Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/30/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Outlook '17: Uncertainty Prevails in the European Petchems Industry
Dec 30, 2016 | ICIS
By Niall Swan
It is beyond a doubt that 2016 will go down as one of the most turbulent but also most important years in modern times, not only in broad global terms but in the petrochemicals business too. -
Lautenberg Act Gives EPA New Powers for Potential Ban
Dec 29, 2016 | Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center
Speaking of banning asbestos in the U.S., a major step was taken over the summer when President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Seeks Meeting with EPA Over Lack of Response to IRIS Comments
Dec 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is seeking a meeting with EPA research officials over concerns a recent agency Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment did not include an appendix responding to public comments, despite EPA vowing to include such responses as part of its plan to improve the IRIS process. -
Texas Oil Land Takes Position in Global Order
Dec 30, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
The shale boom has made Texas oil land some of the most sought-after in the world. -
Research & Commentary: Nationwide Study Finds Communities Benefit from Fracking
Dec 29, 2016 | The Heartland Institute (in Real Clear Energy)
By Tim Benson
A new study by researchers at the University of Chicago, Princeton University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), titled The Local Economic and Welfare Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing, concludes communities affected by hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” on average, benefit from the industry. -
Fracking Causes Noise Pollution That Could Be Harmful to Your Health
Dec 30, 2016 | Grist (in Real Clear Energy)
By Katie Herzog
The consequences of fracking can include higher cancer risk for workers, groundwater contamination, and methane leaks, as well as the sudden rash of earthquakes in places where they were previously rare. -
Trump Could Be Fighting Obama's Climate Policies for Years
Dec 30, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump’s energy agenda is shaping up to be a years-long effort to undo President Obama’s policies. -
Ozone: EPA Extends Deadline for Petition Targeting Utility's Emissions
Dec 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending from Jan. 10 until July 9 the deadline for its response to a petition from Delaware asking the agency to use its Clean Air Act authority to directly regulate air emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant, which will allow the Trump administration to propose any response.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Outlook '17: Uncertainty Prevails in the European Petchems Industry
Dec 30, 2016 | ICIS
By Niall Swan
It is beyond a doubt that 2016 will go down as one of the most turbulent but also most important years in modern times, not only in broad global terms but in the petrochemicals business too.
On 23 June, the UK voted in favour of leaving the EU, a decision which, despite repeated warnings, was one that very few believed would transpire.
Fast-forward to 8 November, and the US presidential election managed to trump the UK in terms of unexpected votes as real-estate developer and reality television star Donald Trump was elected ahead of Senator Hillary Clinton.
The impact of these two seismic events on the chemicals industry has yet to be felt with Trump awaiting his inauguration on 20 January, while Article 50, which allows the UK to leave the EU, will be triggered by the end of March, with two years of negotiations expected.
MERGERS & ACQUISITION
Elsewhere, there are major changes afoot in the chemicals industry, with three major mergers or acquisitions - worth an estimated $200bn cumulatively - in the process of being completed.
German agrochemicals major Bayer’s acquisition of US company Monsanto, Swiss-based Syngenta’s sale to Chinese state-owned chems company ChemChina, and the long-awaited merger of Dow and DuPont are all expected to be completed in 2017, leaving an entirely different industry landscape.
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCES 2016
Looking back at Q3 results across the industry does little to reassure that things will improve in the coming year.
BASF, the world's biggest chemical company and one of the largest in petrochemicals, saw its net profit fall by 27% year on year in the third quarter of 2016 with sales also down by 20%.
In its Q3 statement, the German company said that it expects full-year sales to decline due to the divestment of its gas trading business, with operating profit before special items seen slightly lower compared with 2015.
Covestro - which will shortly publish its first full-year results as an independent entity - saw a surge in third-quarter net profit, up 61.9% year on year to €259m, analysts questioned the resilience of the company in tougher conditions.
“After Covestro experienced strong tailwinds in 2016 [brought about] by lower raw material costs and the delayed start-ups of competitor capacities, raw material costs are rising significantly since mid-2016 and the delayed capacity additions are finally coming. Consequently, we expect that Covestro might see pricing power headwinds in 2017,” said Baader’s chemical analyst Markus Mayer.
Specialty chemicals producer AkzoNobel was another company whose Q3 results, despite being moderately positive, failed to inspire. Net profit was unchanged year on year at €285m despite a 4% drop in sales.
The Dutch company’s results were “roughly in line with consensus” according to analysts at Sanford Bernstein. Baader Bank were less kind, saying: “Our conclusion [is that a] 2% price decline in Q3 2016 underpins our fear that Akzo has not the pricing power to surpass rising raw material costs.”
In a year that saw weak oil prices on the back of over-production, a problem which OPEC wants to counteract with a production cut, major oil companies such as Shell and BP relied on their petrochemical segments to produce strong results.
BP’s petrochemical’s business posted a Q3 underlying replacement cost profit before interest and tax of $78m, over double the $37m posted the previous year, while Shell's chemical operations posted a 2% year-on-year increase in Q3 earnings to $542m.
“[It is] hard to be very optimistic about the outlook. The first half of the year disappointed," said Paul Hodges, chairman of consultants International eChem, in a recent blog post.
“Then Q3 saw major volatility as the hedge funds and high frequency traders played their games in the oil market - prices weakened as demand slowed, but then the story about another effort at an OPEC-Russia quota deal pushed oil prices back up again.”
This led to companies doing some out-of-the-ordinary stock-building during the summer months, said Hodges, but a lack of demand from the downstream end of the value chain took its toll.
“Of course, some companies still did relatively well - either because of luck, in being at the right place at the right time, or because they have a very robust strategy,” he added.
CAPACITY UTILISATION
Less-than-impressive financial results were coupled with faltering capacity utilisation, which dropped to the lowest level for the sector globally since the height of the recession in early 2009, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Global capacity utilisation in October of this year fell to 78.4%, which is just above the lowest reading ever seen of 77%, according to the ACC. What’s possibly more worrying, however, is that it says capacity utilisation has been in constant decline since the end of 2015, when it stood at 80.7%.
However, according to the latest European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) Chemical Trends Report, capacity utilisation in the EU reached 81.9% in Q3 2016, which is a slight quarter-on-quarter increase suggesting that there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
FALLING CHEMICAL PRICES
Cefic also recorded that petrochemical prices in the EU were 8.5% lower in Q3 2016 than in the same period of 2015, while in the wider EU chemical sector, prices were down 4.6% year on year in the first nine months of 2016.
When taking all of the above into consideration, it’s likely that the most prevalent word analysts will be using for the European chemicals industry for the foreseeable future is ‘uncertainty’.
There was enough to be positive about in the second half of 2016 to suggest that the industry is heading in the right direction, but rising costs coupled with the disconcerting potential effects of both Brexit in the UK and Donald Trump’s policies leaves a sour taste heading into the new year.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/12/30/10065010/outlook-17-uncertainty-prevails-in-the-european-petchems-industry/
-
Lautenberg Act Gives EPA New Powers for Potential Ban
Dec 29, 2016 | Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center
Speaking of banning asbestos in the U.S., a major step was taken over the summer when President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. This act, passed with bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by giving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) new powers to review and implement regulations against dangerous chemicals.
Over the next several months, the EPA took the steps necessary to determine which chemicals it was going to review first, which included a series of public meetings and other investigatory actions. Then, earlier this month, the agency announced that it had come up with a list of 10 substances it would review first under these new powers. Asbestos was on that list.
Although this review will not necessarily lead to a full ban on asbestos, many advocates for a ban are encouraged by these developments. The first report is due from the EPA in about six months, after which decisions will be made about any future regulations that may affect asbestos (and the other chemicals the agency is reviewing).
https://www.maacenter.org/blog/community/top-asbestos-stories-from-2016/
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Seeks Meeting with EPA Over Lack of Response to IRIS Comments
Dec 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is seeking a meeting with EPA research officials over concerns a recent agency Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment did not include an appendix responding to public comments, despite EPA vowing to include such responses as part of its plan to improve the IRIS process.
In a letter added to the agency's online IRIS docket Dec. 21 -- but dated Sept. 19 -- ACC questions the lack of response to public comments in the final IRIS assessment of a trio of isomers of trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) found in petroleum, engine exhaust and some hydraulic fracturing fluids. That assessment, released Sept. 9, was the first EPA completed since its December 2014 analysis the Libby amphibole asbestos analysis.
An ACC spokeswoman says that the group is now asking EPA for a meeting to discuss its concerns about the lack of response to public comments.
Release of the TMBs IRIS assessment followed several years of efforts to overhaul the program in the face of longstanding criticism over its limited output and questions about its scientific underpinnings. EPA included responding to public comments reforms in its last update to the IRIS assessment development process in 2013, and included a written response in the Libby analysis.
ACC's Michael Walls, vice president for regulatory and technical affiars, in the letter to EPA's Science Advisor Tom Burke, and Bob Kavlock, deputy assistant administrator for science of EPA's research office, questions why this process was not repeated for the TMBs review. “In 2013, the [IRIS] Program revised the IRIS process to incorporate an explicit response-to-comments step. Unfortunately, the IRIS final toxicological review of [TMBs] . . . does not incorporate that step. On behalf of the [ACC], I urge you to require the program to respond to public comments on the TMB review, and to adhere to the IRIS process steps in all future releases,” according to the Sept. 19 letter.
ACC had urged EPA in crafting the TMBs assessment to include several ethyltoluenes -- chemicals that are part of the C9 aromatic hydrocarbon group of compounds that includes TMBs. At a 2012 meeting, representatives of ACC and ExxonMobil questioned IRIS staff over their exclusion of data including these other chemicals, data that industry provided to EPA in response to a 1985 test rule from EPA's Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics.
The final TMBs assessment maintains EPA's decision in the draft to limit the risk analyses to three isomers of TMB. “The data sets they left out are essential to understanding . . . the potential toxicities,” Richard Becker, a senior toxicologist at ACC, said during the August 2012 meeting.
At that meeting, ACC presented information from a 2008 study based on studies industry performed under a 1985 test rule by OPPT. The publication included weaker risk estimates than those now finalized by EPA. The publication, known as Firth et al, does not appear in the final IRIS assessment.
IRIS Process
In the Sept. 19 letter, Walls notes that EPA followed its 2013 IRIS process by including both responses to public comments and comments from the science advisors that peer-reviewed the Libby amphibole asbestos IRIS assessment, published in 2014 -- but the TMBs assessment does not appear to do so.
EPA also did not include a response to comments in its IRIS assessment of ammonia's non-cancer human health risks, released Sept. 20.
Its long-running IRIS assessment of the sterilizing agent ethylene oxide released Dec. 16 includes responses to comments received in 2007 and 2013, as well as responses to peer review comments received in 2007 and 2015.
Walls' letter does not mention either of those assessments, but it notes that the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) -- the subcommittee of EPA's Science Advisory Board which peer reviews IRIS assessments -- “has no responsibility to address or respond to public comments, it is critically important that the IRIS program provide the necessary transparency by responding to public comments. This was clearly reflected in the 2013 IRIS process documentation -- a process for which EPA has announced no changes.”
ACC urges EPA to “provide responses to public comments in a new addendum to the Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes, and also ensure that EPA follows the 2013 IRIS process in all future releases. A change in the IRIS process would signal a retreat from EPA’s commitment to stakeholder engagement.”
An EPA spokesman says in an email to Inside EPA, “EPA and the IRIS program are committed to transparency and stakeholder engagement. We seek written comments from the public, including stakeholders when we release a draft assessment. We then evaluate the comments received during the public comment period and revise the assessment accordingly. The revised assessment undergoes an external peer review, currently conducted by a subcommittee of EPA's Science Advisory Board. The SAB panel not only reviews the revised assessment, they receive all of the public comments along with a disposition of comments report that describes how the comments were treated. Since the SAB process is guided by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a public process, all of the materials noted above are publicly available and remain so as a history tab on the IRIS web site, specific to each chemical. The final assessment includes a disposition of peer review comments included as an appendix.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/acc-seeks-meeting-epa-over-lack-response-iris-comments
-
Texas Oil Land Takes Position in Global Order
Dec 30, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
The shale boom has made Texas oil land some of the most sought-after in the world.
Texas deals account for almost one-quarter of the total money spent on oil-and-gas acreage this year, according to year-end figures gathered by the energy research firm IHS Markit. Texas hasn’t represented such a large portion for 20 years, at least.
“Texas and the Permian Basin have proven to be a prime location,” said Chris Sheehan, IHS’s director of transaction research. “But the shale revolution has really unlocked additional resources.”
The driving force this year, Sheehan said, was economics. After oil prices crashed in February, U.S. drilling ground to a halt. As they slowly recovered, companies sent rigs to oilfields with the lowest costs and highest returns. West Texas’ Permian Basin became the hottest in the U.S. because its layers of underground hydrocarbons allowed companies to drill efficiently and access vast swaths of oil.
Companies wanted into that field. But, since the Permian is an old basin, most of its land was already leased. To get in, they had to buy in.
Some firms already there were too damaged by the downturn, and couldn’t muster the capital to develop even the most efficient field. So they sold their acreage. In other cases, larger, stronger companies bought weaker ones in order to access prime Permian land.
The two largest U.S. deals this year weren’t focused on Texas land. In September, Fort Worth-based Range Resources announced it was buying Houston’s Memorial Resource Development, which was heavily into Louisiana gas, for at least $4.2 billion. Then Rice Energy, based in Pennsylvania, agreed to buy Colorado’s Vantage Energy, which focused on Appalachian gas, for $2.8 billion.
But the Permian boasted eight deals this year over $1 billion, by far the busiest region in the U.S., according to IHS. And the most expensive deals there focused on the Permian’s western lobe, the Delaware Basin.
In September, Houston’s EOG Resources announced it was buying the privately owned Yates Petroleum Corp., out of New Mexico, for $2.5 billion in stock and cash. Yates holds almost 200,000 acres in the Delaware.
In October, Dallas-based RSP Permian agreed to buy Silver Hill Energy Partners, also headquartered in Dallas, and its 41,000 Delaware acres for $2.5 billion, or as much as $47,000 per undeveloped acre — far above the average, according to some analysts.
And earlier this month, Midland-based Diamondback Energy announced it would pick up Brigham Resources and its 76,000 acres of Delaware land for $2.4 billion in cash and stock.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/12/30/texas-oil-land-takes-position-in-global-order/
-
Research & Commentary: Nationwide Study Finds Communities Benefit from Fracking
Dec 29, 2016 | The Heartland Institute (in Real Clear Energy)
By Tim Benson
A new study by researchers at the University of Chicago, Princeton University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), titled The Local Economic and Welfare Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing, concludes communities affected by hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” on average, benefit from the industry. The study, which was published in late December 2016, is the first nationwide study of its kind.
The study looked at nine different shale basins, “the most comprehensive assessment to date,” according to the authors, and determined using a “willingness-to-pay” metric hydraulic fracturing activity brings $1,300 to $1,900 in annual benefits to local households, totaling roughly $64 billion in yearly household benefits for those living in the nine basins studied. These benefits include a “a 7 percent increase in average income, driven by rises in wages and royalty payments, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a 6 percent increase in housing prices.” According to the authors, “Local government revenues also increased at a faster pace than expenditures.”
“This study makes it clear that on net there are benefits to local economies—which we believe is useful information for leaders in the United States and abroad who are deciding whether to allow fracking in their communities,” said MIT’s Chris Knittel, a co-author of the study.
“Our estimates are based on the knowledge that communities currently have,” said lead researcher Michael Greenstone of the University of Chicago. “So, for example, if new information emerges that indicates that there are larger negative local health effects than is currently believed, this would likely lead to declines in housing prices and overall welfare impacts. But based on what is currently known, the average community that has allowed fracking has enjoyed substantial net benefits.”
The study notes the benefits from fracking are also significant at the macro level.
“The application of hydraulic fracturing to develop oil and natural gas found in shale deposits has led to a sharp increase in U.S. energy production and generated enormous benefits, including abruptly lower energy prices, a reduced trade deficit, stronger energy security and even lower carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector. … Higher levels of domestic energy production have … cut the trade deficit and increased energy security by reducing the amount of fuel purchased abroad. A decade ago, the U.S. imported 60 percent of its net liquid fuel needs. Last year, it imported just 24 percent. Combined with lower prices, this has sharply reduced U.S. expenditure on oil imports, which had averaged more than half of the trade deficit from 2008 to 2013. The net result was a $304 billion reduction in capital outflows in 2015 compared to 2008.”
The fracking process has transformed the energy outlook of the United States over the past decade, and the rise of shale gas as a replacement for coal has been primarily responsible for the United States now enjoying its lowest level of carbon-dioxide emissions since 1989. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fracking now accounts for 51 percentof all U.S. crude oil production. The oil and natural gas hydraulic fracturing has enabled us to exploit are cost-effective and abundant, and they can ensure the United States is the world’s largest energy producer well beyond the 21st century.
Drilling is currently being conducted across the country in a safe and responsible manner. Federal, state, and local governments have tested thousands of sites for hydraulic fracturing pollution of groundwater and drinking water resources, as well as for air quality. Flatly, there is no scientific justification for banning hydraulic fracturing or over-regulating it out of existence. Regulation should only be based on the best available scientific literature, not on wild, unfounded claims of based on misinformation, fear, and superstition.
The following documents provide more information about hydraulic fracturing.
The Local Economic and Welfare Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-local-economic-and-welfare-consequences-of-hydraulic-fracturing
This comprehensive study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research says fracking brings, on average, $1,300 to $1,900 in annual benefits to local households, including a 7 percent increase in average income, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a 6 percent increase in housing prices.What If … Hydraulic Fracturing Was Banned?
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/what-if-hydraulic-fracturing-was-banned
This study is the fourth in a series of studies produced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. It examines what a nationwide ban on hydraulic fracturing would entail. The report’s authors found by 2022, a ban would cause 14.8 million jobs to “evaporate,” almost double gasoline and electricity prices, and increase natural gas prices by 400 percent. Moreover, cost of living expenses would increase by nearly $4,000 per family, household incomes would be reduced by $873 billion, and GDP would be reduced by $1.6 trillion.What If … America’s Energy Renaissance Never Happened?
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/what-ifamericas-energy-renaissance-never-actually-happened
This report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy examines the impact the development of shale oil and gas has had on the United States. The report’s authors found that without the fracking-related “energy renaissance,” 4.3 million jobs in the United States may not have ever been created and $548 billion in annual GDP would have been lost since 2009. The report also found electricity prices would be 31 percent higher and gasoline prices 43 percent higher.Hydraulic Fracturing a Game-Changer for U.S. Energy and Economies
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/hydraulic-fracturing-a-game-changer-for-us-energy-and-economies?source=policybot
In this Policy Study from The Heartland Institute, Heartland Research Fellow Isaac Orr explains the advantages and disadvantages of smart drilling and its alternatives. Orr reviews the background and potential of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and puts that potential in the context of the supply of and demand for oil and gas. He addresses the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, both positive and negative, as well as the public safety issues raised by activists, such as potential harm to drinking water supplies. Orr also discusses how oil and gas production is regulated at the state and national levels and suggests appropriate policies for the industry.Bill McKibben’s Terrifying Disregard for Fracking Facts
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/bill-mckibbens-terrifying-disregard-for-fracking-facts?source=policybot
This Heartland Institute Policy Study, written by Research Fellow Isaac Orr, examines how methane emissions are measured, reports the effect those emissions may have on global warming, and discusses several falsehoods journalist Bill McKibben repeats from the discredited movie Gasland. It also evaluates the available fracking alternatives and discusses the relatively small impact new methane-emissions rules enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency will likely have on Earth’s climate.Fracking Facts: The Science, Economics, and Legal Realities
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/fracking-facts-the-science-economics-and-legal-realities?source=policybot
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, has been employed in the United States since the 1940s. Although innovation has improved the precision of the process, the essentials are the same. Utilizing horizontal drilling, a mixture of mostly water, sand, and trace amounts of chemicals, are used to create fissures in underground shale deposits to allow oil and natural gas trapped in hard rock to move toward the surface to be collected. Activists have blamed fracking and the processes associated with it for emissions of pollutants, earthquakes, and even groundwater contamination, though independent evidence consistently shows these allegations to be false. Leigh Thompson of the Texas Public Policy Foundation argues the evidence supporting fracking bans looks slim when attention is drawn to the facts.Managing the Risk of Hydraulic Fracturing: An Update
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/managing-the-risks--of-hydraulic-fracturing-an-update?source=policybot
Kenneth P. Green of the Fraser Institute argues policymakers should ignore the siren song made by those calling for moratoria or bans on fracking.Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production, Jobs, and Economic Growth
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/hydraulic-fracturing-critical-for-energy-production-jobs-and-economic-growth?source=policybot
Increased energy production on private lands in the United States has been one of the most promising economic success stories in recent years. A large part of the success is due to an energy-extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing. Misconceptions about hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, abound. The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris explains hydraulic fracturing is safe when regulated effectively and says fracking greatly increases the nation’s energy production, thus promoting job creation.https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/research--commentary-nationwide-study-finds-communities-benefit-from-fracking
-
Fracking Causes Noise Pollution That Could Be Harmful to Your Health
Dec 30, 2016 | Grist (in Real Clear Energy)
By Katie Herzog
The consequences of fracking can include higher cancer risk for workers, groundwater contamination, and methane leaks, as well as the sudden rash of earthquakes in places where they were previously rare.
Now, there’s another concern to add to the growing list: According to a recent study from nonprofit research institute PSE Healthy Energy and West Virginia University, the noise caused by fracking — which takes place both night and day — is connected to an array of health problems associated with sleep disturbance and cardiovascular health, including elevated blood pressure, hypertension, and heart disease.
“Oil and gas operations produce a complex symphony of noise types, including intermittent and continuous sounds and varying intensities,” said PSE Healthy Energy Executive Director Seth Shonkoff. Fracking operations can produce everything from a low rumble to loud drilling noises.
Like other public health threats, noise pollution disproportionately effects vulnerable populations like the elderly, children, and people suffering from chronic illness. While president-elect Trump has gone on record supporting local fracking bans, his top oil advisers wouldn’t agree and are eyeing opening new lands to fossil fuel development — including fracking.
http://grist.org/briefly/heres-some-of-the-best-climate-writing-of-2016-according-to-us/
-
Trump Could Be Fighting Obama's Climate Policies for Years
Dec 30, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump’s energy agenda is shaping up to be a years-long effort to undo President Obama’s policies.
Supporters of Trump and industries that have opposed Obama’s regulatory actions say turning back the clock is the most important thing the president-elect can do to help businesses succeed.
But it won’t be easy to undo many of the energy and climate regulations that Obama has put in place.
Under federal law, reversing major regulations requires a time-consuming process that can drag on for months and sometimes years. And even after new rules are issued, they can be challenged in court — something environmental groups are already vowing to do.
The Obama administration, meanwhile, has in recent weeks added to Trump’s list of targets by issuing a new coal-mining regulation and offshore drilling bans in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
Obama also created controversial national monuments in Utah and Nevada that Republicans are pushing Trump to repeal, something Obama says is not in Trump’s power to do.
“Some actions they will be able to do in relatively short order. Other major rules will take time to meet the burden of regulatory process,” said Scott Segal, a lobbyist at Bracewell who represents numerous energy companies.
“The next administration needs to be careful, transparent and follow the rule of law, or else they’ll have potential trouble in front of a reviewing court,” Segal said. “Because there’s no doubt that the environmental community would sue to prevent these actions.”
Still, much of Obama’s environmental agenda was enacted through executive actions, which are within Trump’s power to quickly reverse.
The Republican Congress can also help undo some of Obama’s recent rules by using the Congressional Review Act, which provides for the expedited repeal of regulations.
“The Obama administration has done a lot unilaterally, and the silver lining of that is that it can be undone unilaterally,” said Nick Loris, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
What seems clear is that Trump is dedicated to the fight.
While Trump has given a few nods to the green movement — Trump met separately with climate activists Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio after the election — his Cabinet picks are vocal critics of Obama’s agenda.
Trump’s selections include Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke (R) to lead the Interior Department and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to lead the Energy Department.
William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, said an aggressive fight against Obama’s policies is a welcome change and something to be expected when the White House changes hands.
“It is not uncommon whenever there’s a change of party, given how much policy emanates from the executive branch these days, for recension to be of the order for the incoming president,” he said. “When policy emanates from the executive, and there’s a change in the executive, policy is supposed to reflect that.”
During the campaign, Trump ran in part on an aggressive deregulatory plan, saying in September that he would pursue “the elimination of all unnecessary regulations and a temporary moratorium on new regulations not compelled by Congress or public safety.”
Trump has specifically pledged to undo the Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the United States rule, Interior’s stream protection rule and the moratorium on new coal-mining leases on federal land.
He’s also promised to stop all payments to international climate efforts, to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, and to open more federal land and water to oil and natural gas drilling.
The Trump transition website promises that the next administration “will unleash an energy revolution that will transform us into a net energy exporter, leading to the creation of millions of new jobs, while protecting the country’s most valuable resources — our clean air, clean water, and natural habitats.”
Environmentalists and other Trump opponents say many of Obama's actions are popular with the public and should be preserved. They accuse the Republican of focusing solely on reversing Obama, rather than putting forward energy and environmental plans of his own.
“If President-elect Trump decides to go in the direction that it appears he is, trying to undermine a full range of environmental protections, weakening or eliminating a move to a clean-energy economy, there will be a very strong reaction,” said David Goldston, director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Goldston compared Trump’s plans to those of presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, as well as that of former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). All three came to power with broad deregulatory promises but failed to overcome opposition, he said.
“There was a strong vocal backlash, and they eventually decided this was not worth their effort. And we expect that to be the case again,” he said.
James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, said he is optimistic that the country will continue to move toward clean energy sources like wind and solar, no matter what Trump does.
“There’s only so much you can do with policy that’s going to change the way we’re headed,” he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311878-trump-could-be-fighting-obamas-climate-policies-for-years
-
Ozone: EPA Extends Deadline for Petition Targeting Utility's Emissions
Dec 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending from Jan. 10 until July 9 the deadline for its response to a petition from Delaware asking the agency to use its Clean Air Act authority to directly regulate air emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant, which will allow the Trump administration to propose any response.
In a Dec. 29 Federal Register notice, the agency says that it needs more time to fully analyze the information that Delaware has submitted to support its petition. Section 126 of the air law gives the agency power to grant such petitions and sets a 60-day deadline for a response, but also authorizes EPA to extend that deadline.
Delaware petitioned EPA Nov. 10 to directly regulate ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from the Homer City Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant located in Indiana County, PA, which Delaware claims is hindering its ability to attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Delaware claims the plant compromises its attainment of ozone EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), and also the tougher ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb issued in 2015.
Delaware has already filed two other recent section 126 petitions, against the Brunner Island power plant in Pennsylvania, and the Harrison Power Station, near Hayward, WV.
In practice, EPA's responses to section 126 petitions have taken much longer than sixty days. One such successful petition was brought by New Jersey against another Pennsylvania coal plant, the Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, PA. EPA granted that petition in 2011, forcing a reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide from the Portland Plant.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
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