongoing development of rules to implement the new law.
“Writing better rules and clarifying the requirements is, from my perspective, what we can do on enforcement to make sure the playing field is level; that everyone is understanding what the requirements are,” he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50891/major-changes-coming-to-tsca-enforcement-says-epa
-
OMB Receives Prioritization Process Rule From EPA Under New TSCA
Nov 10, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On November 7, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) received a pre-publication proposed rule on Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Also referred to as the “Prioritization Process Rule,” this procedural rule will stablish EPA's process and criteria for identifying high priority chemicals for risk evaluation and low priority chemicals. As stated in our memorandum TSCA Reform: EPA Publishes First Year Implementation Plan, this rule is the first of three “Framework Action” rules that the Frank L. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (new TSCA) has directed EPA to issue in final within one year of enactment, or by mid-June 2017. For all three of these rules, the interim milestone for the proposed rules is mid-December 2016; therefore, it is anticipated that the three other rules will soon be sent to OMB for review as well. The two others are:
Risk Evaluation Process Rule: A Procedural rule to establish EPA's process for evaluating the risk of high priority chemicals; and
Inventory Rule: Rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured/processed in the previous ten years. Results will be used to designate active and inactive chemicals on the TSCA Inventory of existing chemicals.
There is a fourth Framework Action rule that new TSCA has directed EPA to issue as well, but it does not have a deadline for issuance in final; new TSCA only species the mid-June 2017 date as a goal:
Fees Rule: EPA is authorized to collect fees to help defray the cost of implementing certain provisions and to fully defray the cost of industry-requested risk evaluations, but must put a rule in place to require fees. There is no deadline in the bill, but authority to require fees will be needed as soon as possible.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/omb-receives-prioritization-process-rule-epa-under-new-tsca
-
Nov 10, 2016 | Lexology
By Arnold & Porter LLP
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving swiftly forward with what could be the first federal environmental regulation to impose reporting requirements specifically for nanoscale materials. The regulation—to be issued using EPA’s authority under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—is expected to create reporting and recordkeeping requirements for both current and future manufacturers and processors of existing and new chemical substances produced at the nanoscale. The proposed rule was issued in April 2015 and EPA extended the public comment period in July 2015. Interest in the proposed rule was considerable. By the August 2015 close of the comment period, EPA had received nearly 70 public comments addressing the terms of the Proposal. Numerous intragovernmental comments also were received by the Agency. Since then, significant changes to TSCA were enacted. Nevertheless, in October, EPA sent its version of the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. If OMB completes its review within 90 days, it is possible the final rule could be issued before the change in Administration.
Scope of the Rulemaking
Although the terms of the final rule will not be made public until the final rule is published in the Federal Register, the final version of the TSCA Section 8(a) rule is likely to require manufacturers (including importers) and processors to submit a one-time only report to EPA concerning their current production of nanoscale versions of substances already listed on the TSCA Inventory and to provide notice to the Agency in advance of commencing manufacture of a new nanoscale substance (i.e., a substance not yet listed on the TSCA Inventory). Reporting entities are likely to be required by the final rule to maintain certain records concerning their production and processing activities.
How EPA will articulate which substances are subject to reporting remains to be seen. Given that there are differing regulatory definitions for nanoscale materials around the globe (and even within North America) the manner in which EPA defines the scope of the substances subject to reporting in the final rule will be closely watched. The proposal targeted “discrete forms” of substances containing primary particles, aggregates, or agglomerates with at least one dimension between 1 and 100 nanometers (or between one billionth of a meter and one ten millionth of a meter) and exhibiting “unique and novel characteristics or properties because of their size.” If no significant changes are made in the final rule, manufacturers and processers of such nanoscale forms of chemical substances will have both reporting and recordkeeping obligations; however, small businesses and those who manufacture or process small quantities of nanomaterials solely for research and development purposes will be exempt.
The Agency originally proposed that current manufacturers and processors of nanoscale materials must submit reports within six months after the final rule becomes effective whereas manufacturers and processors of new nanoscale materials would be expected to notify EPA at least 135 days before beginning manufacture or processing. Records to be maintained would include copies of the required submissions and information supporting the data contained in the Section 8(a) reports. Unless significantly reduced in scope by EPA during the course of considering public comments, the final rule is likely to require persons submitting notices to EPA to provide the same level of detail generally requested in EPA’s TSCA Section 5 premanufacture notification requirements including the specific chemical identity of the substance, the methods of manufacture, the quantity produced (including estimates of future production), the uses of the substances, and any existing health and safety data.
Topics of Greatest Interest to Commenters
Commenters addressed a wide array of subjects about which EPA has solicited comments, and other topics for which comments were not specifically requested. The proposed rule received broad support from a number of environmental interest groups who encouraged EPA to move toward issuing the final rule without delay and to make the information EPA receives pursuant to the final rule available to the general public using electronic tools and portals available on EPA’s website. A considerable number of comments were received from commercially- and research-oriented interest groups around the world. Among the topics receiving the greatest attention by trade associations and members of regulated community were the definition EPA proposed for what substances would be “reportable” and the complexities that could arise in attempting to identify and report on each “discrete form” of a nanoscale substance as defined in the proposed regulation. EPA was encouraged to harmonize its approach more specifically with the approach being taken by the Canadian government, which has chosen to simply list the substances and categories of chemicals about which reporting is required if produced on a nanoscale.
Commenters also suggested that using TSCA 8(a) to require reporting on “new” substances was inappropriate given the Agency’s existing authority under Section 5 of TSCA. The list of substances to be exempt from reporting was insufficiently limited according to many commenters. The Agency’s assessment of the potential economic impacts of the regulation drew much criticism as did EPA’s proposal to redefine for purposes of the nano-reporting rule the threshold used for defining which small businesses would be exempted from a final nano-reporting rule. Numerous “industry” commenters suggested EPA should simply withdraw the proposal outright and begin again.
Issues to Prepare for In Advance of the Final Rule
The proposed rulemaking raised several important concerns and questions which have importance to stakeholders,
including:
1. Will the information being collected under a final Section 8(a) rule expose a submitter to potential regulatory or enforcement consequences?
EPA considers nanoscale forms of chemical substances not already listed in the TSCA Inventory to be new chemical substances subject to the reporting requirements of TSCA Section 5. Given the often nuanced nature of EPA’s chemical nomenclature interpretations, there is a potential risk that a business submitting a report required under the Final Section 8(a) rule for what the entity believes to be a substance already listed on the Inventory might learn that EPA considers the substance reported to be a “new” chemical substance rather than simply a nanoscale “form” of an existing substance listed on the TSCA Inventory. This risk might be especially true for processors who may have relied for years on a supplier’s representations concerning the proper identity and nomenclature (and Inventory status) of a substance about which the processor is obliged to report to EPA under a final Section 8(a) rule for the very first time. The consequences of TSCA Section 5 violations can be significantly disruptive to ongoing business relationships and be financially devastating for businesses.
2. What will EPA do with the information it collects?
EPA has stated that it intends to use the information it gathers under this rulemaking to determine if any further regulatory action on nanoscale materials is required. Thus, submitters of reports can expect the information they report will be used to help the Agency determine whether “unreasonable risks” will be presented by a nanoscale substance and how those risks may be managed, as well as to help EPA weigh the costs and benefits of future regulatory actions related to nanoscale materials. It is worth noting that EPA has assessed nearly 200 “new” nanoscale substances under the Section 5 program and has undertaken risks assessment in that context. In a significant percentage of those instances, EPA has imposed some level of regulatory restrictions on the nanoscale chemicals it has reviewed and often has required additional test data to be generated for these substances. The recent amendments to TSCA greatly increase the likelihood that a report received by EPA under a Section 8(a) rule could trigger an administrative order issued pursuant to the amended Section 4 of TSCA compelling the production and submission of additional health and environmental effects data. The recent amendments to Section 14 of TSCA also enable EPA to share with state regulators certain confidential information the Agency receives under the statute. That an eager state government in receipt of information received by EPA under the nano-substances reporting rule might seek to issue a regulatory restriction independent of EPA action would certainly be in keeping with recent trends.
3. What other actions will EPA take on nanoscale materials?
EPA’s TSCA Section 8(a) rulemaking on nanoscale materials is one of several notable actions and public positions the Agency has taken on nanoscale substances within the past few years. In March 2015, EPA reiterated its position that makers and marketers of products that contain nanoscale silver are subject to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration requirements if the products are sold with antimicrobial (pesticidal) claims. This action came after years of what environmental groups considered to be EPA inaction on nanoscale materials, and may be viewed as a sign of the Agency’s renewed focus on regulating nanoscale substances under a variety of statutory authorities.
Impact of June 2016 TSCA Amendments
Comprehensive amendments to TSCA—signed into law by President Obama in June 2016—will impact many aspects of chemical substance manufacturing, processing and disposal, including the Agency’s processes under the amended statute for prioritizing and evaluating chemical substances.
The amendments notably did not impact of the provisions of TSCA Section 8 most pertinent to the nanoscale substances reporting rule. However the TSCA amendments do create certain new concerns for businesses that were noted above concerning how EPA (and certain states) might make use of and issue follow-on requirements based on information received and made public under a final Section 8(a) rule.
Perhaps less significant, but equally worth noting, new confidential business information (CBI) certification requirements for information submitted to EPA by processors and manufacturers of chemical substances will impact stakeholders’ Section 8(a) reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The new CBI certification requirement in TSCA Section 14 requires manufacturers and processors who assert confidentiality claims for information submitted to EPA to certify that the statement asserting the claim and the substantiation for the claim are true and correct. Moreover, EPA is obliged under the amended Section 14(g) of TSCA to review all claims seeking CBI treatment of chemical identity information submitted to EPA and 25% of all other CBI claims submitted. EPA also proposed that persons reporting under the nano-substances rule maintain records for a period of 3 years demonstrating their compliance and the basis for the reports submitted pursuant to the rule.
The burden of the CBI certification and substantiation requirements may be seemingly minimal. Nevertheless, stakeholders affected by Section 8(a) rulemakings will have to take additional care to ensure that the information they are submitting—and now certifying to EPA—is correct and carefully substantiated. The certification requirements and EPA’s new obligations under Section 14(g) did not exist when EPA issued its initial Federal Register notice announcing the proposed rulemaking in April 2015, and thus these burdens were not addressed in the proposed rulemaking (or the economic impacts assessment performed at that time). If the final Section 8(a) rule retains the complexities of the definitions and reporting triggers that appeared in the proposed version of the nano-substances reporting rule, this new certification obligation and the enhanced CBI substantiation requirements could create additional challenges.
What’s Next for Nanoscale Materials?
Under Executive Order 12866 (1993), OMB is empowered to review regulations to ensure that they (1) are consistent with applicable law; (2) are consistent with the President’s priorities; and (3) do not conflict with actions taken or planned by other agencies. OMB also makes suggestions that the Agency may include in its final rulemaking. The rulemaking record makes clear that OMB made significant comments and that EPA considerably edited and ultimately modified the proposed rule as a result of its consultations with OMB. A number of groups have already sought meetings with OMB to express concerns about a final Section 8(a) rule concerning nanoscale substances. Given the urgency the Administration is feeling to complete the rulemaking before Inauguration Day, it is not clear how heavy a hand OMB will exert during this review of the final rule. Recent OMB reviews of EPA rulemakings have taken as little as one month and as many as five months. Assuming a timely review and clearance by OMB, EPA currently plans to publish its final rulemaking in the Federal Register in January 2017. Stakeholders should pay attention to the status of this rulemaking and consider whether to provide their input to OMB before the final rulemaking is published.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=433ec144-effd-4019-9d36-3c12b11e4fdb
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Challenge Iarc Hazard-Only Identification of Carcinogens
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A group of scientists that includes academics, regulators and industry has published a criticism of carcinogen classifications, which are based only on hazard identification. The authors say such systems lead to “distorted and misled public perception" and mean that useful chemicals are "being lost by attrition".
Published last month as a commentary article in the peer-reviewed journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, its ten authors maintain that hazard-only approaches inappropriately group together chemicals with very different toxicities and lead to reactionary public policies.
“This hazard-identification only process places chemicals with widely differing potencies, and very different modes of action, into the same category," says lead author Professor Alan Boobis, of Imperial College London.
“The consequences are unnecessary health scares and unnecessary diversion of public funds.”
Hazard classifications are based on the strength of evidence of carcinogenic potential in humans but do not indicate the degree of risk from exposure, the paper says. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) cancer classification and the UN Global Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling, which is the basis for the EU CLP Regulation, are the most important examples.
The paper was published four days after American Chemistry Council head, Cal Dooley, wrote to a US congressional committee hearing into US government funding for the Iarc that publication of hazard information is "not meaningful" and "often misleading".
Hazard classifications have become “outmoded”, say the scientists, who trace their history back to the 1970s, when the emphasis was to ban carcinogens in the belief that there were not many of them and all were genotoxic with no threshold of effect.
Now, they say, knowledge of them has improved through hazard identification and characterisation using animal studies, and adverse human effects can be predicted and avoided. The WHO International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS), in particular, they add, has developed a weight-of-evidence framework establishing modes of action for carcinogenesis.
Public response to hazard identification can lead to negative publicity and a health scare, the authors say. They cite the case of the herbicide glyphosate as an example of a well-studied compound, reviewed by Iarc and pronounced a “probable human carcinogen”. This triggered reviews by the European Food Safety Authority and the UN joint FAO/WHO meeting on pesticide residues, both of which found that the chemical was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.
However, widespread public controversy led to the EU licensing of the product being extended by the Commission for 18 months only, pending another review by Echa.
Glyphosate was also one of the substances, cited in Mr Dooley's letter to the congressional committee, as an example of where "Iarc’s practice of releasing a working group’s conclusions by press release, months before publication of explanatory and supporting information, contained in the complete monograph, breeds this kind of media frenzy ..."
The scientists' paper concludes that an international agreement is needed on a standardised acceptable methodology for carcinogen assessment, which incorporates principles and concepts of existing consensus-based frameworks, particularly the IPCS framework.
Although the paper focuses on carcinogens, it says similar arguments can be applied to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Disagreement over the European Commission's proposed criteria for identifiying EDCs is continuing - with industry and some member states pressing for the inclusion of potency as a factor.
The EU reproductive toxicity classification system is also hazard based, say the scientists, and will trigger “automatic extreme risk management measures” for some products, such as pesticides.
The arguments, presented by the paper, are similar to those expressed previously by industry body, the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (Ecetoc) in 2014.
NGOs dispute them. Michael Warhurst, head of ChemTrust, said the paper was “wrong” to describe hazard classification as a hangover from the past and “abhorrent” in criticising it for being based on animal studies. “Classification and labelling of chemicals has been extensively debated at a science and policy level, and it has been agreed by most that this is the clearest and most protective approach,” he added.
The move to push quantitative risk assessment “is really a ploy to help industry minimise costs, by enabling them to keep chemicals with undesirable properties on the market,” he concluded. “Threats to public health are best addressed by eliminating exposure to substances with undesirable properties whenever possible, rather than setting allowable levels of exposure.”
Jack de Bruijn, Head of Echa's risk management unit, commented: "The use of hazard classification is a political and policy-based discussion that should take place in the context of defining or revising legislation. The Commission is currently consulting on the CLP Regulation so this will be taken into account. But there is no doubt that the Regulation has been working well and has contributed to a lot of protection for people and workers over many years."
Iarc was also asked for a reaction but was unable to respond.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50875/scientists-challenge-iarc-hazard-only-identification-of-carcinogens
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Agency Releases 2016 Nano Strategic Plan
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) has released its 2016 National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategic Plan.
The strategic plan provides the framework for individual agencies to conduct their own mission-specific nanotechnology programmes, coordinate activities with other NNI agencies and collaborate on larger projects.
Participating agencies include the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD), among others.
“This update of the NNI Strategic Plan reflects that evolution and addresses how the NNI agencies will collaborate with each other and the broader nanotechnology community, to expand the ecosystem that supports fundamental discovery, fosters innovation, and promotes the transfer of nanotechnology discoveries from lab to market,” the plan states.
The strategic plan outlines four goals:
advance a world-class nanotechnology research and development programme that builds off legacy research to further explore the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science;
foster the transfer of new technologies into products for commercial and public benefit with programmes such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) Innovation Corps and the National Institute of Health (NIH) Translation of Nanotechnology in Cancer Consortium;
develop and sustain education resources, a skilled workforce and a dynamic infrastructure and set of tools to advance nanotechnology; and
support responsible development to protect human health and the environment, while realising the societal and economic benefits of this technology.
Industry input
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) wrote to the NNCO, in September, outlining the organisation’s thoughts on the then-proposed draft, released earlier this year. While the ACC agreed with all of the goals outlined, the organisation asked that the second objective be expanded to include a goal to foster the transfer of new technologies from the lab to the marketplace.
The ACC asked the NNCO to cover more thoroughly the dissemination of regulatory information.
“Small business stakeholders, at the NNI’s September 2013 risk workshop, identified a regulatory road map as a priority need, and such a resource is consistent with objective 2.1.,” the ACC wrote.
That addition was not included in the final draft.
The NNI Strategic Plan has evolved since it was first published in 2003. The document originally looked at fundamental research focused on understanding and exploiting the phenomena that occur at the nanoscale to what is now broadly enabling technology.
The strategic plan is updated every three years, with this version replacing one released in February 2014.
Busy time for nanomaterials
The regulation of nanomaterials has been a growing area of concern for NGOs and businesses. The EPA announced, in March 2015, it would propose reporting for nanomaterials in the marketplace, under TSCA.
NGOs and business groups unanimously requested that the EPA better define the terms in its proposed reporting rule. While the strategic plan does not specifically touch on these regulations, it does provide guidance on how agencies like the EPA should conduct nanotechnology programmes.
A final nano reporting rule was received on 7 October, at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review. Reviews are typically limited to 90 days, but may be extended under certain circumstances; they have no minimum length.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50921/us-agency-releases-2016-nano-strategic-plan
-
US EPA Issues Snurs for 57 Chemicals
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (Snurs) for 57 chemicals that were subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). Thirty four of them are subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent orders.
Substances subject to a Snur require that anyone intending to manufacture, import or process them for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify the agency at least 90 days before starting that activity.
Substances covered by the Snurs include:
three carbon nanotubes;
a variety of amides; and
several polymers.
The Snurs are being issued as direct final rules and will take effect 60 days from publication of the notice in the Federal Register, barring receipt of a notice to submit an adverse comment.
If the agency receives such comments on, or before, the deadline, it will withdraw the relevant Snur and reissue it as a proposed rule.
The EPA recently issued a proposed Snur for a different carbon nanotube substance, following receipt of a notice of intent to submit an adverse comment to a direct final rule.
The review periods for each of the 57 substances ended prior to the passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act on 22 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50932/us-epa-issues-snurs-for-57-chemicals
-
US EPA Received 71 PMNs in September, 57 in August
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 71 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in September. Of these, 48 had the name of the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI).
The agency also received 57 PMNs in August, with 42 listing the name of a manufacturer or importer withheld as CBI.
September's 71 PMNs compare to 55 submitted in September 2015, and 48 in September 2014. August's 57 PMNs also exceed the 45 received in that month in the previous two years.
The relatively high notification numbers come despite an apparent backlog of PMNs following the passage of a reformed TSCA, and amid early signs that consent orders will be increasing under the new law.
The EPA has said it is confident that it will be able to keep pace with review and determinations on the some thousand new substance notifications it receives each year.
During September, the agency received 21 notices of commencement (NOCs) to manufacture chemicals. It received 46 NOCs in August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50933/us-epa-received-71-pmns-in-september-57-in-august
-
Walmart Urges Removal of Hazardous Chemicals from Packaging
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Walmart has urged suppliers to remove hazardous chemicals from packaging in a new guidance document.
The Walmart Sustainable Packaging Playbook was launched at a summit held by the retailer last month. It gives an overview of best practices for suppliers to improve the sustainability of packaging. It was created in collaboration with the Sustainable Packaging Coalition and the Association of Plastic Recyclers.
As part of Walmart's aim to "enhance material health", it has asked suppliers to identify priority chemicals in packaging and check if they have been removed, reduced or restricted.
The playbook says: "We encourage suppliers to remove/reduce/ restrict the use of materials that may present human health and environmental toxicity risks.”
Priority chemicals are defined as those that meet the criteria for classification as:
carcinogenic;
mutagenic;
reprotoxic;
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT);
any chemical for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health, or the environment, that gives rise to an equivalent level of concern.
Walmart drew its criteria list from Article 57 of REACH. This lays out the types of substances that could qualify for inclusion in Annex XIV.
The playbook recommends that suppliers consider either using tools such as the GreenScreen List Translator, Toxnot or Pharos to determine priority chemicals, or having a third-party conduct an assessment such as Material IQ.
Walmart director of sustainability communications, Ragan Dickens told Chemical Watch that the document's launch "marks one of the first times Walmart has provided specific guidance to suppliers on how to enhance material health in its packaging.
"The playbook provides tools and resources to help in identifying and assessing priority chemicals."
Guidance is also provided about designing packaging for recycling. It recommends avoiding polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and biodegradable additives in petroleum-based plastics. PVC materials, it says, may increase the contamination of other plastic recycling streams, while biodegradable additives may result in "more environmental harm"
The NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has welcomed the playbook. Boma Brown-West, senior manager of consumer health, said: "We are excited that Walmart is expanding their chemicals work to packaging. Food packaging is an especially important opportunity, as some chemicals in packaging can migrate into the food."
She added the playbook was a "good first step to motivate suppliers to act" and that EDF expects to see Walmart set measurable targets and timelines "to accelerate the adoption of sustainable, safer packaging."”
Walmart launched its Sustainable Chemistry Policy in 2013. It aims to reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals of concern from personal care, paper, cleaning, pet and baby products covering approximately 90,000 individual products from 700 suppliers. This year the company announced the removal of 23m pounds of hazardous chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50905/walmart-urges-removal-of-hazardous-chemicals-from-packaging
-
Revised EDC Criteria Proposal Sent to EU Member States
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The European Commission has sent a revised proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) to member states. Early reactions by NGOs and industry reflect disappointment in the amendments.
The proposal's most significant change is that it now refers to a ban on endocrine disruptors that "may cause adverse effects to humans", rather than those known to cause such effects.
Several member states had flagged up concerns over the original wording, saying it placed the level of evidence needed for a ban too high.
But PAN Europe says despite the amendment, the level of proof remains very high. And NGO coalition EDC-Free Europe says the latest proposals "will not protect citizen's health or the environment the way the law intends".
To implement a ban on an EDC, regulators would have to show an adverse effect, the mode of action, and the link between these two. PAN Europe says this would be "almost impossible to prove" because the information is not available, especially for mode of action.
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) says the amendment adds uncertainty for industry. Together with a lack of hazard characterisation elements, such as potency, the criteria make it "impossible to see how [the regulators] will identify those substances which pose a real concern from those that don't", says director of public affairs, Graeme Taylor.
It also says the Commission has not justified why it chose the policy option that will "potentially have the most significant impact on agricultural productivity, competitiveness and trade without any additional protection for health and the environment" over other available options.
All other amendments are "largely cosmetic", says PAN Europe.
The revision does not address other main member state concerns, such as:
the exclusion of 'presumed' EDCs from the WHO definition; and
the change of the legislative approach from hazard- to risk-based.
PAN Europe the latter is the most crucial element of the criteria: "If risk assessment - instead of hazard assessment - is applied ... there will in almost every case be a 'safe dose' and approval."
The EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council will discuss the revised proposal on Monday. The Netherlands has submitted a note complaining there is no guidance available to help competent authorities assess the risks of EDCs. It asks the Commission to establish a working group "as soon as possible", comprising representatives of the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority, Echa and possibly some member states. But PAN Europe predicts it will not get the qualified majority it needs as most member states have asked the Commission to include "presumed" EDCs in the proposal, and voted against the risk-based approach.
A meeting of the EU Standing Committee on Biocidal Products is due to discuss the proposal on 18 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50878/revised-edc-criteria-proposal-sent-to-eu-member-states
-
Echa Excludes Sensitisers from Authorisation List Proposal
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has removed the respiratory sensitisers, HHPA and MHHPA, from its latest final recommendation of substances it proposes should be added to REACH Annex XIV – the list of chemicals subject to the authorisation process.
The announcement follows a public consultation, during which industry reacted strongly against adding the two substances, which are used as hardeners in epoxy resins, saying no technically and economically viable alternatives are available.
And in a recent position paper, Cefic said it feared the “default listing” of respiratory sensitisers as SVHCs, and suggested the health impacts are “far less serious” than those of carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants (CMRs).
“Two substances were left out from the final recommendation, due to a change in their priority after the public consultation,” Echa said in a press release.
In the recommendation, the agency said it is justified in recommending just nine substances – the seventh to be issued – because of the "substantial number" previously recommended and on which the Commission still needs to decide.
Echa’s fifth and sixth final recommendations were held up by the Commission, until the REACH Committee revisited discussions in March and September this year.
Last year, chemical companies Hitachi and Polynt appealed to the European Court of Justice against an EU General Court judgement, which backed Echa’s decision to add HHPA and MHHPA to the REACH candidate list.
Echa says the two substances will be reconsidered in the future recommendation rounds, together with all other substances in the candidate list.
“We are disappointed that the two sensitisers are not included in the recommendation,” ChemSec policy adviser Frida Hök said. “I don’t see any reason to take them out and even the Member State Committee agreed to keep them in. This is a priority list and all substances should eventually move forward in the process, but Echa is making the process much slower now.”
The nine substances, proposed for authorisation this time round, are:
the boron compounds, sodium perborate - perboric acid, sodium salt, and sodium peroxometaborate. These are used in detergents and bleaches and are toxic for reproduction category 1B;
the lead compounds, orange lead (lead tetroxide), lead monoxide (lead oxide), tetralead trioxide sulphate and pentalead tetraoxide sulphate, which are used to make batteries and rubber. These are classified as category 1A reprotoxins;
trixylyl phosphate. This is used in lubricants, hydraulic fluids and plastics production, and is toxic for reproduction 1B; and
two plasticisers used in PVC - dihexyl phthalate and 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, dihexyl ester, branched and linear 1B reprotoxins.
For all nine, the proposed sunset (phase-out) date is 18 months after the application deadline.
The final decision on inclusion in the authorisation list, and on dates by which companies will need to apply for authorisation to Echa, will be taken by the European Commission in collaboration with member states and the European Parliament.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50918/echa-excludes-sensitisers-from-authorisation-list-proposal
-
Eogrts Test Design Dominates Echa Dossier Evaluations
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Detailed discussions on the design of extended one-generation reproductive toxicity (Eogrts) tests featured in the consideration of six dossier evaluations, at the October meeting of Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC).
The Eogrts test (OECD TG 443) became a standard requirement in 2015, when it replaced the two-generation reproductive toxicity test (OECD TG 416). It has the advantage of a flexible design, which may include cohorts for developmental immune toxicity (DIT) and/or developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) plus the possibility to cover a second generation. It may also reduce the use of animals by 50% compared to its predecessor, but testing strategies need to be agreed in advance.
The need for, and design of, the test is a regular topic for discussion in MSC dossier evaluations. A contested decision led to an appeal in 2015.
At the October meeting, the six substances, where the Eogrts test was discussed, were:
Diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethyl-benzoyl)phosphine oxide
The MSC’s compliance check on this Swedish Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) substance found the dossier did not cover reproductive toxicity endpoints and an Eogrts test was required.
The committee's draft decision was to ask for the test with "internal triggering", where the design and extent of it is altered, depending upon the observed outcomes. The MSC asked that any observations suggesting endocrine disruption, such as altered ano-genital distance or nipple retention, be used as triggers for deciding whether DIT or DNT cohorts are necessary.
MSC chairman Watze de Wolf said that internal triggering is "exceptional, but in this case we decided we could apply it.
"It requires some additional efforts on the part of the contract laboratories. It is not something that is a standard approach for us," he added.
Mr de Wolf said that Sweden will be able to follow up on that concern through the substance evaluation process, leaving the registrant with several options on how to proceed.
The registrant commented that it was considering a more stringent CLP classification for the substance than the Risk Assessment Committee's category 2 reprotoxicant. It suggested category 1B, which would require further risk management measures. The MSC considered that if that was in place, then an Eogrts test may not be necessary, but at present the test would be needed.
N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]methacrylamide
The MSC was unable to agree on whether the Eogrts test should include a second generation in a compliance check. However, there was unanimous agreement on many other endpoints, Mr de Wolf said, so, to avoid delay, that decision will be split.
The second generation issue will be deferred to the European Commission, but work on the other aspects can continue.
3,5-Dimethylpyrazole
A compliance check showed that exposed animals lacked a startling response to noise – a strange observation which was not fully explained in the dossier. The MSC sought specialist advice from otologists and reproductive toxicologists, which suggested this could be a biological response. It therefore decided to alter the proposed Eogrts design to include a DNT cohort.
Turpentine oil
A compliance check gave rise to concerns about endocrine disruption but the committee was unsure about whether to include DIT and DNT cohorts. The decision was delayed until results of a 90-day toxicity test become available.
The MSC expects that Echa will be able to re-evaluate the dossier in 12 months.
M-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)-N,N-bis(2,3-epoxypropyl)aniline and the reaction mass of bis(2,3-epoxypropyl) terephthalate and tris(oxiranylmethyl)benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylate
The MSC was unanimous in testing proposal examinations that no DIT cohort were required for either compound.
The committee's dossier evaluation decisions are returned to registrants for comment and, after agreement, are published on the Echa website in a non-confidential form.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50797/eogrts-test-design-dominates-echa-dossier-evaluations
-
Nov 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
CLH consultation
Echa has opened its consultation on the harmonised classification and labelling of dodecyl methacrylate. Germany is proposing a future entry of no classification. The deadline for commenting is 19 December.
PACT-RMOA hazard assessment
The agency has competed its hazard assessment of 4-heptylphenol, branched and linear. It has concluded that it is an endocrine disruptor in accordance with the WHO/International Programme for Chemical Safety definition. Further information would be needed to confirm the endocrine disrupting properties, but follow-up work is not relevant or being carried out at present, it says.
4-HPbl belongs to the class of alkylphenols that comprises already confirmed endocrine disrupting chemicals. It was selected for hazard assessment in order to clarify suspected endocrine disruptive properties for the environment.
Polymers, derived from the substances in the group, are used in lubricant additives such as detergents, metal deactivators and corrosion inhibitors.
IA risk management option analysis (RMOA) of tributyl o-acetylcitrate, meanwhile, says there is no need to initiate further regulatory risk management action at this time. The substance is used in coating products, finger paints, fillers, putties, plasters, modelling clay, metal surface treatment products, inks and toners, polymers, washing and cleaning products.
An RMOA of isoprene, used in the manufacture of chemicals, including for the laboratory, is under development.
Applications for authorisation
Echa has opened consultations on 29 applications for the authorisation of seven substances. These are::
11 uses of chromium trioxide, including coating applications and chrome plating, in sectors such as architectural, automotive, metal manufacturing and finishing, and general engineering;
one use of 2,2'-dichloro-4,4'-methylenedianiline (MOCA) as a curing agent;
five uses of sodium dichromate, including as a mordant in dyeing processes;
two uses of sodium chromate;
one use of potassium dichromate for sealing in the aerospace industry;
two uses of ammonium dichromate for use in military and civilian aircraft; and
seven uses of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC).
The closing date for comments is 9 January 2017.
2017 Pic exports reminder
Echa has reminded prior informed consent (Pic) chemicals exporters to submit their 2017 notifications as soon as possible. The agency wants to ensure it and national EU authorities have time to process them. It says that by notifying early enough, exporters will be less likely to experience delays. The agency also reminds companies to attach the safety data sheet for the exported chemical in the appropriate language.
Manual translation
The manual How to prepare a substance in articles notification is now available from the agency website in 23 EU languages.
Factsheet update
Echa's factsheet on safety data sheets and exposure scenarios has been updated and is now available in 23 EU languages. It answers questions like:
what are safety data sheets and exposure scenarios?
when should they be provided? and
what do downstream users need to do when they receive them?
https://chemicalwatch.com/50834/echa-round-up
-
Trump's Energy Plan Likely to Put Pipelines in the Ground
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
With a President Trump in the White House, the nation's fossil fuel debate will likely shift from "keep it in the ground" to putting pipelines in the ground.
Trump, who campaigned on making America energy independent, cannot do much to accelerate drilling amid a price slump. But pipeline construction represents perhaps the fastest way to give the oil and gas industry a shot in the arm and stick it to the anti-fossil-fuel movement.
"I think they will greenlight lots of fossil fuel projects," said Jane Kleeb, who led the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline and rallied activists against the Dakota Access pipeline. "And we'll fight all of them."
During the campaign, Trump vowed to revive Keystone, and many observers expect he'll try to end the delays on the Dakota Access pipeline.
And there are several other major pipeline proposals being pushed by the industry and opposed by green groups. During his acceptance speech yesterday, Trump said, "We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none."
The oil and gas industry is enthusiastic about the potential to stop playing defense on the pipeline issue. Industry figures say President Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline and delayed the Dakota Access pipeline to appease environmental groups.
"We're hopeful the pipeline approval process will now be allowed to work without political interference," said John Stoody, vice president of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
Reinforcing the point, pipeline developer TransCanada Corp. issued a statement yesterday that it is "evaluating ways to engage the new administration" on its proposal (E&ENews PM, Nov. 9).
The stock market is also on board with the concept of more pipelines. Energy Transfer Partners, which is building the 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline, saw its stock price rise 11 percent yesterday.
Trump has vowed to get the oil industry out of its doldrums by sweeping away regulations. But even though there are a number of regulations looming for the industry, the current price slump was caused by overproduction.
Pipelines are key to Trump's promise to revive the industry, said Salo Zelermyer, a former George W. Bush energy official who is now at Bracewell LLP.
"Trump has made it clear that he wants to unleash domestic oil and gas production, and it is clear that we need the infrastructure necessary to maximize the benefits of that production for jobs and the economy," he said.
Rolling back regulations
While the future regulations haven't slowed the rigs, they have discouraged investment in projects that could open more markets for industry, said Stephen Brown, vice president for federal government affairs at oil refiner Tesoro Corp.
"It's the overhang of these regulations that become a drag on the economics," Brown said. "Your cash is drying up."
The industry is hopeful Trump will not only speed up pipeline approvals but roll back the regulatory regime Obama has proposed, including a crackdown on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and expanding the scope of the Clean Water Act by broadening the definition of "waters of the U.S."
"Whenever people try to permit virtually any kind of facility, it's a moving target," said John Tintera, executive vice president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers.
Industry officials say rejecting "keep it in the ground" will be politically helpful to Trump.
"We need more energy infrastructure, and the workers who will build it know that the radical environmental groups preaching 'keep it in the ground' are not their allies," said Steve Everley of the industry campaign Energy In Depth.
Kleeb foresees political pain for Trump and the industry on pipelines. Rather than focus on climate change, she said she expects to press the case that land for the pipelines is being acquired through eminent domain. That's an unpopular concept in rural areas.
"We will battle them in the courts and streets," Kleeb said. "That's the two places they don't control."
Dakota Access
Finishing the Dakota Access pipeline now seems as simple as granting an easement that the Obama administration has blocked. But industry advocates are wary that the Obama administration can use its final few months to make it more difficult.
Energy Transfer declined to talk about the potential impact of Trump's policies on the line. The company plans to finish the Dakota Access line by the first quarter of 2017, Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman, said in an email.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which fears the pipeline will contaminate water and disturb burial grounds, called on Obama to block the Dakota Access before he leaves office.
"We believe halting the Dakota Access pipeline presents a unique opportunity for President Obama to set a lasting and true legacy and respect the sovereignty and treaty rights of Standing Rock and tribal nations across America," Standing Rock Sioux tribal Chairman Dave Archambault said in a statement.
Restarting Keystone would be more difficult than finishing Dakota Access. Since the project was canceled, TransCanada would essentially need to start over.
"You're looking at two years of a fight," Kleeb said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045560
-
Guest Columnist: Energy Policy Under President Trump: How Much Change is Possible?
Nov 10, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jim Krane
For the US energy sector, a Trump presidency portends less regulation for fossil fuels and a retreat from reducing carbon emissions to fight climate change.
Trump’s big campaign promises, however, were short on policy insights and his selection of energy advisers remains unknown.
Trump’s statements promoting domestic energy are a perennial theme in US politics, echoing those of every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter, who made the first presidential vow to cut US dependence on foreign oil.
As Carter and every predecessor learned, however, market forces account for most of what happens in the U.S. energy sector. Whether the president likes it or not, energy companies take most of their marching orders from pricing signals coming from outside the United States.
For oil and gas, friendly policies aren’t nearly as welcome as higher prices.
Coal and the Supreme Court
The most momentous Trump-era energy policy may well be made by the Supreme Court. Trump has the unusual privilege of appointing a new justice as one of his first acts as president, filling the seat that has been vacant since February.
A more conservative Supreme Court puts Obama’s key climate effort, the Clean Power Plan, in jeopardy. The plan is the centerpiece of the U.S. pledge made at the 2015 Paris summit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The plan’s emissions thresholds would force states to phase out aging and less-efficient coal-fired plants.
Doing away with Obama’s CPP appears to be Trump’s idea of a favor to the coal industry. But would it work?
Even if the CPP is quashed, a rebound in coal’s fortunes or US carbon emissions is far from inevitable. Obama’s regulations merely reinforced a trend, encouraging the ongoing replacement of old and uncompetitive coal plants with new and efficient natural gas-fired plants. Since natural gas emits roughly half the carbon as coal relative to its energy content, the CPP would have probably only served as a regulatory hedge against a coal revival. Emissions were already trending down.
Our research suggests natural gas will stay cheap regardless of CPP’s fate. Gas should retain its economic advantage over coal and increase its share of the US power generation market.
Even if gas prices rise, a coal rebound in America still looks unlikely, given the strong prospect of some future climate action. The coal sector is beset by myriad bankruptcies. Most major banks refuse to lend to coal projects, and insurance companies are moving in a similar direction. Coal has simply become too risky.
Tough love for renewables
Elsewhere in the U.S. electric power market, gas could get a leg up on competition with wind and solar. A Republican-controlled Congress will probably decline to renew the Production Tax Credit for wind and the Investment Tax Credit for solar, allowing both to phase out as intended over the next few years.
Under current legislation, wind projects receive a 20 percent reduction in their tax credit every year until the credit reaches zero in 2020. The tax benefit for solar is designed to ramp down in similar fashion until 2021, although 10 percent of the solar credit is supposed to remain in force.
Shale and oil sands on the upswing?
In the American shale patch, buffeted by the onset of low prices in 2014, the Republican sweep suggests that producers can at least expect a few years of industry-friendly regulation.
This endangers a second fragile Obama legacy: his effort to reduce the venting of climate-warming methane during oil and gas production. The EPA tightened methane rules in May, forcing oil and gas producers to upgrade equipment and intensify monitoring for leaks. States have sued to block the rules, and the oil and gas lobby would love to see them dismantled.
Trump’s appointees in the Department of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will probably also be more supportive of pipeline construction, while continuing the Obama administration’s approvals for construction of plants that export liquefied natural gas, or LNG.
The undoing of a third Obama legacy – the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline – could also result in a big increase in U.S. carbon emissions.
The Keystone aimed to ferry crude oil from the Canadian oil sands to the cluster of refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Obama denied developers a permit based on the high carbon content of oil sands crude, which emits almost a fifth more CO2 than the average US crude slate.
Trump has declared that Keystone should be revived. If that happens, the US vehicle fleet could see an increase in the average level of carbon dioxide emitted per gallon of gasoline and diesel.
But once again, the reality of low global oil prices has made a strong case against investments in the high-cost oil sands, and, by extension, for the Keystone pipeline.
Nuclear Renaissance?
Trump has also spoken in favor of nuclear power, one of the few zero-carbon sources of reliable baseload electricity. Enthusiasm for nuclear will doubtless be tempered by the availability of cheaper substitutes, again starting with gas.
Any revival of America’s nuclear generation sector would take more than a decade, extending far beyond a Trump presidency. But encouragement of nuclear, even by extending the operating lives of existing plants, could improve the U.S. carbon footprint.
Overall, however, it is hard to predict how the next administration will act on energy. Trump and his advisers may well leave some things alone, based on existing judicial rulings or the prospect of court battles with the environmental lobby.
The fact remains that the US energy sector is made up of thousands of private companies that operate on market signals that have little to do with policy made in Washington. For oil and gas producers, and increasingly for carbon regulation and electricity investment, state-level policies are what matters.
And when it comes to the laws of energy supply and demand, Trump, like other US presidents, will find himself without much influence.
Jim Krane is the Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/11/10/guest-columnist-energy-policy-under-president-trump-how-much-change-is-possible/
-
Trump’s “Good For America” Energy Plan
Nov 10, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dan K. Eberhart
Could President- Elect Donald Trump usher in a sensible energy policy that leads to independence from foreign imports, restores production in the Alaska national petroleum reserve, and even resurrects the possibility of the Keystone XL pipeline?
The answer is yes.
Trump’s America First energy plan calls for American energy dominance based upon our world-leading recoverable oil reserves – that is, the reserves that are technologically and economically possible to extract. U.S. reserves are estimated by Oslo’s Rystad Energy, a neutral third party, to be 264 billion barrels, more than Russia (256 billion barrels) or Saudi Arabia (212 barrels).
Our oil wealth creates the potential for the U.S. to be “independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests,” Trump says. Obviously, that represents a strategic economic and foreign policy benefit.
But leveraging our abundant energy is possible only if the government allows it. That’s not something we’ve seen with the current administration: just consider recent regulations around methane emissions that make energy production more difficult and expensive for producers while doing virtually nothing to reduce global warming – reducing global temperatures by what the Institute for Energy Research calls a “miniscule fraction of 1 percent by 2100.”
At a fracking conference in Pittsburgh, Trump said his energy agenda should lift environmental regulations and ease permitting for oil pipelines, letting the free market prevail and allowing wealth to pour into our communities.
Trump has already indicated he would reject the Paris Climate Agreement, which gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy Americans use without having any real positive environmental impact. He would rescind the Climate Action Plan, which isn’t doing anything to stop climate change but could drive up energy prices. And he’d remove barriers to domestic exploration, which would disentangle us from the stranglehold of hostile OPEC nations.
Trump has also said he would get bureaucracy out of the way of innovation. American fracking, which has changed the balance of the world energy market, is one of the best examples of innovative thinking there is. Trump would limit regulations on the exploration techniques to bring such unconventional fuels to surface
American ingenuity was at the heart of America’s fracking-based energy renaissance from 2009 to 2015. How significant was the growth and development of oil and natural gas during this period? A report by the Energy Institute suggests that without it, America would have lost 4.3 million jobs and $548 billion in annual GDP. Electricity prices would be 31 percent higher and gasoline and other motor fuels would cost 43 percent more.
The renaissance can continue if our government allows it. President-Elect Donald Trump has the chance to make it happen.
Eberhart is the CEO of oilfield services firm Canary, LLC.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/305316-trumps-good-for-america-energy-plan
-
Measures Targeting Oil and Gas Development See Mixed Results
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Oil- and gas-related ballot measures had mixed results at the polls yesterday, with two major proposals from opposing sides winning victories in Colorado and California.
In California, the win was for environmentalists and concerned residents of Monterey County seeking to make a statement against oil and gas production there. Measure Z passed handily Tuesday night, banning hydraulic fracturing and other stimulation techniques and prohibiting new oil and gas wells within the county.
The county, south of San Jose, is home to more than 1,000 traditional oil wells — which are allowed to continue operating as new development is blocked. Passage of the ban comes after years of debate and spending by environmental groups and the oil industry.
"David beat Goliath in Monterey County's stunning victory against oil industry pollution," the Center for Biological Diversity's Kassie Siegel said in a statement. "Despite spending millions, oil companies couldn't suppress this grassroots campaign. This triumph against fracking will inspire communities across California and the whole country to stand up to this toxic industry."
The Western States Petroleum Association, representing the oil and gas industry in California and other states, did not respond to questions about whether industry planned to challenge the ban.
Meanwhile, in Colorado, anti-fracking activists will have a much harder time getting any measures to land on the ballot. Colorado voters yesterday approved Amendment 71, a constitutional amendment that raises the bar for citizen initiatives to appear on election ballots. Backers will have to get signatures from at least 2 percent of registered voters in all 35 of the state's Senate districts (Greenwire, Nov. 9).
The amendment comes after repeated efforts by anti-fracking activists in the state to push ballot measures that would ban fracking statewide. Several oil and gas industry groups, along with gaming and agriculture interests, supported the amendment.
Two Ohio communities also weighed in on the fracking debate yesterday. In Youngstown, voters rejected a "community bill of rights" designed to assert local control over development, protect rights of nature, and ban fracking and disposal wells. The loss is the sixth time Youngstown has rejected such a measure.
"Thankfully after a thorough review of the disastrous 'rights of nature' language incorporated in the ballot measure, Youngstown voters saw this effort for what it truly is — an attempt to stifle economic development in the city, which would be entirely unenforceable," Jackie Stewart, Ohio director for the industry group Energy in Depth, said in a statement. EID is an arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which backed the effort in Youngstown and has backed similar measures across the country, vowed yesterday to continue pushing for fracking bans and greater local control.
"Despite the heavy spending by opposition, support for Community Rights has grown each year," the group said in a statement. "Today, residents have built coalitions crossing race and socio-economics, as residents join together to advance Community Rights to protect their water."
Across the state in Waterville, southeast of Toledo, the organization was more successful. Voters in the city of 5,500 voted in favor of a charter amendment that would codify their right to a clean environment and ban a pipeline and compressor station "as violations of these rights." It is unclear whether the local government has the power to enforce the ban.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045534
-
Monterey Ballot Vote is Rare Victory for Anti-Fracking Movement in Oil Country
Nov 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The national anti-fracking movement scored a victory in California this week as voters in Monterey County approved a ballot measure to ban fracking in one of the state’s biggest oil-producing counties.
Two counties bordering Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz, had banned the contentious extraction method, although neither had a sizable oil industry. Monterey’s San Ardo oil field, in contrast, has been churning out crude for nearly 70 years, making Monterey the fourth-largest oil-producing county in California.
Measure Z, an initiative on Monterey County’s ballot, bans fracking and new wells and restricts how oil companies use water byproducts. The measure passed Tuesday by a 56%-44% margin–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
While Monterey doesn’t have any actual fracking—a process by which sand and chemicals are injected underground to unlock oil and gas—the term has become a proxy to encompass all oil and gas drilling.
Industry officials warned that Measure Z would shut down Monterey’s oil production, with its ban on new wells and its requirement that companies to stop using wells and ponds to dispose of water produced as a drilling byproduct.
The Monterey vote represents a rare win for the anti-fracking movement in oil country. Of the hundreds of anti-fracking and similar measures across the U.S., almost all were enacted in places where there is little or no oil or gas production. Vermont banned fracking in 2012, despite having no commercial natural gas or oil resources, and New York followed suit in 2014. While New York doesn’t have a sizable oil industry, the ban did head off any potential growth of the sector there.
Where fossil fuels are produced in any significant quantity by any method, such measures have generally failed. In Colorado, activists couldn’t gather enough signatures to get two anti-fracking measures on the ballot this year. Voters in Denton, Texas, passed a binding measure against fracking, but the state quickly passed a law prohibiting local bans. Texas is the nation’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
As for the Monterey ban, “it’s clearly significant because it’s not theoretical,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director for energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis.
Environmentalists and some other residents living close to wells worry about water contamination from fracking, and they are also concerned about the broader climate change impacts of oil and gas drilling.
The Monterey ballot initiative fight was closely watched by national groups on both sides. Supporters received donations and other help from national environmental groups.
Monterey County for Energy Independence, which opposed the measure, outspent backers roughly 30 to 1, according to election filings through Oct. 22, spending nearly $5.5 million. That group is funded almost entirely by Chevron Corp. and Aera Energy LLC, a joint venture between Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
Anti-fracking groups applauded the measure’s passage this week.
“We congratulate the people of Monterey County for banning fracking and protecting California’s water, agriculture and public health,” said Adam Scow, California director for Food & Water Watch. “This campaign proves that everyday people can defeat Big Oil’s millions, even in a place where it is actively drilling.” Mr. Scow said he hoped Monterey’s action generates momentum for a statewide ban.
A spokeswoman for the industry-funded campaign against the measure said it could hurt the county’s economy.
“Hundreds of local jobs and millions of dollars in local revenue have been put at risk,” Karen Hanretty said. “It is unfortunate that proponents of Measure Z were not forthcoming about the real intent of Measure Z and its impact on 70 years of safe and responsible oil production in Monterey County.”
Ms. Hanretty didn’t comment on whether the companies would sue, but one of the arguments put forth by the group during the campaign was that lawsuits against the measure could bankrupt the county.
A spokeswoman for Chevron said the company was evaluating its options “to protect our rights in Monterey County.” A spokeswoman for Aera Energy, the other major operator in the San Ardo oil field, said the firm was also exploring legal options.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/monterey-ballot-vote-is-rare-victory-for-anti-fracking-movement-in-oil-country-1478775602
-
Corps Renews Calls for Construction Freeze, Citing Safety Concerns
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration expressed concern yesterday about the Dakota Access pipeline's steady march forward, despite ongoing federal review of a final approval needed to complete the controversial oil pipeline.
In a release yesterday, the Army Corps of Engineers said it was "concerned for the safety of all the people involved with the continued demonstrations" near the oil pipeline's route just north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
Protests over the pipeline have gone on for months, escalating two weeks ago in a standoff between protesters and local law enforcement. The Sioux and their allies say the project threatens the Missouri River and cultural artifacts along the way.
Col. John Henderson, commander of the Army Corps' Omaha district, said in a statement yesterday that the agency had renewed a request last week for the company to pause construction "in an effort to diffuse these tensions."
The Army is still considering whether to grant the pipeline's last remaining federal approval — a real estate easement to cross the Missouri River — and asked the company for a 30-day construction pause.
Dakota Access backer Energy Transfer Partners earlier this week said it had no plans to slow construction and was mobilizing equipment to begin drilling beneath the river over the next two weeks, remaining "confident" the easement would be granted.
"We are concerned over recent statements from DAPL regarding our request to voluntarily stop work, which are intended to diffuse tensions surrounding their operations near Corps-managed federal land until we have a clear path forward," Henderson said in response.
In last night's statement, Henderson again asked Dakota Access to stop construction to help ease tensions with protesters. The company has previously noted that each day of paused construction results in major financial loss for the company and its investors (EnergyWire, Sept. 15).
The Army Corps also noted yesterday that it met last week with tribal leadership from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and several other tribes to discuss a safe and productive path forward that will prioritize the "preservation of life and safety by encouraging their supporters to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights and provide a safe and sustainable winter camp inside the reservation."
The Army Corps and the tribe are working together to find a place on the Standing Rock reservation for protesters to camp throughout the winter. Many have been staying for months on Army Corps land just north of the reservation.
According to the statement, the agency also met with North Dakota officials to discuss the situation.
"After meeting with key leaders in the State of North Dakota, we are confident that they share our commitment to diffusing tensions and maintaining public safety," the statement said. "We again ask DAPL to voluntarily cease operations in this area as their absence will help reduce these tensions."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045558
-
Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipeline Projects Have Clearer Paths After Election
Nov 10, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Construction crews are mobilizing to complete the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and TransCanada said Wednesday that it “remains fully committed” to building the rejected Keystone XL pipeline.
The pipeline projects that came to capture the widespread opposition of environmental activists now have clearer paths forward with the election of Donald Trump as president, analysts said.
The completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline that’s opposed by the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and environmentalists is now more a matter of when, not if, said Brandon Blossman, an analyst at Houston energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.
The nearly finished pipeline project is awaiting an easement to cross the Missouri River from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that’s been held up by the Obama administration. Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, which leads the project, already said Tuesday it’s preparing to move forward with construction under Lake Oahe, which is part of the Missouri River, despite requests from the administration to temporarily halt activities.
“Dakota Access expects that its mobilization of equipment will be completed over the next two weeks and that it will commence drilling activities upon completion of mobilization,” Energy Transfer said in a prepared statement. “Dakota Access remains confident that it will receive the easement … in a time frame that will not result in any significant delay in proceeding with drilling activities under Lake Oahe.”
Even though the Keystone XL project was rejected by the Obama administration, TransCanada plans to revisit building it under Trump.
“We are evaluating ways to engage the new administration on the benefits, the jobs and the tax revenues this project brings to the table,” TransCanada spokesman Mark Cooper said Wednesday in a prepared statement.
However, Blossman said the pipeline expansion for more Canadian oil sands crude into the U.S. is unlikely to move forward soon — more because of the price of oil than the regulatory issues. The Keystone XL push was big when oil sold for more than $100 a barrel, but it isn’t as economical at today’s $45 per barrel.
“I think it’s off the table,” Blossman said, at least for now.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/11/09/dakota-access-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-projects-have-clearer-paths-after-election/
-
Here's What Could Happen Under Trump
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President-elect Donald Trump now has free rein to make good on his pledge to "cancel" last year's landmark climate deal.
Trump has said throughout this year's presidential campaign that if elected, he would withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, or at least "renegotiate" it. Now he can try.
"President-elect Trump's oft-repeated promises in the campaign are fairly black-and-white," said Myron Ebell, head of his U.S. EPA transition team, in an email yesterday morning.
The billionaire climate skeptic has said he would not only disentangle the United States from the deal reached by nearly 200 countries last year near the French capital but also withdraw all funding from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and redirect climate programming funds to infrastructure projects.
Trump's transition team and Republican lawmakers argue that leaving the agreement will be simple, because it hasn't been ratified by the Senate. Thirteen Senate Republicans sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry last week stating that "sole executive agreements," as Obama's State Department describes Paris, constitute "one of the lowest forms of commitment the United States can make and still be considered a party to an agreement."
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who spearheaded the letter, noted yesterday that Republicans have issued similar warnings for more than a year, "but nobody wanted to believe us."
"The message can no longer be ignored: Americans do not support it when their president sidesteps Congress," he said in a statement.
Few say the Paris deal has the teeth to compel a Trump administration to make good on the Obama administration's promises of emission reductions and finance, but opinions differ on the procedures he would have to follow to do it.
"There's the international side of it, and there's the domestic side of it," said Dan Bodansky, a law professor at Arizona State University and an expert in climate negotiation.
How quickly could Trump exit?
The international law requirements are somewhat complicated. One of the reasons Obama helped usher the deal into force early this year is because that meant that any country that was a party to the agreement couldn't leave until it completed a four-year withdrawal process.
Michael Wara, an environmental law professor at the Stanford Law School, said Trump could use his office to issue an executive communication removing the United States from Paris, but even if he did that, the United States would still be a party for four years and could be subject to its legally binding procedural commitments.
If the United States failed to meet its obligations, which are being negotiated starting now at the U.N. climate conference underway in Marrakech, Morocco, it would be breaking international law.
The United States could take a shortcut and exit the UNFCCC, a move that could be likely, given Trump's criticisms of the U.N. body. That could be done in one year rather than four, and would result in leaving Paris, as well. Or Trump's administration could send observers to monitor negotiations but not participate in them and refuse to carry through on Obama's nationally determined contribution pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions 26 to 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.
The United States is poised to miss that target anyway without additional action, which will be a hard sell now that Republicans are in control of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
The United States and other parties are called upon to submit new nationally determined contributions for 2030 by 2020, and Wara said Trump could put forward a "business-as-usual" placeholder to stay on the right side of international law.
But it seems unlikely that the bombastic president-elect would opt for quiet underachievement over a grand exit.
Ebell has said he hopes Trump will submit the deal to the Senate, or that the upper chamber will vote on its own initiative. Doing so would "make it clear where the United States stands," he said in a recent interview.
"That it's not just about what the president thinks — Obama's for it, and Trump is against it — but what the country thinks and what the Senate's advice and consent is," he said.
Ebell blasted the deal as an attempt to "turn the world's economy upside-down and consign poor people to perpetual poverty."
Wara said a Senate vote now would not be "relevant legally, given the status of the agreement."
Departing Paris has consequences
Greens at home as well as those attending the Marrakech conference said they still hope Trump might not pull out of Paris, despite having spent more than a year saying he would. They note that he's not a seasoned politician.
"There's no history of how he would move from the campaigning arena to the governing arena," said David Waskow of the World Resources Institute.
Several observers note that Trump has seldom articulated clear policy plans, which they said leads them to believe he might reconsider his campaign positions once in office.
Wara said Trump didn't seem to realize, for example, that his stated support for U.S. oil and natural gas development was at odds with his pledge to prop up the domestic coal industry, which has been undermined by cheap and abundant gas.
Climate advocates also say Trump shouldn't walk away from Paris, because doing so could undermine his ability to interest other leaders in issues that are higher on his to-do list.
"If a President Trump were not to honor U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement, it will negatively impact his ability to get the cooperation of world leaders on other issues he cares about, such as trade and terrorism," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, at a briefing in Marrakech.
Frank Maisano of Bracewell LLP said Trump's ascension doesn't undermine Paris, because it's "symbolic."
"This is only a blow to global efforts in the form of the U.N. process, which continues to be a difficult and often broken process," Maisano said.
He added, "Clean energy and technology issues will continue to play a significant role in international efforts to reduce emissions," echoing a theme environmentalists are also voicing in the wake of the election.
"Look for nations who aren't enamored with the details of how to meet the Paris Agreement to use this as a reason to raise new concerns," Maisano said.
At a briefing yesterday with U.S. climate advocates in Marrakech, a reporter for a New Delhi-based outlet asked if poor countries can "count on the moral obligation of the next U.S. president" when it comes to climate finance pledges.
The Trump victory makes it unlikely that the United States will make good on the $2.5 billion it still owes to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, and the new administration is likely to curtail foreign aid overall.
Advocates expressed their support for aid but added that developing countries shouldn't back away from their own commitments.
"The world shouldn't wait for any one country," said Li Shuo, senior global policy adviser with Greenpeace East Asia.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045555
-
Trump's First Cut at EPA: Climate Action
Nov 10, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
Tuesday's victory for President-elect Donald Trump could bring a significant shift away from climate action at U.S. EPA — and perhaps a wider restructuring of the agency.
President Obama has used the agency to push through a bold climate agenda, including the country's first rules targeting greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, attracting the ire of Republicans who call it government overreach and a risk to jobs. Trump will seek to reverse that, starting with striking the Clean Power Plan (ClimateWire, Nov. 9).
"I don't want to be too optimistic or encouraging about the future of EPA," said William Reilly, who led EPA during the George H.W. Bush administration and who came out against Trump during the campaign. "It is not likely to be a favorite."
Trump has vowed to reshape the agency. Whatever form a Trump EPA takes, a priority will be to bury Obama's climate policies. He has chosen well-known climate skeptic Myron Ebell to lead his EPA transition team.
Many of the deep structural changes the Trump campaign has favored require significant congressional support. That may be difficult to muster because most Americans support EPA's role in protecting clean air and water, said Reilly.
"The next time we have a Flint, Mich., crisis and we don't have [EPA], the public and Congress will start demanding oversight and thinking they will be implicated if they reduce authority," he said.
Trump is unlikely to cut EPA completely, as he suggested on the campaign trail last October. EPA was created by presidential action, but several statutes, like the Clean Air and Water acts, require it to regulate polluting industries. Instead, Trump told a gathering of oil and gas executives in September that he would "refocus" EPA on its "core mission of ensuring clean air and clean, safe drinking water."
He has said he would review the Supreme Court finding that gives EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions because they are a danger to public health. Because the Supreme Court has stood by its ruling several times, that could be difficult to achieve — unless Congress passed new legislation changing the underlying Clean Air Act itself.
Though congressional Republicans have largely united in votes on climate change, reshaping EPA could be so "radical" that it may dissuade members whose constituencies are increasingly affected by rising seas and temperatures, Reilly said.
"The climate problem is not going away," he said.
An aggressive 'regulatory czar'
Republicans at their party's national convention proposed an EPA makeover that would strip much of the agency's power. It seeks to turn EPA into a "bipartisan commission" with limited authority and let states take the lead on environmental policy.
"You've got a legal architecture and an institutional architecture that's approaching 50 years old, so that retooling would be an enormous undertaking," said Scott Fulton, who served as EPA's general counsel under Obama and now heads the Environmental Law Institute. "That probably means that these questions about EPA will be approached in a more iterative way, more incremental way."
It's more likely that Trump would partner with a Republican Congress to cut funding and reduce operations at EPA.
Trump has more leeway using his executive powers to target individual regulations.
"With the Trump presidency, I think it's virtually certain the Clean Power Plan will be revoked," Jeff Holmstead, a Bracewell LLP attorney and the top air official at EPA under the George W. Bush administration, said yesterday. "It's not a question of if. The only question is how."
Eliminating the Clean Power Plan could establish a model for rolling back other rules under judicial review, like the limits on methane emissions from new oil and gas sources. Those rules are key to meeting Obama's goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector 40 percent by 2025 but have been attacked as overreach by the industry.
Trump could also pause other rules that Obama has begun — like methane rules on existing oil and gas sources, for which the administration has started gathering information from the industry (ClimateWire, Nov. 8).
Other climate rules on the chopping block could be those limiting hydrofluorocarbons and fuel economy standards for vehicles.
An international deal to cut high-global-warming-potential materials from refrigerants may get blocked by Congress, but EPA continues to regulate the sector domestically.
The fuel economy standards for 2022-25 are currently under review, and the Trump administration will have to decide by April 2018 whether to increase, loosen or maintain them.
EPA has not set standards beyond 2025, but a bill signed into law by President George W. Bush requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set fuel economy standards at the highest levels through 2030. The rules have bipartisan support. Environmental advocates and Obama officials had called for the next administration to go further by boosting zero-emissions and autonomous vehicles.
Another area within Trump's discretion is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said Scott Segal, the co-head of the federal government relations and strategic communications practices at Bracewell. The office — led by a "regulatory czar" — reviews regulations before they go final and is seen as a gatekeeper.
"We will probably see a much more robust regulatory czar than we have under the current administration," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045566
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested