Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/11/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Competition in Construction Market Shouldn't Need to be Debated
May 11, 2017 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
The construction market has always been cautious about allowing plastic products to replace traditional materials like wood, concrete, glass and metal. -
(ACC Mentioned) NGOs Call for Conflict of Interest Probe into US EPA Appointee
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A group of NGOs has written to US EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to voice concern about the appointment of American Chemistry Council (ACC) staffer Nancy Beck to a senior agency role, and to demand an investigation into potential conflicts of interest. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA: Don’t Let Industry Write the Rules on Toxic Chemicals
May 11, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Today we were joined by two dozen of our coalition partners in sending a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt about one of his new hires—a chemical industry advocate who got one of the top spots in the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. -
EPA, Industry Spar Over 'Consensus' Need for TSCA Burden Reduction Rule
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA and the chemical sector are sparring over the agency's claim that a panel convened to inform a future Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule limiting certain reporting requirements must reach “consensus” before crafting a rule, with industry arguing the rule is mandated and that legal options may be necessary to force it. -
Red Tape and Over-Reach: That is the Regulatory Accountability Act, in a Word – and a Graphic
May 11, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
I blogged last week about the new-but-not-improved Senate Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), focusing on how it would reinstate some of the worst flaws of the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that were fixed in the bipartisan TSCA reform legislation, the Lautenberg Act, signed into law last June. -
EPA Will Delay Effective Date of TSCA Section 8(a) Rule Concerning Nanoscale Materials
May 11, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish on May 11, 2017, a Federal Register notice delaying the effective date of the January 12, 2017, rule concerning Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) reporting requirements from May 12, 2017, to August 14, 2017. -
US EPA Round-Up
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA says it received 62 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in February. -
Toxic Politics: How EPA Cuts Can Literally Poison You
May 11, 2017 | The Stanford Daily
By Alizeh Ahmad
The new administration’s treatment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is draconian at best. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA's Failure to Renew Members of Science Board Questioned
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US EPA has not renewed nine members from its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), including the chair of its Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee, in a move NGOs say is to increase industry influence on EPA decisions. -
Here's the Scariest Legislation You've Never Heard Of
May 11, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Congress is moving forward with sweeping legislation that could undercut major laws that keep our food, water, workers and children’s products safe. -
Human Rights Groups Boycott State Department Conflict Minerals Review
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Human rights organisations Global Witness and Amnesty International have criticised the lack of "clarity and transparency" in the recent State Department review of the US’s management of conflict minerals, and have refused to participate in the consultation. -
Echa Round-Up
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is to run an intensive training week on next year's REACH deadline. From 15-19 May the agency will rebroadcast all of its REACH 2018 phase webinars, along with a new one on how to carry out a chemical safety assessment. -
After Failed CRA Try, Methane Fight Moves to Courts, Interior
May 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson and Ben Storrow
Yesterday's surprise vote to uphold the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule marks a major victory for environmentalists, but the battle over regulating methane waste on public lands is far from over. -
Senate Fails to Overturn Obama-Era Methane Rule
May 11, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Nick Juliano, Darius Dixon, and Ben Lefebvre
Republicans' last chance to block an Obama-era energy rule may have just evaporated into thin air. -
Oil Gets Lion's Share of Federal Incentives — Report
May 11, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
U.S. petroleum producers have enjoyed more federal financial incentives since World War II than any other energy sector, according to a study released today by the nuclear industry in hopes of swaying a debate on government energy subsidies. -
Dakota Access Pipeline Leaks 84 Gallons of Oil in SD
May 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
South Dakota officials are looking into a small leak along the route of the Dakota Access Pipeline that spilled 84 gallons of oil. -
Bill Would End 'Duplicative' Green Building Programs
May 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
Two senators introduced bipartisan legislation yesterday to evaluate and merge "duplicative" green building programs at the Department of Energy. -
Stay In or Leave the Paris Climate Deal? Lessons from Kyoto
May 9, 2017 | The New York Times
By Brad Plumer
The architects of the Paris climate accord deliberately designed it to be supple, adaptable to the differing political and economic environments of the nearly 200 countries that signed it.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Competition in Construction Market Shouldn't Need to be Debated
May 11, 2017 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
The construction market has always been cautious about allowing plastic products to replace traditional materials like wood, concrete, glass and metal. It's easy to understand why. These are products whose lifespans are defined in decades. Durability is a major concern.
Consumers who take on 30-year mortgages to buy homes expect them to stand up to the elements. The same goes for taxpayers who finance big infrastructure products like bridges, water mains and sewer pipe.
But plastics processors are persistent. Construction markets are huge, and plastics often have properties that can outperform other materials. Once they get a toehold in a market, plastics typically prove to be up to the challenges.
But in the U.S. pipe market, some significant hurdles still stand in the way of plastics. And it's frustrating — no, make that infuriating — that they include some of the nation's elected leaders.
Steve Toloken and Catherine Kavanaugh worked together for a major package of stories about the plastics industry's effort to lobby state legislatures to open up more of the government infrastructure market to plastic pipe.
The effort is led by the American Chemistry Council and, notably, includes cooperation from two trade groups that represent different sectors of the plastic pipe market: the Plastics Pipe Institute and the Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association.
According to ACC, at least half of the U.S. market for storm water and drinking water pipe is off limits to plastic products.
I caught wind of this debate recently when I noticed an opinion column written by Darren Bearson, a former White House official for President George W. Bush, that praised ductile iron pipe and criticized plastic, calling it cheap, prone to failure and made from "potentially hazardous" materials.
Pretty serious stuff. With those kinds of attacks out there, legislators are going to be more cautious about changing regulations just because the plastics industry is asking politely.
ACC knows this project is going to take years to be successful. The effort is targeting six states this year: Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina and South Carolina.
If you've been paying attention, you know those are all states where the plastics industry plays a big role in the economy. You would think legislators there would recognize that and allow plastics to compete on an equal footing with pipe made from ductile iron and concrete.
Opponents say the plastics industry is asking for preferential treatment. The truth is that plastic pipe makers are asking for an opportunity to compete. Even if they don't win the business, the result of the competition will likely be lower costs for taxpayers.
That certainly sounds like a winning argument.
Loepp is editor of Plastics News and author of "The Plastics Blog."
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170511/BLOG01/170519979/plastic-competition-in-construction-market-shouldnt-need-to-be
-
(ACC Mentioned) NGOs Call for Conflict of Interest Probe into US EPA Appointee
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A group of NGOs has written to US EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to voice concern about the appointment of American Chemistry Council (ACC) staffer Nancy Beck to a senior agency role, and to demand an investigation into potential conflicts of interest.
The group says Dr Beck's history of "attempting to shape government policies on science and risk assessment for the financial benefit of chemical companies" raises ethical concerns under federal conflict-of-interest rules.
And it questions whether she would use her position as deputy assistant administrator at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to reshape the proposed framework rules under the new TSCA so they align with ACC recommendations.
An objective ethics review, the NGOs say, would require Dr Beck's recusal from certain issues. These include participating in any matters directly affecting the US chemical industry on which she has taken an advocacy position in the past, as well as from any chemical-specific proceedings targeting "a discrete and identifiable subset of ACC members".
It calls on the agency to:
investigate potential conflicts of interest;
provide a list of all EPA-related matters in which Dr Beck participated at the ACC; and
disclose recusals and other steps that will be taken to assure that EPA's science and policy decisions on chemicals will remain "unbiased and free from improper industry influence".
The letter, spearheaded by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, was co-signed by more than two dozen NGOs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55805/ngos-call-for-conflict-of-interest-probe-into-us-epa-appointee
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA: Don’t Let Industry Write the Rules on Toxic Chemicals
May 11, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
Today we were joined by two dozen of our coalition partners in sending a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt about one of his new hires—a chemical industry advocate who got one of the top spots in the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Nancy Beck comes to EPA from the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that lobbies for the interests of companies like Dow, Monsanto and ExxonMobil. Just last month Dr. Beck was testifying before Congress on behalf of the chemical industry. This month, she’s a key decision maker on how to regulate chemicals.
The EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s mission is to protect you, your family, and the environment from potential risks from pesticides and toxic chemicals.
One of the top responsibilities of the office is to implement a new chemical safety law—the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA). Congress passed the new law last year to strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act—a 40-year-old law that was so ineffective that EPA couldn’t even ban asbestos. The new law gives EPA new power to test chemicals, evaluate risk and restrict the use of chemicals to protect our health.
As EPA has begun to implement the new law, Dr. Beck has pushed the chemical industry’s agenda. For instance, she signed detailed comments to EPA on its rules for how to prioritize and choose which chemicals to evaluate, and how to evaluate those chemicals. These rules have to be finalized this summer. Dr. Beck will have a direct role in that process.
How can we expect a chemical industry advocate to make decisions that put public health protections ahead of the chemical industry? We called on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to complete a thorough ethics review and, if she is to remain in her position, inform the public of the recusals and other precautions that will be put in place to prevent conflicts of interest.
We can’t let industry write the rules on toxic chemicals. Join us in calling for a thorough ethics review. Sign the petition to EPA Administrator Pruitt.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/05/09/epa-dont-let-industry-write-the-rules-on-toxic-chemicals/
-
EPA, Industry Spar Over 'Consensus' Need for TSCA Burden Reduction Rule
May 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA and the chemical sector are sparring over the agency's claim that a panel convened to inform a future Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule limiting certain reporting requirements must reach “consensus” before crafting a rule, with industry arguing the rule is mandated and that legal options may be necessary to force it.
“The mandate is for EPA to enter into negotiated rulemaking and to develop a proposed rule and issue a final rule from such negotiated rulemaking,” said Joseph Green, a panelist and steel industry representative, at a May 9-10 EPA meeting on the rule in Washington, D.C. “It doesn't say anything about achieving consensus during the negotiations.”
Fern Abrams of electronics industry group IPC also faulted EPA's reading of its obligations under the revised TSCA that the agency says will stymie the rule if the panel fails to reach consensus. “I don't think we have agreement here, and we will have to find a way to solve that,” she said. “We may need outside legal input.”
But EPA officials defended their position as outlined in documents for the meeting, which state “If a consensus is not reached on any issues raised or discussed in the regulatory negotiation EPA is not under any statutory obligation to make any revisions” to existing TSCA chemical data reporting rule (CDR) requirements.
David Lennett, of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), backed EPA's position and argued that a consensus recommendation is important to ensuring all interests are heard, especially given that industry representatives vastly outnumber other interests on the panel. He said he would consider ways to streamline or revise some CDR mandates, but opposed the idea of EPA moving forward with a rule even if the panel does not reach consensus.
The stakeholder committee is charged with negotiating a proposed rule to limit existing CDR requirements on manufacturers of inorganic byproducts when those products are recycled, reused, or reprocessed.
Section 8(a)(6) of the revised TSCA enacted in June directs EPA to convene the negotiated rulemaking committee to address industry concerns about the agency's CDR program, which EPA uses to gather information from the chemical industry about chemical production, sales and uses for risk analyses and other activities.
EPA in a Dec. 15 Federal Register notice and meeting documents said it is not required to pursue a rule limiting reporting burdens if the committee convened to inform that regulation does not reach a consensus.
'Assumes Consensus'
Lynn Vendinello, deputy director of the Chemical Control Division in EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said at the meeting that the panel's deliberations would inform the agency's future work regardless of whether it pursues a rule. “If we come to consensus then we should base the rule on what was decided here,” she said. “But if we don't have consensus, we don't base the rule on what was decided, but we still have all this information to use.”
EPA's Susan Sharkey argued that the reformed TSCA “assumes consensus,” noting that a rule based on consensus input from a panel of stakeholders would limit the number of significant issues EPA would have to address in public comments on a proposed rule, allowing staff to meet the statute's quick turnaround time for finalizing any proposed rule.
Past administrations' regulatory updates to the CDR have led to confusion and criticism from the chemical industry, problems that led lawmakers to include the requirement for the rulemaking committee in the updated toxics law.
The George W. Bush EPA in 2006 made changes to the requirements in the CDR, requiring for the first time reporting on inorganic chemicals' use and disposal, including metals, in volumes greater than 25,000 pounds.
In the rule, EPA subjected inorganic metals to the same reporting requirements as organic chemicals, failing to take into account what sources say are the nuances of the materials. Problematic for metals are the byproduct recycling requirements of the Obama administration's subsequent chemical data reporting rule that require a manufacturer to report the fate of any substance that has to be removed from a byproduct by a reaction -- chemicals simply extracted are exempt from reporting -- which EPA then considers the manufacturing of a new chemical.
In the Dec. 15 Register notice, the agency describes the negotiated rulemaking committee as “a process in which a proposed rule is developed by a committee composed of representatives of all those interests that will be significantly affected by the rule. Decisions are made by consensus.”
'Significant Investment'
However, industry officials participating in the panel's introductory meeting -- as well as the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in public comments to the group -- argued that EPA should not tie a future rule to the panel's reaching consensus, raising the potential of seeking legal input to resolve the dispute.
Kevin Bromberg, of the SBA's Office of Advocacy, argued in May 9 public comments that stakeholders serving on the committee are making a “significant investment” in a future rule, and that the agency appears to be softening its position on whether it will go forward with a rule easing certain reporting requirements on inorganic byproducts.
Bromberg asked that EPA commit to pursuing a rule based on the committee's recommendation even if the final recommendation is one or two members short of unanimous, noting that he did not see language in the revised TSCA law that precludes that approach.
Panelists representing the steel, electronics and other sectors reiterated the concern during the committee's discussions. They argued that the requirement for consensus could allow a single member of the roughly 30-person panel to torpedo the entire effort, blocking a rule and wasting everyone's time.
Mark Duvall, who has represented the chemical sector, argued that some environmental groups may favor greater reporting obligations even if they are burdensome and inefficient, and so it could be in their interest to block any future rule seeking to reduce the burdens of reporting requirements.
The question of “consensus is critical here because EPA said in the Register notice that if consensus is not reached, it doesn't have to do any rulemaking,” he said, adding that he questions that interpretation. “I'm very concerned given the nature of what we're talking about that we may have people who may prefer no change at all” in reporting requirements.
'Super-Majority Influence'
NRDC's Lennett, another member of the committee, said he disagreed with the industry panelists' assertions that the revised TSCA mandates a rule. He also said that environmental groups are open to streamlining or improving reporting requirements where needed to ensure EPA has accurate data.
But Lennett opposed ideas floated by SBA and some industry panelists that EPA move forward with a rule even if the committee does not reach consensus.
“I joined this committee on the supposition that there wasn't going to be a super-majority influence on the outcome and that the organization I represent will have every chance to shape the process to our satisfaction,” he said. If “we can be outvoted and overruled then there is no point.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-industry-spar-over-consensus-need-tsca-burden-reduction-rule
-
Red Tape and Over-Reach: That is the Regulatory Accountability Act, in a Word – and a Graphic
May 11, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
I blogged last week about the new-but-not-improved Senate Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), focusing on how it would reinstate some of the worst flaws of the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that were fixed in the bipartisan TSCA reform legislation, the Lautenberg Act, signed into law last June.
Here are a few additional things to note. This bill is scheduled to be marked up next Wednesday in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).
I noted in my last post that RAA is sweeping in scope, and would affect dozens of federal laws and protections in one fell swoop. My colleague Martha Roberts has just put up a blog post that illustrates this incredibly broad reach by providing a few tangible examples of protections that would be at risk if RAA were to be enacted.
And talk about red tape: I’m including below her updated graphic depicting the vast bureaucracy RAA would create that all federal agencies would be forced to navigate (click on the thumbnail to enlarge it).
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/05/11/red-tape-and-over-reach-that-is-the-regulatory-accountability-act-in-a-word-and-a-graphic/
-
EPA Will Delay Effective Date of TSCA Section 8(a) Rule Concerning Nanoscale Materials
May 11, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish on May 11, 2017, a Federal Register notice delaying the effective date of the January 12, 2017, rule concerning Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) reporting requirements from May 12, 2017, to August 14, 2017. EPA notes that Section 553(b)(1)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows EPA to take action without providing an opportunity for notice or comment when it for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” APA Section 553(d)(3) allows the effective date of an action to be less than 30 days when a good cause finding is made. EPA states that because of the complex issues regarding the reporting requirements of the rule and the “immediate pendency” of the effective date of the reporting requirements, “it would be impractical to make the effective date of this extension 30 days after its publication, and it would be impractical to get public comments on an extension of the effective date of the rule.” In addition, according to EPA, the public interest is served by complete and accurate reporting under the rule, “which would be greatly facilitated by publication of the guidance.” EPA states that it therefore finds good cause to extend the effective date of the rule without notice and comment. As noted in our January 12, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Promulgates Final TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule for Nanoscale Materials,” in the final rule, EPA stated that it intended to issue guidance within six months, including guidance on the reasonably ascertainable standard, consolidating submissions, and generic chemical names. Given that reporting must be made one year from the effective date of the final rule, it is critical that EPA provides the guidance as soon as possible. This is particularly important given that the final rule applies to both manufacturers and processors, recognizing that the latter have not generally been subject to previous TSCA Section 8(a) reporting requirements.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-will-delay-effective-date-tsca-section-8a-rule-concerning-nanoscale-materials
-
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
February PMN receipts
The US EPA says it received 62 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in February.
The agency also received 12 notices of commencement (NOCs).
The number of new substance notifications compares with 37 during the same timeframe in 2016.
Receipt of information under TSCA
The agency has announced receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order or consent order under TSCA for 2-butenedioic acid (2E)-, di-C8-18-alkyl esters.
The industrial manufacturing lubricant is subject to testing requirements for a group of high production volume (HPV) substances.
The EPA received a water solubility analytical report.
Access to CBI
The EPA has given notice that it has authorised four contractors and their subcontractors to access information submitted under TSCA, including some that has been claimed as confidential business information (CBI).
Eastern Research Group, Inc (ERG) of Lexington, Massachusetts – together with its Virginia subcontractors Avanti Corporation and BeakerTree Corporation – has been authorised to access information submitted under all sections of TSCA. The contractor is assisting the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in preparing assessments for the new and existing chemicals review programmes.
The agency authorised similar access to Versar, Inc of Springfield, Virginia and its subcontractors Abt Associates; Brown Glove Consulting Group; EnDyna, Inc; Essential Software, Inc; Syracuse Research Corporation; and Wilkes Technologies, Inc for a similar project.
In two separate notices, the EPA said it also authorised Artic Slope Mission Services, LLC (ASMS) access to information under all sections of TSCA. The Beltsville, Maryland contractor is assisting OPPT in managing the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC) and Non-Confidential Business Information Center (NCIC).
https://chemicalwatch.com/55797/us-epa-round-up
-
Toxic Politics: How EPA Cuts Can Literally Poison You
May 11, 2017 | The Stanford Daily
By Alizeh Ahmad
The new administration’s treatment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is draconian at best.
Trump’s recently proposed budget cuts of about 31 percent and the appointment of Scott Pruitt, an avowed antagonist of the EPA and denier of human-caused climate change, as the agency’s chief are but two features of this comedy of errors that have managed to surface as national headlines. Alarmingly, it appears that popular opposition to these moves has largely dissipated, lost in competition with swaths of issues deemed more pressing, like healthcare.
However, even a cursory examination of the many roles of the EPA reveals its extensive reach and influence on innumerable aspects of a citizen’s life. For the same reasons, it should pique the interest of the common citizen that the current administration has changed the rhetoric surrounding the purpose of the EPA.
Curiously enough, the EPA’s official website was very recently changed to its current form and is objectively lacking in scientific substance as compared to the Obama-era EPA website. The new website contains a link to a “snapshot” of the previous version as it stood on Jan. 19, 2017. (Attempting to access the old version yields a notification at the top of the page that the old site is “historical material.”)
To give you a sense of what kinds of changes were made, note that all of the four main articles rotating on the first page of the Obama-era website pertain to the Clean Air Act and air pollution. In contrast, the new administration’s EPA website features an article about Trump’s executive order on energy independence, a piece about a Superfund cleanup site in Chicago and two stories featuring Scott Pruitt speaking to workers about the EPA’s new “Back-to-Basics” approach that will “create an environment where jobs will grow.”
To their credit, at least they included the word “environment.”
To address the objections of readers who feel that environmental issues, while important, are not the most urgent of concerns, I draw your attention to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). Here is where the EPA’s regulatory role directly affects the health of the American consumer on a timescale more immediate than global warming, although the effects of rising global temperatures on health are arguably no less insidious than exposure to hazardous chemicals.
Simply put, this act was passed with the intention of keeping toxic substances out of consumer goods, but it came with crippling flaws. Substances were free to exist in the market and were only tested if believed to cause harm. Of the tens of thousands of substances reported to the EPA, a shockingly small number were actually tested, possibly due to an impractical 90-day testing window. It comes as no shock, then, that the EPA has banned about five substances in total.
What does this have to do with Trump?
The TSCA was made somewhat more rational in 2016 as a result of a few actions taken by Congress, but it was by no means perfected. Slowly but steadily, the U.S. was moving forward down the path of improving the TSCA and many other imperfect pieces of legislation tied to the EPA that impact human health. The current administration’s attack on the EPA not only brought these efforts to a grating halt, but its overzealous anti-regulation agenda has serious potential to point us in the opposite direction.
Given its far-reaching negative implications, the dismantling of the EPA should snatch the attention of every last American citizen, whether her or his pet issue is healthcare, the environment or even consumer’s rights and transparency. Particularly in this case, apathy is toxic.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/05/11/toxic-politics-how-epa-cuts-can-literally-poison-you/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA's Failure to Renew Members of Science Board Questioned
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US EPA has not renewed nine members from its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), including the chair of its Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee, in a move NGOs say is to increase industry influence on EPA decisions.
The 18-member BOSC provides advice, information and recommendations to EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) on technical and management issues of its research programmes.
Typically, BOSC members serve two three-year terms. The dismissed members were set to begin their second terms this month, but the EPA chose not to renew these, which has been customary in the past. Another four members reached the end of their second term.
"Advisory panels like BOSC play a critical role reviewing the agency’s work," EPA spokesman JP Freire says. "EPA received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and we want to ensure fair consideration of all the nominees – including those nominated who may have previously served on the panel – and carry out a competitive nomination process."
Ponisseril Somasundaran, a professor at Columbia University, was one of the members released who served as the chair of the Subcommittee on Chemical Safety. The subcommittee has completed a review of the agency’s Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast) programme, and provided guidance on research on cumulative exposure and nanomaterials.
The committee is currently working on a number of projects, including reviewing the EPA’s adverse outcome pathway (AOP) programme, high-throughput toxicology and rapid exposure and dosimetry.
Mr Somasundaran tells Chemical Watch that the work of the subcommittee is unlikely to change with a new chair. He also says that appointing industry members to the board is not necessarily a bad thing.
"It depends on where the person comes from what their goals are," Mr Somasundaran says. "Until the replacements are picked, there is no way to know."
Concerns with industry representation
Tom Carper (D-Delaware), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt saying putting industry officials on the board goes against the mission of the EPA.
And Genna Reed, science & policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said science advice to agencies should remain independent of corporate influence as a matter of public health.
"In aiding these industry partners, the EPA threatens to sideline science in the process," Ms Reed says.
Industry's influence on agency science decisions has come into the spotlight under the new administration. The House of Representatives recently passed a Science Advisory Board reform bill that would allow representatives with financial conflicts of interest.
Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Nancy Beck – who testified before Congress earlier this year on improving the agency's approach to science – has been appointed to a senior role in the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).
https://chemicalwatch.com/55795/us-epas-failure-to-renew-members-of-science-board-questioned
-
Here's the Scariest Legislation You've Never Heard Of
May 11, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Congress is moving forward with sweeping legislation that could undercut major laws that keep our food, water, workers and children’s products safe.
Yet, surprisingly little attention has been paid to a bill that could drastically reshape the way we think about government, while threatening to undermine the very idea that any product at all – from pacifiers to peanuts – will remain safe going forward.
It’s what Steve Bannon has in mind when he says he wants to deconstruct the administrative state. And it paves the way for a shoddy government with more, and slower bureaucracy, than we can ever imagine.
Bill “cutting red tape” would tie agencies in knots
The Regulatory Accountability Act would fundamentally alter how Americans protect themselves from unsafe pollution, chemicals, drugs and other dangers – by undermining the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act and a slew of other laws affecting public health and safety.
Rather than repealing these popular laws, the bill would simply hobble them by, in effect, preventing agencies from creating or enforcing rules under such laws.
The sound-bite description of the bill makes the Regulatory Accountability Act sound reasonable: Cut red tape and reduce government regulation. In reality, it would tie federal agencies in knots.
A blog post by my colleagues Rosalie Winn and Martha Roberts has a chart showing the dizzying list of requirements an agency would fact before it could issue a new rule.
In essence, it takes the things Americans already hate about government – that it’s slow, bureaucratic, and too responsive to special interests – and makes it worse.
Example: Protection against toxic formaldehyde
In 2010, Congress ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to shield the public from formaldehyde in imported floorboards and other wood products. Research had shown the chemical can cause cancer, asthma and other dangerous health effects.
The EPA has since spent seven years carefully studying ways to protect Americans from this dangerous material. Yet under the Regulatory Accountability Act, it would take even longer to implement such protections, if they even get to that point.
Under the proposed law, federal agencies would face a gauntlet of cost analyses and trial-like proceedings that can last weeks. What’s more, such complex, burdensome procedures would make it hard for average Americans to participate and be heard.
Backdoor legislation is advancing quietly
Because legislation to outright repeal landmark safeguards would spark public outrage, the Regulatory Accountability Act represents a backdoor attack on fundamental protections that has largely gone unnoticed. In fact, the bill already passed the House in January by a 238-183 vote, and a Senate committee is expected to vote on the bill on May 17.
How to explain this? Myron Ebell, the EPA transition head may have summed it up when he called for the Trump administration to “make permanent the reforms and changes we’re making.”
They are looking to change how our government works.
If taking on landmark laws under the guise of regulatory reform has largely escaped public notice, surely that would change when Americans begin to see tainted food, contaminated drugs, unhealthy pollution levels and unsafe vehicles.
The question now is whether members of Congress will defeat this bill before their constituents pay the price.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/11/heres-scariest-legislation-youve-never-heard
-
Human Rights Groups Boycott State Department Conflict Minerals Review
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Human rights organisations Global Witness and Amnesty International have criticised the lack of "clarity and transparency" in the recent State Department review of the US’s management of conflict minerals, and have refused to participate in the consultation.
In a letter addressed to Secretary Rex Tillerson and President Donald Trump, the NGOs say the administration has demonstrated a "clear intent to repeal or otherwise fatally undermine" the US’s conflict minerals reporting rule, as required under Dodd-Frank section 1502.
And they describe the department’s recent request for information to inform recommendations on "how best to support" responsible sourcing of conflict minerals – tungsten, tantalum, tin and gold – as "the latest in a string of unwarranted efforts to undermine the integrity of the law and congressional intent".
It is not clear, say the groups, why the State Department is "engaging in substantial policy development" while the law remains unaltered.
The department’s involvement is especially "puzzling", they add, because it closely follows the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) consultation on the rule.
According to Global Witness policy adviser Carly Oboth: "If the State Department wants to know what we all think about responsible mineral sourcing, it has an extensive catalogue of public comments at its disposal. It is far from clear what this latest consultation could add to what has already been said."
Public weighs in
The NGOs also criticised the consultation’s lack of transparency, including the fact that not all comments submitted have been made public.
As of press time, nine comments appear on the public docket, a number Ms Oboth told Chemical Watch is "not comprehensive".
Most of these – including one from the Secretariat of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) – support continuing enforcement of section 1502.
Echoing comments submitted to the SEC, electronics industry group IPC voiced its concern with human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) but questioned the success of the reporting law in stemming these.
Meanwhile, the American Apparel and Footwear Association – in comments published by the group but not available on the public docket – urged the department to "reevaluate the effectiveness of the SEC regulation in its consideration of how best to support responsible sourcing of conflict minerals".
While only "trace amounts" of conflict minerals appear in apparel and footwear products, affected companies cite annual compliance costs of $50-100,000. And they say the reporting rule has had "very little benefit" on the ground in the DRC.
The SEC and State Department reviews come as Congress contemplates a measure that would fully repeal the rule. While the financial regulation overhaul bill recently passed a key House committee, it is not expected to gain the bipartisan support needed to pass into law.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have questioned the legal authority behind the SEC's recent determination to relax enforcement of certain provisions of the conflict minerals rule.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55791/human-rights-groups-boycott-state-department-conflict-minerals-review
-
May 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
REACH 2018 spring school
Echa is to run an intensive training week on next year's REACH deadline. From 15-19 May the agency will rebroadcast all of its REACH 2018 phase webinars, along with a new one on how to carry out a chemical safety assessment.
Participants will be able to directly pose questions to agency experts. It is possible to register for each day separately.
The webinars are:
Monday: know your portfolio and find your co-registrants;
Tuesday: get organised with co-registrants and assess hazards and risks;
Wednesday: getting your chemical safety assessment done;
Thursday: prepare your registration as a Iuclid dossier; and
Friday: submit your registration dossier and extended Q&A on all aspects of REACH registration.
All sessions begin 11:00 EEST (GMT +3).
CLP video
Echa has released a video on the classification, labelling and packaging Regulation (CLP). From 1 June shops should only stock products with the new labels and should have cleared out items with old signs. The agency video, which is in 23 languages, urges viewers to "get to know the new labels and stay safe".
Nanomaterials Expert Group
Echa's Nanomaterials Expert Group (NMEG) now has its own section on the agency's website. Information there includes: the group's mandate and activities; a list of its members; and the meeting schedule. In the future it will also have meeting minutes.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55704/echa-round-up
-
After Failed CRA Try, Methane Fight Moves to Courts, Interior
May 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson and Ben Storrow
Yesterday's surprise vote to uphold the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule marks a major victory for environmentalists, but the battle over regulating methane waste on public lands is far from over.
The fight now shifts to the courts and inside the Department of the Interior. Industry representatives vowed to press on with legal cases. Interior officials said the department plans to continue with a review of the regulations, raising the possibility that they could be suspended and ultimately rescinded. And environmentalists pledged to remain vigilant, defending the rules in court and vowing to make sure the Interior review follows proper procedures for rulemakings.
In a statement yesterday, Kate MacGregor, acting assistant secretary of the Interior for land and minerals, said the failed Congressional Review Act (CRA) attempt does not affect the administration's commitment to taking a second look at the regulation.
BLM's methane rule was listed in Trump's March executive order as one of many energy regulations targeted for review and possible rescinding.
MacGregor said Interior "has reviewed and flagged the Waste Prevention rule as one we will suspend, revise or rescind given its significant regulatory burden that encumbers American energy production, economic growth and job creation."
The rule has limited impact on the U.S. oil and gas industry. Roughly 5 percent of American crude production came from public lands in fiscal 2015. For natural gas, that figure was 11 percent.
But the issue has outsized importance in Rocky Mountain states like New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, where federal lands cover large swaths of the state and account for a large share of local oil and gas production. Industry advocates in those states say rules like BLM methane's regulation put producers working on federal land at a disadvantage, driving investment to private and state lands.
Experts said any new Interior action could take years. Without the CRA, the agency will have to open up a new rulemaking in order to rescind or revise the rule. In order to do that, the agency will have to justify why the reasoning, data and science it put forth just months ago, when it finalized the methane rule, no longer apply.
"Given the detailed and highly technical record, that is a pretty high hurdle for them, particularly if they try to rescind the whole rule," said Alexandra Teitz, who previously served as counselor to former BLM Director Neil Kornze. "In fact, parts of the rule are not only not controversial, but were addressing problems identified by industry and implement items listed in [Interior Secretary Ryan] Zinke's letter, such as encouraging beneficial use on-site. What's the rationale for repealing that?"
Gerry Pels, a partner and chairman of the environmental section at law firm Locke Lord LLP, said the Senate's failure to rescind the methane rule using the CRA is not what the oil and gas industry wanted because the remaining options to roll back regulations are not quick.
For industry, time is of the essence. If the rule remains in place, oil and gas operators face having to purchase expensive leak detection and repair equipment. Stricter requirements for producers are scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2018.
"I was on the phone with [exploration and production] clients this morning, and what I told them is we need to be prepared to be compliant with this rule as though the litigation is not ongoing and irrespective of the executive order the president issued, because it's going to be very difficult to stay the dates at this point," Pels said. "That's not to say it couldn't happen, but I think the regulated community needs to be prepared to comply in the shorter [term] unless a court will step in and hold the rule."
The McCain surprise
Litigation is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, where two oil and gas groups and four states — Wyoming, Montana, Texas and North Dakota — have challenged BLM's authority to regulate methane emissions. They contend that air quality regulation rests with U.S. EPA. The rules' supporters, including environmental groups and California and New Mexico, maintain that BLM has a statutory obligation to prevent the waste of federal minerals (Energywire, May 9).
Industry advocates had hoped to avoid the courts altogether. But that was before the Senate failed yesterday to muster the 51 votes needed to open debate on a resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 36, that would have repealed BLM's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule.
The rule, an update to a more-than-three-decades-old regulation, limits the amount of methane that can be vented, flared and leaked from more than 100,000 oil and natural gas wells on federal and tribal lands.
The House passed its disapproval resolution in March, largely along party lines, but getting the 51 votes in the Senate needed under the Congressional Review Act proved trickier.
The effort languished for months, with two Republicans — Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Rob Portman of Ohio — and two Democrats — South Dakota Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — remaining publicly undecided.
On Monday evening, the "yes" camp got a boost when Portman announced he would support the CRA after receiving a letter from Interior Secretary Zinke outlining the agency's commitment to "take concrete action to reduce methane waste" (Energywire, May 10).
Even with Portman's support, the vote was expected to be close. Republicans had Vice President Mike Pence on hand at the Capitol yesterday in case he was needed to break a 50-50 tie.
But in a surprise move, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain crossed party lines and voted against the measure. Republicans Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine previously said they would not support the effort and voted "no" yesterday. With no Democrats voting in support, the motion to proceed to the resolution failed, 49-51.
McCain was widely expected to vote for the CRA but said in a press release that he didn't because he is concerned about the public health impacts of methane emissions.
"While I am concerned that the BLM rule may be onerous, passage of the resolution would have prevented the federal government, under any administration, from issuing a rule that is 'similar,' according to the plain reading of the Congressional Review Act," he said.
Political observers suggested McCain's vote could be a shot across the bow, to warn party leaders that he might not vote with other Republicans on every matter. The vote was the first that President Trump lost in either the House or the Senate.
The effort to repeal BLM's methane regulation using the CRA drew major lobbying efforts on both sides of the issue, including a six-figure ad campaign launched by the Environmental Defense Fund's advocacy arm. The lobbying didn't stop after the failed vote. Yesterday, Heitkamp and Manchin sent a letter to Zinke calling on him to review the methane waste rule.
The result also stoked political backlash against Heitkamp. She faced criticism from industry groups for her decision to vote "no" on the CRA.
"We are extremely disappointed in Senator Heitkamp's decision today to vote against the repeal of this rule," said North Dakota Petroleum Council President Ron Ness, in a statement. "Hundreds of energy employees and numerous businesses, chambers of commerce and trade associations wrote to express concern for the rule. Despite this, Senator Heitkamp has chosen to stand with the environmental activists and the Democratic party in Washington rather than the oil and gas workers and people of North Dakota."
On the other side, Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said stopping the CRA was the second victory in two weeks for environmentalists, following last week's omnibus spending bill that he said rejected a White House effort to "cut the heart and soul out of environmental protection" (Greenwire, May 10).
"This is absolutely a win," said Joshua Mantell, deputy director of energy and climate at the Wilderness Society. "Anytime you go up against the oil and gas industry, one of the wealthiest industries in the world, and take them on and win with a vote on the Senate floor, that's a win — not just for us, but for the American people."
What happens now?
Zinke offered hints at where the agency may be going on future methane regulation in his letter to Portman. The secretary promised to eliminate regulations already covered by the handful of states already regulating methane. He committed to a "robust assessment" of royalty requirements, when venting and flaring is approved and when methane waste can be used for beneficial purposes, something addressed in the current BLM rule.
That provision is generally favored by producers, because it allows them to use what would have been wasted natural gas to help power rigs or compressors and the gas used for this purpose is not assessed a royalty, noted Paul Ulrich, director of government affairs at Jonah Energy, a Colorado-based natural gas producer.
His company, which does the majority of its drilling in Wyoming, would like to see the provision maintained. But other aspects are more problematic, he said, pointing to BLM requirements already imposed by states.
"Now that the CRA has not passed, the industry needs to be working with states and DOI to make sure that we have a strong voice and common sense prevails," he said.
That sentiment was shared by Mark Brownstein, vice president of the Climate and Energy Program at the Environmental Defense Fund, who said that as the agency moves to review, rescind or revise the methane rule, EDF intends to be there "every step of the way."
"There's established principles of administrative law that will apply to the agency's review of the rule," he said. "Our focus now shifts from Congress to the agency."
Industry still has two avenues from keeping the rule from going into effect, said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, a trade group. If court proceedings continue to drag out over the summer months, industry may ask for a preliminary injunction staying the order, she said. A federal judge has already rejected that argument, citing the phase-in of the rule over time. But a delay in proceedings may strengthen industry's argument that the rule causes irreparable harm, Sgamma said.
Interior could also move to suspend the rule while it works on its review. The department made a similar move for a new rule concerning royalty valuations for oil, gas and coal leases.
"We continue to push this issue hard. Now we only have two tools in our toolbox instead of three," Sgamma said. "But we feel good about our chances with the other two."
Still, she acknowledged that the road ahead is more difficult for industry, saying, "Instead of having to do it quickly and easy without litigation, we are now in a cycle of rulemaking and litigation."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/11/stories/1060054404
-
Senate Fails to Overturn Obama-Era Methane Rule
May 11, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Nick Juliano, Darius Dixon, and Ben Lefebvre
Republicans' last chance to block an Obama-era energy rule may have just evaporated into thin air.
The Senate on Wednesday unexpectedly failed to advance a filibuster-proof resolution that would have allowed them to prevent the Interior Department from cracking down on the amount of methane oil and gas companies release from their wells and pipelines. Three Republicans — John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins — joined all Democrats in blocking the resolution.
Had the vote succeeded, it would have been the 15th time this year that lawmakers deployed the Congressional Review Act to help President Donald Trump erase his predecessor’s late-term regulations. The CRA, which had only been used once before this year, gives Congress a short amount of time to block rules completed since about the middle of last year, but that clock runs out on Thursday
The methane resolution narrowly passed the House last February, but John Barrasso, who sponsored the Senate companion, had been unable to round up the votes he needed from his colleagues. It was the only such measure to come to a vote and fail, although Republicans targeted numerous other Obama rules with CRA resolutions that never made it to the floor of either chamber.
For now, the Bureau of Land Management’s methane rule remains in place, but Trump has directed his administration to consider repealing it.
"It's disappointing but I'm going to call on the secretary of Interior to withdraw the rule immediately,” Barrasso said after the vote.
While Collins and Graham had announced their opposition weeks ago, McCain’s vote came as a surprise. Other closely watched GOP moderates, including Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Dean Heller (Nev.), who are up for reelection next year, backed the resolution. But there was no aisle-crossing from Democrats facing tough races in energy-producing states, such as Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin.
In a statement, McCain said he voted no over concerns that Interior would not be able to rewrite a new version of the rule.
"While I am concerned that the BLM rule may be onerous, passage of the resolution would have prevented the federal government, under any administration, from issuing a rule that is "similar,' according to the plain reading of the Congressional Review Act," he said.
McCain, who labelled methane emissions an "important public health and air quality issue," called on Interior to "revise and improve the BLM methane rule."
John Hoeven, who had been helping whip votes for the measure, said McCain had told Barrasso Tuesday night that he had concerns with the resolution. But Hoeven said they took a chance, hoping that some undecided Democrats would join them in voting for it.
“We had to go because May 11 — that’s the last day we could do it. So, we had to go. ... And we had some Ds that were undecided so we thought we might still get it," Hoeven told reporters after the vote.
Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he was not completely surprised by McCain's maverick vote.
“I think the Republican leader was looking at that time running out on the ability to bring up the CRAs and decided to roll the dice," Carper said. "I applaud those who saw the issues as we did and voted with us."
The methane rule adjusts how the government collects royalties for oil and gas extracted from public land to prevent drilling companies from wasting excess gas by flaring it off or venting methane straight into the atmosphere. Environmentalists and other rule supporters say the rule helps limit emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas and ensures taxpayers get a fair return for oil and gas extracted from public lands, though the energy industry argued that collecting the gas increases costs and could impede oil production.
“While it is disappointing that the Senate did not act to correct the rule more quickly, we look forward to working with the administration on policies that continue our commitment to safely produce the energy that Americans rely on, help consumers, create jobs, strengthen our national security, and protect our environment,” said Erik Milito, of the American Petroleum Institute.
Democrats were elated at the resolution’s failure.
“Today’s vote is a win for American taxpayers, a win for public health and a win for our climate,” Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “When it comes to natural gas production on public lands, the oil industry should embrace the slogan ‘waste not, want not.’ These commonsense rules issued by the Obama administration ensure that we can reduce methane emissions that contribute to climate change and ensure that taxpayers receive their fair share for their precious natural resources."
The Sierra Club and other green groups said they had been surprised by McCain’s vote though they had been lobbying the Arizona senator as part of its campaign against the CRA in western states.
“We had high hopes on McCain, given his past history of action on climate change,” said Lena Moffitt, director of the group's Dirty Fuels campaign. “But he remained mum” on his vote.
The resolution was briefly hung-up this month by requests from corn-state Republicans for help securing an EPA waiver that would benefit sales of higher-blend ethanol in exchange for their support. But John Thune (R-S.D.) said those lawmakers relented after receiving assurances from leadership.
While the result was disappointing for the oil industry, one lobbyist took solace in the diminished likelihood of an ethanol deal taking shape.
"Looks like we won't have to do the [ethanol waiver] circus at EPW after all," said Stephen Brown, with refining company Tesoro.
Rob Portman, (R-Ohio) another longstanding holdout, surprisingly announced his support for the resolution on Monday, after Secretary Ryan Zinke sent him a letter promising to look for ways to limit methane emissions that would not have as large of an economic impact on the industry. But experts said that reassurance rested on shaky ground given the untested nature of the Congressional Review Act’s prohibition on re-issuing regulations that are overturned.
First enacted in 1996, the CRA had been used just once before this year, to block a Clinton-era ergonomics rule in the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency. The law prevents agencies from writing new rules that are “substantially the same” as those Congress overturns, but courts have never tested those limits nor weighed in on how to address a conflicting law telling an agency to write a rule Congress has blocked.
While Congress managed to block 14 Obama regulations so far this year, Democrats took solace in the fact that their last attempt came up short.
Carper plans to thank McCain the next time he sees him.
“He and I served in the Vietnam War together — both Navy veterans," Carper said. "When I see him I’ll give him a hug. If not that, a salute."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/in-surprise-vote-senate-leaves-obama-era-energy-rule-in-place-156596
-
Oil Gets Lion's Share of Federal Incentives — Report
May 11, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
U.S. petroleum producers have enjoyed more federal financial incentives since World War II than any other energy sector, according to a study released today by the nuclear industry in hopes of swaying a debate on government energy subsidies.
Oil companies have received more than $400 billion in federal concessions since 1950, including a depletion allowance and tax deductions, various forms of regulatory relief, and government-backed research and development for leasing, research and development, the Management Information Services Inc.'s report says.
The Virginia-based research and consulting firm, led by economist Roger Bezdek, prepared the report for the Nuclear Energy Institute that hopes it will carry some weight in the ongoing debate over federal support for energy.
The firm has also done work for entities like the Department of Energy, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and Ceres, a nonprofit focused on sustainability.
In the period studied, the natural gas industry received $140 billion in federal incentives through 2016, hydroelectric received $105 billion, and renewables — wind, solar and biomass — received $158 billion, including $84 billion in tax credits and other incentives, according to the report.
Debates over which industry is receiving the most support, in what forms and whether it should continue are growing louder under the Trump administration.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry recently ordered a study to look at ways subsidies and policies are affecting the closure of baseload nuclear and coal power plants, a move that some groups see as leading to a reform of the wind industry's production tax credits (PTCs).
When asked about the report, American Petroleum Institute spokesman Michael Tadeo said the oil industry didn't get "subsidies," although the Management Information Services' calculation of benefits for the oil sector was $7.5 billion, "primarily through subsidies for construction and operating costs of oil tankers."
NEI seized on the findings to highlight state actions targeted at propping up at-risk nuclear power plants.
John Kotek, NEI's vice president for policy development and public affairs, said state programs in New York and Illinois to support struggling reactors amount to a "course correction" for clean, baseload power.
"If you're going to deny equal treatment to nuclear energy," Kotek said, "the largest source of emission-free generation in America, then that's an argument for eliminating all energy subsidies."
NEI in a release noted the government has spent more on researching coal than nuclear power during the past 30 years, as well as more funding for natural gas even though the nuclear sector's air emissions are lower.
Nuclear utilities in recent years have been granted billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees and are currently pushing for legislative text to extend PTCs for new reactors in the South.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/11/stories/1060054425
-
Dakota Access Pipeline Leaks 84 Gallons of Oil in SD
May 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
South Dakota officials are looking into a small leak along the route of the Dakota Access Pipeline that spilled 84 gallons of oil.
A pump connecting the pipeline to a crude oil storage tank in rural South Dakota leaked the oil sometime in April, Dakota Media Group reported Wednesday.
The oil was captured by absorbent material at the site and put back into the pipeline, officials said. The state won’t fine the pipeline’s operator because the spill was reported and properly cleaned up.
A spokesperson for developer Energy Transfer Partners told Dakota Media Group that the malfunction occurred during the process of filling the pipeline with oil.
That line-fill process should be completed by June 1, when the 1,170-mile pipeline is due to enter into service.
Energy Transfer Partners did not immediately reply to a request for comment from The Hill.
The spill — which was limited to Energy Transfer Partners’ workspace at the storage site — is a minuscule amount of oil compared to other spills. It’s also the first spill associated with Dakota Access in South Dakota, according to the report.
But it comes at a time when the Dakota Access pipeline is under intense scruitiny from tribes and environmentalists, who have fought to prevent it from entering service.
The 1,170-mile pipeline is designed to deliver up to 470,000 barrels of crude oil per day between North Dakota and oil facilities in Illinois. Tribes near the pipeline route have said a spill puts drinking water supplies at risk.
Environmentalists took up the cause last year and launched nationwide protests against the pipeline. The Obama administration moved to effectively pause the construction process for a critical stretch of the pipeline, but President Trump reversed that decision and allowed the project to move forward.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/332810-dakota-access-pipeline-leaks-84-gallons-of-oil-in-sd
-
Bill Would End 'Duplicative' Green Building Programs
May 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
Two senators introduced bipartisan legislation yesterday to evaluate and merge "duplicative" green building programs at the Department of Energy.
The legislation from Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) responds to a 2011 Government Accountability Office report calling for more inter-government coordination to ensure that the benefits of green building initiatives are reaching the private sector.
"Without comprehensive information about individual initiatives' effects on fostering green building, and without collaboration across federal agencies to establish green building goals and ways to measure progress, Congress, agency heads, and the public ... have incomplete information about the effectiveness of individual and overall federal efforts," GAO said at the time.
There are more than 90 federal programs in 11 agencies aiming to support green buildings in the nonfederal sector, according to GAO. Most are implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. EPA, and Department of Energy.
The bill requires the Energy secretary to release reports within a year outlining details of all green building programs and analyzing whether "any applicable programs should be eliminated or consolidated." The analysis also should recommend ways to improve existing programs, according to the measure.
Similar language passed the Senate last year as an amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act.
The bill comes as the Trump administration is calling for deep cuts to many of DOE's renewable energy and efficiency programs, which cover green building initiatives.
In a statement, the U.S. Green Building Council said the bill was unnecessary and duplicative in light of work that agencies have already done in response to the GAO report.
"An appropriate next step to the GAO report would be for the agencies to continue collaboration and improve their performance reporting. It would also be valuable for these programs to evaluate their contribution to the economy, including supporting American innovation and new product development," the council said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/11/stories/1060054385
-
Stay In or Leave the Paris Climate Deal? Lessons from Kyoto
May 9, 2017 | The New York Times
By Brad Plumer
The architects of the Paris climate accord deliberately designed it to be supple, adaptable to the differing political and economic environments of the nearly 200 countries that signed it. The authors were mindful of its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which was roundly rejected by the United States because it set binding emissions targets for wealthy countries while letting most developing nations, including China, off the hook.
But now, as forces within the Trump administration continue to debate whether to leave the Paris agreement, they face a far different calculus. The accord, agreed to in 2015, is largely nonbinding, imposing no serious legal restraints on the United States or any other nation. While that makes the treaty a less rigorous plan to fight global warming, it also means there are few compelling reasons to exit.
That flexible structure has given ammunition to those urging the Trump administration to stick with Paris, a group that includes Ivanka Trump, diplomats like Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, and hundreds of corporations. The United States, they argue, can stay within the Paris deal and adjust its domestic plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions however it sees fit. Staying has little cost. Leaving, by contrast, could result in immense diplomatic blowback, send confusing signals to industry and deprive American diplomats of the ability to influence future talks.
Within the White House, Trump advisers like the chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon have urged the president to follow through on his promise to exit the deal. They have tried to argue that staying in the Paris accord could entangle the United States in a series of legal obligations, much as Kyoto did. But this argument has been rejected by both outside legal scholars and those who fashioned the original deal. Even fossil-fuel companies that sharply opposed Kyoto, like Exxon Mobil, have urged the United States to stick with Paris. In a letter to the White House, Exxon argued that the flexible accord was “an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change.”
For the negotiators of the Paris agreement, this was all by design. The accord includes more safety valves than the Kyoto deal, so that countries like China and India, which are trying to balance emissions against economic growth, would not be scared off.
“Paris was designed to be less brittle than Kyoto, so that it could bend without breaking,” says David G. Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, who had long argued for a Paris-like agreement. “Whether the Trump administration decides to leave or not will be a big test of that approach.”
Under the Paris deal, every country submitted a voluntary pledge for how it planned to address climate change, with no penalties for failing to meet those goals. Todd D. Stern, the lead climate negotiator in the Obama administration, said that the voluntary nature of the pledges was intentional. Unlike with Kyoto, nations would not have to submit to emission cuts dictated from above by United Nations negotiators. They could submit plans tailored to their domestic circumstances and would not have to fear being stuck with them if circumstances changed, as happened to Japan in 2011 after a reactor meltdown at Fukushima forced the closing of the country’s nuclear fleet.
As part of that deal, the Obama administration pledged to cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 as well as commit up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020. China vowed that its emissions would peak around 2030 and that it would get about 20 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by then. India would continue to reduce its carbon intensity, or CO2 output per unit of economic activity, in line with historic levels.
Countries would then meet regularly to assess their progress and increase their ambitions as feasible. While the current pledges would not keep global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, the agreed-upon goal, there is some evidence that this “soft diplomacy” is nudging countries toward greater action. A recent study from the Grantham Research Institute found that the mere existence of Paris had prodded dozens of countries to enact new clean-energy laws.
With the Trump administration aiming to dismantle a variety of Obama-era climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan, it is unlikely that the United States will be able to meet its earlier goal. Opponents of the Paris deal, including the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, have warned that the United States could be on the hook for Mr. Obama’s pledge. But legal experts and architects of the treaty say this is not how Paris was designed.
There is no legal obstacle to simply staying in the treaty and submitting a weaker pledge, and even reneging on aid goals.
"We dealt with this specific question when designing the deal,” Mr. Stern said. “We didn’t want a situation where if something came up and a country couldn’t meet its target, they’d have no choice but to leave.”
The Paris deal does still impose a few smaller legal requirements on countries for reporting their progress and submitting fresh plans over time. But, Mr. Stern said, the administration has ample reason to stay in the talks and shape future rules that govern those requirements.
During both the Bush and Obama administrations, for instance, the United States pushed for all countries to adhere to a single set of transparency rules for reporting emissions, while China has long argued for a weaker set for developing countries. If the United States were to leave, it would lose its ability to shape these discussions.
“If you’re interested in pushing China to do more,” Mr. Stern said, “then the best way to do that is to have us at the table.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/climate/paris-climate-agreement-kyoto-protocol.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=0
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