Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 7/6/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) US ACC backs NAFTA Modernisation At Renegotiation Hearings
Jun 28, 2017 | ICIS
By David Haydon
HOUSTON (ICIS)--The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reiterated its intention to help facilitate the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during the second day of hearings by the US Trade Representative on Wednesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) NAFTA Talks Offer Chance Of 'Risk-Based' Regulation In Mexico, Says ACC
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
he American Chemistry Council says that an update to the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) gives the opportunity to promote a risk-based "North American model" for chemical regulations throughout the world. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Proposes TBBPA Prop 65 Listing
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) plans to list the flame retardanttetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and two other chemicals as carcinogens under Proposition 65. -
US EPA Watchdog Criticises Use Of Risk Assessment Tools
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The in-house watchdog of the US EPA says the agency must improve the way it develops and implements chemical risk assessment tools, which could "rapidly improve how it assesses chemical risks to human health and the environment". -
On U.S. Rivers, Teflon’s Old Cancer Ties Are Stoking New Fears
Jul 6, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Tiffany Kary and Jack Kaskey
On a cool spring morning last year, Jason Galloway lugged his father’s kayak up to the edge of the Ohio River and slid it into the calm water. This wasn’t a pleasure trip. Galloway, by his own admission, isn’t very skilled with an oar in his hands and, to make matters worse, can’t swim. -
WHO Chemical Risk Assessment Network Focuses On Capacity Building
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The second face-to-face meeting of the WHO chemical risk assessment network focused on "capacity building", including guidance, case studies and tools. -
Canada Proposes Adding Cobalt Compounds To Schedule 1
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada's government has proposed adding cobalt and soluble cobalt compounds to schedule 1 of the country's Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa) – its list of toxic substances. Their addition would enable it to propose risk management measures if deemed necessary. -
REACH Dossier Updates Overshadowed By Registration Deadline
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
REACH dossier updates have been put on the back burner because companies face multiple pressures on their resources as the May 2018 registration deadline looms, according to a Chemical Watch survey of top manufacturers. -
Caracal Discusses Concerns Over CLP Guidance For Skin Corrosion Tests
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
CLP guidance should be updated to ensure in vitro skin corrosion tests can provide a "precautionary classification" as category 1B, thus avoiding unnecessary animal testing, says a European Commission paper for the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal). -
Trump Says Gas Deal With Poland Should Take '15 Minutes'
Jul 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump said Thursday that he wants American and Polish companies to sign a long-term liquefied natural gas (LNG) deal quickly. -
LNG A Test Case For Trump's Energy 'Dominance'
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Jenny Mandel,
In his visit to the Energy Department last week, President Trump reveled in the "America First" image of the United States as the new global energy superpower, with rising cargoes of U.S. oil, coal, natural gas and petroleum products criss-crossing the seas. -
(ACC Blog) The State Of Chemical Security Regulations: DHS Weighs In
Jul 6, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
A few weeks from now, security experts from around the country will be gathering in Houston, Texas to kick off the Chemical Sector Security Summit. The annual summit provides a constructive forum for industry and agency officials to discuss pressing issues related to the safety and security of chemical facilities. -
Trump's Export Push Has Surprising Climate Angle
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump doubled down on his sales pitch today for European leaders to embrace the United States' massive shale supplies — a message that inadvertently dovetails with some former Obama administration officials who are seeking climate action. -
Trump, Risking Isolation Over Climate, Arrives For G20
Jul 6, 2017 | Reuters
By Roberta Rampton and Joseph Nasr
U.S. President Donald Trump arrived for a G20 summit in Hamburg on Thursday risking isolation on climate policy and the wrath of anti-capitalist protesters threatening to disrupt the meeting of the world's leading economic powers. -
EPA Ruling Is Not Precedent For New Lawsuit On BLM Delay
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A decision this week to restart an Obama-era U.S. EPA regulation capping methane emissions from new oil and gas sources offers few clues as to where a district court may fall on a new challenge around the Interior Department's postponement of limits on the same greenhouse gas on public lands. -
States Challenge Methane Rule Delay
Jul 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
Buoyed by recent rulings backing challenges to Trump EPA rule delays, the attorneys general (AG) of California and New Mexico are suing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over its effort to “postpone” several requirements in its rule limiting emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas equipment on federal land. -
Making A Deal On California’s Cap And Trade: It’s All About The Cap
Jul 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Erica Morehouse
California politicians are deep into negotiations over how to extend the backbone of the state’s climate policies, the cap-and-trade program. The Governor’s office and legislative leadership are nearing a compromise that can lock in the 2/3 vote that would provide the strongest legal foundation for a future cap-and-trade program and accelerate the state’s progress to cleaning up the air. -
Chicago Grabs Lead in Green Office Buildings, Study Shows
Jul 6, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Emily Chasan
The windy city now has the highest percentage of certified LEED or Energy Star office buildings, 66 percent, among the 30 largest real estate markets in the U.S., according to a study published on Thursday by CBRE Group Inc. and Maastricht University. -
Mayors Promise To Act On Climate. How Much Can They Do?
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
America's mayors see themselves as the United States' climate saviors. But they have a lot of work to do if they're going to ride to the rescue.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US ACC backs NAFTA Modernisation At Renegotiation Hearings
Jun 28, 2017 | ICIS
By David Haydon
HOUSTON (ICIS)--The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reiterated its intention to help facilitate the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during the second day of hearings by the US Trade Representative on Wednesday.
ACC senior director of regulatory and technical affairs Greg Skelton began his testimony during the hearing by describing the increase in chemical trade between NAFTA countries since the agreement went into effect, to $63bn in 2014 from $20bn in 1994.
Skelton also noted that more than 10% of NAFTA trade is in energy products, and more than 100 cross-border energy infrastructure projects are currently in place between the three economies.
Regarding modernising the NAFTA rules of origin, as on Monday Skelton referenced US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
"ACC also recommends that the polymer content rule should be consistent with the language negotiated for the TPP," he said.
The US formally announced its withdrawal from the TPP in January 2017 through an executive order.
KORUS and the TPP require at least 50% of the polymer content by weight in finished goods to originate from the partner countries to avoid tariffs. The same provision is in Dominican Republic-Central America FTA (CAFTA-DR). In NAFTA, the threshold is somewhat lower at 40%.
In addition, Skelton stated that NAFTA would benefit from digital upgrades, such as protections for cross border data flows. Other suggestions included enhanced trade and customs facilitation, and duty free trade for all qualifying chemical products.
According to Skelton, the ACC would support the establishment of a regulatory cooperation council under NAFTA, similar to the proposed council under the TPP.
“To be clear, ACC believes that existing bilateral regulatory cooperation efforts (such as the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council) should continue at their own pace outside of the NAFTA agreement,” Skelton said. “Results from these bilateral efforts, where appropriate, could then be extended throughout North America under NAFTA.”
The hearings continue through Thursday.
Additional reporting by Joe Chang
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/06/28/10119520/us-acc-backs-nafta-modernisation-at-renegotiation-hearings/
-
(ACC Mentioned) NAFTA Talks Offer Chance Of 'Risk-Based' Regulation In Mexico, Says ACC
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
he American Chemistry Council says that an update to the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) gives the opportunity to promote a risk-based "North American model" for chemical regulations throughout the world.
Testifying last week at US Trade Representative (USTR) public hearings on renegotiating the agreement, Greg Skelton said the ACC’s top priority for enhancing regulatory cooperation under Nafta is to strengthen and align the "risk- and science-based approach" adopted in the US and Canada throughout the region, including by extending the approach to Mexico.
And successfully updating Nafta would send an important signal to the rest of the world, particularly in terms of promoting such decision making, said the senior director of global affairs.
The trade deal "could help provide a model for other countries and regions around the world considering developing or updating their own chemical regulations, and push back against the spread of more hazard-based approaches."Chance to influence policy in Mexico
Mr Skelton said the US TCSA/Canadian Chemicals Management Plan model could be extended to Mexico. The first step, he said, "could be having them adopt either the US or Canada’s chemical inventory instead of trying to compile their own. Secondary options would be to consider mutual recognition for Mexico – for example if a chemical is on either the US or Canadian inventories, it is automatically on theirs".
The ACC is also working with the country, he said, to align its new chemicals programme with those of the US and Canada.
Another ACC proposal is to extend the US-Canada alignment on their implementation of the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling to Mexico, which will have fully implemented mandatory rules on GHS in the workplace by October 2018.
The ACC also remains keen to reduce or eliminate other differences between the US and Canadian adoption of the GHS. Examples include reporting obligations for changes to safety data sheets, labelling requirements and procedures for protecting confidential business information.
With the Canadian government considering changes to its Chemicals Management Plan, any renegotiation of Nafta could prove timely for the chemical industry.
The ACC’s testimony echoes a joint statement by Mexican, Canadian and US chemicals trade groups this winter, and follows past commentary from President and CEO Cal Dooley. He has said that a modernised TSCA could serve as a global 'gold standard', and one that offers a "superior alternative" for managing chemicals of concern.
Their call for regulatory cooperation was echoed by other industry groups.
Industry lobby group the United States Council for International Business said in comments that a modernised Nafta should "preserve and deepen regulatory convergence" across industry sectors. In particular, it said, it should build on existing efforts to promote "risk and science-based approaches" to chemical regulation within the region.Regulatory coherence good for business
And the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) said that a "more efficient and effective" North American regulatory environment would boost innovation, growth and jobs.
"For the specialty chemicals industry, a growing lack of regulatory coherence – particularly as governments amend or develop new chemical regulations – is increasing the costs of moving goods across borders."
Speaking at a press conference ahead of his testimony, Mr Skelton called for such coherence to promote efficiencies and to ensure the development and implementation of regulations is "done in a way that prevents the creation of inadvertent barriers to trade".
Otherwise, he said, there is a risk of "bureaucratic compliance costs" created by duplicative requirements for data generation, additional animal testing or different formatted dossiers for different markets.
"All of this adds costs for member companies, without necessarily leading to significant improvements and protection for the environment or human health."Trade constraints on chemicals regulation
However, the Center for International Environmental Law said that convergence can create a "race to the bottom" that results in lower health and environmental standards: "Rather than raising the lowest regulatory standards to be in line with the most stringent, the most stringent often conform to the lower."
And it has called for chemicals to be "entirely excluded" from the purview of Nafta discussions.
Eliminating hazard-based regulation, says the NGO, would "ignore our scientific understanding of carcinogenic and other high-risk substances". And moving towards risk assessments for every substance would bring high cost for governments and would be based on a series of assumptions about risks that are "unsupported by facts or evidence".
Regulatory cooperation under Nafta "has already opened the door to greater corporate influence and less public participation in the area of chemicals policy making and regulation".
And trade constraints on the regulation of chemicals inhibit innovation by protecting "entrenched companies and their higher-risk products".
"The proposals by the chemical industry for a renegotiated Nafta would expose Americans to toxic substances, weaken the government’s ability to ensure food safety, and poison the environment," it added.Kelly Franklin
https://chemicalwatch.com/57466/nafta-talks-offer-chance-of-risk-based-regulation-in-mexico-says-acc
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Proposes TBBPA Prop 65 Listing
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) plans to list the flame retardanttetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and two other chemicals as carcinogens under Proposition 65.
The California law requires manufacturers and retailers to warn workers and consumers exposed to chemicals on the list.
Bryan Goodman, spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance (Nafra), said the common use of TBBPA as a flame retardant in electronics causes very low consumer exposure levels, and "the research shows that current human exposure to the chemical would have to be at least 80 times higher to produce any potential adverse effects.
"Given the fact that exposure levels from TBBPA are so incredibly low, the proposed listing will have limited relevance for Prop 65 labelling and for those who use the chemical in their products."
The other chemicals covered in the 30 June notice of intent to list (NOIL) are:N,N-dimethylformamide; and2-mercaptobenzothiazole.
California is proposing the additions through the labour code listing mechanism. This requires the listing under Prop 65 of certain substances identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) as known to cause cancer. According to its website, the Iarc classifies the three chemicals as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (group 2A).
Oehha will accept comments until 31 July, but its notice points out that state law requires a listing for an Iarc classification, and says comments "should be limited to whether Iarc has identified the specific chemical or substance as a known or potential human or animal carcinogen."
In March, the US EPA denied an NGO petition calling for mandatory testing of TBBPA under TSCA, but agreed the chemical may pose risks to health or the environment.
The first state restriction on TBBPA went into effect 1 July. Washington state's Toxic-Free Kids and Families Act restricts the use of five flame retardants in children's products and residential upholstered furniture.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57492/california-proposes-tbbpa-prop-65-listing
-
US EPA Watchdog Criticises Use Of Risk Assessment Tools
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The in-house watchdog of the US EPA says the agency must improve the way it develops and implements chemical risk assessment tools, which could "rapidly improve how it assesses chemical risks to human health and the environment".
In a report last week, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) said the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is "making progress" with the 80,000 chemicals registered for use in the US, "but tens of thousands of these have yet to be evaluated".
The OIG focused its review on the computer analysis programmes developed by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) under its 'chemical safety for sustainability (CSS) plan'. The ORD produces these for the OCSPP to use in priority settings, toxicity testing and risk assessments.
The tools are designed to: rapidly and accurately support risk analyses; search for chemical testing data across multiple databases; and compare previous research results to current risk assessments.
But, without management controls, the OCSPP "is at risk of not effectively incorporating [the tools] in a way that could rapidly improve how the EPA assesses chemical risks", says the watchdog. And confidential business information (CBI) "constraints" and revision of TSCA via the Lautenberg Act are making it difficult to develop effective tools.
The OCSPP has agreed to conduct a 'needs assessment' by 31 May 2018. This will cover the challenges and timeframes, as well as training and resource needs, associated with incorporating ORD products into OCSPP programmes.
By the same deadline, it will also write a document on the processes for collaborating with the ORD on CSS programme development, and implement them by 30 November 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57459/us-epa-watchdog-criticises-use-of-risk-assessment-tools
-
On U.S. Rivers, Teflon’s Old Cancer Ties Are Stoking New Fears
Jul 6, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Tiffany Kary and Jack Kaskey
On a cool spring morning last year, Jason Galloway lugged his father’s kayak up to the edge of the Ohio River and slid it into the calm water. This wasn’t a pleasure trip. Galloway, by his own admission, isn’t very skilled with an oar in his hands and, to make matters worse, can’t swim.
He had come to gather water samples at spots in the river downstream from the Chemours Co. plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. And what he says he found is adding to growing concerns over a new generation of chemicals -- designed to be safer than the old ones -- that Chemours and others make for products like Teflon cookware, waterproof fabrics and grease resistant food packaging.
Last month, a study detected one of the new chemicals, known as GenX, downstream from a different Chemours plant -- some 400 miles away in Fayetteville, North Carolina. That news sent the company’s stock and bonds tumbling as protests erupted over the safety of the local drinking water.
It’s the latest chapter in a two-decade litigation and public relations ordeal that has buffeted DuPont Co., and now its spun-off unit Chemours. DuPont was accused for years of polluting the Ohio River separating Ohio and West Virginia with the widely-used Teflon chemical known as PFOA. In February, the two companies appeared to put the issue behind them when they agreed to a $670 million settlement to cover 3,500 personal-injury suits stemming from the old compound in drinking water around its Parkersburg plant.
Now, the Environmental Protection Agency is investigating the new chemical while some Wall Street analysts are discussing the potential for a fresh round of lawsuits against Chemours.
“History seems to be repeating itself,” said Jeffrey Dugas, a spokesman for advocacy group Keep Your Promises DuPont. “We don’t know if this chemical will have adverse health effects, but it has already contaminated drinking water.”Health Screening
Chemours said that it believes GenX levels around the Fayetteville plant are “well below the health screening level’’ announced by North Carolina regulators last month, adding that emissions “have not impacted the safety of drinking water.’’ In response to the controversy, Chemours said it started capturing the wastewater containing GenX and is working with regulators and local officials to determine the next steps.
The EPA said in a statement last month that its probe would review GenX toxicity data and update its risk assessment. There is no requirement that drinking water be tested for GenX and most similar chemicals, nor any federal limits on exposure.
DuPont had been using the old chemical, PFOA, also called C8, since at least the 1950s.‘Probable Links’The most important business stories of the day.Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.Sign Up
After residents near Parkersburg started raising health concerns and filing lawsuits in 2001, DuPont agreed to an independent science panel, which studied 80,000 residents for seven years, and found "probable links" between PFOA and six diseases including testicular cancer and ulcerative colitis. After losing a handful of individual suits, DuPont and Chemours reached this year’s settlement on the PFOA suits.
The EPA encouraged companies beginning in 2006 to phase out PFOA and related chemicals, and DuPont agreed to do so. The industry replaced them with GenX and other new-generation agents known as perfluorinated compounds, or PFAS. The new class is eliminated faster from the body, making them safer, Chemours says.
At a conference in Boston in June about the chemicals, several scientists agreed that they cycle out of humans more quickly, but expressed concerns, citing their persistence in the environment including plant life, as well as a dearth of studies.
“Every perfluorinated compound that’s been studied causes problems,” said Linda Birnbaum, who directs an environmental health unit of the National Institutes of Health.More Research
Much more research is needed to determine whether levels of the chemical found in North Carolina or near Parkersburg are safe, according to Jamie C. DeWitt, an associate professor at East Carolina University and author one of the few peer-reviewed studies of GenX.
“GenX isn’t as potent, but we are seeing some concerns,” she said.
Galloway, who has a degree in chemical engineering and is now a student at Ohio State University in molecular genetics, went on his vigilante sampling trip after reading about the new chemicals. He said he took the samples into the EPA for testing, and is working with the agency on a study for peer-review.
“When I saw the plant was still operating, I tried to look up information on emissions and couldn’t find anything, so I decided to get involved,” Galloway said in a phone interview.Public Outcry
The EPA didn’t return requests for comment on Galloway’s samples, and Chemours said it can’t respond until the agency is done evaluating them.
Meanwhile, in North Carolina, local officials are grappling with their next step after the public outcry, initially sparked by a peer-reviewed study in November that found GenX is in the Cape Fear River and that current filtration systems have little ability to remove it.
“We need assurance that the water is safe,” said Woody White, chairman of the New Hanover County commissioners, which covers affected communities around Wilmington, North Carolina, downstream from Chemours’ Fayetteville plant. “We worry, and we want more data as soon as possible.”
In Fayetteville, Chemours is required to capture GenX when used to make Teflon but not when discharged as a byproduct of a separate process.
Tom Claps, a litigation analyst with Susquehanna International Group, said in a research note that while lawsuits are likely, it may take a long time, citing the 16 years it took from the first lawsuit against DuPont over PFOA in Parkersburg to the recent settlement.
Chemours also inherited 17 factories globally that make fluoroproducts like Teflon. Its plant in Dordrecht, the Netherlands, recently came under scrutiny from Dutch officials concerned about GenX in the local drinking water. Its factories in Changshu, China, and Shimizu, Japan, also use GenX.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-06/on-u-s-rivers-teflon-s-old-cancer-ties-are-stoking-new-fears
-
WHO Chemical Risk Assessment Network Focuses On Capacity Building
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The second face-to-face meeting of the WHO chemical risk assessment network focused on "capacity building", including guidance, case studies and tools.
Hosted in June by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), the meeting brought together participants from 61 chemical risk assessment institutions in 39 countries.
In his keynote presentation, Maurice Whelan, head of the EU Reference Lab for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL Ecvam), spoke about establishing the "credibility" of predictive toxicology approaches for regulatory safety assessment.
Collaboration between developers and end users, with the aim of building credibility, is the best way to establish the utility, reliability and trustworthiness of any new method, he said. Credibility is not the sole responsibility of the test developer, validating body or regulator, he added.
Professor Whelan spoke about current moves away from the linear approach to validation that sees a method being developed, passed to a validation body and then taken up through regulation and OECD test guidelines.
"That process has worked to some extent. We have successfully captured in vitro test methods in OECD test guidelines. However, I think we are all conscious that things are a lot more complex now. When we talk about complex toxicological endpoints like systemic toxicity, we are talking about intelligent integration of different alternative methods."Winning trust
With meeting attendees already up to speed with technological advances, the focus was on how to get people to trust and use new methods. "That part of capacity building is really not just beginning to understand what the technologies do and what the different tools do, but also beginning to understand the strategy for being able to integrate them into decision making," Professor Whelan told Chemical Watch.
He also touched on the importance of using mechanistic reasoning as a kind of "knowledge blueprint" for guiding the integration of tests and data.
Finally, he spoke about the importance of becoming familiar with uncertainties in alternative tests. Toxicologists and risk assessors have long understood how to factor in uncertainties to understand animal test results. "With new approaches, the sources of uncertainty are different. I believe that the more we talk about those uncertainties, the more they will become familiar," he said.
The WHO network focuses on human health risk assessment and has participants from Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America and Russia.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57475/who-chemical-risk-assessment-network-focuses-on-capacity-building
-
Canada Proposes Adding Cobalt Compounds To Schedule 1
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada's government has proposed adding cobalt and soluble cobalt compounds to schedule 1 of the country's Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa) – its list of toxic substances. Their addition would enable it to propose risk management measures if deemed necessary.
The proposed order follows a final screening assessment that found cobalt and soluble cobalt compounds are harmful to soil and sediment-dwelling organisms when dissolved in water. In 2014 Canada published adraft screening assessment that found that 50 cobalt-containing substances met one or more of the Cepa section 64 criteria. But the final screening assessment focused on the cobalt 'moiety', rather than specific compounds, and thus is not limited to those specific substances.
The main uses of cobalt-containing substances are industrial and include:as intermediates in metallurgical processes;in non-ferrous metal smelting and refining;in the production of alloys and carbides; andin batteries.
The US regulates the amount of effluent-containing cobalt that can be released into the environment for various point source categories. In Europe, five forms of soluble cobalt compounds are listed on the candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHC).
Stakeholders have 60 days to submit comments on the proposal following its 24 June publication.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57478/canada-proposes-adding-cobalt-compounds-to-schedule-1
-
REACH Dossier Updates Overshadowed By Registration Deadline
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
REACH dossier updates have been put on the back burner because companies face multiple pressures on their resources as the May 2018 registration deadline looms, according to a Chemical Watch survey of top manufacturers.
Such delays may irk Echa and national competent authorities because the patchy quality of dossiers is seen as one of the key failures of REACH: a substantial number of registrations are still considered inadequate or non-compliant, and only a fraction of documents have been updated, Echa says.
Article 22 of REACH says registrants must update their dossiers "without undue delay" whenever there is a material change or new information comes to light. This includes new chemical safety reports (CSR), changes in uses and tonnage as well as new toxicity data.
But the vast majority of updates are being triggered by Echa's own regulatory activities – not voluntary action. And Echa says that even when done after a request by the agency, 7% still fall short of what was required.
Chemical Watch contacted nine multinationals to ask about their strategy for updating registrations. Five – BASF, Bayer, AkzoNobel, Evonik and Lanxess – responded, saying they systematically do this with any new and relevant information.
BASF, for example, said it has submitted more updates – nearly 2,000 so far - than initial registrations – around 1,500.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57477/reach-dossier-updates-overshadowed-by-registration-deadline
-
Caracal Discusses Concerns Over CLP Guidance For Skin Corrosion Tests
Jul 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
CLP guidance should be updated to ensure in vitro skin corrosion tests can provide a "precautionary classification" as category 1B, thus avoiding unnecessary animal testing, says a European Commission paper for the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal).
At its June meeting, Caracal discussed OECD test guideline 431, which covers in vitro skin corrosion test methods using reconstructed human epidermis (RHE).
The original TG431 simply described chemicals as either corrosive or non-corrosive. In 2015, the OECD updated it to introduce categories 1A, 1B and 1C, as defined by the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling. It was then tweaked again in 2016.
Under REACH, it is mandatory to assess skin corrosion potential. Sub-categorisation is essential for transportation safety measures in order to comply with CLP. The four validated RHE methods included in the test guideline can discriminate between category 1A and 1B or 1C, but not between 1B and 1C.
Tests giving a 1B/1C result have been known to lead to a general category 1 classification, says the Commission. So pinning down a sub-category leads to animal testing.Animal test concerns
The Commission is concerned that existing CLP guidance can lead to animal testing being carried out to rule out 1A classification. Such classification requires far more stringent and expensive transport safety measures than 1B or 1C.
"If a category 1B/1C result is obtained, it is preferable to classify as category 1B … than simply as category 1 because the latter does not take into account that the substance is not category 1A," it says.
"The whole reason behind the latest updates of TG431 introducing sub-categorisation was exactly to avoid a simple category 1 classification," it adds.
"If the CLP guidance remains as it is, all the work the EU did to update TG431 would be ignored and animal testing may end up being performed to rule out a 1A classification, which can already be proven by the in vitro data from the OECD TG431 method."
The Commission recommends that the guidance on applying CLP criteria should allow for a precautionary classification in category 1B, based solely on in vitro data.Epidermis tests
The RHE tests use human cells to build a 3D structure resembling the top layers of skin – the epidermis.
The four test methods are: EpiSkin, EpiDer, SkinEthic RHE and epiCS.
Evaluation of skin corrosion is usually done as part of an integrated testing strategy. In 2015, a team from the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL Ecvam) worked with industry to develop two models to improve predictions of skin corrosive sub-categories using TG431 methods. They claimed that prediction models used in TG431 had resulted in over-prediction rates of Cat1B/C chemicals as category 1A.
Of the two prediction models, PMvar1 and PMvar2, PMvar1 made it into the 2016 update to TG431, says lead author Bertrand Desprez, who now works at Cosmetics Europe.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57458/caracal-discusses-concerns-over-clp-guidance-for-skin-corrosion-tests
-
Trump Says Gas Deal With Poland Should Take '15 Minutes'
Jul 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump said Thursday that he wants American and Polish companies to sign a long-term liquefied natural gas (LNG) deal quickly.
In a joint press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda, both said that they want a long-lasting deal to export LNG regularly from the United States to Poland’s import terminal in the Baltic Sea.
“America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy supplies, so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier,” Trump said in his prepared remarks in Warsaw.
“I think we can enter a contract for LNG within the next 15 minutes,” he said later to Duda. “Do you have anybody available to negotiate? It will take about 15 minutes.”
Duda laughed in response, saying that it is up to private companies in both countries, not the presidents, to negotiate such a deal.
But Duda said the government and private sector are both looking forward to such an agreement.
“I believe that after the conclusion of those negotiations, there will be a long-term contract for U.S. LNG deliveries to our LNG terminal,” he said.
LNG exports were a major priority for both countries in Trump’s Thursday morning visit to Poland.
Poland relies overwhelmingly on Russia for natural gas supplies, as do other eastern European nations. Russia can use the reliance to push its geopolitics priorities.
Those countries and the United States see American LNG as a viable substitute for Russian natural gas, even if it is more expensive. Duda said he wants to make sure the area is no longer subject to “blackmailing” by Russia.
While not mentioning Russia by name, Trump agreed that he wants to help Poland diversify its energy supplies.
“We are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy,” he later said in a public speech in Warsaw directed toward the Polish people.
The United States only has one operating LNG export terminal in the contiguous 48 states, Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass facility on the border of Texas and Louisiana.
But numerous other terminals have been approved and will be allowed to export natural gas to nearly any country. The boom has been fueled by rapid growth of domestic gas production in recent years.
Poland received its first LNG shipment last month, but there is no current long-term contract.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340805-trump-wants-natural-gas-export-deal-with-poland-in-15-minutes
-
LNG A Test Case For Trump's Energy 'Dominance'
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Jenny Mandel,
In his visit to the Energy Department last week, President Trump reveled in the "America First" image of the United States as the new global energy superpower, with rising cargoes of U.S. oil, coal, natural gas and petroleum products criss-crossing the seas.
"We are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution," Trump said, speaking to an audience of energy industry leaders and union officials who, he said, "have gone through eight years of hell" at the hands of the Obama administration. "Our team is working to right the wrongs," he said, cutting through energy regulations and development restrictions that he said has stifled energy development across the country.
At this point, however, the president and Energy Secretary Rick Perry find themselves riding a wave of increased U.S. oil and natural gas production from unconventional drilling operations that has been growing for a decade, despite the "stifling" environment and climate policies of President Obama.
"I don't know what he thinks we were doing in 2014, 2015, 2016 when we became the largest combined oil and gas producer in the world," said former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking of Trump's rhetoric. At the same time, wind and solar power have expanded tremendously, and even U.S. coal production, down substantially, is still second largest in the world. "If you want to call that energy dominance, we've being doing it for a while," Moniz said in an interview last month.
There is no doubt that the coal, oil and gas industry executives who applauded Trump at DOE anticipate that his administration will deliver more opportunities to drill and build.
"The direction that Perry and Trump are headed is a good direction, streamlining regulations and lowering costs," said John Auers, executive vice president of Turner, Mason & Co., a Dallas-based energy consulting firm.Playing an LNG card
A true test for Trump is what his administration can actually do to dramatically accelerate penetration of U.S. energy exports in glutted global markets that are ruled by low prices and stiff competition.
One telling opportunity is on the White House's doorstep — and China's, too. That is the possibility, broached by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, that China will sign long-term commitments to buy a game-changing supply of U.S. liquefied natural gas and double down by investing part of the capital needed to start a new round of LNG export terminal expansion in this country.
A May 11 trade agreement between the Trump administration and China's government sets the stage for expanding LNG shipments. It described China on favorable terms as a buyer invited to strike gas-export deals with U.S. exporters, a confidence builder after Trump's targeting of China's trade and currency policies.
U.S. companies ship about 7 percent of China's LNG imports, according to a Wood MacKenzie analysis. And with Chinese LNG demand perhaps tripling by 2030, the opportunities are enormous, according to an analysis by the firm.
Nicholas Potter and Blerina Uruci, analysts with Barclays Research, wrote recently that "Chinese buyers have been noticeably absent from the first round of U.S. LNG contracting," deferring to buyers from Japan, South Korea and India. A clear welcome from the Trump administration could change that, they said. The ability of Chinese companies not only to sign long-term purchase contracts but also to contribute billions of dollars of investment capital to the huge costs of new LNG facilities, could move some projects from plans to construction, they said.
Gary Cohn, director of Trump's National Economic Council, has pointed to the potential for U.S. LNG output, noting that it offers European customers security of supply in contrast to Russia's past use of its gas exports as a political weapon. But last week, Cohn also downplayed Trump's personal role in promoting U.S. LNG exports.
"It's not the president's job to broker LNG supply contracts," he said. "It's the president's job to make sure that the U.S. authorizes facilities to be built in the United States because they need federal approval. And then once those facilities are built, hopefully those facilities enter into long-term supply contracts around the world. Because, uniquely, the rest of the world needs something we have, which is our huge supply of LNG."
But deals with China could headline the "dominance" storyline. New U.S. companies' agreements with China on LNG could be a "tit for tat" consequence in a more complex negotiation with China, Auers said, providing much-welcomed new capital to the U.S. LNG industry, which has see-sawed in recent months between agonizing over a global "supply glut" that is holding prices down and warning of future shortfalls unless the long process of sanctioning new projects begins soon.
The current oversupply stems from a wave of new export terminals that have come online in Australia, along with one in the U.S. and another four domestic terminals under construction. But multibillion-dollar export terminals take years to permit, finance and construct, and many analysts expect the global supply-demand balance to shift toward shortfall in the mid-2020s as global demand for natural gas gradually grows.
Part of the sellers' problems now, as the world's biggest LNG buyers pause to consider their options for the future, stem from a newly liberalized market for natural gas.
Crude oil has long been a highly liquid market, with tankers full of product sold and resold on open markets and with ships known at times to even turn at sea as their cargoes change hands from one intended buyer to another. LNG has been a different story, with sales managed largely through contracts spanning 20 years that pinned buyers to particular ports for delivery, often without a possibility of resale. Such take-or-pay contracts underpinned the financing mechanisms that allowed multibillion-dollar LNG plants to be built.
Over the last decade, a flood of diverted LNG cargoes that U.S. buyers were no longer importing as domestic production boomed and the advent of more flexibly structured U.S. LNG supplies on world markets have pushed the industry toward deals pegged to spot-market prices. These contracts give more power and flexibility to buyers to pick up gas supplies as their needs require. They have also given significant heartburn to would-be sellers who question how they can line up enough contracted demand to support loan underwriting for new projects (Energywire, March 29).Limited policy tools?
Charlie Riedl, who represents major U.S. LNG exporters as head of the Center for LNG, said the domestic industry has not publicly called for Chinese investment but may have shied away from the optics of it. At a recent LNG summit in Houston, he said, an official from PetroChina suggested that the company was actively seeking the right U.S. opportunity to invest.
Christopher Smith, who led DOE's Office of Fossil Energy at the end of the Obama administration and is now a fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, sees the current talk on China as largely for show.
"Of the 20 billion cubic feet per day [of LNG exports] that have been authorized by DOE to date, all of that is authorized free of restrictions to be sent to China," Smith noted.
"Now, it could be a sign that DOE is going to look more at energy as a bilateral, party-to-party set of negotiations, rather than a holistic system," he added. "If you're of the opinion that this is a signal of a new type of energy diplomacy coming from the White House, I'm really strongly of the belief that an open, transparent system ... is important for American stakeholders to have a very clear view of how the administration is making decisions."
Smith said if Perry is charged with expanding U.S. LNG exports, his tools to do so are limited. "What the department can do is they can authorize even more gas [exports]. Does that change the amount of capital that gets allocated, the amount of concrete that gets poured? No," he said. The U.S. will certainly be a force in LNG markets, but "that's really at this point a decision that the private sector is going to have to make," he said.
Smith said any mandate to expand opportunities for U.S. companies in China will be hurt by the Trump administration's failure to nominate anyone below the secretary level to serve at DOE. "If you want to do things, if you want to execute in a way that drives things the way you want them to go, then you've got to have your team on board. You can't do it with one person," he said.
The ability of any U.S. president to shape the outcome of world energy markets has definite limits. Auers and other analysts point out that U.S. producers will have to beat out global competitors to capture larger shares of world energy markets. "World demand is going to be a key part for all three — gas, product and crude — in determining how fast U.S. exports will grow," Auers said.
And the competition is not only external. Rather than presenting a united front to the world, U.S. oil and gas producers have risen to global prominence in part by beating each other's brains out, Auers adds. Currently, gasoline and other refinery products are the most potent U.S. energy exports. "We have the most competitive refining system in the world," he said. "Through a process of survival-of-the-fittest dynamics, the most efficient refiners have become stronger and more efficient, and the weaker ones have shut down."
Ironically, the effect of environmental controls on U.S. refiners has increased their capacity to deliver lower sulfur content fuels, Auers said, and that will create a competitive advantage as more countries tighten their own environmental regulations. "At this point it's positive," Auers said of the environmental rules in this country. "Sure, it has imposed costs on the industry. But it provides additional opportunities for the U.S. We can make those products."
That the U.S. is in the crude oil export game at all is due to an amendment in 2015 spending legislation that lifted a 40-year-old ban on oil exports, which became politically palatable to Democrats when Republicans agreed to extend tax credits for wind and solar power until the end of the decade. "Nobody expected that," Auers said. "Give credit to [President] Obama and Congress for that."
Trump's narrow election victory has put him in a position to reverse Obama's energy and environmental priorities. Off the table now is the question of whether the U.S. long-term interest is advanced by pushing fossil fuel exports into a world where most nations recognize a threat from carbon emissions.
"Sure, there is presently a market for fossil energy elsewhere in the world, especially as the developing world seeks to ramp up electricity production to meet the new expectations of their citizens for an electricity-based lifestyle," said Dan Delurey, president of the Wedgemere Group, an energy consultancy, in a recent blog.
"If clean energy is going to be the dominant source, shouldn't we want to have dominance of that which will be dominant? Well, in terms of federal leadership, that does not appear to be the hill to be king of," Delurey said. "Which means that the top of the clean energy hill is going to be occupied by someone else."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/06/stories/1060056968
-
(ACC Blog) The State Of Chemical Security Regulations: DHS Weighs In
Jul 6, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
A few weeks from now, security experts from around the country will be gathering in Houston, Texas to kick off the Chemical Sector Security Summit. The annual summit provides a constructive forum for industry and agency officials to discuss pressing issues related to the safety and security of chemical facilities.
Attendees will be discussing a wide-range of security related issues but one of primary topics of conversation at this year’s summit will certainly be around the progress of the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS) and its future.
The following Q&A with the Department of Homeland Security’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, David Wulfprovides some useful insight into how CFATS is progressing and what enhancements are in store.
What is special about this year’s Chemical Sector Security Summit?
This is the 11th Summit, and the first being held outside the national capital region. Deciding to host the Summit in Houston is part of a larger focus that the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection is placing on bringing our services and experts closer to the communities we serve. In the last year, we’ve established 10 regional offices – one in each of the 10 standard Federal regions – and are staffing them with experts who will support programs focusing on security at critical infrastructure.
At the Summit, we’ll be covering topics ranging from a Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) update and compliance lessons learned to the Internet of Things. As in past years, Summit registration is free and open to the public. Check it out at www.dhs.gov/chemical-sector-security-summit.
How much progress has CFATS made in helping secure chemical facilities?
Since its inception, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program has made significant progress in helping secure high-risk chemical facilities in the United States. The CFATS program has reached maturity; the majority of facilities have completed the security plan approval process. DHS continues to engage strongly with industry, from identifying high-risk chemical facilities to developing security plans with security measures that ensure high-risk chemicals do not fall into the wrong hands.
CFATS currently covers 2,892 high-risk chemical facilities nationwide. The current focus of the program is on ensuring that covered facilities continue to implement their approved security plans and comply with the regulation. So far, CFATS has conducted 2,920 authorization (or pre-approval) inspections, approved a total of 2,270 security plans, and completed a total of 2,254 compliance inspections. Since most high-risk facilities now have approved plans in place, DHS is able to focus on conducting compliance inspections and creating a stronger culture of security; about 90% of inspections are now post-approval compliance inspections.
What has DHS done to improve the program?
The Department of Homeland Security has made several enhancements to the CFATS program over the years, taking into account lessons learned. The Department worked with industry stakeholders to provide company-specific solutions, instead of a one-size-fit-all approach, streamlined processes, and provided more training to staff.
The most significant programmatic improvement has been the release of the Chemical Security Assessment Tool 2.0, which modernized our online tools and drastically improved the user experience. CSAT 2.0 accompanied the release of the enhanced tiering methodology, which more accurately identifies and tiers high-risk chemical facilities.
Since fall of last year, DHS has been notifying facilities of the requirement to resubmit Top-Screens. Based on the analysis of incoming submissions, the CFATS population may see some shifts. The primary drivers behind these changes are facilities reporting new chemicals on their Top-Screens, the addition of physics-based modeling for theft/diversion chemicals, and improvements to the plume modeling for certain release chemicals.
During authorization inspections, the CFATS program has benefitted significantly from working with the regulated community to identify efficiencies that can be gained through a corporate approach. This included working with corporations on scheduling of inspections, identifying corporate-driven procedures and policies, and establishing facility and DHS points of contact for corporations. DHS is in the process of creating a similar corporate approach for compliance inspections.
Specifically, DHS is looking into options for updating points of contact and reviewing corporate procedures, policies and records. This review would streamline the on-site facility inspection; however, each facility would still be responsible for demonstrating their compliance with the corporate procedures.
How can Congress help keep CFATS on track?
The Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attack Act of 2014 enjoyed strong stakeholder support and granted four-year authorization to the program, ensuring a coordinated effort between government and industry to better secure the nation’s high-risk chemical facilities through smart and efficient security investments.
With long-term authorization, chemical facilities of interest have become further incentivized to engage with the Department with regard to facility security and are deterred from ignoring CFATS obligations in hopes that the program will be allowed to expire. However, for all of the milestones of maturation the CFATS Program has met, and for all of its efforts to keep dangerous chemicals out of the hands of those who wish this nation harm, if this Congress fails to act, CFATS will expire.
We need look no further than events which have taken place in Belgium, Syria, and France, and the continuing threat stream to know that this is not a time to stop addressing the security threat posed by chemicals. Chemical security is very much a pressing need, and continued authorization for the CFATS Program is a major step toward meeting it. The Department looks forward to working with Congress to chart a path forward that further streamlines and enhances the program while preserving strong security standards.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/07/the-state-of-chemical-security-regulations-dhs-weighs-in/
-
Trump's Export Push Has Surprising Climate Angle
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump doubled down on his sales pitch today for European leaders to embrace the United States' massive shale supplies — a message that inadvertently dovetails with some former Obama administration officials who are seeking climate action.
Speaking to a crowd in Warsaw, Poland, Trump called on Eastern European leaders to buy American gas to elbow out Russian influence.
While never uttering the words "climate" or "emissions," Trump at a meeting of the Three Seas Initiative Summit cast the United States as a trustworthy energy exporter that will come through on the fly.
"We are sitting on massive energy, and we are now exporters of energy," Trump said. "So if one of you need energy, just give us a call."
Although Trump is likely to face pushback for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement when he arrives in Germany for the Group of 20 summit this week, the president while in Poland kept the message squarely on geopolitics and took a swipe at Russia, vowing to never use U.S. energy exports to coerce or dominate another nation.
"You don't want to have a monopoly or a monopolistic situation," Trump said. "We are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy."
Trump's message will also resonate at his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, scheduled to take place on the sidelines of the G-20 summit.
Despite Trump's silence on climate, some Obama veterans see liquefied natural gas exports as inextricably linked to the issue. Promoting exports, they say, also falls squarely in line with the Obama administration's past policies of combating Russian aggression while addressing emissions.
LNG "offers a unique chance to both further some of the environmental goals that we pushed in the Obama administration to reduce pollution, especially carbon pollution, because LNG is a good way to displace coal and fuel oil," said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a former Energy Department official under the Obama administration now serving as Cheniere Energy Inc.'s vice president of communications.
"Taking the reforms that occurred under the Obama administration to help unleash U.S. LNG and now taking the obvious positive attention coming from that Trump administration ... [that can] help other countries mimic what's been a success story in the U.S.," Burnham-Snyder continued.
Despite pushback from groups like Sierra Club that are suing to halt the approval and construction of export terminals and are raising concerns about hydraulic fracturing and methane, export shops continue to draw former Obama stars.
"I don't think LNG exports have much in the way of ideological baggage," said Eric Washburn, the president and CEO of Windward Strategies, an energy and environment lobby shop.
Heather Zichal, President Obama's formal climate adviser, is now sitting on Cheniere's board of directors, and Amos Hochstein, Obama's former top international energy envoy, is serving as vice president and senior adviser at Tellurian Inc., a company established by former Cheniere CEO Charif Souki that's developing a massive LNG export terminal in Louisiana (Greenwire, June 9).
Robert Fee, who previously served as chief of staff and senior adviser in DOE's Office of Fossil Energy, is serving as Cheniere's chief of staff. Yet another is Timothy Glassco, who worked on Obama's 2008 campaign and is now lobbying for the Golden Pass LNG project on the Gulf Coast from his Austin, Texas-based firm (Greenwire, Feb. 23).
David Goldwyn, chairman of the Atlantic Council's Energy Advisory Group, called it a "happy coincidence" that LNG exports supported under the Obama administration serve the multipronged purposes of furthering European independence, supporting the U.S. economy and meeting the Trump administration's goal of adjusting trade balance.
As for climate change and the Trump agenda? "It will be positive for climate to increase gas penetration, particularly in Central Asia and Europe, because it will substitute for coal and make gas affordable," Goldwyn said. "But I don't believe that's what's behind the president's message."
Goldwyn said climate and air quality concerns — alongside energy security — are driving purchases of LNG throughout Central and South America, Asia, and parts of the Middle East, but that movement has little to do with government action. "We're landing those markets abroad because we're competing commercially, not because the government is paving the way," he said.
Fred Hutchison, who leads LNG Allies, a group that advocates for expanding LNG shipments, agreed climate is driving demand for LNG abroad, calling it a "dominant narrative," and suggested the Trump administration's cheerleading for exports is sending signals to energy-hungry governments and companies abroad.
"Those companies look to their government for signals, and their government looks to our government for signals," Hutchison said. "There are limited specific government [actions] that can be taken, but from a promotion standpoint ... this administration is doing it."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/06/stories/1060057015
-
Trump, Risking Isolation Over Climate, Arrives For G20
Jul 6, 2017 | Reuters
By Roberta Rampton and Joseph Nasr
U.S. President Donald Trump arrived for a G20 summit in Hamburg on Thursday risking isolation on climate policy and the wrath of anti-capitalist protesters threatening to disrupt the meeting of the world's leading economic powers.
Trump, who paused to wave as he descended the steps of Air Force One with his wife Melania, faces a testy confrontation with leaders of the other big G20 economies after deciding last month to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate deal.
Trade policy is another area of contention at the summit, which protesters have vowed to disrupt. "Welcome to Hell" was their greeting for Trump and other world leaders arriving in Hamburg for the two-day meeting which formally starts on Friday.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, hosting the meeting, said she was committed to an open international trading system, despite fears of U.S. protectionism under the Trump administration.
"We're united in our will to strengthen multilateral relations at the G20 summit ... We need an open society, especially open trade flows," Merkel, who is running for a fourth term in a September election, said in Berlin.
There were options for finding a solution on climate, she said on her arrival in Hamburg, adding that as the summit's host she would work to find avenues for compromise.
She and Trump were due to meet on Thursday evening before the leaders begin the full summit on Friday to discuss a raft of issues ranging from climate and trade to migration, support for Africa, and fighting terrorism.
Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan is among other leaders Merkel will meet.
Trump, who earlier in Poland called again on NATO partners to spend more on defense and said he would confront the threat from North Korea, is also due to hold his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the summit.
Their meeting, scheduled for Friday, will be closely watched at a time when mutual ties remain strained by U.S. allegations of Russian election hacking, Syria, Ukraine and a U.S. row over Trump associates' links to Moscow.
Ahead of the meeting, Putin threw his weight behind the Paris accord.
"We see the Paris Agreement as a secure basis for long-term climate regulation founded on international law and we want to make a comprehensive contribution to its implementation," he told German business daily Handelsblatt.
"WELCOME TO HELL"
Thousands of protesters from around Europe, who say the G20 has failed to solve many of the issues threatening world peace, poured into Hamburg to join the main demonstration, dubbed "Welcome to Hell" by the alliance of anti-capitalist groups who organized it.
Police expected around 100,000 protesters in the port city, some 8,000 of whom are deemed by security forces to be ready to commit violence. Up to 20,000 police officers will be on hand for the main demonstration.
As protesters prepared to start their march, hundreds of riot police in full gear lined the main street opposite the Blohm + Voss shipyard where luxury yachts, like Roman Abramovich's 'Eclipse', were built.
Shopkeepers on the street, fearing possible damage to their property, either shut up for the day or bolstered up their windows with wooden planks.
A fire overnight at a luxury Porsche car dealership in the north of the city that damaged eight vehicles could be a foretaste of what was to come. Police said they were investigating whether it was an arson attack linked to the summit.
Locals are unhappy with Merkel's decision to hold the summit in the center of Germany's second-largest city to show healthy democracies could tolerate protests, as they are worried about property damage by leftist militants.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-trump-idUSKBN19R2C0?il=0
-
EPA Ruling Is Not Precedent For New Lawsuit On BLM Delay
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A decision this week to restart an Obama-era U.S. EPA regulation capping methane emissions from new oil and gas sources offers few clues as to where a district court may fall on a new challenge around the Interior Department's postponement of limits on the same greenhouse gas on public lands.
The states of California and New Mexico — respondents in an industry lawsuit to scrap the Bureau of Land Management's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule as it first stood — yesterday sued the Trump administration for delaying the regulation introduced under President Obama. The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, contends that Trump's Interior improperly put off forthcoming compliance dates under the rule, which went into effect earlier this year.
"President Trump should put the health of the American people over the profits of private companies," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement yesterday. "This is a commonsense rule that both helps our children breathe cleaner air and protects our planet. It should be implemented as is legally required. We refuse to let blatant violations of the law go unchallenged."
Judge Scott Skavdahl last week cited uncertainty around the rule's fate as a reason to delay briefing deadlines in litigation before the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming (Energywire, June 28).
"The states clearly waited until the delay to the litigation was granted before filing their complaint in a cynical maneuver to get to a more sympathetic court," said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance. "The Northern District of California doesn't have the federal oil and gas expertise of the Wyoming court, and this tactic will not be looked upon favorably by Judge Skavdahl.
"On the other hand, this does present us with a reason to go back to Judge Skavdahl and push forward to briefing on the merits," she added.
The lawsuit came just days after a trio of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that EPA's decision to stay its own methane rule for 90 days was "arbitrary and capricious" (Greenwire, July 3).
But whereas Trump's EPA leaned on the Clean Air Act to postpone its methane controls, BLM invoked the Administrative Procedure Act to suspend its rule.
Because BLM and EPA relied on different laws to support their delays, the legal analysis in each case is completely separate, according to attorneys involved in the pending industry challenge of the original BLM rule.
"From a policy perspective, the EPA and BLM rules and how they were rolled back are all intertwined," said Eric Waeckerlin, a Holland & Hart LLP attorney representing the Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
But from a legal standpoint, "there's quite a big difference" between the APA and the Clean Air Act, he said.
Section 307 of the Clean Air Act provides that any petition to reconsider a final EPA rule or action does not postpone its effectiveness, unless additional evidence — such as the discovery of a new technology — comes to light that could not have been considered during the initial rulemaking.
Lawyers for oil and gas trade groups cited that provision in their argument supporting a stay of the EPA rule.
But the D.C. Circuit ruled that industry was simply rehashing issues that had been previously raised and addressed.
The court did not preclude EPA from delaying its rule under a formal rulemaking process like the one BLM has proposed for provisions of its methane rule that took effect earlier this year (Energywire, June 22).
That rulemaking could also include an extension of the rule's future deadlines, nullifying concerns about improper delays from BLM, Waeckerlin said.
"It's going to be broader than the 705 notice because that only purports to extend compliance deadlines that haven't yet hit under the rule," he said.
Under Section 705 of the APA, an agency is granted power to postpone the effective date of actions under judicial review. Critics of the move to suspend BLM's methane rule say this section does not apply to the regulation because the rule itself has already taken effect, even if it contains compliance deadlines to be phased in at some future date (Energywire, June 15).
"Legally, EPA's action, which purported to rely on the Clean Air Act, is distinct from BLM's action, which purported to rely on the APA," said Earthjustice attorney Joel Minor.
"I am confident that the courts will hold all agencies accountable to the law," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/06/stories/1060056981
-
States Challenge Methane Rule Delay
Jul 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
Buoyed by recent rulings backing challenges to Trump EPA rule delays, the attorneys general (AG) of California and New Mexico are suing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over its effort to “postpone” several requirements in its rule limiting emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas equipment on federal land.
The July 5 complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California charges that the BLM illegally relied on a provision in the Administrative Procedure Act (ACA) to delay several compliance deadlines in the regulation.
The Trump administration's effort to delay implementation of the BLM methane rule comes as EPA is similarly trying to pause several other Obama-era climate and environmental rules, including its first-time methane standards for new oil and gas equipment, updated Clean Air Act facility safety standards and water toxics limits for power plants.
However, the administration recently encountered resistance when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's 90-day stay of its methane rule, finding that the agency improperly applied its authority to reconsider and pause rules under the air law.
And a federal district court judge has rejected the Trump EPA's bid to quickly dismiss environmentalists' suit over its indefinite delay of compliance deadlines in the Obama-era power plant effluent rule.
The instant suit focuses on agencies' general power under ACA section 705 to postpone the effective date of a rule when “justice so requires.” BLM in a June 15 Federal Register notice postponed several key compliance dates of its methane rule using such authority.
EPA used the same APA statutory authority to pause its power sector water rule, though environmentalists are challenging that move in federal district court in Washington, D.C. As such, any ruling in that case could have a persuasive effect on the new lawsuit over the BLM rule delay.
In the instant suit, the AGs say BLM's delay is “illegal for several reasons.” They argue the APA does not allow agencies to postpone a rule that has already taken effect, and that postponing compliance dates after the rule became effective “constitutes an improper end-run around the APA's notice-and-comment requirements for amending or repealing a rule.”
Additionally, the AGs say that the agency failed to meet a four-part “preliminary injunction test” needed to postpone a rule under APA section 705; that agencies cannot postpone a rule using that section to “administratively reconsider it,” as opposed preserving the status quo pending litigation; and that BLM arbitrarily failed to provide adequate justification for the move or consider the “significant benefits that would be lost” by indefinitely delaying compliance.
The administration has been forced to conduct a lengthy administrative process to revise or rescind the BLM rule after the Senate failed to approve a resolution to quickly scrap the rule through the Congressional Review Act.
Additionally, the administration is also seeking to delay litigation over the methane regulation, but some states and industry groups that are challenging that rule are opposing that tactic because they argue the administrative reconsideration is an “uncertain path.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-challenge-methane-rule-delay
-
Making A Deal On California’s Cap And Trade: It’s All About The Cap
Jul 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Erica Morehouse
California politicians are deep into negotiations over how to extend the backbone of the state’s climate policies, the cap-and-trade program. The Governor’s office and legislative leadership are nearing a compromise that can lock in the 2/3 vote that would provide the strongest legal foundation for a future cap-and-trade program and accelerate the state’s progress to cleaning up the air.
The comedian Larry David once said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied.” Elected leaders can probably identify with that sentiment, as they take on the unenviable task of constructing a deal among multiple parties — one that would be a critical step forward for climate action, but might still leave everyone involved at least a little dissatisfied.
As they do, we at EDF will be laser-focused on one question related to cap-and-trade design: Does the deal protect the environmental integrity of the cap?
In the current negotiations, the issue of integrity comes to the fore with one particular aspect of the draft proposal: the design of a "price ceiling" for emission allowances.It’s all about the cap…
The integrity of the cap is critical, because it is the cap that provides the guarantee that California will meet its target. California has a portfolio of climate policies working together to reduce emissions, and all have their role to play. The signature feature of the cap-and-trade program is that it places a firm limit on carbon pollution and holds the state accountable for achieving the climate targets set in law.
The central importance of the cap in ensuring that the state meets its goals is critical to keep in mind when considering one key aspect of the compromise deal being discussed in the Capitol: a so-called “price ceiling” on the allowances polluters need to comply with their obligations under the cap. While a limit on allowance prices might sound like a good idea, if poorly designed it could come at a significant cost to the integrity of the program — because the only way to keep prices from rising above the ceiling is to allow unlimited emissions.
In other words, a price ceiling is potentially a blank check to polluters that risks busting a hole in the cap. That introduces the risk that California blows past its targets — undermining its claim to climate leadership, and raising the chances of climate catastrophe.A plan to board up the busted cap
The potential saving grace in the current proposal is that they have a plan for how to board up the hole in California’s climate target if the price ceiling is deployed. The Air Resources Board is required to use revenue raised through compliance at the price ceiling to secure high-quality reductions to make up for any excess above California’s cap. It’s important that this provision be protected, by guaranteeing that all the revenue from a price ceiling is used to reduce emissions, and by imposing a requirement that the emissions debt created by the price ceiling is repaid on at least a ton-for-ton basis.
Now, a far better strategy would be to use or strengthen the tools that have kept cap-and-trade costs down so far, like a reserve of allowances and offsets to avoid getting close to the price ceiling in the first place. But a plan for boarding up the hole is better than nothing at all.Price ceiling should be a “Break glass in case of emergency” — and only an emergency strategy
The best argument that can be made for a price ceiling is that it can prevent even worse outcomes, such as prices rising high enough to threaten the continued existence of the program. To be clear, such an outcome is highly unlikely — but anyone who lived through the electricity crisis of 2000 knows that we can’t rule anything out.
If a price ceiling is to be included, it must be as a last resort — a kind of “Break Glass In Case of Emergency” strategy. And just like a fire alarm behind a pane of glass, it should really be reserved for genuine emergencies — not simply to let polluters off the hook.
The comedian Larry David once said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied.” Elected leaders can probably identify with that sentiment, as they take on the unenviable task of constructing a deal among multiple parties — one that would be a critical step forward for climate action, but might still leave everyone involved at least a little dissatisfied. As they do, we at EDF will be laser-focused on one question related to cap-and-trade design: Does the deal protect the environmental integrity of the cap? In the current negotiations, the issue of integrity comes to the fore with one particular aspect of the draft proposal: the design of a "price ceiling" for emission allowances. It’s all about the cap… The integrity of the cap is critical, because it is the cap that provides the guarantee that California will meet its target. California has a portfolio of climate policies working together to reduce emissions, and all have their role to play. The signature feature of the cap-and-trade program is that it places a firm limit on carbon pollution and holds the state accountable for achieving the climate targets set in law. The central importance of the cap in ensuring that the state meets its goals is critical to keep in mind when considering one key aspect of the compromise deal being discussed in the Capitol: a so-called “price ceiling” on the allowances polluters need to comply with their obligations under the cap. While a limit on allowance prices might sound like a good idea, if poorly designed it could come at a significant cost to the integrity of the program — because the only way to keep prices from rising above the ceiling is to allow unlimited emissions. In other words, a price ceiling is potentially a blank check to polluters that risks busting a hole in the cap. That introduces the risk that California blows past its targets — undermining its claim to climate leadership, and raising the chances of climate catastrophe. A plan to board up the busted cap The potential saving grace in the current proposal is that they have a plan for how to board up the hole in California’s climate target if the price ceiling is deployed. The Air Resources Board is required to use revenue raised through compliance at the price ceiling to secure high-quality reductions to make up for any excess above California’s cap. It’s important that this provision be protected, by guaranteeing that all the revenue from a price ceiling is used to reduce emissions, and by imposing a requirement that the emissions debt created by the price ceiling is repaid on at least a ton-for-ton basis. Now, a far better strategy would be to use or strengthen the tools that have kept cap-and-trade costs down so far, like a reserve of allowances and offsets to avoid getting close to the price ceiling in the first place. But a plan for boarding up the hole is better than nothing at all. Price ceiling should be a “Break glass in case of emergency” — and only an emergency strategy The best argument that can be made for a price ceiling is that it can prevent even worse outcomes, such as prices rising high enough to threaten the continued existence of the program. To be clear, such an outcome is highly unlikely — but anyone who lived through the electricity crisis of 2000 knows that we can’t rule anything out. If a price ceiling is to be included, it must be as a last resort — a kind of “Break Glass In Case of Emergency” strategy. And just like a fire alarm behind a pane of glass, it should really be reserved for genuine emergencies — not simply to let polluters off the hook.
It’s also important that the program itself be allowed to function as intended. The beauty of the cap-and-trade program is that it lets the price rise or fall to whatever level is necessary to cut emissions in line with the target. A high price serves as a valuable signal to spur investment in new innovations that can then drive costs down. Set the price ceiling too low, and you cut off that signal — potentially driving prices up in the long run.
All of that means that the price ceiling needs to be high enough that it doesn’t threaten the integrity of the program, or interfere with the ordinary working of the market.
The current proposal wisely provides some very clear and specific direction to the Air Resources Board which will be able to carefully consider and get extensive stakeholder input before setting on a final number. This is not giving carte blanche to an executive agency but rather identifying factors that will dictate an acceptable range and also recognizing the complexity and importance of setting the right price ceiling number.
EDF would much prefer that the signature feature of California’s climate policy, the cap, not be put at risk in the first place. But we are also committed to actively working toward a deal while still fighting for the best possible safeguards for the cap.
Even as we have to contemplate compromises in California it is important to keep our eye on shining optimism that California does represent. The state is debating how not whether to act on climate and for many enduring the sometimes demoralizing swamps of D.C. this is an enviable place to be.
It’s also important that the program itself be allowed to function as intended. The beauty of the cap-and-trade program is that it lets the price rise or fall to whatever level is necessary to cut emissions in line with the target. A high price serves as a valuable signal to spur investment in new innovations that can then drive costs down. Set the price ceiling too low, and you cut off that signal — potentially driving prices up in the long run.
All of that means that the price ceiling needs to be high enough that it doesn’t threaten the integrity of the program, or interfere with the ordinary working of the market. The current proposal wisely provides some very clear and specific direction to the Air Resources Board which will be able to carefully consider and get extensive stakeholder input before setting on a final number. This is not giving carte blanche to an executive agency but rather identifying factors that will dictate an acceptable range and also recognizing the complexity and importance of setting the right price ceiling number.
EDF would much prefer that the signature feature of California’s climate policy, the cap, not be put at risk in the first place. But we are also committed to actively working toward a deal while still fighting for the best possible safeguards for the cap. Even as we have to contemplate compromises in California it is important to keep our eye on shining optimism that California does represent. The state is debating how not whether to act on climate and for many enduring the sometimes demoralizing swamps of D.C. this is an enviable place to be.
http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2017/07/05/making-a-deal-on-californias-cap-and-trade-its-all-about-the-cap/
-
Chicago Grabs Lead in Green Office Buildings, Study Shows
Jul 6, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Emily Chasan
Two thirds of Windy City’s commercial space certified green’
It’s an oddity if you’re not green certified’: study author
Chicago’s offices have gone green.
The windy city now has the highest percentage of certified LEED or Energy Star office buildings, 66 percent, among the 30 largest real estate markets in the U.S., according to a study published on Thursday by CBRE Group Inc. and Maastricht University.
Chicago increased its percentage of green office space square footage by 6.5 percent in the last year, taking the top spot away from San Francisco, which slipped to second place in the annual study. In San Francisco, green buildings represent almost 62 percent of commercial office space.
"Green certification is no longer an oddity or nice to have," said Nils Kok, associate professor at the Dutch university. "In many top markets it’s an oddity if you’re not green certified."
Atlanta, Houston and Minneapolis were also among the top five cities for green buildings, according to the study, which tracked buildings that have been LEED or Energy Star certified in the past five years. Across the top 30 U.S. real estate markets, the average proportion of green certified square footage is 38 percent, according to the researchers.
The Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, program rates buildings based on environmentally-friendly features, such as solar lighting, and efficient energy and water systems, while the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star certification shows a building has met strict energy performance standards.Greening Chicago
Chicago’s office buildings have gotten visibly greener as the city built incentives for buildings to add green roofs and expedited permitting for buildings with sustainable certification, according to Matt Baker, former editor of Sustainable Chicago Magazine. Some buildings place energy monitors in the lobby, showing how the building is performing on water or heating, Baker said.
The magazine, which tracked green building in Chicago since 2008, shut down last month, saying that sustainable construction in the city had become the norm.
"It used to be that if a project was green they would really advertise and promote, but now you might as well say we’ve installed smoke detectors," Baker said.
Buildings are the top source of greenhouse gas emissions in Chicago, according to the city’s website. An energy benchmarking ordinance passed in the city in 2013 covers 900 million square feet of commercial buildings, requiring them to publish their energy ratings each year. That peer pressure has led cities that have benchmarking rules to have slightly higher rates of green buildings, according to David Pogue, CBRE’s global director of corporate responsibility.
In April, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel committed to shift all city-owned buildings to 100 percent renewable energy by 2025. The city as a whole cut carbon emissions by seven percent from 2010 to 2015, even as its population grew by 25,000, according to the mayor’s press office. "As the Trump administration pulls back on building a clean energy economy, Chicago is doubling down,” Emanuel said in a statement at the time.
Investors, particularly in top real estate markets, are looking for green-certified buildings to attract big corporate tenants, according to Pogue. "Green buildings are getting the bigger tenants, higher dollars, and more investor capital," Pogue said. "Big companies need these spaces because they want to communicate to their employees that they embrace this."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-06/chicago-grabs-lead-in-green-office-buildings-study-shows
-
Mayors Promise To Act On Climate. How Much Can They Do?
Jul 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
America's mayors see themselves as the United States' climate saviors. But they have a lot of work to do if they're going to ride to the rescue.
President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord has injected urgency into city halls already buzzing with carbon-cutting initiatives. At a recent conference in Miami, more than 100 mayors signed on to resolutions committing them to the Paris targets and bolstering renewables and energy efficiency.
"Since the president withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, mayors in cities across America have come together to say 'enough' — we will not let the future of our planet be jeopardized by inaction at the top," said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D), who helped found Climate Mayors, a group of city executives dedicated to fighting global temperature rise.
The group's ranks have swollen to 331 cities representing 65 million people in the weeks since Trump's announcement.
Yet city climate efforts are challenged on several fronts. Control of the electric grid generally rests in state capitals, not city halls. Vehicle emission standards are set in Washington. Perhaps just as challenging is getting a handle on cities' greenhouse gas emissions.
Assessing the success of city climate initiatives is extremely difficult, experts say. U.S. EPA monitors emissions at the state and facility level, leaving a skyscraper-sized hole in municipal monitoring efforts. Cities have moved to address this in recent years by conducting greenhouse gas inventories, but those efforts often vary by community and are sometimes conducted infrequently.
CDP, a nonprofit formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, estimates that 111 cities conducted greenhouse gas inventories in 2016. Of those, 42 counted emissions from municipal operations and 71 reported citywide emissions, including data from privately owned buildings, and the transportation and waste sectors.
"We don't really have a standardized methodology, and that's part of the problem," said Angel Hsu, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Yale University. "You start to say, where's the accountability and credibility?"
Improvements have been made. In 2016, 17 U.S. cities reported using the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC), the counting metric favored by the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy. That is up from five the previous year, according to CDP.
Further refinements are necessary to better assess cities' progress, observers say. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit, tracks 51 cities in its annual scorecard of municipal energy efficiency efforts. Only 20 of those communities reported local energy use data, and of those, only 12 reported consumption numbers for at least two years, said David Ribeiro, a senior researcher at ACEEE who helps author the report.
The lack of reliable numbers makes it difficult to track cities' overall emissions and the success of initiatives tasked with slashing pollution, he said.
"Cities have significant room for improvement for reporting communitywide energy use," Ribeiro said. "They're doing a lot, but we need that better data to do that analysis."
So far, cities' efforts to green the electric grid have garnered the lion's share of headlines. Pledges to secure all city power from sources like wind and solar have been cheered on by environmentalists, who say cities' large populations and considerable buying power can help drive a transition away from fossil fuels and toward wind and solar.
Not only can cities secure contracts to provide renewables to municipal buildings, but they can encourage utilities to green their power generation, they say.
Jodie Van Horn, director of the Sierra Club's Ready for 100 campaign, points to Salt Lake City and San Diego as a sign of what's possible. Utah's capital city last year signed an agreement with Rocky Mountain Power, the local investor-owned utility, to work toward Salt Lake's goal of going 100 percent renewable by 2032. Salt Lake also set a goal of obtaining 50 percent of its municipal power supply from renewables by 2020.
San Diego, America's eighth-largest city, has set a target of going 100 percent renewable by 2035. City officials there are studying options for greening their energy supply, including community choice aggregation, which would essentially allow the city to contract directly with renewable developers.
"I can tell you there are a lot of cities that are directly procuring renewable energy and working with power generators to ensure the energy produced is local," Van Horn said. "It makes sense. There are a lot of different market mechanisms. The fundamental object for cities is they create jobs and public health benefits."Rhetoric over reality?
But Salt Lake City and San Diego both illustrate the difficulty of going 100 percent renewable. Coal accounts for about 60 percent of Rocky Mountain Power's generation mix, and the agreement with Salt Lake City contains few specifics outside of a promise to contract for 3 megawatts of solar power. City solar contracts now supply 12 percent of Salt Lake's municipal electricity needs, according to SLCgreen.
San Diego Gas & Electric, an investor-owned utility, is better placed by comparison. Roughly a third of its power came from renewable sources in 2015, according to the city's most recent climate report.
Achieving both cities' goals is complicated by the fact that ultimate decisions over the makeup of the electricity grid rest with state regulators and lawmakers, observers say. Salt Lake City's agreement with Rocky Mountain Power, for instance, notes the state Public Service Commission has final say over the power company's proposals.
"It's an important north star for people to be committed to, but there's not a lot of evidence yet that 100 percent renewable commitments are leading to serious discussions about serious actions," said Sam Brooks, the former director of the energy division at Washington, D.C.'s Department of General Services. "It's just that the rhetoric doesn't match reality."
There are notable exceptions. Cities with municipal utilities are uniquely positioned to make decisions on their electricity supply. Last year, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power sold its 21 percent stake in the Navajo Generating Station, a massive Arizona coal plant, helping to reduce the department's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent of 1990 levels. Los Angeles has set goals of securing 55 percent of its power from renewables sources by 2030 and cutting emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Increasingly, other cities are showing signs of following suit. The Colorado communities of Boulder and Pueblo are both considering proposals to form municipal utilities.Limitations, and progress
City officials readily admit the limitations of local climate action. San Diego expects federal and state measures to drive 81 percent of citywide greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 and 68 percent of reductions by 2035. In New York, city officials attribute much of the 12 percent drop in carbon emissions between 2005 and 2014 to utilities switching from coal to natural gas.
But focusing solely on cities' limitations obscures the important work municipalities can undertake, city officials said. Cities have considerable control over permitting land-use planning, directing where to put everything from buildings to bike lines to electric vehicle charging stations.
In San Diego, city officials are steering development toward areas with access to public transportation and streamlining the permitting process for building developers whose plans meet the city's climate goals. Those actions, taken together with California's efforts to boost renewables and slash emissions, can help the city achieve its target of cutting emissions 80 percent by 2050, said Cody Hooven, San Diego chief sustainability officer.
"To me, that means that we have to fill in the remaining emissions to get to our goals, and adjust as needed if state reductions do more or less," Hooven said. "It's a partnership of sorts."
In New York City, where buildings account for more than two-thirds of all emissions, officials have earmarked $2.6 billion in its 10-year capital program to green municipal buildings, bolstered efficiency requirements for new buildings and required retrofits of large private buildings, said the city's chief resilience officer, Daniel Zarrilli.
Some 1.2 million New Yorkers now have access to composting, part of an effort to curb emissions from the waste sector. That number is expected to hit 3 million by year's end. The city is also investing $10 million in the build-out of charging stations for electric vehicles and $20 billion in a citywide adaptation program against heat, storms and sea-level rise.
Still, Zarrilli acknowledged more is needed if New York is to meet its goal of slashing emissions 80 percent by 2050.
"When I'm asked what is the biggest challenge, it's getting people to realize climate change is not an environmental issue. It is a systemic issue that will impact just about everything in our lives," Zarrilli said.
He added, "We all need to be doing more, and we need to be doing it faster."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/06/stories/1060056980
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested