Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/28/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Some Growth, But Commodity Resin Sales Not Very Strong Overall
Jul 28, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Some commodity resins did well domestically in the first half of 2017, but the materials overall didn't set the North American market on fire, with no resin reaching 2 percent overall growth. -
(ACC Mentioned) Formosa Declares Force Majeure On US Specialty PVC Resins
Jul 27, 2017 | ICIS
By Bill Bowen
Formosa Plastics USA has issued a force majuere for some specialty polyvinyl chloride(PVC) resins for August, market sources confirmed on Thursday. -
Dow, DuPont Mull Post-Deal Split into More Than Three Companies
Jul 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co. are weighing whether to carve out more separate companies following their historic $75 billion merger than the three originally envisioned. -
Environmentalists Raise Concerns Over EPA's TSCA Scoping Documents
Jul 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Several environmental groups are questioning multiple aspects of EPA's efforts to launch its new risk evaluation program for existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and in a new letter are pressing EPA officials for reassurances that its first 10 risk evaluations will comply with the law's intent. -
100,000 Pages Of Chemical Industry Secrets Gathered Dust In An Oregon Barn For Decades — Until Now
Jul 26, 2017 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
FOR DECADES, SOME of the dirtiest, darkest secrets of the chemical industry have been kept in Carol Van Strum’s barn. -
Judges Grill Trump Admin On Bid To Roll Back Fracking Rule
Jul 27, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
DENVER — Federal judges are unlikely to let the Trump administration off easy as it works to unwind an Obama-era hydraulic fracturing rule while major legal questions remain unresolved. -
Appellate Court Hears Oral Arguments on BLM Fracking Rule
Jul 28, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Lawyers for the federal government faced off against attorneys representing states and the oil and gas industry in appellate court on Thursday, for oral arguments over an embattled rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands. -
Pipelines Awaiting Approval Pile Up at Federal Energy Regulator
Jul 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The backlog of natural gas pipelines awaiting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval is piling up as the agency enters its sixth month without enough members to approve $14 billion worth of infrastructure projects, and gas suppliers and pipeline companies could face longer-term impacts. -
Pennsylvania Senate Passes NatGas Tax; Industry on Defense
Jul 28, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania's GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday put the natural gas industry on the defensive as it passed a revenue package to fund the state budget that includes a volumetric fee on production designed to generate an estimated $100 million annually. -
If Petronas Can't Beat U.S. LNG Suppliers, It Could Join Them
Jul 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Natalie Obiko Pearson, Ryan Collins and Kevin Orland
Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd has pulled the plug on its $27 billion plan to ship liquefied natural gas from Canada's west coast to Asia, losing out to U.S. suppliers who got to market first. -
House Dems Offer Carbon Tax Plan, Mirroring Senate Bill
Jul 27, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and David Cicilline of Rhode Island introduced a bill today that would impose a carbon tax aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. -
USGBC's Ramanujam Says Government Support Critical To Driving Green Construction, Technology
Jul 27, 2017 | E&E TV
What role should high-performance construction and technology play in the Trump administration's infrastructure plan? -
GOP Backing For California Cap-And-Trade Expansion Key To Durability
Jul 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Republican support for the landmark extension of California's greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program -- which was key to extending the program by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature -- is the latest evidence that bipartisan support is critical for the long-term durability of climate mitigation policies, according to one top analyst.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Some Growth, But Commodity Resin Sales Not Very Strong Overall
Jul 28, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Some commodity resins did well domestically in the first half of 2017, but the materials overall didn't set the North American market on fire, with no resin reaching 2 percent overall growth.
Linear low density polyethylene led the way with 1.6 percent overall sales growth in the U.S. and Canada, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. Strong domestic growth of almost 4 percent was hampered by a drop of 6 percent in export sales. Overall LLDPE sales volume for the half was just over 7.4 billion pounds.
Low density PE managed first-half U.S./Canadian growth of 1.1 percent to almost 3.6 billion pounds. A domestic sales loss of just over 1 percent was reversed by an export sales gain of almost 8 percent.
North American polypropylene sales ticked up 0.9 percent to almost 8.7 billion pounds for the six-month period, with domestic growth of 1.3 percent dampened by a drop of almost 11 percent in export sales. PVC showed similar sales growth of 0.7 percent — to almost 7.9 billion pounds — in the U.S. and Canada. For that material, solid domestic growth of almost 4 percent was reduced by an almost 6 percent drop in sales to export markets.
High density PE and solid polystyrene each posted lower sales in the first half than they did for the same period in 2016. The HDPE picture was similar to that of LLDPE and PVC but even more extreme. Overall sales fell 3.2 percent to just under 9.4 billion pounds, with domestic sales growth of almost 4 percent wiped out by an export sales drop of 25 percent.
Solid PS saw North American sales decline 1.5 percent to just under 2.2 billion pounds for the half. A domestic sales loss of 1.6 percent was softened a bit by a gain of more than 3 percent in export sales.
The impact of export sales varied greatly from resin to resin in the first half. Exports accounted for 30 percent of regional PVC sales, almost 26 percent of LDPE sales and almost 22 percent of LDPE sales for the period.
Exports played a lesser role in HDPE, with an 18 percent first-half share. And they played a much smaller role in PP and PS, accounting for about 3 percent of total sales for each of those materials.
Among domestic end markets, HDPE saw blazing first-half growth of almost 21 percent into pipe and conduit. That included a jump of 31 percent for sales of HDPE into water pipe. Domestic sales growth for LLDPE was led by food packaging, where sales increased more than 6 percent.
Although LDPE saw an overall domestic sales loss, sales of the material into non-packaging film grew almost 6 percent. For PP, sales into the sheet market surged almost 8 percent for the half.
PVC saw major domestic growth in its flagship rigid pipe and tubing sector, where sales grew almost 6 percent. Domestic PS sales found a bright spot in the electrical/electronic segment, where sales showed a first-half gain of more than 2 percent.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170727/NEWS/170729902/some-growth-but-commodity-resin-sales-not-very-strong-overall
-
(ACC Mentioned) Formosa Declares Force Majeure On US Specialty PVC Resins
Jul 27, 2017 | ICIS
By Bill Bowen
HOUSTON (ICIS)--Formosa Plastics USA has issued a force majuere for some specialty polyvinyl chloride(PVC) resins for August, market sources confirmed on Thursday.
The company cited the ongoing mechanical issue at its vinyl chloride (VCM) plant in Point Comfort, Texas, that has reduced output of derivative PVC.
“This event is causing a reduction in our production of Formolon 608, 614, 616K, 622R and 622S PVC resins,” the company said in its letter to customers, declaring force majeure/excuse of performance for the products.
It said the force majeure would run for "at least the next several weeks".
The company last week informed market participants that it would not allot material for August export, including to Mexico, because of the VCM production slowdown.
One market participant said that the overall impact of the force majeure will be limited, though some domestic customers will likely be forced to scramble to find supplemental volumes. That could put upward pressure on domestic spot prices, which have been soft in recent weeks.
The force majeure does not affect delivery of pipe-grade material, a market that consumes about 33% of US domestic sales, according to figures from the American Chemistry Council using data compiled by Vault Consulting.
US export volumes have been curtailed slightly for most months since April on rising domestic demand, planned maintenances and unplanned outages.
The lower export volumes have been offset by slightly weaker demand for global exports in various markerts for a number of reasons, including poor economic conditions in Argentina and Brazil, a new tax structure in India that requires more cash up front for transactions, and mixed conditions in China, which has been exported more PVC.
Formosa’s lack of exports to Mexico may put upware pressure on domestic prices there and reduce exports from the domestic producer there, markert participants said.
US PVC spot export prices have been heard this week in a wider range of about $820-875/tonne FOB (free on board) US Gulf. The ICIS assessment of spot export prices on 21 July put the range at $825-845/tonne to describe the main flow of business.
Major US PVC producers include Shintech, Occidental Chemical, Westlake Chemical and Formoda Plastics.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/07/27/10128171/formosa-declares-force-majeure-on-us-specialty-pvc-resins/
-
Dow, DuPont Mull Post-Deal Split into More Than Three Companies
Jul 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co. are weighing whether to carve out more separate companies following their historic $75 billion merger than the three originally envisioned.
The two largest U.S. chemical makers are working with McKinsey & Co. on a review to determine what combination of DowDuPont Inc. spinoffs would create the most value for shareholders, Dow Chief Financial Officer Howard Ungerleider said July 27. The review should be done within three months of the deal's closing, which is expected in August, he said.
“We have asked McKinsey to validate that base-case value of the three companies and then look at any other combination that would significantly and materially, on a risk-adjusted basis, create more shareholder value,” Ungerleider said in a telephone interview after Dow announced second-quarter earnings that beat expectations.
Dow and DuPont are responding to investors who have questioned the plan for dividing DowDuPont into three separate companies focused agriculture, specialty products and materials. Activist shareholder Third Point LLC has said changing the composition of the three spinoffs could create $20 billion of additional value, with even more possible through a six-way split. JPMorgan analyst Jeffrey Zekauskas this week said he expects the proposed materials division to be split in two, creating a total of four spinoffs.
The review is being led by Dow Chief Executive Officer Andrew Liveris, DuPont CEO Ed Breen, DuPont lead director Sandy Cutler, and Dow lead director Jeff Fettig.
“Everything is on the table,” Liveris said on a conference call with analysts July 27. “If it results in more than three companies, so be it.”
Approvals Pending
The merger still needs final antitrust approvals from the European Union, Brazil, China and South Africa, Ungerleider said. The EU on July 27 gave conditional approval to DuPont's asset swap with FMC Corp., which provides FMC with pesticide assets in exchange for its food and pharmaceutical ingredients business plus $1.6 billion. FMC must divest some herbicide production to eliminate antitrust concerns and DuPont has agreed to divest an alginates business, used to thicken food and pharmaceutical products.
Dow's adjusted second-quarter earnings rose to $1.08 a share, compared with the $1.01 average of analysts’ estimates. Sales climbed 16 percent to $13.8 billion, exceeding the $13.6 billion estimate.
Total volumes jumped 11 percent as an acquisition boosted two businesses, Dow said. Prices on average rose 5 percent.
15 Straight Quarter
The results enabled Liveris to beat analysts’ estimates for the 15th straight quarter as he heads into the deal closing. Liveris will be chairman of DowDuPont before retiring in a year, while Breen will be CEO of the merged company.
Profit in the agriculture unit rose 41 percent, while consumer solutions, bolstered by last year's purchase of Corning Inc.’s stake in their 72-year-old silicones venture, gained 59 percent. Infrastructures solutions, which also benefited from the Corning purchase, climbed 29 percent. The gains helped offset a 15 percent drop in plastics.
The company's silicones are used in hair and skin products, auto parts, skyscraper windows, insulation and computer screens among thousands of uses. The Dow Corning acquisition also made Dow a part-owner of Hemlock Semiconductor Group, which is comprised of joint ventures that make polycrystalline silicon and other silicon-based products used in semiconductors and solar cells.
DuPont on July 25 posted second-quarter earnings that beat estimates amid gains in all six business segments, led by agriculture and electronics.
Dow is spending $6 billion to boost plastics production along the U.S. Gulf Coast, with a newly constructed ethylene plant starting up in Freeport, Texas. In Saudi Arabia, the company's Sadara joint venture with Saudi Arabian Oil Co. has started the first manufacturing units.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117683811&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117683811&jd=117683811
-
Environmentalists Raise Concerns Over EPA's TSCA Scoping Documents
Jul 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Several environmental groups are questioning multiple aspects of EPA's efforts to launch its new risk evaluation program for existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and in a new letter are pressing EPA officials for reassurances that its first 10 risk evaluations will comply with the law's intent.
The groups -- Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO); Earthjustice; Environmental Health Strategy Center; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; Natural Resources Defense Council and Toxic-Free Future -- in a July 24 letter to EPA's acting toxics chief, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, list a series of concerns and questions over the agency's scoping documents for the first 10 chemicals that EPA has selected to conduct risk evaluations of, as directed in the TSCA reform act signed into law last year. They also question EPA's decision to begin problem formulation activities on these first 10 chemicals.
EPA released scoping documents -- intended to describe how the agency will shape its risk evaluations of the 10 chemicals -- June 22, as required by the reform law, along with three framework rules that form the new risk evaluation program for existing chemicals. These are chemicals that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976, plus all the chemicals that EPA has reviewed and added to the TSCA inventory since.
But the environmentalists point to several “disappointing omissions” in the scoping documents, which they say raise concerns that “the risk evaluations based on the scoping documents will be likewise incomplete and cursory and therefore insufficient for the informed decisions on chemicals safety that the new law was intended to assure.”
The groups note, for example, that the scoping documents “generally note that 'legacy uses' will be excluded [from the risk evaluations] but that the 'background exposure' from legacy uses that may be relevant to ongoing uses will be considered. However, the specifics of when and how these exposures will be taken in account are almost entirely lacking for individual chemicals. Finally, the scoping documents fail to meaningfully identify the particular 'potentially exposed or susceptible populations' that the evaluations will consider” as required by the TSCA reform statute.
“Our point here is that for chemicals that obviously do have significant background exposure, if EPA considers that relevant they should be describing in the scoping document how they intend to use background exposure in the risk evaluation and what information on background exposure they intend to use,” says a source in the non-governmental organization community familiar with the letter. “They don't provide any specifics. It draws into question the purpose for the scoping document. If that's going to be the . . . blueprint, you would think that they would need to be a little more granular.”
Another missing element from the scoping documents, the source says, is EPA's explanation of whether it will perform each chemical's evaluation based on aggregate approach to exposure from multiple uses of the chemical, or base the evaluation on a sentinel exposure, where the greatest exposure forms the basis. “That's a very central aspect of doing the risk evaluation, required by the statute,” the source says. “You would expect that the scoping document, as a blueprint, would say something about that.”
Other Concerns
ADAO has already expressed concerns with the asbestos scoping document, questioning EPA's decision to limit that risk evaluation to ongoing uses of asbestos and excluding past uses while there are active asbestos remediation and disposal industries. At a recent meeting of EPA's children's health advisors, several CHPAC members, and an EPA Region 9 employee, also questioned EPA's decision to limit the TSCA risk evaluations generally to ongoing uses of chemicals.
Asked how EPA could enforce TSCA regulations on legacy uses of asbestos, as an example, the NGO source replied that the conditions of chemicals' use, as defined in the TSCA reform law, “includes the circumstances under which chemicals are disposed of.”
The source adds that can be read narrowly to mean only disposing of active uses, “or more broadly to cover past disposal practices that are resulting in current releases to the environment. So there are different ways to read it, so that disposal includes historical releases. One reason for that is if you go to the Superfund world, and an important concept over there is that past disposal is resulting in ongoing releases.”
The groups ask EPA to allay their concerns by answering a series of questions: “given EPA's recognition that it had limited ability to process the information gathered during scoping, is EPA planning to revise and expand the scoping documents?”; will all of the conditions of the chemicals' use identified in the scoping documents be addressed in the risk evaluations, or does EPA plan to exclude some uses in its next step, problem formulation?; and, “Is EPA undertaking any effort to obtain more hazard and exposure data from industry on the 10 chemicals?”
The source explains that “theoretically under the [TSCA reform] law the scoping document is supposed to say, 'Here are the conditions of use that will be considered in the risk evaluation.' Are they saying that here or aren't they?”
The groups also raise concerns with a June 9 memo EPA entered in the electronic dockets for each of the 10 chemicals, re-opening the comment periods for all the chemicals though Sept. 19. The memo also announces that EPA is moving next to perform “problem formulation” on the 10 chemicals before commencing risk evaluations.
The source notes that the phrase “'problem formulation' is not used [in the TSCA reform statute] and is also not in the risk evaluation rule” that EPA released last month. “Seems odd EPA would issue a rule to describe the process but then add another step to the first 10 chemicals that isn't described in the rule,” the source says. “If this is an extra step for the first 10, we still need to understand what it is.”
The groups ask EPA to define the problem formulation step, whether it is unique to the first 10 risk evaluations and how it relates to the scoping process EPA undertook. They also ask the agency for more clarity on what kinds of additional information the agency is seeking in public comments.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-raise-concerns-over-epas-tsca-scoping-documents
-
100,000 Pages Of Chemical Industry Secrets Gathered Dust In An Oregon Barn For Decades — Until Now
Jul 26, 2017 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
FOR DECADES, SOME of the dirtiest, darkest secrets of the chemical industry have been kept in Carol Van Strum’s barn. Creaky, damp, and prowled by the occasional black bear, the listing, 80-year-old structure in rural Oregon housed more than 100,000 pages of documents obtained through legal discovery in lawsuits against Dow, Monsanto, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the Air Force, and pulp and paper companies, among others.
As of today, those documents and others that have been collected by environmental activists will be publicly available through a project called the Poison Papers. Together, the library contains more than 200,000 pages of information and “lays out a 40-year history of deceit and collusion involving the chemical industry and the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be protecting human health and the environment,” said Peter von Stackelberg, a journalist who along with the Center for Media and Democracy and the Bioscience Resource Project helped put the collection online.
Van Strum didn’t set out to be the repository for the people’s pushback against the chemical industry. She moved to a house in the Siuslaw National Forest in 1974 to live a simple life. But soon after she arrived, she realized the Forest Service was spraying her area with an herbicide called 2,4,5-T — on one occasion, directly dousing her four children with it as they fished by the river.
The chemical was one of two active ingredients in Agent Orange, which the U.S. military had stopped using in Vietnam after public outcry about the fact that it caused cancer, birth defects, and serious harms to people, animals, and the environment. But in the U.S., the Forest Service continued to use both 2,4,5-T and the other herbicide in Agent Orange, 2,4-D, to kill weeds. (Timber was — and in some places still is — harvested from the national forest and sold.) Between 1972 and 1977, the Forest Service sprayed 20,000 pounds of 2,4,5-T in the 1,600-square-mile area that included Van Strum’s house and the nearby town of Alsea.
As in Vietnam, the chemicals hurt people and animals in Oregon, as well as the plants that were their target. Immediately after they were sprayed, Van Strum’s children developed nosebleeds, bloody diarrhea, and headaches, and many of their neighbors fell sick, too. Several women who lived in the area had miscarriages shortly after incidents of spraying. Locals described finding animals that had died or had bizarre deformities — ducks with backward-facing feet, birds with misshapen beaks, and blinded elk; cats and dogs that had been exposed began bleeding from their eyes and ears. At a community meeting, residents decided to write to the Forest Service detailing the effects of the spraying they had witnessed.
“We thought that if they knew what had happened to us, they wouldn’t do it anymore,” Van Strum said recently, before erupting into one of the many bursts of laughter that punctuate her conversation. We were sitting not far from the river where her children played more than 40 years ago, and her property remained much as it was back when the Forest Service first sprayed them with the herbicide. A mountain covered with alder and maple trees rose up across from her home, just as it did then, and the same monkey puzzle tree that was there when she moved in still shaded her dirt driveway.
But Van Strum, now 76, is much changed from the young woman who politely asked that the federal agency stop spraying many years ago. After the Forest Service refused their request to stop using the herbicides, she and her neighbors filed a suit that led to a temporary ban on 2,4,5-T in their area in 1977 and, ultimately, to a total stop to the use of the chemical in 1983.
For Van Strum, the suit was also the beginning of lifetime of battling the chemical industry. The lawyer who had taken their case offered a reduced fee in exchange for Van Strum’s unpaid research assistance. And she found she had a knack for poring over and parsing documents and keeping track of huge volumes of information. Van Strum provided guidance to others filing suit over spraying in national forests and helped filed another case that pointed out that the EPA’s registration of 2,4-D and other pesticides was based on fraudulent data from a company called Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories. That case led to a decision, in 1983, to stop all aerial herbicide spraying by the Forest Service.
“We didn’t think of ourselves as environmentalists, that wasn’t even a word back then,” Van Strum said. “We just didn’t want to be poisoned.”
Still, Van Strum soon found herself helping with a string of suits filed by people who had been hurt by pesticides and other chemicals. “People would call up and say, ‘Do you have such and such?’ And I’d go clawing through my boxes,” said Van Strum, who often wound up acquiring new documents through these requests — and storing those, too, in her barn.
Along the way, she amassed disturbing evidence about the dangers of industrial chemicals — and the practices of the companies that make them. Two documents, for instance, detailed experiments that Dow contracted a University of Pennsylvania dermatologist to conduct on prisoners in the 1960s to show the effects of TCDD, a particularly toxic contaminant found in 2,4,5-T. Another document, from 1985, showed that Monsanto had sold a chemical that was tainted with TCDD to the makers of Lysol, who, apparently unaware of its toxicity, used it as an ingredient in their disinfectant spray for 23 years. Yet another, from 1990, detailed the EPA policy of allowing the use of hazardous waste as inert ingredients in pesticides and other products under certain circumstances.
There were limits to what Van Strum could prove through her persistent data collection. The EPA had undertaken a study of the relationship between herbicide exposure and miscarriages and had taken tissue samples from water, animals, a miscarried fetus, and a baby born without a brain in the area. The EPA never released the full results of the “Alsea study,” as it was called, and insisted it had lost many of them. But a lab chemist provided Van Strum with what he said was the analysis of the test results he had been hired to do for the EPA, which showed the samples from water, various animals, and “products of conception” were significantly contaminated with TCDD.
When confronted, the EPA claimed there had been a mix-up and that the samples were from another area. Van Strum filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the results and, for years, battled in court to get to the bottom of what happened. Though the EPA provided more than 34,000 pages in response to her request (which Van Strum carefully numbered and stored in her barn), the agency never released all the results of the study or fully explained what had happened to them or where the contaminated samples had been taken. And eventually, Van Strum gave up. The EPA declined to comment for this story.
She had to make peace with not fully understanding a personal tragedy, too. In 1977, her house burned to the ground and her four children died in the fire. Firefighters who came to the scene said the fact that the whole house had burned so quickly pointed to the possibility of arson. But an investigation of the causes of the fire was never completed.
Van Strum suspected some of her opponents might have set the fire. It was a time of intense conflict between local activists and employees of timber companies, chemical manufacturers, and government agencies over the spraying of herbicides. A group of angry residents in the area near Van Strum’s home had destroyed a Forest Service helicopter that had been used for spraying. And, on one occasion, Van Strum had come home to find some of the defenders of the herbicides she was attacking in court on her property.
“I’ve accepted that I’ll never really know” what happened, said Van Strum, who never rebuilt her house and now lives in an outbuilding next to the cleared site where it once stood.
But her commitment to the battle against toxic chemicals survived the ordeal. “If it was intentional, it was the worst thing that ever happened to me,” she said. “After that, there was nothing that could make me stop.”
Still, after all these years, Van Strum felt it was time to pass on her collection of documents, some of which pertain to battles that are still being waged, so “others can take up the fight.” And the seeds of many of the fights over chemicals going on today can be tied to the documents that sat in her barn. The Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories scandal is central in litigation over the carcinogenicity of Monsanto’s Roundup, for instance. And 2,4-D, the other active ingredient in Agent Orange, is still in use.
Meanwhile, private timber companies continue to use both 2,4-D and Roundup widely, though not in the national forest. Van Strum has been part of an effort to ban aerial pesticide spraying in the county, and is speaking on behalf of the local ecosystem in a related lawsuit.
“I get to play the Lorax,” Van Strum said. “It’s going to be fun.”
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/26/chemical-industry-herbicide-poison-papers/
-
Judges Grill Trump Admin On Bid To Roll Back Fracking Rule
Jul 27, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
DENVER — Federal judges are unlikely to let the Trump administration off easy as it works to unwind an Obama-era hydraulic fracturing rule while major legal questions remain unresolved.
A panel of three judges for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made that clear today as they heard oral arguments over the long-suspended fracking rule for public and tribal lands.
It remains unclear how the court will move forward with the case, but all three judges expressed concern that the Bureau of Land Management may move slowly on its plans to rescind the regulation.
"The present rule took five years," said Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, referring to the Obama administration's long windup to the final 2015 fracking rule. "How will this rule be different?"
The timeline is a key issue for the court because the panel must decide whether to answer a fundamental legal question — does the federal government have authority over fracking? — while the underlying rule is dismantled by the Trump administration.
The 10th Circuit has several options: It could put the case on hold while the new rulemaking process plays out. It could decide the merits of the case. Or it could dismiss the appeal now and potentially vacate the contentious lower court decision that found the government has no authority over fracking.
Much of today's court session dealt with the first option, as the judges grappled with the implications of putting the case on hold indefinitely.
Judge Jerome Holmes, a George W. Bush appointee, noted that he was concerned about "allowing the executive branch to kind of jerk around our docket" and avoid a ruling while taking its time on rulemaking. Judge Harris Hartz, another Bush appointee, added that the authority question could go unanswered for years.
Justice Department attorney Andrew Mergen tried to reassure the court that BLM will not be dragging its feet.
"Our clients don't expect to go off into a dark corner without this court's supervision," he said, adding that BLM can file regular status reports outlining its progress.
The fracking rule rescission is a priority of the new administration, giving BLM an incentive to act quickly, he added.
Briscoe, a Clinton appointee, remained skeptical.
"You get to do what you want to do when you want to do it," she said. "I'm serious; this is how this looks."
Holmes noted that dismissing the case and scrapping last year's ruling that BLM lacks fracking authority could allow the court to resolve the matter without having to remain involved in the agency's rulemaking process.Federal authority
The judges quickly moved to questions about the merits of the case, zeroing in on an argument from states challenging the rule — Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota and Utah — that the Safe Drinking Water Act gives U.S. EPA exclusive authority over fracking and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 then removes that power and leaves it to the states.
BLM and environmental intervenors in the case say that statutory interpretation ignores separate authority BLM has to regulate activities on public lands.
Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman, representing the environmental groups, said that reading would strip the federal government of authority for 90 percent of oil and gas activity, as most wells are hydraulically fractured. He argued that EPA's authority is not exclusive but simply overlaps to some extent with BLM's.
Mergen of DOJ agreed, arguing that Congress would not have used the Energy Policy Act to broadly remove federal fracking authority without expressly stating that. EPA itself supported BLM's regulatory efforts when it began promulgating the rule several years ago, he said.
Industry and state attorneys pushed back, arguing that the Safe Drinking Water Act and Energy Policy Act create a very specific "carve-out" of federal authority.
"The intervenors have characterized this as sort of a radical diminishment of the agency's authority," Wyoming Deputy Attorney General James Kaste told the court. "That's not true."
A decision from the court could come down in a matter of weeks or months, depending in part on whether it decides to rule on the merits of the case.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/27/stories/1060058031
-
Appellate Court Hears Oral Arguments on BLM Fracking Rule
Jul 28, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Lawyers for the federal government faced off against attorneys representing states and the oil and gas industry in appellate court on Thursday, for oral arguments over an embattled rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands.
At issue in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver are rules promulgated by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Court records show Judges Mary Beck Briscoe, Harris Hartz and Jerome Holmes presided over the hearing, which involved two companion cases: State of Wyoming et al v. Zinke et al [No. 16-8068] and State of Wyoming et al v. DOI [No. 16-8069].
Appellees in the cases include Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and the Western Energy Alliance (WEA).
"We are appreciative of the court's willingness to hear extended argument on the issues this case presents, both procedural and substantive," attorney Mark Barron told NGI’s Shale Daily on Thursday. He is Baker & Hostetler LLP and is representing IPAA and WEA. "More important than the outcome of this specific lawsuit, however, we are grateful that Interior has finally recognized the legal and technical flaws in the 2015 hydraulic fracturing rule and initiated steps to correct those flaws through rulemaking."
On Tuesday, the BLM’s notice was published in the Federal Register stating that the agency plans to rescind the rule because it is duplicative of state and tribal laws, and imposes unreasonable reporting requirements and costs on the oil and gas industry. BLM is currently taking public comments over its plans to rescind the rule.
"America's independent oil and gas producers hope that the parties can now put this case behind them and turn their collective attention to the administrative rulemaking process currently underway," Barron said. "That process, not the federal courts, is the appropriate forum for the parties to address their policy differences on the important subject of hydraulic fracturing."
When asked how Thursday's hearing went, Barron said it was "very difficult to say."
"The court was quite thorough and probing of both sides, but played their cards close to the vest," he said. "I feel confident that we presented the key elements of our case, but I don't think this is a result that I can prognosticate on with any confidence. If they decide to issue a decision on the merits, I won't be surprised either way."
The BLM said a regulatory impact analysis found the rule could shoulder the oil and gas industry with at least $32 million in annual compliance costs, but the costs could potentially be as high as $45 million/year.
The rule would require oil and gas operators to use the FracFocus registry to disclose the chemicals used in fracking and use above-ground tanks to temporarily store produced water, among other things. However, U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in June 2016 that BLM does not have the authority to regulate fracking. The government subsequently filed an appeal.
Last March, the Tenth Circuit gave the Trump administration one week to decide whether it wanted to continue defending the rule in court. Attorneys for the BLM said the Obama-era rule did not reflect the Trump administration's priorities and asked the court to postpone a pair of cases over the rule. The court granted the request, postponing oral arguments until Thursday.
"Congress simply did not give the federal government authority to regulate fracking, period," WEA President Kathleen Sgamma said before Thursday's hearing. "We remain confident in our arguments and the previous decision. States have shown they've successfully regulated fracking with no incident on public lands that justifies this rule. States have regulated fracking for many years, and BLM has failed to show any gap in state regulation."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111230-appellate-court-hears-oral-arguments-on-blm-fracking-rule
-
Pipelines Awaiting Approval Pile Up at Federal Energy Regulator
Jul 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The backlog of natural gas pipelines awaiting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval is piling up as the agency enters its sixth month without enough members to approve $14 billion worth of infrastructure projects, and gas suppliers and pipeline companies could face longer-term impacts.
Those awaiting approval include the proposed $5.5 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline, owned by Dominion Energy and other partners, and the $2.1 billion Nexus pipeline, a joint project from DTE Energy Co. and an Enbridge subsidiary.
“The situation is manageable for the time being, but just barely, because we are a few months away from major delays, which would be disruptive to the construction of pipelines and gas producers,” James Lucier, managing director of Capital Alpha Partners LLC, a policy research firm that follows energy investments, told Bloomberg BNA.
“If we don't have a quorum by September, we definitely need to worry,” he said.
Pipeline companies are calling on the Senate to act quickly to confirm two Republican FERC nominees—Robert Powelson and Neil Chatterjee—who can return the agency to a quorum to address the pending pipelines. When fully staffed, the independent agency has five commissioners, but it is among the agencies with a long list of appointed officials that Congress has yet to confirm.
Down to One Commissioner
FERC has been without a voting quorum of three commissioners since February, and is now down to one commissioner—Acting Chairman Cheryl LaFleur. Without a quorum, it can't issue certificates authorizing construction and operation of natural gas pipelines, approve liquefied natural gas terminals or vote on contested rate hearings.
If the quorum isn't returned and the pipelines are delayed, down-the-line impacts are possible on construction jobs, and natural gas producers and shippers, pipelines companies say. This is the first time FERC has been without a voting quorum in its 40-year history.
The latest pipeline awaiting a FERC vote is the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, spanning 600 miles from West Virginia to North Carolina, which received a favorable final environmental impact statement (EIS) from FERC staff July 21. It joins other high-profile pipelines including the proposed Nexus pipeline, owned by DTE Energy and Spectra Energy Partners LP (acquired by Enbridge), which received its environmental impact statement—the last step before a FERC vote—in November 2016.“Quick action by the U.S. Senate on the FERC nominees will have an immediate impact on the nation's economy and Infrastructure,” Jerry Norcia, president and chief operating officer at DTE Energy, told Bloomberg BNA.
Recently environmental groups opposing fracking and the development of natural gas pipelines have increased their efforts to put pressure on FERC.
The Sierra Club said it has opposed the nominations of Chatterjee and Powelson.
“Unfortunately, Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Chatterjee and Rob Powelson will continue FERC's status quo of approving unneeded fracked gas pipelines that take private land for corporate gain and lock Americans into higher electricity rates while increasing our dependency on fossil fuels for decades to come,” Lena Moffitt, Sierra Club's director of the Our Wild America campaign aimed at protecting public land, told Bloomberg BNA.
Also, the Natural Resources Defense Council is an intervenor in the natural gas certificate cases at FERC for the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines. John Moore, director of the NRDC's Sustainable FERC Project, told Bloomberg BNA that his group believes these projects aren't necessary because there isn't enough demand for the fuel and other clean energy alternatives are available.
Senate Impasse
Chatterjee and Powelson were reported favorably out of a Senate committee in a 20-3 vote and are awaiting a Senate floor vote. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mazie Hirano (D-Hawaii) were the three members who voted against them.
Two more nominees, Richard Glick (a Democrat) and Kevin McIntyre (a Republican)—have been named by President Donald Trump, but their nominations haven't been formally sent to the Senate to begin their hearing and confirmation process.
Without agreements on vote timing between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), FERC's quorum may not be restored until after Labor Day, Christi Tezak, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, told Bloomberg BNA. And the value of backlogged pipeline projects could reach $17 billion by October, she projected.Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which favorably reported out Powelson and Chatterjee, has said it is “critical to restore a working quorum at FERC as soon as possible.” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the committee's ranking member, also voted in favor of both nominees and has supported FERC returning to a quorum.
Impacts on Jobs, Suppliers, Consumers
The lack of FERC quorum “has implications that go pretty far beyond the pipeline companies,” Don Santa, president of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, told Bloomberg BNA.
DTE Energy's Norcia said that if FERC approves the proposed Nexus pipeline, it would provide more than 7,000 construction jobs to Ohio and Michigan. Atlantic Coast Pipeline says it will employ more than 17,000 construction workers West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina.
Smaller pipelines such as the $1 billion proposed Penn East pipeline, owned by a group of companies including Spectra Energy and NJR Pipeline Co., would run through New Jersey and Pennsylvania and provide up to 3,000 construction jobs.
Santa, whose trade group represents the major U.S. pipeline companies, said uncertainty of the FERC approval timeline could lead to potential construction delays.
In addition, pipeline companies could be subject to paying penalties to shippers if contracts aren't met due to delayed approval, and the companies’ shareholders may not get the returns on their investments if there are delayed in-service dates.
Dena Wiggins, president and CEO of the Natural Gas Supply Association, which represents natural gas producers such as ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., said the backlog directly impacts them.
“Natural gas producers have to have pipelines to get their gas to market and we've got an abundant supply, but we've got to have the pipelines,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
If there are further delays, consumers may see higher prices.
“When you build new pipeline infrastructure, particularly if you relieve a bottleneck in the pipeline system, that lowers delivered gas prices,” Santa said. He said this could lower heating and electricity bills.
‘Not a Practice I'd Recommend’
“We are literally driving right up to the end of the cliff. And the good news is that as long as you stay on this side of the edge, you can still be fine. It's just not a practice I'd recommend,” Capital Alpha's Lucier said.
One the first pipelines to come online, if approved after a FERC quorum is restored, would likely be the Nexus pipeline. The pipeline will likely be completed some time in 2018, Gerry Anderson, DTE Energy's president and CEO, said in the company's second quarter earnings call July 26.
Other pipelines still project a late 2018 start-date, including the $3.5 billion Mountain Valley pipeline primarily owned by EQT Midstream Partners that would span through Virginia and West Virginia; and Penn East.
TransCanda Corp.'s $2 billion Mountaineer Xpress in West Virginia could be added to the list of potentially delayed projects if FERC doesn't have a quorum until later this year. The company is projecting for the pipeline be operational in late 2018 as well.
The owners of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline—Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas and Southern Co.—say that they are confident they will receive FERC approval by the fall, and for the pipeline to be operational by late 2019.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117683796&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117683796&jd=117683796
-
Pennsylvania Senate Passes NatGas Tax; Industry on Defense
Jul 28, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania's GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday put the natural gas industry on the defensive as it passed a revenue package to fund the state budget that includes a volumetric fee on production designed to generate an estimated $100 million annually.
The plan would plug a $2 billion-plus budget deficit and follows negotiations in the state House that aimed to avoid tax increases. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf let the state's $32 billion budget pass into law earlier this month without his signature.Until Thursday Senate lawmakers had failed to agree on a plan to fund it. The state House must still weigh in on the measure.
The General Assembly has been at loggerheads in recent budget seasons, which led to a nine-month impasse in 2015. Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati said the reality of this year's "budget situation" necessitated "many difficult decisions."
Under the Senate plan, producers of unconventional resources would pay an effective tax rate of 2 cents/Mcf in fiscal 2017-2018, which began this month. But the annual rate could slide up or down from 1.5-3.5 cents.
The Senate also wants to borrow $1.3 billion to be paid with funds from a 1998 settlement with tobacco companies. The revenue package implements a 5.7% tax on natural gas utility service, increases the tax on electricity bills to 6.5% from 5.9% and raises the tax on home and mobile phone service, among other things.
"We've done everything we can in state government to contain spending in the areas that we have the ability in order to avoid any tax increase," said Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman. "Unfortunately, we are here today because we ran out of our ability to do that. If we are going to maintain our responsibility to educate our children, provide for higher education, provide for human services and pay our debts, we are in a position that we have to find the revenue needed to make that happen."
The industry fired back after word broke of the narrow 26-24 vote to approve the revenue package. API Pennsylvania Executive Director Stephanie Catarino Wissman said the bill was a "political ploy targeting job creators and industry." Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer said the tax would "erode the commonwealth's competitive advantage."
Industry representatives said they remain committed to fighting a tax increase. Under the Senate's plan, producers would still be required to pay the state's impact fee, which is levied annually on all unconventional wells in the state during their first 15 years of operation, as long as they produce more than 90 Mcf. Producers have paid more $1.2 billion in impact fees since the fee was established in 2012.
The tax bill includes some concessions for shale drillers. For example, it would implement faster turnaround times for well, air and earthmoving permits and make it tougher to impose methane emission regulations.
Wolf hailed the Senate's action to get the budget balanced and for the chamber's willingness to "include a tax on Marcellus Shale," a spokesman said. Wolf has proposed a severance taxthree times, most recently in February when he proposed a 6.5% tax on the value of natural gas in addition to the impact fee.
The Senate plan could be a tough sell in the House, where Republicans have a strong majority and are led by Speaker Mike Turzai, a vocal ally for the energy industry.
Lawmakers have tried, but failed for years to implement a severance tax in the state. Before the Senate vote on Thursday, the industry had been working to stop a small group of bipartisan House lawmakers, who recently urged Turzai to bring severance tax legislation to the floor for a vote. A spokesman for the House said leadership and members would need time to review the Senate's revenue package.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111232-pennsylvania-senate-passes-natgas-tax-industry-on-defense
-
If Petronas Can't Beat U.S. LNG Suppliers, It Could Join Them
Jul 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Natalie Obiko Pearson, Ryan Collins and Kevin Orland
Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd has pulled the plug on its $27 billion plan to ship liquefied natural gas from Canada's west coast to Asia, losing out to U.S. suppliers who got to market first.
Well, if it can't beat them, it may still join them.
With its Pacific Northwest LNG project now dead, Petronas, as the state-owned company is known, needs to find a home for the gas produced by its Progress Energy Canada Ltd. unit in Canada's massive Montney formation—and exporting from the U.S. might be its best bet.
“Given the high quality of Petronas’ liquid-rich shale assets in Canada, it wouldn't be surprising if Petronas tried to monetize some of them into LNG through a U.S. Gulf Coast facility,” said David Austin, a Vancouver-based energy lawyer at Clark Wilson LLP who has advised clients working in the Montney, one of the continent's most prolific and cheapest sources of gas.
Petronas’ decision to scrap the Pacific Northwest plant underscores how Canada's natural gas industry has struggled to compete with surging supplies from U.S. shale formations, which are already reaching buyers from Chile to China. As U.S. gas shipments to overseas buyers climb to a record and Canada's export projects remain stalled, Canadian drillers may have little choice but to send their output through Gulf Coast LNG terminals.
“That resource that we own is world class and highly competitive,” Progress CEO Mark Fitzgerald said on a conference call Tuesday when asked about the possibility of exporting through the U.S. “We'll look at every option that we can to bring that to market.”
Petronas’ Progress wouldn't be the first Canadian producer to turn to the U.S. for help in exporting gas. Cheniere Energy Inc., which owns two LNG terminals on the Gulf Coast, signed its first Montney supply deal with Calgary-based Seven Generations Energy Ltd. earlier this year.
Cheniere is “absolutely” looking at other Canadian natural gas suppliers, Corey Grindal, senior vice president of gas supply, said in a June 26 interview in Houston. “We are in conversations with others.”
Grindal also said Cheniere is in discussions about whether additional infrastructure needs to be built, potentially with a partner, “to get gas from the Montney down to one or both our terminals.” Cheniere operates the Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana and is building a second near Corpus Christi, Texas.
The Montney, a formation sometimes referred to as the “the Permian of the North” after the massive Texas oil and gas field, straddles the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. The play holds about 449 trillion cubic feet of marketable natural gas, according to a 2013 estimate from Canada's National Energy Board. That's about half the total reserves of Qatar, the world's biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas.
Seeking Markets
But Canadian oil and gas producers face limited options in finding potential customers for their supply. Regulatory delays and environmental opposition have long stymied pipeline and LNG terminal projects seeking to ship out of Canadian ports to newer, more profitable markets.
Canada “has a tremendous resource, but market outlets are limited,” Matthew Phillips, director at Guggenheim Securities LLC in Dallas said.
Petronas spent C$5.2 billion to buy Progress Energy in 2012 to take control of gas fields in the Montney intended to supply the LNG terminal. Progress, with partners China Petrochemical Corp., Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Indian Oil Corp. and Brunei's state oil company, produce more than 750 million cubic feet equivalent of natural gas per day, according to the company's website.
“There's just a huge amount of it,” said Samir Kayande, director at Calgary-based RS Energy Group. “What they need to do is figure out what the market for that gas is.“
TransCanada Corp., which was building the North Montney Mainline to supply Montney gas to Petronas’ LNG terminal, said earlier this year that the pipeline would be successful even without the facility.
The line “is needed whether or not LNG goes ahead,” Shawn Howard, a spokesman for TransCanada, said in an email. “The Montney basin is one of the lowest-cost, most prolific North American shale plays, and production growth in this area requires additional infrastructure to connect supply to existing or new markets.”
Canadian producers looking to boost gas exports to the U.S. will face stiff competition from producers in the Marcellus shale basin of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, Phillips said. A U.S. export valve is unlikely to resolve the basic conundrum facing stranded Canadian producers: better prices.
“It means we're beholden to the U.S.,” said Andy Mah, chief executive officer of Calgary-based Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. “Until we can start recognizing that we have something of value and make it happen, we're going to be at their mercy.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117683810&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117683810&jd=117683810
-
House Dems Offer Carbon Tax Plan, Mirroring Senate Bill
Jul 27, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and David Cicilline of Rhode Island introduced a bill today that would impose a carbon tax aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The measure is a companion to the proposal introduced in the Senate yesterday by Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii (E&E News PM, July 26).
The House bill, H.R. 3420, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to slap a fee on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. It would generate an estimated $2 trillion in the first 10 years, the sponsors say, which would help lower corporate tax rates and fund credits for workers and payments for retirees and disabled people.
"If we don't act on climate now, future generations will shoulder the devastation of increased temperatures, rising sea levels, and environmental degradation," Blumenauer said in a statement.
"The United States is a major contributor to global carbon pollution. Putting a price on our emissions is critical in our fight against climate change."
Democrats have said the corporate tax cut is intended as a carrot for Republicans who might otherwise shun climate legislation. The lawmakers stressed the economic benefits of the legislation, saying the proposal was sound policy regardless of the science.
"Climate change is a real and growing threat to all Americans," Cicilline said in a statement. "This bill implements important strategies to address this danger and strengthen our economy. It will drive down greenhouse gas emissions and make American companies more productive in a global economy."
The measure would impose a $49-per-ton fee on CO2 emissions, with that amount rising 2 percent annually. The think tank Resources for the Future says the tax would reduce energy-related CO2 emissions by 36 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The measure would set aside about 70 percent of the revenue as a carbon dividend, intended to help families offset increases in energy prices. The other 30 percent would provide corporate tax relief.
The American Sustainable Business Council, which promotes market-based solutions, has come out in support of the measure.
"Businesses want to see action from Congress because extreme weather events and other effects of climate change disrupt supply chains, increase insurance premiums, and kill jobs by shutting down businesses," said Richard Eidlin, the council's co-founder and vice president of policy, in a statement.
"Putting a meaningful price on carbon, as proposed in this bill, would allow us to reduce emissions and support economic growth."
Support for a carbon tax has been political poison for Republicans. Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) lost his seat in 2011 after reversing his stance on climate action.
Still, conservatives are starting to get on board. Former Cato Institute scholar Jerry Taylor, for example, had a change of heart and founded a libertarian think tank that supports a carbon tax (Greenwire, June 16).
And he is not alone. There is a growing movement of young conservatives who want clean energy production and climate action (E&E Daily, Sept. 23, 2016).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/27/stories/1060058030
-
USGBC's Ramanujam Says Government Support Critical To Driving Green Construction, Technology
Jul 27, 2017 | E&E TV
What role should high-performance construction and technology play in the Trump administration's infrastructure plan? During today's OnPoint, Mahesh Ramanujam, president and CEO of the U.S. Green Building Council, explains how green construction can boost profits and save money.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Mahesh Ramanujam, president and CEO of the U.S. Green Building Council. Mahesh, thank you for joining me.
Mahesh Ramanujam: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: So the conversation over green construction and technology has shifted somewhat over the last six months as Washington politics have changed. As this administration considers a strategy on infrastructure, what role do you believe high-performance construction should play, and how does it get paid for?
Mahesh Ramanujam: I believe it's similar to what we have done with the building sector. The emphasis on high-performance infrastructure is important, but we believe high-performance infrastructure is about sustainability. And the way you get paid is by making sure that the private sector participates. The private sector gets certainty from the government that clear policies and clear regulations will be laid and supported, in which case a lot of private investors, particularly the infrastructure side, are waiting to actually invest dollars like any good business would do, and really take this to the next level. So for us it's very simple. Give certainty to the market, send a clear signal that this is the trend and this is the direction the government is going to take, and importantly make this all about sustainability and increasing the key focus around green investments and green returns and green business.
Monica Trauzzi: Are you confident that the Trump administration will give that clear signal to the business community?
Mahesh Ramanujam: At this point in time there is a lot of confusion, but I think after they get through all the commotion this will be the next logical step that they will take, because given that most of their leaders are from the business world it should become a logical conclusion, or at least the private sector will drive that conclusion for them.
Monica Trauzzi: But we hear many folks in the business sector saying that business will continue on its current path, right — looking to be more sustainable, more efficient. Why is this different? Why is the signal from the government so, so critical here?
Mahesh Ramanujam: I think from a building-sector point of view we have been working on this ... 20-year plan, as — if you take U.S. Green Building Council, we are now on our 24th year of existence. So our journey has been long and hard, and it has taken a long time for the market to understand it. They understand that about buildings, that ... system, et cetera, is possible, but when it comes to infrastructure, the total need to transform the global public infrastructure is $89 trillion. And to transition that to a low-carbon economy it is going to take another $6 trillion. Now that capital doesn't sit in anybody's bank account today. So in order to get that kind of capital mobilized in the marketplace, the government has to play its role in sending clear signals, because then investors will allocate capital from buildings to infrastructure or both.
Monica Trauzzi: Have you interacted with the Trump administration? And what is the one message that you would hope to deliver to them?
Mahesh Ramanujam: Our team is in active dialogue with the Trump administration team. I think the simple message to Mr. Trump is follow your election promise, but make America great again by demanding better things for America, and green is one better way to do it.
Monica Trauzzi: What are some examples that you would use in speaking with the Trump administration of how energy conservation can boost profits?
Mahesh Ramanujam: Today the — if you really look at it — let me take a couple of examples from the emerging world. Like if you take India, if you take China, they have deployed solar full scale. And what solar does is that it takes away the burden on the infrastructure, the grid, the carbon challenges, et cetera, et cetera. And it has helped them to actually put the dollars back into the infrastructure. So what we want America to do is to actually focus on energy efficiency as a core constraint and require that more innovation happen, more technological improvement happen in the United States to make sure that capital could be released from defending, maintaining, supporting to R&D, innovation, optimization and also placing the strategy ... for the future to improve infrastructure. So I think that's the key message.
Monica Trauzzi: So outside of the policy signals that you're looking for, what are the biggest hurdles that you see that are still facing the green building industry?
Mahesh Ramanujam: I think it is mindset. Most of the people, even though that makes sense, they keep asking for a business case. Today they don't ask business case for marketing. Today they don't ask business case for technology. Today they don't ask business case for customer service. But for some reason they keep asking business case for sustainability and stop looking at examples that's around the world. And importantly businesses are also realizing a key part of the brand building is to not just to do well, but also to do good. So that shift is not being understood by the people who are not trying to take the leadership at all. So I think it's just a mindset issue, and people ought to look at data very closely like they are supposed to and make sure they push the envelope to understand that we can move the needle by simply making a simple step, saying, "OK, I'll build everything green." And the action will automatically happen.
Monica Trauzzi: And what can Congress do?
Mahesh Ramanujam: I think at this point in time the Congress needs to really be clear that they are not in the way of green. Because they don't support green, that doesn't mean they are against green. So if they can make it clear that they are willing to have the private sector lead, I think we'll see massive transformation.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, very interesting conversation. We'll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show.
Mahesh Ramanujam: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
https://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2241/transcript
-
GOP Backing For California Cap-And-Trade Expansion Key To Durability
Jul 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Republican support for the landmark extension of California's greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program -- which was key to extending the program by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature -- is the latest evidence that bipartisan support is critical for the long-term durability of climate mitigation policies, according to one top analyst.
Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow with the think tank Resources for the Future (RFF) who closely follows cap-and-trade programs, tells Inside EPA that the bipartisan vote to extend the Golden State's program to 2030 is the clearest proof yet that bipartisanship is needed for such programs to survive over the long term.
“Climate policy that reduces emissions will impact everyone, but not as much as an unbridled changing climate. Addressing this issue requires some element of social consensus, and bipartisanship makes a lasting solution possible,” Burtraw says.
In the case of California's program, the two-thirds vote shields the program from future legal challenges that its allowance auctions are an illegal tax or fee -- given that state law requires such charges to be enacted with super-majority two-thirds support in the legislature.
The overwhelming vote also serves as a political shield against a future administration that might seek to scrap or undermine the program. In contrast, a program codified by only a slim margin or implemented administratively using only general statutory authority would be more susceptible to reversal.
During a July 25 signing ceremony for the cap-and-trade extension bill, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) -- who signed 2006 legislation first creating the trading program -- underscored the importance of the new bill. It sends a “message that we have a functional government here in California, where Democrats and Republicans work together,” the former governor said. “This is a very important message for Washington.”
He also touted the fact that eight Republican state lawmakers supported the measure, noting that only one Republican supported the 2006 legislation, even though his GOP administration backed it.
In part because of what the vote means for the program's durability, Burtraw adds in a July 18 blog post that the bill's passage “is undoubtedly the most important climate news since President Trump decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and it is perhaps even more consequential.”
Burtraw also points to the success of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) -- a nine-state Northeast and Mid-Atlantic utility cap-and-trade program formed in 2009 -- that has been supported by the states led by administrations of both parties.
Additionally, he also cites new GOP additions to the House Climate Solutions Caucus, including Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and the rumored joining by former House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), suggesting that those may be early signals of a shift at the federal level.
Currently, five of the RGGI states have Republican governors -- Paul LePage in Maine, Larry Hogan in Maryland, Charlie Baker in Massachusetts, Christopher Sununu in New Hampshire and Phil Scott in Vermont. Only Delaware has not had a GOP governor during the iteration of RGGI, Burtraw notes.
And while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) took his state out of the program in 2011, both the Republican and Democratic candidates running to succeed him in November's election have pledged to re-enter RGGI. Further, the program is also considering linking with a nascent GHG cap in Virginia.
Programs with bipartisan support are much more lasting than any federal climate program that has so far either died in Congress due to partisan differences or has been executed administratively, such as Obama-era climate rules that the Trump administration is now seeking to undo.
Partisan Pressure
The California bill won backing from most state Democrats, including Gov. Jerry Brown, Senate Leader Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon. But it also eventually won support from a handful of Republican lawmakers, including Assembly Minority Leader Chad Mayes.
In order to attract such GOP support, Burtraw notes, lawmakers included several key compromises, including tax relief for industry and a waiver of a fee for rural fire protection. The bill also generally bars state and local officials from issuing direct GHG rules for refineries and other sectors covered by the cap-and-trade program.
Seven Republicans in the Assembly joined 48 Democrats to support the cap-and-trade extension bill, and six GOP Assembly members voted against it. In the Senate, one Republican joined all 27 Democrats in voting yes.
The lone Senate Republican, Tom Berryhill, issued a statement saying he voted for the bill because he “was able to ensure farmers, small-business owners and rural Californians were well-represented and protected.” He also touted cap-and-trade as an approach that “fills the void created by onerous policies, a void that would otherwise be filled by regulations written by out-of-touch, unaccountable bureaucrats.”
Burtraw, in the interview with InsideEPA/climate, notes that a sufficient number of Republicans voted for the measure to achieve the critical two-thirds margin, despite pressure from conservatives -- including the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which wrote two editorials -- one published July 14 ahead of the vote, and a second two days after it passed, on July 19 -- seeking to sink the bill.
The first editorial sought to persuade Republicans to abandon the bill given the “rupture” of some rural Democrats who were reportedly opposing the program's expansion. The paper also accused the California Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable of suffering “from Sacramento syndrome” by endorsing the measure.
Also, it warned that Brown “wants Republicans to provide the votes he needs to extend cap and trade. GOP support would let Democrats in competitive districts off the hook and make it harder to break their supermajority in 2018. If Republicans go along, they can look forward to being a permanent superminority.”
The second editorial said: “Republicans in Sacramento handed Jerry Brown the biggest legislative victory of his governorship on Monday by reauthorizing carbon cap-and-trade. This act of political self-sabotage and voter betrayal ranks close to the Senate GOP's ObamaCare failure.”
Despite such partisan pressure, Burtraw says the GOP support shows that the political threat “was overcome by the merits of the issue” of climate change, which these lawmakers see a need to address now.
He lauds the Republican lawmakers for their votes in the face of such pressure, and says he was “pleasantly surprised” that so many Assembly Republicans voted in favor of it in particular.
“A small number of them did and that made the difference,” he says. “So when Jerry Brown and Chad Mayes leave the state . . . they can say the California legislature voted overwhelmingly, by two thirds, to support cap and trade. That is a huge win. Getting two thirds is remarkable. It plays outside the state as overwhelming” bipartisan support.
That argument does not appear to be lost on Brown, who released an expansive “what they're saying” release about the legislation that cites statements in support from more than 150 environmental, climate, public health, clean energy, agriculture, food processing, business and labor groups, as well as local governments, utility leaders, researchers, economists and newspaper editorial boards.
In particular, Brown cites a joint piece endorsing the measure from the president of the California Chamber of Commerce and the president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "This program has a proven track record of being the least expensive approach to cutting carbon emissions -- three to five times cheaper than the alternatives,” they wrote.
There was also strong support from municipal utility groups, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and Sempra Energy.
An E&E News article says the reasons for the GOP support are varied because the lawmakers represent diverse districts, including Central Valley farmlands, East San Francisco Bay communities and others around the state.
Assembly GOP Leader Mayes said in a statement: “This plan cleans up the environment for future generations and cuts the cost of taxes, fees and regulations by $16 billion a year for ordinary Californians. Protecting the earth and protecting your paycheck is no longer an either-or decision.”
Federal Lessons
Burtraw says the state cap-and-trade programs offer federal lessons, citing the fact that Issa recently joined the bipartisan House climate caucus as evidence of a nascent shift among Republicans on the issue.
Nevertheless, he acknowledges that climate change remains the subject of deep divisions on Capitol Hill, with another prominent California Republican, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, urging all Republicans in the state Legislature to vote against the cap-and-trade extension measure.
The impacts of the California vote remain to be seen, but Axios reported July 21 that Upton is considering joining the Climate Solutions Caucus, which has 48 members evenly split between parties.
If Upton did join, that would add stature to the group, which to date has largely focused as a venue for discussing climate impacts, though some sources say the lawmakers hope to soon introduce legislation on mitigation and adaptation. Upton told Axios that Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) approached him about joining together, and he is “running the traps.”
Upton also said he was disappointed that Trump abandoned the Paris climate agreement and joined 46 Republicans breaking with most of their colleagues earlier this month by voting to allow the Department of Defense to assess the national security threat of climate change. --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/gop-backing-california-cap-and-trade-expansion-key-durability
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested