Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 2/7/2017
-
Chemical Firms Succeed with Specialties
Feb 6, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Earnings reports from U.S. chemical firms show they ended 2016 relatively unscathed by an uneven and challenging global business environment. Notably, demand for consumer-oriented specialties buoyed results in the fourth quarter. -
U.S. Immigration Ban Could Lead Affected Chemists to Europe
Feb 6, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Paula Dupraz-Dobias
Although many scientists oppose a presidential order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S., chemists from those nations could head to Europe or elsewhere in the industrialized world. -
DeVos Battle Delays Votes on Energy, Environmental Picks
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
As Senate Democrats last night staged an overnight floor protest of Education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos, Republicans conceded that votes on President Trump's picks to lead U.S. EPA and the Energy, Interior and Commerce departments will be delayed... -
Perry Sidesteps Tough Funding Questions in Written Responses
Feb 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) vowed to quickly get up to speed on a vast array of complex programs within the sprawling Department of Energy but stopped short of committing to keeping all programs or funding the agency at levels comparable to recent years... -
Greens Tell Senators to Dump Zinke
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
A broad coalition of environmental and consumer protection groups today urged senators to reject Rep. Ryan Zinke's bid to lead the Interior Department. -
Safety Board Chief Remains in Place as Trump Reshapes Agencies
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board appears unlikely to become one of the numerous agencies and commissions facing swift early leadership swaps under President Donald Trump, attorneys and advocates tell Bloomberg BNA. -
Let’s Get Dangerous Paint Stripper Chemicals Off Store Shelves
Feb 6, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Under the newly reformed Toxics Substance Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed limits on the use of two common chemicals in paint strippers—methylene chloride (DCM) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). -
(ACC Mentioned) Will This Be The Year For A Styrofoam Ban?
Feb 7, 2017 | Honolulu Civil Beat
By Natanya Friedheim
The quintessential Hawaii plate lunch comes with meat atop two scoops of rice next to mac salad, with sauce overflowing from the cracks of a styrofoam takeout clam. -
Echa Committees Back 1,2-Dichloroethane Authorisation
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis Committees (Rac and Seac) have adopted Opinions supporting the authorisation of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) as an extraction solvent. -
Pipeline Companies Struggle to Contend with Reinvigorated Protests
Feb 6, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher M. Matthews
Pipeline companies are bracing for a new round of volatile protests by environmentalists and other activists in the U.S., a sobering reality that is tempering the industry’s excitement over President Donald Trump’s moves to revive the Keystone XL and Dakota Access projects. -
Expect Trump to Keep Environment, Energy Promises: Former Adviser
Feb 6, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Expect President Donald Trump to follow through on most of the more than three dozen campaign promises he made related to energy and environment policy, said a former top adviser on Trump's transition team. -
House Prepares to Vote on Nullifying Land Planning Rule
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A new overlay of requirements for federal land use planning is a candidate for a Feb. 7 nullification vote in the House as lawmakers prepare to make more use of the Congressional Review Act. -
Northern Access Gets FERC Approval, Capping Big Day for Appalachian Pipelines
Feb 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
FERC rounded out a Northeast trifecta of sorts late Friday when it approved National Fuel Gas Co.'s 490,000 Dth/d Northern Access expansion project, fulfilling management's hopes of getting the project approved before the Commission lost its quorum. -
Environmentalists, States Fight Effort to Delay Utility MACT Suit Briefing
Feb 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and states that support EPA's utility air toxics rule are fighting a request from the power sector and other states to delay briefing in litigation over the agency's cost review for the regulation, rejecting the claim that the transition to the Trump administration... -
Energy Producers Urge Mass. to Revise Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
A Massachusetts proposal to require energy generators to limit their carbon emissions will backfire and cause a regional rise in greenhouse gases, energy producers say. -
Could 3-D Printers Hasten Peak Oil Demand? – Fuel for Thought
Feb 6, 2017 | Platts
By Robert Perkins
A global transition away from oil and gas is well underway as booming renewable energy sources and electric cars portend major changes for the industry. -
NTSB Set to Release Cause of Fiery North Dakota Train Crash
Feb 7, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The National Transportation Safety Board is set to release the cause of a 2013 oil train derailment that set off a series of explosions in North Dakota. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Asks Lobbyists Who Fought EPA How To Make It ‘Great Again’
Feb 6, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Alexander C. Kaufman
A coal lawyer, a chemical industry lobbyist and a libertarian scholar who recently accused the Environmental Protection Agency of “regulatory terrorism” will join a lone advocate for science as witnesses before a Tuesday congressional hearing titled “Making EPA Great Again.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Introduce Bill to "Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency"
Feb 6, 2017 | Truth-Out
By Dahr Jamail
On February 3, Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced a bill titled "To Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency" (EPA). -
GOP Chair Says Report Vindicates Probe into Climate Study
Feb 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The chairman of the House Science Committee is hailing a new report in a British newspaper as vindication of his probe into a major federal climate study. -
Dem Resolution Seeks to Preserve Paris Agreement
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
More than 30 Democrats have backed a resolution committing the House to take meaningful action to ensure President Trump does not issue an executive order to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. -
Congress: CRA Disapproval Resolution Targets CSAPR Update Rule
Feb 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) has introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution seeking to eliminate EPA's recent update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the agency's emissions trading program designed to curb interstate ozone... -
Air Pollution Southern California Pollution Trading Eyed for Possible Phaseout
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A cap-and-trade program covering 276 of Southern California's largest stationary sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides appears to be on the chopping block.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Chemical Firms Succeed with Specialties
Feb 6, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Earnings reports from U.S. chemical firms show they ended 2016 relatively unscathed by an uneven and challenging global business environment. Notably, demand for consumer-oriented specialties buoyed results in the fourth quarter.
But the slow upswing in demand came amid cost-cutting, restructuring, acquisitions and divestments, and negative currency impacts due to the strong dollar. Those factors produced the mixed financial results posted by Dow Chemical, DuPont, and other early-reporting firms.
For example, Dow’s fourth-quarter sales soared by almost 14% to $13 billion compared to last year’s fourth-quarter, primarily due to the addition of Dow Corning’s silicones business.
In contrast, DuPont changed the timing of new seed rollouts, resulting in a 2% decrease in overall sales. It reported volume growth at other major businesses including performance materials and industrial biosciences.
Both firms saw big earnings increases for the quarter. Dow’s $1.1 billion in profits beat analyst expectations, and DuPont came back from a big loss last year to earn $263 million in the fourth quarter.
Eastman Chemical, Praxair, and Ashland reported strong demand for consumer-related specialty chemicals, but earnings were lower than last year, as sales at other businesses lagged.
Chemical executives said they expect continued earnings growth in 2017 of as much as 9–12%, not including currency impacts. But Dow CEO Andrew N. Liveris and Air Products CEO Seifi Ghasemi voiced differing views about how political changes in the U.S. and Europe may affect their industry’s fortunes.
In a conference call with analysts, Liveris praised the Trump Administration, which he said “really has articulated a focus on structural reforms in several areas, including competitive taxes, smart regulation, and fair trade rules.” The President has tapped Liveris to head an effort to turn around U.S. manufacturing.
But Ghasemi, in a report to investors, wrote, “The new Administration in the U.S. has not yet articulated its full economic and foreign policy.” He also sounded a note of caution about the U.K.’s exit from the European Union and said the two factors make the firm “more cautious in our outlook.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i6/Chemical-firms-succeed-specialties.html
-
U.S. Immigration Ban Could Lead Affected Chemists to Europe
Feb 6, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Paula Dupraz-Dobias
Although many scientists oppose a presidential order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S., chemists from those nations could head to Europe or elsewhere in the industrialized world.
David Black, secretary general of the International Council of Scientists, says chemists from affected nations “may seek to go to other developed countries” to pursue their work.
Meanwhile Madeleine Von Holzen, a spokesperson for the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland, says “bilateral informal discussions” had already taking place among EPFL staff and non-U.S. researchers interested in relocating to Switzerland as a result of the executive order.
The school—ranked number one in Europe in chemistry by U.S. News & World Report—operates globally. Some 19% of EPFL scientific publications are coauthored by researchers in the U.S. Approximately 200 students and professors at the institute originate from countries targeted by U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s order, according to EPFL.
Von Holzen says the school is advising a number of affected students from the institute—nationals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—who were expecting to travel to the U.S. after the 90-day ban on their entry expires.
At the University of Cambridge, the head of the chemistry department deferred to a statement issued by the vice-chancellor, Leszek Borysiewicz, in response to questions about the effect of the ban. The statement says, “Even as governments around the world seek to curb freedom of movement, the University of Cambridge remains committed to welcoming the best and brightest students and staff.”
Attempts to contact students or professors at Cambridge, Imperial College London, the University of Oxford, and EPFL were unsuccessful. Representatives from the administrations and student unions told C&EN that students may be uncomfortable speaking as long as their visa statuses may be under threat.
Black tells C&EN that for scientists affected by the ban, the announcement is “career-transforming” as they are unable to work or attend specialized scientific conferences in the U.S.
“Anything that restricts freedom of movement and freedom of cooperation will be a negative for the development of chemistry and other sciences. This is a fundamental truth,” says Black, who is also a professor of organic chemistry at the University of New South Wales in Australia.
Recent popular votes in Europe have changed the panorama for foreign academics and students drawn to certain European countries. Britain’s Brexit referendum last June would affect people from other European Union nations who are working in the U.K. And Switzerland’s electorate in February 2014 voted in favor of an initiative to restrict foreign immigration.
Von Holzen indicated the recruitment process for professors at EPFL was rigorous and could take up to a year. She said the school was mindful of remaining “open for everyone,” and that no decisions had been made yet to introduce a fast-track process for “specific people.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/02/US-immigration-ban-lead-affected.html
-
DeVos Battle Delays Votes on Energy, Environmental Picks
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
As Senate Democrats last night staged an overnight floor protest of Education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos, Republicans conceded that votes on President Trump's picks to lead U.S. EPA and the Energy, Interior and Commerce departments will be delayed until at least next week.
While they cannot filibuster the Cabinet picks, Senate Democrats are opting to voice their displeasure by forcing procedural votes and hours of floor debate. Republicans insist it's little more than an attempt to hamstring the Trump White House that will fall short.
"It's a strategy in search of a goal. They don't have any particular goal in mind because at the end of the day, the president will get the Cabinet that he has nominated and deserves," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said yesterday on the floor.
Senate Environment and Publics Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said "that's my goal" when asked by E&E News yesterday if EPA nominee Scott Pruitt would be confirmed before the Senate leaves for a weeklong recess at the end of next week.
Democrats, however, view Pruitt — the Oklahoma attorney general who has led lawsuits against the agency, including to overturn the Clean Power Plan — as an unacceptable choice to lead EPA. And they have not ruled out a lengthy floor protest like the one used against DeVos to highlight their concern.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who yesterday said he would vote against Pruitt over his fundamental opposition to EPA, said Democrats have not yet decided if they will try to delay Pruitt with lengthy floor speeches and votes. He said party leaders will first have to decide whether Pruitt has adequately replied to hundreds of questions asked by Democrats.
Durbin spoke earlier yesterday at a Sierra Club protest in Chicago against Pruitt. Several green groups, including the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters, said that since December they have collected 1 million signatures on a petition opposing the EPA pick.
Other Democrats coming out yesterday against Pruitt were EPW Committee member Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. None was a surprise, although Brown's early opposition is notable given that he faces re-election in 2018 in a state carried by Trump.
Brown yesterday said Pruitt has "protected polluters over families, done the work of campaign donors over the public and spent this decade trying to undermine the very agency he wants to lead."
Senior EPW Committee member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a close political ally of Pruitt who pushed for his nomination, said the vote would not be moving this week but was not sure it would come up next week.
Inhofe said he has counseled Pruitt to "be patient." He added, "His frustration is all this is happening [but] we have the votes, why aren't we doing something?"
Timelines
The Senate this week is expected to confirm DeVos, attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Health and Human Services nominee Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Treasury nominee Steve Mnuchin.
And next week, aside from Pruitt, the Senate could consider Energy nominee Rick Perry, Interior nominee Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) and Commerce nominee Wilbur Ross, senators and aides suggested.
"I think we are going to get rolling," said Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) when asked if Ross and others would be confirmed by the end of next week.
But Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the GOP did not seem to be pressing to move Zinke and Perry fast. "For people who were in such a hurry to get them out [of committee], they don't seem to be in so much of a hurry now," she added.
Trump's selection for Agriculture secretary, former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R), continued to build support in meetings with senators, but a timeline for his confirmation is unclear as he has yet to even get a confirmation hearing.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who was under consideration for the slot after Trump's election, said after meeting Perdue yesterday that she'll support him. She said she stressed to Perdue the importance of working with Congress to implement a farm bill.
Last week, the National Restaurant Association wrote to senators in favor of Perdue, joined by more than 600 agricultural organizations.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch continues to visit senators this week in anticipation of his confirmation hearing and floor vote next month.
Unlike Cabinet nominees, a Supreme Court nominee can be filibustered, so 60 votes will be needed to advance Gorsuch. The GOP controls 52 Senate seats, meaning that Democratic support will be required.
Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, a red state Democrat facing re-election next year whom the GOP has targeted to support Gorsuch, met the circuit judge yesterday and said clean water and clean air were among the topics discussed.
Tester said he has yet to decide how he'll vote but called for senators to meet with Gorsuch and give him a "fair shake."
Reporters Geof Koss, Marc Heller and Kevin Bogardus contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/07/stories/1060049632
-
Perry Sidesteps Tough Funding Questions in Written Responses
Feb 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) vowed to quickly get up to speed on a vast array of complex programs within the sprawling Department of Energy but stopped short of committing to keeping all programs or funding the agency at levels comparable to recent years, according to documents obtained by E&E News.
Perry, President Trump's nominee to lead the agency, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in response to written questions that he would review "appropriate" funding for a number of programs tied to renewable energy and efficiency currently rumored to be on the chopping block.
Those answers likely fueled opposition from the majority of Democrats on the Senate committee, which voted 16-7 to approve Perry's nomination last month (Greenwire, Jan. 31). All 12 Republicans on the committee supported Perry's nomination, as did Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, along with Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent.
Throughout his answers, Perry carefully steps around funding questions for offices tied to renewable energy and efficiency, as well as billion-dollar loan guarantees.
In one question, Perry was asked whether he would commit to finishing the SunShot Initiative that former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz began. "If I am confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this program," Perry responded.
In yet another question, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) asked Perry whether he would commit to maintaining or increasing funding for programs like the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, the Office of Science, and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy — all of which are rumored to face massive budget cuts under the Trump administration.
If confirmed, Perry said, he would "commit to fully reviewing all aspects of the Department's budget and working with Congress to ensure an appropriate funding level for these programs."
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the panel's top Democrat, probed Perry about his criticism of DOE's loan guarantee program, specifically the now-defunct Solyndra project, all while he created a similar fund in Texas with a "success rate not nearly as high as the federal program." Perry responded that he was proud of his record in the Lone Star State and vowed to review the DOE program.
"I am proud of my record in Texas supporting emerging technologies," Perry wrote. "If confirmed, I commit to reviewing the loan guarantee program and evaluate its successes and failures. I am committed to both investing in energy innovation and using taxpayer dollars responsibly."
But Perry did broadly promise to be fair in funding the agency.
"Should I be confirmed, I have pledged to be an advocate for the department and the programs for which Congress authorizes and appropriates money," he wrote.
Cantwell at Perry's markup blasted the former governor for speaking "eloquently about energy diversification" while choosing to spend his time in office adding 11 new coal plants and suing U.S. EPA "every chance he could."
Cantwell also asked what Perry would do to ensure the loan guarantee program is expanded to ensure the United States leads in cutting-edge energy technology, to which Perry replied, "Until I am more fully briefed, I cannot say whether these programs should be expanded. I share your commitment to ensuring that the U.S. is a leader in cutting edge energy technology."
Questions from Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) veered toward his views on climate change and how he would handle cost-benefit analyses. Perry continually reiterated his assertion that climate change is indeed happening while questioning the link to human activities.
In one question, Wyden asked whether Perry intended to incorporate the social cost of carbon into his cost-benefit analyses and policymaking decisions at DOE. "I intend to review and evaluate all existing mechanisms currently used in the cost-benefit and policy making decisions at the Department of Energy," Perry replied.
In other areas, Perry repeatedly vowed to learn about the agency's functions, telling one Republican senator he had not been fully briefed on the Office of Technology Transitions.
Sanders also appeared to push Perry on his ties to the billionaire Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council, writing, "How can you assure the American people you will be looking out for them as secretary of Energy and not oil industry extremists who have given you hundreds of thousands of dollars and influenced your policy initiatives throughout your entire political career?"
"As governor, I was always looking out for Texans, first and foremost," Perry replied. "If confirmed, I will look out for the good of all Americans with respect to DOE's important mission."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/06/sto%20ries/1060049616
-
Greens Tell Senators to Dump Zinke
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
A broad coalition of environmental and consumer protection groups today urged senators to reject Rep. Ryan Zinke's bid to lead the Interior Department.
The Montana Republican "has prioritized the narrow, short-term interests of corporate and extractive industries, championing dirty fossil fuel development on public lands while supporting significantly reduced environmental review of and public involvement in decisions about this development," the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Citizen and Friends of the Earth wrote to lawmakers.
"Based on this record, we ask that you oppose his nomination," said the letter, which was signed by 167 other groups.
They took particular issue with votes Zinke has cast to increase logging and drilling on public lands and roll back the reach of the Endangered Species Act.
The coalition wasn't swayed by the congressman's steadfast support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 5-decade-old land-buying program.
"While we commend Rep. Zinke for publicly opposing giving away America's public lands to states or private interests, this does not lessen our concern over his record on management of these lands," they wrote. "His short tenure in Congress demonstrates that his views are out of step with the majority of Americans who want to see our public lands protected from rapacious development, endangered species conserved and a livable climate future."
The letter came ahead of a Senate vote on Zinke, the exact timing of which is still up in the air (E&E Daily, Feb. 6).
The congressman is likely to garner more than the 51 votes he needs to be confirmed as Interior secretary. No Republicans have expressed serious concerns about Zinke, and three Democrats and an independent senator backed his nomination last week in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee (Greenwire, Jan. 31).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/06/stories/1060049610
-
Safety Board Chief Remains in Place as Trump Reshapes Agencies
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board appears unlikely to become one of the numerous agencies and commissions facing swift early leadership swaps under President Donald Trump, attorneys and advocates tell Bloomberg BNA.
The Trump administration's swift actions have swapped leadership at agencies and commissions across the board, but the president won't be able to have a hand in molding the CSB in the first few months of transition, attorneys and advocates say. Though in theory a change could tilt the board more in favor of businesses.
Unlike most other government agencies, CSB members can't be removed without reasonable cause, though there is precedent for the agency's leadership to step aside in times of transition. At the same time, industry groups have not pushed for such a change, and the Trump administration would be wise to not “rock the boat that doesn't need rocking,” a refining industry official familiar with the board told Bloomberg BNA. The official asked to remain anonymous because of ongoing litigation involving the CSB.
At a public meeting Jan. 24, CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland said she discussed how the agency would “approach things like obtaining information about federal agency operations, specific agency work, [and] possible commissioner or board nominations in the future, but it was all very high level,” in a transition call with other small agencies.
Leadership changes at other agencies since Trump took office Jan. 20 have included the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. But, Trump's administration can't make similar changes unilaterally at CSB, Mark Farley, an attorney at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in Houston told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“He can nominate a new member to the open seat, but I do not believe he can force Sutherland out of her role before her term ends,” Farley said.
Under the CSB's authorizing legislation, the CSB chairman is also a board member, all five of whom must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. While the White House can remove a chairman or board member, the law states it must be for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Sutherland and Board Member Kristen Kulinowski's terms run through August 2020, while board members Rick Engler and Manny Ehrlich's terms expire in December 2019.
Past Practices
Former CSB Chairman John Bresland who was confirmed twice—first for a five-year term as a board member in 2002, and then again when former President George W. Bush tapped him to lead the CSB for an additional five-year term in 2008—stepped down in 2010 from his leadership position.
Bresland said in a statement it was because two board member positions were empty and “it seems appropriate that the new administration should also have the opportunity to select the chairman.”
He retired from the CSB in 2012 and is now a research fellow and president of a consulting firm.
Bresland and the White House did not respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment Feb. 1.
Under former President Barack Obama, the White House asked for the resignation of former CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso in March 2015 before the expiration of his five-year term. Moure-Eraso was accused of poor management contributing to low staff morale and delayed investigations.
Other board members have stepped in but only during a period in 2015 when the CSB had no confirmed chairman. CSB Board Member Mark Griffon later ran the agency after Moure-Eraso's departure, and the White House later designated CSB Member Rick Engler as acting chairman from when Griffon departed to when Sutherland was confirmed in August 2015.
CSB Adds Staff Before Hiring Freeze
Before the federal hiring freeze instituted by Trump, the CSB hired Tom Zoeller, who will provide input to Sutherland in a role that appears modeled on that of the former managing director position.
That position is held by Daniel Horowitz, who has been on paid administrative leave since June 2015.
CSB spokeswoman Hillary Cohen said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA that Zoeller started work Jan. 17, just days before the new Trump administration issued a hiring freeze for federal agencies.
The CSB also hired a new human resources manager who started in early January, the agency previously said.
“CSB will continue to operate effectively following the change in administration and follow all applicable hiring practices,” Cohen said in an e-mail.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105159076&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105159076&jd=105159076
-
Let’s Get Dangerous Paint Stripper Chemicals Off Store Shelves
Feb 6, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Under the newly reformed Toxics Substance Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed limits on the use of two common chemicals in paint strippers—methylene chloride (DCM) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). Your voice can help make sure the final regulations are strong—take action now to get these dangerous chemicals off store shelves and out of the workplace.
If you’ve ever used a can of paint stripper, you know it smells toxic. But did you know that even short-term exposure could be deadly?
Paint strippers containing DCM have been linked to more than 50 deaths nationwide since the 1980’s—many from projects like refinishing bathtubs in confined spaces. Long-term exposure has been linked to liver toxicity, liver cancer and lung cancer.
NMP exposure puts women of childbearing age and pregnant women—whether exposed at home or on the job—at risk of harm to their fetuses. And workers chronically exposed to NMP are at risk of liver damage and cancer. There’s even evidence that solvent exposure in men can result in damaged sperm causing birth defects and low birth weight.
The good news is that safer alternatives are readily available—but we need EPA to ban both of these chemicals from the products available on store shelves and in the workplace.
EPA has recently begun to take comments on a proposal to ban NMP and DCM for commercial and consumer uses. While they have proposed a clear ban on DCM for commercial and consumer use, EPA proposed a choice between banning NMP or requiring less protective measures to partially control use for paint stripping. Labeling and control measures like gloves and masks on the job aren’t enough. To keep the public safe, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and partners strongly support a total ban on NMP for paint stripping.
There is no excuse for EPA to continue to allow exposures to DCM and NMP in either in the workplace or in a home improvement project. Your voice can help show EPA that the public is watching and wants the most protection possible—sign the petition now.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/02/06/lets-get-dangerous-paint-stripper-chemicals-off-store-shelves/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Will This Be The Year For A Styrofoam Ban?
Feb 7, 2017 | Honolulu Civil Beat
By Natanya Friedheim
The quintessential Hawaii plate lunch comes with meat atop two scoops of rice next to mac salad, with sauce overflowing from the cracks of a styrofoam takeout clam.
This year lawmakers hope a bill will force vendors to replace those single-use containers with more environmentally friendly ones.
Scheduled for a joint committee hearing Wednesday, Senate Bill 1109 would ban food vendors from using styrofoam and other polystyrene containers.
“From an environmental standpoint, it makes sense to move forward on (the bill),” said Sen. Mike Gabbard, who chairs the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee.
The committee is expected to review the bill Wednesday along with the public safety committee, chaired by Sen. Clarence Nishihara.
Gabbard introduced a similar bill in 2013, but it died after its first hearing.
If signed into law, the ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2018.
“The environmental impact is very severe because there are so many creatures affected by it,” said Stuart Coleman of the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit organization that helped draft this year’s Senate bill.
Sitting in landfills or littered on land, polystyrene foam products leach a byproduct — styrene — into land and water, according to the bill. A known carcinogen, the chemical can poison birds, fish and other ocean animals when ingested.
Hawaii residents generate more trash than the national average, about 6.6 pounds of waste per resident per day compared to the national average of 4.4 pounds per day.
That’s especially problematic for polystyrene products. The light material flies away in the wind and ends up on the side of the highway and in oceans.
Worldwide, of all plastics thrown away only 5 percent are effectively recycled while 40 percent ends up in landfills, according to report published last year by the World Economic Forum.
Locally, seabirds are being “devastated by plastic,” says Margaret Wille, co-chair of the Hawaii Democratic Party’s legislative committee. This bill, along with bills to ban oxybenzone sunscreens and bills regarding pesticides are priorities for the Hawaii Democratic Party this year, she said.
Of the 30 testimonies submitted so far on the bill, Gabbard said 26 are in support of the ban.
“Hawaii’s main economic engine is tourism,” Coleman said. “We can’t have foam broken apart and strewn all over the island littering it.”
Hawaii Food Industry Association and the American Chemistry Council opposed a similar Senate bill in 2013, citing faults in biodegradable alternatives to polystyrene containers.
“This bill makes the false assumption that products that would replace polystyrene are somehow manufactured in a vacuum without the use of any raw materials, energy, or water, or fuel to deliver the product,” Lauren Zirbel, the association’s executive director, wrote in testimony then.
The organization also cited concerns that such a ban would put a financial burden on local food establishments.
According to the bill, the Department of Health would issue a warning to vendors that continue to use styrofoam containers. Vendors could be fined $200 if they don’t comply, and fines of $500 thereafter.
Zirbel did not respond to requests for comment Friday.
Last year, San Francisco implemented an extensive ban on polystyrene products. A statewide ban died in California’s state senate in 2011.
Since 2009, six similar bills have been introduced in legislative sessions in Hawaii. Most never made it to a committee hearing.
This year’s Senate bill has no companion measure, though a House bill would ban polystyrene food containers in state-owned and state-run facilities, including public schools.
“Sometimes it takes one, two, three years to pass a bill,” said Sen. Will Espero, who introduced this year’s Senate bill. “It depends on the sentiment of key legislatures and chairs.”
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/02/will-this-be-the-year-for-a-styrofoam-ban/
-
Echa Committees Back 1,2-Dichloroethane Authorisation
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis Committees (Rac and Seac) have adopted Opinions supporting the authorisation of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) as an extraction solvent.
Seac said there appeared to be no suitable alternatives for the substance. And, it added, it had no reservations that would change the validity of applicant Grupa Lotos' conclusion that overall benefits of the use outweigh the risk to human health.
And in its opinion Rac said "it is not possible to determine a Dnel (derived no-effect level) for the carcinogenic properties of the substance."
It said the operational conditions and risk management measures described in the application limit the risk so long as they are "adhered to along with the suggested conditions and monitoring arrangements".
The duration of the review period for the use was recommended as 12 years.
Polish petroleum company Grupa Lotos made the application for authorisation last February. It applied for the specific use of EDC as an extraction solvent in the de-waxing of petroleum vacuum distillates and de-asphalted oil and de-oiling of slack wax for the production of base oils and paraffinic waxes.
The Opinions, published on 17 January, said the applicant had planned additional worker exposure measurements. It would include all sources of release to the air in the exposure assessment in any authorisation review report submitted.
According to Echa statistics released last week, from 2012 to 30 January 2017 there were 15 applications for uses of EDC from 17 applicants.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53390/echa-committees-back-12-dichloroethane-authorisation
-
Pipeline Companies Struggle to Contend with Reinvigorated Protests
Feb 6, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher M. Matthews
Pipeline companies are bracing for a new round of volatile protests by environmentalists and other activists in the U.S., a sobering reality that is tempering the industry’s excitement over President Donald Trump’s moves to revive the Keystone XL and Dakota Access projects.
Even as they cheer the removal of former President Barack Obama’s regulatory roadblocks, executives at some of the largest U.S. pipeline companies say the industry is struggling with how to confront a potentially bigger obstacle: the reinvigorated protest movement.
Some companies have begun shifting strategies, deploying sophisticated government and public-affairs operations that model modern political campaigns. Others continue to pursue their projects more quietly, seeking approval from landowners and regulators and eschewing conspicuous public engagement.
Energy Transfer Partners LP, the company behind the Dakota Access oil pipeline, is among those engaged in internal debate over its strategy, according to people familiar with the matter.
Advisers to Kelcy Warren, the company’s billionaire founder and chief executive, have urged him to bolster public outreach, the people said. They have suggested that better messaging earlier might have avoided the months of high-profile protests by Native American activists and others that blocked completion of the pipeline’s last leg.
Mr. Warren remained largely silent as protests ramped up last year. “[O]ur corporate mindset has long been to keep our head down and do our work,” he wrote in a September memo meant to rally employees. “It has not been my preference to engage in a media/PR battle.”
An engineer by training, the Texas native became more vocal as the protests intensified, and he reached out personally to the chief of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Following an impromptu strategy session at a Texas ranch late last year, company executives hoped they would reach consensus the company needed a more robust public-affairs campaign, one person familiar with the meeting said. But when Mr. Trump signed an executive order last week paving the way for the pipeline, the company went radio silent, declining to respond to media requests.
“Energy Transfer is evaluating all its communications strategies on a number of levels, so that they can take what I would call ‘lessons learned’ and apply them moving forward,” Vicki Granado, whose public relations firm represent the company, said last week. The company doesn’t have an in-house spokesman.
Whether the Dakota Access protests, and the opposition to Keystone before it, were really a wake-up call for the industry remains to be seen. But they should be, said Brigham McCown, a former official at the Department of Transportation during the George W. Bush Administration who now serves as an adviser to pipeline companies.
“The landscape has forever changed,” he said. “You’re going to have to convince people why your project is important.”
Some companies have taken the lessons of recent protests to heart. Virginia-based Dominion Resources Inc. conducted polling, organized focus groups of customers and sought support from local governments, unions and others to garner support for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 550-mile conduit that will transport natural gas from West Virginia to the East Coast.
The pipeline has sparked large protests, though not on the scale of those against Dakota Access. It has also won bipartisan support, including from Virginia’s governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe.
Executives at two competitors pointed to Dominion’s efforts as the model for what they should be doing but aren’t.
Pipeline companies have traditionally focused on acquiring the right of way along a proposed route and lobbying state and federal legislators and regulators. Some have used budgets to purchase fire engines, playgrounds or other civic needs for affected communities.
“You have to focus on explaining the benefits—creating jobs, heating people’s homes,” said Chet Wade, Dominion’s vice president of corporate communications.
Dominion, also an electric utility, bought television ads in Virginia and North Carolina describing project safety and economic benefits, and flooded state and local meetings on the projects with supporters.
Matt Yonka, president of the Virginia Building and Construction Trades Council, a union representing 20,000 construction workers, is among those who have spoken in favor. He said the group has sent members to meetings and done interviews with journalists because the pipeline would create 8,800 construction jobs and take 2,200 more to maintain and monitor.
Earlier in January, four unions, including the international Brotherhood of Teamsters, wrote the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to voice support for Energy Transfer’s Rover Pipeline, a project to take natural gas from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Michigan.
Activists say the union support of pipeline projects is a challenge to their movement that they must address. But they say the era of pipeline protests is just getting started.
“Now that Donald Trump is in office, I actually think the pipeline companies are in worse shape,” said Jane Kleeb, dubbed the “Keystone Killer” for organizing opposition to that project.
Pipeline companies, she said, can “buy towns fire stations, trucks and new playgrounds, but their actions speak louder than those outreach efforts.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pipeline-companies-struggle-to-contend-with-reinvigorated-protests-1486389602
-
Expect Trump to Keep Environment, Energy Promises: Former Adviser
Feb 6, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Expect President Donald Trump to follow through on most of the more than three dozen campaign promises he made related to energy and environment policy, said a former top adviser on Trump's transition team.
Trump's promises from the campaign trail include backing out of a blockbuster international climate agreement and gutting several major Obama-era actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, said Myron Ebell, who oversaw the transition to the new administration's EPA.
Following through on several promises related to the EPA wouldn't need congressional approval and could be carried out by a much leaner agency, Ebell said, encouraging Trump to decrease the size and budget of the EPA.
“We didn't spend a lot of time looking at how the administration could approach Congress and ask for legislation,” Ebell told reporters at a Society of Environmental Journalists event Feb. 4. “If you want to have inaction in recent years, particularly on energy and environment policy, you go to Congress.”
Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment, emphasized that he couldn't speak on behalf of the new administration. However, he helped prepare a roughly 75-page action plan for the EPA and has had the ear of Trump on energy and environment issues.
Energy and Environment Priorities
Ebell lauded Trump's commitment to complete his campaign promises, such as getting the U.S. out of the United Nation's global climate change agreement reached in late 2015 in Paris, and repealing the so-called waters of the U.S. rule, which is meant to clarify the definition of protected wetlands. Also among the priority actions is rolling back the Obama administration's signature Clean Power Plan to restrict carbon emissions from power plants, he said.
Ebell said the president would attempt to complete all 42 of his promises in this area as quickly as possible. He estimated that Trump would complete approximately 30 of those pledges over the next four years.
Trump has already signed an executive order, for example, to advance the Keystone XL pipeline from the Canadian oil sands through the U.S., an expansion that was stopped by President Barack Obama, and which Trump discussed numerous times on the campaign trail.
Abolishing the EPA isn't among Trump's energy and environment-related campaign “promises"—as counted by transition officials—Ebell said, although the president did say he would like to eliminate the agency.
Ebell also said that should Trump determine any of his campaign promises were wrong, he wouldn't necessarily be tied to them going forward.
Ebell's EPA Vision
Ebell said he personally hopes the EPA will be significantly smaller than its existing body—smaller by 50 to 67 percent of its budget.
Environmental pollution directly affecting public health has been “dramatically improved” since the EPA came into being and states have taken on a major role in those efforts, Ebell said.
“We need to look to cut federal spending and federal programs,” Ebell said. “It seems to me that agencies that have largely succeeded in their mission and largely devolved all of their work to other agencies at the state-level should be prime candidates for budget cuts.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105159058&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105159058&jd=105159058
-
House Prepares to Vote on Nullifying Land Planning Rule
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A new overlay of requirements for federal land use planning is a candidate for a Feb. 7 nullification vote in the House as lawmakers prepare to make more use of the Congressional Review Act.
Republicans are taking aim at a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule called the Planning 2.0 rule. Resolutions to rescind it have been introduced in the House by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and in the Senate by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
“If left intact, it will harm grazing, timber, energy and mineral development, and recreation on our public lands,” Murkowski said in a statement issued Jan. 30. “Effective multiple-use management requires local, site-specific considerations, not landscape-level analyses.”
The rule adds an unnecessary complicating layer of requirements to existing land management planning, and it increases the authority of BLM headquarters staff rather than leaning on regional experts, according to Murkowski.
She and other critics also said the rule reduces public engagement and weakens the role of governors’ consistency reviews mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
Final Rule Fails to Calm Critics
The BLM responded to critics of its rule by insisting that it will try to coordinate its plans with other federal, state, local and tribal plans to the extent practical, as required by FLPMA. That, in explanations accompanying the Dec. 16, 2016, publication of the final rule, apparently failed to mollify critics.
Murkowski and Cheney said they received letters of support for their intention to nullify the rule from mining, ranching, farming and energy associations in addition to the National Association of Counties, National Association of Conservation Districts and various state officials.
The land management rule emphasized landscape-level planning, a concept often mentioned but difficult to clarify and justify, to judge by the criticism of it. The landscape scale of planning would at times cross state borders and could needlessly complicate permitting, critics said.
“Planning areas respect state borders because the interests of states are not something that can be lightly brushed aside in the name of ill-defined landscape-scale principles,” the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group, said in its comments on the proposed rule (RIN:1004-AE39).
A Congressional Review Act vote in the Senate has not yet been scheduled for the Planning 2.0 rule.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105159077&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105159077&jd=105159077
-
Northern Access Gets FERC Approval, Capping Big Day for Appalachian Pipelines
Feb 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
FERC rounded out a Northeast trifecta of sorts late Friday when it approved National Fuel Gas Co.'s 490,000 Dth/d Northern Access expansion project, fulfilling management's hopes of getting the project approved before the Commission lost its quorum.
NFG's exploration and production subsidiary, Seneca Resources Corp., saw its outlook improve in the fiscal first quarter, which started in October, as Appalachian spot prices were up allowing it to open more wells after two years of voluntary curtailments in Pennsylvania. CEO Ronald Tanski said Friday before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the project that its "biggest opportunity to increase the value of the company hinges on the installation of more pipeline infrastructure to move gas out" of the state.
FERC's order granting NFG subsidiaries certificates of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate Northern Access was one of several that came on Commissioner Norman Bay's last day, which now leaves the Commission without a quorum and the inability to vote on important projects or rules. Northern Access was one of the last projects approved and notice was issued after hours on Friday.
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. and Empire Pipeline Inc. filed a joint application for the project in March 2015. Initially expected to be in-service late last year, the project was delayed in February 2016 after NFG said curtailments and a reduction in drilling activity would make it difficult to fill. Last month, the company said unanticipated delays in FERC's approval process would limit its ability to start development along portions of the 99-mile route before designated environmental protection periods begin this April and last through the end of July.
The company said on Saturday that it's still targeting its fiscal 2Q2018 for in-service, but it can now move forward with securing the remaining rights-of-way, clearing trees and construction. Northern Access would expand the Empire and NFG Supply systems to move gas from Seneca-operated wells in Northwest Pennsylvania to markets in New York, Canada and the Northeast and Midwest. It would consist of 99-miles of new pipeline in McKean County, PA, and Allegheny, Cattaraugus, Niagara and Erie counties, NY, along with compression facilities.
"As the Northeast becomes increasingly more reliant on this nearby supply source, and in order to meet the growing demand from residential and commercial customers as well as from electric utilities that are replacing their coal-fired electric plants with natural gas-fired generation, the infrastructure required to provide these supplies must be built," said Empire President Ronald Kraemer.
Seneca also got relief on Friday with FERC's approval of the 1.7 Bcf/d Atlantic Sunrise project, which would move Marcellus gas to markets in the Southeast through the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. system. Seneca has contracted for more than 189,000 Dth/d on Atlantic Sunrise. FERC also approved a third major Northeast takeaway project on Friday with a certificate for the 3.25 Bcf/d Rover Pipeline project.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109316-northern-access-gets-ferc-approval-capping-big-day-for-appalachian-pipelines
-
Environmentalists, States Fight Effort to Delay Utility MACT Suit Briefing
Feb 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and states that support EPA's utility air toxics rule are fighting a request from the power sector and other states to delay briefing in litigation over the agency's cost review for the regulation, rejecting the claim that the transition to the Trump administration warrants the delay to allow time for potential new settlement talks.
The change from the Obama EPA to the new administration does not constitute the “extraordinarily compelling reasons” required to alter established briefing deadlines in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues the coalition of environmentalists and 17 states in a Feb. 3 filing with the court.
States and groups opposed to the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule in the case are seeking to overturn EPA's revised finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate air toxics from the sector under the Clean Air Act. The suit contests the re-issued version of the finding from April, which added a review of implementation costs as required by the Supreme Court in its 2015 ruling in Michigan v. EPA.
The finding is a legal prerequisite for the MACT, but critics say EPA's revision does not adequately weigh the costs and benefits of the MACT. They claim the MACT's costs in fact greatly outweigh the benefits, contrary to the Obama EPA's position -- and in a Jan. 31 motion asked to delay briefing in the case.
The motion in Murray Energy Corporation, et al., v. EPA cited the Trump administration and called for a 45-day briefing deadline extension that “would allow the new administration to evaluate whether alternative resolution of any of these issues, such as settlement of the case involving further rulemaking proceedings, would be possible.”
The motion was signed by a host of states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, plus industry organization the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) and coal mining company Murray Energy.
But the environmentalists and states in their new filing say the petitioners fail to demonstrate an “extraordinarily compelling reason” for a briefing deadline extension as required under D.C. Circuit rules.
The MACT's defenders in the case “would be significantly prejudiced by any extension of the existing briefing schedule, which would extend the regulatory uncertainty that harms state, industry, and non-governmental organization Respondent-Intervenors in different but significant ways,” the filing says.
Further, the “extension is not warranted, and would serve only to further delay resolution of the long-running litigation over EPA’s regulation of powerplant hazardous air emissions, nearly seventeen years after EPA first determined that such pollution needed to be controlled,” the groups argue.
Future 'Speculation'
The states supporting the rule say that there is no prospect of them settling the case, and a delay would harm their interests. States backing the rule are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. They are joined by a broad coalition of environmental and public health groups.
It “remains a matter of speculation whether the new Administration will be inclined to propose, let alone finalize, any changes to the Rule,” according to the states' and environmentalists' filing, which notes that the Trump administration has not weighed in on the request for a briefing deadline extension. Further, “there is no reasonable prospect for a settlement with regard to the Respondent-Intervenors, each of whom has long supported the Air Toxics Rule, and now firmly supports” EPA’s supplemental “appropriate and necessary” finding.
Utilities Calpine and Exelon, which generate much of their power from natural gas or nuclear power, are also intervening in the case on EPA's behalf. “This climate of perpetual litigation harms the electric power industry,” the states and environmentalists say, and call for the court to avoid further delay in the case.
Meanwhile, another suit brought by Pennsylvania coal waste-burning utility ARIPPA continues over EPA's refusal to reconsider aspects of the MACT that the firm says discriminate against its power plants. UARG is also challenging EPA's refusal to reconsider some issues in the case.
The suit is being heard in parallel to Murray Energy, and is set for oral argument on the same day and before the same panel, whose members are yet to be determined. Petitioners in that case also issued a Jan. 31 motion for a 45-day briefing extension.
Pending Litigation
Should the Trump EPA under its expected deregulatory policy opt not to defend the revised cost finding, and hence the MACT itself, it will fall to environmental groups, states and industry supporting the rule to defend it.
The case has twice been before the D.C. Circuit, and once before the high court, which split 5-4 in its Michigan decision that faulted the appropriate and necessary finding, with the court's opinion authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
The proposed briefing delay in Murray Energy and ARIPPA would push the due date of briefs from environmentalist intervenors defending EPA from Feb. 10 to March 27, reply briefs of states and industry petitioners from Feb. 24 until April 10, and final briefs from all parties from March 24 until May 8. Final briefs in ARIPPA would be due May 18 under the proposed delay in that case.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-states-fight-effort-delay-utility-mact-suit-briefing
-
Energy Producers Urge Mass. to Revise Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
A Massachusetts proposal to require energy generators to limit their carbon emissions will backfire and cause a regional rise in greenhouse gases, energy producers say.
But environmental organizations and renewable-energy companies generally support the draft rules aimed at bringing the state into compliance with emissions targets in a 2008 state law, with some of them calling for those rules to be strengthened.
The draft regulations from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would require total carbon emissions by 2020 to be 25 percent lower than 1990 levels. Electricity generators would have to curb emissions 4 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050.
Gases to Increase
The draft rules would cause energy producers to run at less than capacity to meet the stricter requirements, Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association, said at a Feb. 6 department hearing on the proposed regulations.
To continue meeting the high electricity demand in Massachusetts, the plants also would purchase power from neighboring states with less-stringent emissions rules, causing emissions to rise regionally, including in Massachusetts, Dolan said.
“Our modeling indicates that the proposed regulations will shift electricity generation out of state, will jeopardize the future of natural gas plants in the state, will raise the cost of electricity for consumers and will not reduce [carbon dioxide] emissions in New England,” said Bruce Wilcoxon, environmental affairs director at Dynergy, a power producer.
A better way to curb greenhouse gases is for the state to continue to work with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Wilcoxon said. The initiative is a cooperative cap-and-trade system involving Massachusetts and eight other New England and mid-Atlantic states.
“The proposed regulations make for bad energy policy and for bad environmental policy, and we recommend the state reconsider” the draft rules, Wilcoxon said.
Include Carbon Pricing
Brookfield Renewable, a company that generates electricity from New England hydropower and wind power, supports the draft rules but wants the department to add carbon pricing and transparency to the rules, said Michael Cuzzi, a senior director for government affairs and policy with the company.
The simplest way to include carbon pricing in the regulations would be to use the Social Cost of Carbon estimates that the federal Environmental Protection Agency uses to assess the economic benefits of rulemakings that reduce carbon dioxide, Cuzzi said.
The draft rules are a good start but have several weaknesses, said Susan Helms Daley, a volunteer with Mothers Out Front, an environmental organization.
“As drafted, the DEP would cap emissions only through 2020,” Daley said. The 2008 law requires the state to set greenhouse gas limits through 2050, she said.
In addition, the department has merely estimated the contribution of gas leaks to greenhouse gas emissions. The department should take advantage of existing technology to accurately measure the amount of methane emitted through those leaks, Daley said.
“We are eager to see methane emissions reduced as soon as possible. Let's hold utility companies strictly accountable for leaks that occur on their watch,” Daley said.
States Must Take Charge
It is more important than ever that Massachusetts set strict caps on greenhouse gas emissions, given the likelihood that the Trump administration will not, said David Zeek, a volunteer with the Massachusetts Sierra Club.
“States need to take the lead on greenhouse gas reductions,” Zeek said.
The DEP proposed the rules in December to comply with a May 17, 2016, decision by the Supreme Judicial Court that current emissions limits would cause the state to miss the targets spelled out in the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act.
The proposed regulations will be finalized by Aug. 11, 2017, and will not require approval from the legislature, a department aide told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 6. The DEP is accepting public comments through Feb. 24.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105159068&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105159068&jd=105159068
-
Could 3-D Printers Hasten Peak Oil Demand? – Fuel for Thought
Feb 6, 2017 | Platts
By Robert Perkins
A global transition away from oil and gas is well underway as booming renewable energy sources and electric cars portend major changes for the industry.
Last week BP outlined the challenges ahead, but the company’s crystal ball has yet to focus on the disruptive potential from what may be the biggest paradigm shift in manufacturing since the advent of the factory.
Speaking at the launch of its annual long-term forecast, BP’s chief economist said the oil major is planning to grapple with the energy demand implications of the digital economy’s fast-growing upstart, 3-D printing. Also known as additive manufacturing, most technology watchers predict that the applications found for 3-D printing will only accelerate as networked automation, robotics, and Big Data become more pervasive.
“One of the things I think could really be transformative is additive manufacturing — artificial intelligence, 3-D printing and so on,” BP’s Dale Spencer said presenting BP’s energy outlook.
“Suppose additive manufacturing really took off, so we do 3D printing of more and more things. The whole nature of trade, the whole nature of supply chain, changes fundamentally. I do not need to ship goods from one part of the world to another, I print it.”
Indeed, the demand stakes of a slower than expected growth in road and maritime freight are significant. Over 90% of international bunker fuel use is dedicated to maritime freight and, added to road and air haulage, freight transportation accounts for over a quarter of global oil consumption, according to the IEA.
Forecasts for the growth of the 3-D printing are also bullish as technology improves. McKinsey in 2013 projected the market could explode from $5.2 billion to anywhere from $180 to $490 billion by 2025.
Others are more conservative but still bullish. Last year Wohler Associates, an additive manufacturing consultancy, estimated the market will quadruple to reach $21 billion by 2020, up from $5.2 billion in 2015.
But there are still many caveats over how 3-D printing could hit demand for oil.
While 3-D printing could disrupt traditional oil-powered supply chains, the manufacturing process itself is more energy intensive due mainly to longer production times and the peripheral devices needed to build up materials layer by layer.
According to one comparative study published in 2014, the energy consumption of additive manufacturing is estimated to be 100-fold higher than that of conventional bulk-forming processes, such as injection molding. Printing does save on materials but for most applications, their energy footprint offsets this benefit.
Demand destruction or new demand center?
A mitigating factor, however, would be the lifetime energy savings from more complex but lighter printed parts, for example, in the aerospace industry.
While some supply chains could become smaller and simpler, others may become larger and more complex. Local deliveries of made-to-order printed products to multiple end users would likely rise, made possible by more provincial production of goods.
The impact on oil companies may also be allayed as, even if 3-D printing takes off, the raw materials needed to print still need to be produced and transported traditionally.
After all, increasing volumes of crude will still go to fuel petrochemicals and feed the world’s appetite for plastics. The energy inputs needed to power printers and more digital tech will also still likely come from natural gas, a key earnings driver which many oil companies are rightly now paying more heed.
While acknowledging the demand destruction ahead, BP’s report assumes that global oil demand could actually peak later than some recent market watchers think.
Baseline estimates under BP’s outlook are for oil demand to start falling during the mid-2040’s after hitting 106 million b/d in 2035, up from 93 million b/d in 2016.
The figures make BP more bullish over oil demand than the International Energy Agency which in November predicted oil consumption would almost flat line by 2040 when it reaches 103.5 million b/d.
They also put the oil major at odds with a increasingly emerging view that oil demand could peak within the next 10-20 years. Admittedly, most of the alarming predictions are based on a sharp and radical switch to low carbon fuels needed to implement the Paris Accord on limiting climate change.
But with US President Trump now talking of leaving the Paris Accord, it may be innovations in the manufacturing sector that lead the way to lower carbon future.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/02/06/3-d-printers-hasten-peak-oil-demand-fuel-thought/
-
NTSB Set to Release Cause of Fiery North Dakota Train Crash
Feb 7, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The National Transportation Safety Board is set to release the cause of a 2013 oil train derailment that set off a series of explosions in North Dakota.
The accident happened when a train carrying soybeans derailed in front of an oil tanker train near the small town of Casselton. About 1,400 residents were evacuated from their homes, but no one was hurt.
NTSB investigators previously said a broken train axle from the grain train was discovered at the scene, and the agency ordered the recall of more than 40 axles.
The incident happened 30 miles from the Fargo and Moorhead, Minnesota, metropolitan area and contributed to a national discussion about the safety of moving oil by train.
The board will release its findings during a meeting in Washington.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ntsb-set-to-release-cause-of-fiery-north-dakota-train-crash/2017/02/07/eac455e0-ed03-11e6-a100-fdaaf400369a_story.html?utm_term=.007eb9bc41c2
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Asks Lobbyists Who Fought EPA How To Make It ‘Great Again’
Feb 6, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Alexander C. Kaufman
A coal lawyer, a chemical industry lobbyist and a libertarian scholar who recently accused the Environmental Protection Agency of “regulatory terrorism” will join a lone advocate for science as witnesses before a Tuesday congressional hearing titled “Making EPA Great Again.”
The four witnesses will “discuss how EPA can pursue environmental protection and protect public health by relying on sound science,” according to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
The hearing marks the Science Committee’s first meeting since the Republican-controlled Congress convened and President Donald Trump took office. Since he became chairman of the committee in 2013, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has pursued such an ideologically driven agenda, including what critics dubbed “witch hunts” meant to tarnish the credibility of scientists, that some now call it the “House (anti)science panel.” As a vocal skeptic of the widely accepted science behind manmade global warming, The Texas Tribune suggested Smith will be “invigorated by the new climate change-doubting presidential administration.”
Those invited to testify seem likely to echo the chairman’s views.
Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s law firm, Bracewell LLP, became a top lobbyist for coal and utility companies after he served as assistant EPA administrator under President George W. Bush. During his time there, the EPA weakened environmental rules and politically attacked scientists. The agency became “less independent than its predecessors and more closely tied to the White House’s ideology,” according to the educational nonprofit American Chemical Society.
Holmstead has fought tighter EPA restrictions on mercury emissions from power plants, celebrating victory when the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the rules unfairly failed to consider compliance costs for businesses. The electricity industry remains the largest source of carbon pollution in the country, producing 30 percent of total emissions, due to its dependence on dirty-burning coal and methane-leaking natural gas.
Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products at the American Chemistry Council, works for the country’s largest chemical manufacturing trade association, which in 2013 fought the EPA in the Supreme Court to block new rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
That same year, the trade association sued California regulators to prevent the state from placing new restrictions on bisphenol A, or BPA, a potentially harmful chemical agent used to strengthen plastic bottles. The council wields tremendous lobbying influence, spending $86.4 million on those efforts from 2006 through 2016, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
In eight pages of prewritten testimony for Tuesday’s hearing, White accused the EPA of using irrelevant or out-of-date data and procedures when drafting new regulations.
Jason Johnston, a scholar at the Cato Institute ― which was founded by billionaire oil and chemical mogul Charles Koch ― last year equated President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce carbon pollution from utilities with “regulatory terrorism.” As far back as 2008, Johnston has railed against what he called “misguided regulation of greenhouse gas emissions” as a result of “climate change alarmism.” That’s a stance familiar to the fossil fuel industry. In one academic paper, he sought to poke holes in the scientific consensus on global warming by picking apart language used by researchers in what he called the “climate establishment.”
The only would-be dissenter on a panel weighted heavily in favor of corporate polluters is Rush Holt Jr., chief executive of the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science. Holt, a physicist, served as a Democratic congressman from New Jersey for 16 years.
He said he plans to urge the committee not to put too much weight on the scientific opinions of polluters. He also wants to walk lawmakers through methods for identifying “the best science.”
“It’s all too frequently that policies and regulations for some years now have been made with more emphasis on politically partisan ideology than on science,” Holt told The Huffington Post on Monday. “Science has usually not had a big place at the table, if any place at the table.”
“I guess I’d say it’s about normal that they only have one serious scientist out of four witnesses,” he added, referring to himself.
Smith, Holmstead and Johnston did not respond to requests for comment.
But Ben Schreiber, senior political strategist at the environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth, was not pleased by the hearing line-up.
“This fits right into the Trump world of alternative facts,” Schreiber told HuffPost. “You no longer have to be a scientist to comment on science. It’s terrifying.”
To the new Trump administration, a history of filing lawsuits against the EPA appears to be a sound qualification for shaping the agency. The president picked Scott Pruitt, the fossil fuel-backed Oklahoma attorney general who has sued the EPA 14 times, to lead the agency. Trump also named Myron Ebell, a hawkish climate science denier, to oversee the EPA transition team. A once-fringe political figure, Ebell last week said that Trump was taking steps to eliminate the EPA altogether. In fact, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has drafted a bill that aims to “completely abolish” the agency by the end of 2018, HuffPost reported last week.
At the very least, the news site Axios reported last month, the Trump team is considering major cuts to the EPA’s budget, including slashing hundreds of millions from grants to states and Native American tribes, climate programs, and environmental programs and management.
This article has been updated to include White’s prepared statement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-house-science-committee_us_5898a983e4b0c1284f2718d5
-
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Introduce Bill to "Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency"
Feb 6, 2017 | Truth-Out
By Dahr Jamail
On February 3, Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced a bill titled "To Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency" (EPA).
This is a sign of how a majority-Republican House of Representatives now emboldened by a fiercely anti-environmental Donald Trump presidency is acting rapidly to dismantle as much environmental regulation as possible. The bill is co-sponsored by three other Republican representatives: Rep. Massie Thomas of Kentucky, Rep. Steven Palazzo of Mississippi and Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia.
Make the EPA Great Again
Ironically, the bill to abolish the EPA is part of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee's plan to "Make the EPA Great Again."
A hearing on the bill will be held Tuesday, February 7, and the witnesses include Kimberly White, a senior director of chemical products and technology with the American Chemistry Council, as well as Jeffrey Holmstead.
Holmstead is a lobbyist representing energy companies, and in 2001, was appointed as the assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, where he played a key role in the George W. Bush administration's efforts to dramatically scale back clean air and climate change protections.
He is infamous for saying, "The benefits of reducing mercury are very insignificant."
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee is well known for being vehemently anti-science, and is led by Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who led the charge to intimidate environmental groups who had called for Exxon to be investigated for its climate fraud. The committee recently tweeted an article from Breitbart that insinuated doubt about the science behind climate disruption.
According to The Intercept, the aim of the "Make the EPA Great Again" hearing is to essentially prevent the EPA from using the best scientific studies available for its policy making, as well as disallow the use of studies from single events, like the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, because the bill will eliminate the use of studies that cannot be repeated.
For example, the hearing would include reversing the EPA's decision to eliminate all agricultural uses of pesticides that include chlorpyrifos, which deleteriously impact children.
The bill is just one part of an effort by both the Republican Congress and the Trump administration to neuter, if not abolish, the EPA and any other government agency that holds sway over regulating polluters.
With oil-and-gas-errand-boy Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt soon to be -- almost assuredly -- sworn in as head of the embattled EPA, it is clear that the EPA will soon be gutted from within.
"The point here will be, more than in any prior administration, to reduce the agency's effectiveness so much that it can't recover even when the political winds change," David Doniger, a former EPA lawyer who now works for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told the New York Times, discussing Pruitt's goals.
Meanwhile, Representative Gaetz' bill aims to eliminate the agency entirely.
Representative Gaetz has received massive amounts of funding from the oil and gas industry, and has also introduced bills like the "Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act," the "Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act of 2017," the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017," the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017" and the "Disapproving of President Obama and his administration's refusal to veto the anti-Israel resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on December 23, 2016."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39377-republicans-introduce-bill-to-terminate-the-environmental-protection-agency
-
GOP Chair Says Report Vindicates Probe into Climate Study
Feb 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The chairman of the House Science Committee is hailing a new report in a British newspaper as vindication of his probe into a major federal climate study.
In a weekend report from the Daily Mail, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researcher outlined concerns he has about the data underpinning a major 2015 federal study refuting a potential pause in the rate of warming around the globe.
Dr. John Bates told the Daily Mail that the study — called the “Karl study,” after its lead author — was rushed out so as to have an impact on international climate negotiations. He also questioned the quality of the data used to reach the conclusions in the report.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the House Science Committee chairman who was butted heads with NOAA and other federal scientists over climate issues, said Bates’s statements justify the probe he has launched into the study.
“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn,” he said in a statement.
“Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.”
Shortly after the Karl study came out, Smith requested documents from NOAA asking how researchers came to their conclusions. He eventually issued the agency a subpoena for more information.
Democrats have defended NOAA’s research and called Smith’s efforts a “fishing expedition.”
The Daily Mail report and Smith’s reaction to it come as Congress begins to mull the future of federal environmental research and regulations under President Trump.
White House transition advisers have reportedly pushed Trump to support deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA’s Earth Science department, both of which deal with federal climate work.
Smith himself is hosting a committee hearing on Tuesday called “Making EPA Great Again,” which will “examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s process for evaluating and using science during its regulatory decision making activities.”
Environmentalists and scientists have worried the GOP will use its power to gut federal climate research and move away from the scientific and regulatory approach of the Obama administration.
Several former government scientists have rushed to defend the Karl study since the Daily Mail story came out.
A co-author of the Karl paper questioned Bates’s conclusions in an interview with Ars Technica. The researcher, Thomas Peterson, said the study wasn’t rushed out for publication, and that he and others within NOAA had actually been pushing to release new climate information more quickly.
In a post at Carbon Brief, a Berkley Earth researcher noted that the results of the Karl study — primarily its new figures on warm ocean temperatures — have been verified by other scientists.
“The “astonishing evidence” that David Rose purports to reveal in no way changes our understanding of modern warming or our best estimates of recent rates of warming,” the researcher, Zeke Hausfather, wrote.
“It does not in any way change the evidence that policymakers have at their disposal when deciding how to address the threats posed by climate change.”
NOAA and NASA in January concluded that 2016 was the warmest year on record, beating the mark established in 2015 and capping an observed, decades-long warming trend that started in the 1970s.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318131-gop-chair-says-report-vindicates-probe-into-climate-study
-
Dem Resolution Seeks to Preserve Paris Agreement
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
More than 30 Democrats have backed a resolution committing the House to take meaningful action to ensure President Trump does not issue an executive order to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
The symbolic measure, H. Res. 85, stresses the potential for international diplomatic backlash and economic turmoil if the U.S. walks away from the promises made in 2015 at a United Nations summit.
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), its sponsor, said the U.S. faces the choice of denying climate change "and the economic potential of addressing it, or embracing the challenge before us through developing technology to ensure not only the health of our planet, but the enduring strength of our economy."
The freshman lawmaker is a former deputy state treasurer and solar energy entrepreneur who won a competitive race for the seat previously held by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D), with the backing of the League of Conservation Voters and other green groups (Climatewire, Nov. 9, 2016).
"If we abandon our commitments made in Paris, we will cede the leadership of the green economy to China and other nations," Krishnamoorthi said.
Trump has sent mixed signals on the Paris Agreement.
Krishnamoorthi introduced the bill one day after the Senate confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has said he thinks it's important that the United States "maintain its seat at the table" for international climate negotiations (E&E News PM, Feb. 1).
Republicans on Capitol Hill, including Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), have suggested the Trump administration would realize that the nonbinding agreement is "toothless" and probably not immediately withdraw.
However, the White House remains hostile to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's signature strategy for fulfilling commitments to slash carbon emissions.
The resolution highlights rising temperatures that smashed global records in 2016, and the potential negative consequences if the U.S. abandons efforts to fight climate change.
Krishnamoorthi's office framed the measure as "the largest act of congressional resistance to the Trump environmental agenda to date."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/07/stories/1060049634
-
Congress: CRA Disapproval Resolution Targets CSAPR Update Rule
Feb 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) has introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution seeking to eliminate EPA's recent update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the agency's emissions trading program designed to curb interstate ozone and particulate matter emissions from power plants.
Toomey introduced the measure, S.J. Res. 21, in the Senate Feb. 3, where it is under consideration by the Environment & Public Works Committee. Under the CRA, Congress can vote by a simple majority to eliminate recently-issued rules and to prevent agencies from promulgating “substantially similar” rules in the future. But the measure's fate is unclear as at press time it had no co-sponsors.
EPA's CSAPR update rule issued in September tailors the rule to help meet the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The regulation is eligible for repeal under the CRA because it was issued after June 13, the cutoff date identified by the Congressional Research Service to meet the law's application to rules issued within 60 legislative days.
EPA's regulation is intended to update an earlier version, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and was designed to help states meet the weaker 1997 NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb.
The update applies to 22 states, rather than the 28 covered at one time by the original rule, and tightens state emissions caps for ozone-forming nitrogen oxides. The rule left unchanged sulfur dioxide state caps, designed to meet fine particulate matter standards.
States and industry groups are also suing to overturn the CSAPR update rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in suits consolidated under State of Wisconsin, et al. v. EPA, et al., but the suit has yet to enter the briefing phase.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/congress-cra-disapproval-resolution-targets-csapr-update-rule
-
Air Pollution Southern California Pollution Trading Eyed for Possible Phaseout
Feb 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A cap-and-trade program covering 276 of Southern California's largest stationary sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides appears to be on the chopping block.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market, or RECLAIM, has come under fire from the state, Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups because major stationary sources, particularly oil refineries, regulated under the program have failed to install best-available retrofit control technologies. State and federal clean air laws require market-based programs to be as effective as traditional direct regulations.
“Everyone knows that RECLAIM has run its course,” William A. Burke, chairman of the South Coast air district's governing board, said at a Feb. 3 public hearing. “The question is how do we phase it out without chaos.”
Burke's comment came in response to industry group comments urging the air district to carefully weigh phasing out the trading program.The final draft of the clean air plan proposes a 2031 sunset date for the trading program and replacing it with direct regulations. Industry and business groups had considered that move just a possibility that regulators would consider in 15 years. Wayne Nastri, the air district's executive officer, said the program could possibly be wound down earlier.
The state's review of the program and the air district's recent amendments to RECLAIM is still pending, California Air Resources Board Deputy Executive Officer Kurt Karperos told Bloomberg BNA.
Groups representing oil refineries and other stationary sources support the trading program. Some of them acknowledged smaller businesses may not mind being phased out of the program.
RECLAIM “has out-performed command-and-control regulations,” Bill Quinn of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance told Bloomberg BNA.
Quinn and other business and industry groups urged the air district to fully analyze changes to RECLAIM.Vote Postponed
Discussion of RECLAIM came as the air board decided to wait another month to consider a new plan to tackle the region's stubborn air pollution problem.
The governing board postponed a vote on the 15-year plan designed to bring Los Angeles and surrounding areas into attainment with federal clean air standards.
The one-month delay bumps consideration of the plan to March 3, just three weeks before state officials are scheduled to weigh in. It's unknown whether the air district's decision to wait forces the California Air Resources Board to postpone action on the plan, now set for its March 23-24 meeting.
The state can't review the plan to ensure it meets state and federal Clean Air Act requirements “until the air district has completed and acted on the plan,” CARB's Karperos told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 3, the day of the meeting.
Board member Clark E. Parker Sr. was unable to attend the meeting, and a majority of the air district board sought the vote delay until he was available.
Meanwhile, the governor's appointee to the board, Joe Lyou, told Bloomberg BNA he needs more time review the proposed plan.
“This is the first time the entire board has met to review it,” Lyou said.Groups Get More Time to Lobby
Approved on a 9-3 vote, the postponement gives environmental advocates more time to lobby for changes to reduce the plan's reliance on largely voluntary mobile-source measures. Meanwhile, business and industry groups have more time to press the air district to preserve the plan as proposed and pledge to carefully consider a proposal to unwind the region's 22-year-old emissions trading program to curb nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions from stationary sources.
At the Feb. 3 hearing, over 100 environmental, public health activists and local citizens pressed the air district board to amend the plan to impose emissions caps on the marine container ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, rail yards and massive warehouse projects to reduce emissions of diesel soot and nitrogen oxides from the operation of those facilities.Mobile Sources Reductions Key
The draft 2016 Air Quality Management Plan banks on receiving $1 billion a year from yet-to-be-identified public and private sources to cut nitrogen oxide emissions 45 percent by 2023 and another 55 percent by 2031 to meet federal ozone standards. Reducing the nitrogen oxide by those levels will also help the region attain the particulate standards, the air district said.
“Your board needs to deal with mobile sources to bring the region into attainment,” Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Pettit told the board. Strong indirect source rules are needed, he said.
Only the federal government and California have authority to regulate mobile-source emissions, but a court did clear the way for regional air districts to regulate indirect sources of air pollution, or emissions associated with developments such as the ports, rail yards and warehouse distribution centers, Pettit told Bloomberg BNA.
The plan also should be amended to guarantee that oil refineries regulated under RECLAIM install equipment to reduce emissions, Pettit said.
As currently proposed, the draft clean air plan charts a path to attainment with the 1979, 1997 and 2008 national air quality standards for ozone and the 2006 and 2012 standards for fine particulates.
Key elements of the plan depend on existing stationary source controls, few if any new measures, state and federal mobile source emissions reduction programs and California's climate policies.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105159079&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105159079&jd=105159079
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested