Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/20/2016
-
How do Exxon and State Line Up on Human Rights?
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
When President-elect Donald Trump announced the nomination of Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson to be his secretary of State, Tillerson was painted as a master dealmaker. What Trump's team didn't talk about is how well the choice at State matches up with the department's role as the public face of the U.S. human rights agenda. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Sector Concerned About EPA Evaluations of New Materials
Dec 20, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Chemical industry groups are reportedly urging the Environmental Protection Agency to alter its evaluation procedures amid a growing backlog of applications for new chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Manufacturers Say Updated TSCA is ‘Creating Backlog’ in Bringing New Substances to Market
Dec 20, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Chemical manufacturers say delays in bringing new chemicals to market — an unanticipated consequence of the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — are hurting their businesses and stifling innovation, Chemical & Engineering News reports. -
Attorneys Say Scope of TSCA Preemption Likely to be Decided by Courts
Dec 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Attorneys say that federal district or appellate courts are likely to decide the question of how broadly to interpret language in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that preempts some state chemicals rules, predicting litigation that will test whether programs such as California's green chemistry actions are barred by the law. -
Toxics: EPA Issues Rule Governing New TSCA Procedures
Dec 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is issuing a final rule under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to codify changes in procedural regulations, such as eliminating hearing requirements, for imposing new restrictions on chemicals already in commerce that it finds pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment under section 6. -
Congress Should Target Unaccountable EPA Programs
Dec 20, 2016 | Competitive Enterprise Institiute
By Angela Logomasini
The newly elected congressional majority should be ready and willing to help implement President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to tackle onerous regulations. But what about so called “non-regulatory programs” that have significant public policy and marketplace impacts? -
BPA Added to REACH Candidate List
Dec 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa will add bisphenol A to the REACH candidate list next month, after its Member State Committee unanimously agreed last week that it should be identified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC). -
Republican Senator: House GOP Killed Energy Bill to Go to a Party
Dec 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House GOP leaders stopped working on an energy reform package this month because they wanted to go to a fundraiser in New York, a Republican Senate chairwoman is charging. -
Will Industry See Better Days in 2017? The Consensus is Maybe
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The oil and gas industry should see better days in 2017, but they won't be stellar. And that's only if there isn't another global financial panic. -
Fossil Fuel Industry's Hopes Rise with Trump Nominee
Dec 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire (in RCE)
By Devin Henry
President-elect Donald Trump appears poised to open the door to new fossil fuel development on public lands, a shift that has industry groups salivating. -
Has Tight Oil Put ‘Peak Oil’ to Rest? Not So Fast: Fuel for Thought
Dec 20, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Robert Perkins
Eighteen years ago, the International Energy Agency made an alarming and, by its own admission, controversial prediction. Global conventional oil output would peak well before 2020, it said, based on global oil reserve modeling of the day. -
BLM Commits to Develop Lease Plan Near Colo. National Park
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management has formally committed to develop an oil and natural gas leasing plan in southwest Colorado that would balance conservation and drilling activity near Mesa Verde National Park, a move that drew cheers from conservation groups. -
DOE Touts Achievements with Worried Eye to Future
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
The Department of Energy is looking to emphasize how much has changed in the last eight years, at the same time as experts worry about the future of the agency. -
In Likely Nod to Trump, Court Delays Ozone Arguments
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Oral arguments in the legal battle over U.S. EPA's latest ground-level ozone standard will be delayed by two months, from Feb. 16 until April 19, under an order issued late yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
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
-
How do Exxon and State Line Up on Human Rights?
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
When President-elect Donald Trump announced the nomination of Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson to be his secretary of State, Tillerson was painted as a master dealmaker. What Trump's team didn't talk about is how well the choice at State matches up with the department's role as the public face of the U.S. human rights agenda.
Exxon deals with dozens of countries and leaders around the world in political environments ranging from liberal democracies to corrupt autocracies. What does Tillerson's Exxon suggest about the priorities of a Tillerson State Department?
"Exxon faces conflicts around the world, and many of those conflicts are grounded in human rights," said Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit whose mission includes the promotion of human rights.
Muffett pointed to charges that Exxon faces in Indonesia, where security forces at a sprawling Exxon gas project there allegedly tortured and killed villagers in the province of Aceh in the late 1990s. Exxon disputes the charges. A U.S. district court judge ruled last year that the plaintiffs in the case against Exxon could sue the company in the United States because of allegations that top company officials were aware of the abuses.
Exxon is also a target of an investigation in the Philippines, where multinational energy companies are charged with violating the human rights of local populations now affected by climate change, Muffett said.
The cases raise questions about whether Tillerson will take a strong position on Indonesian human rights abuses or come down hard on Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte about the execution of drug users, Muffett said.
"These are emblematic of the sorts of conflicts that Exxon has faced worldwide," he said. "If the U.S. State Department is led by someone who spent his career at a company that is accused of human rights abuses, then the strength of their voices will definitely be impacted by this."
'If they commit, they will deliver'
Bennett Freeman was a deputy assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor at the end of the Clinton administration in 1999 and 2000 and since then has worked with a range of human rights nonprofit groups and in the socially responsible investment world.
Freeman described Exxon's human rights record as "not as bad as it sounds," though far from good.
Freeman recounted how Exxon, around the time that it was merging with Mobil to form the company that exists today, refused to participate in a State Department-led process to establish the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. That framework lays out how oil, gas and mining companies should operate in conflict zones and how to structure arrangements with security and police forces in ways that minimize the risk of human rights violations.
Shell Oil Co., Chevron Corp. and other Exxon competitors at the time chose to participate in the process.
When Exxon reconsidered the program in 2002, Freeman said, it took what many people describe as a typical approach for Exxon: It launched a deep, methodical process to integrate the voluntary principles into the company's business practices.
"The thing that's important to know about Exxon is that the process is very important to them," Freeman said. "If they don't want to do something, they won't do it, but if they commit, they will deliver."
Exxon has been serious about environmental health and safety issues since the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spilled 11 million barrels of crude into Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989, Freeman noted. "That culture is both the company and Rex Tillerson," he said.
Freeman added that he hasn't personally met Tillerson and cannot vouch for the extent to which particular company actions stem from Tillerson's leadership style. "All I can tell you is that he came up through that organization, that culture; as CEO he leads that organization, that culture," Freeman said.
Still, Freeman said the company has not committed to important efforts to improve the oil and gas industry's human rights record. One of those areas is transparency. Exxon has fought measures to make the voluntary principles agreement more accountable by requiring member companies to report publicly each year.
The State Department has sought mandatory annual human rights reporting for the past decade, Freeman said, and while it has support from some European oil and gas companies and mining companies, Exxon has resisted the "low bar" set by a proposed requirement to publish a broad annual human rights report.
Case study: Equatorial Guinea
More broadly, Freeman pointed to the conflicts that inherently arise in an industry where resources are pursued wherever in the world they appear. Often, those resources are found in countries where corruption and human rights abuses are already a problem.
Indeed, there's a political science hypothesis known as the "resource curse" that explains that countries naturally abundant in non-renewable resources tend to have less-democratic institutions and more limited economic growth, stemming from a disproportionate focus on resource extraction instead of on human development and institution-building.
"In order to get [business] deals, they're dealing with countries with varying degrees of corrupt and oppressive governments" like those in the Middle East, Kazakhstan and Russia, Freeman said. "From that perspective, it's easy to be critical of them."
For a concrete example of the issue, Freeman points to Equatorial Guinea, a small country on Africa's west coast where oil was found in 1995, and that has since become a textbook case of the resource curse. Freeman chairs a small nonprofit organization called EG Justice that advocates for the rule of law and human rights in the country.
Freeman said Exxon "plays by the book" in Equatorial Guinea, observing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a U.S. law that bans the payment of bribes to foreign officials. But the company is by far the largest revenue source for the government there, which is considered the most oppressive and corrupt regime in sub-Saharan Africa, he said.
"They've got the GDP of Italy, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but 90 percent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day," Freeman said.
EG Justice points to the results of a Senate investigation published in 2004, before Tillerson became Exxon's CEO, that found hundreds of millions of dollars had been paid by several oil companies, including Exxon, to Equatorial Guinea by way of a U.S.-based bank account. The money ended up funding the president's family's spending habits rather than reaching government coffers, the report concluded.
Tutu Alicante, EG Justice's director, said last week that without Exxon's support, the country's ruling family would not have been able to maintain control. "Exxon definitely has enabled a government that once upon a time was very repressive but didn't have the resources to keep itself in power," Alicante said, adding that, "For just about anyone who cares about transparency in [the] extractive industry, this is a devastating pick."
In an email, Exxon spokesman William Holbrook pointed to the company's engagement with the voluntary principles process and its alignment with the U.N. Global Compact, which he said are "foundation policies" of the company despite a decision not to become a signatory to the agreement, which addresses ethics, human rights, labor standards, corruption and other issues.
"Respecting human rights in conjunction with our business activities consists of several core elements that include adhering to corporate policies and expectations, complying with applicable host country regulatory requirements and universally recognized principles, and engaging with external organizations," Holbrook said by email. "It also includes appropriate assessment and monitoring of labor and working conditions and people's access to basic necessities. As we develop oil and gas resources, we also work to contribute to the economic and social development of the countries where we operate."
'A depressed atmosphere'
At the State Department, the commitment to human rights as a distinct policy area dates back at least to the Carter administration when the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor was formed, according to Freeman, who said the level of attention to that facet of the organization has varied over time with the priorities of the president and the secretary.
"Some secretaries give more emphasis to human rights. Some give more explicit or implicit emphasis. Some care more, some care less," he said.
Whether Trump and his secretary of State put a prominent emphasis on human rights diplomacy or not, Freeman said, the mission has strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. "No secretary of State is going to eliminate, or try to eliminate, and I hope not cripple, the bureau," he said. "It's a bureau whose mission and mandate should not vary from administration to administration, though the policies that guide it, to some extent, vary."
"There's a bipartisan expectation in this country that the United States stands for human rights around the world and that the secretary of State of either party stands for human rights," Freeman said.
Asked about concerns that Tillerson's appointment would detract from U.S. credibility, Freeman put the ball in his court. "I'd like to think that he will have a degree of self-awareness that that will be a serious perception and therefore a serious problem," Freeman said.
Reached last week, a State Department employee who works on human rights issues but didn't want to be identified expressed "shock and disappointment" with the announcement of Tillerson's selection, saying that among those who work on the issue, "it's definitely a depressed atmosphere."
Oil companies "and just generally the natural resource industry" tend to place human rights as a lower priority than human rights advocates would hope, the employee said.
"It's hard to think much beyond major challenges to doing my job," the person said. "Trump has talked about reinstituting waterboarding, which is torture. And part of my job is to tell other governments, or to strongly encourage other governments, to not torture people."
Muffett, who leads the Center for International Environmental Law, noted that the United States has a "long and complicated history" with human rights. It's both a leader and a laggard among developed countries in signing onto international agreements.
"The American public has been trained to believe that we don't need human rights because we have the Constitution," Muffett said.
"The truth is that the Constitution protects many human rights but not all of them, and not in the same way those rights are protected in other regions, particularly in Europe," he said.
Trump's appointments so far reflect "profound disdain" and a "threat" to the agencies they will be in charge of, Muffett asserted. "I'd say the nomination of Rex Tillerson is not just emblematic of that pattern, but almost the culmination of it," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/20/stories/1060047454
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Sector Concerned About EPA Evaluations of New Materials
Dec 20, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Chemical industry groups are reportedly urging the Environmental Protection Agency to alter its evaluation procedures amid a growing backlog of applications for new chemicals.
Chemical Watch reports that several groups complained to agency officials at a public meeting last week.
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which passed this summer, overhauled the nation's chemical evaluation process for the first time in 40 years — including a stipulation that the EPA issue affirmative decisions about new substances.
The industry broadly supported the long-overdue changes to chemical laws, but groups said last week that the EPA should reconsider new procedures related to new chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council indicated that 350 filings for new chemicals — known as pre-manufacture notices — were pending when the Lautenberg Act was passed. After the law took effect, 200 additional substances were filed and just 27 were cleared by the agency.
"Right now, innovation is stuck, because completion of new chemical reviews has ground to a halt," the ACC's Karyn Schmidt wrote prior to the meeting, according to CW.
The American Petroleum Institute and American Alliance for Innovation also reportedly voiced concerns about the current process.
EPA officials, meanwhile, countered that companies could speed up the evaluations by including more information in their applications, and the Environmental Defense Fund rejected industry arguments that the government should focus on innovation and production in the U.S. chemical sector.
"The changes that were made were a compromise on both sides but they were not insignificant, and the new requirements are clearly laid out in the language of the Lautenberg Act," EDF's Joanna Slaney told CW.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/12/chemical-sector-concerned-about-epa-evaluations-new-materials
-
Dec 20, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Chemical manufacturers say delays in bringing new chemicals to market — an unanticipated consequence of the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — are hurting their businesses and stifling innovation, Chemical & Engineering News reports.
Six months ago Congress updated the 40-year-old law, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everything from cleaning products to paint thinners and clothing. And now there’s a backlog of new chemicals waiting to be reviewed. As a result, paints and coatings are threatening to move their businesses overseas where they won’t have to deal with strict regulatory burdens.
Unlike the old TSCA, the new law requires the EPA to test all existing and new chemicals to determine if they pose a threat to human health or the environment. It also gives the agency authority to request additional toxicity data from manufacturers.
Since the TSCA amendment was signed into law, only 33 of the 308 new chemicals under review have been allowed to enter the US market, C&EN writes.
While chemical manufacturers’ trade group, the American Chemistry Council, supported the reformed law when it passed Congress, at a public meeting on Dec. 14 in Washington, DC, the ACC questioned the EPA’s approach.
“We believe that much of EPA’s approach today is creating a backlog and time delays in bringing new chemistries to market,” said Karyn M. Schmidt, ACC senior director of chemical regulation. “We are seeing that effect now,” she said, adding that the backlog “is becoming more serious with time.”
C&EN also reports Jim Cooper, senior petrochemical adviser at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, urged EPA not to venture too far into the hypothetical when it assess new chemicals. “What ifs can go too far,” Cooper said.
Last month the EPA named asbestos and nine other chemicals as the first 10 substances it will evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment under the updated TSCA. And earlier this month the agency proposed a ban on some uses of trichloroethylene (TCE) under the new law because the agency says it poses health risks when used as a degreaser and a spot removal agent in dry cleaning.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/12/chemical-manufacturers-say-updated-tsca-creating-backlog-bringing-new-substances-market/
-
Attorneys Say Scope of TSCA Preemption Likely to be Decided by Courts
Dec 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Attorneys say that federal district or appellate courts are likely to decide the question of how broadly to interpret language in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that preempts some state chemicals rules, predicting litigation that will test whether programs such as California's green chemistry actions are barred by the law.
"All of us will likely have to wait and see how the courts interpret the very complicated preemption language" and how broad the state action is, Chris Amantea, an attorney with Steptoe & Johnson, said during a Dec. 13 webinar on "Does TSCA Preempt State Chemical [Regulations]?" hosted by the firm.
Speaking about alternatives chemical analyses and other actions that California is expected to take under its Safer Consumer Products law, also known as its green chemistry program, Amantea said whether an action is preempted by TSCA "may come down to how narrowly those can be construed" by courts.
The preemption language in the final Senate bill that later formed the foundation of the overhaul of the 1976 TSCA law is an improvement over the preemption structure in the original law but it is "not a preemption panacea" and there are lingering questions on how courts will interpret the provisions, Amantea said on the call.
Cynthia Taub, also with Steptoe & Johnson, said of the revised preemption provision "it's not perfect, but it's better than the original TSCA" which only preempted state actions after EPA took final regulatory action on a chemical. Given that the agency rarely issued rules to restrict existing chemicals under the old TSCA after a 1991 federal court scrapped its ban on the known carcinogen asbestos, preemption of state rules rarely took effect.
Many states took up strict chemical safety regulations to fill the void left by a lack of EPA action, creating a patchwork across the country that largely provided the impetus, at least for chemical manufacturers, to reform the decades-old statute. The reform law was designed to bolster EPA's powers to regulate new and existing chemicals.
The law includes a preemption provision to create a "pause" on state actions on chemicals when EPA defines and publishes the scope of the safety assessment for those chemicals. The pause ends when the agency either finalizes its resulting safety determination or misses a three-and-a-half year deadline for issuing the determination.
If EPA finds there to be no unreasonable risk, state policies on the chemical are immediately preempted over the long term based on the federal certification that it passes muster under TSCA. If the agency does find an unreasonable risk, however, the state rules come back into effect and are only preempted more permanently when regulators issue a final TSCA rule restricting the substance based on that risk finding.
'Pause' Exceptions
However, there are several exceptions to the "pause," including the first 10 chemicals the law requires EPA to assess, which the agency recently announced. It also exempts industry-requested chemicals designated for risk assessment, and state policies "grandfathered" by the reform law, such as those regarding policies enacted under state laws that were in effect on August 31, 2003 and regulations promulgated prior to April 2016.
While the language was intended to grandfather some California regulations, such as its Proposition 65 law, it is unclear how the preemption provisions may apply to some of the green chemistry program regulations for specific substances, which had not been issued at the time of the law's passage.
Other TSCA attorneys have suggested that the green chemistry regulations could serve as a key test of the scope of the preemption language.
A K&L Gates alert issued in July suggested that an early test of the preemption provisions could occur with California's proposal to regulate children's foam-padded sleeping products containing the flame retardants tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) or tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) as priority products.
EPA had begun the process of assessing risks to a number of flame retardants under its 2014 TSCA Work Plan, including TDCPP and TCEP, the attorneys noted in their alert, but did not include those substances on a Dec. 7 list of the first 10 chemicals the agency plans to evaluate under the new law.
The alert also highlighted several outstanding questions on the complicated preemption regime in the new law, saying that "One unresolved question is whether activist state regulatory authorities will interpret their parallel regulations differently from, or enforce them more aggressively than, EPA."
During the Dec. 13 Steptoe webinar, Amantea noted that the the TCEP and TDCPP proposals are not yet final and therefore would not fall within the scope of those regulations exempt from preemption, if EPA does pursue section 6 actions to restrict those substances.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/attorneys-say-scope-tsca-preemption-likely-be-decided-courts
-
Toxics: EPA Issues Rule Governing New TSCA Procedures
Dec 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is issuing a final rule under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to codify changes in procedural regulations, such as eliminating hearing requirements, for imposing new restrictions on chemicals already in commerce that it finds pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment under section 6.
“This final rule removes the regulations specifying certain procedural requirements for rulemaking under TSCA section 6, including the requirement for a hearing, because TSCA, as amended,no longer mandates those procedures,” EPA says in a Federal Register notice slated for publication Dec. 21.
Under previous TSCA, when EPA, acting under section 6 of the chemical safety law, found a substance already in commerce presented unreasonable risks, it was required by rule to apply restrictions to address the risk using the least burdensome requirement, and under section 6(c) provide opportunity for an informal hearing, among other requirements.
But the reformed law that President Barack Obama signed earlier this year significantly modifies section 6 to include specific deadlines and procedural requirements for prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluations, conducting the evaluations and issuing rules to address risks, removes the “least burdensome requirement” and revises the factors EPA must consider in developing a risk management action.
The final rule would remove the general procedural requirements, including those specifying the detailed hearing procedures, taking effect immediately upon publication in the Register.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
Congress Should Target Unaccountable EPA Programs
Dec 20, 2016 | Competitive Enterprise Institiute
By Angela Logomasini
The newly elected congressional majority should be ready and willing to help implement President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to tackle onerous regulations. But what about so called “non-regulatory programs” that have significant public policy and marketplace impacts?
Congress can address problems associated with such programs by defunding them or by bringing them under the authority of existing environmental laws.
Top on the list should be the Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System, also known as IRIS. IRIS gains its authority simply as a line item inside EPA’s Office of Research and Development. As a research program, IRIS operates outside the regulatory process and its accountability systems.
According to EPA’s website, IRIS issues “assessments” of chemicals that focus on “identifying and characterizing the health hazards of chemicals found in the environment.” Numerous regulatory programs inside EPA, from drinking water to hazardous waste clean-up programs, use IRIS assessments as a basis for regulation. Yet IRIS assessments are regularly criticized as unscientific and poorly designed.
For nearly a decade, congressional oversight committees, the Government Accountability Office, and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have all urged EPA to reform the IRIS process to address scientific and procedural problems. In paricular, a 2011 NAS review of the IRIS assessment for Formaldehyde detailed many problems associated with IRIS assessments and needed reform. The NAS report explained:
Overall, the committee noted some recurring methodologic problems in the draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde. Many of the problems are similar to those which have been reported over the last decade by other NRC committees tasked with reviewing EPA’s IRIS assessments for other chemicals. Problems with clarity and transparency of the methods appear to be a repeating theme over the years, even though the documents appear to have grown considerably in length. In the roughly 1,000-page draft reviewed by the present committee, little beyond a brief introductory chapter could be found on the methods for conducting the assessment. Numerous EPA guidelines are cited, but their role in the preparation of the assessment is not clear. In general, the committee found that the draft was not prepared in a consistent fashion; it lacks clear links to an underlying conceptual framework; and it does not contain sufficient documentation on methods and criteria for identifying evidence from epidemiologic and experimental studies, for critically evaluating individual studies, for assessing the weight of evidence, and for selecting studies for derivation of the RfCs and unit risk estimates.
Congress could address problems with IRIS by moving its functions and funding into the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program at EPA. This action should garner broad support given that the recent TSCA reform law gained overwhelming bipartisan approval in Congress and was signed by President Obama last spring.
TSCA’s requirements for reliance on “best available, peer reviewed science” as well as weight of the evidence consideration could make IRIS evaluations more meaningful. In addition, as part of a formal regulatory program, chemical assessments would hopefully be more transparent.
Like IRIS, EPA’s Safer Choice program (formerly called “Design for the Environment”) is a non-regulatory program that has public policy and marketplace impacts. The program calls on companies to eliminate certain chemicals from their products voluntarily, largely based on hazard rather than actual risk. Yet “hazard” simply represents the potential for danger given specific circumstances and/or exposures. For example, water is hazardous because excessive consumption can produce fatal “water intoxification” or hyponatraemia. But we don’t need to ban or “voluntarily” phase out water.
Accordingly, Safer Choice is forcing product reformulations without justification, and many useful products may be eliminated from the market. For example, EPA has used this program to force certain flame retardant chemicals from the marketplace, without much regard for the fact that replacements may not work as well. The end result may well be increased fire risks and needless loss of life and property.
Safer Choice is not only and duplicative of other programs, it has adverse and potentially dangerous market impacts. Congress can, and should, defund the program with an appropriations line item that prohibits EPA spending on the Safer Choice program.
https://cei.org/blog/congress-should-target-unaccountable-epa-programs
-
BPA Added to REACH Candidate List
Dec 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa will add bisphenol A to the REACH candidate list next month, after its Member State Committee unanimously agreed last week that it should be identified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC).
BPA was added to the candidate list because of its toxic for reproduction properties, as set out in the proposal from the French authorities last August.
BPA producers said the decision has no direct implications for the vast majority of the substance's uses. Plastics Europe pointed out that its main uses, in the manufacture of polycarbonate and epoxy resins, are as an intermediate, and therefore exempt from the REACH authorisation process. And its identification as an SVHC and any potential subsequent authorisation at a later stage would have no affect on its use in food contact materials such as polycarbonate.
The trade body also said the consumer safety of BPA was confirmed “for food contact applications and beyond” because the European Food Safety Authority says current consumer exposure from various sources, including food, dust, cosmetics and thermal paper is far below the tolerable daily intake (TDI) level set by the authority.
But in October the European Parliament called for a complete ban on the use of BPA in food packaging, citing new evidence from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment that the TDI fails to protect foetuses and infants from BPA's effects on the immune system. A ban in Europe on thermal paper containing BPA takes effect in 2020.
However, the French authorities say its use in the blending of polycarbonate and the manufacture of goods made of polycarbonate does qualify, and that other uses which do are in industrial and professional repacking and formulation; as a laboratory reagent; and as an antioxidant for processing PVC.
If BPA is added to the list of substances subject to authorisation (REACH Annex XIV), then its use in Europe will have to be phased out except for those uses which gain time-limited authorisation for continued use. Although such authorisations can be reapplied for when they run out, the process is costly.
If Echa does decide to propose BPA for inclusion in Annex XIV, it may not necessarily do so soon. Some substances deemed to be of less significance, such astriethyl arsenate,have been stuck on the candidate list for more than eight years. But given the fact that BPA is a high-volume substance with a wide variety of uses, it is unlikely it will have to wait anything like that long.
And regardless of how long it may take for BPA to be added to Annex XIV, its inclusion in the candidate list will be noticed by the market, and may lead some downstream brands to consider substitution options.
Last year's proposal from the French authorities' said they would submit a second dossier setting out the case for adding BPA to the candidate list on the grounds that it has endocrine disruption properties for human health. A confidential draft of this second dossier was discussed in the Echa endocrine disruptors expert group last month.
NGO Chem Trust said it is important that BPA be on the candidate list on the grounds of both nephrotoxic and endocrine disruption properties.
“If member states can’t move forward on this chemical and agree that it merits authorisation both as endocrine disruptor and as a reproductive toxicant, then I fear that no chemical used in consumer products will ever be agreed to be an endocrine disruptor for humans,” said policy director Gwynne Lyons.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51807/bpa-added-to-reach-candidate-list
-
Republican Senator: House GOP Killed Energy Bill to Go to a Party
Dec 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House GOP leaders stopped working on an energy reform package this month because they wanted to go to a fundraiser in New York, a Republican Senate chairwoman is charging.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told the Alaska Journal that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) didn’t hold an end-of-session vote on a compromise energy bill because he and other Republicans had to catch a train to the fundraiser.
“The Speaker said ‘We’ve run out of time’ because they wanted to get on the party train,” Murkowski told the newspaper in an interview published late Monday.
A spokesperson for Ryan didn’t immediately return a request for comment on Murkowski’s charge.
After passing a spending bill and a water reform package, the House adjourned on Dec. 8 for the holiday recess without bringing a compromise version of the energy bill to the floor. The National Republican Congressional Committee was scheduled to hold its annual “Bright Lights and Broadway” fundraiser in New York City that weekend.
Although the timing lines up as Murkowski said, there were still policy differences that needed to be resolved before an energy bill could come to the floor.
In a Dec. 7 statement, Murkowski said two issues were still on the table, blocking the bill’s path to a year-end vote.
Negotiators were hung up on a centerpiece proposal in the Senate’s version of the energy reform bill: a measure to expand liquefied natural gas exports. Senators insisted a final package include that measure, but the House removed it during negotiations, Murkowski said then.
Ryan’s office announced on Dec. 7 that “the conferees were not able to come to agreement on various outstanding issues in time for the House to consider a conference report.”
The failure of the energy bill ended more than two years of work toward a measure to expand energy production and streamline federal rules. If Congress has approved the measure, it would have been the first energy reform bill in a decade.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311172-republican-senator-house-gop-killed-energy-bill-to-go-to-a-party
-
Will Industry See Better Days in 2017? The Consensus is Maybe
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The oil and gas industry should see better days in 2017, but they won't be stellar. And that's only if there isn't another global financial panic.
That's as close to a consensus as prognosticators achieve in their latest outlooks on oil demand and economic growth prospects for next year. If major oil-producing countries follow through on their pledge to reduce the global glut in crude, then oil prices should stay north of $50 per barrel, it's broadly assumed. But beyond that, there's uncertainty in forecasts for what next year will bring.
Earlier markets seemingly had predicted a "Trump bump" coming for energy demand, assuming that the president-elect would make good on his promise to spur the U.S. economy through massive infrastructure spending. Some believe other major economies will follow the United States in this debt-fueled government spending spurt that's supposedly coming, lifting global energy demand higher (Energywire, Dec. 12).
But warnings continue to emanate from various economic circles on lingering problems still left unaddressed by governments: European indebtedness and economic stagnation; rapidly rising Chinese debt and the risk to financial stability it poses; ongoing pain in major emerging commodity exporters; and slowing demand throughout the developed world and its drag on nations' economic growth.
"Old risks still exist in the background such as China's high debt-to-GDP [gross domestic product] ratio and aging populations in advanced economies, as new risks have emerged leading to greater uncertainty in the greater global economy," writes Arthur Hinojosa, a research analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
In its latest federal forecast issued yesterday, the Dallas Fed said it expects subpar GDP growth to continue, while expressing concern over new instabilities interjected this year. It points to India's recent decision to pull high-denominated paper currency from circulation, which may spell trouble for that growing energy-consuming nation. Renewed strength in the value of the U.S. dollar introduces more uncertainty; it makes it more difficult for developing economies to service debts, while hitting U.S. exports and threatening to exacerbate the GDP shrinking the U.S. trade deficit. The bank also remains worried over the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union, known as "Brexit."
Some private-sector market analysts also see a bumpy road ahead.
Walter Zimmermann, an energy and markets analyst at United-ICAP, discounts the possibility of a near immediate lift from government spending. He thinks classic government paralysis will prevent intervention and that economic frustration for millions will continue.
"The risk is that a series of one-term presidencies begins as each half takes turns expressing itself," Zimmermann said. "Everything will be contested. Gridlock will rule. Volatility will rise on intractable uncertainties. Hopes will be frustrated."
The International Monetary Fund has posted fresh alarm over Chinese debt. It's recommending that the government in Beijing sacrifice some GDP expansion in order to get a handle on the problem. Thus far, there are no apparent signs that the authorities there are listening.
Analysts at IMF compare the swiftly rising debt cycle underway in China to periods of overleveraging seen in Thailand, Japan and Spain just before they fell into financial crises. Non-financial private debts in China have risen to some 200 percent of GDP, with debt increases far and away exceeding annual average GDP expansion.
"The government should make a high-level decision to stop financing weak companies, strengthen corporate governance, mitigate social costs and accept likely slower growth in the near term," analysts at IMF wrote in their note. "Risks appear manageable if the problem is addressed promptly."
A return to investing
If China's bubble doesn't burst, what's in store for energy producers? It depends.
OPEC and Russia have agreed to tighten the spigot a bit on crude oil flows. Achieving this will see the worldwide glut of oil in storage draw down through 2017, tightening the supply-demand balance and thus favoring firming oil prices. Markets are expressing confidence in OPEC's ability to deliver, with some analysts seeing $50 as a floor price next year.
Yet drillers in the United States are already responding to better crude pricing by rushing out to the oil fields again, to take advantage of the breathing room and the now cheaper operating atmosphere. Pointing to the trend, researchers at Ernst & Young think the U.S. companies' response will put a ceiling on the crude price of as much as $60 per barrel.
EY analysts think financial acumen will be key for U.S. oil companies to survive and do well in the coming year. "Continued advances are especially necessary as abundant supply and resilient shale production are anticipated to cap oil prices."
EY and others believe the oil sector will return to investing again next year. Activity in 2015 and 2016 was characterized by cost-cutting and pullback. For 2017, cash will shift to fostering competitive labor and in digital oil field transformations, EY predicts in its read of a survey it conducted of industry officials. Responses received suggest more dealmaking is in store, as well. "Mergers and acquisitions will play an important role in achieving growth goals in 2017."
The consultancy Wood Mackenzie forecasts that 2017 exploration and production profitability will improve next year but expects spending to be at current levels or lower. But that should at least mean an end to mass layoffs. "Flat budgets should mean exploration's headcount cuts are now mainly in the past."
Oil and gas payrolls in Texas are up modestly, likely due to the increase in drilling activity. The Texas Workforce Commission's latest figures show employment in categories including the oil and gas sector, mining, and logging, adding 3,200 employees in November over the prior year. Employment in manufacturing contracted, however.
Will these newly employed or rehired Texas oil and gas workers enjoy job security next year? The Dallas Fed's Hinojosa said he wished he had a clearer answer.
"Most recent data do not reflect the latest global events, with the outlook for global growth ... little changed since the November Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting," he noted.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/20/stories/1060047451
-
Fossil Fuel Industry's Hopes Rise with Trump Nominee
Dec 18, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire (in RCE)
By Devin Henry
President-elect Donald Trump appears poised to open the door to new fossil fuel development on public lands, a shift that has industry groups salivating.
Trump has tapped conservative Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke to lead the Interior Department, and the two have said they want to expand energy development on government lands.
That would be a marked change in direction for Interior, where President Obama and Secretary Sally Jewell sought to more tightly regulate such projects.
Both Zinke and Trump have generally been supportive of federal land ownership — a stance that puts them out of step with the Republican position those holdings should be sold off or given to the states. But the two are also eager to greenlight new energy projects.
“[Zinke] gets the fact that there are many public lands that are meant to be set aside for conservation only, but that the vast majority of public lands in the West are working landscapes,” said Kathleen Sgamma, the president of the industry-funded Western Energy Alliance. “He understands that balance.”
Trump and Zinke have been staunch critics of many of the key energy initiatives developed by Obama’s Interior Department. They are likely to start their push to expand fossil fuel development in public areas by undoing administration rules on the coal and drilling sectors.
“My plan includes the elimination of all unnecessary regulations, and a temporary moratorium on new regulations not compelled by Congress or public safety,” Trump said in an energy speech during his campaign.
“This means opening federal lands for oil and gas production; opening offshore areas; and revoking policies that are imposing unnecessary restrictions on innovative new exploration technologies.”
Trump said he opposes the Obama administration’s halt of coal leasing on public lands and its review of the coal royalty program. He's also opposed a proposed rule to restrict coal-mining activities near rivers and streams.
Zinke's state, Montana, is among the country’s top coal producers on public land, and the lawmaker also opposes both those Obama policies.
The mining industry, which says the initiatives threaten jobs and coal production, hopes it's among the first on the chopping block when Zinke takes over the Interior Department.
“I think a fair surmise is that a Trump administration will have a broader impact on the entire fossil energy sector by restoring an ‘all of the above’ energy policy for the federal government, one that has served the country well for generations with low-cost energy, and end Obama’s ‘keep it in the ground’ regulatory policy,” Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association industry group, said in an email.
American fossil fuel energy production has boomed over the last decade, thanks to the expansion of hydraulic fracturing and expanded drilling on private land.
But fossil fuel development on federal lands was down about 21 percent in 2014 from a decade earlier, according to the most recent figures from the federal Energy Information Administration.
Republicans and the fossil fuel industry blame regulations for that decline, and they have trained their sights on Obama administration environmental rules throughout his presidency.
They see Trump, who disregards the scientific consensus behind climate change, as an industry ally, thanks to his promise to increase coal, oil and gas production as president. Zinke will be his point person for that on federal lands, and the fossil fuel industry cheered his appointment last week.
The American Petroleum Institute said Zinke “knows the great potential that our federal lands hold when it comes to developing our nation’s energy resources.” The Independent Petroleum Association of America said he will push “multiple-use policies” that will help “safe, responsible energy development.”
To help the drilling industry, Sgamma said one of Zinke’s first targets should be a Bureau of Land Management rule designed to cut methane leaks from natural gas operations.
She also predicted Zinke and Trump will prioritize energy development on public lands the federal government has already leased out to companies, rather than expand the land on which companies can drill or mine.
“It’s nice to not have an administration that is thinking to drive productive users off of public land,” she said. “It’s nice just to be able to stop the bleeding.”
Conservationists, though, say they are hopeful they can work with Trump and Zinke when they take office, noting their support for federal land ownership.
They also caution that Trump's big energy plans might not roll out as planned.
Conservationists say the fossil fuel industry’s output is likely to be driven significantly by the open market, and that Trump’s decisions could end up leaving some fuels in the lurch.
Coal production has fallen because natural gas is prevalent and cheap, driving down prices. If Trump works to expand drilling, that’s likely to hurt coal mining, and vice versa.
Oil and gas companies are “sitting on tons of leases that aren’t producing right now,” said Aaron Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Western Priorities.
“They can complain all they want ... But they’re the ones controlling how much and where they’re drilling right now.”
Conservationists aren't sounding many alarm bells about Zinke, especially compared to other Trump selections like Scott Pruitt for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Weiss said Zinke has to answer for sending some mixed messages on public land ownership: A pledge he signed in his 2012 Montana lieutenant governor’s race and a handful of votes taken in Congress don’t align with his otherwise-stated support for maintaining federal land holdings.
But he’s seen as a better pick than other Westerners floated for the Interior spot.
Observers and Zinke allies say his views are influenced by the large number of his constituents who use the state's public land for hunting and fishing but also work in its natural resources industries.
"Ryan and I have fly fished together. He is an avid outdoorsman and sportsman," Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said in an interview.
"He also believes that we should responsively develop our national resources. ... Montanans want to enjoy their public lands, but during the week, they need a job."
Daines predicted a "smooth" confirmation process for Zinke, especially compared to other Trump nominees.
But Zinke's backers in the conservation sphere said they'll keep a close eye on what he and Trump do once in power.
Land Tawney, a Montanan who heads the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers sportsmen's group, endorsed Zinke to head Interior. But he said he and his group are ready to push back on efforts to expand fossil fuel development in the West.
“We will have that conversation,” he said. “We will continue to have that conversation.
"It’s important that hunters and anglers stay vigilant. We knew that going in.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310843-fossil-fuel-industrys-hopes-rise-with-trump-nominee
-
Has Tight Oil Put ‘Peak Oil’ to Rest? Not So Fast: Fuel for Thought
Dec 20, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Robert Perkins
Eighteen years ago, the International Energy Agency made an alarming and, by its own admission, controversial prediction. Global conventional oil output would peak well before 2020, it said, based on global oil reserve modeling of the day.
Pondering the potential repercussions of Peak Oil for the first time, the West’s energy watchdog concluded that the world would need to rely increasingly on future supplies of so-called unconventional oil.
The need for more shale oil, tar sands, and coal and gas-to-liquids projects to meet oil demand seemed a given even then. The alarming part was that many of the new resources needed to plug the supply gap were ominously deemed as “unidentified.”
Despite only a passing mention of the potential for US oil shales—which at that time were producing only small volumes—that call in the IEA’s flagship long-term outlook proved largely prophetic.
Global conventional crude output peaked in 2006 at 70 million b/d and within a decade of the 1998 report, the US shale oil boom had started to take root.
Fast forward to 2016 and the IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook again shines a light on the need for more unconventional oil but for different reasons.
Back then, the IEA’s bullish economic forecasts saw global liquids demand exceeding 111 million b/d by 2020, a figure which now stands more than 13 million b/d above current forecasts.
The concern over a supply shortfall today comes from the collapse of industry spending on new oil projects during the price downturn. With the oil price slump pulling the rug from under upstream spending and investment decisions, the IEA foresees a potential oil supply “gap” of 16 million b/d opening up by 2025.
That gap threatens a new spike in oil prices or the requirement for mostly lower cost US tight oil to come to the rescue.
The IEA now sees US tight oil flows remaining higher for longer than in its previous long-term forecasts due to the sector’s efficiency gains and resilience to lower oil prices.
Tight oil production growth
Globally, tight oil production will rise from 4.6 million b/d in 2015 to a peak of 7.5 million b/d in 2035, according to the report, 2.1 million b/d higher than its forecasts just one year ago.
BP is more bullish. It sees US tight oil production plateauing at nearly 8 million b/d soon after 2030, when it will account for almost 40% of total US oil production.
But much depends on the resilience of shale to lower prices. Progress on bringing down shale costs is swift and has outpaced most forecasts. Just 10 months ago the IEA saw tight oil peaking in 2020. It now believes lower drilling and production will see tight oil continue growing through 2035.
Impressive oilfield efficiency gains, however, won’t go on forever and will be stymied as high-yielding shale sweet spots dry up, a scenario likely by the mid-2020, according to the IEA. The scale of the remaining technically recoverable US tight oil resources is also a big unknown and ranges anywhere between 30 and 120 billion barrels.
“Tight oil could, therefore, play a role in ameliorating any sudden price rise, but it should not be relied upon to be able to satisfy within a year’s time any major supply shortfalls that might arise,” it warns.
So how could such supply vulnerabilities for the world’s crucial unconventional oil play out? Barring another US-style shale boom elsewhere, the answer is not obvious. If upstream spending doesn’t bounce back next year, the world faces a “boom-and-bust” oil market cycle and accompanied by extremely volatile price swings.
Natural field declines are also a big issue that often get forgotten in the buzz over large oil finds or even a new oil province such as Brazil’s subsalt bonanza.
Conventional crude fields will see their production decline by 23.7 million b/d over the next decade alone, the IEA forecasts—the equivalent of losing the entire oil output of Iraq every two years.
So was the IEA right to make its unnerving prediction over the arrival of peak oil almost two decades ago? Not quite.
Conventional crude production did peak faster and lower than expected back then. But rising flows of natural gas liquids (NGLs) from surging global gas finds and shale production means conventional oil, which includes liquid gas condensates and NGLs, has yet to reach its apogee. Conventional oil supplies may dip slightly over the coming decade, it now predicts, but will actually rise after 2030 to top 85 million b/d by 2040.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/12/19/tight-oil-peak-oil/
-
BLM Commits to Develop Lease Plan Near Colo. National Park
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management has formally committed to develop an oil and natural gas leasing plan in southwest Colorado that would balance conservation and drilling activity near Mesa Verde National Park, a move that drew cheers from conservation groups.
But the effort, the merits of which have been debated by local leaders and residents for years, won't begin until at least 2018, officials say, and it's not clear whether President-elect Donald Trump's administration will allow BLM to complete the effort.
The Republican has vowed to roll back Obama administration regulations to free up more federal lands for fossil fuel development and mining activity. Trump has picked Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke (R), a coal mining proponent, as his Interior secretary.
Still, BLM announced yesterday that it is committed to moving forward on a master leasing plan (MLP) for about 71,000 acres in La Plata and Montezuma counties. That includes parcels near Yucca House National Monument, as well as north and east of Mesa Verde National Park, which was established in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt and is renowned for its ancient Puebloan cliff dwellings.
BLM will wait to start the yearslong process of developing the Tres Rios MLP until after it completes a separate effort to amend the region's resource management plan to include new areas of critical environmental concern, said Jayson Barangan, a BLM spokesman in Lakewood, Colo.
BLM decided to move forward on the Tres Rios MLP after receiving many public comments supporting the idea over the past year, Barangan said.
Barangan said the areas in west La Plata and east Montezuma counties will not be leased while the plan is developed. "BLM does not issue oil and gas leases in areas where MLPs are being prepared," he said.
BLM is already developing or has approved more than a dozen MLPs across millions of acres of public lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. MLPs are designed to allow BLM to plan for future oil and gas on a finer scale than in BLM's resource management plans by, among other things, considering best management practices, phased development or no surface occupancy for new leases.
The Tres Rios MLP announcement comes days after BLM issued a record of decision granting final approval to the Moab MLP covering 785,000 acres surrounding Arches and Canyonlands national parks in Utah (E&E News PM, Dec. 15).
But the oil and gas industry has bashed the MLPs as an unnecessary move that will restrict development of valuable domestic energy resources. They note that regulations are already in place to evaluate the environmental impacts of drilling activity.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, said last week after the Moab MLP was finalized that her group will work with the Trump administration "to roll back this type of red tape that stifles job creation and economic growth."
The effort to develop an MLP in southwest Colorado has been the subject of much debate in recent years, particularly after BLM in 2013 offered parcels for lease near Mesa Verde National Park.
Those leases were eventually deferred from a lease sale. But the possibility of leasing parcels near the park prompted the La Plata County Board of County Commissioners to submit a letter to BLM Colorado urging it not to offer leases in the area before an MLP is developed (Energywire, June 28, 2013).
By offering the area for lease, they wrote, "the BLM appears to be shutting the door on an MLP and a smart approach to protect the treasures that are so important to our local community and economy."
Thus, this week's news that BLM plans to develop the Tres Rios MLP drew widespread praise from conservation groups, even if the fate of the effort is unclear in a new administration.
"We are glad to see the BLM continuing to make this type of progress in its management of public lands," said Nada Culver, director of the Wilderness Society's BLM Action Center in Denver.
Jerry Otero, Southwest energy program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, called BLM's decision "an important step forward for the communities and public lands of southwestern Colorado."
"Local businesses and individuals deserve to have input into how they want their economies to develop, and on how to best find a balance between the many uses of public lands in the region," Otero said in a statement. "This leasing process will allow stakeholders to create a path forward to protect Mesa Verde National Park, many significant tribal and cultural sites, and important areas for the outdoor recreation industry."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/20/stories/1060047477
-
DOE Touts Achievements with Worried Eye to Future
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
The Department of Energy is looking to emphasize how much has changed in the last eight years, at the same time as experts worry about the future of the agency.
Since 2008, costs for wind and solar have dropped by 40 percent and 60 percent, respectively, and the United States has installed 100 gigawatts of generating capacity in the two technologies combined, according to analysis by the department.
There are also now 500,000 electric vehicles on the road, thanks in part to a 70 percent drop in battery costs.
"The Department of Energy has really changed the world when it comes to energy, and that's part of a global competition that's underway," said David Friedman, DOE's acting assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
"Electric vehicles, we can take very, I think, direct credit for the lithium-ion battery of today," Friedman said. "That core chemistry ... was developed and improved at Argonne National Labs through DOE funding."
But one month from today, a new administration will take over, led by a president who made a campaign promise to bring back the glory days of fossil fuels.
At DOE, the transition has already been a painful one, with a questionnaire asking the agency for names of employees who had worked on climate policy and hinting at plans to cut funding (Greenwire, Dec. 9).
The department is set to be run by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who once argued it should not exist and has questioned climate change.
Friedman strongly defended career employees at DOE and the agency's work.
"Energy efficiency and being competitive in manufacturing have been bipartisan issues for decades, and it has been the career employees who've continued pushing these technologies forward," he said. "The people who are going to be there on January 21 are the people who ... have been the true engines behind all this progress."
Friedman said the country is facing a fundamental question.
"Are we going to invest in the technologies that have been revolutionizing the world of energy, and that other countries are waking up to and investing in, or are we going to let that multitrillion-dollar opportunity slip by? And we're not going to know the answer until post January 20," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/20/stories/1060047476
-
In Likely Nod to Trump, Court Delays Ozone Arguments
Dec 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Oral arguments in the legal battle over U.S. EPA's latest ground-level ozone standard will be delayed by two months, from Feb. 16 until April 19, under an order issued late yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
While the court, acting on its own motion, gave no reason for the postponement, several observers attributed the move to the possibility that the incoming Trump administration could reassess the government's stance in defense of the air quality benchmark of 70 parts per billion.
"The delay is most likely related to the presidential transition," Richard Lazarus, a Harvard University environmental law professor, said in an email. The appellate court "may well want" to give the new administration time to provide notification on any shift in position on the litigation before oral arguments take place, Lazarus added.
The standard at issue, put in place by EPA last fall, is embroiled in competing challenges from states and industry groups arguing that it's unjustifiably strict, and environmental and public health groups that say it's not stringent enough.
As a candidate, Trump was critical of federal regulations; his choice to head EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), is among the state officials challenging the ozone standard.
Trump takes office Jan. 20. Even assuming that Pruitt wins Senate confirmation soon after, Lazarus doubted that he would immediately be able to take part in the consolidated ozone lawsuits.
The Office of Government Ethics would likely conclude that Pruitt must recuse himself for at least a year from involvement in both that litigation and other court challenges to EPA regulations in which he is participating as Oklahoma attorney general, Lazarus said.
The new administration's legal maneuvering room may also be limited. Although EPA attorneys could notify the appellate court that the new administration is contemplating reconsidering the ozone standard, undoing the rule would take much longer and would be certain to run into opposition from the environmental and health organizations involved in the case, Lazarus said.
They would no doubt oppose any stay on implementation of the new standard, he added, and insist that "unless and until" it "is actually changed by a new EPA, which would take many months at the least, the court should continue to consider the merits of the rule as issued."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/20/stories/1060047459
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