Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 25/05
-
(ACC Mentioned) The US Dollar Signaling Global Improvement
May 24, 2017 | ValueWalk
The ‘Elephant’ in the room is the US dollar . It is a global financial stability indicator which incorporates the complex mix of geopolitics and economic activity. -
Pruitt Moves To Curtail EPA Use Of 'Sue And Settle' As GOP Pushes Bills
May 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss and Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says he has signed a “directive” curtailing so-called sue and settle tactics that produce consent decrees including court-enforced deadlines for rulemaking even as observers have warned it will be difficult for the administrator to adopt such limits and as administration allies move to use the process for their own deregulatory goals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Priorities Rule Goes to OMB, May Meet June Deadline
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A draft final EPA rule describing how the agency will select chemicals for risk assessment is now at the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, indicating it may be issued by its June 22 deadline. -
Ruling: No Right to Jury for Federal Chemical Law Claims
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A renovation contractor sued under a federal hazardous chemical law has no right to a jury trial when the federal government seeks only an injunction and disgorgement of profits, the Southern District of New York ruled May 23 (United States v. Accolade Constr. Grp., Inc., 2017 BL 172844, S.D.N.Y., No. 15-cv-05855, 5/23/17). -
Senate Bill Would Bar TSCA Oversight Of Lead Tackle, Ammo
May 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) reintroduced legislation today that would prevent U.S. EPA from regulating ammunition and fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Defender Put in Charge of EPA Unit Overseeing Toxins
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared 1-bromopropane dangerous enough to make it one of the first 10 chemicals it scrutinized under an updated federal toxins law. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Moves To Delay Formaldehyde Emissions Rule Deadlines
May 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is proposing to extend the compliance deadlines under its final rule for formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Safety Not The Issue With Polystyrene Foam
May 25, 2017 | Capitol Weekly
By George Cruzan
If you’ve been following the debate in Sacramento over the use of foam cups and food containers in California, you probably have heard some rather outlandish allegations related to their safety. -
Preservative Hazards Widely Unknown — EDF Report
May 24, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Preservatives can come with hazards like skin allergies and aquatic toxicity, but information on this class of chemistry is not widely enough shared, according to a report from the Environmental Defense Fund. -
Trump's FY18 Budget Would Maintain Smaller, 'Refocused' IRIS Program
May 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018 seeks to preserve a smaller version of the agency's influential but often controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which had been slated for elimination in an early budget memo, signaling the program will be devoted in part to assessing substances under the revised toxics law and other mandatory regulatory programs. -
Dating Site Opens For Hazard-Free Chemicals
May 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
The Swedish environmental group ChemSec has introduced the Marketplace, a website linking companies selling alternatives to hazardous chemicals with those seeking to buy them. -
European Chemicals Agency Issues Advisory Nano Guidance
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency May 24 published updated guidance on how companies could provide information on nanomaterials in the registration dossiers they submit in line with the European Union's REACH chemicals law. -
EU Textile Colourant Standards Toughened
May 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has updated the standards for determining restricted aromatic amines derived from azo colourants in textiles. -
(ACC Mentioned) WVU Coach Huggins Highlights Shale Crescent USA Conference In Parkersburg
May 24, 2017 | The News Center
By Todd Baucher
... And Shale Crescent's founders say much the same. They've been around the country in the past year-most recently in Texas-telling the story about the Marcellus Shale and its contributions to the region's natural gas industry. -
EPA Path On Clean Power Plan 'Yet To Be Determined' — Pruitt
May 25, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt called American action on climate change a "bad business deal," promoted fossil energy and said his agency hasn't yet determined whether to replace the Clean Power Plan. -
A Little-Known Reason Why Consensus on Energy Policy Is Possible
May 25, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sam Ori
Anyone who watched the results of the last election roll in, or who simply turns on cable news, would see a country enormously divided on key issues. And, judging by the rhetoric on coal jobs, environmental regulation and climate change, energy policy is no exception. -
Trump's 2-1 Order Seen Driving 'Haphazard Regulation,' Experts Charge
May 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By - Doug Obey
Almost 100 economists and lawyers are criticizing President Donald Trump's executive order that requires EPA and other agencies to repeal two rules for every new measure promulgated, charging it retreats from the long-standing principle of maximizing rules' “net benefits” and opens the door to “haphazard regulation” that could harm the public. -
California Carbon Auction Bounces Back, Raising $475 Million
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's carbon market bounced back in the latest quarterly cap-and-trade auction results released May 24, with the state selling 90 percent of the allowances offered at or above the $13.57 per ton floor price, a stark contrast to a series of low-participation auctions. -
Ozone Plan for Kentucky Due by June 2018, Judge Tells EPA
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
The EPA has until June 2018 to issue a federal plan to address ozone pollution originating in Kentucky after a federal court approved the agency's partial consent decree with an environmental group. -
More Questions, Few Answers on Climate Interventions: Scientists
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Technologies that would allow humans to intervene in the climate change process, such as carbon capture, are not yet viable but raise many questions, scientists commissioned by the federal government to study this issue said. -
Obama Administration Failed to Protect Environment, Pruitt Says
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
EPA chief Scott Pruitt skewered his predecessors at a May 24 symposium, arguing contamination crises and court battles are the real environmental legacy of the Obama administration. -
Trump's Delay Opens Door for European Lobbying on Paris Pact
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Margaret Talev
President Donald Trump hasn't decided if the U.S. will remain a part of the Paris climate accord, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, as pressure mounts from Pope Francis, European leaders and Democratic lawmakers at home to remain in the historic pact to address global warming.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) The US Dollar Signaling Global Improvement
May 24, 2017 | ValueWalk
The ‘Elephant’ in the room is the US dollar . It is a global financial stability indicator which incorporates the complex mix of geopolitics and economic activity. It is the very messy landscape which investors must navigate. The confusion of recent terrorist events surprises investors that the US$ continues to fall. It is falling even this week when many would expect fear to drive capital back to the US dollar just as during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But, not this time. Voters in Democratic countries, the US, England and France, have spoken loudly that a stronger defense of Democracy is required. Democracy has finally been aroused to fight back. Even though terrorism and ISIS-types may appear to be having greater impact, the US dollar weakness is a clear sign that global capital is returning to developed, developing and emerging markets. Although many who shout that a ‘strong US$’ will indicate this weakness as an issue, the historical trend does not bear this out.
Humanity is becoming increasingly aware that Democracy is not the cause of terrorism, but the target. Democracy permits freedom of expression within bounds for the safety of all. Empathy is what connect each of us to others and is the source of our belief in the concept of the “Good Samaritan’. Living peacefully is our desired expectation. Slowly, we have become increasingly aware that even though ~95% of us believe in Democracy, there are ~5% who do not. Recent research indicates ~5% of humanity misses the ‘Empathy Gene’. We refer to them as individuals who have Anti-Social Personality Disorder. The old term is ‘sociopath’. These individuals envy the success of the people around them. To beat someone at something, to cause someone else to lose is positive in the minds of sociopaths. They only recognize power over others as their personal goal. Relishing a friend’s success which is normal for ~95% of us is not something to which they can relate. Anyone whose defeat represents increased control for the sociopath becomes their target. The worst crimes on humanity were the result of sociopaths, the Hitler’s, the Saddam Hussein’s and Mao’s of the world. Democracy provides room up to a point for these individuals, but should they not find an overly-non-destructive path, our justice system forces compliance for the safety of other 95%. Terrorists are sociopaths. When Democracy finally acts, the world feels better and we see it in global capital flows. There are easy to read books available explaining ‘sociopathic behavior’. Send me a note if you would like to learn more about this important feature of humanity.
The historical trend reflects a slowly declining US dollar. This trend declines at a -0.86% rate vs. Major Trade Weighted Currencies and reflects an increasingly globally connected world. The US, because it is the freest of ‘Free Markets’ with our individual property protections, has been the global technology leader for many decades. In spite of our high level of self-maligning (free societies are free to criticize themselves as loudly as they like), we have the highest standard of living. This is due to free markets providing a robust environment for creativity and invention which can enter the economic system in the form of new companies seeking a profit. New products and services improve standards of living, but also raise costs of producing old but still useful technology to the point of being uneconomical to produce natively. Such products are out-sourced to developing countries where the cost is lower and imported as needed. This process widens global trade, exports one’s higher standard of living and makes foreign currencies stronger relative to one’s own currency as trade expands. It is globalization and expanding global standard of living which causes the US$ to weaken long-term. The US dollar will continue to weaken as long as the US$ continues to be the freest and most creative/inventive marketplace and continues to export the manufacturing of its still necessary but old technology to less costly sources. Air conditioners are a good example of an invented technology now mostly imported.
A US$ falling back to its long-term trend means that the global capital balances are normalizing. Investors should expect the long-term US$ trend to repeat as long as the US remains the most creative/inventive society globally. If another country arises with similar level of free market activity, then the trend we see today will change. Such a change represents a societal and internal governance directional shift not witnessed the past 300yrs. Such an evolution occurs very slowly. We can assume the US dollar trend will continue for at least the next few years. Capital which sought safe-haven in the US is returning to whence it came, now that geopolitics has shifted towards the defense of Democracy and Free Markets. The World feels better!
The direct impact for US based investors is the rise in Intl Equities as shown by the EFA(MSCI iShare ETF). The EFA is at the highest level since 2014, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Intl Equity funds have been rising since Feb 2016. The relationship to the US$ is highly correlated but one should not expect precision with human decision making between asset classes. We are dealing with market psychology as it develops a sense of where capital is likely to achieve the better returns. As the US$ falls, investors should expect the rise in Intl Equities to continue.
US$ strength has been one of the reasons for weaker than expected earnings in the SP500 2014-2016. The strong US$ slowed US exports of high-valued manufactured products and resulted in adverse currency translations for goods sold and for profits of businesses with overseas operations. It is a global world. All SP500 companies have had currency translation issues. It is surprises to earnings which drive investor psychology and in turn market prices. The US dollar returning to its long-term trend should prove a positive impact to most investors. It helps that economic indicators signal a continuation of the global economic expansion.
Two indicators which are offer good investor guidance are the Chemical Activity Barometer(CAB) and the T-Bill/10yr Treasury Rate Spread.
The CAB measures economic activity using data derived from the US chemical industry. The CAB was just reported at 117.39. Consumer spending drives chemical use in every aspect of daily living one can possibly conceive. The CAB responds both to US and global economic activity as chemicals in various forms have a large global trade component. The slow down in the 2014-2016 period reflected the impact of the strong US$ and the onset of a US industrial recession. (See the inset chart of US exports.)
Inset:
The American Chemistry Council which produces the CAB has a chart showing the impact of the strong US dollar on US exports and chemicals in particular in 2015. Investors should expect to see exports improve as the US$ normalizes.
https://www.americanchemistry.com/Trade-Overview/
The rise in the CAB beginning Apr-May 2016 reflects that many US corporations, having adjusted to the strong US$, exited this recession. Companies like John Deere&Co and Caterpillar have provided significant earnings surprises to the SP500. The SP500 is higher as a result. The US dollar has only recently begun itsnormalization. There is a significant lower US$ is yet to come in my opinion. It should prove quite positive to US exports.
The other indicator supporting economic expansion is the T-Bill/10yr Treasury Rate Spread. The near-term history shows recent detail. The history from 1953 shows that when this rate spread shifts to 0.20%, lending slows and economic activity tips into recession with a major market correction.
Historically every time global investors flooded the US with capital driving up the US dollar, they caused US 10yr Treasury rates to fall and subsequently narrowed this rate spread. But, as global economic expansion continued, global investors shifted capital back to International markets over time resulting in higher 10yr US Treasury rates and a widening of the rate spread. US investors and businesses have a different impact which influences T-Bill rates. When they are pessimistic, they buy T-Bills which drives T-Bill rates lower causing the spread to widen. When US investors turn more optimistic, they sell T-Bills for higher returns elsewhere. The play between US and global investors/businesses influences rate spread in a complex dance as market psychology and geopolitics evolve. With US Treasuries the most significant Sovereign debt traded globally, the T-Bill/10yr Treasury Rate Spread becomes a global economic indicator.
With the T-Bill/10yr Treasury Rate Spread holding at 1.35%, it remains well into economic expansion territory. Investors can expect both T-Bills and 10yr Treasury rates to rise from current levels. Past history suggest the T-Bill/10yr Treasury Rate Spread should widen for a period resulting in stimulation global lending. A T-Bill/10yr Treasury Rate Spread level in the range of 2.50%-2.70% has been the historical norm. Eventually, investors/businesses become so optimistic they sell T-Bills and drive T-Bill rates higher to the point that the rate spread falls to 0.20% or lower. At that point lending slows significantly and economic activity shifts to correction. Today, conditions are quite positive and improving!
The World is getting better and markets are trending higher.
This is a good time to add capital to portfolios!
http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/05/the-us-dollar-signaling-global-improvement/2/
-
Pruitt Moves To Curtail EPA Use Of 'Sue And Settle' As GOP Pushes Bills
May 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss and Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says he has signed a “directive” curtailing so-called sue and settle tactics that produce consent decrees including court-enforced deadlines for rulemaking even as observers have warned it will be difficult for the administrator to adopt such limits and as administration allies move to use the process for their own deregulatory goals.
At the same time, Republicans in Congress are renewing their push to combat the practice through legislation.
Speaking at a May 24 environmental policy conference hosted by the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels, Pruitt said he recently issued an order for the agency to stop “regulation through litigation,” though he did not specify what steps officials have been directed to take.
“It is an abuse of the process to engage in regulation through litigation so I have actually sent out a directive across the agency that the days of ruling by consent order, the days of ruling by litigation in the judicial system are over. There is a time and place to settle there is a time and place to engage in a consent decree. But the consent decree should not be used to engage in rulemaking. Because that subverts the process that Congress has set up,” Pruitt said during his keynote address to the conference.
Republicans including Pruitt have long attacked “friendly” lawsuits where environmental groups sue EPA and other agencies for missing statutory rulemaking deadlines and negotiate a new, court-enforced target for completing whichever duty is at issue. While critics of the practice acknowledge that deadlines are a concern, they say environmentalists are setting the agencies' priorities from a wide array of competing legal mandates, rather than officials or Congress deciding which rules to work on.
But industry and former agency officials say the administrator may have to embrace the tactic or face the risk of courts imposing much shorter deadlines than what he would otherwise be able to negotiate.
“Ultimately, Pruitt is going to come to understand, even though he might hate sue and settle, that he will get worse deadlines by a judge and have no choice but to abide by them,” one industry source said recently.
But Pruitt said during his address that he sees no reason for a new administration to be bound by past decisions on which rules to address merely because those decisions were made in settlements.
“One of the things I have been hearing as administrator, is a host of consent decrees, have been negotiated, and as I look at those consent decrees I asked the question, why did we agree to that? Why did we agree to that change in a substantive statute? Why did we agree to a difference in a timeline? Why do we regulate through litigation? That stifles voices” and ensures “inconsistency in rulemaking,” he said.
EPA did not immediately respond to a request for a copy of the directive.
Pruitt's announcement of his directive was part of a broader argument that the regulatory “process” is broken, as EPA's critics both on and off Capitol Hill are calling for steps to rein in litigation by citizen groups under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act (CWA) and other environmental statutes.
He said that in recent years “the court system has been used to engage in rulemaking . . . priorities have been set through litigation, regulation through litigation.”
“The sue and settle concept is real,” he added.
Despite those claims, however, the Trump administration seems to be moving toward using similar settlements to achieve its deregulatory goals. Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) has initiated or signed onto four lawsuits seeking to repeal Obama-era regulations, telling the Kansas City Star that such suits help speed deregulatory goals.
“It turns out the best way to help President Trump pursue his agenda of rolling back federal overreach is to sue him,” he said.
House Legislation
Pruitt's statements came shortly before a joint hearing of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee's panel on intergovernmental regulations and its panel on interior and the environment, where GOP legislators argued for new legislative controls on sue and settle tactics.
Republicans at that hearing touted two pending bills they said would prevent sue-and-settle tactics, including H.R. 469 -- the latest iteration of long-standing legislation that would set new requirements for public participation in deadline suits -- and H.R. 1525, which would bar the government from agreeing to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees in settlements under the Clean Air Act, CWA or Endangered Species Act.
Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), the primary sponsor of H.R. 1525, said at the hearing that the bill would remove an incentive for environmental groups to sue the government, noting that a small number of such groups sue EPA and the federal wildlife agencies “hundreds of times” and recover their costs in every successful settlement.
And Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), who chaired the oversight committee panels' joint hearing, raised an argument that “friendly” suits may be illegitimate under the Constitution, which limits courts' jurisdiction to lawsuits that present an “actual case or controversy.” He questioned whether that requirement is satisfied when environmentalists share the same ultimate goal as the agency they are suing.
“How are their interests dissimilar enough that you have a true case or conflict there? . . . They both want to get the job done with regards to protecting the environment. Where's the conflict?” he asked attorney Justin Pidot, a former Department of Justice official under the Obama administration.
Pidot answered that when the government has violated a deadline that environmentalists hope to enforce because it chose to prioritize other issues, that constitutes a legal conflict even if both sides have the same abstract goal of greater environmental protection.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-moves-curtail-epa-use-sue-and-settle-gop-pushes-bills
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Priorities Rule Goes to OMB, May Meet June Deadline
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A draft final EPA rule describing how the agency will select chemicals for risk assessment is now at the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, indicating it may be issued by its June 22 deadline.
The prioritization rule is one of three regulations that the EPA must issue this summer under the 2016 update to the Toxic Substances Control Act and is the first of those rules to be submitted for OMB review prior to their release.
Keith Matthews, chair of the American Bar Association's Pesticides, Chemical Regulation, and Right-to-Know Committee, told Bloomberg BNA he thinks the EPA and budget office can meet the law's June 22 deadline for issuing the rule, or at least get close enough to demonstrate a good faith effort.
The Lautenberg Act overhauled the core provisions of TSCA for the first time in 40 years, including a new requirement that the EPA assess health and environmental risks of chemicals in commerce. The law also authorized the EPA to collect fees from the chemical industry, which the White House's fiscal year 2018 budget proposal presumes will pay for additional staff in the agency's Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program.
The amended chemicals law also requires the EPA to issue by June 22 a regulation setting procedures to assess the health and environmental risks of chemicals, as well as a rule governing an update of the agency's inventory of chemicals that have been made, sold or used in the U.S.
The EPA's May 23 submission of its draft final rule to the White House office shows the agency “is prioritizing implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act,” said Matthews, who also is an attorney with the Washington, D.C. office of Wiley Rein LLP.
Given the importance of the prioritization rule and the other two rules mandated by the law, Matthews said interested parties may ask to meet with OMB. Roughly 70 organizations and individuals commented on the Jan. 17 proposal issued shortly before the end of the Obama administration.
Split Over Defined Requirements
A core issue chemical manufacturers, other industrial sectors, environmental health advocates, and scientists focused on in their comments was whether or not the rule should define scientific terms used in the TSCA amendments. The amendments, for example, require the EPA to use “best available science” and a “weight-of-the-evidence” approach to evaluate the toxicity, exposure and other scientific information it would examine to decide whether a chemical poses sufficient potential risk to warrant more in-depth scrutiny.
The proposed rule (RIN:2070-AK23) published Jan. 17 did not define the terms, saying their meaning already is discussed in existing agency guidance.
The EPA argued in its proposal that codifying specific definitions in the rule could “inhibit the flexibility and responsiveness” of the agency to address changing science. The California EPA agreed with that suggestion in its comments, saying that if the EPA codified terms like “unreasonable risk” and “weight-of-the-evidence,” it could ultimately lead to missed deadlines.
However, the American Chemistry Council suggested in its comments that if the EPA limits references to those terms to its guidance documents, it would incorrectly imply that the EPA could ignore those congressional requirements.
The ACC, which represents small and large chemical manufacturers including Kuraray America Inc., Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., and W. R. Grace & Co., also asked the EPA to make clearer the factors it would use to decide whether a chemical is a high or low priority for risk assessment.
The AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions representing more than 12.5 million workers, urged the EPA to broaden the criteria it would use to identify high-priority chemicals. The EPA proposed to prioritize chemicals that are known human carcinogens and those with high acute and chronic toxicity. If people are getting sick from their exposure to chemicals under its conditions of use, the “EPA should have the ability still to label that chemical as high priority,” the federation said.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543674&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543674&jd=112543674
-
Ruling: No Right to Jury for Federal Chemical Law Claims
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A renovation contractor sued under a federal hazardous chemical law has no right to a jury trial when the federal government seeks only an injunction and disgorgement of profits, the Southern District of New York ruled May 23 (United States v. Accolade Constr. Grp., Inc., 2017 BL 172844, S.D.N.Y., No. 15-cv-05855, 5/23/17).
The ruling is the first to decide whether a civil suit under Toxic Substances Control Act includes a common law right to a jury trial.
The act governs reporting, recordkeeping, testing, and other restrictions for certain chemicals.
Here, where the government's complaint doesn't ask for damages for the contractor's failure to follow residential lead abatement measures, the right to a jury doesn't apply, the court said.
Accolade Construction Group Inc. allegedly failed to hire renovators trained in lead-safe practices, seal off work areas, and warn residents of the risks of lead exposure, according to the opinion.
The federal law, which doesn't include an express provision for a jury trial on claims violations, creates “a relatively close analogy” to equitable remedies traditionally decided by a court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said.
The remedies sought by the government also supported the conclusion that Accolade had no right to a jury trial, the court said.
The government also didn't seek damages—typically decided by juries—but only the disgorgement, or giving up, of profits typically decided by a judge, the court said.
“Of course, if the government were seeking legal as well as equitable relief in this case, the calculus might be different,” the court said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Ira B. Pollack & Associates represented Accolade.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543679&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543679&jd=112543679
-
Senate Bill Would Bar TSCA Oversight Of Lead Tackle, Ammo
May 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) reintroduced legislation today that would prevent U.S. EPA from regulating ammunition and fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The bill, the "Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act," would leave regulation of ammo and fishing tackle to state fish and game agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"Regulating ammunition and fishing tackle would restrict South Dakotans from participating in some of our state's most beloved [pastimes] by making them cost-prohibitive," Thune said in a statement.
On his first full day in office, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke issued an order revoking an Obama-era phaseout of lead ammunition and fishing tackle in national wildlife refuges (E&E News PM, March 2).
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 95 percent of ammo is manufactured using lead. The alternative, steel shot, is more expensive.
"Our bipartisan legislation will help ensure Minnesota anglers and hunters can continue to take part in our great outdoor traditions free from unnecessary regulations," Klobuchar said in a statement.
Overhauled by Congress last June, TSCA gives EPA the power to review and propose rules on lead use.
The Thune-Klobuchar bill is supported by hunting and fishing groups.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/25/stories/1060055119
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Defender Put in Charge of EPA Unit Overseeing Toxins
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared 1-bromopropane dangerous enough to make it one of the first 10 chemicals it scrutinized under an updated federal toxins law.
Nancy Beck disagreed. The EPA's finding, she told a Senate hearing in March, “is not consistent with the best available science.” At the time, she represented the American Chemistry Council, an industry group whose members include Dow Chemical Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp.
Now Beck has moved to EPA, where she'll be heading the unit overseeing the toxics law.
President Donald Trump has set up an adversarial dynamic between EPA staff and their new bosses. Trump's administrator, Scott Pruitt, sued the agency over regulations when he was Oklahoma's attorney general. Now comes Beck, who spent five years at the ACC, where she became known as a critic of EPA risk assessments. Beck's task in government will be implementing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, enacted last year after long and contentious negotiations between lawmakers, environmentalists and the industry, to regulate chemicals in commerce.
Industry Lobbying
“It's disappointing, after a bipartisan legislative process that tried to respect the interests of all the parties, that an ACC official with a long history of hostility and a long history of lobbying for the industry is now being put in a position of controlling the policies and decisions of the EPA office responsible for implementing the new law,” said Robert Sussman, a former EPA official who serves on the National Academy of Science's environmental science and toxicology board.
The EPA declined to comment. Beck referred a request for comment to the agency, which declined to comment.
“Dr. Beck is a dedicated scientist who brings with her to the agency extensive expertise in chemical management policy,” said Scott Openshaw, a spokesman for the ACC.
In her Senate testimony, Beck questioned the research methods that showed 1-bromopropane, used in degreasers and adhesive sprays, puts users at risk for lung cancer and kidney and reproductive harm.
Beck has also criticized the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, a program that assesses the extent of a chemical's toxicity. In her March testimony, she called the program outdated and reliant upon outmoded and overly conservative methods to weigh risk.
“EPA did not adequately consider study quality” or industry findings when making assessments, producing “overly conservative” estimates of cancer risk, she wrote. The White House's U.S. government budget for fiscal year 2018 cuts EPA funding 31 percent.
Health Risks
“This is a shift in how we define acceptable public health risks in this country,” said Thomas Burke, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and former EPA adviser.
Beck is a respected scientist who fulfilled her role as an advocate for the industry, Burke said. It “remains to be seen” whether she'll take a different approach as a representative of an agency charged with protecting health and the environment.
Scott Faber, vice president of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, called Beck's appointment, in an administration that has pledged to drain Washington's swamp, “the most brazen act of hypocrisy yet. There's no one who has done more to delay and ultimately deny protection from chemicals linked to cancer than Nancy Beck. Trump's EPA has completely abdicated its responsibility to keep us safe.”
Beck has worked in government before. She spent almost a decade, until 2012, at the Office of Management and Budget, where she advised the agency on chemical risks and policy.
Politicizing Science
A letter this month to Pruitt, signed by two dozen health and environmental groups, pointed to a report Beck wrote about risk assessment that was withdrawn after the National Academy of Sciences called it “fundamentally flawed.”
While she was at OMB, Beck's actions were called into question as “potentially politicizing” the agency's role to review EPA decisions on behalf of the White House and “second-guessing the professional judgment of career risk assessors,” Andy Igrejas, founder of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, said in the letter.
Beck was front and center in negotiations over revising the 40-year-old toxics regulations signed into law last year, said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Her former group, the ACC, has pushed back on regulation in the face of what will always be a degree of uncertainty of how substances impact human health, he said.
“If you only restrict when you're certain, you wouldn't do anything,” Rosenberg said. “The position at EPA is to protect the public interest.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543665&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543665&jd=112543665
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Moves To Delay Formaldehyde Emissions Rule Deadlines
May 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is proposing to extend the compliance deadlines under its final rule for formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products.
According to the agency, this will "add regulatory flexibility for regulated entities, reduces compliance burdens, and helps to prevent disruptions to supply chains."
It has called for extending the following three deadlines by 100 days, the:
· 12 December 2017 date for emission standards, record-keeping, and labelling provisions to 22 March 2018;
· 12 December 2018 date for import certification provisions to 22 March 2019; and
· 12 December 2023 date for provisions applicable to producers of laminated products to 22 March 2024.
It would also make minor changes to the final rule's wording to reflect its original intent, and seek to extend the transitional period during which California Air Resources Board (CARB) Third Party Certifiers (TCP) may certify composite wood products under TSCA title VI.
The formaldehyde emissions rule nationalises the CARB standards applicable to hardwood plywood, medium-density fibreboard, particleboard – and finished goods containing these products – sold, supplied, manufactured and imported in the US. Its implementation was delayed twice after President Trump took office.
Rule divides industry
The rule was raised by several trade bodies in response to the EPA's recent efforts to identify burdensome regulations to reform or repeal.
The Composite Panel Association (CPA) and the Hardwood, Plywood and Veneer Association were among groups that testified at the agency's 1 May regulatory reform hearing in support of implementing the formaldehyde rule without substantial delays.
Brock Landry, an attorney representing the CPA, said in testimony that American industry has been complying with CARB emissions regulations since 2008, but "unfortunately, some others have not".
He said a direct final rule – as proposed to a formal rulemaking process – could address several minor wording changes that would only cause short delays to its implementation. But more substantive changes "require careful consideration" with formal notice and comment periods. And the CPA does not support a more significant extension of the implementation date to accommodate these.
Several other groups, however, urged the agency in oral testimony and on the public docket to make more significant changes.
The Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association said the most important change needed to the rule is a provision requiring fabricators to notify consumers when it receives notification from a panel producer that part of a lot had failed an emissions test. Unchanged, this provision "has the potential to create devastating problems for the downstream supply chain, particularly fabricators, without serving a regulatory objective."
Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Formaldehyde Panel – in comments largely echoed by the American Home Furnishings Alliance – said the proposal "goes well beyond Congressional intent and is inconsistent with the CARB standard".
Whereas the CARB standard takes a performance-based approach, the ACC's panel said, the EPA's approach to regulate laminated products promotes the use of no added formaldehyde resins over formaldehyde-based resin technologies, including ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins.
This divergence results in unequal treatment of laminated products bonded to urea formaldehyde resins compared with the "technology neutral" CARB standard, it said. And the agency's final rule "encourages a move away from urea-formaldehyde-based resins, despite the fact that this chemistry has been proven to meet established CARB emission standards".
These will "create compliance confusion, stifle innovation, and increase manufacturing costs". It has called for the final rule to be modified.
Regulatory mechanism
The agency set forth the extensions in two Federal Register notices: a direct final rule, and a proposed rule.
Direct final rules are used for non-controversial changes. If no adverse comments are received on it, the rule will take effect. But if the agency does receive substantive adverse comments, it must withdraw the rule and proceed with a traditional proposed rulemaking.
Comments on both the direct final and proposed rules are due on 8 June. In the absence of any adverse comment, the final rule delaying the formaldehyde rule's implementation will take effect on 10 July without further notice, and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56085/us-epa-moves-to-delay-formaldehyde-emissions-rule-deadlines
-
(ACC Mentioned) Safety Not The Issue With Polystyrene Foam
May 25, 2017 | Capitol Weekly
By George Cruzan
If you’ve been following the debate in Sacramento over the use of foam cups and food containers in California, you probably have heard some rather outlandish allegations related to their safety.
After 40-plus years as a toxicologist, I can clearly state: There are no adverse health effects on humans from polystyrene foam food and drink containers. As California’s elected officials review various proposals, such as recycling these containers, the issue of safety can be set aside.
As we look at the safety of a polymer/plastic such as polystyrene, we should focus on the polymer, not its precursors. And polystyrene polymer is safe.
I suspect that much of the confusion over the safety of polystyrene stems from the similarity in names between polystyrene, a solid plastic, and styrene, a liquid chemical. Although the names sound familiar, polystyrene and styrene are different and have completely different properties. Styrene is a reactive substance that combines to form inert polystyrene. In other words, polystyrene does not have the properties of styrene.
This is true of all polymers (what we typically call plastics): they are different from the substances they are synthesized from. A common example is the difference between sugar and wood. Sugar is a substance with distinct properties. Join many sugar molecules together, and you get cellulose, the main polymer in wood.
So as we look at the safety of a polymer/plastic such as polystyrene, we should focus on the polymer, not its precursors. And polystyrene polymer is safe.
Some have questioned the potential impact of the tiny amount of styrene that can remain in the polystyrene polymer. The amount is minuscule and was difficult to detect until recent technological advances. The amount that potentially can transfer into foods is even smaller and is dwarfed by the amount of styrene that we all come into contact with in our daily lives.
A naturally occurring chemical, styrene was first extracted from the oriental sweetgum tree (also called levant styrax, after which styrene is named). The natural resin can be used as incense or to add a vanilla-like scent, while the oil has a woody aroma. Styrene’s chemical structure is similar to cinnamic aldehyde, the chemical component that creates cinnamon’s flavor.
Styrene is naturally present in several foods. It has been measured in foods that have not had contact with polystyrene containers. It is present in the highest concentration in coffee, cinnamon, beer and nuts.
In fact, styrene is everywhere in minute amounts. The air surrounding us always contains styrene from automobile exhaust, smoke, plant emissions and other sources. We also may recognize styrene by its distinctive odor (described by some as sweet) when using certain products such as latexes and paints.
The minute amount of styrene that may transfer from polystyrene containers into food or drink is about one-twentieth the overall amount we encounter every day when eating and breathing. Based on U.S. FDA’s safety calculations, this overall amount is orders-of-magnitude less than the agency’s “acceptable daily intake” of styrene.
In other words, there is no measurable risk. No governmental safety entity considers polystyrene a health risk. Numerous U.S. and state agencies, including the FDA, National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, and Cal EPA, have stated such.
There are real risks out there that require our attention. And it’s important to make sure we use the best available science to measure and reduce those risks.
Polystyrene foam just isn’t one of those risks.
http://capitolweekly.net/polystyrene/
-
Preservative Hazards Widely Unknown — EDF Report
May 24, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Preservatives can come with hazards like skin allergies and aquatic toxicity, but information on this class of chemistry is not widely enough shared, according to a report from the Environmental Defense Fund.
Preservatives are commonly used to prevent microbial growth in food and personal care products, but EDF said in the report that a "lack of comprehensive, structured, transparent, and comparable toxicological information" is an obstacle to safer chemical innovation.
EDF conducted a market scan of 16 preservatives after examining the ingredients of over 40 personal care product brands.
Using a chemical hazard assessment called GreenScreen, EDF found that one of the preservatives, DMDM hydantoin, scored in the high hazard benchmark for human health due to its carcinogenicity.
None of the 16 preservatives examined was determined to be in the safest benchmark, although some didn't have enough information to assess.
Toxicity to aquatic organisms was a frequent hazard found in the report.
Twelve of the 16 preservatives received scores of moderate or above for acute aquatic toxicity. Of those 12, nine received scores of high or very high.
The report suggested creating a "Chemicals Assessment Clearinghouse" to share hazard assessment information.
"A Chemicals Assessment Clearinghouse is a strategic intervention that would power smart, safer chemical innovation by academics, entrepreneurs and others and ultimately lead to a more healthful, product positive marketplace," EDF Senior Scientist Jennifer McPartland said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/24/stories/1060055095
-
Trump's FY18 Budget Would Maintain Smaller, 'Refocused' IRIS Program
May 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018 seeks to preserve a smaller version of the agency's influential but often controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which had been slated for elimination in an early budget memo, signaling the program will be devoted in part to assessing substances under the revised toxics law and other mandatory regulatory programs.
The agency's FY 18 budget justification says the administration is seeking $22.5 million for the Human Health Risk Assessment research program, which includes IRIS, a $15 million decrease from the $37.5 million allotted in the FY17 budget.
EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment research program “will continue to develop assessments and scientific products that are used extensively by EPA programs and regional offices and the risk management community to estimate the potential risk to human health from exposure to environmental contaminants. These include: Integrated Risk Information System health hazard and dose-response assessments,” the justification says.
It is unclear how much of the proposed cut will be directed at the IRIS program specifically. The budget document also indicates that $12 million of the cut, plus a cut of some 66.8 full-time employee equivalents (FTE), “refocuses” research in areas including IRIS, though the document does not explain how the program will be overhauled.
Other areas being “refocused” as part of the cuts include “development of cumulative risk methods” that consider chemical and non-chemical stressors, another controversial effort inside and outside the agency; “systematic review and dose-response methods and tools used to inform” IRIS and other human health risk program products as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address concerns with some draft IRIS assessments; and “development of advanced methods to support cost-benefit assessment.”
The remaining $2.9 million and 15 FTE in cuts are described as “[r]esources are being realigned to the Superfund appropriation within this program/project for IRIS.”
The administration proposed to eliminate the program in a leaked March 21 memo from David Bloom, the agency's acting chief financial officer, which detailed how officials planned to implement the administration's proposal to cut EPA's FY18 funding by more than $2 billion -- or 31 percent -- compared to FY16 levels.
The proposal surprised few observers, given stepped-up agency efforts to bolster implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law, and long-running criticism of the program from industry groups, who charged that its assessments are too conservative, and the National Academy of Sciences and Government Accountability Office and others, which have said that its assessments take too long to be issued.
But many observers questioned whether the Trump administration would be able to eliminate IRIS, given lack of political leadership at the agency. "What's the realistic prospect this ever gets done?" one industry source said.
TSCA Support
The budget justification says that the research program in FY18 will “continue to provide support to EPA programs, Regional Offices, and states in their chemical evaluation needs to implement the” revised TSCA, which is administered by EPA's toxics office.
The justification explains that this will include “scientific support for risk evaluations and high priority contaminants, including perfluorinated compounds, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).”
The document also says that the IRIS program in FY18 will “focus its efforts on accelerating the pace of and throughput for its chemical reviews.” The pace of the program's development of its analyses has been a long-standing issue, raised by many science advisory panels, Congress, the Government Accountability Office and various stakeholders.
The budget proposal released May 23 describes some apparent changes planned for the program, stating that IRIS assessments “that support policy and regulatory decisions for the EPA’s programs and regions, and state agencies, will be consolidated into a portfolio of Chemical Evaluation products that optimize the application of best available science and technology.”
The justification says these products will be “shaped for use by a number of partners,” including EPA’s program and regional offices, states, and other federal agencies. EPA says this will allow the broader human health risk assessment program to “navigate by anticipating the EPA’s strategic regulatory and policy directions, while scientifically remaining ahead of the curve, . . . manage tactically by ensuring that the order/timing/priorities of its assessment activities are consistent with both short-term and long-term goals, and . . .work proactively to translate and integrate the science and its tailored ‘fit-for-purpose’ products.”
The document also states that IRIS will support the toxics office's ongoing efforts to implement the revised TSCA “through a more proactive pipeline with” the toxics office. IRIS will also “work with the Office of Air and Radiation to support response to court-ordered requirements under the Residual Risk Assessment program.”
The document suggests that EPA will continue at least some of the efforts undertaken in response to past NAS recommendations, in particular the development and use of systematic review approaches for IRIS assessments. These tools are intended to provide a rigorous and transparent approach to conducting analyses. The document says that IRIS “will develop case studies of accelerated systematic review methodologies/protocols and related automation tools. For this pilot, existing assessments will be updated to meet focused high-priority needs for the EPA’s program and Regional Offices.”
The document also says that the human health research program will collaborate with EPA's overarching chemical safety research program to link its “assessment databases and literature management tools … [with] the RapidTox Dashboard being developed by the National Center for Computational Toxicology...” This EPA center has been responsible for developing EPA's high-throughput cellular toxicity screen, known as ToxCast, and related efforts.
Such a new partnership is not surprising, given that the human health risk assessment program's new chief, Tina Bahadori, was a major booster of the computational toxicology center in her previous position as chief of the chemical safety research program.
The document explains that this linkage “can be used to inform assessment development and fill gaps in assessments, especially for data poor chemicals. It also can incorporate diverse data streams, including data from non-animal testing strategies, to develop assessment products for chemicals that are lacking assessments.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trumps-fy18-budget-would-maintain-smaller-refocused-iris-program
-
Dating Site Opens For Hazard-Free Chemicals
May 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
The Swedish environmental group ChemSec has introduced the Marketplace, a website linking companies selling alternatives to hazardous chemicals with those seeking to buy them.
Chemical firms can advertise hazard-free products on the site for free. Buyers seeking such chemicals may post requests, also at no cost. The website acts only to introduce parties and does not facilitate transactions.
Clothing retailer H&M has made the first product request: alternatives to the bisphenol A found in thermal paper for cash register and credit card receipts.
Chemical companies including Chemours, Clariant, Rivertop Renewables, and Valspar have put products on the Marketplace.
Chemours, for example, is offering Zelan R3, a nonfluorinated, 60%- biobased coating for preventing stains on fabrics. “We are excited that ChemSec Marketplace can be a positive place for industry to find sustainable solutions,” says Bob Buck, technical fellow for Chemours.
ChemSec has established requirements for chemicals that may be offered, including a maximum content of 1,000 ppm of any substance recognized by Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization & Restriction of Chemicals law as being carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic, persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic.
ChemSec says it launched the website to raise the visibility of hazardous chemical substitutes. Other guides exist, “but very few of these show the way forward,” says Anne-Sofie Andersson, the group’s executive director.
ChemSec is a not-for-profit organization. The Marketplace initiative is being funded by the John Merck Fund, a Massachusetts-based charitable organization that aims to spend up to $100 million on human health and environment projects by 2020.
Future versions of the Marketplace will include guides to chemical substitution and further information about safer alternatives.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i22/Dating-site-opens-hazard-free.html
-
European Chemicals Agency Issues Advisory Nano Guidance
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency May 24 published updated guidance on how companies could provide information on nanomaterials in the registration dossiers they submit in line with the European Union's REACH chemicals law.
However, the agency emphasized that the guidance should be considered “advisory best practice” rather than formal guidelines, in the wake of a March ruling of its Board of Appeal that the chemicals agency had limited power to request nano-specific substance information from REACH registrants separate from information relating to the bulk form of a chemical.
The extent to which companies should provide nano-specific information in their registration dossiers has been a long-running gray area under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals). In the March ruling, the Board of Appeal annulled a European Chemicals Agency request to a company for information on the substance identity of nano forms of titanium dioxide on the basis that under REACH, companies are “at liberty to give a broad definition” of a substance that covers both its bulk and nano forms.
The advisory guidance said that it “does not aim to give potential registrants advice on how to fulfill their information requirements for the substances they are registering,” but that the submission of nano-specific information was recommended so that REACH registration dossiers address “hazards posed by all possible forms” of a registered chemical.
National Registries
Nanoscale substances can have structures thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. The properties of a nanoscale version of a chemical can differ from the same chemical with larger-scale structures.
REACH requires importers and manufacturers of chemicals to file registrations with the European Chemicals Agency as a condition of access to the EU market. The final REACH registration deadline, for the lowest volume and most specialized chemicals, falls on May 31, 2018.
Anthony Bochon, a senior associate with Squire Patton Boggs in Brussels, told Bloomberg BNA May 24 that “nothing obliges companies to provide more information” on nanoengineered chemicals separate from their bulk forms—despite the chemicals agency's advice.
The agency aimed to “strengthen an EU-coordinated approach” on the gathering of information on nanoengineered chemicals in the context of national initiatives in some EU countries requiring notification of nanomaterial use, Bochon said.
Belgium, Denmark and France have national obligations relating to the notification of nanomaterials placed on their respective markets, and Sweden is considering a nanomaterial registry, Bochon said.
The countries with nanomaterial registries “have really seized this topic,” highlighting the limited information on nanomaterials collected via REACH registration dossiers, Bochon added.
The European Chemicals Agency has requested clarity from the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, on the information it can ask from REACH registrants on nanoengineered chemicals.
The commission carried out a consultation in 2013 on how the REACH annexes should be modified to better specify information requirements related to nanoengineered chemicals, but no proposal on the information requirements has appeared.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543667&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543667&jd=112543667
-
EU Textile Colourant Standards Toughened
May 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has updated the standards for determining restricted aromatic amines derived from azo colourants in textiles.
The two updates are linked to prohibitions on the use of azo colourants in textile and leather articles that may come into contact with human skin or oral cavities.
Improved analytical procedures will be needed as EN 14362-1/3:2017 replaces existing standards published in 2012.
The updated standards are:
· EN ISO 14362-1:2017 [1]: Textiles – methods for determination of certain aromatic amines derived from azo colourants. Part 1: detection of the use of certain azo colourants accessible with and without extracting the fibres (ISO 14362-1:2017) [2]; and
· EN ISO 14362-3:2017 [3]: Textiles – methods for determination of certain aromatic amines derived from azo colourants. Part 3: detection of the use of certain azo colourants, which may release 4-aminoazobenzene (ISO 14362-3:2017 [4]).
They relate to entry 43 of Annex XVII of REACH. This prohibits the use of azo colourants in textile and leather articles that may come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin or oral cavity.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56015/eu-textile-colourant-standards-toughened
-
(ACC Mentioned) WVU Coach Huggins Highlights Shale Crescent USA Conference In Parkersburg
May 24, 2017 | The News Center
By Todd Baucher
So says one of the winningest coaches in college basketball.
"If our guys can play to the 12-minute timeout, that's a lot," Bob Huggins, Men's Basketball Coach at West Virginia University told a conference held by Shale Crescent, USA Tuesday at the Smoot Theater in downtown Parkersburg. "And we've probably kept them in too long. So I have guys on the bench, I put them in. And they root for each other, they pull for each other. And we have tremendous teamwork."
And Shale Crescent's founders say much the same. They've been around the country in the past year-most recently in Texas-telling the story about the Marcellus Shale and its contributions to the region's natural gas industry. Indirectly, it's a story that's even been told in national media.
"These kinds of assets don't happen in as many places around the world," says Jerry James, Shale Crescent Volunteer. "And we think we're on the short list that we think we can attract people from anywhere in the world who are interested in manufacturing and energy-intensive industries."
And while others' enthusiasm for the proposed Wood County cracker complex has waned, Shale Crescent and its supporters say the potential is still there. They add the development process for any cracker is a slow one.
"Last Friday, the American Chemistry Council put out a report that said there are upwards of four or five more ethane crackers that can be built in this region," according to Dr. Tom Witt, Chief Economist, West Virginia University.
"From the time they make an announcement is about three years," says Wally Kandel, Senior Vice-President, Shale Crescent. "The time to actually permit and build is five years after that. So, this is a five to ten-year process, and it's not something that's going to be done in a matter of months."
30% of the nation's natural gas production now comes from our region. That's taking into account the growth in drilling has slowed in the past three years. Still, Shale Crescent says it's growing rapidly.
-
EPA Path On Clean Power Plan 'Yet To Be Determined' — Pruitt
May 25, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt called American action on climate change a "bad business deal," promoted fossil energy and said his agency hasn't yet determined whether to replace the Clean Power Plan.
In his most extensive public remarks since taking office, Pruitt told a small gathering at a conference sponsored by the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels LLP that EPA would focus on three core principles: "the rule of law," "process" and "cooperative federalism."
"We're getting back to the basics," Pruitt said.
Pruitt called regulatory uncertainty, in the energy world and beyond, the "biggest impediment to economic growth" in recent years. Environmental advocates argue that pro-climate policies could boost the GDP.
Pruitt noted that carbon levels are lower than in the 1990s, attributing that to innovation and technology, not government intervention.
The global Paris climate deal "represents the rest of the world applauding as we penalize ourselves and hurt our economy," he said. He called the agreement a "bumper sticker" for the Obama administration and said it was "mostly talk and little action."
He also contended the United States wouldn't have met its obligations with regulations on the books. Environmentalists don't agree. Bruce Nilles, head of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, countered that "it is bad for business to keep betting on coal" when utilities are working to cut emissions.
Pruitt said the Obama administration's signature climate rule, the Clean Power Plan, which would have called on states and utilities to cut power plant carbon emissions, was a "reimagination of authority." He said it would have cost $292 billion, citing figures from a report prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity that were far higher than estimates from the Obama EPA.
President Trump has directed EPA to review the Clean Power Plan, with an eye toward unwinding it. Legal experts have suggested EPA might want to replace the rule with something less stringent to avoid lawsuits for not acting on the agency's previous finding that carbon emissions are a danger to public health. A new rule could focus solely on efficiency improvements at coal plants, for example. The White House has struggled with which route to take, however.
Asked whether EPA could replace the regulation, Pruitt said, "That's yet to be determined."
He contrasted the Clean Power Plan to the Waters of the U.S. rule, which he said would require new definitions of regulated waterways.
"On Clean Power Plan, I think it's yet to be determined," he said. "I think there's a fair question to be asked and answered on that issue with stationary sources. What are the tools in the toolbox?"
Pruitt said EPA has "struck out" twice before on carbon dioxide emissions. He noted one Supreme Court decision that upheld EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from large sources but stopped it from regulating smaller ones. He also referenced the Supreme Court stay on implementing the Clean Power Plan, which is still in effect.
Pruitt said he asked lawmakers during his confirmation process what laws could be used to regulate CO2 from power plants. He added that he believes the way the Obama administration pursued standards was illegal and was instrumental in his decision as Oklahoma attorney general to bring a case against EPA.
He argued that the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act were focused on local and regional air pollutants, not carbon.Superfund
Pruitt also defended an Energy Department grid reliability study that would explore whether renewable power is pushing coal-fired power plants offline, but he added that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers.
He said pushing for 100 percent renewable power is "just not wise" and that "we need to have fuel diversity."
Nilles said, "Ending carbon pollution is critical if we are to avoid warming above 1.5 degrees — hence the push for 100 percent."
Pruitt said his agency can do a better job than the Obama administration in cleaning up pollution, even if it has less money.
In recent weeks, EPA has announced a renewed focus on Superfund sites, which Pruitt says the Obama administration failed to address. Superfund spending would fall by about a third under Trump's budget proposal.
Pruitt said that "leadership, attitude, management and focus" would be "key to restoring a commonsense Superfund portfolio."
Faegre Baker Daniels principal Andrew Wheeler, who is reportedly being considered for EPA's deputy administrator position, moderated questions for Pruitt and asked about his timeline for filling the job (Greenwire, March 24).
Pruitt didn't give a deadline but did note EPA's 10 regional office heads don't need Senate approval and could be in place quickly. He said that would speed communications with regulated industries. Staffers have denied speculation that EPA might close some regional offices.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/24/stories/1060055102
-
A Little-Known Reason Why Consensus on Energy Policy Is Possible
May 25, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sam Ori
Sam Ori is the executive director of the Energy Policy Institute at University of Chicago.
Anyone who watched the results of the last election roll in, or who simply turns on cable news, would see a country enormously divided on key issues. And, judging by the rhetoric on coal jobs, environmental regulation and climate change, energy policy is no exception.
But the national dialogue is largely missing a revolutionary change in the energy industry that’s sweeping across the country, creating real opportunities for convergence. Driven by new resources and fuels, large swaths of the nation that historically accounted for very little in terms of energy investment and production are becoming major players. It is a trend that has already boosted local economies and could now be opening the door to a surprising possibility: Americans across the political and ideological divide may increasingly be drawn together around a common set of ideas and goals on energy policy.
Consider this: In 2004, on the eve of the shale-gas revolution, there were just 34 counties in the U.S. that produced more than 100 billion cubic feet of gas annually. By 2015, that number had surged to 80 counties. And while traditional producers like Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma accounted for a sizable share of the growth, 40% of the increase came from new production powerhouses like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
An even more dramatic story has unfolded in U.S. electricity markets. Less than a decade ago, the nation’s grid relied on a few hundred coal plants for more than half its power, and the large majority of that coal was mined in just three states. While we still get a third of our power from coal, the system has evolved into one that includes more than 50,000 utility-scale wind turbines and one million rooftop solar installations spread across the entire country. Today, these fuels account for less than 10% of U.S. power generation, but their share is growing rapidly as costs fall.
Whether you are looking at oil, natural gas or the electricity grid, an energy system whose costs and benefits were once concentrated in just a few regions of the country has transformed into one whose presence is much more widely distributed. This democratization of energy production has already had important impacts.
First, America’s new energy landscape has been a big benefit for local economies. A recent paper co-authored by my colleague Michael Greenstone, for example, found that communities in the regions where shale-oil and gas drilling takes place profit to the tune of $1,900 per household, annually. Those benefits include a 6% increase in average income driven by wage growth and royalty payments, a 6% increase in housing prices, and a 10% increase in employment.
This finding aligns with a number of analyses that have explored the local impact of renewable energy investment. While the build-out of wind generation has been geographically diverse, more than 70% of wind farms are located in low-income, rural areas throughout the West and Midwest. The $100 billion that has poured into wind generation over the past decade has injected new funding into public finances in these communities and provided a much-needed source of additional income to farmers at a time of low commodity prices.
Yet, as important as the economic impacts have been, the biggest implication of these changes to the U.S. energy system could be their effect on our politics. For much of the past 50 years, U.S. energy politics have been driven by regional interests—from the oil patch and coal country in particular. But there are signs this is beginning to change as energy production becomes less concentrated and more distributed.
In 2015, for example, a bill that secured historic five-year extensions of tax credits for wind and solar power while also opening global markets to shale-oil drillers received strong support from both parties. This kind of compromise on energy policy would likely not have been possible if Republicans felt unsafe supporting strong renewable subsidies or if Democrats were unable to support a policy that led to more shale drilling. More recently, after a draft White House budget showed it would gut the Department of Energy’s renewables office by 70%, six Republican senators from across the country called on President Trump to maintain funding for the agency.
Given the expected growth in renewable energy investment and shale drilling in the coming years, this could be the beginning of a much broader alignment on energy policy. As communities in states across the country find that they have a common set of economic interests and policy objectives, they will become an increasingly potent force with skin in the game on big issues. And while policies focused more specifically on climate change are likely to remain more divisive, it should not be lost on anyone that many of the fuels at the forefront of this revolution—wind, solar and natural gas—offer important environmental and climate benefits.
The incentives for cooperation are aligning across states as geographically and politically diverse as, for example, Texas and California around renewables and Pennsylvania and North Dakota around natural gas. At least on energy policy, we may be about to become a country that’s much more united than divided.
https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/05/25/a-little-known-reason-why-consensus-on-energy-policy-is-possible/
-
Trump's 2-1 Order Seen Driving 'Haphazard Regulation,' Experts Charge
May 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By - Doug Obey
Almost 100 economists and lawyers are criticizing President Donald Trump's executive order that requires EPA and other agencies to repeal two rules for every new measure promulgated, charging it retreats from the long-standing principle of maximizing rules' “net benefits” and opens the door to “haphazard regulation” that could harm the public.
“By tying new regulations to the elimination of existing regulations, Executive Order 13777 opens the door to arbitrary and haphazard regulation that could harm the public,” the officials, including former Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials, charged in a May 22 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney and several other officials.
The experts urge the Trump administration to either revoke the order, or at least amend it or issue new guidance explicitly directing that “all deregulatory actions taken under the order be shown to pass a benefit cost test.”
The letter is the latest example of skepticism over Executive Order 13771, which calls on federal agencies to repeal two rules for every new regulation and also imposes a regulatory cost budget on the agencies.
Critics of the order, including environmental advocates, economists and former government officials, have argued that it will effectively block any new rules not explicitly required by statute, and lead to a focus on costs rather than benefits of federal rules.
Environmentalists and other groups are also challenging the order's legality, in a suit where they are charging that the order would, in some cases, undermine statutory requirements. Former EPA toxics chief Jim Jones noted in a May 15 declaration that the order would prevent EPA from issuing rules in accordance with deadlines imposed by the new Toxic Substances Control Act and that the rules' safety standards would be undermined by the order's cost requirements.
The plaintiffs are also arguing that an already final EPA rule limiting mercury releases from dental amalgam has been delayed by the order in violation of the Clean Water Act.
The federal judge hearing the case May 22 rejected a government motion to stay the litigation while the court weighs procedural issues.
But proponents of the order, including Trump transition adviser Marcus Peacock, have claimed such concerns are overblown, citing the fact that OMB guidance to implement the order still requires agencies to comply with the Clinton-era order, EO 12866, which requires cost-benefit analysis during the process to both adopt new rules and repeal old ones.
But the letter from 95 economists and lawyers, including former Clinton OMB Director Sally Katzen, indicates the extent to which many regulatory experts remain concerned that the implementation of Trump's order will derail rules with significant net benefits to the public.
While the letter endorses the overarching objective of making regulations “more flexible and efficient,” it warns that the Trump's regulatory reform effort is focused narrowly on costs of federal rules.
And it raises a red flag over an initial selection process for regulations to be repealed that appears not to consider the “forgone benefits” that would result.
The signatories in their letter “recognize” that the administration has preserved the EO 12866 cost-benefit order and also included “net benefits” as a criterion for changes to existing rules. But “without requiring the analysis of forgone benefits from deregulatory actions . . . agency actions taken to comply with the order may end up harming the public on balance,” the signatories write.
Air Pollution Rules
The letter includes two specific examples of potential harm from EO 13771.
First, the signatories say EPA under the policy would be able to issue a new air pollution regulation only if the agency could find sufficiently costly offsetting rules and keep within its regulatory cost budget -- even if new signs emerged showing much greater benefits than previously assumed from pollution reductions.
Second, the signatories say that under the EO, the Department of Transportation would be barred from issuing a new regulation to curb traffic accidents and fatalities unless the department could fulfill the EO's requirements.
The signatories in their letter suggest that the Trump administration “consider further steps that would rescind the cost-only approach contained” in EO 13771, “such as amending or eliminating the order itself.”
In the alternative, the signatories urge that the Trump administration issue further guidance directing that “all the regulatory actions taken under the order be shown to pass a benefit-cost test.” And they suggest that this requirement should also apply to the Trump administration's EO 13777, which “appropriately directs agencies to eliminate 'unnecessary' and 'ineffective' regulations whose ' costs . . . exceed the benefits,' but which also includes other criteria that could encourage agencies to eliminate net- beneficial regulations.”
“We urge an approach to implementing these executive orders that will ensure that agencies will focus on eliminating regulations for which benefits fall short of costs and that cannot be justified on other reasonable grounds.”
A press release from the economic think tank Resources for the Future (RFF) notes that several signatories are from RFF, and that signers of the letter also include former officials from the Council of Economic Advisers, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and many university academics.
A related blog post from RFF Senior Fellows Joshua Linn and Alan Krupnick says that the “plain wording” of EO 13771 and EO 13777, which requires agencies to create task forces to implement the administration's deregulatory agenda, as well as related guidance, places an “outsized focus on regulator costs but we hope, as some have suggested, that is not what the administration intends. And it states that signatories views are “their own and should not be attributed to their respective institutions. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trumps-2-1-order-seen-driving-haphazard-regulation-experts-charge
-
California Carbon Auction Bounces Back, Raising $475 Million
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's carbon market bounced back in the latest quarterly cap-and-trade auction results released May 24, with the state selling 90 percent of the allowances offered at or above the $13.57 per ton floor price, a stark contrast to a series of low-participation auctions.
Results from the May 16 sale are the result of “market fundamentals,” Chris Busch, who monitors California's cap-and-trade program for San Francisco-based Energy Innovation, told Bloomberg BNA May 24. There's “a looming compliance deadline” so demand for allowances surged, he said. “That's a break for the low demand that was in evidence last year.”
California sold all of the 2017 allowances for a settled floor price of $13.80 a ton, raising more than $450 million in the latest auction. And 22 percent of the 2020 allowances sold for the floor price of $13.57 a ton, generating another $25 million.
Busch expects compliance needs will result in increased demand through 2020.
“These results show that the program is basically working and is fundamentally well designed,” and should reassure legislators who have called for reforms following recent disappointing auctions, Busch said.
Proposed legislation, S.B. 775, seeks changes to ensure the program provides a more stable flow of revenue in the future and could make other changes, some of which could fundamentally change the design of the cap-and-trade program.
“Through 2020, auction sales will need to average 70-80 percent [of allowances offered] based on simple math of emitter compliance needs, generating $7.5 billion to $8.5 billion for California's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,” Busch said.
Market Uncertainties Remain
“While today's results represented a rebound, uncertainty for the future of the market, and for allowance prices, remain,” Rachel Jiang, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, told Bloomberg BNA in an email. “The post-2020 pathway for the cap-and-trade program has not been finalized, and the California legislature is working on a gamut of measures relating to capping emissions and the design of the cap-and-trde program, which may or may not prove supportive for allowance prices.”
Another potential stumbling block for future auctions is the decision by the California Chamber of Commerce and other groups to seek California Supreme Court review of an appellate court's finding that the auction is not an illegal tax, Jiang said.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is pressing lawmakers to reauthorize the program beyond 2020 through the budget process, which would require a super-majority vote. A two-thirds vote of both houses would help protect the cap-and-trade program from future litigation, providing certainty of its continuation.
California's economywide cap-and-trade program, launched in 2013, sets annual emissions caps that decline over time. Regulated entities, including power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities and distributors of natural gas and transportation fuels can comply with annual caps either by installing controls or purchasing allowances. Excess allowances may be sold.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543691&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543691&jd=112543691
-
Ozone Plan for Kentucky Due by June 2018, Judge Tells EPA
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
The EPA has until June 2018 to issue a federal plan to address ozone pollution originating in Kentucky after a federal court approved the agency's partial consent decree with an environmental group.
The May 23 order requires the Environmental Protection Agency to comply with what's known as the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor provision” to ensure that emissions of pollutants that contribute to ozone formation from Kentucky do not interfere with downwind states’ ability to meet federal air quality requirements (Sierra Club v. Pruitt, N.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-04328-JD, 5/23/17).
The federal plan could require Kentucky industries to install new pollution controls in regions where ozone pollution exceeds federal requirements. The Kentucky Energy and Environmental Cabinet could not be immediately reached to comment on whether the state would create its own plan for approval by the EPA or allow the federal agency to create a plan for the state.
Although the EPA sought until 2020 to issue its federal plan, the court didn't budge.
“Nothing in the EPA's filing justifies an extension of the deadline to complete the Kentucky [federal implementation plan] to 2020,” Judge James Donato said in his opinion. “The EPA points to a number of alleged roadblocks to quicker action, but most of them are variations on the theme that further analysis and study might improve the Kentucky [federal implementation plan]. That is no basis for slighting a congressional mandate.”
The EPA was required to issue a federal plan when Kentucky did not submit a plan to implement the ozone standards set in 2008.
The Sierra Club sued in 2015 for failure to issue federal plans after Kentucky and California did not submit their own plans. According to the complaint, the EPA provided notice to the states that they failed to make the necessary plan in March of 2013, giving the EPA until April 2015 to impose its own standards on the state. Seeing nothing in place, the California-based Sierra Club sued to enforce the laws and protect its members from downwind pollution.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543685&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543685&jd=112543685
-
More Questions, Few Answers on Climate Interventions: Scientists
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Technologies that would allow humans to intervene in the climate change process, such as carbon capture, are not yet viable but raise many questions, scientists commissioned by the federal government to study this issue said.
The group, assembled through the National Academies of Sciences, launched a study May 24 that will set a research agenda geared toward filling in the large knowledge gaps on what are known as climate intervention techniques.
The studies are to begin as the Trump administration's May 23 budget proposal for fiscal 2018 contains huge cuts to climate programs including research.
“We're going through some transitions,” John Litynski, the Energy Department's acting director for carbon capture and storage, told the scientists.
Two Categories
Waleed Abdalati, a University of Colorado professor who co-authored a previous NAS study on climate intervention, grouped these technologies into two distinct categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and those that increase the reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere to reduce warming.
Both come with their own distinct risks, he said. Carbon removal processes are generally slow, expensive and require near-global coordination and participation. But Abdalati said that reflectivity engineering technologies, such as releasing reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, come with huge unknown risks—especially because they could be deployed unilaterally by a single actor.
“There's no substitute for mitigation and adaptation,” he said. “The fact that we're talking about climate intervention is really a statement about the situation we're currently in.”
But, Abdalati said, despite all the unknowns around climate intervention, it would be irresponsible not to do more research into a potential solution for climate change.
“Knowing those unknowns is well within our grasp and an appropriate, worthy pursuit,” he said.
Stephen Pacala, the Princeton University professor leading the NAS study, said five more meetings are planned to go over different aspects of this issue.
Blue Carbon?
While reducing carbon emissions continues to be a top environmental priority, federal agencies are also looking into new ways to make carbon storage and sequestration more technically and financially viable.
Meredith Muth, a program manager with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said her agency is increasing its research into the power of wetlands to sequester carbon. She said new scientific data is showing that plants and soil in tidal wetlands, especially in saltwater wetlands, can store orders of magnitude more carbon than forests or other more well-known carbon sinks.
Muth said NOAA is trying to figure out how to quantify the climate benefits of restoring wetlands, but “the more we look into it, the more questions we have.”
Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey is conducting research into the viability of storing captured carbon dioxide deep underground, according to Peter Warwick, a carbon sequestration project chief at the agency. He said one of the things USGS is looking into is whether it would be possible for hydraulic fracturers to inject liquefied carbon dioxide into their wells instead of water.
However, he said, the big challenge in this type of underground sequestration is that it's very difficult to ensure that the stored carbon dioxide would never reemerge into the atmosphere.
Budget Cuts
Both Warwick and Muth's programs could be facing steep budget cuts in the near future.
President Donald Trump's budget request calls for more than $31 million in cuts to NOAA's climate research program, a roughly 20 percent drop from current funding levels. His request for USGS would eliminate entirely the $7.9 million program Warwick works on.
In that request, the agency states that its research into storing carbon dioxide in the ground has already yielded a body of work that can be used “as a foundation for further work by others.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543686&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543686&jd=112543686
-
Obama Administration Failed to Protect Environment, Pruitt Says
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
EPA chief Scott Pruitt skewered his predecessors at a May 24 symposium, arguing contamination crises and court battles are the real environmental legacy of the Obama administration.
There are more Superfund sites now than at the outset of 2009, and 40 percent of Americans live in areas that fail to meet EPA ozone standards, Pruitt told the symposium hosted by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
“Everybody talks about the past administration being so great for the environment,” Pruitt told the symposium hosted by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in Washington. “What's so great about that record?”
Pruitt has criticized the Obama legacy to similar effect with other news outlets in recent weeks. While environmental groups have praised the Obama administration for a suite of environmental regulations, including fuel economy standards and a toxic substances regulatory overhaul, Pruitt pointed to the ongoing water contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., and the 2015 Gold King Mine blowout in southwest Colorado.
‘Bumper Sticker’
The former Oklahoma attorney general, who sued the agency he now heads more than a dozen times, later reiterated his opposition to the Paris climate accord.
The Paris agreement, coupled with the still-litigated Clean Power Plan, would slash the U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 trillion annually through greenhouse gas reductions, he said. The agreement fails to coerce serious changes out of China and India, he added.
“Paris is a bumper sticker. It's what the last administration represented,” Pruitt said. “They were mostly talk, very little action.”
More than 140 countries have now ratified the pact, and environmentalists point to it as one of the Obama administration's most significant achievements. Pope Francis urged President Donald Trump May 24 to remain a party to the agreement, during the president's first trip to the Vatican.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543678&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543678&jd=112543678
-
Trump's Delay Opens Door for European Lobbying on Paris Pact
May 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Margaret Talev
President Donald Trump hasn't decided if the U.S. will remain a part of the Paris climate accord, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, as pressure mounts from Pope Francis, European leaders and Democratic lawmakers at home to remain in the historic pact to address global warming.
Trump's decision on Paris will probably come after he returns from his first foreign trip as president, Tillerson told reporters on Air Force One on the way from Rome to Brussels.
“The president indicated we're still thinking about that,” Tillerson said, describing a meeting at the Vatican May 24. The trip has been “an opportunity to hear from people” about the issue, he added.
The delay has created an opening for foreign and religious leaders who are imploring Trump to honor the Paris commitment despite his criticisms of the deal as bad for American workers and his description of climate change as a hoax. That list includes the pope, who gave Trump a copy of his 2015 encyclical on climate change following a half-hour meeting in his private study May 24. The Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, also brought up climate change.
“They were encouraging continued participation in the Paris accord,” Tillerson said, noting that administration officials are “developing our own recommendation” on whether to stick with the Paris agreement. He described “a good exchange” on climate change, including how to address the issue without jeopardizing “a thriving economy.“
Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni highlighted the pact in his meeting with Trump, and newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron was set to press the issue during his first face-to-face meeting with the U.S. president. At home, Democrats say honoring the agreement among roughly 200 nations is important for U.S. strategic interests.
“This is about U.S. leadership,” Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in Washington. “Our allies know how important U.S. leadership is for there to be acceptable world action.”
Trump is in Brussels May 24 for a NATO meeting. He'll be back in Italy again May 26 for talks with Group of Seven leaders in Taormina, Sicily. The world's developed nations are hoping for a signal from Trump about the fate of the Paris pact during the summit, Germany's environment minister, Barbara Hendricks, said May 22.
Supporters of the pact argue that a U.S. withdrawal could prompt other nations to follow suit, undermining the deal that is the cornerstone of worldwide efforts to address climate change.
Top Trump administration officials have clashed over whether the U.S. should formally remain a party to the pact signed in December 2015, with environmental chief Scott Pruitt and top strategist Steve Bannon pushing for a pullout. White House advisers Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter, have advocated sticking with the deal.
Daughter's Influence
Republican Sen. James Inhofe, who opposes the Paris agreement, said he wasn't worried about Trump caving to pressure from foreign leaders during his overseas travels. The stronger influence may come from within the president's own family, Inhofe said.
“His biggest problem, I think, is his daughter,” Inhofe told reporters. “You're always influenced more by your kids.“
Forty Senate Democrats sent a letter to the president insisting that a pullout would be devastating for the U.S. economy as well as the environment.
Leaving the deal would be “a historic misstep” that would “damage our standing on the world stage” and turn the U.S. into an “international pariah,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said at a news conference. A U.S. withdrawal would “cede economic and moral ground to China” to appease fossil fuel interests at the expense of middle-class, he said.
While running for president, Trump promised the U.S. would leave the accord, taking aim at the cornerstone of former President Barack Obama's efforts to combat climate change. As recently as April, Trump criticized the agreement as a one-sided deal that disadvantages American workers—suggesting that if he decides to maintain U.S. involvement, he may try to renegotiate its terms.
Even without a formal decision, the Trump administration is rolling back a series of Obama-era climate policies and regulations viewed as critical for the U.S. to fulfill its Paris pledge to slash carbon dioxide emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
—With assistance from Joe Ryan and Ari Natter.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112543688&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112543688&jd=112543688
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested