Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 6/8/2017
-
Trump Taps Strong Critic of GHG Rules to Lead DOJ Environment Team
Jun 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Jeffrey Clark, President Donald Trump's choice to head the Department of Justice's (DOJ) environment division, is a staunch critic of greenhouse gas regulation and is closely familiar with prior climate case law, having argued some of the critical cases... -
Comment Period for EPA's Formaldehyde Standard Closes Today
Jun 8, 2017 | Floor Daily
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action on a revision to the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule, published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Speaks Out Against California Spray Polyurethane Foam Proposal
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have united in opposition to California’s proposal to name spray polyurethane foam (SPF) containing diisocyanates as a priority product under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Contamination Sites Clustered Along Delaware River
Jun 8, 2017 | State Impact Pennsylvania
By Susan Phillips
A national mapping project detailing tap water contaminated with toxic chemicals used in fire fighting foams and nonstick frying pans shows a large number of those public water systems along the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. -
15M People Exposed to Toxic Chemicals — Report
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Toxic chemicals are present in the drinking water of 15 million Americans, the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University said in a report released today. -
Dancet Accepts ‘Significant’ Number of REACH Dossiers Are Inadequate
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa executive director Geert Dancet says he agrees with NGOs that a ‘significant proportion’ of REACH registration dossiers "leave a lot to be desired" - and that responsibility for this lies with member states, the European Commission and the business sector... -
Echa Round-Up
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published the consolidated opinions of the Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis Committees (Rac and Seac) for four uses of chromium trioxide and one use of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC). -
Echa Fails to Allay NGO Concerns over Non-Compliant Dossiers
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
A group of NGOs have met with Echa senior officials to discuss non-compliant registration dossiers and other concerns over the functioning of REACH, but failed to nail down agreement on how to tackle them. -
Norway Proposes Adding Second PFC to UN POPs Convention
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Norway has submitted a proposal to list perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and related compounds, for action under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). -
US Toy Company Reveals Safer Materials Strategy
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US toy firm Radio Flyer has revealed its safer material strategy in a webinar this week on the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP). -
Trump’s Plan to Cut Basic Energy Research Finds an Unlikely Opponent: Oil Executives
Jun 8, 2017 | Washington Post
By Steve Mufson
A group of business leaders has sent a letter to the top Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations committees urging them to maintain basic research funding, especially in energy, that President Trump has proposed to slash or eliminate. -
Trump Weighing Combining Agencies Separated After Gulf Spill, Sources Say
Jun 8, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
After the 2010 Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration broke the scandal-plagued federal agency that policed offshore drilling into separate bureaus. -
DOE Crafts State Regs Database
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Energy Department is soliciting feedback on a new tool to track state water policies that intersect with energy systems. -
US Utilities Have Pushed Down Their CO2 Emissions Largely on Their Own
Jun 8, 2017 | Platts
By Jeff Ryser
Four big US utilities have each reported in recent days substantial carbon dioxide emission reductions over the past few years due principally to an increase in the use of natural gas, renewable generation and to the sale or closure of coal-fired assets. -
EPRI's Ray on Power-Sector Shifts, Technology Plays
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E TV
As the regulatory landscape for the electric power sector shifts under the Trump administration, there are continued efforts within the industry to make the grid more efficient and reliable. During today's OnPoint, Anda Ray, senior vice president for energy, environment... -
In Beijing, Perry Promotes US-China Clean Energy Cooperation
Jun 8, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
America and China have “extraordinary opportunities” to work together on clean energy, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Thursday, amid global criticism of President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. -
Budget, Grid Study Focus of Perry's Policy Panel
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Department of Energy officials sought to reassure members of its electricity policy advisory panel yesterday that a grid reliability study requested by Secretary Rick Perry is gathering a range of viewpoints from experts at DOE's national laboratories. -
Inside Trump's 'America First' Doctrine
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump pledged in his inaugural address to protect America from the "ravages of other countries." In pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement, the president made clear he was making good on that promise. -
Acting on Climate Change and Supporting Coal Workers – We Have to Do Both
Jun 8, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By John K. Delaney
President Trump’s astounding decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord, packaged like a reality television season finale, was the culmination of a terrible series of events for those of us that care about the environment. -
Senate Democrats Defend Air Law's Jobs Benefits Against Trump Attacks
Jun 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Senate Democrats are defending the Clean Air Act's economic and job creation benefits against attacks from the Trump administration that claim Obama-era rules crafted under the law have caused unemployment and hurt the economy...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Trump Taps Strong Critic of GHG Rules to Lead DOJ Environment Team
Jun 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Jeffrey Clark, President Donald Trump's choice to head the Department of Justice's (DOJ) environment division, is a staunch critic of greenhouse gas regulation and is closely familiar with prior climate case law, having argued some of the critical cases -- a factor that could bolster administration attempts to roll back Obama-era rules and potentially undermine EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions.
Trump on June 6 announced his intent to nominate Clark to head DOJ's environment and natural resources division (ENRD). Clark served as deputy assistant attorney general within ENRD from 2001 to 2005, during the George W. Bush administration. Currently, he is with the law firm Kirkland & Ellis.
Clark has long charged that the Obama EPA misconstrued the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA as necessarily requiring GHG rules, though, like EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, he has also suggested that it would be difficult to make a finding that GHGs do not endanger public health.
In a 2010 speech to a National Lawyers Convention event, Clark called the Obama EPA's GHG regulatory program “a Leninistic program from the 1920s to seize control of the heights of the economy.”
EPA's GHG rules “are designed to control the energy sector. If you can control the energy sector, you really control everything,” Clark said, calling it the “ultimate choke point of the national economy.”
Clark added that the agency's “attitudes . . . and overly ambitious agenda need to be checked by judicial review, and if not by judicial review in the courts, then by the people themselves.”
One environmental attorney tells Inside EPA Clark has a “proven record of trying to forestall and prevent greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act.”
But the source says Trump's choice does not necessarily guarantee the administration is eying more extreme attacks on EPA's underlying GHG authority and the endangerment finding -- as some conservative groups have urged but Pruitt and his team have not yet pursued.
At the same time, “those kinds of aggressive attacks on [EPA] authority were already very much on the table with Scott Pruitt,” the environmental attorney says. While Clark's nomination does not “move the needle” much past that, the source says Clark would certainly “not be one who will push back a lot” on attacks on EPA's GHG authority.
The attorney says Clark is “someone who will feel comfortable arguing that doing nothing is a perfectly lawful alternative approach” to regulating GHGs. The source says Clark is not a surprise pick and “someone that you would have expected to see in the mix under any Republican president.”
But the source adds that on GHG litigation, Clark “will be personally involved. He will have an interest in what arguments are made,” the environmental attorney adds, contrasting Clark with someone from a more general fossil fuel industry background that may not have been as involved in prior GHG litigation.
The source says it is a “good thing for” the Trump administration that Clark argued portions of the landmark case, Massachusetts v. EPA, because it provides someone well-versed prior case law on the issue.
Legal Representation
Clark has argued climate cases in both the public and private sectors. For example, during his time in the Bush DOJ, Clark successfully argued the Massachusetts case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he convinced the court to uphold the agency's view, though the appellate court did not address the case's merits.
But the case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, which reversed the appellate ruling and held that carbon dioxide fell within the Clean Air Act's definition of an air pollutant.
Under the authority flowing from that landmark 2007 high court decision, the Obama EPA in 2009 promulgated its GHG endangerment finding, which has served as the underpinning of the prior administration's GHG regulatory framework -- including EPA's controversial power plant GHG rule known as the Clean Power Plan.
Clark has also represented industry groups in several key GHG lawsuits. In 2009, he represented auto industry groups in litigation challenging the Bush EPA's 2009 decision to reject California's air act waiver to set stricter vehicle GHG standards than federal rules.
The auto industry supported the Bush administration's decision, though the Obama EPA reversed course once in office and granted the waiver, a decision that ultimately resulted in national vehicle GHG rules driven in part by California's call for strict standards.
And in 2012, Clark represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups at oral arguments in litigation over Obama-era climate rules including the GHG endangerment finding and a “tailoring” rule intended to limit Clean Air Act permits subject to GHG limits.
Those efforts were generally unsuccessful, though the Supreme Court ultimately narrowed the basis of EPA's tailoring rule.
While he is familiar with the case law, his involvement in many climate cases may also force him to recuse himself from ongoing litigation over some climate rules. For example, he may have to recuse himself from litigation over EPA's Clean Power Plan as he filed an amicus brief on behalf of Consumers' Research, which opposed the rule.
“I would expect that history would require him to recuse himself from such cases as over the Clean Power Plan, where he filed an amicus brief against the rule,” David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council told InsideClimate News.
Endangerment Finding
Clark's public statements generally underscore his legal positions and reveal a forceful and unwavering opposition to EPA authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act.
During his remarks to the 2010 lawyers event, Clark asserted, as he does in several other instances, that the Obama EPA fundamentally misconstrued the 2007 high court decision in Massachusetts as requiring the agency to conduct an endangerment finding for GHGs -- the legal basis for its rules.
Instead, he contended that the Supreme Court “does not order EPA to do anything” and that EPA had a “totally viable option on remand to choose not to regulate.” The Obama EPA, he said during the 2010 remarks, was “voluntarily choosing to regulate.”
Clark has argued many times that Massachusetts gave the agency an option to provide a “reasoned explanation” for why it was choosing not to address the issue, instead of the path it chose to conduct a GHG risk finding.
In remarks at a 2007 event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling, Clark said such an explanation could take the form of EPA weighing its priorities and declining to make a GHG rulemaking in favor of addressing other threats to public health.
He also suggested the Bush administration could have made a finding that GHGs do not endanger public health and welfare, though it would have been difficult to do so given the weight of the scientific evidence.
“If it were to do so, it would have to essentially on its own take on the science of the National Academy of Sciences report, which it aligned itself with before. It would have to say that EPA took an independent look at the science and decided that there's not sufficient evidence in light of uncertainty,” Clark said. He added the Bush administration would also have had to “reorient the fact that the administration has recommended a number of times to spend billions on things like tax incentives and various programs that relate to climate change.”
Such a sentiment could be telling, as it appears Clark was outlining the potential difficulties of producing a negative endangerment finding -- a feat some hardline conservative groups have urged Pruitt to undertake.
The difficulties outlined by Clark then would likely be magnified should the Trump administration decide to take on the Obama EPA's 2009 GHG risk finding. Environmentalists have argued it would be extremely difficult for the Trump EPA to amass enough scientific evidence to require a switch of the Obama administration's determination.
'Did Not Decide All Questions'
But Clark has also previously argued that the Massachusetts decision did not settle the issue of EPA's GHG regulatory authority.
For example, during 2012 oral argument in litigation challenging several Obama EPA GHG rules, including the risk finding and its “tailoring” rule, Clark charged the high court ordered EPA to look beyond the science to the policy implications of its endangerment finding.
D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel strongly disagreed. “We are bound by that decision,” Tatel said of Massachusetts. And then-Chief Judge David Sentelle noted Clark's arguments sounded more like the dissenting opinion in Massachusetts written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia rather than the majority holding.
During those arguments, Clark further argued that while industry opposes EPA's defense of the absurd results doctrine for the tailoring rule, the agency could have invoked it earlier to avoid regulating stationary sources rules entirely. That legal doctrine allows the courts to waive a statutory requirement if it would have “absurd results.”
Clark added then that Massachusetts “did not decide all questions” about regulating GHGs under the air law.
He also appeared to make this argument in 2013 remarks during a call hosted by the conservative Federalist Society. “EPA, as we read Massachusetts v. EPA, would seem to be required to look at any argument at any stage in any rulemaking as to whether it would be proper to regulate greenhouse gases or not and to consider the absurdity that it would unleash beyond Congress' intention if it did so,” Clark said.
During the 2012 arguments, Tatel also questioned Clark over arguments laid out in the briefs that EPA did not fully consider adaptation as an alternative to stationary source rules that could, for example, result in populations shifting north. Tatel compared such a requirement to forcing EPA to consider in its regulations to limit cancer-causing emissions the fact that one day a cure for cancer could be discovered.
But Clark, in response, argued there is a difference between pollutants that harm health and those that cause welfare effects such as global warming. Tatel disagreed, noting the Supreme Court defined GHGs as an air pollutant and that air law requires regulation of “any pollutant” that may “cause or contribute” to both health and welfare effects.
'Tools In the Toolbox'
Clark has also previously questioned whether Congress has granted EPA authority to regulate GHGs within the Clean Air Act. Before the D.C. Circuit in 2005, arguing on behalf of the Bush EPA in Massachusetts, Clark said Congress would have included detailed discussion of climate change regulations if it had intended it to apply under the statute.
Citing a prior case, Clark said the word was an indication of “Congress hiding an elephant in a mousehole.”
Those views align with those of Pruitt, who during his tenure as Oklahoma attorney general waged many legal battles against Obama EPA GHG regulations -- some of the same rules he is now working to undo. Pruitt has also questioned whether Congress gave EPA the proper authority to address GHGs.
At a May 24 event hosted by Faegre Baker Daniels, Pruitt said he is planning to review EPA's Clean Air Act authority and it is “yet to be determined” whether EPA will promulgate a replacement of the Obama Clean Power Plan.
It's “a fair question [that] has to be asked and answered” with respect to stationary source GHGs, he said.
“What are the tools in the toolbox?” Pruitt asked, stating that the agency has “struck out twice” on that question -- first when its GHG tailoring rule was narrowed by the Supreme Court and then when the high court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-taps-strong-critic-ghg-rules-lead-doj-environment-team
-
Comment Period for EPA's Formaldehyde Standard Closes Today
Jun 8, 2017 | Floor Daily
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action on a revision to the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule, published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2016. The comment period for stakeholders impacted by the ruling closes today and the final rule is effective on July 10.
The EPA is publishing this direct final action to extend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title VI final rule compliance dates including: Extending the December 12, 2017 date for emission standards, recordkeeping, and labeling provisions until March 22, 2018; extending the December 12, 2018 date for import certification provisions until March 22, 2019; and extending the December 12, 2023 date for provisions applicable to producers of laminated products until March 22, 2024.
Additionally, this direct final action will extend the transitional period during which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Third Party Certifiers (TPC) may certify composite wood products under TSCA Title VI without an accreditation issued by an EPA TSCA Title VI Accreditation Body so long as the TPC remains approved by CARB, is recognized by EPA, and complies with all aspects of the December 12, 2016 final rule. Extension of these compliance dates and the transitional period for CARB TPCs adds regulatory flexibility for regulated entities, reduces compliance burdens, and helps to prevent disruptions to supply chains.
http://www.floordaily.net/flooring-news/comment-period-for-epas-formaldehyde-standard-closes-today
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Speaks Out Against California Spray Polyurethane Foam Proposal
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have united in opposition to California’s proposal to name spray polyurethane foam (SPF) containing diisocyanates as a priority product under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The agency initiated a formal rulemaking to list SPF systems with unreacted methylene diphenly diisocyanates (MDI) in March. If adopted, the designation would require manufacturers of such products to complete an alternatives analysis. The state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) could subsequently consider imposing appropriate regulations.
In comments to the department, the American Chemistry Council said the proposed listing was "unwarranted and misdirected", as it "is based on inaccurate characteristics of spray foam products, ignores safety practices and fails to consider exposure profiles associated with their use".
It says the department oversimplified the breadth of technologies within the SPF category. And it says that the proposal fails to demonstrate how these various products present exposures that "contribute to or cause significant or widespread adverse impacts" – a criteria for prioritisation.
The DTSC, it adds, has "mischaracterised" several studies and "ignored" product stewardship, safety recommendations and industry practices that curtail potential exposure to MDI.
A coalition of four building, contractor and property organisations similarly urged the department to withdraw the proposal. "Unsupported by science, the listing of SPF insulation will jeopardise its use as an important tool that will help enable California to meet its ambitious energy efficiency and climate change goals," they said in comments.
The Insulation Contractors Association of America (ICCA) said that existing workplace controls and regulations are sufficiently protective. The proposed regulation, it said, is "redundant and unnecessarily burdensome".
Naima – the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association – agreed that in place of the proposed listing, the spray foam industry should partner with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) to form and "aggressively implement" a product stewardship programme to educate the public on possible health consequences of the material.
NGOs - alternatives needed
But a coalition of five NGOs – including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Center for Environmental Health (CEH) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) – said that workplace controls may fail or be inadequate, and that workers "continue to be harmed by SPF systems containing isocyanates".
The groups added that Osha agencies do not require substitution of hazards, but rather seek to impose controls to manage them – as opposed to the SCP programme’s alternatives approach.
"The accurate and effective use of green chemistry is to identify and eliminate hazards before they have a chance to affect people or their environments," they said.
The NGO Healthy Building Network added that while there are few direct chemical alternatives to the isocyanate formulation in SPF, there are many technologies on the market that can accomplish the same physical functions. These include a variety of insulation options and a wide range of caulking materials to air seal houses.
The nonprofit said the DTSC is "highly justified" in going forward with the alternatives assessment, given that eliminating the exposure could "have a tremendous benefit to many thousands of workers and occupants, without a negative impact on important energy considerations in the building".
The proposal to list SPF and MDI as a priority product is the second initiated under the SCP programme. Thefirst rulemaking – to designate children’s foam-padded sleeping products containing the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP – is currently underway.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56696/industry-speaks-out-against-california-spray-polyurethane-foam-proposal
-
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Contamination Sites Clustered Along Delaware River
Jun 8, 2017 | State Impact Pennsylvania
By Susan Phillips
A national mapping project detailing tap water contaminated with toxic chemicals used in fire fighting foams and nonstick frying pans shows a large number of those public water systems along the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Researchers at Northeastern University and the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) based their map on federal drinking water data and documented cases of pollution by a group of chemicals known as perfluorinated compounds.
The chemicals, commonly referred to as PFC’s, (and include PFOA and PFOS), are used by manufacturers in making non-stick pans, waterproof clothing, take out food packaging, and flame retardants.The compound is no longer manufactured in the U.S., but increasing numbers of drinking water sources have been found to contain levels that exceed EPA’s maximum contaminant levels.
The EPA says that long-term exposure to PFOA and PFOS at above its health-advisory limit may result in kidney and testicular cancer, damage to the liver and the immune system, developmental problems such as low birth-weight in infants, and thyroid problems.
The highly stable chemical compounds are what makes it useful to keep stains off carpets and food from sticking to frying pans, but that also makes it harmful to public health. The carbon bonds are strong, and don’t break down easily.
The report, entitled “Mapping a Contamination Crisis,” reveals 15 million people are exposed to PFC’s through their drinking water resulting from use of the chemical at manufacturing sites and military bases across the country. The map allows users to find contaminated sites, and the sources of the contamination.
The Delaware Valley includes a number of high profile sites like the Naval Air base facilities in Horsham, Warminster and Willow Grove, as well as the DuPont facilities in Deepwater, New Jersey and New Castle, Delaware.
Recently, high levels of the chemical were found in Burlington County, New Jersey, in a stream that runs from a wastewater plant at the Maguire-Fort Dix-Lakehurst military base to Rancocas Creek. PFC’s were detected at a combined level of 1,127 parts per trillion (ppt), the highest level detected so far, according to EWG. The EPA currently says long term exposure should be limited to 70 ppt.
David Andrews, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, says the bulk of the data came from the EPA, which required drinking water facilities that served more than 10,000 people to test for PFC’s between 2013 and 2016 and report findings to the federal government of levels above 20 parts per trillion for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS. Andrews says they found 162 systems serving 15.1 million people had high PFC levels.
Seventeen of those tap water sources were located in Southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware along the Delaware River. Harrisburg’s water system also showed detectable levels of PFC’s.
New Jersey had done its own testing in 2006, using a much more sensitive test, according to Andrews, which revealed 75 percent more contaminated water systems than the EPA test.
“What that means is the prevalence is likely much more common, especially in very industrialized areas,” Andrews said.
Andrews also said that although it’s no longer made in the U.S., manufacturers are now using alternatives, which he says could pose similar dangers.
“They haven’t been studied to the same extent,” he said. “So we’re really trying to raise concerns about this whole family of chemicals.”
The American Chemistry Council, an industry lobby, says the newer replacement chemicals are safe. The FluoroCouncil, which is associated with the ACC and represents companies that produce these chemicals said in a statement it has voluntarily stopped producing harmful PFOA’s.
“We have replaced them with newer, approved chemistries that are equally effective and also have improved health and environmental profiles. FluoroCouncil works with regulators in support of the global transition away from PFOA, and other long-chains, toward more sustainable short-chain chemistries. The FluoroCouncil also works with stakeholders to encourage best practices when using FluoroTechnology products to help minimize emissions to the environment.”
But questions remain about what to do regarding regulation of the chemical that has entered into groundwater and surface water. Environmentalists and public health advocates have raised concerns about the EPA’s standard for safe levels of PFC’s in drinking water. They say the agency’s advisory that concentrations of PFC’s should not be above 70 ppt is too high. New Jersey officials have recommended lowering the maximum levels from 70 ppt to 14 ppt. Some have suggested it should be as low as 1 ppt.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network recently petitioned Pennsylvania officials to set a lower level than the federal standard based on new peer-reviewed research into the health impacts. The Riverkeeper’s Tracy Carluccio says she doesn’t expect the EPA under Trump to do anything about the problem, so their focus is on the state, which had heavy industry up and down the Delaware River.
“The number of contaminated sites just keeps growing,” she said. “Whether its manufacturing or fire fighting foams. It’s there because it doesn’t break down. We’re looking at a permanent contamination problem unless we do something about it.”
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/06/08/flame-retardant-contamination-sites-clustered-along-delaware-river/
-
15M People Exposed to Toxic Chemicals — Report
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Toxic chemicals are present in the drinking water of 15 million Americans, the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University said in a report released today.
The report and interactive map show 27 states with such contamination, according to federal drinking water data from U.S. EPA and other publicly documented pollution cases.
At issue are perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs. These chemicals are typically used for their nonsticking qualities and are found in furniture, food packaging and firefighting foam used on Air Force bases for decades.
Of the 47 locations where contamination is known or suspected, 21 are military bases, 20 are industrial facilities and seven are civilian firefighting sites, said the report. Some locations have multiple sources of contamination.
Researchers in Colorado recently found that carbon filters installed in communities affected by PFCs in their drinking water were failing to fully remove the chemicals (Greenwire, June 6).
Bill Walker, EWG's managing director, said the newly released map will create a network for people to exchange information about testing, sources and contacts with EPA. The group promised to keep updating it.
"This should help people make those connections more easily," Walker said.
There is no federal standard for PFASs in drinking water.
"Fundamentally, our work reveals the inadequacy of U.S. chemical regulation, and highlights the need for health-protective, precautionary chemical policy," said Phil Brown, director of Northeastern University's Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute.
Despite the lack of legal standards, EPA tests for chemicals that may be present in water systems serving more than 10,000 people. EWG said the agency's testing 30 chemicals in a three-year period isn't enough.
David Andrews, senior scientist at EWG, said the reporting limit on these tests prevents accessible information from reaching communities. He called the report's conclusions the "tip of the iceberg."
Limiting testing to communities with more than 10,000 people likely means there's a significant amount of information on contamination out there that has gone under the radar, Walker said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/08/stories/1060055761
-
Dancet Accepts ‘Significant’ Number of REACH Dossiers Are Inadequate
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa executive director Geert Dancet says he agrees with NGOs that a ‘significant proportion’ of REACH registration dossiers "leave a lot to be desired" - and that responsibility for this lies with member states, the European Commission and the business sector, as well as the agency itself.
Speaking yesterday at Echa’s tenth anniversary conference in Helsinki, he blamed the many possible exceptions to standard data requirements that are included in the Regulation and its annexes, as well as the fear of conducting too many tests on vertebrate animals.
He also said that the requirement that dossier completeness would be self-checked by registrants "has happened more than anticipated despite companies working in Siefs", but that steps are being taken to improve this situation.
At the same event, European Environmental Bureau head, Jeremy Wates, said that dossiers submitted so far have been of "very poor quality", and that the lack of a comprehensive system acknowledging "how bad the situation is" means we don’t know how many non-compliant dossiers there are.
Echa, he said, has been providing registrants access to market "by default", the principle of no data, no market - as stated in REACH Article 5 - is not being applied, and the burden of proof is not being shifted to industry. "On the contrary," he said, "member state authorities are having to complete inadequate dossiers."
The day before the anniversary conference, NGO campaigners met Echa officials in Helsinki to try and find common ground on how to improve dossier quality.
Mr Dancet praised the collective effort by industry and regulators in registering substances under the first two deadlines in 2010 and 2013, but warned that the success or failure of REACH will be decided by how far the third deadline, in 12 month’s time, can avoid disrupting the operations of EU manufacturing industry.
The agency expects information to come in on up to 25,000 more chemicals under this deadline.
Saori Dubourg, BASF board member and chair of Cefic’s product stewardship programme council, said that REACH provides a level playing field and is "demanding but [also] balancing" in terms of compromises that stakeholders must make.
Mr Dancet said that the authorisation process - which has also been criticised by NGOs - will improve consumer confidence in the safety of the chemicals they buy in products, by "leading the way" in identifying, controlling or replacing dangerous substances "without deserting" industry.
"It requires courage from the European Commission and member states to propose restrictions or to add more substances to the authorisation list," he said. "That is how REACH will be made a success and ultimately how Europe can effectively contribute to the world’s sustainability goals on chemicals."
Key Echa figures, over the last ten years
· classification information has been provided on 130,000 substances
· 11,560 companies have registered substances
· 60,134 registration dossiers submitted for 16,124 substances
· 173 substances identified as SVHCs
· 31 substances on the authorisation list
· 236 CLH opinions delivered by Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac)
https://chemicalwatch.com/56695/dancet-accepts-significant-number-of-reach-dossiers-are-inadequate
-
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Consolidated opinions on authorisation applications
Echa has published the consolidated opinions of the Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis Committees (Rac and Seac) for four uses of chromium trioxide and one use of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC).
The chromium trioxide applications were from REACHLaw, acting as only representative for the joint stock company Novotroitsk Plant of Chromium Compounds. They concern the formulation of mixtures of chromium trioxide for:
· functional chrome plating;
· functional chrome plating with decorative character; and
· surface treatment (except ETP) for applications in various industry sectors, namely architectural, automotive, metal manufacturing and finishing, and general engineering.
The 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) application was from EMP Biotech GmbH for its use as a solvent in the manufacture of polymeric particles for pharmaceutical and research purification processes.
Chesar 3.2
Echa has released a new version of its chemical safety assessment and reporting tool (Chesar) with the promise that it will ease the generation and updating of chemical safety reports.
The agency says other improvements include:
· substance properties can be edited directly;
· streamlined generation of exposure scenarios; and
· support for use maps.
Chesar 3.2 is compatible with the latest versions of Iuclid 6 (6.1.2 and 6.1.3).
REACH testing – GLP reminder
The agency has reminded registrants that, in preparation for the 2018 REACH deadline, toxicological and ecotoxicological tests must be performed in compliance with good laboratory practice (GLP).
And it has reiterated it only accepts data from OECD member states, or from full adherents to the OECD mutual acceptance of data system.
"Registrants should carefully select the laboratory that carries out tests for them," Echa says. Any test facility must, it adds, "be regularly inspected within the OECD GLP monitoring programme by a national GLP monitoring authority".
And, the chosen facility must have relevant GLP certification for the particular test.
Ducc presentation on the safe use of mixtures
The Downstream Users of Chemicals Coordination Group (Ducc) has produced a slide presentation for formulators. It summarises the main principles behind the 'bottom up' approach to deriving and communicating information on the safe use of mixtures by workers.
Echa says formulators have a challenging role under REACH in communicating information to their customers.
Available in eight EU languages, the slides are for national associations to use when training their members.
Restriction Q&As
Echa has prepared, in collaboration with the European Commission, a number of new questions and answers on restrictions. The Q&As include some:
· applicable to more than one restriction entry; and
· specific on entries 20, 23, 43 and 51-52 of Annex XVII to REACH.
The aim is to "inform stakeholders and help enforcement authorities implement these specific restriction provisions".
Iuclid 6 training for beginners
The agency is publicising a self-training package for new users of Iuclid 6. It takes beginners through:
· the main functionalities of the tool;
· the steps to take when creating a dossier; and
· how to run and use the validation assistant plug-in.
Included in the package is:
· an annotated guide;
· a hands-on exercise; and
· a training substance dataset file.
News reader survey
The agency has released a summary of its 2017 news readership survey online. Almost 1,700 respondents submitted feedback, a slight increase on previous years.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56689/echa-round-up
-
Echa Fails to Allay NGO Concerns over Non-Compliant Dossiers
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
A group of NGOs have met with Echa senior officials to discuss non-compliant registration dossiers and other concerns over the functioning of REACH, but failed to nail down agreement on how to tackle them.
The NGOs have been questioning Echa on its ten-year track record of implementing REACH, pressing the agency to address issues such as poor quality of registration documents submitted by industry and its failure to take enforcement action.
The round table discussion on tuesday this week – the day before the agency's tenth anniversary celebratory conference – was organised by Echa in response to a letter from 14 NGOs in November to executive director Geert Dancet. Another letter from NGOs, sent in March, sought answers from the agency on its approach to an "apparently considerable compliance gap" in registration dossiers and the lack of enforcement by "refusing" inadequate applications.
Echa was represented at the meeting by Mr Dancet, senior managers, officials from its executive office and the chairs of its Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-Economic Analysis Committees (Seac).
The NGOs attending the meeting were the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), CHEM Trust, ClientEarth, the Centre for International Environmental Law (Ciel), ChemSec and the European Trade Union Confederation (Etuc). The civil society representative in Echa's management board, Stefan Scheuer, was also present.
Although Echa and the NGOs "shared interest" in improving quality and compliance of registration dossiers, said Dolores Romano, senior policy officer at the EEB, "there was no agreement on how to achieve this. The question raised by the NGOs on the number of dossiers that are compliant with REACH requirements remains unanswered."
Echa acknowledged "a considerable amount are of rather low quality" – a point also made by Mr Dancet at the following day's conference – but said it lacked the resources to run compliance checks on all, relying instead on focusing on high-tier dossiers and grouping of substances, a spokesperson told Chemical Watch.
Other topics discussed at the meeting were:
· adequate control of risks;
· reversal of the burden of proof;
· how to deal with uncertainty in scientific opinions – applying the precautionary principle; and
· alternatives and socio-economic assessment under authorisation.
The low quality of information provided by registrants meant it was difficult to provide quantitative information on the level of adequate control, Echa told the NGOs. To address this, it would need dossiers that are regularly updated. "Echa and stakeholders should work on identifying ways to encourage companies [to do this]," it said.
Both parties agreed further discussions were needed to ensure the burden of proof is shifted to industry, "with poor quality dossiers leading to regulatory action rather than being a way of avoiding it," Ms Romano said.
There was also "common recognition" that the precautionary principle must underpin Echa's activities.
Echa has faced criticism from NGOs that it is not applying this in its opinions on restrictions and authorisations, and it is biased towards manufacturers of restricted chemicals rather than providers of safer alternatives.
The agency told the meeting the reversal of the burden of proof and the precautionary principle are "essential" and should be applied in practice in the opinions of its committees. There was room for improvement, it said, for example by increasing efforts to quantify uncertainty more explicitly.
There were discussions on ways to encourage providers of alternatives to engage more in the process. "Echa will examine the option of organising pre-information sessions for such companies," said the spokesperson.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56707/echa-fails-to-allay-ngo-concerns-over-non-compliant-dossiers
-
Norway Proposes Adding Second PFC to UN POPs Convention
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Norway has submitted a proposal to list perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and related compounds, for action under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
If approved by the parties to the convention, it will become the second listing of a perfluorocarbon under the treaty, joining perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and its precursor, perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride.
The PFHxS compounds are used in firefighting foam, carpets and textiles, electronics and non-stick cookware.
The Norwegian environment ministry says these qualify as POPs because they are persistent, bioaccumulative, travel long-range distances and are toxic.
Earlier this year, Norway added the chemicals to its national list of priority substances, which means emissions must be eliminated or substantially reduced by 2020 and companies must find safer alternatives.
As well as describing them as a very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substance, Norway says they are suspected of being an endocrine disruptor.
According to Trine Celius, the ministry’s senior adviser on biocides and chemicals, PFHxS, its salts and related compounds make up a group of about 50 substances which are mainly produced in China.
They have been pre-registered under REACH and are under evaluation for inclusion on the candidate list, based on a SVHC dossier produced by Sweden.
Ronald Bock, EMEA risk management manager at Chemours, a global manufacturer of fluorinated substances, told Chemical Watch that PHFxS is mostly produced as a degradation product of fellow fluorinated chemical PFOS. To the best of his knowledge, it is not used or sold in the EU but he said it may be used in China as a substitute for PFOS in certain applications, mainly in the galvanic metal plating industry.
The proposal will be considered by the convention's POPs Review Committee at its October meeting in Rome. If it decides the substance meets the screening criteria, it will forward the proposal, and its own evaluation, to the convention's parties and observers.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56634/norway-proposes-adding-second-pfc-to-un-pops-convention
-
US Toy Company Reveals Safer Materials Strategy
Jun 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US toy firm Radio Flyer has revealed its safer material strategy in a webinar this week on the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP).
The family-run company has taken part in the project, since it was co-created by the US NGO Clean Production Action (CPA), Lowell Centre for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and consultancy Pure Strategies in 2015.
The project tracks companies’ progress towards safer chemicals, by measuring the total mass of substances of concern in their products. It also evaluates participants' public disclosure and verification, management strategy and chemical inventory.
In the webinar, Eric Selner, director of operations and sustainability at Radio Flyer, said the company joined because "it gives the blueprint for what it takes to become a world class chemicals management company."
He said that because the company made a variety of products, including battery-powered cars, ride-on horses, wagons, scooters and trikes, it involved "many different materials, many different supply chains and complex challenges".
Prior to joining the programme, Mr Selner said, Radio Flyer did "a lot of testing on products" to make sure they met toy industry regulations, but since had become focused on "continuous improvement" and "not just testing to make sure there’s nothing bad in our products, but hopefully getting to a place where we’re using better chemicals."
The main benefit for the company, he said, was in "reducing risk", but there were also productivity gains through building trust in suppliers, resulting in a reduced need for internal auditing. For example, the company was able to identify the contents of the signature red pigment used in its products.
"Once we did the chemical footprint on the red pigment and got the full chemical formula, we had a lot of confidence in the supplier. If they were able to give us that information, then we trusted that supplier a lot more," he said.
The biggest challenge the company faced, he said, was getting large providers of resins and materials to cooperate with them as a small company.
"They’re making products they’re selling to thousands or hundreds of thousands of companies. Sometimes it’s hard to get those suppliers to disclose exactly what’s in those resins to us," he explained.
Another challenge, Mr Selner said, was "getting factories to buy into the challenge of sharing every chemical and doing a complete chemical footprint," which he said "is still pretty foreign".
He said that the company reduced its chemical footprint slightly last year and hopes to see a further reduction this year. It is currently carrying out an annual update to its restricted substances list (RSL).
According to the company website, it aspires to remove all PVC from its products. In 2014 its products were 98.5% PVC-free and it aims to raise this to 99% by the end of the year.
In 2011, Radio Flyer removed PVC from its folding tricycles and replaced it with ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA foam).
Mark Rossi, co-founder of the Chemical footprinting Project, said Radio Flyer’s participation in the project was "exciting at three levels", because it demonstrates simultaneously how small companies, those in the toy sector and article manufacturers in the beginning stages of chemicals management beyond compliance, can gain value from participation.
He added: "For companies at all three of these levels, Radio Flyer demonstrates the value of CFP in providing a blueprint for managing chemical risks beyond regulatory compliance across the entire organisation and all of its products."
https://chemicalwatch.com/56716/us-toy-company-reveals-safer-materials-strategy
-
Trump’s Plan to Cut Basic Energy Research Finds an Unlikely Opponent: Oil Executives
Jun 8, 2017 | Washington Post
By Steve Mufson
A group of business leaders has sent a letter to the top Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations committees urging them to maintain basic research funding, especially in energy, that President Trump has proposed to slash or eliminate.
The letter signed by 14 senior figures from the business world — including trade group leaders and current or former executives in technology, finance, utilities, oil exploration, and military and civilian aerospace — said Congress should “invest in America’s economic and energy future by funding vital programs in energy research and development at the Department of Energy.”
Trump has proposed massive cuts in those areas, including a 36.5 percent reduction in nuclear research, 58 percent in fossil fuel technology, and a 35 percent overall cut in science and energy innovation. Trump has also proposed the elimination of the $306 million-a-year Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy.
“Programs like ARPA-E provide a blueprint for smart federal investments in high risk, high reward technologies that boost our competitiveness by keeping America at the forefront of global energy technology research,” the business leaders countered in their letter.
The letter was organized by the Bipartisan Policy Center and the American Energy Innovation Council. It is likely just the opening salvo in what promises to be a tough battle for the administration. ARPA-E and other research projects scattered around the country have considerable support in Congress. Energy budget hearings in House are expected to begin next week and in the Senate on June 21.
The Trump administration, however, has said that research and development can be done by the private sector without federal assistance.
“The whole ARPA-E program is exactly right,” said Chad Holliday, a former chief executive at DuPont and now chairman of Shell. “Funding early-stage things that are not getting funded somewhere else.”
Holliday stressed “the importance of research, particularly about energy with the energy transition around the world.” He said that “companies alone will not be able to do this in a robust enough way. Research and partnering with the private sector is so important, and it is a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things.”
Norman Augustine, a former chief executive of Lockheed Martin, said that energy research was linked to climate change and that there was “a huge time issue.” He also said that “it’s energy that drives the economy of this nation, and that means jobs. When you undermine research on energy, you undermine jobs and our standard of living.”
Augustine, an aeronautical engineer, recalled giving testimony in which he discussed the difficulty of making heavy airplanes fly. “Never once did we go about it by getting rid of the engine,” he said.
Paul Bledsoe, an energy consultant who helped assemble the business leaders, said that the innovations that have emerged from government programs include improved combustion engines, three dimensional imaging, advanced seismology and horizontal drilling that has helped unlock vast domestic supplies of oil and natural gas.
Government-funded research has also contributed to improvements in solar energy, a field in which job growth is 18 times the pace of the overall economy.
He noted that a 2016 DOE study found that research and development investments totaling $12 billion between 1976 and 2012 at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE, yielded net economic benefits to the United States of $230 billion (in inflation-adjusted dollars) with an annual return on investment of 20 percent.
In 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the bill authorizing ARPA-E’s creation. In 2009, under President Obama, Congress appropriated $400 million for the agency. Since 2009, ARPA-E has funded more than 400 energy technology projects, including work on a 1 megawatt silicon carbide transistor the size of a fingernail, microbes that use hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel, and a compressed-air energy-storage system.
The letter was sent to chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Nita M. Lowey (N.Y.)
Besides Holliday and Augustine, the letter’s signatories were: Christopher M. Crane, chief executive of Exelon; Bruce Culpepper, president of Shell Oil in the United States; John Doerr, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Timothy L. Dove, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources; Anthony F. Earley Jr., chairman of the board of PG&E; Tom Fanning, chief executive of Southern Co.; Michael Graff, chief executive of American Air Liquide Holdings; David Holt, president of the Consumer Energy Alliance; Maria G. Korsnick, chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute; Dave McCurdy, president of the American Gas Association; and Michael Skelly, president of Clean Line Energy, an electricity transmission firm.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/08/trumps-plan-to-cut-basic-energy-research-finds-an-unlikely-opponent-oil-executives/?utm_term=.85f1f60a9507
-
Trump Weighing Combining Agencies Separated After Gulf Spill, Sources Say
Jun 8, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
After the 2010 Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration broke the scandal-plagued federal agency that policed offshore drilling into separate bureaus.
Now the Trump administration is considering putting it back together again.
The change, described by Interior Department officials and lobbyists familiar with the deliberations, would combine two agencies: one that enforces regulations on offshore drilling safety and another in charge of leasing offshore tracts. Keeping those roles separate was a key recommendation of a presidential commission that investigated the Deepwater Horizon blast that killed 11 men and sent oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for months.
Merging the bureaus could send a signal that Interior is easing off on enforcement, right as President Donald Trump expands areas available for offshore oil drilling, according to Bob Graham, a former Florida senator who led the commission.
"I have heard no indication of why we’re doing this," Graham said in an interview. "It’s just seven years after this enormous disaster -- and this was one of the key steps in at least mitigating the chances of a repetition."
Officials are still weighing the reorganization, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations. Interior Department spokesmen didn’t respond to requests to comment on the possible change.
For decades before the BP Plc oil spill, federal regulation of offshore energy development was handled by a single agency within the Department of Interior: the Minerals Management Service. Its biggest claiZinke has said he’s looking at reorganizing the entire Interior Department with an eye on empowering regional officials and improving collaboration across its agencies. That could involve creating regional hubs to coordinate Interior agencies with overlapping roles and missions that are at cross purposes.
"The department has a critical role to play in the future energy security of our nation as well as our overall economic well-being," Zinke said in his written testimony to a House Appropriations subcommittee Thursday.
The changes could allow energy companies to get quicker project approvals or, at least, a clear pathway to them, he has said.
"We are looking at reorganizing in maybe more of a joint model so industry and citizens when they want to do a project can have -- I don’t want to say certainty, but at least a path of how to get there," Zinke said at the Offshore Technology Conference last month. "You can know sooner in the process whether yes or no is appropriate and what is that investment you have to make."On the Table
m to fame was a wide-ranging ethics scandal during the administration of President George W. Bush that involved cocaine use, sexual misconduct and financial self-dealing by a handful of employees, which was documented in multiple probes.
The episode highlighted an uncomfortably cozy relationship between the oil and gas industry drilling offshore and the federal regulators who were supposed to keep a watch over them. Two years later, when BP’s failed Macondo well blew out in the Gulf of Mexico, those concerns erupted anew.
Within weeks, with oil still gushing into the Gulf, the administration of President Barack Obama announced it was shuttering the MMS and carving it up into threeagencies. Besides the leasing and enforcement bureaus, a third office would act as a piggy bank, collecting billions of dollars annually in royalties, rental payments and bonus bids tied to offshore energy development.
That last agency, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, would be untouched by the organizational plans now under consideration by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. The two agencies that would be combined are the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the leasing-focused Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
Scott Angelle, the newly appointed head of the safety bureau, told reporters last week that he has not been told the two agencies will merge, but "everything is on the table" as part of the department-wide reorganization.
The inherent conflict within the Minerals Management Service was written on the walls of the former agency -- literally. Donald Boesch, a marine scientist who served on the presidential spill commission, remembers a fact-finding mission to meet with environmental analysts and safety inspectors at a former MMS office in Louisiana. On the conference room wall, a huge chart illustrated the growth in revenue the agency had gleaned from offshore oil development. Other graphs showed increasing oil and gas produced offshore.
"The metrics they had to deal with on a daily basis were all oriented toward expanding that activity and increasing production as fast as they could," said Boesch, now president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "That symbolically indicated that there was a strong conflict of interest in how this organization is run."
Recombining the agencies would revive their "inherently conflicting missions," said Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts.
"Our coastal communities -- and even the oil industry -- can’t afford a return to the bad old days of the safety cop and the leasing agent being the same person," Markey said in an emailed statement.
The since-divided bureaus have developed their own identities and missions. Environmental analysis has increased at the ocean energy bureau, while the safety agency expanded its oversight beyond oil and gas companies by penalizing offshore contractors for infractions.
Oil industry officials aren’t exactly clamoring for the change.
After the creation of the two bureaus, there was confusion about which agency was in charge of which task. Oil companies didn’t know where to file permit applications and where to file proposed exploration plans.
"We’ve found on the industry side that there’s still some confusion of who does what," said Randall Luthi, a former MMS director who now leads the National Ocean Industries Association. And the longer the bureaus stay apart, the more stove-piped they become, he said. "If you’re going to do it, now is probably a good time."
Still, the reorganization is such a major effort that it could take time away from other priorities, including rewriting Obama-era regulations governing offshore drilling, Luthi said.
"If you asked industry what is your top, No. 1 priority, I doubt it’s the re-meshing" of these bureaus, he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-08/trump-said-to-mull-combining-agencies-separated-after-gulf-spill
-
DOE Crafts State Regs Database
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Energy Department is soliciting feedback on a new tool to track state water policies that intersect with energy systems.
Developed by DOE's Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, the database offers insight on oil and gas wastewater, power plant cooling water, and surface and groundwater regulations. The agency says its goal is to improve policy analysis, data visualization and stakeholder communication.
"Historically, energy and water systems have been developed, managed and regulated independently and without significant acknowledgement of the connections between them," according to DOE's request for information. "The energy and water policy landscape is thus highly fragmented, which can make it difficult for industry, utilities, government and other stakeholder groups to effectively balance energy and water goals."
Utah, for example, requires reuse and recycling of water produced by hydraulic fracturing operations, as well as a water plan prior to drilling, the database shows.
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan require water management plans, and Ohio and Illinois ask for plans pertaining to the source of water used for fracking.
The scope of the database extends beyond fracking to include regulations surrounding electricity generation, hydropower and thermoelectric cooling.
DOE is asking for feedback on the quality and completeness of its information, as well as the functionality and usefulness of its database.
Responses are due by Aug. 4.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/08/stories/1060055706
-
US Utilities Have Pushed Down Their CO2 Emissions Largely on Their Own
Jun 8, 2017 | Platts
By Jeff Ryser
Four big US utilities have each reported in recent days substantial carbon dioxide emission reductions over the past few years due principally to an increase in the use of natural gas, renewable generation and to the sale or closure of coal-fired assets.
The four utilities — Duke Energy, Southern Company, American Electric Power and Xcel Energy — have reported CO2 reductions of between 28% and 37% over an 11-year period starting in 2005. Each of the four have made changes to their generating portfolios to take advantage of lower-price renewables that attract federal and state-level subsidies but which also, the utilities say, increasingly appeal to their customers.
On June 1, President Donald Trump announced he was pulling the country out of the non-binding Paris climate agreement. As one of the utilities noted, however, their CO2 emissions decline was accomplished outside of any federally mandated program and prior to the official launch of the Paris agreement in November 2016.
The utilities’ reports of reduced CO2 emissions are not new, though the accumulated size of the reductions, have become more pronounced in the past two years as coal-fired assets have, in some cases, been retired or sold and investments in natural gas-fired, wind and solar generation have increased.
It should be noted that in the earlier years, some of the US utilities had to be pressured to back away from coal, which they had relied upon for decades.
Nonetheless, the amounts of the reductions for the four utilities strongly suggest that the US power sector would easily meet the accord’s non-binding target of reducing CO2 emissions by between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by the year 2025.
According to data from the Trump administration’s own Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration, CO2 emissions from the US electricity sector have been falling steadily until they reached in 2016 a level almost 25% below levels emitted in 2005.
Emissions of CO2 from the power sector’s coal-fired generation has come down 37.5% since 2005.
Duke has been ‘modernizing’
North Carolina-based Duke Energy says it has been “modernizing and diversifying” its portfolio for the past decade, which means it has been retiring older coal plants, building new natural gas-fired facilities and building up a renewables portfolio that total includes 2,300 MW of wind and 600 MW of solar. Its large wind portfolio is a beneficiary of the federal government’s production tax credit program created by the US Congress.
In 2016, the company said recently, its CO2 emissions were 29% below its 2005 level.
The company says it has invested $4 billion in renewables since 2007 and intends to invest $11 billion more.
Xcel reduces emissions by 30%
On May 30, Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy released a statement saying that it has had a 30% reduction in its carbon emissions between 2005 and 2016. Xcel now anticipates it will achieve at least a 45% reduction by 2021.
The company said it is getting its reductions by adding “significant amounts of low-cost wind and solar energy,” by encouraging energy efficiency and retiring aging coal units and repowering some facilities with natural gas.
The firm has reported to the Climate Registry that its generating portfolio emitted approximately 53 million metric tons of CO2 in 2016, down from 56.6 million tons in 2015.
In late April, Xcel announced that it will build 9 new wind farms with combined capacity of 2,750 MW. The company has said it expects each of those facilities to be qualified to receive 100% of the value of the PTC when they are placed into service.
Southern Company reduces CO2 by 28%
Atlanta-based Southern Company said its 2016 annual CO2 emissions were down to a level 28% below its 2005 level. The company, which is also building two new nuclear reactors and an IGCC unit that is designed to capture CO2, has seen the share of its coal-fired generation fall from 71% in 2005 to 31% last year.
Its total CO2 emissions are now below the 100 mt level, and, it notes, this has been done outside of any federally mandated program.
AEP says 2016 was 37% below 2005 level
AEP, based in Columbus, Ohio, said in its 2017 corporate accountability report that its CO2 emissions in 2016 totaled 93 million mt, down from 146 million mt in 2005. It said the decline was largely due to coal unit retirements, low natural gas prices, increased use of renewables and slowing load growth.
The company has said it expects CO2 emissions to fall to 74 million mt in 2017 due to the sale of generation assets.
AEP has said that that with the extension of federal production and investment tax credits for wind and solar, and continued price declines for renewable technologies, “it makes more economic sense for our customers and lowers our carbon profile to include these resources.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/06/08/us-utilities-co2-emissions/
-
EPRI's Ray on Power-Sector Shifts, Technology Plays
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E TV
As the regulatory landscape for the electric power sector shifts under the Trump administration, there are continued efforts within the industry to make the grid more efficient and reliable. During today's OnPoint, Anda Ray, senior vice president for energy, environment and external relations and chief sustainability officer at the Electric Power Research Institute, discusses a pathway to a more efficient and reliable energy system.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Anda Ray, senior vice president for energy and environment and external relations and chief sustainability officer at the Electric Power Research Institute. Thanks for joining me. Nice to see you again.
Anda Ray: You too, Monica. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Anda, as the regulatory landscape for the electric power sector shifts dramatically under the Trump administration, there are continued efforts to make the grid more efficient and reliable. As you consider sort of the current regulatory landscape, what are the elements you believe that could have the greatest impact on grid reliability, and are actions that are being taken by the Trump administration improving reliability?
Anda Ray: So let me step back just one minute, and EPRI is a technology-agnostic company. We're not for profit, for the public, and so what we want to do is look forward into the future to see how we can efficiently get a smooth pathway that is cost-effective and sustainable and good for the public to get there. And you might ask why. There's a cacophony of people out there predicting the future.
Well, the one thing that we do, I think, that's different is we look at the future based on what the technology and demonstrations show us that we might be able to get there, and how can we do it efficiently? So when you talk about technologies and where the system is evolving, that's one thing we know for sure, is that the future will change. And so do we want to help shape that future so that we can help those efficiencies?
Let me give you an example on technologies. You mentioned technologies. Tremendous amount of renewables, tremendous amount of distributed energy generation. And there's lots of people who say we don't need the infrastructure, that expensive infrastructure that has served us well for 100 years, the transmission system. And technologically, they are correct. They can move off of that transmission system. But then what happens? Then we have people that want to connect microgrids, and then they want to connect microgrid with microgrid because they want the resiliency and the backup and they want to be able to use their distributed energy. And then all of a sudden, we start connecting them with long lines, and then we're back to a transmission system. So let's just skip the inefficiencies and help us move using the infrastructure that we have to support and get the value out of some of the new technologies on the edge of the grid.
Monica Trauzzi: Regulation's a key driver for all of this though, right?
Anda Ray: Right. So one of the things that I think is really important is that physics trumps policy all the time. You can't — policy, you can't direct the electron where it goes or the gas molecule where it goes. So it's very important for policymakers and regulators to be informed by the science and the technology. So what happens when I put a distributed energy on the edge of the grid? What happens to a system that was originally created for two-way power flow? What happens when there's technology outside the industry that can pertubate it? For instance, the third wave of energy efficiency, which is power electronics and materials that are totally separate with customer devices that are causing these efficiencies. What about the Bitcoin that changes the digital economy and allows peer-to-peer? What about the block chain which allows these transactions? So you need to look at all these technologies and how they work together to utilize the infrastructure we have.
Monica Trauzzi: And so, as EPRI has been working on creating this pathway to a more efficient and reliable system, you've included the thoughts of advisers and leaders across many different disciplines. What's sort of the common thread of insight that you've heard from anyone as you've been doing this work?
Anda Ray: So there's actually two common threads, and it starts with the consumer. The consumer actually only wants five things, and it's not dollars per kilowatt-hour or BTU or molecules of water. They want comfort, convenience, choice, control, and they'd like it cost-effectively. So how does the regulator serve that need? The other thing we're seeing is that, because the consumer wants to use and manage and produce energy the way they choose, is that we're seeing that the integration of different energy sources are now becoming more interdependent. You can't talk about electricity without talking about gas. You can't talk about gas and electricity without talking about water. And you can't talk about any of them without the advances in information and communication technology.
Monica Trauzzi: We have many new technologies down the pike that many people in the energy space are excited about. What are the next-generation technologies for electric generation that you believe will do the best job of supporting these goals and initiatives?
Anda Ray: So there's not one individual technology, but what I think is happening is the tremendous amount of synergies and opportunities because of the combination of technologies. For instance, when you combine an older power plant with information technology and the new sensors that are enabled by materials and power electronics, all of a sudden, I can create a digital twin, something that Amazon may call a device twin or a device shadow. And I then can operate that digital twin, which is an electronic reconstruction of the actual physical facility, and see what happens when I operate that system, allowing me to get even more efficiencies out of the system, more performance and respond to that consumer who's making the choices they want to make, not ones that people are telling them to make.
Monica Trauzzi: I know that you recently presented all this at the NARUC conference. I'm curious if you think that all the right people, all the right parties are engaging and talking with each other about this.
Anda Ray: What's interesting, even in personal relationships, is we all want to be understood. So if you have people saying let me talk at you so that you can understand my position, what we probably need more of as we bring these people together is to help them understand how it works together and what do you need to know. The consumer does not have to understand synthetic inertia and rotating equipment and voltage regulation to know that I want my power and I want to be convenient and I want 72 degrees. So when you bring the technology, the operations of the utility, the regulator and the policymaker, it will take all four of those aspects to drive the market transformation that allows us to get to the future in a way that satisfies the needs for society effectively, economically and sustainably.
Monica Trauzzi: Is a top-down national approach most effective or should the states and the regional transmission organizations, regional systems be the ones who are leading the way?
Anda Ray: There's never, ever a one-size-fits-all, right. In some of the cases where you have the service or the product crossing multiple state lines or multiple geographic jurisdictions, whether it's in the states or in Europe and other countries, then oftentimes a higher central level, in U.S. case, a federal level would be appropriate. In those cases that are handled at a local organization or a local geographic area, those are often best handled by the people who are — have the jurisdictional responsibilities there.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there.
Anda Ray: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Lots of moving parts. Very interesting.
Anda Ray: Thank you very much, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you for coming on the show.
Anda Ray: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2229/transcript
-
In Beijing, Perry Promotes US-China Clean Energy Cooperation
Jun 8, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
America and China have “extraordinary opportunities” to work together on clean energy, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Thursday, amid global criticism of President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement.
In a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli on the sidelines of a clean energy conference in Beijing, Perry cited liquefied natural gas, nuclear energy and carbon capture as areas where the two countries can cooperate.
“Those are three areas that I think we have extraordinary opportunities to be partners to work on clean energy issues,” Perry said.
Trump’s decision last week to withdraw from the climate agreement negotiated in 2015 sparked speculation that he is creating a leadership void that could be filled by China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.
In Japan on Monday, Perry said he hoped China will step forward to be a “real leader” on climate issues, while rejecting criticism that the United States is backing down.
“I hope China will step in and attempt to take the mantle away. It would be a good challenge for them,” Perry said.
In their opening remarks before reporters were ushered out of Thursday’s meeting, neither Perry nor Zhang mentioned Trump’s decision. The 2015 agreement had largely been seen as a triumph of cooperation between the U.S. and China, the world’s two biggest economies and energy consumers who are often at odds on issues such as regional security and human rights.
An official readout of the meeting later distributed to journalists cited Perry as also mentioning renewables — essentially wind and solar power — as another area of “mutual interest” to both countries.
China is a global leader in renewables, although its solar panels and wind turbines often sit idle and the energy they could produce goes to waste because of its outdated electrical grid and a preference among some local officials for coal, which still accounted for 62 percent of total energy consumption in 2016.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, who also attended the Beijing conference, told The Associated Press that Trump’s move would ultimately prove only a temporary setback because China, European countries and individual U.S. states will fill the gap left by the federal government’s move to abdicate leadership on the issue. China and California signed an agreement Tuesday to work together on reducing emissions.
Brown met with China’s president, Xi Jinping, on Wednesday and told reporters later that they discussed ways to expand economic opportunities between China and California with an emphasis on clean energy.
In a notable contrast, Perry’s meeting was with a leader of lower standing. Among the seven members of the Communist Party’s all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee, Zhang ranks last.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/in-beijing-perry-promotes-us-china-clean-energy-cooperation/2017/06/07/02aff70a-4bfe-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html?utm_term=.ba98ff236fb1
-
Budget, Grid Study Focus of Perry's Policy Panel
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Department of Energy officials sought to reassure members of its electricity policy advisory panel yesterday that a grid reliability study requested by Secretary Rick Perry is gathering a range of viewpoints from experts at DOE's national laboratories.
A former Edison Electric Institute executive newly attached to DOE also briefed the agency's Electricity Advisory Committee on executive orders signed by President Trump and the department's budget numbers.
Katie Jereza, who most recently was director of infrastructure resilience at EEI, also gave the committee a briefing on the fiscal 2017 budget for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. She introduced herself as the deputy assistant secretary for transmission permitting and technical assistance, saying she had only been at DOE for about two weeks.
At the meeting in Arlington, Va., Jereza spoke of several executive orders that will affect DOE, among them an order requiring each agency to produce by mid-September a plan to reorganize and another calling for improvements in cybersecurity and federal critical infrastructure. DOE will have to abide by a Trump order on regulatory reform, she noted, which calls for a task force that aims to reduce regulations by voiding two for every new one.
An order promoting energy independence and economic growth will include a review of the Clean Power Plan, Jereza said. That one is also due by mid-September.
She gave a summary of the fiscal 2017 budget for electricity programs, touting its $24 million boost over fiscal 2016 for energy storage and smart-grid research and development.
Questions also came up about the fiscal 2018 budget plan released by the White House, which proposes a 41 percent cut in program funding — from $208 million to $123 million.
That question was answered by Bill Parks, a senior technical adviser in the DOE electricity office.
"Congress is looking at it, we have started to have hearings, and there's continuing dialogue," he said.
Absent from the meeting was Travis Fisher, a Trump administration political appointee who is now working on Perry's first major energy policy statement. Perry has requested a study about whether federal tax and subsidy policies favoring renewable energy have burdened "baseload" coal-fired generation, putting power grid reliability at risk.
Parks was asked a question about that study, which he said Perry wants on his desk by June 23.
He said that recently hired consultant Alison Silverstein is working as the "principal editor, pulling all these pieces in."
He said DOE has turned to grid experts at the national labs. The office has received at least 15 papers from the labs that are targeted at questions raised by Perry in his memo requesting the study. DOE staff is "trying to make sure we're capturing as many viewpoints as possible in the time period we have to work," Parks said.
The committee's 30 members reflect the spectrum of leadership in the electric sector, with utility and grid operator executives, state regulators and lawmakers, and academics. Its subcommittees produce memorandums and reports for the assistant secretary with responsibility for electricity programs.
One of 22 advisory committees serving DOE programs, the EAC has a budget of approximately $400,000. The committee meets three times a year; its members serve two-year terms and are appointed by the Energy secretary.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/08/stories/1060055708
-
Inside Trump's 'America First' Doctrine
Jun 8, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump pledged in his inaugural address to protect America from the "ravages of other countries." In pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement, the president made clear he was making good on that promise.
Decrying the landmark 2015 deal as "draconian," Trump blamed the maneuverings of "foreign capitals and global activists" bent on stealing U.S. wealth through trade and defensive alliances and, now, through feigned concern for the global environment.
"At what point does America get demeaned?" he asked in his Rose Garden speech. "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"
Foreign policy experts say Trump's speech underscores an attitude of aggressive suspicion of the global community on a wide range of topics. He used his first visit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, after all, to praise German trade negotiators for besting Americans. At his first Group of Seven summit, he clashed with allies not only on Paris but on trade. And at his first NATO summit, Trump harangued alliance members for failing to pony up sufficient defense resources. He canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership and threatened to do the same for the North American Free Trade Agreement.
That us-versus-them vision, many believe, will limit U.S. engagement in the short term and clout in the long term.
Varun Sivaram, who directs the climate program at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it may one day be possible to "pinpoint the decline in American leadership on the world stage to last week."
Political scientists and foreign policy experts have struggled to identify a Trump doctrine. Some say he doesn't have one, but they say the president's instincts seem most in line with the Realism school in international relations, which sees countries endlessly jockeying for power and scarce resources, including through force and deception.
"Paranoia can be inherent in a lot of Realist thinking," said Matthew Fuhrmann, who is currently a visiting associate professor of political science at Stanford University.
Like Thomas Hobbes, who viewed our natural state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," Trump and his advisers have sometimes taken a dim view of the role shared ideals and values play in diplomacy. Instead, they tout American might, which should render all deals favorable to the world's most powerful country if it can only avoid betraying its own interests.
"The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a 'global community' but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage," national security adviser H.R. McMaster and chief economic adviser Gary Cohn wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal last month. "We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it."
But Realists aren't necessarily anti-cooperation, and some view trade deals and defensive alliances as crucial ways to serve domestic interests.
"In general, I think most Realists would say that during the Cold War especially, NATO played a key role in enhancing the security of the United States and advancing U.S. interests," Fuhrmann said.
"Any U.S. ally right now has to be wondering whether Trump will maintain the kind of U.S. commitments that have been the bedrock of a foreign policy through Democrat and Republican administrations alike," said James Goldgeier, dean of the School of International Service at American University.
"And yes, other countries have benefited from U.S. global leadership, but so has the United States," he said. "'America First' is now America alone."
'It's as if we've learned nothing from history'
Trump is an extreme case of this "America alone" ideology, but experts say it's been percolating for decades among a segment of Americans increasingly skeptical of the United States' role in multilateral efforts.
"Americans, fundamentally unlike Europeans, don't understand this whole idea of pooling sovereignty and how you actually can become stronger by working with others, because they think of the U.S. as better on its own," he said, recalling how then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was initially reluctant to accept NATO help in Afghanistan after 9/11 — the only time Article 5 calling for the defense of all NATO members was ever triggered.
Foreign policy experts object to the Trumpian view that in acting globally, the United States is being taken advantage of.
"The U.S. can shine multilaterally and gains more than it loses," said Mathew Burrows, director of the Atlantic Council's Strategic Foresight Initiative.
U.S. leadership in promoting free trade and keeping shipping lanes open has benefited the world's largest economy disproportionately, many experts say. U.S. guarantees of security in Europe and elsewhere made it unnecessary for nations like Germany and Japan to build nuclear arsenals after World War II, ushering in an era of stability. And Trump's tussles with NATO allies and key European leaders like Merkel have spurred warnings that Europe might diversify its alliances, building stronger ties with Russia and China that future U.S. administrations might come to regret.
"In Trump's case, it's not clear that he's ever understood the value of the edifice we've built," said Sivaram, referring to the post-World War II order. "In tearing it down, he may not fully realize what he's doing."
Vice President Mike Pence did reaffirm the United States' commitment to NATO yesterday. The alliance now includes Montenegro, whose prime minister Trump shoved out of the way during the Brussels summit to secure a better place in the family photo.
Russian President Vladimir Putin visited French President Emmanuel Macron soon after his election last month — despite allegedly working to bolster his far-right opponent. The French leader had sharp words for Putin on issues like Syria but also called Russia a "partner."
And China and the European Union, meanwhile, are forging closer ties, including on Paris. The released their first bilateral agreement on the issue last week.
Sherri Goodman, a senior fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said Putin in particular stood to gain from rising E.U.-U.S. tensions.
"I don't think they had any idea how easy it would be to put Trump in their pocket and sow the seeds of discord throughout the NATO alliance," she said. "This is the alliance that was forged in the wake of the horrors of World War II to prevent those horrors from occurring again, to prevent those fascist dictators from undermining democracy, free speech, stability. And now it's as if we've learned nothing from history."
Paris: Just a 'photo op'
Fuhrmann's research suggests that Trump might be more prone to try to "free ride" on other countries' contributions to a common good because he has a business background.
In ongoing research at Texas A&M University, his home university, Fuhrmann has looked at defense expenditures by 17 NATO members over six decades, and found that heads of government with business backgrounds are more likely to shirk their defense spending commitments in the hopes that other countries will cover their shortfall. That could translate to the environmental sphere, as well, he said.
Fuhrmann also saw Trump's "bullying" messaging style as a diplomatic liability.
"If you're trying to get a country to do something you want them to do, I would think the last thing you'd want to do is to humiliate that country or that country's leader publicly, so to me it's a totally counterproductive approach," he said.
Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute disputed that climate change is a collective action problem. Developing countries aren't putting up commitments to Paris that are more than business as usual, he contended, and so they're unlikely to do more or less based on U.S. action.
"Past administrations and certainly the Obama administration have valued the appearance of comity and having everybody smiling in the photo op together above kind of making sure that the underlying substantive premise is being adhered to," he said. He credited Trump with being more forthright.
Few experts say the United States will see a sharp decline in its clout overnight due to Trump's anti-globalism, his Paris decision or any other single factor. The United States remains the world's largest economy with its biggest military, and it's a singularly important ally for a wide variety of countries around the world. And the U.S. dollar remains the world's reserve currency.
"These aren't things that any one action will take away," said Sivaram. "But at some point later in the future, we will lose all of these advantages as the United States slowly decays from being a world power in economic strength and cedes global responsibility for the most important global issues, of which climate change will clearly be one."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/08/stories/1060055716
-
Acting on Climate Change and Supporting Coal Workers – We Have to Do Both
Jun 8, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By John K. Delaney
President Trump’s astounding decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord, packaged like a reality television season finale, was the culmination of a terrible series of events for those of us that care about the environment. From the beginning of his term, President Trump has set out on an openly anti-environmental agenda, proposing to shrink the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 31 percent and reshape what’s left into a climate-skeptic orientated organization. We have every right to be angry, but we must make sure to direct our criticism in the right direction.
Walking away from a truly global agreement to reduce emissions is a shocking abdication of America’s leadership role and a decision that threatens our future. In his remarks announcing that the U.S. was taking this action, President Trump struck a familiar cord, returning to a longstanding theme of protecting coal jobs and stating that “I happen to love the coal miners.”
We’re losing time and we have to do a better job of building consensus for action. We better focus on this fact and not make the very fatal mistake of demonizing coal workers.
For many progressives, President Trump is wholly inscrutable and his appeal is difficult to even acknowledge. We need to acknowledge that in some ways he’s a very effective communicator – and we see this very clearly on environmental policies.
To devastating effect, President Trump has made United States environmental policy a debate about coal workers and coal miners specifically. Environmental advocates and lawmakers cannot ignore this fact or adopt rhetoric and positions which play into President Trump’s hands.
Of course, the image of the coal-killing EPA is a massive distortion of what’s actually happened in the energy market, where the explosion of cheap natural gas supply has largely accounted for the recent decline in coal’s fortunes. Moreover, like nearly all industries, coal jobs have been hurt by mechanization, as fewer and fewer workers are needed to extract coal from the ground.
We should have deep admiration for the hard-work and dangerous risks a coal miner takes to provide for their family. We should have a profound appreciation for the work that coal miners did, for decades, and continue to do, to build the United States into an industrial power and an advanced economy. Their impact was huge, contributing to our military strength and powering a technological engine that transformed the world. President Trump has taken this collective memory and admiration and literally made it the backdrop of his agenda, taking every opportunity to be flanked by coal workers.
The irony is that the cause of coal miners should be a Democratic cause. It certainly has been in the past, when Democrats fought for safer work conditions, better benefits and a seat at the table for miners. Last week, Democrats got a big win as healthcare benefits for coal miners was included in the spending bill.
While coal country’s embrace of President Trump has been painful to Democrats, we can’t turn our back on these communities and the hard working men and women who work in the industry. Instead we need to listen to their complaints and make the case for our argument. But it must be a respectful dialogue, not a lecture. Entire regions don’t develop a point of view without some basis in fact. As Democrats, we have to reengage, we have to make the case that the economy will continue to rapidly change and that we have an agenda that will help everyone thrive in the future.
Part of that honest discussion has to be about the economy and the environment. The truth is there’s no magic formula President Trump can enact to reverse decades of macroeconomic trends that have coal, and the truth is there’s no way around the fundamental fact that if we care about the environment, about the future of our economy, national security and public health, we’re going to have to, in the long run, burn less coal. Climate change left unchecked is going to hurt everyone. So we can ignore reality – Trump’s approach – or we can try to actually create better outcomes, not better photo ops.
The most effective way we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage the development of cleaner alternative fuels is to use market forces. Despite being told that it was politically unpopular, I’m proud to have authored legislation that establishes a carbon pricing mechanism. The free market economy is the most powerful tool we have to change behavior and this is the most straightforward and most effective tool we have to reduce the impact of climate change.
My legislation uses the massive amounts of revenues raised by a carbon tax to do three things: 1) reduce other taxes on businesses so that they can stay competitive and create jobs 2) provide direct payments and tax credits to low-income people and the middle class to offset increased costs from carbon pricing and 3) establish a massive new multi-billion dollar benefit program to help coal workers and their families. Under my legislation, impacted coal workers would have access to worker retraining programs, financial assistance with relocation expenses, healthcare, early retirement and other benefits.
As a Democrat, I believe there’s a role for government to solve problems, help the most vulnerable and to create a level playing field. But when a government action disproportionally hurts certain communities, there’s also a responsibility to help those who have been harmed. We’ve seen this with trade policy over the last three decades, we haven’t done enough to help those that have been harmed by big economic shifts and new trade flows.
That philosophy undergirds my carbon tax bill, which was the first to give direct benefits to coal miners and their communities. Looking at the data, it is clear that the country as a whole – and the entire world – would benefit by a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But in the short term, we have to help coal workers and their communities’ transition and adjust. This involves investing in them and their communities so that they can play a different, but no less impactful role, in building our economy.
A rapidly warming planet and the economic devastation that it will bring will hurt working people the hardest. I was proud to attend the national climate march, but there weren’t many people there that looked like the blue collar working class people I grew up with. We have to change that. If we continue to debate environmental policy on Trump’s terms, we’ll continue to lose.
John K. Delaney represents Maryland’s Sixth District in the House of Representatives. Delaney is the only former CEO of a publicly-traded company in the House and was named one of the World’s Greatest Leaders by Fortune in 2017.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/336839-acting-on-climate-change-and-supporting-coal-workers
-
Senate Democrats Defend Air Law's Jobs Benefits Against Trump Attacks
Jun 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Senate Democrats are defending the Clean Air Act's economic and job creation benefits against attacks from the Trump administration that claim Obama-era rules crafted under the law have caused unemployment and hurt the economy, with the senators saying the law has been and remains crucial to a successful economy.
At a June 6 “roundtable” discussion, Democratic members of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) talked with representatives from clean energy companies to promote the air law. Some senators said that clean energy jobs could have more significant economic benefits than those in the fossil fuel sector.
EPW member Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) at the roundtable said, “We are at a point of maximum vulnerability. . . . What we are going to have to do is figure out how we get that [clean energy sector] organized politically” to remedy a situation where “70,000 coal miners have a louder voice than 2.6 million people” employed in that sector.
Markey's comments are a reference to President Donald Trump's repeated criticisms on the campaign trail and since his inauguration about what he sees as major negative economic consequences from EPA Clean Air Act rules and other environmental mandates, including the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas standards for power plants and vehicle fuel economy standards. The Trump EPA has decided to reconsider the CPP, other air rules targeting conventional air pollutants and air toxics, and vehicle GHG standards tied to fuel economy.
The panel also coincides more broadly with the reality that a unified Republican control of Congress and the White House opens the way to more fully explore, if not necessarily finalize, statutory changes to air act programs, with the Senate filibuster remaining an important tool for Democrats to defend the statute.
After the event, EPW ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) told Inside EPA, “Time and again, we have cleaned our air, cleaned our water, and reduced our emissions in a variety of ways and created jobs.”
“That is a message I want us just to continue to pound, to amplify, it is a virtuous circle,” said Carper, expressing hope that emphasizing a “cleaner air, cleaner water, better stronger economy” message can counter efforts to scale back environmental programs and funding across numerous government agencies.
While the topic was the Clean Air Act, the forum included broader messages to be aware of what Democrats see as potential Trump administration and even state assaults on the clean energy sector in multiple policy venues.
For example, Markey, who played a significant role in designing current power markets as a member of the House during the 1990s -- discussed potential threats to the clean energy sector at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, within state energy regulatory bodies, and at the International Trade Commission, with the latter in a position to consider proposals to block importation of solar panels that provide the raw material for solar projects.
“Please stay close,” Markey told participants. “We are going to need you,” he said to the industry officials who included representatives from manufacturing and other companies.
Business Successes
Participants at the forum included manufacturing Corning's Tim Johnson, who touted continued improvements in vehicle emissions regulations as key to the success of his company.
“Progressive U.S. regulation has allowed Corning to compete around the world especially in China,” Johnson said noting that his company first won the race to develop crucial substrates for vehicle catalytic converters decades ago but has continued to benefit from strict U.S. emissions rules that keep it ahead of competitors.
Carper during the event made a point of drawing out Johnson -- whose company also makes Gorilla glass useful as a weight reduction measure in vehicles -- on the issue of fuel economy standards now under review by the Trump administration, asking him to react to proposals to revisit the standards.
“If we bow out of these standards, it might have [jobs] implications,” Johnson said.
Johnson cited his own conversations with Chinese officials he said have concluded they cannot compete with U.S. and other Western technology on conventional vehicles, even though the officials have vowed to leapfrog other nations on electric vehicles, a particular market for his company's lighter weight glass.
Hal Harvey, CEO of the energy and environmental policy firm Energy Innovation, touted a “fact pack” linking clean air to jobs, and citing air act economic benefits more than 43 times the costs of the air act from 1970-1990. The packet also criticizes a “tremendous loss to the U.S. economy” -- tens of billions of dollars annually -- resulting from stagnation in fuel economy standards between 1985 and 2010 that resulted in added fuel costs.
Harvey during his remarks also praised the United States as a world leader in research and development, but said that was in jeopardy given that less than 1 percent of our energy-related spending -- or less than is spent on potato chips -- goes to research and development even before proposed federal cuts in the fiscal year 2018 budget.
Michael Bakas of Ameresco offered a defense of EPA's renewable fuels standard, touting its role in encouraging landfill gas and other projects including cellulosic biofuels, that “generate jobs and reduce emissions.”
“We believe the Clean Air Act can spur innovation while delivering environmental and economic benefits [to communities],” he said, urging continued congressional support for the statute
And George Howard of Inovateus Solar said in his remarks that without the air law “we might still be at the starting gate on our race to a cleaner energy future.” He also distributed a chart showing steep drops in the price of solar cells both over the past decades and since 2009, and cited a statistic that that solar for the first time in 2016 was the largest source of new U.S. generating capacity, representing 39 percent of new installed capacity.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-democrats-defend-air-laws-jobs-benefits-against-trump-attacks
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested