Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 7/11/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Houston Event Focused on Chemical Industry, Threats
Jul 10, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
The 2017 Chemical Sector Security Summit is taking place July 19-21 at the JW Marriott Houston Galleria in Houston. -
Senate Confirms Rao as Trump’s Regulatory Czar
Jul 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The Senate today approved George Mason law professor Neomi Rao to serve as President Donald Trump’s regulatory czar, giving her oversight of the government-wide effort to rein in rules. -
The Deep Industry Ties of Trump’s Deregulation Teams
Jul 11, 2017 | New York Times
By Danielle Ivory and Robert Faturechi
President Trump entered office pledging to cut red tape, and within weeks, he ordered his administration to assemble teams to aggressively scale back government regulations. -
Energy Firms Fret as Senate Stalls on FERC Picks
Jul 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
With the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission down to one commissioner and Senate floor time hard to come by, the wait will continue for several major natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure projects that need agency approval. -
EPA Issues First Chemical Controls Under Amended Law
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA released its first batch of 29 rules setting controls on using new chemicals under the amended chemicals law. -
Advocates Could Sue EPA, Companies Over Solvent Data
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Environmental advocates are threatening lawsuits against seven chemical makers and the EPA to improve information about a solvent the agency could regulate. -
US NGOs Threaten Suit over 1-Bromopropane Reporting
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Two NGOs have announced plans to sue seven companies for alleged failure to inform the US EPA of their importation of 1-bromopropane (1-BP). -
General Mills Must Face Groups’ Suit Over Glyphosate Residue
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Julie A. Steinberg
General Mills, Inc. must face, for now, a suit alleging it deceptively touts Nature Valley granola products as “100 percent Natural Whole Grain Oats” when they contain detectable levels of the weed-killer chemical glyphosate... -
Survey Results: Shoppers Voting for Safe and Healthy Products with Their Wallets
Jul 10, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
Teaming up with our friends at Made Safe, we recently surveyed more than 1,600 health-conscious shoppers to understand how consumers view toxic chemicals in products. -
Concerns About Microbeads 'Unfounded', Says US Trade Body
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) has said that efforts to reduce microplastics marine pollution should not focus on the "tiny contributor" of plastic microbeads in cosmetics. -
EU to Amend Rules for Import, Export of Hazardous Chemicals
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Commission initiative published July 7 would amend a European Union regulation that sets out rules for companies importing and exporting hazardous chemicals to include 11 new chemicals... -
EU Chemicals Agency Tags Environmental Contaminant Ban
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency added a substance used in soft plastics to a list of hazardous chemicals that could be prioritized for phaseout under the European Union's REACH regulation. -
CLP Essential Oils Derogation Depends on Final Use, Says Commission
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Pure essential oils could be fully caught by CLP Regulation labelling requirements, if they are not exclusively used as a cosmetic product, the European Commission has proposed. -
Member States Discuss Poison Centre Notifications for 'Original' Mixtures
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Some mixtures supplied to industrial sites for further formulation could be subject to less stringent requirements under the new poison centre rules. -
Greens, Health Groups Dominate EPA Hearing on Rule Delay
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Environmentalists came out in force today to oppose U.S. EPA's bid to further delay portions of an Obama-era rule for curbing methane emissions at oil and gas operations. -
Moniz: We Need a Modernized Strategic Reserve, Not a Smaller One
Jul 10, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ernest Moniz
In late 2015, the Congress found that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was, "one of the nation's most valuable energy security assets." -
(ACC Mentioned) GOP States Aim to Defend EPA's RMP Delay from Lawsuit
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Several Republican-led states are seeking to intervene to defend EPA against environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's 20-month delay of Obama-era facility safety rule revisions... -
Congress Unnerved by Energy Grid Hack
Jul 10, 2017 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
For months, Sen. Maria Cantwell has been warning in letters to the Trump administration and colleagues that Congress needs to do more to keep the nation's energy supply safe from cyberattacks. -
United States Going It Alone on Climate Change: What It Means
Jul 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Trump’s decision not to sign a Group of 20 declaration on climate change this weekend further isolated the United States on the issue. -
OMB Sees Slight Increase for EPA in FY19 But Renews Push for Overhaul
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The White House budget office has released new guidance for fiscal year 2019 reiterating that EPA could see a slight increase over what the administration sought for FY18, though the office touts the request... -
Lawmakers Announce Plan to Extend California Cap and Trade
Jul 11, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Kathleen Ronayne
Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders released a plan Monday to extend through 2030 California’s cap-and-trade program, a key piece of the state’s quest to fight climate change by drastically reducing emissions from greenhouse gases.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Houston Event Focused on Chemical Industry, Threats
Jul 10, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
The 2017 Chemical Sector Security Summit is taking place July 19-21 at the JW Marriott Houston Galleria in Houston. Hosted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection and the Chemical Sector Coordinating Council, it's an annual event bringing together industry owners and operators, government officials, first responders, and law enforcement to discuss the latest security best practices.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) is facilitating a media roundtable on July 20 featuring Bob Kolasky, acting assistant secretary for Infrastructure Protection and acting deputy under secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS; and David Wulf, acting deputy assistant secretary for Infrastructure Protection, DHS. Roundtable speakers will discuss the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, new tiering methodology, and other DHS efforts, and representatives from various industry trade associations will be on hand to answer questions.
More than 500 chemical sector stakeholders and government and industry professionals are expected to attend the event.
Key topics include the CFATS Program and other chemical security regulations, cyber and physical security in the current threat environment, cybersecurity trends and resources, updates on chemical transportation issues, and theft and diversion.
The Chemical Sector Coordinating Council is one of 18 critical infrastructure committees that were established under the protection afforded by the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC). Its members include the American Chemistry Council, Compressed Gas Association, International Liquid Terminals Association, Institute of Makers of Explosives, National Association of Chemical Distributors, SOCMA, The Chlorine Institute, and The Fertilizer Institute.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/07/10/houston-event-focused-on-chemical-industry-threats.aspx
-
Senate Confirms Rao as Trump’s Regulatory Czar
Jul 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The Senate today approved George Mason law professor Neomi Rao to serve as President Donald Trump’s regulatory czar, giving her oversight of the government-wide effort to rein in rules.
Rao was confirmed 54-41 to be administrator of the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The post will give her broad powers to oversee regulatory issues under an administration that has decried the “administrative state.” Rao will oversee most federal rulemaking, and EPA alone is working to reverse or delay dozens of Obama-era rules.
Rao, who founded the George Mason law school's Center for the Study of the Administrative State, has been with the university since 2006. Before that she spent more than a year as associate White House counsel. She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas in 2001 and 2002.
She is a noted critic of the Chevron doctrine, which directs judges to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws. Rao has also called for greater White House control of independent rulemaking agencies such as FERC or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Rao earned plaudits from a bipartisan collection of former OIRA chiefs, including Obama's second-term pick, Howard Shelanski. Meanwhile, a coalition of progressive groups, including some environmental groups, opposed her nomination, saying she "holds views well outside the mainstream."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
The Deep Industry Ties of Trump’s Deregulation Teams
Jul 11, 2017 | New York Times
By Danielle Ivory and Robert Faturechi
President Trump entered office pledging to cut red tape, and within weeks, he ordered his administration to assemble teams to aggressively scale back government regulations.
But the effort — a signature theme in Mr. Trump’s populist campaign for the White House — is being conducted in large part out of public view and often by political appointees with deep industry ties and potential conflicts.
Most government agencies have declined to disclose information about their deregulation teams. But The New York Times and ProPublica identified 71 appointees, including 28 with potential conflicts, through interviews, public records and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Some appointees are reviewing rules their previous employers sought to weaken or kill, and at least two may be positioned to profit if certain regulations are undone.
The appointees include lawyers who have represented businesses in cases against government regulators, staff members of political dark money groups, employees of industry-funded organizations opposed to environmental rules and at least three people who were registered to lobby the agencies they now work for.
At the Education Department alone, two members of the deregulation team were most recently employed by pro-charter advocacy groups or operators, and one appointee was an executive handling regulatory issues at a for-profit college operator.
So far, the process has been scattershot. Some agencies have been soliciting public feedback, while others refuse even to disclose who is in charge of the review. In many cases, responses to public records requests have been denied, delayed or severely redacted.
The Interior Department has not disclosed the correspondence or calendars for its team. But a review of more than 1,300 pages of handwritten sign-in sheets for guests visiting the agency’s headquarters in Washington found that appointees had met regularly with industry representatives.
Over a four-month period, from February through May, at least 58 representatives of the oil and gas industry signed their names on the agency’s visitor logs before meeting with appointees.
The Environmental Protection Agency also rejected requests to release the appointment calendar of the official leading its team — a former top executive for an industry-funded political group — even as she met privately with industry representatives.
And the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security provided the titles for most appointees to their review teams, but not names.
When asked for comment about the activities of the deregulation teams, the White House referred reporters to the Office of Management and Budget.
Meghan Burris, a spokeswoman there, said: “As previous administrations have recognized, it’s good government to periodically reassess existing regulations. Past regulatory review efforts, however, have not taken a consistent enough look at regulations on the books.”
With billions of dollars at stake in the push to deregulate, corporations and other industry groups are hiring lawyers, lobbyists and economists to help navigate this new avenue for influence. Getting to the front of the line is crucial, as it can take years to effect regulatory changes.
“Competition will be fierce,” the law firm Clark Hill, which represents businesses pitching the E.P.A., said in a marketing memo. “In all likelihood, interested parties will need to develop a multipronged strategy to expand support and win pre-eminence over competing regulatory rollback candidates.”
Jane Luxton, a lawyer at the firm, said she advised clients to pay for economic and legal analyses that government agencies, short on staff, could use to expedite changes. She declined to identify the clients.
“You may say this is an agency’s job, but the agencies are totally overloaded,” Ms. Luxton said.
Meeting Behind Closed Doors
On a cloudy, humid day in March, Laura Peterson, a top lobbyist for Syngenta, arrived at the headquarters for the Interior Department. She looped the letter “L” across the agency’s sign-in sheet.
Her company, a top pesticide maker based in Switzerland, had spent eight years and millions of dollars lobbying the Obama administration on environmental rules, with limited success.
But Ms. Peterson had an in with the new administration.
Scott Cameron, newly installed at the Interior Department and a member of its deregulation team, had just left a nonprofit he founded. He had advocated getting pesticides approved and out to market faster. His group counted Syngenta as a financial partner.
The meeting with Ms. Peterson was one of the first Mr. Cameron took as a new government official.
Neither side would reveal what was discussed. “I’m not sure that’s reporting information I have to give you,” Ms. Peterson said.
But lobbying records offered clues.
Syngenta has been one of several pesticide manufacturers pushing for changes to the Endangered Species Act. When federal agencies take actions that may jeopardize endangered animals or plants, they are generally supposed to consult with the Interior Department, which could raise objections.
For decades, the E.P.A. largely ignored this provision when approving new pesticides. But recently, a legal challenge from environmental groups forced its hand — a change that affected Syngenta.
Pesticide lobbyists have been working behind the scenes at agencies and on Capitol Hill to change the provision. Companies have argued that they should be exempt from consulting with the Interior Department because they already undergo E.P.A. approval.
Along with spending millions of dollars on lobbying, they have funded advocacy groups aligned with their cause. Mr. Cameron’s nonprofit, the Reduce Risks From Invasive Species Coalition, was one such group for Syngenta.
The organization says on its website that its goals include reducing “the regulatory burden of the Endangered Species Act on American society by addressing invasive species.” One way to do that is to use pesticides. The nonprofit’s mission includes creating “business opportunities for commercial products and services used to control invasive species.”
Because donations are not publicly reported, it is unclear how much Syngenta has contributed to Mr. Cameron’s organization, but his group has called the pesticide company one of its “generous sponsors.”
Mr. Cameron also served on a committee of experts and stakeholders, including Syngenta, that advised the federal government on decisions related to invasive species. At a committee event last July, he said that one of his priorities was “getting biocontrol agents to market faster,” according to meeting minutes.
Paul Minehart, a Syngenta spokesman, said: “Employees regularly engage with those in government that relate to agriculture and our business. Our purpose is to balance serving the public health and environment with enabling farmers’ access to innovation.”
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department did not respond to questions about how Mr. Cameron’s relationship with Syngenta might influence his review of regulations.
A Minefield of Conflicts
Under the law, members of the Trump administration can seek ethics waivers to work on issues that overlap with their past business careers. They can also formally recuse themselves when potential conflicts arise.
In many cases, the administration has refused to say whether appointees to Mr. Trump’s deregulation teams have done either.
One such appointee is Samantha Dravis, the chairwoman of the deregulation team at the E.P.A., who was a top official at the Republican Attorneys General Association. Ms. Dravis was also president of the Rule of Law Defense Fund, which brought together energy companies and Republican attorneys general to file lawsuits against the federal government over Obama-era environmental regulations.
The Republican association’s work has been criticized as a vehicle for corporate donors to gain the credibility and expertise of state attorneys general in fighting federal regulations. Donors include the American Petroleum Institute, the energy company ConocoPhillips and the coal giant Alpha Natural Resources.
The Republican association also received funding from Freedom Partners, backed by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch. Ms. Dravis worked for that group as well, which recently identified regulations it wants eliminated. Among them are E.P.A. rules relating to clean-water protections and restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
Liz Bowman, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, declined to say whether Ms. Dravis had recused herself from issues dealing with previous employers or their backers, or had discussed regulations with any of them.
“As you will find when you receive Samantha’s calendar, she has met with a range of stakeholders, including nonprofits, industry groups and others, on a wide range of issues,” Ms. Bowman said.
Ms. Bowman said the calendar could be obtained through a public records request. ProPublica and The Times had already filed a request for records including calendars, but the agency’s response did not include those documents. (An appeal was filed, but the calendar has not yet been released.)
“We take our ethics responsibilities seriously,” Ms. Bowman said. “All political staff have had an ethics briefing and know their obligations.”
Addressing the agency’s regulatory efforts, she said, “We are here to enact a positive environmental agenda that provides real results to the American people, without unnecessarily hamstringing our economy.”
At the Agriculture Department, the only known appointee to the deregulation team is Rebeckah Adcock. She previously lobbied the department as a top executive both at CropLife America, a trade association for pesticide makers, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group for farmers.
The department deals with many issues involving farmers, including crop insurance and land conservation rules, but it would not disclose whether Ms. Adcock had recused herself from discussions affecting her past employers.
At the Energy Department, a member of the deregulation team is Brian McCormack, who formerly handled political and external affairs for Edison Electric Institute, a trade association representing investor-owned electrical utilities.
While there, Mr. McCormack worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council, an industry-funded group. Both organizations fought against rooftop solar policies in statehouses across the country. Utility companies lose money when customers generate their own power, even more so when they are required to pay consumers who send surplus energy back into the grid.
Though the Energy Department does not directly regulate electrical utilities, it does help oversee international electricity trade, the promotion of renewable energy and the security of domestic energy production. After joining the department, Mr. McCormack helped start a review of the nation’s electrical grid, according to an agency memo.
Clean-energy advocates fear the inquiry will cast solar energy, which can fluctuate, as a threat to grid reliability. Such a finding could scare off state public utility commissions considering solar policies and serve as a boon for electrical utilities, said Matt Kasper, research director at the Energy and Policy Institute, an environmental group.
Disclosure records show that while Mr. McCormack was at Edison, the trade group lobbied the federal government, including the Energy Department, on issues including grid reliability.
The department would not answer questions about Mr. McCormack’s involvement with those issues.
Across the government, at least two appointees to deregulation teams have been granted waivers from ethics rules related to prior jobs, and at least nine others have pledged to recuse themselves from issues related to former employers or clients.
Some of the recusals involve appointees at the Small Business Administration and the Education Department, including Bob Eitel, who leads the education team and was vice president for regulatory legal services at an operator of for-profit colleges.
Another recusal involves Byron Brown, an E.P.A. appointee who is married to a senior government affairs manager for the Hess Corporation, the oil and gas company.
Hess was fined and ordered to spend more than $45 million on pollution controls by the E.P.A. during the Obama administration because of alleged Clean Air Act violations at its refinery in Port Reading, N.J. Disclosure records show that Mr. Brown’s wife, Lesley Schaaff, lobbied the E.P.A. last year on behalf of the company.
An E.P.A. spokeswoman declined to say whether Mr. Brown or Ms. Schaaff owned Hess stock, though an agency ethics official said Mr. Brown had recused himself from evaluating regulations affecting the company.
The agency declined to say whether Mr. Brown would also recuse himself from issues affecting the American Petroleum Institute, where his wife’s company is a member. The association has lobbied to ease Obama-era natural gas rules, complaining in a recent letter to Mr. Brown’s team about an “unprecedented level of federal regulatory actions targeting our industry.”
Before being selected to lead the deregulation team at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Maren Kasper was a director at Roofstock, an online marketplace for investors in single-family rental properties. Financial disclosure records show that Ms. Kasper owned a stake in the company worth up to $50,000.
Changes at HUD could increase investor interest in rental homes, affecting a company like Roofstock. The agency, for example, oversees the federal government’s Section 8 subsidies program for low-income renters.
Ethics officials allowed Ms. Kasper to keep her stake, but she pledged not to take actions that would affect it. (A spokesman for HUD said Ms. Kasper’s tenure on the deregulation task force had since ended.)
The Assault on Red Tape
One by one, scientists, educators and environmental activists approached the microphone and urged government officials not to weaken regulations intended to protect children from lead.
The forum, run by the E.P.A. in a drab basement meeting room in Washington, was part of the agency’s push to identify regulations that were excessive and burdensome to businesses.
Few businesspeople showed up. As public hearings on regulations have played out in recent weeks, many industry and corporate representatives have instead met with Trump administration officials behind closed doors.
Still, the E.P.A. has asked for written comments and held about a dozen public meetings. The agency has received more than 467,000 comments, many of them critical of potential rollbacks, but also some from businesses large and small pleading for relief from regulatory costs or confusion.
After a quiet moment at the meeting to discuss lead regulations, the owner of a local painting company, Brian McCracken, moved to the microphone.
Mr. McCracken was frustrated by what he described as costly rules that forced him to test for lead-based paint in homes before he could begin painting. Each test kit costs about $2, and he may need six per room. If a family then declines to hire him, those costs come out of his pocket.
“I don’t think anyone is sitting here saying that lead-based dust does not hurt children,” he said. “That’s not what we are talking about. What the contractor needs is a better way to test.”
One by one, scientists, educators and environmental activists approached the microphone and urged government officials not to weaken regulations intended to protect children from lead.
The forum, run by the E.P.A. in a drab basement meeting room in Washington, was part of the agency’s push to identify regulations that were excessive and burdensome to businesses.
Few businesspeople showed up. As public hearings on regulations have played out in recent weeks, many industry and corporate representatives have instead met with Trump administration officials behind closed doors.
Still, the E.P.A. has asked for written comments and held about a dozen public meetings. The agency has received more than 467,000 comments, many of them critical of potential rollbacks, but also some from businesses large and small pleading for relief from regulatory costs or confusion.
After a quiet moment at the meeting to discuss lead regulations, the owner of a local painting company, Brian McCracken, moved to the microphone.
Mr. McCracken was frustrated by what he described as costly rules that forced him to test for lead-based paint in homes before he could begin painting. Each test kit costs about $2, and he may need six per room. If a family then declines to hire him, those costs come out of his pocket.
“I don’t think anyone is sitting here saying that lead-based dust does not hurt children,” he said. “That’s not what we are talking about. What the contractor needs is a better way to test.”
Amit Narang, a regulatory expert at the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen, said Mr. Trump’s decision to create teams of political appointees — formally known as regulatory reform task forces — should make it easier for the White House to overcome bureaucratic resistance to his rollback plans.
“To the extent there’s a deep state effect in this administration,” Mr. Narang said, “the task force will be more effective in trying to get the agenda in place.”
Danielle Ivory reported from Washington, and Robert Faturechi from New York. Mr. Faturechi is a reporter at ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit investigative journalism organization that collaborated on this article with The New York Times. Kitty Bennett of The Times contributed research.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/business/the-deep-industry-ties-of-trumps-deregulation-teams.html
-
Energy Firms Fret as Senate Stalls on FERC Picks
Jul 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
With the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission down to one commissioner and Senate floor time hard to come by, the wait will continue for several major natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure projects that need agency approval.
When Colette Honorable resigned from the commission on June 30, she left behind only Cheryl LaFleur on the normally five-member body, which has been without a quorum since Chairman Norman Bay resigned in February.
Two Republican nominees — GOP aide Neil Chatterjee and Pennsylvania regulator Robert Powelson — moved fairly easily through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but they have been awaiting a full Senate vote for weeks. The chamber only has 14 more scheduled workdays before it takes a monthlong recess in August.
President Trump has said he intends to nominate Richard Glick, another Senate aide, to join LaFleur as a Democrat on the body, which typically maintains a 3-2 party split (E&E Daily, June 29).
A potential complication is that Democrats may work to keep the Republicans from moving forward until Glick can be approved alongside them. Trump has yet to formally send his nomination to the Hill.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the decision on how to proceed is not up to her.
"It's above my pay grade," she said. Still, Democrats want to make sure their party is represented on the commission, she said.
The lack of a quorum means FERC is unable to give final approval to major projects. At least one is ready to move forward but for a final authorization from the agency.
The 255-mile Nexus natural gas pipeline in Ohio and Michigan got its final environmental review in November but remains on hold.
"We've got that race car sitting there revved and all ready to go, we just need that go-ahead," the pipeline company's President James Grech told the Canton, Ohio, Repository last month.
Four other proposed pipelines — Atlantic Coast, PennEast, Mountain Valley and Mountaineer XPress — already have their reviews in hand or will soon do so but could also see final permitting stall.
The fallout is significant for developers, who will suffer "real-world consequences," but can also have a cascading effect on other companies and their workers, said former FERC Commissioner Don Santa, who now heads the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
"Think about the shippers, whether it's a gas distribution company, an electric generator or utility, an industrial customer. They're dependent on getting that gas," Santa said.
The uncertainty can also be difficult for workers at pipeline construction companies, whose projects may get pushed off by months, he said.
Nine smaller projects, including upgrades and new compressor stations, could too be delayed, according to the American Petroleum Institute.
Santa said he is optimistic that at least two new commissioners will be confirmed before the August recess, but even if they are, they will face a hefty accumulation of work that has piled up since February.
"We'd like to see them act on the backlog," Santa said. "But by the same token, we need to be realistic about it. There have been estimates that FERC puts out about 100 orders a month. They've probably got a backlog of about 500 orders, and that continues to grow."
The new commissioners will also face a learning curve.
"Realistically as a commissioner, you take the job very seriously. You want to know what you're voting on, you want to understand it," said Santa. "I think the new commissioners will understand the imperative to act, but ... it's going to take them time to get up the curve, especially on some of the more meaty issues."
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/11/stories/1060057170
-
EPA Issues First Chemical Controls Under Amended Law
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA released its first batch of 29 rules setting controls on using new chemicals under the amended chemicals law.
The 29 rules are of particular interest because they reflect the first published set of controls for new chemicals the Environmental Protection Agency has negotiated with chemical manufacturers since the Toxic Substances Control Act was amended in 2016.
The rules impose use restrictions—such as a chemical being allowed for use solely on textiles, paper, and paperboard—and protections including requirements that some workers where respirators.
Any company that wants to make or process the chemicals without these restrictions or protections would first have to notify the EPA, which would have 90 days to review the company's intended use of the chemical and determine whether it would pose an unreasonable risk. The original manufacturer of each of the 29 new chemicals already agreed to the restrictions through consent orders it negotiated with the agency.
The manufacturers negotiated those consent orders with the EPA because the agency had concluded—absent the control measures—the chemicals might have posed an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. With the controls in place, the EPA determined the new chemicals could safely enter commerce.
Chemicals, Objections
The 29 chemicals include a lubricant, optical brightener, rubber additive, industrial adhesive, corrosion inhibitor, and coating compound.
Some of the chemicals are identified solely by their generic names and the new chemical number the EPA assigned to them, while others have their full name and Chemical Abstracts Service identification numbers.
None of the original manufacturers are identified. That detail typically is considered confidential business information to protect the research and development investment that enabled a manufacturer to bring a new chemical onto the U.S. market.
The EPA followed its conventional process in issuing these significant new use rules (SNURs) as “direct final” rules.
If any party objects to one or more of the direct final rules, it has 30 days after publication in the Federal Register to notify the EPA of its objection or intent to object. The EPA would then withdraw the direct final rule and reissue it as a proposed rule for further comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116310271&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116310271&jd=116310271
-
Advocates Could Sue EPA, Companies Over Solvent Data
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Environmental advocates are threatening lawsuits against seven chemical makers and the EPA to improve information about a solvent the agency could regulate.
The Environmental Protection Agency's analysis will look at uses of, exposure to, and health and environmental risks posed by 1-bromopropane (CAS No. 106-94-5) and then determine whether the chemical's uses should be regulated.
The Environmental Health Strategy Center and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families—a national coalition of 450 environmental, health, labor and other organizations—allege that Dow AgroSciences LLC; First Continental International (NJ) Inc., which specializes in chemical and other imports from Asia; Chemical Solvents Inc.; Murashu USA Inc.; the Solvents Co.; Storchem USA Inc.; and Unistar Chemical failed to report to the EPA a combined total import of 1.61 million pounds of 1-bromopropane in 2014 and 2015.
The compound is used to make adhesives and other chemicals, as a solvent, and in cleaning and furniture care products.
The Albemarle Corp., ICL North America Inc., the Superior Oil Co., Inc., and Wego Chemical Group—but none of the seven companies the advocacy groups targeted—were among nine chemical manufacturers and importers that told the EPA they had made or imported 1-bromopropane in national aggregate volumes ranging between 18.8 million and 25.9 million pounds in 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. One of the nine companies claimed the solvent's identity to be confidential business information.
‘Front and Center in the TSCA Program’
Any failure to report required information under the Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR) to the agency is important, but these violations would be particularly significant, Robert Sussman, the attorney representing the two environmental groups, told Bloomberg BNA. The EPA needs the best available information on these chemicals to properly evaluateits risks, he said.
1-Bromopropane is among the first 10 chemicals in commerce the EPA is evaluating under the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act. That makes the solvent's analysis “of high regulatory interest that's front and center in the TSCA program,” said Sussman, with Sussman and Associates in Washington, D.C. “If [the companies] believe they're in compliance, we're interested in knowing that and why,” he said.
TSCA authorizes citizens to file civil actions aimed at compelling a company, organization or the EPA to comply with the statute. The advocacy groups want the EPA's information on 1-bromopropane and the nine other chemicals to be accurate, Sussman said.
Intent to Sue Letters
The two advocacy groups sent “intent to sue” letters to the seven companies, which the advocates said were identified as the importers of record. The letters informed each company of the specific 1-bromopropane imports it allegedly made in 2014 or 2015. Those imports had to be reported to the EPA in 2016 under the CDR rule, the letters said.
The advocates sent the EPA similar letters alerting it to the alleged violations and giving it 60 days to secure compliance and possible civil penalties.
The EPA did not respond to requests to comment on the letters or questions about whether it double checks the accuracy of reported chemical information by comparing it to import and other records such as those the center and coalition analyzed.
Bloomberg BNA was unable to determine whether some of the companies to which the letters were sent, such as Murashu USA, are still in business, or as in the case of Storchem USA, still have U.S. facilities.
Of the four companies Bloomberg BNA was able to contact, only Dow replied, saying by email it “recognizes the importance of Chemical Data Reporting and is committed to fulfilling all reporting obligations. Our records show no gap in reporting imports properly.”
Production and importation of 1-bromopropane is increasing, because the solvent is an alternative to ozone-depleting and chlorinated solvents, according to a risk scoping document the EPA released June 22. Exposure to 1-bromopropane at sufficient concentrations can cause neurological problems such as headaches, weakness, and difficulties walking and may damage liver and kidney function.
The Department of Health and Human Services classifies 1-bromopropane as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Exposures and populations the EPA may evaluate when it examines the solvent include worker and consumer exposures.
Similar Previous Effort
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the Environmental Health Strategy Center, and a third group called the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization sent a similar “intent to sue” letter to Occidental Chemical Corp. and to the EPA May 30 regarding the companies’ alleged importation of nearly 900,000 pounds of asbestos.
The 60-day wait period required before a lawsuit could be valid will end on July 29. Sussman declined to discuss whether the groups would file the threatened lawsuit if they don't have a clear reply from the agency or Occidental by that deadline.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116310272&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116310272&jd=116310272
-
US NGOs Threaten Suit over 1-Bromopropane Reporting
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Two NGOs have announced plans to sue seven companies for alleged failure to inform the US EPA of their importation of 1-bromopropane (1-BP).
The groups – Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and Environmental Health Strategy Center – say the substance's presence in consumer products used for cleaning and degreasing, as well as its use in some dry-cleaning processes, raises major health concerns.
US Customs and Border Protection importation records, say the NGOs, show the companies – which include a subsidiary of the US's biggest chemical company, Dow – collectively imported nearly 1.6m lbs of the substance, mostly from China. But they allege that although each company imported in excess of the 25,000 pounds reporting minimum, data from the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule indicates they did not tell the EPA.
The NGOs' action follows a similar notice of intent to sue filed last month against Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) for its alleged failure to report the import of nearly 900,000lbs of asbestos.
Both asbestos and 1-BP (also known as n-Propyl Bromide or nPB) are among the first ten substancessubject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA. And, according to SCHF, apparent reporting violations "deprive EPA of crucial information"
"EPA relies on companies to accurately report manufacturing and especially import of toxic chemicals in order to evaluate their potential risk," said Andy Igrejas, national campaign director of SCHF. "By failing to report, companies effectively limit the scope of both the public's and EPA's understanding of the uses of these chemicals and the risks they present."
The NGOs have sent formal 60-day notices of intent to sue to the companies, the first step in a civil enforcement action under TSCA. They are requesting the EPA take "immediate action" to achieve compliance with the TSCA reporting requirements for the solvent, and to seek civil penalties for the compliance violations.1-BP importers (lbs imported March 2014 – December 2015)
· Chemical Solvents 477,251
· Unistar Chemical 401461
· First Continental International 225,312
· Storchem (USA) 222,887
· Solvents Company 129,191
· Dow Agrosciences 85,980
· Murashu USA 73,855
The companies did not respond to attempts to contact them or were still reviewing the NGOs' letter prior to offering comment.
Products containing 1-BP include degreasers and cleaners, spray adhesives, spot removers, coin cleaners, paintable mold release, automotive refrigerant flushes, and lubricants.
The EPA has found the solvent to be associated with cancer and non-cancer health risks in workers with repeated and chronic exposure, including neurotoxicity, lung cancer and kidney, liver and reproductive toxicity. Short-term exposure to 1-BP containing products can cause adverse developmental and reproductive effects.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57548/us-ngos-threaten-suit-over-1-bromopropane-reporting
-
General Mills Must Face Groups’ Suit Over Glyphosate Residue
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Julie A. Steinberg
General Mills, Inc. must face, for now, a suit alleging it deceptively touts Nature Valley granola products as “100 percent Natural Whole Grain Oats” when they contain detectable levels of the weed-killer chemical glyphosate (Organic Consumers Ass'n v. General Mills, Inc., D.C. Super. Ct., No. CA 6309, 7/6/17).
The Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America, and Beyond Pesticides have standing, or a basis, to bring their suit as “private attorneys general” on behalf of the public, the District of Columbia Superior Court said July 6.
The suit alleging General Mills violated the District of Columbia's consumer protection law is one of a growing number of food labeling suits brought by consumer advocacy groups rather than by individual plaintiffs.
It's also part of an increasing number of consumer suits that take issue with a “natural” label on a food that allegedly contains residue of a pesticide or other chemical.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup, is used as a drying agent on the oat crop to produce an earlier harvest, the suit says.
There is controversy over the health effects of glyphosate, including whether it can cause cancer.
FDA Mulls Action
The court also refused to dismiss the General Mills case or put it on hold while the Food and Drug Administration mulls whether to regulate the use of “natural” on food labels.
The deception questions can be answered without agency expertise, the court said: This case is less about science than about whether a label is misleading.
The court also cited an expected long FDA timeline as reason to let the case proceed.
The FDA sought public input on the use of “natural” on food labels in November 2015. The comment period ended in May 2016.
General Mills offered no suggestion that any agency action is forthcoming and there is no reason to assume it will be, the opinion said.
The Richman Law Group represented the consumer groups.
Perkins Coie represented General Mills.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116310275&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116310275&jd=116310275
-
Survey Results: Shoppers Voting for Safe and Healthy Products with Their Wallets
Jul 10, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
Teaming up with our friends at Made Safe, we recently surveyed more than 1,600 health-conscious shoppers to understand how consumers view toxic chemicals in products. We found those shoppers want safe and healthy products free of dangerous chemicals—and they will reward retailers and manufacturers who provide them.
Our findings underscore the need for retailers to reduce and eliminate chemicals of concern in the products on their shelves and make their efforts transparent. A whopping 84% of shoppers surveyed are much more likely to shop at retailers that have taken steps to eliminate toxic chemicals from products they sell—and 15% are more likely. Retailers who work with our Mind the Store campaign to sell safe and healthy products definitely stand to benefit from this rising consumer demand!
What we heard from shoppers is aligned with other evidence of the growing demand for safer and more transparent products. Companies from Target to Ikea to Kimberly-Clark have seen booming sales of “green” products. And survey after survey has found that more and more consumers are becoming educated label-readers. For instance, a 2015 survey of 1,000 U.S. mothers found that 73% of those surveyed, “often do research to understand the safety of ingredients to which their family is exposed.” This is consistent with what we found.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/07/10/survey-results-shoppers-voting-for-safe-and-healthy-products-with-their-wallets/
-
Concerns About Microbeads 'Unfounded', Says US Trade Body
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) has said that efforts to reduce microplastics marine pollution should not focus on the "tiny contributor" of plastic microbeads in cosmetics.
The US trade body issued a statement in response to the UN Environment Programme's Clean Seas campaign. This is calling for a global ban on microbeads in personal care products. The campaign says microbeads in facial scrubs in the US alone "may be responsible for the discharge of around 260 tonnes of polyethylene microplastic every year".
Based in Washington, DC, the PCPC represents more than 500 personal care companies. Its statement was backed by national and regional trade bodies, including in Europe, the US, Canada, Brazil, South Korea and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean).
There have been worldwide efforts to phase out the exfoliating beads, used in products such as facial scrubs and toothpaste.
The US's Microbead-Free Waters Act was signed into law in late 2015 and requires the phase out of cosmetic products containing them to begin for manufacturing in July this year. Many brands, including Unilever, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble voluntarily eliminated the ingredient ahead of regulatory deadlines.
But the PCPC argues that studies show most microplastic pollution comes from other sources. These include the breakdown of discarded bags and plastic packaging, particles from vehicle tyres washed off roads, and synthetic fibres from textiles. Personal care products, it says, "make up only the tiniest fraction of plastic pollution in aquatic environments".
In its statement, it says it is disappointed that the campaign "inaccurately overstates the contribution of cosmetics and personal care products to microplastic marine litter" and does not recognise the "significant efforts" taken by industry.
It also quotes a study by the Danish EPA, which found that wastewater treatment facilities remove up to 99% of all solid plastic particles, whatever their source.
Beth Jonas, PCPC chief scientist, told Chemical Watch that when concerns were first raised about the potential environmental harm of microbeads, the industry responded "early and aggressively to phase out the ingredient even though there was very little science on the issue."
"Since that time, the body of research that's emerging – including independent and government studies – is showing the initial theories and concerns were unfounded," she said.
"We now know that microbeads from cosmetics or personal care products are a tiny contributor to marine microplastic, and that no other ingredient in cosmetics or personal care products has been found in marine litter."
As well as the Danish study, Dr Jonas said the PCPC had noted "multiple studies around the world demonstrating effective wastewater treatment plant removal of solid plastic particles."
'Low hanging fruit'
Petter Malvik, Unep Clean Seas communication officer, told Chemical Watch that although cosmetic companies have taken "laudable steps to replace or reduce microbeads", Unep believed this source of plastic pollution could easily be eliminated altogether.
"With any campaign as ambitious as Unep's, it makes sense to aim first for the low hanging fruit, which is why a global ban in personal care and cosmetic products is one of our goals," he said.
He added that the study quoted by the PCPC that showed wastewater treatment removed a large percentage of microplastics, was carried out in Denmark which has good water treatment technology.
"Unfortunately, the majority of countries still have challenges in this regard. Globally, about 80% of wastewater is not treated at all, which means that all pollutants go straight into our waterways.
"Even if you do have state-of-the-art treatment facilities, you are still left with the question of what to do with the microplastic that your facilities collect. You cannot throw it away because there is no 'away', which is why reducing non-recoverable plastic, including microplastic, is so important."
Canada has recently adopted regulations banning the manufacture, import and sale of personal care products containing microbeads. Bans are also under consideration in the UK and Ireland, while South Korea and Taiwan are contemplating similar measures.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57465/concerns-about-microbeads-unfounded-says-us-trade-body
-
EU to Amend Rules for Import, Export of Hazardous Chemicals
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Commission initiative published July 7 would amend a European Union regulation that sets out rules for companies importing and exporting hazardous chemicals to include 11 new chemicals that the bloc recently restricted or banned.
The chemicals were added to Part 1 of Annex I in the Prior Informed Consent Regulation (PIC, Regulation (EU) 649/2012), meaning exporters will have to submit a notification for the 11 substances to the European Chemicals Agency. That agency will then forward the information to authorities in the importing country.
The draft amending regulation also would add nine of the 11 chemicals to the PIC Regulation's Annex I Part 2, so that importing countries are required to formally consent to their import.
The 11 substances—three chemicals used in pesticides, three chemicals used in biocides, and five industrial chemicals—were automatically put forward for listing in the amending regulation because of their restricted or banned statuses under EU law, including the bloc's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals
In addition, four groups of substances would be added to Annex V of the PIC Regulation, which lists persistent organic pollutants that are subject to an EU export ban. The additions to Annex V would include hexabromocyclododecane, hexachlorobutadiene, polychlorinated naphthalenes and a group of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, when contained in recycled materials.
These substances have all recently been listed under the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which specifies highly hazardous chemicals that should be phased out from production and use.
The draft amending regulation said the substances should be listed in the PIC Regulation “in order to implement the Stockholm Convention.”
The commission, the EU's executive arm, said any comments on the draft amending regulation could be submitted through Aug. 4.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116310284&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116310284&jd=116310284
-
EU Chemicals Agency Tags Environmental Contaminant Ban
Jul 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency added a substance used in soft plastics to a list of hazardous chemicals that could be prioritized for phaseout under the European Union's REACH regulation.
Perfluorohexane-1-sulfonic acid, abbreviated PFHxS, is categorized as very persistent and very bioaccumulative, meaning it doesn't break down in the environment and its concentrations in organisms increase over time. It's also used as a lubricant and in fire-resistant foams.
In practice, however, PFHxS is little used in the EU, meaning its listing under REACH will have limited consequences for companies. The substance has not been registered in the EU under REACH, indicating that it either is not manufactured or imported, or is manufactured or imported only in very low volumes.
PFHxS and its salts were listed as substances of very high concern under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) to “avoid undesired substitution,” ECHA said in a July 10 statement.
The addition of PFHxS brings the number of REACH substances of very high concern to 174, of which 43 are subject to phaseout decisions, meaning dates are set after which they can no longer be used in the EU without specific continued-use authorizations.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116310285&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116310285&jd=116310285
-
CLP Essential Oils Derogation Depends on Final Use, Says Commission
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Pure essential oils could be fully caught by CLP Regulation labelling requirements, if they are not exclusively used as a cosmetic product, the European Commission has proposed.
Essential oils used for cosmetics are usually considered to fall under a CLP derogation for cosmetic products. This makes them exempt from the law's requirements because the cosmetic products Regulation lays down more specific rules on their classification and labelling.
But at a meeting of the competent authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) in March, Austria proposed that only mixtures containing essential oils should qualify for exemption. Pure essential oils, it argued, should always be subject to CLP as they are not considered a cosmetic product in the finished state.
At a Caracal meeting on 28-29 June meeting, the Commission presented a paper which says a pure essential oil can be placed on the market as a cosmetic product – and qualify for the derogation from CLP – if it claims to be used exclusively or mainly intended as such. This should be made clear on the product labelling and marketing, it said. These, it said, "shall not be used to imply that these products have characteristics or functions which they do not have."
Ready-made mixtures with essential oils – such as bathing additives or massage oils – need not be subject to CLP. Cosmetics kits, such as almond oil and essential oils in one package, would also be exempt – as long as they carry clear use instructions, including on mixing or diluting oils.
The Commission argued that, once fully labelled and placed on the market, the product is in its "finished state" and for the "final user". However, this was a sticking point at the June meeting because Austria argued that only cosmetic products in the finished state, intended for the final user directly, are exempt from CLP requirements. Products that had to be mixed or manipulated by the user before being applied should, it argued, be subject to CLP.
Sweden said a cosmetic product in the finished state is one that is intended for use directly on the external parts of the body. If this is not the case, it is not a cosmetic product and should therefore be subject to CLP.
Ireland argued the concept of "in the finished state intended for the final user" should not be interpreted too narrowly. It told Caracal to consider other cosmetic product types that could be affected by a new interpretation of "finished state, intended for the final user".
Cosmetics Europe agreed, saying that including products that are applied "indirectly" would create confusion and trigger dual regulation under the CLP and cosmetic products Regulation for some items.
The Commission plans to finalise the discussion at the next Caracal meeting. It will also be on the agenda at the autumn meeting of the sub-group on borderline products of the Commission's working group on cosmetic products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57496/clp-essential-oils-derogation-depends-on-final-use-says-commission
-
Member States Discuss Poison Centre Notifications for 'Original' Mixtures
Jul 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Some mixtures supplied to industrial sites for further formulation could be subject to less stringent requirements under the new poison centre rules.
Member state competent authorities (CAs) discussed the issue of how such 'original' mixtures should be handled at the Caracal meeting on 28-29 June
CAs and industry disagree on whether such mixtures should be categorised as for 'industrial' use or as 'consumer or professional' use.
Business groups say original mixtures should be considered as industrial, such mixtures do not need full notifications and benefit from derogations, and have an extra four years to comply with the new rules.
Four trade bodies, including the International Fragrance Association (Ifra), argue that requesting full data submission for original mixtures would create an unnecessary administrative burden for industry and poison centres.
This, Ifra told the Caracal meeting in April, would be "totally disproportionate and irrelevant" and discriminate against EU formulators. Poison centres, it said, only need information about the composition of the final mixture to be able to handle accidents and exposure.
But some member states worry that information vital for emergency response could be lost if original mixtures are put in the industrial category.
The Commission decided that original mixtures will generally remain in the consumer or professional use category.
But it will consider derogations for certain mixtures where data sheet information is enough to ensure they are safe. This, it says, could affect, for example, original mixtures that become highly diluted in the final product, or those which end up in final mixtures that are not subject to notification obligations under CLP Annex VIII.
"The aim is that poison centres ... have at their disposal, for hazardous final mixtures for consumer or professional use, the same level of detailed information, whether the different components of the mixture were gradually added throughout the supply chain or whether they were added by the final formulator."
The issue will be included in a planned study on workability issues of Annex VIII. Pending the results, the Commission will decide whether to amend the annex with less stringent rules for some original mixtures.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57428/member-states-discuss-poison-centre-notifications-for-original-mixtures
-
Greens, Health Groups Dominate EPA Hearing on Rule Delay
Jul 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Environmentalists came out in force today to oppose U.S. EPA's bid to further delay portions of an Obama-era rule for curbing methane emissions at oil and gas operations.
In a public hearing at EPA headquarters in Washington, the American Petroleum Institute was among the few defending the agency's proposed stay of the rule.
The Obama administration issued the standards last year to curb heat-trapping emissions of methane and reduce leaks of volatile organic compounds that contribute to smog.
Last month, the Trump administration announced its intent to delay portions of its 2016 New Source Performance Standards for two years — on top of an existing 90-day stay, which a federal court overturned last week.
EPA officials said the two-year halt would let the agency reconsider elements of the rule. The proposed two-year delay pertains to fugitive emissions and to pneumatic pump and professional engineer certification requirements in the rule. While the delay is in effect, industry wouldn't need to comply with these requirements (Energywire, June 14).
An EPA panel today heard tales from people who said their health was affected by oil and gas operations and who urged the agency to implement the rule without delay. The Sierra Club and other large green groups attended with Moms Clean Air Force, representing a large portion of this morning's witnesses.
Christine Berg, mayor of Lafayette, Colo., testified while holding her new baby. She said by the time the two-year proposed stay is over, her child will be in preschool, playing outside and breathing in polluted air. Other moms also testified with their children in tow.
Nicole Ruscitto, a school librarian in Pittsburgh, explained how she, her husband and son started to suffer from nose bleeds, rashes and other physical symptoms once fracking increased in her neighborhood.
"Surrounding us everywhere, flanking us left and right, the fracking boom," she said. "There's no buffer for our American dream. ... The dream became nightmarish."
Molly Rauch, public health policy director for Moms Clean Air Force, pointed out that EPA acknowledged the health impacts that could occur from a delay. In a notice about the proposed delay, the agency wrote: "EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children."
The notice, signed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, goes on to say that because the action is "merely" a delay, any impacts on children's health will be limited because the length of the proposed stay, two years, is limited.
"As parents we find this deeply troubling," Rauch said. "Two years is too long."
Also testifying against the delay was the Rev. Mitch Hescox, the president and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network, who said anti-abortion Christians are among those against delaying the methane rule. His group, he said, lobbied Senate Republicans to reject President Trump's attempt to roll back a separate methane rule using the Congressional Review Act (Greenwire, May 10).
"We need to police more emissions, not less," he said, and concluded his testimony with a quote from Jesus.
Howard Feldman, API's senior director for regulatory and scientific affairs, said industry "emphatically" supports environmental protections.
"We're doing our part, and these trends are indicative of what our industry, when given the freedom to innovate, can achieve to improve the environment while protecting our nation's energy security," he said, referring to a national reduction in methane emissions. "And progress will continue."
Two environmental groups, the Clean Air Task Force and Earthworks, released an analysisahead of the hearing showing that more than 203,000 Americans, including 51,000 children, live within half a mile of more than 18,000 oil and gas facilities that would be affected by the rule delay.
"EPA is trying to give the oil and gas industry a two-year pass on common-sense measures like checking their new wells for leaks, even after a similar gambit was overturned last week by a Federal Appeals court," David McCabe, a senior scientist with the Clean Air Task Force, said in a statement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last week rejected the Trump administration's decision to delay the methane rule, instead agreeing with environmentalists that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to issue the 90-day administrative stay of the rule. The three-judge panel ruled EPA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" under the law (Greenwire, July 3).
Pruitt's decision to administer the 90-day stay came after EPA granted requests by energy trade groups to reconsider parts of the rule. He then announced EPA would further delay those provisions by two years — the subject of today's hearing.
EPA will take public comment on the proposed stay until Aug. 9.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/10/stories/1060057156
-
Moniz: We Need a Modernized Strategic Reserve, Not a Smaller One
Jul 10, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Ernest Moniz
In late 2015, the Congress found that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was, "one of the nation's most valuable energy security assets." Why would the Trump Administration conclude, just a little over a year later, that the SPR is not so valuable after all?
The rationale for the administration's current budget recommendation - selling off more than half of the SPR's current inventory, shutting down two of four storage sites in Texas and Louisiana, and eliminating the Northeast Gasoline Reserve - was supported by Energy Secretary Rick Perry in congressional testimony last month.
That rationale, however - that we are producing a lot more domestic oil so we can close SPR sites - appears to be grounded in a view of oil markets in 1973. The SPR - its value to domestic and global energy security, U.S. consumers and our economy - needs to be viewed instead through the lens of the dramatic changes that have taken place in the last 40 years.
First, while it's true that domestic oil production has substantially increased, key oil data then were not dramatically different than now. In 1973, daily crude and oil product net imports were about 6 million barrels and in 2016 they were about 5 million; consumption back then was 17 million barrels per day and today, it is about 19 million (for a population that has grown by 50 percent).
Second, there was no global oil market 40 years ago. The WTI futures contract had been introduced just a few years earlier, and federal price controls discouraged surplus domestic production capacity. These market features virtually ensured that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973-74 would have an outsized impact on U.S. oil - and gasoline - prices. Today, oil prices are deregulated, and spot cargoes move around the globe. Futures contracts, options and swaps help manage risk, establish links between markets and physical product, and provide flexibility for buyers and sellers. These features and instruments lessen the risks of physical disruptions and provide industry and consumers with enormous benefits.
Third, our crude oil and product imports and exports link us to global oil markets. Even with no net imports, when global prices spike, ours will, too. World GDP growth fell from 4 percent to 2 percent after prices spiked in 1999-2000. On the flip side, using the SPR provides benefits to the U.S. economy. After an announced swap of 30 million barrels of SPR oil in 2000 when spare capacity was tight and heating oil inventories were low, oil prices immediately dropped by more than 20 percent. A Department of Energy Report estimated that maintaining and modernizing the SPR to meet current statutory requirements would yield consumer and economic benefits of over $300 billion to the U.S. through 2040.
ourth, much of the increase in U.S. unconventional oil production is occurring in unconventional locations such as North Dakota. This has reversed traditional pipeline flows; crude oil is now moving from north to south into the Gulf of Mexico where the SPR's storage and distribution systems and 60 percent of the nation's refining capacity are located. The result is a congested system in which SPR oil released in an emergency could be displacing commercial oil volumes, not providing much-needed incremental oil to the marketplace. Infrastructure upgrades are called for.
Finally, reserves in the ground can't provide us oil we need in an emergency disruption - increased domestic production does not equate to emergency surge capacity.
Also, oil production in the U.S. is in the hands of the private sector. Industry rightly cares about production schedules, contracts and making money (which it does when prices spike), not about maintaining expensive surplus capacity for emergency disruptions; this is - and appropriately so - the role of the federal government and the SPR.
The law establishing the SPR was passed in 1975, a policy response focused largely on physical disruptions.
The law, however, included an important - and prescient - role for the SPR, relevant to today's marketplace: preventing significant harm to the U.S. economy from oil disruptions.
The SPR plays a key role in the international response during an emergency, as the U.S. is obligated to meet over 40 percent of the total global release of strategic stocks.
Rapidly putting large volumes of oil from the SPR onto the water and into global markets mitigates the harmful impacts of price spikes on the global economy.
Congress recognized as much when, in 2015, it authorized $2 billion to expand and modernize the SPR's distribution system and build new terminals. Robust modernization would create thousands of jobs; anemic modernization of only two sites, while shutting down the other two, would reduce them.
After four mandated oil sales from the SPR - one for its own modernization, another for budget balancing and two for funding unrelated programs - enough is enough.
We should support the view of Congress that the SPR is one of our most valuable security assets. In today's world of changed markets, unrest, and collective energy security responsibilities, we should be modernizing the SPR, not selling it off.
Moniz, the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy, is the founder of the Energy Futures Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting energy innovation.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Moniz-We-need-a-modernized-strategic-reserve-11271157.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) GOP States Aim to Defend EPA's RMP Delay from Lawsuit
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Several Republican-led states are seeking to intervene to defend EPA against environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's 20-month delay of Obama-era facility safety rule revisions, arguing that scrapping the delay would result in immediate costs to states, and that they have unique interests in defending the delay.
In a July 7 motion, a coalition of Republican attorneys general (AGs) and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin argue that the delay would allow EPA to consider arguments state officials raised in their March petition for delay and reconsideration of the agency's Jan. 12 final rule updating its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety program.
States say their petition to the agency, “pointed out that the RMP Amendments, which purported to reduce threats and risk, actually increased risk of harm to States, their communities, and citizens, for example through the information disclosure provisions which ignored safeguards that other agencies provide for security sensitive information.”
The states also argue that the Obama EPA failed to coordinate with state or federal entities on how the rule's implementation would affect existing emergency response protocols. States also contend that they have unique interests that would not be represented by others in the case. Those interests include protecting citizens and infrastructure from security threats, and fending off costly and redundant administrative rules.
The states seeking to intervene are Louisiana, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. They say EPA does not object to their request to intervene, and that environmentalist petitioners have not yet responded to a request for their position on the states' motion. At press time the court had not ruled on the motion.
Several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and the Union of Concerned Scientists June 15 petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse Pruitt's rule delaying the RMP update 20 months -- from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 -- to allow for a process to review and potentially revise the Obama EPA RMP rule.
The Trump EPA's June 14 final rule delaying the RMP update responds to separate petitions from states and industry to delay and revise the Obama era rule. In a March 14 petition, 10 Republican AGs and Bevin requested a lengthy delay of the effective date, arguing the time was needed for revisions or possible repeal of the rule.
The Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final RMP update includes new auditing and hazard analysis requirements, as well as provisions bolstering release of facility data to emergency planners and the public, which have drawn strong opposition from industry groups as well as GOP state attorneys general, including Pruitt prior to his selection to lead EPA.
Industry groups also have requested to intervene in the lawsuit in support of Pruitt's delay, arguing that they would face financial harm if the rule is allowed to go into effect in its current form, including the cost of training personnel, revising manuals and operating procedures, and conducting additional compliance audits, among others.
Groups including the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a June 30 motion to intervene. The Chemical Safety Advocacy Group, which also represents facility owners, filed a similar motion July 7.
In their request to intervene, the GOP-led states argue that scrapping the delay would impose costs on states similar to those faced by regulated entities.
“If the June 2017 rule is invalidated, States would be forced to immediately incur costs to comply with certain aspects of the RMP Amendments while they remain under review by the agency,” the states say. “These costs include assigning and training personnel on new requirements and additional incident response requirements imposed by the rules.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/gop-states-aim-defend-epas-rmp-delay-lawsuit
-
Congress Unnerved by Energy Grid Hack
Jul 10, 2017 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
For months, Sen. Maria Cantwell has been warning in letters to the Trump administration and colleagues that Congress needs to do more to keep the nation's energy supply safe from cyberattacks. Now it appears she has a widespread attack to bolster her admonitions.
Reports from Bloomberg and The New York Times last week indicated that Russian-backed hacking groups may be responsible for recent targeted cyberattacks to nuclear power plants and grid operation system manufacturers, threatening the electric grid and the economy it supports.
While the FBI and Department of Homeland Security say they are aware of the “potential cyber intrusion affecting entities in the energy sector,” the agencies said “there is no indication of a threat to public safety, as any potential impact appears to be limited to administrative and business networks.”
But for Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the hacks are just the latest signs of how vulnerable the electric grid is to foreign threats.
“The disturbing reports of the past 24 hours indicate that our adversaries are trying to take advantage of the very real vulnerabilities of our energy infrastructure’s cyber defenses,” Cantwell said in a statement to CQ Roll Call.
She added that she is “reiterating my call for President Trump to immediately perform the long overdue assessment of cyber vulnerabilities that 19 Senators have requested, and abandon his proposed cuts to the Department of Energy’s Office tasked with protecting our energy networks from cyber attacks.”
DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability — the program area responsible for cybersecurity-related efforts — would see a more than 40 percent reduction in funding in fiscal 2018, according to the DOE budget request.
In March, Washington's Cantwell joined with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in a letter to President Donald Trump to highlight the need to bolster the Department of Energy’s role as lead agency in defending against grid cyberattacks, especially from Russia. In a followup June 22 letter, Cantwell led a group of 18 other Democratic senators in calling for a 60-day analysis of Russian capabilities “to use cyber warfare to threaten our energy infrastructure.”
DOE has acknowledged the seriousness of the threat. In its second Quadrennial Energy Review, a sweeping analysis of the energy sector conducted under the Obama administration, DOE said that the cybersecurity of the grid remains a key vulnerability, and it should be treated with the same importance as other national security threats.
The report notes the growing frequency of cyberattacks across the board in the energy industry, saying they “have not yet caused significant disruptions... but the number and sophistication of threats are increasing, and information technology systems are becoming more integrated with energy infrastructure.”
And Cantwell is not the only lawmaker paying attention to the fallout of the recent hacks.
A House Energy and Commerce Committee spokesman said in an email that “the Committee is aware of these reports and is monitoring the situation. There is much we do not know at this time but we are in contact with the relevant authorities and stakeholders.”
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, meanwhile, who has a bipartisan bill with Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, to address cybersecurity concerns, renewed his call for a national strategy. “News of attempts to hack nuclear power plants underscores need for US to develop comprehensive cyber strategy,” King said in a tweet Friday.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/energy-grid-hack-gets-focuses-congress
-
United States Going It Alone on Climate Change: What It Means
Jul 10, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Trump’s decision not to sign a Group of 20 declaration on climate change this weekend further isolated the United States on the issue.
Trump’s action — making the U.S. the only G-20 country not to support the Paris climate agreement or its underlying goals — further solidifies the White House’s embrace of the president’s “America First” campaign pledge.
But it also reinforces the degree to which Trump is willing to go it alone on the environment, a decision observers say will hurt the United States diplomatically and threaten the world’s efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions and confront climate change.
The G-20 declaration on climate change, issued during the first international summit since Trump’s June 1 decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement, devoted an entire paragraph to the Trump administration’s position, including its plan to use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently,” an addition that angered environmental activists.
The declaration quickly moved on from the U.S. position, stating that “the leaders of the other G-20 members state that the Paris agreement is irreversible.”
“We reaffirm our strong commitment to the Paris agreement, moving swiftly towards its full implementation in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” the declaration read.
World leaders reacted to the G-20 summit by refining their opposition to Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris agreement.
After the summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that “everyone was against the United States” on climate change.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who will host Trump in Paris later this week, tweeted a picture with Chinese President Xi Jinping, saying, “To defend the Paris agreement, France and China are united,” adding the hashtag #MakeOurPlanetGreatAgain.
Patricia Espinosa, the executive secretary of the United Nations’ climate mission, said in a statement that the U.S.’s position on the Paris agreement “has triggered widespread disappointment but also unprecedented solidarity among all other nations and cities, states and the private sector in the U.S. and beyond.”
She added, “That reality is that this is not like a chain, broken by one link, but an ever deeper and widening web of internationally aligned self-interest that bodes well now and over the years and decades to come.”
Advocates of the Paris agreement said the declaration’s language, and the dismissal of Trump’s position, shows the world is more than willing to marginalize the U.S. on climate policy.
“Time and again, world leaders have affirmed that the Paris agreement lays the foundation for a safer and prosperous pathway,” said Andrew Steer, the president and CEO of the World Resources Institute.
“In agreeing to the G-20 communique and Action Plan, these 19 leaders signaled their unmistakable commitment to that brighter future. While the U.S. pushed hard to weaken the communique, the Germans, Europeans and many others stood firm to keep the text tied to reality.”
The White House has defended the decision to pull back from Paris and its position within the G-20.
“There’s a diversity of opinions in a group of 20, so there’s people on every side of the issue, so it was never a situation where there was an isolated force there,” Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, said after the summit. Cohn had supported staying in the Paris agreement.
“Everyone accepted that, very early, that we chose to get out of the Paris agreement. But we do go out of our way to say in there that that doesn’t mean that we don’t support the environment, and we’re still working for the environment.”
After a lengthy internal debate about the status of the Paris agreement, Trump pulled out of the pact in June, blasting it as a bad deal for the United States because of financial commitments and greenhouse gas reduction targets established by the Obama administration in 2015.
Trump has vowed to renegotiate the Paris agreement in order to get a better deal for the U.S., though there is no indication any other country is willing to go along with that plan.
Instead, Trump and his allies have touted his agenda as one meant to help U.S. energy firms and consumers that might otherwise face the prospect of a 26 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions envisioned by Obama.
“I suspect the Merkel et al. crowd are stunned that President Trump didn’t agree to some softening of his position, after all of their acting out,” said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and critic of the Paris agreement, in an email.
“Her post-event commentary suggests this is the case and that she still can’t get her head around it. All they got was their own words, and no indication from [Trump] that the resistance inside the White House and State [Department] has made any headway whatsoever.”
Despite European commitments to the Paris agreement, there are indications Trump’s position has hurt international implementation of the agreement.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said this weekend that his country is less likely to ratify the agreement because of Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of it.
And finance officials at the Green Climate Fund, which aims to support climate adaptation work around the world, are also grappling with Trump’s decision to halt payments into the program.
Obama pledged $3 billion for the GCF by 2020, which is aiming to pump $100 billion into climate work in developing countries. Obama sent $1 billion to the fund, but Trump has said the U.S. will stop future GCF spending.
“Already, wealthy countries were delivering far less than what was needed for poorer countries to deal with climate change. With Trump, the sum total will be even less,” said Karen Orenstein, the deputy director of the Economic Policy program at Friends of the Earth, who attended a GCF board meeting last week.
“Though little discussed, the reneging of the U.S. on $2 billion of a $3 billion pledge was definitely the elephant in the boardroom.”
Timothy Cama contributed.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341365-united-states-going-it-alone-on-climate-change-what-it-means
-
OMB Sees Slight Increase for EPA in FY19 But Renews Push for Overhaul
Jul 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The White House budget office has released new guidance for fiscal year 2019 reiterating that EPA could see a slight increase over what the administration sought for FY18, though the office touts the request as an opportunity to present a “comprehensive plan” for “reforming” the government and cutting its workforce, telegraphing continued steep cuts despite signs of Capitol Hill blowback.
In a July 7 memo to EPA and other agencies, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney also says he and other top officials will give “special consideration to bold reform reorganization proposals that have the potential to dramatically improve effectiveness and efficiency of government operations.”
The ultimate implications of the document remain unclear, at a time when lawmakers still face challenges in approving EPA's FY18 budget given that they have characterized the administration's proposed cut of 31 percent from FY17 levels as a non-starter.
But the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance conveys the Trump White House's intent to continue significant budget cuts at EPA and other federal agencies in FY19. “Unless otherwise directed by OMB, your initial discretionary FY2019 budget submission to OMB should continue the proposals included in the FY 2018 budget,” OMB Director Mick Mulvaney writes in the July 7 memo instructing that agencies' budgets “reflect a level no higher than the net total provided for your agency in the FY19 column of the FY 2018 budget.
For EPA, that figure appears to translate into a default presumption that its budget would be no higher than $6.02 billion, a slight bump relative to the proposed 31percent cut, to $5.6 billion, in FY18 that numerous Hill lawmakers of both parties have sharply criticized.
While the new OMB guidance generally conveys an intent to limit federal agency resources, it includes a request that agencies identify “additional investments” reflecting “no more than a 5 percent increase” above their FY19 submission level. “OMB will closely scrutinize these requests, and, working with your Department or Agency, may accommodate a limited number of them” in FY19, the guidance says.
Release of the guidance comes just prior to an expected July 12 House Appropriations interior subcommittee markup on EPA's FY18 spending bill -- with one observer predicting that a continuing resolution for at least some of the year will be necessary given the perennial controversies that erupt around the Interior appropriations bill.
Although OMB sees EPA getting a small increase over what the administration requested for FY18, it nevertheless telegraphs that officials plan to continue their efforts to overhaul EPA.
OMB in the memo says the administration's FY19 budget request will “build on the ambitious plans laid out in the president's first budget.”
Government Reorganization
More specifically the memo notes that FY19 “will reflect the first impacts of the government reorganization called for by Executive Order 13781” -- a document signed in March that sets a 180-day deadline for OMB to submit a proposed plan for reorganization of the executive branch “in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies."
That same EO also directs OMB to assess the cost of shutting down or merging agencies, components of agencies, or programs.
At the same time, Mulvaney writes, “Supporting the President's commitment to reprioritize spending and redefine the proper role of the Federal Government will require renewed efforts to focus limited resources on the most effective programs as well as continue to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.”
Mulvaney adds that the FY19 request will also give “special consideration to bold reform reorganization proposals that have the potential to dramatically improve effectiveness and efficiency of government operations.”
“Agency budget submissions should indicate costs, savings, and/or cost avoidance for each reform proposal, including where proposals may have up-front or short-term costs to implement,” it adds. Further, “[i]n cases where such costs exceed the guidance levels in this memorandum, agencies should provide a robust justification that explains the return on investment in terms of improved performance and taxpayer savings over time.”
Mulvaney also says the White House is “committed to building evidence and better integrating evidence into policy, planning, budget, operational, and management decision-making,” and he instructs agencies to complete a forthcoming “2019 Evidence template” as part of their budget submission.
And Mulvaney offers some additional clarification for agencies developing their strategic planning document for FY18-22. “Agencies should develop agency priority goals that are near-term, implementation and outcome focused, measurable, and reflect the performance priorities of agency leadership.”
The memo tells agencies to submit their “initial discretionary” FY19 budget proposal no later than September 11, 2017. And OMB in the memo also calls for EPA and other agencies to submit “concurrent” with their FY19 budget submission a draft strategic plan laying out longer term agency efforts to 2022.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/omb-sees-slight-increase-epa-fy19-renews-push-overhaul
-
Lawmakers Announce Plan to Extend California Cap and Trade
Jul 11, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Kathleen Ronayne
Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders released a plan Monday to extend through 2030 California’s cap-and-trade program, a key piece of the state’s quest to fight climate change by drastically reducing emissions from greenhouse gases.
The deal updates how refineries, utilities and other carbon emitters can use pollution allowances and offsets, and it gives the California Air Resources Board power to set a price cap on carbon aimed at containing costs to businesses and consumers. But it also prevents local air districts from placing further carbon emissions restrictions on polluters, a move some environmental groups decry as a concession to oil companies. The deal includes a companion bill aimed at reducing local air pollution.
With a bill now in print, lawmakers could vote on the deal as early as Thursday. The cap-and-trade reauthorization needs support from two-thirds of lawmakers to pass.
Cap-and-trade puts a limit on the state’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and requires oil refineries, utilities, ports and other polluters to buy and trade allowances to emit carbon. By putting a price on carbon and reducing allowable emissions over time, it aims to incentivize polluters to reduce their emissions. Money from the program goes into a greenhouse gas reduction fund that pays for energy conservation efforts, transportation and housing projects and a high-speed rail, a pet project of Brown’s.
The program is a key piece of California’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.
Brown, who has been extolling California’s climate leadership on the world stage, is scrambling to cement cap and trade for another decade while satisfying competing interests at home. Environmental groups want to see more dramatic pollution reductions and business interests don’t want to see a jump in costs, to industry or consumers.
“The Legislature is taking action to curb climate change and protect vulnerable communities from industrial poisons,” Brown said in a statement announcing the deal.
Environmental justice groups have charged businesses were too involved in crafting it.
“The oil lobby has had way too much influence on this legislation,” Bill Magavern, policy director of the Coalition for Clean Air, said outside the Capitol early Monday.
Two points of contention have centered on regulating local air pollution and how the state hands out allowances and offsets, which let businesses keep emitting greenhouse gases.
The state sells off allowances through auctions, with the next slated for August. But it also hands out some allowances for free to polluting industries, with the goal of helping them remain competitive and avoid price spikes for consumers. The deal doesn’t phase out free allowances as quickly as initially planned, a move critics say removes incentives to clean up emissions. But industry groups argue it will help ensure California consumers don’t see drastically higher prices at the gas pump, in their utility bills or elsewhere. The deal will decrease those free allowances by 40 percent by 2030, Brown’s office said.
Polluters can also “offset” some of their emissions through projects to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases, even outside of California. The deal decreases the allowable amount of offsets and encourages more building in California.
Under the plan, local air districts would be prevented from putting additional regulations on stationary sources of carbon emissions in their districts, a power several Democratic lawmakers in low-income communities near refineries and other pollution sources have fought to allow.
But Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon praised the accompanying air quality bill, which mandates the adoption of uniform standards for reporting emissions, requires industry in highly polluted areas to retrofit their technology and ups the penalty for violating air pollution laws.
“Our environment and economy depend on curbing the harmful effects of climate change,” Rendon said. “Once again we are showing that in California, protecting the environment and improving public health are inextricably linked.”
Brown will need 27 votes in the Senate and 54 in the Assembly to pass the bill. Democrats hold a supermajority in both chambers, but some Assembly Democrats may not think the bill does enough to improve local air quality. Brown has said he’ll need support from Republicans to pass the bill.
Beyond the cap-and-trade provisions, the deal eliminates the fire prevention fee and makes some exemptions from the sales and use tax for power generators and distributors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawmakers-announce-plan-to-extend-california-cap-and-trade/2017/07/11/f281eff8-65ef-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html?utm_term=.abf4d6f782ea
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested