Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/11/2017
-
(ACC Blog) Key Principles for Applying Benefit-Cost Analysis to Federal Regulation
Jan 11, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Michelle Orfei
Since 1974, Presidents have issued Executive Orders requiring regulatory agencies to analyze the anticipated results and economic effects of proposed regulations. -
What to Watch for at Tillerson's Confirmation Hearing
Jan 11, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Burgess Everett
Rex Tillerson enters his secretary of state confirmation hearing Wednesday as Donald Trump’s highest profile pick to face GOP resistance, giving the former ExxonMobil CEO little leeway for missteps if he wants to win quick confirmation. -
EPA TSCA Nano Rule Retains Contested Reporting Duty But Adds Flexibility
Jan 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has issued a final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule for nanoscale materials in commerce that retains a controversial proposed mandate that companies intending to manufacture nanomaterials after the rule takes effect report future nano production, while adding regulatory flexibility to the rule in response to industry criticism. -
The Most Dangerous Bill You’ve Never Heard of Just Passed the House
Jan 11, 2017 | Eco Watch
By Carl Pope
Last, week, under the cover of a media bliss-out except among Koch funded right-wing channels, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would effectively repeal future standard setting under every important environmental, public health, consumer protection, labor standards, occupational safety and civil rights law on the books. -
National Academies Report Lays Out New Risk Assessment Process
Jan 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has laid out a new direction for risk assessment, based on biological pathways rather than observations from lab experiments on animals. -
'Chemicals Under Pressure' Divide UN GHS Committee
Jan 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The UN sub-committee of experts for GHS has recognised the need to address the issue of “chemicals under pressure” within the Globally Harmonised System, but has deferred the final decision on how to do this until a later date. -
Trump’s EPA Pick Fought Mercury Rules That Could Save Thousands of Lives
Jan 11, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency launched a major effort to reduce mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants – standards that could avert up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks each year. At the behest of the coal industry, a coalition of coal-producing states sued to stop the rules. -
U.S. Chamber to Help Trump Slash Rules, Push Infrastructure
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue this morning said the business behemoth would work with President-elect Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress to reform the regulatory system, expand America's energy industry and build infrastructure to support energy production. -
Tillerson Testifies He'll Be Active in Energy Diplomacy
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
If confirmed as secretary of State, Rex Tillerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, he would still play a role in diplomacy issues related to the oil and natural gas industry. -
Natural Gas Processing Plants May Be Required to Disclose Chemical Releases
Jan 11, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Natural gas processing facilities may soon have to report their chemical releases and other waste management activities to the EPA. -
Federal Data Suggest a Bottom for U.S. Production
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal analysts extended a streak of winning news for the domestic oil industry yesterday, with a forecast that crude production has probably bottomed out and is ready to climb again. -
'Second Wave' Texas LNG Project Drawing Asian Buyer Interest
Jan 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Texas LNG Brownsville LLC said it has signed non-binding term sheets with four independent liquefied natural gas (LNG) buyers in Southeast Asia and China for a combined volume of 3.1 million tonnes per annum (mtpa), which oversubscribes the single-train first phase of its liquefaction project. -
DOE Asks Trump to Survey Gas Pipeline Cyberthreats
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The growing dependence of the U.S. electric power sector on gas-fired generation means that the security of the nation's gas pipeline network can no longer be taken for granted, a Department of Energy policy review has concluded. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Shippers See New Era Under Trump
Jan 6, 2017 | Argus Media
Major chemical products shippers hope president-elect Donald Trump’s plan to reduce federal regulations gets them better rail service and lower rail rates. -
Exxon's 'Sordid History' on Climate Takes Center Stage Today
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
By all accounts, Rex Tillerson is the ultimate pragmatist. -
Sessions: Global Warming 'Always Struck Me as Plausible'
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Sen. Jeff Sessions said yesterday he has always believed in global warming — sort of. -
On Eve of Trump, Obama’s Energy Department Leaves Behind New ‘Scientific Integrity’ Policy
Jan 11, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Speaking at the National Press Club Wednesday, outgoing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced a new “scientific integrity” policy for an agency recently wracked by concerns about how an administration led by President-elect Donald Trump will treat employees who worked on climate change and other sensitive energy-related issues.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Key Principles for Applying Benefit-Cost Analysis to Federal Regulation
Jan 11, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Michelle Orfei
Since 1974, Presidents have issued Executive Orders requiring regulatory agencies to analyze the anticipated results and economic effects of proposed regulations. Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 12866, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 require agencies to conduct a careful and transparent analysis of the anticipated impacts of economically significant regulatory actions. Regulatory impact assessments, or benefit-cost analyses, are sophisticated analytical tools for weighing the quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs associated with a proposed regulation, while also evaluating other tradeoffs, such as potential job losses, and other societal impacts.
In the past, however, these Executive Orders have not been applied consistently. The incoming Administration has a distinct opportunity to fulfill the commitment articulated in these Executive Orders, or to otherwise take the opportunity to implement policies and develop new strategies for modernizing how federal regulatory analysis is conducted. Done correctly, benefit-cost analysis can enhance the transparency of the regulatory process, create a consistent framework for data collection and the identification of data gaps and uncertainties, and allow for a useful comparison of alternative approaches. Benefit-cost analysis is not a tool intended to delay or block regulatory decision-making. Instead, it is a means to ensure that any proposed regulation produces net benefits to society. When correctly applied, such analysis may provide evidence on which to base regulatory decisions and achieve better social outcomes at lower cost.
The need for benefit-cost analysis in regulatory decision-making was most recently reaffirmed in 2011 with Executive Order 13563. Unfortunately, the implementation of this Order by agencies remains quite varied in quality and completeness.[1] Congress is considering legislation to codify benefit-cost principles and strengthen congressional regulatory oversight of this process, and ACC will continue to play a constructive role in working with Congress to codify those reforms. We encourage the new Administration to improve upon previous efforts and to provide more specific direction on benefit-cost analysis that would compel agencies to adopt the following practices:
1) commit to a higher level of transparency in the science, data and modeling that go into development of an appropriate benefit-cost analysis;
2) demonstrate that proposed regulatory action addresses a compelling public need;
3) evaluate alternative regulatory approaches objectively;
4) fairly evaluate the societal costs and benefits resulting from regulatory action;
5) direct agencies to conduct the cumulative economic impact assessments, as well as develop plans for periodically reviewing existing regulations;
6) select regulatory action that provides the greatest net benefit to society; and
7) provide public opportunities to engage in and comment on the benefit-cost analysis conducted for proposed regulations.
The chemical manufacturing sector makes a significant contribution to our economy and society, including development of products and technologies that improve our quality of life and the creation of well-paying jobs, so it is particularly important that we understand the role regulations can have in helping or hindering the attainment of those objectives. Benefit-cost analysis can deliver careful and objective assessments, both before and after regulatory decisions, and ensure that regulation attains the anticipated outcome. It is an instrument for smarter regulation and an opportunity for considerable improvement in how federal agencies regulate.
[1] 2016 The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center Comments to the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (November 8, 2016)
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/01/key-principles-for-applying-benefit-cost-analysis-to-federal-regulation/
-
What to Watch for at Tillerson's Confirmation Hearing
Jan 11, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Burgess Everett
Rex Tillerson enters his secretary of state confirmation hearing Wednesday as Donald Trump’s highest profile pick to face GOP resistance, giving the former ExxonMobil CEO little leeway for missteps if he wants to win quick confirmation.
With Trump’s lack of foreign policy experience and his pro-Russia tilt drawing questions from Republicans and condemnations from Democrats, Tillerson will need to explain not only the next president’s philosophy toward Vladimir Putin but also his own. At ExxonMobil, Tillerson developed a chummy relationship with Putin and he opposed sanctions directed at Russia – generating unease among a bloc of hawkish Republicans.
But Sen. Marco Rubio is the lone GOP Tillerson skeptic on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that will examine Tillerson, and the Floridian who lost to Trump in the primary isn’t tipping his hand on Tillerson ahead of the hearing that’s expected to stretch over two days. If Democrats on the panel all vote against Tillerson, Rubio may find himself as the deciding voice on whether Tillerson clears the committee or goes to the full Senate floor vote with an “unfavorable” recommendation.
Rubio’s questions on Russia and Tillerson’s worldview could be the most consequential portion of the secretary of state hopeful’s confirmation hearing, but Tillerson will be blitzed by Democrats on topics ranging from human rights to climate change to his complicated personal finances to test his ability to think on his feet.
"Mexico and our trade with Mexico ... Cuba ... and then probably climate change," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a panel member, as he ticked off all his concerns. "He's indicated that he wants [to give tax information]. That might be an area to explore too."
Here’s POLITICO’s guide to Tillerson’s confirmation hearing:
Russia and Rubio
Sens. John McCain (Ariz) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).and Rubio hold the keys to Tillerson’s confirmation. McCain said in an interview this week that he still has “concerns” about Tillerson. If those hawks aren’t convinced that the oil executive is appropriately cool to Putin and Russia as secretary of state, it would signal deeper problems for Tillerson’s fate.
Tillerson has done at least three mock confirmation hearings -- called “murder boards” -- and the people running them are confident he can answer difficult questions. He’s likely to give simple and vague answers about his previous work with Russia, according to a transition source familiar with the preparations.
Tillerson can win confirmation on Republican votes alone, needing only a simple majority since the chamber’s rule change 2013. Since McCain and Graham are not on the committee, Rubio may have the best chance of drawing out Tillerson’s feelings on Russia, but he shrugged off the notion that he would only concentrate on Russia, and said his questioning will cover the “whole world.”
“I’ll do what I believe is the right thing for America,” Rubio said in an interview. "We’re going to be fair, we’re going to take it very seriously. It’s a very important position,” Rubio said.
The committee’s chairman, Bob Corker of Tennessee, has said Tillerson is well-prepared to face skepticism about his foreign policy readiness and predicted he will win broad support from the Senate. But if Tillerson makes a misstep, particularly on Russia, it could undermine his support within the Republican Party.
How Democrats deal with Tillerson
Interviews with several Democrats indicate their cross-examination will center on how the man who helmed the massive energy conglomerate for a decade can change course to focus solely on the interests of the United States. Expect lots of questions about how Tillerson can avoid conflicts of interest related to ExxonMobil, which operates in dozens of countries around the world.
“If you’re the CEO of ExxonMobil your responsibility is to shareholders. If you’re a potential secretary of state you’re responsibility is to the American people,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the panel’s top Democrat. “Your relationship with Russia -- how would you have handled that relationship as secretary of state?”
But it's not just Russia. Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said on Tuesday that he hopes his party also concentrates on ExxonMobil's dealings with Iran, an exceedingly unpopular country in most senators' views.
"Did Mr. Tillerson direct his company to deal with a state sponsor of terrorism to simply line the company’s pockets? These are questions that Rex Tillerson must answer at his hearing," Schumer said.
A fair climate?
Tillerson’s long public record on energy policy is ripe for scrutiny. Those questions can cut both ways: Exxon has backed groups that dispute climate change science and is in a legal dispute over whether it misrepresented its knowledge of the threat from greenhouse gases. But it’s also drawn scorn from conservatives for recommending a carbon tax as the best policy to slow rising global temperatures.
“The thing that I’m probably most concerned about is ExxonMobil’s history of funding climate denial,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a committee member.
Tillerson has sought to stake out some green stances, supporting the 2015 Paris climate agreement that’s been virulently opposed by many Republicans, and he’s criticized coal -- a parochial cause of many senators. At the Council on Foreign Relations in 2012, he touted natural gas as superior to coal because it has “none of the other elements that are of concern to public health.”
Coal-state senators will be watching Tillerson closely to see whether his rhetoric jibes with Trump, who campaigned as a friend of the coal states. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she’s spoken to Tillerson about the matter and found him to be responsive.
“He expressed to me the desire to move forward with research and development for clean coal technologies and carbon capture. And I think that’s the future of coal. So I’m not concerned,” she said.
Is Tillerson ready?
Often overlooked in the back-and-forth over Tillerson’s multimillion-dollar divestiture agreement with ExxonMobil and his Order of Friendship award from Russia is that the business executive has no governing experience.
“It’s a fair statement to say that there’s a learning curve here on foreign policy for someone who has not served in a foreign policy,” Cardin said. “What I want to understand is how he comes to make those decisions.”
Cardin said in his private meeting with Tillerson he brought up the U.S.’ role in defending human rights, fighting human trafficking and cracking down on corruption -- issues that he said probably weren’t on Tillerson’s radar at ExxonMobil but are important for the nation’s top diplomat.
But Corker says his own research indicated that Democrats are privately finding Tillerson is on the same page as them on some of their progressive priorities.
“Some of the meetings with Democrats, I think they’ve been surprised on his positions on a number of things they care about deeply,” Corker said.
Will Tillerson’s performance affect quick confirmation?
Tillerson is one of two Trump nominees who will have hearings that will span more than one day, the other being Sen. Jeff Sessions’s (R-Ala.) hearing to be Trump’s attorney general.
Corker said he doesn’t want to stuff Democrats and is eager to maintain his bipartisan reputation for working with them, not against. Corker has suggested his hearing will be wide-ranging and free-wheeling.
“We’ll continue as long as we want to ask questions. There are a lot of Republicans that want to ask questions. That part’s not partisan. Many of the members of the committee have a lot of questions,” Corker said .
But at the same time he is hopeful that his committee can get Tillerson’s nomination through his committee before Inauguration Day, suggesting a swift confirmation process will follow even a lengthy hearing. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hoping to prioritize Tillerson's confirmation, but Democrats may delay those efforts depending on his Wednesday performance.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/rex-tillerson-state-confirmation-233435
-
EPA TSCA Nano Rule Retains Contested Reporting Duty But Adds Flexibility
Jan 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has issued a final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule for nanoscale materials in commerce that retains a controversial proposed mandate that companies intending to manufacture nanomaterials after the rule takes effect report future nano production, while adding regulatory flexibility to the rule in response to industry criticism.
In a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register Jan. 12, EPA issues its long-delayed rulemaking “Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials; TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements,” which the agency has said will guide its future oversight of the novel materials.
EPA and other federal agencies have long struggled with how to assess and regulate nanomaterials, whose unique, technology-advancing properties may also present health and safety risks. The data collected under the rule will guide EPA's future policies on nanomaterials, including potential regulation of some substances found to pose risks.
The rule, issued under section 8(a) of TSCA, generally requires that manufacturers and processors of certain nanomaterials report identifying information on those substances as well as other reasonably ascertainable information, including production volumes, manufacturing methods, and exposure and release information.
While EPA retained the controversial proposed requirement for reporting of future processing or manufacturing of discrete forms nanomaterials -- a provision that rankled industry -- the agency softened its proposed 135-day notification period to add flexibility and not delay production.
“This rule involves one-time reporting for existing discrete forms of certain nanoscale materials, and a standing one-time reporting requirement for new discrete forms of certain nanoscale materials before those new forms are manufactured or processed,” EPA says in the rule.
The agency in the final rule also seeks to address critical industry comments that the proposed version lacked sufficient clarity to identify reportable substances by including a definition of unique and novel properties and other terms. In the final rule, EPA also expands an exemption for small businesses following criticism from industry and the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA).
Nano Reporting
Last year EPA took comment on its April 6, 2015, proposed version requiring a one-time submission of data on chemicals' properties, and imposing an additional requirement that companies that intend to manufacture reportable substances after the rule takes effect report to the agency at least 135 days before commencing manufacturing.
The proposal followed years of wrangling with the nano industry and White House officials over the rule's scope. After its release, industry again called for EPA to reconsider major aspects, arguing that EPA failed to justify the requirement for future reporting and failed to provide sufficient clarity on reportable substances.
Specifically, industry faulted the ongoing reporting obligation and its 135-day waiting period, arguing that the agency should focus reporting on substances already in commerce, and that 135-day review period would create a barrier to innovation and exceed agency authority under TSCA section 8(a).
In March, EPA officials told a chemical sector conference that only minor, clarifying changes were likely in the final rule, and downplayed potential burdens, noting that the rule would require companies to submit only available data.
EPA's final rule retains the requirement for future reporting, but offers flexibility in the 135-day notification requirement. EPA says it believes that most companies know they intend to manufacture or process 135 days in advance. In such cases, EPA requires 135 days notice. If not, the rule requires notification 30 days after a company forms its intent.
But the final rule also allows companies to begin manufacturing or processing reportable materials after companies fulfill the reporting obligation, rather than requiring that companies wait 135 days as initially proposed.
“There is no obligation upon the company to wait 135 days after reporting to manufacture or process,” EPA says. The agency adds it is revising the proposed rule “to clarify that the rule does not prevent manufacturing before the 135-day period has passed.”
Regulatory Flexibility
In response to industry comments, EPA also expanded a proposed exemption for small businesses and sought to better clarify reportable substances. EPA raised the threshold for companies to qualify for an exemption from $4 million in total annual sales to $11 million, increasing the number of companies that will qualify and noting SBA criticism.
EPA also sought to better clarify reportable substances by defining or removing terms used in the proposed version.
“EPA is finalizing the proposed requirements with changes to the definition of a reportable chemical substance, including a definition of unique and novel properties and a numerical value to replace the proposed term of trace amounts,” according to a response to comments section included in the final rule.
The agency says its change to “unique and novel” properties adds an element of intent, so substances are reportable if they are manufactured on the nanoscale so that they exhibit unique and novel properties.
While environmentalists have long sought greater disclosure of nanoscale materials on the market, EPA says it will not publish an inventory of chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale based on data submitted under the rule, but that it will make non-confidential information reported under the rule available on its ChemView website.
Additionally, EPA says that pursuant to the new TSCA law enacted in June, the agency will require a supporting statement for all confidentiality claims. The agency says it did not seek public input on that change because it is required under the new law.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-tsca-nano-rule-retains-contested-reporting-duty-adds-flexibility
-
The Most Dangerous Bill You’ve Never Heard of Just Passed the House
Jan 11, 2017 | Eco Watch
By Carl Pope
Last, week, under the cover of a media bliss-out except among Koch funded right-wing channels, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would effectively repeal future standard setting under every important environmental, public health, consumer protection, labor standards, occupational safety and civil rights law on the books.
The bill, called the REINS Act, requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency—say a new toxic chemical standard required by the recently enacted Chemical Safety Act, or a new consumer protection rule about some innovative but untested kind of food additive—must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.
To give a sense of the scale of this road-block, in 2015 there were 43 such major federal regulations passed to protect the public; among them were food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances.
If the REINS Act had been in effect, it unlikely that the Tea Party dominated Republican caucus in the House would have approved of any of these rules. Future standard setting under the entire body of legislation enacted over the past 40 years to protect the public, from the Clean Air Act to the Dodd Frank financial sector reforms, would be frozen. Over time, as new health, safety, consumer and labor protection issues arise, all of these laws will effectively have been repealed, with no public debate and no accountability. It will also be impossible to restore them as long as the REINS Act is in effect, because by requiring Congress to approve every regulation, it makes it impossible to pass technically complex and scientifically valid rules on any topic of controversy.
As one example, the REINS Act would totally neuter the new Chemical Safety Act, just passed by the Republican Congress last year. The act requires U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and set standards for 10 widely abused chemicals in the next six months alone. The act passed only because in exchange, states gave up much of their power to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals; without that incentive, the Tea Party will certainly act to prevent EPA from restricting the use of these chemicals. But the states only agreed to give up in exchange for the promise that EPA would act. But the REINS act neuters this promise. Even if the House Republican caucus was willing in theory to consider such rules, there is simply no way Congress could add 10-40 new pieces of legislation to its work load in the chemical safety area alone. In fact, the House also just passed legislation to allow it to REPEAL all of President Obama's regulatory acts in the last eight months of his term in office with one vote. Why? Because House members said there was not time for individual votes on each rule—exactly the requirement they just established for new rules.
Worse, Congress totally lacks the technical competence to review these kinds of complex rules. Do we really want members of Congress deciding whether a chemical can safely be used in food packaging? Or the proper procedures for approving new drugs as safe and effective? Or setting the allowable safety standard for heavy metals in drinking water?
The vote was 237-187. All Republicans voted for it; only two Democrats, Colin Peterson of Minnesota and Henry Cuellar of Texas, joined them. A Google search five days after the bill passed the House revealed no mention in major media except one Reuters story with limited pick-up and a Washington Post op-ed by one of its major supporters. Even on-line virtually all of the commentary was from the backers of the REINS Act; the only significant alerts of the danger came from the Blue Green Alliance and DeSmogBlog.
Progressives may be counting on the fact that the Senate has previously refused to pass the bill and that it's broad over-reaching will doom it. But these are not ordinary times and past behavior is far from reliable in predicting today's politics.
It's time—past time—for a massive mobilization to make clear to Congress and the new President that a wholesale repeal of 40 years of progress in environmental protection, civil rights, labor standards, health and safety and consumer protection is a third rail, and that pretending that the REINS act increases accountability is a fig-leaf that public scrutiny must shred.
Ask your favorite public interest organization what it is doing today to stop the REINS Act in the Senate.
http://www.ecowatch.com/reins-act-2187697823.html
-
National Academies Report Lays Out New Risk Assessment Process
Jan 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has laid out a new direction for risk assessment, based on biological pathways rather than observations from lab experiments on animals. Its proposed process also incorporates improved exposure information that has emerged from new tools and approaches in exposure science.
Outlined in the report, Using 21st century science in risk-based evaluations, the approach moves away from previous risk assessment methods that relied on observation of apical responses, to evaluate the many factors that lead to health risks and disease.
The report says that the exposure aspect of the new direction focuses on:
estimating or predicting internal and external exposures to multiple chemicals and stressors;
characterising human variability in those exposures;
providing exposure data that can inform toxicity testing; and
translating exposures between test systems and humans.
It focuses primarily on risk assessments for public health and disease but takes into account an earlier National Academies report that recommended a new path for testing chemicals, based on human biology.
The proposed model emphasises that most diseases that are the focus of risk assessment are caused by multiple factors. That includes different stressors from many sources, such as exposure to certain chemicals. Those exposures, along with conditions specific to the individual, such as genetic makeup, can contribute to the disease.
It tries to balance these different factors, while leveraging updates in monitoring and sensor technology.
The study considered the benefits of many new tools in exposure science, toxicology and epidemiology that can create new – and more accurate – data. For example, the increase in personal sensors, and other sampling techniques, offers new opportunities to record and report individual exposures, particularly in vulnerable populations.
It also discusses a number of risk assessment applications that could be improved by newer tools, such as chemical assessment, assessing risks at facilities like hazardous waste sites, and the evaluation of new chemical molecules for which there are no close comparisons.
The US EPA, FDA, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences sponsored the report. Each of these agencies are involved with the application of the 21st century scientific approaches highlighted, including their use in risk assessment, hazard identification and exposure assessment.
“The committee concludes that the data that are being generated today can be used to address many of the risk-related tasks that the agencies face, and it provides several case studies in its report to illustrate the potential applications,” the report said.
“Although the challenges to achieving the visions of the earlier reports often seem daunting, 21st century science holds great promise for advancing risk assessment and ultimately for improving public health and the environment.”https://chemicalwatch.com/51975/national-academies-report-lays-out-new-risk-assessment-process
-
'Chemicals Under Pressure' Divide UN GHS Committee
Jan 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The UN sub-committee of experts for GHS has recognised the need to address the issue of “chemicals under pressure” within the Globally Harmonised System, but has deferred the final decision on how to do this until a later date.
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and the European Industrial Gases Association (Eiga) proposed creating a new chapter to address these substances at a previous meeting. A counter proposal – to change chapter 2.3 (flammable aerosols) to cover chemicals under pressure – was put forward by others.
Chemicals under pressure already have UN numbers (UN3500-UN3505) in the document 'Recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods', also known as the Orange Book. But, according to Cefic and Eiga, the current version of GHS does not properly cover these substances' hazards, raising the risks of confusion and incorrect classification.
At its December meeting in Geneva, the sub-committee reviewed mock-ups of the new chapter and of a revised version of chapter 2.3.
Cefic and Eiga said that this looked “lengthy and complicated”. Furthermore, aerosols and chemicals under pressure were addressed separately in the transport of dangerous goods document. For consistency, and because of “different test procedures” for aerosols, “a complete merge of the requirements is not possible”, they said.
The European Aerosol Federation (FEA) agreed that a new chapter was necessary. “Aerosols are by definition non-refillable, have limited capacity and have a relatively low permitted maximum internal pressure,” it said.
Experts at the meeting were divided by the two options. The sub-committee asked Cefic and Eiga to take account of comments made by the experts present and deferred its decision until the proposal was “further developed”.
Test guidelines
Also at the December meeting, the sub-committee heard that the project on non-animal test methods for hazard classification was underway. The aim is to determine how reference to relevant test guidelines might be included in the GHS.
The project group has started examination of existing guidelines for skin irritation and corrosion and selected four in vitro guideline documents.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52043/chemicals-under-pressure-divide-un-ghs-committee
-
Trump’s EPA Pick Fought Mercury Rules That Could Save Thousands of Lives
Jan 11, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency launched a major effort to reduce mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants – standards that could avert up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks each year. At the behest of the coal industry, a coalition of coal-producing states sued to stop the rules.
Now Scott Pruitt, a man who led the attack, could take control of the agency he sued.
As Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt joined not one but two lawsuits against the EPA to block mercury and air toxics standards under the Clean Air Act. So far, such efforts have failed, and the new rules have cut mercury emissions from coal plants by more than 40,000 pounds per year.
Not surprisingly, many people who benefit the most from the mercury initiative live in states that that rely heavily on coal-powered plants. The EPA predicts that the new law will prevent 560 premature deaths a year in Ohio, 530 in Pennsylvania, 410 in Michiganand 300 in Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma. (Find out here how many premature deaths will be prevented by the rules Pruitt fought so hard to kill in your own state.)
The driving source of mercury contamination comes from the billowing emissions of coal-burning power plants that provide electricity for much of the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains. But burning coal also releases mercury into the food chain.
Airborne mercury settles on lakes, streams and oceans where it builds up in seafood and shellfish. Seafood is the top source of mercury exposure for humans, including for infants whose mothers regularly ate foods with high mercury levels, such as tuna, during pregnancy. Prenatal exposure to too much mercury can seriously harm children’s brain development and behavior.
When the Obama administration announced the new rules, the EPA noted that more than half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants were already relying on widely available, proven pollution controls. The EPA said the new standards would “level the playing field by ensuring the remaining plants – about 40 percent of all coal-fired power plants – take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants.”
The EPA estimates the economic benefits of the mercury and air toxics standards at between $37 billion and $90 billion per year. By contrast, the estimated cost to the coal industry to conform to the rule was just $9.6 billion.
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge by Pruitt and other attorneys general, but if Pruitt is confirmed by the Senate in his hearing next week, he will be in position to muck up other landmark initiatives to cut air pollution. It would be tragic if the agency charged with protecting the health and safety America’s children instead defends the polluters.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/01/trump-s-epa-pick-fought-mercury-rules-could-save-thousands-lives
-
U.S. Chamber to Help Trump Slash Rules, Push Infrastructure
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue this morning said the business behemoth would work with President-elect Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress to reform the regulatory system, expand America's energy industry and build infrastructure to support energy production.
"To start, we need regulatory relief and regulatory reform. There is no justification for the regulatory overkill we have seen over the last eight years," Donohue said during his State of American Business address at the group's Washington headquarters this morning.
"An unelected fourth branch of government — the regulatory branch — is holding our small business and others back while imposing unnecessary costs on all of the American system," he said.
Donohue joined conservative groups in urging Trump to quickly eliminate a large swath of existing measures by executive order. He added that Congress can use the Congressional Review Act to join the rule-killing effort.
Congressional Republicans are working to prioritize rules to hit with the CRA. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) yesterday said the Interior Department's recently finalized Stream Protection Rule was "high on the list" of potential targets (E&E Daily, Jan. 11).
The Bureau of Land Management's methane rule is another likely candidate, a GOP aide said, and House Democrats are already trying to rally support behind both regulations (Greenwire, Jan. 10).
But, Donohue said, some rules will be harder to undo — like the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule and the Clean Power Plan.
"They need to be addressed. It will have to be done through the system. So let's get started," Donohue said.
Conservative group Freedom Partners has been on the Hill this week meeting with Republicans to offer its own strategy for undoing Obama administration actions (E&E Daily, Jan. 10).
Reforming the system
Donohue stressed the importance of not just rolling back certain regulations but also reforming the way regulations are promulgated in the first place.
The Chamber of Commerce has been a staunch advocate of the "Regulatory Accountability Act," H.R. 5, which the House is expected to vote on tonight.
"This law would fundamentally transform how agencies implement major rules. And it would begin to restore the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches," Donohue said. "It would be the first major update to how federal agencies write rules in 70 years."
The "Regulatory Accountability Act" combines six reform measures the House passed in previous sessions of Congress. The measure would require federal agencies to identify the objective of a proposed rule and choose the lowest-cost alternative.
The legislation would also require agencies to publish information online about regulations being developed and the cost of those rules.
And the measure would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act by requiring agencies to tally direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of new rules on small businesses.
Donohue said reforming the system is a top priority for this Congress. He also referenced bills the House passed during its first week in session and numerous pending proposals (E&E Daily, Jan. 6).
Energy, climate, infrastructure
Donohue stressed the need to promote the development of natural resources and domestic energy production.
"Everyone is talking about how they want to move more to things that are made in the USA," he said. "I got an idea of things to be made in the U.S. How about American energy?"
He advocated for expanding emission-free sources, like nuclear and renewables, and pushing for gains in clean energy and efficiency.
"Producing more energy also requires building more infrastructure," he said. "We can generate more growth and jobs by making America's infrastructure the best in the world."
To this end, Donohue said, Congress should "seize the opportunity" for bipartisan support for infrastructure development. Elaine Chao, Trump's pick to lead the Transportation Department, is testifying this morning on Capitol Hill.
"The projects we invest in must be determined by our national economic need for growth — not parochial politics," Donohue said.
"That means taking on large-scale projects — airports, seaports, pipelines, an expanded power grid, broadband, air traffic control, secure and efficient borders, and intermodal transportation links — projects that help the entire country."
Donohue said the private sector could help pay for those projects, along with a sustainable, long-term federal source. He noted the chamber has long been in favor of a slight increase in the federal gas tax, which hasn't gone up in 24 years.
"It happens to be the simplest, fairest and most straightforward solution. Maybe that's why it hasn't passed," Donohue joked. "We're open to other ideas."
Critics say the revenue would aid the Highway Trust Fund to build non-highway-related projects, hurt the middle class and increase the price of consumer goods.
At a news conference after the speech, Donohue said he was circulating a list within the government of top energy and environmental regulations he says should be reformed.
"When you talk about energy, you also talk about the environment," he said. "We believe in an environmental system that continues the long and successful program in the U.S. eliminating pollution and dealing with complicated discussions and legislation around global — whatever it's doing — climate change."
Donohue said the climate is certainly changing, as it has for the last 3 billion years. The question, he said, is to what extent humans are affecting that change.
"The question is what steps should we take to deal with those in terms of keeping the economy sound?" he said. "We want to be amongst the leaders in the world in doing things to continue to fight pollution and to work on climate change in a reasonable way."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/11/stories/1060048214
-
Tillerson Testifies He'll Be Active in Energy Diplomacy
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
If confirmed as secretary of State, Rex Tillerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, he would still play a role in diplomacy issues related to the oil and natural gas industry.
"The scope of that is such that I would not expect to have to recuse myself," the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO and ex-chairman of the American Petroleum Institute, said early in a confirmation hearing that's expected to last all day.
Tillerson said he would recuse himself from matters directly related to Exxon for one year.
Republicans and Democrats, including Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), pressed Tillerson to elaborate on what he described as a "clean break" with his 41-year career in the private sector, his views on mandatory sanctions against Russia and Exxon's record on climate.
The increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Earth's atmosphere is having an effect, Tillerson said in response to a question from Corker. "Our ability to predict that effect is very limited," he added.
Tillerson revealed President-elect Donald Trump has "invited" his views on climate change.
In public statements since Tillerson took the helm in 2006, Exxon has acknowledged the threat of climate change as serious and worth addressing. However, the company is under investigation by some state attorneys general following reports it misled shareholders about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and funded sources that dispute the scientific consensus on climate.
Trump "knows that I am on the public record with my views, and I look forward to providing those if confirmed to him into discussions around how the U.S. should conduct its policies in this area," Tillerson said.
Opponents of Tillerson's confirmation who sported bright yellow T-shirts that read "#EXXONKNEW" snagged prominent seats in the first and second rows of the audience in the hearing room. Capitol police escorted from the hearing multiple protesters, who waved signs calling on senators to "Reject Rex."
"Protect our children and our grandchildren," one woman stood and yelled.
Another shouted about continued resistance to pipelines.
"Whether or not you become secretary of State, oil is dead," she yelled as police walked her out of the packed hearing room.
Inflatable dinosaurs and dozens of protesters marched to the Capitol this morning and rallied on the sidewalk outside a Senate office building to demonstrate their opposition to Tillerson. They kicked off their day at an Exxon gas station near the Hill.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) called attention to allegations that Exxon executives ignored company scientists' early warnings about climate change. He also asked Tillerson whether he is under a confidentiality agreement with Exxon, related to the probes.
"The question would have to be put to Exxon Mobil," Tillerson said multiple times.
Tillerson was grilled over a Trump transition memo to the Energy Department, which included queries about which DOE staffers attended international climate change talks and interagency meetings about estimating the benefits of climate change policies (Greenwire, Dec. 12, 2016).
The document made many federal employees concerned about a "witch hunt" involving federal employees who work on climate policy.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) asked, "Do you plan or would you support any efforts to persecute, sideline or otherwise retaliate against career State Department employees who have worked on climate change in the past?"
Tillerson responded, "No, sir, that would be a pretty unhelpful way to get started."
The crowd laughed.
The panel's ranking member, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), popped the first question on climate issues. He said Trump's pick to head U.S. EPA, Scott Pruitt, told him to ask Tillerson about the Paris climate agreement.
"I think it's important that the United States maintain its seat at the table on the conversations around how to address the threats of climate change, which do require a global response," Tillerson said in response.
"No one country is going to solve this alone," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/11/stories/1060048220
-
Natural Gas Processing Plants May Be Required to Disclose Chemical Releases
Jan 11, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Natural gas processing facilities may soon have to report their chemical releases and other waste management activities to the EPA.
A proposed rule, published in the Federal Register this week, would add these facilities to the list of the industrial sectors required to file Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports. The EPA estimates that at least 282 natural gas processing facilities in the US would meet the TRI thresholds and thus be required to report TRI data under the rule.
TRI data is submitted annually from industry sectors such as manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities and commercial hazardous waste.
This new rule proposes expanding coverage to all natural gas processing facilities, which receive and refine natural gas. Natural gas processing facilities that primarily recover sulfur from natural gas are already covered by TRI. Facilities primarily engaged in natural gas extraction — such as exploration and fracking — are not included in this proposal.
The EPA says facilities that would be covered by the new rule already deal with more than 21 TRI-covered chemicals. TRI reporting by these facilities would provide release and waste management data that would increase the amount of information available to the public.
The new rule comes in response to a 2012 petition filed by 17 environmental groups that asked the EPA to add the oil and gas extraction industry to the TRI. In 2015, the EPA agreed to propose adding natural gas processing facilities.
As the National Law Review reports, if the rule is finalized, “applicability depends on two remaining factors: (1) whether a facility has 10 or more full-time employees, and (2) whether a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses listed toxic chemicals in amounts above relevant reporting threshold levels.”
The EPA is taking public comment on the proposal until March 7 and ultimately the Trump administration will review and finalize — or not — the rule.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/01/natural-gas-processing-plants-may-be-required-to-disclose-chemical-releases/
-
Federal Data Suggest a Bottom for U.S. Production
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal analysts extended a streak of winning news for the domestic oil industry yesterday, with a forecast that crude production has probably bottomed out and is ready to climb again.
"The general decline in U.S. crude oil production that began almost two years ago is likely over, as higher average oil prices and improvements in drilling efficiency are giving a boost to output," Adam Sieminski, administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, said in a short-term energy outlook published yesterday.
EIA said final data from 2016 will likely show that production rose during the final quarter of 2016, increasing slightly from 8.7 million barrels per day during the third quarter to 8.9 million barrels per day in the fourth quarter, buoyed in part by Brent crude prices that averaged over $50 per barrel in December for the first time in more than a year.
Production is estimated to have averaged 8.9 million barrels per day for 2016, and EIA forecasts it will grow to 9.0 million barrels per day this year and 9.3 million barrels per day next year.
The latest federal forecast echoes a strong outlook last week from the Texas Workforce Commission that shows an uptick in industry hiring, as well as signs in EIA data released last week that showed production increases in key oil fields in Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota had declined since the 2014 oil price crash (Energywire, Jan. 5; Energywire, Jan. 4).
Still, EIA expects Brent crude prices to remain moderate for the near future, forecasting an average of $53 per barrel this year and $56 per barrel next year.
Federal analysts pointed to the deal reached by members and some non-members of the OPEC to reduce crude output as a key reason for the stronger prices of the last several weeks, noting that some countries party to the deal have shown signs of sticking with their promised output cuts, while some others have left reason to question their commitments.
In December, OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Sanusi Barkindo, during a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he was meeting with New York hedge fund managers in an effort "to even comprehend, how do they operate," and to look at how U.S. production could be brought into a common framework with global output.
Yesterday, EIA pointed to the response of domestic producers to higher prices as a key unknown for prices. "Uncertainty in the production response from Libya, Nigeria, and the United States in the coming months presents some of the largest risks to the timeline of oil market rebalancing," EIA said.
For natural gas, the latest EIA data show that production fell by 2.4 percent in 2016 from 2015 levels, the first such drop in a decade. But production is expected to recover most of that ground in 2017 and rise again in 2018, as prices rise. EIA forecasts that natural gas prices at the U.S. Henry Hub, which averaged $2.51 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2016, will rise to $3.55 per MMBtu in 2017 and $3.73 per MMBtu in 2018.
In the utility sector, EIA data show that natural gas outpaced coal use last year for the first time with gas at 34 percent of generation and coal accounting for 30 percent, reflecting low gas prices. The two fuels are expected to contribute about equally this year, before natural gas creeps slightly over coal again in 2018.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/11/stories/1060048162
-
'Second Wave' Texas LNG Project Drawing Asian Buyer Interest
Jan 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Texas LNG Brownsville LLC said it has signed non-binding term sheets with four independent liquefied natural gas (LNG) buyers in Southeast Asia and China for a combined volume of 3.1 million tonnes per annum (mtpa), which oversubscribes the single-train first phase of its liquefaction project.
Buyers include a mix of state-owned and private entities that currently own, or plan to construct LNG receiving facilities in the next few years. Option rights could increase offtake volumes to 4 mtpa. The project's first phase is expected to have capacity of 2 mtpa.
"Despite a very challenging global environment, Texas LNG has demonstrated that its realistic size, ideal location, focus on low costs, and transparency have attracted LNG buyers," said CEO Vivek Chandra. "Buyers realize the value of procuring LNG directly from the producing source, rather than via intermediaries or portfolio players."
With term sheets in hand, Texas LNG can continue negotiating long-term agreements with the potential LNG buyers.
Houston-based Texas LNG would be paid monthly capacity fees to liquefy gas, store it, and deliver it onto LNG ships arranged by the LNG buyer. Texas LNG is also promoting a sale-purchase agreement structure, whereby it would responsible for delivering LNG on a “free on board” or “delivered ex ship” basis.
The independent company's first terminal is planned for the Port of Brownsville in South Texas. The 625-acre site is at the north shore of the port's deepwater ship channel. Production from the project's first phase is expected to begin in 2021 or 2022.
"Texas LNG is riding the crest of the second wave of U.S. LNG exports," said COO Langtry Meyer. "Texas LNG's smaller size helped secure customers for Phase 1 capacity, which is sufficient to reach FID [final investment decision] in 2018.
"With Phase 1 volumes oversubscribed, Texas LNG is marketing its Phase 2 capacity (a second identical 2 mtpa train) and is confident that it will close out the full 4 mtpa production capacity, for which Texas LNG currently is seeking authorizations from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy."
Brownsville has been a hotbed of LNG terminal development interest with multiple projects proposed.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109003-second-wave-texas-lng-project-drawing-asian-buyer-interest
-
DOE Asks Trump to Survey Gas Pipeline Cyberthreats
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The growing dependence of the U.S. electric power sector on gas-fired generation means that the security of the nation's gas pipeline network can no longer be taken for granted, a Department of Energy policy review has concluded.
DOE's Quadrennial Energy Review 1.2, issued Friday, calls on Congress and the Trump administration to investigate the adequacy of cybersecurity protection for pipelines and pipeline control systems to determine whether mandatory security regulations may be required to replace current voluntary policies.
The DOE recommendation highlights the fundamental difference in federal cybersecurity oversight of the high-voltage power grid, and of the 315,000-mile network of natural gas transmission pipelines that supply gas-fired power plants. In 2005, Congress authorized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue and enforce security regulations for the interstate power grid, but the Transportation Security Administration in the Department of Homeland Security is limited to giving voluntary guidance to pipeline owners on cybersecurity.
The report recommended that DOE join with an ongoing survey of security defenses in the gas pipeline network as the basis for possible requests to Congress for stronger regulatory authority.
Sonya Proctor, TSA surface division director, testified to Congress last April that the agency has established an effective relationship with the 3,000 companies that operate the country's gas transmission and distribution companies, with the agency acting to identify threats, develop security programs and "encourage" industry action. She said, however, that "an attack against a pipeline system could result in loss of life and have significant economic effects."
The vulnerability of the pipeline network prompted an alert last month by the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to the pipeline industry, following a break-in at valve stations on four pipelines by anti-pipeline activists.
In addition to physical threats, the PHMSA alert also warned against cyberattacks aiming at taking control of remote operations controls, called supervisory control and data acquisition, or SCADA, systems. The agency said it "is aware of prior intrusion attempts on pipeline infrastructure."
"An operator should harden physical and software borders around SCADA systems to limit the risk to the safe operation of pipelines," PHMSA added (Energywire, Dec. 13, 2016).
Dash to gas
The shale gas revolution has led to a 40 percent increase in electricity generation from natural gas since 2005, and in 2015, gas supplanted coal as the nation's top fuel for electricity generation.
Gas dependence is particularly high in several regions of the country. A risk assessment analysis last May by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) identified four areas with natural gas generation penetrations of greater than 40 percent: New England, New York, Texas and California. These areas "are increasingly vulnerable to issues related to gas supply unavailability," NERC said in its analysis, which focused generally on reliability issues, not on cybersecurity risk particularly.
Proctor's testimony noted that TSA conducts voluntary security reviews with pipeline operators, followed by TSA's recommendations on strengthening physical and cyberdefenses. "TSA has completed reviews of all 100 highest-risk pipeline systems and is now conducting return visits to evaluate the implementation status of previous security recommendations," she said.
The recommendations in DOE's QER report, if followed by the Trump administration and Congress, could shift the industry into a mandatory compliance regime.
Such a policy change would be part of a broader strengthening of federal grid oversight proposed by the QER, in what Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said he hoped would be an outline for future legislation by the Republican-led Congress.
The DOE report hammered on the theme of the nation's power grid as a national security asset requiring strengthened defenses and recovery strategies against "Black Sky" natural disasters or terrorist attacks.
DOE and FERC officials have consistently asked Congress to give those agencies more authority to direct defensive actions by grid utilities if faced with worst-case emergencies. In an extreme case of a cyber penetration of grid operating systems, or an approaching massive solar storm, some parts of the grid could be required to reduce electricity flows or voluntarily black out customers temporarily to protect equipment, grid experts say. The collaborative security regulation process followed by FERC and NERC cannot act quickly enough in such emergencies, federal officials have insisted.
At the end of 2015, Congress added several grid security amendments to the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act spending bill, including authority for DOE to order actions to protect the grid in a presidentially declared emergency.
The QER report says that additional authority is required to give DOE the data, analysis and tools to carry out that emergency mission.
"In the current environment, the U.S. grid faces imminent danger from cyber attacks," it says. "Widespread disruption of electric service because of a transmission failure initiated by a cyber attack at various points of entry could undermine U.S. lifeline networks, critical defense infrastructure, and much of the economy; it could also endanger the health and safety of millions of citizens. Also, natural gas plays an increasingly important role as fuel for the Nation's electricity system; a gas pipeline outage or malfunction due to a cyber attack could affect not only pipeline and related infrastructures, but also the reliability of the Nation's electricity system."
"The Federal Power Act, as amended by the FAST Act, should be further amended by Congress to clarify and affirm DOE's authority to develop preparation and response capabilities that will ensure it is able to issue a grid-security emergency order to protect critical electric infrastructure," the report said.
DOE, in the QER report, also says it needs more strategic information. "DOE and FERC in particular lack access to data on critical grid assets and their vulnerabilities," the report said. And in some cases, FERC does not share data it received from grid companies, the report continued.
"The lack of access to data represents another challenge to Federal agencies to enhance the security and resilience of the grid. Given that the majority of electricity infrastructure is privately owned, the Federal Government must rely on industry data collection activities to understand the vulnerability and security landscape of the electric grid."
The additional powers sought by DOE would include requirements for utilities — and pipeline companies, presumably — to supply the department with information on a confidential basis on cyber or physical attacks or solar weather disturbances.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/11/stories/1060048153
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Shippers See New Era Under Trump
Jan 6, 2017 | Argus Media
Major chemical products shippers hope president-elect Donald Trump’s plan to reduce federal regulations gets them better rail service and lower rail rates. “Eliminating regulatory barriers to commerce and improving how the STB operates is in line with the Trump administration’s pro-growth goals and promise to change how Washington operates,” the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents major chemical manufacturers such as Dow and 3M, said.
Railroads have a different vision. They believe Trump will instead target what they see as overly restrictive rules that hamper their operations.
Both sides have been busy lobbying Trump transition officials in hopes of pairing their own agendas with the incoming president’s expected antiregulatory push.
ACC and other large shipping groups have been pushing for the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to issue a rule allowing customers to shift freight from one railroad to another if one is available, known as reciprocal switching. Railroads strongly oppose the measure, which it calls “forced access.”
Opening the rail system to reciprocal switching represents less regulation, not a heavier regulatory burden as railroads contend, and is “preferable to regulatory oversight,” ACC said. Shippers say that having limited choices in carriers is a significant problem that increases costs and reduces service.
Reciprocal switching is allowed in the US only if the shipper can prove market power or abuse by the railroad that serves it. Similar to STB’s onerous and costly process to challenge a rail rate, the burden of proving market abuse often makes it not worth it, chemical shippers say.
Also, after expending time and resources to be allowed reciprocal switching, there is no guarantee that the second railroad will provide a reasonable rate, making the process more onerous, shippers say. They characterize this as a barrier to competition.
Chemical shippers’ other main focus is to obtain a more reasonable process for challenging rates at STB. In September the board turned down Total Petrochemical’s complaint over CSX rates, a proceeding that took six years and millions of dollars to resolve. Not only did Total lose the legal expenses, it still has to pay the higher rate.
The board said Total failed to make the required showing under the guidelines.
But Republican board member Ann Begeman said she was unsure any carload shipper could meet the bar.
Chemicals volume on US rails, excluding crude, has been fairly flat over the last decade, Association of American Railroads (AAR) data show. Class I carriers in the US hauled about 175mn short tons (159mn metric tonnes) of chemicals in 2014, compared with about 165mn st in 2005, a less dramatic fluctuation than a number of other shipping categories. The most recent peak came in 2011, with a little more than 190mn st moved.
The chemicals category is broad, including thousands of varieties of industrial chemicals. Various industrial products make up more than half of rail chemical tonnage, with the balance coming from fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals. AAR also includes within chemicals the categories of plastics, synthetic fibers, drugs and soaps.
AAR says that the cost of shipping chemicals by rail was about 2pc of chemical industry revenue if pharmaceuticals are excluded. Railroads grossed $10bn shipping chemicals in 2015, about 14pc of total revenue. Only coal and intermodal provide provide carriers more revenue.
The Gulf coast is heavy with rail chemical activity, making up 61pc of originated rail tons in Louisiana, 36pc in Texas and 29pc in Mississippi.
ACC says it expects shipments of plastic resin to increase significantly in the next few years. Materials to make plastics and synthetic resins account for about 25pc of rail tonnage.
Railroads carry more ethanol than any other chemical, not counting crude, which is sometimes classified as a chemical by railroads. Trump campaigned in favor of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), a federal law passed in 2005 that greatly stimulated ethanol demand and increased rail loadings.
The law requires companies to mix increasing volumes of ethanol in with the gasoline and diesel fuel they refine, but fossil fuel interests are trying to get the regulation overturned.
As he campaigned in January, 2015, Trump told the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association that as president, he would encourage Congress to be cautious in changing “any part of the RFS.”
STB was in the midst of a wave of new shipper-friendly initiatives mandated by Congress in a reauthorization act last year when Trump won his surprise victory. Chemicals shippers and railroads are making the case that their financial health is critical to the larger economy Trump hopes to invigorate.
http://view.argusmedia.com/rs/584-BUW-606/images/Chemical%20shippers%20see%20new%20era%20under%20Trump.pdf
-
Exxon's 'Sordid History' on Climate Takes Center Stage Today
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
By all accounts, Rex Tillerson is the ultimate pragmatist.
It's a style many say characterized the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO's approach to ending a yearslong standoff over gays in the Boy Scouts of America, negotiating for access to resources in countries hostile to the United States and relaxing his company's entrenched rejection of climate science.
Today, Tillerson's careful approach to hot-button issues will be on display as lawmakers consider his appointment as America's next secretary of State. In an opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, obtained by The Washington Post, Tillerson will call for renewed U.S. leadership in a world beset by terrorism and economic upheaval.
The nine pages of testimony make no mention of climate change or energy.
"I am an engineer by training. I seek to understand the facts, follow where they lead, and apply logic to our international affairs," the prepared remarks state. "We must see the world for what it is, have clear priorities, and understand that our power is considerable but not infinite. We must, where possible, build pathways to new partnerships and strengthen old bonds which have frayed."
Tillerson is widely expected to face a barrage of questions about climate change today even as he fends off queries about his former company's dealings with Russia and Iran. While no one would say that Exxon under his leadership was in the vanguard of climate progress, Tillerson does accept man-made warming and talks about the need to address it, even as he has resisted backing viable legislation.
In the runup to 2015's landmark Paris climate summit, the company made support for a carbon price unconditional. And it backed the Paris Agreement, with Tillerson calling the deal "an important step forward."
As secretary of State, Tillerson would take a leading role in crafting the new administration's climate diplomacy, including how and whether it would accomplish Trump's promise to "cancel" the landmark accord.
Climate advocates part ways on whether Tillerson is a cynical opportunist who has stood in the way of real progress on climate change and will go along with Trump, or whether he is the ideal climate ambassador to an administration dominated by other former businessmen.
"I think it cuts both ways in the sense that certainly Exxon has a sordid history on climate; on the other hand, Mr. Tillerson has made some encouraging statements with regard to both the Paris Agreement and the reality of climate change," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), an outspoken supporter of climate action. "So we'll have to see how the hearings play out, because I think it's not entirely clear what the State Department's position will be on climate."
Business-oriented climate groups optimistic
Some say Tillerson genuinely believes climate change is a risk that companies must take seriously.
His predecessor, Lee Raymond, was famously combative about global warming. Under Raymond, the world's largest oil company clung to the position that human-caused emissions were not driving warming almost a decade after BP PLC abandoned that stance and despite decades of strong scientific findings to the contrary, including from its own researchers.
Exxon for years participated in the international petroleum and coal lobbying group called the Global Climate Coalition, which was shuttered in 2001, and allegedly suppressed findings by its own researchers that climate change was linked to fossil fuel combustion.
Bill Bray, a former marine architect at Exxon Mobil, credits Tillerson with changing the corporate culture even before the company's well-publicized 2009 shift on global warming.
Bray, now with the Citizens' Climate Lobby, a group that advocates for a revenue-neutral carbon tax especially to conservative lawmakers, worked on a project in Russia for Exxon while Tillerson was director of its Russian subsidiary.
"I think the story is that when Rex Tillerson got the helm, he changed the direction significantly, and it takes time to change the direction and stance of a large organization like that, even when you're the CEO," Bray said. He argued that the environmental movement is "missing a huge opportunity" by fighting Tillerson's appointment rather than seeking to work with him.
"I think he would push climate change as an issue that needs real action," he said. "I think if he's a senior Cabinet member, he has Trump's ear, and he would make more positive change for real action on climate change than all the environmentalists in the country put together."
Business groups that work on climate change say they hope Tillerson's pragmatism might keep the United States in the Paris deal, where it would have a say in shaping rules for industry.
"We would hope that he would see the benefit to U.S. business interests in having a seat at the table. It is better to be engaged than to let the rules of this new regime be written by other countries," said Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
... while some greens see 'cynical thinking'
Other activists take a less sanguine view. They argue that Tillerson's climate pivot when he assumed Exxon's leadership in 2006 was motivated more by a desire to avoid public condemnation and to position the company to fend off carbon cap-and-trade legislation that was beginning to gather steam as Democrats regained the House and Senate that year.
Tillerson also has equivocated on climate, sometimes questioning whether it has the potential to be catastrophic or whether it might be managed through advances in engineering and adaptation.
"That, to me, is denial," said Cathleen Kelly, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, "because he was making those statements at a time when there was established science and broad consensus in the environmental community that climate change not only was real and happening but a tremendous threat to people and the planet."
Paul Bledsoe, a former Senate and White House aide on climate and energy issues, said that by the mid-2000s, shareholder pressure at publicly traded oil companies was such that no CEO could still refuse to accept the science outright. Tillerson's position only brought Exxon into the mainstream, he said.
Exxon pared back its support for some climate skeptic think tanks and interest groups when Tillerson became CEO in 2006 but continues to back anti-regulatory groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council.
The veteran oilman and would-be chief diplomat also led Exxon to back a revenue-neutral carbon tax despite its general lack of popularity on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Analysts say it's no accident that the 2009 announcement roughly coincided with the push by the Obama White House and Democrat-led Congress to pass carbon cap-and-trade legislation.
"On the policy side, I think Exxon's embrace of the carbon tax is largely a tactical position to have a position in favor of CO2 mitigation but not supportive of cap and trade, and indeed a position that was the single most unlikely to become law," Bledsoe said.
Some greens say Exxon's support for a carbon tax was purposely aimed at siphoning away support for cap and trade, which BP and ConocoPhillips Co. lobbied for as members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership during those years.
"I think that this is very strategic, cynical thinking that's going on," said Stephen Kretzmann of Oil Change International. "From a short-term business perspective, it's probably been very effective for them, but it's morally bankrupt, and that's not what we want from the nation's top diplomat."
Kretzmann and Kelly said Tillerson's lack of conviction makes it unlikely that he'll stand by his support for the Paris Agreement after he joins the Trump administration, or at least its core global commitment to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, which would require companies like Exxon to forgo development and profits.
Bledsoe said Tillerson has an opportunity on climate change — but he's not optimistic that the Trump administration will embrace it.
"It's Tillerson's very oil and gas credibility that should allow him to face down climate science deniers and anti-Paris Agreement critics within the Republican Party," Bledsoe said. But, he added, "I think it's much more likely that the State Department will pay lip service to the Paris Agreement, while the Trump administration will not feel bound by the emissions pledges the Obama administration made."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/11/stories/1060048187
-
Sessions: Global Warming 'Always Struck Me as Plausible'
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman
Sen. Jeff Sessions said yesterday he has always believed in global warming — sort of.
In a marathon Senate hearing considering his appointment as the next U.S. attorney general, the Alabama Republican defended his civil rights record, acknowledged that groping women's genitals as President-elect Donald Trump has bragged about doing is a crime and maintained he would uphold laws protecting gay marriage despite his personal views.
When it comes to climate change, Sessions — who has denounced climate science as "deliberate misinformation" — said he would make judgments based on scientific facts.
"I'm not — I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory always struck me as plausible," Sessions said in response to a question by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
Whitehouse, an outspoken supporter of climate policies, reminded Sessions that as attorney general, he might be faced with enforcing laws or bringing actions related to the impacts rising carbon emissions are having on land and oceans. He noted that the overwhelming scientific consensus — backed up by NASA, all branches of the U.S. military and Department of Energy national laboratories — is that human activity is driving the emissions causing atmospheric warming.
"It is the political position of the Republican Party in the Senate, as I have seen it, that this is not a problem, that we don't need to do anything about it, that facts aren't real, and that we should all do nothing whatsoever. That's the Senate," Whitehouse said.
"You as attorney general of the United States may be asked to make decisions for our nation that require a factual predicate that you determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a decision about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? ... What can give us any assurance that you will make those based on real facts and real science?" he asked.
Sessions responded that his primary question on climate change centers on "how much of it is happening and what the reaction to it would be," but he sidestepped speaking about whether he believes humans are in fact causing most of the problem.
As to how he will make a judgment at the Department of Justice, Sessions said, "If the facts justify a position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to utilize those facts in an honest and appropriate way."
Whitehouse challenged Sessions to acknowledge climate impacts in his home state.
"I'll bet you dollars against those lovely Krispy Kreme doughnuts that we have out back that if you went down to the University of Alabama and if you talked to the people who fish out of Mobile, they'd already see the changes in the ocean, they'd be able to measure the pH changes and know that acidification is happening, and there would be no dispute about that — except in the politics of Washington, D.C.," he said.
In a 2014 Senate floor speech, Sessions said, "We don't know we know enough now to answer this question conclusively either way, but there's been a lot of exaggeration, there's been a lot of hype, and people are feeling the crunch already in their electric bills ... in our effort to stop storms that don't seem to be going down, or to stop temperatures that don't seem to be rising."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/11/stories/1060048183
-
On Eve of Trump, Obama’s Energy Department Leaves Behind New ‘Scientific Integrity’ Policy
Jan 11, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Speaking at the National Press Club Wednesday, outgoing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced a new “scientific integrity” policy for an agency recently wracked by concerns about how an administration led by President-elect Donald Trump will treat employees who worked on climate change and other sensitive energy-related issues.
“It’s part of establishing the environment that allows scientist to do their work, to stay with us, and to recruit new people,” Moniz said in announcing the new policy.
Moniz, a physicist, gave an example of his own role in negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. “Seven of our laboratories were providing near real-time support to our negotiating positions in a highly technical negotiation,” Moniz said, “and I certainly needed correct answers, stated clearly, as opposed to anything that somebody may have thought was the answer I wanted. That would not be helpful.”
Moniz’s remarks come as the energy department releases a first-ever report on the state of 17 national laboratories, and the secretary offered praise for the scientists who work at them and highlighted extensively the centrality of science to the agency’s mission.
But the new scientific integrity policy also follows a move by the Trump transition team to send the department a questionnaire asking for the names of personnel who had attended meetings related to climate change (although Moniz did not mention this in his remarks).
The new policy states as its “cornerstone” that “all scientists, engineers, or others supported by DOE are free and encouraged to share their scientific findings and views.” That includes talking to the media, giving public talks, and even expressing views on social media (though these can’t be attributed to the government).
The seven-page policy prevents other agency employees, such as political appointees or press officers, from leaning on or torquing scientific findings. “Under no circumstance may anyone, including a public affairs officer, ask or direct any researcher to alter the record of scientific findings or conclusions,” the document states.
The document also embraces a strong commitment to whistleblower protection laws and says the agency will install a “scientific integrity official” within the Energy Secretary’s office to head up enforcement of the policy.
The new policy is in line with a memorandum issued by President Obama all the way back in March 2009, outlining a process for all executive branch agencies to institute “appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency.” It followed on a string of controversies over the treatment of scientific information during the administration of George W. Bush.
Following additional guidance from the president’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Energy Department had then created such a policy in 2012. Nineteen federal agencies, and five sub-agencies, now have such policies.
But the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading group tracking uses and abuses of science in government, had faulted the 2012 Energy Department policy as weak. “This policy is less than three pages long and hence has many significant gaps,” wrote the group. “Does not fully embrace the principles in the OSTP guidance memo and has many additional missing elements.”
Now, the group seems thrilled with the new policy announced by Moniz.
“The Department of Energy just created a powerful tool to protect its scientists,” wrote Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, of the new policy.
“The language is strong and precise, giving scientists and science advocates a solid platform to stand on in pushing back against the manipulation and suppression of science and the harassment of scientists,” Halpern said. “Notably, the new policy extends protections to contractors in addition to DOE employees — essential because nearly all of the national labs are run by contractors.”
“It was pointed out a few years ago that our policy wasn’t strong enough,” Moniz acknowledged.
The policy is not a new rule or regulation by the agency, so it would be easier to reverse than such regulatory measures. On the other hand, it would invite controversy if the incoming Trump administration were to try to reverse a policy designed to protect scientific information and those who create it.
“Clarifying our protections for scientific integrity will I think help as our science and technology enterprise moves forward,” Moniz said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/11/on-the-eve-of-trump-obamas-energy-dept-leaves-behind-a-new-scientific-integrity-policy/?utm_term=.576253243c0e
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested