Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 5/18/17

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Rise for 3rd Month in a Row, ACC Says
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Engineering Online
By Scott Jenkins

The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes started the second quarter on a strong note, rising 0.6 percent in April and following similar gains in March and February.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Rate of EPA Chemical Regulation Ramps Up Since Toxics Law Update
May 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency has been regulating more new chemicals since the Toxic Substances Control Act was overhauled than it did before, according to a snapshot of its work over the past 11 months.
Senate Democrats Oppose Regulatory Reform Bill Over TSCA Concerns
May 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi

A Senate panel has approved a high-profile regulatory reform bill in a largely party-line vote but top Democrats are strongly opposing the bill in part because they charge it would stymie implementation of EPA's new toxics control law, raising doubts that industry and other supporters will be able to win over enough Democrats to overcome an almost certain filibuster.

Chemical Management News

Chemical in Many Canned Foods Poses Risk, and California Consumers are Left in Dark
May 17, 2017 | Sacramento Bee
By Alvaro Palacios Casanova

Given their convenience, many parents see canned foods as healthy alternatives to junk food for their children.
Congress Considers Bill to Strengthen FDA Oversight of Cosmetics
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

A bill has been reintroduced in the US Senate that would strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to regulate cosmetics and require the agency to review the safety of at least five chemicals per year.
Ingredient Disclosure Bill Tops NGOs' Priorities in California
May 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

Among several measures related to chemicals in products being considered by the California legislature this year, a bill on ingredient disclosure of cosmetics tops the priority list for several NGOs.
EU to Consider Reauthorizing Glyphosate Pesticide Through 2027
May 17, 2017 | BNA Chemical Regulation Reporter
By Stephen Gardner

Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide and a major ingredient in products from Monsanto, BASF Corp., DuPont and others, could be reauthorized in the European Union through 2027, the European Commission said May 17.
Canada Consults on Changes to Confidentiality Protection Under CMP
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The Canadian government is consulting on changes to how it manages confidential business information (CBI) under the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP).

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Manchin, Capito and McKinley Encourage Natural Gas Storage Study
May 17, 2017 | Metro News

Three West Virginia congressional delegates are pushing for legislation regarding a study of an ethane storage and distribution center in the Appalachians.
(ACC Mentioned) West Virginia's Senators Urge Appalachian Natural Gas Hub
May 18, 2017 | AP (In US News & World Report)

West Virginia's U.S. senators are urging federal officials to consider building a major natural gas storage and distribution hub in the Appalachian region.
Defense Concerns Hinder Offshore Legislative Efforts
May 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs

Defense Department concerns are threatening to hinder Republican efforts to insulate the Trump administration's new offshore drilling design from legal challenges.
Fracking Crew Shortage May Push Oil's Biggest Bubble to 2018
May 17, 2017 | Bloomberg Markets
By Joe Carroll and David Wethe

Shale explorers pushing to expand oil production are struggling to find enough fracking crews after thousands of workers were dismissed during the crude rout.
GOP Attorneys General Pan 20 EPA Rules
May 17, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

A group of Republican attorneys general are urging the Trump administration to target the Clean Power Plan and a host of other U.S. EPA air quality rules for possible changes or elimination in the course of a broader review.
Democrats to Pound Interior Nominee for Energy Lobbying
May 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre and Esther Whieldon

President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Interior Department’s No. 2 spot, Dave Bernhardt, will face fire from Democrats on Thursday over his ties to the energy industry and the scandals that plagued the agency during his previous stint there.
Former Officials Say Deputies Could Continue Climate Fight
May 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan

Trump administration officials from the president on down have described climate change as a "hoax," a "waste" and a "phony, contrived mess."
Senate Committee Approves Regulatory Overhaul Bills
May 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen

Multiple bills that would make changes to the regulatory process were approved largely along party lines with little debate by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on May 17.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

New Regs Would Stunt Railroads
May 18, 2017 | The Detroit News
By Keith Massey

Listening to news out of Washington lately is like listening to one word on repeat: change. Good change, bad change, unpredictable change.

Environment News

House Dems Unveil Package to Boost Green Initiatives
May 17, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey

House Democrats offered a blueprint today for boosting renewables, tackling climate change and hardening the U.S. electric grid in anticipation of the Trump administration's larger infrastructure package.
House Democrats Release $85B Infrastructure Plan
May 17, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

House Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to spend at least $85 billion on infrastructure upgrades, staking out their position ahead of a congressional debate over infrastructure spending later this session.
Hinting At Deal, EPA Seeks Further Delay In HFC Refrigerant Handling Suit
May 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith

EPA is asking a federal appellate court to further delay litigation challenging a final rule updating its refrigerant management and handling guidelines to include high global warming potential (GWP) “substitute” chemicals, hinting at a possible agreement to reduce or even eliminate the need for litigation.
Trump to Face Intense G-7 Pressure on Climate Change
May 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick

President Trump will spend much of his first foreign trip surrounded by U.S. allies who prize the Paris climate agreement and will use every opportunity to convince him to stay in it.
Murkowski Looks to Nudge Trump on Climate
May 18, 2017 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is quietly advocating for the Trump administration to remain engaged in international climate discussions, a position she plans to outline in an upcoming meeting she requested with White House adviser Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Rise for 3rd Month in a Row, ACC Says

May 17, 2017 | Chemical Engineering Online

By Scott Jenkins

The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes started the second quarter on a strong note, rising 0.6 percent in April and following similar gains in March and February. Volumes have generally been moving up since last May. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the twenty-eight specialty chemical segments we monitor, twenty expanded in April and eight experienced decline. During April, large gains (1.0 percent and over) occurred in catalysts, corrosion inhibitors, lubricant additives, and oilfield chemicals.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was up 3.0 percent on a year-over-year (Y/Y) 3MMA basis. The index stood at 107.3 percent of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 7.39 billion pounds (3.35 million metric tons). The down-turn in the oil and gas sector had affected headline volumes and along with weakness in other segments resulted in negative year-earlier comparisons from second quarter 2015 through second quarter 2016. Led by the recovery in the oil and gas sector, headline volumes are now positive. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among 20 market and functional specialty chemical segments.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.
http://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-specialty-chemicals-rise-for-3rd-month-in-a-row-acc-says/?printmode=1

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Rate of EPA Chemical Regulation Ramps Up Since Toxics Law Update

May 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency has been regulating more new chemicals since the Toxic Substances Control Act was overhauled than it did before, according to a snapshot of its work over the past 11 months.
“It's definitely harder to get a new chemical to market,” Charles Auer, a former senior EPA chemicals official told Bloomberg BNA. Auer now is a senior regulatory and policy adviser for the Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. law firm.
Auer, who spent 32 years working on chemicals at EPA, said he had expected the new law to double or triple the number of regulations the agency would impose on new chemicals, Instead the agency's regulation rate is vastly exceeding his expectations.
Prior to the law's update, about 10 percent of new chemicals were regulated in some way, Auer said. A snapshot of information the EPA released May 17 suggests about 50 percent of new chemicals are being regulated since TSCA was amended, he said.
Chemical Makers Withdrawing Requests
As the rate of regulation increases, chemical manufacturers are withdrawing more requests to make new chemicals than they did before the statute was revised, Dan Newton, a senior government relations manager with the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, told Bloomberg BNA.
Historically, companies withdrew about 5 percent of the new chemical requests they submitted to the agency, Auer said. The agency's latest information suggests companies are withdrawing about 25 percent of their requests to make new chemicals, called premanufacture notices or PMNs, he said.
The increased rate of regulations combined with more manufacturers withdrawing their applications to make new chemicals may keep older chemicals, which traditionally raise more health and environmental concerns, on the market.
Liz Hitchcock, legislative director for the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, thinks the EPA's more stringent new chemical reviews are good.
One of the reasons the public was frustrated by TSCA–prior to its amendment in June 2016—is that new chemicals got very little oversight before they entered commerce, Hitchcock said.
EPA's increased scrutiny “will build confidence in the agency's ability to protect the public from toxic chemicals,” she said.

EPA Data
Auer, Hitchcock and Newton shared their insights regarding information the EPA provided Bloomberg BNA summarizing its new chemicals actions since TSCA was amended by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act on June 22, 2016. According to the EPA's summary:
Between June 22, 2016, and May 9, the agency has allowed 255 new chemicals, new microbes or new uses of chemicals to enter commerce.
• Of these 255 cases, the agency determined that 84 new chemicals, microbes or chemical uses are “not likely to present an unreasonable risk.” That's the safest conclusion the agency can make under the amended statute.
• Of the 255 cases, the agency decided 171 raised concerns or questions that could be addressed through consent orders negotiated between the company that submitted the new chemical notice and the EPA.
• As of May 9, 86 requests to make new chemicals or use chemicals in new ways had been withdrawn since the law was amended; 74 new chemical or new use notices had been sent back to the company that submitted them due to insufficient or invalid information.
Reducing Backlog
The EPA's data also show that it has reduced its “backlog” of new chemicals that has built up since the Lautenberg Act's amendments became law. The term “backlog” is shorthand for the greater than normal number of PMNs and other new chemical requests under the agency's review since TSCA was amended.
As of May 9, 481 new chemicals or new chemical use notices were under review, the EPA said in response to emailed questions from Bloomberg BNA.
Historically, EPA has tended to have about 300 new chemicals under review at any given time, the agency said. With 481 new chemicals notices under review, that means the office has a “backlog” of 181 cases.
“EPA has revised and streamlined its process, brought in new staff to help in the reviews and is making progress in reducing the backlog of chemicals in the pipeline for review,” the agency said.
Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council , addressed the backlog issue in an April insights article he wrote for Bloomberg BNA.
At that time, the backlog of new chemicals awaiting the agency's approval had doubled from 331 to 658 since passage of the amended law, Dooley wrote. Available information at the time had suggested the agency had approved only 33 substances since TSCA was amended, which he said was “a sharp decline for a program that has historically reviewed about 1,000 substances every year.” The chemistry council represents U.S. chemical manufacturers including 3M, Arkema, Inc., the BASF Corp., ExxonMobil Chemical Co., and LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V.
Innovation
Auer, Hitchcock, Newton and Dimitrios Karakitsos, a partner with Holland & Knight LLP's Washington, D.C., office, agreed the agency's information shows it is making progress to speed its reviews of new chemicals.
“The folks at the EPA are righting the ship,” said Karakitsos, who previously served as counsel to the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In that role, he served as a principal drafter and negotiator of the amended chemicals law.
The progress to date shows EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's commitment to lead an agency that follows the law Congress wrote, Karakitsos said.
Democrats and Republicans supported the Lautenberg Act with the understanding from the EPA that the changes lawmakers were making to the agency's new chemicals oversight would allow U.S. chemical manufacturers to continue innovating, he said.
“Maintaining robust innovation was a huge priority in both the House and the Senate,” Karakitsos said.
“New chemicals are generally greener, more environmentally friendly and less toxic,” he said. All sides have an interest in a predictable process that allows the products of innovation to get to market.
Trend Encouraging Older Chemicals?
Auer said his experience at the EPA, which included directing the agency's chemicals office, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, taught him that chemistry is improved slowly over time.
“Most chemical developments occur through relatively small tweaks,” he said. Companies adjust some portion of a molecule, he said. That adjustment produces significant improvements in performance while reducing toxicity and saving money through means such as reduced energy use, waste generated or other environmental benefits, Auer said.
Hence, Auer and Newton said they were concerned by the agency's increased regulation of new chemicals.
“It's ironic there's so much focus on restricting new chemicals,” because the problems, Newton said.
A consequence of increased regulation of new chemicals, Auer said, is that the companies that purchase chemicals to make products continue to use existing chemicals.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111939660&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499507500&searchid=29912892&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Democrats Oppose Regulatory Reform Bill Over TSCA Concerns

May 17, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Amanda Palleschi

A Senate panel has approved a high-profile regulatory reform bill in a largely party-line vote but top Democrats are strongly opposing the bill in part because they charge it would stymie implementation of EPA's new toxics control law, raising doubts that industry and other supporters will be able to win over enough Democrats to overcome an almost certain filibuster.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland & Government Affairs Committee, was one of several Democrats who voted against the bill, S. 951, due to what Democrats argue is its lengthy review requirements would further delay EPA rules needed to implement the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which then-President Obama enacted in 2016.
“We just finished TSCA,” McCaskill said at the May 17 markup. “People's health was in jeopardy because of the length of time it took. This is going to upend an awful lot and bring more uncertainty for people who need protection,” she said.
Her statement echoes concerns from environmentalists, who charge that the bill would effectively bar EPA from regulating asbestos and other toxic substances under the new law, despite Congress' intent that the new law is intended to speed up agency TSCA rules.
McCaskill added that she was working on eventually introducing her own regulatory reform bill and would “continue to talk to” the bill's sponsors, Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). But she said she could not support S. 951 in its current form.
While a former Capitol Hill aide previously told Inside EPA that the bill could be a tool for “political purposes” given that it was marked up prior to a hearing, other industry groups have nevertheless sought the backing of Democrats that are vulnerable in 2018 elections.
But McCaskill's opposition may be especially instructive as she is one of at least eight Democrats running for re-election in 2018 who are seen as vulnerable because President Donald Trump won their home states in last year's presidential election -- her vote suggests that even Democrats considered vulnerable are willing to brush aside potential election-year criticisms over their alleged support for regulations.
Other top Democrats also opposed the bill, as well as other regulatory reform measures the committee approved, citing similar concerns.
“I am concerned the legislation passed out of the committee today would severely slow or altogether prevent agencies from efficiently and effectively issuing the protections the public counts on,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a member of the committee and the ranking Democrat on the environment committee, said in a statement.
“These so-called regulatory reform bills fly in the face of common sense efforts like the one to modernize TSCA and would, if enacted, only make it harder for agencies to issue even the most reasonable standards and protections,” he said. “I know there is a call for Congress to alleviate regulatory burdens on business, but blunt and short-sighted efforts that would result in the shedding of critical protections for the public is not the solution,” he added.
APA Overhaul
The panel approved the bill in a 9-5 vote, with Heitkamp the sole Democrat supporting it.
The bill generally amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and creates a host of new procedural steps for EPA and other agencies to follow before issuing final rules, imposing new judicially reviewable cost-benefit requirements and adding a host of steps that are likely to slow down the development of agency rulemakings.
Environmentalists are especially concerned that the bill would preempt provisions in environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that in some cases bar EPA from considering costs when setting health-based standards, undercutting their health and environmental benefits.
And it would set standards requiring agencies to ensure rules limit burdens on regulated entities, even if the underlying environmental statute does not require it.
But the bill is a top priority for industry groups and their GOP supporters, who say the bill would provide significant economic benefits. “I think this bill is a perfect opportunity for us to break through the partisan gridlock and get something done that would make a positive difference in people's lives and provide more economic stability and opportunity,” Portman said in a statement touting the bill.
Industry groups -- including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Wood Council and the National Association of Home Builders -- have overwhelmingly praised the bill, arguing that such reform has long been needed.
They say the APA, enacted in 1946, is long overdue for an overhaul.
Neil Bradley, senior vice president and chief policy officer at the Chamber, said in a May 16 letter to the committee that the group “believes that federal regulations should be narrowly tailored, be supported by strong and credible data and evidence, and impose the least burden possible, while implementing congressional intent.”
S. 951, he writes, “stands for good governance and getting rules right by bringing transparency, accountability, and integrity to the rulemaking process at federal agencies, whether rules are being crafted by Republican or Democratic administrations.”
While industry is supporting the Senate bill in its current form, they are also pushing to go even further and adopt additional legislative provisions that cleared the House earlier, though adoption of such measures would likely further imperil Democratic support.
For example, Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), is urging the Senate to adopt language in H.R. 5 that broadens the judicial review provisions currently contained in the Senate bill, namely, provisions that would eliminate the landmark Supreme Court Chevron doctrine, which requires courts to give agencies deference in their interpretations of vague statutory texts when those interpretations are reasonable.
And he is seeking to require courts to review agencies' cost-benefit analyses, much as the House bill does. “A judicially enforceable benefit-cost test is needed because the status quo is inadequate for many reasons, including the institutional limitations of the agencies and [the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs],” Noe writes, citing “bureaucratic turf battles, failure to utilize both internal and external expertise, bias, and the mismatch between the vast volume of regulation and shrinking resources, as well as political dysfunctions.”
But Heitkamp continued to reject such requests, noting during the markup that there are “differences” between the House and Senate bills. The Senate bill makes sure “that cost is important, but it's not the only factor,” she said, adding that effects of regulations on jobs were also a factor.
And she pledged to “sit down and talk with anyone about how we can make this bill something folks want to accept to get it across the finish line.”
Other Bills
In addition to S. 951, the panel also approved on party lines a series of other regulatory reform bills, including:
S. 21, known as the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS), which would require Congress to review and retroactively approve all existing regulations and prevent agencies from issuing required rules unless approved by Congress.
The lawmakers also approved S. 34, the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017, which would amend the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to disapprove multiple regulations from federal agencies for review within the last 60 legislative days of Congress during the final year of a president's term; and, S. 579, which would require agencies to publish advance notice of a rulemaking “not later than 90 days before” a notice of proposed rulemaking for a major rule that is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, result in an increase in costs or prices for consumers, industries, government agencies, or geographic regions, or have “significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. Enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-democrats-oppose-regulatory-reform-bill-over-tsca-concerns

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Chemical in Many Canned Foods Poses Risk, and California Consumers are Left in Dark

May 17, 2017 | Sacramento Bee

By Alvaro Palacios Casanova

Given their convenience, many parents see canned foods as healthy alternatives to junk food for their children. More than half of American families say they eat canned foods, and the global canned food market is expected to grow. Americans are also facing a growing epidemic of diabetes and obesity, and although it may seem odd to connect these trends, doctors and scientists are now warning that there could be a hidden culprit in canned foods that can contribute to these common health threats.
Recent studies show that exposure to bisphenol A, known as BPA, a chemical found in many canned foods, may be linked with an increased risk of diabetes and obesity. BPA exposure can disrupt the body’s natural hormones, including ones that regulate how we process and store fats. Hormone altering substances such as BPA – also called endocrine disrupting chemicals – can threaten our health at extremely small doses. These chemicals also may be more dangerous during certain developmental stages, so BPA from canned food could be even more harmful to pregnant women, children and teens.
In California, state scientists in 2015 unanimously agreed that BPA should be added to the state’s list of chemicals known to cause birth defects. Normally this listing would require companies to warn consumers when canned foods pose a risk of BPA exposure. But after food industry lobbying, the state exempted canned foods from the warning law until the end of 2017. In place of the warning, the state developed a database of cans that contain BPA.
But a new report shows that BPA is still widely used in canned food, and also warns that the state’s database does not provide consumers with reliable information on BPA in cans.
Between January and April, the Center for Environmental Health purchased and tested more than 250 food cans from nine states for BPA, finding nearly 40 percent are still made with BPA. Most alarmingly, the testing shows that nearly 20 percent of the cans from California stores that tested positive for BPA are either not included in or are inadequately identified by the state’s database of BPA-containing cans, demonstrating that the database is inadequate to protect consumers who want to avoid BPA.
This is especially troubling to parents who live in “food deserts,” where canned food from the local store is often the most convenient and affordable option for fruit and vegetables. Low-income communities of color suffer from disproportionate rates of diabetes and obesity, and studies correlate this disparity with a lack of access to fresh foods.
A recent study of selected cities found that only 8 percent of African Americans lived in areas with one or more supermarkets, compared with 31 percent of white residents. Studies also show that people in low-income communities of color have, on average, higher levels of BPA in their bodies than the rest of the population.
Other major retailers have recently taken steps to eliminate toxic chemicals from their products. Just last month, national drugstore chain CVS announced it would eliminate harmful chemicals from its store-brand cosmetics. In January, Target adopted a policy calling for ingredient disclosure of all products they sell, ultimately aiming to eliminate harmful chemicals from the stores’ shelves.
If these major stores can pledge to eliminate dozens of dangerous chemicals from hundreds of cosmetics, cleaning products and other household goods, we should expect convenience stores and other retailers to take action to protect their customers from one dangerous chemical found in our food.
Alvaro Palacios Casanova is an Environmental Scientist with the Center for Environmental Health. He can be contacted at alvaro@ceh.org.

Return to headline | Return to top
Congress Considers Bill to Strengthen FDA Oversight of Cosmetics

May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

A bill has been reintroduced in the US Senate that would strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to regulate cosmetics and require the agency to review the safety of at least five chemicals per year.
Like a bill by the same name introduced in 2015 that failed to make it out of committee, the Personal Care Products Safety Act was introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
The measure seeks to update the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to expand FDA's authorities over the $60bn per year personal care products industry. This includes granting FDA authority to order recalls of products that pose a threat to consumer safety, require manufacturers to provide more detailed ingredient information on labels and online, and mandate that companies provide the FDA with information on ingredients used in the products.
If adopted into law, the first five substances to be reviewed by the agency would be:diazolidinyl urea, used as a preservative in products like deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotion;lead acetate, used as a colour additive in hair dyes;methylene glycol/formaldehyde, used in hair treatments;propyl paraben, used as a preservative in a range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion; andquaternium-15, used as a preservative in such products as shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers.NGO, industry supporters
The measure has supporters from both industry and consumer advocacy groups.
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) called the reintroduction of the bill "a move in the right direction". The trade group said it will "support modernising cosmetics regulation, to ensure FDA has the appropriate resources and administrative authority to oversee our products".
Scott Faber, NGO the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) senior vice president of government affairs, said that while no bill is perfect, this measure would provide the FDA with many of the tools it needs "to protect consumers from dangerous chemicals in everyday products".
The senators named eight health and consumer organisations that support the bill, along with major cosmetic companies such as Estee Lauder, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal and Revlon.
Ms Feinstein also said that the reintroduced measure "builds on progress made in the previous Congress by strengthening the bill’s small business protections", which has helped win it support from groups like the Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Handcrafted Soap & Cosmetic Guild, and Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs.
But the Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributers (Icmad) and the Professional Beauty Association reiterated their support for the Safe Cosmetics Modernization Act (HR 575), a competing bill in the House of Representatives that was reintroduced earlier this year. While that bill also empowers the FDA to regulate cosmetics more strictly, the two organisations believe it would create a better regulatory environment for small cosmetic enterprises to continue to grow.
HR 575 has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for further debate.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55945/congress-considers-bill-to-strengthen-fda-oversight-of-cosmetics

Return to headline | Return to top
Ingredient Disclosure Bill Tops NGOs' Priorities in California

May 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

Among several measures related to chemicals in products being considered by the California legislature this year, a bill on ingredient disclosure of cosmetics tops the priority list for several NGOs.
The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act (SB 258) would require such items to bear a label listing ingredients, plus pictograms communicating the potential health impacts of chemicals of concern. The producer would also have to have a website where additional information could be found.
The bill is co-sponsored by NGOs Environmental Working Group (EWG), Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) and Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE).
BCPP's senior policy strategist Nancy Buermeyer told Chemical Watch that its passage is overwhelmingly the priority for the NGO in California as it "speaks directly to our mission of understanding what chemicals are in products and giving consumers choices" as to whether they are exposed to them.
A similar measure (AB 708) was narrowly voted down last year, but Ms Buermeyer said she is "very optimistic" about its prospects.
Starting the bill in the Senate – rather than the Assembly, as happened with last year's – gives momentum, she said. In addition, this year's bill is backed by a broader coalition, including consumer safety and health organisations, as well as some industry groups and businesses such as the Honest Company and Seventh Generation.
However, more than 40 industry groups remain opposed to the measure as drafted. The American Cleaning Institute's Brian Sansoni told Chemical Watch the requirements are "unnecessary", given that voluntary industry initiatives already provide ingredient information to consumers.
But Bill Allayaud, EWG's California director of government affairs, said bill sponsors are having "productive stakeholder meetings with the opposition" – namely, ACI, the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), and the International Fragrance Association (Ifra). Like the BCPP, the EWG has named SB 258 its top priority in California.
Ms Buermeyer agreed that industry has begun to "sit down in a serious way" to discuss the bill. "Discussions in the past hadn't been negotiations so much as statements of position", she said, but industry is now taking part in more substantive dialogue.
A proposal in New York requiring increased ingredient disclosure in cleaning products may be a contributing factor toward this cooperation, she added. While the California measure would go beyond New York's regulations, said Ms Buermeyer, the latter is "one of those clear indicators" that sentiments on ingredient transparency are shifting.
And she's hopeful that if the measure goes through in California, it might not only benefit state consumers, but could also serve as the basis for a national standard.Additional measures
Beyond ingredient disclosure, more than half a dozen measures dealing with chemicals in products are being backed by various NGOs.
Another priority for the EWG is a bill aimed at short-chain fluorinated chemicals in take-out food wrappers, said Mr Allayaud.
As amended, AB 958 would ban all long-chain perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), including PFOA, from commerce. And it would make action on short-chain versions in food packaging a priority for California's Safer Consumer Products programme. EWG is co-sponsoring the measure with Clean Water Action.
Both NGOs are also backing AB 1575, a bill requiring salon products to be labelled for all ingredients (except fragrances), to protect worker health. WVE, BCPP, the Silent Spring Institute and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have likewise registered their support.
Other measures backed by consumer advocacy groups include:AB 1328, which would require disclosure of chemicals used in the drilling process, similarly to requirements for fracking;SB 602 and AB 1419, which both deal with issues related to pesticides; anda slate of measures addressing lead, including AB 1316 and four others.
The cut-off date for bills to pass out of their chamber of origin is 2 June.

Return to headline | Return to top
EU to Consider Reauthorizing Glyphosate Pesticide Through 2027

May 17, 2017 | BNA Chemical Regulation Reporter

By Stephen Gardner

Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide and a major ingredient in products from Monsanto, BASF Corp., DuPont and others, could be reauthorized in the European Union through 2027, the European Commission said May 17.
Glyphosate—which Monsanto uses in its popular pesticide Roundup—is currently authorized in the bloc through the end of 2017 under a short-term extension to its original authorization, which expired in mid-2016. The extension was allowed so that an assessment of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate could be carried out.
The European Chemicals Agency concluded that assessment in March, finding that glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic. The agency’s conclusion opened the way for a longer-term reauthorization of glyphosate.
The commission will discuss with EU member nations the prospect of a 10-year reauthorization, Anca Paduraru, spokeswoman for the commission, the EU’s executive arm, told Bloomberg BNA May 17. Under EU rules, the commission would propose the reauthorization, which would require the approval of a regulatory committee of EU country representatives.
The commission has not yet formally proposed the 10-year reauthorization, Paduraru said.
If approved, the reauthorization would start from the end of 2017 when the current authorization expires, or from the date of adoption of an approval decision, if earlier, Paduraru said.No One Happy
The commission’s suggestion that glyphosate should be reauthorized for 10 years pleased neither pesticides manufacturers nor lawmakers whose views align with environmental advocates.
The reauthorization in the EU of glyphosate was held up after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared it “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The European Chemicals Agency’s assessment, and a separate assessment in 2015 by the European Food Safety Authority, contradicted the international agency’s finding.
Despite the EU agencies’ findings, “there are credible concerns regarding the safety of glyphosate,” Bart Staes, a Belgian Green member of the European Parliament, told Bloomberg BNA in a statement.
The European Commission should promote “sustainable alternatives” rather than reauthorizing glyphosate, Staes said.
Graeme Taylor, director of public affairs for the European Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticides manufacturers, said the EU reauthorization of glyphosate had been held up by “the Facebook science of NGOs and activists.”
Prior to the mid-2016 expiration of the original authorization of glyphosate, the commission proposed a 15-year reauthorization period, and the new proposal of a 10-year reauthorization was “shortsighted,” Taylor said.
https://www.bna.com/eu-consider-reauthorizing-n73014451143/

Return to headline | Return to top
Canada Consults on Changes to Confidentiality Protection Under CMP

May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The Canadian government is consulting on changes to how it manages confidential business information (CBI) under the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP).
The document, "Proposed approach to promote transparency in Chemicals Management Plan risk assessment activities", outlines steps aimed at striking "an appropriate balance between transparency and industry’s right to protect confidential information".
The government says it wants to minimise the scope, frequency and duration of confidentiality claims. This, it says, will help it publish "robust rationale" for its risk assessment decisions, and increase transparency to the public.
Significant aspects of the draft approach raised by stakeholders include:the possibility for CBI claims to be reviewed after a ten-year period;a potential re-evaluation of ‘masked name’ rules, used in cases where the substance identity is deemed confidential; anda proposed review of how the government may release confidential information in different forms.
The government also says it will look for alignment opportunities with the US EPA on the process for reviewing the claims. The new TSCA requires increased substantiation for CBI claims and requires most to be reviewed and re-substantiated every ten years, although the EPA has yet to issue a draft rulemaking as to how it will implement all of these new mandates.
Comments on the proposed approach will be accepted until 30 June.Views on CBI
W Scott Thurlow, legal counsel and director of chemicals management at the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), said the protection of business sensitive information is an important condition to industry interactions with government and that the trade group "will look at these proposed changes very closely".
"CIAC will work to ensure that the right balance exists between the information that the government needs to make informed regulatory decisions and protecting against the business implications that comes with the release of certain types of information."
Muhannad Malas, toxics programme manager at NGO Environmental Defence, told Chemical Watch that the existing confidentiality provisions under the CMP result in a lack of transparency in the scheme, particularly with regard to new chemicals.
For example, he said, when the government conducts a risk assessment for a new substance not on the Domestic Substances List (DSL), the public has no way of knowing the assessment is taking place until after it is completed and a decision has been made as to how that substance should be regulated.
But the proposed approach, he said, does not appear to address this concern.
And even the changes that the NGO would view as improvements over the current CBI approach are proposed to be limited by exceptions. This "raises some concern on how effective these improvements will be", he said.
Mr Malas said that many of the issues with existing CBI provisions will only be solved through a law reform or improvement to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa).
Cepa is currently undergoing a parliamentary review that may see it amended for the first time since its enactment. Environmental Defence was among the groups to testify before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development – which is overseeing the review – to advocate for increased disclosure of confidential information, among other changes.
A committee report is expected to be tabled in Parliament by the month’s end.Non-confidential information
The approach lays out types of information generally not expected to be confidential. Release of such information is "desirable to promote transparency", it says.
These include:substance trade names or names commonly used;general information on uses;safe handling precautions and safety measures in case of an accident;recommended methods for disposal and elimination; andphysical and chemical information, with the exception of data revealing the substance identity.
Summaries of health, safety and environmental data – including precise figures and interpretations – are also not expected to be confidential.
The proposal says that in cases where the study is claimed as confidential, the submitter has the option of preparing a non-confidential summary. If no summary is provided, the government will prepare one following the OECD harmonised template format.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55935/canada-consults-on-changes-to-confidentiality-protection-under-cmp

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Manchin, Capito and McKinley Encourage Natural Gas Storage Study

May 17, 2017 | Metro News

Three West Virginia congressional delegates are pushing for legislation regarding a study of an ethane storage and distribution center in the Appalachians.
U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, introduced the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act of 2017 on May 9. Capito is the bill’s main sponsor.
Rep. David McKinley is also in support of the measure and is scheduled to participate in a press call Thursday with Manchin, Capito and American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley.
Dooley will discuss the possible economic benefits of petrochemical and plastic manufacturing in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky, according to a Capito release.
The legislation would direct the secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Energy and Commerce to conduct a feasibility study on establishing a hub for the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville natural gas shale formations.
The Marcellus and Utica shale plays go from southern New York to central West Virginia, and include central and eastern Ohio. The Marcellus shale formation is one mile above the Utica shale play.
The Rogersville shale formation goes from eastern Kentucky to southwestern West Virginia.
According to a release from Capito’s office, a storage hub in the Appalachian Mountains would “add needed redundancy” to the nation’s refining and manufacturing capacity, which is larger based along the Gulf Coast.
The study would regard the best geological and economic location of a possible center.
“Not only will this legislation inform future projects and policies, but it will also help attract private dollars to ensure Appalachia remains an important player in America’s energy and manufacturing strategy,” Capito said in a joint statement with Manchin and Portman.
“Our region’s access to natural gas and natural gas liquids, like ethane and propane, combined with our proximity to manufacturing markets in the Midwest and the East Coast make West Virginia an ideal location for a storage hub,” Manchin said. “This bill and resulting study are important steps to realizing the potential this hub would have for our region.”
The study would be completed within two years after the act passed.
http://wvmetronews.com/2017/05/17/manchin-capito-and-mckinley-encourage-natural-gas-storage-study/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) West Virginia's Senators Urge Appalachian Natural Gas Hub

May 18, 2017 | AP (In US News & World Report)

West Virginia's U.S. senators are urging federal officials to consider building a major natural gas storage and distribution hub in the Appalachian region.
In a letter Thursday to National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, the senators say the White House should examine "the numerous benefits" of putting a world-class natural gas liquid-storage and distribution hub in the region with growing but still underutilized reserves of underground natural gas.
Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito cite an American Chemistry Council study that an Appalachian hub could attract $36 billion in new chemical and plastics industry investment and create 100,000 new jobs.
They write that building a hub and related infrastructure "will attract sorely needed economic activity to this underserved part of the country."
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/west-virginia/articles/2017-05-18/west-virginias-senators-urge-appalachian-natural-gas-hub

Return to headline | Return to top
Defense Concerns Hinder Offshore Legislative Efforts

May 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Dabbs

Defense Department concerns are threatening to hinder Republican efforts to insulate the Trump administration's new offshore drilling design from legal challenges.
Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a past partner in Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) offshore plans, and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) are opposing a revival of offshore drilling legislation because of a Defense Department warning that drilling off Virginia would jeopardize military operations at Naval Station Norfolk, the largest U.S. Navy station.
“We've got this problem where the Navy has come back and raised real serious concerns about how they can do their job since we have the largest military installation in the world in Virginia,” Warner told Bloomberg BNA.
The absence of Warner, a critical ally, is a blow for efforts to revamp the leasing policy nationwide. Murkowski, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says buy-in from Atlantic states is crucial to advance bills that primarily target leasing and revenue overhauls in the Arctic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico but also give President Donald Trump's new drilling plans legal cover.
The League of Conservation Voters, The Wilderness Society and other environmental groups sued Trump in early May for revoking an indefinite drilling moratorium for the Arctic and parts of the Atlantic League of Conservation Voters et al v. Trump et al, D. Alaska, 3:17-cv-00101, 5/3/17. The moratorium was put in place by the Obama administration, and Trump revoked it with an executive order in April.
The environmental groups argue restoring drilling rights for 125 million acres of those waters risks oil spills and raises climate change threats.
Legal Insulation
The groups and many Democrats say that the energy law governing offshore drilling, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, doesn't provide the authority to revoke previous decrees. That authority hasn't been tested in court in the statute's 64-year history.
Murkowski's legislation (S. 883) would specifically revoke the moratorium, thereby spoiling the environmental case. Murkowski aims to bundle together her bill and Gulf legislation (S. 665) sponsored by Sens. Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy (both R-La.).
Both bills require offshore lease sales and increased revenue sharing for states.
“I would hope what we would see is similar efforts by members from the Atlantic states and an opportunity to then marry the various revenue sharing proposals,” she told reporters May 17, referring to leasing overhauls.
Meanwhile, the Louisiana senators introduced a bill earlier this year that would tackle the moratorium authority even more aggressively than Murkowski's measure. That legislation (S. 956) would rescind all past moratoria and give Congress sole power to put offshore areas off-limits in the future.
Defense Concerns
The Virginia coastline provides a vast portion of potential drilling in the Atlantic, and Warner partnered with Cassidy and Murkowski to bundle together a package in the last Congress. That bill passed out of committee but didn't receive a floor vote.
After the committee vote, the Defense Department said drilling would put at risk military maneuvers and missile tests.
Warner said the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also complained about drilling. “If NASA and Navy's concerns can't be addressed, then it's hard to assume Virginia senators would be supportive,” Warner said. Kaine echoed that position.
Spokespeople for Warner and Kaine said the military hasn't signaled a change in its attitude toward drilling since coming out against it. A military spokesman didn't respond to a Bloomberg BNA request for comment.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), a co-sponsor to Murkowski's bill, insists a leasing revamp must be tackled by Congress, even while budget reconciliation and tax reform take up much of the congressional schedule. But another senator who supported the legislation in the last Congress indicated that the offshore legislation isn't a priority.
“We aren't aware of any plans to proceed on the legislation at this point,” a spokeswoman for Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) told Bloomberg BNA. Spokespeople for other Republican senators that supported the package didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA requests for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111939657&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111939657&jd=111939657

Return to headline | Return to top
Fracking Crew Shortage May Push Oil's Biggest Bubble to 2018

May 17, 2017 | Bloomberg Markets

By Joe Carroll and David Wethe

Shale explorers pushing to expand oil production are struggling to find enough fracking crews after thousands of workers were dismissed during the crude rout.
Independent U.S. drillers underspent their first-quarter budgets by as much as $2.5 billion collectively, largely because they couldn’t find enough fracking crews to handle all the planned work, according to Infill Thinking LLC, a research and consulting firm focused on oilfield services and exploration. If the scarcity holds, output increases planned for this summer may get pushed into 2018, creating an unanticipated production bulge with “scary” implications for oil prices, said Joseph Triepke, Infill’s founder.
In some cases, active crews are walking away from jobs they signed up for months ago -- and paying early-termination penalties -- to take higher-paying assignments with other explorers. Workers earn anywhere from $29,000 to $72,000 a year before overtime, depending on the company and the region.
The tight fracking market “means U.S. oil production growth this year will be back-half weighted, and we may not understand the full extent of U.S. production growth until early 2018,” said Triepke, who previously was an analyst at Citadel LLC’s Surveyor Capital unit. “This point is particularly scary if you are rooting for higher oil prices.”
Oilfield-service companies contributed the largest chunk of more than 441,000 jobs slashed globally as prices plunged from more than $100 a barrel over the last three years, according to Houston-based industry consultant Graves & Co.
Now, with the price of oil settling at around $50 a barrel, shale drillers are once again gearing up in areas such as the Permian Basin, where break-even costs are as low as $30 a barrel. The result: rising competition for workers and equipment, which means higher costs. Fracking companies are now charging 60 percent to 70 percent more than a year ago as explorers engage in bidding wars to lock up crews, according to Infill data.
In response, servicers are scrambling to re-hire hands and retrieve gear from storage, said Andrew Cosgrove, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.Typical Crew
A crew typically consists of 25 to 30 workers who operate a huge array of powerful truck-mounted pumps, storage tanks for fluids and sand, hoses, gauges and safety gear. Fracking, which involves pumping tons of water, sand and chemicals into a well to smash open the surrounding oil- and gas-soaked rock, is the most expensive part of drilling a well, usually accounting for about 70 percent of the total cost.
So far, independent shale drillers are confident they’ll find ample fracking capacity and are leaving their ambitious double-digit output growth targets intact. West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, is heading for a second weekly advance as U.S. stockpiles decline while Saudi Arabia and Russia indicate a willingness to extend price-boosting production cuts.
Those efforts could be dashed in coming months, however, if shale explorers deliver a larger-than-expected bubble of supply.
“Every single pressure pumper is saying their order books are full through the third quarter and some as far ahead as the first quarter of ’18,” Cosgrove said.Walkaways
EQT Corp. was left short of fracking crews during the first quarter when some pumping companies walked away for higher-paying contracts. Still, the Pittsburgh-based shale driller expects to attract enough fracking capacity by the beginning of June to stay on track and hit its full-year growth forecast.
“A couple of our frack contractors decided to pay us the penalties to take their frack crews to jobs that were more profitable,” EQT Chief Executive Officer Steven Schlotterbeck said during an April 27 conference call with analysts. “So we will get some penalty fees but that obviously is far less than the value of having the wells fracked on the schedule that we would have liked.”
The last time the shale patch boomed, Parsley Energy Inc. CEO Bryan Sheffield remembers personally delivering breakfast and giving away World Series tickets to get into good graces with fracking companies.Better-Paying Gigs
That was late 2011, when booming demand for fracking capacity meant service companies could fire clients to take better-paying gigs, Sheffield said in an interview. The 39-year-old Parsley founder was relatively unknown at the time, trying to get to the top of frack companies’ cancellation lists, so he could get a chance to hire them and get his oil flowing.
Those days are back, he said.
After the last boom that saw oilfield truck drivers commanding more than $200,000 a year in the Bakken of North Dakota, companies are again hunting for more truckers -- this time in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico for hauling water, sand and oil. Fracking equipment prices began rising late last year, Sheffield said.
“This is exactly what we saw in 2011 and 2012,” Sheffield said. “The bottleneck moves down the chain.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-17/fracking-crew-shortage-may-push-oil-s-biggest-bubble-into-2018

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Attorneys General Pan 20 EPA Rules

May 17, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

A group of Republican attorneys general are urging the Trump administration to target the Clean Power Plan and a host of other U.S. EPA air quality rules for possible changes or elimination in the course of a broader review.
"During the Obama administration, we experienced first-hand the devastating effects of unlawful executive overreach on jobs and our states' local energy economies," West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) and seven other attorneys general wrote this week in comments for an EPA "regulatory reform" task force.
Their letter, addressed to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, asks him to consider 20 rules for "repeal, replacement or modification." Besides the Clean Power Plan, intended to reduce electricity producers' emissions of greenhouse gases, the list includes EPA's 2015 standard for ground-level ozone, the update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, and recent changes to the agency's program to reduce regional haze at national parks and wilderness areas. It also asks the agency to reconsider its Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.
"We welcome the opportunity to participate in the process of scaling back these unlawful regulations, restoring the rule of law, and ultimately returning key decisions about energy production and priorities to the states and their citizens," the letter adds. The signers include Mike Hunter (R), who was appointed to succeed Pruitt as Oklahoma's attorney general.
The letter is among more than 60,000 comments so far posted on Regulations.gov in response to President Trump's February executive order requiring EPA and other agencies to identify regulations that get in the way of job creation, have compliance costs that outweigh benefits or are otherwise "outdated, unnecessary or ineffective."
Pruitt has since created a four-person EPA task force headed by his chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, to spearhead the agency's efforts; by this Monday, all of EPA's major branches, including the Office of Air and Radiation, were supposed to have submitted recommendations to the task force. Already, the agency has indefinitely frozen litigation surrounding the 2015 ozone standard and other regulations while reconsidering whether to keep defending them. Monday was also the deadline for public comments, which were still being posted on Regulations.gov today.
Rather than proposing specific rules for the chopping block, however, thousands of individuals have appealed to Pruitt to leave existing air and water rules untouched or instead make them tougher (Climatewire, May 17). One rural Minnesota resident, for example, urged EPA to consider further tightening the 70-parts-per-billion ozone standard; another recalled the New York City metropolitan area's "horrendous" air quality decades ago and called it a sin to abandon the regulations that had cleaned it up.
Environmental and public health groups have also weighed in. The National Parks Conservation Association credited the regional haze program for adding 30 miles of visibility on average to Western areas like the John Muir Wilderness in California. The executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility wrote that the Clean Air Act prevents 160,000 premature deaths each year.
Not filing comments was the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, whose members include 40 state regulatory agencies. But the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, a Kentucky-based coalition whose 20 member states are concentrated in the South and West, singled out aspects of some 30 regulations and policies as warranting evaluation. They ranged from the "limited regulatory relief" available for controlling ozone concentrations that originate outside a state's boundaries to auditing and reporting requirements for vehicle emissions inspection programs, which the group called "unnecessarily burdensome."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/17/stories/1060054709

Return to headline | Return to top
Democrats to Pound Interior Nominee for Energy Lobbying

May 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro

By Ben Lefebvre and Esther Whieldon

President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Interior Department’s No. 2 spot, Dave Bernhardt, will face fire from Democrats on Thursday over his ties to the energy industry and the scandals that plagued the agency during his previous stint there.
Bernhardt is set to get grilled by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee about how he plans to help steer the department in the role of deputy secretary. He’s the latest nominee to the Trump administration to come straight out of the lobbying industry, despite the president’s promise to “drain the swamp” of industry influence and money.
Story Continued Below
Bernhardt, a Colorado native, worked until his nomination as a lobbyist for Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, representing Delta Petroleum, Freeport LNG, and other oil and mining companies, according to disclosure forms. While Democrats on the committee don't have the votes to stop him from winning approval, they said they do plan to use his background as ammunition in the process.
Ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Ore.) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) both said they had concerns about Bernhardt's former job. Cantwell said she would push Bernhardt on how he planned to juggle those potential conflicts of interests, and whether he should keep himself out of key issues for longer than one year.
"Conflict of interest, a lot of issues related to that," Cantwell said, listing her concerns. "A lot of things he'll have to recuse himself on."
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said she was leaning toward a no vote on his nomination because of his lobbying ties, though she said Bernhardt had “pleasantly surprised” her by seeking an office visit. Her office did not schedule the meeting, according to Interior Department emails.
“He’s spent most of his time representing oil companies and folks who have everything but the environment as a priority,” Duckworth told POLITICO.
Still, Republicans who have been pressing for the U.S. to grow its oil and gas output are expected to back Bernhardt, though several GOP committee members declined to comment ahead of the hearing. Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski said in a prepared remark that she "welcomed" his nomination and looked forward to discussing with him the urgent need to increase energy production in her home state of Alaska.
Energy companies also applauded his nomination.
"David is an excellent choice," said Kathleen Sgamma, spokeswoman for trade association Western Energy Alliance. "His range of experience makes him very well suited for the job."
Besides energy companies, Bernhardt also lobbied for several major players in California’s water wars, including Cadiz, Inc., a company vying to build a controversial pipeline pumping water from a fragile desert aquifer to southern California users.
If confirmed, Bernhardt would be poised to play a key role in implementing a deal he won for client Westlands Water District. He led Westlands’ years-long efforts to strike an agreement between California House Republicans and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to relax endangered species protections in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta.
The final deal, which passed in the Senate’s final act of business last December, enables the district to pump larger volumes of water to central and southern California farms and communities, a top priority for the water district that serves some of the Golden State’s largest and most water-dependent growers.
Also likely to come up in hearings is Bernhardt's history working in a number of high-ranking Interior positions during the George W. Bush administration, including chief of staff as well as the department’s solicitor, its chief legal watchdog.
That period was marked by a series of scandals at the department, including a deputy secretary going to jail for offering inside information to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The Bush Interior Department was also hit with several ethics complaints and at least three separate inspector general investigations into whether the department had inappropriate ties with the industry it was supposed to help regulate.
A Fish and Wildlife deputy assistant secretary was investigated for directing subordinates to alter documents to make them more friendly to industry, and, former Secretary Gale Norton was alleged to have helped Shell win Colorado oil leases before leaving the agency to work for the oil company.
And Bernhardt’s time at Interior also coincided with the Minerals Management Service awarding contracts to businesses created by outgoing employees, as well as the scandal around MMS employees who engaged in drug use and had sexual relations with members of the industry they were overseeing.
An industry source who worked closely with Bernhardt said the previous stint at Interior may provide grist for Democrats on the committee but would not find any material that would derail the nomination.
“They won’t find any ‘there’ there,” the source said.
Environmental groups have pointed to Interior’s record during Bernhardt’s time as solicitor and said it bodes ill for what they would expect from the department under Trump.
In particular, Bernhardt’s appointment would further signal that Interior intends to open up more public land to private industry, said Chris Saeger, executive director of the Western Values Project.
“The Bush Interior Department was a front group for oil and gas industry. This is not a good sign and is not consistent with what we’ve heard from Secretary [Ryan] Zinke,” Saeger said of the nomination.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/democrats-to-pound-interior-nominee-for-lobbying-ties-156988

Return to headline | Return to top
Former Officials Say Deputies Could Continue Climate Fight

May 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

By Umair Irfan

Trump administration officials from the president on down have described climate change as a "hoax," a "waste" and a "phony, contrived mess."
But some former energy officials say efforts to cut greenhouse gases could still find traction in federal agencies.
Several past assistant secretaries and officials at the Department of Energy, who at times played an opposition role, said their experiences showed that while it is hard to thwart prevailing political currents and institutional momentum, there is some room for different viewpoints.
Drew Bond, CEO and president of the consulting firm Edgewater Strategies LLC, led technology commercialization at DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under President George W. Bush.
"When I joined EERE, oil was $120 a barrel and on its way up from $150," he said. "We were still recovering from 9/11, so there was a lot of momentum around what became known as the 'all of the above' strategy."
Bond joined the agency after previously working at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, and at DOE, his mission was to make the conservative case for clean energy under an administration run by a former oil magnate.
Practical concerns about driving down fuel prices and shoring up domestic power production dominated the policy landscape. The net result was more research and development dollars in renewable energy, not out of concern for the environment, but to diversify the energy mix in the United States.
"While I think there was a lot of concern from environmentalists about what Bush may do to the environment related to oil and natural gas, in reality, what happened was he was very pro-renewable energy," Bond said. "There was still in the background some of these fights on how heavily you're going to embrace environmental language, but I think the more that we focused on solutions, the more we were able to get common ground."
Bond added, "I think we got a very fair shake at the agency."
The Bush Energy Department also laid the groundwork for some of the clean energy programs the Obama administration used as it assumed the mantle of leadership in fighting climate change.
Initiatives like the loan guarantee program for first-of-a-kind energy technologies and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy for cutting-edge research were established under Bush but ramped up under President Obama, who made climate change a priority in his second term.
This shifted the burden onto the fossil energy portfolio to find a role for itself in a carbon-constrained world.
In the run-up to the 2015 Paris climate accords, DOE emphasized its work in developing and deploying low-carbon energy as part of the United States' commitment package under the agreement, a strategy that called for deploying more wind and solar energy while cutting back on fossil fuels.
This required DOE officials working in conventional energy under Obama to tread a fine line in making a case for their sector.
"When you're a political appointee, your job is to support the administration that you serve," said Christopher Smith, who ran DOE's Office of Fossil Energy from 2014 until early this year. "You have to know what that vision is."
For fossil fuel researchers, the push to fight climate change required tuning the coal, oil and natural gas portfolio at DOE toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions rather than simply extracting as much fuel as possible at the lowest cost.
"I felt like our marching orders were clear," said Smith, who previously worked stints at oil majors Chevron Corp. and Texaco Inc. and is now the Baker Institute advisory board fellow in energy studies at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.'Overweight' with academia
However, it's difficult to change course in government, especially in an agency that has such a large and eclectic portfolio. DOE employs more than 14,000 full-time workers and more than 90,000 contractors across its operations ranging from nuclear waste cleanup to commercializing research from national labs.
Only a tiny fraction of these workers are political employees, so most of the people who worked at DOE under Bush were still there under Obama. Getting everyone on board with fighting climate change, particularly in sectors like fossil fuels, which may come out behind, proved taxing.
"Changing things there is difficult," said Smith. "It takes hard work. It takes persistence. It takes communication."
On the other hand, this also makes it difficult to derail the momentum behind clean energy under President Trump. The current administration has been slow to fill vacancies at federal agencies, especially scientific posts, so many of DOE's operations are running on cruise control, though some programs are on hold (E&E Daily, May 9).
Another former assistant secretary for fossil energy, Charles McConnell, who served from 2011 until 2013, said he had a more difficult time advancing research on cleaner ways to use fossil fuels, which he noted still dominate the energy landscape and will continue to do so for decades.
"I came to understand that 'all of the above' really did not include fossil fuel technology," sad McConnell, who worked for 35 years in the energy industry and is now executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University. "I was disappointed and thought I would do more."
Technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) didn't get the support commensurate with their potential impact on the environment, according to McConnell, in part because much of DOE at the time was staffed with personnel from universities and think tanks.
This led to investments in some projects that weren't ready for prime time at the expense of more practical energy projects that would have benefited the fossil fuel industry and the environment, he said.
"I believe we were far too overweight with academic backgrounds in the Department of Energy," he said. "When it came to business or market understanding, or moving business planning forward, the skills for that were not as prevalent as they should have been."Climate critic agrees with new direction
As the Trump administration names people for top posts, there will be changes in priorities and strategies at DOE, but there will still be room to challenge the prevailing currents, if past experiences are any indication.
Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science at DOE at the start of the Obama administration after working as the chief scientist at the oil company BP PLC, said part of his role was to push back on some of the agency's approaches to energy research and policy.
"Yes, I was there to challenge at times," said Koonin, who is now the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
He said he broached concerns about investment in technologies like CCS on economic grounds and suggested prioritizing high-performance exascale computing at DOE. Though his views didn't always align with those of the secretary of Energy at the time, Steven Chu, or the White House, he said the agency did respect his opinion.
"I think they valued it. Whether they listened to it is a different question," he said. "There are certainly other viewpoints in the room."
Since leaving the agency, Koonin has written editorials criticizing some of the Obama administration's use of climate research to drive energy policy, arguing that there are lingering uncertainties in the science that were glossed over in establishing benchmarks and metrics for greenhouse gas emissions.
Under Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Koonin said, he expects that DOE's renewable energy division will face some budget cuts and a "big shift" in priorities. He also expects the agency's work on climate research to receive more scrutiny.
"To my mind, that is not a bad thing," he said.
As for where Perry could find deputies to run DOE, Koonin suggested that the national labs could be farm teams for the agency's headquarters, and that leaders of "enlightened energy companies" who are working on mitigating carbon dioxide emissions would be useful on DOE's roster.
The important thing, he said, is to maintain a diverse set of opinions at the agency, from business leaders, scientists and advocates, and to appreciate how markets shape energy policy.
The question is whether Trump will heed this advice in his appointments at DOE. The president has suggested he might not fill all the open slots at federal agencies, and one budget proposal for the energy department called for scrapping several departments altogether, including fossil energy and renewable energy.
So far, many of his political picks at the agency are coming from right-leaning think tanks and utility groups, but no other names yet for positions confirmed by Congress.
But if Trump insists on resurrecting the coal industry and appoints officials who will try to steer the agency toward that mission, they will face stiff headwinds from low natural gas prices and falling costs of renewables. "Mr. Trump will be going against economics and energy," Koonin said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/18/stories/1060054710

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Committee Approves Regulatory Overhaul Bills

May 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Cheryl Bolen

Multiple bills that would make changes to the regulatory process were approved largely along party lines with little debate by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on May 17.
Key among the group is the Regulatory Accountability Act (S. 951) sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), which was approved by a vote of 9-5. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), the ranking member of the committee and whose support is considered critical, said she is working on separate regulatory legislation and could not support the RAA at this time.
The RAA, which is strongly backed by the business community, would codify the duty to analyze the costs and benefits of new regulations and require agencies to adopt the most cost-effective approach. It also would require agencies to follow a more evidence-based approach in crafting rules that will cost more than $1 billion annually.
“I'm pleased that the committee has advanced this bill on a bipartisan basis,” Portman said in a statement after the vote. “This has been a very collaborative process, and I want to thank Senator Heitkamp for making this a better bill.”
Looking for Support
During the markup, Portman urged committee Democrats to allow the bill to at least get to the Senate floor so there could be a debate on it. He and Heitkamp said they are open to suggestions and comment.
Also, the House will take up whatever the Senate passes, despite having passed its own version (H.R. 5) of the bill in early January, Portman said.
“This is not the House bill,” Heitkamp said. Specifically, the Senate version ensures that while cost is an important factor, it is not the only factor, she said. Under this bill, agencies must consider impacts on jobs, regulatory objectives and the risk of not taking action, she said.
“The offer that Sen. Portman extended is the offer that I'll extend, which is to sit down with anyone who wants to talk about how we can make this bill something that folks can accept, and make it better so that we can get it across the finish line,” Heitkamp said.
Eyes on McCaskill
McCaskill said she looks forward to working on regulatory overhaul in this Congress and has been working on legislation that she hoped to introduce, but would continue to talk to the RAA's sponsors.
“I will support some of the reg reform bills here today,” McCaskill said. “I'm not there on [the RAA].”
On one side, a large coalition of public interest, labor, environmental, consumer and civil rights groups signed onto a letter to committee leaders May 16 strongly opposing the bill.
“The RAA will further paralyze the regulatory process and further tilt this process in favor of corporate interests and their deregulatory agenda,” the letter said.
On the other side, an equally large coalition of business, industry, manufacturing and farm organizations wrote letters in support of the bill.
“The Chamber believes that federal regulations should be narrowly tailored, be supported by strong and credible data and evidence, and impose the least burden possible, while implementing congressional intent,” wrote Neil Bradley, senior vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
More on the Agenda
Other regulatory process bills were approved by the committee as well.
• The Midnight Rules Relief Act (S. 34), approved by a vote of 8-6, would allow multiple rules to be repealed under one Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval.
• The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (S. 21), approved 8-6, would require Congress to vote to approve all major regulations before they could go into effect.
• The Early Participation in Regulations Act (S. 579), approved 11-3, would require agencies to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking at least 90 days before proposing a rule.
• The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (S. 584), approved 8-6, would modify the role of small entities in the promulgation of proposed rules and the review panel advocacy process.
• The Providing Accountability through Transparency Act (S. 577), approved by voice vote, would require agencies to publish a plain-language, 100-word summary of proposed regulations.
Role of Small Business Office of Advocacy
The committee spent a few minutes debating the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, sponsored by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).
Small businesses often don't have attorneys or compliance officers to help them with regulations, Lankford said. So in 1976, Congress created the Office of Advocacy within the Small Business Administration, which reviews regulations proposed by agencies to determine if they need to be run through a small-business review panel, he said.
The problem is that “loopholes” have developed over the decades to allow agencies to avoid reviews by the Office of Advocacy, and the office is seeking to restore its authority, which this bill would do, Lankford said.
McCaskill, however, argued that the bill would classify virtually all regulations as having a significant impact on small businesses, which could create untenable delays.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111939653&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111939653&jd=111939653

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

New Regs Would Stunt Railroads

May 18, 2017 | The Detroit News

By Keith Massey

Listening to news out of Washington lately is like listening to one word on repeat: change. Good change, bad change, unpredictable change.
It’s clear economic growth will be a priority. There also seems to be a consensus that the new Washington wants to get rid of regulations standing in the way of economic growth. That is welcome news to many in Michigan.
One example is the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB), a small federal agency that wants to impose new regulations on freight railroads that would harm their ability to invest in the rail network at the exact time that the country needs railroads to do more.
The STB, which provides economic oversight to railroads, proposed several changes to rail regulation last fall, including “forced access,” new price controls and the reregulation of certain commodities like steel, stone and hydraulic cement.
Chief among the proposed regulations, “forced access” would require railroads to open their lines to competitors — at rates and schedules determined by the government. One evaluation of a similar past proposal estimates government-mandated rail traffic controls could jeopardize $8 billion in rail revenues, undermining the ability of railroads to invest back into track and equipment, and affect an estimated 7.5 million carloads of traffic.
Railroads are the key link to getting products from farms, factories and mines to markets across the U.S. and the globe. Railroads haul one-third of all U.S. exports and nearly 70 percent of all coal moved in the U.S.
But despite the fact that freight railroads supported 1.5 million jobs nationally in 2014 and despite the fact that railroads are key to reviving domestic energy and manufacturing jobs, the STB is bowing to certain manufacturing groups and grain shippers that want to lower their rates any way they can.
If railroads can’t earn enough money to make the massive investments needed to keep up track, add new capacity, maintain locomotives and install new technology, everyone who depends on rail will suffer. Our Muskegon-based company, for example, would not exist. We are a sales and distribution agency providing OEM and replacement parts to transportation companies and we specialize in the railroad industry.
The last time the government tried these sorts of policies, railroads were so overburdened many went bankrupt. Since railroads were partially deregulated by the Staggers Rail Act in 1980 they have spent more than $630 billion of their own private dollars to maintain and upgrade their network. Train accident rates have fallen 78 percent while average rail rates have fallen 45 percent.
If the goal is to free industry to spur economic growth, we shouldn’t impose damaging new regulations on an industry that is working well and is critical to every part of the economy.
Keith Massey is president of Trinity Equipment Co. in Muskegon.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2017/05/18/railroad-regulations/101815226/

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

House Dems Unveil Package to Boost Green Initiatives

May 17, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Hannah Northey

House Democrats offered a blueprint today for boosting renewables, tackling climate change and hardening the U.S. electric grid in anticipation of the Trump administration's larger infrastructure package.
Twenty-three members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled H.R. 2479, the "Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America (LIFT) Act," which would provide more than $17 billion for energy infrastructure.
The Democratic proposal arrives as talk surrounding an infrastructure package heats up on and off Capitol Hill.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said the administration's $1 trillion plan could land in Congress in weeks, but sources say it's not clear what would be included in that package (E&E Daily, May 17).
A spokesman for E&C Democrats said lawmakers wanted to lay out their priorities ahead of Trump's proposal and it's "up to Republicans to take the next step."
The legislative menu includes $4 billion over five years to thwart grid outages and speed up smart grid technology deployment and $9 billion for renewable infrastructure and methane pipeline replacement. The bill also includes more than $4 billion for energy efficiency efforts and smart communities.
The "LIFT Act" also offers $2.7 billion for U.S. EPA's brownfield program and almost $23 billion for drinking water infrastructure. The bill includes provisions that would help modernize the petroleum reserves along the Gulf of Mexico, allow grid overseers to stockpile transformers and ensure the nation's drinking water infrastructure can withstand the effects of climate change.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/17/stories/1060054708

Return to headline | Return to top
House Democrats Release $85B Infrastructure Plan

May 17, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

House Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to spend at least $85 billion on infrastructure upgrades, staking out their position ahead of a congressional debate over infrastructure spending later this session.
The bill from Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee includes funding for five years of infrastructure projects in the energy, environment, technology and healthcare spheres.
It would spend: $40 billion to deploy broadband internet around the United States; $22.5 billion on drinking water infrastructure improvements;$17 billion on the electric grid, renewable energy and energy efficiency programs;$3 billion to improve hospitals and infectious disease research facilities; and$2.7 on the Brownfields industrial waste site cleanup program.
The bill, called the Leading Infrastructure For Tomorrow’s America, or LIFT, Act, “is a blueprint for critical investments in our nation's infrastructure that will also create jobs, promote economic growth and protect public health and the environment,” Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said in a statement.
The bill comes as lawmakers in both parties aim to write an infrastructure investment bill sometime this session.
President Trump has said he’s aiming to craft a $1 trillion bill. But beyond floating potential funding mechanisms like an increase in the gas tax, he hasn’t released details on that plan.
Senate Democrats unveiled a $1 trillion infrastructure plan of their own in January, though Republicans rejected it almost immediately, saying any infrastructure package will require bipartisan buy-in.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/333895-house-democrats-release-85b-infrastructure-plan

Return to headline | Return to top
Hinting At Deal, EPA Seeks Further Delay In HFC Refrigerant Handling Suit

May 17, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Abby Smith

EPA is asking a federal appellate court to further delay litigation challenging a final rule updating its refrigerant management and handling guidelines to include high global warming potential (GWP) “substitute” chemicals, hinting at a possible agreement to reduce or even eliminate the need for litigation.
In a May 16 filing, EPA asks the court to pause proceedings in National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) v. EPA for another 45 days “to promote judicial efficiency, conserve resources, and avoid potentially unnecessary litigation.”
In the filing, EPA says it held “listening sessions” with industry petitioners April 27 “to hear their views on issues related to the petitions for review in this case” and a pending reconsideration petition from the Air Permitting Forum (APF), which represents auto and other industry groups and is also challenging the rule.
The agency held a similar listening session with environmentalist and industry intervenors in the case May 2. “EPA is taking the information and perspectives offered by Petitioners and Intervenors during these sessions under advisement,” the filing says.
The agency says the litigation pause would allow it to “consider potential opportunities to resolve some or all of the issues presented without the need for judicial action, including the pending administrative petition for reconsideration.”
The request comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted on April 11 petitioners' request to delay the case by 90 days, to allow time for parties to discuss and potentially resolve any issues with EPA administratively. The court's April order also set a number of filing deadlines for both petitioners and respondents, including the submission of any procedural motions by May 16 and any dispositive motions by June 5.
At issue in the litigation is a Nov. 18 final rule updating provisions limiting leaks of ozone-depleting substances used for refrigeration, issued under Clean Air Act section 608. The rule expanded the section 608 provisions to “substitute” refrigerants, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that do not deplete the ozone but have a high GWP, as well as their lower-GWP replacements.
The regulation has split industry groups. NEDA/CAP and APF charge the expansion of the guidelines to cover non-ozone-depleting substances is unlawful. Others, including appliance manufacturers represented by the Alliance for Atmospheric Policy and chemical companies Honeywell and Chemours, intervened to defend the rule. The Natural Resources Defense Council is also backing the refrigerant guidelines.
EPA in its May 16 filing suggests that an additional 45-day delay would allow parties in the case “to continue to share views” on the rule and “may allow the parties to narrow the issues to be briefed or to identify opportunities to resolve the petitions for review.” The agency also notes the “exchange of views” could identify “opportunities to partially or fully resolve” APF's reconsideration petition.
The agency adds that the delay would allow time to “brief incoming administration officials with decision-making responsibility” about the case. “Requests to continue proceedings to allow time for new administration officials to become familiar with cases under their authority are customary,” the agency writes.
Industry Concerns
NEDA/CAP in its Feb. 17 statement of issues raised several questions over whether the rule's leak detection and repair requirements; provisions requiring retrofit or retirement of appliances; and compliance deadlines are “unreasonable,” arbitrary or capricious, or otherwise unlawful. The group also alleged that EPA failed to provide the data underlying the technical basis asserted for the rule.
While it might be possible for industry groups and EPA to resolve some of the more technical issues, petitioners also question whether the agency has the underlying legal authority to expand the section 608 guidelines -- originally designed to cover ozone-depleting chemicals -- to HFCs and other substitutes that do not deplete the ozone.
Environmentalists and industry intervenors support EPA's authority, and Trump administration attorneys in a separate lawsuit earlier defended the agency's authority to regulate HFCs under the air act.
As such, any potential deal that would obviate the need for litigation likely would require petitioners to drop their claim about EPA's authority, possibly in exchange for softer regulatory requirements.
The section 608 rule is just one of several rules promulgated by the Obama EPA to limit high-GWP HFCs via its air act authority. EPA rules phasing out HFCs under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program face a similar legal challenge from two chemical firms, which charge the agency lacks authority under that program to regulate non-ozone-depleting substances like HFCs.
A D.C. Circuit panel heard oral arguments Feb. 15 in that case, during which two judges on the panel asked tough questions of a Department of Justice attorney, suggesting they may ultimately find EPA lacks the power to regulate HFCs under SNAP.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/hinting-deal-epa-seeks-further-delay-hfc-refrigerant-handling-suit

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump to Face Intense G-7 Pressure on Climate Change

May 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

By Jean Chemnick

President Trump will spend much of his first foreign trip surrounded by U.S. allies who prize the Paris climate agreement and will use every opportunity to convince him to stay in it.
Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, leaders of the European Union and others have already signaled their intent to raise the accord at bilateral meetings with Trump next week. The Group of Seven's Italian presidency is searching for a way to recognize the deal at the May 27 leader-level summit despite Trump's lack of a position.
"In the bilateral ahead of the G-7, Gentiloni is going to tell Trump that Italy — along with the other European Union governments — strongly support the Paris Agreement regardless of what the U.S. does," said Mauro Albrizio, European affairs director at Italy-based environmental group Legambiente.
Macron already raised the topic of Paris with Trump during a May 8 call following his election, and a French diplomatic source said he plans to do it again when the two meet for lunch in Brussels on May 25.
"They mentioned it as something important when they spoke, and Trump said he would look at it," said the source.
Trump has shown in the past that he can be swayed by foreign leaders, like when he acknowledged that the presidents of Canada and Mexico had persuaded him not to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. His counterparts abroad say they don't know if they can pull off that coup with the Paris Agreement, but they are going to try.
Europeans especially view Trump's trip as a timely opportunity to influence the American leader. Trump is seen abroad as wavering on last year's pledge to pull out of the globally popular Paris deal, but subject to a confusing web of influence within his own administration. Some of his advisers support remaining in the deal, and some have argued against it.
The White House bowed to this internal controversy earlier this month when it postponed its decision on the agreement until after Trump returns from the nine-day voyage. The trip, which begins tomorrow, includes visits to the Middle East, the Vatican and Brussels, and meetings of NATO and the G-7 major developed countries.
E.U. capitals had spent the past weeks calling and reaching out to Trump's advisers as a Paris decision seemed imminent. But now that it has been postponed, they hope Trump's visit will let them circumvent his warring advisers and engage with the president directly, diplomatic sources say.
"The E.U. is communicating: 'Don't make the rash decision,'" said Maeve Mclynn of CANEurope. "They have the idea that maybe Trump is open to options."
Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, European Commission spokeswoman for climate action and energy, said the message from E.U. representatives and member states alike would be that Paris is good for the U.S. economy, rather than the planet.
"Our point has always been since Paris that the global energy transition is underway and it is irreversible, and it would not be wise of any leader to ignore it and try to reverse it," she said.
The 28-nation bloc does not appear to have prepared a "concession" or other offering to keep the United States in the agreement.
Pro-Paris Trump advisers months ago floated the idea of using a reversal on Paris to gain leverage for new international help for U.S. fossil fuels, but ideas for how to do that never materialized. It's not even clear if the original boosters of that idea meant it to come in the context of the climate agreement or in some separate sphere, like trade.
"There's not much in the Paris Agreement that hasn't already accommodated previous Republican asks for what a global response to climate change should be," noted Jake Schmidt, international climate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He added that the current political climate in Europe would make it problematic to be seen to cater to Trump by offering sweeteners to stay in Paris.
"There's not a lot of appetite to try to align yourself with Trump. It's not a great political place for a lot of these leaders to be," he said.Flatter him and talk about the Islamic State group
But Trump has shown he can be influenced to abandon long-held foreign policy positions when he meets with world leaders.
He emerged from a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in April declaring that China was not, after all, a currency manipulator as he had said throughout the presidential campaign. He walked away from pledges to walk away from NAFTA because he said Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto convinced him they were prepared to negotiate. And NATO went from "obsolete" to "not obsolete" in his estimation after a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. He's now proposing a new "Arab NATO."
"What seems to be the case is that when he has these meetings with foreign leaders, he doesn't like any conflict," said James Goldgeier, dean of the School of International Service at American University. "He likes to have agreeable meetings.
"The problem for the foreign leaders he meets with is that he also doesn't seem to have any trouble saying something and then changing his mind later and saying something different," he added.
As an example, he pointed to Trump's move to place a tariff on Canadian soft wood lumber after his U-turn on NAFTA.
Brett Schaefer, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the Paris question differs from Trump's position on NATO because in the latter case, partners offered Trump a better deal in the form of more resources to support defense. The same would not be true for Europeans and others eager to keep the United States in Paris, he predicted.
"That seems to be the way that the president operates," Schaefer said. "He goes into these with the idea that this is what he wants and other people on the other side of the table need to offer him something that is worth changing his mind about it."
The heart of the Paris Agreement is the individual pledges by nearly 200 nations to cut or slow greenhouse gas emissions. The United States promised to curb emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. One option floated by Trump administration officials vying to remain in the accord has been to weaken the U.S. target.
Acceptance of a new U.S. commitment to Paris that tracks more closely with Trump administration policies would not be sufficient, Schaefer predicted, because it would likely lead to periodic pushback from countries every time the United States does something in negotiations that other countries view as insufficient.
But Goldgeier said world leaders preparing to meet with Trump need not be ready to offer something.
"I would advise anybody who meets with him to flatter him first, and that seems to be the most important thing to him," he said. "And clearly, the campaign against [the Islamic State group] ISIS appears to be the big thing on his mind, and the big thing he wants to be able to say he did something about, so to the extent that the Europeans can talk about mutual interest in defeating ISIS, that will play well to him."Maybe no communiqué at all
Trump's top national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, told reporters Tuesday that Trump would use the G-7 summit to "press America's economic agenda and call for greater security cooperation." But others have warned that seeking to change the group's established stance on climate change won't win him cooperation on other fronts.
"I don't think they've fully thought through how they're going to come out of the G-7 meeting without having made a decision," said Schmidt. "The G-7 has been quite clear as a unifying bloc on the Paris Agreement."
In Ise-Shima, Japan, last year, G-7 leaders pledged to help the deal reach the necessary membership threshold to enter into force in 2016. It also made commitments on phasing out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and helping poor countries cope with climate change.
But having the United States in limbo on Paris going into next week's two-day G-7 meeting in Taormina, Sicily, means the Italian presidency has to pick from a limited set of options if it wants to give the other six nations a chance to acknowledge Paris.
The last round of so-called sherpa meetings held Monday and Tuesday to prepare for next week left language on Paris and climate change to the side, including acknowledgement of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Italian officials now have a week to chart a path forward on how to treat that and other areas of disagreement with the United States, including trade and migration.
The Union of Concerned Scientists' Alden Meyer saw three options for the climate language, and "none of them are particularly good."
The G-7 could follow the Arctic Council's lead and produce a communiqué next week that does little more than acknowledge the existence of the Paris deal (Climatewire, May 11). It could also avoid mentioning the agreement altogether, though Meyer said that would be a hard sell to countries like France and Germany.
The meeting could also end with no communiqué at all, denying Trump and other leaders agreement on terrorism, security and myriad other priorities.
A fourth option could see Japan, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, France and Canada band together in a "G-6" agreement or statement that excludes the United States and acknowledges Paris. This is roughly the path the Italian presidency took after March's energy minister's meeting, where Energy Secretary Rick Perry blocked language on Paris (Climatewire, April 11).
"That would be unprecedented, and that's a tough issue for some of the countries that are trying to work with the U.S. on trade and other issues," said Meyer. "Again, there's no good, perfect solution if that's the dynamic at the end of the meeting in Taormina."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/18/stories/1060054715

Return to headline | Return to top
Murkowski Looks to Nudge Trump on Climate

May 18, 2017 | E&E News Daily

By Geof Koss

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is quietly advocating for the Trump administration to remain engaged in international climate discussions, a position she plans to outline in an upcoming meeting she requested with White House adviser Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources chairwoman said yesterday she was trying to reschedule the meeting, originally planned for last week. Murkowski told E&E News she reached out "because the issue of climate change is important to me."
"I don't know where this administration is really going with it now," she added. "What I've read is that she is one of the ones who is in a position to help influence some decisions, and I thought it would be helpful for her to understand the perspective from a Republican who comes from a state that is seeing impacts."
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has taken a dim view of the Paris climate deal, was also scheduled to attend last week's meeting.
Murkowski said she did not know why Pruitt was included, although she noted that she recently met with him separately to discuss Alaska issues.
Murkowski is not the only Republican to weigh in on the Paris deal. Some House GOP moderates appealed to Trump last month not to jettison the agreement (E&E News PM, April 26). The Republican governors of Vermont and Massachusetts issued a similar plea to Energy Secretary Rick Perry yesterday.
Speaking at an event sponsored by the American Council for Capital Formation, Murkowski said she was "agnostic" about whether the United States should remain or withdraw from the Paris deal.
"I think what we need to do is look at that and say, 'Where can we be most useful?'" she said yesterday. "Where do we have the most leverage? And of late I've been coming down on the side of you have more leverage if you stay in. Now whether the administration agrees with that remains to be seen, but I think that's how we should view it."
In her later conversation with E&E News, Murkowski noted that she has never been enthused about the Paris deal negotiated by the Obama administration.
"I'm looking at it from the perspective of a state that is clearly seeing the impact" of climate change, she said. "But I'm also from a state that probably has some of the highest energy costs in the country. And a state that is a producer. So we've got a very interesting place in this discussion."
Murkowski's remarks reflect her long and complicated relationship with climate change. She has consistently expressed concern about the issue throughout her Senate career and remains one of the few Republican lawmakers who will bring up climate change unprompted. Yet her policy prescriptions have evolved over time.
In 2007, she and her political mentor, former Alaskan GOP Sen. Ted Stevens, joined a small group of moderates in co-sponsoring a cap-and-trade bill that contained less stringent emission targets than competing measures floating around Capitol Hill.
Her support came after the bill sponsors added a controversial "safety valve" provision that would have imposed limits on the price of carbon credits under the emissions trading system included in the bill.
Murkowski later disavowed her earlier support for cap and trade as an effort to steer the conversation to a middle ground. In 2010, she led an unsuccessful Senate push to nullify EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gases through the Congressional Review Act.
In doing so, she argued the disapproval resolution was driven by a desire to avoid "unprecedented overreach" by EPA, and not doubts over the science of warming.
Throughout the Obama administration, she frequently criticized EPA's policies, although she was supportive of renewables and efficiency research at DOE led by former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
The bipartisan energy bill she assembled in the last Congress with ENR ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), which the pair plans to revive, also contained numerous provisions intended to boost renewables and efficiency.
Murkowski said yesterday that she initially saw the Paris deal as "disadvantageous" for her oil- and gas-producing state but said she also wants to "make a difference" on climate change.
"I believe it will be through the advances that we make through innovation and technology that allow us to address it," Murkowski said. "We're already seeing that."
Murkowski touted the importance of having a "strong enough economy" to bring new technologies to market, while noting her state's reputation as a laboratory for energy innovation (Greenwire, Sept. 9, 2016).
"We have some of the answers in Alaska," she said.
During yesterday's event, Murkowski said it was "significant" that the Trump administration last week signed on to the so-called Fairbanks Declaration that acknowledged the Paris deal (Climatewire, May 12).
"I do think you're going to see some brighter lights out of the administration in terms of where they see the focus on climate initiatives," she said. "In the meantime, you have business and industry working to be more responsible when it comes to their own emissions."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/18/stories/1060054725

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested