Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/8/2017
-
Cyber Threats Facing America: An Overview of the Cybersecurity Threat Landscape
May 10, 2017 | Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Location: SD-342 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Top 50 U.S. Chemical Producers of 2016
May 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The struggle chemical makers face as they attempt to grow revenues is clearly evident from C&EN’s ranking of the top 50 U.S. chemical producers. -
(ACC Mentioned) E.P.A. Dismisses Members of Major Scientific Review Board
May 7, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research. -
Agency Fires Science Advisers
May 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Waldman
U.S. EPA fired members of a scientific advisory board yesterday. -
Trump Deregulation Won't Stop New Toxics Law Rules: EPA Attorney
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Trump administration plans to restrict new regulations will not stop the EPA from issuing rules required under a major rewrite last year of the nation's primary chemicals law, an agency lawyer said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Déjà Vu: Debate Over Foam Food Containers Returns To NYC Council
May 4, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Jennie Romer
The New York City Council is currently considering a bill to designate expanded polystyrene (EPS, commonly referred to as Styrofoam) as recyclable. -
Does Baby Powder Cause Cancer? Another Jury Says Yes.
May 5, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Linda Johnson
Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for the fourth time over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene. -
Seven Toxins Get New Restrictions From UN Chemicals Regulators
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
Seven toxic substances face bans or new restrictions after international chemical regulators concluded two weeks of talks in Geneva May 5. -
EPA, Don’t Roll Back Lead Safeguards
May 5, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Maureen Swanson
The Environmental Protection Agency held “listening sessions” this week to hear public comment on Executive Order 13777, which requires an EPA Task Force to recommend “specific rules that should be considered for repeal, replacement and modification.” -
Trump Asked Industry Which Environmental Rules to Target Next. Here Are 5 of Their Most Outrageous Requests.
May 5, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
The Trump administration has already cancelled or sought to undermine 23 rules that protect our health and environment – including limits on toxic waste coal companies dump in rivers, and regulations promoting more fuel-efficient cars. -
(ACC Mentioned) Florida House and Senate Pass Plastics to Fuel Bill
May 5, 2017 | Waste Today Magazine
By Waste Today Staff
The Florida House and Senate passed House Bill (HB) 335—Resource Recovery and Management. The Plastics Division of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council (ACC) welcomed the legislation... -
(ACC Mentioned) Bet You'd Be Shocked by How Much of Our Natural Gas Comes From Fracking
May 8, 2017 | The Motley Fool
By Jason Hall
While crude oil dominates the energy news, natural gas is one of the most important -- yet often overlooked -- sources of energy in the United States. -
Trump's Delay Stalls $50 Billion of Energy Projects in Pipeline
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
By the time Midwesterners fire up their furnaces this fall, the $2 billion Nexus pipeline is supposed to be pumping natural gas to heat homes from frosty Ohio to frostier Ontario. But six months out, the 255-mile (410-kilometer) pipeline exists only on paper. -
Sale of Oil Leases on California Public Lands on Hold
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The federal government is barred from auctioning off new drilling rights on public lands in California for at least another year under a settlement reached with environmental groups, one of the groups told Bloomberg BNA. -
Offshore Drilling Opponents Gear Up for Gulf Fight
May 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Offshore drilling opponents in Florida are bracing for a potential fight with the oil industry over the future of drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. -
Natural Gas Exports Can Solve U.S. Energy Glut
May 5, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Shelley Goldberg
The slogan “Made in the U.S.A.” resonates with Americans, except when there’s too much of a given product being made, which forces down prices along with the industry. One example is natural gas, where U.S. inventories have been largely above average for the last two years. -
Landlocked Oklahoma Wants a Piece of Mexico’s Offshore Industry
May 5, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Lydia DePillis
Not every middle-of-the-country state can be a player in Mexico’s developing offshore oil industry, but if anyone has a chance, it’s Oklahoma. -
Congressional Anti-Rule Push May Live on After Methane Vote
May 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
The Congressional Review Act clock is ticking, and time is running out. -
Colorado Home Explosion from Anadarko Pipe to Get Safety Probe
May 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board will examine a pipeline explosion in a Denver suburb that killed two people last month, the agency said May 5. -
Pruitt Recuses Himself from Clean Power Plan, WOTUS Suits
May 5, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus and Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has recused himself from several cases that he pursued against the agency as Oklahoma attorney general. -
Is EPA Moving Too Fast on Deregulation to Listen to Public?
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA is moving fast—maybe too fast—on identifying regulations to be revised or killed in response to a White House order, worrying environmentalists, state officials and even some in the private sector. -
States Move to Roll Back Environmental Rules in Trump's Wake
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Emboldened by the environmental rollbacks of President Donald Trump, state legislatures are following suit, taking aim at items as varied as solar incentives, chemical spill protections and, even, anti-pipeline protesters. -
Court Enters Deal Setting Deadlines for NO2, SO2 Decisions
May 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
A federal court has entered an agreement between EPA and environmentalists that sets legally enforceable deadlines requiring the agency to make decisions on whether to strengthen, weaken or maintain federal air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)... -
U.S. to Participate in Climate Conference Despite Uncertainty over Paris Agreement
May 5, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
The U.S. will send a delegation to a climate conference in Bonn, Germany, next week, despite the Trump administration's ongoing vacillation over whether the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. -
Remake the Paris Climate Deal to Promote American Energy
May 7, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Kevin Cramer
President Trump will soon decide whether to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change. His top advisers are huddling Tuesday, likely for a final time, to consider the decision, which has been promised by the end of the month. -
California Debate Heats Up Over GHG Cap-and-Trade Program
May 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
Debate is heating up in California's Senate where lawmakers are considering several measures to overhaul the state's landmark greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program after 2020 when the current program expires.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Cyber Threats Facing America: An Overview of the Cybersecurity Threat Landscape
May 10, 2017 | Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Witnesses
Jeffrey E. Greene,Senior Director, Global Government Affairs and Policy,
Symantec Corporation
Steven Chabinsky,Global Chair of Data, Privacy, and Cyber Security,
White & Case LLP (testifying in his personal capacity)
Brandon Valeriano, Ph.D. Donald Bren Chair, Marine Corps University and Adjunct Fellow,
Niskanen Center
Kevin KeeneyCaptain, Missouri National Guard and Director, Cyber Incident Response Team
Monsanto Company (testifying in his personal capacity)
-
(ACC Mentioned) Top 50 U.S. Chemical Producers of 2016
May 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The struggle chemical makers face as they attempt to grow revenues is clearly evident from C&EN’s ranking of the top 50 U.S. chemical producers.
The 50 firms combined for $259.9 billion in sales in 2016, the year that forms the basis of the survey, a 5.6% decline from the amount the same firms posted the year before.
And it wasn’t as if sharp sales drops at a few firms weighed down the entire group. The decline was dispersed evenly throughout the industry. Of the 50 firms, only nine saw sales increase, and for a few of those—including Olin, Kraton, and Westlake Chemical—the improvement was the result of large acquisitions.
Part of the explanation for the decline can be found in oil prices, which dipped to nearly $30 per barrel early last year, their lowest levels since 2003. Although oil prices rebounded to more than $50 per barrel by the end of the year, chemical prices didn’t have time to catch up.
Moreover, even though consumer spending and employment are healthy, the U.S. economy has been posting anemic growth. Gross domestic product grew by only 1.6% last year. According to the American Chemistry Council, a trade association, the U.S. chemical industry also posted only a 1.6% increase in volumes last year.
Income also declined. The 44 firms among the 50 that report profits combined for $33.6 billion in operating income, a decrease of 9.6% versus the year-ago period.
Although profits declined, they were still historically high for the chemical industry. Moreover, only one firm, Momentive Performance Materials, posted a deficit.
Wall Street expects better performance from the industry in the future. Market capitalization, which is determined mainly by stock price, of the top 50’s 31 publicly traded firms increased 12.5% to $367.6 billion. The industry outpaced the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index, which climbed 9.5%.
The American Chemistry Council also expects better times for the industry in 2017. It forecasts 3.6% volume growth.
Dow heads the ranking again
Once again, Dow Chemical sits atop the ranking with $48.2 billion in sales for 2016. It posted a 1.3% decline in revenues for the year, but it still widened its lead over number two ExxonMobil, which experienced a 7.4% drop in chemical sales to $26.1 billion.
A year ago, C&EN predicted that Dow might disappear from the ranking this year owing to its pending merger with DuPont to form DowDuPont. The two firms expected to complete the deal in 2016. But the European Commission delayed it because of worries about the impact the merger—plus Bayer’s purchase of Monsanto and ChemChina’s acquisition of Syngenta—would have on European farmers.
The Dow-DuPont deal still hasn’t closed, but the companies have taken steps to ensure clearance later this year. DuPont inked an agreement to divest much of its crop protection business and related R&D to FMC. In return, DuPont will get $1.6 billion in cash and FMC’s health and nutrition business. To appease the EC, Dow is also selling its ethylene acrylic acid polymers business to South Korea’s SK.
Dow did complete one deal in 2016, absorbing its former joint venture Dow Corning, which was ranked 16 last year.
Dow is also tops in market cap
Dow’s market capitalization grew by a whopping 20.5% in 2016, helping it edge out the company it is merging with, DuPont, for the top spot in value. Ecolab held on to number three, and Praxair beat out industrial gas rival Air Products for the fourth slot.
But DuPont spin-off Chemours provided the biggest chemical stock story of 2016. Early last year, Chemours’s stock price was weighed down by meager results, debt from DuPont, and the liability from 3,500 personal injury suits stemming from perfluorooctanoic acid pollution at the former DuPont plant in Parkersburg, W.Va.
Last June, Citron Research, a short seller betting that Chemours’s stock would plummet, even predicted that Chemours was heading to bankruptcy court within the next 18 months.
But a favorable court ruling and better business performance turned Chemours into a “buy” rather than a “sell.” Its shares increased from $5.36 at the end of 2015 to $22.09 by the close of 2016, a 315.5% increase in market capitalization.
Interestingly, another big stock gainer is Kronos Worldwide, which like Chemours makes the white pigment titanium dioxide. Huntsman Corp. is readying a spin-off of its own pigments business, Venator, later this year.
Corporate realignment marked 2016
Thanks to deal making and corporate restructuring, the chemical industry looks noticeably different today than it did a year ago.
Five firms that were in C&EN’s ranking last year are no longer there. Dow Corning is now entirely part of Dow. Merck KGaA purchased Sigma-Aldrich, which was 38 last year. Solvay bought number 36 Cytec Industries. Axiall, number 28 last year, was purchased by Westlake Chemical, which climbed three places to number 15 in the ranking. Elastomers maker Kraton, number 32, bought number 45 Arizona Chemical and now also makes pine chemicals.
Mergers brought other big changes to the ranking. Olin’s chemical sales skyrocketed by 125.0% because of its purchase of Dow’s chlorine chemistry unit. It is now 17 in the ranking. Albemarle’s sales declined by 26.7% after the divestment of its Chemetall metal surface treatment business to BASF, pushing it down two places to number 25.
Slow economic growth and uncertainty are driving chemical companies to such mergers and acquisitions (M&A). “With rare exceptions, companies will increasingly find it difficult to enhance returns through organic growth and cost reduction within,” notes PwC chemicals deals leader Craig Kocak in a recent report.
At the IHS Markit World Petrochemical Conference in March, Dave Witte, general manager of oil markets, midstream, downstream, and chemicals at IHS Markit, echoed the sentiment. “If you are uncertain about where you are going to get that top-line and bottom-line growth, you know you can get it through M&A,” he told the audience.
Spin-offs filled most of the void left by the acquired companies. New to the ranking are Honeywell’s nylon spin-off AdvanSix, Air Products’ former electronic materials business Versum Materials, and the former W.R. Grace construction materials unit GCP Applied Technologies. These debut at numbers 37, 39, and 47, respectively. Others new to the list are Williams Partners at number 30, which operates a cracker in Geismar, La., and activated carbon firm Calgon Carbon at number 50.
At least three firms should be gone next year. Dow and DuPont executives expect to complete their merger in August. Last month, Germany’s Lanxess completed its purchase of number 33 Chemtura. Williams’s presence on the list is likely a one-year occurrence, as the company’s chemical business is being acquired by Nova Chemicals.
Petrochemicals are a profit center
In past years, many major oil companies, chief among them Shell and BP, shed large parts of their chemical businesses to focus on oil and gas. ExxonMobil, however, stayed loyal to petrochemicals.
That strategy is now paying off. Petrochemicals made up only 11.9% of ExxonMobil’s $219 billion in annual sales last year, but they generated 68.8% of the oil giant’s profits. Low oil and gas prices pinched its performance in exploration—especially its U.S. business, which lost $4.2 billion after taxes in 2016.
In a letter to shareholders, new ExxonMobil Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods notes that the chemical results “highlight the value of our integrated business model.”
Occidental Petroleum, a much smaller firm, suffered enough in its hydrocarbon exploration and distribution businesses to lose $446 million overall despite $571 million in profits from chemicals.
Chevron Phillips Chemical posted $1.7 billion in after-tax earnings even as one of its parent firms, Chevron, reported a loss. The other parent, refiner Phillips 66, netted a profit.
All these firms are deepening their involvement in petrochemicals. Oxy started up a cracker, a joint venture with Mexichem, in Ingleside, Texas, earlier this year. Both ExxonMobil and Chevron Phillips are putting the final touches on massive petrochemical projects of their own. ExxonMobil and Saudi Basic Industries Corp. are also studying an integrated project in Texas.
BASF again heads the foreign ranking
It should come as no surprise that BASF, perennially the largest chemical company in the world, has more sales in the U.S. than any other foreign-owned chemical firm.
The company continues to invest heavily in the U.S. Notably, it is building an ammonia plant in Freeport, Texas, with Norway’s Yara. It is also investing in plasticizers, herbicides, and the polyurethane intermediate methylene diphenyl diisocyanate.
Two companies, Formosa Plastics and Braskem, dropped off the foreign ranking because they have not posted results for 2016. Two additions are Wacker Chemie, which posted a 47.7% increase in regional sales during the year, and Israel Chemicals.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i19/Top-50-US-chemical-producers.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) E.P.A. Dismisses Members of Major Scientific Review Board
May 7, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.
A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said the spokesman, J. P. Freire.
The dismissals on Friday came about six weeks after the House passed a bill aimed at changing the composition of another E.P.A. scientific review board to include more representation from the corporate world.
President Trump has directed Mr. Pruitt to radically remake the E.P.A., pushing for deep cuts in its budget — including a 40 percent reduction for its main scientific branch — and instructing him to roll back major Obama-era regulations on climate change and clean water protection. In recent weeks, the agency has removed some scientific data on climate change from its websites, and Mr. Pruitt has publicly questioned the established science of human-caused climate change.Continue reading the main story
In his first outings as E.P.A. administrator, Mr. Pruitt has made a point of visiting coal mines and pledging that his agency will seek to restore that industry, even though many members of both of the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory boards have historically recommended stringent constraints on coal pollution to combat climate change.
Mr. Freire said the agency wanted “to take as inclusive an approach to regulation as possible.”
“We want to expand the pool of applicants” for the scientific board, he said, “to as broad a range as possible, to include universities that aren’t typically represented and issues that aren’t typically represented.”
Some who opposed the dismissals denounced them as part of a broader push by the E.P.A. to downgrade science and elevate business interests.
“This is completely part of a multifaceted effort to get science out of the way of a deregulation agenda,” said Ken Kimmell, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “What seems to be premature removals of members of this Board of Science Counselors when the board has come out in favor of the E.P.A. strengthening its climate science, plus the severe cuts to research and development — you have to see all these things as interconnected.”
The scientists dismissed from the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors received emails from an agency official informing them that their three-year terms had expired and would not be renewed. That was contrary, the scientists said, to what they had been told by officials at the agency in January, just before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.
“Most of us on the council are academic people,” said Ponisseril Somasundaran, a chemist at Columbia University who focuses on managing hazardous waste. “I think they want to bring in business and industry people.”
Courtney Flint, a professor of natural resource sociology at Utah State University who has served on the board since 2014, said she was surprised by the dismissal.
“I believe this is political,” said Dr. Flint, whose research focuses on how communities respond to major disruptions in the environment, such as exposure to toxic pollution, forest fires and climate change. “It’s unexpected. It’s a red flag.”
Another of the dismissed scientists made his grievances public. “Today, I was Trumped,” Robert Richardson, an environmental economist at Michigan State University, wrote on Twitter. “I have had the pleasure of serving on the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, and my appointment was terminated today.”
The board is charged with reviewing and evaluating the research conducted by the agency’s scientists. Those studies are used by government regulators to draft rules and restrictions on everything from hazardous waste dumped in water to the emissions of carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change.
Members of the board say they have reviewed the E.P.A.’s scientific research on the public health impact of leaking underground fuel tanks, the toxicity of the chemicals used to clean up oil spills, and the effects of the spread of bark beetles caused by a warming climate.
A larger, corresponding panel, the 47-member Science Advisory Board, advises the agency on what areas it should conduct research in and evaluates the scientific integrity of some of its regulations.
Both boards, which until now have been composed almost entirely of academic research scientists, have long been targets of political attacks. Congressional Republicans and industry groups have sought to either change their composition or weaken their influence on the environmental regulatory process.
Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, wrote the House-passed bill intended to restock the Science Advisory Board with more members from the business world.
“In recent years, S.A.B. experts have become nothing more than rubber stamps who approve all of the E.P.A.’s regulations,” Mr. Smith said at a House hearing in February. “The E.P.A. routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government. The conflict of interest here is clear.”
As a witness, Mr. Smith brought in Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council, which lobbies for chemical corporations and, like other industry groups, has pushed for more representation on the E.P.A.’s science boards.
“We have also seen situations where peer reviewers have suggested discounting a study solely based on the funding source, without any considerations being given to the quality of the study,” Ms. White said. “Also, E.P.A. staff often comment throughout peer review meetings, essentially participating as peers, while industry experts are typically excluded from the dialogue.”
Several members of the Scientific Advisory Board contacted by The New York Times said that they had not received dismissal notices, but that they were aware their board was a political target.
“I see the dismissal of the scientists from the Board of Scientific Counselors as a test balloon,” said Joseph Arvai, an environmental scientist at the University of Michigan who is on the Scientific Advisory Board. “This is clearly very political, and we should be very concerned if it goes further.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/us/politics/epa-dismisses-members-of-major-scientific-review-board.html?_r=0
-
May 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Waldman
U.S. EPA fired members of a scientific advisory board yesterday.
The agency quietly forced out some members of the Board of Scientific Counselors just weeks after leaders told them their tenure would be renewed, said Robert Richardson, an ecological economist at Michigan State University and one of those dismissed.
The board is tasked with reviewing the work of EPA scientists and provides feedback that can be a powerful voice in shaping the agency's future research.
The cuts "just came out of nowhere," Richardson said.
"The role that science has played in the agency in the past, this step is a significant step in a different direction," he said today. "Anecdotally, based on what we know about the administrator, I think it will be science that will appear to be friendlier to industry, the fossil fuel industry, the chemical industry, and I think it will be science that marginalizes climate change science."
EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There are two main science advisory boards at EPA, both of which can hold significant sway over policy and regulation. The Trump administration has proposed a major weakening of both.
Earlier this year, the White House proposed slashing funding for the Science Advisory Board by 84 percent. Such a cut would essentially cripple the work of the 47-member board of outside scholars.
House Republicans have passed legislation to reform the Science Advisory Board, a move critics say is designed to increase the voice of industry in rulemaking. That bill is still awaiting Senate approval.
Richardson said about developments, "This is a significant step toward the erosion of science, and I think that it is happening subtly throughout the agency with this very large proposed budget cut to the Science Advisory Board."
At an April meeting, the Board of Scientific Counselors discussed the importance of climate change research at EPA and "the growing need for information on, and understanding of, climate change and responses to its impacts," according to an agenda. They also talked about the importance of considering climate change as a stressor in areas of non-climate research.
The Trump administration has already sent signals that it does not value some areas of federal research, in particular climate science and work that could lead to further regulation of the fossil fuel and chemical industries.
The board had 18 members, including Richardson, who said he knew of at least one other member fired. Departures could reach a dozen, he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060054154
-
Trump Deregulation Won't Stop New Toxics Law Rules: EPA Attorney
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Trump administration plans to restrict new regulations will not stop the EPA from issuing rules required under a major rewrite last year of the nation's primary chemicals law, an agency lawyer said.
While two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump restrict federal agencies from issuing proposed or final regulations, EPA is required by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) to publish new rules on managing chemicals, said Robert Peachey, associate counsel at EPA's region 5 office in Chicago.
He spoke May 4 at the Illinois Environmental Law Conference sponsored by the state's bar association.
“If our authority for doing this [finalizing regulations] is in the statute, you can't issue an executive order and say don't do that,” Peachey said.The law, however, could trigger disputes with states because it expands both the concept of cooperative federalism and the use of federal preemption, Peachey and others at the conference said.
Pre-emption Regime Problematic
The law, signed June 22, 2016, amends and updates the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act..
Among other things, it establishes a preemptive regime that in many instances prohibits states from issuing chemical-safety regulations stricter than those put out by EPA.
William Anaya, an officer with the law firm Greensfelder Hemker & Gale PC, said federal chemical statutes typically set consistent standards that apply nationwide that then can be made more strict by a state statute or regulation if individual states so choose.
Not so under the new law. If the EPA concludes a new chemical is safe, the law precludes states from approving stricter standards for the compound. And if EPA takes final action to address a chemical's risks, further state efforts to regulate it would be preempted. And state new-use rules are preempted if EPA imposes a comparable federal requirement, the law says.
Those instances in the law are unusual, Peachey said, because in other parts of the new chemicals law “states can go beyond the baselines of the requirements.”
“It takes a lot of the authority [states] had before TSCA 21 out of their hands. And that was one of the major concerns upon enactment of the law, was that they'd be hamstrung,” Peachey said.
Work on Rules Continues
A number of important rules are due out from the EPA to implement changes to the old law.
One will detail how the agency can determine which chemicals are high risk and which are low risk; another will outline how it will collect up to $25 million from companies to help pay costs associated with chemical-safety testing.
A chemical-inventory rule will establish how the EPA will gather information on thousands of chemicals manufactured or processed in the previous 10 years and designate them either “active” or “inactive.”
The new law establishes a prioritization process to determine if a chemical is high or low priority. High priority chemicals are subject to an analysis to determine if they present an unreasonable risk, and the designation triggers mandatory risk evaluations within three years.
The new law aims to regulate tens of thousands of chemicals used in commerce—including those used with industrial uses—though does not cover pesticides or chemicals used in personal care products and food.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110820597&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110820597&jd=110820597
-
(ACC Mentioned) Déjà Vu: Debate Over Foam Food Containers Returns To NYC Council
May 4, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Jennie Romer
The New York City Council is currently considering a bill to designate expanded polystyrene (EPS, commonly referred to as Styrofoam) as recyclable. The NYC foam food container debate may sound vaguely familiar. That’s because exactly the same debate took place at the NYC Council in 2013. This is a brief summary of what happened then and why the issue is has reemerged.The 2013 NYC EPS Ban
The NYC Council adopted a ban on all food service EPS containers as well as EPS packing peanuts in December 2013. At that time, then-Mayor Bloomberg was eager to have the EPS ban be part of his environmental legacy, stating in his State of the City speech that EPS is “not just terrible for the environment but it’s another thing that’s terrible for the taxpayers ... [ Styrofoam] increases the cost of recycling by as much as $20 per ton because it has to be removed” (at 58:35).
However, as the 2013 City Council session came to a close the EPS ban bill appeared to be short on votes. The ban was the subject of massive opposition lobbying efforts by Dart Container Corporation (the world’s largest manufacturer of foam cups and containers) and The American Chemistry Council (a powerful industry trade association for American chemical companies). These two groups spent big to capture the attention of City Council. Dart donated $38,535 to the campaign accounts of fourteen NYC politicians and spent at least $188,161 in disclosed NYC Council lobbyist fees. The American Chemistry Council made three contributions totaling $824,500 during the 2013 election cycle to fund the newly formed “Restaurant Action Alliance NYC,” which opposed the ban and eventually became the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City regarding the ban.
Dart Container Corporation focused on the argument that EPS is recyclable, lobbying to delay adoption of a ban by the City Council until after Dart had a chance to show that recycling could work and by offering to pay for an EPS recycling program for the NYC. Environmental advocates pointed out that similar food service EPS recycling efforts had failed elsewhere. City Council Members then proposed a compromise bill. Under the compromise bill, the ordinance would be adopted immediately, but a clause was added stating that Dart would have a year to demonstrate to the Department of Sanitation that such a recycling program would be effective.
At the end of that year, the Sanitation Commissioner would be required to make a Determination as to whether or not EPS food service and loose fill packaging could “be recycled at the designated recycling processing facility at the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal in a manner that is environmentally effective, economically feasible, and safe for employees.” Additionally, if the Commissioner were to find that the EPS at issue could be recycled in such a manner, the ban would not go into effect and the Commissioner would have to adopt rules designating EPS as a recyclable material and thus require source separation.
At the time of the adoption of the ban, environmental advocates were confident that the likelihood that Dart could show such a program was feasible was so infinitesimal as to not be a concern, because successful large-scale curbside recycling programs for food service EPS had never been established anywhere else. Dart could only point to their own incredibly labor-intensive sponsored demonstration programs for EPS recycling, which were much smaller in scale. The definition of the “economically feasible” prong required that the Commissioner “shall include consideration of markets for recycled material” and there was no real market for recycled polystyrene generally, much less dirty food service EPS. The compromise clause was seen by most environmental advocates as only a slight delay in implementation of the ban.The Commissioner’s Determination & the Lawsuit That Followed
Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia released her Determination in late 2014, finding that:
“. . . DSNY concluded that there are currently no established markets to purchase and recycle the EPS that would be collected in the MGP program, which is considered too ‘dirty’ by current buyers. As such, a determination of recyclability fails on the basis of environmental effectiveness and economic feasibility. . .”
Thus, NYC’s EPS ban was scheduled to go into effect in July 2015, with enforceable fines to be implemented later in the year. Then, in April 2015, Restaurant Action Alliance NYC and several EPS manufacturers sued the City claiming that the Sanitation Commissioner’s Determination was arbitrary and capricious. (New York State Supreme Court Index No. 100734-2015.)
On September 21, 2015, a New York state court Justice Margaret A. Chan ruled that the Sanitation Commissioner’s Determination was arbitrary and capricious, and thus the ban could not go forward. Specifically, the court found that “the Commissioner did not clearly state the basis of her conclusions when the evidence contrary to her findings were clearly before her” The court’s ruling is primarily based on Dart’s assertion that it would pay for new recycling sorting machines for the City, pay for employees to man the machines, and purchase the EPS recovered by Sims (the City’s contractor) for five years at $160/ton — a program estimated to cost Dart $23M.
The Court acknowledged that by proposing this recycling pilot Dart would be acting in Dart’s own self-interest but the Court would not accept the Commissioner’s finding that dirty EPS has no viable recycling market. The ruling essentially asserted that the City must accept Dart Container Corporation’s pilot program in lieu of a ban unless the Commissioner stated more clearly why that shouldn’t happen:
“The Commissioner’s concern is not justified given the abundant evidence showing a viable and growing market for not just clean EPS but post consumer EPS material; that EPS recycling and the post-consumer EPS market is beyond the pilot program stages or still paddling in untested waters; and that Dart’s financial investment of $23M dollars to DSNY benefits the City of New York, even if it is a bigger benefit to Dart’s self-interest.”
The Court ordered the Determination annulled and vacated as arbitrary and capricious, remanding to the Commissioner for reconsideration and determination consistent with the court’s decision.Ongoing Lawsuit & New Bills Before City Council
The City appealed the lower court ruling, but the Court of Appeals declined to take up the case. This meant that the case was remanded to the Commissioner to draft a revised Determination, after further research and consideration, explaining in greater detail the reasoning behind the Determination so as to overcome the claim of being arbitrary and capricious. That lawsuit is still pending and the revised Determination has yet to be submitted. The court website shows a disposition deadline of July 29, 2017.
On March 1, 2017, NYC Council Member Fernando Cabrera introduced a bill that would designate EPS as recyclable. Designating EPS as recyclable would mean that residents would be required to put EPS in their curbside recycling bins and the City would be required collect and process it. During the over three years that passed between when the City Council passed its EPS ban and today no major municipality has successfully created a curbside residential EPS recycling program. In fact, the trend has been strongly in favor of bans, not recycling. To date, almost one hundred cities in the U.S., including Washington DC, have adopted EPS food container bans.
Just as they’d done in the previous round, Dart is again spending big to capture the attention of City Council. Between 2014 and early 2017, Dart spent over $500,000 in disclosed lobbyist fees including $40,000 in payments to former Council Member Robert Jackson in 2016. Also, according to the NYC Campaign Finance Board, Dart’s CEO’s wife — Ariane Dart — gave $2,750 to Council Member Fernando Cabrera in the 2017 election cycle. Ariane Dart also contributed to City Council Speaker Melissa-Mark Viverito ($4,950), Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr ($1,000) and Council Member Rafael Espinal, Jr. ($500) so far during the 2017 cycle.
Dart appears to be gearing up for another expensive showdown at NYC Council to fight for an unregulated marketplace for its product.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/d%C3%A9j%C3%A0-vu-debate-over-foam-food-containers-returns-to_us_590a8dbde4b05279d4edc2b3
-
Does Baby Powder Cause Cancer? Another Jury Says Yes.
May 5, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Linda Johnson
Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for the fourth time over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.
Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $110.5 million to Lois Slemp, 62, of Wise, Virginia, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. She blames her illness on her use of the company’s talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years.
Besides Slemp’s case, three other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes last year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6 million. The company says its product is safe, and it plans to appeal the latest verdict, as it has the other three.
Johnson & Johnson also has had some legal victories, including in March when a St. Louis jury rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer. Also, two cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs’ lawyers hadn’t presented reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer.
The next baby powder trial is in June in St. Louis, and will be followed by another in July in California.
WHAT DO INVESTORS THINK?
Investors don’t seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 62 cents to $123.10 in late-afternoon trading Friday.
Johnson & Johnson, the world’s biggest maker of health care products, brings in about $72 billion a year selling prescription drugs, medical devices, diagnostic equipment and consumer products ranging from baby shampoo and Aveeno skin care items to Tylenol pain reliever and Band-Aids.
Because of its size and diversified product lines, J&J is sued frequently and investors don’t panic when it loses product liability lawsuits, so its stock price rarely drops much after losses. Also, the company clearly intends to keep fighting lawsuits alleging its iconic baby powder isn’t safe, rather than settling suits at this point.
WHAT IS TALC?
Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it’s crushed into a white powder. It’s been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder was launched. But it’s mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics.
DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER?
Like many questions in science, there’s no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn’t use it.
While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it’s relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,400 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year.
Factors that are known to increase a women’s risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.
WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS
The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection — a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users.
However, that doesn’t mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there’s no proof talc, which doesn’t interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer.
One large study published in June 2016 that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women’s Health Initiative and the Nurses’ Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users.
WHAT EXPERTS SAY
If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women’s health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones.
“Lord knows, with the amount of powder that’s been applied to babies’ bottoms, we would’ve seen something,” if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The National Cancer Institute’s Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency’s position is that there’s not a clear connection.
“It is very hard to establish causal relationships,” he said, adding, “A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer.”
On its website the American Cancer Society states: “The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/does-baby-powder-cause-cancer-another-jury-says-yes/2017/05/05/fca55c08-31bb-11e7-a335-fa0ae1940305_story.html?utm_term=.a021e70d6f69
-
Seven Toxins Get New Restrictions From UN Chemicals Regulators
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
Seven toxic substances face bans or new restrictions after international chemical regulators concluded two weeks of talks in Geneva May 5.
But efforts to ban chrysotile asbestos, paraquat and several other dangerous substances were thwarted by Russia, India and a handful of developing nations at the conference of the parties meetings of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions.
Parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed to ban the production, use and trade of two toxic chemicals—decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) , short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)—and to reduce the unintentional release of a third, hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD).
Parties to the Rotterdam Convention agreed to new obligations for four toxic substances that ensure countries will verify their trading partners’ consent to receive restricted chemical exports.
Specifically, Rotterdam Convention parties agreed to list SCCPs, carbofuran, trichlorfon and tributyltin compounds to Annex III of the treaty.
“We got four chemicals listed in a single morning and that's fantastic,” Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions spokesman Charlie Avis said at a May 5 news conference, as the conference of the parties biennial meetings neared an end.
Asbestos Listing Blocked
But environmental groups slammed India and five other asbestos-producing nations—Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Syria and Zimbabwe—for blocking the listing of chrysotile asbestos, also known as “white asbestos.”
“A small handful of opposing countries and their powerful industry representatives put their own economic and trade interests before the health and well-being of the global environment and its inhabitants,” said Pamela Miller, the co-chair of the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN).
Exposure to chrysotile asbestos—which is used to produce cement and roofing materials—can cause mesothelioma, asbestosis and cancer of the lung, larynx and ovaries, according to the World Health Organization.
“I understand and also share the frustration of those who would like to have listed chemicals like asbestos,” said Franz Perrez, president of the Rotterdam Convention. “But the fact that there is so much visibility to asbestos in this meeting, that makes it easier for countries to enact their own domestic regulations.”
Rotterdam Convention parties were also unable to agree to new restrictions for carbosulfan, fenthion and the paraquat formulation, which were blocked by India, Indonesia, Chile and Guatemala.
‘Mixed Feeling’
Top United Nations environmental officials said they had mixed feelings about the outcome of the meetings and worried that regulators aren't doing enough to help regular citizens avoid harm from toxins.
“There was success on one side and challenges on the other,” said Elizabeth Mrema, director of the division of environmental law and conventions at the U.N. Environment Program.
“The major success we are seeing is the growing number of chemicals to be listed,” Mrema told Bloomberg BNA. “But we've seen how the discussion was hot and challenging for other chemicals” like asbestos and paraquat.
“When you look at our own health, our children's health, you get a bit concerned,” she said. “So that is part of the mixed feeling that comes out of here.”
Household, Marine Waste
Parties to the Basel Convention agreed to establish a new private-public partnership to help avoid or minimize the generation of household waste.
Specifically, governments agreed to develop concepts and guidelines aimed at improving the collection, separation, transport, storage, treatment, processing, recycling and disposal of household waste.
In addition, governments provided the Basel Convention with a mandate to discuss ways to reduce marine litter in future chemical negotiations.
“The conventions have agreed that we have a role to play in the discussion and subsequent decision concerning the issue of plastics and marine life,” said Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110820585&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110820585&jd=110820585
-
EPA, Don’t Roll Back Lead Safeguards
May 5, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Maureen Swanson
The Environmental Protection Agency held “listening sessions” this week to hear public comment on Executive Order 13777, which requires an EPA Task Force to recommend “specific rules that should be considered for repeal, replacement and modification.” Monday afternoon was devoted to TSCA regulations on Lead Exposure Reduction, addressing implementation of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program, Lead Abatement Program, Residential Lead-based Paint Disclosure Rule, and Residential Hazard Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil.
Maureen Swanson, Director of Learning Disabilities Association of America’s Healthy Children Project delivered the following statement.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. My name is Maureen Swanson with the Learning Disabilities Association of America. LDA is the country’s oldest and largest membership-based learning disabilities organization. We are headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA with state chapters across the country.
What do we now know about lead?
· We know that there is no safe level of lead exposure for children. We know that even extremely low levels of lead exposure to children can cause neurological damage leading to learning disabilities, lowered IQs and attention disorders. Scientists link low levels of lead exposure in toddlers to declines in math and reading test scores when the children reach elementary school.
· We know that millions more children in the United States are exposed to lead and are likely to have elevated blood lead levels than we previously thought.
· We know that lead in water pipes and in old paint affects children and families in their homes and schools in cities and towns in almost every state.
One in six children in the U.S. has a learning or developmental disability. These disorders pose lifelong challenges and costs to children and families, and to schools and society.
On average, it costs twice as much to educate a child with a learning or developmental disability as it does to educate a child without one. When not provided with necessary supports and accommodations, adolescents with learning disabilities are much more likely to drop out of high school, have problems with substance abuse, and wind up in the juvenile justice system. High school graduates with learning disabilities are much more likely to be unemployed and have trouble keeping a job.
It is ridiculous and abhorrent that EPA would even consider eliminating or reducing lead abatement programs. Cutting these programs would deliberately put America’s children in harm’s way.
Once children are lead poisoned, it is too late. We have to prevent exposures in the first place.
We know that more children will be at risk for learning disabilities and attention disorders if these programs are not kept intact and expanded.
We need stronger, health-based standards for lead. We need more funding for these lead abatement programs, not less. We need this Administration to do more to protect America’s children from lead, not less.
Thank You.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/05/05/epa-dont-roll-back-lead-safeguards/
-
May 5, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
The Trump administration has already cancelled or sought to undermine 23 rules that protect our health and environment – including limits on toxic waste coal companies dump in rivers, and regulations promoting more fuel-efficient cars.
But the administration is hungry for more, so it’s asked companies, trade associations and lobbyists to suggest other rules they’d like the president to roll back.
Part of this wish-list process is being done in public and some, of course, is happening in private meetings. Rules from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has a whole “wish list” docket of its own, seem to be a particular target.
Here are five of the most brazen industry wishes submitted so far:
1. Coal tar: Trade association wants to end health studies
The Pavement Coatings and Technology Council – a trade association for the paving industry – doesn’t want research into the health dangers of the black top on which your children play foursquare.
It also doesn’t want the government to study the impact of coal tar on “freshwater sediment contamination, indoor air quality, ambient air quality, and effects on aquatic species.”
2. Leaky oil and gas drill sites: Trade groups don’t want to fix them
Trade associations representing the oil and gas industry, including The Independent Petroleum Association of America, have filed comments attacking Clean Air Act standards requiring energy producers to take cost-effective steps to reduce methane and other air pollution.
3. Roofing fumes: Companies want no restrictions
The National Roofing Contractors Association, a trade group representing roofing companies, doesn’t want smog-forming chemicals restricted, saying such regulations “have been burdensome to our members.”
4. Cancer-causing lubricants: Manufacturers say they should still be used
No, not that kind of lubricant. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association complained that the newly established chemical safety law may require its members to find replacement products for materials known to cause cancer in humans.
5. Toxic pesticide: Chemical manufacturer wants ban removed
Don’t try to pronounce chlorpyrifos, just know this pesticide hurts kids’ health. That’s what the EPA had concluded last year, and proposed banning it after years of research showing that it causes developmental problems in children and that there are alternatives.
That is, until Pruitt came along, and under pressure from the manufacturer, ignored his own scientists and rejected the proposed ban, saying it needs more study.Why this wish list should be taken seriously
The Trump administration seems to view all health and environmental safeguards as potentially suspicious. That’s in spite of strong data showing that environmental rules actually help the economy – by preventing illness, missed school days, worker absence, productivity problems and early death.
President Trump, who encountered these safeguards as impediments to building hotels faster and cheaper, promised to rid the government of 75 percent of rules that get in industry’s way.
With an EPA administrator more eager to please his boss than to protect Americans’ health, it’s now our job to fight back and protect our kids.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/05/trump-asked-industry-which-environmental-rules-target-next-here-are-5-their-most
-
(ACC Mentioned) Florida House and Senate Pass Plastics to Fuel Bill
May 5, 2017 | Waste Today Magazine
By Waste Today Staff
The Florida House and Senate passed House Bill (HB) 335—Resource Recovery and Management. The Plastics Division of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council (ACC) welcomed the legislation and issued the following statement by Craig Cookson, senior director of recycling and energy recovery:
“The ACC’s Plastics Division welcomes the unanimous passage of HB335—the first-of-its-kind legislation that will make Florida a welcoming environment for innovative businesses that convert post-use nonrecycled plastics into fuels, chemicals and chemical intermediates.
We’re thrilled to see legislation that attracts new innovative businesses and supports the creation of new jobs by treating post-use plastics as the energy rich resources they are by classifying them as equivalent to ‘recovered materials’ and not as ‘waste.’ In addition, HB335 ensures manufacturing facilities that convert these post-use plastics into liquid fuels, chemicals, waxes and lubricants are not wrongly classified as solid waste management facilities. It also facilitates recognition that the conversion of postuse plastics into these valuable products will count as recycling and contribute to meeting Florida’s 75 percent recycling goal.
Traditional recycling of plastics continues to increase in Florida and around the nation. However, there are economic barriers to recycling 100 percent of any material. New technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are enabling manufacturers to recover more of the energy embodied in plastics.
Florida recycles nearly 7.4 million tons of municipal solid waste annually. Converting Florida’s nonrecycled plastics into energy could provide enough fuel to power more than 500,000 cars every year. We applaud Rep. Charles Clemmons (R) and Sen. Keith Perry (R) for sponsoring this much needed legislation and urge Governor Scott to sign it.”http://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/florida-house-and-senate-pass-plastics-to-fuel-bill/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bet You'd Be Shocked by How Much of Our Natural Gas Comes From Fracking
May 8, 2017 | The Motley Fool
By Jason Hall
While crude oil dominates the energy news, natural gas is one of the most important -- yet often overlooked -- sources of energy in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, more than one-third of America's electricity comes from natural gas; half of American homes use it for cooking, heating water and drying clothes; tens of billions of dollars' worth of goods are made from it, and hundreds of thousands of vehicles use it as a fuel.
A whopping two-thirds of the natural gas produced in the U.S. is produced with hydraulic fracturing. And while there is some controversy around the risks of fracking, it has driven a huge increase in natural gas production and lowered the cost of the goods and energy produced from it. How much of our natural gas is fracked
This table shows how hydraulic fracturing has increased significantly over the past nearly 20 years:
Fracking isn't a brand-new innovation -- it's actually used to some degree for decades to enhance oil and gas recovery. But as the table shows, it's only been in the past decade that it's become a key method for extraction.
But it's not just fracking alone that's increased; it was the pairing of horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing that's driven the increase in the use of fracking.Here's how fracking and horizontal drilling changed natural gas production
This chart shows U.S. natural gas production since 1990:
Around a decade ago, there were serious concerns that America's supply of accessible natural gas was running out. Traditional vertical drilling methods had nearly exhausted the majority of North America's conventional reserves. In 2002, U.S. natural gas production peaked and would fall for the next four years. This situation caused natural gas prices to more than triple from 2000 to 2006:
This jump in natural gas prices affected every American, driving up energy and heating costs, increasing food production prices (natural gas is a primary ingredient in fertilizer), and affecting the price of consumer and industrial goods made from natural gas derivatives.
The interesting thing was, the U.S. wasn't really running out of natural gas. Geologists knew about deposits trapped in shale and "tight" formations that could provide 100 years or more of natural gas to the country. The problem was, there wasn't a technology that could produce it cost-effectively.
The pairing of fracking with horizontal drilling changed things. Since 2006, natural gas production in the U.S. has increased 40%, and natural gas prices have fallen by more than half:How fracking works
Hydraulic fracturing is the use of high-pressure water injection and sand to fracture the rock formations where oil and natural gas is trapped. The water causes microfractures in the shale and tight formations, while the sand holds those fractures open, allowing the oil and gas to be extracted.
When paired with horizontal drilling -- and the modern drills capable of extreme drilling depths -- producers can access far more natural gas from a single well. This is the key that has unlocked decades of natural gas that was otherwise inaccessible.
Fracking has seen its share of controversy, from allegations of releasing gas and chemicals into the water supply to causing earthquakes. And while there's thin evidence that fracking has caused any harm to drinking-water supplies since it takes place a mile or more underground, far below the water table, Oklahoma's recent spike in earthquakes is likely related to fracking. In recent years, the storage of wastewater from fracked wells has increased sharply in the state, and the evidence supports that this process has been at the very least a contributor to the uptick in earthquakes. How the U.S. has benefited from the natural gas boom
Natural gas is used for much more than just producing electricity:
Over the past decade it has become the biggest source of electricity in the U.S., supplanting coal. Not only does natural gas generate fewer emissions and particulates, but it has also proved to be cheaper both as a feedstock and in lowering power plants operating and maintenance costs.
Natural gas has also helped offset the trade deficit. Nearly all of U.S. consumption is met by domestic production, and domestic manufacturing is booming, reducing imports of products and feedstocks in many industries. Excess natural gas production is also now being liquefied and sold overseas.
t has even helped create jobs outside the energy industry. According to the American Chemistry Council, nearly $180 billion in completed or planned investment has been made in new petrochemical manufacturing in the U.S. since 2010, which can be directly attributed to American low-cost natural gas reserves.
The economic contributions of these projects are expected to be significant, creating more than 820,000 permanent jobs paying an average of $69,000 per year. Nearly half of these projects were completed or under construction to date. These facilities produce a number of products used to manufacture thousands of different consumer and industrial products ranging from fertilizer to plastics to medicines.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/07/bet-youd-be-shocked-by-how-much-of-our-natural-gas.aspx
-
Trump's Delay Stalls $50 Billion of Energy Projects in Pipeline
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
By the time Midwesterners fire up their furnaces this fall, the $2 billion Nexus pipeline is supposed to be pumping natural gas to heat homes from frosty Ohio to frostier Ontario. But six months out, the 255-mile (410-kilometer) pipeline exists only on paper.
Until President Donald Trump fills key vacancies at an energy regulator, Nexus and other sprawling energy projects are in limbo, unable to secure permits to begin construction. For Nexus developers DTE Energy Co. and Spectra Energy Partners LP, each week that passes threatens the project's ability to meet winter demands.
Nexus is just part of at least $50 billion worth of ventures slowed or stalled while the agency that approves them, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, awaits presidential appointments. For the first time in FERC's 40-year-history, the agency doesn't have enough commissioners for a quorum to vote on project applications. At least a half-dozen pipelines valued at $12 billion face imminent delays, while projects valued at $38 billion are slogging through an approval process that's slow in the best of times. An additional $25 billion of proposed developments just beginning the application process also could be slowed if the situation persists late into the year.
Post-Inauguration Bottleneck
It's a bottleneck that can be traced to the White House in the hectic days following the inauguration. Trump inherited a commission with three Democrats and two Republican vacancies and decided to shake things up. The president took the chairmanship from Norman Bay, an Obama appointee, and gave it on a temporary basis to Cheryl LaFleur, considered by Republicans to be a friend of the industry.
In February, Bay resigned. That left the commission with just two members, LaFleur and Commissioner Colette Honorable, whose term ends in June -- one shy of the quorum needed to vote on projects. That meant no approvals for new gas pipelines. No decisions on contested utility mergers. No clearance for new liquid natural gas terminals.
“The lack of a quorum at FERC is an embarrassing debacle for the Trump administration,” said Ethan Bellamy, a Denver-based managing director at investment firm Robert W. Baird & Co. “The leadership vacuum at FERC is holding up shovel-ready, privately funded infrastructure spending. We need those positions filled yesterday.”
To read more about Cheryl LaFleur, click here.
Other regulatory agencies that lack enough staff to vote on issues include the Federal Trade Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Export-Import Bank.
Stalled Projects
Stalled energy projects big and small include the $1 billion, 114-mile PennEast Pipeline, designed to run from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, TransCanada Corp.’s $850 million WB Express, and Chesapeake Utilities Corp.’s $100 million Eastern Shore expansion project, which expected approval in the first half of the year.
Pipeline delays could hit consumers directly by driving up prices for the fuel. “You could see ongoing spikes in prices, in particular New England,” said Michael Kay, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.
DTE Energy is still targeting the end of the year to have the Nexus pipeline up and running, Chief Executive Officer Gerry Anderson said in a conference call last month. That prospect grows dimmer the longer the White House takes to staff FERC.
Nominees are expected in the coming weeks. Likely candidates include Robert Powelson, a member of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission; Kevin McIntyre, a Washington-based partner at law firm Jones Day; and Neil Chatterjee, senior energy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Formal nomination is only the beginning of what could be a months-long process. The candidates still have to be approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, then confirmed by the Senate. Confirming the last commissioner to join the panel, Bay in 2014, took six months.
It's a political process that'll take time, said Martin Edwards, head of government affairs at the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. “How much time is really unknowable,” he said.
Pipelines Pile Up
As the wait continues, even more projects will get caught in FERC's bottleneck at a time when developers are rushing to find outlets for booming shale production.
Two major pipelines are expected to receive their final environmental reviews in June, setting them up for construction permits later this year. EQT Midstream Partners LP and NextEra Energy Inc. are among the companies developing the $3.5 billion Mountain Valley pipeline, which would span the East Coast, delivering 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern states. The $4.5 billion, 550-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the product of a partnership that includes Dominion Resources Inc. and Duke Energy Corp., would deliver 1.5 billion cubic feet a day to West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina. Together, the lines would deliver enough gas to heat 62,000 homes through the winter, according to estimates from Energy Information Administration data.
The timing of approvals can affect developers’ ability to meet environmental conditions. After receiving a permit in February, on the last day FERC had a quorum, Energy Transfer Partners LP raced to clear 3,000 acres of forest before the start of bat-roosting season, a deadline that could have stymied construction of its $4.2 billion Rover pipeline.
The fate of these projects has gained new significance in recent years, as the U.S. is expected to become a net natural gas exporter by 2018, according to the EIA.
Growing Backlog
FERC's lack of a quorum thwarts its work in other ways. Its two remaining members can't approve new hydropower plants, rule on contested utility mergers, or finalize settlement agreements in market-manipulation cases. A proposed rule on commercial battery storage is on hold, as is a decision on adjusting FERC's disputed income tax allowance policy for master limited partnership pipelines.
LaFleur has delegated authority to senior staff to take action on lower level issues, such as clearing pipeline tariff rates. Still, the commission is issuing 85 percent fewer orders than is typical, she said.
“We're building up quite a backlog,” LaFleur said in an interview. “Infrastructure cases are pending, merger cases are pending and a number of rule-makings and inquiries that were started we can't bring to completion.”
The Nexus developers have been waiting for a permit for six months. In January, they asked FERC to grant them a permit before Bay's resignation, arguing in a letter to the agency that the imminent lack of a quorum would “jeopardize the project's ability to meet demand.”
For now, the wait continues.
—With assistance from Jim Polson and Dave Merrill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110820573&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110820573&jd=110820573
-
Sale of Oil Leases on California Public Lands on Hold
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The federal government is barred from auctioning off new drilling rights on public lands in California for at least another year under a settlement reached with environmental groups, one of the groups told Bloomberg BNA.
The agreement details the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's obligations to comply with a 2016 court order requiring a more thorough analysis of potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing and other drilling activities before it opens the public lands for oil and gas development.
The settlement, approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California May 3, resolves a lawsuit the Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padre ForestWatch filed in 2015 Los Padres ForestWatch v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, C.D. Cal., No. 2:15-cv-04378 MWF/JEM, 5/3/17.
“Our hope is that this settlement puts the final nail in the coffin for BLM's illegal practicing of rubber-stamping fracking in California without environmental review,” Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie, who represented the groups, said in a prepared statement May 4.
No New Leases Since 2013
The settlement continues a moratorium on leasing public lands in California to the oil industry that began in 2013 after another court found the BLM had issued leases in Monterey County without adequately considering the potential harms of fracking, Brendan Cummings, the Center for Biological Diversity's conservation director, told Bloomberg BNA May 4. The environmental group is a plaintiff in both cases.
In the current case, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the adequacy of the BLM's Bakersfield Resource Management Plan, which set the stage for selling oil leases for more than 1 million acres of mineral estate in the state's Central Valley, the southern Sierra Nevada and Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties.
“The settlement addresses issues the court order left undecided,” Cummings said.
Instead of addressing those issues through legal briefings, both parties decided to settle the case, he said.
New Impact Analysis
Under the current settlement, the BLM must rework the resource management plan and prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement that corrects the National Environmental Policy Act violations. The new assessment must consider available information on fracking's potential impacts on groundwater quality and the public health and environmental concerns related to chemicals used in well stimulation activities.
The BLM agreed not to hold any oil and gas lease sales within the Bakersfield Resource Management Plan area until it issues a new record of decision.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110820583&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110820583&jd=110820583
-
Offshore Drilling Opponents Gear Up for Gulf Fight
May 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Offshore drilling opponents in Florida are bracing for a potential fight with the oil industry over the future of drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Oil groups this week said they are eyeing potential exploration in the eastern Gulf, a prospect buoyed by the Trump administration's recent review of federal offshore drilling policies.
Federal law bars drilling within 125 miles of Florida's Gulf Coast. But with that ban expiring in 2022 and President Trump pushing for expanded oil development offshore, both sides are preparing for a battle.
“Floridians understand that offshore drilling is a bad idea — it’s just not right for us,” said Holly Parker, the Florida regional manager for the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental nonprofit.
“What makes sense for Louisiana and Texas and other states just doesn’t really apply here. It’s not right for Florida.”
Trump’s April 27 order requires the Interior Department to reconsider the federal offshore drilling plan, which outlines oil lease sales for the next five years.
The current plan, instituted by former President Barack Obama in November, allows 10 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But the plan only covers a tiny sliver of the eastern Gulf, an area roughly defined by the the edge of the Florida panhandle that points southward.
In 2006, Congress formally banned drilling within 125 miles of the Florida coast, a restriction that chafes drillers who want to explore an oil-rich section of the sea that contains up to 2.35 billion barrels of oil, according to federal estimates.
With that moratorium due to sunset in 2022 — the same year the current five-year drilling plan ends — drillers hope Trump officials will consider opening up the area for oil development or exploration.
“The eastern Gulf of Mexico, as you look it from the energy and industry points of view, it’s one of the most logical next steps,” said Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), which supports offshore drilling.
“You already have the industry in the Gulf: you have the companies, you have the infrastructure, you just take the logical step to look toward the eastern Gulf of Mexico.”
The sticking point for eastern Gulf drilling has always been Florida, for whom the specter of the 2010 BP oil spill disaster still looms large. Congressional opposition to drilling there is bipartisan.
In the House, Florida Reps. Vern Buchanan (R) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) introduced a bill on Monday to extend the drilling moratorium for five more years. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.
Nelson, one of Congress’s most aggressive foes of eastern Gulf drilling, said he’s “of course” worried Trump’s executive order will increase the possibility for drilling there. But he said opponents will raise concerns about drilling’s threat to Florida’s tourism industry as a way to diffuse the push.
“It’s getting easier because our friends, bipartisan, in the Florida delegation are waking up to the fact of what happened by losing a whole tourist season when the BP spill was off of Louisiana and got as far east as northwestern Florida beaches,” he said.
“So in a way it’s easier because we’re now getting bipartisan support when in fact, back in 2006, it was just Sen. [Mel] Martínez [R-Fla.] and me — we were fighting this battle alone."
Drillers and their supporters say they want to work with opponents on a plan to preserve something of a buffer zone near Florida while allowing for exploration in the eastern Gulf.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said a bill he introduced to expand drilling in the Gulf would prevent drilling within 50 miles of the coast.
“Bill Nelson always wanted to say we’re about drilling off of Florida, well you gotta be kidding around about drilling off of Florida, but that’s what he would say to kind of get people ginned up,” Cassidy said. “It’s not part of our plan.”
Oil groups say the eastern Gulf makes logistical sense for companies, given how much drilling infrastructure there is in other parts of the region.
“We think that it would be essential, from an energy security standpoint, both for national security reasons and for the continuing demand for oil and gas that we’re going to see for a long time, for Interior to take a serious look at the eastern Gulf of Mexico," Erik Milito, the upstream and industry operations group director at the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters last week.
That argument doesn’t satisfy opponents in Florida, who pulled out all the stops to combat eastern Gulf drilling last week.
After the House bill was unveiled on Monday, Nelson’s office also released a letter sent to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) from the Pentagon that said the Department wants to maintain the drilling ban there.
The military uses the eastern Gulf as a training ground, and Florida hosts many Navy and Air Force bases.
“The moratorium … ensures that these vital military readiness activities may be conducted without interference and is critical to their continuation,” A.M. Kurta, the acting under secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, wrote in the letter.
Surfriders' Parker said that activists have a well-worn game plan they plan to employ against offshore drilling, using a combination of arguments opposing the drilling from ecological, economic and military standpoints.
“We’re very disappointed in the executive order, but we fought it before and we’re ready and willing to fight it again,” she said.
“We have been fighting against offshore drilling forever. It’s not new to us, and it’s something that Floridians are really committed to.”
-
Natural Gas Exports Can Solve U.S. Energy Glut
May 5, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Shelley Goldberg
The slogan “Made in the U.S.A.” resonates with Americans, except when there’s too much of a given product being made, which forces down prices along with the industry. One example is natural gas, where U.S. inventories have been largely above average for the last two years.
The salvation lies in Liquefied Natural Gas, the clear, odorless liquid formed when natural gas is cooled to about minus 260 Fahrenheit. And that’s just what President Donald Trump is pushing for. His administration is moving to make the U.S. the world’s leading exporter of natural gas, and LNG would be is a central component of both energy and trade policy. This makes a lot of sense.
In recent years, there was strong domestic opposition to energy exports, particularly for reasons of national security. But after years of depressed prices resulting from improved technologies that reduced extraction costs, that opposition has eased.
Proponents argue that natural gas exports can provide enhanced security to allies such as Japan; reduce European energy dependence on Russia, which has used gas exports as a political weapon; and address global climate change by replacing coal.
Trump’s policies to support oil and gas drilling by removing regulatory barriers to production, will support prices in the medium-term. Nonetheless, both domestic end-user demand and power generation demand are highly weather-sensitive, meaning a particularly cool summer or warm winter could result in severe regional surpluses, if not a national glut.
The collapse in oil prices from the summer of 2014 led to plummeting drilling activity. The gas rig count was down, as was the number of oil rigs and, and, as a result, the supply of associated gas. The U.S. produced less gas in 2016 than in 2015, the first time since 2005 that output fell year-on-year.
LNG has been and will continue to be a growing source of offtake from future production. The U.S. has slowly come to realize that developing a nationwide infrastructure to substitute gasoline with LNG was a pipe dream. Today’s investments are steering toward electric and self-driving vehicles as well as renewable energies. That means the best bet is on the export market, where demand for LNG is growing rapidly.
In 2016, the U.S. exported a total of 184.3 million cubic feet of LNG, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A tiny fraction was trucked to Canada and Mexico, and the bulk was shipped by vessel. The top five importers by volume were Chile (29.4), Mexico (27.5), China, (17.2), India (16.9) and Argentina (16.7).
Despite a glut of natural gas, demand is rising -- mainly in the power-generation sector, but also for pipeline exports to Mexico and the huge ongoing switch away from coal-fired generation to gas-for-power. Although liquefaction represents only a fraction of gas use, this demand has implications for the global LNG markets. The Henry Hub price set at the distribution center in Louisiana is expected to determine the floor price for U.S. LNG exports, and therefore the floor for natural gas prices in Europe and Asia. Europe, for one, is banking on U.S. LNG competing with Russian pipeline natural gas to keep prices low and global supplies plentiful.
Higher Henry Hub prices, which dictate natural gas spot and futures prices, would not necessarily reduce U.S. LNG exports, as contracts are already in place. Cheniere Energy, for example, has contracted significant volumes from its Sabine Pass LNG terminal to several large global players such as Shell and Centrica.
Volumes out of the Sabine Pass are expected to increase sharply this year as its two trains run at full capacity and a third train comes online. Furthermore, more LNG export terminals and trains are planned through 2020, potentially including the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Oregon. The Energy Department has authorized Golden Pass Products, a partnership between Exxon Mobil and Qatar Petroleum, to export domestically produced LNG from the Texas coast. If all goes according to schedule, Platts reported, these new terminals could create as much as 105 billion cubic meters of additional annual gas demand by 2020, which equates to approximately 13 percent of 2016 U.S. natural gas consumption.
The recent expansion of the Panama Canal has expedited the route to growing markets in Japan, South Korea and elsewhere in Asia, making U.S. gas more competitive. India, in particular, will be a major force. Its government plans to more than double the share of natural gas to 15 percent in light of its pledge to reduce carbon emissions as much as 35 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. According to the United Nations, India will be the world’s most populous country by 2022. India and China will both surpass 1.4 billion people -- with India slightly ahead.
This means a huge surge in energy demand. According to the 2017 BP Statistical Reviewof World Energy, by 2035, India’s energy consumption will grow by 4.2 percent a year, faster than all major global economies. India’s vision for a gas-based economy includes increasing LNG imports, and investing heavily in LNG infrastructure, to support its power and fertilizer sectors. Other potential markets include Taiwan and the Middle East, particularly Jordan and Pakistan.
LNG should create more opportunities in shipping with new vessels and trade flows after a depressed two years. While there had been too many ships and not enough LNG to carry, this dynamic will change. The shipping capacity should tighten and charter rates should appreciate, particularly in light of mergers and acquisitions that allowed companies to combine their fleets, such as Shell and BG in 2016.
While opposition to hydraulic fracking exists throughout the U.S. -- with outright bans in some states -- there are too many jobs at stake, on a national scale, to let the U.S. natural gas industry collapse. Furthermore, lack of natural gas would force the U.S. to turn to less clean fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, while alternative energy sources such as wind and solar will be insufficient to cover intense U.S. energy demands. Thus, exporting natural gas is today’s most practical option.
Shelley Goldberg is an investment adviser and environmental sustainability consultant. She has worked as a commodities strategist for Brevan Howard Asset Management and Roubini Global Economics.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-05/natural-gas-exports-can-solve-u-s-energy-glut
-
Landlocked Oklahoma Wants a Piece of Mexico’s Offshore Industry
May 5, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Lydia DePillis
Not every middle-of-the-country state can be a player in Mexico’s developing offshore oil industry, but if anyone has a chance, it’s Oklahoma.
The landlocked state has a native oil industry and a number of companies with expertise in onshore technology that can be transferred to deep waters. It even has an inland port on the Arkansas river, which allows manufactured goods to be shipped straight to the Gulf of Mexico.
That’s what Luis Domenech is hoping, anyway. He’s the international trade director at the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, charged with hooking the state’s oil and gas-oriented manufacturers up with the companies that are capitalizing on Mexico’s energy reforms, which opened the industry up to international business.
They haven’t had much luck yet. According to Census bureau trade statistics, oil and gas equipment doesn’t crack the top five exported goods in Oklahoma, and overall exports to Mexico have been dropping. But Domenech figures that in the coming years, those major oil companies will figure out their strategies for exploiting Mexican oilfields, and will come looking for supplies.
“They need to be patient,” says Domenech, of his small business clients in Oklahoma. “In one or two years, demand for new production equipment will be very, very high.”
Figuring out how to export to Mexico is tricky. You need to know the right distributors, you need to have a willingness to wait for a contract, and you need to get used to the fact that you might not have as good a profit margin as you would in Canada, for example. There’s a language barrier, and Mexican executives like to do business in person, Domenech says.
But once a company figures that out, Mexico can yield a world of new customers. Domenech holds up Everest Sciences, which makes chillers for the air that feeds into turbines and won a contract to supply Mexico’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, in 2013. “Once we help one of these companies to become an exporter, that continues,” Domenech says.
There are other dangers on the horizon, though. If the United States erects trade barriers to imports from Mexico, the country might retaliate by putting tariffs on the oil industry equipment that it mostly buys from the United States. International oil companies operating in Mexico are already looking to diversify their suppliers beyond America.
Meanwhile, the Oklahomans are waiting for a convincing run-up in prices, which will determine prospects for drilling in Mexico as much as anywhere else.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/05/05/landlocked-oklahoma-wants-a-piece-of-mexicos-offshore-industry/
-
Congressional Anti-Rule Push May Live on After Methane Vote
May 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
The Congressional Review Act clock is ticking, and time is running out.
The window of opportunity to use the expedited procedure to roll back Obama-era regulations is set to close at the end of this week, and Senate Republicans are still trying to ram through one more resolution of disapproval.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said that, despite some unforeseen opposition within his party, he is confident a vote against a controversial rule limiting methane waste on public lands will happen this week.
Robert Dillon, spokesman for the American Council for Capital Formation and former aide to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), said last week the methane rule vote could happen Wednesday.
"We'd prefer sooner rather than later," said Dillon, whose organization supports repeal of the rule. "I think the votes are there. I think Barrasso is right," he said, adding that ACCF has been talking regularly to members about the issue.
However, Donald Stewart, deputy chief of staff to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), cautioned that McConnell had not yet announced when a methane rule vote would happen.
The House passed the resolution of disapproval, S.J. Res. 11, in February, but Senate Republicans have struggled to garner support for the measure.
The November 2016 Interior Department rule seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas flaring, venting and leakage on public and tribal lands.
A slight glitch arose last week when a couple of corn-state Republicans tried to leverage the methane vote to pass through a waiver of seasonal restrictions on the sale of E15, or 15 percent ethanol in gasoline.
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-S.D.) signaled that their support of the methane repeal was contingent on Republican support for the ethanol change.
Relaxing restrictions for seasonal E15 use is not a party issue. Republicans remain divided, and Thune and Grassley's obstinacy may not be a politically viable stance, analysts say.
Another hurdle could be Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who remains publicly undecided on the issue, though he is expected to vote in favor of the repeal when push comes to shove.
Next CRA fight
The repeal of the methane rule would mark President Trump's 14th deployment of the Congressional Review Act to roll back so-called midnight regulations finalized under the Obama administration.
Sponsored by former Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.), the CRA was signed by President Clinton in 1996. It requires federal agencies to submit final rules to both Congress and the Government Accountability Office before they can take effect.
Congress then has 60 legislative days to review the rule. Within that time, lawmakers can schedule a simple majority, up-or-down vote on whether to overturn it with fast-track procedures.
Once a rule is gone, the CRA prohibits the issuing agency from promulgating a future "substantially similar" one. Because the CRA has never been tested in court, the term "substantially similar" has yet to be defined.
The "substantially similar" clause has been a point of contention for many watching the CRA scenario unfold. The environmental group Center for Biological Diversity last month filed a lawsuit arguing the provision is unconstitutional because it amounts to a legislative veto, which is prohibited (E&E News PM, April 20).
The rule-busting statute will likely come under intense scrutiny again when the Securities and Exchange Commission issues a new transparency rule for resource extraction firms.
Trump this year used the CRA to eliminate the agency's second attempt at the rule, which is required under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
When lawmakers scrap a rule mandated by statute, the issuing agency has a year from repeal to offer a new one that is not "substantially similar." Assuming Republicans do not repeal Dodd-Frank, the new rule will likely set the stage for an unprecedented legal battle.
If SEC releases a new rule that is seen as more flexible, watchdog groups will likely sue. But if the agency issues a standard that business groups see as too strict, they could launch litigation on the grounds that the new rule is "substantially similar" to the old (E&E Daily, Feb. 10).
Complicated timing calculations
Until this year, Congress and the White House had used the CRA successfully only once, to toss out a Labor Department rule in 2001.
Because the law requires the president's signature on resolutions of disapproval, it is most successful at the start of a new administration; a president is not likely to undo actions taken under his executive authority.
Additionally, the CRA gives Congress 60 full legislative days to review new rules. If a rule is published in the Federal Register with fewer than 60 session days left, the clock starts over at the beginning of the next Congress with a fresh 60 days. That's why the clock on all Obama rules published after June 13, 2016, started over in the 115th Congress.
Accordingly, lawmakers had 60 session days from Jan. 30 to vote on disapproval resolutions against the previous administration's actions. But the House and the Senate measure time differently; the House uses legislative days, while the Senate uses session days.
How many calendar days fit into a session or legislative day varies, depending on leadership. For example, when Senate Democrats were attempting to stall Cabinet confirmations, five calendar days only counted as three session days.
The deadline to fast-track CRA resolutions is expected to expire either Thursday or Friday. But even after the 60-day window closes, Congress can still pass them. They just won't qualify for expedited procedures.
Some conservatives are arguing, however, that the CRA could actually be used to roll back rules dating back to the 1990s that agencies never submitted properly (E&E Daily, March 7).
Todd Gaziano, who's advocating for the expanded definition, was general counsel to McIntosh when he served in Congress and helped write the law.
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said that reading of the law stretches it "way beyond its intent."
"I think that's baloney," said Narang. "It reads into the CRA this paperwork requirement that becomes this be-all and end-all of whether a rule takes effect or not. That makes no sense."
Reporter Kellie Lunney contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/08/stories/1060054170
-
Colorado Home Explosion from Anadarko Pipe to Get Safety Probe
May 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board will examine a pipeline explosion in a Denver suburb that killed two people last month, the agency said May 5.
The Denver Post reported residents Mark Martinez and Joey Irwin were killed and Martinez's wife, Erin Martinez, was severely injured April 17 when a natural gas line near their home leaked gas into their basement, causing an explosion that leveled the house.
The CSB said it would send investigators from its Western Regional Office in Denver to investigate a home that exploded in Firestone, Colo. The board's probe brings federal attention to an issue largely regulated at the state level.
The CSB cannot issue fines or citations, but the board's work could help oil and gas operators as well as state and local governments learn more about preventing similar explosions and how widespread the risk is in local communities.
The Post reported local authorities believe the explosion started via a 1-inch-diameter gas line that was cut near the home and led to an oil and gas well nearby owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
Although Anadarko had abandoned the line, it never disconnected and capped it, and investigators think the gas entered the home's basement by passing through a French drain and sump pit.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ordered companies May 2 to inspect gas flowlines near homes and businesses and verify all abandoned lines are properly capped, among other actions.
In a statement April 26, Al Walker, Anadarko's chairman, president and chief executive officer, said the explosion “has left all of us with heavy hearts, and the families and their loved ones are in our thoughts and prayers.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110820584&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110820584&jd=110820584
-
Pruitt Recuses Himself from Clean Power Plan, WOTUS Suits
May 5, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus and Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has recused himself from several cases that he pursued against the agency as Oklahoma attorney general.
Pruitt has signed a recusal statement, dated yesterday, which was obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act. The four-page document lays out several lawsuits pending before the agency that Pruitt has agreed to step away from during his tenure as EPA chief.
"This recusal statement addresses all of my ethics obligations," Pruitt said in the statement.
Pruitt said he would not participate for one year after his Senate confirmation in matters involving certain parties, including the state of Oklahoma and the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a public policy group involving Republican attorneys general that targeted environmental rules.
In addition, Pruitt has recused himself from a dozen pending cases involving EPA, including high-profile litigation over the Clean Power Plan and cases in both federal appeals and district courts over the controversial Clean Water Rule.
Among the recusals are also several cases involving Obama-era air rules. Those include EPA's methane regulations for new oil and gas sources, the 2015 ozone standard, the agency's cost analysis of mercury standards for power plants, and standards governing emissions released during industrial equipment breakdowns.
Pruitt also agreed not to participate in the legal proceedings over the Volkswagen AG diesel emissions scandal.
In all the cases, Oklahoma was either a party, petitioner or intervenor, with Pruitt often leading the charge. Most of the litigation over the Obama rules, however, has been stayed by the courts while EPA reviews whether to eliminate or revise the regulations.
Pruitt's recusal statement suggests certain cases in which Oklahoma joined other states as an amicus shouldn't pose an ethics concern because the state wasn't a direct party and didn't author briefs.
Among that category of litigation is the pending Supreme Court case over which is the correct legal venue to hear challenges to the Clean Water Rule, otherwise known as the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS. The court is expected to hear arguments on that case in the fall.
In addition, Pruitt said he has not participated in any of the cases listed in his recusal statement "officially at all," and he "will continue to recuse for now."
Further, if the EPA administrator does plan to participate in any of the listed cases, he will seek an ethics determination from the agency's top ethics official, who will apply federal impartiality standards.
Pruitt's situation is similar to one of his predecessor's at the agency. President Obama's first EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, was given several "impartiality determinations" during her tenure (Greenwire, Feb. 14).
Pruitt has also set up a "screening arrangement" where EPA officials will ensure that he doesn't participate in matters involving any of the listed entities in his recusal statement.
EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson will screen all matters, including existing litigation, to make sure they don't conflict with Pruitt's statement. Jackson along with Sarah Greenwalt, a senior adviser to the EPA chief, will receive a copy of his recusal statement and are directed to consult with ethics officials "if they are ever uncertain whether or not I may participate in a matter."
Pruitt's top subordinates also will receive a copy of his recusal statement, and in consultation with ethics officials, he will "revise and update my ethics agreement and/or this memorandum" if circumstances change. Jackson, ethics officials and other lower-level staff will receive a copy of that revised statement as well.
"This memo demonstrates Administrator Pruitt is following the rules. By taking these steps, we're keeping the focus on EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment," said J.P. Freire, an EPA spokesman.
Longtime critic
Before Pruitt was confirmed as EPA administrator, he was one of the agency's most vocal critics — "a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda," according to his official Oklahoma attorney general biography. As a state attorney general, Pruitt sued the agency over several of its regulations, including the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule.
Pruitt's opposition to the agency that he now leads has resulted in pressure from Democrats on Capitol Hill. They have been questioning whether Pruitt has sought ethics advice and then heeded that advice as head of EPA, requesting documents — like the administrator's recusal statement — for weeks.
Senate Democrats sent a letter earlier this week questioning Pruitt over his alleged conflict of interest regarding litigation over EPA's ground-level ozone standard (E&E News PM, May 2).
In a letter sent last month to the EPA chief, they pushed Pruitt to recuse himself from working on the Clean Power Plan, given he had previously litigated against the regulation.
As EPA administrator, Pruitt has taken several actions to begin rolling back that rule, including initiating the regulation's review; filing a court motion to hold in abeyance litigation against the rule; and telling governors that they didn't have to comply with the rule, considering it was subject to a Supreme Court stay.
In March, Democrats sent a similar letter to the EPA administrator regarding the Clean Water Rule. Pruitt also has already taken official action to review that rule.
Pruitt's ethics came under scrutiny during his Senate confirmation process.
Pruitt signed an ethics agreement where he said that during his first year at EPA, he would seek authorization to participate in matters that involved the state of Oklahoma.
In addition, Pruitt said repeatedly during his Senate confirmation hearing that he would consult ethics officials at EPA, including over litigation he was part of against the agency. He also committed to recuse himself from those cases if told to do so by those officials.
"I have every willingness and desire to recuse, as directed by EPA ethics counsel," Pruitt said at the hearing in January. "And if directed to do so, I will in fact do so, to recuse from those cases."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/05/stories/1060054153
-
Is EPA Moving Too Fast on Deregulation to Listen to Public?
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA is moving fast—maybe too fast—on identifying regulations to be revised or killed in response to a White House order, worrying environmentalists, state officials and even some in the private sector.
They say they are concerned the EPA is under too much pressure from the White House to target regulations for elimination and may not be doing an adequate job gathering input from the public to develop a sensible plan.
The agency is soliciting comments on regulations that should be reviewed for possible elimination through a series of listening sessions, though it's unclear what exactly it will do with the comments it receives. After the Environmental Protection Agency's public comment period ends, it will have less than two weeks to synthesize all of that feedback into a report due to the White House at the end of this month.
“EPA is providing multiple opportunities for comment throughout the process and are encouraging many avenues of participation,” agency spokesman Lincoln Ferguson told Bloomberg BNA. “We are giving a voice to many stakeholders across the country the previous administration chose to ignore.”
But some of those interests are now worried that the administration isn't acknowledging the long, hard slog that its deregulatory agenda will entail. Leslie Sue Ritts, an attorney who runs the Ritts Law Group in Alexandria, Va., represents energy and manufacturing companies that are in favor of relaxing environmental rules.
She said the heavily accelerated deadlines the White House has set for this process have left her doubting the new administration's true commitment to this issue.
“I'm glad they did something, but is it all window dressing?” Ritts told Bloomberg BNA. “I'm losing a little bit of wind in my sails.”
90 Days
At the behest of an executive order from the White House, all federal agencies, including the EPA, have assembled task forces to identify regulations that are candidates for “repeal, replacement or modification.” The March 1 order gave the task forces 90 days to assemble input from the public and then issue a report.
In addition to soliciting written comments, the EPA quickly scheduled eight listening sessions—some in person, some online only—where the public could offer their thoughts on which regulations should or shouldn't be scrapped.
Not all of these sessions have been going smoothly. They've largely been scheduled during the middle of the day on weekdays, making it difficult for some members of the public who aren't lobbyists to participate or attend. The May 2 online teleconference held by the agency's Office of Water was plagued with technical problems, with many of the speakers’ voices rendered unintelligible for long stretches of the three-hour session.
“It was just painful,” Steve Via, head of federal relations with the American Water Works Association, a professional group for the water utility industry, told Bloomberg BNA.
And at a May 4 session held by the agency's pesticides office, officials’ comments were met with boos from environmental activists in the audience.
To Squawk or Not
Via said his group is accustomed to having to scramble to meet tight agency comment deadlines but said the best way to get heard is to submit comments in writing, not participate in a public listening session.
But, in this instance, it's unclear how even written comments can have an impact on the EPA's thinking. The comment period for the task force's upcoming deregulatory report ends May 15, while the report itself is due to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt by May 25, according to Ferguson.
Ritts, the industry attorney, said she can't see how the task force can meet this deadline given that so many high level positions at the EPA remain vacant, including the heads of the agency's offices that manage water, air, chemicals, waste and other issues.
“It's better to get to squawk than to not get to squawk,” Ritts said, “but I need to know who I'm squawking at. Pruitt can't do everything.”
100 Days
State environmental officials also are reeling at the breakneck speed the administration is moving at on its deregulatory push. Peg Bostwick, a policy analyst with the Association of State Wetlands Managers, said the White House's desire to rack up accomplishments in its first 100 days has led to what she described as a “shotgun” process.
“EPA was under the gun, as was every federal agency, to get the ball rolling,” Bostwick told Bloomberg BNA. “I sympathize with them trying to figure out how to have a process that's somewhat open.”
Julia Anastasio, executive director of the Association of Clean Water Administrators, said she hopes that, after the EPA identifies which regulations are good candidates for a roll back, it will slow down its process and really focus in on the details.
“We certainly are concerned with the speed,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “Take your time. Make sure it makes sense to repeal.”
—With assistance from Tiffany Stecker.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110820568&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110820568&jd=110820568
-
States Move to Roll Back Environmental Rules in Trump's Wake
May 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Emboldened by the environmental rollbacks of President Donald Trump, state legislatures are following suit, taking aim at items as varied as solar incentives, chemical spill protections and, even, anti-pipeline protesters.
The legislation in states from Florida to Wisconsin comes as the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump argues that it can curtail federal regulations, leaving it up to states to decide how to protect against pollution. Shifting the burden to state capitals allows industry lobbyists to divide and conquer their foes, pitting one state's deregulation against another's.
“A lot of the business groups interested in this have realized they can be successful when they go state to state,” said John Farrell, a director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a Washington non-profit that advises local governments on community development. For health and environment groups, “there is an element of Whack-A-Mole that goes on when it happens at the state level.”
Companies that are getting free of federal regulations can now target industry-friendly states—think Oklahoma or West Virginia—to get out from under their mandates, as well. By moving state to state, lobbyists can get more traction with lawmakers friendly to their cause.
Many of the efforts have been championed by groups with ties to the billionaire industry executives David and Charles Koch, such as Americans for Prosperity or the American Legislative Exchange Council.
“Now is our time. And ALEC is ready,” Lisa B. Nelson, ALEC's chief executive officer, said in an email to its members after Trump's election. “As our elected officials in Washington work to roll power back to the states, we will be there to catch the ball and run with it.”
A spokeswoman for ALEC declined to comment on the email.
The actions are as varied as the states represented:
In West Virginia, where a chemical leaked into the Elk River and left 300,000 people without drinking water in 2014, legislation signed into law last month weakens the regulations for chemical storage tanks put in place after the spill.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed into law an end to a wind tax credit more than three years ahead of schedule amid a budget shortfall.
A measure in Florida would prohibit any new regulations on businesses unless they were approved by the general assembly and would nullify all existing regulations that aren't approved by the general assembly by July 2020.
Twenty states are moving forward with anti-protester bills, including one in Tennessee that would provide civil immunity for drivers who run over protesters that are blocking the road.
And states such as Indiana are moving to curb the payment those with rooftop solar get for selling their excess power to the grid, a fight that played out in previous years in Arizona and Nevada. Among those supporting the effort is Duke Energy Corp.
Other rollbacks are more general in nature, said Jennifer Hensley, the Sierra Club's director of state lobbying and advocacy. For instance seven states are seeking to create so-called “prosperity districts” where the environmental laws and other regulations perceived as inhibiting business would be limited, she said.
Among them is a bill in Oklahoma that would allow the creation of independent districts that “would be the sole governing authority within its borders, and would replace all state laws except the state constitution, criminal law, common law and existing state compacts,” according to a summary. It passed in the state's lower house last month.
“It was harder to persuade states to do things that we thought were fair to coal if we had an anti-coal administration,” said Paul Bailey, the president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which represents coal producers, utilities and railways. “There was so much uncertainty about coal under the Obama administration, I think states may have been less willing to take risks in favor of coal.“
“States may be more willing to take risks now,” he said in an interview.
ALEC, based in Arlington, Va., brings together corporations and legislators to craft model legislation for introduction in statehouses. It has drawn criticism for opposing state environmental, climate and clean-energy policies.
“Since Trump is taking their Christmas list and doing all of it, they can take the effort they would have spent fighting a clean-energy administration and put that all towards undoing clean energy in the states,” Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental consultant who previously worked at the Center for American Progress said in an interview.
Just as the nation is divided over Trump, so is it divided over environmental protection and solar and wind energy. While deep red states such as Oklahoma are pushing to establish areas that will be completely free from environmental regulation, the two most populous states, New York and California, are pushing forward with greater action to cut pollution and address climate change.
California Counterpoint
California recently put in place strict new limits on methane emissions from oil and gas operations within its border. And next in line are new rules in the state for refrigerants and so-called “black carbon,” which is several times more potent than carbon dioxide. That comes on top of the state's already ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
New York and Illinois offered bailouts to their ailing nuclear plants, which provide carbon-free electricity, over the objections of refiners and other large power consumers.
The ying and yang of these decisions is best displayed in Ohio. There a Republican-led House passed legislation that would scrap the state's renewable energy standard and turn it into a voluntary requirement. It would also water down separate energy efficiency requirements.
“A new day is dawning in Washington, D.C., where the Trump Administration is finally ending the War on Coal,” the Ohio Coal Association said in written testimony in support of the bill. “Ohio can further the progress at the federal level by repealing the state's costly and harmful energy mandates.“
Kasich's Veto
But the state's governor, Republican John Kasich, vetoed a similar bill last year. This year the new version was passed with a veto-proof majority in the house, but is not likely to get that level of support in the Senate.
FirstEnergy Corp., Ohio's homegrown utility with roots in the state that date to 1930, had protested the mandates, and earned nationwide news coverage after seeking extra payments from its customers to help its aging coal plants. After the state's public utility commission shot that down, it has shifted and is now trying to get help for its nuclear fleet, arguing those plants are the “largest source of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases and other pollutants.”
The American Petroleum Institute testified against legislation, which would offer zero emission credits estimated to generate $300 million a year for the struggling nuclear plants.
“Abundant natural gas has provided Ohio consumers with reliable and affordable energy and created countless jobs throughout the state without government subsidies,” said Chris Zeigler, API's Ohio executive director. “Instead of subsidizing nuclear power companies, we should let the markets work to protect consumers.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110820572&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110820572&jd=110820572
-
Court Enters Deal Setting Deadlines for NO2, SO2 Decisions
May 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
A federal court has entered an agreement between EPA and environmentalists that sets legally enforceable deadlines requiring the agency to make decisions on whether to strengthen, weaken or maintain federal air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) by dates certain, a schedule that will force action on overdue Clean Air Act reviews of the existing standards.
The action underscores observations from former agency officials who say that despite his past opposition, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has no choice but to embrace such “sue-and-settle” suits that environmentalists bring to enforce missed statutory deadlines. They say that if Pruitt seeks to fight such suits, he runs the risk of courts imposing much shorter deadlines than what he would otherwise be able to negotiate.
In a consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California April 28, EPA agreed to issue a proposed rule by July 14 either modifying or leaving unchanged its primary, or health-based, national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for NO2. Primary NAAQS are designed to protect human health “with an adequate margin of safety,” while secondary NAAQS, developed separately, are intended to protect the environment.
The agency must propose a new SO2 NAAQS rule by May 25, 2018, and a final rule by Jan. 28, 2019, under the consent decree.
The decree settles a lawsuit brought by environmentalists, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), et al. v. Pruitt, originally brought against the Obama EPA when it in 2015 failed to meet the air law's five-year deadline for review of NAAQS limits. The resulting timetable is the same as that agreed by the Obama administration.
While the agreement leaves the door open for EPA to maintain or even weaken current standards, any action the agency takes as a result of the agreement will be “final” and eligible for legal challenges.
On NO2, the Obama EPA most recently tightened the limit in 2010, introducing a 100 parts per billion (100ppb) limit measured over a novel one-hour averaging time. But the decree requires EPA to issue a final rule addressing NO2 by April 6, 2018.
EPA staff has recommended that Administrator Scott Pruitt leave the NO2 limit unchanged, because there is too much uncertainty over possible adverse health effects of NO2 at levels below the current limit. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) has also endorsed this finding, amid falling NO2 levels across the country.
The settlement further calls for EPA staff to issue a final Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) synthesizing evidence of the risks to health of SO2 by Dec. 14, a key step in the development of a new SO2 primary NAAQS rule. EPA also last updated the SO2 limit in 2010, to 75 ppb over one hour.
EPA has already issued two draft ISAs on SO2 risks. The latest document released Dec. 9 softened some earlier conclusions about adverse health effects.
For example, the second draft ISA retained the first version's primary conclusion that SO2 causes short-term respiratory effects, but backed away from the earlier draft's conclusions that various other health effects are “suggestive” of a causal relationship with SO2 exposure. Instead, EPA says there is “inadequate” evidence to suggest such a relationship. CASAC endorsed the approach in the second document.
If EPA finalizes the ISA as proposed in the second draft, the assessment would support Pruitt leaving the primary SO2 NAAQS unchanged.
Meanwhile, Pruitt's EPA has indicated in other legal proceedings that it intends to review and possibly revise the Obama EPA's 2015 rule that tightened the primary ozone NAAQS from a prior level of 75 ppb down to 70 ppb. The tougher standard provoked strong opposition by industry and some states over the implementation costs of the new rule, and its technical feasibility.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/court-enters-deal-setting-deadlines-no2-so2-decisions
-
U.S. to Participate in Climate Conference Despite Uncertainty over Paris Agreement
May 5, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
The U.S. will send a delegation to a climate conference in Bonn, Germany, next week, despite the Trump administration's ongoing vacillation over whether the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
"At this time, we are continuing to participate in international meetings, including the subsidiary body meetings taking place in Bonn from May 8-18," a State Department spokesperson told POLITICO in an email. "Our participation should not be taken as an indication of the outcome of our ongoing review."
The two-week meeting is a pre-conference for the larger Conference of Parties scheduled for November. Typically the meeting focuses on technical issues and laying the groundwork for discussions on bigger issues. Though not on the agenda, participants likely will meet on the sidelines to discuss what to do if the U.S. pulls out.
"The U.S. delegation to these meetings will be much smaller this year than in recent years," the spokesperson said. "We are focused on ensuring that decisions are not taken at these meetings that would prejudice our future policy, undermine the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, or hamper our broader objective of advancing U.S. economic growth and prosperity."
Top Trump officials are expected to meet Tuesday to again try to decide whether to stay in the deal.
WHAT'S NEXT: Trump is expected to make a decision on the Paris deal in the next few weeks.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Remake the Paris Climate Deal to Promote American Energy
May 7, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Kevin Cramer
President Trump will soon decide whether to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change. His top advisers are huddling Tuesday, likely for a final time, to consider the decision, which has been promised by the end of the month. I endorsed Mr. Trump last April because I believed in his America First agenda, and I advised him on energy policies during the campaign.
I was wary of Paris and used to favor pulling out, but I’ve changed my mind for two reasons. First, in future climate talks the U.S. will benefit from having Mr. Trump, an experienced negotiator, at the table. Second, the Trump administration can legally scrap President Obama’s emission-reduction pledge without leaving the Paris agreement.
It is abundantly clear that the agreement, which is and will remain legally nonbinding, does not prohibit lowering the American pledge. In a May 1 memo, Sierra Club lawyer Steve Herz wrote that “it would be extremely difficult to prevail” in any lawsuit arguing that the U.S. was bound by its pledge, or by the agreement itself.
Thus any renegotiation would be the easiest deal Mr. Trump has ever made: He would simply submit a new pledge. Then if somehow the U.S. was blocked from changing its commitment, Washington could simply leave the Paris agreement that same day.
Regardless, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt would be able to rescind the woefully constructed Clean Power Plan and other harmful Obama-era regulations, since they all preceded the climate deal reached in Paris in December 2015. Those regulations and the Paris agreement are legally unrelated.
There has been spirited debate among House Republicans on the best move to make. Several of my colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee—including conservatives from energy-rich states such as Oklahoma, Missouri and Pennsylvania—agree that the smart strategy is to try to work out a more beneficial deal for the U.S. under the Paris agreement rather than walk away and let China and others take over the discussions. Eight of my fellow Republicans joined me in signing a letter to President Trump laying out specific conditions that would turn Paris into a good deal:
First, revise the U.S. pledge so it doesn’t harm the economy and comes to reflect America First energy policies.
Second, cease Washington’s transfers to the Green Climate Fund, and ensure the existing money isn’t spent on wasteful projects.
Third, negotiate through the Paris Agreement to defend American interests, particularly by advancing technology for clean coal and pushing for increased investment and a better regulatory environment—all of which will create more foreign markets for American clean coal technology.
Mr. Obama’s Paris pledge was a bad deal, as Mr. Trump explained forcefully during the campaign. But the situation has changed. The new White House can replace those harmful policies with an America First energy vision, and a Paris pledge and negotiations that reflect it.
What could Paris become with President Trump and his negotiators at the table? Energy Secretary Rick Perry has already aggressively touted the virtues of nuclear and clean coal at a recent Group of Seven energy meeting. That view faces stiff opposition from some of America’s allies in Europe, who will work hard to promote a radical and unrealistic all-renewables vision for global energy policy. The U.S. needs to take them on in every available forum, Paris included.
Since Paris went into force, many nations in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean have built clean coal plans into their Paris pledges. The White House can build on these pragmatic approaches, using Paris to help the U.S. energy industry and American workers. If Washington were to up and leave, Beijing would fill the leadership vacuum. It isn’t wise to cede that ground.
Neither America nor the world can afford a European energy future, with skyrocketing prices, or a Chinese energy future, with bureaucratic control and unfair dumping of state-subsidized resources.
If Mr. Trump can fix Paris, it will be an example of the emerging Trump Doctrine. He would manage to get international credit for staying in the talks and ensuring they aren’t led by China, while at the same time protecting America’s economy.
Voters elected Donald Trump because they trusted him to drive hard bargains and help America start winning again. I trust that President Trump can negotiate the Paris Agreement into a good deal and deliver yet another win—for North Dakotans and American workers everywhere.
Mr. Cramer, a Republican, represents North Dakota in the U.S. House.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/remake-the-paris-deal-to-promote-americas-energy-interests-1494187641
-
California Debate Heats Up Over GHG Cap-and-Trade Program
May 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
Debate is heating up in California's Senate where lawmakers are considering several measures to overhaul the state's landmark greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program after 2020 when the current program expires.
Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D), with support from Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D), earlier this week introduced SB 775, a measure that would replace the state's current program with a stricter “cap-and-dividend” system that seeks to ensure deeper pollution reductions at large industrial facilities in disadvantaged communities.
As reported by Inside Cal/EPA's Curt Barry, the new bill by leaders of the state Senate would require industries to purchase all their pollution credits rather than being freely allocated most of them, while households would receive the bulk of the program's revenue through rebate checks, with the remainder being used to fund advanced clean energy technologies and climate research.
But the bill faces competition from two pending bills in the state Assembly, one of which, AB 378, proposes to extend the cap-and-trade program to 2030 while also integrating new standards to require industry sectors to reduce criteria and toxic air pollutants.
The other, AB 151, essentially keeps the current cap-and-trade program in place but aims to limit the use of GHG offset credits under the system.
Wieckowski and de Leon say SB 775 is needed for several reasons, including to provide more legal certainty for the GHG trading program and to ensure a steady stream of revenue for the state through quarterly auctions; to provide households rebate checks to offset an expected rise in the price of fuel and electricity due to the program; and to require regulated companies to more rapidly and deeply reduce their emissions, especially in poor, polluted communities.
The measure, which is scheduled to receive its first policy committee hearing on May 10, was crafted in part by Michael Wara, a law professor at Stanford University, and Danny Cullenward, a research associate with the group Near Zero and an energy economist and lawyer.
While the groundbreaking legislation is receiving strong support from environmental justice groups, it faces substantial opposition from an array of other stakeholders.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D), for example, is likely to oppose the bill given that he has generally applauded the current cap-and-trade implementation and largely agrees with pending state air board regulatory changes to maintain the system with some tweaks through 2030.
And industry groups, who are concerned the bill would limit the use of credits and other compliance mechanisms, have been urging lawmakers and state air board officials to expand the use of GHG offsets and to maintain current levels of free GHG allowances, which for some sectors is 90-100 percent of their compliance obligation.
Some environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), are also opposing SB 775, charging it would undermine the integrity of the existing trading program and create loopholes that could prevent the state from meeting its emissions targets.
“While the specific price ceiling envisioned in the bill is high enough that it may not be triggered, it represents an approach that is counter to the signature feature of the cap-and-trade program: the guarantee that California will meet its emission target,” EDF's senior attorney Erica Morehouse says in a May 1 blog post.
Further, SB 775 could jeopardize California's existing program link with Quebec, and scheduled link next year to Ontario, by overhauling the state's approach to cap-and-trade "and then asking partners to quickly fall in line," she adds. "International linkages strengthen California's leadership position and allow the state to leverage its program to spur greater ambition globally. Turning inward now would cede global leadership just when the world needs it most."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-debate-heats-over-ghg-cap-and-trade-program
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
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