PM ACC 7/12/2017

Industry and Association News

1. Chaos or Conspiracy? Key Posts Vacant as Nominations Lag

   Jul 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Hannah Northey
   
   
   President Trump blasted Democrats on Twitter this week for blocking his nominees, but he's about six weeks off the pace set by his predecessors for picking people to fill more than 1,200 jobs that need Senate confirmation.
2. Bodine Wins Panel Approval for EPA Enforcement Chief Slot

   Jul 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

   The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee in a party line vote has approved the nomination of Susan Bodine to head EPA's enforcement office, with Democrats continuing to express broader concerns...

LCSA News

3. Speciality Industry Resumes Focus on TSCA New Chemicals Programme

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   Now that the US EPA has issued the first three framework rules to implement the reformed TSCA, the speciality chemicals industry's focus is returning to the new chemicals programme.
4. US EPA Issues Snurs for 29 Substances

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA has issued significant new use rules (Snurs) for 29 substances subject to TSCA risk-based section 5(e) consent orders.

Chemical Management News

5. UN Invites Case Studies of Green Chemistry Initiatives

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   UN Environment and the International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborating Center (ISC3) are looking for case studies of start-up initiatives in the area of green and sustainable chemistry.
6. Sweden Proposes Ban on Microbeads in Rinse-Off Cosmetics

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   Sweden has proposed a ban on rinse-off cosmetics that contain microplastics to reduce their impact on the marine environment.
7. WHO Cancer Agency May Have Defrauded US Taxpayers

   Jul 12, 2017 | Town Hall

   By Austin Ruse
   
   
   The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a semi-autonomous agency connected to the World Health Organization, says red meat probably causes cancer and should be listed with arsenic and smoking.

Energy News

8. American LNG Exports Blow Past 2016 Tally

   Jul 12, 2017 | Nikkei Asian Review (In Real Clear Energy)

   By Sochi Inai
   
   
   The U.S. exported 197.6 billion cu. feet of liquefied natural gas from January through April, exceeding the total for all of last year, as American influence in the international market grew.
9. Democrats Urge Trump to 'Fully Implement' Methane Rules

   Jul 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

   A group of 27 Democratic senators is urging President Donald Trump to “fully implement” EPA and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations issued by the Obama administration to limit emissions...
10. Coal Got Knocked Out in Calif. Now, Gas Is on the Ropes

    Jul 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Debra Kahn
    
    
    A wave of regulatory reconsiderations of natural gas-fired power plants in California has renewables advocates cheering.
11. Budget's in Limbo Again, and a Gas Tax Is Still Unlikely

    Jul 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Lee
    
    
    Pennsylvania lawmakers adjourned last night without passing a plan to fund the state government, but they appeared poised to reject Gov. Tom Wolf's proposal to tax the gas industry...

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

12. U.S. Cities, States and Businesses Pledge to Measure Emissions

    Jul 12, 2017 | New York Times

    By Hiroko Tabuch and Lisa Friedman
    
    
    A coalition of American states, cities and businesses that have pledged to stick with the Paris climate pact will team up with experts to quantify their climate commitments and share their plans with the United Nations...
13. Gov. Hickenlooper Joins States Aiming to Hit Paris Targets

    Jul 12, 2017 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Benjamin Storrow
    
    
    Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper announced a plan yesterday to join another dozen states seeking to comply with the Paris climate accord.
14. POLITICO-Harvard Poll: Just 30 Percent Approve of Trump's Paris Pullout

    Jul 12, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Anthony Adragna
    
    
    A majority of people disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, but opinions are sharply divided by party, according to a new poll by POLITICO...

Industry and Association News

1. Chaos or Conspiracy? Key Posts Vacant as Nominations Lag

   Jul 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Hannah Northey

   President Trump blasted Democrats on Twitter this week for blocking his nominees, but he's about six weeks off the pace set by his predecessors for picking people to fill more than 1,200 jobs that need Senate confirmation.

   "The Trump administration is way behind. They're way off the path of other administrations," said Terry Sullivan, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and executive director of the nonpartisan White House Transition Project. "The Trump administration is below the performance of every president since Reagan in terms of not just getting people confirmed, but in terms of nominating people."

   To be sure, the Senate is taking longer to confirm Trump nominees. The Partnership for Public Service says the Senate took an average of 44 days to confirm Trump's picks, breaking the previous record, 37 days for President Obama's nominees.

   But Max Stier, the nonpartisan partnership's president and CEO, said the big problem is the White House, not the Senate. Nominees, he said, are relatively scarce.

   Of the 564 positions tracked by The Washington Post and the partnership, 374 have no nominees. At the departments of Energy and the Interior and U.S. EPA, only the agency heads have been confirmed, leaving scores of offices in the hands of acting officials.

   The vacancies have lawmakers and White House officials pointing fingers at each other.

   Republicans and the White House accused Senate Democrats this week of using procedural tactics — requiring cloture votes and boycotting confirmation hearings — to stall Trump's agenda.

   Marc Short, the White House legislative director, said Monday that Democrats were sitting on 32 nominees waiting for a floor vote, calling it the "slowest confirmation process in American history." He complained the upper chamber has approved only 50 Trump nominees, compared with 202 officials at the same point in the Obama administration.

   Democrats shot back that Republicans hold the majority in the upper chamber and can move the president's picks through committee to the floor for a vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday even challenged his Republican counterparts to bring nominees up for a vote this week, saying "they will get approved."

   "This president has nominated fewer nominees than anyone else, and ... many more were brought here to the Senate without the necessary documentation, the paperwork, the ethics reports, the FBI reports," he said.

   Said Stier, "The reality is there's blame to go around, but the large bulk of the issue has been the slowness of his nominations. You're not seeing a markedly different amount of time for the Senate to address these; what you are seeing is a much slower pace of nominations by the president."

   Even key Senate Republicans have complained about delays in getting paperwork needed to complete a nomination and get a committee hearing and vote.

   Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has several times lamented a lag in getting nominees' information from the White House for nominees for posts at DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It's unclear, she said in early May, why the White House has taken so long to move on nominees.

   "All I know is names go into a dark hole and it just seems to take forever," she said (E&E Daily, May 3).

   'They're behind on everything'

   And then things slow down when nominees hit the Senate, which has a crowded legislative calendar.

   "The longer you wait, the longer it takes," Sullivan said. "It's a pattern across all administrations that if you don't put people forward early, they get caught up in the policy agenda in the Senate.

   "It has nothing to do with politics or partisanship, it has to do with process and capacity in the Senate."

   Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said yesterday the Senate would shrink its August recess to turn to "the backlog of critical nominations that have been mindlessly stalled by Democrats" after lawmakers complete work on the enormously complicated health care legislation and a defense spending bill.

   As the Senate grinds on, Trump's political hires who are at work in the agencies have been getting some unwelcome attention.

   DOE, for example, has faced pushback on and off Capitol Hill and even fired a Trump political appointee after inflammatory tweets and op-eds surfaced (E&E News PM, July 7).

   Stier said many political hires across the government were hastily pulled from Trump's so-called agency beachhead and landing teams.

   "They were thrown together very quickly at the last minute, and I don't think there was deep vetting," he said. "As a result, I think you're finding there are a number of people who are problematic."

   But Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, who oversaw Trump's transition for DOE, said the process was not overly rushed and members of the landing team were thoroughly vetted. Pyle said a fair number of people who served on the Trump campaign expressed interest in serving the president when he assumed office and, like other administrations, came aboard but either found it wasn't a good fit or lost interest.

   "It's very typical, not abnormal," Pyle said.

   DOE vacancies

   ·         General counsel (David Jonas, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Chief financial officer (no nominee)

   ·         Undersecretary for energy (Mark Wesley Menezes, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Undersecretary for management and performance (no nominee)

   ·         Undersecretary for nuclear security/administrator for nuclear security (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for congressional and intergovernmental affairs (no nominee)

   ·         Inspector general (no nominee)

   ·         Undersecretary for science (Paul Dabbar, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for environmental management (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for fossil energy (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for nuclear energy (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for international affairs (no nominee)

   ·         Administrator, U.S. Energy Information Administration (no nominee)

   ·         Director, energy advanced research projects department (no nominee)

   ·         Director, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity (no nominee)

   ·         Director, Office of Science (no nominee)

   ·         Deputy administrator for defense programs, National Nuclear Security Administration (no nominee)

   ·         Deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation (no nominee)

   ·         Principal deputy administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration (no nominee)

   EPA vacancies

   ·         Deputy administrator (no nominee)

   ·         General counsel (no nominee)

   ·         Chief financial officer (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for water (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for administration and resources management (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for air and radiation (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance (Susan Bodine, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Assistant administrator for environmental information (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for international and tribal affairs (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for research and development (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response (no nominee)

   Interior vacancies

   ·         Deputy secretary (David Bernhardt, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Solicitor (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for policy, management and budget (Susan Combs, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Inspector general (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary of Indian affairs (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for insular areas (Doug Domenech, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for land and minerals management (no nominee)

   ·         Assistant secretary for water and science (no nominee)

   ·         Director, Bureau of Land Management (no nominee)

   ·         Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation (Brenda Burman, not yet confirmed)

   ·         Director, National Park Service (no nominee)

   ·         Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (no nominee)

   ·         Director, Fish and Wildlife Service (no nominee)

   ·         Director, U.S. Geological Survey (no nominee)

   ·         Special trustee for American Indians (no nominee)

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/12/stories/1060057274
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. Bodine Wins Panel Approval for EPA Enforcement Chief Slot

   Jul 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

   The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee in a party line vote has approved the nomination of Susan Bodine to head EPA's enforcement office, with Democrats continuing to express broader concerns about the willingness of agency officials to respond to their oversight requests.

   The move paves the way for floor consideration of Bodine's nomination, a task which could happen sooner than expected after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced July 11 that Senate will work two weeks into its previously scheduled August break.

   At their July 12 business meeting, the committee voted 11-10 to move Bodine's nomination, with every Republican backing Bodine while Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) opposed her nomination.

   Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the committee's ranking Democrat, reiterated previous statements that he had little specific quarrel with Bodine -- a former committee staffer -- but was opposing any further nominees for agency posts until his concerns over EPA's lack of responsiveness to Democrats' oversight queries are addressed.

   In Bodine's case, Carper has been seeking baseline enforcement data, saying it is needed to measure EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's commitment to aggressive enforcement efforts.

   Carper said he had a “constructive” meeting on the oversight issue between EPA and committee staff in late June. Carper also said that EPA has provided “substantive though incomplete” answers to senators' enforcement-related queries, adding that he still wants to see more responsiveness from EPA to pending oversight queries.

   In addition to Bodine's nomination, the committee also approved by voice vote legislation reauthorizing EPA's brownfields and diesel emissions grants programs, providing a rebuke of sorts to the Trump administration which has proposed to eliminate funds for both programs in its fiscal year 2018 budget request.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/bodine-wins-panel-approval-epa-enforcement-chief-slot
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

3. Speciality Industry Resumes Focus on TSCA New Chemicals Programme

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   Now that the US EPA has issued the first three framework rules to implement the reformed TSCA, the speciality chemicals industry's focus is returning to the new chemicals programme.

   Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations with the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma), told Chemical Watch the trade group is largely pleased with the major rules that the agency published last month. These cover the processes for how the EPA will prioritise substances for risk evaluation and conduct those assessments, in addition to how it will designate substances as active and inactive on the inventory.

   But he said the trade group remains concerned with the EPA's "overly conservative approach" to new chemicals under the reformed law.

   And since the passage of TSCA, he said, "it still seems to take longer for EPA to reach decisions, so we're still concerned about timeliness".

   In early June, the EPA announced plans for eliminating the backlog of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) awaiting review, and committed to review these within 90 days of their receipt.

   A spokesperson told Chemical Watch this week that it "remains committed" to achieving this, and has made "active strides" in reducing the number of cases.

   Mr Newton lauded the agency's addition of more staff to the programme and its commitment to ending the backlog. But he said that for Socma, "now the focus is shifting from the backlog to overly conservative decision making."

   Changes for new chemicals programme

   The EPA's treatment of new chemicals has come under fire since passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, with industry groups calling the programme one of the biggest regulatory burdens facing domestic manufacturers.

   And there has been a marked increase in consent orders, as the agency is now required to make an "affirmative finding" of the safety of a new substance.

   The EPA says that between Lautenberg's passage last year and 3 July, it has reviewed 426 PMNs, microbial commercial activity notice (Mcans) and significant new use notifications (Snuns). Of these, about 50% (214) were subject to a consent order. A further 121 notices (28%) were withdrawn by the submitter.

   This contrasts sharply with the state of play before Lautenberg. EPA data shows that approximately 10% of the 39,000 total PMN submissions reviewed before the law was reformed led to section 5(e) consent orders, or with notices being withdrawn in the face of regulation.

   Another prominent difference is the lack of significant new use rules (Snurs) issued in the absence of a consent order. Their use has effectively halted under the new TSCA, whereas the years leading up to Lautenberg typically saw 100 or more so-called non-5(e) Snurs issued annually.

   Mr Newton says he hopes the EPA will make good on its assurance to resume use of non-5(e) Snurs when a new substance's intended use does not present a concern, but where reasonably foreseen uses are potentially troublesome.

   And an EPA spokesperson told Chemical Watch that the agency plans to hold a public meeting in the autumn to discuss "ways to streamline the approval process so that safe chemicals can be introduced into the marketplace and generate economic growth".

   https://chemicalwatch.com/57598/speciality-industry-resumes-focus-on-tsca-new-chemicals-programme
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. US EPA Issues Snurs for 29 Substances

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA has issued significant new use rules (Snurs) for 29 substances subject to TSCA risk-based section 5(e) consent orders.

   Substances covered include polymers and carbon nanotubes, with uses ranging from a corrosion inhibitor, an industrial adhesive, various additives and coating resins. The identities of 19 of them are protected as confidential.

   During review of each substance’s pre-manufacture notice (PMN), the EPA determined that regulation was warranted to mitigate potential unreasonable risk, pending the development of test data to make a fair evaluation of their health and environmental effects. The agency therefore negotiated 5(e) consent orders with the PMN submitters requiring risk mitigants and the use of appropriate exposure controls. These each took effect between 2 November 2016 and 12 May.

   Consent orders, however, are only binding to the original PMN submitter. Consequently the EPA is issuing Snurs consistent with their provisions to hold subsequent users to the same requirements.

   A Snur demands the submission of a significant new use notice (Snun), before the manufacture or processing of a substance for any application designated by the agency as a "significant new use". The EPA will review a submitted Snun to determine if the new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, or to take regulatory action to mitigate any identified concerns.

   The EPA has issued the Snurs as a direct final rule. If it has not received adverse comments or a notice of intent to submit such, these will take effect 60 days from when the rule is published in the Federal Register.

   If there is adverse response, it will withdraw the relevant sections of the direct final rule and reissue the Snur as a proposed rule, with a 30-day public comment window.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/57620/us-epa-issues-snurs-for-29-substances
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

5. UN Invites Case Studies of Green Chemistry Initiatives

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   UN Environment and the International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborating Center (ISC3) are looking for case studies of start-up initiatives in the area of green and sustainable chemistry. The studies are to be showcased at an international workshop the two organisations are hosting in Berlin on 14 September.

   The meeting aims to identify lessons learned and generate information for policy makers.

   The deadline for submitting case studies is 21 July.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/57590/un-invites-case-studies-of-green-chemistry-initiatives
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Sweden Proposes Ban on Microbeads in Rinse-Off Cosmetics

   Jul 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

   Sweden has proposed a ban on rinse-off cosmetics that contain microplastics to reduce their impact on the marine environment.

   In a notification to the World Trade Organization on 6 July, the Swedish Ministry of the Environment and Energy said it was prohibiting the sale of cosmetics that have added solid plastic particles for exfoliating, cleaning or polishing purposes. The ban may enter into force on 1 January 2018, at the earliest.

   There is an exception for plastic particles that consist only of naturally occurring polymers that have not been chemically modified. Derogations may be granted, the notification said, "if it is shown that they biodegrade quickly to monomers in an aquatic environment and that they are not liable to cause damage to aquatic organisms".

   There will also be a six-month transition period after the ban enters into force, provided that products have been placed on the Swedish market before January 2018.

   Microplastics are defined as solid particles of plastic that are 5mm or less in size in any dimension, and soluble in water. They are widespread in the marine environment, including oceans, seas and lakes, representing a threat to marine life and the food chain.

   Sweden said that with today's technology it is impossible to capture and collect plastic particles once they are released into the environment. "It is therefore necessary to take measures at the source," the notification said, adding "there are no less restrictive measures" which would achieve the same purpose.

   Countries around the world are taking action against microplastics. In the EU, France has decided to prohibit rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads from January 2018 while other member states are considering similar action.

   In January, the Nordic Council, an inter-parliamentary committee, backed a proposal that recommends banning their use in cosmetics across five Nordic countries, and last year Denmark urged the European Commission to introduce a Europe-wide ban.

   The Commission has opened a public consultation on policy options, with a deadline for comments of 16 October. It will publish a report at the end of the year, setting out conclusions and also recommendations from a study commissioned by DG Environment.

   In July, however, the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) - a US trade body - said efforts to reduce marine pollution should not focus on the "tiny contributor" of plastic microbeads in cosmetics. It was responding to the UN Environment Programme's Clean Seas campaign, which calls for a global ban in personal care products.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/57599/sweden-proposes-ban-on-microbeads-in-rinse-off-cosmetics
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. WHO Cancer Agency May Have Defrauded US Taxpayers

   Jul 12, 2017 | Town Hall

   By Austin Ruse

   The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a semi-autonomous agency connected to the World Health Organization, says red meat probably causes cancer and should be listed with arsenic and smoking. The same organization used to say coffee might cause cancer until it changed its “scientific” position and said it “probably” doesn’t.

   Such is the strange and iffy world of “science” in the year 2017. Again and again, we are told that “the science is settled” on a whole host of issues but much of which turns out to be fake.

   And now IARC, which is funded by American taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health, faces charges of deliberately withholding sound scientific data that would vindicate a major American corporation being sued by 184 individuals who say one of its products gave them cancer only to find out that, on yet another issue, the “settled science” is actually fake science.

   Monsanto invented a remarkable weed killer called Roundup that allows farmers to spray entire fields of crops that have been genetically modified to resist the chemical glyphosate.  Roundup kills all the weeds but leave the crops alone.

   Environmentalists have been after glyphosate ever since. The chemical has been scrutinized since the 1980s by scientists and regulators including the Environmental Protection Agency and similar international and national agencies around the world. All of them have repeatedly cleared glyphosate of causing cancer.

   But then along came IARC with a new assessment two years ago that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” The assessment was purportedly based on “limited evidence” in humans but “sufficient evidence” in animal trials. This new report triggered the massive lawsuit against Monsanto in California.

   But now it turns out that IARC possessed solid scientific data in 2015that cleared glyphosate of causing cancer, and that the group deliberately ignored the data. The study is the most robust of its kind, carried out by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Called the Agricultural Health Study, it studied thousands of farmers and their employees who had been exposed over time to glyphosate. Note that IARC’s data was on rodents in laboratory situations, not real life.

   IARC possessed the data showing glyphosate was safe long before they were considering their new report that charged glyphosate was carcinogenic. But they chose to ignore the data for the rather specious reason that it had not yet been published.

   The scientist who chaired the 2015 meeting at IARC was an American epidemiologist, Dr. Aaron Blair, connected to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, who had seen the data that cleared glyphosate. In a sworn deposition from this past March, Blair admitted the new data would likely have changed the IARC assessment and therefore taken away the grounds for the lawsuit against Monsanto.

   Monsanto denies all charges in the lawsuit. They charge that the new data was deliberately concealed by Blair and his colleagues. Further damning evidence is Blair’s statement to Reuters that the data was available two years before the IARC assessment but that the data was too large to publish in one paper. To this day, the data from this study has not been published.

   This story raises disturbing questions. 

   Are unwelcome scientific results being covered up?

   There is the seeming deliberate concealment of scientific data that goes against the wishes of an ideological group, in this case, environmentalists who have been after Monsanto—and genetically modified crops—for decades. Note that glyphosate is an herbicide that kills all plants except those that have been genetically modified to resist it. Even though multiple government agencies over decades cleared GMOs from the multiplicity of charges against them—principally that they cause cancer—environmentalists have never given up trying to kill them.

   Is peer review broken?

   There is also the fetish in the scientific community for publishing, specifically, in peer-reviewed journals. A great deal of peer review has become something of a scam in recent years. There are now thousands of journals and millions of papers from an ever-expanding number of newly minted PhDs—54,000 every year in the United States alone—who are hungry to publish. Recent years have shown so many frauds in peer review that one academic publisher, Springer, has withdrawn more than 100 papers that were shown to be questionable. There is even a website—RetractionWatch.com—that tracks the ever-expanding number of scientific papers withdrawn from peer reviewed publications.

   Why are American taxpayers funding fake science? 

   Congressional committees have been in something of a duel with IARC which so far has refused to release documents to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform after members complained about funding such a controversial agency. Congress wants to know why the National Institute of Health, which has an annual budget of $33 billion continues to fund IARC. IARC continues to insist its methods are “scientifically sound.” 

   When it comes to things like our health, our bodies, and the food we eat, it should be assumed we can rely on science to make the best decisions for ourselves and our families.  However, it seems even the supposed cold hard “facts” of science have become so skewed by political agendas that more and more we are getting fake science instead.  

   Austin Ruse is the author of “Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data” to be published in July by Regnery Publishing  Share this on Facebook  Tweet

   https://townhall.com/columnists/austinruse/2017/07/12/who-cancer-agency-may-have-defrauded-us-taxpayers-n2353971
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

8. American LNG Exports Blow Past 2016 Tally

   Jul 12, 2017 | Nikkei Asian Review (In Real Clear Energy)

   By Sochi Inai

   The U.S. exported 197.6 billion cu. feet of liquefied natural gas from January through April, exceeding the total for all of last year, as American influence in the international market grew.

   April's exports alone quintupled on the year to 50.6 billion cu. feet, according to data released at the end of June by the Energy Information Administration. Latin America and the Caribbean account for 44% of exports, and Asia for 28%, said Executive Vice President Anatol Feygin of Cheniere Energy, the sole company constructing and operating LNG export terminals in the lower 48 states.

   The U.S. now exports its LNG to 23 countries. Poland began imports in June, and Japan's Chubu Electric Power imported the first American LNG derived from shale gas in January.

   The shale revolution has made the U.S. the world's top producer of natural gas. The Obama administration greenlighted projects to help export LNG from the mainland, such as a Louisiana terminal that began exports in February 2016. By the end of last year, America had turned from an importer into a net exporter.

   Its 2016 exports amounted to a paltry 4% of top exporter Qatar's total, according to statistics from BP. But tougher competition will be unavoidable as more large-scale LNG export projects come online in the second half.

   American LNG is cost-competitive as well, said Philippe Sauquet, head of the gas branch at French oil company Total. International energy companies are attempting to capture such markets as Latin America through deeper involvement in American LNG. The likes of Total and Anglo-Dutch multinational Royal Dutch Shell are participating in American exports of the gas.

   The U.S. will have the capacity to export a daily total of more than 11 billion cu. feet of LNG after 2020, the EIA projects, making it the third-largest supplier, behind Australia and Qatar. The U.S. is seen with 16% of the world's largest market, Asia.

   The Trump administration is eager to connect domestic jobs to LNG exports as it champions an America-first strategy in the energy sector. The industry had called for addressing the U.S.'s post-shale-revolution glut of natural gas by improving export policies.

   http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Commodities/American-LNG-exports-blow-past-2016-tally
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Democrats Urge Trump to 'Fully Implement' Methane Rules

   Jul 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

   A group of 27 Democratic senators is urging President Donald Trump to “fully implement” EPA and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations issued by the Obama administration to limit emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas operations.

   “Suspending commonsense regulations to reduce waste and stop air pollution needlessly poses health and safety risks on children and our most vulnerable citizens,” says a July 10 letter from the lawmakers. The letter was coordinated by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), and among the other signatories are Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking member on the Senate environment committee, and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member on the Senate energy committee.

   The advocacy comes as the administration has hit legal and other roadblocks in its effort to roll back the methane rules.

   Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled July 3 that EPA unlawfully stayed key portions of its methane new source performance standards (NSPS) for new equipment in the oil and gas sector.

   Because the court issued its mandate immediately, the rule's requirements are set to quickly take effect. However, EPA has filed a rare request for the D.C. Circuit to recall its mandate.

   Sources say the court ruling could portend legal troubles for EPA and other agencies' efforts to stay a host of climate and environmental rules, and leaves the oil and gas industry in limbo.

   For example, California and New Mexico recently filed suit over BLM's move to “postpone” major requirements in its methane rule, which covers existing drilling facilities on federal land. That agency used a separate statute to pause its rule -- the Administrative Procedure Act -- so its action might not be directly affected by the D.C. Circuit ruling.

   Even so, BLM was forced to undertake a lengthy administrative process to revise or rescind its methane rule after the Senate failed to approve a resolution to quickly scrap the rule through the Congressional Review Act.

   “The administration’s struggle to free oil and gas companies from Obama-era limits on how much methane they can release into the air reflects the challenge Trump faces in carrying out his 'America first' energy policy,” says a July 11 report in the Los Angeles Times. “Signing executive orders and making speeches were the easy part. Pushing policies to fruition is proving more complicated.”

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/democrats-urge-trump-fully-implement-methane-rules
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Coal Got Knocked Out in Calif. Now, Gas Is on the Ropes

    Jul 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Debra Kahn

    A wave of regulatory reconsiderations of natural gas-fired power plants in California has renewables advocates cheering.

    The state's grid operator is expected to release a study next month on whether the Puente Power Project, a gas-fired plant planned for the Southern California coast 60 miles west of Los Angeles, might be supplanted by solar panels, energy storage or demand response.

    The California Public Utilities Commission approved Southern California Edison's contract with NRG Energy Inc. to build the 262-megawatt plant in June 2016 as a replacement for a larger plant on the same site. The Puente plant fit into the state's goal to boost renewables to 50 percent; as a fast-ramping facility, it could smooth out intermittent wind and solar power, which has a tendency to produce choppy resources.

    Now, as politicians are considering moving to 100 percent "zero-carbon" resources by 2045 — as a bill being considered this week in the state Legislature would do — regulators are tapping the brakes on Puente and a number of other gas-fired plants planned for the Southern California region.

    Since the state has no coal-fired plants and is already planning on shutting down its remaining nuclear plant, natural gas is the next resource in line to be phased out in favor of renewables.

    "In general, it's going to be renewables in, gas out, so you've got that sort of long, slow good-night of lots of gas," said Jim Caldwell, a senior technical consultant with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a Sacramento think tank that has been advocating for regulators to reconsider their grid policies to better account for renewables and climate change. "We think Puente is right at the tip of that spear. ... The gas industry and the gas generation industry is facing a big problem, and they know it."

    The California Independent System Operator's study, due out Aug. 16, will go to the California Energy Commission, which will make the final decision on whether to permit Puente.

    The study will analyze how much capacity is needed in the Moorpark area of Ventura County, where roughly 2,000 MW is due to retire by 2020. Scenarios will include replacing Puente with varying amounts of demand response, energy efficiency, solar power and storage.

    NRG officials said they welcomed the study but defended the plant. "We feel it's the right project in the right place at the right time," said NRG spokesman David Knox. The plant's 20-year power purchase agreement with Edison "aligns well with the transition California is looking at to go to greater and greater renewables," he said.

    In a statement, Edison said it "supports all of the projects that it competitively awarded in 2014 and which have since been approved by the CPUC. The Puente project was competitively selected, in addition to energy efficiency and distributed generation projects."

    The head of a trade group representing independent generators in California faulted CAISO's process of announcing the study after the CPUC had already approved the contract. "We have a procurement process that's worked very well in California," said Jan Smutny-Jones, CEO of the Independent Energy Producers Association. "At the eleventh hour, coming up with issues — really, what's going on is the people who are advocating for something different are representing people who want to do demand response, rather than the power plant."

    Another factor contributing to the wave of reconsiderations is that many gas-fired plants in California are facing imminent deadlines to stop using "once-through" cooling systems that harm marine life. Those deadlines offer regulators a chance to consider alternatives to repowering or replacement.

    The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced last month that it would put all plans to repower its once-through cooled units on hold and perform a study of alternatives, to be completed by early next year. The study will cover 10 gas-fired units at three plants that were scheduled for replacement from 2021 to 2029. Alternatives could include repowering them at a reduced level; improving transmission lines only; or replacing them with distributed energy resources, including energy efficiency, solar power, energy storage, demand response and electric vehicle charging.

    CAISO has already started considering a future with less gas than planned. In March, it issued a study examining a 50 percent renewable portfolio standard plus the early retirement of up to 9,658 MW of gas-fired power statewide, and found several potential local reliability issues that could be solved by demand response or transmission upgrades. Issues with not having enough quick-ramping capacity, particularly in the early evening after sunset, emerged between 4,000 and 6,000 MW of retirement.

    Caldwell said he thought California could achieve concentrations of up to 75 percent renewables using today's technology and resources. "I believe fundamental market redesign will be required to go past 75 percent, and we have not started the process of figuring out how to transition there," he said.

    Smutny-Jones conceded that California has created a limited role for gas. "To the extent you'll see any gas plants being built in California, they will be built for localized need, not system need," he said. "There may be pockets where you do need something that will actually generate electrons. If batteries and demand response show up, the plant won't run very much. It's an insurance policy to keep the lights on in that area."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/12/stories/1060057252
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Budget's in Limbo Again, and a Gas Tax Is Still Unlikely

    Jul 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Lee

    Pennsylvania lawmakers adjourned last night without passing a plan to fund the state government, but they appeared poised to reject Gov. Tom Wolf's proposal to tax the gas industry for the third year in a row.

    The Legislature passed a $32 billion budget for the fiscal 2017-18 on June 30 but hasn't passed revenue legislation to fund it. Wolf, a Democrat, allowed the spending plan to become law without his signature while the state House and Senate look for ways to raise the estimated $2 billion in new revenue needed to close the gap.

    So far, the Republican-dominated Legislature has avoided any new taxes and proposed a combination of fee increases, loans against future tobacco revenue and transfers from dedicated funds.

    Observers from both ends of the political spectrum say legislators should have learned from their experience in 2015 and 2016, when they failed to find a permanent solution. The state could wind up in the same predicament unless it raises long-term, recurring revenue or fundamentally reforms state government through spending cuts.

    "It's budget déjà vu," said Elizabeth Stelle, an analyst at the Commonwealth Foundation, which promotes free-market ideas.

    House leaders sent their members home yesterday after a series of closed-door meetings failed to produce a spending plan, the Associated Press reported.

    "You know, sometimes, maybe a couple hours away for everybody is a good thing. Everybody can regroup, and we can put it back together," House Majority Leader Dave Reed (R) told reporters, according to the AP.

    Wolf was elected in 2014 after promising to restore funding for education and other state spending that had been cut under Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. He proposed to pay for it by imposing a tax on Pennsylvania's gas drillers and by raising other state taxes.

    Pennsylvania's gas production has soared in the last 10 years, as companies have used hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to open up the Marcellus Shale formation. The state's output now ranks second in the United States, behind Texas.

    Wolf's latest proposal would impose a 6.5 percent tax on gas production, known as a severance tax, in addition to a fee that the state already imposes (Energywire, Feb. 8).

    The gas industry has argued that drilling is one of the few bright spots in Pennsylvania's economy and that a tax would cost thousands of jobs.

    Marc Stier, president of the progressive-leaning Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, said the industry's fears are overblown. Other oil-and-gas-producing states, including Texas and North Dakota, levy a tax on oil and gas production without slowing down the industry.

    Most rank-and-file lawmakers, including Republicans, support a gas tax, but they've been blocked by the GOP leadership in the House and Senate, Stier said.

    Stelle, at the Commonwealth Foundation, said Pennsylvania should balance its budget by cutting spending on Medicaid, closing tax breaks that benefit big industries and getting rid of some of Pennsylvania's idiosyncratic spending, like the state monopoly on most liquor sales and a provision that uses casino revenue to support horse racing.

    "A severance tax is not going to generate the economic growth that Pennsylvania needs to get out of its budget crisis," she said.

    Wolf sharply criticized the Legislature when it rebuffed his first budget proposal in 2015 but has been more conciliatory since then. He pointed to a pending downgrade of Pennsylvania's debt rating and mentioned his tax proposals in a statement on his website.

    "There are many options available to balance the budget in the long-term like those I presented earlier this year," the statement said. "Our creditors and the people of Pennsylvania understand a responsible resolution must take real and necessary steps to improve Pennsylvania's fiscal future."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/12/stories/1060057253
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

12. U.S. Cities, States and Businesses Pledge to Measure Emissions

    Jul 12, 2017 | New York Times

    By Hiroko Tabuch and Lisa Friedman

    A coalition of American states, cities and businesses that have pledged to stick with the Paris climate pact will team up with experts to quantify their climate commitments and share their plans with the United Nations, vowing to act in spite of the Trump administration’s exit from the accord.

    President Trump said last month that the United States would withdrawfrom the Paris deal, isolating the United States on the world stage. At a Group of 20 summit meeting last week, world leaders agreed to move forward collectively on climate change without the United States, declaring the landmark 2015 pact “irreversible.”

    But the coalition, called America’s Pledge — which now includes 227 cities and counties, nine states and about 1,650 businesses and investors — is moving to uphold the United States’ commitments under the Paris deal. The country had committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, compared with 2005 levels.

    The group, led by Gov. Jerry Brown of California and Michael R. Bloomberg, a former New York mayor, plans to work with outside experts to measure the effects of their pledges, and to announce an early tally at a United Nations climate conference this year. The coalition is set to outline the new steps on Wednesday.

    “The American government may have pulled out of the Paris Agreement, but American society remains committed to it — and we will redouble our efforts to achieve its goals,” Mr. Bloomberg, a United Nations special envoy for cities and climate change, said in a draft statement.

    “We’re sending a clear message to the world that America’s states, cities and businesses are moving forward with our country’s commitments under the Paris Agreement — with or without Washington,” Mr. Brown said.

    The study will measure the effect, by 2025, of new climate action by cities, states, businesses and universities that have signed up to the effort, organizers said. It will also include the effects of climate-friendly policies that are already in effect at local levels, whether or not they are part of the coalition.

    The analysis, led by the think tanks World Resources Institute and Rocky Mountain Institute, will compare that effect with business-as-usual scenarios, as well as the Obama-era Paris commitment.

    In a statement, Kelly Love, a White House spokeswoman, said the Trump administration “believes in cooperative federalism and therefore are supportive of states and cities making their own choices within their respective borders on climate change policy.”

    Still, it remains unclear whether — absent federal policy — a group of states, cities and businesses can hope to drive down domestic emissions to levels anywhere near the country’s previous Paris goals.

    The effort lacks participation from states like Texas, for example, which accounts for a fifth of United States energy production. Vehicle emissions standards are set in Washington, even though reining in auto emissions would be critical to reducing the country’s carbon footprint. (California’s authority to set its own car emissions rules does give that state some sway over automakers.)

    There is also no formal mechanism for entities that were not countries to be full state parties to the Paris accord.

    Then there is the issue of getting an accurate measure of the various commitments.

    “If a business is in a city or state, and they’ve all made climate pledges, do you count them all?” said Elizabeth Sawin, a director of Climate Interactive, a nonprofit research organization. “Adding all this up will be a very challenging task.”

    Paul Bodnar, a managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute, said the analysis would tackle that problem of double-counting. He said the exercise was aimed at providing a better picture for the international community of what efforts continued at the local level to reduce emissions.

    The study would show that “the U.S. is not suddenly a black hole for climate action, just because the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris commitment,” he said.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/climate/cities-states-businesses-emissions-climate-pact.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Gov. Hickenlooper Joins States Aiming to Hit Paris Targets

    Jul 12, 2017 | E&E - Climatewire

    By Benjamin Storrow

    Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper announced a plan yesterday to join another dozen states seeking to comply with the Paris climate accord.

    "We will join the Climate Alliance because our voices are more powerful when we speak as one," the Democratic governor said. Hickenlooper's plan calls for slashing greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

    The announcement represented a win for climate advocates, who have clamored for Hickenlooper to join the initiative ever since President Trump announced his decision to pull out of the Paris deal, and adds a state with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry to the coalition, known as the U.S. Climate Alliance.

    Colorado is home to a sizable oil and gas industry, and the majority of its power generation still comes from coal. The state has been the scene of several high-profile energy fights in recent years, ranging from local bans on fracking to Hickenlooper's past proposal to fulfill former President Obama's Clean Power Plan by executive order (Climatewire, Jan. 25).

    Hickenlooper's remarks, delivered against the dramatic sandstone formations of Red Rocks Park outside Denver, reflected that history. The governor spent less time focusing on the dangers of climate change and more on the economic benefits of encouraging renewable energy production, saying wind and solar can create jobs and lower costs to consumers. He touted the ability of natural gas and renewables to complement one another and argued that Colorado's clean energy economy helps attract young workers to the state.

    "It is true that 97 percent of climate scientists believe the climate is changing rapidly, probably with catastrophic consequences if we do nothing. But it's not my intention to lecture or try to persuade those who don't agree with the science," Hickenlooper said. "Innovation and technology have brought us to a place where we can not only have energy that is cleaner, but cheaper, too. Less expensive energy that is reliable and significantly cleaner is a vision that is finally accessible to all Coloradans."

    The governor's plan does not mandate utilities cap emissions or boost renewables. Instead, it calls on power companies to voluntarily work with the state to green the electric sector, sets a target of decreasing Colorado's electricity sales 2 percent annually through energy efficiency measures, and directs state agencies to complete an electric vehicle infrastructure plan.

    How Colorado will achieve those targets remains to be seen. The order signed by Hickenlooper yesterday contains few specifics.

    Mixed reviews

    Supporters cheered the order, saying it represents an important milestone by establishing a series of climate goals.

    "My understanding is the executive order is a first step. It lays out the goals the state should meet, which are consistent with Paris," said Jon Goldin-Dubois, president of Western Resource Advocates, an environmental group. "We anticipate and plan on working hard to meeting those goals and making sure we have plans in place to achieve the objectives."

    Said Zach Pierce, the Sierra Club's senior campaign representative in Colorado, "This announcement reaffirms Colorado's role as a leader on clean energy and conservation."

    The reaction of Colorado's utilities was mixed. Xcel Energy, the state's largest utility, signaled that it is willing to work with Hickenlooper. The Minneapolis-based power company has pursued renewables at an aggressive pace in recent years and expects wind to be its primary source of power generation across its eight-state territory by 2021. Still, almost half its electricity in Colorado is generated by coal.

    In a statement, the company said it expects its Rush Creek Wind Project, a 600-megawatt development in eastern Colorado, and other initiatives will reduce its emissions to 45 percent of 2005 levels by 2021.

    "Just like Gov. Hickenlooper, we hear from our Colorado communities and our residential and business customers that they want more low-cost, renewable energy," said Xcel spokeswoman Michelle Aguayo. "We are committed to providing what they want — reduced emissions and job creation. We believe that we can do this economically and even save customers money."

    Black Hills Energy, the state's second investor-owned utility, has shuttered its Colorado coal plants in recent years and no longer has any facilities powered by the fuel in the state. The company said it was reviewing the governor's order.

    Colorado's network of rural electric cooperatives could prove a tougher sell. Cooperative officials expressed surprise at the announcement, saying they were not consulted prior to yesterday's event.

    "I'm a little disappointed the governor didn't work collaboratively with the stakeholders before making the announcement, but as an organization, we're committed to providing reliable, affordable, environmentally friendly energy," said Geoff Hier, director of government relations at the Colorado Rural Electric Association, which represents the state's 22 rural electric cooperatives.

    He said the organization is reviewing the order.

    The Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association plays a particularly important role in Colorado, supplying wholesale power to 18 of the state's 22 cooperatives. Coal still accounts for more than 40 percent of Tri-State's power generation, and the organization has sought to boost research efforts in Wyoming aimed at reducing the fuel's carbon emissions. Tri-State officials nevertheless signaled an openness to working with Hickenlooper.

    "The governor's executive order appears to recognize the unique differences among Colorado utilities and does not attempt to mandate one-size-fits-all solutions," said Lee Boughey, a Tri-State spokesman.

    "We will work constructively with the state to ensure any programs reflect the uniqueness of cooperatives and preserve our ability to deliver affordable and reliable power to our member systems and the rural communities they serve."

    Hickenlooper's announcement comes in advance of the National Governors Association's meeting in Rhode Island later this week. Senior advisers to the 13 governors who have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance are expected to gather on the sidelines of the meeting to discuss plans for how to coordinate efforts to maintain the Paris target, said Sam Ricketts, an adviser to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D).

    The alliance also includes California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, as well as Puerto Rico.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/12/stories/1060057256
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. POLITICO-Harvard Poll: Just 30 Percent Approve of Trump's Paris Pullout

    Jul 12, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Anthony Adragna

    A majority of people disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, but opinions are sharply divided by party, according to a new poll by POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

    Just 30 percent of the public backs Trump's intent to leave the landmark climate accord while 53 percent disapprove, according to the poll. But 65 percent of Republicans support the president's move compared to just 9 percent of Democrats.

    The poll found 59 percent of the public broadly supports more interaction between the U.S. and other countries on climate issues, including 39 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Democrats. Only 12 percent of adults said they favor less effort by the U.S. on climate issues.

    Views were split on U.S. spending to help developing countries address to the effects of climate change. Thirty-six percent of respondents told pollsters they wanted the government to spend more, while 26 percent said the U.S. should spend less and 34 percent called for funding to remain about the same.

    But climate change appears unlikely to alter many votes on its own. Just 30 percent of voters said the decision to pull out of Paris was "extremely important" to their voting decision, placing it behind other issues like terrorism and health care.

    The survey was conducted by SSRS, an independent research company, for POLITICO and Harvard from June 14-18. It used cellphones and landlines among a nationally representative sample of 1,011 U.S. adults.

    WHAT'S NEXT: Public views of these issues are likely to play a role in upcoming congressional action and the 2018 midterms.

    https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
    

    Return to headline | Return to top