Preview Newsletter
PM ACC test 4/7/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Correction: EPA-Dow Chemical Story
Jul 4, 2017 | AP (in Wtop)
By Michael Biesecker
In a story June 27, The Associated Press, relying on schedules provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, reported erroneously that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris for about a half-hour at a Houston hotel. A spokeswoman for the EPA says the meeting listed on the schedule was canceled, though Pruitt and Liveris did have a “brief introduction in passing.” -
Member States Adopt EDC Criteria
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Rebecca Zainsinger
EU member states have adopted the European Commission's proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), ending a year-long deadlock on the controversial paper. -
Rethink on the Cards for EU Ecolabel's Chemicals Provisions
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission looks set to propose major changes to the provisions in the EU ecolabel Regulation, disqualifying products that contain substances classified as toxic or as SVHCs. -
NGO Slams Echa's Treatment of REACH Restriction Proposals
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) has accused Echa of holding back the REACH restriction process by favouring industry arguments, while placing a heavy burden of proof on member states submitting dossiers. -
Echa Biocides Committee Supports Approval of Two Exclusion Candidates
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) has for the first time supported the approval of substances that meet the biocidal products Regulation's (BPR) exclusion criteria. -
Health Canada Considers Restriction on Pigment Red 4 in Cosmetics
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Health Canada has notified stakeholders via email that it is considering adding pigment red 4 to its cosmetic ingredient hotlist, as well as changes to several existing listings. -
(ACC Mentioned) Brunell: Abundant Natural Gas Propels U.S. Businesses
Jul 4, 2017 | The Columbian
By Don Brunell
In the last half-century, Americans yearned for energy independence. We were tired of being held captive by foreign governments, some of which continue to be hostile toward the United States and our way of life. -
Governor Pushes for Cap-And-Trade Deal as Deadline Looms
Jul 4, 2017 | SF Gate
By Kellyanne Ronayne
Gov. Jerry Brown is working with lawmakers, business groups and environmentalists to reach a deal on extending cap and trade, California's landmark program aimed at slowing global warming. -
Appeals Court Orders EPA to Proceed With Emissions Rule
Jul 4, 2017 | AP (in The New York Times)
A federal appeals court in Washington has ruled that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped his authority in trying to delay implementation of a new rule requiring oiland gas companies to monitor and reduce methane leaks.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Correction: EPA-Dow Chemical Story
Jul 4, 2017 | AP (in Wtop)
By Michael Biesecker
In a story June 27, The Associated Press, relying on schedules provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, reported erroneously that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris for about a half-hour at a Houston hotel. A spokeswoman for the EPA says the meeting listed on the schedule was canceled, though Pruitt and Liveris did have a “brief introduction in passing.”
The story also misreported the name of an industry trade group. It is the American Chemistry Council, not the American Chemical Council.
A corrected version of the story is below:
EPA chief met with Dow CEO before deciding on pesticide ban
Records show the Trump administration’s top environmental official met briefly with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely-used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains
By MICHAEL BIESECKER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s top environmental official met briefly with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains, according to records obtained by The Associated Press.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s schedule showed he was slated to meet with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9 for about a half-hour at a Houston hotel. Rachelle Schikorra, a spokeswoman for Dow, said the formal meeting “never happened due to schedule conflicts.”
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman also said the formal meeting was canceled. She said Pruitt and Liveris did have a “brief introduction in passing” at the energy conference in Houston they were both attending.
“They did not discuss chlorpyrifos,” Bowman said. “During the same trip he also met with the Canadian minister of natural resources, and CEOs and executives from other companies attending the trade show.”
Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants.
EPA released a copy of Pruitt’s March meeting schedule earlier this month following several Freedom of Information Act requests. Though his schedule for the intervening months has not yet been released, Bowman said Pruitt has had no other meetings with the Dow CEO. There was a larger group meeting that Pruitt attended which also included two other Dow executives, but she said that didn’t involve chlorpyrifos.
Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation’s capital.
When President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, he handed the pen to Dow’s chief executive, who was standing at his side. Liveris heads a White House manufacturing working group. His company also wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities.
The American Academy of Pediatrics urged Pruitt on Tuesday to take chlorpyrifos off the market. The group representing more than 66,000 pediatricians and pediatric surgeons said it is “deeply alarmed” by Pruitt’s decision to allow the pesticide’s continued use.
“There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women,” the academy said in a letter to Pruitt. “The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous.”
The AP reported in April that Dow is also lobbying the Trump administration to “set aside” the findings of federal scientists that organophosphate pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, are harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species.
The chemical is similar to one developed as a weapon in World War II. Dow has been selling Chlorpyrifos for spraying on citrus fruits, apples, cherries and other crops since the 1960s. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States. Dow sells about 5 million pounds domestically each year.
As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos.
Dow, which sells chlorpyrifos through its subsidiary Dow AgroSciences, contends it helps American farmers feed the world “with full respect for human health and the environment.”
Under pressure from federal regulators over safety concerns, Dow voluntarily withdrew chlorpyrifos for use as a home insecticide in 2000. EPA also placed “no-spray” buffer zones around sensitive sites, such as schools, in 2012. But environmental and public health groups said those proposals don’t go far enough and filed a federal lawsuit seeking a national ban on the pesticide.
In October 2015, the Obama administration proposed banning the pesticide’s use on food. A risk assessment memo issued in November by nine EPA scientists concluded: “There is a breadth of information available on the potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects in infants and children as a result of prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos.”
The law requires EPA to ensure that pesticides used on food in the United States are safe for human consumption — especially children, who are typically far more sensitive to the negative effects of poisons.
Pressed at a congressional hearing this month to cite evidence that chlorpyrifos is safe, Pruitt said his decision was based on “meaningful data and meaningful science.”
Asked by AP to provide details, Pruitt’s office responded with quotes from media releases from trade groups and the U.S. Department of Agriculture attesting to the chemicals usefulness to farmers, but did not offer scientific studies on its safety.
“Despite several years of study, EPA has concluded that the science addressing chlorpyrifos remains unresolved,” Bowman said Tuesday. We will make a decision based on the science, not on real — or perceived — pressure from companies or environmental activists.”
Before coming to EPA in March, Bowman directed issue advocacy and communications for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group of which Dow is a member.
At a hearing Tuesday, Sen. Tom Udall again challenged Pruitt to cite a single peer-reviewed study showing chlorpyrifos is safe. Pruitt responded that he had relied on “interagency dialogue” with USDA before denying the petition to ban the chemical.
EPA says its next review of the chemical’s safety will occur by October 2022, the next statutory deadline for the agency to perform a legally mandated review of chlorpyrifos’ safety. That would mean Dow’s product will potentially remain on the market well after the expiration of President Trump’s current term.
http://wtop.com/health-fitness/2017/07/epa-chief-met-with-dow-ceo-before-deciding-on-pesticide-ban/
-
Member States Adopt EDC Criteria
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Rebecca Zainsinger
EU member states have adopted the European Commission's proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), ending a year-long deadlock on the controversial paper.
Twenty-one member states voted today in favour of the proposal at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF), according to Chemical Watch sources.
Denmark, Sweden and the Czech Republic voted against it, while Latvia, Hungary, Poland and the UK abstained.
The text excluded a sticking point from previous discussions, on changing the plant protection products (PPP) Regulation from referring to "negligible exposure" to "negligible risk" in relation to exceptions for active substances with endocrine disrupting properties.
The Commission separated this issue from the criteria proposal earlier this year, in the form of a draft legal Act. Many member states that opposed this proposal in previous ScoPAFF meetings had insisted that both this and the proposed criteria were voted on at the same time - but, in the event, the latter vote went through alone.
This part of the text will now be negotiated in the months ahead, Chemical Watch understands.
The European Commission says it "will not delay any action" in applying the criteria to pesticides and biocides with potential endocrine disrupting properties. It says they are a stepping stone for covering other products, such as toys, cosmetics and food packaging.
Reactions
Industry and NGOs expressed regret at the vote. The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) called the adopted criteria "fundamentally flawed and not sufficient". It said they do not allow authorities to clearly separate those substances that have the real potential to cause harm from those that do not.
"By the Commission’s own admission, the criteria provide no additional protection for health and the environment and only serve to have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on European farmers, who will suffer from yet another arbitrary reduction in the number of tools available to them," said the public affairs director Graeme Taylor.
Consumer interest group, Beuc, also said the member states have agreed on a "flawed proposal".
"The Commission’s approach contradicts the precautionary principle, namely that protective action should prevail in the face of scientific uncertainty," said director general, Monique Goyens. "Sadly, business interests seem to prevail over taking sensible measures which would prevent possible harm from happening in the future. The guiding principles in these discussions must be to protect consumers and the environment, not the interests of businesses."
And the EDC-free coalition repeated concerns over an exemption for substances, whose intended mode of action is to target harmful organisms via their endocrine system. The proposal says that substances with such a mode of action may be approved - although only if, following a risk assessment, their use does not lead to unacceptable effects on any non-target organisms.
Next, the proposal will be sent to the Council and European Parliament. They will have three months to examine it before final adoption by the Commission. ECPA, Beuc and the EDC-free coalition call on them to veto the proposal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57334/member-states-adopt-edc-criteria
-
Rethink on the Cards for EU Ecolabel's Chemicals Provisions
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission looks set to propose major changes to the provisions in the EU ecolabel Regulation, disqualifying products that contain substances classified as toxic or as SVHCs.
A three-year Commission reassessment of the ecolabel’s value - which concludes that the scheme is worth keeping - says it is not being used widely enough to make a significant difference to product use and production patterns - and partly blames the requirements on hazardous substances.
According to Article 6(6) of the Regulation, the label cannot be awarded to goods containing substances, preparations or mixtures meeting the criteria for classification as toxic, hazardous to the environment, carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR), in accordance with the CLP Regulation, or to those containing substances classified as SVHCs under REACH.
Clash with circular economy
In its 'staff working document' to the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, the Commission says Article 6(6) "does not always support the use of some chemicals that could be relevant in the context of the circular economy, for example, when chemicals which could be used to prolong durability or when their presence (if possible to determine) affects the ability to recycle. Similarly, the chemical content of secondary materials may not be possible to determine accurately to ensure adequate information and verification."
The provisions, it says, "illustrate the need to strike a balance between uptake by producers and by consumers. Strict criteria and a ban on hazardous substances is a guarantee to consumers, but compliance can be burdensome for producers and could potentially lead to a ban on products that may contain hazardous chemicals while still having a low environmental impact."
For some products, such as imaging equipment, PCs and laptops, the Commission says compliance with the provisions has been "problematic" for producers. "This is particularly true," it says, "for more complex products, for which it is more difficult to have a complete inventory of the substances used in the different components, which often arrive from different suppliers."
Moreover, "since only the presence of the chemical is examined rather than the risk it poses, the development of criteria does not take into account potential adverse environmental effects (for example, when substitution results in decreased durability, as has been the case for paints)."
NGO and industry reactions
The European Consumer Organisation, Beuc, and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said the label is "robust and reliable" because it requires manufacturers to replace hazardous substances with safer alternatives wherever possible. Giving as an example the new criteria for detergents, the groups’ ecolabel coordinator, Blanca Morales, said that to be able to use it, manufacturers must not use phosphates, microplastics, preservatives or fragrances dangerous for the environment or health.
This, she said, "is great news because detergents are the ecolabel’s flagship product group, with over 4,500 products available on the market and some major retailers using it".
But trade bodies, including Cefic, Eurometaux and PlasticsEurope, say its strict requirements for replacing hazardous substances are "unworkable".
In a 2015 position paper, Cefic and Eurometaux said SVHCs should be exempt from the ban provided "strict conditions" were met, and that a distinction should be made between substances intended for wide dispersive use and those embedded in a material’s chemical structure.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57302/rethink-on-the-cards-for-eu-ecolabels-chemicals-provisions
-
NGO Slams Echa's Treatment of REACH Restriction Proposals
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) has accused Echa of holding back the REACH restriction process by favouring industry arguments, while placing a heavy burden of proof on member states submitting dossiers.
In its damning report, ‘Restricted Success: EEB’s appraisal of restriction under REACH’, the group says Echa's Risk Assessment and Socio-economic analysis Committees (Rac and Seac) are weakening restriction proposals through derogations, higher concentration limits, or longer transitional periods.
It says the committees fail to scrutinise industry studies, while dismissing evidence from independent researchers. Rac also rejects low-dose health effects that do not fit well within traditional risk assessment models, the report claims.
The EEB says this happened when the committee assessed the restriction of BPA in thermal paper, where it left out any assessment of hand-to-mouth exposure which could have pushed the calculated risk above Echa's threshold.
And the agency's evaluation of socio-economic impacts underestimates the benefits restrictions could have for society and overestimates the costs they bear for industry, it says. For example, Seac dismisses alternatives that are more expensive than the substance that is proposed for restriction, even if their environmental and human health risk is much lower.
Meanwhile, member states carry a heavy burden of proof when proposing a restriction. This has held back the process, EEB says: "Since [it] entered into force eight years ago, the pace of restrictions has increased only slightly, while the scope of the final restrictions has narrowed."
The report calls for an update to Echa's guidance on restriction and on the roles of the committees, saying the agency should define more clearly when and how restriction proposals may be modified and ensure that Rac/Seac opinions include the most up-to-date data.
It suggests that preparing a restriction dossier can be made easier by allowing for less heavily quantitative assessments, and utilising the REACH 'fast-track' procedure.
The EEB also calls for more transparency of Echa's assessment process, for example, by inviting public comment on Rac opinions.Echa response
Echa says its committees do not accept industry input without proper scrutiny, and that it evaluates all claims equally, consults its Enforcement Forum, and invites the dossier submitter to gives its views during the opinion making.
"We are convinced that the scientific scrutiny carried out by Echa’s committees works well, is thorough and helps the European Commission to make science-based decisions on proposed restrictions," it told Chemical Watch.
It added that the success of the restriction process should be measured by the number of substances subject to authorisation, too. Since REACH entered into force, some 20 substances have been restricted and another 43 are having their risks managed through the authorisation process.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57320/ngo-slams-echas-treatment-of-reach-restriction-proposals
-
Echa Biocides Committee Supports Approval of Two Exclusion Candidates
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) has for the first time supported the approval of substances that meet the biocidal products Regulation's (BPR) exclusion criteria.
It adopted opinions on two formaldehyde releasers at a meeting on 27-29 June, namely:reaction products of para-formaldehyde and 2-hydroxy-propylamine (ratio 3:2) (MBO) for product-types two, six, 11, 12 and 13; andreaction products of para-formaldehyde and 2-hydroxy-propylamine (ratio 1:1) (HPT) for product-types two, six, 11 and 13.
Public consultations on the two substances, held earlier this year, gathered too little information to conclude that there are suitable alternatives to their use, said BPC chair, Erik van de Plassche. They are commonly used for the disinfection of inner surfaces in metal working systems, as well as for the preservation of fuels, liquid cooling systems and metal working fluids.
The European Commission will launch another consultation to decide whether MBO and HPT meet one of the conditions under the BPR's Article 5.2. This allows candidates for exclusion to be approved if their risk is negligible, their use essential to control a serious danger, or if not approving them would have a disproportionate impact on society.
The BPC also supported the approval of MBIT for use in product-type six, a new active substance used to protect against a variety of bacteria and fungi that occur in-can in paints, detergents, and other products. Two further actives – imiprothrin and cypermethrin – were supported for use in product-type 18.
The adoption of an opinion on cholecalciferol in product-type 14 was delayed because the BPC concluded that it is a candidate for substitution. Echa is due to launch a public consultation on the substance soon. Following this, the opinion will be revised and can be adopted, probably at the December BPC meeting, the agency predicts.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57331/echa-biocides-committee-supports-approval-of-two-exclusion-candidates
-
Health Canada Considers Restriction on Pigment Red 4 in Cosmetics
Jul 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Health Canada has notified stakeholders via email that it is considering adding pigment red 4 to its cosmetic ingredient hotlist, as well as changes to several existing listings.
The list informs industry about substances that are inappropriate for cosmetic use, are restricted in some way, or require hazard labelling. It was last updated in 2015.
The government is proposing adding the substance to the list of restricted substances, limiting concentration levels to 3%, due to "potential health concerns at previously reported concentration levels". The notice said the levels currently being used in product formulations are below the proposed limit. Other proposed changes include:expanding the prohibited listing for chloramine T to include "related compounds" that "are currently prohibited under the sulfonamides entry";expanding the ban on oleandrin to include nerium oleander, its extracts and glycosides;amending the restrictions on boric acid to bar its use in "products for use on or around mucous membranes" and in those intended for children; andaltering restrictions on methylisothiazolinone. Due to "risk of sensitisation", the agency is considering prohibiting its use in leave-on products and reducing the maximum allowed concentration in these to 0.0015%, similar to the current restriction on the combination of methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone. In addition, this restriction would be amended to clarify that the mixture cannot be used in the same product as methylisothiazolinone on its own.
The notice sent to stakeholders on 29 June says Health Canada is trying out a new process for updating the hotlist, "which may become the standard process".
It is a "pre-consultation", sent approximately three months before the start of a formal consultation. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments and additional information.
Once the proposed updates are posted on Health Canada's website, a formal 60-day comment period will open. The consultation document may include information on specific concentration limits, suggested wording for cautionary labelling or proposals to ban substances.
Health Canada will respond to comments before publishing the final revised list, which the agency expects to do five months after the end of the consultation period.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57324/health-canada-considers-restriction-on-pigment-red-4-in-cosmetics
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brunell: Abundant Natural Gas Propels U.S. Businesses
Jul 4, 2017 | The Columbian
By Don Brunell
In the last half-century, Americans yearned for energy independence. We were tired of being held captive by foreign governments, some of which continue to be hostile toward the United States and our way of life.
Thankfully, things have changed in the last few years.
The American Petroleum Institute put it best: “Over the past decade alone, America has undergone a major energy revolution, rapidly shifting from an era of energy scarcity to an era of energy abundance.”
API believes advances in hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” — in conjunction with horizontal drilling are responsible for the welcome boom. They made our country the world’s top producer of natural gas and unlocked more oil reserves than located in Saudi Arabia.
The American Chemistry Council credits the surge in natural gas production with reversing the fortunes of our country’s plastics industry. Companies forced offshore because of high domestic feedstock prices are returning home to abundant low-cost natural gas.
ACC officials recently told the Wall Street Journal that $185 billion in new U.S. petrochemical projects are under construction or in planning. In 2016, expenditures in chemical plants alone accounted for half of all American capital investments. That is up from less than 20 percent in 2009.
It projects plastics will become the major driver of U.S. exports and net exports will more than triple by 2030 — growing from $6.5 billion in 2014 to $21 billion.
Those exports bring money back to the United States and plastics investments are expected to support 2.7 million American jobs in the next decade. Plastics manufacturers pay workers nearly $85,000 annually with good benefits. That is comparable to what Boeing pays its machinists in Washington.
Plastics manufacturers in Washington directly employed more than 6,600 workers in 2014 and supported 3,500 related jobs, according to ACC data. Those totals do not completely account for companies which mold plastic parts for their products nor investments made in the last two years.
Companies like Dow Chemical are investing heavily in our country. Dow is completing $8 billion in new and expanded petrochemical facilities, mostly located along the Gulf of Mexico.
It produces plastic pellets. “Some of the pellets are exported to Brazil, where they are reshaped into the plastic pouches filled with pur?ed fruits and vegetables,” the WSJ reports.
“Integrated oil firms including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC also are racing to take advantage of the cheap byproducts of the oil and gas being unlocked by shale drilling,” the WSJ reports. Those gases, once flared off at well sites, are now diverted to plastics production.
Foreign companies, often partnering with American firms, are also expanding petrochemical units in the U.S. They produce the materials eventually used to fashion car fenders, smartphones, shampoo bottles and other plastic products being bought more and more by the world’s burgeoning middle classes, WSJ added.
In addition, there are spinoff industries making plastics additives. ACC reported nearly $2.5 billion in new capacity is expected from expansion of ancillary plastics processing plants.
The U.S. is also exporting shale gas derivatives (ethane) to European countries. For example, in Scotland, petrochemical producers such as Ineos are running short of North Sea feedstocks used in the production of plastic products. Ineos is now supplying its Grangemouth operation near Edinburgh with ethane made from U.S. shale gas.
The bottom line: This is good news for America and Americans seeking well-paying jobs with benefits.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/jul/04/brunell-abundant-natural-gas-propels-u-s-businesses/
-
Governor Pushes for Cap-And-Trade Deal as Deadline Looms
Jul 4, 2017 | SF Gate
By Kellyanne Ronayne
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown is working with lawmakers, business groups and environmentalists to reach a deal on extending cap and trade, California's landmark program aimed at slowing global warming.
Brown wants a consensus before lawmakers start summer recess on July 21. Reaching a deal this week means the Legislature can vote by Monday, the day before Jimmy Gomez heads to Congress from the state Assembly and takes his reliable cap-and-trade vote with him.
The program puts a limit on the state's carbon emissions and requires polluters to buy allowances to emit greenhouse gases. It's the primary way for California to reach its ambitious goal of reducing carbon emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
If lawmakers do nothing, the program expires in 2020.
---
THE STICKING POINTS
Key pieces of the negotiations are how to regulate local air pollution and contain the program's costs for businesses and consumers.
Assembly Democrats and environmental groups are pushing for a program that would give local air districts power to put additional emissions restrictions on oil refineries in their areas.
A group of 20 Democrats sent Brown a letter in June saying low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near oil refineries and other polluters are not seeing the health benefits of cap and trade. Companies can keep emitting pollutants if they have purchased enough allowances.
The oil industry wants to prevent additional greenhouse gas reductions on oil refineries.
The final deal may include a compromise — putting restrictions on how far carbon regulations can go while also outlining measures for reducing local air pollutants.
The sides also are debating whether to include a price cap on emissions allowances and how high to set it. Industry groups prefer a lower number, but environmental groups want to ensure it's not so low that it removes incentives for reducing emissions.
___
THE TIMELINE
Brown needs support from two-thirds of both chambers, so even one yes vote such as Gomez's is critical.
The Assembly Democrat has said he wants to stay in Sacramento to vote for a deal before becoming a member of Congress on July 11.
A new rule requires legislation to be in print for 72 hours before a vote, so a deal is needed by late this week to allow Gomez to participate in a vote by Monday.
With some Assembly Democrats non-committal, Brown has said he will look to Republicans for support. But their votes are not a sure thing either.
Nancy McFadden, Brown's chief of staff, has said reauthorizing the program could improve the next auction for emissions allowances, set for August. Money from the auctions pays for high-speed rail, housing and energy conservation efforts.
Legal challenges and uncertainty over the program's future led demand for pollution permits to plummet last year.
"We think we can have a fairly successful auction in August if the market sees California is serious about continuing this program beyond 2020," McFadden said June 21 during a panel discussion. "If they have their doubts, and we're kind of flailing, and the governor has said we need to do this, and there is no action, we'll see a market response in that August auction."
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Governor-pushes-for-cap-and-trade-deal-as-11265333.php
-
Appeals Court Orders EPA to Proceed With Emissions Rule
Jul 4, 2017 | AP (in The New York Times)
A federal appeals court in Washington has ruled that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped his authority in trying to delay implementation of a new rule requiring oiland gas companies to monitor and reduce methane leaks.
In a split decision Monday, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the EPA to move forward with the Obama-era requirement that aims to reduce planet-warming emissions from oil and gas operations.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in April that he would delay by 90 days the deadline for oil and gas companies to follow the new rule, so that the agency could reconsider the measure. The American Petroleum Institute, the Texas Oil and Gas Association and other industry groups had petitioned Pruitt to scrap the requirement, which had been set to take effect in June.
Last month, Pruitt announced he intended to extend the 90-day stay for two years. A coalition of six environmental groups opposed the delay in court, urging the appeals judges to block Pruitt's decision.
In a detailed 31-page ruling, the court disagreed with Pruitt's contention that industry groups had not had sufficient opportunity to comment before the 2016 rule was issued. The judges also said Pruitt lacked the legal authority to delay the rule from taking effect.
"This ruling declares EPA's action illegal — and slams the brakes on Trump Administration's brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment," said David Doniger, director of climate and clean air program for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
EPA spokeswoman Amy Graham said the agency was reviewing the court's opinion and examining its options. The EPA could seek to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court.
Natural gas is largely made up of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps dozens of times more heat in the planet's atmosphere than the same amount of carbon dioxide. Environmental groups contend that actual methane emissions from leaks and intentional venting at fossil-fuel operations are many times greater than what is now publicly reported.
Oil and gas companies say they were already working to reduce methane emissions and that complying with the new rules would make many low-production wells unprofitable.
Pruitt has repeatedly moved in recent months to block or delay environmental regulations opposed by corporate interests.
Prior to his appointment by President Donald Trump to serve as the nation's chief environmental regulator, Pruitt was attorney general of Oklahoma and closely aligned with the state's oil and gas industry. In recent weeks, Pruitt has moved to scrap or delay numerous EPA regulations enacted during the Obama administration to curb air and water pollution from fossil fuel operations.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/04/us/politics/ap-us-epa-methane.html
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested