Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/10/2017
-
With Hearing Set, Pruitt Submits Ethics Agreement, Financial Disclosure
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run EPA, has submitted his required ethics paperwork -- including a proposed ethics agreement and financial disclosure documentation -- ahead of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee slated for Jan. 18 though not yet officially announced. -
Pruitt Closes PACs to Quell Ethics Questions
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Benjamin Storrow and Mike Soraghan
In an abrupt shift, two political action committees associated with U.S. EPA nominee Scott Pruitt will be shut down before the Oklahoma attorney general faces senators for a confirmation hearing later this month. -
(ACC Mentioned) US House Pushes Aggressive Regulatory Rollback Agenda
Jan 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US House of Representatives has passed measures aimed at rolling back regulations, as the Republican-controlled body acts on campaign promises to reduce red tape and burdens on businesses in the early days of the 115th Congress. -
Advisors Support EPA's RDX Cancer Listing, Seek Stricter Oral Risk Value
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) appears slated to agree with EPA's determination in its draft analysis of the human health risks of exposure to the munitions chemical Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX) there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, and is expected to call on EPA to slightly tighten its oral risk estimate for neurological effects. -
Federal Scientists May Lower Lead Exposure Threshold for Children
Jan 10, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo and Sonya Lunder
In a shift that could help hundreds of thousands of U.S. children, federal health officials are considering whether to lower the threshold for identifying kids with elevated levels of lead exposure. -
EPA Reaches C8 Agreement with Dupont
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
U.S. EPA said yesterday that it has reached a new agreement with DuPont in relation to drinking water polluted by the chemical C8 from the company's manufacturing plant on the border of Ohio and West Virginia. -
Tough Road Seen for Access Northeast, LNG Storage, Too
Jan 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
New Hampshire, the Granite State, has been impenetrable to Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC's Access Northeast Project, and the rest of New England hasn't been too hospitable to new pipe in the ground either. -
Tribe, Army Corps Challenge Dakota Access Pipeline Court Filings
Jan 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The battle continued Friday among the federal government, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) over the stalled Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project. -
Three Signs of Hope in The U.S. for Energy Efficiency and Renewables in 2017
Jan 9, 2017 | Forbes
By Micah Remley
As if writing predictions for the energy industry weren’t tough enough every year, 2017 presents a particularly challenging dynamic, as the expected policies of the next presidential administration clash with diverging global ideals to create a very cloudy future for the sector. -
Is Amazon's Secrecy Preventing a Greener Grid?
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By David Ferris
Amazon.com, that seller of all things, offers endless information on its products. But the sharing stops cold when it comes to its own energy use and carbon footprint, and that reticence might be slowing the greening of the electric grid, a new report claims. -
Exxon Could Be on Trial at Tillerson Hearing
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Environmentalists want former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearing tomorrow to be an indictment of the oil company's decades long climate record. -
Intelligence Panel Warns of Climate Threats
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The National Intelligence Council highlighted the impact of climate change on global security and stability in a report released yesterday.
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
-
With Hearing Set, Pruitt Submits Ethics Agreement, Financial Disclosure
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run EPA, has submitted his required ethics paperwork -- including a proposed ethics agreement and financial disclosure documentation -- ahead of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee slated for Jan. 18 though not yet officially announced.
Pruitt in a one-page letter dated Jan. 3 to Kevin Minoli, EPA's designated ethics official, outlines the steps he will “take to avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest” if he is confirmed as EPA administrator.
“I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter in which I know that I have a financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter, or in which I know that a person whose interests are imputed to me has a financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter, unless I first obtain a written waiver . . . or qualify for a regulatory exemption,” he writes.
The letter adds that upon confirmation he will resign his position as Oklahoma attorney general (AG), but he does not promise to avoid participating in any matter involving the state for one year post-resignation, as he does for other groups he says he will step down from, including the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Windows Ministry Incorporated.
“For a period of one year after my resignation, I will have a 'covered relationship' . . . with the State of Oklahoma. I will seek authorization to participate personally and substantially in particular matters involving specific parties in which I know the State of Oklahoma is a party or represents a party,” he writes.
In the letter, Pruitt says for the other entities from which he resigns, “I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know that entity is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate.”
Pruitt says he already resigned from the Rule of Law Defense Fund -- a group affiliated with GOP AGs leading the charge against Obama climate rules.
Sources say Pruitt's ethics agreement appears to be robust enough to comply with Office of Government Ethics (OGE) but it is unclear whether it would satisfy American Bar Association (ABA) rules.
Sources had told Inside EPA that Pruitt may have to recuse himself from participating in key EPA issues because of ethics requirements that could limit his involvement due to his record of bringing multiple lawsuits challenging EPA climate and other rules.
One former EPA official says Pruitt's Jan. 3 letter is “a bit less detailed than I would have expected.”
“But he seems to be saying that, for a year, he won't participate in cases or other specific party matters in which Oklahoma is a party unless he gets authorization,” the source added. “I assume this means a 'waiver' by the EPA ethics office. . . . The question is whether the career EPA ethics staff will grant such waivers.”
A second former top agency official says the letter does not commit Pruitt to seeking a waiver but simply opens the door to him doing so if desired. That source notes the letter is intended to “convey his awareness that if he wants to participate personally and substantially in matters involving Oklahoma, he knows he has to seek specific authorization.”
Along with the letter, Pruitt also submitted his financial disclosure form to OGE. That document shows he earned $265,650 as Oklahoma's AG, that he does not own millions of dollars in financial assets like some other Trump nominees and that he owes the Bank of Oklahoma between $500,000 and $1 million for a 2012 mortgage.
Ethics Letter
Pruitt's submissions come as the Senate EPW Committee has tentatively scheduled his confirmation hearing for Jan. 18, just a few days before Trump is sworn in.
The second EPA source tells Inside EPA that Pruitt's ethics letter “in all probability . . . was framed for him by the ethics office at EPA, so probably the text was given to him based on other letters of this kind.”
The source adds that the letter “doesn't provide assurances” Pruitt will be provided authorization to participate in matters involving Oklahoma, noting “there probably is precedent or a determination of that kind for someone coming out of state service.”
If Pruitt does seek such a waiver, the key criteria is that he would have to appear impartial. However, the source notes the situation is “unusual” because EPA could make “a 180-degree turn” on its position. For example, the Trump EPA is expected to oppose many rules the Obama EPA promulgated, which are the same ones Pruitt fought.
This source had previously noted that Pruitt would also have to comply with ABA rules that prohibit “side switching” and could bar him from participating in cases at EPA in litigation where he represented Oklahoma as AG. The ABA rules could be trickier than the OGE ones because they prohibit a lawyer from switching clients in the same matter and D.C. Bar rules, which control here, have no waiver process, the source said. This would seem to mean that Pruitt could not participate in high-profile cases over EPA rules he brought as Oklahoma AG even if EPA under Trump no longer backs those rules, such as EPA's power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) rules.
The source now says that the ABA rules would not be addressed in Pruitt's EPA ethics letter, and that his compliance with the bar requirements is his personal responsibility as an attorney. Pruitt would likely have to ask the D.C. Bar to make a determination, and it is unknown whether he has done so.
Pruitt's letter also does not address whether he is allowed to proceed with policy work on issues he has challenged, even if he refrains from participating in ongoing litigation. A total recusal on such matters would be difficult because it could prohibit an administrator from “being able to engage or inquire” about a topic at all, the source has said.
The source had also noted that Pruitt's situation is not precisely clear because as the agency administrator he is unlikely to represent the agency in court. How far such a prohibition on his participation could extend is unclear.
But one industry attorney says whether Pruitt is recused from current litigation “is really sort of irrelevant, since he most clearly can (and probably will) undertake new rulemaking actions to revoke or significantly cut back those rules. The currently pending judicial review proceedings are really pretty insignificant when viewed in this light.”
The source calls Pruitt's legal record “a totally different kettle of fish” from some other Trump nominees who have potentially significant financial conflicts of interest. Pruitt's penchant for suing EPA is well known and “he even bragsabout it. . . . Whether you like Pruitt or not, you pretty much know he loves oil and gas and has as a matter of record filed many petitions for review of EPA rules.”
Confirmation Prospects
While Pruitt's nomination is expected to be approved by the Senate, some lawmakers are raising significant questions about his record and views -- including Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on EPW. Carper sent a Dec. 28 letter to Pruitt seeking the answers by Jan. 9 to six pages of questions on various topics, including his experience as Oklahoma's top litigator and his views on EPA climate and environmental rules.
Nonetheless, Pruitt's prospects for confirmation appear to be firming up, as West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin signaled his support for the nominee in a Jan. 5 statement issued with the Trump transition team.
OGE issued a transition ethics guide that contains warnings to nominees about penalties they face if they do not complete requirements, and the office has since been critical of other Trump nominees for not completing all required ethical disclosures ahead of confirmation hearings slated for this week.
Meanwhile, progressive groups are gearing up to fight Pruitt's nomination, with a newly formed Resist Trump coalition circulating a new sign-on letter asking senators to oppose him. “Pruitt has a record of advocating against any and all protections of our water, air and climate. Allowing him to lead the EPA would not only be a disaster for the environment, but for every person in the United States who drinks water or breathes air,” the letter says.
It adds that Pruitt is a climate denier who has called the science “far from settled'” notes that he opposes EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant; and says he has done nothing to protect Oklahoma residents from fracking-induced earthquakes.
The letter asks senators to “use all procedural means at your disposal” to block him, though due to a rule change in the last Congress Pruitt and other cabinet nominees can be approved with a simple 51-vote majority.
In a related matter, the Resist Trump group held an inaugural telephone call Jan. 9 to outline its purpose. Founded by Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen and the Center For Biological Diversity, organizers said the group aims to fill a perceived need for a grassroots network to address the expected undermining of climate and other protective regulations. They add that the network is intended to help the environmental movement get plugged into a wider Trump resistance effort, and be prepared to respond rapidly.
“We recognize that in order to be [successful], we're going to have to stand together with the broader progressive movement,” Ben Shreiber of Friends of the Earth said on the call. He added that environmentalists cannot work in a silo because the anti-regulatory agenda is so broad that “it is only by having a very strong resistance to all of the Trump agenda do we stand a chance of winning.”
The overarching goal of the movement is to “have a 2018 election that holds the enablers in Congress accountable” for their extreme agenda.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/hearing-set-pruitt-submits-ethics-agreement-financial-disclosure
-
Pruitt Closes PACs to Quell Ethics Questions
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Benjamin Storrow and Mike Soraghan
In an abrupt shift, two political action committees associated with U.S. EPA nominee Scott Pruitt will be shut down before the Oklahoma attorney general faces senators for a confirmation hearing later this month.
The announcement followed publication of an E&E News story Friday, which reported a super PAC associated with Pruitt, Liberty 2.0, could continue soliciting donations even if the Sooner State politician is confirmed as EPA administrator. A second committee, Oklahoma Strong Leadership, will also be shut down.
"The PACs missions are no longer relevant and we don't want them to be a distraction during the confirmation hearings," Charles Spies, counsel for both committees, told E&E News in an email yesterday.
News of the closure was first reported by The Oklahoman, an Oklahoma City-based newspaper.
Spies told E&E News on Thursday that the committee's leadership was in talks over Liberty 2.0's future, but no decisions had been made.
The move to close the super PAC comes in advance of what is expected to be a contentious confirmation hearing. Senate Democrats and environmentalists have questioned Pruitt's financial ties to energy companies, as President-elect Donald Trump's nominees face a rising tide of ethical questions heading into the confirmation process.
A statement from the Sierra Club offered a preview of the coming battle over the issue.
"The fact that Scott Pruitt intends to take big cash from the very same big polluters he is supposed to be monitoring as EPA administrator is unprecedented and a clear danger to the health of our families," the environmental group said in a statement released in response to the E&E News story.
The closure of the PACs did little to appease Pruitt's detractors. The mere fact Liberty 2.0 and Oklahoma Strong raised money from energy interests shows he is unfit to serve as EPA administrator, said Shannon Jackson, executive director of Our Revolution, a PAC inspired by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"It is a bullet point in a long list of reasons that Pruitt is a nightmare to lead the EPA," Jackson said.
Pruitt's supporters dismissed such claims. Senate Democrats face a choice between extreme environmentalists and common sense in the fight over Pruitt's nomination, said Jeremy Adler, a spokesman for America Rising Squared, an offshoot of the conservative PAC America Rising.
"Scott Pruitt is exactly the leader America needs at the EPA to protect the quality of our environment while ensuring that our economy isn't stifled by regulatory overreach," Adler said.
Senate Republicans expressed confidence over Pruitt's fundraising.
Mike Danylak, a Republican spokesman for the Environment and Public Works Committee, noted the Office of Government Ethics determined Pruitt is in compliance with conflict of interest laws and regulations.
Filings released by the OGE yesterday show Pruitt resigned as a director of the Rule of Law Defense Fund on Dec. 8, 2016, the day after his selection by Trump became public. The group has helped Republican attorneys general organize legal challenges to EPA rules. Pruitt had been chairman of the group until November (E&E Daily, Jan. 9).
But the Pruitt political committees appear to have been preparing for the future.
While Pruitt was under consideration by Trump and after his first interview, Liberty 2.0 filed a statement changing treasurers. And two days after Trump picked Pruitt, Oklahoma Strong filed a statement establishing a new designated contact person for the future.
Both have raised large amounts of money from energy interests.
Of the $420,248 raised by Liberty 2.0 since its founding in 2015, roughly $194,000 came from energy interests, according to an E&E News review of Federal Election Commission filings.
Super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and individuals, grew out of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling. They maintain legal distance from candidates, though in reality the distinction is often blurry. Super PACs frequently hire advisers close to a candidate and familiar with his or her wishes.
Oklahoma Strong is a Leadership PAC, which means it can accept limited donations, coordinate with Pruitt and distribute money to the Oklahoma attorney general's favored candidates.
Pruitt served as an honorary chairman of Oklahoma Strong. Since its founding in 2015, the PAC had received $30,000 from the family of coal magnate Joseph Craft, $5,000 from Devon Energy Corp. co-founder Larry Nichols and $6,000 from the family of the late Lew Ward, founder of Ward Petroleum Corp.
Spies said both PACs would be shut down this month. Termination filings had not been posted to the FEC website as of yesterday's close of business.
Discussions over what will be done with the committee's remaining money are ongoing, Spies said. Oklahoma Strong has $57,267 on hand, and Liberty has $146,697.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/10/stories/1060048108
-
(ACC Mentioned) US House Pushes Aggressive Regulatory Rollback Agenda
Jan 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US House of Representatives has passed measures aimed at rolling back regulations, as the Republican-controlled body acts on campaign promises to reduce red tape and burdens on businesses in the early days of the 115th Congress.
The House approved the REINS Act – Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017 – on 5 January. The bill would amend the Congressional Review Act to require that both houses of Congress approve any major rule issued by an agency. And should Congress fail to do this within 70 days of its promulgation, the rule would not take effect.
Representative Bob Goodlatte (R–Virginia), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the measure represents “a much needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet that Washington’s regulatory bureaucrats too often turn.”
But committee ranking member John Conyers Jr (D-Michigan) said the bill “would impose unworkable deadlines ... under procedures that could charitably be referred to as convoluted.”
It would confine consideration of the some 80 major rules promulgated annually to the second and fourth Thursday of each month, noted Mr Conyers; this process, he said, “would constructively end rulemaking as we know it”.
A similar measure – the REINS Act of 2015 (HR 427) – passed the House in July of 2015, but failed to get traction in the Senate. Earlier versions were also seen in the 112th and 113th Congress.
‘Midnight rules’
A second measure – the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017 (HR 21) – cleared the House on 4 January. Introduced by Representative Goodlatte, it would allow Congress to disapprove en bloc multiple regulations that agencies have submitted for congressional review within the last 60 days of its session in the final year of a president’s term.
Mr Goodlatte said the Obama administration has issued or planned 226 such rules. And while the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to disapprove of regulations one-by-one, he said such a number could overwhelm its ability to use the Act as an effective check.
Senator Ron Johnson (R–Wisconsin), meanwhile, has introduced an identical measure in the Senate.
Regulatory accountability
A third bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 (HR 5), packages together several regulatory reforms introduced in the 114th Congress. These largely aim to reform how agencies analyse and form new regulations and guidance documents, to clarify aspects of judicial review of agency interpretations, and to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small businesses.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement in support of HR 5 - which was also introduced by Representative Goodlatte - describing regulatory reform as “a longstanding priority” for the sector: its “ability to innovate, hire and compete in a global market relies on having an effective and efficient regulatory system that does not create unreasonable burdens on industry.”
NGOs demur
The Union of Concerned Scientists said the REINS and Midnight Rules Acts represent “egregious attacks on science-based safeguards”.
UCS director of the Center for Science and Democracy, Andrew Rosenberg, said the REINS Act would “override years of scientific analysis and public comment with a single vote”, and “replace judgments based on science with judgments based purely on politics”.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said REINS would result in lobbyists “descend[ing] on Congress with even greater fervour than is currently the case, to pressure members to take their side on individual regulations.”
And it said that industry would “no longer have an incentive to work with regulatory agencies to craft sensible regulations because they could, instead, just hold off and try to get Congress to overturn any rule they disliked.”
Impact on TSCA?
Judah Prero, an attorney with law firm Sidley Austin, told Chemical Watch that due to TSCA’s bipartisan support – as well as the EPA’s “deliberate” approach in soliciting stakeholder feedback in the development of its implementing rules – major provisions under the new chemicals law are unlikely to be the target of Republican regulatory reform efforts.
The EPA has been working to issue four TSCA “framework” rule proposals prior to Inauguration Day on 20 January, and has solicited stakeholder input on these on several occasions.
Mr Prero said that the agency wants to get these rules right, and to demonstrate they are up to the challenge Congress set for them in passing the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
But he said that it is also likely that the EPA is conscious of the climate brought about by a new administration: “There’s also increased scrutiny … they don’t want the colour of the ‘midnight rules’” on these early TSCA rulemakings.
With regard to TSCA implementation in this context, Mr Prero said he “really believe[s] that this programme will move ahead pretty much under the same speed.”
He noted that the change in senior leadership at the EPA could lead to some delays along the way, but that there are plenty of career staff working on TSCA who have been “intimately involved ... and who will definitely keep things moving forward”.
The ACC told Chemical Watch that while it looks forward to working with the 115th Congress on “constructive discussions” around regulatory reform, it is “focused on continuing to work with EPA, as well as the current and incoming administrations, on appropriate implementation” of the new TSCA law.
The EPA does not typically comment on pending legislation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52031/us-house-pushes-aggressive-regulatory-rollback-agenda
-
Advisors Support EPA's RDX Cancer Listing, Seek Stricter Oral Risk Value
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) appears slated to agree with EPA's determination in its draft analysis of the human health risks of exposure to the munitions chemical Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX) there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, and is expected to call on EPA to slightly tighten its oral risk estimate for neurological effects.
The draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of RDX has been criticized by retired National Toxicology Program toxicologist Ron Melnick for understating the chemical's cancer risk, with the scientist saying EPA should have labeled RDX a likely human carcinogen.
In contrast, Defense Department (DOD) scientists have in public meetings and comments suggested that EPA has overstated its cancer risk, and should not calculate an estimate of cancer potency at all.
EPA's conclusions, however, appear to be drawing support from an SAB peer review panel that met last month in Washington, D.C. to discuss the review. The panelists agreed with EPA's draft classification of RDX as showing suggestive evidence of human carcinogenicity.
"We agree with suggestive," said one of the panelists, Stephen Roberts, a toxicology professor at the University of Florida, in summary remarks at the end of the panel's meeting. "Other [descriptors] like likely could be used, but the consensus of the group was that suggestive" was the best descriptor.
Kenneth Ramos, associate vice president of precision health sciences at Arizona Health Sciences Center and chairman of the review panel, suggested that the panel report not raise the issue of the likely descriptor at all, since the consensus was that the suggestive descriptor is appropriate.
Another panelist, George Cobb, an environmental science professor at Baylor University, explained that because of the "paucity of data and the fact that the current [descriptor] is likely . . . it seems problematic to me to lower the hazard" descriptor.
Ramos, however, said he did not want to entertain that type of logic. Cobb and the rest of the group agreed to drop any language about the likely descriptor from the reports.
Melnick, the retired NTP toxicologist, in comments last spring on the draft IRIS assessment had also suggested that EPA upgrade its cancer classification to likely.
"I was surprised and shocked when I read EPA's cancer weight-of-evidence (WOE) conclusion for [RDX]," Melnick wrote in May 9 comments on the earlier draft. "It is obvious to me that the WOE determination for RDX is inconsistent with both the data that are summarized in the Draft Toxicological Review of RDX and with the cancer descriptors provided in EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment."
RDX Data
While EPA proposes classifying RDX as showing "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential," Melnick said "the data for RDX matches the descriptor 'likely to be carcinogenic to humans' because it 'induced dose-related increases in tumors in two species (mouse and rat), in both sexes, and at two sites (liver and lung)'."
By contrast, DOD representatives during a public meeting on the assessment last May and in earlier comments argued that data show RDX is unlikely to be carcinogenic.
EPA in its latest draft assessment replies that Melnick misinterpreted its cancer risk assessment guidelines. Similarly, the agency defended its cancer classification in an earlier response to interagency comments from DOD criticisms that EPA overstated the cancer classification and should not calculate a cancer potency estimate for RDX because DOD believes the evidence indicates it isn't carcinogenic.
EPA's March 2016 response argues that its descriptor of not likely to be carcinogenic to humans -- which DOD proposed EPA use -- is "appropriate only when the available data are considered robust for deciding that there is no basis for human hazard concern. In light of the dose-related increases in benign and malignant tumors in the liver and lung of mice and in the liver of rats in 2-year dietary studies, EPA disagrees with DOD's recommendation to consider a descriptor for RDX of 'unlikely to be carcinogenic.'"
In response to DOD's concerns, EPA said it would include a cancer classification question to the peer review panel.
During a conference call in November to prepare for the Dec. 12-14 peer review meeting, Nancy Beck, with the chemical trade group American Chemistry Council, noted DOD's prior comment that EPA generally does not calculate a cancer risk value when it deems cancer risk suggestive.
Beck told the panel that "they are appropriately asking you about that. They haven't described which uses [of the cancer risk value] they think would be appropriate. We are asking you what you think are appropriate uses of" it.
But Vincent Cogliano, director of the IRIS program, told the panelists he did not think his staff could accommodate the industry group's request. "I really don't know how, scientifically, we'd address [that] in a document. . . . The guidelines say a quantitative [risk estimate] may be useful in some instances, they give some examples, but they don't address all possibilities," he said, adding it did not think it appropriate to try to do so. "That would be a major departure, to discuss how something could be used, or how it should be restricted."
Reference Dose
Among many other issues the panel addressed, it appears that their report to the agency will also recommend that EPA re-consider its approach to calculating the reference dose (RfD), or the maximum amount that EPA anticipates can be safely ingested on a daily basis over a lifetime without experiencing adverse non-cancer effects.
EPA's proposed RfD is based on effects seen in the nervous system, in this case convulsions, using a study published in 2006 known as Crouse et al. The advisors, however, recommended that EPA use as the basis for the calculation an older study, and do away with modeling for the dose-response that is usually recommended to improve the dose-response analysis to use an older method known as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL).
"The alternate we recommend is forget about the benchmark dose level [modeling] and use the NOAEL of 0.2 milligrams per kilogram bodywight per day (mg/kg-day)," said Alan Stern, and advisor and chief of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau for Risk Analysis. He explained that doing so dealt with a number of problematic aspects of the 2006 study, and trying to use it for risk analysis.
The advisors' recommended approach "eliminates the problem with the choice of the appropriate benchmark response [model]," Stern explained. He added that it addresses what had been a concern for several members, that the older study, known as Chalokis et al, has a lower NOAEL -- leading to a stricter risk estimate.
"Using the same uncertainty factors, [the advisors' preferred] RfD would be 2x10^-3 mg/kg-day," Stern said, an estimate slightly stricter than EPA's proposal. EPA's proposed RfD was 3x10^-3 mg/kg-day.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/advisors-support-epas-rdx-cancer-listing-seek-stricter-oral-risk-value
-
Federal Scientists May Lower Lead Exposure Threshold for Children
Jan 10, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo and Sonya Lunder
In a shift that could help hundreds of thousands of U.S. children, federal health officials are considering whether to lower the threshold for identifying kids with elevated levels of lead exposure.
Scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will meet next week to decide whether to lower the national action level for lead in the blood of children under 6 years old by 30 percent. No level of lead exposure is safe, but for children with the poisonous heavy metal in their blood at or above the action level, the CDC recommends that doctors and local or state health agencies provide additional care.
Since 2012, the action level has been five micrograms of lead per deciliter – about three ounces – of blood. The CDC is proposing to lower it to 3.5 micrograms. More than half a million American children, or roughly 2.5 percent of the nation's children ages 1 to 5, exceed this level in their blood.
Dozens of long-term studies show that kids with greater lead exposures have a harder time in school, have lower IQs, are more likely to need special education and are less likely to hold jobs as adults. Lead is especially toxic to toddlers as their brains are still developing, and they are more susceptible to absorbing and retaining lead.
Public health agencies didn’t monitor children’s exposures to lead until the late 1970s. The dangerous levels of lead in kids’ blood pushed the U.S. to ban lead in gasoline, paint, plumbing and food cans.
These efforts resulted in a major drop in lead exposures for American children. Average blood lead levels dropped from more than 20 micrograms per deciliter in the 1970s, to four micrograms in 1990, to less than two micrograms a decade later.
As lead levels declined, scientists were able to study the effects of lower concentrations of lead exposure during childhood. They found evidence of learning and behavior problems with increasingly low levels of lead. The CDC changes the threshold for identifying children with high lead exposures periodically to reflect national averages found in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Economists estimate the financial benefit of reducing lead exposures from the 1970s to 1999 as $110 billion to $319 billion in lifetime savings just for children born during a single calendar year. A 2009 study of lead-based paint remediation found that every dollar invested in removing lead hazards in housing returns $17 to $221 in economic benefits.
But the problem hasn't gone away. A recent Reuters investigation found almost 3,000 communities with reported blood lead levels twice as high as those in Flint, Mich., where improper water treatment caused a spike in childhood lead levels and brought the city's crisis national attention.
If you have young kids, it's important to find out whether there's any risk that they might be exposed to lead, especially if you live in an older home. Many toys and other consumer products imported into the U.S. have also been found to contain lead. Ultimately, the national lead problem will only be solved with increased federal support for inspecting and removing lead-based paint, and filtering lead out of drinking water.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/01/federal-scientists-may-lower-lead-exposure-threshold-children
-
EPA Reaches C8 Agreement with Dupont
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
U.S. EPA said yesterday that it has reached a new agreement with DuPont in relation to drinking water polluted by the chemical C8 from the company's manufacturing plant on the border of Ohio and West Virginia.
EPA said it had amended its 2009 agreement with DuPont to reflect a lower level of C8 exposure recommended in a health advisory last year. The change is more protective than the previous agreement but would still allow greater exposures than other scientists and regulatory experts say is safe.
"We have been asking EPA and the state for quite some time to revise the old consent order to at least reflect the EPA's revised drinking water guidelines," said Rob Bilott, a lawyer for Mid-Ohio Valley residents. "We are pleased to hear that the old consent order is being revised, but hope to be able to receive and review a copy of the actual new order soon."
The new order, which has not been fully published yet, contains a revised "action level" of 0.07 parts per billion, compared with the old action level of 0.40 parts per billion.
C8, also known asperfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, was used at the Parkersburg, W.Va., plant as a processing agent. DuPont and other companies are voluntarily phasing out the chemical, but researchers are concerned about a growing list of possible health effects.
The company is facing thousands of lawsuits from people in the area over PFOA-linked illnesses and last week was ordered to pay more than $10 million to an Ohio cancer survivor (Greenwire, Jan. 6.)
C8 has been linked to high cholesterol, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, inflammatory bowel disease and dangerously high blood pressure.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/10/stories/1060048120
-
Tough Road Seen for Access Northeast, LNG Storage, Too
Jan 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
New Hampshire, the Granite State, has been impenetrable to Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC's Access Northeast Project, and the rest of New England hasn't been too hospitable to new pipe in the ground either. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage might not be the answer to Maine's energy woes, according to a recent Navigant Consulting Inc. report. But more natural gas would serve the Northeast well, wrote analysts at S&P Global Ratings.
Access Northeast is sponsored, along with Spectra Energy, by New England's two largest utilities: Eversource Energy and National Grid USA. The project right now needs offtaker commitments from electric distribution companies, but regulators in New Hampshire and Massachusetts have so far balked. State lawmakers might need to step in to change that, wrote analysts at S&P in a note last week.
"Furthermore, New England states seem to be increasingly interested in filling the energy shortfall with renewable projects," S&P said. "While we believe these challenges could be overcome and the Access Northeast Pipeline will ultimately be completed, the project will face serious delays."
Rhode Island and Connecticut are sitting it out until regulatory issues are resolved in neighboring states, S&P noted. For now, Eversource is appealing to the State Supreme Court in New Hampshire a New Hampshire Public Utility Commission (PUC) denial of its contract with Access Northeast. For its part, Spectra has talked of seeking a legislative fix in Massachusetts on the contract issue while it works to line up natural gas local distribution companies as customers to bolster Access Northeast.
S&P said there are opportunities for natural gas and its infrastructure in the Northeast, but they will be hard fought. "We view natural gas as the likely fuel to meet growing energy demand in the Northeast," S&P said, "leading to continued opportunities for new natural gas pipelines. Intervenors and regulatory obstacles have caused a recent wave of setbacks, suggesting that the midstream sector is evolving and pipeline developers will be forced to adapt."
Natural gas storage is part of the midstream sector, too. Regulators in Maine solicited proposals for LNG storage projects that could alleviate natural gas constraints.* They also hired Navigant to analyze the potential benefits of projects proposed.
In its final report, Navigant found little economic benefit from the proposals it examined. The consultant looked at 11 projects and considered them within scenarios with and without the Access Northeast pipeline project.
Under the Access Northeast scenario, only one proposal provided a positive net present value (NPV), and it was only 3.2%. "Thus, Navigant's findings in this instance are that if the PUC decides to go forward with any one of the PESCs [physical energy storage contracts] as proposed, it would be for objectives other than pure economic return," Navigant said.
Under the scenario in which Access Northeast is not constructed, the storage proposals fared better, with seven of the 11 having a positive NPV. That doesn't mean that storage could shut out Access Northeast or a similar pipeline project, Navigant said in its report.
"While Access Northeast has experienced some delays, there is no specific indication that the project is not intended to be pursued," Navigant said. "Further, the continued need for pipeline capacity to meet existing and growing New England demand, as well as the new political environment in Washington and announced appointments in the new administration, tend to support the 'with Access Northeast' scenario.
"In addition, even if Access Northeast is not built, the market will likely respond accordingly with some other pipeline project being built, as has historically been the case when the need for additional capacity is indicated by the market."
In a Friday letter to the PUC, one storage project sponsor, ENGIE Gas & LNG LLC, wrote that it expects the regulators to consider qualitative issues related to the storage proposals as well as the economic analysis provided by Navigant. An all-day technical conference on the Navigant study and non-bidder testimony/comments has been scheduled for Jan. 17 at the PUC.
And for the time being, Algonquin told FERC last month that it "expects limited activity" in the Access Northeast docket at the Commission while it evaluates the "commercial foundation" of the project.
*Correction: The original version of this story said New Hampshire is reviewing LNG storage options when in fact it is Maine where a regulatory proceeding on LNG storage is ongoing. NGI, regrets the error.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108986-tough-road-seen-for-access-northeast-lng-storage-too
-
Tribe, Army Corps Challenge Dakota Access Pipeline Court Filings
Jan 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The battle continued Friday among the federal government, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) over the stalled Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project.
The focus remains on an easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the 1,200-mile oil pipeline's crossing under a dammed portion of the Missouri River that forms Lake Oahe in south-central North Dakota near the Standing Rock reservation.
While legal positions of the Native American tribe and the USACE are firmly set, an analysis released Monday by ClearView Energy Partners LLC said DAPL backers could eventually gain the easement without the additional environmental review that federal authorities announced in early December. By this scenario, the $3.8 billion project, which is 99% complete, could be in service by mid-year.
For now the fate of the project is in the hands of federal district Judge James Boasberg in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, but the judge has acknowledged that the Trump administration could take action that would "render certain issues moot," according to ClearView's analysis by Kevin Book, managing director.
Both the Standing Rock tribe and USACE last Friday filed documents with Boasberg asking him to dismiss DAPL's cross-claim and motion for summary judgement in the tribe's appeal of the Army Corps' earlier approval of a permit under Lake Oahe for the four-state pipeline project.
DAPL has until Jan. 31 to reply and is expected to do so much sooner, which then leaves USACE and the Standing Rock tribe 10 days to make their respective final filings. Boasberg then could schedule an oral argument or just issue a decision on the competing motions without any further argument.
As the ClearView analysis points out, the USACE's exhibits accompanying its court filing showed a difference of opinion among decision makers within the federal agency. One of the internal memos concluded that the underwater crossing could be accomplished with no significant environmental impact and that there were no viable alternatives to the Lake Oahe crossing.
"The dueling memoranda could provide the incoming administration with political cover to reverse course regarding the Dec. 4 [2016] decision withholding the [USACE] easement," Book said in his analysis, which noted that a subsequent opinion by another USACE official overrode the earlier conclusion.
Nevertheless, the tribe's latest filing argued that USACE "has not and could not have" issued the easement yet, and the Army Corps' subsequent decision to provide a full environmental impact statement was legally required and appropriate "in light of the history of the Sioux."
"DAPL's lawsuit is a desperate attempt to bully the [federal] government into getting the easement and violating Standing Rock's rights," said Dave Archambault II, chair of the Sioux tribe.
ClearView's analysis noted that the USACE Dec. 4, 2016 decision could be reversed, and Boasberg in subsequent public comments left that as a possibility. An ETP spokesperson in San Antonio said last week that if a USACE easement can be obtained, it will take 90 days to complete the under-the-lake crossing construction.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108994-tribe-army-corps-challenge-dakota-access-pipeline-court-filings
-
Three Signs of Hope in The U.S. for Energy Efficiency and Renewables in 2017
Jan 9, 2017 | Forbes
By Micah Remley
As if writing predictions for the energy industry weren’t tough enough every year, 2017 presents a particularly challenging dynamic, as the expected policies of the next presidential administration clash with diverging global ideals to create a very cloudy future for the sector.
President-elect Donald Trump has claimed that climate change is a hoax, vowed to bring back coal, threatened import duties on a number of goods, and promised a more business-friendly environment in general. If we take these claims at face value, it’s easy to foresee a tough year for energy management and renewables.
However, I think just the opposite will happen. Here are three reasons why energy efficiency, renewables, and sustainability will continue to gain significant traction in 2017.
Energy prices will be higher in 2017, driving businesses to embrace energy efficiency
Amid a consistent decline in energy prices in the past couple of years, it has been relatively easy for companies to stay within their energy budgets. All signs point to that changing this year. As I write this article, natural gas futures have hit a two-year high and oil prices have continued their march upward. As energy prices continue to rise throughout 2017, businesses will be forced to embrace energy efficiency in order to keep their budgets in control.
Now, you may wonder how we know energy prices won’t fall again, or that the new administration’s promises to bring back coal won’t cause a price decline. While nobody knows for sure, a quick look at supply and demand trends can give us a good idea.
On the production side, energy producers have been badly burned by the rapid decline in energy prices. New production has been slower to generate, and there appears to be broad support for production agreements to support price levels. On the demand side, an expanding economy typically causes demand to increase or at least remain stable, which would help drive energy prices up.
What about coal? Without the financial concerns over climate change regulations, could we usher in a new era of cheap coal-fired electricity? What the coal debate often overlooks is that the regulatory efforts to tackle climate change are not what caused the decline of coal in the United States. Quite simply, raw economics have evolved to make coal less relevant. Natural gas is a much cheaper and more efficient power source than coal, and natural gas power plants are cheaper to build, easier to site, cheaper to operate, and provide a much more flexible energy resource than coal plants. And even if the federal government loosens restrictions on CO2 emissions, coal plants still need to pay for abatement controls to prevent a variety of other pollutants, or risk causing the kinds of smog seen in Beijing. These costs aren’t going away, and in an increasingly competitive market, they will perpetuate the coal industry’s economic challenges.
Faced with a choice between improving energy efficiency or allocating more budget to account for rising energy prices, businesses will do the logical thing. That’s the great thing about energy efficiency—no matter what you think about climate change or sustainability, it just makes good economic sense. And that case just keeps getting stronger as energy costs inch higher.
Corporate demand for renewable energy will rise
As with energy efficiency, the case for renewables will become even stronger in 2017, as renewable prices continue to fall while traditional power prices rise.
The big question heading into 2017 is what will happen to the subsidies that have helped bring renewable energy prices down. I have a few thoughts here. First, I doubt that Congress will vote to sunset the Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) in 2016 and risk impacting the 200,000+ American jobs in the solar industry. If Congress does, however, vote to sunset the ITC early, demand for renewables will likely skyrocket in 2017 as companies rush to take advantage of the ITC before the expiration date.
Beyond that, in the event that federal support dissipates, state programs and regional initiatives will continue to provide financial support for renewables. New York and San Francisco already have aggressive energy efficiency mandates, and Denver moved ahead with strict mandates on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in commercial buildings just a few weeks ago. The state- and local-level efforts to support renewable energy appear here to stay.
Stakeholder pressure around sustainability will intensify
Ask any corporate sustainability manager if federal policies drive their energy or climate change initiatives and most would probably give you a chuckle. Government regulation has not driven corporate sustainability policies to date, stakeholder demands have. It is well-documented that millennials want to work for companies that share their idealsaround social and environmental issues, and customers are increasingly showing a preference for companies that show a commitment to sustainability.
Meanwhile, investors are continuing to push for more sustainability data from businesses, and this is for one simple reason—research continues to create a strong link between energy and sustainability performance and overall financial value.
With little federal policy putting restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, these forces could combine to fill the void and ensure businesses show a commitment to sustainability.
What does this all mean for your business?
With these predictions in mind, my recommendation is for businesses to take a close look at their 2017 energy budgets now and start considering how they are going to achieve their targets. If you built your budget on last year’s energy prices, for example, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.
Every business is different, so consider what kinds of investments in energy efficiency and renewables could best position your organization to embrace these trends.
Finally, don’t react to policy changes at the federal level by scrapping your sustainability plans, as key stakeholders could double down on their demands for transparency and progress.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2017/01/09/three-signs-of-hope-in-u-s-for-energy-efficiency-and-renewables-in-2017/#1850989212b0
-
Is Amazon's Secrecy Preventing a Greener Grid?
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By David Ferris
Amazon.com, that seller of all things, offers endless information on its products. But the sharing stops cold when it comes to its own energy use and carbon footprint, and that reticence might be slowing the greening of the electric grid, a new report claims.
The study from Greenpeace, called "Clicking Clean," is a periodic and comprehensive look at the energy and carbon impact of high-tech companies. The sector's importance is hard to overstate. Among private companies, information-technology firms were responsible for more than two-thirds of the 3.4 gigawatts of renewable energy purchased in 2015.
Tech companies, especially those that offer remote services through the "cloud," have compelling reasons to worry about their energy usage. Data centers — the repositories for the world's swelling cache of digital messages, photos and video — are multiplying quickly, and a large one can use as much electricity as a midsized city.
Amazon's role is contradictory. Its subsidiary, Amazon Web Services (AWS), is the world's largest cloud-computing company, with a fleet of data centers to match. Between 2010 and 2016, it contracted for more renewable energy than any tech company other than Apple and Google, which the report acknowledged as the unquestioned pioneers in adopting renewable energy.
But it lags behind other cloud-computing companies in disclosing its overall impact, putting it in the same category as the leading tech companies of China, which share next to nothing.
"One of the single biggest obstacles to sector transparency is Amazon Web Services," the report said. "Among the global cloud providers, only AWS still refuses to make public basic details on the energy performance and environmental impact associated with its operations."
An Amazon spokesperson could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Amazon has stepped up alongside companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft to attempt to force utilities in coal-heavy states to adopt more clean energy, the report said. It has also seized on innovative projects like heating part of its Seattle headquarters with waste heat from a data center across the street (Energywire, June 30, 2016).
Amazon has purchased most or all of the large wind farms in Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina and Texas. Dominion Energy says it will build 180 MW of solar for Amazon in Virginia.
Apple and Google provide detailed annual reports on their energy use and carbon footprint, despite concerns that sharing such information could give competitors a window into its operations. Amazon does not.
AWS committed two years ago to meeting all of its energy demand from renewable sources. It claims to have reached 25 percent by the end of 2015 and estimates it will get halfway by the end of 2017 (Climatewire, Jan. 9). But without any supporting numbers, the world has to take Amazon's word for it.
"It hasn't provided even the basic core information on what's their energy footprint," said Gary Cook, the report's principal author. "It's missing that critical context."
In 2015, Greenpeace worked with 19 customers of AWS, including well-known websites like Hootsuite, Tumblr and Upworthy, to compose a letter to Amazon to request more disclosure.
"It is currently difficult for us to measure our energy footprints or progress toward sustainability goals, or to know what sources of energy are powering our operations, since AWS does not publish that data or provide it to us for public use," the letter said.
Amazon provided no additional information.
The Greenpeace report focused on Northern Virginia, which is the data nerve center of the United States and also Amazon's largest hub. It sits at the center of the East Coast's internet traffic and captures most data coming from overseas. It also has one of the most carbon-spewing grids in the country, with a energy portfolio that is 31 percent coal and 3 percent renewables.
By examining applications for backup generator permits, Greenpeace deduced that Amazon has nearly doubled its operations in Northern Virginia since mid-2015, adding 560 megawatts of capacity and adding seven new data centers.
"The increasing concentration of large-scale data centers in electricity markets with utility monopolies that provide trace amounts of renewable power," the report said, "is increasing the sector's reliance on dirty sources of energy."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/10/stories/1060048103
-
Exxon Could Be on Trial at Tillerson Hearing
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Environmentalists want former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearing tomorrow to be an indictment of the oil company's decades long climate record.
While Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are widely expected to ask Tillerson about his views on climate science and the Paris Agreement, some observers say that being too muscular with that line of questioning may further politicize the climate issue or encourage otherwise reticent Republicans to back Tillerson despite their concerns about his relationship with Russian officials.
Liberal environmental organizations like 350.org and the Sierra Club launched efforts in more than 40 states yesterday aimed at dissuading senators of both parties from supporting President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet picks who join him in rejecting the established science of climate change.
Greens see Tillerson's hearing tomorrow as the first opportunity to make their case.
"This could be a Big Tobacco-like moment for the industry if Tillerson is put on the spot," said Jamie Henn of 350.org.
The groups went to the offices of allies like Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) yesterday to demand that Democrats raise objections to Tillerson over climate change and not let issues like Russia and Ukraine eclipse environmental concerns. They presented plans for making the hearing a "trial" about Exxon's obfuscation of its own findings on global warming, going back to the late 1970s.
"What they've said publicly is sort of they'll see how the flow of the meeting goes, so we'll see how much of a focus it is," said Henn. "But our hope is that they'll really use the opportunity to shine a spotlight on it."
The Foreign Relations Committee has a liberal roster of Democratic members, including Cardin, Markey and Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.). Udall told E&E News last week that he used his one-on-one meeting with Tillerson to question him on the Paris deal and would double down on those questions during the confirmation process (E&E Daily, Jan. 9).
Cardin said yesterday in the Capitol that he and other Democrats would raise a laundry list of climate questions with Tillerson, ranging from science to Paris.
"We'll be bringing up some of the activities that Exxon has participated in and basing our decisions on science, and there is interest in the global climate change leadership of the United States in [Paris], and what is he prepared to do on climate funds, questions like that," he said.
But climate change will have to compete for time during the two-part hearing, at which Republicans and Democrats alike are expected to grill Tillerson on issues like Russia's interference in last year's presidential election and the United Nations' censure of Israeli settlements. The panel's top Democrat, New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, has promised to examine Tillerson's views on Cuba.
Focus on security, not science
While Republicans will have little difficulty approving Trump's nominees, Tillerson's success is not assured. A handful of Republicans say they have grave doubts about confirming him because of his personal ties to Russia. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said pigs will fly before he supports the nominee. Three GOP members of the Foreign Affairs panel have raised concerns, on a committee where they have a one-vote edge over Democrats.
Some Senate Democratic aides have strategic concerns about turning the hearing into a trial against fossil fuels. They think it could push Republicans to rally behind the nominee. There isn't a consensus on that view, however.
McCain brushed aside a question yesterday about whether making the Tillerson confirmation process a climate trial would sway its result either way. "What I'm worried about is conflicts," he said, referring to the oilman's potential conflicts of interest in other countries.
Francesco Femia, president of the nonpartisan Center for Climate & Security in Washington, said that while a nominee's past record is fair game during a confirmation hearing, he sees "limited utility" in Democratic senators' using the hearing to rake over Exxon's history on climate change.
"There's definitely room for both Democrats and Republican senators to pose questions about climate change and climate risk to Tillerson," he said, noting that the defense and intellegence community released reports on the destabilizing role of climate change starting in the George W. Bush administration.
But Femia said it should focus on how the chief diplomat would incorporate climate change into the State Department's mission if he's confirmed.
"He needs to be asked about how he's going to deal with climate risks to the broader security environment," Femia said, adding that tomorrow affords senators an opportunity to communicate to Tillerson that climate change must continue to be part of that planning.
The veteran oilman has said that human-caused emissions are playing a role in climate change, though he has been accused of minimizing the risks associated with it. And some environmentalists see a glimmer of hope in his support for the Paris Agreement, while others say it shows how lax the 2015 deal on emissions is.
Trump promised to withdraw the United States from the Paris accord throughout last year's presidential campaign.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/10/stories/1060048107
-
Intelligence Panel Warns of Climate Threats
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The National Intelligence Council highlighted the impact of climate change on global security and stability in a report released yesterday.
The "Global Trends" report is the second in four months to sound alarms about climate change from the NIC, which reports to the director of national intelligence.
The new report forecasts a "dark and difficult near future," listing climate change among seven key security trends, including a shifting global economy and the changing nature of conflict.
"Changes in the climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on humans and critical systems, including oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity," the report states. "These changes, in turn, will have direct and indirect social, economic, political, and security effects."
Climate change will become integral to how people view their world and will change the way societies function, the NIC says. That will "create new investment and industry winners and losers" and "drive both geopolitical competition and international cooperation."
At a panel discussion marking the release of the report yesterday, NIC Director of Environment and Natural Resources Rod Schoonover spoke about issues like biodiversity and soil degradation.
"These are not typical community intelligence topics, but it's something that is probably more important than the time that we devote to it," he said.
"The multidimensional impacts on humans and societies are substantial and possibly unprecedented."
Neil Morisetti, a retired senior officer in the British Royal Navy and a professor at University College London, warned that long-standing institutions risk being surpassed if they fail to adjust.
"Twenty-first-century challenges are complex, and they require 21st-century solutions," he said. "Institutions set up in 1945, 1950 will need to evolve. If they don't evolve, new emerging ones will go right past them."
The previous report, which was released in September alongside an Obama administration memorandum on defense and climate, stated that climate change is likely to pose "wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/10/stories/1060048121
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