Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/22/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Partnership To Boost Sustainable Management Of Plastics
Nov 22, 2016 | Recycling International
United States: The plastics division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has formed a new partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aimed at promoting sustainable materials management for plastics. -
(ACC Mentioned) API Announces New Certified Diesel Engine Oils
Nov 21, 2016 | Energy Global
By Rosalie Starling
On 1 December, the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) new diesel engine oil standards, API CK-4 and FA-4, will begin appearing in the marketplace on licensed products and marketing materials. This means consumers will be able to easily identify the API CK-4 or FA-4 category oils that are expected to be recommended in new owners’ manuals and by engine manufacturers. -
(ACC Blog) Silicones Help Make The Holidays A Little Less Stressful
Nov 21, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Karluss Thomas
This Thanksgiving, over 50 million Americans will travel to visit friends and family to enjoy our favorite comfort foods. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Nominates PHMSA Official for Chemical Safety Board Seat
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be returned to full capacity if the Senate confirms President Barack Obama's latest nomination. -
EPA Aims to Reassess Chemical in Aging School Light Fixtures
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency would examine whether polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fluorescent lights in schools and daycare centers pose unreasonable risks, under a proposed rule submitted to the White House regulatory review office. -
EPA Sends School Lights PCB Rule For OMB Review
Nov 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review a proposed rule to change the way it regulates the use of fluorescent light ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in schools and daycares, the first of two rules governing liquid PCBs that grew out of a 2010 advance notice of proposed rulemaking. -
California Proposes Restriction On Copper Antifouling Paint
Nov 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
California's Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has proposed a new regulation requiring all new copper-based antifouling paint and coating (AFP) products to submit the estimated mean copper release rate of the product when registering. -
FDA Ban on Perfluorinated Chemicals in Packaging Extended
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Food and Drug Administration is extending a ban on the use of perfluorinated degreasing chemicals in food packaging, completing a partial ban on the chemicals it had enacted earlier this year. -
Global Chemical-Listing Project Results Posted by OECD
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Early results of a pilot project that sets the ground rules for developing a global harmonized list of classified chemicals have been announced by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. -
European Commission Consults On Two RoHS Exemptions
Nov 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has launched consultations on two exemption requests from restrictions under the RoHS Directive. -
Potential Interior, DOE Picks Prompt Outcry
Nov 21, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender and Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump's meetings today with possible Interior and Energy secretary picks have already sparked a backlash from the left. -
Methane Limits, Fracking Study Addressed by EPA Head
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Williams
The leader of the Environmental Protection Agency said Nov. 21 she looks forward to updating the incoming administration on the EPA's progress. -
'Train' Has Left Station On Clean Energy, Climate — McCarthy
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus,
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy rallied today for her agency and the U.S. role in combating climate change. -
Co-Ops' Lawyer Suggests Trump DOJ Could Seek To Delay ESPS Ruling
Nov 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Officials representing rural power cooperatives fighting EPA's existing power plant greenhouse gas rule are suggesting the Department Of Justice (DOJ) under the incoming Trump administration could ask the appellate court reviewing the rule to postpone its pending decision to give the new administration time to consider rule changes. -
States Take Varied Approaches to Malfunction Emissions Rule
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
States are planning very different responses to a 2015 Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring revisions to their emissions mitigation plans, with some opting for a path that will likely draw litigation from environmental advocates. -
States, Industry Criticize EPA Rationale For Utility MACT Cost Assessment
Nov 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and power industry groups are criticizing EPA's rationale for its assessment finding that its utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule was “appropriate and necessary” even after reviewing the regulation's costs, saying it is based on flawed logic and urging an appellate court to scrap it. -
Regional Climate Program Considers New Reserve Mechanism
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The nine states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative want to ensure that emissions continue to decrease even when carbon allowance prices drop as part of a new reserve mechanism being considered for the cap-and-trade program. -
GOP States Urge Trump To Scale Back EPA Rules, Enforcement
Nov 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
Five Republican-led states are urging President-elect Donald Trump to scale back EPA's rulemaking and enforcement efforts, calling on the incoming administration to “return environmental leadership to the states” by abandoning what they describe as unnecessary or duplicative action such as the Obama administration's climate agenda. -
McCarthy Says Pressure From States, Public Will Drive Trump EPA Agenda
Nov 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is predicting that pressure from states and the public to address environmental concerns will help drive the agenda of President-elect Donald Trump's EPA, despite his campaign pledge to scale back the agency and calls from GOP officials and others to restrict EPA's regulatory and enforcement efforts. -
Climate Policy in the Age of Trump
Nov 21, 2016 | RealClear Energy
By Jay Hakes
American and global efforts to slow the pace of climate change have taken a long time to gel and only recently have begun to show significant results. -
Experts: Trump Focus On Climate Deal Exit Could Be Foreign Policy Error
Nov 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
President-elect Donald Trump's move to put an advocate of withdrawing the U.S. from the U.N. climate change talks at the helm of his State Department hand-off team shows he's dead set on keeping his promise to kill the Paris agreement — a move some experts say could be a foreign policy misstep.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Partnership To Boost Sustainable Management Of Plastics
Nov 22, 2016 | Recycling International
United States: The plastics division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has formed a new partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aimed at promoting sustainable materials management for plastics.
The two bodies will work together to lower disposal rates by tracking and promotion of activities that enable source reduction, reuse, recycling and prevention.
They will also look to enhance stakeholders’ capacity to implement sustainable materials management through technical assistance.
‘We are excited to work with EPA to advance the adoption of sustainable materials management among plastics makers, brand owners, retailers, policy-makers and others,’ comments ACC’s vice president of plastics Steve Russell. ‘By relying on a full evaluation of a material’s life cycle, sustainable materials management can help us make more informed choices that conserve resources and reduce overall environmental impacts.’
Through this partnership, the EPA joins the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) campaign - a public-private partnership with the goal of increasing plastic wrap and bag recycling through public education and the sharing of tools and best practices.
‘More than 18 000 stores across the United States collect plastic film for recycling, but many consumers are not aware of this opportunity,’ it is pointed out.
http://www.recyclinginternational.com/recycling-news/10125/plastic-and-rubber/united-states/us-partnership-boost-sustainable-management-plastics
-
(ACC Mentioned) API Announces New Certified Diesel Engine Oils
Nov 21, 2016 | Energy Global
By Rosalie Starling
On 1 December, the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) new diesel engine oil standards, API CK-4 and FA-4, will begin appearing in the marketplace on licensed products and marketing materials. This means consumers will be able to easily identify the API CK-4 or FA-4 category oils that are expected to be recommended in new owners’ manuals and by engine manufacturers.
Earlier this year, API’s Lubricants Group approved the new API CK-4 and FA-4 specifications to address the varying needs of engine technologies – ageing, new, and in use, both on and off highway – and to help diesel engine manufacturers meet more stringent emissions requirements.
“1 December is an industry milestone as it marks the first day new API CK-4 and FA-4 engine oils can be marketed and sold on retail shelves or in bulk,” said Kevin Ferrick, Senior Manager of API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS). “The time between approval of the categories last winter and the first licensing on 1 December gave large, medium, and small oil marketers the ability to test their new formulations and ready them for market. This signals the culmination of almost nine years of cross-industry collaboration in the development of the new standards.”
API CK-4 oils will replace current API CJ-4 engine oils and will be backward compatible with most applications where engine manufacturers currently recommend CJ-4. The new CK-4 oils will provide a number of improvements over CJ-4, including improved shear stability, oxidation resistance, and aeration control. API FA-4 oils will provide similar improvements over CJ-4 oils, but it is important to note that FA-4 oils are only intended for use in newer on-highway diesel engines. FA-4 oils will have limited or no backward compatibility with on and off highway diesel engines where engine manufacturers recommended CJ-4. While not specifically backward compatible, FA-4 oils are expected to play an important role in some current and new diesel engines by protecting those engines and at the same time helping them meet more stringent emissions requirements.
CK-4 and FA-4 oils are designed for different applications. This means technicians and consumers will need to check their owner’s manuals or with engine manufacturers to determine which oil is right for their vehicle. API developed two visually different API Service Symbol Donuts so that consumers can easily distinguish between the two categories. The new API FA-4 Donut features a shaded section to differentiate API FA-4 oils from CK-4 oils. The API CK-4 Donut will look the same as the current CJ-4 Donut.API CK-4 and FA-4 background
These new oil standards were developed to better protect new and older engines, improve engine oil performance, and help engine manufacturers meet 2017 government emissions standards. CK-4 and FA-4 improve upon existing standards by providing enhanced protection against oil oxidation and engine wear, particulate filter blocking, piston deposits, and degradation of low and high temperature properties. The new categories are the result of several years of collaboration between engine manufacturers, API’s Lubricants Group, the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
https://www.energyglobal.com/downstream/refining/21112016/api-announces-new-certified-diesel-engine-oils/
-
(ACC Blog) Silicones Help Make The Holidays A Little Less Stressful
Nov 21, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Karluss Thomas
This Thanksgiving, over 50 million Americans will travel to visit friends and family to enjoy our favorite comfort foods. Though you may get frustrated sitting in traffic, standing in security lines at the airport, or trying to coordinate the cooking of all your holiday dishes, silicones help make your travel and cooking experiences a little easier.
Silicone materials are frequently used in many different aspects of automobiles, including tires, engines, windows, and airbags. The use of silicones contributes to increased safety and reductions in traffic fatalities—especially important during the holidays with so many extra cars clogging our roadways.
Because silicones stand up to the heat under the hood they protect components which contribute to increased fuel efficiency and lower emissions. When you’re stuck in traffic, the last thing you want to see is your gas light!
In airplanes, silicones are often used in an array of applications from the cockpit to the cargo hold. Just like in automobiles, the use of durable silicone materials help increase plane fuel efficiency.
Silicones aren’t only used in transportation—these materials are used in a myriad of applications. Many Thanksgiving cooks will rely on silicone cooking and baking products for tasks like whisking gravy, baking bread, and taking the turkey out of the oven. Because silicones are both flexible and extremely resistant to temperature changes, they are used in potholders, spatulas, baking pans, and many other helpful kitchen tools.
Not a chef? Silicones are used in many of the electronic devices we use to keep up with Thanksgiving football scores and connect with the family and friends we’re not able to see in person. The use of silicones materialsis key to long-term performance of many, increasingly small, portable, and sophisticated electronic devices, such as smart phones and tablets.
You can learn more about the many benefits of silicones in these and other applications, including construction, energy, healthcare, and consumer products, at our new website SiliconesBenefits.com.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/11/silicones-help-make-the-holidays-a-little-less-stressful/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Nominates PHMSA Official for Chemical Safety Board Seat
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be returned to full capacity if the Senate confirms President Barack Obama's latest nomination.
Obama nominated Rachel Meidl, the deputy associate administrator for policy and programs at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and a former American Chemistry Council official, as a CSB member, the White House announced Nov. 18.
As director of regulatory and technical affairs at the ACC from August 2012 to July 2015, Meidl weighed in on behalf of the trade group in public comments to agencies developing chemical safety rules to argue for fewer, simpler regulations — positions similar to those taken by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and incoming Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
While the CSB does not have the authority to propose its own regulations, a growing industry tilt on the board could mean future reports and safety recommendations would be less likely to promote far-reaching regulatory changes to prevent chemical safety incidents.
Before joining the chemical industry group, Meidl worked as a senior field chemistry and contract manager at Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc. in San Diego and as an environmental and hazmat specialist at the University of California, San Diego. She received a doctorate of law and public policy in international law and hazardous waste management from Northeastern University and also holds degrees from the University of Denver, National University and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, according to her LinkedIn profile.
Senate confirmation may be difficult during the lame-duck session, as the Senate is expected to meet as little as two more weeks this year.
A spokeswoman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee did not respond to a request for comment Nov. 21 on whether the committee would review Meidl's nomination. Meidl did not respond to a request for comment Nov. 21.
Pushed Against New Regulations
Meidl prepared public comments opposing several workplace and chemical safety regulations during her time at the ACC. The comments included opposing a proposed OSHA rule to require additional tracking of workplaces injuries and illnesses (RIN:1218-AC49), raising doubts about OSHA's process safety management program overhaul and urging an interagency group on chemical safety to focus on simpler changes.
In reponse to OSHA's request for information on its process safety management program, Meidl warned the changes marked “a drastic departure from the current PSM regulatory framework without corresponding benefits to workplace or employee safety.”
Meidl also urged OSHA, EPA and other agencies in an interagency working group on chemical safety to refrain from regulatory changes to increase safety. Instead, Meidl wrote, agencies could best improve safety “through increased PSM awareness, training and enforcement for outlier companies.”
The nomination was a “very troubling appointment for preventing chemical disasters,” Greenpeace Legislative Director Rick Hind said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA Nov. 21, given Meidl's industry background.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100805071&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100805071&jd=100805071
-
EPA Aims to Reassess Chemical in Aging School Light Fixtures
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency would examine whether polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fluorescent lights in schools and daycare centers pose unreasonable risks, under a proposed rule submitted to the White House regulatory review office.
The EPA drafted the proposed rule (RIN 2070-AK12) to address a problem schools around the country are facing.
All PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts—used to regulate power flows—in schools have exceeded their life span, making them susceptible to leaking or rupturing, according to the EPA.
Children's neurological systems are vulnerable to PCBs. Motor skill impairment, difficulties with short-term memory recall and immune problems have been reported in the children of women exposed to the chemicals, according to information from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Control Registry.
Fluorescent light ballasts in buildings had been excluded from EPA's 1979 PCB ban for reasons including the understanding that their PCB-concentration was below 50 parts per million. The agency says it has learned, however, that many ballasts contain PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or higher.
“Thus, many schools and other building owners are now facing an unauthorized use of PCBs that has been present in their buildings for many years,” EPA says in a brief description of its rulemaking. “EPA is required to make a finding that the authorized use will not present an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100805065&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100805065&jd=100805065
-
EPA Sends School Lights PCB Rule For OMB Review
Nov 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review a proposed rule to change the way it regulates the use of fluorescent light ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in schools and daycares, the first of two rules governing liquid PCBs that grew out of a 2010 advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) received the Reassessment of Use Authorizations for PCBs in Small Capacitors in Fluorescent Light Ballasts in Schools and Daycares Nov. 18, according to OMB's website. White House review generally takes 90 days but can take longer, especially during changes of administration.
EPA in the 2010 notice sought public comments on whether to further curtail the allowed uses of PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act because of concerns that cleanup and disposal costs may increase as the remaining PCB-containing products still in use begin to reach an age where they can no longer be safely used.
The agency said it is concerned about the release of high concentrations of PCBs from fluorescent light ballasts, particularly in public buildings, such as schools. “There are anecdotal accounts of spills from this source and anecdotal information that PCB fluorescent light ballasts have a lifetime of less than 10 years,” the notice said, referencing a 1998 spill at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, ND, where leaking ballasts were found in an elementary school, administration building, high school library, and several Bureau of Indian Affairs buildings on the reservation.
EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker projects the rule will be proposed in March.
Separately, EPA has been developing a rule on liquid PCBs in electric equipment, improvements to the existing use authorization for natural gas pipelines; and definitional and other regulatory fixes. EPA's regulatory tracker projects this rule, also stemming from the 2010 notice, will be proposed in November 2017.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-sends-school-lights-pcb-rule-omb-review
-
California Proposes Restriction On Copper Antifouling Paint
Nov 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
California's Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has proposed a new regulation requiring all new copper-based antifouling paint and coating (AFP) products to submit the estimated mean copper release rate of the product when registering.
The proposal would also establish a maximum leach rate for copper-based AFP products already registered in California. Currently registered products that exceed the new rate would be subject to cancellation from 1 July 2018.
AFP products are typically used coatings on commercial and recreational boats. In 2006, the DPR initiated a study of sediment from 23 California marinas. This found that dissolved copper concentrations in saltwater and brackish water marinas often exceeded the US EPA's California Toxics Rule (CTR) copper water quality standards.
Based on these results, the DPR concluded that copper-based AFP products applied to recreational vessels are probably a major source of dissolved copper in salt and brackish water marinas, particularly during dry weather periods. The elevated levels of copper can be harmful to marine life, most notably salmon.
Comments on the proposed regulation will be accepted until 4 January 2017.
Copper-based antifouling paints are the subject of an alternatives assessment project in nearby Washington state.
The Department of Ecology has partnered with NGO Northwest Green Chemistry to identify and evaluate alternatives. These include biocidal antifouling and foul release paints, as well as innovative non-paint non-biocide technologies. The project is a response to a 2011 law passed by the state requiring the phase out of copper-based antifouling paints on recreational vessels less than 65 feet in length by 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51158/california-proposes-restriction-on-copper-antifouling-paint
-
FDA Ban on Perfluorinated Chemicals in Packaging Extended
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Food and Drug Administration is extending a ban on the use of perfluorinated degreasing chemicals in food packaging, completing a partial ban on the chemicals it had enacted earlier this year.
The administration's action, scheduled to become official in a Nov. 22 notice in the Federal Register, means food companies are now prohibited from using any perfluorinated chemical, or PFC, in their packaging. PFCs were used in pizza boxes, takeout containers and fast-food wrappers to prevent grease from leaking through.
In January, the FDA removed three PFCs from its list of approved food contact substances. The administration had conducted scientific reviews of the chemicals and found concerning risks with their toxicity and their persistence in the environment.
Now, at the request of the company 3M, the FDA is also removing the remaining two PFC chemicals that were still on the list. The company was the sole manufacturer of these two chemicals, and it told the FDA that it had long ago stopped making them.
The FDA is taking this action not because these chemicals are unsafe but, rather, because no one makes them anymore, according to Kyra Douglas, director of global regulatory affairs at plastics industry trade group SPI. “These materials are no longer manufactured for food-contact applications and represent old technology,” Douglas said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
David Andrews, a scientist with Environmental Working Group, one of the advocacy groups that has been pushing the FDA to ban PFCs, said this is an action the administration should have taken long ago. “It's embarrassing its taken this long,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
Andrews said even though this move won't affect any current products on the market since PFCs are no longer used, it will likely prevent a company in the future from resurrecting the chemical and putting it back into use.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100805064&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100805064&jd=100805064
-
Global Chemical-Listing Project Results Posted by OECD
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Early results of a pilot project that sets the ground rules for developing a global harmonized list of classified chemicals have been announced by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
In 2014, the OECD agreed to contribute expertise to United Nations work on harmonized classification and labeling of chemicals as part of a plan for a new “specialized” service to replace OECD's chemical hazard assessment program for high-production-volume chemicals, which was known as CoCAP and shut down in 2014.
The OECD said in 2014 that no global system existed that allowed searching for chemicals that have minor differences in their endpoints.
So a first step was for the Paris-based organization to gather all existing national classification and labeling databases into an easily searchable system within the OECD's eChem portal, a new version of which it launched in 2015. That tool allows users to search for classifications of chemicals according to the U.N. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). For a given chemical, the tool makes it possible to search for how different countries classify essentially the same chemical.
Ground Rules
The new pilot project, a joint effort with the U.N., aims to evaluate the possibility of going further, to have a global, harmonized list rather than just a collection of all the different classifications. The effort draws on expertise that OECD gained in evaluating chemicals in the 25 years of the CoCAP program, which generated more than 1,200 hazard assessments of high production volume chemicals.
The new report said the pilot work aimed to set out ground rules for the effort, such as defining a process for figuring out how much effort will be required to create and maintain a global, harmonized list. The participants agreed to track time spent reviewing data and preparing the assessment, on classification, reviewing and responding to comments, and in discussions with the working group on the classifications.
They also agreed they should provide insight into expertise needed to classify chemicals against various endpoints, processes to be used for evaluating data and making recommendations on a classification, and the process to be used to finalize and update a classification.
Evaluations should consider the physical state of the substance, how to assess acute toxicity, skin and eye irritation, exposure and environmental hazards, it said.
Time-Consuming Process
The project demonstrated that it was possible to “move toward agreement” on proposed classification and labeling, as consensus was reached on draft conclusions for three substances, in a non-binding environment. “However, an on-average 38 days was spent drafting and updating reports per sponsor, and an average five days spent reviewing the reports per reviewer; this is feasible only with the sustained commitment of time and resources by countries and other interested parties,” it said.
The report includes a template for proposals for classification and labeling. The time from when the chemicals were selected to when the classification and labeling reports were completed ranged from 18 to 20 months, it said.
The OECD released the projects’ non-binding proposals for classifying and labeling dimethyltin dichloride, dicyclopentadiene and dibutyl phthalate.
The results will be submitted to the U.N. Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonised System for consideration in their deliberations on the potential development of a global list of classified chemicals, OECD said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100805074&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100805074&jd=100805074
-
European Commission Consults On Two RoHS Exemptions
Nov 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has launched consultations on two exemption requests from restrictions under the RoHS Directive.
DG Environment has commissioned consultancy BiPRO to give technical assistance on evaluating the applications and related stakeholder consultations, for:cadmium in video cameras designed for use in environments exposed to ionising radiation; andlead and cadmium in PVC profiles of electric windows and doors.
BiPRO has prepared stakeholder questionnaires for each request. The consultation will run until 9 December.
The RoHS Directive restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. In June a reevaluation of two uses of cadmium recommended three-year exemptions from a ban.
This story was amended on 22 November to clarify that the consultations were launched by the European Commission's DG Environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51122/european-commission-consults-on-two-rohs-exemptions
-
Potential Interior, DOE Picks Prompt Outcry
Nov 21, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender and Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump's meetings today with possible Interior and Energy secretary picks have already sparked a backlash from the left.
Trump was scheduled to meet with Oklahoma Republican Gov. Mary Fallin and former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who are rumored contenders to become Interior and Energy secretaries, respectively.
Environmentalists were quick to paint the potential nominees as industry cronies who would seek to dismantle environmental regulations and push energy extraction on public lands.
"Breaking campaign promises, Donald Trump is quickly building a corrupt Cabinet of special interest executives and their paid-for politicians," said Greenpeace spokeswoman Cassady Craighill.
Craighill called Fallin a "fracking industry shill and critic of basic public health measures like the Clean Power Plan." The Fallin and Perry possibilities, she added, "provide evidence that a Trump administration will work against science, renewable energy job growth and the American people. To drain a swamp, you don't hire a team of gators and muskrats. These appointments will be met with opposition as they represent the opposite of who should be in charge of our public lands and energy."
Before she took office as Oklahoma's governor in 2011, Fallin served in the House of Representatives, where she was on the Natural Resources Committee. She's seen as a staunch supporter of the oil and natural gas industries, and bills herself as a backer of renewable sources like wind energy as well as energy efficiency.
The League of Conservation Voters has given Fallin a lifetime score of just 4 percent, based on her voting record in the House.
Fallin spokesman Michael McNutt said the governor's meeting with Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence included a discussion of "possibly serving in their administration," and they talked about the Interior Department, but there was "no offer given."
One environmental advocate said Fallin's background raises flags for the conservation community.
"The extractive industry in Oklahoma is king; it runs just about everything. It is not exactly the balanced sort of individual background I think you'd be looking for to manage the nation's iconic parks and public lands."
That person expected the environmental community to be "staunchly opposed" to any of Trump's Interior picks. "It's hard for me to see a situation where the environmental community is going to support or even be willing to consider a Trump nominee for Interior if it's any of the names that have been floated."
Bill Horn, a former Reagan administration Interior official who is now an attorney, said opposition is expected, but he welcomed Fallin's resume.
She's "not noteworthy for anything off the wall, radical or crazy," Horn said.
"I think governors can do a pretty good job because they've got executive experience," he said, noting that managing the sweeping agency is "always a challenge."
If Fallin gets the job, "you'd probably find a renewed focus at [the Bureau of Land Management] on leasing programs, both coal leasing and mineral leasing for oil and gas, that kind of work," Horn added. "That's probably the dominant focus that you would expect coming from a state like Oklahoma."Perry
Perry's potential appointment as Department of Energy boss prompted similar criticisms. He became the butt of jokes five years ago when he forgot the name of the agency he wanted to eliminate in a nationally televised presidential debate: DOE (Greenwire, Nov. 21).
Andrew Dobbs, program director with Texas Campaign for the Environment, said Perry has "disregarded human health and the environment in every position he's ever been trusted with." Dobbs said the prospect of Perry taking over at DOE is "deeply concerning and puts all living things in this country and around the world at risk."
Other Texas environmental advocates see the former governor's record as more of a mixed bag.
Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Perry is generally someone who as governor tended to see the industry's side of things. But Reed quickly noted the former governor had a hand in boosting Texas' wind industry.
Perry, he said, supported a program that allowed local communities to provide property tax breaks to manufacturers — as well as wind and solar farms — in return for local contributions. Perry also approved legislation in 2005 that increased the state's renewable portfolio standard and created corridors for high-voltage transmission that supported renewable energy development, Reed said. The state now has a growing clean energy sector.
"I do give him credit because he didn't listen to the naysayers that said we couldn't do this, that said it was too grandiose," he said. "It was actually far more successful than people imagined it would be, and we now have something like 18,000 megawatts of wind installed by the end of this year."
But Reed said the former governor did take steps to fast-track the permitting and construction of coal-fired power plants in 2007, fueled by assertions that the state was energy-poor and vulnerable to shortages. A Texas judge would ultimately block permits that Perry issued, ruling that the governor didn't have the authority to speed up the review process (Greenwire, Feb. 21, 2007).
Perry's policy reflected his strong support from the fossil sector, Reed said, adding that the former governor has also been skeptical of the science behind human-induced climate change.
"It would be wrong to call him a pro-renewable greenie by any stretch of the imagination," he said. "He wouldn't be our first choice, and we are concerned about putting someone who's been a climate skeptic, or at least not an embracer of the idea, at the head of the Department of Energy."
Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, joked today that Perry might get the job "if he can remember where it is."
If he becomes Energy secretary, "Rick Perry is going to try to really push fracking and not worry very much, at all rather, about the enormous environmental consequences associated with the methane emissions or the water contamination or the frack-quakes," Smith said. Still, Smith lauded Perry's record on wind production, which he said could be a large part of Trump's planned infrastructure build-out.
Despite what he called Perry's "mixed record" on energy, Smith thinks the negatives outweigh the positives.
"If Rick Perry becomes Energy secretary, I won't be celebrating Thanksgiving this year," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/21/stories/1060046110
-
Methane Limits, Fracking Study Addressed by EPA Head
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Williams
The leader of the Environmental Protection Agency said Nov. 21 she looks forward to updating the incoming administration on the EPA's progress.
“I'm looking forward to a smooth transition so they can see the breadth of the work the agency and how well we've done our jobs,” Gina McCarthy said following a speech at the National Press Club.
But in response to a question, McCarthy said the EPA had not yet been contacted by the transition team of President-elect Donald Trump.
During her speech, she provided an update on current matters under consideration at the EPA.
She said no timeline exists for proposing limits on methane emissions from existing oil and gas wells.
The agency has asked oil and gas companies to provide data on the emissions, technology solutions and the cost of plugging those leaks, with information designed to guide future rulemaking, in light of requirements on new oil and gas wells the EPA already has imposed.
Fracking Study
McCarthy also addressed Science Advisory Board criticism of EPA findings on hydraulic fracturing's impact on drinking water. The criticism was directed at an EPA statement that there is no evidence fracking led to “widespread, systemic” impacts on drinking water.
She said the advisory board was “fractured” on the subject but added, “We are certainly going to listen to the direction of the Science Advisory Board.”
First Post-Election Speech
The speech was the first major address for McCarthy's since the election of Trump, who has vowed to rescind what he considers job-killing rules. He also has referred to climate change as a hoax.
“The train to a global, clean energy future has already left the station,” McCarthy said, noting many states are on track to meet Clean Power Plan goals well ahead of deadlines.
“History will show that the Clean Power Plan marked a turning point in American climate leadership, a point when our country stepped up to the plate and delivered and the rest of the world followed us.”
But the global transformation “is much more than any one regulation,” she said.
In her prepared remarks, McCarthy highlighted what she said are the administration's major regulatory achievements on the environment, including:
• greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks,
• methane standards for landfills and new oil and gas production,
• two historic international agreements to lower carbon emissions from aircraft, and
• leading the U.S. delegation that amended an international agreement to reduce hydrofluorocarbons.
“And, of course, we took historic action to set sensible carbon pollution limits at our largest stationary sources—our power plants—through the Clean Power Plan,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100805080&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100805080&jd=100805080
-
'Train' Has Left Station On Clean Energy, Climate — McCarthy
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus,
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy rallied today for her agency and the U.S. role in combating climate change.
At a National Press Club luncheon, McCarthy touted EPA's work during the Obama administration on drafting new regulations to provide clean air and water, as well as the agency's expansive role in international climate agreements, such as last year's negotiations in Paris and the Montreal Protocol for controlling hydrofluorocarbons.
She also dismissed worries that much of EPA's work under President Obama will be wiped clean from the history books by President-elect Donald Trump, noting the private sector had already begun moving to clean energy and a low-carbon economy long before EPA issued its controversial Clean Power Plan to reduce power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
"The train to a global, clean energy future has already left the station," McCarthy said, echoing remarks last week in an E&E News interview (EnergyWire, Nov. 21).
In her speech, in which she never mentioned Trump by name, McCarthy said the United States has a choice: either to get on board that clean energy train or be left behind. The EPA chief said Obama chose to lead, given climate change is among the deadliest threats facing mankind today.
McCarthy said that before the Obama administration, "developing countries would point a finger at" the United States for stalling on climate change.
"Now they are wondering if the U.S. will turn its back on science and be left behind. That is the choice we face," McCarthy said.
She began her speech noting how the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 — by unanimous consent in the Senate, with only one vote against it in the House and signed by a Republican president, Richard Nixon. The EPA leader said such bipartisan agreement is possible even today, describing eventually how easily the Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill moved through Congress and was signed by Obama this year.
McCarthy applauded the law, saying it was the first update to an environmental statute in 20 years.
"We can make things work in Washington if we choose to focus on the job we are given," McCarthy said.
McCarthy took questions after her speech on a wide range of topics, including several on what she thinks Trump will ultimately do with the agency. The president-elect has questioned the science behind climate change and pledged to tamp down EPA authority once in office.
Asked to name one regulation to save from Trump's wrath, McCarthy joked, "You're asking me to pick among my children?"
The EPA administrator said despite promises from Republicans to cut down the agency, the American people will still be wanting its services.
"People will still want the same things that they have always wanted, and that is a bright future for their kids," McCarthy said.
The EPA chief said she and her staff are working to ensure a smooth transition to the incoming Trump administration, but said EPA has not been contacted yet by the president-elect's transition team. After some shakeups in staff post-Election Day, Trump's agency landing teams are expected to arrive at the Energy and Interior departments as well as other agencies this week (Greenwire, Nov. 21).
McCarthy's question-and-answer session was interrupted twice by protestors, one calling for her position on whether to build the Dakota Access oil pipeline and the other asking for a meeting with the EPA chief to discuss the link between contaminated drinking water and hydraulic fracturing, holding aloft a bottle of cloudy, brownish water. Both protesters were led out of the room.
Regarding the pipeline, McCarthy didn't offer a position but said, "It's not an issue that is off our radar screen in any way." She noted that she and Obama have visited Standing Rock in North Dakota. McCarthy said the other protester was "a good example of how people continue to be passionate about having clean water and clean air."
"It bodes well for the continued mission of EPA and the work that we do," McCarthy said, adding she wished the agency could meet everyone's needs.
Asked whether she had any advice for whoever succeeds her as EPA administrator, McCarthy said the new chief should keep his or her eyes open to agency employees.
"My advice is to listen to the great staff of EPA," she said. "They are expert in these issues."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/21/stories/1060046111
-
Co-Ops' Lawyer Suggests Trump DOJ Could Seek To Delay ESPS Ruling
Nov 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Officials representing rural power cooperatives fighting EPA's existing power plant greenhouse gas rule are suggesting the Department Of Justice (DOJ) under the incoming Trump administration could ask the appellate court reviewing the rule to postpone its pending decision to give the new administration time to consider rule changes.
The scenario is one option that rule opponents may have to derail the power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS), even without immediately blocking it. The scenario would postpone a court decision that a wide range of observers have predicted could be resolved in EPA's favor.
But it is not entirely clear whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would agree to such a request, since it has already convened an unusual full court review to hear the case and concluded oral argument in Sept. 27.
Tom Lorenzen, a Crowell and Moring attorney representing the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) in the litigation, suggested during a Nov. 17 press call that a Trump DOJ could ask for a delay in the suit, West Virginia et al. v. EPA, et al. He noted that the incoming administration will have an opportunity to revisit Obama administration regulations.
“Traditionally, these sorts of transitions offer opportunities for new administrations to come in and rethink rules that have previously been finalized and determine whether they need to be tweaked, revised or revoked,” Lorenzen said. “Something very similar certainly could happen here, though we certainly don't know yet.”
Lorenzen added that in litigation that is pending during an administration transition, “if no decision has yet been issued, the Department of Justice will usually ask the court to hold the case in abeyance for a while and forgo issuing a decision while the administration considers what it intends to do going forward. Does it want to reopen the rule? Does it want to undertake a new rulemaking? And those opportunities are present here.”
However, he added: “I think we will need to see what the administration announces as it continues to put its transition team together and put its cabinet members in place.”
Despite his recent comments, Lorenzen co-authored a recent article for the American Bar Association that appears to downplay the impact that any change in DOJ's policy stance during an administration transition might have on pending litigation.
The article says that “a new president could instruct [DOJ] to decline to continue to defend the rule, as President Obama did in the case involving the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Such an action would inform the reviewing court of the new administration’s policy position but may not have much practical effect as states and other groups supporting the Clean Power Plan could continue to defend the rule. In short, the rule could be upheld by the courts, notwithstanding the executive branch’s decision not to defend it.”
The article adds that revoking an earlier rule in a subsequent rulemaking “is neither easy nor quick, and judicial invalidation of any new rule replacing the Clean Power Plan with something less stringent remains a considerable threat. A new administration also would typically need to consider whether business decisions have already been made in response to the Clean Power Plan, but that may not be relevant in light of the Supreme Court stay.”
Transition Talks
NRECA CEO Jim Matheson on the same call acknowledged communication between his group and the Trump transition team, but downplayed the idea that this specific litigation scenario has come up in those conversations.
A DOJ-sought delay in the case would add yet another new wrinkle to the legal battle, in which the D.C. Circuit is considering numerous claims challenging the legality of the ESPS.
The case has already produced numerous surprises, including a decision by the D.C. Circuit not to convene a three-judge panel, as is customary, but proceed immediately to full en banc review. That move came after the Supreme Court in another highly unusual decision in February stayed the ESPS even before the lower court had issued its ruling.
Both twists came before Trump's surprise victory upended expectations that a potential Hillary Clinton administration would defend the ESPS and appoint Supreme Court justices inclined to uphold it.
Whether or not DOJ acts as Lorenzen suggests, EPA foes are already suggesting that a Trump administration could move quickly to rescind the rule -- perhaps in cooperation with the Republican Congress.
At the same time, most Democrats and environmentalists are vowing to resist efforts to undermine environmental rules or statutes, and observers also note that market trends are already driving the kind of GHG reductions in the power sector that the ESPS had been expected to generate.
Neither Lorenzen nor Matheson during the press call indicated whether NRECA would seek such action by DOJ to delay a D.C. Circuit decision. Lorenzen said that “in some respects, this is in the [Trump] DOJ's hands right now,” if the court does not issue a ruling before Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration.
But any move to reconsider the rule raises the question of what a Trump administration would propose to replace it with. “We do not see or advocate a particular replacement,” Matheson said. “We would like to see this go away.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/co-ops-lawyer-suggests-trump-doj-could-seek-delay-esps-ruling
-
States Take Varied Approaches to Malfunction Emissions Rule
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
States are planning very different responses to a 2015 Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring revisions to their emissions mitigation plans, with some opting for a path that will likely draw litigation from environmental advocates.
The EPA gave 36 states until Nov. 22 to submit a revised state implementation plan for addressing excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The agency required them to remove previously approved language that exempts industrial facilities from compliance with emissions standards during those periods and affirmative defense provisions that shielded those facilities from being assessed civil penalties associated with any violations resulting from unavoidable equipment malfunctions.
In advance of that deadline, Bloomberg BNA surveyed state environmental agencies on their planned responses to the rule, which is known as a SIP Call. While some states opted to simply remove language the EPA identified as being deficient, other states established work practice standards that industrial facilities can comply with instead of numerical emissions limits, an approach opposed by environmental advocates. In addition, several states, including Iowa, Alabama and West Virginia, told Bloomberg BNA that they won't meet the EPA's response deadline.
Environmental advocates are keeping a close eye on those state responses, as well as the EPA's eventual decisions on whether to approve or disapprove of the revised state plans, decisions that likely will be left for President-elect Donald Trump's administration. Seth Johnson, an Earthjustice attorney involved in litigation over the SIP Call rule (RIN 2060-AR68), indicated environmental organizations are prepared to step in with lawsuits if the EPA is slow to act on the state plans or if the agency approves revisions that are inconsistent with the law.
“The administration got this one right on the law and on the policy,” Johnson told Bloomberg BNA. “If there's backsliding, we'll be there to hammer them.”
Exemptions, Defense Provisions Disallowed
Those possible lawsuits would add to a long history of litigation over exemptions and affirmative defenses under the Clean Air Act. The EPA based its justification for the SIP Call on federal court decisions and many states and industry organizations are challenging the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Walter Coke Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1166, 6/12/15).
The exemptions and affirmative defense provisions included in the state implementation plans were at one time approved by the EPA as a way to address startup and shutdown periods, when pollution controls are not as effective as during normal operation, and during times of unavoidable equipment malfunctions. However, the agency altered its thinking on the legality of the plans after the following D.C. Circuit decisions:
• a 2008 decision that concluded regulatory exemptions from emissions limits during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction are not allowed under the Clean Air Act (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 68 ERC 1033, 2008 BL 282130 (D.C. Cir. 2008) and
• a 2014 decision that struck down affirmative defense language included in federal hazardous air pollution standards covering cement kilns (Natural Res. Defense Council v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 409 U.S. App. D.C. 330, 2014 BL 108218 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
The EPA, in a July brief filed in defense of the SIP Call, said each of the 36 state plans were identified as deficient because they contain language that violates “bedrock principles” of the Clean Air Act, including that emissions limits included in state implementation plans must be continuous and enforceable at all times.Environmental advocates view the removal of exemptions and affirmative defenses as a positive development that will close loopholes allowing companies to exceed their permitted emissions limits without any repercussions or threat of enforcement action, according to Ilan Levin, associate director of the Environmental Integrity Project. That organization is part of an environmental coalition that is intervening in the litigation over the SIP Call in defense of the EPA.
“Getting those loopholes off the books is really one of the most important things,” Levin told Bloomberg BNA. “It's going to clarify enforcement and it's going to make it easier for people who live next door or downwind of one of these facilities to take matters into their own hands: to go to court if they need to.”
While the EPA and some states have said that they'll rely on case-by-case enforcement discretion in lieu of affirmative defenses for malfunctions, that would not prevent advocacy groups from filing citizen lawsuits against power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities if they were to exceed their permitted emissions limits.
State Responses Vary
State environmental agencies contacted by Bloomberg BNA reported several different strategies for responding to the SIP Call. One reason for that is because the language identified under the SIP Call varied by state.
For example, Montana responded by revoking provisions that only applied to a single facility that shut down several years ago, a spokeswoman for the state's Department of Environmental Quality told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. Meanwhile, Louisiana's response required a more extensive effort, including five different new proposed regulations that removed older exemptions that no longer applied to any facilities and the establishment of new work practice standards for startup and shutdown, according to Bryan Johnston, an environmental scientist in the department's Air Permits Division.
Louisiana's agency was one of several that told Bloomberg BNA it planned to establish work practice standards, an alternative compliance method that allows facilities to meet their emissions obligations without being subject to a numerical emissions limit. Karen Hays, chief of the Air Protection Branch of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that sources in Georgia also will have the option of complying with work practice standards, while a spokesman for the Ohio EPA said in an e-mail that the state is trying to draft work practices in response to the SIP Call.
Other responses planned by states include establishing alternate numerical emissions limits, relying on the enforcement discretion of state agencies, and revising state plans while leaving exemptions on the books in state regulations.
Work Practices a Preferred Method
Alternative work practice standards are a preferred approach for regulated entities because they are realistic about what facilities can actually do to minimize emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, according to Megan Berge, a partner with Baker Botts LLP in Washington, D.C. Berge's practice focuses on environmental law, including litigation, rulemaking and permit appeal.
“They are squarely within the definition of emissions limitations,” Berge told Bloomberg BNA.
Work practice standards are found in various Clean Air Act regulations, according to Richard Alonso, a partner at Bracewell LLP and a former enforcement official at EPA.
Alonso told Bloomberg BNA that work practice standards could be as simple as doing what is necessary to minimize emissions or maintaining pollution control devices. He said he would be “curious to see” the reaction of environmental advocacy organizations if the EPA approved revised state plans that included broad work practice standards.
Levin of the Environmental Integrity Project and Johnson of Earthjustice both expressed skepticism about the effectiveness and enforceability of work practice standards for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.
“It's going to be difficult for states to implement and enforce the so-called work practice standards because they tend to be vague,” Levin said. “It's a lot easier to enforce a numeric standard, like a limit.”
Johnson said that “vague general duty provisions” do not qualify as enforceable emissions standards, but instead serve as another type of exemption from regulation. He pointed to an intervenor brief filed by environmental groups in the Walter Coke litigation, which describes the tendency of courts to refuse to enforce unquantifiable standards and a history of unsuccessful attempts to convince the courts to enforce general duty and other work practice provisions in state implementation plans.
A ‘Do-Nothing’ Approach
Several states told Bloomberg BNA that they did not intend to meet the Nov. 22 response deadline. While some, like Ohio and West Virginia, said their state rulemaking process made meeting that deadline impossible, Iowa and Alabama both voluntarily chose to not respond.
Iowa decided to not make any rule changes or submit any revisions requests to the EPA given the active litigation over the SIP Call rule, according to a spokeswoman for the state's Department of Natural Resources.
Alabama also won't meet the Nov. 22 deadline, though “all options” are on the table, according to Ron Gore, chief of the Air Quality Division at the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Gore told Bloomberg BNA that the state was not planning to submit anything to the EPA in November and may choose to wait to review what other states have done and what approaches the EPA decides to approve.
However, Gore noted that “there is at least some possibility that we will never submit anything and let EPA do what it may.”
If a state does not submit a plan revision, the EPA can issue what is called a finding of failure to submit, a regulatory decision that triggers an obligation for the EPA to impose a federal implementation plan within two years. The same two-year clock is started if the EPA were to disapprove of a state plan submission.
The Trump Effect
While the states crafted their revisions in response to an Obama-era regulation, those revisions will be reviewed and judged by a Trump administration. It remains to be seen how quickly Trump's EPA would act against states that don't submit plans, what the agency would consider approvable as a plan revision and how the government will handle the ongoing litigation before the D.C. Circuit.
During the campaign and in the wake of his election, Trump pledged to reduce the number of regulations on the books and rescind several high-profile Obama-era environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan standards for existing power plants. While Trump has not commented on the SIP Call rule, his pick to serve as attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), was critical of the EPA back when the agency proposed the SIP Call in 2013.
Alonso predicted that the new administration will likely be “much more deferential” to the states when it comes to environmental policy, including in the review of revised plans submitted under the SIP call.
“I think the election definitely changed the way that this SIP Call is going to be implemented,” Alonso said. “I think the really big story here is that you're going to have a new team at EPA that is going to be reviewing these and looking at them in a totally different light than the previous administration.”
Alonso identified the approach taken by Texas as one that may not have been approvable by the Obama administration, but might be sufficient for a Trump EPA.
Texas, which is one of the states challenging the SIP Call in federal court, adopted amendments that clarify any affirmative defenses in its environmental regulations are not intended to limit the jurisdiction or discretion of federal courts, according to a spokeswoman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Even that clarifying language will not be applicable until litigation over the SIP Call is complete, the spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“Although TCEQ responded to the [startup, shutdown, malfunction] SIP Call with rulemaking, it does not anticipate any changes to its policies and procedures for responding to emissions events violations,” the spokeswoman said.
Levin of the Environmental Integrity Project said that while it's too early to say what the Trump EPA will do on the SIP Call issue, environmental advocates will be watching the EPA's decision making “very closely.”
“I expected that there will be some more litigation, unfortunately,” he said. “But we've already moved the ball so far forward on this particular issue that we're not going to let up.”
Continued Uncertainty for Industry
With the ongoing litigation in the D.C. Circuit and more litigation possible from environmental groups, regulated industries are facing continued uncertainty regarding the handling of emissions during startups, shutdowns and malfunctions, according to Berge of Baker Botts.
“Really the best thing I can tell industry members is to engage with their states, be aware of any regulatory changes on the state and federal level and to manage their permits,” Berge said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100805056&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100805056&jd=100805056
-
States, Industry Criticize EPA Rationale For Utility MACT Cost Assessment
Nov 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and power industry groups are criticizing EPA's rationale for its assessment finding that its utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule was “appropriate and necessary” even after reviewing the regulation's costs, saying it is based on flawed logic and urging an appellate court to scrap it.
In a Nov. 18 opening brief, a coalition of states and industry groups says that “other than a bald, conclusory declaration” that the rule's benefits outweigh the costs, EPA in the updated cost assessment “nowhere actually weighs anything, much less explains how it weighed the purported benefits against these very large costs”
If the pending litigation over the cost review filed by states and industry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit succeeds and judges vacate, it would likely create new legal confusion over the MACT. Critics of the regulation have said that the massive costs of implementation far outweigh the rule's benefits, and some have said that if the D.C. Circuit vacates the cost assessment then the entire regulation could potentially fall.
However, most possible compliance dates for the rule have now passed except for a handful of potential extensions through to April, and companies by now have either shuttered plants or complied with the rule. A win for EPA's critics might therefore serve more to set a precedent on conducting cost reviews than undoing the MACT.
The cost finding is a prerequisite under Clean Air Act section 112 to issuance of the MACT standards, also known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The Supreme Court in its 5-4 opinion from June 2015 in Michigan v. EPA, by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, remanded litigation over the rule to the D.C. Circuit, saying the agency unreasonably failed to consider costs in its analysis of whether air toxics standards are “appropriate.”
EPA originally argued that there is no air law requirement for the agency to consider costs at all at the finding stage, and instead incorporated a cost-benefit analysis into the MACT regulation itself.
However, the high court found this inadequate, sending litigation over the rule back to the D.C. Circuit that had previously upheld it. EPA then successfully sought a voluntary remand of the MACT while it worked on the cost assessment to satisfy the Michigan ruling. The agency in April then issued its cost review, once again finding that it was justified in issuing the rule which controls air toxics from electric generating units (EGUs).
The new cost finding did not attempt a fully-fledged cost-benefit analysis, however, based on Scalia's opinion that does not find such a showing strictly necessary. The agency instead relied on the cost-benefit analysis from the 2012 MACT rule, and added to this consideration of what costs the utility industry could reasonably bear, in its view. That decision prompted the D.C. Circuit litigation from the state and industry critics.
'Unquantifiable' Benefits
The critics in their new brief renew their assault from the Michigan case on EPA's reliance on “co-benefits” of reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5), not itself considered a toxic hazardous air pollutant (HAP), to justify the MACT. “On remand, EPA recognizes Michigan requires the Agency to weigh the costs and benefits of regulating EGU HAPs under [section] 112 and advances two rationales for reaffirming the appropriate and necessary determination rejected by the Supreme Court,” says the filing from a total of 15 states and nine industry groups.
The states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, and the industry groups include coal mining company Murray Energy and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG).
“In its 'preferred approach,'” to the cost analysis, “EPA concludes that its previously-determined benefits of such regulation -- benefits that at best are small, uncertain, and in most instances unquantifiable -- are justified, so long as the utility industry, as a whole, can afford to spend $9.6 billion annually to obtain them. And other than a bald, conclusory declaration that these benefits outweigh the costs, EPA nowhere actually weighs anything, much less explains how it weighed the purported benefits against these very large costs,” the brief says.
The high court never reached the co-benefits argument in its ruling in Michigan. The issue did arise at oral argument, however, where Chief Justice John Roberts appeared skeptical that EPA could justify a hugely expensive rule based on reductions in pollutants not explicitly targeted by the statutory provision in question.
EPA reaches the conclusion that the MACT rule's benefits far outweigh the costs “by ignoring the HAP-specific focus of [section] 112 and relying on purported benefits associated with incidental reductions in other, non-HAP pollutants (PM2.5, as a result of [sulfur dioxide] reductions). When the inquiry is properly limited to the effects of regulating EGU HAPs, EPA’s own evaluation shows that the $9.6 billion price tag unequivocally outweighs the meager $4 to $6 million in benefits that EPA calculates, even accounting for unquantified benefits,” the new brief says.
Further, any analysis of whether it is “appropriate” to regulate “necessarily requires consideration of whether alternative, less costly control strategies are available,” according to the brief.
Compliance Costs
The petitioners claim that EPA wrongly excluded some of the wider costs incurred in society as a result of the MACT. “EPA’s supplemental finding considers only the costs of compliance of meeting the [section] 112(d) MATS standards. EPA’s adamant refusal to consider all costs and disadvantages, including the impacts on coal companies, communities, and workers, as well as localized impacts, is contrary to the Supreme Court’s direction for EPA on remand to 'consider cost -- including, most importantly, cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary'” according to the states and industry groups.
Prospects for the legal challenge are uncertain. Efforts by the MACT's opponents to have the high court issue an emergency stay failed, and the court is for the time-being split 4-4 along ideological lines.
President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration is expected to fill the vacant seat with a conservative justice, however. The D.C. Circuit's view is also unpredictable. The court in 2014 upheld the MACT in its entirety in a 2-1 finding, but Judge Brett Kavanaugh's dissent in the opinion formed the basis for the high court challenge.
Environmentalists criticized the new legal filing in a Nov. 21 statement. The MACT standards "are already in place, cost-effective, and vitally important for protecting the health of American families from some of the most deadly types of air pollution," said Graham McCahan, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. "It is time for polluters and their allies to stop attacking these critical clean air safeguards that protect our children -- and all Americans -- from the single largest source of toxic air pollution."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industry-criticize-epa-rationale-utility-mact-cost-assessment
-
Regional Climate Program Considers New Reserve Mechanism
Nov 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The nine states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative want to ensure that emissions continue to decrease even when carbon allowance prices drop as part of a new reserve mechanism being considered for the cap-and-trade program.
The proposed mechanism, an emissions containment reserve (ECR), would be triggered when prices drop below an as-yet-to-be-determined price, at which point the RGGI emissions cap would be lowered as well, RGGI officials told stakeholders Nov. 21. The possible addition of the new reserve mechanism is significant because it could ensure that states continue to control carbon emissions even when market forces and other factors dampen carbon prices.
RGGI already has a cost containment reserve, which is designed to increase the supply of carbon allowances when carbon prices are high. The new mechanism would complement that by decreasing the supply when carbon prices are low.
In addition, RGGI auction prices are subject to a hard floor—called the auction reserve price— currently set at $2.10. The emissions containment reserve is intended to act as “a soft floor,” according to a summary of the RGGI proposal.
Market Impact
“Despite the stated intent of ‘supply,’ rather than ‘price’ control, we think an ECR will impact market pricing expectations,” Timothy T. Cheung, vice president of Washington, D.C.-based ClearView Energy Partners LLC, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“It'll be interesting to see how the new mechanism develops and where RGGI states will set the ECR trigger price,” he said.
The new reserve mechanism was applauded by two of the original architects of the RGGI program, William M. Shobe, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at the University of Virginia, and Dallas Burtraw, senior fellow at Resources for the Future.
“Some guide rails on the path of allowance prices in an emissions trading program are essential to the integrity of the program,” Burtraw told stakeholders in a webinar-based meeting.
RGGI will be accepting public comments on the reserve mechanism and other issues involving its ongoing program review through Nov. 30. The next major step in the program review is the release of a proposed model rule incorporating changes to the program.
Key Decision
The key decision that RGGI states need to make is how to adjust the program's emissions cap after 2020, when the current cap expires. They are considering a continuation of the current trajectory, which lowers the cap by 2.5 percent per year, or one that lowers the cap by 3.5 percent per year.
Some environmental groups were pushing RGGI to go even further and lower the emissions cap by 5 percent per year.
Chris MacCracken, principal at Fairfax, Va.-based ICF International Inc., told the webinar that the RGGI emissions cap would decline from 78 million tons in 2020 to 57 million tons in 2031, under a scenario where the cap is reduced by 2.5 percent per year. If the emissions cap was reduced by 3.5 percent per year, it would decline to 48 million tons in 2031, he said.
MacCracken said the projected price of RGGI carbon allowances, depending on the cap and emissions trends, would range from a low of $9 per ton in 2031, if no changes are made to the program, to a high of $36 in 2031.
Andrew McKeon, executive director of RGGI, reaffirmed the initiative's commitment to go forward despite any changes at the federal level.
“We don't know exactly what the future will bring,” he told the webinar, in a reference to the recent election. “The RGGI states’ commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unchanged.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100805077&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100805077&jd=100805077
-
GOP States Urge Trump To Scale Back EPA Rules, Enforcement
Nov 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
Five Republican-led states are urging President-elect Donald Trump to scale back EPA's rulemaking and enforcement efforts, calling on the incoming administration to “return environmental leadership to the states” by abandoning what they describe as unnecessary or duplicative action such as the Obama administration's climate agenda.
In a letter to Trump dated Nov. 16, the environment chiefs of North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Alabama -- all states currently with GOP governors -- call for a moratorium on new EPA rules and a review of “overreaching” policies such as the power plant greenhouse gas standards known as the Clean Power Plan, and the agency's controversial Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.
“Our country still needs the EPA, but not the EPA of recent years. We need research targeted at our specific, clear environmental challenges. This can best be done by coordinating industry-level initiatives that cross state lines, which can be defined by measurable success. We must put an end to the idea that more regulation is always good, and instead allow state and local experts to improve the environment,” the letter says.
While the letter joins a broad GOP call for Trump to reverse a host of high-profile Obama EPA rulemakings, it also seeks a smaller role for the agency in enforcement actions, arguing that federal efforts often duplicate or conflict with state-led enforcement.
“When the federal government becomes overly involved in environmental matters that were originally intended to be administered by the states, the result is both unwarranted federal overreach and wasteful duplication of effort. For example, EPA enforcement, in addition to state enforcement efforts, often results in duplicate investigations with no benefit to the environment or the economy. Second-guessing state efforts is not an effective means for the EPA to provide productive oversight,” the letter says.
Finally, the states say the Trump EPA should work more closely with states when it does craft new rules and initiatives, in contrast to the Obama administration's “preference for bringing special interest groups into the rulemaking process in lieu of a broader stakeholder process that includes state governments.”
However, environmental groups are already pushing back against the request for a more lenient EPA, including a coalition of North Carolina environmental groups that issued a statement highlighting the apparent re-election loss by the state's Gov. Pat McCrory (R) -- though he is contesting challenger Roy Cooper's (D) lead in counted votes.
There should be no question that the environmental community in North Carolina stands strong and united against the past efforts of the McCrory administration and his appointees to erode the safeguards protecting clean air, clean water, and public health. This letter speaks neither for us nor for the new administration, which can speak for itself,” the statement says.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/gop-states-urge-trump-scale-back-epa-rules-enforcement
-
McCarthy Says Pressure From States, Public Will Drive Trump EPA Agenda
Nov 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is predicting that pressure from states and the public to address environmental concerns will help drive the agenda of President-elect Donald Trump's EPA, despite his campaign pledge to scale back the agency and calls from GOP officials and others to restrict EPA's regulatory and enforcement efforts.
Speaking at a Nov. 21 National Press Club event in Washington, D.C., McCarthy offered a broad defense of the Obama administration's environmental legacy and said she expects her successor to address the array of requests the agency fields from states and communities for environmental assistance, despite the GOP's vows to slash EPA's work through budget and staffing cuts.
“If you sit in my shoes every day, you see the breadth of what that agency does. You see how hard we work. You pick up the phone and realize that every day there's a issue or problem or concern that an individual has or a community has. Work that the states don't have the resources or the technical capacity to do. It's really hard not to respond to those calls for help, and I expect that will continue and the next administration will respond,” McCarthy said.
She spoke the same week as the Trump administration's EPA “landing” team is expected to arrive at the agency to receive briefings on key agency issues ahead of Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration.
McCarthy suggested that on climate policy, she expects public demand to drive continued state-led GHG reduction efforts -- which in turn would require EPA assistance. Trump has promised to roll back EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for power plants known as the Clean Power Plan and to abandon the 2015 Paris climate agreement, but McCarthy said calls to address GHG emissions will continue.
“If you've worked at the state level or the local level, you cannot run away from people. You have to make decisions based not on politics, but based on what your people are demanding from you, or you will be the shortest-lived municipal servant in the history of mankind. And people are already worried about the impacts of climate that they're already feeling,” she said.
Earlier in her speech, McCarthy noted that “businesses big and small” have called on regulators to address climate change.
Thanks to those pressures, she continued, “Mayors will continue to speak up. Cities will continue to be some of our best and loyal allies. On the state side . . . 19 states are continuing to make significant progress consistent with the Clean Power Plan,” through their own voluntary efforts and by crafting compliance plans for the rule even though it has been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Despite that prediction, GOP-led state governments are already calling on Trump to scale back EPA's rulemaking and enforcement efforts, such as through a Nov. 16 letter from the environment heads of five states with Republican governors who said the incoming administration should “return environmental leadership to the states” by abandoning major regulations such as the Clean Power Plan and by dropping “duplicative” enforcement actions.
Policy Agenda
Beyond her predictions for the Trump administration, McCarthy also noted a series of issues remaining for EPA to address before President Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, including waste cleanups, strengthening drinking water protections against lead contamination, and crafting its final assessment on possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.
The final fracking report will include the agency's response to recommendations from a contentious Science Advisory Board panel that reviewed the draft report. The panel ultimately said that EPA did not support its conclusion that found no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources” with quantitative data, and did not clearly describe the systems, the scale of impacts, nor the definitions of “systemic and widespread.”
McCarthy did not give a timetable for EPA's final report, but said “we're certainly going to listen to the Science Advisory Board.”
On lead contamination, she said the agency “you will see very shortly that we are going to come out with a drinking out with a drinking water action plan” that will bolster federal protections in response to the ongoing lead contamination in Flint, MI, and an agency Inspector General report that found the agency should have acted sooner and should update its internal guide for drinking water emergencies.
McCarthy told the Press Club that the action plan will focus on multiple scenarios that can lead to contamination, including decaying infrastructure and utilities whose customer bases have declined sharply -- which can create conditions for stagnant water in unused pipes.
Finally, she said, the agency is preparing to release a final record of decision on the West Lake Landfill Superfund site, which houses radioactive waste near St. Louis, MO. The site is the subject of controversial efforts by legislators to remove cleanup authority from EPA and give it to the Army Corps of Engineers because EPA has declined to remove the waste entirely -- though the Corps has expressed misgivings over the idea.
“I do not know the exact timing,” but the final decision will be released “soon,” McCarthy said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/mccarthy-says-pressure-states-public-will-drive-trump-epa-agenda
-
Climate Policy in the Age of Trump
Nov 21, 2016 | RealClear Energy
By Jay Hakes
American and global efforts to slow the pace of climate change have taken a long time to gel and only recently have begun to show significant results.
The basics of climate science were endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and approved by the U.S. Senate when it unanimously ratified the treaty negotiated at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Still, it was not until the Obama administration that climate science became an explicit part of U.S. federal policy and that India and China started to make meaningful commitments.
Attempts by the new Trump administration to quash climate science and the programs based on that science could have impacts that are long reaching and, to some extent, irreversible.
Candidate Donald Trump tweeted that climate science linking human combustion of fossil fuels with rising temperatures and sea levels was a hoax and joined the call from other GOP leaders to repeal President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. President-Elect Trump’s transition team seems bent on eviscerating the Environmental Protection Agency, the institution with the great responsibilities in implementing climate plans.
The stakes of a change election were particularly high for climate because of the decades needed to craft complex global agreements and the lags between the adoption of policies and the turnover of the infrastructure that produces and consumes energy (several decades in many cases).
Then, there is a long lag between actual emissions reductions and significant slowing of rising accumulations in the atmosphere, largely because carbon dioxide remains there for a century or more.
As some climate experts have noted, President Trump will find it difficult to unravel President Obama’s climate programs on the proverbial “day one,” given the legal hurdles for adding or deleting regulations.
It is also unlikely that major industries, such as electric utilities, will immediately scrap their future generation plans, whose horizons typically go beyond a single presidential term. They have to be cognizant that natural gas, wind and solar are attractively priced and that future presidents and congresses may agree with Obama that these cleaner alternatives pose less threat to the environment than coal.
Current momentum will delay the impact of Trump attacks on current climate policy but not indefinitely. Moreover, those who follow Trump in office will have to deal with the momentum he has created.
Thus, the view that our 45th president can’t really do much damage to progress on climate is true only within a short time span. Moreover, current efforts are insufficient to meet goals for 2050 and will need to be supplemented by a series of ever-stronger measures.
In truth, Trump faces relatively few institutional obstacles if he takes an aggressive stance to decimate federal climate programs at home and withdraws from cooperative agreements abroad.
Traditional checks and balances may play a lesser role than in the past, since the Republican Congress and base electorate agree with Trump’s anti-environment positions, more than ever before in the party’s history. Leading Republican climate skeptics in Congress once argued that China needed to join any global regime to reduce emissions but are now rushing to scuttle the Paris agreement that includes that very thing.
The most effective environmental organizations can deploy their lawyers to protect some programs but lack enough national clout in the next two years to do much else that would affect policy. If newer environment groups continue to promote pipeline protests that have little impact on climate over fighting for issues that really matter (like the Clean Power Plan), or supporting candidates in Senate and House races, the situation is not likely to improve.
State governments are in the best position to offset anti-climate policies in Washington. Some, most notably California, have adopted aggressive programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These affect enough of the country to make a significant difference and will likely continue regardless of who’s in the Oval Office.
States like California also have leverage over national efficiency standards for appliances and vehicles that Trump might want to weaken. Strong state standards may deter manufacturers from taking too strong a stand against federal rules, since it is the national system that keeps them from having to build for two different markets.
As a senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions, a key Trump advisor, supported vehicle efficiency standards in the Energy Independence Act of 2007, suggesting this is not an ideological battle that Trump needs to fight.
States like California can also raise their international profiles to assure the world that a substantial portion of the U.S. population supports global cooperation.
Even states with Republican leadership and widespread skepticism about climate science have policies in place that are helpful in reducing emissions. Many red states have strong renewable portfolio requirements that have boosted wind and solar energy. In other states without such legislation, the Green Tea Party has effectively promoted solar friendly policies.
Given that wind and solar have great appeal beyond those who accepted established science on climate, Trump has an opening to support them vigorously without alienating his base. His infrastructure program, for instance, could include renewable energy and perhaps even the modernization of the electric grid.
So Trump could do some things that would help climate, just not in the name of climate – pretty much the U.S. position before the Obama presidency. Under this scenario, some foundation would remain in place for more aggressive action in the future. It would not put us on a path to achieve the goals set by Barrack Obama and John McCain in 2008 and would make it very difficult for future presidents to get back on that path.
Whoever becomes our 45th president will confront more long-lasting carbon (and other heat-trapping gases) in the atmosphere. Moreover, President Trump, with the bully pulpit of the White House for four or eight year, can further undermine American confidence in climate science and solidify his party as a clear foe of action to protect the atmosphere and oceans, effects that will take a long time to reverse.
To now walk away from the prevailing science on climate will be an international embarrassment and do damage to the planet that cannot be reversed. Why the next U.S. President and the Congress are willing to brush off one of the major international challenges of our time is something we will have a hard time explaining to our grandchildren.
Jay Hakes is an energy historian who has worked for three presidents on energy.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/11/21/climate_policy_in_the_age_of_trump_110125.html
-
Experts: Trump Focus On Climate Deal Exit Could Be Foreign Policy Error
Nov 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
President-elect Donald Trump's move to put an advocate of withdrawing the U.S. from the U.N. climate change talks at the helm of his State Department hand-off team shows he's dead set on keeping his promise to kill the Paris agreement — a move some experts say could be a foreign policy misstep.
The newly named head of the team, Heritage Foundation research fellow Steven Groves, is an expert on U.N. agreements and argued in an article last week that the quickest way for Trump to exit last year's Paris agreement would be to pull out of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, the treaty that serves as the basis for the international effort to fight climate change.
That would take only one year, Groves wrote, far faster than the four-year process needed to pull the U.S. from the Paris pact itself. But experts say that would send a shockwave through the international community that has worked for decades to create a consensus on fighting warming temperatures and rising seas.
"It’s about more than just climate change," said P.J. Crowley, a professor at George Washington University and a former member of the Obama State Department. "This would in profound ways undermine international confidence in American leadership. For this to be one of the early steps of the Trump administration would take would have very serious and long term consequences. ... It’s important for the world to understand that American commitments have a shelf life longer than four-year presidential term."
Trump laid out a multitude of foreign policy priorities on the campaign trail in addition to bowing out of the Paris agreement, from building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and curbing the flow of Syrian refugees to renegotiating the Iran nuclear deal. But, as even conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly has noted, since the Paris pact has few legally binding commitments, pulling the U.S. out may be more trouble that it's worth.
Withdrawing from the UNFCCC would get the U.S. out of both the Paris deal as well as the 2010 Cancun accord, which set voluntary carbon reduction targets for 2020. But it would also take the U.S. out of any future climate negotiations, and potentially set off a long-range ripple effect for U.S. negotiations on other subjects.
"Why in the world would you want to take yourself out of the room for all future discussions?" said Andrew Light, a professor at George Mason University and another former climate negotiator in Obama's State Department.
"Being a member of the convention doesn’t require you to reduce emissions. In principle you're signing onto the aspiration," he added. "The framework convention creates a global legislative body of sorts, very broadly speaking, where every country has a veto. ... The U.S. would no longer be able to exert its effective veto over anything else that came out of the negotiations."
It could also have longer term effects on U.S. negotiations on other matters that Trump deems important. Obama spent years persuading the world to take climate change seriously, including making climate action a component of almost any future international negotiation, Crowley said.
"The fact is ... there’s far greater continuity in American foreign policy than the politics might suggest," he said. Withdrawing would be "a self-inflicted wound to America’s global leadership."
But Nicolas Loris, a fellow at the Heritage Institute who co-wrote last week's article with Groves, said withdrawing instead of only ignoring the Paris deal would demonstrate to the rest of the world that the U.S. sees the process as broken, since it has failed to lead to any meaningful commitment to reduce CO2 emissions.
"Withdrawing shows the rest of the world that this is an unworkable approach, meeting year after year and doing nothing, which is a waste of taxpayer dollars," he said.
Pulling out of either the Paris of UNFCCC agreements turns out to be very simple, according to a legal note written by Daniel Bodansky, a professor at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Trump could drop out of Paris, an executive agreement, by notifying the U.N. secretary general.
But no country can withdraw before the agreement has been in force for three years, and that withdrawal wouldn't be official for another year after that, so the U.S. cannot get out of the deal until November 2020 — although Trump would still be free to disavow the agreement, refuse to comply with it and take aggressive actions to undermine Obama’s domestic climate regulations.
Withdrawing from the UNFCCC also takes effect one year after notification. However the UNFCCC was created in 1992 and ratified by the Senate, raising questions of whether Trump would need Senate approval. In a 6-3 decision in 1979, the Supreme Court allowed President Jimmy Carter to withdraw from a treaty, though the court's divided majority did not fully settle the question.
And Loris said that the 34 years of negotiations that have taken place under the UNFCCC is proof that the process is flawed, and a new administration now wants to go a different way.
"I can see why the international community might have some concern with changing on a dime with a different administration," he said. "But [Trump] made no secret of it on the campaign trail."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/11/experts-trump-focus-on-climate-deal-exit-could-be-foreign-policy-error-138577
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested