Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/14/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups Split on Chemicals, Trump's Pick for EPA
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Trade associations have divergent views on whether the doubts on climate change voiced by Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, may undermine public confidence in the scientific credibility of decisions on chemicals the agency would make under Pruitt. -
(ACC Mentioned) This Cup Of Yogurt That Just Washed Up On A Beach Is Going Viral For A Terrifying Reason
Dec 13, 2016 | Mic
By Alex Orlov
A yogurt cup that's older than the sum of Kylie Jenner and Jaden Smith's ages just turned up on a beach in Canada. On Nov. 25, a man named Rob Gordon tweeted a photo of a Yoplait container that appears to be from 1976. -
(ACC Mentioned) Top 10 Lobbying Victories Of 2016
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
... After decades of trying, lawmakers succeeded in passing the first update since 1976 to a law that governs how toxic chemicals are regulated. -
(ACC Blog) Endocrine Science: Will The Real “Manufacturers Of Doubt” Please Stand Up?
Dec 14, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
“Let’s Stop the Manipulation of Science,” reads the title to an op-ed recently published in the popular French newspaper, Le Monde. It sounds like an honest cause, but are the authors being disingenuous with their call to action? -
But, Who’s Really Manipulating The Science On Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals?
Dec 13, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
On November 29, an op-ed article, co-signed by 94 scientists, and entitled “Let’s Stop the Manipulation of Science” was published in Le Monde. -
Help on the Way for Navigating California Safe Products Rules
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California manufacturers and other regulated entities will soon get help navigating the evaluation processes required under rules intended to get harmful chemicals out of consumer products. -
EU Panel Notes Progress on Glyphosate Hazard Assessment
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said it was on track Dec. 13 to deliver a recommendation by late 2017 on a European Union hazard classification for glyphosate, the active chemical in Monsanto's Roundup weed killer and the world's most widely used herbicide. -
(ACC Mentioned) 2016 REW Conference: Circular Circumstances
Dec 13, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Kristin Smith
Extracting as much value as possible from products is an idea that is gaining traction. Beyond use as a material, waste has tremendous energy value -
Perry Said to Be Offered Energy Secretary's Position by Trump
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Donald Trump has chosen Rick Perry to be Energy Secretary, putting the one-time presidential candidate and former oil-state governor atop the agency charged with charting the nation's energy future, according to two people familiar with the president-elect's selection process. -
Tillerson Pick Stokes Concerns Over Energy-Heavy Diplomacy
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Global energy partnerships may eclipse bedrock humanitarian and development policy if oil mogul Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to head the State Department, is confirmed, lawmakers and former Obama administration officials said Dec. 13. -
Rex Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State, Nominee Is a Flexible Pragmatist
Dec 13, 2016 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss And John Schwartz
Three years ago, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil and now President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, was probably the man least expected to show up at a town council meeting in North Texas to oppose a local construction project. -
Trump's Pipeline Promises at the Mercy of Hard-to-Change Agency
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Donald Trump has said he'll speed up approvals for energy infrastructure projects when he gets to the White House. Standing at least partly in the way—a panel of officials he'll have little sway over. -
Fewer Efficiency Standards Under Trump, Stakeholders Predict
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy efficiency standards—one of the hallmarks of the Obama administration's climate strategy—likely won't be pursued as energetically in the Trump administration, stakeholders predict. -
Fracking Can Taint Drinking Water, EPA Report Finds
Dec 13, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
racking can affect drinking water supplies in certain circumstances, the Obama administration said in a long-awaited report issued Tuesday, leaving open the possibility of more widespread impacts that it says can’t be determined with current data. -
EPA Toughens View of Fracking as Danger to Drinking Water
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Environmental Protection Agency in a widely anticipated report Dec. 13 backed away from its earlier conclusion that hydraulic fracturing has not caused “widespread, systemic” damage to drinking water, drawing a swift rebuke from the oil industry. -
GOP, Energy Officials Say EPA Fracking Study Downplays Water Impacts
Dec 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Republican lawmakers and energy industry officials say that EPA's final study on hydraulic fracturing's potential impacts on drinking water resources clearly demonstrates a lack of major adverse impacts despite criticizing the agency's decision to strip draft language finding “no widespread, systemic impacts” on water resources. -
Oil, Gas Companies May Offer Methane Data Under EPA Proposal
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Oil and gas companies could set and disclose unique methane emissions reduction targets to the Environmental Protection Agency as part of a voluntary program's proposed information collection, a soon-to-be-published notice said. -
Standing Rock Sioux To Meet With Trump Team
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is planning to meet with President-elect Donald Trump's transition team in Washington tomorrow to push back on the $3.78 billion Dakota Access pipeline currently under federal review. -
Energy Dept. Rejects Trump’s Request To Name Climate-Change Workers, Who Remain Worried
Dec 14, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Joe Davidson
“There is major concern amongst my members,” said Jeff Eagan, president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) chapter at the department’s headquarters building in Washington. -
Energy Dept. Rejects Trump Request to Name Climate Change Staff
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Todd Shields and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Energy Department rejected a request from President-elect Donald Trump's transition team for the names of workers who played a role in implementing President Barack Obama's climate agenda. -
February Argument Set for EPA Refrigerant Phaseout Rule
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal appellate court will hear argument Feb. 17, 2017, on an Environmental Protection Agency rule to phase out the use of some refrigerants that are also potent greenhouse gases (Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1328, 12/13/16). -
EU Reports Drop in Flourinated Gases
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union's production of, and trade in, fluorinated gases declined in 2015 when measured in terms of the global warming impact of the gases, according to a Dec. 13 analysis of data submitted under EU law.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups Split on Chemicals, Trump's Pick for EPA
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Trade associations have divergent views on whether the doubts on climate change voiced by Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, may undermine public confidence in the scientific credibility of decisions on chemicals the agency would make under Pruitt.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade association that represents major U.S. chemical manufacturers, issued a statement Dec. 8 welcoming Trump's nominee, who is currently Oklahoma's attorney general.
“We share Mr. Pruitt's view that EPA's regulatory decisions should be based on sound scientific evidence, and we look forward to working with the new EPA Administrator and the dedicated staff at the EPA to implement the nation's key environmental statutes in a fair, efficient and effective manner,” the group said.
But David Levine, chief executive officer of the American Sustainable Business Council, told Bloomberg BNA Pruitt's views could harm chemical and other businesses.
Not All Science Positions Are Equal
In a May 17 National Review article, Pruitt wrote: “global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”
That statement, Levine said, treats the scientific positions on climate change as equal even though climate scientists are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that human activities are contributing to climate change. According to NASA, 97 percent or more of climate scientists agree climate-warming trends likely result from human activities.
Science should form the basis of the EPA's chemical and other decisions, Levine said.
If science as solid as that behind climate change is dismissed, it undermines the realities that companies already are addressing, Levine said.
He pointed to concerns small businesses voiced in a 2012 survey Lake Research Partners conducted of 511 companies across the U.S.
More than half of all business owners—53 percent—believe climate change will adversely affect their business, that survey found.
One in five companies say extreme weather events associated with climate change already have affected their operations, Levine said.
Three-quarters of those companies also supported stricter regulation of chemicals used in products, according to the survey.
If a minority scientific position is given as much credence as one held by the vast majority of scientists, that creates uncertainty in the marketplace, which is bad for business and bad for consumers, Levine said.
EPA's Scientific Integrity
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, a Washington D.C.-based law firm that specializes in chemical and pesticide regulations, said the science requirements with the amended Toxic Substances Control Act are solid.
“Call me crazy, but I continue to think ‘scientific standards’ as defined under TSCA Section 26(h) will continue to be applied as envisioned by Congress,” Bergeson told Bloomberg BNA.
Section 26 of amended TSCA requires the EPA's science decisions to be developed in a manner “consistent with the best available science.”
The provision requires the EPA to consider issues such as the relevance of scientific information for the decision being made; the reasonableness of the science for the intended use; the extent to which it has been peer reviewed; and variability and uncertainty of the science. EPA decisions must be “based on the weight of the scientific evidence.”
“Under a Trump administration,” Bergeson said, “EPA may be more predisposed to interpreting this provision and others in a way that might be more aligned with industry's views, but the process will continue to be scientific, disciplined, and consistent with the law's mandate.”
“I do not envision the Trump administration as necessarily telegraphing science that is so demonstrably devoid of merit that it will undermine the public's confidence in EPA's risk assessment processes or in EPA generally as the federal institution tasked with protecting the environment. I have more confidence in the scientific integrity of EPA and its scientists to let that happen,” Bergeson said.
States Rights v. Federal Preemption
The extent of federal preemption of state chemical regulations was a central issue as Congress debated the changes that lead to TSCA reform and continues.
In its statement, the American Chemistry Council supported implementation of TSCA and “the role of the federal government in chemical regulation.”
During the TSCA reform debate, however, states such as California that had stepped into the vacuum left by the EPA's failure to regulate chemicals before TSCA was amended argued that states must continue to have the right to regulate chemicals.
Legal challenges Pruitt has filed as Oklahoma attorney general show he has taken divergent positions on states’ rights versus federal supremacy.
Lawsuits Pruitt has brought against the EPA's greenhouse gas and water regulations largely have been based on issues such as states’ rights.
In a December 2014 brief, he and Nebraska's attorney general filed against Colorado's legalization of marijuana, however, he argued in support of the Constitution's supremacy clause, which holds federal laws constitute the supreme law of the land (Nebraska v. Colorado, U.S., No. 144, ORIG., 12/18/14).
Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA his organization hopes Pruitt will not abandon his long-standing support for states when it comes to chemical regulations.
States need to retain the right to take action when the EPA has not or when the federal agency's actions would fail to protect human health or the environment, he said.
Litigation
Public health and environmental advocates have a critical role to play to ensure their concerns are addressed regardless of who is confirmed as the EPA's administrator, Rosenberg said.
They must ensure the rulemaking record reflects information that supports health protective decisions, Rosenberg said.
He referred to numerous regulations the EPA is required to implement under the amended chemicals law.
“Whatever decisions are made are likely to be subject to litigation whether it's brought by industry or public interest groups,” Rosenberg said.
If the EPA has received information that supports public and environmental health decisions, it will be easier to compel regulatory or legal decisions that also are supportive, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908928&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908928&jd=101908928
-
Dec 13, 2016 | Mic
By Alex Orlov
A yogurt cup that's older than the sum of Kylie Jenner and Jaden Smith's ages just turned up on a beach in Canada. On Nov. 25, a man named Rob Gordon tweeted a photo of a Yoplait container that appears to be from 1976.
The image went viral, with people deeming it both a collector's item and symbol of the grave consequences of pollution. Plastic litter takes thousands of years to decompose
Recycling of plastic packaging by consumers began in the 1980s. Currently, just 60% of the U.S. population has access to a recycling program, the American Chemistry Council noted. And according to the Earth Institute at Columbia University, only about 6.5% of all plastics even get recycled.
When plastics aren't recycled, how long do they take to decompose in landfills? Researchers don't actually know, Slate reported. While some estimate plastic bags take 500 years to decompose, others argue it could take roughly 1,000 years for the bags to break down. Each type of plastic contains different properties that impact the length of time it takes to decompose, Kim Holmes — senior director of recycling and diversion at the Plastics Industry Association — said in an email.
Holmes said she couldn't speak to the materials of the 1976 yogurt container specifically, but noted yogurt cups today are typically made from high-density polyethylene, polypropylene and even polystyrene.
Ocean pollution harms animals and humans
Not only does plastic last for decades, but it's also a danger to fish, animals and humans. More than 90% of seabirds worldwide have plastic debris in their stomachs, according to the website of Plastic Oceans, an upcoming documentary. The film's website further explains that the concentration of toxic chemicals in plastic increases as it moves up the food chain, a process known as bioaccumulation. For example, smaller fish might eat seagrass containing tiny amounts of pollutants before being consumed by larger fish like tuna. By the time humans chow down on tuna, there could be a greater amount of toxins absorbed, National Geographic noted.
Roughly 8 million tons of plastic find their way into oceans each year — and that number is expected to double in the next 20 years, CNN reported. By 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean.
"We all have a responsibility to dispose of products properly after we use them," Kyra Douglas, senior director of global regulatory affairs at the Plastics Industry Association, said in an email. She noted that yogurt cups in the United States are accepted in most curbside recycling programs.
How plastic has evolved since 1976
Luckily, some countries and companies are trying to change the devastating effects of everlasting plastic. Earlier this year, France became the first country to ban plastic plates and cups, which will ostensibly reduce plastic waste over the long term. Holmes also pointed out that bioplastics are an alternative plastic "designed to quickly decompose under a variety of conditions." For example, a bioplastic item might be made from a renewable resource like corn or could break down easily in marine or soil environments. The bioplastics industry is expected to grow 20 to 30% in the next year, according to the Plastics Industry Association.
Other companies are leading the charge for a more sustainable future by swapping compostable products for plastic. The video below shows how a craft brewer uses malt and barley to create biodegradable six-pack rings. We'd cheers to that!
https://mic.com/articles/162040/this-cup-of-yogurt-that-just-washed-up-on-a-beach-is-going-viral-for-a-terrifying-reason#.cW5H96urh
-
(ACC Mentioned) Top 10 Lobbying Victories Of 2016
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Lawmakers were often away from Washington in 2016, making legislative victories hard to come by.
The whirlwind presidential campaign that ended in the election of Donald Trump contributed to the dearth of activity in Congress, making lobbyists hustle during periods where policymakers were in town.
Despite the time crunch, several major pieces of legislation were enacted that had been in the works for years.
Here is a look back at 10 notable lobbying victories from 2016.
The 21st Century Cures Act
Signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday, the bill speeds up drug and device regulatory approval, increases funding for the National Institutes of Health and approves money to help fight opioid addition, among other things.
The legislation also boosts funding for research and treatment for mental illnesses.
More than 400 separate interests lobbied on the bill, reflecting its broad scope and impact.
Critics say that the law could speed up the approval process in a way that could bring dangerous products to market.
Winners: Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America; AdvaMed; the Biotechnology Industry Organization; American Medical Association; American Hospital Association; some disease groups like the American Cancer Society; medical schools; and mental health and substance abuse advocates, such as Shatterproof.
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
While JASTA was introduced for the first time in 2009, and re-introduced in every Congress since, it gained unstoppable momentum in mid-2016.
The law was pitched as a way for victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, the country where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from. President Obama warned that the measure could have unintended consequences, but lawmakers overwhelmingly overturned his veto, defying pressure from Saudi Arabia and corporations with interests overseas.
Winners: The 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism.
Toxic Substances Control Act
After decades of trying, lawmakers succeeded in passing the first update since 1976 to a law that governs how toxic chemicals are regulated.
More than 230 companies and groups listed lobbying on the TSCA on federal disclosure documents since 2010. While some environmental groups think industry gained too much in the final version of the law, they are still eager for regulators to flex their new powers.
Fewer than 10 chemicals had been banned by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 40 years before the TSCA was updated.
Winners: The American Chemistry Council; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National Retail Federation; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of more than 450 groups, labor unions and individuals.
Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms
A long-fought food fight over whether companies should be required to label products containing GMOs came to a head in 2016.
The final law passed by Congress gave the food, biotechnology, retail and farming industries a win and left some environmental and public interest groups disappointed.
The bill sets a national standard for the labeling process — and forbids states from creating their own — and gives companies flexibility with how they label packages. They can say in plain words that the product has been “produced with genetic engineering” or prompt consumers to scan a QR code, call a 1-800 number or visit a website.
Winners: The Grocery Manufacturers Association; the Food Marketing Institute; the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food — which includes hundreds of groups, including the Agricultural Retailers Association, Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers and the National Milk Producers Federation.
Taxes on Olympic Medals
After the Summer Olympics, legislation aimed at nixing the “victory tax” for some U.S. Olympic medal winners quickly gained steam.
Congress passed a law that prohibits the IRS from taxing medals or winnings, which range from $10,000 for bronze to the $25,000 prize that the U.S. Olympic Committee awards to gold medalists. The medal prizes had been considered earned income, subjecting them to taxes. The medals themselves were also taxed.
The only U.S. Olympians exempt from the tax break are those with lucrative endorsement deals who earn more than $1 million per year.
Winners: Olympic and Paralympic medalists;Team USA
Online Reviews
Congress in November passed legislation pushed by internet companies to protect consumers’ ability to write negative online reviews without facing repercussions.
The measure was modeled after a California law passed in 2014 and specifically bans businesses from including gag or non-disparaging clauses in non-negotiable contracts. Delivering a rare legislative victory for the tech industry in 2016, the Consumer Review Freedom Act cleared Congress in less than a year.
Winner: The Internet Association and its members, which include Amazon, TripAdvisor and Yelp.
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill
An update to the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill passed in May after being in limbo since its expiration at the end of 2012.
Reauthorizing the bill had been a top priority of the business community, with the National Association of Manufacturers saying that not renewing it had cost the economy $1.9 billion since 2013. The measure was held up for several years because House Republican rules labeled the measures as earmarks, which are banned.
The law overhauls the process for reducing or eliminating tariffs on imported production components not available or in short supply domestically.
Winners: Roughly 130 business groups urged Congress to act on the overhaul, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers leading the pack.
FOIA Reform
For roughly a decade, attempts to reform to the nation’s primary open-records law — the Freedom of Information Act — languished.
Unlike most legislative proposals, the overhaul was primarily opposed by federal agencies, which warned of a surge in lawsuits against the government.
Although some provisions were watered down to satisfy the intelligence community, the final law strengthens the FOIA process — and the power of those seeking government documents — in significant ways.
Winners: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Freedom of the Press Foundation; the National Security Archive, a non-profit research organization; Public Citizen; News Media Alliance; the American Library Association; Project On Government Oversight; and the American Civil Liberties Union, among others.
Zika Funding
It took nearly seven months of bitter fighting on Capitol Hill before legislators finally agreed to a deal that allocates $1.1 billion to fight the spread and effects of the Zika virus.
The mosquito-borne disease, which began spreading swiftly through the Americas in February, causes severe birth defects in babies born to Zika-infected mothers. Public health groups pleaded for Congress to take action.
Winners: The March of Dimes; the National Pest Management Association; GlaxoSmithKline; the National Association of County and City Health Officials; the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases; Johnson & Johnson; the American Medical Association; and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Internet Oversight
A yearslong effort by the government to hand over oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to a group of global stakeholders was in doubt when a group of lawmakers — led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a former 2016 candidate for president — fought to stop the transition.
Cruz called it a “giveaway of our internet freedom.” Proponents in the tech industry argued that the transition was an overdue, necessary step to keep the internet open, while still offering safeguards against abuse by any one country.
Winners: ICANN; Information Technology Industry Council; the Internet Association and some of its members, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Twitter; the Internet Infrastructure Coalition; The Domain Name Association; and the American Registry for Internet Numbers, among others.
-
(ACC Blog) Endocrine Science: Will The Real “Manufacturers Of Doubt” Please Stand Up?
Dec 14, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
“Let’s Stop the Manipulation of Science,” reads the title to an op-ed recently published in the popular French newspaper, Le Monde. It sounds like an honest cause, but are the authors being disingenuous with their call to action?
The scientists who co-signed the piece make a bold accusation – that “scientific evidence has been willfully distorted by individuals denying the science and actors sponsored by industry interests creating the false impression of a controversy.” The authors specifically reference the debate surrounding potential health and environmental effects of endocrine active and endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Call it an accident, an exercise in poor judgment, or just plain ironic, but – by blaming others for “manipulating the science,” the authors may actually be pointing the finger at themselves.
As epidemiologist Dr. Greg Bond writes in a point-counterpoint blog post on Science 2.0, many of the claims the scientists make in the piece are either patently false or cannot be supported by the available evidence.
Dr. Bond specifically picks apart at least seven allegations from the Le Monde piece – too many to repeat here, so I suggest checking them out for yourself.
In spite of the woeful inaccuracies Bond cites, the authors make their accusations with incredible vigor and self-confidence. They believe they must be right – and yet, they’re out in left field. How can this be?
“Naïve realism”
Social psychology offers one theory – naïve realism, or the “tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.”
Sounds an awful lot like those accusatory scientists, doesn’t it?
Indeed, there’s a very strong possibility that at least some of the scientists who co-authored the Le Mondepiece are naïve to their own subjectivity. They may:
· Believe that they see the world objectively and without bias;
· Expect that others will come to the same conclusions, so long as they are exposed to the same information and interpret it in a rational manner;
· Assume that others who do not share the same views must be ignorant, irrational, or biased.
Some in the scientific community actually have a name for this phenomenon: “white hat bias.”
“White hat bias”
White hat bias, according to public health researchers David Allison and Mark Cope, is “bias leading to distortion of information in the service of what may be perceived to be righteous ends.”
If it’s possible that sanctimony can hijack the science, then many of the authors who co-signed the Le Monde op-ed may not even realize they are victims of their own bias.
Of course, there’s an even darker possibility – that the authors knowingly exaggerate the strength of the evidence, or intentionally fail to report any caveats or limitations inherent in their work – but we believe that judgment is best left to the individual reader.
When finger pointing is a clear tell
When it comes to very legitimate debates surrounding health science, especially with regard to chemicals and the endocrine system, casting the blame on others for “manufacturing a debate” is hardly ever the constructive thing to do. In the case of the Le Monde authors, it may actually be self-defeating.
First, finger pointing undermines scientific integrity. The authors should instead continue to let the science speak for itself, even if it does not support their preferred conclusions.
Second, along similar lines, by perpetually casting the blame just about anyone but themselves, the authors give the impression that the science about which they argue indeed cannot support their own conclusions, thus shooting themselves in the foot.
Third, by continuing to invoke the “precautionary principle” for virtually any chemical safety claim they can’t prove, the Le Monde authors actually weaken and undermine the very principle which they cite. The precautionary principle was not designed as safety net for scientists who are unable to support their claims through actual science, yet many continue to use it that way.
Finally, blaming others indirectly hints to the authors’ own bias and ulterior motives. As the saying goes, every time you point a finger at someone else, remember, there are three remaining fingers pointing back at you.
So, will the real “manufacturers of doubt” please stand up?
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/12/endocrine-science-will-the-real-manufacturers-of-doubt-please-stand-up/
-
But, Who’s Really Manipulating The Science On Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals?
Dec 13, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
On November 29, an op-ed article, co-signed by 94 scientists, and entitled “Let’s Stop the Manipulation of Science” was published in Le Monde. It makes numerous allegations, most prominent among them that industry is “manufacturing doubt” about the science on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). But as anyone who has followed the issue of endocrine disruptors knows, it is highly controversial and polarized with serious questions raised on both sides about exactly who is, in fact, manipulating the science. In the following paragraphs, I tackle this allegation and others made by the co-signers of the Le Monde op-ed and ask that you the reader arrive at your own conclusions.
Allegation #1 — The petrochemical and agro-chemical industries, much like the tobacco industry before them, intentionally distort the science to manufacture doubt about purported EDCs.
Response to Allegation #1
This is a very serious allegation, and you would think the authors would cite at least one example to support it. But in fact they don’t. Not one scintilla of evidence is provided, which makes defense against it either very easy or difficult, depending on your perspective.
From the mid-1990’s until 2012, I was director of product safety for one of the largest, global chemical chemical companies, with responsibility for world class toxicology and environmental fate laboratories, product stewardship, regulatory compliance and product sustainability. I can tell you firsthand that since it was first raised we have always taken with the utmost seriousness the allegation that low levels of chemicals in the environment might alter the functioning of endocrine systems of humans and wildlife and tried to contribute constructively to address it. To do otherwise, would have been irresponsible and reckless, especially with activist management teams, board of directors, an external sustainability advisory council, insurers, customers and shareholders constantly demanding answers from me and my team to their tough questions about it.
I’m proud of the actions that the global chemical industry has taken in response to the endocrine issue. To highlight just a few:
· sponsoring fundamental research through the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) Long-Range Research Initiative in the US, EU and Japan;
· organizing and participating in scientific conferences on the topic;
· participating in the development and validation of endocrine screening assays both at the OECD level and via the US EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, including development of High Throughput (HTP) Assays which will accelerate the pace of chemical screening;
· and employing such assays to determine whether selected chemicals are capable of interacting or interfering with the endocrine system to determine if additional risk management steps are warranted.
It is also inaccurate and highly irresponsible to equate the actions of the chemical industry to those of the tobacco industry when discussing product safety. The chemical industry has always readily acknowledged the hazards of its products, and has taken steps to manage them through risk reduction strategies.
A bit of history -- long before there were any government regulations that required it, the chemical industry was conducting toxicology and environmental fate testing of its raw materials, products and by-products and was placing hazard warnings and labels on its products to protect those who handled them. Material Safety Data Sheets for this purpose were voluntarily created in the 1940’s.
Industry leaders such as Dow, Dupont, BASF, Bayer and others established toxicology laboratories in the 1930’s (note US EPA wasn’t created until the early 1970’s and TSCA wasn’t law until 1976) for this purpose and early industry scientists were pioneers in the fields of mammalian- and eco-toxicology, environmental chemistry, industrial hygiene, occupational medicine and related disciplines. They readily shared their scientific expertise and knowledge by publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, and presenting at scientific conferences. Results of toxicology testing on specific chemicals were published in journals, but also in books such as Patty’s Toxicology, and WHO monographs.
The science of toxicology has continued to develop and advance and in recent decades has included the use of computer modeling and HTP assays which has increased speed and reduced use of laboratory animals.
Have some mistakes been made along the way? Certainly, and hindsight is always 20:20. Regrettable discoveries were made along the journey, but nothing that closely reached the scale of wholesale denial and obfuscation practiced over decades by the tobacco industry.
Allegation #2 — The petrochemical and agro-chemical industries deny the science on climate change and oppose international efforts to address it.
Responses to Allegation #2
This allegation is completely false, and is easily refutable. ICCA has well-developed policies on energy and climate change that are publicly accessible. In brief, ICCA believes governments should undertake actions that will intensify the deployment of products and technologies to address global climate change challenges. Addressing global climate issues, particularly through improved energy efficiency, is very important to the chemical industry, which enables greater carbon efficiency throughout the economy with the use of its products.
Chemical products have two effects on greenhouse gases (GHGs):
1 GHGs are emitted in the manufacture of chemical products;
2 Use of many of these products enables significant emission reductions in other sectors, often greater than the amount of GHGs emitted during their production.
ICCA says it further believes successful implementation of the landmark Paris Agreement hinges in large part on the private sector transforming international policy directives on climate into action by investing, developing and deploying innovations to address global sustainability challenges, including reducing GHG emissions. The global chemical industry will be instrumental to the development, production, and delivery of these products and technologies.
Allegation #3 — “The European Commission is about to implement the first regulation for endocrine disruptors in the world. While many other governments have also expressed concern about endocrine disruptors, regulations for these chemicals are missing altogether.”
Response to Allegation #3
The co-signatories to the Le Monde article continue to perpetuate a myth that the EU is the only government body that is regulating chemicals that are endocrine active. The truth is that these chemicals have been and continue to be regulated by a variety of means by government agencies around the world. Even the EU Commission acknowledges this.
Endocrine disruption is a mechanism of action for causing adverse health effects. Government agencies have never required knowledge of a chemicals’ mechanism of action before taking action to regulate it.
Instead, they base their regulatory decisions on the most sensitive adverse effect produced by a chemical and the lowest dose that causes that adverse effect and apply safety factors to deal with uncertainties. Many of the chemicals that the proponents of the issue allege are endocrine disruptors such as DDT and its metabolites, PCBs, dioxins, organophosphates, brominated flame retardants, etc. have already been either phased out or voluntarily withdrawn from consumer markets and a lack of knowledge of their precise mechanism of their action was never a barrier to taking necessary risk management.
Such an allegation also ignores the tremendous efforts that have been undertaken by the Japanese and US regulators to develop and apply validated screening tests to detect chemicals that have the ability to interact or interfere with the normal functioning of endocrine systems. Japan, the US, Canada, Australia and other countries all consider endocrine disruption in applying their respective regulatory schemes that are science and risk-based.
This allegation also ignores the multi-national efforts at the OECD to develop validated screens and tests to detect endocrine activity. It also fails to acknowledge the importance of early screening of chemicals to detect not only chemicals that are potential EDCs but those that are not EDCs which is critical to being able to introduce safe chemicals to the market and avoiding regrettable substitution.
The EU is unique in its decision to take a hazard-only rather than a risk-based approach to regulating crop protection chemicals and biocides that are identified as endocrine disruptors. This was a political decision made by the EU Parliament rather than a scientific decision made by the European Commission which must now implement it.
A large number of stakeholders have been highly critical of the EU approach because it ignores real life exposures and will likely lead to unnecessary bans and restrictions on products that are safe to use, thereby reducing consumer choice and raising costs for consumers with no concomitant increased public health or environmental benefits.
Allegation #4 — “Never before have we faced a higher burden of hormonal diseases, such as cancers of the breast, testes, ovaries and prostate, compromised brain development, diabetes, obesity, non-descending testes, malformations of the penis, and poor semen quality. The overwhelming majority of scientists actively engaged in researching the causes of these worrying health trends agree that several factors are involved, among them chemicals capable of interfering with our hormone systems.”
Response to Allegation #4
There are actually two allegations here: (1) that the trends for all of the diseases listed are actually increasing everywhere globally; and (2) there is consensus among an overwhelming majority of scientists that chemicals of unspecified identity have been conclusively shown to be playing a causal role. Both are wrong.
As demonstrated below, the evidence that the incidence of these diseases is increasing is weak or non-existent. As is also demonstrated, the evidence that low levels of chemicals in the environment actually cause these diseases is inconsistent and insufficient. Several of the signatories to the Le Monde article have authored papers which attempt to make a case for causation; however, they have been accused of failing to use systematic review methods, cherry picking studies, over weighting single un-replicated results, ignoring the role of dose of exposure, failing to acknowledge small sample sizes, and misusing and mis-interpreting statistics.
Perhaps most disturbingly, attached to both allegations is the implication that if you disagree with this group of scientists then you are denying the science, in industry’s pockets and are among the “manufacturers of doubt”.
This amounts to a none too subtle threat to either get in line with their particular view of the science or face being labeled with a pejorative and publicly harassed. No doubt their intent is to silence anyone who disagrees with them which is, of course, antithetical to the scientific process itself. Such behavior is repulsive and should not be tolerated.
Let’s first tackle the allegation that trends for the listed diseases are increasing, and focus first on cancers of the breast, testes, prostate and ovary. First of all, reliable cancer trend data for Europe as a whole is difficult to find as there are significant variations in incidence and mortality rates across the individual countries. These reflect differences in the national health system policies (e.g. organized screening), the completeness of recording cancer incidence and death, the varying prevalence – of risk factors between countries and regions, and disparities in human development and the effective delivery of cancer control measures.
With the exception of lung cancer among women and pancreatic cancer among both sexes, overall cancer mortality has been steadily declining in Europe since its peak in 1988, translating to an overall 26% fall in men and 21% in women, and the avoidance of over 325 000 deaths in 2015 compared with the peak rate. Since 2009, breast cancer rates in women fell 10.2% and prostate cancer rates among men fell 12.2%.
In the U.S., during the last decade, breast cancer incidence has been level, prostate cancer has been falling on average 5.1% each year, and ovarian cancer has been declining 1.9% each year. Although testicular cancer incidence has been rising 0.8% per year, this appears completely attributable to earlier detection as mortality rates have been stable and five year survival rates have been increasing. Contrary to the assertion in the Le Monde article, rates for the four types of cancer are not increasing. Nor is there an overwhelming scientific consensus that EDCs play a causal role in the etiology of cancers of the breast, testis, prostate, and ovaries.
Also, contrary to the assertion of compromised brain development, IQ scores continue to increase globally with the most significant gains occurring in the lower half of the distribution. This is known as the Flynn effect, named after the scientist who discovered it and the causes for it are unknown but competing theories for it abound.
A recent systematic review of the literature on intellectual disability found it was impossible to make any conclusions about time trends owing to substantial differences in study settings, methodologies, age groups, and case definitions contributed to a range of prevalence estimates (0.05 to 1.55 %). According to the authors, future research should include reproducible and consistent definitions of intellectual disabilities, provide age-specific estimates, and monitor changes in prevalence over time. Whether chemicals are playing a role in causing a decline in IQ and an increase in intellectual disability remains in some dispute.
The allegation that rates for male reproductive diseases and disorders are increasing is highly controversial. According to Skakkebaek — a signatory to the Le Monde op-ed, they are, but according to Sengupta the picture is much more complicated. He concluded the evidence for secular changes is “indecisive”. Sengupta also concluded that “Although the ‘environmental oestrogen’ hypothesis has attracted much attention, and there exist some biological data to confirm its plausibility, evidence that it is causally related to changes in human male reproductive health remains circumstantial. “… association does not imply causality, and several other possible explanations require to be considered.”
Although It is clear that the prevalence of obesity and adult onset diabetes have both increased substantially worldwide over the past several generations, and some chemicals are alleged to be playing a role, recent review articles (see for example Wang and Starling) have concluded their is insufficient evidence for a causal role and have recommended additional research, especially for prospective epidemiology studies that include serial measurements for chemical biomarkers.
Lakind et al have reviewed some general problems with the environmental epidemiology literature that often precludes an ability to draw robust conclusions regarding the presence or absence of causal links between specific exposures and human health effects. They note that to develop policies that are protective of public health and can withstand scrutiny, the investigations need to be of sufficiently high quality in terms of exposure assessment, health outcome ascertainment, data analysis and reporting of results. They propose a three part approach addressing methods for improving the quality and accessibility of systematic reviews, access to information on ongoing and completed studies, and principles for reporting study results. If followed this approach could certainly improve our ability to gain scientific consensus on a causal role for chemicals for the diseases mentioned in the Le Monde article as well as other health conditions.
Allegation #5 — “It would indeed be worrying if any of our political opinions clouded our scientific judgment. But it is those who deny the science who are allowing their politics to cloud their judgment.”
Response to Allegation #5
This is another serious allegation, and one could more easily argue that it is the co-signatories to the Le Monde article who have allowed their politics to interfere with their scientific judgment. Indeed, many of their arguments, which are cloaked in the precautionary principle — have no or little basis in science and instead solely reflect political choices. Of course, the precautionary principle is not science, it is a political choice, invoked when there is a lack of scientific certainty. But when and how it is applied is subject to considerable legitimate debate.
Allegation #6 — “However, we are concerned that the regulatory options proposed by the European Commission fall well short of what is needed to protect us and future generations. They set a level of proof for the identification of endocrine disruptors much higher than for other hazardous substances, such as cancer-causing substances – in practice, this will make it very difficult for any substance to be recognized as an endocrine disruptor in the EU.”
Response to Allegation #6
The allegation that the EC has set too high a level of proof to identify EDCs is simply not true. The proponents have falsely claimed that the EC criteria to identify EDCs requires a show of harm in humans or wildlife. The EC has provided a rebuttal that proves that application of their criteria could lead to the identification of a chemical as an EDC based solely on animal data or even on in vitro data, without the availability of any evidence of harm from human studies.
At the time the EC published its proposed criteria it also outlined how they would apply them. (They have subsequently asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency to develop implementation advice.) They rightfully pointed out that the most difficult determination to make in identifying EDCs is assessing whether the interaction or interference with the components of the endocrine system actually is the cause of any adverse effects that are observed. They relied on precedent set by the EFSA “… a reasonable evidence base for a biologically plausible causal relationship between the [endocrine mode of action] and the adverse effects seen in intact organism studies.”
This is not an unreasonable barrier to surmount, unless the proponents doubt they have sufficient quality evidence on their side to make their case. The EC rightfully rejected a much higher standard of conclusive evidence of causality which would require observing direct evidence of harm already in humans and wildlife.
Many stakeholders, including industry, agriculture and some member states, have advocated for the inclusion of potency in the proposed EU criteria. They make the point that to ignore potency will lead to an over-identification of chemicals as EDCs. Thus far, the EC has rejected the inclusion of potency in their criteria.
Allegation #7 — (Note: this is not so much an allegation but rather a recommendation to establish an expert organization modeled after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review and assess the weight of evidence on EDCs.) “We therefore call for the development and implementation of effective measures that address both endocrine disrupting chemicals and climate change in a coordinated fashion. An effective way of achieving this would be by creating an organization within the United Nations with the same international standing and charge as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This body would review the science to be used by decision makers in the public interest and would protect our science from the influence of vested interests.”
Response to Allegation #7
There is some irony in the co-signatories making this recommendation. On the one hand their article asserts the science on EDCs is compelling enough to take urgent action now, and on the other their recommendation to convene a group of global experts to review the science would seem to be an admission that it needs a fresh look from an independent group. So which is it?
The IPCC model may have merit, although many could legitimately question whether the science on EDCs is sufficiently strong to warrant this level of attention and commitment from governments. Frankly, it is difficult to imagine that such a group would come to a different conclusion than “the evidence provides hints of possible associations, but is insufficient to conclude that they are causal.”
Also, what would be the scope of such an organization’s work? Would it be limited to a review of the evidence linking specific chemicals to selected diseases and disorders or would it also tackle knottier issues such as existence of thresholds, the low dose hypothesis, and non-monotonic dose response relationships? If so, the group would soon reach the limits of scientific discourse on these topics and would have to be strongly counseled to avoid making policy recommendations as per below.
By way of background, IPCC are policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take. This stands in stark contrast to the heavy policy activism practiced by the co-signatories to the Le Monde op-ed.
Another potential strength of the IPCC model is that members and authors of reports are chosen based on their expertise and participation by non-profit and industry scientists who, according to the IPCC, “bring a valuable perspective to the assessment.”
We note again, with some irony, that such a constructive attitude towards the participation by industry stands in stark contrast to the allegations made in the Le Monde article.
So, I'll now again ask you the reader to decide who's really manipulating the science on EDCs?
http://www.science20.com/endocrine_policy_perspectives/but_whos_really_manipulating_the_science_on_endocrine_disrupting_chemicals-185566
-
Help on the Way for Navigating California Safe Products Rules
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California manufacturers and other regulated entities will soon get help navigating the evaluation processes required under rules intended to get harmful chemicals out of consumer products.
State regulators said they expect to deliver guidelines for assessing alternative chemicals under the state's Safer Consumer Products regulations to a scientific panel early next year.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control is accepting comments through Jan. 20 on its “Draft Alternatives Analysis Guide,” released for public review Dec. 12. A webinar is planned Jan. 10, to discuss the draft document.
Product manufacturers, assemblers, importers and retailers are among the entities regulated under the Safer Consumer Products program.
In the works for nearly two years, the guide isn't a regulatory document but an advisory on how to conduct the two-step alternative analysis process prescribed in the regulations, the department said. It outlines useful approaches, methods, resources, tools and examples for the evaluation process.
The Safer Consumer Products regulations include specific requirements for the alternatives analysis process.
Sold in California
Adopted in 2013, the regulations established a four-step process to identify and reduce exposure to toxic chemicals in products sold in California. The first step involved publication of a list of candidate chemicals that exhibit a hazard trait and/or an environmental toxicological endpoint. Regulators must then identify potential “priority products” containing chemicals that pose a significant risk to public health or the environment.
Once a priority product is declared through a separate rulemaking, regulated entities must conduct an alternative analysis to determine if safer options are available.
The final step in the lengthy process is for the department to determine if a regulatory response, such as banning the chemical-product combination, is required.
So far, the department has launched only one rulemaking for one priority product—children's foam padded sleeping mats containing two chlorinated flame retardants.
If the rule becomes final, the 35 to 50 companies that make and sell the mats and other polyurethane foam padded children'sproducts treated with Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) and Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) would have to conduct a lifecycle alternatives analysis to determine how the products can be made safer.
Comments on the “Alternatives Analysis Guide” will be incorporated for final evaluation by the department's Green Ribbon Science Panel before it is released, Benjamin Edokpayi, spokesman for the agency, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“We estimate the entire process will be done early in 2017,” he said.
The department is still reviewing comments on the children's mat proposed rule, Edokpayi said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908938&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908938&jd=101908938
-
EU Panel Notes Progress on Glyphosate Hazard Assessment
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said it was on track Dec. 13 to deliver a recommendation by late 2017 on a European Union hazard classification for glyphosate, the active chemical in Monsanto's Roundup weed killer and the world's most widely used herbicide.
ECHA said that its risk assessment committee, which consists of nominees from each of the EU member countries, discussed the issue for the first time at a Dec. 7 meeting and would continue talks in March 2017, ahead of a deadline to deliver an opinion by the end of November 2017.
ECHA's work on glyphosate is seen as critical to the future authorization of the substance in the EU following conflicting scientific opinions from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, which in 2015 said glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic,” and the European Food Safety Authority, which the same year said glyphosate was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard.”
18-Month Window
The EU authorization of glyphosate expired June 30. Because of disputes about the substance's hazards, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, approved an 18-month authorization extension, rather than a full reauthorization, while ECHA carries out its hazard assessment.
In a separate statement, ECHA said that when the risk assessment committee opinion on the glyphosate hazard classification is ready, it would be passed to the commission, which would “take the agreed classification into account when deciding on the renewal of the approval of glyphosate” under the EU regulation on pesticide authorizations (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009).
Under the pesticide authorizations regulation, substances should not be approved for use in pesticides if they fall into the most hazardous classes for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or reprotoxicity, or if they are endocrine disruptors, though in some cases derogations are allowed if the risks posed by substances can be managed.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908911&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908911&jd=101908911
-
(ACC Mentioned) 2016 REW Conference: Circular Circumstances
Dec 13, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Kristin Smith
Extracting as much value as possible from products is an idea that is gaining traction. Beyond use as a material, waste has tremendous energy value. Speakers during a session titled Waste-to-Energy in the Circular Economy, during the 2016 Renewable Energy from Waste Conference in Long Beach, California, in mid-November, shared several examples of waste’s value.
Craig Cookson, director of sustainability and recycling for the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council, Washington, discussed how plastics of all the energy resources, 97 percent goes into fuel, power and other chemicals. Only 3 percent ends up in plastics production. Of that plastics production, over 70 percent of that comes from the ethane in natural gas.
“Natural gas in North America really is the feedstock for plastics,” said Cookson.
He said a critical step in sustainable materials management of plastics is post-use collection and recycling everything that can be recycled, or break it back down to a monomer, or if that can’t be done, then getting the energy back out of it.
Cookson pointed out the many environmental benefits of plastics, including: reduce material use, weight; maintain freshness; reduce breakage; reduce transportation costs through lightweighting; economical; and reduce wasteA recent study, he said, showed if you took plastics away, through a variety of applications, energy use would increase and greenhouse gas emissions would also increase. Another study showed costs of materials and transportation would increase if plastics went away.
He showed the evolution from coffee packaging from a steel coffee can, which was very recyclable, to a plastic canister, to a vacuum-packed plastic brick.
“Even though the plastic packaging does not get recycled, it still reduces life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by about 75 percent compared to that steel coffee can,” Cookson noted.
Cookson referenced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recently released Advancing Sustainable Materials Management 2014 Report.
He explained that the question the EPA asks is do recycling rates tell the whole story? For example, the report notes, the U.S. recycled 22,378,489 more containers in 2012 than 2005, an increase of 30.5 percent, but measured by weight, it is only an increase of 18.6 percent. So the increase in the number of containers does not tell the whole story because it leaves out the story of lightweighting and all the benefits that come from it.
He shared a graphic which showed how the provision of materials creates about 42 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions with about a 32 percent recovery rate. He said even if the recovery rate was 95 percent, it would only cause a 6 percent decrease in GHG emissions.
While that is important, Cookson said, “We still have to remember it is really what happens upstream that has the biggest benefits.” That is why he said we are seeing more and more plastics in the waste stream.
The ACC worked several years ago with Columbia University and its Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT). Researchers found that plastics in the waste stream have about 15,000 British thermal units (BTU) per pound. The only two energy sources higher than that are natural gas and crude oil, said Cookson.
A report being release early in 2017 is a collaboration with the Earth Engineering Center (EEC) at City College of New York and the city of Edmonton. Researches have been doing pilot tests at Edmonton’s pilot gasifier modeled after the Enerkem’s gasification plant there.
They took a baseline biomass feedstock and tried to show that increasing plastics in the feedstocks would: make it more efficient; produce more useful fuel and chemical to sell; and produce less ash or byproduct needing landfilled.He also shared an infograph showing that if you took all the waste landfilled in the U.S. each year and converted it into energy, you could power 14 million homes, or about 12 percent of the homes in the U.S. It would also save 6,000 acres of space. And if just the plastics portion were converted to gasoline, we could power 9 million cars per year.
A company that is doing much within its operation to take waste and put it toward energy use is Smithfield Foods, Smithfield, Virginia. Smithfield is the largest pork processor in the world with 490 hog farms in the U.S.
The company’s vice president of regulatory affairs and chief sustainability officer, Stewart Leeth, explained, “We look at the circular economy in a basic way that is to try to bring more value out of existing products and waste materials in a way that creates value for the company.”
“The renewable energy issue for us is squarely within our sustainability program,” said Leeth. The program focuses on environment, animal care, food safety and quality, helping communities, people and value creation.
Leeth explained that the value creation part of the program was added to capture the idea of a shared value approach where the company is “not just creating a monetary value, but value for its customers.” Those customers include grocery chains, restaurants and food distributors.
He said renewable energy is a challenge “because sometimes our return on investment is not good.”
The company’s largest processing plant in the world in North Carolina has a covered anaerobic digester. It processes 3 million gallons of wastewater per day to create steam and power for the plant. At the an anaerobic digester in Souix Falls, Iowa, gas is either flared or goes to the plant. Smithfield operates four or five of these types of digesters around the country.
“The issue for us is power generation is not as expensive as it once was,” said Leeth.
He spoke about the energy value contained in manure, mentioning that as feed efficiency becomes better, the energy value of the manure declines. Today the feed is 75 percent more efficient than it was 50 years ago.
He described the different ways Smithfield manages manure at its farms. A typical systems in the Midwest includes barns hooked up to anaerobic digesters. The manure is digested and applied to fields. In cooler temperatures, barns are hooked up to a slurry tank and tractors apply it to crops. In the desert, the company uses evaporation ponds, evaporates the manure and it is then applied as fertilizer or landfilled.
Leeth said Smithfield has digesters in Utah and North Carolina with power purchase agreements, where the energy is sold to the grid. In Mexico, where energy prices are double what they are in the U.S., the return on investment for digesters are less than 24 months, he added. Leeth said Smithfield has a number of joint ventures in place there.
Another major project underway for Smithfield is the Roeslein Alternative Energy project in Missouri, consisting of covering existing anaerobic lagoons. The gas will be cleaned and compressed and will go direct into the natural gas pipeline. It will consist of 88 lagoon covers and is designed for 2 billion cubic feet of renewable natural gas per year. At the time of the presentation, the project was about halfway complete.
Finally, Marco Castaldi, associate professor, The City College of New York, provided a bigger picture of some of the research the EEC and WTERT has been working on. He emphasized the importance of conversion technologies being affordable, distributed and versatile.
He pointed out that 0 percent of the world is without waste, but that does not get the visibility and attention from global entities. In terms of recycling, he said metals have a high rate of recycling and can be recycled infinitely. Glass is also infinitely recyclable, but has economic barriers, he added.
With paper and plastic recycling, he said even in areas with the highest recovery, they are only achieving recovery rates of 85 percent.
“Prior to shale gas, there was a big impetus to look at waste as an energy resource,” noted Castaldi. He also shared that the hydrocarbon coming online today far outstrips our energy needs.
“What can we do with it? Can we make more product?” he asked.
According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) the U.S. had the same carbon dioxide output in 2013 as it did in 1995.
“The U.S. met its obligation,” Castaldi said. “What to me this means is that waste recovery is a resource issue, not so much an environmental issue.”
He added that is it not so much “how can we get more energy?” It is, “What kind of materials are in the waste stream?”
He described pyrolysis, gas and combustion processes stating the difference is the amount of air each technology requires. Each technology also lends itself to different scales.
Incineration creates ash, and there has been some research into using ash to produce cement. Preliminary tests show a reduction in carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and Sulphur oxide.
In conclusion, Castaldi said, “The low price of energy means waste is a source of materials.”
The session was moderated by Ted Michaels, Energy Recovery Council. The Renewable Energy from Waste Conference was Nov. 14-16 at the Westin Long Beach in Long Beach, California.http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/2016-rew-conference-circular-circumstances/
-
Perry Said to Be Offered Energy Secretary's Position by Trump
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Donald Trump has chosen Rick Perry to be Energy Secretary, putting the one-time presidential candidate and former oil-state governor atop the agency charged with charting the nation's energy future, according to two people familiar with the president-elect's selection process.
Trump offered the job to the former Texas governor in the evening of Dec. 12 and he accepted, according to the people, who asked not to be identified in advance of announcement expected later this week.
Perry, 66, was known in the oil state of Texas as a proponent of “American energy,” viewing energy policy as a economic development goal, while also encouraging investment in alternative sources such as wind and solar.
His nomination breaks with a recent tradition of putting scientists at the top of the Energy Department. Among other things, the agency is responsible for policies on the safe handling of nuclear material and on emerging energy technologies.
Perry is at least the third cabinet pick considered friendly to the oil industry, with Trump's selection of Exxon Mobil Corp. chief Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state nominee and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has a history of suing the Environmental Protection Agency, as chief of that agency.
Trump is also expected to name Jay Martin Cohen, a retired Navy rear admiral, as under secretary for nuclear security, a position within the Energy Department, one person said.
Famous Flub
The selection of Perry puts the vast energy agency in the hands of a man who once vowed to shut it down but forgot its name during a debate.
Perry twice ran for the Republican presidential nomination, presenting himself as a pro-business candidate and touting Texas’ strong job-creation record during his tenure.
The first bid faltered after a series of gaffes. In the most famous, Perry was unable, during a 2011 debate, to name the third federal agency that he wanted to disband along with the departments of commerce and education. It was the Energy Department.
A second run, launched in 2015, began with high expectations but ended amid low poll numbers after only a few months.
As the longest-serving governor in Texas, Perry, 66, oversaw a state that is a powerhouse in both fossil fuel and renewable energy. It is the nation's biggest producer of oil and, thanks to a wave of turbine installations, has the capacity to generate more wind energy than any other state.
That background could be a limited asset for Perry, though. Despite its name, the 39-year-old Energy Department's chief role is managing the national nuclear weapons complex, promoting nuclear security and advocating nonproliferation. Under President Barack Obama the department also has played a lead role advancing clean energy technologies.
Ernest Moniz, the current energy secretary, is a nuclear physicist who previously headed an energy initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was preceded by Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate who directed the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and was a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology. Perry earned a degree in animal science from Texas A&M University.
Trump has promised to unleash domestic oil, gas and coal production, largely by rescinding “job-killing” rules and environmental regulations. Although the Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency would be the target for much of that regulatory rollback, a questionnaire circulated by Trump advisers signals future scrutiny of the Energy Department's national labs and loan guarantee programs.
Perry's Texas roots gave him a close-up view of the U.S. energy renaissance, as the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques helped drive domestic oil and production to near-record levels.
But Perry also helped drive the development of wind power in Texas, by signing legislation requiring the state to boost how much electricity it derived from renewable sources. He also supported a program to build thousands of miles of power lines ensuring wind power from Texas’ gusty panhandle could be sent to urban areas.
Salo Zelermyer, a former senior counsel at the Energy Department now with Bracewell LLC, said Perry's tenure as Texas governor “embodied the type of all-of-the-above approach to U.S. energy production that many have advocated on both sides of the aisle.“
“This track record will serve Perry well not only in leading the Department of Energy but also in becoming a significant part of the new administration's approach to issues like regulatory reform and infrastructure investment,” Zelermyer said by e-mail. “As Texas has shown, it is indeed possible to successfully balance appropriate environmental regulations with domestic energy production and use.“
Legal Trouble
Perry previously served as Texas agricultural commissioner and has headed the Republican governor's association.
He was indicted in 2014 for abuse of power and coercion after threatening to veto funds for a Travis County office that investigates corruption unless the district attorney, who had pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, resigned.
Perry pleaded not guilty, and an appeals court dismissed the final counts in February, determining that a court limiting the governor's veto authority violated separation of powers provisions of the state constitution as well as his free-speech rights.
Perry serves on the board of Energy Transfer Partners LP, the company whose pipeline project has drawn opposition in North Dakota and has become a rallying cry from environmentalists. While the Obama administration has stalled the project, Trump has signaled he will speed federal approvals for energy infrastructure.
Perry engaged in a very public feud with the EPA over U.S. biofuel mandates, after leading an unsuccessful campaign in 2012 to persuade the agency to lower quotas.
Farm Family
According to an official biography on his 2016 presidential campaign website, James Richard “Rick” Perry was raised by tenant farmers in the West Texas town of Paint Creek. He was the first member of his immediate family to attend college.
From 1972 to 1977 he served in the U.S. Air Force, flying C-130 aircraft in Europe and the Middle East. Perry boasts of being a life-time member of the National Rifle Association and the American Legion.
He began his political career as a Texas state representative and, from 1994 to 1998, served as the state's commissioner of agriculture. He succeeded George W. Bush as governor in 2000 and held the office until 2015.
Perry was named chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 and again in 2011.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908908&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908908&jd=101908908
-
Tillerson Pick Stokes Concerns Over Energy-Heavy Diplomacy
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Global energy partnerships may eclipse bedrock humanitarian and development policy if oil mogul Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to head the State Department, is confirmed, lawmakers and former Obama administration officials said Dec. 13.
That strategy may jeopardize U.S. national security interest, they said in interviews with Bloomberg BNA. Tillerson is the chief executive of the Exxon Mobil Corp.
A bipartisan group of senators is contesting the nomination, arguing Tillerson's cozy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin necessitates serious scrutiny. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Dec. 13 he had “serious concerns” with the nomination.
Still, a range of Trump surrogates and supporters, as well as other establishment lawmakers and business associations, applauded the selection.
“Manufacturers are encouraged to see a leader from the manufacturing economy take on the role of America's chief diplomat, and we are pleased that Rex will bring a business perspective to the State Department,” said Jay Timmons, chief executive officer of the National Association of Manufacturers. The American Petroleum Institute echoed that praise.
Senate Clamor
Tillerson lobbied against and criticized U.S. sanctions on Russia following that country's 2014 invasion of the Crimean region of Ukraine.
Those sanctions harmed an Exxon deal with Russian state oil company Rosneft to explore and develop Siberian resources, which could have fetched tens of billion of dollars in profit.
“It troubles me greatly that Mr. Tillerson would have reason to advocate for the rolling back of sanctions because that would be in the best interest of his company,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, told reporters. “A major multi-national, multi-billion oil and gas company often puts stability, predictability ahead of rights and values.”
The Tillerson nomination will have to first pass through the Foreign Relations Committee. Coons guaranteed at least some opposition.
But the committee's chairman, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), spoke glowingly of the nominee.
“Tillerson is a very impressive individual and has an extraordinary working knowledge of the world,” he said in a statement.
Energy Diplomacy?
During a State Department overhaul in 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created the Bureau of Energy Resources, citing the need to ensure global energy security.
“You can't talk about our economy or foreign policy without talking about energy,” she said at the time. “With a growing global population and a finite supply of fossil fuels, the need to diversify our supply is urgent.”
The State Department then stressed the importance of promoting alternative energy and good governance.
Agency infrastructure globally, however, could be put to use to advance a more oil-friendly agenda under Tillerson, Jennifer Harris, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow and former high-ranking State Department official, told Bloomberg BNA.
“My concern is this delta between Exxon interests and the interest of United States is not only well documented but known my foreign leaders, and so it's something that could be exploited,” she said. As an example, she pointed to an Exxon business deal with the Kurdish government in defiance of the Iraqi government.
David Mortlock, an attorney with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and former director for International Economic Affairs at the White House National Security Council under Obama, said energy policy is increasingly critical on the global stage.
“Energy policy is hugely important in both global politics and the global economy, including everything from global sanctions to even where pipelines are laid and energy projects are approved,” he said. “Energy cooperation between the U.S. and Russia is a very good thing, but if becomes the only thing, and the rule of law and invading other countries are no longer important, then we are sacrificing our long-term interest.”
John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's director of Federal and International Climate Campaigns, said U.S. embassies and consulates across the globe could be directed to focus on energy project development.
Checkered Past
Exxon now readily admits climate change is “clear and the risk warrants action.” The company and Tillerson, in fact, have supported a carbon tax.
“My understanding is that he advocated for a carbon tax and market mechanisms to address climate change,” Coons said. “That's intriguing. I didn't expect that from an oil and gas executive.”
At the helm of State, Tillerson would be tasked with engineering U.S. participation in the Paris climate agreement and other climate relationships globally. Exxon has supported the pact. Harris indicated that may be a silver lining to an otherwise-unsavory nomination.
“I think the lesson here is not all major oil producers are created equal on the question of climate change,” she said. “Exxon is one of the better actors, which gives me hope Tillerson could be a good force for preserving the environment.”
New York and Massachusetts attorneys general recently alleged Exxon willfully misled investors, regulators and the public on climate science research for decades.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908939&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908939&jd=101908939
-
Rex Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State, Nominee Is a Flexible Pragmatist
Dec 13, 2016 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss And John Schwartz
HOUSTON — Three years ago, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil and now President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, was probably the man least expected to show up at a town council meeting in North Texas to oppose a local construction project.
His complaint: A proposed water tower in Bartonville, Tex., meant to help use hydraulic fracturing to coax natural gas out of a shale field, would decrease the property value of his nearby ranch. He joined a suit to halt construction.
Mr. Tillerson dropped out of the suit after a judge threw out his complaint — and after news media reports implied he was hypocritically pursuing his backyard interests in opposing a project of a sort that Exxon Mobil has engaged in around the world. Admirers might cite Mr. Tillerson’s willingness to change course as a sign of being nimble when necessary.
Depending on the circumstances, Mr. Tillerson has shown toughness or flexibility, whether in international negotiations, or on climate changepolicy and with gay rights — when he quietly lobbied for reform in the Boy Scouts.
As the leader of the biggest oil company in the United States, and with his close relations to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and a controversial record on climate change, Mr. Tillerson, 64, is likely to be a lightning rod for Democratic and some Republican senators as he seeks confirmation.
But executives at Exxon Mobil and around the oil business have said that Mr. Tillerson has learned to get along with Mr. Putin strictly for business reasons, but that he does not have a particular fondness for him. And supporters extol Mr. Tillerson’s intelligence.
“He’s a man with a tremendous capacity to absorb information and make decisions,” said Daniel Yergin, an energy historian and vice chairman of IHS Markit. “He’s very measured and disciplined and takes a long view.”
Detractors, though, view him as the epitome of an industry whose activities harm the environment and whose interests lie squarely with lifting sanctions on Russia.
“By appointing Rex Tillerson,” said Trip Van Noppen, the president of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, “Donald Trump is showing Americans and the world that he quite literally intends that the interests of large corporations dominate our country’s decision-making.”
Exxon Mobil said Mr. Tillerson was not available for an interview on Tuesday.
If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, the State Department would be the latest step up in a career and life with humble origins. He has a strong Texas twang as befits a man born in Wichita Falls, a North Texas town known mainly for its Air Force base and its tornadoes.
He grew up in a family of modest means; his father was an administrator for the Boy Scouts. Mr. Tillerson became an Eagle Scout at age 13; he later graduated with a degree in civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, where he played drums in the Longhorns’ marching band.
Married and with four children, he is known as a an observant Christian and political conservative. He has said his favorite book is “Atlas Shrugged,” a libertarian novel by Ayn Rand.
Those who know him say he has a Texas-size ego and can show flashes of anger when things do not go his way.
Throughout his professional life, Mr. Tillerson has been involved in charities. He was a national president of the Boy Scouts of America and is a former director of the United Negro College Fund.
He showed interest in foreign affairs when serving as a trustee for the Center of Strategic and International Studies. He was on that Washington think tank’s board with Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, and Henry A. Kissinger, a former secretary of state, among others.
Under the leadership of Mr. Tillerson, who has been chairman and chief executive since 2006, Exxon Mobil shifted its approach to climate policy — although environmentalists may disagree. The company has acknowledged the science underlying climate change, and has stopped funding some groups that spread false data about global warming. The company also put support behind carbon taxes and last December’s Paris climate agreement.
Having spent his entire career with Exxon Mobil and having been considered in some circles a leading spokesman of the oil industry, Mr. Tillerson is generally viewed as an unconventional choice for secretary of state. He has never held a diplomatic job nor a position in government. He rarely, if ever, speaks publicly on matters outside energy policy.
But he has extensive international business experience. He led the negotiations of an oil consortium seeking to build a gas export plant in Yemen, and oversaw increasing company involvement in Russia’s oil and gas fields.
Mr. Tillerson has managed partnerships with Russian and Qatari state oil businesses, and supervised the activities of Exxon Mobil, which has operations in more than four dozen countries. In Iraq, the company has worked with the Baghdad government, but also with regional Kurdish leaders whose independence sometimes irks the Iraqi government.
From the very beginning of his leadership, he has faced international crises.
Shortly after he took over the company, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela moved to nationalize the assets of more than 20 foreign oil companies. Exxon Mobil was one of two that resisted, and took Venezuela to international arbitration court. The company won a settlement of $1.6 billion, although that was a small fraction of what the company lost.
Bigger challenges awaited him in Russia. When Mr. Putin pressured Royal Dutch Shell to sell a major stake in its $20 billion Sakhalin Island oil and gas project to the state company Gazprom, Exxon Mobil avoided similar treatment. Executives said Mr. Tillerson dug in his heels and was a tough bargainer.
When the United States and its European allies sought to punish Russia in 2014 for its aggression in Ukraine, Mr. Tillerson found legal ways to work around initial sanctions. But when the sanctions were tightened, he froze many activities in the country.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican, has already cited Mr. Tillerson’s ties to Russia as concerning. “The next secretary of state must be someone who views the world with moral clarity, is free of potential conflicts of interest, has a clear sense of America’s interests and will be a forceful advocate for America’s foreign policy goals,” Mr. Rubio said.
But it may be on the issue of climate change that Mr. Tillerson has been viewed with the most skepticism.
Reporting by Inside Climate News and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, published in The Los Angeles Times, has criticized Exxon Mobil for publicly questioning the scientific consensus on climate change even while its researchers were warning Exxon executives that the use of fossil fuels was a threat to the planet.
Mr. Tillerson has led the company in aggressively disputing those reports and in resisting investigations by state attorneys general, including Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, into allegations of a decades-long deception by Exxon Mobil.
The state inquiries include questions of whether the company is fraudulently misleading shareholders and consumers about climate change and the long-term prospects for fossil fuels, for example, in the way it assigns value to its oil and gas reserves.
Scientists have suggested that to avoid the worst effects of warming, companies like Exxon Mobil will not be able to extract a large portion of its oil and gas reserves. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating Exxon Mobil’s bookkeeping on reserves, and the company recently conceded it may have to write down some of those values, particularly in Canada, because of continuing low prices.
Lee Wasserman, the executive director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a charitable group whose work includes environmental protection, said that under Mr. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil “has done the minimum possible in an apparent attempt to avoid major liability for misrepresenting a critical fact about their business model: Their product is responsible for catastrophic climate change.”
The company takes a different view. “Our position evolved as the science evolved,” said Alan Jeffers, an Exxon Mobil spokesman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/business/energy-environment/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-exxon-mobil.html
-
Trump's Pipeline Promises at the Mercy of Hard-to-Change Agency
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Donald Trump has said he'll speed up approvals for energy infrastructure projects when he gets to the White House. Standing at least partly in the way—a panel of officials he'll have little sway over.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is charged by law with approving new natural gas pipelines, an industry priority as gas unseats coal for power generation. While Trump can make some changes within the agency, his ability to quicken approvals is offset by the longstanding laws that drive the commission and its current makeup, with three Democrat-appointed members on a five-person board.
“Short of, literally, an act of Congress,” making any big changes in how FERC operates is “wishful thinking,” said Christi Tezak, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based industry consultant, in a telephone interview.
Commissioners serve 5-year terms. The earliest any of the Democrats’ terms will end is seven months away. Beyond that, FERC operates under economic and environmental laws that carry specific approval guidelines that have been tough to overcome, even as pipeline opponents grow increasingly sophisticated in using them to their advantage.
Last year, a deeply-divided Senate didn't even bother to take up a House-passed measure that would automatically approve pipeline applications still pending after a year. With an even slimmer majority post-election, Republicans may find it equally as difficult to pass similar legislation next year.
Aging Infrastructure
Builders say new natural gas pipelines are needed as locations of key energy sources change, and to replace aging infrastructure at a time when the shale boom has produced record levels of the fuel. A snail's-pace approval process, however, is making project planning tougher, even as demand rises for use of natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper option for generating electricity.
Since the end of 2013, it's taken almost 70 days longer on average to go from an initial FERC filing to notice of construction, according to a July report by Brandon Barnes, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst. Overall, the average approval time was 429 days.
Trump has responded by vowing to expedite all energy projects.
With oil pipelines, overseen by a patchwork of federal agencies, he can make good on his promise. Trump is expected to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, rejecting a review of its cross-border siting by President Barack Obama's State Department. And he has said he supports the Dakota Access project, delayed as the Army Corps of Engineers demands more study.
With natural gas, however, his authority is limited. FERC's independence within the Department of Energy was mandated when it was formed by the U.S. Congress in 1977, in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo.
Comment Mandates
Today, FERC licenses hydropower projects, regulates electricity markets and sites interstate gas pipelines as directed by the 1938 Natural Gas Act and the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act. Under the former, the agency is tasked with determining the market demand for a given proposal and dismissing those that aren't seen as needed. Under the latter, FERC must weigh the ecological impact and reject projects found to be harmful. In each case, the laws mandate public comment and agency response.
While there isn't much Trump can do to speed up this process, barring a change in law, there are things he can adjust.
In August, under President Barack Obama, the White House Council on Environmental Quality released guidance on the National Environmental Policy Act that urged federal agencies to consider the impact of regulatory actions on climate change. The guidance has been a matter of discord between FERC and the Environmental Protection Agency, which has adopted a more aggressive stance on FERC's reviews since the guidance was issued.
Legal Challenges
While the guidance hasn't significantly slowed the process, it lays the groundwork for legal challenges that could stymie proposals down the road, according to Marc Spitzer, a former FERC commissioner.
Trump could also name a new chairman for the panel, replacing Norman Bay. While Bay could continue as a commissioner until his term expires in June 2018, maintaining a Democratic voting majority, a Republican chairman would be able to dictate which initiatives FERC takes up pro-actively. Under Bay's leadership, for example, FERC focused on integrating renewable energy technologies into electricity markets.
“Someone else could come along and say that's not a priority,” said FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, a former chairman.
A Trump-appointed chairman, for instance, could prioritize liquefied natural gas export terminals, a process less covered by existing law, giving commissioners more discretion. So far, FERC has only rejected one proposal for an export terminal, Veresen Inc.’s plan to build in Oregon.
‘Friendly’ to Ports
Under a Republican chairman, “FERC could move more in the direction of being friendly to those ports,” said Ron Binz, an energy consultant and former Colorado regulator.
In some cases, though, a commissioner's party affiliation doesn't matter, according to Spitzer, who is a Republican. “There are some projects that should not be built,” he said, referring to the decision to reject Veresen's plans. “A Republican commission, I think, would do the same thing.“
At the same time, analysts on both sides of the issue say the Trump administration could see even slower pipeline approvals than before as environmental groups, revved up by Trump's pro-carbon campaign rhetoric, intensify their efforts to gum up FERC's process.
U.S. laws allow public stakeholders to raise concerns about pipeline applications, which can create delays as FERC reviews the petitions or waits for companies to respond to the points raised. Among the latest permit delays are the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline, a 200-mile (322-kilometer) extension of Williams Partners’ Transco pipeline system, and the PennEast Pipeline project, designed to transport natural gas from the Marcellus shale region to the Northeast.
FERC in November also announced it was delaying the final environmental reviews of Columbia Pipeline Group's Mountaineer Xpress project in West Virginia and its Gulf Xpress project in Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Protests Rise
Protests have increased by at least threefold since 2008, driven by an increasingly sophisticated and science-based activist movement.
“The parties who are intervening have studied FERC, they have studied the laws, and they are raising points that have never been raised before,” said Don Santa, president of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. “It's putting an added burden on the commission, on the staff and on the applicants.“
That's not likely to change under Trump, according to ClearView Energy's Tezak. “The quality of the challenges will continue to improve, requiring more time and money to address,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908921&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908921&jd=101908921
-
Fewer Efficiency Standards Under Trump, Stakeholders Predict
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy efficiency standards—one of the hallmarks of the Obama administration's climate strategy—likely won't be pursued as energetically in the Trump administration, stakeholders predict.
The Energy Department has finalized at least 44 new or updated appliance standards since President Barack Obama took office in 2009. They are projected to save consumers a total of $550 billion on energy bills between 2009 and 2030.
Efficiency standards have been a cornerstone of the administration's Climate Action Plan goal of reducing carbon emissions by 3 billion metric tons by 2030.
President-elect Donald Trump has not accepted the science of climate change. Trump said he would repeal the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which puts the first carbon emissions limits on power plants.
He appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency administrator and reportedly intends to nominate Rick Perry as energy secretary. Both reject climate science.
Some observers think these signals mean Trump also might call for slowing energy efficiency efforts.
In fact, in a 75-question memo sent to the Energy Department, the Trump transition team asked about the statutes behind the energy efficiency standards, particularly which appliance products are subject to statutory requirements and which are discretionary.
“From everything we've seen, heard, the cast of characters and the questionnaire, we're not hopeful that [the Trump administration] is going to continue to pursue energy efficiency with any vigor, even though it is broadly popular and effective,” David Goldston, the Natural Resources Defense Council's director of government affairs, told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 12.
The efficiency standards already in effect are expected to continue.
“Undoing the regulations that are already in place and enforced, not only is not practical, I don't even know that it's possible because the manufacturers are meeting the efficiency requirements. They're not going to go back to making less efficient products,” Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, an energy efficiency coalition, told Bloomberg BNA.
However, Callahan noted that final regulations that the Energy Department has issued since May could be subject to repeal through the Congressional Review Act. Those include a negotiated final standard for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
But it remains to be seen whether Trump would want to prioritize efforts to repeal these rules and whether there is support in Congress, she said.
Energy-efficiency standards set minimum efficiency requirements to reduce the amount of energy that appliances and equipment use, which leads to reductions of carbon emissions as well as savings for consumers who end up using less electricity to operate the products.
More Rational Approach
The Energy Department is required by law to review energy standards for more than 60 regulated products every six years.
Associations representing appliance manufacturers say they hope the new administration takes a more “rational” approach to determining whether to update or issue new standards when these reviews take place.
“There are significant opportunities for reform in this area in that the current administration has really over-reached more on quantity of standards, as opposed to quality,” Kevin Messner, senior vice president of policy and government relations at the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, told Bloomberg BNA.
“The Department of Energy has always been one of the better appliance standards programs. It's always been data driven. It's brought stakeholders together, which takes time,” he said. “The patience has not necessarily been there over the past few years, but at the same time our products have gone through multiple standards reviews over the years.”
Stephen Yurek, president and CEO of the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, which represents commercial and residential heating and cooling equipment manufacturers, said he hoped the Trump administration would stop considering the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions when setting the standards.
The social cost of carbon is the tool the federal government uses to monetize the impact of climate change. Yurek said the Obama administration used it to justify the economic benefits of higher efficiency standards.
Messner said his group will push for changes in the law that establishes the standards process, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, such as giving the agency flexibility to put a product into a category which has a less restrictive standard.
Long Bipartisan History
The Energy Department's Appliance and Equipment Standards Program covers approximately 66 products, representing about 90 percent of home energy use, 60 percent of commercial building energy use, and approximately 30 percent of industrial energy use.
Efficiency standards have had bipartisan support.
Appliance efficiency standards were first signed into law in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 under President Gerald Ford, and then the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 under President Ronald Reagan.
Under those laws, the Energy Department is required to review and decide whether to issue a proposed energy-efficiency standard every six years, with a final rule due every eight years. The laws have since been updated under both Democratic and Republican administrations in 1992, 2005 and 2007 to apply efficiency standards to more products.
A Few Standards Jeopardized
There are provisions in the existing statutes that allow the Energy Department to make standards for products not specifically stipulated in the the law, but can be issued on a discretionary basis by the administration.
Two such first-time energy efficiency standards issued by the Energy Department during the Obama administration are for portable air conditioners, for which the final rule is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget, and commercial fans and blowers, which is still in the early rulemaking process.
If these standards aren't finalized by the the Obama administration, they'd go to the Trump administration, which may not have an incentive to pursue them since they are discretionary, Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, an energy efficiency advocacy group, told Bloomberg BNA.
“For the 60-odd products that already have standards, [the Trump administration] must review those. But for the things that the agency was exercising its discretion to expand the scope, those are activities that are not required under the statute,” deLaski said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908919&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908919&jd=101908919
-
Fracking Can Taint Drinking Water, EPA Report Finds
Dec 13, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
WASHINGTON—Fracking can affect drinking water supplies in certain circumstances, the Obama administration said in a long-awaited report issued Tuesday, leaving open the possibility of more widespread impacts that it says can’t be determined with current data.
The report, written by Environmental Protection Agency scientists, includes findings that are more open-ended than those in a draft version last year, when the agency said fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, isn’t having “widespread, systematic impacts on drinking water.”
The final report doesn’t include that phrase because EPA scientists determined they couldn’t back it up without comprehensive data on hydraulic fracturing across the U.S. and because it didn't “really communicate the findings in the report,” said Thomas Burke,deputy assistant administrator at EPA on a conference call with reporters Tuesday.–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
The report is one of a number of actions supported by environmentalists that the Obama administration has taken in its final weeks in office, including denying a permit for a stretch of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
In its draft report on fracking, the EPA said the cases of contamination it found “were small compared to the large number of” fracked wells in the nation. The final report says more broadly that the agency has scientific evidence that fracking activities “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.” When asked, Mr. Burke did reiterate the report’s earlier findings that the EPA found only a small number of cases of contamination but stressed the lack of data.
“While the number of identified cases of drinking water contamination is small, the scientific evidence is insufficient to support estimates of the frequency of contamination,” Mr. Burke said. “Scientists involved with finalizing the assessment specifically identified this uncertainty in the report.”
The EPA highlighted a few of those circumstances, such as following surface spills of fracking fluids or when a cement casing of a well is poor and allows chemical-laced liquids to move into groundwater.
The report comes nearly a decade after fracking began helping unlock vast reserves of oil and natural gas across the U.S. Since then, environmentalists and local activists in many areas have worried that it could have harmful effects on the surrounding water, while the energy industry and some consumers have welcomed it as tapping into an abundant source of previously untapped fuel at a relatively low cost.
Fracking involves pumping water, chemicals and sand down a well under intense pressure to split open dense rocks and release the oil and gas trapped underground. But fracked wells produce enough wastewater to cover the island of Manhattan under 100 feet of water annually, according to an article by Rob Jackson, an earth sciences professor at Stanford University who has published several papers on the environmental impact of fracking.
Energy industry executives and other supporters of fracking say the industry has developed effective ways of treating and disposing of the wastewater.
Industry leaders criticized the EPA for changing its conclusion shortly before Mr. Obamaleaves office. “It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door,” said Erik Milito, upstream director at the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S.’s biggest oil and natural gas trade group.
Environmentalists, however, praised the EPA for excising the more sweeping earlier conclusion that fracking doesn’t have a “systematic” impact on drinking water supplies.
“EPA’s initial draft misled the public about the pollution risks of unconventional oil and gas development,” said Mark Brownstein, vice president for climate and energy at the Environmental Defense Fund. “The revised assessment puts an end to the false narrative of risk-free fracking that has been widely promoted by industry.”
Tuesday’s report, which the EPA has been working on for roughly five years, comes in the twilight of President Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House. President-electDonald Trump, who has expressed support for fracking and is filling a cabinet of fellow supporters of the process, could review it. Mr. Burke emphasized that it is a report issued by scientists, not political appointees.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-can-impact-drinking-water-epa-report-finds-1481652649
-
EPA Toughens View of Fracking as Danger to Drinking Water
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Environmental Protection Agency in a widely anticipated report Dec. 13 backed away from its earlier conclusion that hydraulic fracturing has not caused “widespread, systemic” damage to drinking water, drawing a swift rebuke from the oil industry.
The agency did not have enough information about potential water contamination to support the broad assertion that had been in a draft of the report, EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Thomas Burke said.
“Significant data gaps and uncertainties limited our ability to estimate the national frequency of impacts," Burke told reporters on a conference call. “Consequently, EPA scientists concluded that the sentence could not be quantitatively supported.”
The analysis issued Dec. 13 represents the culmination of a multiyear, $29 million study to evaluate potential water pollution from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals underground to free oil and gas.
The issue of water safety has dogged fracking, which drove an energy revolution in the U.S. but has also drawn persistent complaints by environmentalists that it endangers water supplies.
2015 Report
In a draft version of the analysis issued June 2015, the EPA said there were ways that fracking activities could affect drinking water resources, including through surface spills of chemicals used in the process, but it found no evidence “that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.“
That finding—widely quoted in news coverage—drew a strong rebuke from environmentalists and an EPA panel of scientific advisers who said it was not consistent with the rest of the analysis or the inherent limitations in the agency's assessment. EPA's Science Advisory Board urged the agency to revise its summary statements to clearly link the assertions to evidence in the body of the report. If the EPA chose to retain its high-level conclusion ruling out “widespread, systemic impacts,” then it also “should provide quantitative analysis that supports its conclusion,” the advisory board said in August.
The final version of the report, released Dec. 13, does not include a similar reference ruling out systemic, widespread contamination. Burke said it was refined by scientists in response to feedback from the public and the peer-review process, including concerns that the earlier “sentence really did not communicate the findings of the report.”
Hundreds of Pages
“The final assessment report released today reflects a clear representation of the current state of the science,” Burke said.
Over hundreds of pages in the final report, the EPA concedes that its analysis was limited from the start.
“There were instances in which we were unable to form conclusions about the potential for activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle to impact drinking water resources and/or the factors that influence the frequency or severity of impacts,” the report says. “The limited amount of data collected before, during and after activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle reduces the ability to determine whether these activities affected drinking water resources.“
The final version includes a broad overview of what EPA called activities and “factors that likely result in more frequent or more severe impacts on drinking water resources,” including the use of water for fracking in relatively arid areas and spills of fluids used in the process. The agency also highlighted the possibility that when fracking fluids are pumped into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, gases or liquids could migrate underground.
‘Beyond Absurd’
Although the assessment acknowledges potential problems from disposing inadequately treated wastewater in surface water or unlined pits, it does not address concerns that storing those fluids deep underground induces earthquakes.
Oil industry leaders argued the EPA's conclusions were right from the start and blasted the agency for changing direction.
“It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door,” said Erik Milito, a director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute. “The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports and peer reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process.“
Environmentalists said the report confirms fracking isn't safe.
Threatens Water
Where the first version downplayed impacts to drinking water, “the final assessment confirms what we've known for years: Fracking threatens drinking water,” said John Noel, Clean Water Action's national oil and gas campaigns coordinator. “We are glad EPA resisted oil and gas industry spin, followed the science and delivered the facts.”
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch said the EPA had rightly “chosen to be frank about the inherent harms and hazards of fracking.“
It's not clear what effect the final report will have on federal and state policies governing fracking, which have evolved in the seven years since Congress first ordered the study. Lawmakers asked the EPA for the assessment in 2009 as concerns about the ingredients of the fracking fluids being pumped underground and the possibility of contamination risked a backlash against U.S. oil and gas drilling, just as production surged.
Burke said the report still gives clear indications of how things can be done better and areas of vulnerability. There is “a wealth of information that can really help guide thinking and progress with hydraulic fracturing to protect our water resources,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908917&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908917&jd=101908917
-
GOP, Energy Officials Say EPA Fracking Study Downplays Water Impacts
Dec 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Republican lawmakers and energy industry officials say that EPA's final study on hydraulic fracturing's potential impacts on drinking water resources clearly demonstrates a lack of major adverse impacts despite criticizing the agency's decision to strip draft language finding “no widespread, systemic impacts” on water resources.
“While EPA sought to tinker with the topline finding of its draft report, the scant changes made to this final report were not based on any new data,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the outgoing chair of the Environment & Public Works Committee, said in a Dec. 13 statement. Instead, Inhofe says, the final report “only reinforces what science continues to support -- that fracking does not cause harm to our drinking water resources.”
Similarly, one industry official says “we are disappointed with the last minute removal of the original report statement that “hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources,” which was in an earlier draft of the study but removed in the final version released Dec. 13.
However, even though the final report omits that statement from the earlier draft, the “report demonstrates that EPA could find no widespread, systemic adverse impacts from fracturing,” the source says. Instead, EPA in the final version of the report is now highlighting that the report includes “many conclusions” which are qualitative examples of potential vulnerabilities where fracking or related processes could impact drinking water.
In response to the report, the American Petroleum Institute criticized the removal of the language on no widespread, systemic impacts, and suggested that the group would look to President-elect Donald Trump's administration and the Republican-led Congress next year to address their concerns. API wants to “instill fact-based science back into the public policy process,” API Upstream Director Erik Milito said in a Dec. 13 statement release.
But the industry source says that the fracking sector is unlikely to push for the Trump EPA to revisit the study given the extensive resources already expended for the nearly five-year effort.
“The record is fairly clear that EPA reached a conclusion that no widespread, systemic impacts occur from fracturing but that it later capitulated to the environmental lobby’s political pressure.”
'Unhealthy Americans'
Environmentalists and Democrats, nevertheless, say the removal of the language on no widespread, systemic impacts underscores their long-running concerns about fracking and its potential risks.
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee, said the study highlights risks to water supplies and that the Trump administration will be unable to ignore it.
“If the Trump administration wants to pretend this problem doesn’t exist, they’re going to run up against more contaminated drinking water, more towns at risk and more unhappy and unhealthy Americans,” Grijalva said in a Dec. 13 statement. “They can’t say they didn’t know better.”
Grijalva also warned the administration against ignoring the study if Trump's intended nominee to lead EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), tries to loosen restrictions on fracking by claiming the report shows no major water harms from the practice. “If Scott Pruitt pushes this under the rug and treats the oil industry better than he treats the American people, he and his boss will have to answer to the public,” he said.
EPA's 2012 draft report included the finding of no widespread systemic impacts, which drew support from the oil sector that has long downplayed concerns about fracking's impacts on water. However, environmentalists criticized the finding, and EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) raised questions over it.
SAB's final Aug. 11 recommendations for improving the 2015 draft report said that EPA did not “support quantitatively its conclusion about lack of evidence for widespread, systemic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and did not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e., local or regional), nor the definitions of 'systemic' and 'widespread.'”
On a Dec. 13 call with reporters to announce the final report, Thomas Burke -- EPA's top science advisor and deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development -- said that the agency opted to revise its topline draft conclusion on widespread, systemic impacts because SAB urged quantitative support for the statement.
Burke said that “significant data gaps and uncertainty limited our ability to estimate national frequency of impacts,” and also that public and SAB panel comments the agency received during peer review made it clear the draft conclusion “did not accurately summarize the information in the report.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/gop-energy-officials-say-epa-fracking-study-downplays-water-impacts
-
Oil, Gas Companies May Offer Methane Data Under EPA Proposal
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Oil and gas companies could set and disclose unique methane emissions reduction targets to the Environmental Protection Agency as part of a voluntary program's proposed information collection, a soon-to-be-published notice said.
The 58 partner companies the agency estimates would participate in the proposed information collection–implementing the Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program–would submit implementation plans at the start. Each year the partners would submit data documenting last year's emissions and reduction activities related to the potent greenhouse gas.
“The Program works to encourage oil and natural gas companies to go above and beyond existing regulatory action and make meaningful and transparent commitments to yield significant methane emissions reductions in a quick, flexible, cost-effective way,” the EPA said in the notice to be published in the Federal Register on Dec. 14.
The proposed collection, which is expected to cost $268,952 annually for three years, is part of the federal government's broader plan to reduce methane emissions that includes regulations. It has been given a cool reception by one of the industry's most prominent voices in Washington, the American Petroleum Institute, which previously said it wouldn't comment on the voluntary program to its members. However, dozens of companies, including Duke Energy Corp., DTE Energy Co. and Vectren Corp, have joined the voluntary program.
Comments on the proposed collection are due Feb. 13, after President-elect Donald Trump (R) takes office.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908910&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908910&jd=101908910
-
Standing Rock Sioux To Meet With Trump Team
Dec 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is planning to meet with President-elect Donald Trump's transition team in Washington tomorrow to push back on the $3.78 billion Dakota Access pipeline currently under federal review.
Dave Archambault II, the tribe's chairman, said during an interview today that a representative of his tribe will meet with Trump advisers and ask for a sit-down with the incoming president or the soon-to-be-announced head of the Interior Department.
Archambault said he wants to make the case for boosting energy development while addressing his tribe's concerns with Energy Transfer Partners LP's 1,172-mile oil pipeline currently under Army Corps of Engineers review. Archambault said he couldn't attend the meeting in person.
"I want to help him make this nation great again, and I want to help give him assistance, advice on how we can do that together and not leave the first occupants of this land behind," Archambault said. "We can do the pipelines, we can do oil development, energy development, but not off our backs again. That's basically all I would share with him."
The Army Corps recently decided to withhold an easement for the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe — a dammed section of the Missouri River that the Standing Rock Sioux consider culturally significant.
Trump has signaled his intent to make a decision on the project quickly and has blasted the Obama administration for stymying energy development.
The president-elect over the weekend said during a Fox News interview that he plans swift action to address Dakota Access after taking office, but provided no details.
"Perhaps that'll be solved by the time I get there, so I don't have to create enemies on one side or the other. I will tell you when I get to office, if it's not solved, I'll have it solved very quickly," said Trump. Earlier in the week, his team had indicated support for Dakota Access.
While Trump can overturn the corps' decision to conduct a deeper environmental review, developers of the pipeline are also trying to sidestep the agency's move in court (Greenwire, Dec. 9).
Archambault said Native Americans have been paying the price for the nation's industrial revolution for decades, pointing to rivers being dammed for energy, land mined for gold and plots seized for agriculture.
"If I can share this with him, to help him understand when it comes to this pipeline," he said. "We don't want to pay for energy independence, energy development, economic development or national security — again."
Freezing temperatures and harsh blizzard conditions in North Dakota drove thousands of activists from the Oceti Sakowin encampment near the pipeline route in recent days. Archambault said he warned them about dangerous conditions.
"A lot of people are listening, but there are still going to be people who believe the new administration is going to reverse the [corps] decision and they have to be there," Archambault said. "I think that it won't happen on Jan. 20; I think there will be some time for us to sit back and relax during these cold winter months."
The chairman said he hopes to open a critical highway that's currently barricaded to ease the flow of traffic for tribal members, emergency services and commerce.
But Archambault acknowledged that some activists at the camp have vowed to give their life to fight the pipeline, something he's trying to avoid, saying the current route is not the only solution for Dakota Access developers.
"I don't want anybody to die," he said. "We should be looking for ways to live. It's our responsibility to find the best way to live now, and I don't think the next administration wants to have a flashpoint or confrontation where lives are lost."
When asked about Trump's possible choice of former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry to lead the Department of Energy, Archambault again stressed the need to open communication with the incoming administration. Perry is a member of Energy Transfer's board of directors.
"If I worry about decisions and selections made, then I'm going to automatically resist," Archambault said. "I think it's important we first build communication lines and first try to establish a relationship so we can help whoever the individuals are selected come up with the end result — that this decision that was rendered was the right decision."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/13/stories/1060047138
-
Energy Dept. Rejects Trump’s Request To Name Climate-Change Workers, Who Remain Worried
Dec 14, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Joe Davidson
Global warming — “it’s a hoax.”
Donald Trump has said that more than once.
So it’s understandable that the request by the president-elect’s transition team for the names of individual Energy Department employees and contractors who worked on the issue makes them worry that the trick could be on them.
“There is major concern amongst my members,” said Jeff Eagan, president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) chapter at the department’s headquarters building in Washington. He’s also a 17-year Energy employee but was speaking in his union capacity. “I have received lots of calls, emails, messages expressing shock and dismay.”
The scientists and their colleagues at Energy know global warming is real. What they don’t know is what Trump might do to those whose work has been in line with the science and the Obama administration, which has spoken about “the real and urgent threat of climate change.”
Perhaps Trump’s crew will do nothing. Trump more recently has said he has an open mindabout global warming, so maybe he’s discarding his flat-Earth approach to the subject. Nonetheless, the transition team’s request to “provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended” certain climate change meetings casts a shroud of apprehension over the workforce. The transition team ignored a request for comment.
Given civil service protections, it’s not likely department employees would be fired for working on climate change. There is good reason for concern, however. Trump advisers have urged him to fire feds faster, and Energy staffers know that protections for senior executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs have been weakened. But firing isn’t the only way to punish people.
“A greater concern would be that selected employees could be marginalized, i.e., ignored, by new leadership at the department solely based on unfounded conjecture that those employees cannot be trusted by the new political team,” said John Palguta, a civil service expert with decades of federal government experience. “The consequences for contract employees could be greater if a future decision not to renew a contract is influenced by the same unsupported speculation.”
On the question of providing names, Energy officials resolutely rejected the request, while reassuring workers.
“The Department of Energy received significant feedback from our workforce throughout the department, including the National Labs, following the release of the transition team’s questions. Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a department spokesman. “Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of DOE (Department of Energy) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people. We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.
“We will be forthcoming with all publically-available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.” Burnham-Snyder’s email had the last sentence in boldface for emphasis.
That’s the response members of Congress, who were outraged by Trump’s request, wanted.
“I am alarmed by the questionnaire sent by the Trump transition team to the Department of Energy seeking the names of career civil servants who have worked on climate change policy,” said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking Democrat in the House. “This raises serious concerns as to the motivation of such a request and raises questions of possible retribution for following President Obama’s policies.”
“This looks like a scare tactic to intimidate federal employees who are simply doing their jobs and following the facts,” added Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “I am sure there are a lot of career scientists and others who see this as a terrible message of fear and intimidation — ‘either ignore the science or we will come after you.’ ”
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump’s request surprised employee leaders.
NTEU President Tony Reardon said his Energy Department members were “stunned” by the transition team request.
American Federation of Government Employees President J. David Cox Sr., who also represents Energy employees, warned against “a return to the political witch hunts of the 1950s. President-elect Trump must instruct his transition team to cease this profoundly anti-democratic behavior immediately.”
Senior Executives Association President Bill Valdez said the questionnaire only increases the nervousness and apprehension that comes with any change of administrations.
“I can’t recall that I’ve ever seen anything like this,” said Valdez, who worked at Energy for 20 years. “I guess there is a first time for everything.”
This needs to be the last.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/13/energy-dept-rejects-trumps-request-to-name-climate-change-workers-who-remain-worried/?utm_term=.bcdf7ee30683
-
Energy Dept. Rejects Trump Request to Name Climate Change Staff
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Todd Shields and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Energy Department rejected a request from President-elect Donald Trump's transition team for the names of workers who played a role in implementing President Barack Obama's climate agenda.
“We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees,” Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said in an e-mail Dec. 13. “We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.”
The transition team asked the agency to list employees and contractors who attended United Nations climate meetings, along with those who helped develop methods to estimate and justify the benefits of new rules, according to an internal document obtained by Bloomberg News.
Trump has questioned the science of climate change, and named to his transition team a number of people who either deny that man-made global warming is happening or are skeptical of the link between the burning of fossil fuels and the climate. Democrats and outside advocacy groups said the questions were an attempt to intimidate workers.
“Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” Burnham-Snyder said. The department would provide “publicly available information.”
Under Obama, the Energy Department played a major role advancing clean-energy technology through loan guarantees and incubators, while writing efficiency rules for appliances. The department leans heavily on tens of thousands of contractors, who supplement the work of its roughly 13,000 direct employees.
“It's great that the Department of Energy is taking the independence of its employees seriously and will do what it can to protect their ability to do their jobs,” said Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Thomas Pyle, who leads the energy-focused transition team for Trump, didn't immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment.
Trump has chosen Rick Perry, a former Texas governor, to lead the agency, according to four people familiar with the president-elect's selection process. Perry, a former presidential candidate, once vowed to abolish the department but forgot its name during a debate. He's at least the third cabinet pick considered friendly to the oil industry.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908912&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908912&jd=101908912
-
February Argument Set for EPA Refrigerant Phaseout Rule
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal appellate court will hear argument Feb. 17, 2017, on an Environmental Protection Agency rule to phase out the use of some refrigerants that are also potent greenhouse gases (Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1328, 12/13/16).
The three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that will hear the argument has not yet been assigned.
MexichemFluor Inc. and Arkema Inc., which manufacture hydrofluorocarbons, are challenging the EPA's decision (RIN:2060-AS18) to update its list of acceptable alternatives for ozone-depleting substances under the Clean Air Act in order to phase out some uses of HFCs with significant global warming potentials in favor of less-damaging substances.
The companies argue that the EPA improperly compared HFCs with new generations of chemicals when it made the decision to phase out the use of the substances in aerosols, foam blowing, motor vehicle air conditioning, retail food refrigeration and vending machines.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908924&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908924&jd=101908924
-
EU Reports Drop in Flourinated Gases
Dec 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union's production of, and trade in, fluorinated gases declined in 2015 when measured in terms of the global warming impact of the gases, according to a Dec. 13 analysis of data submitted under EU law.
The European Environment Agency, which compiled the analysis, said that EU f-gas production fell by 5 percent, imports dropped by about 40 percent and exports declined by 2 percent compared to 2014, when calculated as carbon dioxide equivalents.
When measured in metric tons, EU production of f-gases rose by 4 percent to 35,377 metric tons, while imports and exports dropped by the same amount as when measured as carbon dioxide equivalents, to 75,659 and 28,408 metric tons respectively. Fluorinated gases, which are mainly used in heating and cooling equipment, have varying global warming potential per metric ton relative to CO2, explaining the difference in the production figures.
Most EU production of, and trade in, fluorinated gases is in hydrofluorocarbons, refrigerant gases that are used in place of chlorofluorocarbons, which have been phased out under the United Nations Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The most used hydrofluorocarbon in the EU, HFC-134a, has a global warming potential 1,430 times greater than carbon dioxide.
Under a deal reached in October in Kigali, Rwanda, on an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, hydrofluorocarbons will themselves be largely phased out by mid-century, in an attempt to push the world toward refrigerants with lower global warming potential.
The EU F-Gas Regulation ((EU) No 517/2014) requires sales of fluorinated gases to be reduced to 21 percent of their 2009-2012 average level by 2030, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101908929&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101908929&jd=101908929
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested