Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/5
-
Industry Sees Quick Action On Deregulatory Efforts as 'More Complicated'
May 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi & Dawn Reeves
Despite unified Republican control of the government, industry groups are beginning to acknowledge publicly that quickly advancing new deregulatory actions in Congress and the Trump administration is more complicated than they initially believed and are stepping up their efforts to overcome hurdles at EPA and elsewhere. -
Senate Democrats Face Industry Push To Support Regulatory Review Bill
May 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi & Dawn Reeves
Groups representing major industries are stepping up their efforts to win over reluctant Senate Democrats to support pending legislation to overhaul the federal regulatory review process, though the effort is facing hurdles as many Democrats and allied groups strongly oppose the bill. -
Trump EPA Dismisses Half of Scientific Advisory Group
May 9, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
A membership shake-up in an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory council could be a sign of more changes to come at the regulatory agency, policy experts are saying. -
(ACC Mentioned) Under New Mismanagement: Polluters Asked How to Destroy EPA
May 9, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency held “listening sessions” 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.” -
Interest Groups, Citizens Sound Off on Possible EPA Overhaul
May 9, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell & Dylan Brown
U.S. EPA officials today continued the agency's push to identify regulations to modify or repeal under President Trump's deregulatory executive order. -
EPA Reopens Comment Period on Standards for Small Manufacturers and Processors for TSCA Reporting for Review of SBA Consultation Documents
May 9, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson & Margaret R. Graham
On May 9, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a notice stating that it was reopening the comment period regarding whether revision to the current size standards for small manufacturers and processors, which are used in connection with reporting regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a), is warranted. -
EFSA Publishes Guidance on Authorisation for Plastic FCMs
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has issued guidance for applicants seeking to authorise substances for use in plastic food contact materials (FCMs). -
Canadian NGO Wants Changes to Endocrine Disruptor Controls
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Canadian Environmental Law Association (Cela) has submitted a proposal recommending changes to the country’s approach to regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
(ACC Mentioned) Petrochemical Boom Offsets Effects From Houston’s Oil Downturn – But For How Much Longer?
May 10, 2017 | Houston Public Media
By Florian Martin
While the oil and gas industry is in recovery from a two-year slump, which has had a negative impact on Houston especially, the chemical industry has been experiencing a boom. -
McConnell Aide, Utility Leader Named to Federal Energy Agency
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Neil Chatterjee and Robert Powelson, named by the White House to fill vacant seats on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, would bring broad energy expertise to the positions, former colleagues say. -
Republicans Sound Closer to Unified on Methane Rule Rollback
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs & Alan Kovski
More Senate Republicans are easing into agreement with their party leaders on a plan to roll back an Obama-era regulation on the venting and flaring of natural gas. -
Colorado Oil and Gas Flowline Mapping Bill Defeated at Deadline
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Republicans used a late-night filibuster to defeat a first-in-the nation bill that would have required oil and gas operators to provide information about the locations of pipelines in the aftermath of a fatal home explosion caused by a severed natural gas line. -
Inslee Keeping Track Of Train Safety
May 9, 2017 | The Columbian
By Lauren Dake
Before the governor could finish his sentence, BNSF Railway spokesman Gus Melonas jumped in with an assurance: the railroad lines in Washington are inspected daily, Melonas said. -
Freight Rail Key to U.S. Economy, Infrastructure
May 9, 2017 | InsideSources
By Ian Jefferies
With spending levels set through September, the Senate digging in on health care and the U.S. House of Representatives now turning to tax reform, some may believe infrastructure will take a backseat to these priorities. Yet observers of the legislative process know that policymaking is always occurring, even if it is not always in plain sight. -
No Paris Decision Until After G-7 — Spicer
May 9, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
President Trump will delay a decision on whether to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement until after the Group of Seven summit in late May, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said this afternoon. -
Trump Delays Decision on Paris Climate Accord Amid Infighting
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump won't decide on whether to keep the U.S. in the landmark Paris climate accord until after he meets world leaders at the Group of Seven summit later this month, a delay that reflects White House tensions over the choice. -
State Dept. Pick: U.S. 'Best Served' Staying In Climate Talks
May 10, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
John Sullivan, the prominent Republican lawyer tapped to serve as the State Department's No. 2 official, told senators yesterday he thinks the United States is "best served" when it has a seat at the table for international climate negotiations. -
Why the Carbon Tax Is An Idea That Won’t Go Away
May 9, 2017 | RealClear Energy
By Josiah Neeley
Using a carbon tax to fight climate change has long been a popular idea among economists, but November's election results seemed to render carbon-tax advocacy something of a lost cause. Between the election of a president who has been aggressively skeptical about climate science and the defeat of a referendum on carbon taxes in Washington state, the political case against carbon taxes looked definitive.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Industry Sees Quick Action On Deregulatory Efforts as 'More Complicated'
May 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi & Dawn Reeves
Despite unified Republican control of the government, industry groups are beginning to acknowledge publicly that quickly advancing new deregulatory actions in Congress and the Trump administration is more complicated than they initially believed and are stepping up their efforts to overcome hurdles at EPA and elsewhere.
Industry sources are citing the burden of justifying deregulatory actions while simultaneously slashing EPA's budget among the reasons for the complications in the executive branch.
“Who at EPA is going to [justify deregulatory actions]? The staff who think it's [already] a perfectly good rule and is about to [be] cut by 15 percent? They are civil servants, and they'll do their jobs, but for practical reasons, they're going to be overwhelmed to come up with justifications to revoke rules,” one industry source says.
Others also point to the partisan political environment, an issue that appears likely to complicate an upcoming Senate push to advance a major regulatory reform bill that many industry groups are strongly supporting.
One former Capitol Hill aide says plans by the Senate government affairs committee to mark up regulatory reform legislation as soon as next week -- before holding a hearing -- suggests the bill's supporters do not expect the measure to be enacted. “It's not proceeding like a bill they really want to get done” but seems to be more of a tool for “political purposes” to pressure vulnerable Democrats, the source says. Committee staff did not respond to request for comment at press time.
Many sources, including industry, environmentalists and former Obama administration officials, have previously noted the difficulty the Trump administration and its supporters face in advancing deregulatory actions. For example, many have cited the administration's failure to nominate additional political appointees and divisions among top officials.
But many industry officials are now acknowledging the hurdles more publicly. During a May 4 closed-door meeting hosted by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) -- dubbed the Regulatory “ReForum” -- industry stakeholders began noting that “it would be more complicated” to move on opportunities presented by the new policies, according to the industry source, who attended the meeting.
Even NAHB publicly noted the meeting's message that further deregulatory actions may be difficult. In its May 8 blog post on the meeting, the group reported that one participant warned that the more-partisan political environment complicates deregulatory actions, while another sought to temper industry expectations on the speed of any deregulatory actions.
“It’s difficult, said one panelist, to discuss the pros and cons of regulatory relief in today’s polarized political environment, in which advocates on both sides of the fence are less inclined to listen to opposing viewpoints,” the NAHB post said.
“Others, seeking to manage expectations, also reminded the audience that it often takes just as much time amending or removing problematic regulations as it does creating new ones,” NAHB added.
EPA Review
Such acknowledgments come after an initial round of deregulatory actions by Congress and the Trump administration.
Congress is poised to end its efforts to roll back rules due to deadlines for action under the Congressional Review Act, with senators slated to vote May 10 on a measure repealing an Obama-era rule regulating methane emissions from oil and gas operations.
President Donald Trump has also signed a series of executive orders creating a deregulatory architecture and setting in motion of series of regulatory reviews.
As a result of those orders, EPA is in the midst of a wholesale review of its existing regulations to determine which should be repealed or reviewed. The process is due to hit a major milestone next week when EPA's public comment period is slated to end May 15.
The source who attended the NAHB meeting says many industry groups are using the EPA review process to identify rules they think are “burdensome” and would like Congress and the Trump administration to review and repeal or modify them.
But the source says the groups are not yet fully prepared “to put in the effort to try and quantify the cost savings that would be realized if these rules were revoked."
Industry groups “can't just mail in your list [of deregulatory actions] and hope for the best,” the source says. 'You're going to have to do something to help put that record together to explain."
The source adds that agencies will have to identify cost savings and create administrative records to justify rolling back rules. While that responsibility would usually fall to the agency, proposed budget cuts, especially at EPA, will make it difficult, leaving the work to industry and other proponents of deregulatory actions.
“In demonstrating that a rule should be revoked, you have to be prepared to do some help to explain why and put together supporting data and a basis for it because it will need to go into the administrative record and will be challenged in the courts,” the source says. -- Amanda Palleschi (apalleschi@iwpnews.com) & Dawn Reeves (dreeves@iwpnews.com)
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-sees-quick-action-deregulatory-efforts-more-complicated
-
Senate Democrats Face Industry Push To Support Regulatory Review Bill
May 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi & Dawn Reeves
Groups representing major industries are stepping up their efforts to win over reluctant Senate Democrats to support pending legislation to overhaul the federal regulatory review process, though the effort is facing hurdles as many Democrats and allied groups strongly oppose the bill.
The bill, S. 951, introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) along with Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), could be marked up by the Senate governmental affairs committee as soon as next week, says a former Capitol Hill aide, before the committee holds a hearing on the measure.
That approach, the source says, suggests the bill's supporters do not expect the measure to be enacted.
“It's not proceeding like a bill they really want to get done” but seems to be more of a tool for “political purposes” to pressure vulnerable Democrats, the source says.
Committee staff did not respond to request for comment at press time.
As introduced, the bill generally amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), creating a host of new procedural steps for agencies before issuing final rules, imposing new judicially reviewable cost-benefit requirements and adding a host of other steps that will likely hamper development of agency rulemakings.
The measure is a top priority for many industry groups, who have spent millions of dollars lobbying for the bill.
The legislation “one of the most important changes to the regulatory process” since the APA passed in the 1946, Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association, said in an interview with Inside EPA.
In February, more than 600 industry groups signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urging him to advance the legislation.
And an analysis by the Center for American Progress (CAP) found that many of these groups spent millions of dollars in the first quarter of 2017 lobbying for the measure.
But even before the bill is marked up in the Senate governmental affairs committee, it is sparking significant opposition from Democrats and allied groups.
The CAP analysis, for example, called the bill “a dangerous piece of legislation that will make it harder -- if not impossible -- for federal agencies to . . . protect the environment from pollution; and protect public health from exposure to toxic chemicals and unsafe food.”
Democrats' Votes
Industry officials acknowledge they lack support from many Democrats but they are talking to Democrats and hoping to win their votes on a measure that many in industry view as a more “moderate,” compromise package.
There are “lots of maybes” among Democrats on the bill, says Rosario Palmieri, vice president for labor, legal and regulatory affairs at the National Association for Manufacturers (NAM). He says many in industry are following Portman's lead in urging Democrats to back the bill by arguing that “new analytical requirements and an improved regulatory process apply equally . . . so they will constrain the Trump administration as much as they will any future administrations.”
Noe echoed this sentiment: “I think [the Senate bill] could be just as easily pro-regulation as pro, de-regulation. It depends on the facts of the regulatory issue at hand. If a regulation is going to do more good than harm, this bill would advance it,” he said.
“It's a pitch to Senate Democrats or any who are concerned about the implementation of [Trump's] policies. This is Congress saying, we'd like all regulations to be issued with improved analysis,” Palmieri said.
He added that while there are “no guarantees” of Democratic votes beyond the bill's current co-sponsors, industry groups are targeting “a dozen or so Senate Democrats who are currently or have co-sponsored regulatory reform legislation in past congresses."
The source with knowledge of the ReForum said that Democrats up for re-election in 2018 from states carried by President Trump in 2016, were discussed as those “most likely to sign onto something” like the Senate bill.
“It's just a question of issue-by-issue provisions and what do Senate Democrats feel comfortable with?” Palmieri said. “The concern that many Democrats have is that reforms will harm the process in a way that would prevent good regulations from being made. And so what we want to accomplish is to make sure that proposed reforms do not prevent those critical health and safety and environmental protections from getting promulgated on an appropriate timeline.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-democrats-face-industry-push-support-regulatory-review-bill
-
Trump EPA Dismisses Half of Scientific Advisory Group
May 9, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
A membership shake-up in an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory council could be a sign of more changes to come at the regulatory agency, policy experts are saying.
In an unusual action, EPA did not grant nine of the 18 members on its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) a second three-year term. An additional four were already scheduled to rotate off the board this year due to term limits, BOSC chairwoman and environmental chemist Deborah L. Swackhamer tells C&EN. Composed of scientists from outside the agency, the board reviews technical and management issues related to EPA’s in-house research.
The unexpected dismissals and statements from EPA officials leave Swackhamer and others concerned that the agency will open itself to potential conflicts of interest by filling the vacant slots with members from regulated industries.
EPA spokesman J.P. Freire says the agency has received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and the agency intends to “carry out a competitive nomination process.”
Gretchen Goldman, research director of the Center for Science & Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is watching to see what the move portends for other scientific review groups at the agency. These include the Science Advisory Board, whose work is more closely tied to policy outcomes than BOSC’s, she says.
The move is another way that the Trump Administration is trying to take science out of the regulatory process, Goldman asserts. “It builds on other actions that we’re seeing this administration take with respect to science and science advisors.”
With their diminished numbers, BOSC’s remaining five members may find their capacity to review the agency’s scientific research program limited, several board members tell C&EN.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, last week asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for more information about the dismissals. Carper says he is concerned that through this and other actions, EPA is engaging in “a broad approach of denying the science that forms the basis of sound environmental regulation.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i20/Trump-EPA-dismisses-half-scientific.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Under New Mismanagement: Polluters Asked How to Destroy EPA
May 9, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency held “listening sessions” 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.” Not surprisingly few if any individual citizens or public interest groups asked EPA to weaken health safeguards designed to clean up air pollution, keep our water safe to drink, or protect people from toxic chemicals. But polluting industries and chemical manufacturers were out in force. NRDC and many of our allies attended the listening sessions and spoke out against the notion that EPA should be focusing its limited time and resources on rolling back existing protections, and should instead be acting to fulfill its mission of protecting health and the environment.
I was ambivalent about participating in the “listening session” I attended – which was focused on several parts of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program -- out of concern that it would in some small way serve to legitimize the stated goal of President Trump, Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt (#polluterpruitt) to deconstruct the administrative state, with a major emphasis on EPA. It is no secret that from the top down the Trump Administration is installing people who have dedicated their professional lives to blocking and undermining the Agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment.
It would be like putting George Steinbrenner and his minions in charge of the Boston Red Sox, only in this case, they won’t just be destroying a rival team, their intent is to destroy an Agency that the public relies upon to keep their air safe to breath, their water safe to drink and that protects them from exposure to toxic chemicals in their homes, schools, workplaces and in the marketplace.
EPA has had a difficult time meeting these basic objectives, because of the powerful and unrelenting opposition of giant corporations like Dow and Exxon for the nearly 50 years since EPA was first created. If corporations are people, these are people who would willingly harm their neighbors, or anyone else, to get ahead, and who have no qualms about their role in hurting people and the planet.
Small wonder then, that this Administration has so thoroughly allied itself with both companies, installing former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, and lauding Dow CEO Andrew Liveris at every opportunity. Andrew and Rex and the companies they currently or recently ran, fit in perfectly with President Trump, Steve Bannon and, now, Dr. Nancy Beck, who has just been handed the job of Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Toxics Office at EPA.
Dr. Beck’s work for the American Chemistry Council – the lobby arm of the chemical manufacturers -- and her long-standing involvement in matters that are likely to arise as part of TSCA implementation over the next several years means she potentially has numerous conflicts that may require her recusal from many, perhaps virtually all, of the TSCA related matters with which the Agency will need to grapple in the next several years. To know for sure, there needs to be a thorough and public vetting of all matters on which she worked during her tenure with the American Chemistry Council and her specific role and time spent on all such matters. The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition and other key allies sent a letter to Administrator Pruitt [#PoisonPruitt] today calling for just such disclosure and recusal of Dr. Beck from all actions and decisions for which there may be conflicts.
The TSCA program was supposed to be entering a period in which it was at least theoretically going to make a serious bid for credibility, based on new and expanded authorities recently granted by Congress under the revised TSCA. That was always at best a 50-50 proposition, based on the actual content of the new law, and the long-standing ability of the chemical industry to impose political pressure on the Agency through all Administrations.
But now, with the appointment of Dr. Beck to run the program, President Trump and Scott Pruitt (#PruittPollutes) are jumping the shark in the first 100 days of the new Administration. The Chemical Manufacturers are now, for all intents and purposes, in charge of running the office intended to regulate the chemical manufacturers.
The combination of putting Dr. Beck in charge of the Toxics Office, ignoring the agency’s previous scientific findings on the need to ban the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, and holding a few public meetings to take comment from polluting industries over which protections and safeguards they want to eliminate as the kickoff to its campaign of deconstruction (or as it should more accurately be called – destruction) has already run the Administration’s credibility on toxics issues into a ditch.
The chemical manufacturers have never been seriously interested in seeing TSCA become an effective law to protect the public from toxic chemicals, that is directly contrary to their economic interest. That was obvious during the decades in which they opposed any changes to TSCA, and denied that it needed to be fixed; it was obvious in the first version of the bill that it seems like they must have written that became the first Vitter-Lautenberg bill, and it is obvious now that Dr. Beck has been put in charge to run the TSCA program (as well as TRI and pesticides).
Every action now taken by EPA to implement these programs, absent a recusal from Dr. Beck, must be assumed to be intended to destroy the programs, and harm the Agency’s efforts to fulfill its mission. In addition to using all the tools at our disposal to oppose these efforts, the organizations that comprise the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition and the Mind the Store campaign, as well as our allies will increasingly devote our energies to shining a spotlight on those companies that support these efforts, without letting them hide behind the anonymity of some trade association.
Toy, auto, grocery, electronic, and other manufacturers that endorse or attempt to take advantage of the current moment, are on notice that their policies may be exposed and highlighted to their customers and consumers.
Nobody can say for sure what the next four years or beyond holds for federal toxics policy, but cheap stunts like these listening sessions only serve to underscore the importance of our resistance to the Trump/Bannon/Pruitt/Dow/Exxon anti-EPA, pro-cancer agenda.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/under-new-mismanagement-polluters-asked-how-destroy-epa
-
Interest Groups, Citizens Sound Off on Possible EPA Overhaul
May 9, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell & Dylan Brown
U.S. EPA officials today continued the agency's push to identify regulations to modify or repeal under President Trump's deregulatory executive order.
About two dozen industry officials, environmental representatives and interested citizens presented comments at the Office of Land and Emergency Management in Arlington, Va., today — either recommending rules for repeal or calling on the agency to abandon specific regulatory efforts altogether.
OLEM promulgates rules under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); Toxic Substances Control Act; Clean Air Act; and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The office is also charged with oil spill prevention and preparedness regulations.
Timothy Steffek, scientific adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, raised concerns about EPA's proposed rule increasing the amount of insurance that hardrock mining companies must purchase to guarantee their sites are never added to the Superfund list.
Last year, when EPA published new financial assurance requirements, then-Administrator Gina McCarthy signed another notice that the agency would review Superfund insurance for industries like oil and coal (Greenwire, Dec. 2, 2016).
Steffek urged EPA to exclude oil and gas from the final determination.
EPA has until December to finalize the new hardrock standards under Section 108(b) of CERCLA as the result of a court order.
Environmental groups successfully sued to force EPA to act, but industry is pressing for the new administration to heed its concerns and choose the no-action alternative.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently met with Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R), who echoed industry arguments that the rule would unnecessarily duplicate existing federal and state programs (Greenwire, April 28).
Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, scolded Steffek for his remarks, saying industry doesn't want to pay insurance.
Industries producing hazardous waste, he said, need to "maintain insurance to ensure that any hazardous spills are cleaned up rapidly without creating financial or health burdens on the public."
"Please, EPA, do your job, protect the American people," Slesinger said.
John Noel, Clean Water Action's national oil and gas campaigns coordinator, said he strongly objected to the entire premise of the executive order.
"Regulations, including environmental and health protections, are not holding our country back," he said. "On the contrary, regulations that protect our water and health are some of the most powerful driving forces for our economy and our communities."
He questioned whether the discussion around regulations is being conducted in good faith. He noted that Pruitt, on his LinkedIn page, boasted that he was a "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda."
Noel also pointed out that a large chunk of Pruitt's staff have worked with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), author of "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future."
"Treating this process like it is a high-minded intellectual pursuit of federalism or to restore sanity at EPA is a joke," Noel said. "Scott Pruitt is a shill for the fossil fuel industry. There is no other way to say it."
He added that preventing pollution is often more cost-effective than cleaning it up later.
Both Chris Smith, director of federal public policy for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and Cassandra Horton, paralegal at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, asked EPA to reclassify products with low levels of nicotine.
Testifying separately, both noted that while consumers can throw away nicotine gum, patches and other cessation products at home, under RCRA even small traces of nicotine may be classified as hazardous waste, and therefore their disposal is highly regulated.
Horton said this made sense when there were large amounts of nicotine in pesticides in the 1980s, but not now. She said declassifying low-level nicotine products will save $40 million in compliance costs.
Adrienne Hollis, director of federal policy for WE ACT for Environmental Justice, said low-income, minority communities often face the brunt of pollution. She said these communities are the most affected by toxic waste and, therefore, are the ones OLEM should be protecting.
Instead of measuring and judging a regulation by how much it costs to comply with and enforce, EPA should measure the value of a regulation by how well it protects vulnerable communities, she said.
The public hearing also featured a limited number of citizens — a fact that prompted some speakers to condemn EPA officials.
Dan Marrow is a Virginia resident whose home is near Dominion's Possum Point Power Station near Dumfries. About a year ago, he was watching a town meeting when he learned that Dominion Virginia Power had plans to bury large amounts of coal ash near his home.
He later discovered that his well water had been contaminated, but no one had informed him or his wife and daughters.
Marrow choked back tears as he tried to use his five minutes efficiently to explain why he feels EPA should require stricter regulations on coal ash disposal.
He said through his research he discovered that Dominion is one of the largest polluters in the state and also one of the largest campaign donors, saying he felt Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality was too "chummy" with the electric utility.
"While I work so hard to give my girls a loving home and keep them safe, we were being poisoned by our neighbors," he said.
Marrow said one of his daughters' hair began to fall out and his wife also suffered from some health problems.
"We're still struggling to find doctors who understand coal ash toxins," he said. "The value of our home has been destroyed."
He said current federal regulations are not enough.
"My family and Virginians deserve better," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/09/stories/1060054294
-
May 9, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson & Margaret R. Graham
On May 9, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a notice stating that it was reopening the comment period regarding whether revision to the current size standards for small manufacturers and processors, which are used in connection with reporting regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a), is warranted. 82 Fed. Reg. 21542. EPA is opening the comment period for another 15 days, until May 24, 2017, to provide adequate opportunity for the public to consider the results of EPA’s consultation with the Small Business Administration (SBA). EPA’s initial request for comments was published on December 15, 2016, and comments on its initial notice were due by January 17, 2017.
The reopening of the comment period allows for public review and comment on EPA’s December 7, 2016, consultation request to the SBA on the adequacy of the current standards, as well as the SBA Administrator’s April 5, 2017, feedback on EPA’s consultation request. In the notice, EPA states that it had intended to add SBA’s response to the docket to give the public an opportunity to review the response to inform their comments on EPA’s preliminary determination; EPA is providing that opportunity now.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-reopens-comment-period-standards-small-manufacturers-and-processors-tsca
-
EFSA Publishes Guidance on Authorisation for Plastic FCMs
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has issued guidance for applicants seeking to authorise substances for use in plastic food contact materials (FCMs).
The document describes the procedures from application submission to adoption and publication of Efsa's scientific opinion.
It also gives instructions on how to prepare a dossier for safety evaluation, and there are three appendices, downloadable from the authority's website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55707/efsa-publishes-guidance-on-authorisation-for-plastic-fcms
-
Canadian NGO Wants Changes to Endocrine Disruptor Controls
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Canadian Environmental Law Association (Cela) has submitted a proposal recommending changes to the country’s approach to regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
The NGO’s proposal, entitled Scientific Justification to Address Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: A Roadmap for Action, includes six specific recommendations and was submitted under the government’s ongoing review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).
Cela says that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Envi), which is in charge of the Cepa review, should look at current approaches to EDCs and propose amendments along the lines of its roadmap.
It says the committee should review the definition of EDCs in Cepa, and include principles to identify endocrine properties of chemicals in amendments to the regulation. It also wants the process of hazard identification and risk assessment of the chemicals to be revisited.
Cela says Canada’s regulatory approach is inadequate to address their unique attributes, most notably the non-monotonic dose response of the substances.
Meg Sears, chair of Prevent Cancer Now and one of the co-authors of the report, says EDCs can result in different responses depending on the exposure. However, manufacturers traditionally provide data for regulators at higher doses.
"Low-dose data has not even been on the table," Dr Sears tells Chemical Watch. "Since some EDCs are more toxic in smaller doses, there is an inconsistency in how these substances are ultimately regulated."
Envi is currently reviewing Cepa, the law’s first review since 2006. The committee is expected to issue a report in the near future.
Cela recommends that Canada look again at the processes of hazard identification of EDCs and consider the substances to be ‘inherently toxic’.
Under the current iteration of Cepa, any substance determined to be inherently toxic must be recommended for addition to the country’s:List of Toxic Substances; andVirtual Elimination List.
Both of these mechanisms aim to minimise exposures. "There should be mechanisms that trigger much greater care about this kind of chemical," Dr Sears says.
Cela makes a number of other recommendations, including:focused and increased sampling of at-risk populations, for body burden of environmental toxicants including EDCs and related biological endpoints;conducting economic cost analyses on EDCs, following the efforts in the EU and the US; andreflecting the public health costs in overall regulatory analyses in Canada, including in the process of their identification, assessment and management.
Additional authors of the report are from the University of Windsor, The Halifax Project, National Network on Environments and Women’s Health and a retired economist who worked for Environment Canada.
The European Commission has been working on a proposal for criteria to identify EDCs in the EU, but NGOs and industry groups have regularly criticised its work. The Commission has delayed votes on the draft proposal as it takes numerous comments into consideration.
The US EPA published a summary workplan in 2011 to overhaul its EDC programme, with an approach that incorporated less animal-intensive toxicity testing methods. The agency finalised tier 2 test guidelines in 2015. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), though, has been a target of President Trump, who proposed eliminating it in a "budget blueprint" released in March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55706/canadian-ngo-wants-changes-to-endocrine-disruptor-controls
-
May 10, 2017 | Houston Public Media
By Florian Martin
While the oil and gas industry is in recovery from a two-year slump, which has had a negative impact on Houston especially, the chemical industry has been experiencing a boom.
In the last few years, many chemical companies built new facilities or expanded existing ones here on the Gulf Coast.
In March, the BASF plant in Beaumont celebrated its $270 million expansion to produce the herbicide dicamba.
“Our expansion project literally employed hundreds of additional people here in Beaumont,” site director Debbie Dallie said during the opening ceremony.
A week later, Brazilian chemical company Braskem’s opened its new UTEC plant in La Porte.
UTEC is made from polyethylene and mostly used in industrial applications.
“It gives us the opportunity to add our seventh asset here in the United States,” Chris Gee, UTEC business leader, said. “And our first polyethylene plant in the United States.”
These projects are part of more than $50 billion worth of chemical plant construction in the Houston region since 2013.
“That’s the equivalent of maybe, in terms of capital equivalent, maybe 200 downtown office buildings,” said Bill Gilmer, director of the Institute for Regional Forecasting at the University of Houston’s Bauer College of Business.
He said the construction boom began when the price of natural gas collapsed in 2013 thanks to hydraulic fracturing.
In the United States, natural gas is used to make plastic. In most other parts of the world, they use oil – which at the time was still at about $100 per barrel.
“So the rest of the world is trying to make plastics with feedstocks that cost $100 per barrel,” Gilmer said, “while here in Houston, because we use natural gas liquids, we were making the same plastics with a feedstock that cost $15-20 per barrel. Enormous advantage.”
Then in late 2014, the price of oil tanked, which spelled big trouble for the Houston economy. So the petrochemical boom couldn’t have come at a more convenient time.
“Just as we’re losing tens of thousands of jobs on the west side of Houston, we’re hiring tens of thousands of construction workers on the east side.”
But that east side boom is about to be over.
Gilmer said projects will wind down rapidly after this year – from almost $23 billion worth of projects completed to just under $5 billion next year.
“They’re built and they leave behind relatively few permanent jobs,” he said. “These big plants are what’s called continuous process engineering, which means you turn them on and let them run for six months, and there will be a crew of maybe 40 or 50 people.”
Texas-wide, the American Chemistry Council projects the industry will create 195,000 jobs by 2023.
“Now some of those are going to be construction jobs,” the ACC’s Anne Kolton said. She said tens of thousands of Texas jobs will be permanent.
“It’s going to be new, lasting, high-paying manufacturing jobs in the Gulf Coast and hopefully in other areas of the country as well.”
Gilmer said after this year there will still be new plants and expansions, but at a much lower level – regardless of how low the price of natural gas is.
“I think we’re going to have all the plastic and synthetic rubber that we need for the next 30 or 40 years.”
He said it would have been nice for Houston to be fully recovered from the oil downturn before the chemical boom winds down.
http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2017/05/10/200204/the-petrochemical-boom-is-offsetting-the-effects-from-the-oil-downturn-in-houston-but-for-how-much-longer/
-
McConnell Aide, Utility Leader Named to Federal Energy Agency
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Neil Chatterjee and Robert Powelson, named by the White House to fill vacant seats on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, would bring broad energy expertise to the positions, former colleagues say.
President Donald Trump announced late May 8 his intent to nominate Chatterjee, a long-time energy staffer for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Powelson, the president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and a member of the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, as commissioners to the agency for terms expiring in 2021 and 2020, respectively.
FERC has lacked a quorum since February and currently has two sitting Democratic commissioners— Acting Chairman Cheryl LaFleur and Commissioner Colette Honorable, whose term expires June 30. In addition to Chatterjee and Powelson, Trump can nominate another Republican and a Democrat to bring the agency back to five commissioners.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has oversight over FERC commissioners, said she will work to move the nominees quickly once the nomination is formally sent to the Senate.
“As they come and as we get the paperwork, I want to try to move people,” she told reporters May 9. “The FERC has been without a quorum since early February, and they need the ability to get to work.”
The Sierra Club issued a statement in which it declined to criticize Chatterjee or Powelson, but was critical of FERC overall for being too quick to approve energy projects.
“Regardless of who serves as a FERC commissioner, each must put the health and safety of the American public and our climate before corporate polluters’ profits. That means ending the status quo of rubber-stamping nearly every proposed fossil fuel pipeline and terminal; protecting consumers by ensuring energy rates are just and reasonable; and continuing to enable states’ ability to lead on clean energy,” it said.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
‘Tip of the Spear’
Chatterjee has worked for McConnell as an energy policy adviser since late 2009, and has been integral to multiple pieces of energy legislation and policy, including the provision of the 2015 omnibus spending bill that lifted the 40-year ban on crude oil exports.
Chatterjee was critical to getting the export ban lifted, Christopher Guith, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, told Bloomberg BNA May 9.
“From a staff level, he was the one counting votes and figuring out what was possible, where it was possible, and it ultimately got done, and I'm not sure it could have without Neil,” Guith said.
“He will bring talents that are pretty rare at FERC. That is having a very, very broad-based energy policy background. He's the tip of the spear at the Senate—everything that is energy, environment and transportation goes through his hands,” Guith said.
Chatterjee's bluegrass roots go back to Lexington, Ky. He is a graduate of St. Lawrence University in New York and the University of Cincinnati College of Law. After law school, he interned for the House Committee on Ways and Means. He then worked as a legislative assistant from 2004 to 2005 for Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), who was chairman of the House Republican Conference.
From December 2006 to October 2009, Chatterjee was a lobbyist for the National Rural Electric Cooperative, representing not-for-profit rural cooperatives. He lobbied on a wide array of energy issues, including the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
“He was effective in that role, like he's been effective on Capitol Hill and like we expect he'll be effective in his role, if confirmed, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,” Kirk Johnson, NRECA's senior vice president of government relations, told Bloomberg BNA May 9.
Chatterjee Respected
Chatterjee is well liked across both sides of the aisle in Congress.
Former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ex-ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, spoke highly of Chatterjee after the Senate passage of the Water Resources Development Act in 2013.
“There is one person, and that is Neil Chatterjee, and I hope I do not ruin his career by thanking him. He works for Senator McConnell. He helped us greatly just to know the lay of the land. He said: ‘This is where we have problems. This is where we can come together,’” Boxer said in a floor speech in May 2013.
Rebecca Rosen, a former staffer in 2011 on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who worked with Chatterjee, said, “He's very well respected, not just on the Republican side.”
She worked closely with him while they were both energy and environment advisers for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign from August through November 2012.
“Neil has that rare combination of skills that sets him apart from the pack—he's highly substantive on policy, he's incredibly strategic and he's amazingly likeable,” Rosen, now vice president of policy and government affairs at Devon Energy Corp., told Bloomberg BNA May 9.
Powelson Brings State Perspective
The second intended FERC nominee is Powelson, who has a long history as a Pennsylvania utility commissioner and is well-liked across the energy and utility sectors.
He was appointed to the Pennsylvania Utility Commission in 2008 by former Gov. Ed Rendell (D). In 2011, Gov. Tom Corbett (R) reappointed Powelson as chairman of the PUC, and he served until May 2015. Then he was reappointed for another five-year term as commissioner in 2014 until 2019.
Powelson also was previously president of the Chester County Chamber of Business and Industry from 1994 to 2008 in southeastern Pennsylvania.
A Pennsylvania native, Powelson holds a bachelor of administration degree from St. Joseph's University and a master's degree in governmental administration with a concentration in public finance from the University of Pennsylvania.
In November 2015, he was appointed as president of the NARUC in November 2015, a not-profit organization that represents state public service commissions who regulate the utilities.
Tony Clark, a former FERC commissioner until September 2016, who served as NARUC president from 2010 to 2011, said he thinks Powelson will bring a broad energy regulatory expertise to FERC.
“There's no singularly perfect background for a FERC commissioner, but being a state commissioner and active in NARUC is a very good background for sure,” Clark, now a senior adviser at Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer LLP, told Bloomberg BNA May 9.
He said that as NARUC president “you get a broad visibility from across a lot of regions of the country and at least from a regulatory perspective, you understand how different regions of the country work and the different challenges that are faced by the different regions.”
“In terms of issue spotting, he's well prepared to know what are going to be the pressure points,” he added.
Powelson sent a letter to Trump's transition team in January highlighting priorities for NARUC, including infrastructure replacement, moving forward with Yucca Mountain, and the importance of ensuring federal regulations do not override state electric and utility policies.
In a February interview with American Gas magazine, Powelson emphasized infrastructure as well as pipeline safety. “In my view, pipeline safety is unequivocally the number-one priority and must also be the number-one priority for the natural gas transmission and distribution industry over the next century,” he said.
One month later, Powelson drew attention when he said in a speech to industry representatives that opponents of pipeline projects are engaged in a “jihad” to prevent gas from getting to new markets. He later said he used “an inappropriate choice of words.”
John Betkoski, vice president of Connecticut's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, will complete Powelson's term as NARUC president and then serve his own term, once he is formally installed at NARUC's November meeting, Regina Davis, NARUC's director of communications, told Bloomberg BNA May 9.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111017800&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111017800&jd=111017800
-
Republicans Sound Closer to Unified on Methane Rule Rollback
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs & Alan Kovski
More Senate Republicans are easing into agreement with their party leaders on a plan to roll back an Obama-era regulation on the venting and flaring of natural gas.
The vote is likely to be very close after a debate expected to occur May 10 under authority of the Congressional Review Act, which allows for Congress to rescind recently issued regulations using expedited floor procedures that remove the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) released word late May 8 that he would support the resolution to rescind the Bureau of Land Management rule, which tightened regulations for control of methane and other constituents of natural gas. Portman cited a letter from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke saying Interior, which includes the BLM, will still take significant steps to reduce methane waste.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), one of the senators yet to disclose their position on the methane resolution, told Bloomberg BNA May 9, “I believe that's a positive step forward, and again Colorado has its own methane rule in place, but the Interior letter was a positive development.”
Gardner did not outright say he would vote for the rollback, but his remarks indicated he might find it easier to get off the fence.
The House in February easily passed a resolution to rescind the BLM methane rule, which affects companies such as Continental Resources Inc., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Devon Energy Corp., Noble Energy Inc. and their many peers operating on federal and tribal lands. Now, just days before the window to use the Congressional Review Act to nullify Obama-era regulations closes, more Republicans are indicating that they will support the measure.
Thune: ‘It'll Be Close’
The plan for a committee hearing to consider one of the limitations on ethanol use in gasoline seems to have allowed Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to support nullification of the BLM methane rule. Thune and Grassley had sought support for the ethanol bill in exchange for their votes on the methane resolution.
The hearing would consider a bill (S. 517) that would allow the year-round sale of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol. Currently E15 is prohibited from June 1 to Sept. 15 because of concerns about higher gasoline evaporation rates during warmer weather.
Thune, when asked if he could support the resolution to kill the new venting and flaring regulations, said, “Yeah, I think so.” As for the vote, “It'll be close,” he said.
“I think that most of us that were interested in that issue are probably in a place now where we're confident we're going to get this dealt with and I think most will be on board but I can't speak for them all,” Thune told Bloomberg BNA.
Cantwell, Bennet: Don't Do It
Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) tried some last-minute advocacy to oppose the rollback of the venting and flaring regulations.
Colorado put in place its own stricter controls of methane in 2014, and the regulations have done nothing to stifle oil and gas production despite the warnings of critics, Bennet told reporters May 9.
It would be foolish economics—a waste of natural resources—and bad for the environment and human health, they argued, in what likely was a preview of the debate to come.
The Congressional Review Act allows up to 10 hours of debate, and Cantwell indicated May 10 will be a long day in the Senate.
“We'll use all our time,” Cantwell said.
Among Democrats, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) were still in the undecided camp, at least publicly.
“I haven't really made up my mind on it because I don't know why they don't want to capture it,” Manchin said May 8, his remarks referring to methane capture for use rather than flaring the gas.
Flaring commonly is done when there is no pipeline available to take gas coming out of an oil well. Some of that would continue to be done under the BLM rule, but it would be less frequent.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111017798&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111017798&jd=111017798
-
Colorado Oil and Gas Flowline Mapping Bill Defeated at Deadline
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Republicans used a late-night filibuster to defeat a first-in-the nation bill that would have required oil and gas operators to provide information about the locations of pipelines in the aftermath of a fatal home explosion caused by a severed natural gas line.
Several lawmakers testified against the bill May 8, pushing it up to its midnight deadline for passage in the House to allow time for it to be considered and approved in the state Senate. The failure of the House to act on the bill kills it for the 2017 session of the Colorado General Assembly, which is set to adjourn May 10.
The bill (H.B. 1372) would have required oil and natural gas companies to give electronic notice, under a deadline to be established by a new rule of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, of the location of flowlines, gathering pipelines and transmission pipelines they own and operate in the state. The measure was in response to an April 17 explosion that killed two men and critically injured a woman when a house exploded in Firestone, Colo.
Permeated Soil
The explosion was caused by a severed flowline—a pipeline connecting a wellhead to a nearby production facility—that inundated soil near the home with a mix of colorless, odorless methane and propane gas. The two men were installing a water heater in the basement when the explosion occurred.
The flowline and the nearby vertical wellhead were owned and operated by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. The company voluntarily shut down all 3,000 of its vertical wells in Colorado after the explosion. On May 2, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) ordered all oil and gas companies in the state to inspect and pressure test flowlines within 1,000 feet of occupied buildings such as homes, schools and hospitals.
The bill would have given the public access to maps of producers’ flowlines, Rep. Mike Foote (D) said in introducing it on the second reading calendar. “This is a transparency issue, and transparency always helps public safety,” he said. “We want to make sure we are not back in this same place a year from now.”
Searchable Database
The commission should have the ability to map flowlines in a searchable database “so that the public, local governments, and home developers know where they are,” he said. “This is to make sure we're safe.”
“Colorado families living near oil and gas development deserve to know whether their homes are safe,” said Rep. Steve Lebsock (D), another sponsor of the bill.
But a stream of Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Yeulin Willet (R) and Rep. Phil Covarrubias (R), stood up to oppose the bill.
‘Already Monitoring’
“We have the COGCC already monitoring this,” Willet said. “The governor has jumped right on this.”
“You'd have to go back to the 1950s to find lines that are not mapped out,” Covarrubias said. “It's ridiculous to say we don't know where the lines are.”
After the vote Foote said the bill was opposed by the oil and gas industry from the start. “A good-faith effort to improve public safety has fallen victim to political gamesmanship,” he said in a statement issued by the House Majority Democrats.
During public testimony on the bill before the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee May 5, Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, argued for the defeat of the bill, saying the notice to operators issued by the state will address gaps in the cataloging of flowlines.
‘Process Underway’
“This bill upsets the thoughtful and collaborative process that is already underway, and in fact could actually slow down that process,” he said. “I ask you to allow the state regulatory body and the industry to complete their work, and once the state and its citizens have a full sense of the results, we can discuss at that time any appropriate next steps.”
“Pushing through a last-minute bill is not the solution,” Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg BNA May 9 after the bill was defeated. “We are committed to the process the Governor and the COGCC has established and it reiterates our shared goal with regulators and emergency officials that we can never let up on our core value of safety.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111017792&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111017792&jd=111017792
-
Inslee Keeping Track Of Train Safety
May 9, 2017 | The Columbian
By Lauren Dake
afternoon, leaned over and touched one of the rail bolts.
“I’m trying to remember, in Mosier,” Inslee said.
Before the governor could finish his sentence, BNSF Railway spokesman Gus Melonas jumped in with an assurance: the railroad lines in Washington are inspected daily, Melonas said.
The governor was in the Columbia River Gorge to see where the state was spending money to upgrade rail crossings. Soon, the crossing near Butler Loop Road, where oil trains pass, will have flashing lights, active train warning signs and railway arms to stop traffic.
The state has identified 14 rail crossings it would like to improve using money accrued from fines paid by railroad companies to improve the outdated warning signals.
While the focus was on preventative safety measures, the fiery oil-train derailment in Mosier, across the river in Oregon, was still a part of the conversation.
The derailment, nearly a year ago, could have been prevented if a rail inspector from Union Pacific Railroad had spotted a set of broken railroad bolts.
BNSF hauls the majority of crude oil through Washington.
Inslee, who has called on the federal government to strengthen oil train regulations, said although the state has taken steps to improve safety measures around oil-by-rail, there’s more to do.
The governor has pushed for speeding up the transition to safer tank cars, lowering speed limits and tightening requirements for railroad oil spill response plans.
There’s only so much the state can do, however, Inslee pointed out, since the federal government is charged with regulating the rail lines.
The state Legislature passed a measure in 2015 to increase the number of the state’s rail inspectors and to require railroads hauling crude oil to demonstrate an ability to pay for a cleanup.
Railroads are required to show what they have — bonds, stocks, insurance, cash on hand — that they would use to clean up an oil spill. But the state has no power to verify the information given, and railroad companies do not have to disclose their insurance policies.
“It’s not vetted or audited, it’s just their financial forms they submit,” said Jason Lewis, a senior transportation policy adviser with the state’s Utilities and Transportation Commission. “I would not say it’s under the same scrutiny as if it were a certificate of financial responsibility.”
The legislation was watered down in the legislative process, including removing part of House Bill 1449, which would have required railroads to disclose their insurance policies.
Because of the lack of transparency, painting a comprehensive picture of the economic and environmental toll of a derailment is a daunting task. In Oregon, Union Pacific told The Columbian previously the company will absorb all the costs related to the derailment.
But officials would not release specific financial information.
The train traveling through Mosier, Ore., had 94 rail tank cars, and 16 of them derailed. One tanker burst into flames, spreading to an additional two cars.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/may/09/inslee-keeping-track-of-train-safety/
-
Freight Rail Key to U.S. Economy, Infrastructure
May 9, 2017 | InsideSources
By Ian Jefferies
With spending levels set through September, the Senate digging in on health care and the U.S. House of Representatives now turning to tax reform, some may believe infrastructure will take a backseat to these priorities. Yet observers of the legislative process know that policymaking is always occurring, even if it is not always in plain sight.
While any infrastructure package will be complicated, the private freight rail sector — unique in the discussion as the industry is not necessarily seeking federal dollars — offers straightforward advice: advance public policies that both enhance public spending and spur private infrastructure investment.
We stand on firm ground, as one train can take hundreds of trucks off the road, thereby lessening road and bridge deterioration. The industry has also spent $635 billion since partial deregulation nearly 40 years ago — money the industry pays so taxpayers do not.
As lawmakers turn their attention to actual legislation, our industry offers recommendations as a starting point in this sure-to-be lengthy process, simply for the transportation part of infrastructure:
1. Stop applying Band-Aids to the insolvent Highway Trust Fund, the pool of money funded almost solely by the gas tax and which is used to fund federal and state transportation infrastructure projects. Because the gas tax does not cover operating expenses, and because commercial users such as trucks do not pay for their proportional use of roads, taxpayers have subsidized the fund to the tune of $143 billion since 2008. We need measures such as a weight distance fee that accounts more realistically for commercial road use.
2. Do not make things worse by pushing heavier trucks onto transportation networks. Any federal program that boosts truck weight limits at the federal level further subsidizes commercial highway users at the expense of taxpayers, exacerbates deterioration of crumbling infrastructure and tilts the policy scale against a critical freight rail industry. Trucks today do not cover their current impact and heavier trucks will only force taxpayers to further bankroll the underpayment of even heavier trucks, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data.
3. Enact tax reform to spur economic growth and generate revenues needed for sustainable funding. We need a simpler and fairer tax code, reducing the business rate to a globally competitive level to broaden the tax base, enhance U.S. economic development and promote growth. Divisive items related to tax reform must not impede the larger goal to enhance competition, which for railroads and American industry in general, will lead to more domestic spending.
4. Streamline government processes that will similarly unshackle the business community and fuel an American renaissance not seen for decades. By generating policies that focus more on desired outcomes than prescriptive steps, cutting red tape in the permitting process and by actually communicating with the private sector, long-delayed infrastructure projects may finally come to fruition. Not by eradicating regulation, but by instilling good government principles — transparency and complete and sound science — railroads, trucks and other transportation stakeholders would gain efficiencies that make room for greater innovation and investment.
5. Ensure the vitality of private infrastructure, namely a freight rail network that serves nearly every industrial-, wholesale-, retail- and resource-based sector of the economy. This means Washington regulators ditching numerous proceedings to re-regulate freight rail, most notably a proposed measure called forced access, which would allow the government to order one rail company to use its own privately owned facilities on behalf of a competitor. Unneeded government meddling in the operations of this 140,000 mile network that keeps trucks off the road, reduces emissions and supports 1.5 million jobs nationally, is in direct opposition to the larger goal at hand.
Fixing U.S. infrastructure, particularly roads and bridges, is no small task. But by spurring private investments and ensuring the vitality of freight rail, a messy picture is at least a bit neater.
http://www.insidesources.com/freight-rail-key-u-s-economy-infrastructure/
-
No Paris Decision Until After G-7 — Spicer
May 9, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
President Trump will delay a decision on whether to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement until after the Group of Seven summit in late May, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said this afternoon.
Members of the Cabinet and top presidential advisers were set to meet on the issue today but postponed the deliberation, Spicer confirmed.
"I think the president wants to make sure that he has an opportunity to meet with his team, to create the best strategy for this country going forward," he said.
The president had originally aimed to announce his intentions before the G-7 summit in Italy, which also includes the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany and Japan (E&E News PM, March 30).
Pressure surrounding American commitment to Paris has intensified. Some Trump supporters are making the case for breaking his campaign trail pledge to exit the agreement and instead seek changes. But opponents dispute the legality of that approach, warning it could complicate the White House's energy agenda.
Spicer would not say whether Trump is open to renegotiating the Obama administration's pledge to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent under 2005 levels by 2025.
"I think the reason that he's seeking the advice of his team is to get options and then he'll pursue the best one, but I'm not going to tell you which one that he's going to do," Spicer said.
Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and top adviser, was reportedly due to meet with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today, but that meeting was also postponed.
Online news site Axios reported Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) would participate in the session.
On Capitol Hill, Murkowski told reporters, "Whether you stay in or stay out, I think there are considerations on both sides, and I think that's what they are wrestling with right now."
Murkowski hedged on her recommendation to the administration.
"I think that it's important that we continue to ensure that we have a role in the discussions as to how we face our economic and our environmental issues," she said. "You know, how this administration best feels that they can advance that, I think that's what they are wrestling with right now."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/09/stories/1060054297
-
Trump Delays Decision on Paris Climate Accord Amid Infighting
May 10, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump won't decide on whether to keep the U.S. in the landmark Paris climate accord until after he meets world leaders at the Group of Seven summit later this month, a delay that reflects White House tensions over the choice.
Putting off the determination creates an opening for the leaders of Germany, U.K. and other G-7 nations to make their case to Trump for staying in the deal. The postponement also allows more time for top administration officials to hash out the potential benefits and legal risks of remaining in the global carbon-cutting pact reached among nearly 200 nations in December 2015.
And by waiting until after the summit to make up his mind, Trump could press world leaders for concessions in exchange for maintaining U.S. involvement.
“The president wants to make sure that he has an opportunity to meet with his team to create the best strategy for this country going forward,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, when asked about the possibility. Trump will “come to a decision on what's in the best interest of the United States using the expertise that surrounds him,” he said.
White House staff and top Trump administration officials have huddled at least three times to discuss the merits of the deal, through which the U.S. pledged to cut its carbon dioxide emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
A meeting originally planned for Tuesday was postponed because of a conflict with the schedule of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has argued the U.S. should keep its seat at the table for international climate negotiations. The president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, also supports staying in the pact. White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have urged abandoning it, arguing that staying in could pose legal risks to Trump's efforts to roll back regulations.
Spicer had previously said the White House would have a decision by the time of the G-7 summit in Italy, if not sooner. And during an April 29 rally in Pennsylvania, Trump promised to make a “big decision” on the Paris accord over the next two weeks. But the split among his advisers has delayed that choice.
While running for president, Trump promised the U.S. would leave the deal, taking aim at the cornerstone of former President Barack Obama's efforts to combat climate change. Under Obama, the U.S. played a leading role driving the global accord.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jennifer A. Dlouhy in Washington at jdlouhy1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at jmorgan97@bloomberg.net
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111017789&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111017789&jd=111017789
-
State Dept. Pick: U.S. 'Best Served' Staying In Climate Talks
May 10, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
John Sullivan, the prominent Republican lawyer tapped to serve as the State Department's No. 2 official, told senators yesterday he thinks the United States is "best served" when it has a seat at the table for international climate negotiations.
Sullivan's nomination prompted discussion of the Paris Agreement and senior staff vacancies at State by Senate Foreign Relations Committee members, who questioned him for about 90 minutes.
With dozens of undersecretary and assistant secretary positions still vacant at the State Department, senators warned Sullivan that he would be asked to help with the process of filling jobs if he were confirmed as the principal officer for management of personnel and resources. They also wanted to know more about Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's plans to streamline the department.
"Is there going to be an effort to wind down some of these special envoy positions?" asked Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who noted that there are more than 60 special envoy, special representative and special coordinator positions at the department.
Flake said about 20 have been authorized by Congress, and some of the posts seem duplicative.
"For example, we have a special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, as well as the special envoy for climate change and the special representative for environmental and water resources," he said.
Sullivan expressed support for Tillerson's vision of reviewing the mission and resources of the department and agreed that he was concerned about positions created outside the "chain of command."Top Dem 'nervous'
Sullivan, who served in the George W. Bush administration, was also pressed on whether the United States should honor the pledge the Obama administration made under the Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
"I understand that there is both a policy and a legal component to that question," he told Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), promising to follow up with more detail if confirmed. Sullivan stressed that he was not personally involved in discussions about the legal framework of the Paris Agreement but was aware of the "complex issues" with regard to Article 4.11.
That article, which reads, "A party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition," is at the center of dispute within the Trump administration about whether to stay in the agreement or withdraw from it (Climatewire, May 1).
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the panel, told E&E News that Sullivan's testimony aligns with what he said in private: "We should stay at the table — that's exactly what Secretary Tillerson said — and we're all very nervous."
White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters yesterday that President Trump will delay a decision on whether to withdraw from the Paris Agreement until after the Group of Seven summit in late May, confirming that deliberations had been postponed (E&E News PM, May 9).
"We know that [Trump] has some people close to him that are advising him to stay with the agreement, but we also know that his way of interpreting information is not always the most deliberative," Cardin said.
A group of retired senior military officers and national security experts recently urged Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis, who have both voiced support for engaging in global efforts to combat climate change, to work together.
The veterans sent letters this week to Tillerson and Mattis, coordinated by the Center for Climate and Security, in which they argued that the United States must remain engaged in the international effort to fight global warming.
Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has said he believes Trump will opt to stay in, but he sees no rush to exit an agreement that is "toothless" other than transparency requirements (E&E Daily, Jan. 25).
Asked about reports that Ivanka Trump's role is growing in the debate around Paris strategy, Corker told E&E News yesterday that he was unaware of her role. "It would seem to me — just observation would be — if that's the case, they must plan to stay in the Paris Agreement. ... But I don't have any knowledge of it," Corker said.Branstad
The committee yesterday advanced President Trump's pick for ambassador to China, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R).
Branstad has close personal ties to Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he met in 1985 during the first of his six terms as governor. He has also been a leader on renewable energy, calling for diversifying the United States' energy portfolio and working to boost his state's massive wind industry (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2016).
In his confirmation hearing last week, Branstad talked about how clean energy has been a boon for the Hawkeye State's economy.
"In 1983, we were almost totally dependent on imported energy — a lot of it, fuel that you know, oil that had come from the Middle East — and most of our electricity was generated by coal," Branstad said, estimating that the state now produces more than a third of its electricity from wind.
"We'll be over 40 percent, the first state to do that, by the year 2020," he said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a proponent of the climate agreement, said Branstad countered the arguments put forth by the officials in the Trump administration who want to leave it. U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, for instance, has repeatedly called Paris a "bad deal."
Branstad is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate as early as next week.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/10/stories/1060054315
-
Why the Carbon Tax Is An Idea That Won’t Go Away
May 9, 2017 | RealClear Energy
By Josiah Neeley
Using a carbon tax to fight climate change has long been a popular idea among economists, but November's election results seemed to render carbon-tax advocacy something of a lost cause. Between the election of a president who has been aggressively skeptical about climate science and the defeat of a referendum on carbon taxes in Washington state, the political case against carbon taxes looked definitive.
And yet, carbon-tax proposals keep popping up, sometimes in the unlikeliest of places. Several weeks ago, The Washington Post reported the Trump administration was considering a carbon tax as part of its plan for corporate tax reform. Advocates of carbon pricing have also held high-level meetings with the White House, where they have at least received a respectful hearing.
Other parts of the administration have likewise shown renewed interest in the idea. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which oversees the interstate transmission and sale of wholesale electricity, hosted a conference earlier this month focused on the problems state-level renewable energy programs posed for electric reliability. Though participants represented a broad range of industry, academics and policymakers, the conference reached a surprising consensus that replacing existing state energy mandates and subsidies with a carbon price would be an effective way to maintain reliability while meeting environmental goals.
Even at the state level, carbon taxes continue to be part of the discussion. In the state of Washington, Governor Jay Inslee has proposed a carbon tax as a way to fund education, and California is looking to revise its existing cap-and-trade program to make it function more like a carbon tax.
What gives? Why is an idea that, on the face of it, seems like a political nonstarter continues to be taken seriously by so many political actors?
Without question, part of what gives the idea of a carbon tax its staying power is the same thing that makes economists like it so much: it’s efficient. Regulatory mandates and subsidies tend to be a very expensive way to reduce emissions. A National Academy of Sciences report recently found that production and investment tax credits for wind and solar cost $250 for every ton of reduced carbon-dioxide emissions. That's more than six times the Obama administration's estimate for the cost of damage wrought by each ton of carbon emissions.
By contrast, a carbon fee would reduce emissions more cheaply because it lets people decide for themselves how best to reduce their emissions. If it costs me more to use carbon-intensive electricity, I might try to use more electricity from low-carbon sources, or I might try to use less energy altogether.
But the bigger reason the carbon tax has such staying power has nothing to do with environmental concerns. Rather, what's attractive to policymakers about carbon taxes is that they provide sources of revenue that can be used for other ends. The Trump administration wouldn't consider carbon taxes because they converted to climate activism. It's because they need a new source of revenue to offset other changes they want to make to the tax code. Any method to offset lost corporate tax revenue is bound to be unpopular, but swapping carbon taxes for cuts to the corporate tax rate could bring along some Democrats and appeal to conservatives who want to shift the overall tax burden from income and capital to consumption.
Once the revenue side of the equation is considered, carbon taxes have the potential to appeal even to folks who are climate skeptics.
None of this is to say that a carbon tax is likely to be enacted in the short term. In today’s political environment, the safe bet is always on gridlock and inaction. But it does mean that carbon taxes will continue to be a part of the dialogue.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/09/why_the_carbon_tax_is_an_idea_that_wont_go_away_110220.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested