Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/17/16
-
Will Climate Skeptics, Sarah Palin Snag Top Trump Jobs?
Nov 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By E&E News staff
Will U.S. EPA be led by a climate change skeptic? Could an oil tycoon soon lead the Energy Department? Might Sarah Palin become Interior secretary? -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Toxics Chief Says TSCA's Deadlines Will Bind Trump Administration
Nov 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA toxics chief Jim Jones says the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) contains a host of deadlines for finalizing new policies on reviewing existing and future chemicals that will bind the Trump administration, noting that if the next president tries to stall implementation of the law it could face deadline suits seeking the rules. -
New TSCA Requirements Raise Challenges To EPA Biotech Review Staff
Nov 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which changed the way EPA reviews the use of chemicals in commerce, is also creating new challenges for EPA scientists reviewing applications for new commercial uses of microorganisms and new organisms for research activities, as the agency seeks to determine which uses can be "foreseen." -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rejects SAB Recommendations For Drinking Water List Development
Nov 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
EPA is rejecting calls from its Science Advisory Board (SAB) to change the data it used to develop a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) list of contaminants that may need regulation, agreeing with the advisors' calls for transparency but saying the board's recommended data is not suitable for the list. -
California Outlines Input Needs For Determining Next Priority Products
Nov 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has laid out the information it needs from stakeholders as it selects new priority products under its Safe Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
New Report Shows Big Retailers Cracking Down On Toxic Chemicals In Consumer Products But Others Remain Serious Laggards
Nov 16, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Today, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families released a new report, “Who’s Minding the Store? — A Report Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals,” the first major evaluation of the United States’ largest retailers’ safer chemicals programs. -
Study Assesses Relative Cost to Companies of EU REACH Law
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Obtaining regulatory approval for placing a new chemical on the European Union market is cheaper than in Canada, China or Japan, but more expensive than in Korea or the U.S., according to a study the European Commission prepared on the competitiveness of European chemicals companies. -
Echa Advises EEE Companies On Substances In Articles
Nov 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Echa has urged electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) companies to "be prepared" to meet new requirements for substances in articles. -
What’s Next for Energy and Climate Policy?
Nov 16, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Doug Domenech
Much has been said about what’s next for energy and climate policy under the new Trump Administration. Elections have consequences and, in this case, Americans just rejected the “keep it in the ground” extremism espoused by those whose only operating focus is their view that CO2 is a pollutant and climate change is real. -
McConnell Aims To Finish WRDA, Energy Bill In Lame Duck
Nov 16, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Tiffany Stecker and Geof Koss
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said today he hopes to finish a water infrastructure package and the energy bill during the lame-duck session. -
America’s on Track to Export a Record Volume of Shale Gas
Nov 16, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Jim Polson
Nine liquefied natural gas tankers have departed or are scheduled to leave Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in November, already the most for any month since exports began in February, according to ship-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg and Genscape Inc. -
The Dakota Access Debate Has Been Dangerously Blown Out Of Proportion
Nov 16, 2016 | The Washington Post
By J. Bennett Johnston Jr. and Daryl Owen
Several weeks ago environmental activists broke into the pumping facilities for four operational oil pipelines and began closing valves, recklessly endangering themselves, the integrity of the pipelines and the very environment they profess to protect. -
Rick Perry Considered For Energy Secretary: Report
Nov 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Nikita Vladimirov
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is reportedly being considered for a Cabinet position as President-elect Donald Trump's transition team seeks to solidify its list of candidates. -
Get Your Pipeline Out of My Yard, Homeowners Say
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
Thanks to the shale drilling revolution, the U.S. has gone in less than a decade from being woefully short of natural gas to having almost a century's worth of supplies. -
Maryland Seeks Controls on 36 Upwind Power Plants
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Pollution from 36 power plants in five upwind states is impairing Maryland's ability to meet federal air quality standards, the state said in a Nov. 16 petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency to step in and require new pollution controls at those utilities. -
Two CSX Trains In Florida Collide, Derail; Two Injured
Nov 16, 2016 | Reuters
By David Ingram
Two CSX Corp (CSX.O) trains collided and derailed in central Florida early on Wednesday, injuring two crew members, the company said. -
Schumer Touts Steps To Lessen Oil train Risk
Nov 16, 2016 | Times Union
By Brian Nearing
In the waning days of the administration of President Barack Obama, federal regulators will take tentative steps to study stricter flammability standards for crude oil shipped in massive oil trains, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said on Wednesday. -
Revamped Dems Pledge 'Strong And Tough Fight' Ahead
Nov 17, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss and Corbin Hiar
Senate Democrats vowed yesterday to work with President-elect Donald Trump where possible but also promised as vigorous a defense as possible on environmental policy and other Democratic priorities. -
Nations to Quickly Follow U.S. on 2050 Low-Carbon Plans
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Obama administration's Nov. 16 release of a plan showing how it can cut its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 will be met with similar low-carbon plans from European nations and even a few developing nations, all in the hope of pushing global investment dollars into clean energy. -
World's $100 Billion Climate Pledges Could Survive Trump Era
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Industrial nations are looking at how to deliver on a pledge to provide $100 billion a year in climate-related aid even if U.S. President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his pledge to stop supporting the fight against global warming.
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
Environment News
-
Will Climate Skeptics, Sarah Palin Snag Top Trump Jobs?
Nov 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By E&E News staff
Will U.S. EPA be led by a climate change skeptic? Could an oil tycoon soon lead the Energy Department? Might Sarah Palin become Interior secretary?
The rumor mill is churning as energy and environmental insiders speculate about who might be in line to get top jobs in the Trump administration. Unlike previous administrations, President-elect Donald Trump isn't coming into office with a cadre of longtime political allies, making it tougher to predict his picks for prominent agency posts.
In the wake of recent big shakeups on Trump's transition team — he recently replaced transition leader Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey with Vice President-elect Mike Pence — questions abound over whether the operation has been set back in its schedule and is reconsidering decisions for personnel on the transition team and in the administration.
But Trump said today reports about discord in the transition — including a New York Times story saying the operation is in a "state of disarray" — are inaccurate. "The failing @nytimes story is so totally wrong on transition. It is going so smoothly," Trump wrote on Twitter.
Trump also wrote, "Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!"
Overall, Trump must fill about 4,000 political jobs within the federal bureaucracy. Some energy experts predict he'll opt for a combination of former officials who are well-versed in government bureaucracy and outsiders from industry and other groups with an eye toward "draining the swamp," which Trump has pledged to do.
The Trump team aimed to strike such a balance when making its first two White House appointments by picking political insider Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to be chief of staff and naming right-wing favorite Steve Bannon of Breitbart News the chief strategist.
A source close to the transition team said the operation plans to announce picks for the top Cabinet positions by the end of this month. After those key jobs are designated, the team will begin filling lower-level jobs, a process that will likely stretch well past Trump's inauguration. Transition team members have been collecting names for top jobs, while suggestions are pouring in from lawmakers, advocacy groups and job seekers.
Here's a look at the names that are circulating for key energy and environmental posts within the Trump administration:WHITE HOUSE
It's still unclear how the administration will organize top staff within the White House, but the president-elect is certain to have a team of close aides working to coordinate energy policy throughout the government. Among those top players will be the Council on Environmental Quality chairman, the leader of the Office of Management and Budget and the head of OMB's regulatory review shop, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Trump may also opt to have an adviser dedicated to energy and environmental issues.
CEQ or White House energy adviser
· Mike Catanzaro, energy lobbyist, former GOP energy aide in the House and Senate and former EPA associate deputy administrator during the George W. Bush administration.
· Marty Hall, vice president of energy policy at FirstEnergy Corp. and former CEQ chief of staff during the George W. Bush administration.
OMB
· Eric Ueland, Republican staff director on the Senate Budget Committee, former lobbyist at the Duberstein Group and chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
· Robert Grady, venture capitalist who worked in OMB during the George H.W. Bush administration.
· Bill Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and former longtime Senate Republican staffer.
OIRA
· Heidi King, global director of environmental risk at GE Capital and former OMB regulatory policy analyst.
· Jeff Rosen, partner at Kirkland & Ellis and former general counsel at the Transportation Department and OMB during the George W. Bush administration.
· Marcus Peacock, professor at George Washington University and former EPA deputy administrator during the George W. Bush administration.
· Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association and former OIRA counselor during George W. Bush administration.
· Al McGartland, director of the National Center for Environmental Economics at EPA.
EPA
EPA is responsible for drafting and enforcing regulations to ensure clean air and water. The agency also has a huge role on the international stage, participating in climate change negotiations such as last year's agreement reached in Paris. President-elect Trump, however, is no fan of the agency and is expected to tamp down on its regulatory authority once in office.
Administrator
· Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia attorney general.
· Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general.
· Craig Butler, director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
· Kathleen Hartnett White, former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
· Jeff Holmstead, partner at Bracewell LLP and former George W. Bush administration EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation.
· Roger Martella, partner at Sidley Austin LLP and former George W. Bush administration EPA general counsel.
· Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.).
· Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.).
· Mike Catanzaro, energy lobbyist, former GOP energy aide in the House and Senate and former EPA associate deputy administrator during the George W. Bush administration.
· Marcus Peacock, professor at George Washington University and former EPA deputy administrator during the George W. Bush administration.
· Ann Klee, GE vice president for environment, health and safety and former George W. Bush administration EPA general counsel.
· Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
· Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).
· Ben Grumbles, secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment and former George W. Bush administration EPA water chief.
Assistant administrator for air and radiation
· William Kovacs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce senior vice president for the environment, technology and regulatory affairs.
· Margaret Caravelli, partner at Balch & Bingham LLP and former Senate Environment and Public Works Committee lead counsel.
Assistant administrator for water
· Susan Bodine, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chief counsel and former EPA assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response.
· Bruce Rastetter, CEO of the Ames, Iowa-based Summit Agricultural Group.
· Gary Black, Georgia agriculture commissioner.
· Brent Fewell, founder of the Earth & Water Group and former official in EPA's offices of Water and Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.
Assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention
· Dimitri Karakitsos, partner at Holland & Knight and former Senate Environment and Public Works Committee aide.
General counsel
· Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
DOE
From reviving the long-stalled Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada to supporting nuclear and coal-fired generation and research, big shakeups are possible at the Energy Department. The agency head has a huge job — certain branches of the department oversee the nation's nuclear weapons stockpiles, national labs and energy research — and the secretary must manage 13,500 employees and 104,000 contractors.
Secretary
· Harold Hamm, Continental Resources Inc. CEO.
· Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).
· Robert Grady, venture capitalist who worked in OMB during the George H.W. Bush administration.
· David Hill, executive vice president and general counsel for NRG Energy Inc., who was DOE's general counsel during the George W. Bush administration.
· J. Larry Nichols, co-founder of Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp.
· James Connaughton, an energy industry lawyer and the former George W. Bush administration environmental adviser.
Offices of Nuclear Energy or Environmental Management
· Ed Davis, president of the Pegasus Group.
National Nuclear Security Administration
· Paul Longsworth, Fluor Corp. executive, former NNSA's deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation in the George W. Bush administration.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Republicans are eyeing a leadership change at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a powerful but little-known agency that oversees the nation's power grid, interstate natural gas pipelines and hydropower projects. Republicans will be able to fill three slots on the bipartisan commission. While FERC is not an environmental regulator, a new chairman could support fossil fuels when setting the agency's agenda. Several names for new commissioners are already circulating.
· Neil Chatterjee, a longtime energy aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
· Kenneth Minesinger, a shareholder and co-chairman of Greenberg Traurig LLP's elobal energy & infrastructure practice.
· Richard Lehfeldt, an energy lawyer at the firm Crowell & Moring and former counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee.
· Bill Marsan, executive vice president and general counsel of American Transmission Co.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Republicans could soon fill two openings on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation's existing reactors and new license applications. Many sources said NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, the sole Republican on the panel whose term ends in the summer of 2017, could be picked to lead the agency. In recent months, Republicans have focused on staffing at the agency as reactors close, a review of the Yucca Mountain waste repository could restart and the pace increases for the licensing of new reactor designs. Rumors are already flying about possible nominees.
· Annie Caputo, a former Exelon Corp. executive and former aide to Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).
· Larry Brown, a lawyer and professor at George Washington University Law School and former member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
STATE DEPARTMENT
The State Department's Office of Global Change supports the top U.S. climate negotiator in leading international negotiations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other global bodies. A source on Trump's transition team has said the administration is exploring steps to terminate U.S. membership in the UNFCC or rescind U.S. participation in the Paris deal.
Secretary
· Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
· Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor.
· Newt Gingrich, former House speaker.
· John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under President George W. Bush and American Enterprise Institute scholar.
Special envoy for climate change
· Unlikely (see related story).
INTERIOR
Interior is a sprawling department with 10 agencies that handle public lands, natural resources and Native American issues. Its mission can be contradictory; while some offices focus on leasing land for drilling, others protect wilderness and wildlife. Trump has proposed expanding oil and gas development on public lands, and he is expected to turn to industry groups and George W. Bush-era officials to fill key positions within Interior, particularly those with roles in energy management, such as the Bureau of Land Management. For more conservation-focused agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, Trump could look to state agencies with conservative reputations.
Secretary
· Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
· Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee.
· Rep. Lummis.
· Jan Brewer, former Republican governor of Arizona.
· Robert Grady, Gryphon Investors partner and official in George H.W. Bush's White House.
· Continental Resources CEO Hamm.
· Forrest Lucas, president of Lucas Oil Products.
Assistant secretary for land and minerals management
· Luke Johnson, policy director at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and former deputy director of policy and programs at BLM.
· Joe Leimkuhler, vice president of drilling at LLOG Exploration Co.
· Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association and past director of the former Minerals Management Service.
· Michael Olsen, senior director at Statoil and former Interior deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management.
Fish and Wildlife Service director
· Greg Sheehan, the director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
· Nick Wiley, executive director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
· David Chanda, director of the New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
· Holly Hopkins, senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute and past chief of staff for the Minerals Management Service.
· Jennifer Thompson, senior adviser of government relations at Shell Oil Co. and former special assistant for Alaska affairs at Interior.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
· Joe Leimkuhler, vice president of drilling at LLOG Exploration Co.
Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement director
· Steve Gardner, president and CEO of the science and engineering consulting firm ECSI LLC.
TRANSPORTATION
President-elect Trump has some big plans for the nation's transportation system. Trump has promised to trigger $1 trillion in infrastructure investment with a bill proposed during his first 100 days that would give $137 billion in tax credits to private companies interested in building and managing highways and other types of infrastructure. Trump's transition team has experience in infrastructure building. It's being led by former Virginia DOT Secretary Shirley Ybarra, who used private-public partnerships in building toll roads. The team also includes Martin Whitmer, who served as DOT deputy chief of staff under George W. Bush and now lobbies on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, among others.
Secretary
· John Mica, outgoing Florida Republican congressman, member and former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
· Mark Rosenker, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
AGRICULTURE
The choice for an agriculture secretary comes down to whether to pick someone familiar with the U.S. Department of Agriculture or to pick an outsider who might shake up the agency. A possible clue is that the Trump transition team member in charge of USDA policy is a former USDA deputy chief of staff, Michael Torrey, who runs a Washington lobbying firm focusing on agriculture, risk management and financial services.
Secretary
· Charles Conner, head of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and former USDA deputy secretary under President George W. Bush.
· Charles Herbster, who headed Trump's agriculture advisory policy and owns a large cattle operation in Nebraska.
· Sam Clovis, co-chairman of the Trump campaign and key adviser on rural issues.
· Sam Brownback, Republican governor of Kansas and former senator from Kansas.
· Sid Miller, agriculture secretary in Texas and a Trump loyalist.
· Sonny Perdue, former governor of Georgia.
· Bruce Rastetter, CEO of the Summit Agricultural Group and president of the Iowa Board of Regents.
USDA sub-Cabinet positions or head of the U.S. Forest Service
· Melissa Simpson, former deputy undersecretary for natural resources and environment in the George W. Bush administration.
· Steve Brink, vice president of public resources for the California Forestry Association.
· Corbin Newman, director of forest management in the Forest Service in the George W. Bush administration.
· Rep. Bishop.
Reporters Hannah Northey, Kevin Bogardus, Emily Yehle, Tiffany Stecker, Marc Heller, Ariel Wittenberg, George Cahlink, Hannah Hess, Corbin Hiar, Robin Bravender and Dylan Brown contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/16/stories/1060045874
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Toxics Chief Says TSCA's Deadlines Will Bind Trump Administration
Nov 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA toxics chief Jim Jones says the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) contains a host of deadlines for finalizing new policies on reviewing existing and future chemicals that will bind the Trump administration, noting that if the next president tries to stall implementation of the law it could face deadline suits seeking the rules.
“The new law [TSCA] has deadlines independent of who is at EPA. They're all in the package,” said EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) Assistant Administrator Jim Jones in a brief Nov. 16 interview with Inside EPA at the agency's annual Safer Choice Partner and Stakeholder Summit in Washington, D.C.
If the Trump EPA tries to delay any of the deadlines in the revised law, “you're subject to unreasonable delay suits,” Jones said. He was referring to a pending list of chemicals that will be the first 10 to undergo risk review under the law, though a deadline suit could apply to any rulemaking deadlines in the law.
Meanwhile, at an agency Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) meeting, also Nov. 16 in Washington, D.C., OCSPP Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Acting Director Jeff Morris addressed the future of the TSCA reform law's implementation, saying, “It's our feeling that those that are interested in chemicals management have a big stake in ensuring that this law is implemented.”
The remarks echo comments from Republican congressional leaders and top chemical industry officials that supported the update to TSCA and expect the Trump EPA to continue implementing it.
For example, a spokesman for outgoing Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) said the senator “is confident in the Trump administration's continued implementation of the new law,” says a Nov. 14 article by Chemical Watch. Inhofe's spokesman said that the TSCA reform law, which was enacted earlier this year with broad bipartisan support in Congress, “is a principal example of regulatory reform, and one of the main purposes of the statute is to bring about consistent regulation across the country.”
Similarly, the American Chemistry Council in a Nov. 9 statement said the approval of the law “with overwhelming support reflects that Congress understands that an effective and reliable chemical regulatory system is essential to the success of American manufacturers. We look forward to working with the new administration as it carries forward the implementation of the [law] so EPA proceeds in a way that will promote safety and innovation.”
Jones in his remarks to Inside EPA said that the agency is on track to meet its mid-December deadline for issuing the list of the first 10 chemicals that will undergo risk evaluation under the new law. The list's publication “starts the deadline” of three years to complete those risk evaluations, Jones said.
EPA is facing calls from lawmakers, environmental groups and the motor equipment manufacturing sector to use its new regulatory authority under the revised TSCA to classify asbestos, flame retardants and several other controversial chemicals as the first 10 chemicals for review.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-toxics-chief-says-tscas-deadlines-will-bind-trump-administration
-
New TSCA Requirements Raise Challenges To EPA Biotech Review Staff
Nov 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which changed the way EPA reviews the use of chemicals in commerce, is also creating new challenges for EPA scientists reviewing applications for new commercial uses of microorganisms and new organisms for research activities, as the agency seeks to determine which uses can be "foreseen."
TSCA's definition of chemicals includes engineered microorganisms -- tiny, single-celled living organisms at the center of the nascent rise of biotechnology. A National Academy of Sciences report last year pointed to the promise of such biotechnology to reduce the chemical industry's dependence on petroleum feedstocks but also warned EPA and other federal agencies to prepare to assess its new potential environmental and health risks.
EPA has begun developing new guidance to assist those submitting applications to commercialize products based on algae, traditionally a source of biofuels production, and held a public meeting Oct. 27 in Tempe, AZ, in an effort to gather more dialogue and responses to draft guidance, which the agency first released last year.
The document focuses on intergeneric cyanobacteria, eukaryotic microalgae, known as genetically modified (GM) algae, and its products, and will be a companion to a broader EPA guidance document, "Points to Consider in The Preparation of TSCA Biotechnology Submissions for Microorganisms."
The "points to consider" document assists companies that under TSCA must submit to EPA pre-manufacture notices of their new technologies as though they were introducing new traditional chemicals. The notices are called microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs) or TSCA experimental release applications (TERA). EPA last revised the guide in 1997, and says it is updating the document "to accommodate the development of new information relevant to risk assessment of biotechnology products regulated under TSCA."
During the Oct. 27 meeting, which was also webcast, Gwen McClung, with the risk assessment division within EPA's toxics office, said agency staff has gathered comments submitted last year on the algae guidance and sought to improve the document. They also sought advice from "people knowledgeable about algae" she said, and they issued a draft last month for comment.
"Last year we didn't get a lot of scientific comments about [the draft] so we'd really appreciate your comments," McClung said. The comment deadline is Nov. 30, she said.
Biotech Oversight
Commenters last year included Biotechnology Industries Organization (BIO), which urged the agency not to tighten oversight, and environmental groups, which said EPA needs to tighten its overly lax biotech oversight and questioned the environmental benefits of biochemicals practices.
McClung noted the agency under the revised TSCA now has to consider any reasonably foreseen uses when reviewing new biotechnology applications. "Once it's [approved] it's on the list. So we must now evaluate its use and any potential, reasonably foreseen uses," she said.
Richard Engler, a former EPA toxics official now a senior chemist with environmental law firm Bergeson & Campbell, attended the meeting and said in a Nov. 3 interview with Inside EPA, "I think EPA's still figuring out what 'reasonably foreseeable' means. It's a challenge for chemicals as well as microorganisms."
Noting that the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which reformed TSCA, "is silent on microorganisms," Engler adds that the "effect of Lautenberg is parallel for chemicals and microorganisms." A key change in the updated law, Engler says, is the new requirement that EPA make an affirmative decision on whether new chemicals or microorganisms meet TSCA's risk standard of "will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," which is "true for chemicals and microorganisms."
One difference that Engler notes is that if a newly submitted chemical "is a new microbe, it increases the data need for EPA to show not likely to present" unreasonable risk.
At the meeting, Jason Delborne, an associate professor at the North Carolina Sate University's College of Natural Sciences, raised concern that the new requirement for EPA to consider all reasonably foreseeable future uses of a chemical could slow or stop work in the new chemicals review process.
"Given the regulation is under TSCA, [the chemical or microorganisms] could be approved but you have to consider other uses as well. . . . How [do you] consider those? [Might] that shut down all approvals?"
'Other Uses'
EPA's Mark Segal, a colleague of McClung's, replied, "One thing we've traditionally done is have our economists look at submissions to see if we could imagine other uses other than the original [submission]. So we look at that and have our engineers develop scenarios. We'd use these to evaluate the cases at hand. If there's insufficient information or [cases where the microorganisms] may present [unreasonable risk], it might be we'd come up with restrictions to certain uses without limiting the initial use. We may say you may use it exactly as intended, but other uses are not [permitted] until we have additional information."
Engler said that what Segal described is "what [significant new use rules (SNURs)] do. They limit releases of substances or an organism so the commercial activity in the notice is permitted but if another company wanted to use [it] in a different manner a significant new use notice is required."
As an example, Engler said that "if an MCAN submitter had a contained use [of a microorganism] with complete destruction of the organism but if EPA was unsure . . . they might place a SNUR on the microorganism that the submitter or anyone else would have to abide by."
In this example, as in other cases, Engler said, EPA would treat a new organism and the decision on whether to place a SNUR on other uses of that microorganism as it would a new chemical. "It's the same rules," he said. "The hazards are different, there are other risks because they're living organisms. There are concerns about gene transfer between the MCAN organism and whatever's in the wild. But the criteria is the same and the regulatory tools they use to contain are the same."
One change that Engler noticed is that all SNURs will now be accompanied by a consent order. "EPA said that their interpretation of Lautenberg is that if they make a 'may present' finding, they must also impose a Section 5(e) consent order. In the past we could do a non 5(e) SNUR."
"Their new interpretation is they have to do a consent order" with a SNUR," Engler said. "The effect depends on what the consent order says. It may say, 'SNUR is in effect until the SNUR is published'" once the commercial activity commences. "In the past, [5e orders] were typically used to impose testing" requirements.
Like other elements of changes to TSCA, Engler said that the consent order changes will apply equally to chemicals and microorganisms. "With TSCA reform in place, I'm not sure what consent orders will look like," he said. "But that will be the same for chemicals and microbes."
Team Size
Meanwhile, another EPA staffer at the meeting sought to assuage another concern of many stakeholders -- the size of the team and the resources available to review MCAN and TERA applications.
"One concern that has come up many times is the size of the biotech team," Carolina Penalva-Arana told the attendees. "We are working on it. In the past year, we've added four new people, doubling the size of our team. We can handle it, so start sending your submissions in!"
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-tsca-requirements-raise-challenges-epa-biotech-review-staff
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rejects SAB Recommendations For Drinking Water List Development
Nov 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi
EPA is rejecting calls from its Science Advisory Board (SAB) to change the data it used to develop a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) list of contaminants that may need regulation, agreeing with the advisors' calls for transparency but saying the board's recommended data is not suitable for the list.
Additionally, the agency in the final version of its fourth contaminant candidate list (CCL4) is defending its decision to include manganese and nonylphenol on the list -- the only two contaminants that were not also on the CCL3 -- saying both pose significant health risks and are found in public water systems.
In the final CCL4 list slated for publication in the Nov. 17 Federal Register, EPA lists 97 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbes, all of which were included in the last iteration of the list -- the CCL3 -- except for manganese and nonylphenol. EPA, however, removed the pesticides disulfoton, fenamiphos and molinate from the final CCL4 because the chemicals “are not known or anticipated to occur in [public water systems] and are not anticipated to require regulation,” EPA says in the document.
The list also includes the cyanotoxins anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin and several types of microcystin -- all chemicals the agency has increasingly focused on in connection to harmful algal bloom (HAB) outbreaks and nutrient contamination in several waterbodies.
SDWA requires EPA to monitor public water systems every five years for 30 unregulated contaminants, determined by the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR), and to determine every five years whether to regulate, not regulate, or issue guidance for at least five contaminants on the CCL.
In its final report to EPA earlier this year, SAB made a number of recommendations on how the agency should develop CCL4, including that EPA should utilize data from UCMR 3 monitoring as it becomes available.
But EPA in the final CCL4 says that while it “agrees with the SAB about the importance of using UCMR data to inform the CCL, the agency does not believe it is appropriate to use preliminary UCMR 3 data to make final CCL4 decisions.”
“The UCMR 3 data set was not finalized within the timeframe for use and analysis under CCL4,” EPA adds, noting that the UCMR 3 monitoring period ended in December 2015, and its results are reported to EPA through 2016.
The agency, however, says it has updated the technical support documents for CCL4 “to increase the transparency of its decisions relative to the contaminants included on the Final CCL 4,” in response to SAB's recommendations. For example, a summary table presents factors used to select the CCL4 contaminants.
EPA's Defense
Industry groups were especially critical of EPA's inclusion of nonylphenol and manganese on the draft CCL4, questioning whether drinking water exposure to the chemicals poses a health risk.
In the draft CCL4, EPA said it was including nonylphenol, which is found in the preparation of lubricating oil additives, resins, plasticizers and antioxidants for plastics and rubber, because World Health Organization and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies have shown it to have estrogenic activity in rats and mice.
Industry groups, such as the Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council and the American Chemistry Council, urged EPA to remove nonylphenol from the list, saying the agency relied on “erroneous Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level” values. The groups also cited a surface water monitoring study from 2002, as well as their efforts “to reduce surfactanat uses” to argue that nonylphenol should not be included.
SAB in an early version of its recommendations also questioned nonyphenol's inclusion but removed any reference to specific chemicals in later versions because the advisors decided it would be too time-consuming for them to fact check various contaminants even though EPA had asked for feedback on whether there were any contaminants on the draft list that should be added or removed.
EPA in the final CCL4 defends placing nonylphenol on the list, saying “recent studies indicate that nonylphenol has been detected in drinking water” and it has potential adverse health effects.
The agency adds that while it “appreciates the information from commenters on reduced usage of nonylphenol, we believe measured occurrence data from water sources are preferred over production or usage information when evaluating the likelihood of occurrence in drinking water.”
In the draft CCL4, EPA said it was including manganese because of more than 20 recent studies that indicate concern for neurological effects in children and infants exposed to excess manganese and because of U.S. Geological Survey and drinking water monitoring information that indicate manganese is known to occur in drinking water.
Commenters raised concerns that the primary route of human exposure to manganese is through food and not drinking water, and questioned the link between drinking water and developmental neurotoxicity. But EPA in the final CCL4 reiterates that numerous studies show it is a concern and says the agency will monitor its occurrence through the UCMR4.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-sab-recommendations-drinking-water-list-development
-
California Outlines Input Needs For Determining Next Priority Products
Nov 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has laid out the information it needs from stakeholders as it selects new priority products under its Safe Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
During a 15 November webinar, DTSC officials outlined specific areas related to three topics under consideration:the potential aquatic impacts of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), triclosan and some of their transformation products through their use in cleaning, personal care and clothing products; hazardous chemicals used in nail salon products; andthe exposure potential from the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in carpets, rugs, upholstered furniture and their care and treatment products.
DTSC officials said these priority product candidates include clear pathways for exposure to one or more 'candidate chemicals' . These are substances that have appeared on at least one of 23 authoritative lists from regulators around the world.
The products may also contain chemicals that have been detected in biomonitoring studies, or have been observed in indoor air and dust studies, or that may impact children or workers.NPEs and triclosan
The DTSC is exploring the aquatic impact of NPEs and triclosan. NPEs are nonionic surfactants used in a wide variety of industrial applications and consumer products. They have been found to persist in aquatic environments.
Triclosan is a biocide used to inhibit bacterial growth in consumer and personal care products, such as soaps, deodorants and cosmetics.
The US EPA has issued several significant new use rules (Snurs) for NPEs, while the European Commission has restricted NPEs in textiles. And the US FDA recently banned triclosan from several antibacterial soaps.
The DTSC is seeking input from stakeholders on:the challenges in removing NPEs from laundry detergents, cleaning products and the clothing supply chain;the progress made to remove NPEs from the clothing supply chain;the safety or benefit of triclosan in products;challenges posed by removing or replacing triclosan; andchemical and non-chemical alternatives to triclosan.Nail products
On nail products, the DTSC is seeking input from stakeholders on:hazard traits associated with the 'toxic trio' – dibutyl phthalate (DBP), toluene and formaldehyde – and the presence of other candidate chemicals;the potential exposure and adverse impacts from nail products to workers and consumers in California, especially to pregnant women, children and people of colour; andassociated nail salon worker safety legislation.
The DTSC ran a small study in 2011 of nail products claiming to be free of 'toxic trio' substances, but its findings raised concerns about accurate ingredient disclosure.
The department has identified at least six candidate chemicals in products typically used in nail salons. And this has spurred it to take a closer look at this category. As well as the 'toxic trio', these are:alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs);azo dyes, coal tars, lead, and lead acetate; andtriclosan.PFASs
PFASs are a diverse group of substances used in an array of industrial and consumer applications for their resistance to heat, water and oil. The DTSC says their manufacture, use, and disposal in consumer products can lead to widespread exposure to people, animals and plants.
Some PFASs have the potential to cause adverse human health and ecological impacts, while others are used in increasing amounts but lack publicly available safety data, says the DTSC.
The EPA has proposed a Snur for certain long-chain PFASs, amid a voluntary phase-out of their use. Sweden has cut the use of PFASs and has urged the EU to do so as well.
The DTSC is seeking input from stakeholders on:the use of PFASs in carpets, rugs, upholstered furniture and their care and treatment products;exposure data for PFASs for these products;hazard traits of 'new' PFASs;lifecycle impacts; andnon-fluorinated alternatives.
The SCP programme identifies consumer products that may pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Manufacturers of substance/product pairs named as priority products will have to conduct an alternatives assessment under the programme.
The DTSC is soliciting feedback on, and plans to hold events in the coming months to further discuss, these three potential priority product candidates.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51082/california-outlines-input-needs-for-determining-next-priority-products
-
Nov 16, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Walmart, Target, and CVS among the best; Amazon and Costco among the worst
Report reveals significant improvements to chemical policies at Target, CVS and Best Buy
Washington, DC – Today, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families released a new report, “Who’s Minding the Store? — A Report Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals,” the first major evaluation of the United States’ largest retailers’ safer chemicals programs. The investigation revealed that while some leading retailers are making significant progress to move the market away from toxic chemicals, other top retailers remain serious laggards. Major U.S. retailers earned grades ranging from B for good progress to F for failing to develop and make public even basic safer chemical policies. The average grade was a D+, indicating a significant need for improvement by retailers to meet rising consumer demand for safer products.
Of the eleven retailers evaluated, three retail leaders are setting the pace for the entire sector by making meaningful progress toward safer chemicals and products. Walmart, Target, and CVS Health received the highest grades and have developed and made public the most robust safer chemical management programs during the past three years. Meanwhile, other large retailers remain serious laggards. Amazon, Costco, and Albertsons all earned failing grades. Amazon received the lowest grade of any retailer evaluated, accruing only 7.5 out of 130 possible points. Meanwhile, Amazon’s market share is rapidly growing and the company is projected to soon be the biggest retailer of apparel and electronics in the U.S.
Retailers were graded on a scale of 0 to 130 points, and a corresponding letter grading scale was developed to match the points. Grades were assigned based on publicly available information concerning retailer policies and self-reported information concerning retailer practices. We also reached out to retailers, giving them an opportunity to review their draft score and provide additional information. Below is a full list of the retailers with their letter and corresponding number grades, ranked from the highest to the lowest graded companies:
1. Walmart Stores (Walmart and Sam’s Club): B (78.5 points)
2. Target: B (76.5)
3. CVS Health: C (53)
4. Best Buy: C- (41)
5. The Home Depot: D+ (35.5)
6. Lowe’s: D (29.5)
7. Walgreens: D (29.5)
8. Kroger: D- (15.5)
9. Albertsons: F (12.5)
10. Costco: F (9.5)
11. Amazon: F (7.5)
The report card reveals for the first time significant improvements made to Target’s chemical policy over the past year. The company: 1) Added cosmetics to the categories of products covered by its policy; 2) Expanded the list of chemicals subject to its policy to include chemicals banned in cosmetics in the European Union and Canada; 3) Significantly improved its evaluation of suppliers’ transparency practices, particularly a new way for Target to evaluate fragrance ingredients against its restricted substance list; and 4) Added new criteria pushing suppliers to publicly disclose their fragrance palette, allergens in fragrance, and nanomaterials.
The report card also reveals for the first time that CVS Health has become the first pharmacy chain in the country to become a signatory to the Chemical Footprint Project. Additionally, CVS Health has pledged to publicly disclose its restricted list of chemicals in 2017. Best Buy also disclosed it is developing a safer chemicals policy, restricted substance list, and manufacturing restricted substance list, to drive harmful chemicals out of electronics.
In addition, SCHF provided recommendations for retailers including developing public written safer chemical policies, reducing and eliminating toxic chemicals, embracing “radical transparency,” and requiring reputable third-party safer chemicals standards such as “Safer Choice” and “Made Safe” aimed at promoting healthier products.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store Campaign Director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, and report co-author said, “As the holiday shopping season approaches, consumers should pay close attention to how big retailers are tackling toxic chemicals. Our new report found that some giant retailers like Walmart, Target, and CVS are taking meaningful and concrete steps to systematically drive toxic chemicals out of products. However, too many others like Amazon, Costco, Albertsons and Kroger have failed to make public even basic safer chemical policies. The eleven retailers we evaluated have combined sales of over one trillion dollars, a market power that can transform the toxic chemical economy.”
Mike Belliveau, Executive Director of Environmental Health Strategy and Senior Advisor to Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, and report co-author, said, “Big retailers are on the frontline of consumer discontent with product safety. Parents are more aware than ever that our chemical safety system is badly broken. When out shopping, no one should have to worry that the shampoo, lotions, cleaners, clothing, shoes, or home electronics contain toxic ingredients that could harm their family’s health. Retailers must send a stronger signal up their supply chains – no more toxic ingredients. And consumers should use this report card to decide which retailers to patronize. Where would you rather shop, at a retailer that scores a B or the retailer with a red F for failure to ensure their safety of their products?”
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/new-report-shows-big-retailers-cracking-down-on-toxic-chemicals/
-
Study Assesses Relative Cost to Companies of EU REACH Law
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Obtaining regulatory approval for placing a new chemical on the European Union market is cheaper than in Canada, China or Japan, but more expensive than in Korea or the U.S., according to a study the European Commission prepared on the competitiveness of European chemicals companies.
The average cost to companies to get approval for a new chemical under the EU's REACH law is about 86,000 euros ($92,000) compared to 116,000 euros to 125,000 euros ($124,000 to $134,000) under equivalent legislation in Canada, China and Japan, the study calculated. The commission, the EU's executive arm, published the study Nov. 15.
The cost is “by far” the lowest in the U.S. at 6,500 euros ($6,955) on average, while in Korea it is 50,000 euros ($53,500), the study said. Industries included chemicals, rubber and plastics, textiles, and motor vehicles.
The large differences can be explained by the burden of proof placed on manufacturers and importers under REACH to demonstrate the environmental and health safety of chemicals, while in the U.S., “the burden of proof is currently placed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” and its “system does not apply the precautionary principle but relies instead on imposing liability in case of infringement,” the study said.
China and Korea have adopted regulatory regimes similar to the EU's REACH, while in Canada “a collaborative process with industry is applied,” and in Japan regulators concentrate on a more limited set of prioritized substances, the study noted. REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006) stands for the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals.
Benefits to Filter Through
The study found that REACH has had a small negative impact, assessed as a 0.04 percent difference in total output, on the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry compared to the chemicals sectors in other jurisdictions.
There were no “specific examples of companies that have actually relocated,” however, because of the burden of compliance with REACH, the study said. Other factors such as labor costs are likely to be more significant for competitiveness, according to the study.
The study said that there is so far little evidence of “benefits in terms of improved working environment, health, or environmental benefits,” arising from REACH, but these benefits should “begin materialising around 2018,” as the implementation of REACH proceeds.
REACH, however, has led to greater “availability of information on chemicals and increased transparency and awareness within the industries and their supplier industries,” the study said.
Specific issues under REACH that put EU companies at a disadvantage compared to their international competitors include bans on use of certain hazardous chemicals in manufacturing within the European Union, while manufactured goods containing those chemicals can be imported into the EU, and the inability to use data generated for compliance with REACH in other jurisdictions, such as China, which requires testing to be done in Chinese laboratories.
Forthcoming Review
The study is an input into a general review of REACH that the commission is required to complete by June 1, 2017. The review could trigger proposals to amend or revise REACH.
According to a commission planning document updated in October, 17 studies will be carried out as part of the REACH review. The competitiveness study is the ninth to be published.
REACH entered into force on June 1, 2007, with a requirement for chemicals companies to submit registration dossiers containing safety data on their substance to the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki, Finland.
A first review of the regulation was completed in 2013 and recommended that the legislation should not be revised, though some clarifications were recommended, such as on information requirements for nanoscale substances.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100666905&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100666905&jd=100666905
-
Echa Advises EEE Companies On Substances In Articles
Nov 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Firms warned to 'be prepared' to meet new requirements
Echa has urged electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) companies to "be prepared" to meet new requirements for substances in articles.
The agency's Peter Megaw told delegates at a conference in London this week about the progress of updates to Echa's guidance following last year's European Court of Justice ruling.
The ruling said Article 33 would now apply to each article in a complex product, not just the final assembled article. This requires companies to reply within 45 days if asked by consumers about the presence above 0.1% concentration of SVHCs in products. This information must be given free of charge.
Speaking at the Edif ERA organised Electrical and Electronic Equipment and the Environment Conference 2016, Mr Megaw said Echa is updating its guidance to reflect the ruling. Draft guidance is available on the Echa website and the final version is due in the first quarter of 2017.
Echa has provided the following advice to companies:become familiar with the draft update to the guidance and check its progress through consultation and publication;check whether the articles produced or imported contain substances already identified as SVHCs;suppliers of an article or a 'complex product' should seek information on whether articles or the 'component' articles contain SVHCs above the 0.1% w/w concentration threshold;create and maintain systems to record and retrieve information that can be readily communicated down the supply chain or within 45 days after receiving a consumer request; andsubmit a substance in articles notification to Echa if the required conditions are fulfilled.
Mr Megaw said the court had sent "a little warning" that "the fact it's hard to do doesn't mean that's going to be an excuse for not doing it".
According to the ruling, the Commission said it can be difficult for importers to get the required information from their suppliers in non-EU countries. "Difficulties of that nature do not, however, affect the interpretation of Article 7(2) of REACH," the ruling said.
Article 7(2) says producers and importers of articles must notify Echa if an SVHC is present at over one tonne per producer, or importer, per year, in a concentration higher than 0.1% by weight.
Asked about the transitional period after which companies must be compliant with the ruling, Mr Megaw said we can "assume" individual members states would approach enforcement with "a degree of reasonableness". It is unlikely there will be a "sudden increase" in enforcement over the next few months, he added. But when the guidance "becomes clearer" it is likely more enforcement will take place, he said.
However, the French authorities recently said they do not plan any enforcement activities on SVHCs in articles this year.
And in October European SMEs trade body Ueapme urged Echa and the European Commission to look for ways to simplify notification of SVHCs in articles under REACH, calling it a "dead law".
https://chemicalwatch.com/51080/echa-advises-eee-companies-on-substances-in-articles
-
What’s Next for Energy and Climate Policy?
Nov 16, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Doug Domenech
Much has been said about what’s next for energy and climate policy under the new Trump Administration. Elections have consequences and, in this case, Americans just rejected the “keep it in the ground” extremism espoused by those whose only operating focus is their view that CO2 is a pollutant and climate change is real.
It should be no surprise to anyone on the right or left that over the last eight years the Obama Administration has used its power to impose a restrictive agenda on traditional land management practices on federal lands, and to the extent that it could, on private lands too. This has impeded energy production off federal onshore and offshore areas. The harmful impact on local communities and the economy has been telling. This agenda is driven by an unrelenting commitment to “fighting” climate change and has impacted policy prescriptions across the government.
The President-elect has already committed to revolutionizing energy policy and streamlining regulations. In his view, the wealth created will fund major infrastructure projects and provide prosperity to people. The incoming Administration has pledged to open federal lands – onshore and offshore - for oil and gas production. He will revoke policies that impose unnecessary restrictions on innovative exploration technologies, rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration. He has also pledged to streamline the permitting process for all energy infrastructure projects.
These policies will reinvigorate communities across the nation. Especially those most seriously impacted by the current restrictive energy policies.
The purpose of these new policies is to stop the intrusion of government into the marketplace. Coal may not come back, but it should at least be allowed to compete on a level playing field against natural gas and so-called “green” energy such as wind and solar. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. coal production has fallen by almost a quarter from 1.17 million short tons in 2008 to just 897 million in 2015 and electricity produced from coal has declined by nearly 32 percent between 2008 and 2015. Coal's share of total power generation has sunk from almost 50 percent to just one-third. As a result, the regulatory war on coal has devastated many local communities.
As the American Energy Alliance said, “President-elect Trump’s victory presents an opportunity to reset the harmful energy policies of the last generation. He has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and workers first…[and] will deliver affordable energy to American families, invigorate the economy, and create more opportunities for future generations.” Mr. Trump has also pledged to protect and enhance the natural wonders of the country. These policies can be balanced and achieved together as long as all interests – not special interests – are considered.
On December 8, the Texas Public Policy Foundation is teaming up with The Heritage Foundation to host its third annual “At the Crossroads: Energy and Climate Policy Summit.” The program will feature influential lawmakers and industry experts who will explore the impact of the national elections on energy and climate policy. What’s next for energy policy? Come to our Summit and see for yourself.
The Honorable Doug Domenech is the Director of the Fueling Freedom Project at The Texas Public Policy Foundation.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/11/16/whats_next_for_energy_and_climate_policy_110118.html
-
McConnell Aims To Finish WRDA, Energy Bill In Lame Duck
Nov 16, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Tiffany Stecker and Geof Koss
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said today he hopes to finish a water infrastructure package and the energy bill during the lame-duck session.
"Our goal is to wrap this lame-duck session up as soon as possible," McConnell told reporters this afternoon. "And we intend to have a very busy year next year beginning Jan. 3."
He listed the Water Resources Development Act, the ongoing energy conference and a medical research bill as his priorities for what looks to be an abridged session.
McConnell's comments on the energy bill are notable, given doubts among some conferees that a deal can be reached. Some Republicans have signaled reluctance to continue the talks, given the fact they'll have far less ground to give up when President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in this January.
But Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters last night that she was still pushing to finish the bill this year if possible. She and other top conferees are slated to huddle tomorrow (E&E Daily, Nov. 16).
"We're continuing to work on our energy bill," she told reporters before today's GOP policy lunch.
Progress on WRDA, which authorizes dozens of Army Corps of Engineers water projects and ecological restoration, must compete with a number of must-pass bills for time in the lame duck. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said that the House's reluctance to wrap up the bill was delaying the process.
"It doesn't seem that there is the level of enthusiasm to finish the WRDA bill in the House that there is in the Senate," he said.
In the House, members place blame on the upper chamber. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told reporters yesterday that the Senate was blocking the bill from heading to the president's desk.
"At this point, I would say that it doesn't look very likely," DeFazio said. "The Senate is not engaging meaningfully."
Though one of the architects of the House bill, DeFazio pulled his support for the legislation after Transportation and Infrastructure Republicans removed language on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Outgoing Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she was committed to keeping the Flint, Mich., aid either in WRDA — where the $220 million aid package was placed after it was taken out of the energy bill in April — or an appropriations bill.
Boxer, who is retiring at the end of the year, said staff from the House and Senate are trying to reconcile a big $10 billion bill from the Senate, S. 2848, and a $5 billion measure from the House, H.R. 5303.
"We're trying to see how slim we can make it," Boxer said of the Senate bill. In addition to the Flint aid, S. 2848 contains about $5 billion to repair sewers and tap water infrastructure throughout the country and prevent lead in drinking water.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who helped negotiate the Flint package, was steadfast in her desire to see the money in WRDA, not another legislative vehicle.
"We're not interested in punting one more time," she told reporters, adding later that "it has to happen in lame duck. If we can't get it, I have no reason to believe people's word that it would be done in the future."
The money would help get Flint residents back on their feet after the city's water became contaminated with lead last year.
Reporter George Cahlink contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/16/stories/1060045881
-
America’s on Track to Export a Record Volume of Shale Gas
Nov 16, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Jim Polson
Nine LNG tankers have left or are set to leave U.S. this month
ale boom has brought U.S. closer to energy independence
The U.S. is set to export a record number of cargoes of shale gas this month.
Nine liquefied natural gas tankers have departed or are scheduled to leave Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in November, already the most for any month since exports began in February, according to ship-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg and Genscape Inc.
The exports follow a massive shale boom in the U.S. that’s unleashed a flood of gas supplies from the Marcellus and Utica in the east to the Eagle Ford in Texas. The country is on course to become a net exporter of natural gas next year, a stark turnaround from just a decade ago when it was facing a shortage.
“The continental U.S. becoming a net natural gas exporter is a milestone of the U.S. energy revolution and transition to ‘energy independence,’” Citigroup Inc. analysts wrote in a note to clients on Wednesday.
The Sabine Pass complex in Louisiana has exported 40 cargoes totaling about 6.5 million cubic meters of LNG since February, Zach Allen, president of Pan Eurasian Enterprises, said in a research note.
Cheniere, which became the nation’s first and only exporter of shale gas in February, was cleared by U.S. regulators last month to start loading tankers from a second plant at Sabine Pass.
Cheniere didn’t immediately return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/america-s-on-track-to-send-a-record-volume-of-shale-gas-overseas
-
The Dakota Access Debate Has Been Dangerously Blown Out Of Proportion
Nov 16, 2016 | The Washington Post
By J. Bennett Johnston Jr. and Daryl Owen
J. Bennett Johnston Jr., a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. Senate from Louisiana from 1972 to 1997, is president of the lobbying firm Johnston & Associates, which represents the American Petroleum Institute. Daryl Owen is president of Owen Associates and represents Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Several weeks ago environmental activists broke into the pumping facilities for four operational oil pipelines and began closing valves, recklessly endangering themselves, the integrity of the pipelines and the very environment they profess to protect. These actions represent a dangerous escalation of the tone and tactics in the climate-change debate and can only be described as domestic terrorism.
The perpetrators claimed their actions were in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. That may be true in a narrow sense, but any notion that they were motivated by concerns over tribal rights is pure fiction. Rather, tribal rights and the historic indignities visited upon Native Americans are just one more set of tools in the box of those hostile to fossil fuels.
The result, in the case of the Dakota Access Pipeline, is a rapidly escalating debate that has become largely unmoored from the facts. This circus has been fueled by social media, where any intersection with the truth is brief and accidental, and food-chain journalism that repeats ungrounded claims. It has attracted the support of everyone from musicians to politicians whose understanding of the project is, at best, selective, and has prompted editorials from otherwise serious publications that have both the ability and responsibility to know better.
Those who sympathize with the protest movement have an incomplete if not distorted view of its nature. A number of the self-proclaimed “peaceful protesters” have perpetrated violence against pipeline crews, done millions of dollars of damage to construction equipment and set up a semi-permanent encampment on federal lands in violation of trespass laws. They have hacked the website of the project developer and issued vile and profane threats, including death threats, against company employees. State and local law-enforcement leaders have repeatedly called for the assistance of federal law enforcement personnel — requests that have been summarily rejected by the Justice Department.
How did it come to this? This is, after all, a pipeline project. Fourteen other pipelines cross the Missouri River, including nine that carry oil or petroleum product. The proposed crossing for the Dakota Access project was chosen because it already hosts a natural gas pipeline and a high-voltage electric transmission line. The oil that would be transported in this line is currently finding its way to market (and across the Missouri River) by rail and truck — modes that are far less safe than pipeline transport. At no point in its 1,172-mile path does the pipeline cross a single inch of tribal reservation land. Indeed, 99.98 percent of the project is on private lands, and all the rights of way for those lands have been secured.
The Sioux argue that the pipeline’s route would disturb lands that, while not on their reservation, remain sacred. In response, the developers have made 141 route changes to avoid disturbance of identified sites on private lands. Nevertheless, the tribe went to federal court seeking to block completion of the project, arguing that it had not been properly consulted during the more than two-year permitting process.
These claims were rejected in a thorough 58-page opinion rendered by an Obama-appointed federal judge. That opinion documents dozens of efforts by the developer and the Army Corps of Engineers to engage the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in the consultation process and concluded that the Standing Rock Sioux “largely refused to engage in consultations.”
Within minutes of this ruling, however, the Justice Department, joined by two other federal agencies, released a letter indicating that it nonetheless was withholding an Army Corps easement, the last of more than 200 federal permits needed to complete the project. Two months later the department continues to do so. Both the authority of the government to withhold the easement, and its reasons for doing so, remain unclear.
What is clear is that the government has sent a chilling message to the private sector about the rule of law as it relates to infrastructure development. The easement being withheld is part and parcel of a river-crossing permit the pipeline has already received. It is a simple ministerial action authorizing the pipeline to cross beneath federal lands and, for want of a simple signature by an Army Corps bureaucrat, would finalize the process. By arbitrarily refusing to follow the law, the Justice Department has placed a lawfully permitted, vital $4 billion infrastructure project into suspended animation.
What is also clear is that by refusing to enforce the law, the Justice Department has countenanced, if not encouraged, behavior at the crossing site that borders on armed insurrection. In a recent letter to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Jonathan F. Thompson, head of the National Sheriffs’ Association, stated “From our perspective, the federal government’s inaction is tantamount to supporting (and encouraging) dangerous behavior. . . . When 2,500 protesters are threatening, intimidating, and using guerrilla tactics to stop a legal commercial initiative, something is terribly wrong with our civilization.”
To be sure there is much to be discussed and much to be regretted about the past 150 years of U.S.-tribal relations. But a real estate document for a pipeline river crossing seems hardly the pretext to do so. The entire situation has been blown far out of proportion and in the absence of firm, clear, expeditious federal action, may continue to escalate. Thus far federal officials have abjectly failed to live up to this responsibility, and in so doing they have almost certainly contributed to the public’s rapidly eroding trust in its government.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dakota-access-debate-has-been-dangerously-blown-out-of-proportion/2016/11/16/2b704c56-ab83-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.c29b68f6421e
-
Rick Perry Considered For Energy Secretary: Report
Nov 16, 2016 | The Hill
By Nikita Vladimirov
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is reportedly being considered for a Cabinet position as President-elect Donald Trump's transition team seeks to solidify its list of candidates.
According to a report from The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Perry is now being evaluated for a potential job as Energy Secretary.
Alongside Perry, Bill Hagerty, who is the head of a private-equity investment firm and a former chief economic development officer for Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, is being considered for U.S. Trade Representative.
Two sources familiar with the discussions told the Journal that Steven Mnuchin and Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling are also being considered for the Treasury secretary.Perry, who also was a Republican candidate for president in 2012, had a famous debate-stage gaffe when he forgot the Department of Energy's name. During a presidential debate in 2011, Perry forgot the Energy Department as he tried to list the three agencies that he pledged to eliminate as president. "It's three agencies of government when I get there that are gone: commerce, education, and the uh ... what's the third one, there? Let's see... The third one. I can't," he said, adding "Oops." Trump transition team has been under pressure in recent days to come up with a final list of potential candidates of the new administration.
Some pundits have argued that the recent uncertainty points to disarray within the team, that has been primarily considering candidates that have shown loyalty to the President-elect.http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/306499-rick-perry-considered-for-energy-secretary-report
-
Get Your Pipeline Out of My Yard, Homeowners Say
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
Thanks to the shale drilling revolution, the U.S. has gone in less than a decade from being woefully short of natural gas to having almost a century's worth of supplies. But the pipelines that were going to transform American energy use are getting harder to build. To take full advantage of the windfall, the country must fundamentally change the way natural gas flows through the U.S. Yet what used to be seen as a rubber-stamp approval process has turned into a slow-motion headache for pipeline companies, brought on by ecological concerns and the changing economics of natural gas.
ake the case of the Hollerans. The first time they heard about the Constitution pipeline was in 2012, when men started showing up on their land to do survey work. Their 23-acre homestead in northeastern Pennsylvania was in the path of the $875 million pipeline, which would stretch 124 miles from the Marcellus Shale fields of Pennsylvania into New York state, where it would connect with existing pipelines to deliver cheap natural gas to cities in the Northeast.
As other landowners around them made deals with the pipeline's owner, Tulsa-based Williams Cos., the Hollerans held out. For two years they tried to get Williams to make alterations to the route, which initially ran through the middle of their house. Williams diverted the pipeline away from the house, but not from the grove of mature maple trees that supply the family's burgeoning syrup business. Williams offered compensation, but nothing that approached what the Hollerans considered to be the value of their land. So they refused to sign.
In December 2014, Williams secured federal approval for Constitution, which gave it the right to enforce eminent domain on the Hollerans and seize their property in the name of the public good. Over three days this March, chain saw crews cleared 3.5 acres of the Hollerans’ land, including hundreds of trees and 90 percent of their maples. State police blocked off nearby roads. U.S. marshals with bulletproof vests and assault rifles stood guard.
Then, seven weeks later, on Earth Day, New York state denied Constitution water quality permits, claiming that Williams hadn't provided adequate details on its plans to bury the pipe beneath some 250 streams. Williams disputes this and is suing the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Technically, the pipeline isn't dead, but it is effectively on life support. To Megan Holleran, the victory is bittersweet. “Those trees will never grow back in my lifetime,” she said. “We'll never be able to produce syrup on that land again.”
That same week in April, Texas energy giant Kinder Morgan canceled its $3 billion Northeast Energy Direct project, a 420-mile natural gas pipeline planned to run roughly parallel with Constitution. Together, the two pipelines were going to form a sort of energy superhighway, delivering a combined 2.8 billion cubic feet of gas a day from Pennsylvania, enough to serve 14 million homes. But unlike Constitution, Kinder's pipeline wasn't killed by politics or local opposition or even a denied permit; it was doomed by basic economics. The company couldn't persuade power plants and factories in the Northeast to sign long-term contracts to buy the gas it would deliver.
As the industry presses for even more capacity, it's time to consider whether there is both a need for more pipelines and enough political and popular will to go on building them.
Since 2009 federal authorities have approved some 5,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. Companies are seeking approval for an additional 3,500 miles, representing an investment of about $35 billion. But environmental and property-rights activists have formed a considerable front against the industry. Emboldened by their win against the Keystone XL crude pipeline, activists have mounted environmental challenges that have slowed or led to the withdrawal of 8 out of 14 major pipelines proposed to take gas out of the Marcellus Shale region. The average time for a pipeline to get approved and built has grown from three years to four, according to the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). For an industry sitting on $35 billion in investments, those delays add up to billions in lost profits.
Gas pipelines have also become a focal point in the bigger public debate over climate change and fracking, which recently has turned against the industry. A March Gallup poll showed 51 percent of Americans oppose fracking—the technique for releasing oil and gas from rock that's made the U.S. what even President Obama describes as the “Saudi Arabia of natural gas.” That is up from 40 percent opposition in 2015. The biggest loss of support came among Republicans, 55 percent of whom said they favor fracking, down from 66 percent in 2015.
More worrying for the pipeline industry, and the natural gas producers they serve, is that the economics of pipelines are becoming less favorable. Building a pipeline requires customers to sign long-term contracts that lock them into buying gas sometimes for as long as 20 years. With wind and solar getting cheaper by the day, those commitments no longer make as much sense as they once did. Natural gas pipeline companies, in testimony to federal electricity regulators, have acknowledged as much and that the trend toward renewable energy limits the economic viability of their pipelines. “Renewables are certainly competition,” said Donald Santa, president of INGAA.
This year, for the first time, natural gas is expected to pass coal as the top source of electricity generation in the U.S. That is mainly because natural gas is so cheap—but low prices are a double-edged sword for pipeline companies. As drillers struggle to make money, some are looking to break long-term contracts they've signed with pipeline companies.
Once seen as a hot investment, and a way to get in on the U.S. shale revolution, the pipeline business has turned sour for some major players. Williams and Kinder Morgan have lost billions in stock market value. Share prices for both companies have fallen more than 50 percent in the past year. Williams is in talks to merge with rival Energy Transfer Equity, whose stock price also has fallen by half since last summer. With both companies struggling, that deal is now in question.
While the industry still claims the U.S. is desperately short of natural gas pipelines and needs hundreds of billions of dollars in new projects, there is a growing case to be made that we may be on the verge of building too many in some regions. In a June 7 report, energy analyst Rusty Braziel suggests that by next year there will be enough new capacity to meet growing gas production in the Marcellus and Utica shale regions of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. If all 24 pipeline projects that are proposed for those regions get built, Braziel's analysis suggests, by 2019 new pipeline capacity will be three times greater than new gas production. “I'm not saying that's definitely going to happen, but it's a distinct possibility that no one seems to be thinking about,” he said. Even the Department of Energy says the country's existing 1.5 million miles of natural gas pipelines can be more efficiently used.
One of the strongest arguments for more pipelines is that the lack of infrastructure is keeping energy prices high in some regions. That was certainly true during the polar vortex of January 2014, which brought record cold temperatures to much of the U.S. and record natural gas prices to New England. The region relies on natural gas for about 47 percent of its electricity generation, up from 28 percent in 2001. In January 2014, New England's governors called for an electricity tariff to pay for added natural gas pipelines.
In line with that request, last October, the public utility commission of Massachusetts gave the state's utilities the ability to sign long-term contracts with pipeline companies and pass on the costs to their rate payers, in effect shifting the cost burden of a new pipeline away from utilities and pipeline companies and onto the backs of consumers. A few weeks later, the state's attorney general, Maura Healey, issued a detailed report suggesting New England is unlikely to face reliability issues in its power sector over the next 15 years and that building pipelines would be among the most costly approaches to the region's energy needs. The industry argues that it has to build to accommodate periods of peak demand, even if that is only a few days a year.
On June 14, the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on the difficulty of building pipelines. Alaska's Republican senator and chair of the energy committee, Lisa Murkowski, essentially asked the most important question: “If the benefits are so apparent … why is there this disconnect? What are we not doing right in conveying to the American public, the consumer, that there is a clear benefit here?”
She might want to ask Megan Holleran. “I'm not against natural gas, and I'm not anti-pipelines,” says Holleran. “I'm a capitalist. But when you try and steamroll and bully people, and refuse to share the benefits of what you're doing, then of course people are going to line up against you.”
With assistance from Dave Merrill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100666890&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100666890&jd=100666890
-
Maryland Seeks Controls on 36 Upwind Power Plants
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Pollution from 36 power plants in five upwind states is impairing Maryland's ability to meet federal air quality standards, the state said in a Nov. 16 petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency to step in and require new pollution controls at those utilities.
Maryland wants the EPA to require those power plants to operate more efficiently or to operate already installed pollution controls during the summer ozone season to prevent 300 tons of nitrogen oxides, an ozone precursor, from blowing into Maryland. Maryland is asking that the 36 plants be required to operate their pollution controls continuously during the upcoming ozone season beginning May 1, 2017.
The power plants are located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and the EPA has determined that emissions from those states contribute to ozone formation in Maryland, according to the petition, filed under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act. Maryland will continue to exceed the 75 parts per billion ozone standards set by the EPA in 2008 even after updates to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule are implemented, Maryland said.
The EPA's cross-state rule established an emissions trading program for power plant pollution that contributes to ozone and particulate matter formation in downwind states. However, Maryland said in its petition that the cross-state rule and other federal trading programs allow power plants to demonstrate their compliance using long term averages of emissions, which can allow some units to operate without utilizing their pollution controls.
Other States Urge EPA to Take Action
Other states also have prodded the EPA to take more action to curb emissions from upwind states.
Connecticut in June filed its own Section 126 petition with the EPA, asking that the agency impose new emissions limits on a coal-fired power plant in Pennsylvania. Connecticut's congressional delegation has supported that request.
Northeastern states also have petitioned the EPA under a separate Clean Air Act provision to add nine Southern and Midwestern states to the Ozone Transport Region. Joining the ozone region would require those nine states to take steps to control emissions of ozone precursors when reviewing permits for industrial facilities. The EPA has agreed to respond to that petition in 2017.
The EPA must respond to Maryland's petition within 60 days.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100666911&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100666911&jd=100666911
-
Two CSX Trains In Florida Collide, Derail; Two Injured
Nov 16, 2016 | Reuters
By David Ingram
Two CSX Corp (CSX.O) trains collided and derailed in central Florida early on Wednesday, injuring two crew members, the company said.
One freight train carrying non-hazardous phosphate rock while the second train loaded with coal collided in Citra, Florida, about 4:15 a.m. (0915 GMT), CSX said.
The cause of the collision was under investigation and the two CSX crew members were being treated for minor injuries, the company said.
Twenty rail cars overturned, the Marion County Sheriff's Office said, though CSX was unable to confirm the number.
The derailment caused a 4,000-gallon fuel leak from the trains, a CBS television affiliated station in Orlando reported.
The phosphate train was traveling from Mulberry, Florida, to Chicago, with three locomotives and 100 loaded phosphate cars, CSX said.
The coal train was traveling from Pembroke, Kentucky, to Tampa, with three locomotives and 110 carloads of coal, it said.
The derailment happened at a rail crossing about 100 miles northwest of Orlando.
(Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jeffrey Benkoe)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-train-idUSKBN13B1OR
-
Schumer Touts Steps To Lessen Oil train Risk
Nov 16, 2016 | Times Union
By Brian Nearing
In the waning days of the administration of President Barack Obama, federal regulators will take tentative steps to study stricter flammability standards for crude oil shipped in massive oil trains, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said on Wednesday.
The U.S. Transportation Department will "begin a formal process to request comments" on potential stricter limits on what is called oil "vapor pressure," which is an indicator of how flammable the oil is.
Oil being shipped into the Capital Region and elsewhere from the Bakken hydrofracking fields of North Dakota has a much higher pressure than other crude oils, making it much more likely to explode if a train tanker car ruptures during a derailment.
Vapor pressure indicates how easily oil evaporates into potentially explosive gases like butane, propane and ethane.
Pressure can be lowered by removing such gases prior to shipment.
Schumer called the DOT action a "first step in a regulatory process to establish scientifically supported federal standards regarding the safety of crude oil prior to shipment and will ultimately lead to greater overall safety as oil is shipped through New York."
It is uncertain at this time how such efforts at DOT would continue in the new administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who backs greater production of U.S. fossil fuels, including hydrofracking.
State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also has been pushing for about a year for stricter federal standards on crude oil shipments.
Crude oil in Texas, for example, is routinely depressurized before being loaded onto rail cars. North Dakota last year set its own pressurization standards, which allow higher pressure than those being sought by Schneiderman.
Currently, the federal hazardous materials safety standard that covers Bakken crude shipments allows no more than 14.7 pounds per square inch. Last year, North Dakota officials set their own pressure standard of no more than 13.7 psi, a level that would not affect about 80 percent of the crude being shipped.
Schneiderman wants a new pressure limit of less than 9 psi. The North Dakota standard also is well above the pressure of 9 to 9.3 found in Bakken crude by Canadian safety officials after 47 people were killed in a massive explosion and fire when a crude oil train derailed in July 2013 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
According to the North Dakota Petroleum Council, the average Bakken crude has a psi of between 11.5 and 11.8 psi. By comparison, crude oil pumped from beneath the Gulf of Mexico is 3 psi. In Texas, crude oil produced in the Eagle Ford shale formation has a psi of 8.
http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Schumer-touts-steps-to-lessen-oil-train-risk-10618839.php
-
Revamped Dems Pledge 'Strong And Tough Fight' Ahead
Nov 17, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss and Corbin Hiar
Senate Democrats vowed yesterday to work with President-elect Donald Trump where possible but also promised as vigorous a defense as possible on environmental policy and other Democratic priorities.
New Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) summarized his caucus's approach to the upcoming Trump administration shortly after his election to replace Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as minority leader.
"I've spoken to him a couple of times, and I told him just what I told you," Schumer said of Trump, who was a longtime Democratic donor before he stated flirting with a presidential run as a Republican a few years ago. "When we can agree on issues, then we're going to work with them."
But he also tried to differentiate the party's approach from that of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who shortly after President Obama's election, told reporters that making him a one-term president was his top priority.
"We're not going to just, as some have done here in the past, say just because it's President Trump's idea or thought, we're going to oppose it per se. Where we can work together, we will. But I've also said to the president-elect on issues where we disagree, you can expect a strong and tough fight, and some of those issues I named. And that's how the relationship's going to be."
After Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton surprisingly lost in many swing states, Schumer announced a new leadership team expanded to give moderate Democrats a voice at the table. Several red state Democrats face tough re-election fights in 2018 (E&E Daily, Nov. 10).
"We needed a much sharper, bolder, stronger economic message," Schumer said. "And we needed to let the American people understand what we all believe, that the system's not working for them. And we're going to change it."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who was Clinton's running mate, said his "motto" going forward is "advance anywhere we can and defend everything we must."
"I'm sure there's going to be ample opportunity for both, but we shouldn't predetermine what they might or might not do," he said of Trump. "We just have to see what they come up with and then determine whether there's things we can work on together or how much we need to defend the priorities we care about."
Kaine hailed the new Senate Democratic leadership team unveiled yesterday, which notably includes Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who famously shot a mock cap-and-trade bill in a TV ad when he was first running for the Senate. Manchin for years has stuck to his Democratic roots, even as his state has turned deep red in large part because of the Obama environmental agenda.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the incoming ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, lauded the move.
"I think it's important for states like my native state of West Virginia, where there's a lot of economic pain, that we make it clear to them that we're not going to ignore their voices, that their senior senator has a place not just in our caucus but in our leadership team," he told E&E News. "That's not a message we need to send just to West Virginia but other states as well where we did not do well."
Schumer also added Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose profile has been elevated greatly since his fight for the Democratic nomination with Clinton, to the leadership team.
Manchin told reporters his new role "says that we're the party of everybody — from me to Bernie."
The senator said he'll continue to press his "reasonable approach for an all-in energy policy" with leadership.
"I'm not going to pick winners and losers," he said. "But I'll make sure we go as clean as possible with technology and develop more technology."
Manchin also expressed confidence that Democratic leaders will support that effort.
"I don't think they brought me to be a yes person and I'm sure not a yes person," he said. "And I'm going to speak my mind when I think we can help move things forward that people agree with."Public support
Democrats yesterday acknowledged the new political landscape is daunting for environmental protection but said they strongly believe the American public stands with them in support for clean air and water and tackling climate change.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, pointed to French President François Hollande's recent remarks urging Trump to respect the Paris climate deal (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
"The international community is moving forward," Cardin told E&E News. "Americans are supportive of a lot of these environmental issues. I think from a political point of view, the politics of this will mitigate, hopefully negate some of the comments he's made on that front. It's going to be a challenge. But this is a very high priority for us, is to protect the advancements we've made and to try to build a stronger coalition in Congress, including with the Republicans."
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, noted strong support for public lands and protecting the environment, including among the so-called hook and bullet crowd.
"If any administration thinks they're going to start divesting us of a hundred year history of lands that belong to every American, they're going to have to do it over my dead body," he said yesterday. "There are a lot of people across the West in states like Montana and New Mexico and Arizona and Colorado who don't share my political philosophy who are very invested in these places. A lot of the conservation groups, a lot of the hunting and fishing groups, will be right there with us. We've fought these battles for a hundred years, we'll fight them again, and we'll win."
Environmentalists lauded Schumer's new team, with the League of Conservation Voters releasing a chart that contrasted the lifetime environmental scores between the Senate leaders of the two parties. Democrats' average score was 99 percent, while Republicans scored 1 percent.
"The contrast between the incoming Democratic and Republican leadership teams in the Senate is astonishing," LCV Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Tiernan Sittenfeld said in a statement.
"While Senator McConnell sides with polluters every step of the way, we are confident that Senator Schumer and his leadership will stand strong against the environmental attacks we know are coming. LCV is ready to go to the mat to defend both our cornerstone environmental protections and the recent progress we've made."
But in a sign of continuing tension among Democrats and their backers, Friends of the Earth issued a lukewarm statement on Carper's ascension to the top of the EPW Committee.
"It is no secret that Senator Carper has split from the environmental community on a few high profile issues like the Keystone XL pipeline," FOE's Climate and Energy Program Director Benjamin Schreiber said. "Moving forward we need to work together to focus on being unified in fighting back Trump's agenda. Ranking Member Carper must make it clear to the American people that he won't allow environmental rollbacks to happen on his watch."
Carper told E&E News that activists shouldn't view his promotion through the lens of a single issue.
"There are hundreds of environmental issues I've addressed as governor, congressman and 15, 16 years in the Senate," he said. "And I would ask that my entire record in protecting our environment be examined as well."
Carper also hinted at his own motto for the fight ahead.
"I'm going to remind people, if not every day but just about every day, that it's possible to protect our environment, protect our natural resources, to clean our air, to clean our water and still create jobs," he said.
"In the case of the last six years, 15 million of them — the longest running economic expansion in the history of the world," he said. "And we've made great progress on climate change, on clean water and clean air, and at the same time we've grown an enormous number of jobs and we're poised to create more."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/11/17/stories/1060045889
-
Nations to Quickly Follow U.S. on 2050 Low-Carbon Plans
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Nov. 16 — The Obama administration's Nov. 16 release of a plan showing how it can cut its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 will be met with similar low-carbon plans from European nations and even a few developing nations, all in the hope of pushing global investment dollars into clean energy.
The U.S. was joined by Canada and Mexico in releasing their so-called mid-century low-carbon strategies with just days to go at UN climate talks in Morocco. The U.K., Norway, the European Union and several EU member nations including France, Italy, Sweden and Germany also have plans under way, according to environmental ministers and groups watching the Marrakech talks.
Ultimately, the ministers said, they will be joined by several developing nations that also are mulling their own pathways for mid-century low-carbon development, including Costa Rica and Peru.
The U.S. plan shows various options for its 80 percent emissions cut—from 2005 levels—but all of those paths would require a dramatic shift in policies and research that embrace solar, wind and other renewable energy well beyond the reach of current U.S. energy policies.
A Look Ahead to 2018
The European nations, Peru, Costa Rica and other nations are slated to discuss their strategies Nov. 17 at the Marrakech talks; the hope is that in a few years, dozens of nations will have joined the U.S. in detailing their low-carbon economic development strategies, Laurence Tubiana, French climate change ambassador, told reporters Nov. 16. “I hope to see at least 25 country mid-century low emission pathways prepared,” Tubiana said, in time for arguably the next key date on the horizon for the Paris climate pact: 2018.
That's when the nearly 200 nations that reached the climate deal in December 2015 are to consider ratcheting up climate actions that even they admit are nowhere near what is needed to halt rising global temperatures.
The Nov. 7-18 UN summit in Morocco is largely focused on taking the first steps to implement the Paris pact, which entered into force just days before the Marrakech summit opened.
A Paris Pact Agenda Item
Nations were called to—but not required to—develop the 2050 decarbonization plans under the 2015 Paris Agreement, and the Obama administration has sought to position itself a leader in producing a detailed plan. The 111-page plan, the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, is long in detail and chocked full of analysis for future action. It also credits the Obama administration for cutting carbon pollution from energy 9 percent since 2008; the U.S. also is on track, the report says, to meet its pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.
But the actual U.S. commitment to fighting global climate change, and to the Paris Agreement itself, has been thrown into doubt by the election of President-elect Donald Trump, who vowed during the campaign to “cancel” U.S. participation in the Paris deal.
The report, the bulk of which was written before Trump's surprising Election Day win over Democrat Hillary Clinton, is, as expected, silent on what Trump's pledge to eliminate climate funding and U.S. climate regulations would do to efforts to meet the 80 percent U.S. emissions reduction goal outlined in the document.
Instead the report assumes future presidents will build on Obama's climate agenda. “Future administrations have authority under existing statutes to continue using similar tools with increasing ambition which, along with expanded action at the local, state and regional level, could build a pathway to 80 percent emissions reductions or more,” it says.
One Last Moment for Kerry
Outgoing Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, who arrived to the 22nd Conference of the Parties summit in Marrakech Nov. 16, are prodding Trump to maintain engaged in domestic and international climate efforts, even as he shows no signs of doing so. Kerry, in his final speech to UN climate negotiators after more than two decades of effort to push for climate action, said he is confident the U.S. drive toward more clean energy won't suffer a setback.
The last eight years have seen rapid development of U.S. wind and solar generation “and the reason… that will continue is that the marketplace will dictate that—not the government,” Kerry said Nov. 16. The U.S. is on track, Kerry said, for meeting its targets, including its 2025 pledge to cut emissions up to 28 percent from 2005 levels—“because of the market decisions that are being made,” he said. “I do not believe that can or will be reversed” in the next administration, the secretary said. But if the world fails to ramp up its actions in the coming decades, the consequences will be dire, he said.
“If we fall short, it will be the single greatest instance in modern history of a generation in a time of crisis abdicating responsibility for the future. And it won't just be a policy failure; because of the nature of this challenge, it will be a moral failure, a betrayal of devastating consequence,” he said.
A Warning of Dire Consequences
The U.S. mid-century report warns of “already severe” consequences—heat waves, worsening drought, longer wildfire seasons and more intense and unpredictable weather—from rising global temperatures, which have increased more than 0.8 degree Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past century. But if left unchecked, global greenhouse gas emissions are likely to drive temperatures up between 2 degrees Celsius and 5C (3.6F to 9F) with a sea level rise of between two to four feet, the report said. The prospect of a U.S. retreat from climate action has been met by a number of announcements at the Morocco talks from the private sector calling for support of the Paris Agreement.
A Nov. 16 statement, issued by a total of 365 businesses and investors—including more than a dozen Fortune 500 companies—called for continued engagement on the issue. “Implementing the Paris Climate Agreement will enable and encourage businesses and investors to turn the billions of dollars in existing low-carbon investments into the trillions of dollars the world needs” to expand clean energy, according to the statement from companies including DuPont, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, the Kellogg Co. and Unilever. “Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk,” it said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100666906&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100666906&jd=100666906
-
World's $100 Billion Climate Pledges Could Survive Trump Era
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Industrial nations are looking at how to deliver on a pledge to provide $100 billion a year in climate-related aid even if U.S. President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his pledge to stop supporting the fight against global warming.
Politicians, investors and observers from almost 200 countries gathering in Marrakech, Morocco, on Wednesday will discuss ways to raise money for projects that limit pollution and keep the international fight against climate change on track. Trump has said he will pull out of the Paris agreement that the U.S. endorsed last year under a United Nations process.
The U.S. is the richest of the major emitters of greenhouse gases and has promised more than $3 billion to the United Nations Green Climate Fund, a linchpin in the UN effort to help poorer countries cope with climate change. With Trump's campaign promises casting doubt over previous U.S. commitments, envoys in Marrakech are seeking to inject fresh momentum into the discussions.
“My personal view around this is that we will continue to meet our commitments,” Jonathan Pershing, U.S. special envoy on climate change, said in Marrakech. That “we” refers to the collective commitment of the international community, a spokeswoman for the U.S press team clarified by e-mail.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addresses delegates in Marrakech at 3 p.m. Wednesday, after which Xie Zhenhua of China will speak along with officials from the World Bank, UN Green Climate Fund and the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which represents funds managing $14 trillion.
The funding void that could be created by Trump's expected decision may be smaller than many Americans think, said Nicholas Stern, a member of the House of Lords in the U.K. and a former chief economist at the World Bank who will speak in Marrakech on Wednesday.
“The direct U.S. governmental contribution to the $100 billion was never going to be that large,” Stern, now a professor at the London School of Economics, said in an interview. “There wasn't great U.S. largess in all of this.”
More than 50 heads of state or government will meet in Marrakech to pursue ways of increasing climate finance. Estimates show that trillions of dollars will be required above the $100 billion target to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the target set by the UN. Some countries are expected to announce new pledges and initiatives while others will highlight work already undertaken.
More Pressure
The withdrawal of the U.S. would place more pressure on other rich nations to step up finance, UN Special Envoy on Climate Change Mary Robinson said in an interview.
“In a way the $100 billion is almost a distraction in amount,” she said. “We need much more than that. So the most effective thing is how we can see the public money used to de-risk investment, to encourage investment in developing countries, to have insurance as part of that de-risking, etc. And to ensure that countries that are building up their economy—meaning developing countries—don't have to go coal, mustn't go coal, mustn't go oil and gas, must go renewables. They can't do it unless they get the huge investment.”
So far, the U.S. has paid only $500 million of the $3 billion it pledged to the Green Climate Fund. Rich countries are set to meet their $100 billion goal, with aid reaching $62 billion in 2014, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Climate Policy Initiative. Much of the finance is expected to come from businesses and investors building on government spending.
The U.S. only contributed about 3 percent to the UN's Global Environment Facility climate funding program, its chief executive Naoko Ishii said in an interview. “I'm actually not much concerned about Trump. The climate financing picture is really more diverse.”
‘Contagious Disease’
Yet on a political level, Trump's election has created a major headache for world leaders and officials. Ravi Prasad, India's chief climate negotiator, told Bloomberg Bureau of National Affairs that a U.S. withdrawal from the process risked spreading “like a contagious disease” to other countries.
Small island states that are especially vulnerable to rising sea levels remain hopeful Trump won't follow through on his plans to scrap climate finance. Funding adaptation programs may reduce immigration, a key election issue, said Thoriq Ibrahim, Environment Minister for the Maldives and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.
“With climate change, there's a lot of people being dispersed to other nations and the new administration talks about security,” he said in an interview. “It's very important to have climate finance.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100666886&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100666886&jd=100666886
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested