Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/31/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Issues Executive Order to Slash Regulations
Jan 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one issued. -
Senate Panels Likely to Approve Zinke, Perry Confirmations
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
President Trump's Cabinet picks to lead the Departments of the Interior and Energy are expected to sail through a Senate committee vote today, bringing both nominees one step closer to being confirmed. -
Dems Join with GOP to Advance Zinke, Perry
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Corbin Hiar
A Senate committee today approved President Trump's nomination of Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana to lead the Interior Department and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to lead the Energy Department, with a few Democrats joining with Republicans in support of the GOP candidates. -
Perry’s Energy Nomination Advanced by Committee
Jan 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A Senate panel on Tuesday signed off on former Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s nomination to lead the Department of Energy. -
Barrasso Resists Call to Delay Pruitt Vote
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is rejecting calls by Democrats to postpone a committee vote on Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee for U.S. EPA administrator. -
EPA Nominee Pruitt Refused to Promise Asbestos Ban
Jan 31, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Asbestos-triggered diseases kill up to 15,000 Americans each year, and since its introduction in the 1930s this notorious carcinogen has devastated hundreds of thousands of American families. -
(ACC Mentioned) Judge Rules Against Monsanto in Prop 65 Case
Jan 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
California’s use of a listing mechanism that relies on international standards for adding substances to Proposition 65 was deemed constitutional, after a judge ruled against agrochemical firm Monsanto. -
(ACC Mentioned) Health Risk Debated of Hexavalent Chromium in State's Drinking Water
Jan 31, 2017 | Press of Atlantic City
By Michelle Brunetti
Hexavalent chromium, also called chromium 6, is both a naturally occurring chemical and an industrial pollutant and carcinogen found in drinking water supplies throughout New Jersey and the nation. -
The Health Effects of Hormone-Altering Chemicals in Everyday Products
Jan 31, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Erin Schumaker
It’s practically impossible to avoid the chemicals that are prevalent in everyday household goods, from water bottles to furniture and toys to personal care products and cosmetics. -
Energy Industry Says 'No Thanks' to Trump Aid
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
Shopping lists for billions of dollars in potential construction projects that circulated last week raise questions about whether the nation's sprawling energy sector will share in the spoils of an infrastructure plan coming out of Trump's White House. -
Republicans Gear Up to Eliminate BLM's Methane Waste Rule
Jan 31, 2017 | Waste Dive (in Real Clear Energy)
By Robert Walton
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are preparing to roll back the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule, which sought to reduce emissions from oil and gas drilling sites as part of a broader environmental push. -
Capacity for Natural Gas-Generated Electricity Expected to Rise
Jan 30, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
The U.S. Department of Energy expects the capacity of natural gas-fired power plants to grow over the next two years, despite rising costs of natural gas. -
Timeline Again Hazy for Oil Pipeline
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Litigation over the Dakota Access pipeline is again in a holding pattern. -
Zinke Deflects on Fracking Authority Question
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Montana congressman expected to take the helm at the Interior Department declined to take a clear position on whether the agency should have oversight over hydraulic fracturing on public lands. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Ask U.S. Congress to Revoke Industrial Safety Rule
Jan 31, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Twenty-one business groups—including several chemical industry organizations—are urging the U.S. Congress to negate a recent Environmental Protection Agency regulation on chemical safety. -
Decisive Railroading, an Enterprise Perspective
Jan 31, 2017 | Railway Age Magazine
By Ron Lindsey
On the surface, this is to be expected, since the trackage of those railroads consists of 50% Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)—signaled—the other half being Dark Territory—non-signaled—even though one-third of that trackage is Absolute Block Signaling (ABS), a nested level of vitality. -
Trump EPA Weighs CPP Repeal Options, Including 112 Exclusion Reversal
Jan 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves & Doug Obey
The Trump EPA is expected to soon begin weighing options for targeting the agency's power plant greenhouse gas rule, with sources saying the administration faces a dilemma in deciding whether to scrap the rule by reversing the agency's current interpretation of the so-called “112 exclusion,” or to retain the rule but significantly weaken its requirements. -
Inside the Trump Admin's Power Struggle Over Carbon Regs
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Transition officials debated internally about whether the Trump administration should seek a major reversal of U.S. EPA's core authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and it continues today, according to sources. -
Carbon Capture Necessary to Meet Paris Goal — Study
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The global climate can survive the United States abandoning the Paris Agreement, but not a world without widespread carbon capture technologies, researchers said this week.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Issues Executive Order to Slash Regulations
Jan 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one issued.
Mr Trump said the new policy “will be the largest ever cut, by far, in terms of regulations” that the US has seen.
“If you have a regulation you want, number one we’re not going to approve it because it’s already been approved probably in 17 different forms. But if we do, the only way you have a chance is we have to knock out two regulations for every new regulation,” said Mr Trump during its signing.
The executive order takes effect immediately. In total, Mr Trump said he wants to eliminate more than 75% of all federal regulations.
It also calls for agencies to curtail spending on regulations. This year, the cost of each new regulation must be offset by eliminated regulations, creating no new additional expenses for government during the 2017 fiscal year.
Agencies will subsequently be given a regulatory budget administered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), beginning in the 2018 fiscal year. For any regulations that go over that budget, the agency would need written consent from the director of OMB.
Instant reaction
The US Chamber of Commerce praised Mr Trump “for fulfilling the campaign’s promise to take on the regulatory juggernaut that is limiting economic growth, choking small business and putting people out of work”.
The American Chemistry Council added that reducing regulatory burdens on American businesses is a critical step to facilitating economic growth and job creation, especially for the business of chemistry. That is especially true, the ACC said, with the chemistry industry’s recent historic growth.
“In order for this opportunity to be fully realised, we need a sound regulatory landscape that allows the industry to grow and thrive,” it said.
But detractors said the executive order would block important protections.
Representative Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) quickly denounced it: “Arbitrarily requiring the elimination of regulations, without review on a case-by-case basis, is a sloppy and ineffective way to govern.
“While it is possible for Democrats and Republicans to work together to find regulations that may be unnecessary, it is irresponsible for the Trump administration to call for the reduction of two possibly unrelated regulations, when a new regulation is enacted," he said.
Robert Weissman, president of NGO Public Citizen, called the order “radical and unworkable”. He said a number of regulations, including those to implement the new TSCA law, will be “shelved until corporate special interests identify public protections for the Trump administration to repeal”.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, and Larry Culleen, partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, told Chemical Watch that the law is filled with ambiguities, such as what types of costs agencies must consider, and whether benefits that rules confer would be factored in.
For example, the EPA receives fee payments from industry as part of certain requirements of TSCA, noted Mr Culleen. Whether those payments would be considered in the overall cost of a regulation, however, remains unclear in the executive order.
Added Dr Denison: “There’s just all kinds of unanswered questions in this.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/52606/trump-issues-executive-order-to-slash-regulations
-
Senate Panels Likely to Approve Zinke, Perry Confirmations
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
President Trump's Cabinet picks to lead the Departments of the Interior and Energy are expected to sail through a Senate committee vote today, bringing both nominees one step closer to being confirmed.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee will vote this morning on Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), nominee for Interior secretary, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Trump's selection to lead the Department of Energy. Both faced relatively civil confirmation hearings, despite facing tough questions from Senate Democrats regarding their beliefs on climate change.
All of the Republicans on the committee are expected to support both nominees.
In a mark of bipartisan support, Perry was introduced at his confirmation hearing by both a Republican and Democrat.
It appears Zinke will face little or likely no opposition. In a last-minute push against the Montanan congressman, the Sierra Club released a short video yesterday highlighting his environmental record.
"The public deserves someone who will protect America's best idea — not sell it off for fossil fuel development," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "We urge senators to oppose the nomination of Rep. Zinke to head the Department of the Interior."
However, neither candidate has drawn the ire of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is leading Democratic resistance against some of Trump's Cabinet picks. The top targets include former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead U.S. EPA and businesswoman and GOP donor Betsy DeVos, Trump's pick for Education secretary.
Multiple Democratic senators were still reviewing the records of both Perry and Zinke yesterday and had not decided on how they would vote, staffers said.
At least one Democrat said he will vote "no" on Perry.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement last week that he would vote against both Perry and Pruitt, in large part because of the nominees' beliefs on climate change.
"Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity and it is already causing devastating problems in this country and around the world," Sanders said. "We need an EPA Administrator and a Secretary of Energy who are prepared to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and their short term profits, and lead the fight to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energies."
A majority of the committee's senators must vote in favor of the nominees for them to be reported favorably out of committee and to a final vote on the Senate floor.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049234
-
Dems Join with GOP to Advance Zinke, Perry
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Corbin Hiar
A Senate committee today approved President Trump's nomination of Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana to lead the Interior Department and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to lead the Energy Department, with a few Democrats joining with Republicans in support of the GOP candidates.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's 12 Republicans were joined by three Democrats in approving Zinke's nomination to lead Interior on a vote of 16-6-1. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada approved the nomination, as did Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent.
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon abstained, citing concerns about Zinke's possible desire to move the management of the nation's forests into the Interior Department. The Forest Service is currently housed in the Department of Agriculture.
The same bloc of Republicans voted in favor of Perry's nomination to lead DOE in a vote of 16-7. Also supporting Perry were Manchin, Cortez Masto, King and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the committee's Republican chairwoman, told reporters timing for a floor vote isn't clear.
"I wish I could tell you that we were at the front of the line, but I don't know that. I think the good bipartisan vote that we had in committee will be attractive," Murkowski said. "I would think that leadership would want to get these nominees that are perhaps attracting less controversy moved through the process, but I can't tell you that; that's the leader's decision."
Despite the smattering of bipartisan support, the committee's top Democrat spoke at length about the Trump administration's threat to the nation's climate research and work on renewable energy and efficiency.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) questioned Perry's assertions that he would stand up for DOE scientists and their work and pondered aloud how much autonomy Perry would have under the Trump administration.
She also criticized him for refusing to clarify whether he would push back against the Trump administration's reported desire to scrap appropriations for offices within the Energy Department tied to renewables and energy efficiency that have bipartisan support.
"I think it's bad news for energy efficiency and electricity," Cantwell said during an interview following the vote. "We've asked him since the hearing, we've asked him to clarify since the hearing on this, and he said look at his record; when we did, we were like, 'OK, not the direction we want to go.'"
Other committee members signaled that Perry would face pressure should the Trump administration move forward with rumored budget cuts at DOE or projects they oppose.
"We're concerned about that, and that's not his desire to do it, and I'm just hoping he's able to explain to the administration and to President Trump and his people that that's not the right direction to go," Manchin said. "He basically stated that he would not be in support of that. We'll see how much leeway they give him."
Heinrich said he opposed Perry because the former governor called for the elimination of DOE in the past and could pose a threat to climate science and research at the department.
"His past statements on eliminating the department, an unwillingness to commit to the applied energy research and climate science done at our national labs and universities, and the transition team questionnaire that attacked the integrity of climate scientists all signal where the Trump administration is headed," Heinrich said.
Cortez Masto, a Democrat who voted for Perry, said she received assurances in private meetings that he would listen to her concerns about advancing the now-stalled Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in her home state of Nevada.
"I have my fair share of concerns about Gov. Perry's past rhetoric on the science of climate change and the overall value of the Department of Energy's mission," she said. "However, I am encouraged by the fact that when he ran for president, he stated his support for consent-based siting and spoke against Yucca Mountain, arguing that if Nevadans do not want a nuclear repository, then they should not have it."
Cortez Masto said in a statement that Perry is "someone I can work with to ensure Yucca Mountain never sees the light of day." Perry has not yet clarified his position on the nuclear waste project, which stalled under the Obama administration.
King, who voted for both nominees, said that while he differed with Perry and Zinke on a number of issues, he received assurances in private meetings that both nominees would work with him in "good faith," even if that runs counter to Trump's beliefs.
"My vote in support of them today, though, does not mean that I will relent in pushing them to do more on vital issues such as fighting climate change, which affects Maine more and more every year, or promoting clean, renewable energy sources that will benefit people throughout the state," King said in a statement.
Questions for Zinke
Although Cantwell also opposed Zinke's nomination, she expressed optimism about the conservation stance he took during his confirmation hearing (E&E Daily, Jan. 18).
"I know you want to be a Teddy Roosevelt kind of secretary of the Interior," she said after his nomination was reported out. "But right now, you're working with an administration who in their own infrastructure bill says that they're going to pay for it by oil and gas on federal lands, all over federal lands. I don't know where that stops."
Cantwell suggested that her vote against Zinke was mainly in protest of the president he would be serving.
"While I'm not supporting your nomination today, I hope that as we move forward that we see a different response from this White House on how important the resource management of our nation is and the existing environmental law is to our country," she concluded.
Zinke's openness to moving the Forest Service from USDA to Interior was a key concern among some Democratic committee members who opposed his nomination (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
Yesterday, Stabenow, who voted against Zinke, told reporters that such a bureaucratic reshuffling would be "a very bad idea."
The Forest Service mainly manages "land owned by someone, so it's a different approach than public lands," explained Stabenow, the ranking member on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. "That whole approach that we've had on that is to support good stewardship efforts on private lands. So I think the U.S. [Department of Agriculture] is far and away the best to be doing this."
In a statement released after the markup, Wyden elaborated on why he didn't attend or vote by proxy.
"Today I abstained from voting on Rep. Zinke because Oregonians need clarification on recent news reports that indicate he may be interested in moving the management of all the nation's forests into the Department of the Interior, including those currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service," Wyden said in the statement. "Instead of wasting time and taxpayer dollars, what's needed is effective, balanced forest management."
Wyden, however, left open the possibility that he could support Zinke's nomination when it reaches the floor, if he likes what the congressman has to say about the administration's forest priorities.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049292
-
Perry’s Energy Nomination Advanced by Committee
Jan 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A Senate panel on Tuesday signed off on former Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s nomination to lead the Department of Energy.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 17-6 to approve Perry’s nomination, sending it to the full Senate.
During his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Perry was forced to walk back his infamous pledge, from his 2011 presidential run, to abolish the Energy Department if he had been elected.
Instead, he said, he understands and respects the agency’s mission, which focuses on the country’s nuclear arsenal and research activities that span across industries.
“I am committed to modernizing our nuclear stockpile, promoting and developing American energy in all forms, advancing the department’s critical science and technology mission, and carefully disposing of nuclear waste,” he said during his hearing.
During his confirmation hearing, Democrats on the panel expressed concerns about Perry’s position on climate change — he believes in it, but doesn’t know how much influence human activities have on it.
They also pressed Perry on proposed Trump administration cuts to the Department of Energy, begging him to convince the president and others to preserve the agency’s research capacity.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said Tuesday she is worried about Perry's ability to influence the White House, noting President Trump's lack of consultation with the Pentagon on national security executive orders issued last week.
"The governor’s responses for the record left me wondering whether he would stand up to fight the White House’s approach to these programs," she said.
"A lot can be said in the last few days to what the White House’s approach is. Frankly, I don’t think it matters, because if you can have somebody over at the Department of Defense who’s not even consulted on a security memorandum, where is that going to leave Secretary Perry on these issues of nuclear security as well?"
Even so, Republicans said they trusted Perry to run the department smoothly. He is likely to win confirmation comfortably when his nomination goes to the floor.
“I don’t subscribe to the theory that only scientists can manage other scientists,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said at Perry's confirmation hearing, noting the agency’s research mission.
“I think what we need is a good manager. We need a manager to manage all these scientists, one who acknowledges, maybe I don’t know everything in that space, but being capable of organizing, setting direction, imposing accountability, making the greatest possible use of taxpayer dollars and setting goals.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/317049-perrys-energy-nomination-advanced-by-committee
-
Barrasso Resists Call to Delay Pruitt Vote
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is rejecting calls by Democrats to postpone a committee vote on Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee for U.S. EPA administrator.
Barrasso today said his panel is still set to vote tomorrow morning on the Republican Oklahoma attorney general's nomination to lead the agency.
In a letter sent today to Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the committee's ranking member, Barrasso said Pruitt has gone through extensive vetting.
"The committee's review of Attorney General Pruitt's nomination has been unparalleled in its scrutiny, thoroughness, and respect for minority rights. Attorney General Pruitt has answered more questions than any past EPA administrator nominee. He has been comprehensively vetted and has demonstrated his qualifications to lead the EPA," Barrasso said.
Barrasso accused Democrats of stalling Pruitt's confirmation. "More questions, longer time being questioned in committee, and he responded to everything. So it just seems to be obstructive on their part," Barrasso told reporters.
Environmental groups have led a fierce campaign against Pruitt's nomination. EDF Action, the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund, released another television ad blasting the EPA pick today.
Barrasso was responding to a letter from Carper. The ranking member asked the chairman to postpone the vote because Democrats were "deeply concerned about the lack of thoroughness of Mr. Pruitt's responses to our questions for the record."
Failing to provide that information is "an affront," and "it also denies Democratic Committee members, and all members of the Senate, information necessary to judge his fitness to assume the important role of leading the EPA," Carper said.
Carper told reporters today that Democratic members of the EPW Committee were meeting this afternoon to discuss strategy regarding tomorrow's panel vote on Pruitt.
Democrats could not show up to the panel's business meeting tomorrow, which would deny a quorum and scuttle the vote on Pruitt.
Today, Democrats boycotted committee votes on other Trump nominees, including Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary and Tom Price for secretary of Health and Human Services.
Such a move has happened in the past for EPA administrator, including Republicans sitting out a vote on nominee Gina McCarthy in 2013 (Greenwire, May 9, 2013).
Asked about a Democratic boycott of tomorrow's committee vote on Pruitt, the Wyoming senator said it could happen. "Anything's possible around here, as we see," Barrasso said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049295
-
EPA Nominee Pruitt Refused to Promise Asbestos Ban
Jan 31, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Asbestos-triggered diseases kill up to 15,000 Americans each year, and since its introduction in the 1930s this notorious carcinogen has devastated hundreds of thousands of American families. Fifty-eight nations have banned asbestos, but in 1991, a federal court overturned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ban.
Last year, former President Barack Obama signed an update to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act into law, finally giving the EPA authority to ban asbestos use and importation. The agency is moving full steam ahead. But this progress could be stalled if Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee to head the EPA, is confirmed by the Senate.
Last week, in response to written questions from senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Pruitt refused to affirm that he would push through a full ban of asbestos.
Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts noted that mortality records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that from 1999 to 2014, nearly 63,000 Americans died from asbestosis and mesothelioma, an incurable cancer caused only by asbestos exposure. Markey asked Pruitt: "Given this data and your self expressed concern for protecting workers, will you commit now to ensuring the EPA bans the import and use of asbestos under TSCA should you be confirmed?"
Pruitt replied:
Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the Lautenberg Act [TSCA] to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical substance pose an unreasonable risk. Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate. (Emphasis added.)
Given that doctors and government health agencies agree there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, an acceptable response by the man who could be in charge of regulating it might be: "Yes, asbestos is clearly a significant risk to public health and, if confirmed, I will make banning the importation and use of asbestos a priority."
Instead, Pruitt's response was another know-nothing answer from a nominee who previously said he was unsure of whether there is any safe level of exposure to lead (there isn't) and whether banning lead from gasoline was a good move (it was). But we are sure of one thing: Scott Pruitt is uniquely unqualified to lead the EPA.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/01/epa-nominee-pruitt-refused-promise-asbestos-ban
-
(ACC Mentioned) Judge Rules Against Monsanto in Prop 65 Case
Jan 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
California’s use of a listing mechanism that relies on international standards for adding substances to Proposition 65 was deemed constitutional, after a judge ruled against agrochemical firm Monsanto.
In a tentative ruling issued 27 January, Fresno Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan found that California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (Oehha) use of the labour code listing mechanism “does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an outside agency”.
Monsanto brought the suit in January 2016, after Oehha announced its intention to add glyphosate as a carcinogen under Prop 65. The office's proposal followed the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (Iarc) classification of the chemical as a group 2A substance, “probably” carcinogenic to humans.
The labour code mechanism stipulates that materials receiving certain classifications by Iarc “shall be included” on the Prop 65 list of substances known to the state to cause cancer. Stakeholders are not allowed to challenge the science underlying the agency’s classification.
In its suit, Monsanto argued this process is unconstitutional because the state cedes its regulatory authority to an unelected and non-transparent foreign body.
But Ms Kapetan ruled against the company’s claims. The state’s voters and legislature “have established the basic legislative scheme and made the fundamental policy decision with regard to listing possible carcinogens under Proposition 65, and then allowed Iarc to make the highly technical fact-finding decisions with regard to which specific chemicals would be added to the list,” said the ruling.
Monsanto said it plans to appeal the case once a final ruling is issued in a few weeks.
“Regulators around the world – including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) and the state of California itself – have determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer,” a Monsanto spokesperson told Chemical Watch. “The agency’s flawed and baseless proposal to list glyphosate under Proposition 65 not only contradicts California’s own scientific assessment, but it also violates the California and US constitutions.
“Monsanto will continue to challenge this unfounded proposed ruling on the basis of science and the law.”
The case has attracted the attention of the chemical community. If Monsanto’s challenge were successful, the status of substances that have been listed via the labour code mechanism in the past could be called into question.
A 2013 decision in Styrene Information and Research Council v the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, for example, required Oehha to reevaluate four listed substances and six substances under consideration for listing, due to the mechanism questioned in the case.
The lawsuit also came amid increased scrutiny of Iarc's influence in the US.
The American Chemistry Council recently launched a campaign aimed at reforming Iarc's monographs programme, criticising the hazard-based judgements and their impact on regulations and voluntary schemes. The National Institute of Health's funding of the international agency is also being investigated by a US House oversight committee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52605/judge-rules-against-monsanto-in-prop-65-case
-
(ACC Mentioned) Health Risk Debated of Hexavalent Chromium in State's Drinking Water
Jan 31, 2017 | Press of Atlantic City
By Michelle Brunetti
Hexavalent chromium, also called chromium 6, is both a naturally occurring chemical and an industrial pollutant and carcinogen found in drinking water supplies throughout New Jersey and the nation.
But whether the levels in New Jersey’s drinking water present a health risk was debated Monday before the Senate Environment and Energy Committee.
It is the chemical that polluted the water of Hinckley, Calif., prompting Erin Brockovich to become an environmental activist.
The highest level of the hexavalent chromium found in the state was 3.8 ppb, well below both the federal standard for total chromium of 100 ppb and California’s standard for hexavalent chromium of 10 ppb, said Ann Mason, senior director of the American Chemistry Council’s Northeast Region, which represents manufacturers of chemistry.
California is the only state with a specific standard for hexavalent chromium, several speakers said.
In southeastern New Jersey the levels range from a high of .0879 ppb in Cumberland County to a low of .0085 ppb in Cape May County, according to a report by the Environmental Working Group. It released average levels found for all counties in the nation last September.
Mason said the human body detoxifies hexavalent chromium by converting it into trivalent chromium, or chromium 3, which she called an essential micronutrient.
She said studies have shown that only huge doses of the chemical, at a range of 5,000 ppb to 100,000 ppb, pose a cancer risk.
Even at 100 ppb to 1,400 ppb the chemical is transformed into a benign substance by the body, she said.
But David Pringle of Clean Water Action and Jeff Tittel of the New Jersey Sierra Club disagreed, saying that the state’s Drinking Water Quality Institute recommended a state standard of .07 ppb in 2010 but the Department of Environmental Protection never adopted it.
“It’s not surprising we are not in agreement with the American Chemistry Council,” said Pringle. “The council is saying ‘Everything is fine, there’s nothing to see her. Move on.”
Tittel said New Jersey has hundreds of industrial sites where chromium was left as a pollutant, making the issue even more critical in areas of high contamination.
Michael Furrey, chairman of the New Jersey section of the American Water Works Association, which represents all aspects of the drinking water industry, said he believes the Drinking Water Quality Institute is the best source of guidance for legislators.
Several speakers said they felt the institute has been shut down by Governor Chris Christie, but the institute has a Feb. 17 meeting coming up and there are minutes online from a Sept. 16 meeting.
DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said the DWQI stopped meeting in September 2010 and resumed in April 2014.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/health-risk-debated-of-hexavalent-chromium-in-state-s-drinking/article_9eb6cb13-4d9a-59d7-a567-6e8ff8a63401.html
-
The Health Effects of Hormone-Altering Chemicals in Everyday Products
Jan 31, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Erin Schumaker
It’s practically impossible to avoid the chemicals that are prevalent in everyday household goods, from water bottles to furniture and toys to personal care products and cosmetics. And those same chemicals can potentially harm human health by disrupting the body’s endocrine system.
It’s concerning for every demographic, but especially so for pregnant women and women who are trying to conceive, since endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been linked to pregnancy-related complications, including gestational diabetes, maternal obesity, miscarriage and preterm birth. And despite those links, the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate cosmetics, perfume or makeup.
A panel of experts at The Forum at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston will join Erin Schumaker, senior healthy living editor at The Huffington Post, to discuss these issues on Tuesday, and to explain last year’s changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the first update of its kind in 40 years. The updates increase pre-market testing requirements, close trade secret loopholes and put a specific emphasis on evaluating the safety of personal care products used by vulnerable populations.
The panel will also explore racial disparities in environmental chemical exposure and how those disparities negatively impact the health of minorities.
The hourlong event will take place at 12:30 p.m. Tuesday and will feature Russ Hauser, acting chair of the department of environmental health and professor of reproductive physiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Tamarra James-Todd, assistant professor of environmental reproductive and perinatal epidemiology, at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Nneka Leiba, deputy director of research, at the Environmental Working Group; and Pete Myers, founder, CEO and chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences.
After the panel discussion is over, this story will be updated with a video recap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-health-effects-of-hormone-altering-chemicals-in-everyday-products_us_588b68bde4b0303c07532b7c
-
Energy Industry Says 'No Thanks' to Trump Aid
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
Shopping lists for billions of dollars in potential construction projects that circulated last week raise questions about whether the nation's sprawling energy sector will share in the spoils of an infrastructure plan coming out of Trump's White House.
The National Governors Association distributed one list to state governors after the election, and the second came from Senate Democrats. Both contained high-voltage power lines and pipeline proposals.
But even as energy companies hurriedly scanned the lists last week, industry organizations backed away from anything that smacked of taxpayer-funded largess.
"I hope that this is the beginning of a constructive conversation about improvement in, and expansion of, the transmission system," said Kathleen Shea, president of the power industry group WIRES, which advocates for transmission projects.
"Let's be clear, however," she added. "The transmission sector does not seek taxpayer funding for the challenges that ail us. We look for the kind of leadership and vision that fosters practical policy and regulatory solutions at all levels."
To keep up with the needs of rapidly changing U.S. power grid, WIRES has said at least $100 billion will be spent on interstate transmission lines over the next two decades.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the pipeline industry's trade group, tapped the brakes, too. "Interstate natural gas pipelines are privately funded. We've never suggested or called for federal funding," said Catherine Landry, INGAA's communications vice president.
President Trump and Congress start out on the same page on the need for more infrastructure investment. The president told a meeting of Republican congressional members Thursday in Philadelphia, "The thing I do best in life is build."
The Senate Democrats' "A Blueprint to Rebuild America's Infrastructure" promises "a historic $1 trillion federal investment to modernize our crumbling infrastructure and create more than 15 million jobs that our economy desperately needs."
Still, Congress has to find the money to pay for it. The small-government tea party faction could fracture the Republicans, and Senate Democrats face mounting pressure from the left to hammer at Trump's agenda. All the while, Trump is stacking the legislative agenda with efforts to overturn Obama-era regulations.
Another fault line that separates Trump and Senate Democrats is on what an investment in the grid looks like. Should federal cash give a leg up to big-ticket projects designed to move carbon-free energy from wind turbines and utility-scale solar?
"We will invest $100 billion in much-needed power transmission and distribution upgrades, and we will consolidate and reform existing tax incentives for clean, renewable energy," says the Democratic plan.
It also calls for a permanent tax incentive for electricity generation, transportation fuels, and energy efficiency improvements. "The level of incentive would be based on performance: the cleaner the technology or the more energy conserved, the larger the incentive," says the plan.
The White House sees it differently. In its "America First Energy Plan," the White House pledges to use revenues from increased oil and gas production on federal lands to "rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure."
There's no mention of renewable power (Climatewire, Jan. 24, 2017).
The White House statement is also silent on infrastructure support for pipelines and power lines.
Revenue-neutral reality
The biggest clue to the approach the Trump administration may take for privately owned infrastructure is a paper issued during the presidential campaign by equity fund investor Wilbur Ross, Trump's choice to head the Commerce Department, and economist Peter Navarro, an outspoken China critic picked by Trump to head a White House office on trade and industrial policy.
"So far, that's the only plan that we know of associated with the Trump administration," says Reed Hundt, founder of the Coalition for Green Capital.
The Ross-Navarro plan provides large tax credits that would cut income tax obligations for investors in private infrastructure projects. But whether the Ross-Navarro plan was a roadmap for legislation specifically designed to help private-sector projects isn't clear, Hundt said.
"Financing a trillion dollars of infrastructure would necessitate an equity investment of $167 billion, obviously a daunting sum," Ross and Navarro wrote.
They said the tax credits would be recovered from tax collections on the incremental wages of workers hired for the new projects, and, to a lesser extent, from taxes collected on contractor profits.
"The gist of the mechanism is that the private developer would get a big tax credit and would also be able to borrow a lot of money. It is a very attractive plan from a developer's perspective," Hundt said.
"If you really want to have a lot of investment and job creation, what you would want would be a combination of the tax credits plus public-private investment," Hundt said.
"That would be a combination of the Ross plan and the Democratic plan. That would drive a tremendous volume of investment," Hundt added. "Quite an elixir."
Too rich a brew in fact for budget-focused Republicans, says Robert Sussman, senior policy counsel at the EPA during the Obama administration. "I'm skeptical this will come together with the Congress on a fiscal basis that is acceptable to the Republicans," he said.
"I don't think that this would be a high priority for the Republicans in the absence of Trump," Sussman said (E&E Daily, Jan. 25, 2017).
"They are focused on tax cuts, and they've said those need to be revenue neutral, and all of a sudden we're spending $10 billion, $20 billion, $100 billion on infrastructure and the budget goes out of whack," he said. "There will be Republicans in Congress who will be very concerned about that."
The Ross-Navarro approach drew a sharp critique from Ronald Klain, an assistant to President Obama, and an adviser in Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Klain called it "a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors" and a trap for Democrats in Congress.
"Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there's no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. Investors may simply shift capital from unsubsidized projects to subsidized ones and pocket the tax breaks on projects they would have funded anyway," Klain wrote in The Washington Post.
How do we plan for the future?
The Edison Electric Institute's new survey of transmission projects by investor-owned utilities features a selection of more than 150 major projects that were completed in 2015 or are planned over the next four years.
"These featured projects, which represent only a portion of the total transmission investment that EEI's member companies anticipate through 2019, total approximately $41 billion," EEI said. Those appear to be the kinds of projects that Klain said would be built anyway.
There is another issue if the Trump administration gets involved in advancing some energy projects but not others, said James Hoecker, former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and counsel to WIRES.
"How do you decide which is a high priority project? If you had Dakota Access pipeline competing against Keystone, who would decide which one gets built? It's an interesting dilemma," he said. "On the transmission side, the approval process is different but leads to the same problem. Who decides that a particular transmission line is in the public interest? My answer is, everybody."
According to Hoecker, the nation's challenge is not energy projects that are likely to be built without a federal infrastructure boost, but rather needed projects that aren't advancing far enough to win financial support.
Long-range power lines that could link prime Great Plains wind farms or Sun Belt utility solar parks with distant population centers face approval high barriers, for example. "People can't get interregional projects built or even off the drawing board," Hoecker said.
He said the issue isn't as much capital as differences from state to state and across regions in how transmission projects are handled and costs allocated.
The United States is at an inflection point in planning and building a future power grid, and those plans aren't forthcoming fast enough, he said. "There is a likelihood that over the next 10 to 15 years more of our economy is going to be digital," he said. "The transportation industry will be more fully electrified. We're going to need higher quality electric power, and even though demand is relatively flat, we'll be using more power in more ways."
"How do we plan for that, given that it takes 10 years to build a line?" he said. "That kind of planning isn't being done now in most places."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049257
-
Republicans Gear Up to Eliminate BLM's Methane Waste Rule
Jan 31, 2017 | Waste Dive (in Real Clear Energy)
By Robert Walton
Dive Brief:
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are preparing to roll back the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule, which sought to reduce emissions from oil and gas drilling sites as part of a broader environmental push.
The Hill reports the methane regulation and another focused on stream protection will be the target of Congressional Review Act resolutions that would scrap the rules.
President Donald Trump has been moving swiftly to act on campaign promises to reduce regulations in the energy sector as well as in other agencies. Yesterday he signed an executive order requiring that two regulations be eliminated for every new rule the agencies pass.
Dive Insight:
The Trump administration is moving rapidly to fulfill campaign pledges and support energy production, and now Republican lawmakers are lining up to repeal methane restrictions that limit venting and flaring from gas pipelines overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. And while those rules are restricted to the BLM, other rules by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cutting emissions could also be on the chopping block.
While these rules don't apply to utilities directly, they could have an impact on natural gas prices, which have hovered at an all-time low for the past couple of years. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the new rules could boost gas prices at a national average of 0.2% at the wellhead.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), who heads the House's House Natural Resources Committee, told the Hill that the methane regulations were "abusive, last minute regulations," and that lawmakers have "an obligation to ensure executive actions are consistent with congressional intent."
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has urged his Democratic colleagues to fight for the regulations, and in a letter earlier this month, asked for help in fighting "misguided and destructive" efforts to roll them back.
The Methane Waste Prevention Rule could save up to 41 billion cubic feet of gas annually, Grijalva said in the letter. That volume of gas could fuel almost three-quarters of a million homes for a year, he said. The rule would change venting and flaring standards that are 35 years old.
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/republicans-gear-up-to-eliminate-blms-methane-waste-rule/435107/
-
Capacity for Natural Gas-Generated Electricity Expected to Rise
Jan 30, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
The U.S. Department of Energy expects the capacity of natural gas-fired power plants to grow over the next two years, despite rising costs of natural gas.
The use of natural gas to generate electricity continues to grow while the use of coal declines, as it has over the past five years, according to the Energy Department. Low natural gas prices in 2016 and federal environmental regulations meant to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants have driven the country’s shift to natural-gas.
Most of the nation’s new natural gas-fired power plants are getting built in Texas and the Mid-Atlantic states, where the country’s biggest natural gas shale plays are.
Last year, natural gas prices were the lowest since 1999, a price plunge in part driven by technology that unlocked previously unreachable reserves of natural gas in shale formations.. The Energy Department expects natural gas prices to rise in 2017 and 2018, as demand during a colder than average winter depletes natural gas in storage.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/01/30/capacity-for-natural-gas-generated-electricity-expected-to-rise/
-
Timeline Again Hazy for Oil Pipeline
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Litigation over the Dakota Access pipeline is again in a holding pattern.
Among the many unanswered questions from yesterday's courthouse status conference: How does President Trump's pipeline memorandum affect the complex legal dispute over the project? When will the administration issue a final decision? And how long will construction take once final approval is granted?
Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, called the meeting to discuss how last week's executive action changes the multifaceted litigation over the stalled pipeline, which would deliver some 570,000 barrels of oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois.
Trump's decree orders leaders of the Department of the Army and the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider environmental review plans for the project and to promptly issue the final necessary federal easement "to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, and with such conditions as are necessary or appropriate" (Energywire, Jan. 25).
The court, meanwhile, is weighing a cross-claim from Dakota Access LLC seeking a green light to complete construction across contested lands near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. A quick decision from the administration could render the company's claim unnecessary.
"What I don't want to have happen ... is for me to issue a ruling and then to hear immediately thereafter that the issue is moot because the government has taken a further step," Boasberg told attorneys from the government, Dakota Access and two American Indian tribes opposed to the project.
But Justice Department attorney Matthew Marinelli, representing the government, repeatedly declined to estimate a timeline for the administration's final decision on the easement.
The last time government lawyers gave an estimate for a decision on the pipeline — telling the court in September that an easement decision would come in "weeks, not months" — stakeholders in the case waited anxiously for almost three months before getting a final answer from Obama officials.
Boasberg kept pressing. "When do you think you'll know when you'll know?" he asked.
"At this point, I can't give you a timetable for the completion of that decisionmaking process," Marinelli said, adding later: "We at the government share your desire to resolve this case in an efficient manner."
Marinelli also noted that the Army's top civilian, acting Secretary Robert Speer, attended a meeting yesterday to discuss the pipeline (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorney David Debold, representing Dakota Access, urged Boasberg to issue a court order demanding a timeline from Army officials. Boasberg declined to go that far but agreed to schedule another status conference for next Monday and asked DOJ lawyers to come prepared with more information about an anticipated timeline.
"A lot happens over the weekend these days," he said in an apparent reference to the flurry of weekend legal activity that followed Trump's Friday executive order restricting U.S. entry for immigrants from several Muslim-majority countries.
Also during the hearing, Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, raised concerns that if an easement is issued, pipeline builders will be able to complete construction before the court has a chance to consider emergency challenges from the tribe and other opponents. Hasselman urged the court to consider imposing a waiting period that allows challenges to play out before construction begins.
Boasberg noted that he understands the concern and asked Dakota Access lawyers to come to next week's conference with estimates on how quickly pipeline construction could be completed if an easement is issued.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049231
-
Zinke Deflects on Fracking Authority Question
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Montana congressman expected to take the helm at the Interior Department declined to take a clear position on whether the agency should have oversight over hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
Rep. Ryan Zinke (R), President Trump's pick for Interior secretary, addressed fracking authority and a variety of other issues in a 55-page document responding to questions from members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The questions follow up on several topics discussed during Zinke's confirmation hearing before the committee two weeks ago (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) raised the issue of fracking authority — a high-stakes question given a federal court's decision last year that Interior's Bureau of Land Management exceeded its authority in crafting environmental and safety regulations for the oil and gas production technique on public and tribal lands.
"For a century DOI has managed all aspects of oil and gas development on federal lands," Franken wrote. "Do you believe it should exercise the same authority involving wells that are hydraulically fractured?"
Franken piggybacked another question on the first, asking if Zinke supports BLM's recently finalized rule to restrict methane venting and flaring from wells on public lands.
Zinke responded to both with a brief, noncommittal answer, noting that he hasn't been fully briefed on regulatory issues.
"I have not been fully briefed on all the regulatory regimes for coal or for oil and natural gas development on federal lands," he wrote. "If I am confirmed, I will review both of these programs in order to determine what changes may be appropriate in the oil and natural gas leasing program."
But the nominee's position in the issue could prove critical to the fracking rule's future. After the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming struck down the regulation last summer, the Obama administration and environmental groups quickly appealed, calling it a "manifestly incorrect" interpretation of federal laws related to public lands oversight.
Oral arguments before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are scheduled for March 22, with defense of the agency's authority now in the hands of the Trump administration. It's unclear how Zinke and Justice Department lawyers handling the appeal plan to move forward. The administration could continue to defend the rule in court, move to settle the case with challengers or, in an extreme scenario, withdraw the rule before oral arguments (Energywire, Jan. 5).
Whatever the administration's course, environmental interveners in the case have vowed to push forward with their appeal and oppose any attempts to keep BLM from overseeing fracking.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049242
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Ask U.S. Congress to Revoke Industrial Safety Rule
Jan 31, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Twenty-one business groups—including several chemical industry organizations—are urging the U.S. Congress to negate a recent Environmental Protection Agency regulation on chemical safety.
In a letter to leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate, the groups—which include the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates—urged Congress to disapprove of the regulation. That rule modifies EPA’s 25-year-old risk management plan program to reduce chemical plant accidents and protect communities, workers, and emergency responders.
The Obama Administration finalized the rule in late December. Under the Congressional Review Act, lawmakers have 60 legislative days to review the regulation and can vote to nullify it.
The business organizations say the regulation is unnecessary and burdensome and provides unclear safety benefits. The letter argues the regulation “may actually increase security risks given the rule’s expanded public information disclosure requirements.”
EPA made the changes in response to a 2013 executive order from then-President Barack Obama. That directive came in the wake of a warehouse explosion involving ammonium nitrate that killed 15 people in West, Texas. The EPA regulation was the sole regulatory response to the executive order.
The new regulation is aimed at encouraging better communication among emergency responders and requiring independent third-party accident audits and company consideration of inherently safer manufacturing methods.
If Congress blocks a regulation, the Executive Branch can’t reissue it in the same form or in any other variation that is substantially the same. Congress has successfully used the 1996 Congressional Review Act against a regulation only once.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/01/Chemical-makers-ask-US-Congress-to-revoke-industrial-safety-rule.html
-
Decisive Railroading, an Enterprise Perspective
Jan 31, 2017 | Railway Age Magazine
By Ron Lindsey
On the surface, this is to be expected, since the trackage of those railroads consists of 50% Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)—signaled—the other half being Dark Territory—non-signaled—even though one-third of that trackage is Absolute Block Signaling (ABS), a nested level of vitality.
However, there is an advanced level of NGTC, Virtual CTC (VCTC), which has tremendous opportunity for those roads, as well as across the globe. But, it will take suppliers and railroads that are willing to consider paradigm shifts in all four of the Core Technologies. I am referring to the advancements in Communications, Mobile IT Platforms, Positioning and IT Architecture that provide the opportunity to implement Decisive Railroading. This is an advanced level of railroading that can greatly reduce the capital investment and ongoing maintenance expenditures of conventional CTC operations and IT architectures, while improving the efficiency and safety of many freight and passenger railroads alike.
Advancing the safety and efficiency of railroads over the past decade has benefitted from the paradigm shifts in wireless voice to wireless data communications, mobile (on-board) IT processing, and the use of virtual positioning for non-vital systems that do not generate movement authorities. Specifically, some combinations of these three paradigm shifts have provided the means to deploy non-vital Positive Train Control (PTC) in the U.S. and vital European Train Control System (ETCS) on that continent.
However, paradigm shifts in virtual positioning for vital systems and IT Architecture have yet to be considered by most railroads across the globe, and yet they can have an unprecedented positive effect on capital investment and on-going maintenance expenditures. Unfortunately, the major challenge for each of these technologies is rejecting the sunk-cost argument of continuing with CTC and conventional IT architectures and then making the investment in advanced technologies based upon business cases that focus on increasing safety and efficiency, while reducing on-going maintenance costs of physical positioning.
To do so requires both a major shift in staunch perspectives of traditional railroad operations as well as establishing an enterprise perspective of the effectiveness of a railroad’s major departments.
VITAL POSITIONING
The physical positioning of CTC vitality, i.e., track circuits and control points, is well established for railroads for the past century. And yet, virtual positioning, e.g., GPS, is well entrenched in what we do as individuals today. So! Why not use virtual positioning for the vitality of traffic control systems (i.e., determining block occupancy) and thereby eliminate the intensive capital investment and on-going maintenance costs of physical positioning? In fact, there is no reason in my opinion in that the availability of extremely accurate virtual positioning (e.g., augmented GPS) for a train’s front end in sync with end-of-train positioning is available now for at least the main line, if not interlockings, that can meet the accuracy requirement of physical positioning.
One point that those in denial of virtual positioning for vital operations may state is that of broken rail protection. For those individuals I offer the following: 1) One-third of U.S. freight trackage does not have such protection (shades of Federal Railroad Administration hypocrisy); 2) signaling-grade track circuits are not the only means to provide such protection (e.g., acoustic sensing by fiber optic strands along the wayside); and 3) major railroads in Europe, at least, do not require such protection. There are both regulatory challenges and business case analyses that need to be addressed for rationally moving forward as to reducing costs and increasing safety.
With the consideration of virtual positioning, the next level of NGTC is VCTC as my consultancy, Strategic Rail LLC (SR), designed for the railroads of Egypt and Kazakhstan that provides for fixed, flexible, and virtual block operations with expanded PTC functionality. A version of VCTC is now in revenue service in Mozambique provided by a U.S. supplier. However, it is unlikely that most European traffic control suppliers will offer VCTC in the near term because it greatly decreases their revenues as to capital investment and on-going maintenance expenditures.
As a side point, I wish to note that providing PTC protection in freight yards and passenger terminals, e.g., NJ Transit’s Hoboken Terminal, is a straight-forward, no-cost addition to mainline PTC by using Geo-fencing. That is, once a train enters a geo-fenced area (e.g., a yard or terminal), and until it departs, then an increase in speed beyond a defined limit is immediately enforced without warning to the engineer. This addition to PTC requires no capital investment nor GPS reception within the yard or terminal.
IT ARCHITECTURE
Typically, a railroad’s IT Architecture, i.e., the primary systems and the flow of information between those systems, has been developed over time on a department-by-department basis. Hence, the resulting Silo-based IT Architecture (SITA) is likely to result in significant duplication in the generation, processing, storage and distribution of critical data that can have a substantial negative effect on both the efficiency and safety of a railroad’s operations. Instead, what is required is an Enterprise IT Architecture (EITA), as has been deployed by major passenger airline operations, based upon a Single Source of Truth (SSOT) design to address such inefficiencies by eliminating the duplication of data management of SITA.
SR designed an EITA for Kazakhstan’s railroad, Kazakhstan Temir Zholy (KTZ), that can be applied to those railroads willing to make the business case to so deploy. For example, in KTZ’s situation, an excess of 1,000 generations/usages of data flows were identified that could be eliminated with an EITA. Last, from an U.S. freight rail industry perspective, an Industry IT Architecture (IITA) is an absolute requirement for railroads serious about scheduled operations, either individually or as an industry.
The bottom line is that Decisive Railroading is achievable with advanced levels of the core technologies that are now available. But, to do so requires the commitment by senior management of railroads and suppliers alike to provide the business cases so the proper individuals that can make such transitions.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/decisive-railroading-an-enterprise-perspective.html?channel=63
-
Trump EPA Weighs CPP Repeal Options, Including 112 Exclusion Reversal
Jan 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves & Doug Obey
The Trump EPA is expected to soon begin weighing options for targeting the agency's power plant greenhouse gas rule, with sources saying the administration faces a dilemma in deciding whether to scrap the rule by reversing the agency's current interpretation of the so-called “112 exclusion,” or to retain the rule but significantly weaken its requirements.
A third route would be to revoke the Obama administration's landmark finding that GHGs endanger public health and welfare, which forms the basis of all of EPA's climate rules. However, sources have warned that option entails major technical, legal and political risks.
The 112 exclusion option is based on rule opponents' argument that the Clean Air Act bars the agency from regulating a source category under both section 111(d), the section that governs the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and section 112, which is the section EPA used to develop its power sector mercury & air toxics standards (MATS).
The Obama EPA adopted an interpretation of the air act that would allow for both rules to stand, but if the Trump EPA formally adopts critics' argument it could provide a pathway to eliminating the GHG rule entirely without having to address the endangerment finding.
But sources say that a simpler approach would be to rewrite the CPP in a more limited fashion so that it only regulates facilities' emissions by assuming actions that can be taken within a power plant's fenceline. However, that would favor an interpretation in favor of GHG regulation that some oppose.
The new administration also must determine how to proceed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which heard arguments in the legal challenge to the rule, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., in September and could issue a ruling any day.
If the court rules before the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) asks for a remand or vacatur and it upholds the CPP -- as many expect it would based on the arguments -- then that could delay efforts to rewrite the regulation.
Several industry sources say reviving the 112 exclusion argument is a viable option, but it would have to be weighed carefully. Environmentalists say the tactic is fraught with legal risk, while warning that any effort to back track from the CPP as drafted by the Obama EPA will be difficult.
Exclusion Argument
One knowledgeable source says the agency's stance on the 112 exclusion argument will be a key issue for EPA Administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt, if he is confirmed.
Sources expect the Trump EPA along with DOJ to analyze all of the options before deciding on a path forward.
The argument stems from House and Senate amendments to section 111(d) were never reconciled in conference before the 1990 air act amendments were enacted. The Senate amendment would explicitly allow EPA's rule by limiting the provision's “112 exclusion” to pollutants already regulated under the latter section. The House amendment could be read as prohibiting the rule because it focuses on source categories, not pollutants.
The agency could face difficulty in changing its stance now. EPA consistently adopted the view that the exclusion only applies to pollutants, not source categories, under both the under Obama administration's CPP and the George W. Bush administration, which sought to use a section 111(d) approach for mercury and also addressed the exclusion.
One environmentalist attorney says EPA cannot simply reverse course because a new administration has taken over and that it has to have rational legal reasons for doing so.
The knowledgeable source also notes that the D.C. Circuit seemed skeptical of the argument when CPP opponents brought it up during Sept. 27 arguments. Even conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh called it “a hall of mirrors.” If EPA thinks it could lose on the argument when any deregulatory effort goes back to the court, “they would be better off strategically to go ahead and do reasonable regulations” under section 111(d), the source says, referring to the “inside the fenceline” standards approach.
But one industry attorney says there is nothing to prevent a new administration from changing its interpretation and winning Chevron deference from a court the same way the Obama administration adopted its view of the statute in favor of the CPP and then defended that view based in part on its discretion.
Abeyance Request
Industry sources expect that once Pruitt and Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions are confirmed, they will direct staff to file a motion at the D.C. Circuit to hold the case in abeyance so that EPA can administratively review the CPP.
If the court issues a ruling before such a motion -- or if it denies the request -- then the issue becomes more complicated.
But the knowledgeable source says one reason not to expect a court ruling now that Trump has been inaugurated is that judges appointed by Democrats may not “want to take a position on a high-profile case that is going to get you in trouble” and that some would be relieved by an abeyance motion.
The industry source says that if EPA pursues the 112 exclusion approach, Supreme Court precedent suggests it would get deference to offer its own interpretation of the conflicting statutory language.
The source notes that one catch to the argument is that its “viability depends on the continued existence of the MATS,” which faces some lingering legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit. And even if the court upholds the mercury rule, that “does not mean it cannot be revisited” by the new administration.
“My expectation is that EPA will be looking at all the possible alternatives for revising or withdrawing the CPP, ranging from” the 112 exclusion to a narrow inside-the-fenceline rule to reviewing the endangerment finding.
A second industry source expects the new administration to soon let the court know it is not prepared to defend the CPP as structured, and win a remand with a fixed schedule for a replacement rule.
“And I don't know whether the 112 argument is the one they make,” the source says, especially because that issue likely would be re-litigated before the full D.C. Circuit, as the original arguments were, and the court has already appeared skeptical of the claim.
Safer Option
This source believes a more limited rule is the safer path -- an argument also articulated by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute as a way to avoid common law GHG claims.
But a third industry source says the 112 exclusion argument is “clean” and “has the advantage of being the position” of a Supreme Court ruling in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, where the high court ruled that common law GHG cases were preempted by Clean Air Act section 111(d) regulations, while also referencing the 112 exclusion in a footnote.
However, like the others, this source has “no sense” of what the new administration is going to do other than thinking that targeting the CPP will be at the top of the priority list once Senate confirmations are complete.
Also, the source notes that just because the administration is expected to scrap or substantially weaken the rule and that opponents have already won a Supreme Court stay, there is no guarantee that the revocation will be successful. “They still have to get over the evidentiary hurdle” of revoking it to a court's satisfaction.
Yet this source is also not concerned that the administration would be faulted if it switches its position on the 112 exclusion argument, noting that the Obama EPA revised the interpretation offered in the Bush EPA's mercury rule. “I don't see that as a problem.”
While the Trump EPA could advance multiple reasons for revoking the CPP, the source also downplays the reversal of the endangerment finding as one of them. “At some point down the road they may develop enough science to raise the question,” but they are not there yet.
Environmentalists agree that revoking the endangerment finding is likely impossible, but add that no matter what tactic the Trump administration settles on, it will be difficult to reverse the rule. That echoes arguments from former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who has consistently said that a future administration opposed to climate rules would face a “heavy lift” to completely rescind them.
One environmentalist attorney says that using the 112 exclusion to revoke the rule a “fool's errand” because “it's just ludicrous to believe that Congress intended to have EPA choose between regulating mercury and [carbon dioxide]” at power plants. The source adds if the new administration adopts this position, “I am convinced they'd lose this argument in court.”
A second source agrees, arguing that the entire rule will be difficult to walk back because the agency is on record in front of the D.C. Circuit arguing in favor of it. “An agency can change its mind, but it has to have a rational basis for doing that.” New leadership with differing views is not a rational basis “for flipping a 180.”
This source says the new administration will face a tough time changing its position on the agency's fundamental legal authority or need to issue the rule. This source agrees with the others that scaling it back to an “inside the fenceline” standards approach would be easier.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-weighs-cpp-repeal-options-including-112-exclusion-reversal
-
Inside the Trump Admin's Power Struggle Over Carbon Regs
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Transition officials debated internally about whether the Trump administration should seek a major reversal of U.S. EPA's core authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and it continues today, according to sources.
No decision was made about potentially overturning the agency's endangerment finding before President Trump was sworn in, and three sources said independently that a future determination would likely be made jointly by EPA Administrator-designate Scott Pruitt and White House officials.
"It never came to a resolution," said one source who is close to the transition.
The debate reveals an aggressive presence in Trump's orbit. It exceeds the president's own promises to terminate climate regulations like the Clean Power Plan and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The endangerment finding undergirds both of those programs, and conservative opponents to climate action believe that undoing it is the only way to permanently prevent future carbon regulations.
"My personal opinion is that the endangerment finding should be reopened and should be overturned," said Myron Ebell, who argued for undoing the finding as the leader of Trump's transition team at EPA.
Ebell isn't alone. David Kreutzer, an economist with the Heritage Foundation who is working at EPA as a member of Trump's beachhead team, argued in a 2013 paper about the inaccuracies of the endangerment finding.
"In fact, the impacts of global warming may be as beneficial as they could be costly," said the paper, co-written by three authors. "In its endangerment finding and the resulting greenhouse gas regulations, the EPA may be drastically underestimating the benefits of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
Kreutzer referred questions to a spokesman with the EPA beachhead team.
If the endangerment finding is targeted, it could lead to a bitter fight electorally and in the courts with no promise of victory, two of the sources say. One described a harmful "spillover" effect that could spread into U.S. diplomatic circles and energy research efforts.
To this source, rolling back the finding would declare a de-facto climate policy: Warming isn't real.
"Tillerson knows that his job is more difficult if the administration says climate change is a hoax," said the source who is close to the transition, referring to Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson. "Even if the reversal of the endangerment finding is more nuanced than that, that would basically be what Tillerson is dealing with."
Both of the sources believe it's unlikely that efforts to reverse the endangerment finding would succeed, given the scientific, legal and political hurdles. One thinks that Pruitt is strongly disinclined to take it on.
'I don't know quite how they'd do it'
The endangerment finding of 2009 gives EPA its legal footing to require sectors across the economy to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and a handful of other gases. It was the first time that the invisible and often naturally occurring pollutants were found to endanger human health. The finding was initially used to justify new standards on car emissions, and then was expanded to power plants.
Ebell said there's disagreement about whether to target the finding.
"A lot of people in the legal community are opposed to it because they think it would take a huge effort. My answer to that ... is yes, but if it's reopened, it will also take a lot of work by the supporters of the endangerment finding to defend it," he said. "These rules in the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, I don't think we're ever going to get rid of them permanently unless we get rid of the endangerment finding."
Pruitt signaled in his confirmation hearing that he sees no reason to review the endangerment finding, but sources close to the transition believe he'll have to make a decision one way or the other after he's sworn in.
"I mean, that is something where he'd have to pick up the phone and call the White House and say, 'I'm going to take this on' or 'I'm not going to take this on,'" one source said. "And I think there will be a back-and-forth with the White House, absolutely. That will be a decision that he will not make unilaterally, for sure."
Pruitt tried to reverse the finding in federal court in 2012 with more than a dozen other Republican state attorneys general. They lost (Climatewire, Dec. 8, 2016).
The endangerment finding is the result of a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, that said greenhouse gases are an air pollutant. The court ordered EPA to determine if those gases endanger human health, or if the science is too uncertain. Four years later, in December 2009, the agency issued its findings, a move legally requiring it to regulate emission sources.
Christine Todd Whitman, EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, said she's never heard of an endangerment finding being overturned.
"I don't know quite how they'd do it," she said in an interview. "You just don't with the wave of your pen get rid of a Supreme Court decision. This is something that affects all of us."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049261
-
Carbon Capture Necessary to Meet Paris Goal — Study
Jan 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The global climate can survive the United States abandoning the Paris Agreement, but not a world without widespread carbon capture technologies, researchers said this week.
One new study found that if nations fail to invest in technology that captures carbon emissions, it will make the goal of the international climate accords to limit warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius impossible to reach.
The research, published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change, found very few power plants globally are using the technology. Glen Peters, senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo in Norway and lead author of the study, said the world is already at a stage where it has emitted so much carbon, it must be removed from the atmosphere to reduce warming.
Peters shrugged off President Trump's pledge to pull out of the Paris Agreement, saying it is strong enough to withstand that departure.
"If the agreement is so fragile that one country's change of government brings down the Paris Agreement, then the Paris Agreement is not as robust as it should have been," he said. "I'd like to think it's robust enough to withstand Trump, it's built on the national pledges."
Carbon dioxide levels have flatlined in recent years, mostly due to a reduction in coal use in China fueled by economic woes. A cut in the manufacturing of steel and cement amid a softening of its yearslong building boom helped drop energy usage and reliance on coal. However, the study's authors found that masks the true challenges of keeping global warming to 2 C.
A rapid deployment of renewable technology is starting to have a noticeable effect, particularly in the world's largest energy consumers, including the United States, China and Europe, Peters said. The real challenge, he added, is now shifting the global energy system to be carbon neutral within the next few decades.
Now is the time to lock in the gains from the unexpected emissions reductions of the last three years, added Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at CICERO.
"The greatest challenge is the slower-than-expected rollout of technologies to capture and permanently store carbon from fossil fuel and bioenergy combustion," Andrew said. "Most scenarios suggest the need for thousands of facilities with carbon capture and storage by 2030, and this compares with the tens currently proposed."
In the U.S., the economy has driven a reduction in carbon emissions, mostly from a shift away from coal to natural gas, which produces less emissions, the authors found. At the same time, the growth of renewable energy has made it increasingly competitive with fossil fuel resources, and it has grown tremendously in Republican-dominated states such as Texas.
Despite the rhetoric, such gains are unlikely to be rolled back by the Trump administration, Peters said. Even if Trump plans to subsidize coal, Peters said, investors are unlikely to fund a billion-dollar coal-fired power plant that would have to run for decades, through future Democratic presidencies.
"It's like we're in a river flowing downstream and you can try to swim upstream, which is the Trump case, but how far you can maintain it is pretty forward," he said. "If the world is buying mobile phones and you want to go back to an old telephone, then good luck. People see value in new product, it's a bit hard to go back to an old technology."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/31/stories/1060049241
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested