Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/29/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Outlook '17 Analysts Cautiously Optimistic On US Economy
Dec 29, 2016 | ICIS
By David Haydon
The results of the US presidential election were undoubtedly the largest factor influencing the outlook on America’s economy going into 2017. -
Rep. Cramer to Trump: Combine EPA, Energy Into One Agency
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The U.S. Department of Energy and Environment. That is the name of an agency combining the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department that Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) is advising President-elect Donald Trump to create. -
EPA Issues Ecological Test Guidelines for Chemicals, Pesticides
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue 14 final ecological effects test guidelines Dec. 29, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register the same day. -
Podcast: Celebrating The Holidays With Chemicals
Dec 29, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By David Schultz
With the heart of the holiday season upon us, we thought we’d take a look back at one of our most popular episodes from 2016 on the new chemicals law Congress passed this summer. -
Crane Co. Keeps Navy Asbestos Case in Federal Court
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Asbestos exposure claims against Crane Co. belong in federal, not state, court because the U.S. Navy directed the company to use asbestos-containing products on its ships, a federal court in Florida ruled Dec. 27 (Killam v. Air & Liquid Sys., Inc., 2016 BL 431466, M.D. Fla., No. 16-cv-02915, 12/27/16). -
Democrats Question Pruitt's Ties to Energy Industry
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The likely nominee for Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has regularly repackaged fossil fuel industry positions into state policy, Senate Democrats alleged in a Dec. 27 letter. -
Senate EPW Democrats Question Pruitt’s Industry Ties
Dec 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Democrats are questioning Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) -- President-elect Donald Trump's intended nominee for EPA administrator -- over his ties to the GOP energy policy group Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF), which has fought several agency regulations. -
Senate Dems Ask EPA Nominee Pruitt to Detail Ties to Energy Industry
Dec 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Democrats who serve on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are calling on Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) Scott Pruitt, who is President-elect Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to detail his ties to the oil and gas industry. -
Ethane Vessel's Journey A Milestone For U.S.
Dec 28, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
A massive vessel, the first ever classified as a "very large ethane carrier," began shipping ethane from a Houston terminal last week en route to India - the first time the U.S. has exported the natural gas product used to make plastics to Asia. -
(ACC Mentioned) Updated Workplace Carcinogen Policy Emphasizes Elimination
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is moving toward a more protective approach in evaluating carcinogens under a new policy for cancer-causing chemicals published Dec. 27. -
New Rail Regulations Would Hurt Local Economy
Dec 28, 2016 | Cincinnati.com
By Ian Jefferies
Since the first trains began running on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in 1828, investments by freight rail have played an integral role the economic success of Greater Cincinnati and the state as a whole. -
Tillerson Led Exxon’s Shift on Climate Change; Some Say ‘It Was All P.R.’
Dec 28, 2016 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
In January 2009, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, gave a speech in Washington that might have seemed impossible even a few years before. He announced that his company supported a carbon tax to help fight climate change. -
Electric Utilities File Suit Over CSAPR 'Update'
Dec 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing numerous electric generating utilities, is suing EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over the agency's “update” to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) power plant emissions trading rule's nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions caps.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Outlook '17 Analysts Cautiously Optimistic On US Economy
Dec 29, 2016 | ICIS
By David Haydon
HOUSTON (ICIS)--The results of the US presidential election were undoubtedly the largest factor influencing the outlook on America’s economy going into 2017.
However, the uncertainty following the election leans more towards optimism, according to the year-end economic forecast from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM).
Compared with the outlook reported in December 2015, the ISM said 47% of survey respondents were more optimistic about 2017 than of 2016. Of the remaining, 41% believe 2017 will be the same as the previous year, and 12% believe it will be worse.
Real GDP is expected to increase 1.6% at the end of 2016, before increasing to 2.2% in the first half of 2017, according to the National Association for Business Economics (NABE). The group said in its year-end outlook that forecasts for broad economic growth through 2017 remained positive.
The US dollar continued to appreciate in 2016, hitting a 13-year high in November after the US Federal Reserve’s chair, Janet Yellen, hinted at raising interest rates before the end of the year.
Yellen said the Fed wanted more evidence of progress towards the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) objectives, such as an increase in inflation. The Fed met again on 13-14 December, the last meeting of 2016, and voted to increase rates by 0.25%. The move mirrored their rate hike in December 2015, also 0.25%, the first increase since 2006.
"Economic growth has picked up since the middle of the year," Yellen said. "We expect the economy will continue to perform well."
US inflation should trail upwards in 2017 following that economic growth. The value of the US dollar should follow suit, which could impact the ability for US commodities to sell, especially overseas.
However, nearly 65% of the manufacturers polled by the ISM felt a strong dollar did not have a negative impact on their business, nor did cheap oil prices. This was likely in part thanks to shale gas creating an alternative outlet for chemicals and other products.
The optimistic outlook was not constant through the year. Economic uncertainty increased worldwide following the loss of government leaders around the globe, most of whom faced strong anti-establishment sentiment.
Following the June Brexit vote, UK Prime Minister David Cameron resigned in July, allowing his party to appoint Theresa May as successor. May undertook a deep reshuffle in the cabinet to face the Brexit challenge and promised to rebalance the UK’s economy, which gyrated after the UK voted to leave the EU.
The August impeachment of Brazil President Dilma Rousseff followed, after a months-long struggle over accusations that she manipulated the country’s federal budget. Brazil’s judiciary branch and senate are in the midst of legislative disarray trying to parse the effects of the impeachment.
Donald Trump, the then-US presidential candidate, represented similar political angst in America, taking the Republican party nomination in July and winning the presidential election in a surprise upset in November.
Back in Europe, Italy Prime Minister Matteo Renzi formally resigned on 7 December. Renzi vowed to step down after the country’s voters rejected his referendum proposals by 59.1%. However, President Sergio Mattarella convinced him to hold off until the country’s 2017 budget was passed. Mattarella picked former Italian foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni to head an interim technical government.
Within days of Italy's situation, South Korean lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to impeach their president, Park Geun-hye, over a corruption scandal involving collusion with a former aide. Crowds of protesters had gathered in South Korean cities for weeks prior, calling for the impeachment.
In the US, the largest piece of uncertainty over Trump lies in regards to his stance on trade agreements. Trump has repeatedly vowed to back the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, among other trade deals.
Whether trade liberalisation with Japan and/or Europe would help their businesses, approximately 70.6% of the ISM’s non-manufacturing panel said “no”.
In regards to two years of low oil prices, OPEC agreed in November to cut oil production by 1.2m bbl/day in an attempt to reduce global output by 1% and raise the global price of crude over the $50 mark. Brent and WTI increased by 8% each once the announcement was made, but questions remain whether a permanent price increase will occur in 2017, given shale oil production in the southern US could easily counter OPEC's decision.
US sales of new single-family houses was up 17.8% in October year on year, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR).
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), gains are expected in 2017, with housing starts expected to approach the long-term underlying demand of 1.5m units/year due to population increases and replacement of older properties.
In addition to homes, automobiles demonstrated a lukewarm performance in 2016. According to US-based auto research firm AutoData, total US sales of new light vehicles year-to-date through November inched up only 0.1% compared with November 2015. Total auto sales in November were less than 1.4m.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/12/28/10061511/outlook-17-analysts-cautiously-optimistic-on-us-economy/
-
Rep. Cramer to Trump: Combine EPA, Energy Into One Agency
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The U.S. Department of Energy and Environment. That is the name of an agency combining the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department that Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) is advising President-elect Donald Trump to create.
Cramer, one of Trump's first energy advisers, said he proposed the idea in a policy paper and hasn't heard from Trump about whether he supports it. Cramer said there are administrative efficiencies that can be gained from doing this.
Legal scholars, however, question his proposal, saying the agencies’ missions differ significantly.
“I'm looking for efficiencies,” Cramer told Bloomberg BNA in a Dec. 28 interview. “Besides good policy, I think it could be pretty efficient as well—putting all of these scientists and researchers together. There are obvious connections because, really, our energy policy has largely become environmental policy.”
The EPA and the Energy Department have fundamentally different purposes, Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles Law School, told Bloomberg BNA.
The Energy Department is focused primarily on research and development, as well as overseeing the nuclear waste cleanup and the nuclear arsenal through its semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration. The EPA is primarily a regulatory agency in charge of implementing and enforcing environmental statutes.
“It seems odd to me to merge agencies with such different mandates and responsibilities, and therefore very different cultures,” she said over e-mail. “I don't see that there would be great administrative efficiency savings given that you need very different kinds of employees with different expertise to administer DOE programs as opposed to EPA programs.”
Past Legislative Proposals
Legislation has been introduced in the past by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) in 2012 and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) in 2011 to combine the agencies into one department. Cramer said Congress would have to vote for legislation to make such a change occur, and he plans to talk to Blackburn about re-introducing it.
Blackburn and Cramer are both members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and early Trump supporters.
They wouldn't move forward with legislation without Trump's support, Cramer said. But, he added, “It's an issue that should appeal to him.”
In 2012, President Barack Obama went to Congress to reinstate the legal authority for presidents to reorganize federal agencies by executive order without congressional action, but the effort was unsuccessful.
David Schoenbrod, a professor with New York Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that while Congress has the authority to restructure agencies, it has to be careful about balancing their missions.
For example, the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission was a federal agency with a mission to promote and regulate nuclear energy. Due to the perception of this being a conflict of interest, Congress acted in 1974 to separate the responsibilities of the agency, giving the regulatory authority to the newly formed Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the promotion authority to what eventually became the Energy Department.
He said combining the EPA and Energy Department would be a reversal of what Congress has done in the past.
Today, the Energy Department's “mission is to promote various energy technologies, many of which are regulated for the purposes of safety by the EPA,” Schoenbrod told Bloomberg BNA. “So this would be doing the opposite. There's no question that we want some type of balance between energy development and environmental protection. It's Congress's job to provide the balance, and by smashing together two agencies, Congress would not be doing its job.”
Likely Little Political Support
There is also the likelihood that there would be little political or public support for such a merger, scholars said.
“My best guess is that there would not be significant political support for merging the agencies given that they serve quite different constituencies,” UCLA's Carlson said.
Also, it would be a lot of work for Congress to revise certain existing statutes that EPA is in charge of enforcing, Erin Ryan, a professor with Florida State University College of Law, told Bloomberg BNA.
“It would take a lot of legwork by Congress to redesign the statues to accommodate this kind of change, and I think that while there are certain prerogatives that the president-elect will have, I don't foresee that there's enough of a constituency in Congress to make that an easy job,” she said.
Carlson said she suspects the merger of the two agencies is an effort to curtail or limit EPA authority rather than making real changes to the agencies, which could lead to pushback from environmentalists and industry.
“As a result, I suspect that the environmental community would adamantly oppose the reorganization, but you might also see opposition from recipients of R&D money and other forms of DOE support who could fear that DOE's mission would be diluted in such a merger,” she said.
Question on Nuclear Oversight
Cramer indicated that are many synergies between the two agencies, and even the Energy Department's oversight of the U.S. nuclear waste clean-up could overlap with EPA expertise.
“Most of EPA's jurisdiction is related to energy environmental matters, including transportation, so while it's not everything, there's a lot,” Cramer said. Combining the expertise of the Energy Department and the EPA in the arena of nuclear waste “makes complete sense,” he said.
“I think it would be synergistic. I think you could get a lot more done with fewer resources if those two were under the same roof,” Cramer added.
But Alfred Marcus, a professor at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, told Bloomberg BNA, that he thought the nuclear responsibilities of the Energy Department are one of the crucial areas where the two agencies don't overlap at all.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102653430&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102653430&jd=102653430
-
EPA Issues Ecological Test Guidelines for Chemicals, Pesticides
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue 14 final ecological effects test guidelines Dec. 29, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register the same day.
Ecological tests evaluate chemicals’ impacts on wildlife and fish, including invertebrates.
The guidelines, developed over 20 years, describe scientific methods and protocols that chemical and pesticide manufacturers should use when conducting tests to generate data the manufacturers submit for regulatory decisions.
The guidelines apply to tests that will be submitted under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, also known as the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act. The guidelines also will apply to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The tests address questions such as whether invertebrates would be harmed following high, short-term (acute, 10-day) exposures to chemicals or pesticides in sediment; whether fish would be harmed from brief, high exposures, and whether oysters development would be harmed from acute exposures.
The agency's notice lists draft guidelines the EPA previously announced. Those were not finalized because the agency's Science Advisory Panel recommended that they be dropped in favor of other, more effective, test protocols.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102653414&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102653414&jd=102653414
-
Podcast: Celebrating The Holidays With Chemicals
Dec 29, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By David Schultz
With the heart of the holiday season upon us, we thought we’d take a look back at one of our most popular episodes from 2016 on the new chemicals law Congress passed this summer.
The overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act has been called the most significant piece of environmental legislation in a generation. It could usher in a sea change in the way the EPA regulates many of the ingredients in many of the household products you and I regularly buy.
We spoke with two of the players who have a big stake in the future of this law: Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Daniel Rosenberg, who specializes in chemicals regulation, and Chris Cathcart, president of a trade group that represents household product makers.
As the implementation of the law plays out over the course of 2017 and beyond, Bloomberg BNA’s senior chemicals reporter, Pat Rizzuto, will be tracking it closely. You can read more of her reporting on chemicals issues and lots of other topics at our blogand in our publication Daily Environment Report.
https://www.bna.com/podcast-celebrating-holidays-b73014449154/
-
Crane Co. Keeps Navy Asbestos Case in Federal Court
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Asbestos exposure claims against Crane Co. belong in federal, not state, court because the U.S. Navy directed the company to use asbestos-containing products on its ships, a federal court in Florida ruled Dec. 27 (Killam v. Air & Liquid Sys., Inc., 2016 BL 431466, M.D. Fla., No. 16-cv-02915, 12/27/16).
The ruling defeated an effort by Marc Killam to transfer his negligence and other claims against Crane and other defendants to Florida state court, where it was originally filed.
Killam contends his asbestosis diagnosis stems in part from asbestos exposures when he served as a boiler tender on the U.S.S. McCandless and at the Philadephia Navy Yard in the 1970s.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida said the federal officer removal statute created federal jurisdiction over the case.
That law generally authorizes federal courts to hear cases such as Killam's when a defendant's alleged conduct was taken under the direction of a federal officer.
Here, an affidavit by a Crane executive stated the company supplied gaskets under Navy specifications, the court said.
And another affidavit by a retired Rear Admiral also contained a “detailed discussion regarding the manner in which the Navy controlled every aspect of building warships, including all parts and supplies of such ships,” the court said.
Based on that evidence, the court accepted Crane's assertion that the Navy didn't allow contractors “to independently formulate labels or warnings for products used on warships.”
U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Vinson Law represented Marc Killam.
K&L Gates represented Crane Co.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102653412&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102653412&jd=102653412
-
Democrats Question Pruitt's Ties to Energy Industry
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The likely nominee for Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has regularly repackaged fossil fuel industry positions into state policy, Senate Democrats alleged in a Dec. 27 letter.
Those lawmakers, who include some of the staunchest EPA supporters in the chamber, urged Pruitt to disclose his full relationship with the energy industry prior to Senate hearings on his nomination. All the signatories sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which will host Pruitt's hearings.
“We have been troubled that as Attorney General of Oklahoma you used, nearly verbatim, industry talking points in official correspondence your office sent to EPA concerning EPA's estimation of methane pollution in your state,” the lawmakers said. “What that conduct says about your ability to lead EPA in a manner that is not beholden to special or secret interests is a subject that we expect will receive a full airing during your confirmation hearing.”
Repackaged Industry Positions
At least some of those talking points came from lobbyists tied to Devon Energy, an onshore oil and gas producer based in Oklahoma City, said Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
The New York Times unearthed in 2014 Devon correspondence with Pruitt that led to an Oklahoma challenge to the methane pollution estimate. Oklahoma policy officials and lawmakers, however, dismissed those allegations as political gamesmanship.
“It's not uncommon for us, as state officials, to rely on the complete body of evidence and information as we present our policies going forward, and it's not uncommon to rely on the regulated community as part of that equation,” J.D. Strong, director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and a former water quality official, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview. “The letter seems to insinuate he's a puppet for the industry, but I certainly have never seen that play out in any of his policies or work.”
Rule of Law Defense Fund
The letter also highlights Pruitt's relationship with the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a private group that has challenged a range of federal regulations, including the Clean Power Plan. Internal Revenue Service filings show that Pruitt is a director of the organization, as is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and other state attorneys general.
The letter said Freedom Partners, a conservative advocacy group, has contributed $175,000 to the fund during the past three years. Democratic staffers for the letter signatories didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA requests for comment on the suggestions of impropriety related to the fund.
“The confirmation process, starting with your responses to Committee questions before your hearing, is an opportunity for you to dispel the notion that the advocacy you have undertaken on environmental issues as Attorney General of Oklahoma has been directed by and for the benefit of the energy industry,” the letter said.
The senators asked for a list of fund donors, funding requests and expenditures, among other organizational details.
Fund Counsel Hits Back
Counsel to the fund, Clark Hill PLC's Charles Spies and James Tyrrell, however, urged Pruitt to dismiss the disclosure request, alleging it has no “legal significance.”
“The Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Department's regulations make clear that tax-exempt organizations like [the Rule of Law Defense Fund] are not required to share their donors’ names, addresses, or other identifying information with the public,” said Spies and Tyrrell, also pointing to corroborating legal decisions. “In accordance with these laws and precedent, it is [the fund's] longstanding policy to maintain donor confidentiality and not disclose the identity of its donors to the public, even to former members of [the fund's] Board like you.”
Meanwhile, outgoing Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a staunch supporter of Pruitt, said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA that the disclosure request was a fishing expedition.
“This letter extends beyond the usual questioning of an EPA nominee's record, and it seems these questions might best be directed to the Republican Attorneys General Association,” said Inhofe. “While I disagreed with most of the nominees under President Obama, I aired my concerns consistent with committee practice, and I suggest my Democratic colleagues do the same instead of this fishing expedition. This is a baseless political stunt that AG Pruitt has no responsibility to entertain.”
Ashley Kemp, executive director of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, told Bloomberg BNA there is currently no pending or completed litigation and no settlement agreements involving Pruitt and either Devon Energy or the Rule of Law Defense Fund.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102653427&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102653427&jd=102653427
-
Senate EPW Democrats Question Pruitt’s Industry Ties
Dec 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Democrats are questioning Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) -- President-elect Donald Trump's intended nominee for EPA administrator -- over his ties to the GOP energy policy group Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF), which has fought several agency regulations.
“Before the Senate votes to confirm you to run EPA, it is important that you provide a full disclosure of your relationship with the energy industry so we can determine how that will influence your ability to run the agency,” says a Dec. 27 letter, asking Pruitt a host of questions about his links to the RLDF.
The letter is signed by Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Ed Markey (MA), Cory Booker (NJ), Ben Cardin (MD) and Jeff Merkley (OR), as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who caucuses with Democrats.
However, incoming EPW ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) did not sign the Pruitt letter, making it unclear whether Democrats will present a unified front on questioning Pruitt's ties to RLDF.
Staff for Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the incoming committee chairman, did not immediately return a request for comment, but a Dec. 27 Politico article quotes a staffer as saying “the authority to require a nominee to respond to questions following a hearing also rests with the Chairman,” rather than individual senators.
The EPW Democrats' letter seeks a full accounting of RLDF donors, expenditures, meetings, communications and policy positions, as well as Pruitt’s role in the group and those of “any person under your supervision.”
It does not specifically allege that the group -- which describes itself as “the public policy organization for issues relevant to the nation's Republican attorneys general” -- has acted on behalf of industry, though they note that it received large donations from the Koch brothers, whose interests include energy.
Instead, the letter links Pruitt’s work with RLDF to accusations that he used “verbatim industry talking points” in official letters to EPA on methane limits for oil and gas extraction operations.
“That reporting, based on documents produced by your office pursuant to Freedom of Information Act requests, also documented how you and members of your staff have worked closely with fossil fuel industry lobbyists to craft positions taken by your office. What that conduct says about your ability to lead EPA in a manner that is not beholden to special or secret interests is a subject that we expect will receive a full airing during your confirmation hearing,” the letter says.
The six Democrats’ threat echoes a joint statement by ranking Democrats on all 16 Senate committees that they will oppose confirmation votes on all Trump nominees until the prospective officials clear F.B.I. background checks, complete a financial disclosure statement and ethics agreement approved by the federal Office of Government Ethics, and have “satisfied reasonable requests for additional information.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/congress-senate-epw-democrats-question-pruitt%E2%80%99s-industry-ties
-
Senate Dems Ask EPA Nominee Pruitt to Detail Ties to Energy Industry
Dec 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Democrats who serve on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are calling on Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) Scott Pruitt, who is President-elect Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to detail his ties to the oil and gas industry.
In a letter dated Tuesday and published by Politico, the senators asked Pruitt to provide details on his involvement with the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a 501(c)(4) focused on public policy issues important to Republican AGs.
The lawmakers also raised past reporting on Pruitt’s relationship to the oil and gas industry while serving as Oklahoma’s AG, citing correspondence between Pruitt’s office and Devon Energy Corp. published as part of a New York Times investigation in 2014. That exchange appeared to show that Devon had essentially written the letter Pruitt's office sent to the EPA questioning the agency's approach to estimating methane emissions from natural gas production.
"We have been troubled that as attorney general of Oklahoma you used, nearly verbatim, industry talking points in official correspondence your office sent to EPA concerning EPA's estimation of methane pollution in your state," the letter stated. "Thanks to news reporting prior to your nomination, we now know about your close relationship with Devon Energy and that you appear to have been willing to accept its representations about its business practices without independent confirmation or analysis."
Pruitt, officially nominated for EPA administrator earlier in December, has been widely viewed as a friend to the energy industry likely to rein in an agency critics have accused of overreaching under the Obama administration. Under Pruitt, Oklahoma joined a coalition of states challenging the EPA's Clean Power Plan in court.
Pruitt's nomination is part of a broader shift toward a more pro-business, fossil fuel-friendly climate anticipated under the incoming Trump administration.
"Before the Senate votes to confirm you to run EPA, it is important that you provide a full disclosure of your relationship with the energy industry so we can determine how that will influence your ability to run the agency," the lawmakers wrote. The confirmation process will provide Pruitt with "an opportunity to dispel the notion that the advocacy you have undertaken on environmental issues as attorney general of Oklahoma has been directed by and for the benefit of the energy industry."
The letter was signed by Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Edward Markey (MA), Jeffrey Merkley (OR), Cory Booker (NJ) and Benjamin Cardin (MD), as well as Independent Bernie Sanders (VT).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108875-senate-dems-ask-epa-nominee-pruitt-to-detail-ties-to-energy-industry
-
Ethane Vessel's Journey A Milestone For U.S.
Dec 28, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
A massive vessel, the first ever classified as a "very large ethane carrier," began shipping ethane from a Houston terminal last week en route to India - the first time the U.S. has exported the natural gas product used to make plastics to Asia.
The shipment is further evidence of the growing role that Texas shale gas is playing in developing countries, where the rising middle class is demanding more consumer goods - from cars to computers - that use plastics. It also means that abundant supplies of natural gas produced by the so-called shale revolution are finding new markets both here and abroad as ethane, liquefied natural gas, and other products.
In addition to exports, ethane is providing the feedstock for new petrochemical plants in Texas and Louisiana, said Debnil Chowdhury, IHS Markit's director of natural gas liquids in North America. These markets are helping to reduce a glut of ethane and stabilize prices, good news for natural gas producers.
"We've gone from having an ethane excess to potentially having a balanced market by 2020," Chowdhury said.
Ethane is mainly used to make the chemical ethylene, the primary building block of common plastics. The growing global demand for plastics is centered in Asia, especially China and India. China is considering whether to start importing ethane from the U.S., Chowdhury said.
The Ethane Crystal vessel, commissioned by Mumbai-based Reliance Industries and built by Samsung Heavy Industries, is carrying ethane from Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners' terminal at Morgan's Point. The terminal, the world's largest ethane export facility, opened this fall, but initially just shipped to Europe.
The Enterprise facility is the nation's second ethane export terminal after Sunoco's smaller Marcus Hook Terminal opened this spring in Pennsylvania. Sunoco is a subsidiary of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners.
"Ethane really was landlocked before," Chowdhury said. "There's so much ethane available and not enough U.S. demand."
The American Bureau of Shipping ship classification society dubbed the Ethane Crystal the world's first very large ethane carrier, or VLEC, classified vessel. It's the first of six such vessels being built through 2017. The second, the Ethane Emerald, was completed earlier in December.
Ethane gas is chilled below negative 100 degrees Fahrenheit and liquefied for transport. The Ethane Crystal can ship up to 87,000 cubic meters of ethane at a time, about three times as much as so-called dragon class ships, which began exporting ethane from the terminal of Europe in September.
While the dragon ships, which carry up to 27,500 cubic meters of ethane, work just fine for Europe, it's not economical to transport their relatively small cargos to more distant destinations such as India.
Rising oil prices going into 2017 will only lead to more ethane production. Oil drilling in Texas' Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale also produce a lot of natural gas and by-products, primarily ethane, butane and propane.
The U.S. already has increased exports of butane and propane for cooking and heating in Latin America, China and other markets. Combined exports of propane and butane exceeded gasoline exports for the first time ever in early 2016.
Enterprise Products completed its propane and butane export terminal expansion along the Houston Ship Channel at the end of 2015. Earlier this month, Houston-based Phillips 66 completed a propane and butane export terminal in Freeport.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/First-of-its-kind-vessel-making-first-ethane-10823422.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Updated Workplace Carcinogen Policy Emphasizes Elimination
Dec 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is moving toward a more protective approach in evaluating carcinogens under a new policy for cancer-causing chemicals published Dec. 27.
The carcinogen policy, in the works since 2010, changes how NIOSH classifies carcinogens and sets recommended exposure limits for chemicals in the workplace.
“Underlying this policy is the recognition that there is no known safe level of exposure to a carcinogen, and therefore that reduction of worker exposure to chemical carcinogens as much as possible through elimination or substitution of engineering controls is the primary way to prevent occupational cancer,” NIOSH Director John Howard wrote in the document.
The new policy states that NIOSH publications will seek to use existing cancer hazard assessments from other organizations like the National Toxicology Program, Environmental Protection Agency or the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The plan “will increase efficiency and allow us to focus our resources on estimating the magnitude of the risk a chemical poses to workers and recommendations for mitigating those risks,” NIOSH spokeswoman Christina Spring said in a Dec. 27 e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
The document also changes the risk threshold NIOSH will use while developing recommended exposure limits after a 2014 proposal drew criticism. The proposal called for a benchmark of one cancer case per 1,000 workers exposed, but the agency upped the threshold to one per 10,000 workers in the final document in response to public comments. These limits will be called Risk Management Limits for Carcinogens, or RML-CA, to emphasize that the levels are only “an initial starting point for control,” the document said.
Policy Draws Split Reaction
The approach is seen as more protective of worker health, but has prompted concerns from industry organizations.
In public comments filed with NIOSH in 2014, Kimberly Wise, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, warned that the group “does not find this approach consistent with ensuring the consideration of all high quality scientific evidence.”
Wise wrote that NIOSH should instead use a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate possible carcinogens and conduct its own evaluations of research from other agencies before using it.
The policy states that NIOSH will review every hazard assessment to determine if every chemical meets its criteria as an occupational carcinogen.
Adam Finkel, a clinical professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and a former OSHA official, told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 28 that the changes are important but not likely to change much in the field in the short term.
“Unfortunately, it really depends on whether they have the funding and the latitude from the next administration to do what I think they and or OSHA should have been doing for the last 30 years,” Finkel said, “which is to not just write down how they're going to make exposure limits but actually develop exposure limits.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102653426&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102653426&jd=102653426
-
New Rail Regulations Would Hurt Local Economy
Dec 28, 2016 | Cincinnati.com
By Ian Jefferies
Kentucky native Ian Jefferies is senior vice president of government affairs at the Association of American Railroads.
Since the first trains began running on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in 1828, investments by freight rail have played an integral role the economic success of Greater Cincinnati and the state as a whole. But if recent regulations proposed by a federal regulator known as the Surface Transportation Board (STB) become law, such robust investments could be compromised – and residents of the Buckeye State would be left bearing the consequences.
With more than 5,200 miles of track, 34 railroads and 7,600 employees, the effects of the freight rail industry in Ohio are felt all across the state. Perhaps nowhere is this link clearer than Cincinnati, with 44 percent of the country’s manufacturing located within a 600-mile radius of the city. As the transportation hub for a three-state region, more than 100 trains pass through the area each day, moving more than 20 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $19 million.
These shipments power homes, feed families and allow residents of Cincinnati to enjoy a certain quality of life that could not be achieved without an advanced rail network. Nationally, a study from Towson University determined that freight rail’s impact supports 1.5 million jobs, generating $274 billion in economic activity and $33 billion in taxes.
But the freight rail industry was not always the efficient economic engine it is today. Several decades ago, stringent routing and pricing rules brought American freight rail to the brink of bankruptcy. All this changed in 1980 when Congress passed the Staggers Act, partially deregulating the freight rail industry and allowing for private investment that has created one of the most efficient transportation networks in the world.
In the time since, railroads have invested more than $600 billion into infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, leading to an increase in safety – train incidents have decreased by 78 percent – and a decrease in costs, with average rail rates falling by 45 percent. Put another way, getting rid of unnecessary regulations has played a direct role in boosting our economy.
Unfortunately, the Surface Transportation Board seems ready and willing to overlook this, as it has recently proposed a series of new rules that harken back to the industry’s pre-1980 slump. They all run counter to the incoming president’s intentions to pull back anti-business regulations.
The most notable of these rules is “forced access,” which would mandate privately owned companies to use their private infrastructure and equipment for the benefit of competitors. This far-reaching approach would force carriers to provide access to other railroads at government-determined rates, killing efficiency as widespread orders to switch traffic – which is complicated – become the new normal.
The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority recognizes this, and made its displeasure with the proposed regulations known in recent comments submitted to the STB, pointedly observing that their effects would be felt far beyond the rail system. “Many of the Ohio River barge terminals in the Cincinnati area rely on railroad partnerships for the intermodal transfer of bulk commodities,” the agency wrote, noting that these regulations would lead to shipping delays, increased highway congestion, the rising cost of goods and a worsening of service, potentially discouraging needed business and manufacturing investments.
Shipping giant UPS also took issue with the rules, rightly recognizing that widespread switches made at the behest of government would only disrupt the network, which would only push more trucks to the road. This, of course, runs counter to the rhetoric in D.C. on fixing public infrastructure. Pushing trucks to the road only furthers deteriorates conditions and increases the funding needs.
Ensuring the STB’s proposed regulations are not put into place should be a top priority for our elected officials. The incoming administration has routinely expressed support for cutting regulations that hurt our economy, and these rules would be a good place to start. Improving our public infrastructure can only happen if we ensure our private infrastructure, namely freight rail, is free to operate within the free market.
Preserving Cincinnati’s economic engine will maintain one of the strongest rail hubs in the country, and Ohioans – and all Americans – will reap the benefits.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/12/28/new-rail-regulations-would-hurt-local-economy/95875882/
-
Tillerson Led Exxon’s Shift on Climate Change; Some Say ‘It Was All P.R.’
Dec 28, 2016 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
In January 2009, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, gave a speech in Washington that might have seemed impossible even a few years before. He announced that his company supported a carbon tax to help fight climate change.
Carbon taxes are a fee on fuel use, based on how much carbon dioxide that fuel puts into the atmosphere. “As a businessman, it is hard to speak favorably about any new tax,” Mr. Tillerson told reporters in his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. But, he said, it was “a more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach” than an alternative gaining support in Congress known as cap and trade, which would set an upper limit on carbon dioxide emissions and then rely on a permit-trading system to meet the target.
Mr. Tillerson’s speech was years in the making — part of a turnaround after decades of public denial that the planet was warming, even as Exxon’s own research suggested that it was. It had paid outside organizations to spread doubts about the science. But pressure on the company was building, and the newly elected President Obama had pledged to fight climate change and had singled out Exxon as an example of corporate greed.
Mr. Tillerson — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee to be secretary of state — presided over the company’s shift, which appears to have begun with public statements delivered without fanfare by the company in 2006. In 2007, he personally acknowledged that climate change was happening and that human activity was a contributing factor. Now, at the Wilson Center, he was taking it further, saying that Exxon was willing to accept action from Congress on the problem.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGERex Tillerson, Exxon C.E.O., Chosen as Secretary of State DEC. 12, 2016How Rex Tillerson Changed His Tune on Russia and Came to Court Its RulersDEC. 20, 2016Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General NOV. 5, 2015Public Campaign Against Exxon Has Roots in a 2012 Meeting MAY 23, 2016
Was this a sincere change of heart, or merely a cynical shift in corporate messaging? Environmental activists are skeptical.
“They deliberately changed their stripes on climate, but it was all P.R.,” said Kert Davies, who has spent years investigating the company’s internal documents and practices at Greenpeace and who founded the Climate Investigations Center, an environmental research and advocacy organization.
The history of Exxon’s shift suggests that however earnest Exxon Mobil might sound in its pronouncements on policy, it has done little or nothing to help put carbon taxes into effect.
Both carbon taxes and cap and trade put a price on carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that makes a major contribution to climate change. Both can reduce emissions, and policy experts endlessly debate which would be more effective. But in January 2009, one difference was clear: A cap and trade plan sponsored in the House of Representatives by Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, was gaining bipartisan support. A more straightforward carbon tax was going nowhere.
Mr. Tillerson faces potential confirmation difficulties because of his business activities around the globe and his close dealings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. But his acceptance of the reality of climate change and his ostensible support for a carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement have weighed in his favor, and stand in contrast with the positions of other cabinet nominees who share Mr. Trump’s view that climate change is a hoax.
The process leading up to Exxon’s new public stance was as deliberate as the turning of a supertanker. “They don’t just sort of throw these ideas against the wall and see what sticks,” said Bennett Freeman, a consultant and former official at the State Department who took part in meetings with Exxon officials in the years leading up to Mr. Tillerson’s speech.
Activists have compared Exxon’s tactics of funding climate-change denialists to disinformation campaigns about smoking led by the tobacco industry, which spent billions of dollars in a settlement with state attorneys general and was found guilty in a federal civil fraud and racketeering case.
In a recent interview, Alan T. Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman, denied that the company’s shifting statements on climate change were a response to tobacco’s liability issues. “It was not a liability-based decision,” he said. “It was a science-based decision.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or I.P.C.C., had by then said that the science was “unequivocal” in showing that the earth’s temperature was rising and that human activity was almost surely a factor. “As the science firmed up on that, our understanding and the rest of the world’s did, too,” Mr. Jeffers said. He described the company’s change as an “evolution,” not an abrupt shift.
For more than 10 years, the company held a series of retreats with environmental experts like Mr. Freeman and other activists to discuss issues like human rights and climate change, according to the book “Private Empire: Exxon Mobil and American Power,” by Steve Coll. Those meetings, which began around 2003, were “part private retreat, part focus group and part lobbying briefing” for leaders in the areas of human rights, environmental activism and more, Mr. Coll writes.
By 2006, the year that Mr. Tillerson became chief executive, attention to climate change was growing. The documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” featuring former Vice President Al Gore, came out that year. In the midterm elections, Democrats made significant gains, retaking control of the House of Representatives.
Participants in a conference in late 2006 criticized the company’s funding for climate-change deniers, according to Mr. Coll’s account. Ken Cohen, then the company’s vice president for public and government affairs, told participants that the company was dropping funding for some of the groups as part of a broader review; their fiery approach was becoming, he said, a “distraction” from the issues. After that meeting, participants received a letter from Exxon saying its position on climate change was “misunderstood.” The letter did not acknowledge that the company was changing its position, nor that it had done anything wrong in the past.
At a retreat in October 2008, Mr. Freeman spoke with executives about human rights and climate change. With the election close at hand, he recommended the company support cap and trade.
In an interview, Mr. Freeman said he shared a limousine to La Guardia Airport after the conference with Mr. Cohen. He recalled telling Mr. Cohen that Mr. Tillerson needed to give a major speech in Washington shortly before Mr. Obama’s inauguration that would lay out a strategy in line with political reality.
Mr. Cohen, he said, told him that the company would support action, but that it would back a carbon tax, not cap and trade.
Mr. Freeman said he pressed the point: “You guys don’t have the credibility to put forward a carbon tax when that’s not on the table. You’re going to have to embrace cap and trade if you’re going to be seen as credible.” But Mr. Cohen, he recalled, told him that cap and trade, by creating marketplaces for fuel producers, utilities and other large businesses for exchanging carbon credits, would create a windfall for emissions traders.
Mr. Cohen declined to comment.
In January 2009, Mr. Tillerson gave his speech at the Wilson Center. He warned that any system based on trading credits would lead to speculation and a “new Wall Street of emissions brokers.”
Ultimately, the cap-and-trade bill was unsuccessful, passing the House in 2009, but failing to reach the Senate floor. The bill died for many reasons, including a struggling economy. But intense lobbying against the bill by energy companies, including Exxon, had an effect.
In the years since the Waxman-Markey bill failed, the company has not thrown its potent lobbying influence behind any specific carbon tax proposal. Still, the company’s website says, “A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent and comparatively simple to understand and implement.“
While Mr. Tillerson’s Exxon has stopped funding several groups that loudly denied climate science, it still funds organizations that pursue a broader agenda of fighting measures to address climate change, including carbon taxes.
Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard historian, said the positions held by the company and Mr. Tillerson still constitute climate denial, but in a “clever and sophisticated” form. “It is, in my view, what makes it more concerning,” she said, “because many people don’t scratch the surface to see what lies beneath.”
Peter C. Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, characterized Exxon’s stance as, “We agree with the I.P.C.C. on climate science — except where it’s inconvenient.” The Senate hearings on Mr. Tillerson, he said, should be a public trial on Exxon’s history of studying climate science while spreading doubt about the underlying science and the company’s actions.
Some hard-line deniers of the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change have said they, too, were uncomfortable with Mr. Tillerson’s positions on climate change, fearing he may be too soft.
Marc Morano, publisher of the site Climate Depot, said that at first he had reservations, but that he was now confident Mr. Tillerson would act in accord with Mr. Trump’s stated views on climate change.
“A deeper examination of Tillerson,” he said, “reveals a man who is not going to be a friend of the climate-change movement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/business/energy-environment/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-exxon.html
-
Electric Utilities File Suit Over CSAPR 'Update'
Dec 28, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing numerous electric generating utilities, is suing EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over the agency's “update” to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) power plant emissions trading rule's nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions caps.
Although UARG's Dec. 23 lawsuit does not detail the specifics of the group's legal attacks on the rule, the group filed comments on the proposed version of the CSAPR update highlighting several concerns. For example, UARG claimed that the rule overall was too stringent, and was based in part on flawed methodology.
CSAPR aims to satisfy the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” requirement, which holds that states must mitigate their air pollution that causes or contributes to downwind states' problems attaining federal national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The original rule created a cap-and-trade program for curbing ozone-forming NOx and sulfur dioxide (SO2) that leads to particulate matter formation, and at one time applied to 28 states.
While the original CSAPR's NOx caps, or “budgets,” aimed to help states attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS expressed as 84 parts per billion (ppb), the updated rule released this year is designed help to meet the stricter 75 ppb standard issued in 2008 -- though the update does not address the even-stricter 70 ppb limit issued in October 2015. The updated CSAPR applies tougher NOx caps, but includes only 22 states.
In Feb. 1 comments on EPA's Dec. 3, 2015, proposed version of the rule, UARG raised a host of objections to many aspects of EPA's methodology and the overall stringency of the rule.
The agency did not change significantly change underlying methodologies in the final rule, despite some upward adjustments to state emissions caps, or “budgets,” to make them less stringent, and the exclusion of North Carolina from the rule, which EPA had proposed to include.
For example, UARG said EPA's analysis of contribution of upwind states to downwind states' NAAQS attainment problems is “seriously flawed” for a variety of reasons. EPA failed to properly account for foreign-sourced emissions, or the distorting effects of computer ozone modeling over waterbodies, UARG said.
The group claimed that EPA's threshold for “significant contribution” to another state's NAAQS attainment problems -- one percent of the NAAQS -- cannot be applied as a “bright line” test.
UARG criticized a “serious disconnect” between the “extraordinarily stringent” emissions caps proposed, and the very modest air quality improvements that would result downwind. Some of the group's criticisms could form the basis of its legal attacks on the rule in the just-filed lawsuit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/litigation-electric-utilities-file-suit-over-csapr-update
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested