Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/21/2017
-
EPA Chemical Data Release to Aid Toxics Law Compliance, Analyses
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Information about chemicals made in and imported into the U.S. since 2012 should be publicly available at the end of May, an EPA spokesman told Bloomberg BNA April 20. -
Chemical Companies Ask EPA to Kill Pesticide Risk Study
Apr 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Three companies that make and market organophosphate pesticides have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to scrap the findings of research showing harm to animal species from their products. -
Lead's Hidden Toll: Across Los Angeles, Toxic Lead Harms Children in Neighborhoods Rich and Poor
Apr 20, 2017 | Reuters
By Joshua Schneyer
Lead poisoning afflicts hundreds of areas across Los Angeles County, from affluent hubs to low income or gentrifying areas, Reuters finds. The results surprised some local leaders, showing how lead hazards persist even in a health-conscious region. -
Fed Reports Increased Activity in Shale Plays, But Some Concerns on Volatility, Job Shortages
Apr 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Economic activity increased in all 12 districts monitored by the Federal Reserve between mid-February and the end of March, with hiring in the energy sector picking up steam in the Dallas, Kansas City and Minneapolis districts, home to the some of the nation's prolific shale plays. -
The Energy Department is Changing Its Website to Reflect Trump’s Climate Agenda
Apr 21, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
The Energy Department is changing its website to cut down on Obama-era language touting renewable energy sources as a climate-friendly replacement for fossil fuels, according to reports from an environmental watchdog group. -
Natural Gas Moves to the Naughty List
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A Dlouhy and Mark Chediak
Think coal's got it bad in the fight against climate change? Watch what happens to natural gas. -
Ambition Paves the Way for Continued Energy Transitions
Apr 20, 2017 | Platts
By Ross McCracken
The pace of technological change within the energy sector has been rapid over the last decade and shows no sign of abating. -
(ACC Mentioned) RMP Update: EPA’s Risk Management Rules Are Finalized and Reconsideration Process Begins
Apr 20, 2017 | Lexology
By Robin B. Thomerson
On January 13, 2017, EPA published a final rule amending its Risk Management Program (RMP) in response to an Executive Order from former President Obama ordering enhanced safety procedures in the wake of the West Texas fertilizer fire in 2013. -
EPA, OSHA Regulations Overlook Nitrous Oxide Risk, Safety Board Finds
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
An explosion that killed a worker at a Florida nitrous oxide plant and disrupted supplies of the gas for months stemmed from the facility's subpar process safety practices and a lack of federal regulations, the Chemical Safety Board said. -
Trump Successes May Limit Environmental Riders in Funding Bill
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A Trump administration rolling back environmental actions and Congress quashing Obama-era regulations, combined with a packed legislative calendar, may mean few environmental riders in the upcoming government funding bill. -
Environmentalists Say 'Routine' EPA Bids to Delay Suits Violate Court's High Bar
Apr 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject Trump EPA requests to delay several imminent arguments over Obama-era air rules... -
Scientists Prepare to March on Trump
Apr 21, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Scientists and climate activists opposed to the Trump administration are bringing their message to the streets of Washington. -
A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science
Apr 20, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Steve Koonin
Tomorrow’s March for Science will draw many thousands in support of evidence-based policy making and against the politicization of science. A concrete step toward those worthy goals would be to convene a “Red Team/Blue Team” process for climate science... -
Wal-Mart Wants Suppliers to Eliminate a Gigaton of Greenhouse Gases by 2030
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Boyle
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., long known for squeezing its suppliers on prices, is now pressuring companies including Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive Co. to help the world's biggest retailer remove a billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from its supply chain by 2030. -
N.C. Moves to Drop Court Challenge to WOTUS
Apr 20, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
North Carolina is continuing to retreat from litigation against Obama administration regulations, asking a federal court today for permission to leave a lawsuit over the Clean Water Rule.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
EPA Chemical Data Release to Aid Toxics Law Compliance, Analyses
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Information about chemicals made in and imported into the U.S. since 2012 should be publicly available at the end of May, an EPA spokesman told Bloomberg BNA April 20.
The agency plans to post online Chemical Data Reporting rule information that chemical manufacturers submitted in 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency spokesman said.
Knowing the identity, production volumes and uses of compounds reported under the Chemical Data Reporting rule will serve many purposes, including helping the agency oversee chemical risks and aiding analysts tracking the sector.
Chemical manufacturers were required to provide the EPA annual production volume data for 2012-2015 if they made or imported at least 25,000 pounds of a chemical at any site they owned during any of those years. Processing and use information for chemicals made in or imported into the U.S. in 2015 also had to be reported.
A near-term use of the information will be helping manufacturers respond to a separate notification period that could begin by the end of December.
Inventory Notification
The deadline for manufacturers to let the EPA know what chemicals they've made over the last 10 years could begin in December if EPA issues the inventory update rule in June, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, acting EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said April 20.
She spoke at the Grocery Manufacturers Association's science forum about the status of the EPA's implementation of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments.
Those amendments require the EPA to publish by June a final inventory update rule. That rule would lay out a process the EPA must use to divide its inventory of more than 80,000 chemicals made or used in the U.S. into a group of chemicals active in commerce and a group that is dormant.
Chemical manufacturers would have six months after the final update rule is published to notify the EPA about chemicals they've made over the last 10 years. Chemical processors would have up to a year. Processors were not required by the TSCA amendments nor EPA's proposed rule to submit notifications to the EPA.
The EPA's release of the chemical production volume information will make notifications easier because under the proposed inventory update rule, neither chemical manufacturers nor processors would need to notify the EPA about chemicals reported under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule in 2016. The proposed rule also said no notifications were needed for the 2012 CDR reports, which covered production volumes in 2011.
Pruitt Urging Staff to Meet Deadlines
That inventory update reporting period would begin in December if the EPA meets TSCA's requirement to issue its final rule by June, Cleland-Hamnett said.
“We have support for doing that,” Cleland-Hamnett said. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has urged staff to meet the law's deadlines for the inventory update and other rules and actions mandated by the 2016 TSCA amendments, she said.
The three procedural, or “framework,” rules the law requires the EPA to issue by June are:
• the inventory update rule;
• a chemical prioritization rule describing how the EPA would sort through chemicals to distinguish ones raising possible concerns from ones that do not; and
• a risk evaluation rule to describe how the agency would assess the risks of high priority chemicals.
If the EPA's risk evaluations determine a chemical poses unreasonable human health or environmental risks, those chemicals will be regulated or otherwise addressed to prevent those risks.The EPA must also publish by June the scope of risk evaluations it has underway for asbestos, pigment violet 29, seven solvents and a cluster of three related flame retardants, Cleland-Hamnett said.
By July, she said, the EPA intends to propose a fourth rule to set fees chemical manufacturers and processors would pay to help the agency recoup its costs for overseeing their products. The 2016 TSCA amendments mandated that rule too, but did not set a deadline by which the agency must issue it.
The agency plans to issue that rule by January 2018, she said.
Fall Meetings on Chemical Prioritization
The EPA plans to meet in fall with chemical manufacturers and processors, state officials, environmental health groups and other organizations interested in fleshing out how it will carry out the chemical prioritization procedures that final rule will establish, Cleland-Hamnett said.
The agency will be looking to all parties to identify sources of toxicity, chemical uses and exposures, and other data, she said.
Chemical processors, companies such as cleaning product, glue, paint and wax manufacturers, and “downstream users,”—companies that make cars or that coat materials such as prestained wooden or painted doors sold by retailers—will have an important role in helping the agency understand how chemicals are actually used, Cleland-Hamnett said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109868903&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109868903&jd=109868903
-
Chemical Companies Ask EPA to Kill Pesticide Risk Study
Apr 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Three companies that make and market organophosphate pesticides have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to scrap the findings of research showing harm to animal species from their products.
Lawyers for Dow Chemical Co., whose CEO, Andrew Liveris, sits on President Trump’s manufacturing council, joined two other companies in the request last week to the EPA and two other agencies assisting in the process, The Associated Press reported Thursday.
The letters dated April 13 characterize the federal research as fundamentally flawed, and ask the Trump administration to “set aside” the results that could lead to large-scale restrictions in the use of the pesticides.
The pesticides at issue — chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion — were found to harm about 1,800 endangered or threatened species, according to the thousands of pages of research gathered over four years.
EPA head Scott Pruitt last month reversed course from the Obama administration by refusing to ban the use of chlorpyrifos on plants meant for human consumption. Researchers have found a link between exposure to the pesticide and brain growth problems in children, conclusions that Dow and its allies disagree with.
An EPA spokesman said the agency would not prejudge any potential decisions regarding the pesticides.
“We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful consideration to sound science and good policymaking,” EPA spokesman J.P. Freire told the AP. “The administrator is committed to listening to stakeholders affected by EPA’s regulations, while also reviewing past decisions.”
Dow AgroSciences, the unit of the company responsible for pesticides, told the AP that the federal government did not use the best available science in its reviews.
“Dow AgroSciences is committed to the production and marketing of products that will help American farmers feed the world, and do so with full respect for human health and the environment, including endangered and threatened species,” it said in a statement to AP. “These letters, and the detailed scientific analyses that support them, demonstrate that commitment.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329664-chemical-companies-ask-epa-to-kill-pesticide-risk-study
-
Lead's Hidden Toll: Across Los Angeles, Toxic Lead Harms Children in Neighborhoods Rich and Poor
Apr 20, 2017 | Reuters
By Joshua Schneyer
Part 1: Lead poisoning afflicts hundreds of areas across Los Angeles County, from affluent hubs to low income or gentrifying areas, Reuters finds. The results surprised some local leaders, showing how lead hazards persist even in a health-conscious region.
With its century-old Spanish-style homes tucked behind immaculately trimmed hedges, San Marino, California, is among the most coveted spots to live in the Los Angeles area.
Its public schools rank top in the state, attracting families affiliated with CalTech, the elite university blocks away. The city’s zoning rules promote a healthy lifestyle, barring fast food chains.
Home values in L.A. County census tract 4641, in the heart of San Marino and 20 minutes from downtown Los Angeles, can rival those in Beverly Hills. The current average listing price: $2.9 million.
But the area has another, unsettling distinction, unknown to residents and city leaders until now: More than 17 percent of small children tested here have shown elevated levels of lead in their blood, according to previously undisclosed L.A. County health data.
That far exceeds the 5 percent rate of children who tested high for lead in Flint, Michigan, during the peak of that city’s water contamination crisis.
The local blood test data, obtained through a records request from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, shows two neighboring San Marino census tracts are among the hotspots for childhood lead exposure in the L.A. area.
RELATED CONTENT
Interactive: Looking for lead
How Reuters analyzed L.A. blood testing data
Unsafe at Any Level: Read the series
Backstory: Read how Reuters gathered the data on lead levels in Californian neighborhoods
San Marino is hardly alone. Across sprawling L.A. County, more than 15,000 children under age 6 tested high for lead between 2011 and 2015. In all, Reuters identified 323 neighborhood areas where the rate of elevated tests was at least as high as in Flint. In 26 of them – including the two in San Marino, and some in economically stressed areas – the rate was at least twice Flint’s.
The data stunned San Marino Mayor Richard Sun, who said he wasn’t aware of any poisoning cases in the community.
“This is a very serious matter, and as the mayor, I really want to further explore it,” Sun said upon reviewing the numbers presented by Reuters. During an interview at City Hall, he directed city officials to investigate potential sources of exposure.
THOUSANDS OF U.S. LEAD HOTSPOTS
The L.A.-area findings are part of an ongoing Reuters examination of hidden lead hazards nationwide. Since last year, the news agency has identified more than 3,300 U.S. neighborhood areas with documented childhood lead poisoning rates double those found in Flint. Studies based on previously available data, surveying broad child populations across entire states or counties, usually couldn’t pinpoint these communities.
Despite decades of U.S. progress in curbing lead poisoning, millions of children remain at risk. Flint’s disaster is just one example of a preventable public health crisis that continues in hotspots coast to coast, Reuters has found.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s threshold for elevated lead is 5 micrograms per deciliter of blood. Children who test at or above that threshold warrant a public health response, the agency says. Even a slight elevation can reduce IQ and stunt childhood development. There’s no safe level of lead in children’s bodies.
In San Marino, old lead-based paint is likely the main source of exposure, county health officials said, but they added that imported food, medicine or pottery from China could also be a factor. About 80 percent of San Marino homes were built before 1960, and the community has a large Asian population, U.S. Census data show.
Exposure from old paint, drinking water and soil are widely researched. Other risks – including some candies, ceramics, spices or remedies containing lead from China, Mexico, India and other countries – are less known.
The L.A. blood data covers nearly 1,550 census tracts, or county subdivisions, each with an average population around 4,000. It shows the number of small children tested in each tract, and how many tested high.
In California, the exposure risks children face can vary wildly by neighborhood. Many L.A. areas have little or no documented lead poisoning. Countywide, 2 percent of children tested high. But in hundreds of areas, the rate is far higher. Reuters crunched the data, and neighborhood-level results can be explored on an interactive map. (See Map, Below)
In the trouble areas, old housing is commonplace. Nearly half of L.A. County’s homes were built before 1960. Lead was banned from household paint in 1978, but old paint can peel, chip, or pulverize into toxic dust.
Children are often exposed in decrepit housing. But in some U.S. areas, nearly a third of lead poisoning cases can be linked to home renovation projects, said Mary Jean Brown, a public health specialist at Harvard University and former director of the CDC’s lead prevention program.
San Marino residents take pride in preserving their historic homes. Among the measures Mayor Sun wants to consider: An ordinance to ensure safe practices any time home repairs or renovations could disturb lead paint.
Poverty is another predictor of lead poisoning, and many of L.A.’s danger zones are concentrated in low-income or gentrifying areas near downtown and on the city’s densely populated South Side.
In one low-income area of South L.A., Reuters met with the family of Kendra Nicole Rojas, a three-year-old recently diagnosed with lead poisoning, only to find that 63 other small children living within a six block radius have also tested high.
“A lot of people don’t even think of the West Coast as a place where kids get poisoned,” said Linda Kite, executive director at L.A.-based Healthy Homes Collaborative. “The biggest problem we have is medical apathy. Many doctors don’t test children for lead.”
The findings highlight a need for greater medical surveillance, abatement and awareness in the health-conscious county of 10 million, public health specialists said.
The county and city of Los Angeles have dedicated lead prevention programs that work with at-risk families. When a child’s blood levels persist above 10 micrograms per deciliter – double the CDC threshold – the family receives a home inspection, nurse visits and follow-up.
The effects of lead poisoning are irreversible, and the programs’ broader goal is to prevent any exposure. But success hinges on many actors, and assistance from agencies such as the CDC, the department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency. Like other regions, L.A. faces a looming hurdle in attacking hazards: President Donald Trump’s federal budget proposals would sharply cut funds for many lead-related programs.
“We’re aware of lots of areas where homes or soil contain significant levels of lead, and those can represent an urgent need to act,” said Maurice Pantoja, chief environmental health specialist for the county program. “Any fewer resources toward poisoning prevention would be a tragedy.”
A POISONED HOME
Just a few miles west of San Marino, in South Pasadena, one boy’s poisoning serves as a cautionary tale.HAZARDOUS LEGACY: Floors and window areas from the interior of a home in South Pasadena, CA, in 2012, where an infant named Connor was poisoned by lead paint and dust. REUTERS/Handout via Philip Shakhnis
In an old, pastel-colored home on Hope Street, an infant named Connor was exposed to lead paint and dust in 2012.
The property is owned by California’s Department of Transportation, Caltrans, which had plans to expand a freeway in the area. Its floors were coated in chipping lead paint. During a bathroom repair, a crew showed up in “hazmat suits,” said tenant Cynthia Wright, Connor’s grandmother.
But as the crew worked, stripping toxic paint from walls and fixtures and unleashing plumes of dust, they told the family there was no need to leave the home, Wright said.
That was an unfortunate lapse, the state agency acknowledged. “There were errors in handling communications regarding this property and Caltrans has revised its business practices,” spokeswoman Lauren Wonder said, leading to “greater vigilance.”
Connor continued crawling around the floors. At age one, he began missing developmental milestones. Suddenly, he lost the ability to use the few words he could say.
When his mother, Heather Nolan, had him tested for lead, the result was almost five-fold the CDC threshold. Lead levels often peak among children ages one to two, when they are increasingly mobile and have hand-to-mouth behaviors.
Now six, Connor needs speech and occupational therapy up to five times a week. He hasn’t been able to integrate in a mainstream classroom.
“It’s not an easy road,” his grandmother said. “I would tell anyone in an old home, you really need to be aware of the risks.”
In 2015, the family settled a landmark lawsuit against Caltrans for $10 million. Wright still lives in the home, which has been remediated.
POOR PROSPECTS
Amid an affordable housing crisis in Los Angeles, many renters don’t confront landlords to fix lead paint hazards, fearing eviction if they raise the alarm, said Kite, the healthy homes advocate. That helps explain why so many children in south and central L.A. test high.
Karla Rojas, 26, was living with her extended family on 30th Street in a low-income area of South L.A. last year when her toddler, Kendra, started getting chronic bouts of illness.
Mother and daughter slept on the floor, near a bookshelf where an inspector later found flaking lead paint. Tested at the local St. John’s Well Child & Family Center, Kendra’s result came back at several times the CDC threshold.
Once county officials got involved, the landlord repainted the shelf and other areas where lead was found. Still, terrified her daughter’s exposure would continue, Rojas moved out.
“When you read about what lead can do, it makes me fear for her future,” said Rojas, watching three-year-old Kendra play with two new pet rabbits.
Exposure is common in the area, said Jeff Sanchez, a consultant at public health research firm Impact Assessment, which works with L.A.’s prevention program. Around the neighborhood, code inspectors have cited at least 35 percent of residential properties for chipping or peeling paint violations over a four-year period.
Paint isn’t the only peril. A mile and a half east, in Vernon, the now shuttered Exide Technologies battery-recycling plant spewed noxious emissions for decades, polluting soil in thousands of properties with lead residue. A planned $175 million cleanup will rely in part on children’s blood tests to determine which properties should be sanitized first. Past testing has shown that children living close to the plant are at heightened risk.
Yet California, like Michigan, doesn’t require lead screening for all children, leaving many untested.
Prompted in part by Reuters’ previous coverage, California cities and lawmakers are pushing new initiatives to protect children.
Bill Quirk, chair of the state legislature’s Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, recently introduced a bill to require screening for all small children.
“I strongly support blood lead testing,” said U.S. Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, who represents part of L.A. County. “It’s important that residents have information about the threats they may face in their communities.”
‘DON’T WORRY, HE’S NOT AT RISK’
California’s current policy is to test children with known risk factors, including those enrolled in government assistance programs for the poor like Medicaid. The protocol, applied unevenly by healthcare providers, can miss poisoned kids.
In 2013, when apparel designer Amanda Gries and her husband, a Hollywood film editor, rented a home in L.A.’s West Adams neighborhood, she was pregnant with son Wyatt, now 3. The century-old mansion was in a rapidly gentrifying area south of downtown, near landmarks such as the Staples Center and the University of Southern California.
Gries, concerned about peeling paint and dust in the home, urged a pediatrician to screen Wyatt before his first birthday.
“The doctor didn’t want to test,” Gries said. “The message was, ‘Don’t worry, he’s not at risk.’ It was like he didn’t fit the profile.”
Gries insisted, and her fears were confirmed when Wyatt tested at nearly double the CDC’s elevated threshold. An inspection found lead in dust on the floor of Wyatt’s bedroom at 30 times the federal hazard level.
The family moved out quickly and searched citywide before settling into a home on L.A.’s west side, chosen because no lead was detected inside. Wyatt is bright and energetic, Gries said, but has impulsive behaviors. He needs occupational therapy for sensory issues, at nearly $200 per session.
Keeping Wyatt away from lead hazards and feeding him a special diet are part of the Gries’ daily routine. Poor nutrition can worsen lead poisoning, allowing children’s bodies to absorb more of the heavy metal.
“All we can do is hope he’s okay,” said Gries.
How Reuters analyzed L.A. blood testing data
The Los Angeles data examined by Reuters offers a granular look at where children have been exposed to dangerous levels of lead in the United States’ most populous county.
The data tracks blood lead level testing results for children from birth to six years old from 2011-2015, aggregated by census tract.
L.A. County shared results for each census tract with at least 100 unique children tested over this period. Most neighborhoods throughout the county are included.
The results show children tested, and those with one or more elevated tests. The data reflects the census tract where children were living when they were screened.
An elevated result is equal to or greater than the CDC’s reference value of 5 micrograms per deciliter. Any result above 4.5 is rounded up to 5 and considered elevated, in keeping with a standard convention for reporting of lead test results.
The CDC used the same convention when it found that 5 percent of children tested in Flint had elevated lead levels during the peak of the city’s water contamination crisis.
The CDC lowered its elevated threshold most recently in 2012, in part to reflect the medical consensus that even low levels of lead exposure cause permanent harm to children.
REUTERS INVESTIGATES
More Reuters investigations and long-form narratives
The agency is considering lowering it again , a move that could lead to more children testing high and expand efforts to remove lead from the environment.
The L.A. County results include both capillary (finger-prick) and venous blood tests. Both have margins of error, although venous tests are considered more accurate and “confirmatory.”
The data has limits. Many children don’t get tested, and results from some cities are excluded. Data from Vernon, Long Beach and Pasadena – each with independent health departments – wasn’t available from the county.
California requires testing for children enrolled in Medicaid at ages one and two, and advises physicians to test some other children, including those living in older housing.
A similar “targeted testing” policy is used in most states, including Michigan, although some states require testing for all children. Elevated blood lead levels are likely more common among children who get screened for the toxin, California officials say.
However, Reuters found that even children with risk factors often aren’t tested, including those living in old housing. And Medicaid paid for screening covering only about one in three enrollees for whom tests were indicated in the state, 2015 billing data showed.
California’s Department of Public Health says comparisons with other areas aren’t warranted. Sources of lead exposure, and tracking of blood tests, can differ between areas.
“Testing results need to be considered in the context of the unique population being tested,” the department said in a statement.
The L.A. data builds upon previous Reuters reporting in California. A report last month documented areas, including parts of Fresno, Oakland and Los Angeles, with worrisome childhood exposure rates. That report was based on testing data from about a fourth of zip codes statewide in 2012, shared earlier by the state’s Department of Public Health. Today’s article is based on a far more comprehensive trove of data for L.A. County, recently obtained by Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-la/
-
Fed Reports Increased Activity in Shale Plays, But Some Concerns on Volatility, Job Shortages
Apr 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Economic activity increased in all 12 districts monitored by the Federal Reserve between mid-February and the end of March, with hiring in the energy sector picking up steam in the Dallas, Kansas City and Minneapolis districts, home to the some of the nation's prolific shale plays.
But in the latest edition of its Beige Book, issued Wednesday, the Fed said several of its contacts reported concerns over price volatility and tightness in the labor market surrounding the oil and gas industry, adding that an accelerated pace for oil and gas drilling may not last through the year.
The Fed said hiring in oilfield services (OFS) "picked up notably" in the first quarter in the Dallas District, but also noted that some exploration and production companies have continued to making layoffs. The district includes Texas, southern New Mexico and northern Louisiana, thereby comprising the bulk of the Barnett, Eagle Ford and Haynesville-Bossier shales and the Permian Basin.
"Several contacts speculated that employment in the energy sector will not increase proportionately with increases in drilling activity because of improved production technology and efficiencies," the Fed said. "Labor market tightness has appeared throughout the oil and gas supply chain, with several contacts specifically mentioning shortages of truck drivers, and nearly all sectors reported upward wage pressures."
The Fed said OFS firms in the Dallas District "increased prices over the past six weeks, with further increases expected as demand picks up." Later in its report, the Fed added that demand for OFS "improved substantially...over the past six weeks.
"Oil and gas activity surged, with firms noting a pickup in the Eagle Ford Shale as well as the Permian Basin. Several contacts mentioned that the accelerating pace may not be sustainable, expecting rig count growth to moderate mid-year. Outlooks overall for 2017 were more positive than in the prior reporting period, especially among OFS firms, but most contacts noted concern over expected volatility."
In the neighboring Kansas City District, the Fed said activity in the energy sector "continued to expand moderately, while expectations eased somewhat but remained solid.
"The number of active oil and gas drilling rigs grew moderately, mainly in Oklahoma and New Mexico. Contacts reported slight increases in OFS costs for completions since last year, and some expected further increases through the summer. Most respondents expected oil and gas prices to stay near current levels in the coming months."
According to the Fed, a large supply of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale "was the main factor keeping price expectations low. Some oil and gas firms also reported having concerns about labor shortages affecting the near-term growth in activity."
The Kansas City District includes Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, western Missouri and northern New Mexico, and includes the Niobrara and Woodford shales, as well as the Denver-Julesburg, Piceance and San Juan basins.
In the Minneapolis District -- which includes North Dakota and Montana, and therefore much of the Bakken Shale -- the Fed said the oil-producing region of North Dakota "saw an increase in hiring, according to a state contact." Later in its report, the Fed added that "while wages in the Bakken oil region remained below their peak, housing allowances and daily stipends have come back after being eliminated during the oil downturn, according to a source there...
"District oil and gas drilling as of late March increased from low levels a month earlier. Some contacts in the oil-producing region of the district expected an increase in activity in April."
The Fed said that in the Cleveland District -- an area that includes Ohio, western Pennsylvania and eastern Kentucky, and therefore large portions of the Marcellus and Utica shales -- "oil and gas field materials prices moved higher because of the expansion in upstream activity...
"A small rise in oil and gas drilling is spurring additional investment in midstream and pipeline projects. Drillers are being motivated by a slow upward trend in wellhead prices and a need to perform on their leases. With the new presidential administration, oil and gas producers are hopeful for a less restrictive permitting process."
In the Atlanta District, the Fed said its energy contacts there "noted that crude oil inventories remained at historically high levels due to weak demand, oversupply, and continued production." The district covers Alabama, Florida, Georgia, southern Louisiana, southern Mississippi and eastern Tennessee.
"Utility industry contacts noted continued investments in renewable energy," the Fed said. "[Our energy] contacts cited robust construction on gas liquefaction plants in southwest Louisiana -- however, skilled labor shortages were also noted. Operational liquefied natural gas plants experienced steady export activity."
Elsewhere, the Fed noted that specialty metals manufacturers in the Chicago District "reported higher sales to the energy sector, though contacts noted that efficiency gains in the sector over the last couple of years have resulted in a notable decline in sales volume per barrel of oil produced."
Meanwhile, in the San Francisco District, which includes Alaska, the Fed said "oil production remained stable in Alaska, but relatively low oil prices have slowed investment substantially."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110187-fed-reports-increased-activity-in-shale-plays-but-some-concerns-on-volatility-job-shortages
-
The Energy Department is Changing Its Website to Reflect Trump’s Climate Agenda
Apr 21, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
The Energy Department is changing its website to cut down on Obama-era language touting renewable energy sources as a climate-friendly replacement for fossil fuels, according to reports from an environmental watchdog group.
Whereas the site formerly touted technologies such as wind, solar and geothermal energy as a replacement for sources such as coal, oil and natural gas, the department’s website now focuses on renewable energy’s potential to create jobs, according to the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, a network of academics and nonprofit groups that has been monitoring federal websites.
The reports, compiled by the EDGI’s website tracking team, describe changes made during the past few months to Web pages for the Energy Department’s Bioenergy Technologies Office, Wind Energy Technologies Office and Vehicle Technologies Office, all of which fall under the agency’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy — an office that has been targeted for deep cuts by proposed administration budgets. These offices are tasked with the research, development and deployment of renewable energy and sustainable transportation.
Under the Obama administration, these offices’ websites emphasized the importance of cutting down on U.S. carbon emissions and reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels — a message in keeping with President Barack Obama’s push to address climate change.
But with the Trump administration de-emphasizing climate change and looking to promote climate-friendly and carbon-intensive energy sources — an agenda that coincides with a broad attempt to eliminate regulations on fossil fuels and particularly on coal — the priorities outlined on these office’s Web pages have been shifting since the inauguration.
For each of the three offices, EDGI reports a change in the emphasis of renewable fuels or energy sources as a replacement for fossil fuels. On the Vehicle Technologies Office’s “Working With Us” page, for instance, the office’s mission statement previously included the line, “reduce the use of petroleum.” Sometime around the end of January and beginning of February, that line changed to “strengthen U.S. energy security, economic vitality, and quality of life,” according to the report.
Website monitoring efforts at EDGI have been keeping track of the recent changes, using a form of tracking software.
Similarly, the website for the Bioenergy Technologies Office previously included a line suggesting that its efforts were “helping to replace the whole barrel of oil.” In March, that sentence was replaced with a line suggesting that the office is “supporting the development of bioproducts, which enable biofuels, since the production of bioproducts relies on much of the same feedstocks, infrastructure, and technologies that are central to biofuel production.”
In turn, the reports note a shift to an increased stress on the economic payoffs of advancing these technologies, also in keeping with the administration’s emphasis on jobs creation.
The Wind Energy Technologies site, for instance, recently added a line pointing out that “wind energy currently supports more than 100,000 U.S. jobs, and wind turbine technician is the nation’s fastest-growing occupation. According to industry experts, the U.S. wind industry is expected to drive over $85 billion in economic activity from 2017 to 2020, and wind-related employment is expected to reach 248,000 jobs in all 50 states by 2020.”
Together, the changes collectively downplay the climate benefits of each form of technology and distance the agency from the idea that they might be used to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, instead emphasizing their economic advantages. It’s a move that’s well in line with the Trump administration’s generally dismissive attitude toward the issue of climate change.
The Energy Department did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the reasons for these changes. However, these are far from the first changes to be made to federal websites concerning climate and the environment under the Trump administration, nor is it uncommon for incoming administrations to change their websites to reflect the new president’s priorities.
Multiple climate-related reports disappeared from the State Department website in January. And in the same month, employees of the Environmental Protection Agency indicated that the Trump administration was planning to remove certain sections on climate change from the agency’s website, although the administration later backed away from those plans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/21/the-energy-department-is-changing-its-website-to-reflect-trumps-climate-agenda/?utm_term=.1ae9caa491b2
-
Natural Gas Moves to the Naughty List
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A Dlouhy and Mark Chediak
Think coal's got it bad in the fight against climate change? Watch what happens to natural gas.
Power plants around the world are stepping up their use of gas as a fuel because it burns cleaner than coal—and in the U.S., at least, it's cheaper. Gas now supplies about a third of the country's power, up from just 17 percent a decade ago.
But U.S. environmentalists have vowed to go after gas-fired power plants with the same vengeance they've used to force the retirements of hundreds of coal facilities. Even coal miners are warning their fossil fuel kin to beware. Gas producers “will be next on the list of the industries to be destroyed,” says Robert Murray, chief executive officer of U.S. coal miner Murray Energy Corp.
Coal lost its place as America's No. 1 power plant fuel last year, dethroned by gas. More than a thousand coal mines have closed since 2009, putting about 36,000 people out of work. Researchers and energy executives alike warn that if gas can't cut globe-warming emissions, it's only a matter of time before it shares the same fate.
Natural gas is often promoted as clean because it releases half as much carbon dioxide as coal when combusted. But methane, the most prevalent chemical compound in natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas in its own right, with heat-trapping emissions leaked at every stage of its life, from well to pipeline to power plant. In the U.S., the gas industry as a whole was responsible for more emissions than coal last year for the first time, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
Green groups that once celebrated gas as a “bridge fuel,” helping the world transition from dirty coal to zero-emission energy such as wind, solar, and other renewable sources, are now fighting it.
Lena Moffitt, a program director at the Sierra Club, says there's a “growing recognition that it's a fuel we'll have to leave behind.”The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
Moffitt's organization is increasingly focused on stopping gas-fired power plants and pipelines from being built. Among recent targets: a proposed $250 million gas-fueled plant near Los Angeles and the $1 billion Constitution Pipeline Williams Partners LP wants to construct to bring gas to New York City from Pennsylvania.
Groups seeking to mobilize public opposition to such projects can point to Aliso Canyon, a community near Los Angeles, where a blowout at a storage facility in October 2015 resulted in the largest methane leak in U.S. history, forcing thousands of residents from their homes.
President Donald Trump may be undoing Barack Obama's climate policies, but individual U.S. states and almost 200 countries from Canada to China are still switching to cleaner power, partly to honor their commitments to reduce emissions under the United Nations-sponsored Paris Agreement. That includes shifting away from natural gas. BNEF projects that by 2040 gas will make up less than a sixth of the world's power market—down from a quarter today—as cheap, emissions-free solar and wind power prevail.
“There's probably 30 years of environmental momentum that's been building,” says Michael Moore, vice president of Houston-based energy broker FearnOil Inc. “It's not going to disappear with four years of a new president.”
To keep its product from falling out of favor, the gas industry has spent at least $10 billion developing technologies to capture carbon emissions. Chevron Corp. and Australia's government have invested $1.5 billion in equipment that collects carbon dioxide from a massive liquefied natural gas project and entombs it in an underground reservoir. In Texas, Exelon, Toshiba, and Net Power are part of a $140 million venture building a 50-megawatt “clean gas” power plant that the companies say will be the first to capture and recycle almost all of its emissions when it starts up later this year.
“There is an attack on coal to cut CO2, and switching to natural gas is a solution, but ultimately that will be constrained by regulation at some point as well,” says Tim Thomas, vice president and deputy general manager at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America. In response to “global interest,” the Houston-based company is looking to design gas-fired power units that can capture their own carbon.
But will the cost of the new technologies come down fast enough for gas to avoid coal's fate? Dawn Farrell, chief executive officer of TransAlta Corp., a Canadian electric utility that's shutting coal plants to comply with environmental regulations, offers a cautionary tale. Speaking to a business crowd at the Canadian Club of Montreal in February, she warned against investing in gas-fired plants. “The people who build the gas plants today will be me 25 years from now, facing the shutdown of those plants,” she said. “I fundamentally believe—whatever the rhetoric is—you want to find the way to make electricity without carbon if you want it to be a good investment.”
—With Tim Loh and Sandrine Rastello
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109868876&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109868876&jd=109868876
-
Ambition Paves the Way for Continued Energy Transitions
Apr 20, 2017 | Platts
By Ross McCracken
The pace of technological change within the energy sector has been rapid over the last decade and shows no sign of abating.
Within the power sector, renewables, in the form of onshore wind and utility-scale solar PV, have become competitive with fossil fuels, and have done so at a time of relatively low oil prices. Portugal is building a Feed-in Tariff (FiT) free 300 MW solar PV facility, while Danish utility Dong offered and won subsidy-free bids for three offshore German wind projects in April.
A key change has been the switch from FiTs to competitive auctions, which forces bidders to factor in expected future declines in renewable energy costs — if they want to win. But the significance is that they can. Advances in wind turbine size and in solar cell efficiency, materials and manufacturing suggest that renewables will continue to see further reductions in cost.
This forward perspective is important because conventional technologies, such as nuclear, coal or gas-fired power generation, cannot make the same claims, while the latter two both carry major fuel price risk. That the cleanest forms of power generation have become the least-cost option in any generation portfolio is a critical turning point for the power industry and the fossil fuel producers that supply it.
Falling technology costs are also evident in the transportation sector, with a proliferation of hybrid electric vehicles already on the market, and new models of pure electric cars now being offered at around $40,000. Battery costs are falling fast as the first Giga-factory moves towards completion.
Just as with solar and wind, widget-style production of batteries promises significant learning-by-doing cost gains.
In Norway, pure electric cars made up 29% of new sales in 2016 on a par with gasoline engines. In China, sales of electric buses last year reached 115,700, up from just 1,672 in 2013. Alternative modes of transport are still washing at the margins of a sector dominated by oil, but an exponential growth attack on oil’s last bastion has precedent in the spectacular and consistently under-estimated early growth of renewables.
Moreover, a combination of city air pollution, air quality standards, environmental activism, public concern and mayoral power has created a potent cocktail of forces driving a backlash against diesel engines. This is resulting in a plethora of abatement measures being proposed in the world’s major cities, affecting tens of millions of vehicle users, passenger and commercial alike.
Alternative modes of transportation, such as Compressed Natural Gas, electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered engines, already receive tax breaks in many countries. Now their competition faces surcharges and bans, nudging the economics ever closer in favor of the technological upstarts.
But most significant of all, both for power and transportation, is the change over the last decade in the level of ambition. Concerns 10 years ago that more than 20% wind penetration in a grid would create massive instability were alarmist. The technologies to mitigate variable power generation are being tested, developed and deployed. There is now little on the technology front that stands in the way of 100% renewable electricity systems.
Industrial revolutions and changes in energy systems are natural bedfellows.
It should be no surprise that huge improvements in information technology should provide the means for new forms of energy provision, use and trade. The stone age did not end because of a lack of stone, and the fossil fuel age won’t end for lack of coal, gas or oil. Instead, it will be usurped by the electron, provided by zero fuel cost generation in a digital world.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/04/20/ambition-energy-transitions/#more-25923
-
Apr 20, 2017 | Lexology
By Robin B. Thomerson
On January 13, 2017, EPA published a final rule amending its Risk Management Program (RMP) in response to an Executive Order from former President Obama ordering enhanced safety procedures in the wake of the West Texas fertilizer fire in 2013. As discussed in the May 2016 issue of the Air Quality Letter, EPA’s proposed rule added numerous requirements for certain facilities, including root cause analyses after incidents or “near misses”; independent third party audits; safer technology and alternatives analysis; significantly enhanced coordination with first responders (including field and tabletop exercises); and making publically available a host of information, including regulated substance information and emergency response program information. EPA proposed that the public information be in an “easily accessible” format such as a website.
EPA received criticism on the proposed rule from industry, especially regarding the requirements for public access to information that could be used by persons inclined to cause a catastrophic release to select a target and exploit emergency response plans for any perceived vulnerabilities. Security issues raised by the proposed rule were of major concern during the public comment period. Also of concern was the requirement for totally independent public audits, whether the proposed requirement for a safer technology and alternatives analysis for some facilities provided any practical benefit and whether the proposed requirement for field and tabletop exercised would provide significant benefit.
In the final rule, EPA attempted to address security concerns by removing the requirement to post hazard information on websites and instead requiring facilities to make information available on request regarding the names of regulated substances in the operating process, safety data sheets, a summary of the emergency response program, a list of coordination exercises scheduled with emergency responders, and local emergency responder contact information. The final rule also required a facility to provide a local emergency planning committee (LEPC) with any information related to emergency planning the LEPC deems relevant and requests. Further revisions in response to comments included removal of the certification requirement for auditors and allowing other participants to be involved in the audit process.
EPA’s changes to the final rule did not satisfy criticism and various actions have been taken in response since publication. On February 1, 2017, a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) was filed in the House of Representatives that would disapprove the rule. A joint resolution for the same purpose was introduced in the Senate on March 2, 2017. However, competing priorities could overtake the CRA resolution to stop this rule.
On February 28, 2017, a coalition of industry groups consisting of the American Chemistry Council, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Utility Air Regulatory Group petitioned EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for review of the rule. The petition requests the rule be reviewed and rescinded and the effective date be stayed. Along with other final rule provisions, the petition identifies the LEPC disclosure requirements as a new provision that should have gone through additional public notice and comment as it poses a security threat. The petition also asserts that the finding that the West Texas incident was an intentional criminal act of arson, released two days prior to the end of the public comment period, made it impractical for commenters to fully consider the impact of the finding or how the proposed rule may change based on the finding (e.g., more focus on enhanced security measures for facilities).
By letter dated March 13, 2017, Administrator Pruitt responded that one or more objectives in the petition arose after the public comment period or were impracticable to raise during the public comment period, are central to the rule and thus a proceeding for reconsideration is being convened. The letter also found the cause of the West Texas incident is of central relevance to the rule. Further, on March 16, 2017, EPA published notice of the reconsideration and administrative stay of the effective date of the rule until June 19, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 13968 (March 16, 2017). Having considered the issues raised in the coalition petition, EPA stated that reconsideration is appropriate and the agency will provide the petitioners and the public opportunity to comment on the issues in the petition meeting the requirements for reconsideration “as well as any other matter we believe will benefit from further comment.”
Finally, on March 14, 2017 a group of 11 states, including Kentucky and West Virginia, also petitioned for reconsideration of the rule. In addition, the states requested the stay be extended for 15 months to “prevent needless expenditures by states and localities in order to meet their obligations under provisions of the rule that are potentially subject to change.” The states assert the final rule will burden emergency responders as well as state and local governments without commensurate benefit and requires disclosures of facility information that is a security threat when the states believe existing regulations are adequate to prevent accidental releases. On April 3, 2017, EPA proposed to delay the effective date of the final rule to February 19, 2019 to allow EPA to review the petitions and address comments. EPA will accept comments on the proposed extension through May 19, 2017. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-04-03/pdf/2017-06526.pdf
We will continue to monitor and report on the final rule during the reconsideration process.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b1644715-2cd8-42f4-9d3a-dbd23163d8f3
-
EPA, OSHA Regulations Overlook Nitrous Oxide Risk, Safety Board Finds
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
An explosion that killed a worker at a Florida nitrous oxide plant and disrupted supplies of the gas for months stemmed from the facility's subpar process safety practices and a lack of federal regulations, the Chemical Safety Board said.
The explosion occurred around 12:10 p.m. Aug. 28, 2016, when a trailer truck being loaded by employee Jesse Folmar, 32, the only worker on duty, exploded, killing him and halting production at the Cantonment, Fla., plant indefinitely.
Releasing a final report on the Aug. 28, 2016, incident April 20, the CSB said the explosion seemed to result from the pump Folmar used to load the truck heating the nitrous oxide above safe operating limits.
The action appeared to start a decomposition reaction that moved through the pump into the tanker truck, the CSB found, though it was not possible to determine the cause definitively because of a lack of witnesses and extensive damage to the plant.
‘
Vanessa L. Allen Sutherland, chairperson of the CSB, said in a statement April 20 that facilities do not always have safety management systems commensurate with the risks of handling nitrous oxide. The board found six similar nitrous oxide explosions since 1973 in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, the Netherlands and Spain.“Safety management systems standards are critical to identify, evaluate, and control process safety hazards,” Sutherland said. “This tragedy in Cantonment should not be repeated.”
No OSHA, EPA Rules
The CSB report said Airgas’ plant was not subject to either the Environmental Protection Agency's risk management program or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's process safety management regulations -- a flaw CSB first identified in recommendations to OSHA in 2002.
As a result, the company lacked a safety management program that might have identified, evaluated and controlled process safety management hazards, the CSB report said. The report recommended Airgas parent company Air Liquide S.A. complete a process safety review launched after the incident.
It also issued recommendations to the Compressed Gas Association to develop a safety management system for nitrous oxide hazards, among other issues, and for pump manufacturers ACD LLC and Cryostar USA LLC to change product safety literature to better warn of safety risks.
In a statement, Airgas spokeswoman Sarah Boxler said the company “worked cooperatively over many months with representatives from the CSB and others to thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident.”
Boxler said the company started a “comprehensive review” of nitrous oxide operations after the incident. The CSB's recommendation to complete the effort “aligns with the company's own goal to prevent any future incidents,” Boxler said.
Plant Caused Food Shortage
The explosion at the plant -- one of just five that supply the U.S. and Canada -- caused a shortage of nitrous oxide that persisted through the fall and winter.
Because Airgas prioritized shipments for medical purposes, supply problems kept food products like Reddi-wip off some shelves. ConAgra spokeswoman Lanie Friedman said by early March the situation was resolved.
CSB Investigator Dan Tillema told The Atlantic last year it was “hard for me to worry about the whipped cream knowing that Jesse's family members and coworkers are thinking about a lot more than whipped cream this year.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109868891&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109868891&jd=109868891
-
Trump Successes May Limit Environmental Riders in Funding Bill
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A Trump administration rolling back environmental actions and Congress quashing Obama-era regulations, combined with a packed legislative calendar, may mean few environmental riders in the upcoming government funding bill.
“Riders seem like small potatoes compared to what's coming down the pike,” William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. His group isn't lobbying for any environmental riders, he said.
Another factor that may limit environmental riders is the need to garner Democratic votes to pass the measure to keep the government funded beyond April 28. Despite that, environmental groups are still preparing to battle any riders that would target environmental protections, doing so this year without a friendly White House ready to veto any poison pills.
“Our playbook, our strategy doesn't change because we're still fighting the same fight,” Kirin Kennedy, the Sierra Club's associate legislative director for lands and wildlife, told Bloomberg BNA. “It just intensifies.”
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
Details on riders will be available soon because government funding runs out after April 28. House and Senate appropriations staff told Bloomberg BNA that even though no funding legislation has been introduced yet, their goal is still to get a bill out of Congress by that deadline, potentially with money for the rest of the fiscal year.
Political observers are also watching for details central to the upcoming funding bill. They want to know how the White House's request for an $18 billion reduction in non-defense discretionary funding will affect funding levels and if Congress will fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.
What's In a Rider?
Riders, which are attached to appropriations bills, allow Congress to an extent to direct the administration's priorities. But with Republicans in control of the entire government, that's not needed, Jim Dyer, a 13-year veteran of the House Appropriations Committee and former senior legislative aide to two Republican presidents, told Bloomberg BNA.
“A Republican Congress doesn't need to send a message to a Republican president,” Dyer, now a principal at the Podesta Group, said. “They just pick up the phone and call.”
They can be also used to temporarily block an agency from taking an action by barring it from using the funding for that purpose or, alternatively, can direct the administration to use funding for a specific purpose.
For example, a rider in December 2015 lifted a decades-long ban prohibiting U.S. companies from exporting crude oil. Generally, several environmental policy riders are introduced early in the process and only a few make it into legislation. Riders are generally seen as a last resort, Kevin Fay, vice chairman of lobbying firm Alcalde & Fay, told Bloomberg BNA.
Defenders of Wildlife found more than 150 “anti-environmental” policy riders were floated for fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills and other major bills last year. The riders ranged from endangered species to clean water regulation.
Fewer Environmental Riders Expected
However, a number of changed dynamics make those riders less likely to appear in the upcoming funding bill, in part because some have already been addressed, lobbyists said.
Congress's actions through the Congressional Review Act eliminated some of the most contentious rules. Also, President Donald Trump's executive orders have already targeted other environmental regulations. Regulatory reform reviews underway at federal agencies, including at the Environmental Protection Agency, are also on tap to address other problems that still exist.
The packed legislative agenda, in which Congress will address the debt ceiling and major projects such as tax reform, and the fact that certain key Republicans say a government shutdown would likely be blamed on their party are additional incentives to limit riders on the funding bill, lobbyists said. Keeping these out, also would leave the upcoming bill in a better place to gather the necessary Democratic support.
“It seems likely that Democratic votes will be needed for an omnibus to pass both chambers, and we have been clear that we will not help pass a bill that contains poison pill riders, including those that would have a negative effect on public health by undermining critical environmental protections,” Matt Dennis, a spokesman for the Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, said in an email.
Riders Still Send Signal
This doesn't necessarily mean environmental policy riders won't be useful during the era of the Republican-controlled Washington, and there are even some uses in this specific rider fight, lobbyists said.
Generally, the dynamics between Congress and the White House and within Congress itself are still being determined, which could ultimately affect how useful or needed a rider is as a vehicle to get something done, Fay said.
In the FY 2017 funding battle, Dyer said opportunities are available for potential environmental riders on the bill to still be used as a message from Congress to the president. For example, the president has indicated he wants to cut funding for programs such as Chesapeake Bay restoration that have broad bipartisan support, so riders could be used to protect programs like that, he said.
Kennedy of the Sierra Club said riders could still serve a unique purpose by allowing Congress to circumvent the courts or executive branch to achieve a faster solution over that appropriations timeframe, she said.
Environmentalists Remain Concerned
It shouldn't be surprising, then, that environmentalists are still concerned about the prospect of riders in this specific funding fight. Kennedy said she's heard more than 100 riders are still a part of the FY 2017 negotiations, though it isn't clear whether any of those would target environmental programs.
Issues environmentalists and others said they have heard are potentially on the table range from exempting the president's hoped for U.S.-Mexico border wall from National Environmental Policy Act requirements to authorizing a road through a national wildlife refuge in Alaska to altering endangered species protections.
These riders are “much more of a threat now” than they were in the past because the president won't veto bills with those policy attachments, Alex Taurel, deputy legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters, told Bloomberg BNA.
That is why the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation will continue to lobby alongside other progressive groups within the Clean Budget Coalition to block any harmful riders from the ultimate bill. And, Taurel said, if Republicans are worried about getting this off of their to-do list, keeping these riders out would help them get this and future appropriations bills done instead of relying on additional continuing resolutions.
Dyer said finishing up with this bill itself is likely a high priority. “You need to get ’17 off your plate,” Dyer said referring to the FY 2017 funding bill. “There's a lot to do, but you can't do it while you're sitting around haggling over this sort of stuff.”
The National Mining Association declined to comment for this article. The American Petroleum Institute didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's message requesting comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109868877&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109868877&jd=109868877
-
Environmentalists Say 'Routine' EPA Bids to Delay Suits Violate Court's High Bar
Apr 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject Trump EPA requests to delay several imminent arguments over Obama-era air rules, charging that the requests are becoming “routine” and are at odds with the court's rule of only granting such requests when EPA can show “extraordinary cause.”
“These requests seek to deprive litigants of their right to judicial hearing and have become the opposite of extraordinary -- routine,” a coalition of environmental groups write in an April 20 filing opposing the agency's request to delay May 8 oral argument in a suit over the Obama EPA's 2015 rule forcing 36 states to remove language from their Clean Air Act compliance plans allowing facility emissions limit waivers during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) periods.
“Counting this case, EPA has now moved to continue oral argument in five cases within 30 days of their argument date, all because of the agency's desire to allow the new Administration time to review the rules at issue in them,” argue Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice and Environmental Integrity Project.
EPA has already won its requests to delay -- or “continue” -- scheduled oral arguments in North Dakota v. EPA which challenges the Obama administration's greenhouse gas rule for newly constructed power plants that was slated to take place April 17, and in Murray Energy v. EPA where various groups are challenging the Obama EPA's 2015 decision to tighten the federal ozone limit and in which argument was scheduled for April 19.
The agency has also filed requests to delay currently scheduled May 18 arguments in two cases over the Obama EPA's utility air toxics rule: Murray Energy v. EPA that contests the agency's revised cost assessment for the rule, and ARIPPA v. EPA challenging agency denials of petitions to reconsider the rule.
And it is seeking to delay arguments in the suit over the SSM policy, Walter Coke, Inc. v. EPA.
In addition, the agency is also seeking to hold in abeyance pending litigation over EPA's methane and conventional pollutant standards for new oil and gas sources, though that suit has not yet been scheduled for oral argument.
One industry attorney recently told Inside EPA that the agency might struggle to win its request to delay the Murray Energy utility air toxics suit argument because it filed a final brief in March strongly defending the cost review.
The source also said that the D.C. Circuit might increasingly take issue with EPA filing so many requests for oral argument delays after briefing has taken place and filing just weeks or days before the scheduled argument.
For example, the court granted EPA's request to delay the ozone standard argument even though the agency filed the request just eight business days before argument -- but the court also said that it “disfavors” filing to delay argument and said the court should “be notified promptly when a potential issue arises that affects the date of oral argument.”
Environmentalists in their April 20 filing in Walter Coke are now directly appealing to the court to recognize EPA's trend of requests and to stop it.
“EPA has failed to provide the requisite 'extraordinary cause' for postponing argument,” they say. “Postponement would be hugely inefficient” and delaying the case risks creating harm for environmentalists because it could delay health protections from the Obama-era rule that aims to end air law exemptions.
The Trump EPA in its motion to delay argument says it wants time to review whether it wants to make any changes to the rule, which directed 36 states to remove language in their state implementation plan (SIPs) that waived some air limits for facilities during SSM.
The agency said it could not ensure that its position on the so-called SSM SIP Call rule is the same as the Obama EPA's position.
Record Review Case
But the environmentalists say in their response that “[i]n yet another case, 14 business days before oral argument, EPA seeks to delay the argument indefinitely because it wants time to consider whether to reconsider the rule at issue,” and adds that such as request falls short of the “extraordinary cause” for delaying argument.
Environmentalists say Walter Coke is a “record review case” where other positions EPA might take are irrelevant, and even if the court upholds the rule, the Trump EPA could revise it at a later date.
They also say that the D.C. Circuit in a 2012 ruling in American Petroleum Institute (API) v. EPA “has already warned of the danger of approving the course EPA seeks to follow here.”
In the API case -- over a Resource Conservation & Recovery Act definition of solid waste rule -- the court said as a general policy an agency cannot “stave off judicial review of a challenged rule simply by initiating a new proposed rulemaking that would amend the rule in a significant way. If that were true, a savvy agency could perpetually dodge review.”
In the API case, the court cited a 1990 D.C. Circuit case also called API v. EPA in which it said “[A]n agency always retains the power to revise a final rule through additional rulemaking. If the possibility of unforeseen amendments were sufficient to render an otherwise fit challenge unripe, review could be deferred indefinitely.”
Environmentalists in their Walter Coke filing say, “EPA's recent practice confirms both the prescience of API and that EPA lacks extraordinary cause here,” saying that the agency “does not and cannot explain why it needs yet more time” to review the rule months into the Trump administration.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-say-routine-epa-bids-delay-suits-violate-courts-high-bar
-
Scientists Prepare to March on Trump
Apr 21, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Scientists and climate activists opposed to the Trump administration are bringing their message to the streets of Washington.
Two marches in D.C. this month will bring out scientists and other protesters who say the Trump administration’s policies sideline science’s role in public policy, undermining the science on climate change and other issues.
Organizers will host the March for Science on the National Mall on Saturday, followed by the People's Climate March the week after.
Trump is the unifying factor for both marches, both in how they came together and what messages they’ll promote.
“I think it’s fair to say that this administration catalyzed the happening of this march, there’s no doubt about that,” said Lydia Villa-Komaroff, a national co-chairwoman of the March for Science who will speak at the Saturday event.
The March for Science idea grew out of the Women’s March, a mass protest that drew millions of demonstrators around the country in January, one day after Trump was sworn in as president.
Science activists saw the event as something they could replicate, and devised similar action — a large D.C. rally with satellite protests around the country — based on showing general support for science policy.
Speakers in Washington will include television science educator Bill Nye, and other activists, musicians and former administration officials. The event’s Twitter account has 350,000 followers and its Facebook page has more than 527,000 “likes” but organizers don’t yet have attendance projections.
Activists have tried to pitch the March for Science as a non-partisan event, and Saturday’s demonstrators won’t demand specific policy outcomes beyond supporting science as a guide for public policy.
Next weekend’s climate march, on the other hand, will directly pressure policymakers to back away from the Trump administration’s energy proposals and work on tackling climate change.
“The March for Science is about recognizing this truth, and the People’s Climate March is about acting on it,” said Lindsay Meiman, a spokeswoman for 350.org, a climate group that’s part of the steering committee of the climate protest.
The idea for the People’s Climate March was originally conceived last year, Meiman said, with supporters planning to make their case for a quicker transition from fossil fuels to whoever captured the White House.
It’s pitched as the sequel to a 2014 New York climate march that drew 400,000 people and ranks as one of the largest single protests in U.S. history.
Trump’s election, followed by his administration’s work dismantling much of former President Obama’s climate agenda only raised the stakes for this month’s event. Organizers expect “tens of thousands” of attendees in Washington and at the 200 other simultaneous events around the country.
“After Donald Trump was elected, we understood it was more important than ever to come together to take action around both pushing back against this administration … [and] putting forward a vision for transitioning off fossil fuels,” Meiman said.
Activists and Democrats have lambasted the Trump administration’s approach to science policy, from proposed deep spending cuts at key federal science agencies to its work undoing Obama-era climate change regulations and policies.
Trump’s first budget proposed large funding cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Earth science budget.
Along the way, officials have begun the process of stripping away key climate policies from the Obama administration.
Those efforts have raised concerns from across the political spectrum, including among some Republicans.
On a call with reporters previewing the science march, Elias Zerhouni, the NIH head under President George W. Bush, said he is concerned about new spending cuts targeting federal scientific research, while Bush’s first EPA chief, Christine Whiteman, warned about “politicized” science within the government.
“We do not want to promulgate regulations, rules and laws based on anecdotal evidence,” she said. “It’s not just NIH, it’s EPA, it’s NOAA. We’re seeing science becoming politicized across the board.”
But Trump allies say those criticisms could be lobbed at scientists, as well.
“The problem we face now is that there are very large megaphones at the disposal of people who are promoting their own special interests in the guise of scientific facts,” said Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ebell, who headed Trump’s EPA transition team, said scientists have begun using their research to make policy recommendations, something he suggests goes beyond their expertise and should be left to lawmakers.
“Climate policy is not science, and saying, ‘I know what we have to have is the cap-and-trade system or the Clean Power Plan' ... I mean, give me a break.”
Rush Holt, a former New Jersey congressman who heads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has sought to cool expectations for the marches, saying activists shouldn’t expect to move lawmakers or the administration by protest alone.
“The first thing, before the marchers make demands that Congress do this or the president do that, is there is some remedial work for the public and policymakers to understand the value of science,” he said.
“You don’t want politicians prescribing what questions can be answered by science. ... Scientists should be saying: here are questions we should answer and here is what we need to answer them.”
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a Democrat on the House Science Committee, said he expects the message to be “don’t cut” funding for research, a message he hopes resonates with appropriators in Congress.
“For me, it’s a matter of remembering the larger picture,” he said. “This won’t last forever and we need to keep people’s spirits up, and keep good research being done.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329810-scientists-prepare-to-march-on-trump
-
A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science
Apr 20, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Steve Koonin
Tomorrow’s March for Science will draw many thousands in support of evidence-based policy making and against the politicization of science. A concrete step toward those worthy goals would be to convene a “Red Team/Blue Team” process for climate science, one of the most important and contentious issues of our age.
The national-security community pioneered the “Red Team” methodology to test assumptions and analyses, identify risks, and reduce—or at least understand—uncertainties. The process is now considered a best practice in high-consequence situations such as intelligence assessments, spacecraft design and major industrial operations. It is very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.
The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researchers challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.
Summaries of scientific assessments meant to inform decision makers, such as the United Nations’ Summary for Policymakers, largely fail to capture this vibrant and developing science. Consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change. We scientists must better portray not only our certainties but also our uncertainties, and even things we may never know. Not doing so is an advisory malpractice that usurps society’s right to make choices fully informed by risk, economics and values. Moving from oracular consensus statements to an open adversarial process would shine much-needed light on the scientific debates.
Given the importance of climate projections to policy, it is remarkable that they have not been subject to a Red Team exercise. Here’s how it might work: The focus would be a published scientific report meant to inform policy such as the U.N.’s Summary for Policymakers or the U.S. Government’s National Climate Assessment. A Red Team of scientists would write a critique of that document and a Blue Team would rebut that critique. Further exchanges of documents would ensue to the point of diminishing returns. A commission would coordinate and moderate the process and then hold hearings to highlight points of agreement and disagreement, as well as steps that might resolve the latter. The process would unfold in full public view: the initial report, the exchanged documents and the hearings.
A Red/Blue exercise would have many benefits. It would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties. It would more firmly establish points of agreement and identify urgent research needs. Most important, it would put science front and center in policy discussions, while publicly demonstrating scientific reasoning and argument. The inherent tension of a professional adversarial process would enhance public interest, offering many opportunities to show laymen how science actually works. (In 2014 I conducted a workshop along these lines for the American Physical Society.)
Congress or the executive branch should convene a climate science Red/Blue exercise as a step toward resolving, or at least illuminating, differing perceptions of climate science. While the Red and Blue Teams should be knowledgeable and avowedly opinionated scientists, the commission should have a balanced membership of prominent individuals with technical credentials, led by co-chairmen who are forceful, knowledgeable and independent of the climate-science community. The Rogers Commission for the Challenger disaster in 1986, the Energy Department’s Huizenga/Ramsey Review of Cold Fusion in 1989, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission of the late 1990s are models for the kind of fact-based rigor and transparency needed.
The outcome of a Red/Blue exercise for climate science is not preordained, which makes such a process all the more valuable. It could reveal the current consensus as weaker than claimed. Alternatively, the consensus could emerge strengthened if Red Team criticisms were countered effectively. But whatever the outcome, we scientists would have better fulfilled our responsibilities to society, and climate policy discussions would be better informed. For those reasons, all who march to advocate policy making based upon transparent apolitical science should support a climate science Red Team exercise.
Mr. Koonin, a theoretical physicist, is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He served as undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579
-
Wal-Mart Wants Suppliers to Eliminate a Gigaton of Greenhouse Gases by 2030
Apr 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Boyle
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., long known for squeezing its suppliers on prices, is now pressuring companies including Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive Co. to help the world's biggest retailer remove a billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from its supply chain by 2030.
The retailer's target—which it's calling Project Gigaton—equates to taking 211 million passenger vehicles off the road for an entire year, according to a statement from the company. As part of the goal, Wal-Mart will also look to reduce emissions in its own operations by 18 percent by 2025. The bulk of the reduction will come from suppliers including General Mills Inc., Campbell Soup Co., and Unilever, according to Laura Phillips, Wal-Mart's senior vice president for sustainability.
“We've made progress in our own operations, but this is taking us deeper into our supply chain,” Phillips said in an April 18 interview at the company's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters. “We need our top suppliers to take more action.”
Wal-Mart has long been known for browbeating suppliers to lower the cost of everything from toilet paper to tires. Now it's employing similar means of persuasion to carbon emissions, with the added incentive that vendors can save money themselves by, say, reducing the amount of packaging for a bottle of shampoo.
The 1 billion-metric-ton, or 1-gigaton, target represents a significant step up from Wal-Mart's previous goal to eliminate 20 million metric tons of emissions by the end of 2015, which it surpassed. The retailer boosted its broader sustainability targets last November, saying it would get half its power from renewable sources by 2025, up from 25 percent.
The new goal comes as President Donald Trump moves to dismantle Obama-era climate policies and weighs whether to reject last year's Paris climate pact. Wal-Mart was one of the more than 150 companies that promised to reduce emissions ahead of the Paris negotiations, and former Chairman Rob Walton has been a vocal supporter of climate science.
Wal-Mart has identified six areas where suppliers can focus their clean energy efforts: agriculture, waste, packaging, deforestation, and product use and design. At an April 19 event in Bentonville, HP Inc. unveiled a printer that uses 30 percent less energy while in sleep mode, and cereal maker Kellogg Co. said it could save $30 million by reducing waste 15 percent by 2020.
“One-third of all the food produced is wasted,” Kellogg Chief Executive Officer John Bryant said in an interview at the event. Eliminating that waste, he said, is one of the company's “large, long-term goals.”
Reducing emissions beyond a company's own operations can be challenging, as Dove soapmaker Unilever has found. The company pledged in 2010 to halve the greenhouse gas impact of its products by 2020, by asking consumers to do things like take shorter showers. But it has since pushed that target back to 2030 as the company found it difficult to influence consumer behavior.
To make sure everyone is meeting those goals, Wal-Mart is working with nongovernmental organizations including the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defense Fund to help suppliers track their progress.
Companies are not shrinking in the face of potential political opposition to climate goals—they're “doubling down,” said Carter Roberts, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund. “People in our country are looking for leadership around issues their kids care about,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109868885&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109868885&jd=109868885
-
N.C. Moves to Drop Court Challenge to WOTUS
Apr 20, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
North Carolina is continuing to retreat from litigation against Obama administration regulations, asking a federal court today for permission to leave a lawsuit over the Clean Water Rule.
The Department of Environmental Quality filed a motion to withdraw from litigation over the rule — which is also known as Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS — in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Over the past few months, North Carolina has also left lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan and U.S. EPA's methane limits for new oil and gas operations, two key pieces of President Obama's climate agenda.
The state moved last week to leave a suit challenging EPA's carbon limits for new power plants; that motion is still pending in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The withdrawal requests were prompted by political shifts. Democrat Roy Cooper became governor in January, succeeding Republican Pat McCrory. The state's attorney general, Josh Stein, is also a Democrat.
Cooper appointed Michael Regan, a former EPA official and advocate at the Environmental Defense Fund, as DEQ secretary.
Under Republican leadership, North Carolina had been one of more than 30 states that sued the Obama administration over the Clean Water Rule, which aimed to clarify which wetlands and streams receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act, in various federal courts around the country.
The 11th Circuit case has been stayed since August, when the court halted it to allow the 6th Circuit to first resolve similar challenges. All eyes are currently on the Supreme Court, though, which agreed to decide which federal courts have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits over the rule.
In the meantime, the Trump administration is working to roll back and replace the Clean Water Rule (Greenwire, April 20).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/20/stories/1060053365
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested