Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 6/22/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Pallone Sounds Alarm About Chemical Office Leader
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
On the eve of U.S. EPA setting the regulatory structure to implement the nation's new chemical safety law, a key lawmaker rehashed ethical concerns about a recent addition to the office in charge of getting the law up and running. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ex-Im Bank Nominees
Jun 22, 2017 | American Shipper
By Chris Gillis
President Donald Trump formerly nominated Scott Garrett, a former Republican congressman from New Jersey, this week to serve as president of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. -
(ACC Mentioned) GATX Rallies: Time to Add the Stock to Your Portfolio?
Jun 21, 2017 | Nasdaq
By Zack's Equity Research
Shares of GATX Corporation GATX have outperformed the Zacks categorized Transportation - Equipment and Leasingindustry in the last one year on the back of a strong product portfolio as well as an impressive earnings history. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: EPA To Publish Risk Evaluation Standards
Jun 22, 2017 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The Environmental Protection Agency this week reportedly plans to release details about how the first 10 high-priority chemicals will be studied under new federal chemical legislation. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Unveil New Chemical Testing Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Eli Stokols
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday will release new rules to clarify the agency’s process of testing the chemicals used in everyday products and other commerce, a matter of deep importance to manufacturers, consumers and environmental advocates. -
Costco to Screen Products for 'Chemicals of Concern'
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US retailer Costco has launched a product screening programme to learn more about which chemicals of "regulatory and social concern" are in the products it sells. -
Connecticut Warns Against Flame Retardants in Children's Products
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US state of Connecticut has warned against children’s products containing three flame retardant chemicals. -
US EPA Releases ETBE, tBA Draft IRIS Assessments for Review
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has released external review draft assessments of ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) and tert-butyl alcohol (tert-butanol or tBA) for peer review by the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB). -
SMEs ‘Still Do Not Know’ if They Should Register in 2018
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
With the final REACH registration deadline less than one year away, some European SMEs think they do not have to register their chemicals in order to continue selling to the EU market, trade bodies warn. -
Echa Round-Up
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is consulting on four proposals for harmonised classification and labelling (CLH). -
Echa Committee Agrees PFHxS is an SVHC
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) has agreed with Sweden's proposal that perfluorohexane-1-sulfonic acid (PFHxS) should be identified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties. -
Energy CEOs Tell Pruitt They Want Carbon Regulation
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Dozens of power industry executives who flew to Washington for a Monday meeting with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had three minutes apiece to tell him whether they want to replace the Clean Power Plan. -
Timeline Hazy For Environmental Review Of Pipeline
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration doesn't know how long it will take to fill in gaps in its environmental review of the Dakota Access pipeline. -
Overnight Energy: Dakota Access Fight Enters New Phase
Jun 22, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama & Devin Henry
'NO TIMEFRAME' FOR DAKOTA REVIEW: A government lawyer told a federal judge on Wednesday that he has "no timeframe" for a new environmental review of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline. -
Lawyer: ‘No Timeframe’ for New Dakota Access Environmental Review
Jun 22, 2017 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
A government lawyer said Wednesday that officials don’t know how long it will take them to redo an environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline as ordered by a federal judge last week. -
Senators Weigh How To Slash Cybersecurity's Red Tape
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A smorgasbord of federal cybersecurity groups and standards could stifle more efficient ways to fight hackers, security experts told lawmakers at a hearing on cyber regulation "harmonization" yesterday. -
Interior Proposes Scrapping Limits Already In Effect
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Trump's Interior Department could soon wipe away the last remnants of an Obama-era regulation to control methane emissions from oil and gas operations on federal and tribal land. -
Conservative Climate Plan Could Shield Oil Companies
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
A provision in a high-profile carbon tax plan could insulate companies that release greenhouse gases from lawsuits. -
Gov. Brown In 'Thick' Of Negotiations On Cap And Trade
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and lawmakers still aim to reach a deal this summer to extend the state's cap-and-trade system through 2030. -
What Scott Pruitt Doesn't Want You to Know, and Why it Matters
Jun 22, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Martha Roberts
Not telling the people you work for what you do at work isn’t an option available to most of us.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Pallone Sounds Alarm About Chemical Office Leader
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
On the eve of U.S. EPA setting the regulatory structure to implement the nation's new chemical safety law, a key lawmaker rehashed ethical concerns about a recent addition to the office in charge of getting the law up and running.
Today — one year after the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was enacted — is EPA's deadline to issue the law's framework rules.
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention recently tapped Nancy Beck, previously of the American Chemistry Council, for its second-in-command position. The choice sparked concerns from environmental groups and others over her role in the agency, which regulates the companies that are under the umbrella of her former employer (Greenwire, May 10).
Yesterday, Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioning Beck's role in finalizing these rules, saying she is "inappropriately involved in finalizing rules that will have a clear and direct impact on her previous employer."
Pallone requested all ethics agreements and other documents that show what issues Beck will and won't be allowed to work on, documentation of the changes made to the framework rules since Beck joined EPA, and Beck's public financial disclosure reports.
The final rules, Pallone said, will show "whether she has been allowed to impose her former employer's positions on the public."
EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
Earlier in May, EPA held a public hearing to look at what elements of the law could be "repealed, replaced or modified so they may be less burdensome" (Greenwire, May 1).
The hearing confused some environmental groups, which questioned why rollbacks were being considered so soon after passing the law.
Industry representatives encouraged some rollbacks, such as to the Toxics Release Inventory, a database that provides information on pollution discharges for the general public.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/22/stories/1060056450
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ex-Im Bank Nominees
Jun 22, 2017 | American Shipper
By Chris Gillis
President Donald Trump formerly nominated Scott Garrett, a former Republican congressman from New Jersey, this week to serve as president of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
Fred P. Hochberg resigned as Ex-Im Bank president on Jan. 20, the end of the Obama administration.
During his years in Congress, from 2003-2015, he became one of the nine founding members of the House Freedom Caucus and a critic of the bank. The House Freedom Caucus called for the bank’s demise, referring to it as an example of “crony capitalism.”
Trump also nominated Spencer Bachus III of Alabama, who was a member of Congress from 1993 to 2015 and held the post of House Finance Services Committee chairman, to serve on the Ex-Im Bank’s board.
Exporters that rely on U.S. Export-Import Bank financing to secure large international deals are frustrated that the bank’s board currently cannot approve transactions of more than $10 million without a quorum.
The bank requires three of its five board members to approve large financing packages. However, the board currently has only one seat filled and requires the president and third bank board director’s positions to be filled.
Many large industry groups back the Ex-Im Bank’s role in financing export transactions, including the Aerospace Industries Association, American Chemistry Council, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, National Association of Manufacturers, National Foreign Trade Council, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The beleaguered bank was closed during the summer of 2015 while a group of Republican lawmakers opposed the reauthorization of its charter. Ex-Im Bank supporters in Congress managed to reauthorize its charter on Dec. 3, 2015, as part of a long-term transportation bill. The bill approved long-term reauthorization from Congress that will remain in effect through Sept. 30, 2019.http://www.americanshipper.com/main/news/514087fa-ad6b-48c5-824a-5338a9611d5f.aspx#hide
-
(ACC Mentioned) GATX Rallies: Time to Add the Stock to Your Portfolio?
Jun 21, 2017 | Nasdaq
By Zack's Equity Research
Shares of GATX Corporation GATX have outperformed the Zacks categorized Transportation - Equipment and Leasingindustry in the last one year on the back of a strong product portfolio as well as an impressive earnings history. The stock has rallied 31.06% compared with the industry's gain of 9%.
The company reported better-than-expected earnings and revenues in the first quarter of 2017. Earnings (on an adjusted basis) of $1.44 per share breezed past the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.08. Revenues of $316.1 million were also above the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $312.2 million.
A favorable earnings history shows the company to have outshined the Zacks Consensus Estimate in each of the past four quarters. The average earnings beat is 32.8%. GATX is expected to perform well with respect to the bottom line in near future as well.
Additionally, improvement in the Rail International unit's profit in the first quarter of 2017 is encouraging. Profits in the stated segment improved 6.3% year over year to $13.4 million.
GATX's efforts to reward investors through share buybacks and dividend payments are appreciative too. In a shareholder friendly move, the board of directors at GATX has cleared a quarterly dividend of 42 cents per share. This payout will be made on Jun 30, 2017 to the shareholders of record as of Jun 15. In Jan 2017, the company had raised its quarterly dividend by 5% to 42 cents. It has been constantly paying regular dividends since 1919.
In another positive development, GATX received the Responsible Care 2017 Partner of the Year Award from the American Chemistry Council this May. This reward is bestowed forthe company's outstanding performance and safety record in distribution, transportation, storage, use, treatment, disposal and/or sales and marketing of chemicals.
The above positives substantiate GATX's Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). Seems the time is ripe for investors to add this stock to their portfolio. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here .
Other Stocks to Consider
Other favorably placed stocks worth considering in the transportation sector are CAI International, Inc. CAI , Freightcar America, Inc. RAIL and Triton International Limited TRTN . All sport a Zacks Rank #1.
Shares of CAI International, Freightcar America and Triton International surged over 63%, 32% and 45%, respectively, in the last three months.
Looking for Ideas with Even Greater Upside?
oday's investment ideas are short-term, directly based on our proven 1 to 3 month indicator. In addition, I invite you to consider our long-term opportunities. These rare trades look to start fast with strong Zacks Ranks, but carry through with double and triple-digit profit potential. Starting now, you can look inside our home run, value, and stocks under $10 portfolios, plus more.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/gatx-rallies-time-to-add-the-stock-to-your-portfolio-cm806844
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: EPA To Publish Risk Evaluation Standards
Jun 22, 2017 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The Environmental Protection Agency this week reportedly plans to release details about how the first 10 high-priority chemicals will be studied under new federal chemical legislation.
Bloomberg reports that the agency will release those scope documents, as well as its final processes for conducting risk evaluations, on Thursday.
The EPA late last year announced the initial chemicals to be evaluated under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, a sweeping overhaul of outdated environmental laws that, in part, revised how regulators studied the thousands of chemicals used in commerce.
The scope documents will specify the agency's concerns and the exposures and populations it will consider during the evaluation process.
The EPA also plans to publish rules Thursday broadly stipulating how it will identify chemicals, assess them for risk and conduct risk evaluations.
Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble and industry groups reportedly offered input to the agency on both the rules and documents.
"We believe that the public will benefit from releasing the scopes at the same time as the rules because the scopes reflect our first efforts to implement the new risk evaluation process and the framework rules provide important context for that work,” Nancy Beck, a former American Chemistry Council official named by the Trump administration to lead the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, told Bloomberg.
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/06/report-epa-publish-risk-evaluation-standards
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Unveil New Chemical Testing Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Eli Stokols
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday will release new rules to clarify the agency’s process of testing the chemicals used in everyday products and other commerce, a matter of deep importance to manufacturers, consumers and environmental advocates.
The new rules implement the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which requires the agency to identify toxic chemicals used in commerce. The law, which passed a year ago this week with bipartisan support after long and contentious negotiations among lawmakers, environmentalists and the industry, was an effort to clarify federal testing guidelines and restore consumer confidence in the government’s testing program.
The new rules will lay out EPA procedures to determine which chemicals currently used in commerce need to be evaluated for dangers to consumers and will describe the best scientific practices to assess those risks. It will also include new procedures to distinguish between chemicals that have been made, sold or used in the last decade and others no longer used in commerce.
The industry has long lobbied for less stringent scientific assessments for newer chemicals that companies are trying to get into the marketplace sooner.
“If the public knows we have these procedures in place to evaluate chemicals, the public should have more trust about the safety of the products on the shelves,” said Nancy Beck, a deputy assistant administrator appointed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has led the process to finalize the rules. The law gave the EPA a full year to do so.
Ms. Beck, a former toxicologist for the American Chemistry Council, a group that includes Dow Chemical Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp. , said Wednesday that the Obama administration rules in place before TSCA were “unworkable” because they forced the agency to assess every chemical and its every possible use or misuse.
“Everything was defaulting to find risk, rather than finding out what is and isn’t OK,” Ms. Beck said.
Under the new rules, Mr. Pruitt will have the discretion to determine which chemicals and uses are evaluated for environmental and public health risks and which aren’t, Ms. Beck said.
“Through the process of prioritization, EPA is ultimately making a judgment as to whether or not a particular chemical substance warrants further assessment,” one of the rules will explicitly state.
Another new rule demonstrates EPA’s commitment to “recognizing the value of designating chemicals as low priority when appropriate,” according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal
Environmentalist groups, many of which have expressed concern about Ms. Beck’s selection as the person charged with implementing TSCA rules, worry that the rules will weaken the law.
“We’re frankly very concerned about the general direction this administration is taking,” said Richard Denison, the lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund.
“The notion that the EPA could simply set aside uses without strong evidence for doing so is really inconsistent with the law,” Mr. Denison continued. “TSCA was a really balanced law aimed at reassuring consumers. If they see the pendulum swing back toward industry, it’s going to hurt that confidence.”
Corrections & Amplifications
Nancy Beck is a former toxicologist for the American Chemistry Council. Richard Denison is the lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Ms. Beck’s past position and misspelled Mr. Denison’s name. (June 22)https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-to-unveil-new-chemical-testing-rules-1498141553
-
Costco to Screen Products for 'Chemicals of Concern'
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US retailer Costco has launched a product screening programme to learn more about which chemicals of "regulatory and social concern" are in the products it sells.
This is a new step for the store, which has come under fire from NGOs for not having a public chemicals policy.
According to the Costco website, the company "historically has tested many different consumer product categories for chemicals regulated in the countries where we do business ". However, it's unclear how the new screening programme moves things forward.
Last year, Costco received an ‘F’ grade in NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ (SCHF) Mind the Store retailer report card, which rated the 11 largest US retailers on their actions to develop safer chemicals policies.
Costco received just 9.5 out of a possible 130 points, coming second from last in the ranking, while Walmart, Target and CVS Health came top.
Mike Schade of SCHF told Chemical Watch that although the smart screening programme was "an important step in the right direction", it was hard to assess its significance "without seeing the list and thresholds of chemicals they're testing and restricting".
He said it was unclear whether it was set up "to primarily ensure suppliers are in legal compliance" and that the US's chemical safety laws were "sadly not sufficient".
The retail chain told Chemical Watch it was "unable to provide a response" to a request for further information about the programme, such as which groups of chemicals are included.
"We hope Costco will join other retailers like Walmart, CVS Health and Target and disclose the list of chemicals they're addressing," said Mr Schade. "Additionally, we hope it will move forward in developing a robust safer chemicals policy with clear goals and timelines."
The company's website says children's and adult apparel, bedding, home goods, pet beds, furniture, personal care products, cleaning products, and Costco's own label Kirkland Signature food packaging, baby wipes and nappies, are being tested against a list of more than 300 chemicals of concern (CoCs).
These include those subject to the labelling requirements of California's Proposition 65 law. They also include substances from "the EU REACH programme and the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – but the company doesn't explain which parts of these laws this statement is referring to. More categories of substances, it says, will be added over time.
The screening programme also provides information for suppliers to use in developing replacement chemicals. "We continue to work with the chemical and consumer product industries to increase our understanding in this area and to find more environmentally friendly alternatives for chemicals and practices of concern," it says.
Each product category has its own CoCs list as well as its own restricted substance list (RSL). Costco's website says it has been updating its RSL for the past three years "to keep up with the ever-growing global regulatory changes and challenges for chemical restrictions in consumer products." And it has started securing a partnership with "a major academic institution" to support its efforts.
Costco recently joined the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2) as a supporting member. IC2 is an association of state, local and tribal governments that promotes the development and use of safer chemicals and products, run by the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association.
IC2 supporting members sign a memorandum of agreement demonstrating support for its principles and provide annual dues to help fund baseline activities.
In its newsletter, IC2 welcomed Costco's membership, saying that the store "works with the chemical and consumer product industries to find appropriate replacements for many chemicals of concern and to develop a green approach to chemical use."
https://chemicalwatch.com/57132/costco-to-screen-products-for-chemicals-of-concern
-
Connecticut Warns Against Flame Retardants in Children's Products
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US state of Connecticut has warned against children’s products containing three flame retardant chemicals.
The educational campaign, announced by the departments of Consumer Protection (DCP), Public Health (DPH) and Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), tells consumers to avoid products containing the brominated flame retardant HBCD (hexabromocyclododecane), also known as HBCDD, which it says is used in children's car seats and soft furniture, plus two chlorinated phosphate flame retardants, TCEP and TDCPP, used in children’s foam padded sleep mats, crib bumpers and changing table pads.
It advises asking retailers any questions they have, checking product labels and consulting manufacturers if necessary. They have also developed a factsheet.
Lauren Schoener-Gaynor of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) told Chemical Watch that any products containing the three substances do not result in any hazardous exposure to children. "Under the federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), products intended for use by children cannot present an acute or chronic hazard. This longstanding requirement distinguishes such safe children's products from general household products," she said.
But Connecticut joins a growing list of states taking action on flame retardants in children's products. In March, the District of Columbia passed a law banning the manufacture, distribution or sale of a range of products, including children's products, containing TDCPP and TCEP above minimum levels, joining states such as Minnesota, New York and Maryland.
The use of HBCD has not been permitted in the EU since 2015 except for 'authorised' uses. Its production, import and export are banned under the EU persistent organic pollutants Regulation. It is also listed as a prohibited substance under the UN Stockholm Convention on POPs.
And companies in the EU have been banned from manufacturing or using TCEP, since August last year, under the REACH authorisation process on the grounds that it is classified as a category 1 substance toxic for reproduction.
Connecticut's campaign grew out of a provision in the state’s Child Protection Act requiring the state to inform the public about potential dangers associated with children’s products. The act, adopted in 1971, is the state's counterpart to the FHSA and is largely modelled on the federal act.
It gives the state the authority to enforce safety standards.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57139/connecticut-warns-against-flame-retardants-in-childrens-products
-
US EPA Releases ETBE, tBA Draft IRIS Assessments for Review
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has released external review draft assessments of ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) and tert-butyl alcohol (tert-butanol or tBA) for peer review by the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB).
The SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC), augmented for the purpose of the review, will hold a public teleconference and a public face-to-face meeting.
The 11 July public teleconference is to learn about the development of the draft assessments, and to discuss draft charge questions.
The face-to-face meeting is to conduct a peer review of them. It will be on 15-17 August in Arlington, Virginia.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57021/us-epa-releases-etbe-tba-draft-iris-assessments-for-review
-
SMEs ‘Still Do Not Know’ if They Should Register in 2018
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
With the final REACH registration deadline less than one year away, some European SMEs think they do not have to register their chemicals in order to continue selling to the EU market, trade bodies warn.
Speaking at Cefic’s REACH forum this week, Maria Eugenia Anta from the Spanish chemicals industry association (Feique) said they are "getting messages" that their substance will be registered "by someone else".
Laura Grisai, from the Federation of the Italian Chemical Industry (Federchimica), said the "big issue" in Italy is that companies "do not know enough about REACH". In the last few months, the federation has received an increase in enquiries about the deadline, with some companies saying they are "still not sure if they fit" in the scope of REACH.
And in France some SMEs "think they do not need to register", Marie Zimmer, head of chemical management at the French Chemical Industries Association (UIC), told Chemical Watch.Raising awareness
The trade bodies said they are continuing to raise awareness amongst small businesses for the 2018 deadline. Feique said it expects more companies to submit only one dossier, more substance information exchange fora (Siefs) – especially smaller ones, and more SMEs acting as lead registrant.
Federchimica anticipates one and a half times the number of the first REACH deadline substances to be registered – 8,500 compared with 3,400 in 2010.
It said it organises one or two REACH 2018 conferences each year and circulates awareness-raising documents in order to communicate with SMEs. In the past it has conducted surveys to engage potential registrants. But because of the few answers received, it decided against this for 2018 as it would be a "useless" activity, Ms Grisai said.
In France, UIC will soon be running webinars to promote the issue, Ms Zimmer says. Meanwhile, the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (UKCSF) – the UK environment department’s stakeholder group on chemicals policy – recently updated its guidance for SMEs and downstreams users.
In October 2016, the heads of Echa and European SMEs trade body Ueapme met to discuss ways of ensuringas many companies as possible know about the deadline and help them access further information.
As of 31 May this year – one year before the deadline – companies across Europe have submitted 9,064 dossiers for 4,454 substances. The agency estimates a total of 60,000 dossiers will be received for up to 25,000 substances.Spanish projects
Between 2015 and 2016, Feique and the Spanish competent authorities undertook a project to survey potential 2018 pre-registrants and registrants.
There was little engagement from small companies – out of 1,700 registrants contacted only 385 responded, about 70% of which are SMEs. Ms Anta said approximately 600 companies have "disappeared" since they pre-registered their substances. This could be due to the "high cost [and] burden" of registration.
And only half of the expected 600 attendees showed up to a 2018 workshop, held at the end of the project in November 2016, Ms Anta said.
Feique and the Spanish competent authorities also surveyed pre-registrants of 63 essential oils. They received answers from registrants of 45 of the substances but only 25 pre-registrants said they intended to fully register.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57144/smes-still-do-not-know-if-they-should-register-in-2018
-
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Four CLH proposalsEcha is consulting on four proposals for harmonised classification and labelling (CLH). They are for:bis(α,α-dimethylbenzyl) peroxide: submitted by Norway, with hazard classes open for commenting of skin corrosion/irritation, serious eye damage/eye irritation and reproductive toxicity;n-(hydroxymethyl)acrylamide [NMA]: submitted by France, with hazard classes open for comment of mutagenicity, carcinogenicity and specific target organ toxicity repeated exposure;trimethoxyvinylsilane: submitted by Sweden, hazard class open for comment of skin sensitisation; andtris(2-methoxyethoxy)vinylsilane: submitted by Austria, with hazard classes open for comment of germ cell mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity.
The deadline for commenting on all is 4 August.Submitted restriction for lead shot
The agency is considering a proposal to restrict the use of lead and its compounds in shot (containing lead in concentrations greater than 1% by weight), specifically when shooting with a shot gun within a wetland.
Deadline for comment on the restriction report is 21 December.Testing proposals
Echa has received 15 testing proposals on 12 substances. The deadline for submitting information is 7 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57055/echa-round-up
-
Echa Committee Agrees PFHxS is an SVHC
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) has agreed with Sweden's proposal that perfluorohexane-1-sulfonic acid (PFHxS) should be identified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties.
PFHxS (C6) is used in flame retardants in protective coatings for carpets, paper and textiles. As a chemical in the same category as PFOS, it has long been the focus of regulatory attention and comes with significant amounts of animal and human data.
The main exposure is via food and drinking water. The chemical accumulates in humans and is present in blood of the general population, according to the MSC's detailed supporting information. Some studies also suggest that it may have more potential to build up (bioaccumulate) in humans than PFOS, which has long been phased out in the EU and North America.
Available studies indicate increasing concentrations in humans, although they appear to be levelling off. "The main discussion point was that the substance has a very long elimination half-life," said MSC chair Watze de Wolf.
This in humans may exceed seven years and could be as long as 25 years, according to one study. It has the longest half-life of all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for which data are available. This is at least two to four times longer than PFOA, according to the MSC's supporting document. It compares with the longest recorded for all known PBT/vPvB and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as some PCBs, it adds.
In aquatic species, the soluble chemical soon reaches equilibrium with water. However, the committee focused on biomagnification along a terrestrial food chain, as far as birds, polar bears and humans.
The MSC spent most of its time discussing a possibility that humans could rapidly expel the chemical at first before reaching a slower elimination phase. However, Sweden had built a case to suggest that the hypothesis was "not plausible", said Dr de Wolf.
The committee agreed unanimously on the SVHC decision and Echa will now add PFHxS to the candidate list.
In February, Norway added it to its national list of priority substances. Emissions will now have to be eliminated or substantially reduced in the country by 2020.
Then in June, Norway submitted a proposal to list the chemical for action under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
https://chemicalwatch.com/57142/echa-committee-agrees-pfhxs-is-an-svhc
-
Energy CEOs Tell Pruitt They Want Carbon Regulation
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Dozens of power industry executives who flew to Washington for a Monday meeting with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had three minutes apiece to tell him whether they want to replace the Clean Power Plan.
Many said that if EPA follows through with rescinding the rule, the agency should write a less stringent carbon regulation that sets efficiency standards for coal plants. That would give the industry certainty to make planning decisions, they said.
But Pruitt didn't seem convinced, according to one source with knowledge of the discussion. The EPA chief could instead forgo replacing the carbon rule and decide to challenge the agency's underlying endangerment finding, which requires it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA has already drafted a rulemaking to revoke the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which requires power plants to cut emissions 32 percent by 2030 (Climatewire, June 12). Pruitt at some point must decide whether to write a new regulation to potentially satisfy the endangerment finding.
EPA officials under Obama argued that the rule would speed an industry shift away from coal and toward cheaper natural gas and renewables, while letting states chart their own paths. Legal challengers, including Pruitt, said EPA shouldn't have looked for carbon reductions "outside the fence line" of coal-fired power plants.
Any replacement that focused just on coal plants probably wouldn't cut carbon emissions much.
But companies told Pruitt on Monday that having a regulation on the books would help them plan for the future and send a signal to state regulators and policymakers that utilities are not going to build new coal plants. Replacing the Clean Power Plan with a weaker rule could also hinder a future administration from writing stricter rules for electricity generators.
The investor-owned utility trade group Edison Electric Institute supports the idea of developing a replacement carbon regulation if EPA follows through with rescinding the Clean Power Plan as expected. There wasn't complete consensus on the idea at the meeting, however. Conservative interests could also push back on the strategy.
"President Trump said on the campaign trail that he would stand up for the people and industries that have been left behind by his predecessor's environmental agenda," said Chrissy Harbin, vice president of external affairs for Americans for Prosperity. "And he has begun to deliver on these promises once in office, by pulling out of the Paris Agreement and directing the EPA to dismantle the Clean Power Plan."
A different source who attended the meeting with Pruitt described it as a "high-level listening session," where Pruitt solicited feedback but didn't dig into policy possibilities.
"There wasn't a lot of in-depth discussion," he said.
The power sector has nearly outpaced the regulation that EPA finalized in 2015, as natural gas has stayed inexpensive and renewable power has gotten cheaper. One industry source said Pruitt wasn't hearing that message.
"What I got back from it was the only time the administrator really perked up was when he heard the word 'coal,'" he said. "None of our people are ever going to be building a coal plant again. It's devoid of reality."
That source expects that Pruitt still intends to fight EPA's endangerment finding, which requires the agency to regulate greenhouse gases. A decision to replace the Clean Power Plan would be a tacit acknowledgement that EPA will eventually have to set rules for power plants.
During the more than two-hour meeting, over 30 industry representatives took turns presenting their views, but some felt it was just a formality.
"Unfortunately, we're kind of in an awkward position," the source said. "They view us as we were the industry at the table for eight years with the Obama administration working out the Clean Power Plan."
EPA did not respond to requests for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/22/stories/1060056398
-
Timeline Hazy For Environmental Review Of Pipeline
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration doesn't know how long it will take to fill in gaps in its environmental review of the Dakota Access pipeline.
In a federal court hearing yesterday, lawyers for the Army Corps of Engineers noted that the agency is still processing last week's ruling that the corps failed to fully consider several factors when it greenlighted the contentious oil project. The Army Corps must now rework those sections of its analysis, but it's not yet committing to a timeline.
"I cannot give you a time frame," Justice Department attorney Matthew Marinelli told the court, adding later, "The corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court identified."
He noted that the Army Corps would have a better sense of its schedule by mid-July, when the agency is due to file a brief on whether the pipeline should be allowed to continue operating while the review plays out.
That issue — the pipeline's status during review — is the key question that will drive the next two months of legal wrangling from tribes, the Army Corps and the pipeline company. Judge James Boasberg noted that he's eager to address the "interesting and complicated question" as quickly as possible.
"I want to move as rapidly as possible to address the issues arising from the opinion I issued last week," he said in court before approving a proposed schedule that will require the Army Corps and Dakota Access to make their case next month, with the tribes responding in August.
Boasberg is expected to decide whether to shut off the pipeline shortly after briefing is complete in late August, meaning the pipeline is not expected to face any interruptions at least through the summer.
Yesterday's court hearing kicks off the latest round of conflict in the long-running dispute over the oil pipeline, which crosses a half-mile from the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes, among others, have been challenging the project in court since last summer.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week rejected several claims from the tribes but agreed that the Army Corps' analysis had significant shortcomings that violate the National Environmental Policy Act (Energywire, June 21).
"The decision last week was a very significant victory for the tribes and a validation of the claims and concerns we have been raising from the very beginning of this long process," Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, representing Standing Rock, said after the hearing.Open review process
While the battle over the pipeline's status during review moves forward, Hasselman and lawyers for other tribes are also carefully monitoring the Army Corps' efforts to supplement its environmental analysis.
"If the Army Corps goes into a room and closes the door and comes up with a new analysis, we won't have moved this ball forward," he said. "We won't have solved any legal problems. We'll just be back in front of the court again."
The tribes are pushing the Army Corps to conduct an open review process that addresses flaws Boasberg flagged in his decision: that the agency didn't weigh the risk of an oil spill on tribes' hunting and fishing rights; that the corps didn't properly consider expert reports alleging flaws in the agency's oil spill analysis; and that the agency didn't justify the scope of its environmental justice review.
Fredericks Peebles & Morgan attorney Nicole Ducheneaux, representing Cheyenne River, noted that the tribes will push back if the Army Corps doesn't include them and the public in the process.
"As we advised the court today, if the corps is going to obstruct us and work with DAPL to attempt to keep us out of this process, the tribes are prepared to go back to court and fight this issue out in further briefing," she said after the hearing.
While the agency hashes out its plan for supplementing the review, the tribes are focused on their arguments for taking the pipeline out of service.
The typical remedy for NEPA violations is to scrap the underlying agency approvals until the inadequacies are corrected. But judges have discretion to weigh other factors when making that decision, including the "seriousness of the order's deficiencies" and the "disruptive consequences" that would follow if permits are revoked (Energywire, June 15).
"In our view, it's not a close call," Hasselman said. Boasberg "should shut down the pipeline until they can get this review right."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/22/stories/1060056413
-
Overnight Energy: Dakota Access Fight Enters New Phase
Jun 22, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama & Devin Henry
'NO TIMEFRAME' FOR DAKOTA REVIEW: A government lawyer told a federal judge on Wednesday that he has "no timeframe" for a new environmental review of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline.
Asked by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg if he could estimate what the timeline might be, Army Corps of Engineers lawyer Matthew Marinelli said, "I'm very hesitant to do that."
"The Corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court has identified," he said.
Boasberg last week ruled that parts of the environmental review of the Dakota Access project were inadequate, and he said federal regulators should reconsider the "impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline's effects are likely to be highly controversial."
He did not order oil to stop flowing through the pipeline, which came online earlier this month. Instead, Boasberg asked the government, Dakota Access developers, and local tribes to plead their case on that question in a series of legal briefs due to the court this summer, starting next month.
Given the briefing schedule, Jan Hasselman, an Earthjustice lawyer representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in the case, said he expects there will be a decision on the question of the pipeline's operations by September.
Read more here.
ZINKE HITS DEMS FOR SLOW WORK ON NOMINEES: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke hit at Democrats on Wednesday during a contentious budget hearing, accusing them of "willfully" delaying the confirmation of his department's nominees.
"In my opinion, it's being slow-rolled, and it's not the White House," Zinke said in response to questions from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on the slow pace of staffing during a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, the Environment and Related Agencies.
"That is a frustration, and I suspect it's being done willfully," Zinke added.
President Trump's pick for deputy Interior secretary is one of the higher-profile nominations yet to be confirmed by the Senate.
Democrats have raised concerns about David Bernhardt's past work in lobbying and his potential conflicts of interest.
Bernhardt served eight years in former President George W. Bush's Interior Department. He left government to work for Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a natural resources law firm, where he earned at least $1.1 million lobbying for energy and mining companies, according to financial disclosures.
He has said he would recuse himself from decisions involving former clients for up to one year if he's confirmed.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee sent Bernhardt's nomination to the floor earlier this month.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/overnights/338851-overnight-energy-dakota-access-fight-begins-next-phase
-
Lawyer: ‘No Timeframe’ for New Dakota Access Environmental Review
Jun 22, 2017 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
A government lawyer said Wednesday that officials don’t know how long it will take them to redo an environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline as ordered by a federal judge last week.
Matthew Marinelli, an Army Corps of Engineers lawyer, said he had “no timeframe” for completing that review, and that he would have an updated schedule when he files more paperwork with the court on July 17.
Asked by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg if he could estimate what the timeline might be, Marinelli said, “I’m very hesitant to do that.”
“The Corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court has identified,” he said.
Boasberg ruled last week that parts of the government’s environmental assessment of the 1,170-mile Dakota Access pipeline were inadequate. He ordered the Army Corps to reconsider the project’s impact on local tribes and their hunting and fishing rights and whether permitting decisions around the pipeline were fair to tribe members.
He did not order oil to stop flowing through the pipeline, which came online earlier this month after a lengthy legal battle and amid public protests from environmentalists and tribal rights activists.
Instead, he asked the government, Dakota Access developers and local tribes to plead their case on that question in a series of legal briefs due to the court this summer, starting next month.
Jan Hasselman, an Earthjustice lawyer representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in the case, said he expects there will be a decision on the question of the pipeline’s operations by September.
Lawyers for the tribes opposed to the project said Wednesday they worry the government and Dakota Access developers will quickly complete the required environmental reviews of the project without allowing them to comment on the matter.
“We want to be involved in the process,” Hasselman said. “We want to be consulted.”
Hasselman and other tribes’ lawyers said they would consider a more extensive legal fight if the process didn’t involve public comments on the project.
Marinelli said the Army Corps’ legal brief due in July would outline how the government intends to complete its review, and Boasberg said he expects opponents will get to have a say.
“I expect the Corps to follow the law and follow the procedures that apply,” he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/338828-lawyer-no-timeframe-for-new-dakota-access-environmental-review
-
Senators Weigh How To Slash Cybersecurity's Red Tape
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A smorgasbord of federal cybersecurity groups and standards could stifle more efficient ways to fight hackers, security experts told lawmakers at a hearing on cyber regulation "harmonization" yesterday.
"Whenever there's a new area of innovation, there's a rush to jump in and regulate — the internet of things is one area," said Dean Garfield, president and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, referring to the onslaught of internet-connected devices, from smart meters to heart monitors. "There are 30 different [government] initiatives aimed at regulating that," he said. "There's negligible benefit to approaching IoT security in that fashion."
Garfield's organization represents tech titans such as Amazon.com, Google and IBM. He testified alongside representatives from the heavily regulated health care and financial industries, as well as Oklahoma's chief information officer, who spoke about headaches he says he encountered while complying with federal data protection rules.
"Inconsistent regulations and audits are problematic, because it leads CIOs to make cybersecurity investments based on compliance, not risk," said James "Bo" Reese, who works as vice president of the National Association of State Chief Information Officers and oversees Oklahoma's state government IT networks.
Senators at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing considered strategies to prevent security efforts from being buried in paperwork. One possible approach, raised by committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), would be to further empower the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate federal cybersecurity efforts.
"Let's get that central point within government so we can streamline this, so that we can certainly take the burden off of states, the health care industry, the financial industry — every industry," Johnson said.
Congress granted DHS wide cybersecurity authority to share information with various critical infrastructure sectors in provisions tucked into the December 2015 omnibus spending bill (Energywire, Dec. 18, 2015). But that hasn't stopped other agencies from jumping in with their own cybersecurity efforts. The Department of Health and Human Services this year stood up a Health Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, modeled after DHS's distinct National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center for spreading up-to-date data on hacking threats and vulnerabilities.
"We should be looking to enhance NCCIC [en-kick], not sprouting a new 'kick' for every industry or critical infrastructure sector," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. "This could go on ad nauseum."
Christopher Feeney, president of the technology policy division of the Financial Services Roundtable, said "harmonization" could come in part from a widely used, voluntary cybersecurity framework built under the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He said in prepared testimony that playing up the NIST framework could "help foster collaboration with other critical infrastructure sectors, such as energy and telecommunications."
Absent from yesterday's hearing were panelists from the electricity sector, one of the few industries to face binding cybersecurity standards set through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and North American Electric Reliability Corp. But utilities are still encouraged to use the NIST framework and share information through DHS, which could take on a more prominent role in future legislation.
"Everybody's going off in different directions on [the framework]," said Johnson. "So great, you've got NIST — but you still need somebody to have the power to make sure everybody's handling it the same way."
"In the end, you need somebody in the federal government to take charge of this, to be given responsibility, to be held accountable," Johnson added at another point in the hearing.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/22/stories/1060056416
-
Interior Proposes Scrapping Limits Already In Effect
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Trump's Interior Department could soon wipe away the last remnants of an Obama-era regulation to control methane emissions from oil and gas operations on federal and tribal land.
In a motion filed Tuesday, Justice Department attorneys shared Interior's three-pronged plan to revise or rescind the Bureau of Land Management's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule. Part two is a proposal to suspend provisions of the rule that have already taken effect.
BLM intends to open its proposal to public notice and comment before the end of August, according to the motion, which supports a request to extend briefing deadlines in litigation concerning the current rule (Energywire, May 9).
"Even if the portions of the Rule currently in effect are harmful to Petitioners, BLM is in the process of developing a proposed rule to suspend those provisions, and anticipates finalizing such a rule by this coming fall," federal attorneys wrote. "If the parties were to proceed with the briefing deadlines currently in place, it is unlikely the merits would be resolved prior to this fall."
BLM last week announced the postponement of the rule's upcoming compliance deadlines but left intact provisions that went into effect earlier this year (Greenwire, June 14). Those elements include requirements related to waste minimization plans and flare volume measurements.
In hearings this week to discuss his department's proposed fiscal 2018 budget, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke confirmed that BLM would rewrite the methane rule (Energywire, June 21). Until then, he said, his agency will continue to enforce the rule as it stands.
Those statements appear "disingenuous" in light of this week's filing, said Earthjustice attorney Robin Cooley. The motion indicates there may soon be nothing left of the rule to implement, she said.
"The reality is, the whole rule went into effect January 2017, and it says that on the front page of the Federal Register notice," Cooley said. "If they want to change anything, if they want to move compliance dates, they have to go through a public process."
In response to a request for comment, Interior directed questions to DOJ.
Zinke this week fielded criticisms from two Democratic senators for failing to include public notice and comment on BLM's first round of postponements (Greenwire, June 20).
He pledged that in rewriting the rule, he would adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Cooley, who is representing environmental intervenors in the methane rule litigation, said she is trying to keep an open mind about the regulatory redo.
"We support the rule as it is currently written. We think it's reasonable, and it makes a lot of sense to prevent waste and protect public resources and air quality," she said. "We'll see what they have in mind, but I can't imagine it will be something we think is sufficient to prevent waste and protect public health."
Holland & Hart LLP attorney Eric Waeckerlin, representing the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, said while his clients appreciate BLM's recognition of the difficulty of compliance, he is still requesting an expedited briefing schedule.
"The administrative process is uncertain with respect to timing and outcome," Waeckerlin said. "The best strategy for our clients is to get the briefs on the record and get a decision from the court."
Reporter Ellen M. Gilmer contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/22/stories/1060056411
-
Conservative Climate Plan Could Shield Oil Companies
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
A provision in a high-profile carbon tax plan could insulate companies that release greenhouse gases from lawsuits.
The plan by the Climate Leadership Council, a group of Republican statesmen and economists, would place a $40 tax on each ton of carbon dioxide and roll back existing climate regulation. Money raised from the tax would be given back to U.S. citizens.
But a key passage in the group's proposal has drawn little notice. In a document detailing elements of its plan, the council promotes stopping potential lawsuits against oil companies and other corporations that release greenhouse gases.
"Robust carbon taxes would also make possible an end to federal and state tort liability for emitters," the plan reads.
On Tuesday, large organizations related to the energy, home goods and banking industries announced their support for the plan.
Several companies that support the proposal have been the targets of climate change litigation. They include General Motors Co. and supermajors BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Total SA.
Those same companies could benefit if Congress were to pass a carbon tax with a so-called liability shield against civil lawsuits.
"The specter of climate-related liability is still out there," said Sean Hecht, an environmental law professor at the UCLA School of Law.
Hecht, who reviewed the council's proposal, said the threat of climate lawsuits can be an influential tool against energy companies. And such a tool could be "increasingly important" to society if climate regulations are rolled back, as the plan intends, Hecht said.
The group's proposal rests on what it calls "The Four Pillars Of Our Carbon Dividends Plan." They include a tax that would gradually increase, dividend payments for all U.S. citizens, tax adjustments at international borders and a "significant regulatory rollback." The language about the elimination of legal liability is tucked within that last category.
Cara Horowitz, co-executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA Law, said it makes sense that conservative architects of the plan would try to gain industry support by removing the threat of legal liability.
Climate change tort cases — cases in which plaintiffs assert they have been wronged in some way — have been a "mixed bag" for plaintiffs, Horowitz said.
"They have definitely lost more than they have won," she said by email. But such lawsuits can provide leverage.
"California dropped its tort lawsuits against automakers as part of a the deal that led to the first federal greenhouse gas standards for cars," Horowitz said. "This is just the latest in a pretty long history of using liability for climate harms as a bargaining chip."Some suits would continue
Count Paul Bledsoe, a former staffer of the Senate Finance Committee, as skeptical of the four-pillar plan.
The concept of coupling the money raised from a carbon tax with tax cuts for individuals or companies has support from both parties, he said.
As written, the Republicans' plan doesn't help tax committees in Congress over their "new tax phobia," as he puts it.
"You're asking the tax writers to cut themselves out of tax writing," said Bledsoe, a strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute. "It just doesn't work."
Economists broadly agree that taxing carbon is the most efficient way to address climate change. But there's disagreement about how the revenue should be dispersed.
Kevin Kennedy, deputy director of the U.S. Climate Initiative at the World Resources Institute, said WRI is somewhat agnostic about how the money should be spent.
He said the council's proposal is a good way to begin a discussion on Capitol Hill about addressing climate change.
Coupled with the network of mayors, colleges, governors, investors and companies that have redoubled their support of the Paris climate agreement, the tax plan signals a backlash to the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle climate regulation, Kennedy said.
"That and this together can potentially change the politics," he said.
Even if the Climate Leadership Council's liability idea were signed into law, some of the most important lawsuits about climate change are not tort cases.
Many cases that relate to climate change, but are fought at a local level, are filed under broader environmental provisions, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The liability provision may not prevent attorneys general or the federal government from filing racketeering charges against fossil fuel companies, a prospect supported by some environmentalists.
Hecht said some of the most interesting cases pending, such as the legal battles between Exxon and the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, are not tort suits, either.
"And those lawsuits are quite important," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/22/stories/1060056423
-
Gov. Brown In 'Thick' Of Negotiations On Cap And Trade
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and lawmakers still aim to reach a deal this summer to extend the state's cap-and-trade system through 2030.
Speaking at a conference presented by the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy Economy, state Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (D) said lawmakers and the governor are "in the thick of negotiations right now" on extending the landmark program, which serves as the backstop to ensure the state reaches its 2020 target of 1990 emissions levels.
A conference panel featuring de León, Brown's top political aide and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer provided a window into those negotiations. Brown is pushing for a two-thirds vote to insulate the program from legal challenges; lawmakers have floated a panoply of changes involving market design, financial assistance to businesses and the incorporation of conventional air pollutants.
Brown's executive secretary, Nancy McFadden, called an agreement "very doable" and said it should happen in time to boost confidence in the market before the next auction of carbon permits in August.
"We have an auction in August, and we also have the [Air Resources Board, the program's administrator] sort of holding until they get direction from the Legislature on how to redesign its program," she said. "We don't want to wait till September or October or next year to do that. Why see the August auction tank?"
De León agreed with her timeline. "We'd like to get something done within the next month and a half," he said in an interview. "We're having very fruitful negotiations, and they will continue."
S.B. 775, the bill put forth by de León and Senate Environmental Quality Committee Chairman Bob Wieckowski (D), would introduce a firm price ceiling on allowances, which would have the consequence of creating more allowances in the case of high prices. McFadden signaled that feature was unacceptable.
"Somehow in the discussion about should we, and how should we, and when should we extend cap and trade, we've sort of forgotten it's working," McFadden said. "We're committed to getting a cap-and-trade program that is a true cap-and-trade program."
Steyer, the founder of AEE, agreed with McFadden. "We have to be able to have a governor who can go out and actually be the spokesperson for the free world, not fake it," he said.
De León, however, is still holding out for a price collar to ensure stable revenues and to balance out the effects of a gas price increase that lawmakers approved earlier this year.
"My colleagues in the Senate have concurred with me, we do need some sort of price collar," he said. If gas prices shoot up, he said, "you lose a political constituency for climate change leadership in California."
Brown received a letter Monday from 20 Assembly members arguing that cap-and-trade reauthorization should be paired with measures to reduce conventional air pollutants, a long-standing concern of environmental justice groups that argue cap and trade hurts the poor and non-white neighborhoods where industrial facilities are often located.
McFadden said she envisioned such measures being part of the legislative package but not part of the cap-and-trade program itself. "I think we have not done as much as we should on toxic air pollutants, and we should deal with them directly," she said in an interview.
Steyer and de León — both rumored to be considering runs for governor when Brown terms out in 2018 — dodged questions on whether they would enter the race.
"I have not decided," Steyer said. "Really good friends, love Kevin. Have a lot of respect for him."
"When I know, you'll know," said de León.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/22/stories/1060056422
-
What Scott Pruitt Doesn't Want You to Know, and Why it Matters
Jun 22, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Martha Roberts
Not telling the people you work for what you do at work isn’t an option available to most of us. We’re generally held accountable for our time, as it keeps us honest and demonstrates to our employers that we’re committed to our duties. Under past EPA administrators from both parties the calendars of senior managers — including the administrator — were released to the public in a timely manner via accessible platforms. Troublingly, Scott Pruitt has ended this practice.
We’ve only gotten information about his activities through intermittent details shared with the press, or months after the fact through time-consuming, burdensome Freedom of Information Act requests [PDF].
Without contemporaneous information on the activities and schedule of Administrator Pruitt and his senior staff, members of the public cannot have full confidence that EPA’s leadership is working on their behalf.
Why the secrecy?
In the few months of Pruitt’s tenure, we’ve already seen ample cause for concern when it comes to how he spends his time: a steady stream of meetings with major industry, together with rollbacks that harm communities and put children’s health at risk.
Last week, we learned that Pruitt gathered with the American Petroleum Institute board of directors at the Trump Hotel early in his tenure, just weeks before carrying out a host of actions to benefit oil and gas polluters. Just one of those actions—delaying implementation of a national smog health standard—will alone result in 230,000 more asthma attacks for kids.
These actions have been taken with no meaningful public input or engagement. Meanwhile, the intermittent information we glean on Pruitt’s calendar and his schedule underscores his extensive meetings and visits with major industry.
It’s part of a larger pattern of keeping information from the public eye under this administration, from the White House not publishing visitor logs to the secrecy surrounding the Senate’s version of healthcare overhaul. Pruitt himself has a demonstrated history of using his office to promote the interests of companies allied with his political agenda; when he was Oklahoma’s attorney general, he submitted a regulatory complaint to EPA authored by Devon Energy on his own letterhead.
Ultimately, Pruitt’s lack of transparency raises serious questions about potential abuse of EPA’s limited resources for activity that contravenes or is in serious tension with important legal and ethical requirements.Transparency is the historical norm; this is not
The important transparency practice of sharing senior policy leaders’ schedules has a long history at EPA.
In 1983, William Ruckelshaus — the first EPA Administrator — was brought back to lead EPA by President Ronald Reagan in order to restore public trust after the scandal-plagued tenure of Administrator Anne Gorsuch. One of his first actions was to issue his “Fishbowl Memo [PDF],” which vowed that EPA would “operate in a fishbowl” and “attempt to communicate with everyone from the environmentalists to those we regulate and we will do so as openly as possible” — and specifically committed to making his calendar publicly available.
Administrator Lisa Jackson echoed this commitment [PDF] upon her arrival, writing that “[t]o keep the public fully informed of my contacts with interested persons,” she would make available to the public, every day via the EPA website, “a working copy of my appointment calendar, showing meetings with members of the public.” She directed her senior staff to do the same. Administrator Gina McCarthy and Acting Administrator Catherine McCabe similarly continued this practice.
Just a glance at the EPA website immediately demonstrates that this transparency practice is no more: the respective “Senior Manager Schedules” tab on the administrator’s homepage has been deleted. A true back to basics approach
Pruitt has recently made a show of focusing on “EPA Originalism” and getting EPA “Back to Basics.” He should follow long-standing EPA practice and the guidance of EPA’s original administrator, William Ruckelshaus. Pruitt should make his calendar, and those of his senior leadership, widely and contemporaneously available to the public.
Fundamental transparency isn’t just tradition; it’s key to ensuring EPA is hard at work for the American people. Sunshine remains the best disinfectant.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/06/22/what-scott-pruitt-doesnt-want-you-know-and-why-it-matters
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