Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/11/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Demand Increases for Eco-Friendly and Bio-Degradable Garbage Bags
Aug 10, 2017 | Future Market Insights
By Shambhu Nath Jha
Rising environmental concerns are driving demand for biodegradable and eco-friendly garbage bags. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA ‘Eliminates Backlog’ of New Chemical Reviews
Aug 10, 2017 | Future Market Insights
By Shambhu Nath Jha
Rising environmental concerns are driving demand for biodegradable and eco-friendly garbage bags. -
The Wait is Over: TSCA Framework Final Rule on TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements Scheduled For Publication
Aug 10, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On August 11, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish the third Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework final rule in the Federal Register, the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements. -
Clock Starts Ticking to Keep Chemicals in Commerce
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical makers and importers that want to keep their products on the market must notify the EPA by February 2018 about the chemicals they have made during the past decade. -
Best Buy Announces New Program to Tackle Toxic Chemicals
Aug 10, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade and Kathleen Schüler
Consumer electronics at a store near you may soon be free of certain hazardous chemicals. Best Buy is the latest retailer to announce progress in tackling toxic chemicals in products in recent months. -
We Can’t Stop Our Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Until We Rein In the Corporations Releasing Them
Aug 10, 2017 | In These Times
By Laure Orlando
Chemical compounds that incapacitate or kill, like phosgene, chlorine and sulfur mustard, were put into German artillery shells and delivered by howitzers on the frontlines in World War I. -
Republicans Rush to Monsanto's Aid With Industry-Biased Reuters Report
Aug 11, 2017 | AlterNet
By Stacy Malkan
In their latest attempt to shield Monsanto from accountability, House Republicans have seized upon the flawed and biased reporting of a Reuters journalist whose work has emerged as a key lobbying tool for the embattled agrichemical company... -
Pipelines Among Priorities as Energy Regulator Gets Quorum
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can proceed to vote on a backlog of key natural gas pipeline projects, contested rate filings, and enforcement actions now that its long-waited quorum has been restored. -
Court Indefinitely Halts Suit on Obama New Power Plant Rule
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
Fearing damage to tourism, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson today renewed his call for Congress to extend a moratorium on drilling that would keep rigs off the coast of his home state of Florida. -
Oil and Gas Industry Loses Again in Methane Court Battle
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The oil and gas industry lost another round in its fight to nullify an EPA regulation on methane emissions, as a federal appeals court decided against reconsidering the case. -
Oklahoma Task Force to Assess OCC; Three Disposal Wells to Halt Injections
Aug 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, in an effort to discover ways to improve operations of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), issued an executive order (EO) Monday creating a five-member task force to conduct an organizational analysis of the agency. -
Fla. Senator Renews Call for Drilling Ban at Field Hearing
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
Fearing damage to tourism, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson today renewed his call for Congress to extend a moratorium on drilling that would keep rigs off the coast of his home state of Florida. -
Ford Sued Over Chemicals Seeping Into Michigan Groundwater
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
More than 130 residents of Livonia, Mich. are suing Ford Motor Co. for alleged damages caused by the release of cleaning chemicals from a company plant. -
CSX Lobbied Christie Officials Before He Vetoed Oil-Train Bill
Aug 11, 2017 | NorthJersey.com
By Curtis Tate
CSX Transportation lobbied New Jersey officials to oppose legislation to increase the transparency of oil train movements in the state before Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the bill last month. -
Pruitt: EPA Will Review Climate Findings in Scientific Report
Aug 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told hosts of a Texas radio show on Thursday his agency will review an upcoming federal climate change research report compiled by 13 agencies “and evaluate the merits and demerits and the methodology and accuracy of the report.” -
D.C. Circuit Suspends Briefing in Suit over CSAPR Update
Aug 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has suspended briefing in litigation over EPA's updated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), granting a request from industry petitioners challenging the rule to delay proceedings so EPA can determine whether to reconsider the revised CSAPR. -
The Axis of Climate Evil
Aug 11, 2017 | New York Times
By Paul Krugman
“It’s Not Your Imagination: Summers Are Getting Hotter.” So read a recent headline in The Times, highlighting a decade-by-decade statistical analysis by climate expert James Hansen... -
State Rolls Out New Rules to Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Aug 11, 2017 | AP (In U.S. News & World Report)
By Bob Salsberg
Gov. Charlie Baker's administration will issue a set of new rules aimed at bringing Massachusetts into full compliance with an ambitious state law that calls for a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Demand Increases for Eco-Friendly and Bio-Degradable Garbage Bags
Aug 10, 2017 | Future Market Insights
By Shambhu Nath Jha
Rising environmental concerns are driving demand for biodegradable and eco-friendly garbage bags. Hence, researchers around the world are finding the ways to turn plastic garbage bags into useful material. Companies are also introducing garbage bags that can be recycled and are eco-friendly. Manufacturers are using biomass materials to develop biodegradable plastic garbage bags. Premium garbage bags are also being introduced which are stretchable and can control odor, particularly in developed countries, where customers are willing to pay for these features. Garbage bag manufacturers are also focusing on introducing odor-cutting technologies.
According to the report by Future Market Insights (FMI), the High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) garbage bagis anticipated to witness high growth rate in Europe. It is also expected to exceed 100 basis points by 2026. HDPE is expected to create incremental opportunity exceeding $300 million during 2016-2026. The waste management policy in Europe strives to enhance the use of oxo-degradable garbage bags, this is projected to drive the demand for HDPE garbage bags between 2016 and 2026.
However, the government in Europe is imposing a ban on plastic bags to reduce the impact on the environment, along with a complete ban on single use HDPE bags in Italy and France. This is hampering the growth of HDPE garbage bags.
Increasing demand for eco-friendly garbage bags
Governments across various countries are introducing extra charges for use of plastic garbage bags, this has resulted in the rising demand for biodegradable garbage bags. The Researchers at Iranian knowledge-based company have developed the biodegradable garbage bag using oxidized nanoparticles. This garbage bag is known as Oxazist. The nanoparticles used in garbage bags modify the mechanical properties. Moreover, the Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council (INIC) has also confirmed the quality of these biodegradable garbage bags.
Polyethylene is used to make various products including grocery bags, garbage bags, machine parts, toys, etc. Hence, polyethylene ends up resulting in 60% of plastics in worldwide landfills. Researchers, however, have found a way to turn garbage bags into fuels. In order to break down a wide array of polyethylenes, researchers have repurposed a pair of existing catalysts, to convert these garbage bags into fuels and other useful chemicals. These catalysts are developed by Maurice Brookhart and his team from the University of North Carolina. The catalysts are used to link hydrocarbons known as alkanes. These short hydrocarbons are together linked into a longer hydrocarbon chain. Similar to the one found in diesel fuel.
Odor block technology is also being increasingly used by garbage bag manufacturers. The companies are researching and using various materials that can be used to develop garbage bags that absorbs odors.
According to the Plastic Division of the American Chemistry Council, the versatility of plastics and improved waste management can reduce its impact on the environment. Hence researchers are finding the ways to replace plastic with more eco-friendly material that can be recovered and recycled easily. Development of waste management infrastructures is also on the rise across various countries. These waste management facilities are using latest technologies to turn garbage bags and other plastic materials into fuels and various chemicals.
https://www.fmiblog.com/demand-increases-for-eco-friendly-and-bio-degradable-garbage-bags/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA ‘Eliminates Backlog’ of New Chemical Reviews
Aug 10, 2017 | Future Market Insights
By Shambhu Nath Jha
The Environmental Protection Agency has cleared a backlog of more than 600 safety reviews of new chemicals, the agency announced Aug. 7.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, signed into law in 2016, amended the Toxic Substances Control Act to mandate that EPA evaluate existing chemicals under specific deadlines, and “make an affirmative finding on the safety of a new chemical or significant new use of an existing chemical before it is allowed into the marketplace.”
“EPA has a tremendous responsibility to review new chemicals intended to enter the U.S. market for safety,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in an Aug. 7 press release. “EPA can either be a roadblock to new products, or it can be [a] supporter of innovation and ever-improving chemical safety. … With the ongoing commitment of the staff working on TSCA reviews, and input from stakeholders, our goal is to ensure a new chemicals program that is both protective of human health and the environment, while also being supportive of bringing new chemicals to market.”
Chemical manufacturer associations, including the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, applauded the move.
“[The] announcement shows real and deliberate progress toward this important goal, but there is still work to be done to completely clear the backlog and prevent it from recurring,” ACC stated in an Aug. 7 press release. “U.S. businesses, jobs, innovation and competitiveness depend on the success of a fully functioning new chemicals program as envisioned by Congress when it passed the law.”
At least one environmental group expressed concern at the speed with which the chemicals were approved. In an Aug. 7 blog post, Richard Denison, Ph.D. and lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, accused the agency of bowing to “relentless pressure” from the chemical industry.
“While many details of the shifts EPA is making remain murky,” Denison wrote, “EDF is concerned that EPA is moving away from the law’s clear requirements that EPA rigorously review both intended and reasonably foreseen uses of new chemicals and, where EPA identifies potential risks or lacks sufficient information, it issue an order imposing conditions on the manufacturer of the new chemical sufficient to mitigate the potential risk.”
In its press release, EPA stated that the agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics plans to release, later this year, “draft documents that will provide the public with more certainty and clarity regarding how EPA makes new chemical determinations and what external information will help facilitate these determinations.”
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/16025-epa-eliminates-backlog-of-new-chemical-reviews
-
Aug 10, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On August 11, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish the third Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework final rule in the Federal Register, the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements. This final rule is scheduled to become effective on August 11, 2017 (the date of publication).
This rule, signed by EPA on June 22, 2017, establishes, among other requirements:
· A retrospective electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that were manufactured (including imported) for nonexempt commercial purposes during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, with provision to also allow notification by processors;
· Procedures for forward-looking electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that are designated as inactive, if and when the manufacturing or processing of such chemical substances for nonexempt commercial purposes is expected to resume; and
· Procedures regarding the manner in which such retrospective and forward-looking activity notifications must be submitted, the details of the notification requirements, exemptions from such requirements, and procedures for handling claims of confidentiality.
More information on this final rule is available in our memorandum EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/wait-over-tsca-framework-final-rule-tsca-inventory-notification-active-inactive
-
Clock Starts Ticking to Keep Chemicals in Commerce
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical makers and importers that want to keep their products on the market must notify the EPA by February 2018 about the chemicals they have made during the past decade.
A final inventory notification rule (RIN:2070-AK24) the Environmental Protection Agency will publish Aug. 11 also establishes procedures companies will have to follow as they ask the EPA to keep certain information confidential. Examples could include a chemical's specific identity or a company's identity as the manufacturer of a specific chemical. The information must be submitted by Feb. 7, 2018.
The EPA estimated 1,600 chemical manufacturers and importers and another 100 chemical processors, which make paints, waxes, cleaning and other chemical-intensive products, would need to notify the agency at an estimated cost of $9.7 million to $11.8 million over the next 10 years. Thousands more chemical makers and processors would want to familiarize themselves with the rule, the agency said.
As the deadline approaches, chemical makers were confident they could provide the EPA with the required information. Robert Helminiak, managing director of government relations for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), which represents specialty chemical manufacturers, said the amount of work facing such companies is manageable.
“Fortunately, SOCMA members have been made well aware of the rule, and we will update them again when the rule is published,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “We believe they will be prepared. A 180-day window is a small window to cover 10 years of chemical development and manufacture, but we're optimistic the industry can meet the requirements. We believe EPA has removed some difficult-to-comply-with requirements,” Helminiak said.
Chemical makers and importers are required to provide the EPA with the requested information as part of the amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act signed into law in 2016.
Chemical processors can choose to notify the agency about chemicals they use, but they aren't required to. They have until Oct. 5, 2018, to notify the agency if a chemical they use wasn't put on the active chemicals inventory.
Chemicals Listed as Active or Dormant
The rule establishes the process by which the EPA and companies will establish two lists—an active inventory of chemicals that have been in commerce since June 21, 2006, and an inventory of chemicals that used to be in commerce but currently are dormant.
Only chemicals on the active inventory can continue to be made in, imported into, or used in the U.S. once the agency establishes the list. So companies that use chemicals to make cars, airplanes, semiconductors, cleaners, and myriad other products might want to make sure the chemicals they need remain on the active list.
Chemicals on the inactive inventory could be made and used once again, but only after notifying the agency ahead of time.
Small Volume Chemicals
The EPA's final rule seeks to reduce the notification burden companies would face. For example, companies that make a chemical that meets certain criteria—for example, a manufacturer already reported the chemical's production to the EPA to comply with its 2012 or 2016 Chemical Data Reporting rule—do not have to notify the agency a second time. The EPA presumes those chemicals have been in commerce during the 10 years preceding TSCA's overhaul.
The EPA listed the 9,627 chemicals it presumes are in commerce on an interim list of active substances.
Those chemicals, generally, are ones that were produced in volumes of 25,000 pounds or more, meaning many chemicals essential to diverse industries already are on the presumed-to-be-active list and companies would not need to notify the EPA a second time to keep them on the active list.
Companies making smaller volumes of chemical, such as specialty chemical and some fragrance manufacturers, may not have produced their substances at the 25,000 pound threshold, meaning they must notify the agency if they want to continue making those products.
Industry Wants Accurate Inventory
“The industry's main concern is having an accurate list of active chemicals. SOCMA is confident EPA will once again work with industry to make sure the EPA work product is properly completed and correct,” Helminiak said.
None of the companies Bloomberg BNA contacted voiced concerns about the effects the rule would have on them.
“Albemarle will meet all deadlines and comply with all requirements,” Susan Richardson, senior communications director for the Albemarle Corp., told Bloomberg BNA by email.
3M and Procter & Gamble Co. did not immediately reply to Bloomberg BNA request for comment, while Lanxess and BASF SE declined to comment on the rule.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118401857&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118401857&jd=118401857
-
Best Buy Announces New Program to Tackle Toxic Chemicals
Aug 10, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade and Kathleen Schüler
Consumer electronics at a store near you may soon be free of certain hazardous chemicals. Best Buy is the latest retailer to announce progress in tackling toxic chemicals in products in recent months.
Yesterday Best Buy publicly released its new Chemical Management Corporate Statement, which was accompanied by a blog post providing some additional background. We applaud Best Buy for developing this new initiative and disclosing this policy statement publicly, the development of which was disclosed last year in our retailer report card and most recently in the company’s 2017 sustainability report.
Best Buy’s new initiative is important as it is the largest retailer of electronics in America. Electronics are often made with hazardous chemicals that can pose serious health hazards throughout their lifecycle from production to use to disposal.
In this post, we highlight some of the important elements of this new initiative and also opportunities for improvement.
Highlights of new chemical management program
· In a new blog post, the company announced that “Best Buy is committed to positively impacting the world by focusing our work on three areas: our communities, our environment and our people. Properly managing of the use of chemicals is essential to safeguarding each of these three areas, which is why we are refreshing our chemical management program.” The Chemical Management Corporate Statement begins by describing the purpose of the program: “Beyond compliance, we created a chemical management program to systematically evaluate and prioritize efforts to address chemical risks and opportunities. We seek to reduce the use of chemicals, phase out chemicals of concern and improve the general management of chemicals.”
· To Best Buy’s credit, the company is not only tackling chemicals in products, but also in manufacturing and operations. This is significant as the manufacturing of electronics materials and chemicals can pose significant hazards to workers and surrounding communities. The new Chemical Management Corporate Statement applies to operations, private-label products, vendors, and the company’s recycling program.
· For corporate, retail, service and distribution operations, the company states its staff “actively look for opportunities to reduce the use of chemicals. Whenever possible, we work to transition to safer alternatives, with a preference for EPA Safer Choice chemicals.” We applaud Best Buy for showing preference for products that meet this important third-party safer chemicals program.
· The policy requires business-to-business (B2B) disclosure of and restriction of chemicals in its private-label products and in factories. For private-label and direct import products, the company has developed supplier requirements for products and chemicals in manufacturing, and has developed a Restricted Substance List (RSL), “which specifies chemicals restricted based upon regulations or known hazards and chemicals suppliers are required to report usage to us.” The company, however, stops short at describing what types of hazardous chemicals they’re focusing on (e.g. carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxicants, persistent, bioacumulative and toxic chemicals ( PBT’s)) and which ones they are restricting.
· Best Buy deserves credit for summarizing how it is ensuring compliance with this new program. For its restrictions on ingredients in private-label products, the company’s “product specification documents include chemical requirements, and increasingly rigorous assurances and testing of products are required based upon the level of risk” and it partners “with suppliers to identify opportunities to transition to preferred chemicals.” Additionally, as part of its regular audit program, Best Buy will “monitor factories to assure adherence to our RSL as well as our Supplier Code of Conduct, which specifies safe chemical procedures, and we require improvements when we find gaps.” The company also provides trainings for factories to “improve their chemical management processes.”
Opportunities for improvement – need for transparency and public facing goals
We’re happy to see Best Buy announce that it is making progress in addressing toxic chemicals in products and operations, but there is as always room for improvement.
Last November Best Buy stated that in 2017 it would publicly release its Restricted Substance List (RSL) and Manufacturing Restricted Substance List (MRSL), which the company got points for in our report card. We are disappointed that Best Buy has yet to fulfill this pledge to disclose these lists of chemicals publicly in 2017. It is challenging for NGO’s, investors, and consumers to judge the substance of this new chemical management program without knowing the identity of the chemicals it is setting restrictions on. While the company states this initiative goes beyond legal compliance, it is challenging to evaluate to what extent the policy addresses emerging chemicals of concern such as certain toxic flame retardants. We hope Best Buy will join other retailers like Walmart, Target, and CVS in disclosing its RSL, especially in advance of our next retailer report card we plan to release this November. Along similar lines, the company has also not explained how it will identify or evaluate “preferred” chemicals. Having a clear definition of safer alternatives and a process for evaluating the hazards of alternatives is critically important to avoid regrettable substitution.
The company can also take the next step by announcing public facing goals with clear timeframes to implement the policy. For example, this past January Target announced a new safer chemicals policy along with new goals and timeframes to eliminate key chemicals of high concern. In April CVS announced timeframes for reformulating nearly 600 private label products. We encourage Best Buy to join these other major retailers in setting clear goals and benchmarks for reducing and eliminating chemicals of high concern, such as toxic flame retardants and phthalates, which are commonly found in electronics. We also hope Best Buy will consider joining Walmart and CVS in becoming signatories to the Chemical Footprint Project.
Thank you Best Buy
In the end, we congratulate Best Buy for developing this new Chemical Management Corporate Statement. We hope the company will follow through on its commitment to disclose the chemicals it is restricting in products and in manufacturing by the end of 2017. The company has committed to publicly report on progress in its next annual sustainability report, which we will look forward to.
Best Buy’s new statement also underscores the need for other major electronics retailers like Amazon to catch up to help drive dangerous chemicals out of electronics.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/08/10/best-buy-announces-new-program-to-tackle-toxic-chemicals/
-
We Can’t Stop Our Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Until We Rein In the Corporations Releasing Them
Aug 10, 2017 | In These Times
By Laure Orlando
Chemical compounds that incapacitate or kill, like phosgene, chlorine and sulfur mustard, were put into German artillery shells and delivered by howitzers on the frontlines in World War I. The diameter of the shells was 5.9 inches, prompting British soldiers to call them “five-nines.” By the end of the war, both sides were lobbing them. Whether or not a five-nine loaded with a chemical weapon landed in your trench had nothing to do with luck or lifestyle. War created the conditions for the exposure to the chemicals.
By the end of World War II, chemical manufacturers like DuPont, Shell and Monsanto shifted their military production to the domestic “war on pests.” At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal outside of Denver, the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps made chemical weapons alongside private chemical companies like Shell Oil Company, which leased Army facilities at RMA to make pesticides.
Today the U.S. chemical manufacturing industry is an $800 billion business that has registered over 80,000 chemicals for use in the United States, with 2,000 new ones introduced each year. You and I are repositories for these chemicals. Toss your cigarettes in the trash bin, but you’re still breathing benzene from vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions. The Centers for Disease Control’s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, issued in 2009 with updated data in 2017, looked for 308 synthetic chemicals in the blood or urine of Americans. Most were widely detected.
Some, like perchlorate, which can cause endocrine system and reproductive problems and is considered by the EPA to be a “likely human carcinogen,” was found in the urine of everyone tested. With unavoidable exposures to toxicants at every stage of life, stopping the systemic poisoning of our food, water, air, and soil is fundamental to giving individuals a decent chance to optimize their own health.
In 2017, more than 1.6 million people will be diagnosed with cancer in the United States. A small percentage of these cancers can be attributed to genetic troubles, whereas the remaining 90-to-95 percent of cancers are from influences outside the body that change what happens inside—some of which you can control and some you cannot. Those that we are told we can control, such as cigarette smoking, diet, alcohol, sun exposure, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity, are labeled "lifestyle factors," or lifestyle for short.
An individual through their actions can help manage cancer’s progress or lower the risk of getting cancer in the first place; assuming one has the time, money, education and job options that allow one to make choices and know what choices to make.
Yet an emphasis on lifestyle always seems to come at the expense of meaningful public policy discussions. It diverts public attention from the collective problem solving and societal decision-making processes about how chemicals can, and under what conditions, cause harm, and what to do about it.
A 2015 California study that consisted of a 54-year follow-up of 20,754 pregnancies showed that women exposed in the womb to high levels of the pesticide DDT have a nearly fourfold increased risk of developing breast cancer. At its peak use in 1962, over 85,000 tons of the pesticide were used. A child in her mother's womb exposed to the chemical had no choice in the matter. It is the responsibility of society, not the individual, to control cancer-causing chemicals.
So here we are, 100 years after World War I, and every American lacks protections from chemicals manufactured or used by U.S. corporations that degrade human health. Rory O'Neill, a professor of occupational and environmental health policy at the University of Stirling, Scotland, who is an editor of Hazards Magazine and the Work Cancer Hazards blog, tells us not to be fooled by the limelight on lifestyle for cancer risk. In the following post, slightly edited, he writes:
There are several problems with the emphasis on lifestyle, for a slew of chronic disorders, from cancer, to diabetes, to cardiovascular disease, to neurological disease, to…. Heck, all of them, and you can add in mental illness and suicide on top. This is not because the lifestyle effects are not real, but because:
It’s a smokescreen 1: Where research shows genuine concerns about occupational and environmental risks, the findings are questioned regardless of the strength of the evidence, and there is a cookie cutter response that says lifestyle is the real problem. This is driven by a berserkly well-resourced cancer industry selling this line, a process described well by Devra Davis, Janette Sherman, Joe LaDou and a noble succession of others
It’s a smokescreen 2: Where research questions a link, there is a chorus of let’s put this occupational and environmental red herring behind us, and there is a cookie cutter response that says lifestyle is the real problem. Witness what happened with the recent (and woeful) Oxford University paper dismissing the night work and breast cancer risk. This was widely and uncritically reported in the media. A BBC headline blared “Breast cancer risk ‘not increased’ by night shifts.” When positive findings are published, linking a chemical or workplace to cancer, this never happens—the lifestylists are waiting in the wings with their rebuttal every time. (For more information about night shifts and breast cancer, and a critical review of the Oxford University paper, see this story.
It’s your fault. When changing lifestyle is invoked as the key to prevention, the tone is generally one of blame—you have the wrong diet, you drink too much alcohol, you smoke, you don’t exercise. But these are consequences, not causes. Low wages, bad jobs, under-employment, unemployment, insecurity, and being born into and trapped in the lower socioeconomic strata are the problems that need addressing. These circumstances drive bad habits by removing positive choices. For example, you may have to “choose” processed, sugar-laden foods if your budget and your long hours in multiple minimum wage or less jobs may the alternative practically impossible.
Overloaded, stressed workers smoke and are more likely to demonstrate all the other bad habits. Put them on the night shift with no access to decent food and no prospect of decent sleep patterns and you soup up the effect. Add in prejudice based on gender or race, and you amplify these effects. Without looking at the socioeconomic drivers of peoples’ “choices,” blaming lifestyle just adds insult to injury.
Science is biased: Publicly funded independent occupational and environmental health science—by either academics or statutory agencies—is becoming rare. Research is increasingly (and frequently covertly) funded by industries motivated by concerns about the legal implications of medical research and not concerns about public health. concerns. Witness the 40-year wait for the new U.S. beryllium standard, which was introduced in March 2016; the respirable silica standard; the “science-fraud” and ongoing defense of chrysotile asbestos use (only just banned in Canada, and thanks to industry lobbying still legal in the United States); denial of low level benzene exposures causing cancers (thanks ACS—American Cancer Society); the links between Parkinsons and manganese; lack of regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals; and the list goes on.
The tobacco industry’s playbook gets bounced from one industry to the next, with the highly remunerative process of seeding doubt enough to perpetuate another generation of exposures and another decade or two of profits.
The issue is not whether or not we own up to the real role that lifestyle factors play in causing cancer. It is that we understand how the lifestyle excuse is used to diminish or deny the role played by industry, by social prejudice and by economic disadvantage in perpetuating the circumstances that lead to many cancers and that influence cancer survival rates. Yet when we raise these issues we are shouted down and we are financially out-gunned by the same corporate interests that benefit from the cancer status quo.
http://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/20420/industrial-chemical-exposure-money-cancer-labor-environment-lifestyle
-
Republicans Rush to Monsanto's Aid With Industry-Biased Reuters Report
Aug 11, 2017 | AlterNet
By Stacy Malkan
In their latest attempt to shield Monsanto from accountability, House Republicans have seized upon the flawed and biased reporting of a Reuters journalist whose work has emerged as a key lobbying tool for the embattled agrichemical company as it faces lawsuits, regulatory threats and a wave of awful press coverage aboutallegations of improper influence over research.
On Tuesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy demanded answers about “possibly withheld information” that “could change” a cancer panel’s decision to list glyphosate, the main chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen. Gowdy’s letter was heavily referenced with one source: a June 14 Reuters article by Kate Kelland.
But the Kelland article that drove Rep. Gowdy’s lobbying was deeply flawed and contained errors that Reuters has refused to correct.
What’s more, as I reported last month in FAIR, the flawed Reuters-article-turned-lobbying-tool was only the latest in a series of biased articles Kelland has written about the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since the agency listed glyphosate as a Class 2 carcinogen.
The IARC working group of scientists—now the chief target of Monsanto’s “war on science,” as the French newspaper Le Monde reported—did not conduct new research, but reviewed years of published and peer-reviewed research before concluding that there was limited evidence of cancer in humans from real-world exposures to glyphosate and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in studies on animals. IARC also concluded there was strong evidence of genotoxicity for glyphosate alone and for Roundup herbicide, whose use has skyrocketedalongside Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops.
In her stories about the IARC decision, Kelland has ignored much of the published research backing the classification and has instead parroted industry’s criticisms of the scientists. Her reporting has relied heavily on pro-industry sources, failed to disclose their industry connections and presented cherry-picked information out of context from documents she did not provide to readers.
Raising further questions about Kelland’s objectivity as a science reporter are her close ties to the Science Media Centre (SMC), a controversial nonprofit PR agency that connects scientists with reporters and gets its largest block of funding from industry groups.
Multiple researchers have accused SMC, which launched in 2002 partly as an effort to tamp down news stories driven by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, of downplaying the environmental and human health risks of controversial products and technologies that are important to its funders.
Kelland’s bias in favor of SMC is evident; she appears in the PR agency’s promotional video and promotional report, regularly attends SMC briefings, speaks at SMC workshops and attended meetings in India to discuss setting up an SMC office there.
Neither Kelland nor her editors at Reuters would respond to questions about her relationship with SMC or to specific criticisms about her reporting. SMC Director Fiona Fox said her group did not provide Kelland with sources for her IARC stories beyond those included in SMC’s press releases.
It is clear, however, that Kelland’s reporting on glyphosate and IARC mirrors the views put forth by SMC experts and industry groups on those topics—and also raises serious concerns about bias and fairness in science reporting.
Reuters takes on cancer scientist
On June 14, 2017, Reuters published a special report by Kelland accusing Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute and chair of the IARC panel on glyphosate, of withholding important data from its cancer assessment.
Kelland’s story went so far as to suggest that the information supposedly withheld could have changed IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Yet the data in question was but a small subset of epidemiology data gathered through a long-term project known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). An analysis of several years of data about glyphosate from the AHS had already been published and was considered by IARC, but a newer analysis of unfinished, unpublished data was not considered, because IARC rules call for relying only on published data.
Kelland’s thesis that Blair withheld crucial data was at odds with the source documents on which she based her story, but she did not provide readers with links to any of those documents, so readers could not check the veracity of the claims. Her bombshell allegations were then widely circulated, repeated by reporters at other news outlets (including Mother Jones) and immediately deployed as a lobbying tool by the agrichemical industry.
After obtaining the actual source documents, Carey Gillam, a former Reuters’ reporter and now research director of U.S. Right to Know (the nonprofit group where I also work), laid out multiple errors and omissions in Kelland’s piece.
The analysis provides examples of key claims in Kelland’s article, including a statement supposedly made by Blair, that are not supported by the 300-page deposition of Blair conducted by Monsanto’s attorneys, or by other source documents.
Kelland’s selective presentation of the Blair deposition also ignored what contradicted her thesis—for example, Blair’s many affirmations of research showing glyphosate’s connections to cancer, as Gillam wrote in a Huffington Post article.
Kelland inaccurately described Blair’s deposition and related materials as “court documents,” implying they were publicly available; in fact, they were not filed in court, and presumably were obtained from Monsanto’s attorneys or surrogates. (The documents were available only to attorneys involved in the case, and plaintiff’s attorneys have said they did not provide them to Kelland.)
Reuters has refused to correct the errors in the piece, including the false claim about the origin of the source documents and an inaccurate description of a key source, statistician Bob Tarone, as “independent of Monsanto.” In fact, Tarone had received a consultancy payment from Monsanto for his efforts to discredit IARC.
In response to a USRTK request to correct or retract the Kelland article, Reuters global enterprises editor Mike Williams wrote in a June 23 email:
We have reviewed the article and the reporting on which it was based. That reporting included the deposition to which you refer, but was not confined to it. The reporter, Kate Kelland, was also in contact with all the people mentioned in the story and many others, and studied other documents. In the light of that review, we do not consider the article to be inaccurate or to warrant retraction.
Williams declined to address the false citing of “court documents” or the inaccurate description of Tarone as an independent source.
Since then, the lobbying tool Reuters handed to Monsanto has grown legs and run wild. A June 24 editorial by the St. Louis Post Dispatch added errors on top of the already misleading reporting. By mid-July, right-wing blogs were using the Reuters story to accuse IARC of defrauding U.S. taxpayers, pro-industry news sites were predicting the story would be “the final nail in the coffin” of cancer claims about glyphosate and a fake science news group was promoting Kelland’s story on Facebook with a phony headline claiming that IARC scientists had confessed to a cover-up.
Bacon attack
This was not the first time Kelland had relied on Bob Tarone as a key source and failed to disclose his industry connections in an article attacking IARC.
An April 2016 special investigation by Kelland—“Who Says Bacon Is Bad?”—portrayed IARC as a confusing agency that is bad for science. The piece was built largely on quotes from Tarone, two other pro-industry sources whose industry connections were also not disclosed, and one anonymous observer.
IARC’s methods are “poorly understood,” “do not serve the public well,” sometimes lack scientific rigor, are “not good for science,” “not good for regulatory agencies” and do the public “a disservice,” the critics said.
The agency, Tarone said, is “naïve, if not unscientific”—an accusation emphasized with capital letters in a sub-headline.
Tarone works for the pro-industry International Epidemiology Institute and was once involved with a controversial cell phone study, funded in part by the cell phone industry, that found no cancer connection to cell phones, contrary to independently funded studies of the same issue.
The other critics in Kelland’s bacon story were Paulo Boffetta, a controversial ex-IARC scientist who wrote a paper defending asbestos while also receiving money to defend the asbestos industry in court; and Geoffrey Kabat, who once partnered with a tobacco industry-funded scientist to write a paper defending secondhand smoke.
Kabat also serves on the advisory board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a corporate front group.
The day the Reuters story hit, ACSH posted a blog item bragging that Kelland had used its advisor Kabat as a source to discredit IARC.
The industry connections of her sources, and their history of taking positions at odds with mainstream science, seems relevant, especially since the IARC bacon exposé was paired with a Kelland article about glyphosate that accused IARC advisor Chris Portier of bias because of his affiliation with an environmental group.
The conflict-of-interest framing served to discredit a letter, organized by Portier and signed by 94 scientists, that described “serious flaws” in a European Union risk assessment that exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk.
The Portier attack, and the good science/bad science theme, echoed throughchemical industry PR channels on the same day the Kelland articles appeared.
IARC pushes back
In October 2016, in another exclusive scoop, Kelland portrayed IARC as a secretive organization that had asked its scientists to withhold documents pertaining to the glyphosate review. The article was based on correspondence provided to Kelland by a pro-industry law group.
In response, IARC took the unusual step of posting Kelland’s questions and the answers they had sent her, which provided context left out of the Reuters story.
IARC explained that Monsanto’s lawyers were asking scientists to turn over draft and deliberative documents, and in light of the ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto, “the scientists felt uncomfortable releasing these materials, and some felt that they were being intimidated.” The agency said they had faced similar pressure in the past to release draft documents to support legal actions involving asbestos and tobacco, and that there was an attempt to draw deliberative IARC documents into PCB litigation.
The story didn’t mention those examples, or the concerns about draft scientific documents ending up in lawsuits, but the piece was heavy on critiques of IARC, describing it as a group “at odds with scientists around the world,” which “has caused controversy” with cancer assessments that “can cause unnecessary health scares.”
IARC has “secret agendas” and its actions were “ridiculous,” according to a Monsanto executive quoted in the story.
IARC wrote in response (emphasis in original):
The article by Reuters follows a pattern of consistent but misleading reports about the IARC Monographs Programme in some sections of the media beginning after glyphosate was classified as probably carcinogenic to humans.
IARC also pushed back on Kelland’s reporting about Blair, noting the conflict of interest with her source Tarone and explaining that IARC’s cancer evaluation program does not consider unpublished data, and “does not base its evaluations on opinions presented in media reports,” but on the “systematic assembly and review of all publicly available and pertinent scientific studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.”
PR agency narrative
The Science Media Centre—which Kelland has said has influenced her reporting—does have vested interests, and has also been criticized for pushing pro-industry science views.Current and past funders include Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Coca-Cola and food and chemical industry trade groups, as well as government agencies, foundations and universities.
By all accounts, SMC is influential in shaping how the media cover certain science stories, often getting its expert reaction quotes in media stories and driving coverage with its press briefings.
As Kelland explained in the SMC promotional video, “By the end of a briefing, you understand what the story is and why it’s important.”
That is the point of the SMC effort: to signal to reporters whether stories or studies merit attention, and how they should be framed.
Sometimes, SMC experts downplay risk and offer assurances to the public about controversial products or technologies; for example, researchers have criticized SMC’s media efforts on fracking, cell phone safety, Chronic Fatigue Syndromeand genetically engineered foods.
SMC campaigns sometimes feed into lobbying efforts. A 2013 Nature articleexplained how SMC turned the tide on media coverage of animal/human hybrid embryos away from ethical concerns and toward their importance as a research tool—and thus stopped government regulations.
The media researcher hired by SMC to analyze the effectiveness of that campaign, Andy Williams of Cardiff University, came to see the SMC model as problematic, worrying that it stifled debate. Williams described SMC briefings as tightly managed events pushing persuasive narratives.
On the topic of glyphosate cancer risk, SMC offers a clear narrative in its press releases.
The IARC cancer classification, according to SMC experts, “failed to include critical data,” was based on “a rather selective review” and on evidence that “appears a bit thin” and “overall does not support such a high-level classification.” Monsanto and other industrygroups promoted the quotes.
SMC experts had a much more favorable view of risk assessments conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which cleared glyphosate of human cancer concerns.
EFSA’s conclusion was “more scientific, pragmatic and balanced” than IARC’s, and the ECHA report was objective, independent, comprehensive and “scientifically justified.”
Kelland’s reporting in Reuters echoes those pro-industry themes, and sometimes used the same experts, such as a November 2015 story about why European-based agencies gave contradictory advice about the cancer risk of glyphosate. Her story quoted two experts directly from an SMC release, then summarized their views:
In other words, IARC is tasked with highlighting anything that might in certain conditions, however rare, be able to cause cancer in people. EFSA, on the other hand, is concerned with real life risks and whether, in the case of glyphosate, there is evidence to show that when used in normal conditions, the pesticide poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
Kelland included two brief reactions from environmentalists: Greenpeace called the EFSA review “whitewash,” and Jennifer Sass from the Natural Resources Defense Council said IARC’s review was “a much more robust, scientifically defensible and public process involving an international committee of non-industry experts.” (An NRDC statement on glyphosate put it this way: “IARC Got It Right, EFSA Got It From Monsanto.”)
Kelland’s story followed up the environmental group comments with “critics of IARC…say its hazard identification approach is becoming meaningless for consumers, who struggle to apply its advice to real life,” and ends with quotes from a scientist who “declares an interest as having acted as a consultant for Monsanto.”
When asked about the criticisms of pro-industry bias of the SMC, Fox responded:
We listen carefully to any criticism from the scientific community or news journalists working for U.K. media, but we do not receive criticism of pro-industry bias from these stakeholders. We reject the charge of pro-industry bias, and our work reflects the evidence and views of the 3,000 eminent scientific researchers on our database. As an independent press office focusing on some of the most controversial science stories, we fully expect criticism from groups outside mainstream science.
Expert conflicts
Scientific experts do not always disclose their conflicts of interest in news releases issued by SMC, nor in their high-profile roles as decision-makers about the cancer risk of chemicals like glyphosate.
Frequent SMC expert Alan Boobis, professor of biochemical pharmacology at Imperial College London, offers views in SMC releases on aspartame (“not a concern”), glyphosate in urine (no concern), insecticides and birth defects(“premature to draw conclusions”), alcohol, GMO corn, trace metals, lab rodent diets and more.
The ECHA decision that glyphosate is not a carcinogen “is to be congratulated,” according to Boobis, and the IARC decision that it is probably carcinogenic “is not a cause for undue alarm,” because it did not take into account how pesticides are used in the real world.
Boobis declared no conflicts of interest in the IARC release or any of the earlier SMC releases that carry his quotes. But he then sparked a conflict-of-interest scandal when news broke that he held leadership positions with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a pro-industry group, at the same time he co-chaired a U.N. panel that found glyphosate unlikely to pose a cancer riskthrough diet. (Boobis is currently chair of the ILSI Board of Trustees, and vice president ad interim of ILSI/Europe.)
ILSI has received six-figure donations from Monsanto and CropLife International, the pesticide trade association. Professor Angelo Moretto, who co-chaired the U.N. panel on glyphosate along with Boobis, also held a leadership role in ILSI. Yet the panel declaredno conflicts of interest.
Kelland did not report on those conflicts, though she did write about the findings of the “U.N. experts” who exonerated glyphosate of cancer risk, and she once recycled a Boobis quote from an SMC press release for an article about tainted Irish pork. (The risk to consumers was low.)
When asked about the SMC conflict of interest disclosure policy, and why Boobis’ ISLI connection was not disclosed in SMC releases, Fox responded:
We ask all researchers we use to provide their COIs and proactively make those available to journalists. In line with several other COI policies, we are unable to investigate every COI, though we welcome journalists doing so.
Boobis could not be reached for comment, but told the Guardian, “My role in ILSI (and two of its branches) is as a public sector member and chair of their boards of trustees, positions which are not remunerated.”
But the conflict “sparked furious condemnation from green MEPs and NGOs,” the Guardian reported, “intensified by the [U.N. panel] report’s release two days before an EU relicensing vote on glyphosate, which will be worth billions of dollars to industry.”
And so goes it with the tangled web of influence involving corporations, science experts, media coverage and the high-stakes debate about glyphosate, now playing out on the world stage as Monsanto faces lawsuits over the chemical due to cancer claims, and seeks to complete a $66 billion deal with Bayer.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., as Bloomberg reported on July 13: “Does the World’s Top Weed Killer Cause Cancer? Trump’s EPA Will Decide.”
A version of this story originally ran in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
Stacy Malkan is co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a food industry research group that voluntarily discloses its funding. She is the author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry and also co-founded the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Follow her on Twitter @stacymalkan.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/republicans-rush-monsantos-aid-industry-biased-reuters-report
-
Pipelines Among Priorities as Energy Regulator Gets Quorum
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can proceed to vote on a backlog of key natural gas pipeline projects, contested rate filings, and enforcement actions now that its long-waited quorum has been restored.
Robert Powelson (R) was sworn in as a third commissioner on Aug. 10, bringing the independent agency back to a voting quorum, which it lost in February. Powelson joins Chairman Neil Chatterjee (R), who was sworn into FERC on Aug. 8 and named acting chairman Aug. 10, and Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur (D), formerly acting chairman.
Orders and rate filings that are time sensitive will likely be voted on first, said Colette Honorable, a former FERC commissioner who left the agency June 30 and is now a partner in the Energy and Natural Resources Group of Reed Smith LLC.
“Matters with urgent deadlines, matters with regard to infrastructure projects, matters concerning ratemaking as it may relate to rates that may go into effect, may be higher in the queue,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
At least three commissioners are required for the agency to vote on key infrastructure filings and orders, including natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas pipelines, contested rate filings, enforcement actions, and mergers and acquisitions. FERC unexpectedly lost its quorum in February when former Chairman Norman Bay (D) prematurely left.
At least $14 billion worth of natural gas pipeline projects have been awaiting the FERC quorum in order to get votes on their certificate approvals, including the $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.
Chatterjee, a former energy staffer for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Powelson, the former president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and a commissioner on the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, were confirmed by the Senate Aug. 3.
Chatterjee will serve as chairman until Kevin McIntyre, an attorney with Jones Day, whom President Donald Trump named as chairman, is confirmed by the Senate. Trump also has nominated Richard Glick, Democratic general counsel for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to be a FERC commissioner. The Senate will hold a confirmation hearing Sept. 7 for McIntyre and Glick, who, if confirmed, will bring FERC back to its full five commissioners.
Prioritizing Hundreds of Orders
Despite delegating certain orders to staff, hundreds of orders have piled up over the past six months, Tony Clark, a former FERC commissioner and a senior adviser at Wilkinson Barker KnauerLLP, told Bloomberg BNA.
Before FERC lost its quorum, it delegated certain responsibilities to staff, including allowing the director of the Office of Energy Market Regulation to accept and suspend rate filings and make them effective subject to refund and further commission action. But contested rate filings require a voting quorum, so these are among top issues for the commission.
Also, settlement cases from the Office of Enforcement, which require a FERC vote and have a statute of limitation, will also rise to the top of the list. “All of those things are non-public, so we wouldn't know about them, but it would only make sense that the work of staff over the past six months may need to be acted on in fairly short notice,” Clark told Bloomberg BNA.
Marc Spitzer, a former FERC commissioner and a partner at Steptoe and Johnson LLP, said when it comes to prioritizing orders, “They'll probably do the easiest ones first, and give them time to spend on the contested ones and complicated ones to do later.”
LaFleur, who served as acting chairman from Jan. 23 through Aug. 10, triaged orders for staff to prepare for when the quorum is restored, Honorable said.
Clark said that more policy-focused agenda items for the commission, including court decisions that have been remanded back to the agency and ongoing rulemakings, will likely take the back seat.
“Things that are plowing new ground potentially in terms of precedent—it would not surprise me if they waited on those until they have all five commissioners,” Clark said. “When you have bigger decisions, the commission speaks best when it speaks to a full complement of commissioners. So I would guess some of those might be put on the back burner.”
Staffing Up First
Former commissioners said that Powelson and Chatterjee won't be able to start voting until they hire their staff.
Clark said he was able to hire his staff, mainly internally from FERC, within his first week on the job, while Honorable said it took her a few weeks.
Clark advised, “You're trying to put together a team that you think has a diverse background of expertise so that you can cover as many types of filings and you can cover a broad swath of the country.”
Then, Clark said he was voting within two weeks, and Honorable was voting after a month. But, ultimately, Honorable said, “It took several months to get up to speed.”
However, they both noted that they were joining the commission when there was already a quorum, so Powelson and Chatterjee may not have as much time, with the unprecedented backlog of orders to review.
The next public meeting is Sept. 20. Staffers will continue work that was delegated to them as a result of the loss of quorum for two more weeks.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118401851&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118401851&jd=118401851
-
Court Indefinitely Halts Suit on Obama New Power Plant Rule
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
A federal court today indefinitely suspended litigation over the Obama administration's climate rule for new power plants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order holding the case in abeyance pending further action from the court. U.S. EPA is required to file status reports at 90-day intervals.
The Obama EPA finalized the rule at issue in August 2015, requiring both new and modified fossil-fuel-fired power plants to meet carbon dioxide limits. The standards for coal plants can't be met by efficiency improvements alone, meaning operators of new power plants will have to capture carbon and sequester it in deep saline formations.
Along with the Clean Power Plan, which covers existing power plants, the rule was at the center of the Obama administration's climate change agenda.
A host of industry entities and states challenged the rule, arguing EPA exceeded its authority and failed to show that carbon capture and storage is a viable technology (Greenwire, Oct. 20, 2016).
In April, though, the D.C. Circuit paused litigation both over the rule and over the Clean Power Plan for 60 days. The Trump administration has ordered EPA to review both rules, along with a host of Obama administration climate change policies.
The court asked parties to weigh in on whether to suspend the litigation indefinitely or send it back to EPA, terminating the case. Environmentalists and state supporters of the rule had urged the D.C. Circuit to move ahead with the litigation, despite the Trump administration's plans.
Today's order is the latest in a string of decisions this week from the D.C. Circuit in litigation involving the Obama climate change agenda.
Earlier in the week, the court granted a further 60-day delay in the litigation over the Clean Power Plan (E&E News PM, Aug. 8).
The D.C. Circuit also tossed out an Obama-era policy for phasing out potent heat-trapping chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons (Greenwire, Aug. 8).
In a statement, the Environmental Defense Fund noted that the carbon standards for new power plants would remain in effect while the case is suspended.
"The carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants are already working to protect American families and communities from the dangerous pollution that causes climate change," said Tomás Carbonell, the group's director of regulatory policy and lead attorney. "Today's decision allows those standards to remain in full force and effect."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/10/stories/1060058659
-
Oil and Gas Industry Loses Again in Methane Court Battle
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The oil and gas industry lost another round in its fight to nullify an EPA regulation on methane emissions, as a federal appeals court decided against reconsidering the case.
In an 8-3 decision, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to review a decision that forced the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce Obama-era standards on oil and gas wells. The rule requires drillers to install new technology to monitor for leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas (Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1145, 8/10/17)..
The Trump administration sought to pause enforcement of this rule while the EPA weighs whether to rescind it outright. But last month a three-judge appeals court panel struck down this pause, saying the EPA hadn't followed proper procedure.
The American Petroleum Institute, the Western Energy Alliance, and other industry trade organizations, along with several states that opposed the regulation, had asked the full court to review that decision. The oil and gas industry is seeking to avoid having to comply in the short-term with a rule that may be rescinded by the Trump administration in the near future.
With the full court's Aug. 10 decision to not take up the case, the remaining legal option would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118401859&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118401859&jd=118401859
-
Oklahoma Task Force to Assess OCC; Three Disposal Wells to Halt Injections
Aug 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, in an effort to discover ways to improve operations of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), issued an executive order (EO) Monday creating a five-member task force to conduct an organizational analysis of the agency.
Meanwhile, the OCC's Oil and Gas Conservation Division (OGCD) also on said Monday operators of three wastewater disposal wells in the Edmond area have agreed to halt disposals into the Arbuckle formation, the state's deepest, after a series of earthquakes struck the area last week.
According to the EO, the Second Century Corporation Commission Task Force is to assess the OCC's performance, staffing, funding and structure, as well as its stated mission. The task force then is to provide recommendations by Nov. 15, 2018 to the governor, the OCC, the state's attorney general and the state legislature.
"The OCC provides invaluable services to protect Oklahomans and regulates a wide swath of our economy," Fallin said. "In recent years, we have relied on the expertise of the commission on many issues facing the state. The commission has adapted to many changes over the years, but it is timely to review its mission and to make sure corporation commissioners have the necessary tools and resources to fulfill it."
The task force would include the attorney general, an OCC commissioner appointed by the agency, a senator appointed by the president pro tempore, and a state representative appointed by the speaker of the House. It would be chaired by the governor's secretary of energy and environment.
"The task force shall not include within their analysis specific issues, concerns, recommendations or other actions dealing with the past, current or future cases, orders, proceedings, actions, enforcements or other matters before the OCC," the EO said. "This shall not limit the task force in examining the processes related to management issues or workflow before the OCC."
Analysts with Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Inc. said the EO "is not a silver bullet by any means, but a positive step forward."
Injection Halt Reduces Volumes 95%
The OGCD said the agreement by operators of three wastewater wells to stop injections would result in a 95% reduction of the current injection volumes into the Arbuckle within a 10-mile radius around recent earthquake activity near Edmond, a suburb of Oklahoma City.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a 4.2-magnitude temblor struck near Edmond on Aug. 2. USGS data shows 65 earthquakes, measuring at least 2.5-magnitude, have struck the state in the last 30 days, including nine (ranging from 2.5- to 4.2-magnitude) near Edmond. The epicenter of the latest quake, which registered 3.2-magnitude and struck at 3:13 p.m. CDT on Wednesday, was 4.3 miles southeast of Fairview, OK.
The OCC and OGCD have been attempting to mitigate induced seismic activity for the last two years. They have focused on wastewater injection wells targeting the Arbuckle -- especially the Mississippian Lime and the Hunton dewatering play -- within a 15,000-square mile area of interest (AOI) in the state. Edmond is within the AOI.
"For all other Arbuckle disposal wells within the AOI, including Edmond, previous volume reductions remain in effect," the OGCD said.
Scientists with the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) attribute many of the recent quakes to the disposal of extremely salty water, a byproduct of oil and gas production, via underground injection wells. According to the OGS catalog, 23 earthquakes measuring at least 2.7-magnitude have struck Oklahoma during the month of August, as of Aug. 6. By comparison, there were a total of 139 such quakes in August 2015, and 67 quakes in August 2016.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111370-oklahoma-task-force-to-assess-occ-three-disposal-wells-to-halt-injections
-
Fla. Senator Renews Call for Drilling Ban at Field Hearing
Aug 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
Fearing damage to tourism, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson today renewed his call for Congress to extend a moratorium on drilling that would keep rigs off the coast of his home state of Florida.
"Our brand is sunshine and sea breezes, sugary white sand beaches, family-friendly theme parks, and world-class fishing and seafood," Nelson said at a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee field hearing in St. Petersburg.
Nelson, the panel's ranking member, convened the hearing to examine threats to Florida's tourism industry, using the forum to highlight the damage that would be caused by an oil spill.
"Last year, a record 112.8 million international and domestic tourists came to Florida," Nelson said. "The tourism industry supports some 1.4 million jobs in this state. So there's a lot at stake here."
Opponents are worried after President Trump signed an executive order April 28 reversing an Obama administration ban on drilling in much of the Arctic Ocean. The order also opened the door for more offshore oil and gas leasing in parts of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (Greenwire, April 28).
Nelson has battled offshore drilling for years. In 2006, he teamed up with former Republican Sen. Mel Martínez of Florida to convince Congress to pass a ban on drilling off the state's Gulf coast through 2022 (E&E Daily, July 31, 2015).
Earlier this year, Nelson introduced a bill to extend the ban for another five years.
Noting that the oil and gas industry is opposed to an extension, Nelson said: "If we're going to maintain our vibrant tourism economy, it's going to take all of us here today working together over the next five years to extend the moratorium that keeps drilling rigs off Florida."
Robin Sollie, president and CEO of the Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce, a group of 730 businesses, said "the magnitude of losses are still being calculated" from the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010. Even though the spill took place off the Louisiana coast, she said its effects were felt in Florida.
"There is no amount of money ... from oil exploration and drilling that can outweigh the risk that it has on the entire coast of Florida," Sollie said.
Sherry Larkin, a natural resource economist at the University of Florida, said the millions of Floridians who live in coastal communities and visit the state contribute more than 80 percent — almost $562 billion — to the state's economy each year.
"The environment and economy are inextricably linked, and what benefits one benefits the other, and vice versa," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/10/stories/1060058657
-
Ford Sued Over Chemicals Seeping Into Michigan Groundwater
Aug 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
More than 130 residents of Livonia, Mich. are suing Ford Motor Co. for alleged damages caused by the release of cleaning chemicals from a company plant.
The complaint alleges that Ford's release of vinyl chloride and trichloroethylene from the Livonia Transmission Plant endangers more than 90 households, which now have chemicals in their groundwater. The residents seek damages for loss of property value and loss of the use of personal wells (Tenniswood v. Ford Motor Co., Mich. Cir. Ct., No. 17-11941, 8/9/17).
The Aug. 9 lawsuit follows a July consent decree with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, under which Ford is responsible for chemical cleanup and monitoring. The release occurred between the 1950s and 1980s, but Ford discovered it in 2014, according to the state's complaint.
Ford's Livonia plant, located in a Detroit suburb, employs about 1,740 people, according to the company's website.
Shawn Collins, attorney for the residents, told Bloomberg BNA the state's lawsuit was prompted by his clients. The residents sent Ford notice in April that since the state had not acted on the pollution, they would sue in 90 days under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The consent decree came 88 days later.
Ford spokesperson John Cangany told Bloomberg BNA in a statement that samples have shown no health risks to residents or drinking water.
“When we discovered the issue, we promptly alerted the MDEQ and the plant's neighbors,” Cangany said. “Since then, we have actively worked with the MDEQ and investigated the potential for groundwater contamination, culminating in our settlement with the State of Michigan in July that includes plans for addressing the neighborhood and continued public outreach.”
Collins said no confirmed cases of illness are related to the chemical release. However, his firm is investigating an unusually high prevalence of auto-immune diseases in the neighborhood.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118401861&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118401861&jd=118401861
-
CSX Lobbied Christie Officials Before He Vetoed Oil-Train Bill
Aug 11, 2017 | NorthJersey.com
By Curtis Tate
CSX Transportation lobbied New Jersey officials to oppose legislation to increase the transparency of oil train movements in the state before Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the bill last month.
In March, New Jersey lawmakers approved a bill that would have required rail companies, including CSX, to file detailed emergency response and cleanup plans for train derailments with state officials. The bill, S 806, would also have required the railroads to publicly disclose the routes and volumes of oil trains on a monthly basis.
Christie vetoed the bill last month, citing the security risks of making such information public.
That information is already public for the most part. After the federal government began requiring railroads submit oil train routes and volumes to states emergency response officials in 2014, New York and Pennsylvania honored open-records requests for the data from news organizations. The oil shipments that passed through New Jersey also passed through those states.
Like New Jersey, Delaware had declined to provide the information news organizations requested. But Amtrak provided details of oil train shipments, which used a portion of the passenger railroad's busy Northeast Corridor to reach a refinery near Wilmington.
Recent trends in oil prices have caused a dramatic drop in the volume of oil trains moving through the state. CSX told state officials recently that it's moving zero to five trains a week through New Jersey, down from 15 to 30 just two years ago.
Throughout 2014 and 2015, the Bakken shale region of North Dakota was sending a steady stream of light, sweet crude in mile-long trains to refineries on the East Coast.
But as oil prices declined from more than $100 a barrel to less than $50 a barrel, refiners resumed importing foreign crude via ship, and the trains, carrying as many as 3 million gallons each, began to appear less frequently in New Jersey and other states.
Still, state lobbying records show that Rodney Oglesby, CSX's vice president of government affairs for Philadelphia, New Jersey and New York City, met with two senior Christie administration officials prior to the veto of S-806: Richard Hammer, the state transportation commissioner, and Lisa Almeida, the governor's assistant counsel.
CSX opposed the state disaster response plan requirement, as well as a separate requirement that railroads provide their bridge inspection reports to state officials.
The counsel's office advises the governor on whether to sign or veto legislation.
"The counsel’s office is always the focus of lobbying efforts," said state Sen. Bob Gordon, D-Fair Lawn, the vice-chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.
Gordon said he was "disappointed" in Christie's veto.
Oglesby lobbied Almeida and Hammer during the three months ending June 30, records show. Christie vetoed the bill on July 13.
State records show that another lobbyist, Richard Van Wagner, repeatedly visited the counsel's office and various lawmakers in 2016 and this year to make the case against the legislation on behalf of CSX.
Brian Murray, a Christie spokesman, said stakeholders and interest groups regularly correspond with and visit legislators and administration officials during the legislative review process.
"This matter was no different," he said.
Rob Doolittle, a CSX spokesman, said the railroad engages with state officials and lawmakers across its network about the potential impact of proposed legislation.
"We are proud to participate in that process," he said.
Lawmakers could attempt to override Christie's veto, or wait until the next governor takes office and approve the legislation again.
"We do need to address the concerns that a number of people have about the content of these trains and the impact it may have on their lives," said state Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Sayreville, who lost the primary for governor to businessman Phil Murphy.
A series of fiery derailments of oil trains across North America spurred lawmakers in a number of states to introduce legislation requiring railroads to submit detailed disaster response plans and share more information about hazardous shipments with emergency responders in communities exposed to new risks from a continent-wide energy boom.
Lawmakers were motivated in particular by the July 2013 disaster in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, where an oil train derailment killed 47 people.
Railroads made their own efforts to improve safety, supporting stronger tank cars for flammable liquids, beefing up their track and equipment inspections and providing enhanced training for emergency responders.
CSX has held training classes for firefighters and other first responders in communities along its tracks, and has paid for others to attend a special academy the industry developed in Pueblo, Colo., where participants do a live exercise with a simulated derailment.
"The more training opportunities there are, the better," Wisniewski said.
But Wisniewski added that emergency responders should be given information about when a particularly dangerous cargo is coming through the communities they protect.
"If you’re in charge of emergency response," he said, "you want to make sure you have the right people and equipment teed up, just in case."
http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2017/08/11/csx-lobbied-christie-officials-before-he-vetoed-oil-train-bill/553643001/
-
Pruitt: EPA Will Review Climate Findings in Scientific Report
Aug 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told hosts of a Texas radio show on Thursday his agency will review an upcoming federal climate change research report compiled by 13 agencies “and evaluate the merits and demerits and the methodology and accuracy of the report.”
Pruitt also dismissed the discussions in Washington about carbon emissions and the links to climate change, saying they were "political."
“Frankly this report ought to be subjected to peer-reviewed, objective-reviewed methodology and evaluation. Science should not be politicized. Science is not something that should be just thrown about to try to dictate policy in Washington, D.C. It ought to be objectively measured. We ought to be able to inform our citizens about what we know and what we do not know,” Pruitt said in the interview.
Pruitt was referring to a portion of the National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive climate report issued by the federal government every four years. His comments came just as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationissued a separate report Thursday confirming that 2016 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the records set in each of the two previous years.
Pruitt plans to launch his own debate of climate science, which both his detractors and supporters have said would be an unnecessarily politicized exercise.
The EPA chief said Wednesday that “this debate, this discussion, I think it’s good and healthy for this country.”
The Trump administration is required by law to issue the National Climate Assessment and its Climate Science Special Report next year.
The draft of the science assessment cited this week by The New York Times consolidated the peer-reviewed work of dozens of scientists within the federal government. It establishes that it is “extremely likely” human activity is the main cause of global warming since the mid-20th century. It projects more intense heat waves, extreme droughts and severe flooding, ranking effects based on a range of confidence levels.
Staff from EPA and other agencies have previously approved the report, but Pruitt and the White House have one last opportunity to make changes.
Asked by the radio show host why there’s a “preoccupation with CO2” in Washington, Pruitt said because it “serves political ends.”
“Frankly, the last several years the past administration used the CO2 issue as a wedge issue, and that’s why we talked about it this much,” he said. “Why aren’t we celebrating what we’re achieving with respect to CO2 … why do we continue to engage in this political football?"
“Let’s just focus on getting the job done through innovation and technology instead of trying to create wedge issues,” he said.
Pruitt also weighed in on the New York Times story about the draft report, which said scientists were worried the Trump administration might interfere with its publication. Report authors told POLITICO they’ve yet to see any sign that might happen, although Trump’s stance that climate change is a "hoax" had raised concerns.
“The New York Times out there saying they had to release this report because it’s going to be suppressed is just simply legendary. It’s just made up news trying to create a distraction from the real work that’s being done in Washington, D.C.,” he said.
Pruitt praised news stories that were critical of The New York Times for saying it had obtained an unreleased version, even though the report had been available on one website. The New York Times subsequently corrected the statement that the report had not been previously available and published a more recent draft that it obtained.
Alex Guillén contributed to this report.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/08/pruitt-epa-will-review-climate-findings-in-scientific-report-160617
-
D.C. Circuit Suspends Briefing in Suit over CSAPR Update
Aug 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has suspended briefing in litigation over EPA's updated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), granting a request from industry petitioners challenging the rule to delay proceedings so EPA can determine whether to reconsider the revised CSAPR.
In an Aug. 10 order in State of Wisconsin, et al. v. EPA, the court suspended briefing pending a further court order setting a new schedule. Electric utilities and states opposed to EPA's rule were poised to file opening briefs Aug. 21, but requested a four-month extension of the briefing schedule from the court after EPA failed to respond to their petitions to the agency for administrative reconsideration.
In its 2016 rule, the Obama EPA made changes to the CSAPR emissions trading system for power plants, tightening state emissions caps, or “budgets,” for nitrogen oxides in order to help states attain the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb). In State of Wisconsin, states and industry opposed to the CSAPR update are seeking to avoid tougher regulation, while environmentalists and other states are defending the rule.
The original 2011 CSAPR aimed to help states meet the 1997 NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb. EPA has not promulgated any rule aimed at helping states meet their Clean Air Act “good neighbor” obligations with respect to the Obama EPA's 2015 tougher ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb, itself under litigation and possibly subject to reconsideration by the Trump EPA.
Power industry petitioners say many of the issues they intend to raise in court are the same as they raised in petitions for reconsideration, and therefore may be mooted by an EPA revision of the rule.
So far, however, EPA has given little indication of its intentions or timetable for such a revision, industry petitioners said in their Aug. 7 motion for a 120-day briefing delay.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-suspends-briefing-suit-over-csapr-update
-
Aug 11, 2017 | New York Times
By Paul Krugman
“It’s Not Your Imagination: Summers Are Getting Hotter.” So read a recent headline in The Times, highlighting a decade-by-decade statistical analysis by climate expert James Hansen. “Most summers,” the analysis concluded, “are now either hot or extremely hot compared with the mid-20th century.”
So what else is new? At this point the evidence for human-caused global warming just keeps getting more overwhelming, and the plausible scenariosfor the future — extreme weather events, rising sea levels, drought, and more — just keep getting scarier.
In a rational world urgent action to limit climate change would be the overwhelming policy priority for governments everywhere.
But the U.S. government is, of course, now controlled by a party within which climate denial — rejecting not just scientific evidence but also obvious lived experience, and fiercely opposing any effort to slow the trend — has become a defining marker of tribal identity.
Put it this way: Republicans can’t seem to repeal Obamacare, and recriminations between Senate leaders and the tweeter in chief are making headlines. But the G.O.P. is completely united behind its project of destroying civilization, and it’s making good progress toward that goal.
This is all true, but acknowledging the dishonesty, cupidity, and irresponsibility of our current national leadership does not release the.
So where does climate denial come from?
Just to be clear, experts aren’t always right; even an overwhelming scientific consensus sometimes turns out to have been wrong. And if someone offers a good-faith critique of conventional views, a serious effort to get at the truth, he or she deserves a hearing.
What becomes clear to anyone following the climate debate, however, is that hardly any climate skeptics are in fact trying to get at the truth. I’m not a climate scientist, but I do know what bogus arguments look like — and I can’t think of a single prominent climate skeptic who isn’t obviously arguing in bad faith.
Take, for example, all the people who seized on the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year to claim that global warming stopped 20 years ago — as if one unseasonably hot day in May proves that summer is a myth. Or all the people who cited out-of-context quotes from climate researchers as evidence of a vast scientific conspiracy.
Or for that matter, think of anyone who cites “uncertainty” as a reason to do nothing — when it should be obvious that the risks of faster-than-expected climate change if we do too little dwarf the risks of doing too much if change is slower than expected.
But what’s driving this epidemic of bad faith? The answer, I’d argue, is that there are actually three groups involved — a sort of axis of climate evil.
First, and most obvious, there’s the fossil fuel industry — think the Koch brothers — which has an obvious financial stake in continuing to sell dirty energy. And the industry — following the same well-worn path industry groups used to create doubt about the dangers of tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, and more — has systematically showered money on think tanks and scientists willing to express skepticism about climate change. Many — perhaps even most — authors purporting to cast doubt on global warming turn out, on investigation, to have received financial support from the fossil fuel sector.
Still, the mercenary interests of fossil fuel companies aren’t the whole story here. There’s also ideology.
An influential part of the U.S. political spectrum — think the Wall Street Journal editorial page — is opposed to any and all forms of government economic regulation; it’s committed to Reagan’s doctrine that government is always the problem, never the solution.
Such people have always had a problem with pollution: When unregulated individual actions impose costs on others, it’s hard to see how you avoid supporting some form of government intervention. And climate change is the mother of all pollution issues.
Some conservatives are willing to face this reality and support market-friendly intervention to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But all too many prefer simply to deny the existence of the issue — if facts conflict with their ideology, they deny the facts.
Finally, there are a few public intellectuals — less important than the plutocrats and ideologues, but if you ask me even more shameful — who adopt a pose of climate skepticism out of sheer ego. In effect, they say: “Look at me! I’m smart! I’m contrarian! I’ll show you how clever I am by denying the scientific consensus!” And for the sake of this posturing, they’re willing to nudge us further down the road to catastrophe.
Which brings me back to the current political situation. Right now progressives are feeling better than they expected to a few months ago: Donald Trump and his frenemies in Congress are accomplishing a lot less than they hoped, and their opponents feared. But that doesn’t change the reality that the axis of climate evil is now firmly in control of U.S. policy, and the world may never recover.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/climate-science-denial.html
-
State Rolls Out New Rules to Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Aug 11, 2017 | AP (In U.S. News & World Report)
By Bob Salsberg
Gov. Charlie Baker's administration will issue a set of new rules aimed at bringing Massachusetts into full compliance with an ambitious state law that calls for a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade.
The regulations being rolled out on Friday include clean energy requirements for utilities, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generating plants, and curbs on methane emissions from natural gas distribution systems. Officials also planned to announce a "lead by example" provision that establishes new fuel efficiency standards for the state's own fleet of passenger vehicles.
The state launched a review and held public hearings following a May 2016 ruling by the state's highest court. The justices sided with environmental groups that sued Massachusetts, saying it wasn't doing enough to meet greenhouse gas limits called for in the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act.
In addition to the 2020 target of a 25 percent reduction in emissions relative to 1990 levels, the law sets an 80 percent reduction goal by 2050.
"Combatting and preparing for the impact of climate change remains a top priority of our administration, and requires collaboration across state government and with stakeholders throughout Massachusetts," said Baker, a Republican, in a statement planned for release in conjunction with the regulations.
Martin Suuberg, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, acknowledged the rules likely would push consumer electricity bills higher, but by no more than 2 percent a year with increases expected to tail off as more renewable energy sources come on line in the next decade.
Massachusetts already was closing in on the 2020 goal, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Matthew Beaton told reporters, having achieved a 21.3 percent reduction in emissions so far.
"We are trending in a very good direction and we are confident that we are going to hit those goals," he said.
The state is soliciting bids under a separate law passed last year for renewable energy projects that will generate 1,600 megawatts of power from offshore wind facilities and 1,200 megawatts from hydropower, solar and onshore wind over the next 10 years.
Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association, criticized the new regulations for falling too heavily on electricity plants and not enough on the transportation sector that he said generated twice the emissions of power plants.
"Frankly our concern is that these regulations ... make the problem worse, not better," said Dolan.
Conservation Law Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in the climate lawsuit against Massachusetts, worked with officials in crafting the response, which the group praised as sensible and enforceable while stressing that further steps were needed.
Another environmental advocacy group, 350 Mass, called the regulations "weak," arguing they failed to address 85 percent of pollution that contributes to climate change.
"This move shows Baker's stand on climate is more posturing than policy," executive director Craig Altemose said, referring to the governor's opposition to President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accords.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/massachusetts/articles/2017-08-11/state-rolls-out-new-rules-to-curb-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested