Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/7 Olivia
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Chemours, Kronos Worldwide, KMG Chemicals and BASF SE
Jul 3, 2017 | Zacks (in NASDAQ)
4 Chemical Growth Stocks Worth Betting on Right Now -
Retailers and Producers Tussle Over Prop 65 Obligations
Jul 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A full year before they go into effect, last year's amendments to Proposition 65 regulations have changed the terms of the duel between suppliers and retailers over who will provide the required consumer warnings, and spawned confusion over what chemicals to single out, according to lawyers who advise businesses on Prop 65 compliance. -
European Commission Notifies Bans, Restrictions on CMRs in Cosmetics
Jul 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is implementing bans and restrictions on a number of carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances by amending annexes to the cosmetic products Regulation. -
Regulator Strips Public Forum From Aug. Pipeline Hearing
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Nebraska Public Service Commission will hold its fourth public meeting next month on the Keystone XL pipeline project, replacing a planned opportunity for ordinary citizens to weigh in at a key hearing in August. -
Court: Energy Firm Can Pass $55M Cleanup Costs to Customers
Jul 3, 2017 | Associated Press (in The Washington Post)
The Ohio Supreme Court says an energy company is allowed to pass on the $55 million cost of cleaning up two polluted sites to its customers in the form of an added charge on their monthly bills. -
Canadian National Railway Says Oil Spills After Train Derails in U.S.
Jul 3, 2017 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
Canadian National Railway Co said about 20,000 gallons of oil was released following a freight train derailment at Plainfield, the U.S. state of Illinois on Friday, according to a filing with state pollution regulators. -
NTSB Determines Probable Cause of 2015 BNSF Derailment
Jul 3, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The probable cause of a BNSF Railway Co. ethanol train derailment two years ago in South Dakota was related to the railroad’s decision to defer track maintenance and continue operating high-hazard flammable unit trains on the Aberdeen subdivision, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced last week. -
The Energy 202: What Would be the Point of Pruitt's
Jul 3, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Ahead of the Fourth of July weekend, we were treated to some early fireworks when it was revealed that the Trump administration was indeed taking seriously a proposal to start a formal government-wide effort to challenge of the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change. -
Stephen Hawking: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Agreement 'Could Push Earth Over the Brink'
Jul 2, 2017 | The Hill
By Brandon Carter
Stephen Hawking blasted President Trump’s recent decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement in a new interview, saying it “could push Earth over the brink.” -
D.C. Circuit Rejects EPA Methane Rule Delay
Jul 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal appeals court today vacated the Trump administration's decision to delay an Obama-era U.S. EPA rule curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas operations.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Jul 3, 2017 | Zacks (in NASDAQ)
4 Chemical Growth Stocks Worth Betting on Right Now
The chemical industry is back on track after a long detour. Continued strength in the automotive sector and a rebound in non-residential construction and housing markets have helped pull the industry out of its limbo, notwithstanding a persistently challenging operating environment.
The bullish Zacks Industry Rank of 23 carried by the Zacks categorized Chemicals-Diversified industry is a testimony to the fact that the chemical industry is back in favor. An impressive rank places the industry in the top 9% of the 250+ groups enlisted.
The Chemicals-Diversified industry has also outperformed the broader market over the past year. The industry has gained 22.8% over this period, higher than S&P 500's corresponding return of 15.9%.
Despite a spate of headwinds, the highly cyclical industry put up a commendable performance in the March quarter. We note that a number of companies in the space came up with better-than-expected earnings in the first quarter. The outperformance was driven by continued strength across automotive and housing markets -- two major end-use markets for chemicals -- as well as strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions.
The automotive sector continues its healthy run, backed by an improving job market, low fuel prices and attractive financing options. Chemical makers continue to see healthy demand from this key end market. A recovery across housing and commercial construction markets has been another tailwind for the chemical industry.
While the chemical industry still remains saddled by several challenges, its healthy momentum is expected to continue through the remainder of 2017. Strategic initiatives including continued focus on cost and productivity, operational efficiency improvement and expansion of scale through acquisitions should help chemical makers weather the macroeconomic and industry-specific headwinds.
In particular, the U.S. chemical industry is set for solid growth this year and the next. The outlook for the American chemical industry paints an encouraging picture. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group, envisions accelerated growth for the domestic chemical industry on the back of an improving global economy and a surge in shale-linked capital investment.
The shale gas bounty is expected to drive investment on plants and equipment in the U.S. Chemical makers are ratcheting up investment on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample and affordable natural gas supplies.
Per an ACC report, 310 new chemical projects have been already announced by chemical makers worth around $185 billion that are under construction or planned. Such investments are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
4 Chemical Growth Plays
The chemical industry's upturn is expected to continue this year on continued momentum across major end-markets. Amid such a backdrop, it would be a prudent idea to invest in chemical stocks with compelling growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio.
Growth investors look for stocks with aggressive earnings or revenue growth potential, which should lead to higher stock prices. Here we put a spotlight on chemical stocks that are poised for healthy growth. With the help of our style score system , we have picked 4 stand-out stocks that have excellent prospects and might offer solid investment returns.
Our research shows that stocks with Growth Style Scores of 'A' or 'B' when combined with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
The Chemours Company (NYSE: CC - Free Report )
Delaware-based Chemours sports a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score 'A.' The company has expected earnings growth of 228.4% for 2017. It delivered average positive earnings surprise of 39.8% over the trailing four quarters. Chemours also has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of roughly 15.5%.
Annual estimates for Chemours have also moved north over the past 60 days, reflecting analysts' confidence on the stock. Over this period, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2017 and 2018 for Chemours have increased by around 16% and 13%, respectively.
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: KRO - Free Report )
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Kronos is another attractive choice with a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score 'B.' The company has expected earnings growth of 354.8% for 2017. It delivered average positive earnings surprise of 64.1% over the trailing four quarters.
Moreover, the estimates for 2017 and 2018 for Kronos have increased by 28% and 20%, respectively, over the last 60 days.
KMG Chemicals, Inc. (NYSE: KMG - Free Report )
Our next pick in the space is Texas-based KMG Chemicals, armed with a Zacks Rank #2 and Growth Score 'A.' The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings for KMG for fiscal 2017 is currently pegged at $2.09, reflecting an expected year-over-year growth of 29.8%. The company delivered a positive average earnings surprise of 12.5% over the trailing four quarters. The estimates for both fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2018 for KMG have also increased by around 3% over the last 60 days.
BASF SE (OTCMKTS: BASFY - Free Report )
Germany-based BASF has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score 'B.' The company has expected earnings growth of 19.1% for 2017. It also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 8.8%. The estimates for 2017 and 2018 for BASF have also increased by around 5% and 3%, respectively, over the last 60 days.
5 Trades Could Profit "Big-League" from Trump Policies
If the stocks above spark your interest, wait until you look into companies primed to make substantial gains from Washington's changing course.
Today Zacks reveals 5 tickers that could benefit from new trends like streamlined drug approvals, tariffs, lower taxes, higher interest rates, and spending surges in defense and infrastructure. See these buy recommendations now >>
Strong Stocks that Should Be in the News
Many are little publicized and fly under the Wall Street radar. They're virtually unknown to the general public. Yet today's 220 Zacks Rank #1 "Strong Buys" were generated by the stock-picking system that has nearly tripled the market from 1988 through 2015. Its average gain has been a stellar +26% per year.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/the-zacks-analyst-blog-highlights-chemours-kronos-worldwide-kmg-chemicals-and-basf-se-cm811242
-
Retailers and Producers Tussle Over Prop 65 Obligations
Jul 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A full year before they go into effect, last year's amendments to Proposition 65 regulations have changed the terms of the duel between suppliers and retailers over who will provide the required consumer warnings, and spawned confusion over what chemicals to single out, according to lawyers who advise businesses on Prop 65 compliance.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) adopted amendments in September 2016 on how "clear and reasonable warning" should be provided under Proposition 65. Among the changes, this will require the warnings to contain the name of at least one substance for which notice is being provided under the law. A pictogram – an exclamation mark inside an equilateral triangle – must also be included.
The original rules said that warning materials should be provided by manufacturers, rather than retailers, "where practicable." The new regulations, which are effective from August 2018, make suppliers responsible for complying with the mandate, either by placing warning labels on products, or providing warning materials to retailers.
"Almost every single major retailer has already shifted the obligation for Prop 65 compliance onto their suppliers," said Ed Sangster, a partner at K & L Gates in San Francisco. "If somebody brings a Prop 65 claim against Target, then Target is immediately going to make an indemnification claim to their supplier.
"For smaller retailers it will be a real relief, because they didn't have the clout to do that."The lion's share
However, retailers say they will face the lion's share of the work. "Allowing manufacturers to comply with their warning obligations by simply providing warning materials to retailers, without obtaining the consent of the retailers, has the effect of shifting the burden of compliance to retailers," the California Retailers Association said in comments last year.
"Given that Proposition 65 warnings are not required anywhere except for California, we can envision numerous manufacturers moving to signage as a warning option rather than labelling their products, or simply mailing labels to retailers and direct them to sticker products in inventory.
"A business that, for example, wants to avoid enforcement litigation over phthalates in vinyl and other soft plastics, and does not want to have to pay to reformulate those products with other plasticisers or provide on-label warnings in other states, can neatly avoid those costs and disruption to its business by directing its retailers to provide warnings through signs or stickers."'Warning signs everywhere'
"If everybody who has a product on the shelf said 'We are going to give you a warning sign,' you would walk into Home Depot and there would be nothing but Prop 65 warning signs everywhere," said Malcolm Weiss, a partner at Hunton and Williams in Los Angeles. Retailers "are telling everybody upstream 'Nice try, but we aren't going to do it, you figure it out and put the warning on your product.'
"There's a lot of back and forth going on between manufacturers and retailers."
Manufacturers are still in the early stages of wrestling with changes in the required warnings. The standard Prop 65 warning now reads: "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." The new rules will require labels to name at least one listed chemical contained in a product, and to specify whether it is a carcinogen, a teratogen, or both. And it does not offer any guidance on what chemical to choose.
"Having to make the decision as to what chemical to list is treacherous and nobody knows what the right basis is as to what chemical to select," said Maureen Gorsen, a partner at Alston & Bird in Los Angeles. "It opens the door to 'Why that one? What did you know about that chemical?'"Supply chain
Manufacturers are in the process of closely examining the supply chain for each component of a product.
"It's becoming clear that people responsible for putting warnings on the product don't always know what chemicals are in their products. A manufacturer has raw material suppliers, maybe another intermediate step of assembly," said Mr Weiss. "It's difficult to know what chemicals are in the products and that can change."
"Say a company puts out a warning that this product contains chemical X which is known to cause cancer," he said. "Six months go by and what if the chemical is no longer in the product? What if a tester doesn't find that chemical, but finds another one? Is that a violation? You can't test for 900 chemicals in a product."
Ms Gorsen said this is an especially pressing issue for manufacturers that get components from China, because even though a contract specifies testing requirements, "the piece of paper they send over can be a complete lie." Some large companies, "especially those who market to children," have decided to operate their own plants in China so they can control the process, she said.
However, manufacturers do have an option to avoid naming a specific chemical if they place a "short form" warning directly on a product. Those labels simply say: "WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov".
"Seventy percent of my clients are going for the short form," said Ms Gorsen. "This surprises me because it screams CANCER! in block letters. I think the reasoning is that everybody is so used to these labels they won't be noticeable," she said.
Sam Delson, Oehha deputy director for external and legislative affairs, said the agency has no plans to issue any formal guidance but will soon post a Q&A on its website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57317/retailers-and-producers-tussle-over-prop-65-obligations
-
European Commission Notifies Bans, Restrictions on CMRs in Cosmetics
Jul 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is implementing bans and restrictions on a number of carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances by amending annexes to the cosmetic products Regulation.
The changes will be made through a Commission Regulation, notified to the WTO on 29 June.
It adds the following nine CMRs to the list of banned substances in Annex II:quaternium-15;chloracetamide;dichloromethane;formaldehyde;perboric acid and sodium perborates; andborates, tetraborates and octaborates
Three category two CMR substances have escaped a ban after the Commission's Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) found them safe under certain conditions.
They will be added to the list of restricted chemicals under Annex III. This concerns:trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide (TCO) for professional use in artificial nail systems with a maximum concentration of 5%;furfural at a maximum concentration of 0.001%; andpolyaminopropyl biguanide (PHMB) at a maximum concentration of 0.1%, except in sprayable formulations.
CMR substances used to be considered automatically banned from use in cosmetic products. But these official bans and restrictions come after the Commission announced in September that a prohibition must be implemented by a specific act amending the relevant annexes of the cosmetics Regulation.
Several member states have since campaigned to reinstate the 'automatic ban' on CMR substances in cosmetic products.
The amendments will enter into force 20 days after the Regulation is published in the Official Journal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57303/european-commission-notifies-bans-restrictions-on-cmrs-in-cosmetics
-
Regulator Strips Public Forum From Aug. Pipeline Hearing
Jun 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Nebraska Public Service Commission will hold its fourth public meeting next month on the Keystone XL pipeline project, replacing a planned opportunity for ordinary citizens to weigh in at a key hearing in August.
The newly announced public meeting will take place on July 26 in the city of Ralston and will give members of the public three to five minutes each to express their views on a route proposed by TransCanada Corp. for Keystone XL as it passes through Nebraska on a path from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The PSC has held previous meetings in York, O'Neill and Norfolk, and the agency said it will have heard 30 hours of public testimony when it begins an evidentiary hearing process in Lincoln in August. In announcing the fourth meeting to take place, the agency said it would replace a planned public comment component of the August meeting, providing additional time for the commission to hear testimony and consider evidence on TransCanada's project plan.
This Keystone XL permitting process marks the first time that Nebraska regulators are working through a new process spelled out in the state's Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act, which requires the commission to determine whether the proposed pipeline route is "in the public interest." Under the law, the PSC is expressly excluded from considering safety considerations, including the risk or impact of spills or leaks, but must assess the proposed route's impacts on natural resources, the economy, and social and cultural resources.
Still, public input in the state so far has heavily focused on safety risks and environmental hazards associated with a crude pipeline, including the possibility of a leak that might contaminate groundwater with oil seepage into the Ogallala Aquifer and risk harming the state's agriculture industry.
Keystone XL has been fully permitted along most of its route. The Nebraska PSC process is one of the last major hurdles it must overcome on the regulatory front, after it was issued a permit to cross the U.S.-Canadian border by President Trump within his first several weeks in office. Some observers have questioned the pipeline's financial prospects, though, given the drastic changes in world oil markets since TransCanada first applied for a cross-border permit for the project in 2008. Since Trump revived the project in January, the company has been working to assess customer appetite for the $8 billion project.
A spokeswoman for the PSC said yesterday that the August proceedings would be streamed live on a Nebraska educational television channel, and that additional logistical and planning information about the five-day hearing that starts on Aug. 7 will be published by late July.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/30/stories/1060056840
-
Court: Energy Firm Can Pass $55M Cleanup Costs to Customers
Jul 3, 2017 | Associated Press (in The Washington Post)
The Ohio Supreme Court says an energy company is allowed to pass on the $55 million cost of cleaning up two polluted sites to its customers in the form of an added charge on their monthly bills.
Duke Energy has been adding $1.67 to bills in Ohio for about three years to help pay for the cleanup of two long-closed facilities in Cincinnati. A spokeswoman says the charge will likely continue for two more years.
The Supreme Court ruled last week that cleanup costs can be treated like other business expenses.
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke Energy inherited the plants from another company. They were closed in 1928 and 1963, but cleanup had been a low priority because there was little public access to the sites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/court-energy-firm-can-pass-55m-cleanup-costs-to-customers/2017/07/03/11d6787c-5fdf-11e7-80a2-8c226031ac3f_story.html?utm_term=.18d7fd79c037
-
Canadian National Railway Says Oil Spills After Train Derails in U.S.
Jul 3, 2017 | Reuters (in The New York Times)
Canadian National Railway Co said about 20,000 gallons of oil was released following a freight train derailment at Plainfield, the U.S. state of Illinois on Friday, according to a filing with state pollution regulators.
The cause of the derailment was unknown, a filing with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency said on Saturday.
Local media reports estimated the spill to be 45,000 gallons.
The incident occurred when 20 cars of a Canadian National Railway Co freight train, carrying crude for Exxon Mobil Corp to Louisiana, went off the tracks, the Chicago Tribune said in a report on Saturday, quoting officials.
"No one was injured in the derailment. Officials confirmed that oil leaked from two of the cars on the Canadian National freight train, and a possible third car was leaking oil," the report added. (Source: http://trib.in/2uAFObw)
According to a report on the news website of Northwest Herald, most of the derailed cars were cleared by Saturday and the rest were expected to be removed from the site by Sunday.
Cleanup operations of the spilled crude was expected to take a few days, the report said. (Source: http://bit.ly/2t846vY)
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/03/us/03reuters-oil-train-derailment.html?_r=0
-
NTSB Determines Probable Cause of 2015 BNSF Derailment
Jul 3, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The probable cause of a BNSF Railway Co. ethanol train derailment two years ago in South Dakota was related to the railroad’s decision to defer track maintenance and continue operating high-hazard flammable unit trains on the Aberdeen subdivision, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced last week.
The incident occurred Sept. 19, 2015, when the train derailed at a small bridge near Lesterville, S.D. The train was hauling three locomotives, 96 loaded tank cars and two hopper cars filled with sand, according to the NTSB report.
Seven cars from the head of the train derailed. Two of the derailed cars breached and released 49,743 gallons of denatured fuel ethanol that caught fire. A third car leaked ethanol from its bottom outlet valve.
No one was injured and the accident did not require an evacuation. The cost of damage was estimated at $1.1 million.
A forward-facing video from a BNSF train that traveled through the area the day before the incident showed misalignment of track in one area, NTSB investigators learned. Further audio captured an "obvious clunking" sound when the engine traversed the location, the report stated.
The board determined that the probable cause of the broken rail, derailment and fire was BNSF's decision to "defer track track maintenance and continue to operate high-hazard flammable unit trains" on the Aberdeen subdivision.
"Contributing to the accident was the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) track maintenance regulation that allowed high-hazard flammable unit trains to continue to operate after the track was reclassified to a lower standard," the report stated. "Contributing to the tank car breach and subsequent fire was the continued use of legacy U.S. Department of Transportation-111 tank cars to carry flammable products."
In its recommendations, the NTSB called for:
• the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to include the increased derailment risks associated with Class I track, the relationship between rail and rail-car weight, and potential failure of legacy DOT-11 tank cars in the federal regulatory list of items for railroads to consider when determining routes for high-hazard flammable unit trains.
• PHMSA and the FRA to work together to develop guidance for railroads when using the list to analyze proposed routes for those trains or unit trains.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/NTSB-determines-probable-cause-of-2015-BNSF-derailment--52050
-
The Energy 202: What Would be the Point of Pruitt's
Jul 3, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Ahead of the Fourth of July weekend, we were treated to some early fireworks when it was revealed that the Trump administration was indeed taking seriously a proposal to start a formal government-wide effort to challenge of the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change.
While "there are no formal plans within the administration to do anything about it at this time," a senior administration official said according to The Post's Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin, Environmental Protection Administrator Scott Pruitt has expressed interest in the idea of formally challenging the scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet. Energy Secretary Rick Perry is involved in the effort too, two officials said. E&E News first reported the news on Friday.
Such an effort, if it comes to fruition, would in effect seek to undo a scientific project between multiple agencies (EPA, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...) across multiple presidencies (Barack Obama's, Bill Clinton's, even George W. Bush's...) that has established and strengthened the link between the rise in both global temperatures and the emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activity.
It would also raise the question: What is the point such an exercise?
That science largely took place within the traditional peer review process, in which scientists submit their work for evaluation by other researchers in the same field. An academic journal will only publish a paper if the work is up to snuff in the eyes of those peers.
As Pruitt and Perry would have it, climate science would instead be subject to new scrutiny in what's called a “red team-blue team” exercise. Born out of military analysis and spelled out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, a former undersecretary of energy for science in the Obama administration, such an exercise would have a "red team" write a critique of the scientific consensus with a "blue team" writing a rebuttal to that critique. That back-and-forth commentary, all taking place in public view, would then be evaluated and written up by a commission.
But it's unlikely the result of such an exercise would sway many within the scientific establishment, both here and abroad, who are accustom to seeing science done through the peer review process.
It also seems unlikely a "red team-blue team" approach would have standing in the legal system. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles if the agency determined such planet-warming emissions were a danger to human health. Two years later, with Obama in office, the EPA did just that by issuing a formal "endangerment finding," which created the basis for that administration's regulation of greenhouse gases.
Undoing that endangerment finding requires going through a rigorous rescission process, which would take time and be subject to legal challenges in court. At its face, the "red team-blue team" exercise would do little to contribute to any effort to the legal dismantling the endangerment finding, a Holy Grail of some GOP politicians and activists in that doing so would force future presidential administrations to start over in creating a legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) praised the idea:
Indeed, early reporting indicates that the back-and-forth critique may not take aim at the endangerment finding. Dennis and Eilperin report that two sources with knowledge of the "red team-blue team" effort "said its purpose was not explicitly to help target the agency’s 2009 finding," though "that idea is still under discussion among administration officials."
Pruitt has proven to be one of the more media-savvy members of Trump's Cabinet. He advocated on television for the United States to withdraw from the Paris climate accord while those members of the Trump administration who privately pushed the president to stay in the agreement did not take to the airwaves to advance their position with the public. Ultimately, Pruitt won out with his TV-obsessed boss.
Pruitt seems to see the value in a publicizing the climate change debate as well.
When discussing Koonin's op-ed on a Breitbart News radio program in June, Pruitt said: "What the American people deserve is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/07/03/the-energy-202-what-would-be-the-point-of-pruitt-s-red-team-blue-team-climate-exercise/5959a234e9b69b7071abca32/?utm_term=.f0d5f94b01a4
-
Stephen Hawking: Trump Pulling Out of Paris Agreement 'Could Push Earth Over the Brink'
Jul 2, 2017 | The Hill
By Brandon Carter
Stephen Hawking blasted President Trump’s recent decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement in a new interview, saying it “could push Earth over the brink.”
Hawking told BBC News that Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement would lead to disastrous consequences worldwide.
"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” Hawking told BBC News. “Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”
Hawking said that climate change is among the greatest dangers facing Earth. The world-renowned physicist also said that quick action could prevent some of the worst effects of climate change, but Trump withdrawing from the agreement would cause “avoidable damage to our beautiful planet.”
“By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trumpwill cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children,” Hawking said.
Trump announced he would be withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate change agreement at the beginning of June, calling it “unfair.”
“The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,” Trump said at the time.
Trump’s decision was met with widespread criticism. After his announcement, a dozen states and hundreds of cities announced they would uphold the tenants of the climate deal.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340476-stephen-hawking-trump-pulling-out-of-paris-agreement-could-push
-
D.C. Circuit Rejects EPA Methane Rule Delay
Jul 3, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal appeals court today vacated the Trump administration's decision to delay an Obama-era U.S. EPA rule curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas operations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with environmentalists that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to issue the 90-day administrative stay of the rule.
EPA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" under the law, the three-judge panel ruled.
The Obama administration issued the standards in 2016 to halt leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from new oil and gas operations. The rule also aimed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds that contribute to the formation of smog.
In June, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt granted a 90-day delay of key provisions of the rule, including its fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps and professional engineer certification requirements.
Pruitt's decision came after EPA granted requests by energy industry trade groups to reconsider parts of the rule (Greenwire, May 31). He then announced EPA would further delay those provisions by two years (Energywire, June 14).
Green groups — the Clean Air Council, Earthworks, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club — filed a lawsuit over the first delay, along with an emergency motion to overturn EPA's decision and put the standards back in place (Greenwire, June 5).
A group of states led by Massachusetts lined up behind the environmental groups, while companies and a separate coalition of states led by West Virginia said they supported Pruitt's position.
The Trump administration premised the stay on a provision in the Clean Air Act that allows EPA to pause certain regulatory requirements when it has granted a petition for reconsideration of a rule.
But in court documents, environmentalists argued the energy industry's reconsideration request was invalid because the issues it raised had already been extensively hashed out during the Obama rulemaking process. The D.C. Circuit agreed in today's per curiam opinion.
The administrative record, according to the court, "makes clear that industry groups had ample opportunity to comment on all four issues on which EPA granted reconsideration, and indeed, that in several instances the agency incorporated those comments directly into the final rule."
The panel, though, emphasized that "nothing in this opinion" prevents the Trump administration from reconsidering the methane curbs using formal rulemaking procedures.
"It is free to do so as long as 'the new policy is permissible under the statute ... , there are good reasons for it, and ... the agency believes it to be better,'" the court said.
Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins, two Democratic appointees, heard the case with Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a George W. Bush appointee.
Brown issued a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with her colleagues that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place.
She wrote that EPA's decision to delay implementation was not a final agency action subject to court review.
"I would dismiss the Environmental Petitioners' motion on the grounds that we lack jurisdiction to review EPA's stay, and not reach the remaining issues," Brown wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/03/stories/1060056926
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested