Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/10/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Trade Group Attacks Cancer Research Agency
Feb 10, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
The American Chemistry Council, the U.S. chemical industry’s main trade group, has launched the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research to attack the credibility of reports on chemicals from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. -
Enter the Inhofe Infantry
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
If you're looking to build an army of government aides with experience fighting climate regulations, sparring with environmentalists and cracking down on U.S. EPA, alumni of Sen. Jim Inhofe's office are an obvious place to start. -
Stakeholders Flag Early Concerns on EPA TSCA Risk Evaluation Proposal
Feb 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Stakeholders tracking EPA's implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are flagging early concerns over the agency's draft rule to establish a chemical risk evaluation process under the new law, including how the agency will consider the various uses of substances and how it will make inferences from chemical risk data. -
First Annual TSCA Report on Chemical Risk Evaluation Posted
Feb 10, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Manufacturers take note: on Feb. 14 the EPA will hold a public meeting about the initial 10 chemicals it will evaluate for environment, health and safety risks under the amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Extends TCE Rules' Input Deadline Over Environmentalists' Opposition
Feb 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has granted in part chemical makers' request to extend the comment deadline for two proposed rules to ban uses of the ubiquitous solvent and cleaning agent trichloroethylene (TCE) using EPA's revamped Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, over the objections of environmentalists who say any delay will harm human health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Head of Cefic Sets Out Priorities for 2017
Feb 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Cefic's director general, Marco Mensink, says feeding into the REACH review to drive improvements and helping SMEs with the 2018 registration deadline will be the "core and centre" of the organisation's agenda this year. -
Aise Urges Changes to eSDSs and Substance Evaluation Process
Feb 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Significant improvements to the EU REACH regime are needed to ensure better health and environmental protection and to reverse its negative effect on R&D and innovation, says soap and detergents trade body Aise. -
'Legislative Glitch' Could Drive Rule Reversal
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the Clean Power Plan awaits its inevitable death, lawyers are watching closely to see exactly how the landmark climate rule meets its end. -
GOP Bill Would Gut EPA
Feb 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Republican is sponsoring legislation to do away with large portions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including environmental justice and greenhouse gas programs. -
Study Casts Doubt on Emission Benefits of Natural Gas
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
New research on the Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania challenges the relative climate benefits of natural gas production. -
Pipeline Foes Await Court Action
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
After a scramble to the courthouse to block the Dakota Access pipeline from moving forward this week, opponents of the project are now impatiently waiting for a Monday hearing on the matter. -
Calif. Looks Into Shutting Down Aliso Canyon
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's utility regulator will analyze whether the state should permanently shutter the natural gas storage facility where a record-breaking methane leak occurred. -
Latest Draft of Trump Cyber Order Emphasizes 'Risk'
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
The White House plans to direct federal agencies to build a U.S. cybersecurity policy around computer systems "at greatest risk of attacks," according to the latest draft of an executive order. -
Railroad Commission Pleads Case for More Funding
Feb 10, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
Funding for the Railroad Commission is not sufficient for the agency to do its job regulating the state’s oil and gas industry and protecting public health and safety, the commission’s chairwoman told a legislative committee Thursday. -
CN Reveals 2017 Capex Plans
Feb 10, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
CN plans to spend 2.5 billion Canadian dollars on its 2017 capital program to improve core infrastructure, the Class I announced yesterday. -
Trump Brings Big Change to Climate Policies
Feb 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress are working to undo President Obama’s actions on climate change, underlining what could be a major shift on a policy that affects the world. -
The Trump Administration Can’t Entirely Roll Back Progress on Climate Change — Here’s Why
Feb 10, 2017 | Washington Post
By Jessica F. Green
Environmentalists are not happy with the Trump administration. There are rumors that Trump might withdraw from the landmark Paris climate agreement on climate change. -
3 Examples from His Senate Testimony Show Scott Pruitt Can't Be Trusted with Climate Science
Feb 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Scott Weaver
As a climate scientist I’ve been trained to base my conclusions strictly on scientific evidence and not on politics. This is why I find it so troubling that President Trump’s pickfor the top job at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency openly misrepresented scientific data during his confirmation process. -
Experts Say Courts Might Wait to Review Trump Alternatives for Air Rules
Feb 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmental law experts say federal courts might postpone ruling on major Obama-era air rules, such as EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rule, opting instead to pass judgment on any Trump administration actions to modify or repeal those regulations in lieu of ruling on the merits of the Obama EPA's policies.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Trade Group Attacks Cancer Research Agency
Feb 10, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
The American Chemistry Council, the U.S. chemical industry’s main trade group, has launched the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research to attack the credibility of reports on chemicals from the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The trade group claims that the agency, which operates under the World Health Organization, suffers from persistent scientific and process deficiencies that result in public confusion and misinformed policy-making. The IARC counters that the charges are wrong and misleading.
The report, or monograph, that ACC most criticizes is the one concluding that the herbicide glyphosate, invented by Monsanto, is a probable carcinogen. But the group is also critical of IARC’s carcinogenic labeling of other chemicals. Those determinations are used, for instance, to place warnings on consumer products under California’s Proposition 65, “despite an often infinitesimal risk of developing cancer as a result of products’ proper use,” ACC says.
“The IARC Monographs Program has been responsible for countless misleading headlines about the safety of the food we eat, the jobs we do, and the products we use in our daily lives,” says ACC CEO Cal Dooley. The campaign’s website also calls out IARC’s findings that red meat and cell phone radio frequencies are carcinogenic. It says the monograph program lacks transparency and has conflicts of interest.
An IARC spokesperson tells C&EN that the ACC campaign is full of misrepresentations and inaccuracies that are reminiscent of strategies used years ago by tobacco companies to cast doubt on scientific findings about the dangers of cigarette smoking.
“Unsurprisingly, the ACC, as a chemical industry trade association whose members include Monsanto, is defending its vested interests through this action,” the IARC spokesperson adds.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i7/Chemical-trade-group-attacks-cancer.html
-
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
If you're looking to build an army of government aides with experience fighting climate regulations, sparring with environmentalists and cracking down on U.S. EPA, alumni of Sen. Jim Inhofe's office are an obvious place to start.
The Trump administration is doing just that, eyeing at least five current and former aides to the Oklahoma Republican for top political jobs working on energy in the White House and in EPA. And the ranks of former Inhofe aides in the executive branch are expected to grow as the Trump team continues to fill out the raft of vacant political slots in agencies across the government.
"Given the number of Inhofe staffers who are joining the administration, every inner agency discussion on energy and environment is going to be an alumni reunion," a source close to the administration said.
For many energy insiders, it makes sense that an incoming Republican administration would look to Inhofe's staff as a farm team, given that the senator has spent more than a decade as the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — with jurisdiction over EPA and environmental policy. The expected influx of Inhofe aides is worrisome, however, to greens who view the Oklahoma senator — a proud critic of mainstream climate change science — as an extremist.
Inhofe "has had a collection of extremely talented, policy-driven staffers over the years, so to me it strikes me as pretty logical that these guys would find themselves in senior positions in a Republican administration," said Stephen Brown, a lobbyist at Tesoro Corp. and former House Democratic staffer. "This is not unusual at all. These guys all have pedigrees independent of Inhofe."
Environmentalists who have done battle with Inhofe and his aides over the years aren't pleased.
"Sen. Inhofe is perhaps the most severe critic of EPA in its entire history, and it's like a bizarro world to see an administration full of Inhofe staffers now supervising the very agencies that Inhofe himself has been so harsh about," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. "From a standpoint of environmental advocates, how could it get any worse? It's like a nightmare scenario."
John Walke, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the expected hires are "part of a pattern of the Trump administration choosing environmental and energy advisers from the fringe of policy and legal discussions. We saw this early on with the selection of outliers like Myron Ebell heading the EPA transition team and a figure like Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, whose only environmental credentials consist of suing EPA again and again to weaken health protections."
So far, President Trump is expected to bring on former Inhofe aides Mike Catanzaro and George David Banks as energy aides in the National Economic Council and National Security Council, respectively. They're expected to play lead roles in shaping domestic and international energy and environmental policies (Greenwire, Feb. 8).
Catanzaro was Inhofe's deputy staff director on EPW from 2009 until 2011. Banks was deputy staff director from 2011 until 2012.
Another longtime Inhofe aide, Ryan Jackson, is expected to become EPA's chief of staff after the likely confirmation of Pruitt as EPA administrator. Jackson has worked as Inhofe's chief of staff and as EPW staff director.
George Sugiyama, who was on the Trump EPA transition team and is now a political staffer at the agency, was Republican chief counsel on the EPW committee.
As the Trump administration prepares to select a deputy EPA administrator, another former Inhofe aide has emerged as a lead contender, according to sources close to the administration's transition process.
Andrew Wheeler, former EPW staff director and chief counsel under Inhofe, has met with Pruitt and is in the running for the No. 2 job at EPA, the sources said. Wheeler, who is now at FaegreBD Consulting, was an energy adviser to the Trump campaign. Among Wheeler's lobbying clients last year was coal giant Murray Energy Corp., led by vocal Trump supporter Bob Murray.
Another prospect for EPA deputy administrator is Donald van der Vaart, former secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the sources told E&E News. The former DEQ secretary penned a letter to Trump last year — along with other state environmental officials — telling Trump that EPA has "run out of control." That letter, published by North Carolina Health News, urged Trump to "return environmental leadership to the states."
Both of those candidates have met with Pruitt about the job, the sources said, and a decision is expected to be announced after Pruitt's likely confirmation by the Senate.
The Wall Street Journal first reported yesterday that Wheeler and van der Vaart were in the running for the EPA deputy administrator post.
Several sources have suggested Pruitt could be eyeing a bid for Oklahoma governor in 2018, when current Gov. Mary Fallin (R) hits her term limit.
But that appears unlikely. The Hatch Act generally bars federal employees — apart from the president and vice president — from running in partisan elections, so it appears as though Pruitt would need to resign from EPA if he wanted to run for governor in 2018.
Another possible option for Pruitt would be a run for Inhofe's Senate seat when the senator's term expires in 2020.
Inhofe, 82, told E&E News in September that he had no plans to retire. But some sources suggested he might be willing to step down if he were comfortable with his likely successor. Inhofe has been a strong advocate of Pruitt during the confirmation process.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/10/stories/1060049898
-
Stakeholders Flag Early Concerns on EPA TSCA Risk Evaluation Proposal
Feb 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Stakeholders tracking EPA's implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are flagging early concerns over the agency's draft rule to establish a chemical risk evaluation process under the new law, including how the agency will consider the various uses of substances and how it will make inferences from chemical risk data.
EPA has until June 2017 to develop criteria and a final implementing rule outlining how agency staff will establish a process for evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances and determining whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to identified susceptible subpopulations under the conditions of use.
TSCA watchers are also raising questions on some of the approaches in the proposed rule, including clarifying how EPA plans to implement the weight of evidence (WoE) requirements in the new law and whether the agency's plans to broadly consider all conditions of use for each chemical it reviews will be too burdensome and time-consuming.
For example, under the new law EPA is required to describe the weight of scientific evidence for the identified hazards and exposure, and the agency acknowledges in the proposal released Jan. 13 that stakeholders have expressed concerns about how it will implement the requirement. In the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA says it is providing description of how the Agency has consistently interpreted and applied that concept and is "not proposing to modify this process as part of this rule" nor proposing to codify it, saying the process will evolve with scientific innovation.
WoE is used to describe the strength of the scientific inferences that can be drawn from a given body of evidence, specifically referring to how studies are selected, the quality of the studies evaluated, and how findings are assessed and integrated. According to the proposal, EPA uses the WoE approach in existing programs including its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program and Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, and in the classification of carcinogens.
But one industry source says, "It isn't so much the language [on WoE] as the description that was troubling" because it appears to reflect EPA's intention to rely on its current practices to WoE, which the new law sought to revise, pointing out that WoE concerns were in part what led to a high-profile set of criticisms from National Academy of Sciences on EPA IRIS assessments.
"The fear was that a lot of the information was being cherry-picked" because it supported risk assumptions favorable to the agency, resulting in a "strength of evidence" approach that industry criticized, the source says, adding that they hope the new Trump administration will "focus on more realistic assumptions."
'Starting Point'
And a Jan. 19 Bergeson & Campbell memorandum on the proposal says that while the preamble contains language leading toward codifying an effective WoE approach, "A clear statement of EPA's approach to WOE in conducting risk evaluations would provide a discernible starting point for the development of new guidance for carrying out" the WoE requirements in the new law.
The memo also says that "[o]ne gap that must be filled by EPA in the procedural rule is development of a WOE for exposure assessment, an aspect that was not discussed in the proposal and for which there is no existing EPA model," citing language in the law that says a risk evaluation shall "describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazard and exposure."
And on conditions of use, EPA says it is interpreting the amended TSCA as requiring that risk evaluations encompass all manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal activities that constitute the conditions of use, or all "known, intended, and reasonably foreseen activities associated with the subject chemical substance."
How broadly EPA would interpret the scope of "conditions of use" has been a major talking point since the law was passed, and EPA acknowledges the confusion, noting several possible interpretations of the language.
But EPA says in the proposal that if it were to base its determination of risk on a subset of individual uses, it "could, for example, determine that a chemical substance with 10 known uses does not present an unreasonable risk of injury based on an evaluation of a single one of those uses, with no further obligation to evaluate the remaining uses within the three-year statutory deadline." That interpretation, EPA says, would be a "strained reading" of the agency's statutory obligations.
But one industry source cautions that such an approach may be problematic, saying during debate on the law "there was definitely the feeling that if EPA tried to take on all uses it might be overwhelming and [the agency could really get bogged down." That source adds that "solid legislative history and a non-tortured reading of the text" would allow a Trump EPA to take a less onerous approach such as staggering some decisions on certain uses over a period of time.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/stakeholders-flag-early-concerns-epa-tsca-risk-evaluation-proposal
-
First Annual TSCA Report on Chemical Risk Evaluation Posted
Feb 10, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Manufacturers take note: on Feb. 14 the EPA will hold a public meeting about the initial 10 chemicals it will evaluate for environment, health and safety risks under the amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The 10 chemicals are:
1,4-Dioxane
1-Bromopropane
Asbestos
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster
Methylene Chloride
N-methylpyrrolidone
Pigment Violet 29
Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
At this meeting the agency will present information on the 10 chemicals’ specific uses and “conditions of use” — or the circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of. The EPA will also take comments about the uses and conditions of use.
The agency outlines this action and the others it has taken under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21 Century Act, which amended the TSCA, in its first annual report on risk evaluations.
The updated TSCA requires that EPA identify the chemical substances that will undergo risk evaluation during that year, those for which risk evaluation will be initiated and those for which risk evaluation will be completed, including status and schedules.
In other words, it’s a good resource for chemical companies, manufacturers and other corporations that use chemicals in their products and processes and, as such, will have to comply with the chemical risk regulations.
Over the summer, the EPA posted an Implementation Plan that outlines the agency’s first-year plans to implement the new chemical safety rules. It also gives chemical companies and others a better idea of what, and when, they can expect in terms of EPA rulemaking and enforcement activities.
In other TSCA news, the EPA has extended the comment period for two proposed rules on Trichloroethylene (TCE), a toxic chemical with human health concerns identified by EPA in a 2014 risk assessment. The EPA proposed these rules in December and January to ban certain uses of the chemical in aerosol degreasing, as a spot cleaner in dry cleaning facilities, and in commercial vapor degreasing.
The comment period for the proposed ban on TCE as an aerosol degreaser and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities is extended to March 16.
The comment period for the proposed ban on TCE as a commercial vapor degreaser is extended to April 19.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/02/first-annual-tsca-report-chemical-risk-evaluation-posted/
-
EPA Extends TCE Rules' Input Deadline Over Environmentalists' Opposition
Feb 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has granted in part chemical makers' request to extend the comment deadline for two proposed rules to ban uses of the ubiquitous solvent and cleaning agent trichloroethylene (TCE) using EPA's revamped Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, over the objections of environmentalists who say any delay will harm human health.
According to a pre-publication Federal Register notice signed Feb. 8, EPA is extending the comment deadline by 30 days for both proposed TSCA section 6(a) rules, from Feb. 14 to March 16 for its rule on TCE uses as an aerosol degreaser and from March 20 to April 19 for its rule on TCE uses in vapor degreasing.
EPA does not provide an explanation for its decision in the notice, announced Feb. 9, other than that “a commenter requested additional time to submit written comments for the proposed rules.”
But the decision was made over objections from several environmental groups in comments to the agency posted to its electronic docket Feb. 7. The groups, Earthjustice, Environmental Health Strategy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Safer Chemicals, Health Families and Toxic-Free Future, argued that “any delay in completing the two rulemakings would jeopardize public health and violate the requirements of TSCA.”
The Obama administration proposed the two TCE rules in its last few weeks in office, with the first -- on using TCE in aerosol degreasing -- marking the first proposed risk management action of an existing chemical since enactment of the updated TSCA law in June, and the first proposed section 6(a) rule in decades.
Following release of the rules, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), which represents makers and uses of TCE, sent a a Jan. 19 letter to EPA urging it to synchronize the rules' comment deadlines and delay both comment deadlines to April 20, which HSAI argued “will allow for the submission within the comment period of significant new scientific information directly relevant to the rulemakings.”
The letter reiterated industry's long-running concerns about EPA's use of a study that found evidence of fetal heart defects in lab rodents exposed to TCE. Known as the Johnson study, it is the critical study for risk estimates in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of TCE, which in turn underlies the risk assessment that is the basis for the proposed rule.
The chemical industry, which has long questioned the study, is funding an effort to attempt to replicate it, an industry source told Inside EPA last November. The source spoke after industry speakers informed White House officials of the effort while they were reviewing EPA's proposal rule before publishing it for comment.
“This study is intended specifically to try to reproduce the cardiovascular effects seen by Johnson et al. (2003), which no laboratory to date has been able to reproduce, in an EPA Guideline study that meets Good Laboratory Practices,” HSIA's Executive Director Faye Graul writes in the recent letter to EPA.
“The requested extension will provide time to submit the audited study results which, to date, appear not to support the findings of Johnson et al. (2003), along with an interpretation of the results and comparison to Johnson et al. (2003). This will provide a much better record for EPA decision-making, consistent with the requirements of [TSCA Section] 26(h) that [Section] 6 rulemaking be based on the 'best available science.'”
Environmentalists' Objections
Environmentalists, however, argue that the request is merely another delaying practice, and a bad precedent for EPA to set for other rulemaking efforts, according to their comments in the rulemaking docket.
“HSIA apparently hopes the results of this unfinished study will bolster its upcoming request to reconsider EPA’s denial of its Request for Correction (ROC) of the TCE risk assessment under the Data Quality Act (DQA), which HSIA plans to submit by April 20,” the groups write, citing HSIA's efforts over several years to have the underlying IRIS assessment re-conducted without the Johnson study.
EPA last March denied HSIA's request to reconsider its conclusion that TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects, with the agency saying the finding -- which is driving costly mitigation at contaminated sites -- is supported by EPA science advisors and numerous studies.
HSIA made the request under the DQA, which allows groups to challenge the quality of federal data. However, federal judges have denied suits over petition responses under the Administrative Procedure Act on grounds the responses are not "final" agency actions.
The environmentalists in their comments argue that “HSIA’s maneuvers represent a last-ditch effort to discredit evidence of TCE’s developmental toxicity that has repeatedly been affirmed by agency scientists and external peer reviewers over a lengthy 15 year process of evaluating TCE’s risks to health.”
They also protest the timing, noting that industry has had years to pursue its ongoing effort. “We think it would set an unfortunate precedent for EPA to extend comment periods on proposed rules that are needed to protect against unreasonable risks merely because a possibly relevant study is underway that could havebeen conducted years earlier. Such delaying tactics are routinely employed by industry and do not serve the public interest in timely decisionmaking,” the comments say.
The Environmental Defense Fund's Richard Denison criticized HSIA's request in a Feb. 9 blog for many of the same reasons.
“HSIA is pulling one of the oldest tricks in the industry’s playbook: arguing EPA should slow down so that HSIA can complete a study it is conducting to try to disprove a study EPA used in its TCE risk assessment. Their tactic is truly over the top,” he wrote. “The study HSIA is seeking to disprove . . . was published in 2003. . . nearly 14 years ago. This begs the question: What’s taken HSIA so long?”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-extends-tce-rules-input-deadline-over-environmentalists-opposition
-
(ACC Mentioned) Head of Cefic Sets Out Priorities for 2017
Feb 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Cefic's director general, Marco Mensink, says feeding into the REACH review to drive improvements and helping SMEs with the 2018 registration deadline will be the "core and centre" of the organisation's agenda this year.
At a UN meeting in Brazil this week, which began talks on a post 2020 global chemicals framework, Mr Mensink told Chemical Watch: "We think REACH has worked, it has delivered a lot of information and knowledge on the substances we produce … but it could work better."
One problem, he said, is the cost and administration burdens for those companies – many of which are SMEs – that have to register substances next year.
"Speaking to our members, REACH is very much a concern for smaller companies where the cost of registration for big companies is already huge, but for small companies this cost can significantly affect their profits."
Cefic, he said, has been discussing this issue with Echa executive director Geert Dancet. In order to raise awareness and offer support to SMEs, the two organisations may take their experts around Europe to "ease the implementation" of companies registering in time for the 2018 deadline.
And another problem is REACH's lack of control on the import of final articles. This, he said, creates an "unlevel playing field ... Enforcing REACH and then allowing articles into the EU that do not comply, puts European industry at a competitive disadvantage."
Last year, the European Commission's environment directorate raised awareness of two reviews, commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA). These recommended extending REACH authorisation to imports.
One concluded "the option of extending the authorisation scheme could be considered in the next comprehensive review of REACH." The Commission's review will be completed by June.
International work
In January, Cefic assumed the role of secretariat of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) for a two-year term, taking over from the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Mr Mensink said the secretariat's objectives are to continue building capacity around the world on sound chemicals management. This will be largely through the expansion of the ICCA's Responsible Care initiative – which encourages chemical companies to adopt health, safety and environmental protection policies around the responsible use of chemicals.
It will also aim to bring the Chinese and Indian associations "further on board to become full members of the ICCA".
On the initial discussions in Brazil, on whether the UN's voluntary chemicals programme, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm), should continue or be replaced, Mr Mensink said talks with ministers and other country representatives on the topics raised have been productive, but it is clear that "there is some way to go before we have a new text on Saicm post 2020".
Last month, in preparation for this week's meeting, a group of Nordic countries released a report outlining possible ideas for a post 2020 framework. One option proposed is a legally binding framework. The ICCA opposed this, saying it would "close off the multi-stakeholder cooperation that has made Saicm unique".
https://chemicalwatch.com/53499/head-of-cefic-sets-out-priorities-for-2017
-
Aise Urges Changes to eSDSs and Substance Evaluation Process
Feb 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Significant improvements to the EU REACH regime are needed to ensure better health and environmental protection and to reverse its negative effect on R&D and innovation, says soap and detergents trade body Aise.
Along with many other industry groups, NGOs and public sector bodies, Aise recently submitted detailed comments to the European Commission’s consultation on the second review of REACH. The review's findings are due to be completed later this year.
The umbrella group representing ten trade bodies for downstream users of chemicals, Ducc, echoes many of Aise's comments. Below are some of the key issues raised by the two organisations:
Impact of 2018 registration deadline: national REACH helpdesks must have the necessary resources to help registrants who miss the last pre-registration deadline in June. These will have to first submit an inquiry followed by a registration dossier before being legally allowed to import any substances they have not already registered. Even if this happens, there will be fewer substances on the market after 2018, says Aise, because many suppliers will decide the costs of registration outweigh selling profits.
eSDSs and supply chain communication: since chemical suppliers started extending safety data sheets (eSDSs) by adding exposure scenario information, says Aise, they have become too big. And they often contain "unrealistic" risk management measures. They are also frequently unrelated to the recipient's uses and are not written in a helpful language.
Another problem with eSDSs, say Aise and Ducc, is the range of different templates used by suppliers. Although industry groups, Echa and member states have agreed on a template for exposure scenario communication, this might be adopted more widely if the competent authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) gave it more official status by translating it into a guidance document.
The Commission should also seek to ensure all the tools developed to harmonise supply chain communication about chemicals, such as the ESCom XML standard for exchanging exposure scenario information between IT systems, are more widely used. Similarly, it should also promote broader use of tools designed to improve the quality of information about uses of substances, such as use maps, and those for conducting exposure assessments.
Self-classification of substances: to increase the likelihood of getting one agreed classification per substance, the usability of the classification and labelling inventory should be improved by allowing the archiving or flagging of 'obsolete' notifications that are no longer supported by notifiers.
Substance evaluation: by changing Echa guidance documents, downstream user sectors should be given a better chance to provide information on exposure and risk measures to the competent authority conducting an evaluation.
Although the REACH Regulation says such companies are allowed to do so, and Echa publishes the contact details of authorities and the list of nominated lead registrants, downstream users do not belong to Siefs or consortia and are often not known to authorities.
Ducc also says mandatory EU classifications should only be agreed after substance evaluations are completed.
RMOAs and integration of REACH with other law: like most business groups, Aise and Ducc strongly support, and want further strengthened, the existing process whereby a risk management option analysis (RMOA) is conducted before an authority decides which regulatory option – mandatory option, authorisation, restriction, other legislative action or no action at all – is the right one for a substance.
All existing and future legislative frameworks, says Aise, should be considered by an RMOA, as well as a socio-economic impact assessment, knowledge of existing alternatives to the substance, and information about the toxicity of alternatives, before any final decision is made.
Skin sensitisers: Ducc says "the mere classification and labelling of a substance under the CLP Regulation as a skin sensitiser" cannot be a sufficient basis for a substance with skin sensitisation potential to be considered an SVHC due to an 'equivalent level of concern'.
The group produced a position paper in 2015 setting its proposed criteria for evaluating such substances for potential regulatory measures.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53507/aise-urges-changes-to-esdss-and-substance-evaluation-process
-
'Legislative Glitch' Could Drive Rule Reversal
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the Clean Power Plan awaits its inevitable death, lawyers are watching closely to see exactly how the landmark climate rule meets its end.
Proponents of the rule have repeatedly warned that scrapping it would take just as much effort as writing it in the first place. A notice and comment period is required, and federal courts have previously rebuked agencies whose rule reversals appeared purely political.
But Crowell & Moring attorney Tom Lorenzen, who represents electric cooperatives against the rule, suggested the process of undoing it might not be so cumbersome.
The Trump administration could simply reach a different legal determination about the plan's Clean Air Act underpinnings, said Lorenzen, who previously worked for the Justice Department.
A leading legal question about the Clean Power Plan turns on what's become known as a "legislative glitch," in which the House and Senate passed two different versions of Section 111(d) into law in Clean Air Act amendments. The House version bars redundantly regulating a source, while the Senate version bars redundantly regulating a pollutant.
EPA already regulates power plants under Section 112 of the law, leading critics to accuse the Obama administration of violating the House amendment by attempting to regulate more emissions from the same source. The Obama administration argued that it was entitled to deference in its reliance on the Senate version.
Given that background, Lorenzen said, Trump's EPA could issue a new legal determination favoring the House version and finding the Clean Power Plan to be in conflict with it.
"While the Obama administration may have been within its rights to interpret the statute such that the Senate version, which supports its rule, controls," he said at an American Law Institute event yesterday. "It might equally be within the rights of the Trump administration to interpret the statute such that the House version, which would bar the rule, controls.
"If the agency wants to get rid of this rule quickly — and I'm not saying that that's what it's going to do — that's one option," he added.
Such an interpretation would likely qualify for what's known as the Chevron standard, in which courts typically defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. And while it would still require a comment period, EPA would not need to develop a labor-intensive factual record.
"It's purely a matter of law," Lorenzen said. "You don't have to develop a factual record for this. You're just saying, 'We have reinterpreted the law. We ask for Chevron deference.'"
Proponents of the climate rule dismissed the scenario as unlikely. Richard Revesz, director of New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, said the approach would still require a lengthy notice and comment period.
Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger said a new interpretation from the Trump administration would fail the Chevron test, as a court would either view the Clean Air Act's meaning as unambiguous or view the Trump administration's interpretation as unreasonable.
Action to formally scrap the Clean Power Plan is expected once a new EPA administrator is installed. The Senate has not yet voted on the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt for the role.
Lorenzen noted that the agency may also opt to go a tougher route on rolling back the rule: issuing a narrower version focused on efficiency improvements at power plants or reviewing the agency's finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/10/stories/1060049861
-
Feb 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Republican is sponsoring legislation to do away with large portions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including environmental justice and greenhouse gas programs.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) introduced the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act on Thursday, saying it would save $7.5 billion annually. That would leave the agency with a budget of less than $1 billion.
Major EPA climate change programs would be eliminated under the measure.
The legislation would also close all of the EPA’s regional offices, halt new regulations on ground-level ozone pollution and require the agency to lease unused property.
“As a fiscal conservative, I believe Washington should be a good steward of taxpayers’ dollars,” Johnson said in a statement.
“Part of being a good steward includes reining in unnecessary spending, holding agencies accountable for ‘waste,’ and getting rid of politicians’ ‘pet projects.’ For example, American taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the EPA’s many vacant and underutilized properties that the EPA’s own Inspector General identified as wasteful,” he said.
The legislation is modeled after a report from the Heritage Foundation, which identified the EPA programs as wasteful.
Johnson introduced similar legislation in 2015, when it did not get any formal congressional consideration.
The legislation differs from a bill introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) this month that would completely eliminate the EPA.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318931-gop-bill-would-gut-epa
-
Study Casts Doubt on Emission Benefits of Natural Gas
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
New research on the Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania challenges the relative climate benefits of natural gas production.
A study by Drexel University released yesterday found that atmospheric levels of methane increased by 100 parts per billion between 2012 and 2015, despite a slowdown in the number of new natural gas wells. Authors noted that marks a substantial jump compared to a 6 parts per billion global increase in concentrations of the potent greenhouse gas.
Drexel's Peter DeCarlo, who led the study, said the rapid increase represents a "shifting of emissions from development to production stage."
During the three-year time period, the amount of natural gas produced nearly doubled. The study notes other major sources of methane, such as agricultural activity, have not likely changed in the region.
It points to persistent sources of emissions associated with production and distribution, such as pipelines, compressor stations or processing facilities. The finding, authors said, could suggest that measures taken by natural gas producers to decrease leakage are not sufficient to reduce methane leakage.
DeCarlo told E&E News that it looks like additional monitoring is necessary.
The Pennsylvania director of Energy In Depth, which is aligned with the oil and gas industry, said it is important to take the study's findings in proper context. Nicole Jacobs said in an email that the increase is a "minuscule amount and shows emissions essentially remained flat," aligning with other studies of the region.
Data released in August from the state's Department of Environmental Protection showed methane emissions fell 12 percent between 2012 and 2014 while production increased 33 percent.
The study comes as Republicans on Capitol Hill move forward with efforts to repeal an Interior Department regulation that seeks to limit natural gas flaring, venting and leakage on public and tribal lands. Senators are preparing to take up a resolution passed last week by the House that targets the Obama-era Bureau of Land Management rule (Greenwire, Feb. 3).
Environmentalists have cited methane as a major contributor to climate change in addition, pushing Congress to preserve the standard.
The League of Conservation Voters called the rule "an important step in reducing our contributions to a changing climate that threatens our health, communities, ecosystems, economy, security, and way of life" in a letter sent to senators yesterday that urged a "no" vote.
Oil and gas industry advocates, including the American Petroleum Institute, argue BLM lacks the authority to regulate air quality and that the rule could impede energy production. They note increased production of natural gas has helped the United States reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and companies already have high financial incentives to try to capture methane emissions.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/10/stories/1060049893
-
Pipeline Foes Await Court Action
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
After a scramble to the courthouse to block the Dakota Access pipeline from moving forward this week, opponents of the project are now impatiently waiting for a Monday hearing on the matter.
New legal claims from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe await consideration by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which is slated to hear arguments Monday afternoon.
The tribe's latest filings feature a new approach: a claim that approval of the Dakota Access pipeline violates the Lakota people's religious rights. The tribe's argument focuses on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, alleging that construction across Lake Oahe will desecrate sacred grounds.
But the argument may face an uphill climb, as some experts have said the tribe's use of RFRA is a stretch beyond what Congress intended when it passed the measure in 1993 (Greenwire, Feb. 9).
"They have a tough road ahead of them," Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Brandon Barnes told E&E News. "Using [RFRA] in this way to stop a pipeline from being built is probably not the way it was intended to be used."
Legal precedent also brings some challenges for the tribe. A 2008 case from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, strikes down similar RFRA claims from tribes opposed to the spreading of artificial snow on an Arizona mountain they consider sacred. The court ruled that the snow did not prevent tribal members from exercising their religion.
In a brief to the Washington, D.C., court this week, lawyers for the Cheyenne River Sioux attempted to distinguish their situation from the Arizona case. They argued that while the tribes in that case were still able to practice religious rituals despite alleged contamination from the snow, the Sioux would be fully unable to perform sacraments that depend on pure water.
They noted that Lake Oahe is the tribe's only pure water source, and the oil pipeline specifically fulfills a Lakota prophesy about a "black snake" destroying their land.
Howard Shanker, who represented the Navajo Nation in the Arizona case, noted that it's not up to the court to judge the religious practices.
"The courts are not supposed to be the arbiters of religious beliefs," he said. "The court's role is simply to satisfy itself that it's a legitimately held religious belief and not to pass judgment on it."
Shanker argued that the Cheyenne River tribe might have an advantage in the 2014 Hobby Lobbydecision from the Supreme Court, which amplified the protected status of religious liberty.
Still, the tribe's case will be challenging, he said, because tribal religious practices and modern American law have never been in sync.
"Pretty much uniquely in our civilization, the tribes hold places — physical property areas — as sacred and holy, and I think a lot of our laws have trouble adjusting to that notion," he said.
Resistance efforts
While the new claims are pending, construction can move forward.
The hurry-up-and-wait quality to the latest legal actions leaves opponents of the project turning to the phones and social media to voice their anger about the Trump administration's decision to scrap Obama officials' promise of a new, in-depth environmental review for the oil line.
"#Trump said he didn't hear one person complain about #DAPL ... Can you hear us now?" said a viral tweet from @Resistance_Feed, which included a list of phone numbers to Trump hotels and other properties.
President Trump alleged Tuesday that he had not "had one call from anybody" concerned about the pipeline, despite multiple White House rallies and a barrage of messages from opponents (Energywire, Feb. 8).
Other activists took their message to local officials, urging city governments to divest from banks that helped finance the pipeline. Wells Fargo & Co. has been the biggest target. The Seattle City Council voted earlier this week to cut ties with the bank.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/10/stories/1060049862
-
Calif. Looks Into Shutting Down Aliso Canyon
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's utility regulator will analyze whether the state should permanently shutter the natural gas storage facility where a record-breaking methane leak occurred.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) yesterday opened an investigation into the feasibility of closing the Aliso Canyon site in Los Angeles County.
The investigation is a result of S.B. 380 from then-state Sen. Fran Pavley (D), which passed last year. The bill prohibited injecting natural gas at the facility until there is a safety review of all wells. It also required that the commission by July 1 open a proceeding to evaluate limiting or eliminating use of the facility.
"Senate Bill 380 and now this proceeding provide us an opportunity to step back and take a more long-term, measured look at the reliability and rate impacts of potential closure or minimization of Aliso Canyon," agency Commissioner Liane Randolph said in a statement.
The study will have two parts. Phase one will look at how closing the facility would affect regional electric and gas reliability over the next five years and, longer term, the impact on rates, alternatives to Aliso Canyon natural gas storage and safety implications of keeping it open. Phase two will examine the results of that analysis and, if it recommends closing the site, under what conditions and time frame. A final decision is expected in mid-2018.
The leak from October 2015 to February 2016 forced the evacuation of thousands of people from their homes in the Porter Ranch neighborhood. It spewed nearly 100,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere, an amount equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas pollution of 572,000 cars.
Residents of the area have been lobbying for Aliso Canyon's permanent closure. State Sen. Henry Stern (D), who won Pavley's seat after her retirement, has offered S.B. 57. It would bar reopening the site until the root cause of the leak is determined.
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wrote Stern a letter supporting S.B. 57 and calling for closure of the facility.
"It is my view that the most responsible action would be to permanently shut down Aliso Canyon," she wrote. "Now that the housing developments for 30,000 people have grown up around the facility, our first responsibility must be the safety of the residents. It is absolutely unacceptable that more than 5,000 families were forced from their homes as a result of this disaster."
Closing the facility temporarily prompted fears the region could experience sporadic power outages, though that so far hasn't happened. Gas-fired plants can ramp up power quickly when solar- or wind-generated energy declines. In the Los Angeles area, the Aliso Canyon facility played a large role in providing fuel supplies. Gas cannot move rapidly through pipelines, experts said, so the storage facility delivered gas when needed to run those peaker plants.
The CPUC last week announced the opening of power storage that came online as a result of the leak. AES Energy Storage installed lithium-ion batteries with a capacity of 30 megawatts on utility San Diego Gas & Electric property in San Diego County. AES also built a 7.5-MW storage site for the utility in a different part of the county. The batteries together can generate 120 megawatt-hours of electricity.
Los Angeles County-based Southern California Edison Co. launched 62 MW of storage at several facilities. The roughly 100 MW combined capacity of both utilities arriving at about the same time was groundbreaking, state energy officials said.
The CPUC last May told investor-owned utilities in Southern California to fast-track energy storage to beef up regional reliability. Energy businesses, utilities and state officials worked together quickly, they said, getting the project approved and built in months.
The Aliso Canyon site is operated by Southern California Gas Co., part of Sempra Energy. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The CPUC in its study of Aliso Canyon will consult with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission; state grid manager the California Independent System Operator; the local publicly owned utilities that rely on natural gas for electricity generation; and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources in the Department of Conservation.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/10/stories/1060049860
-
Latest Draft of Trump Cyber Order Emphasizes 'Risk'
Feb 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
The White House plans to direct federal agencies to build a U.S. cybersecurity policy around computer systems "at greatest risk of attacks," according to the latest draft of an executive order.
The White House's focus on "risk management" marks a significant departure from an earlier leaked draft of the order, which made just one glancing reference to that approach (Energywire, Jan. 30).
The latest version promises to "hold accountable" agency heads for "risk management decisions" surrounding network maintenance, cyberthreat awareness, detecting anomalies and responding to a successful cyberattack.
"The executive branch has for too long accepted antiquated and difficult-to-defend IT and information systems," the document says.
While multiple sources confirmed the new text, the order remains unsigned by President Trump and could be subject to further changes. Representatives from the administration declined to validate either draft.
The updates appear to have come after Trump consulted with several cybersecurity strategists and advisers last week (Energywire, Feb. 1). The order, now titled "Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure," embraces two Obama-era cyber initiatives and gives agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security more time to prepare new cybersecurity reports.
The proposed executive order directs officials at DHS, the Department of Defense, FBI, the Department of Energy, among others, to review how they can "support the cybersecurity efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators." It also calls for federal agencies to start using the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, a cybersecurity resource that came together under the Commerce Department following a 2013 executive order from President Obama.
Betsy Cooper, executive director of the Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity at the University of California, said the latest document "does show some continuity from the Obama era," including a more prominent reflection of the roles of DHS and FBI.
"What's happened since the previous draft is a lot more consultation with different agencies and stakeholders about the executive order," she said. "We heard both from the White House itself and more broadly from other stakeholders that the pace of the executive orders was not leading to full consultation, and it seems like [now] the administration is doing a good job of correcting course and taking into account the views of others."
Electric interests
The order also references the electric power industry, calling for an examination of "the potential scope and duration of a significant cyber incident against the United States electric subsector."
Scott Aaronson, the Edison Electric Institute's executive director for security and business continuity, said the power industry is encouraged by the new administration's first steps on cybersecurity policy for critical infrastructure sectors, although executives are awaiting the final version of the executive order.
"Generally speaking, in talking with our contact in the administration and looking at some of the versions [of the order] that have been leaked, we are generally supportive of the administration's efforts," he said.
"We've been comfortable with the signals coming out of the administration, up to and including out of the Oval Office," Aaronson added. "We'd like to actually see the final product."
Aaronson said the electric power leadership had not yet met with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump's cybersecurity adviser. "We'll look forward to working with him, too," Aaronson said.
Richard Ward, EEI director of national security policy, noted that the tone of the latest executive order draft has changed. The first versions stressed the grid's exposure. "You're vulnerable and you're in trouble," he said. Now the emphasis is on help, he said, noting that the word "vulnerability" is rarely used in the recent draft. "It was everywhere last week," Ward said.
Council changes
The electricity industry has sought to prioritize the close communication on cybersecurity issues between utility CEOs and top-level administration officials through the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council. The ESCC — 31 CEOs from all levels of the electric power sector — meets three times a year with government officials to discuss threat assessments and response planning, and shares high-priority alerts as they arise.
EEI officials said the government needs to do more to share classified threat information as the administration brings new faces to the council.
"The government players on the ESCC are going to change," said Philip Moeller, EEI senior vice president of energy delivery. "We will be working to make sure they recognize the value of the ESCC, the good it's done and making sure that it continues in its current form and importance and effectiveness."
Moeller, a former commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said the industry would welcome a pause in FERC's promulgation of new cyber mandates, which have continued to evolve over the past eight years as new threats and issues surface.
"I think there is a bit of fatigue" in the power industry, he said.
"Most likely we're going to have a newly constituted FERC at some point in this calendar year with a new chairman and potentially two or three new members in addition to the chairman," Moeller said.
"And I think it's appropriate for them to step back and say, what do we want the [grid] reliability program to be doing, what's important, and make that a little clearer in terms of priorities, and so that we can focus on reliability instead of the regulatory churn," he said.
If the executive order does crystallize a plan to concentrate cyberdefense on the grid's most critical nodes, that would match a strategy already in place.
FERC's 2017 budget request notes, "[I]t is important to understand the impact that some individual facilities may have on the resilience of critical infrastructure systems, as well as the risk of disruption to those systems from threats and vulnerabilities through cyber and physical attacks." FERC will assess particularly critical intersections on the grid and work with power company owners to raise their security levels.
Tom Fanning, chief executive of Southern Co., said his company had a major substation that FERC had identified as critical to the grid's stability and took steps to reduce that vulnerability. "It's no longer critical" following changes Southern made in its power network, he said last year (Energywire, May 13, 2016). "You could blow it out of the water today and it wouldn't make a blink" on power delivery, he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/10/stories/1060049859
-
Railroad Commission Pleads Case for More Funding
Feb 10, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ryan Handy
Funding for the Railroad Commission is not sufficient for the agency to do its job regulating the state’s oil and gas industry and protecting public health and safety, the commission’s chairwoman told a legislative committee Thursday.
The commission was forced cut more than $1 million from its budget every month last year, leading to staff reductions and the inability to perform crucial tasks, such as well inspections and plugging abandoned wells, Railroad Commission Chair Christi Craddick testified before the state Senate Finance Committee. Craddick and the commission are seeking an additional $45 million over the next two years to hire more staff, update outdated technology, whittle a backlog of tens of thousands of uninspected wells, and plug thousands of abandoned wells.
“My fellow commissioners and I urge that the agency must be funded at the level necessary to carry out its mission,” Craddick said.
In her remarks before the 15 member committee, Craddick painted a bleak picture of the agency’s finances The commission’s full-time staff of 690 has 130 unfilled openings; in the past few years, the agency has lost up to 20 percent of its staff to better paying jobs.The Railroad Commission is funded by the fees it charges oil and gas companies. But those fees did not generate enough revenue to keep the agency fully funded throughout the two-year budget period, which ends August 31. The commission has had to cut an average of $1.3 million a month to balance its books. And the commission does not expect the situation to get better as oil prices hover above $50 a barrel. Oil settled at $53 a barrel in New York Thursday.
“This approach is not sustainable for the long term welfare for the agency,” said Craddick.
Senators said they understood the commission’s plight, but they offered no hope of alleviating it as they work to cut more than $1 billion to balance the state’s budget for the next biennium. The Finance Committee has proposed cutting the Railroad Commission’ $85 million biennial budget by more than $13 million or roughly 15 percent.
“We don’t have a lot of money,” Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, told Craddick.Since the fall, Craddick has met with every senator on the committee to plead her case. Craddick told the Finance Committee that the agency’s main funding system — industry fees — needs an update. Permit fees are based in the number of wells that companies operate, but today, technologies such as horizontal drilling mean companies can produce that same amount of oil from one well that they used to get from four. That means companies need fewer permits, which in turn means less in fees.
Changing how the commission collects fees would require legislative action, and some senators said the time may have come to revisit how the agency is funded.
Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, said the funding mechanism was based on the assumption that the oil and gas industry would only grow and oil prices continue to rise. But lawmakers should have considered the prices swings and ups and downs of the cyclical energy industry, Nichols said.Sen. Kelly Hancock, R-North Richland Hills, suggested that lawmakers look at changing the commission’s funding model, but said that undertaking would likely have to wait another couple of years.
“I don’t think that we can do it this session,” he said.http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/10/railroad-commission-pleads-case-for-more-funding/
-
Feb 10, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
CN plans to spend 2.5 billion Canadian dollars on its 2017 capital program to improve core infrastructure, the Class I announced yesterday.
Consistent with last year's investment, the railroad will spend about CA$1.6 billion on track infrastructure, including the replacement of 2.2 million rail ties, installation of more than 600 miles of new rail, work on bridges, branch line upgrades and other general track maintenance, according to a CN press release.
In addition, the Class I will invest CA$400 million this year on positive train control (PTC) implementation along parts of its U.S. network. The railroad will install the hardware on 3,500 route-miles. CN plans to invest US$1.2 billon on the entire PTC project by 2020.
Moreover, CN officials anticipate spending CA$500 million on equipment, projects and information technology initiatives to serve growing business, improve service for customers and advance safety, they said. That spending includes planned growth investments to capitalize on Canadian West Coast port expansions, key customer projects and safety technology investments such as wayside inspection systems and track testing vehicles.
"We once again are investing with a focus on advancing safety, service and productivity through infrastructure maintenance, strategic growth initiatives and new technology," said CN President and Chief Executive Officer Luc Jobin.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/canadian_national/news/CN-reveals-2017-capex-plans--50821
-
Trump Brings Big Change to Climate Policies
Feb 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress are working to undo President Obama’s actions on climate change, underlining what could be a major shift on a policy that affects the world.
While it’s been just three weeks since Trump’s inauguration, the president has already issued memos to approve the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which were both blocked by Obama partly due to concerns about how they would contribute to climate change.
Trump has also sought to limit regulations with another executive order, while the House has passed four measures under the Congressional Review Act to unwind Obama-era rules on energy. Two of those measures have also passed the Senate.
Energy has emerged as an area in which Trump and congressional Republicans are unified, and their actions have signaled to energy companies and climate change activists alike that Trump and congressional Republicans are serious about implementing a wholesale change in how the United States deals with big policy questions related to global warming.
“I think we’re off to a great start,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee who consistently complained that Obama tried to stymie development of coal, oil and natural gas due to climate change concerns.
“The shift is moving toward a commonsense energy policy,” Daines said. “President Obama’s energy policies did not make sense. President Trump is putting forward a commonsense, all-of-the-above plan which will encourage more made-in-America energy.”
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), an outspoken climate activist, said Trump and his allies have been “every bit as bad as people had feared.”
“You can’t make this stuff up. It sounds like it’s out of a bad movie about politics,” he said.
He noted that two of the measures passed by Congress eliminate requirements that energy companies disclose the payments they make to foreign governments for energy production and repeal a rule meant to protect streams from coal mining waste.
Obama made fighting climate change a second-term priority. He relied largely on unilateral executive actions, such as his Clean Power Plan rules limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Obama also signed orders imposing limits on methane emissions from oil and natural gas drilling. He helped negotiate the Paris climate agreement, in which nearly 200 nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, and blocked federal permits that the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines needed.
During his campaign, Trump, who has said that climate change is a hoax, promised to reverse many of these policies.
He has tapped pro-fossil fuel officials to lead key agencies, including former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of State, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt for Environmental Protection Agency administrator, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for Energy secretary and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) for Interior secretary.
On Capitol Hill, House Republicans are working to overhaul how the EPA uses science as part of an effort to roll back what they see as unjustifiable regulations.
Tom Pyle, president of the right-leaning Institute for Energy Research, said Trump is likely to implement even more campaign promises soon.
“The key will be getting an energy and environment team in place, and that includes the White House. And once the Senate Democrats get through their process of getting over the fact that they lost and letting these guys get in place and begin to implement the president’s agenda, there’s going to be much more activity,” said Pyle, who served on Trump’s transition team at the Energy Department.
The Sierra Club, a conservation group, is also girding for more action from Trump.
“Trump and the GOP Congress have made it crystal clear that clean air, clean water and public health are public enemy No. 1 in America so long as they control our federal government,” said John Coequyt, global climate program director at the Sierra Club.
“Trump and the GOP have many more terrible plans in store for our environment and public health safeguards, but the good news is that states, cities, and companies across the country are moving ahead toward an economy powered by clean energy regardless,” he continued, citing data showing recent growth in renewable energy.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318824-trump-brings-big-change-to-climate-policies
-
The Trump Administration Can’t Entirely Roll Back Progress on Climate Change — Here’s Why
Feb 10, 2017 | Washington Post
By Jessica F. Green
Environmentalists are not happy with the Trump administration. There are rumors that Trump might withdraw from the landmark Paris climate agreement on climate change. And Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, is probably unlikely to champion U.S. environmental priorities in his diplomatic agenda.
Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency pick, Scott Pruitt, is not a fan of environmental regulation and is unlikely to support the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature climate policy.
U.S. cities are leading the way on climate change policy
Here’s the good news: States, cities and many firms in the United States realize that sensible climate policy is, well, sensible. Having rational policies in place provides important health benefits, such as reducing smog, and helps authorities prepare for climate-induced changes, like floods and droughts. For firms, planning for the future is just good business.
A number of cities around the world have been at the vanguard of climate action. The C40 Cities initiative is a network of more than 80 and represents 600 million people around the globe, including 13 cities in the United States. Their governments are collaborating on climate efforts, and they have committed to mandatory measurement and reporting of emissions and other policy measures. C40’s nifty interactive dashboard provides data on participants’ emissions.
Eight US cities also joined the ambitious Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, where cities pledge to cut emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050.
U.S. cities are also preparing for a changed climate. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, New York created the Office of Recovery and Resiliency and a plan to minimize impacts of similar storms. Miami just announced a $100 million plan to combat persistent flooding and sea level rise.
Cities’ vulnerability helps explain why urban residents are more likely to support policies to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and require that utilities source a set percentage of energy from renewable sources.
States are generating demand for clean energy
States also have the autonomy to take action on climate change, with or without a federal mandate. California is continuing its long-standing role as a climate leader. The state’s landmark climate legislation, AB 32, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and then 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32 includes aggressive policies to promote renewable energy, enhance fuel efficiency and increase both the use of low-carbon fuels and the number of zero-emission vehicles. Since 2015, California has linked its cap-and-trade scheme to Quebec, creating the first international carbon market between state governments rather than federal ones.
The California legislature passed the measure, so there is no obvious federal action that could undo this market. And California and other large states may also spur broader action.
Here’s an example of the “California effect.” In the 1980s, California’s fuel-efficiency standards exceeded those set by the federal Clean Air Act. Congress eventually responded by bringing federal rules up to California standards. Because cars sold in California — a large market — had to meet more stringent standards, car manufacturers boosted the efficiency of new vehicles nationwide.
Other states, regardless of their political leanings, are also moving ahead on renewable energy. Texas and 28 others have renewable portfolio standards, which require utilities to sell a certain amount of renewable energy. Another eight have voluntary renewable energy standards.
State laws have helped drive the growth in renewables, which now account for roughly 10 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. Employment in the solar industry is also soaring — and accounted for 1 in 50 new jobs in 2016.
Firms also lead by example on environmental policy
Politicians may wonder whether climate change is happening; CEOs do not. They see climate change as bad for business; droughts, floods and extreme weather events can interrupt supply chains. And regulation can raise production costs. Many firms agree that being prepared for climatic and regulatory changes can help lessen negative impacts.
Others are voluntarily “greening” themselves and improving the bottom line as a bonus. The campaign RE100, for example, has 90 member firms, including 32 U.S. companies, who have pledged to move to 100 percent renewable energy.
In 2014, the global coalition We Mean Business launched an initiative to promote the transition to a low-carbon economy. Almost 700 companies and investors, representing $8 trillion in revenue, have committed to policies like putting a price on carbon, committing to 100 percent renewable power, removing commodity-driven deforestation from supply chains, and reporting climate change information as a fiduciary duty.
In an increasingly global economy, moreover, companies need to adapt to climate regulations and plan for carbon restrictions coming into place in other countries. Just like car manufacturers adjusted to accommodate California’s strict standards, U.S. and other multinational firms are greening their practices to meet environmental laws in other nations.
The fate of the Clean Power Plan
Although pro-climate policies are likely to continue thanks to efforts at the state, national and corporate levels, the fate of Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) is unclear. The CPP is the centerpiece of the U.S. pledge to the Paris agreement, and it aims to reduce emissions from power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Trump seems keen to repeal the CPP, but regulations are not easily undone. The Supreme Court issued a stay of the CPP in 2015, but if it is upheld, then a rollback will take longer.
The Trump administration could then go back to court to allow EPA to revisit the rule, or it could rescind the rule. As Jody Freeman of Harvard Law School spells out, rescinding the rule would require both a notice and comment period and an explanation of why such a move is necessary. Further litigation would be likely, which would slow efforts to undo the CPP.
More important, many U.S. utilities are moving forward assuming CPP or other regulations will be in place —eventually. Utilities are retiring coal plants and not planning to build new ones. Indeed, the country’s seventh-largest emitter announced that it will probably close this year, because of competition from natural gas.
Coal now supplies only about one-third of the total energy used in U.S. electricity generation, down from about 50 percent in the 1990s. With the majority of U.S. coal plants built before the 1980s, more shutdowns are probable.
The federal government is necessary, but not sufficient
In short, a Trump administration can’t entirely reverse progress on climate change. It may slow things, but the CPP won’t be repealed overnight. And many of the changes underway are simply not subject to federal authority.
The rate of climate change is alarming, and we need to move as quickly as possible to de-carbonize. States and cities continue to take action on climate change. Firms are also leading the way and increasingly urging governments to follow. All of these moves suggest there’s reason to be hopeful that U.S. progress on climate change will continue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/10/the-trump-administration-cant-entirely-roll-back-progress-on-climate-change-heres-why/?utm_term=.b62b86582783
-
3 Examples from His Senate Testimony Show Scott Pruitt Can't Be Trusted with Climate Science
Feb 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Scott Weaver
As a climate scientist I’ve been trained to base my conclusions strictly on scientific evidence and not on politics. This is why I find it so troubling that President Trump’s pickfor the top job at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency openly misrepresented scientific data during his confirmation process.
Here are three climate facts Scott Pruitt denied in his written testimony before the U.S. Senate – facts that an incoming EPA administrator simply cannot get wrong.
1. There is no “hiatus.” The Earth is consistently getting warmer.
Pruitt wrote in response to a question from Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon that he was “aware of a diverse range of conclusions regarding global temperatures, including that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the ‘hiatus’.”
In reality, his idea of a hiatus, and of a potential discrepancy between satellite and surface-based data, has been under intense objective scrutiny by the scientific community for some time – and the results are clear.
NOAA scientists recently published a peer reviewed article in the Journal Science that clearly shows the “hiatus” never existed. A follow-up study undertaken by a separate group of researchers as an objective check on the NOAA result confirmed that the global warming hiatus never happened.
The alleged satellite discrepancy has also been debunked. Stated plainly, raw satellite observations from space are not as accurate as those taken in the actual location, so these raw observations must be quality-controlled for scientific accuracy.
Bottom line is: All data today point in the same direction.
2. Urbanization has not created a fictitious warming trend.
But Pruitt continued to use the idea of a discrepancy between satellite-based and urban land-based data to build his narrative. He now attempted to blame it for the increasing temperature trend – which he just argued did not exist.
Pruitt wrote that he was “aware” that this so-called discrepancy “can be attributed to expansive urbanization within our country where artificial substances such as asphalt can interfere with the accuracy of land-based temperature stations.”
Agencies charged with keeping the data, he alleged further, “do not accurately account for this type of interference.” Well, he was wrong again.
The impact from urbanization and so-called “heat islands” has long shown to be minimal at best, especially when applied to the massive geographic expanse of the world relative to the lesser change in the geographic extent of cities.
Again, Pruitt ignored scientific facts.
3. Trend is clear: 2016 was the hottest year on record
Pruitt went on to quibble with the fact that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded – by overemphasizing the role of negligible differences in how various scientific agencies around the world calculate the globally averaged temperature.
Except, the diversity of approaches is a scientific strength because it provides a balanced view of the data, much like one seeks a second opinion on a medical diagnosis. These minimal temperature differences don’t matter in the end; the overall trend has remained the same over the last several decades.
Despite the trivial differences in methodology Pruitt emphasized, the three long-running analyses by NASA, NOAA, and Great Britain’s UK Met Office all showed 2016 to be the hottest year on record, following the two previous record-setting years.
You can’t quibble with that fact.
The man chosen to lead the EPA needs to manage science responsibly.
Pruitt hopes to run the agency responsible for protecting the lives and health of Americans from environmental threats, a mission that includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. And as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, the EPA has the authority to address greenhouse gases.
This is why the man chosen to lead this agency needs to manage science responsibly so it can do its job. That means listening to scientists and accepting facts, plain and simple.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/02/10/3-examples-his-senate-testimony-show-scott-pruitt-cant-be-trusted-climate-science
-
Experts Say Courts Might Wait to Review Trump Alternatives for Air Rules
Feb 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmental law experts say federal courts might postpone ruling on major Obama-era air rules, such as EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rule, opting instead to pass judgment on any Trump administration actions to modify or repeal those regulations in lieu of ruling on the merits of the Obama EPA's policies.
Speaking Feb. 9 at a conference hosted by the American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education (ALI-CLE) in Washington, D.C., leading environmental lawyers stressed their expectation that even if President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) decides to abandon legal defenses of major Obama EPA rules, the intervention of others to defend those rules would keep cases alive.
However, the new administration will likely seek to place such cases in abeyance while it conducts rulemaking actions to rescind or amend rules it disagrees with, such as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which Trump has vowed to scrap. Those new actions would then moot the existing litigation and form the target of fresh lawsuits.
Former DOJ environmental attorney Tom Lorenzen, now a partner with Crowell & Moring representing the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in litigation over the CPP, said, “usually the courts will look to the new administration to reverse course through rulemaking.”
Until that happens, a case remains live so long as intervenors continue to defend the rule at issue. Just because there is a transition to a transition to an administration with a different policy, “doesn't mean the case goes away,” Lorenzen said.
He added there is a good chance that the Trump DOJ will ask courts to pause ongoing litigation when it no longer supports an Obama-era rule, buying the new administration time to establish a formal position.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) attorney Vickie Patton, added, “if past is prologue, there will be an effort by the intervenors” to continue.
With Jeff Sessions now confirmed as attorney general, DOJ now has political leadership, but EPA Administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt -- an affirmed opponent of EPA's GHG rules -- is still awaiting Senate confirmation. With a ruling expected any day from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the CPP, in West Virginia et al. v. EPA, et al, it is unclear if DOJ would have a realistic opportunity to withdraw from the suit or otherwise change course before the court's decision.
Should the D.C. Circuit uphold the rule in whole or in part, DOJ could seek Supreme Court review of the ruling, and most legal observers say the high court would almost certainly accept the case.
If the appellate court largely strikes down the rule, states and environmental groups that support the rule could similarly seek high court review. However, such an outcome would be a surprise for many court watchers, given judges' questions during September oral argument before the full court.
Future Rulemaking
It is less clear, however, how the high court or D.C. Circuit would proceed if the Trump EPA issues a rule revoking or significantly weakening the CPP.
DOJ has more time to act with respect to the new source performance standards (NSPS) GHG rule for new and modified power plants. That case, North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al., is fully briefed, but oral argument in the D.C. Circuit is not until April 17.
The court will also hear arguments April 19 in another high-profile case, Murray Energy, et al. v. EPA, et al, in which industry and some states are pressing to weaken EPA's ambient air standards for ozone, while environmentalists and other states are both defending the standards and trying to strengthen them.
Other major cases, including those challenging EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule emissions trading program and mercury & air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants, are also in briefing in the D.C. Circuit. In both, the Trump team's stated deregulatory objective would suggest a shift in DOJ's position.
With respect to the CPP, Lorenzen suggested one option for the new administration is to alter the Obama EPA's interpretation of a key section of the Clean Air Act, allowing it to scrap the rule.
Sources have earlier said the Trump EPA will soon begin weighing its options on the issue, which include altering the agency's formal views on the so-called “section 112 exclusion.” It might also retain the rule but significantly weaken its requirements.
The exclusion issue stems from a failure of the House and Senate to reconcile different versions of an air law provision governing the relationship between section 111(d), under which the CPP is established, and section 112, which governs air toxics.
The Obama EPA adopted an interpretation that essentially tracks with the Senate version, which permits the CPP. The House amendment could be interpreted as either allowing or prohibiting the rule, but opponents of the regulation argue it unambiguously bars the CPP. Lorenzen noted that the Trump EPA could accept that latter position, and courts might defer to this view.
Critics argue that the House language bars EPA from regulating under section 111(d) an industry sector that it has already listed for regulation under section 112. EPA listed the power generation sector for regulation through MATS under section 112. To use this as a mechanism to scrap the CPP, the air toxics rule would have to remain in effect.
Should the Trump administration decide to adopt critics' view of the House amendment, it could in a rulemaking scrap the CPP on purely legal grounds, without having to develop a new administrative record, Lorenzen said.
He also suggested that the D.C. Circuit could scrap the rule on procedural grounds, without wading into the complex merits arguments. It could do that, he said, by affirming industry's argument that EPA gave insufficient notice in the proposed version of the rule that it would ultimately finalize uniform national GHG emission rate limits for coal- and gas-fired power plants.
“If the court wanted to get rid of the Clean Power Plan without ruling on the merits, this is the way they would do it,” he said.
Complex Decision
Lorenzen also raised the possibility of a complex ruling remanding some issues to EPA but not others. One possible subject for a remand concerns the rule's “achievability” and what happens if there is inadequate renewable generation available to replace fossil-fueled generation. He said that at oral argument, Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee who might otherwise be expected to back the rule, appeared concerned about the lack of an “escape hatch” in the rule if such a situation were to occur.
Another option for EPA is to scale the rule back by limiting requirements to actions that can occur purely within a power plant's “fenceline.” That would result in a significantly weaker rule than the Obama EPA's version because it would not consider fuel switching, renewable generation or other elements involving third parties beyond the power plant itself.
But Lorenzen said that would comport with a more traditional reading of the “best system of emission reduction” required by section 111(d), compared with the Obama EPA's expansive and novel view.
He doubted that the Trump EPA would try to undo the agency's 2009 “endangerment finding” that underlies all EPA GHG regulation. Although this would negate the GHG rules, it is also the most difficult route to take, he said.
EDF's Patton, meanwhile, underscored states' “complete flexibility” in achieving the CPP's goals, and that the country is already two-thirds of the way to meeting the plan's 2030 targets. Even a number of the states that sued EPA over the plan have already met or will soon meet their targets, she said. “The judges understand that the standards are reasonable,” she said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/experts-say-courts-might-wait-review-trump-alternatives-air-rules
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested