Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/25/2017
-
(ACC Blog) Chemical Industry Prepared for New Storm Heading to U.S. Gulf Coast
Aug 24, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
With another hurricane season underway, the chemical industry is prepared to build on the successful actions taken to weather previous major storms. -
(ACC Mentioned) US 'Superglue' the Best Way to Boost Car Parts Recovery?
Aug 25, 2017 | Recycling International
By Kirstin Linnenkoper
United States: Researchers at Michigan State University are working together with the American Chemistry Council's automotive group as well as chemical and advanced materials company Solvay to develop a special type of 'superglue' that could bring end-of-life car disassembly to a whole new level. -
Practitioner Insights: Do Inerts Trigger ESA?
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David B. Weinberg, Tracy Heinzman, Martha E. Marrapese, Steven Richardson, and Wiley Rein
Another front recently opened in the complex framework of pesticides and endangered species that targets inert ingredients used in pesticides. On July 9, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a citizens petition for rulemaking that calls on the Environmental Protection Agency... -
Every American Deserves Clean, Safe Water
Aug 24, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By D. Michael Langford
Our nation is facing a huge problem impacting communities around the country: the quality of our water. Our leaders say they’re interested in fixing America’s aging water infrastructure but they’re unwilling to bring the resources to bear to revamp a system... -
National Monuments May Change, But Probably Not for Energy
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Recommendations sent to the White House Aug. 24 to reduce the boundaries of some national monuments may make little or no difference to oil and gas companies, even if President Donald Trump agrees to them. -
U.S. Lays Groundwork for Rescuing Coal Plants With Grid Report
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick and Jim Polson
The Energy Department, in a long-anticipated report on the security of the U.S. electric grid, makes the case for rescuing the nation's coal industry from widespread plant shutdowns, but stops short of an assault on renewable power that environmentalists had feared. -
Conventional Plays Target of Oklahoma's Expanded Long-Lateral Drilling Rules
Aug 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Implementing a law passed earlier this year by the state legislature, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) has adopted on an emergency basis long-lateral drilling rules that apply to all oil and natural gas formations in the state, not only unconventional plays. -
RMP Case Shows Stricter EPA Oversight of Facility Process, Attorneys Say
Aug 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A recent EPA enforcement action against a Rhode Island metals company shows agency inspectors delving deeper into facility processes to bring complex cases and increasing civil, and potentially criminal liability, though it is unclear whether the Trump EPA... -
White House Infrastructure Council Members Resign, Citing Trump's 'Insufficient' Attention to Cyber Threats
Aug 24, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Geller
Seven members of President Donald Trump’s infrastructure advisory group have resigned, citing concerns that Trump was not taking urgent matters like cybersecurity seriously. -
Editorial: Override Christie’s Oil Train Veto
Aug 24, 2017 | NorthJersey.com
By Editorial Board
The Democratic-controlled Legislature has so far been unable to muster the votes needed for an override of any of Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s vetoes in his eight years in office. That could change, though, in coming days or weeks, as lawmakers weigh the merits of... -
Trump and Pruitt, Making America Polluted Again
Aug 25, 2017 | New York Times
By Paul Krugman
Efforts to kill Obamacare have failed, at least for now. Tax “reform” — which really means big tax cuts for the rich — faces doubtful prospects. -
State Street Adds $2.6 Trillion Muscle to Climate Disclosures
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
State Street Corp., with $2.6 trillion of assets under management, is strengthening the hand of investors that want companies to explain the risks posed by climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Chemical Industry Prepared for New Storm Heading to U.S. Gulf Coast
Aug 24, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
With another hurricane season underway, the chemical industry is prepared to build on the successful actions taken to weather previous major storms.
During previous storms such as Katrina and Ike, American Chemistry Council (ACC) members’ emergency preparations worked as planned. Not one employee at a chemical facility was injured, and neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor any state agency reported a significant chemical release from ACC member facilities in the Gulf.
In fact, most chemical facilities returned to full operational status in a matter of days, a tribute to planning, preparation and the fundamental design of ACC members’ facilities.
Preparation equals safety
Chemical companies know well to avoid the dangers of being unprepared for any threat, be it a hurricane, an accident, or something more sinister. This is why our member companies place great importance on implementing emergency plans focused on protecting the safety of employees and surrounding communities. Under Responsible Care®, our trademark health, safety, environment and security program, all ACC members have long-established emergency plans, which are activated in close coordination with local, state and national authorities, other businesses and transportation systems, along the path of the storms.
The well-rehearsed emergency plans for hurricanes involve many actions taken in advance of the storm. Depending on the severity of the storm, they include:
· Complete shutdown of facility following strict safety and operating procedures
· Evacuation of personnel
· Preparing the facility by activating generators, filling tanks and physically securing equipment
· Removal of unnecessary vehicles and other equipment
ACC members don’t just rely on short-term contingency plans when it comes to hurricanes, they also consider them when designing and building chemical facilities to be safe. Specific construction elements can include hardened equipment, dikes and levees.
Cascading impacts on chemicals and customers
As previous storms have demonstrated, the impact of hurricanes can go well beyond the potential threat to employees and physical damage to facilities and their communities. Those storms served as a reminder of the interdependent nature of the nation’s critical infrastructure.
While most facilities did not suffer major structural damage and were operational within days, many were unable to resume normal production because of other external consequences of the storms. Extensive damage to the local infrastructure blocked the flow of key supplies, like electricity and natural gas, necessary to manufacture chemicals, while damaged roads and rail lines prevented the delivery of products to consumers.
Ultimately, this led to higher fuel costs for everyone and curtailed the delivery of chemicals essential to producing important everyday items like clean drinking water and life-saving medicines.
Recovering from the storm
After a storm passes, specially trained teams visit the site to evaluate damage before response crews or other employees are allowed to return. Once it is deemed safe to return, employees begin the delicate process of restarting operations, which can take several days depending on the size of the facility.
As we have seen in the wake of past storms, the recovery operations of many companies extended past the fence lines of their facilities. On their own, through ACC and the state chemistry councils, and working directly with the Red Cross, Salvation Army and other organizations, America’s chemistry companies and their personnel responded compassionately, donating tens of millions of dollars for relief assistance, volunteering time and providing much-needed supplies. This industry-wide effort included companies and facilities from all parts of the nation.
In many instances, member company facilities became vital community resources, providing a wide range of support, including temporary housing and meals for employees, their families and even the broader community, in some instances.
Preparing for the next storm
While it is impossible to predict the exact path of Harvey or the potential impact on member facilities, ACC member companies will continue to make sure all of their facilities are prepared to weather the storm and assist in the recovery.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/08/chemical-industry-prepared-for-new-storm-heading-to-u-s-gulf-coast/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US 'Superglue' the Best Way to Boost Car Parts Recovery?
Aug 25, 2017 | Recycling International
By Kirstin Linnenkoper
United States: Researchers at Michigan State University are working together with the American Chemistry Council's automotive group as well as chemical and advanced materials company Solvay to develop a special type of 'superglue' that could bring end-of-life car disassembly to a whole new level.
Mixing materials is nothing new when talking about consumer products manufacturing. And yet, finding the right adhesive so they stick one another is an entirely different thing. It’s an issue that car manufacturers are all but too familiar with, and one that hinders the efficient recycling of modern-day vehicles.
The new compound is an enhanced thermoplastic with microscopic magnetic particles that bond different kinds of plastic, metals and a combination of both without the need for more rivets or connectors. The ‘superglue’ adapts to different surface properties and works at different material temperatures adhesive. These characteristics would ultimately enable composite materials to be cleanly separated once the car is sent back for scrapping.
The research is in the ‘laboratory testing phase’ but the outlook for upscaling is very promising, according to Sandra McClelland, a member of the council and sales development manager for Solvay Specialty Polymers. She adds that the new materials bonding approach would also allow a component to be repaired in a way that will make it stronger.
http://www.recyclinginternational.com/recycling-news/10776/research-and-legislation/united-states/us-039-superglue-039-best-way-boost-car-parts-recovery
-
Practitioner Insights: Do Inerts Trigger ESA?
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David B. Weinberg, Tracy Heinzman, Martha E. Marrapese, Steven Richardson, and Wiley Rein
Another front recently opened in the complex framework of pesticides and endangered species that targets inert ingredients used in pesticides. On July 9, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a citizens petition for rulemaking that calls on the Environmental Protection Agency to require testing and approval of full pesticide formulations and tank mixtures, including the additives that generally are categorized as “inerts.” Failing to respond favorably, CFS argued, would violate both FIFRA and the ESA.
This petition expands on several other CFS forays into related areas. A year ago this month, CFS joined the Center for Biological Diversity's (CBD's) Petition for rulemaking to evaluate the synergistic effects of pesticides during registration and registrant review. In 2013, the CFS joined in a yet-unresolved lawsuit against the EPA alleging the agency's failure to protect pollinators from neonicotinoids. And the CFS has joined with other activists in challenges to particular pesticide registrations on Endangered Species Act grounds.
But this is the first recent effort to expand these efforts to address inerts. Inert ingredient manufacturers and companies that use them should pay close attention to how the EPA responds to this petition. This petition—or litigation following any EPA response or failure to respond—may eventually result in mandates to generate more data than is currently required to support new and/or existing inert ingredient clearances.
Inert Ingredient Background
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, a registration from the EPA generally is required before sale or distribution of a pesticide. EPA is to regulate the uses of the pesticide in a manner that will “prevent unreasonable adverse effects” on the environment or human health. FIFRA authorizes the EPA to require supporting studies to meet the statutory safety standard, and the core data requirements for pesticide registration are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Part 158. Part 158 also establishes data requirements for pesticide tolerances under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Most pesticide products contain both active ingredients—the substances intended to have pesticidal effects—and emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, aerosol propellants, fragrances, dyes or other ingredients. These historically have been referred to as “inerts,” although activists argue that they in fact may have ecological or safety impacts. A FIFRA tolerance or exemption is required before many inerts can be used. Such clearances are increasingly difficult to obtain and, as a condition for granting one, the EPA may require a considerable amount of additional data. Indeed, the agency routinely imposes its testing authority to impose testing requirements analogous to—but sometimes even more complex than—those applied to active ingredients. Companies seeking to clear an inert ingredient thus are well-advised both to consult the data requirements in FIFRA's regulations for the use pattern and check for precedents before concluding how extensive their data obligations may be.
An example of when testing for an inert ingredient can be even more onerous than testing for an active ingredient is when a single diluent will be marketed for use in a number of pesticide products that have different pre- and post-harvest applications. (In contrast, the sale of the active ingredient may be limited to use in one specific pesticide or family of pesticides.)
EPA also will review an inert ingredient strictly if it is a nanoscale chemical. Each nanoscale form of an inert ingredient needs its own data and is subject to a lengthy review.
The agency recommends that a submitter request a pre-submission conference call or meeting with the Inert Ingredient Assessment Branch (IIAB) prior to submitting the petition. This initial consultation is quite important for determining whether a company has enough information to proceed with the petition process. Because of the case-by-case way that EPA makes these determinations, there is no better way for a company to establish what data it will need with any degree of certainty. Companies that file an inert ingredient application without such a meeting risk a deficiency letter and substantial delay.
Companies should be well-prepared for these meetings. They should be ready to explain the information they have regarding the chemical, including use information, limitations, and toxicity and environmental fate data. They also should be prepared to negotiate with EPA staff about what additional data, if any, would be appropriate. Then, when it comes time to submit an inert application, companies can submit the negotiated identified studies as well, perhaps, as formal waiver requests for the studies that the agency has indicated are not required.
In addition, the rationale determinations as to whether to require, waive, or rely on data from similar chemicals should be transparently documented. The chosen path may implicate data compensation issues, which have to be considered and addressed vis-à-vis follow on manufacturers of a cleared inert.
EPA imposes use limitations and quantity restrictions on the use of approved inert ingredients. In addition, FFDCA and FIFRA require that inert ingredients in a pesticide product, like active ingredients, have all needed tolerances or exemptions for tolerances before a pesticide is registered. A tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is required if the proposed labeling bears instructions for use of the product on food or feed crops or if the intended use of the product may result directly or indirectly in pesticide residues in or on food or feed.
As a result of all these requirements, the testing costs associated with inert applications (and EPA's related fees) are non-trivial. Under PRIA3, the fee for review of a new non-food inert ingredient application is $11,025. In the case of a new inert for food contact applications the PRIA3 fee is $19,895. Fees for reviewing even simple amendments, changes in tolerance levels, and polymers of low concern are lower, in the range of $1,654 - $5,513.
These fees pale next to study costs, however. The studies in Part 158 are comprehensive and provide the scientific basis for characterizing the potential risks associated with pesticide exposure. (As we have noted, EPA has some flexibility to require additional data and studies can be waived, but this must be documented and scientifically supported.) For example, the CFS petition calls for routinely conducted chronic (2 year) animal studies which cost several million dollars and take up to 4 years to complete. A smaller, sub-chronic study may cost several hundred thousand dollars for just a single chemical, and can take approximately two years to schedule and complete.
The Rulemaking Petition
The EPA is charged by statute with finding that use of the product “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects” on the environment or human health and is given broad authority to require testing necessary of both the active and inert ingredients in a pesticide to reach this finding. The presence of both types of ingredients has led to considerable recent attention to the possibility that product constituents may have “synergistic” effects—that is, the constituents may interact in meaningful ways.
In its new petition, the CFS alleges that the effects of a mixture of chemicals may extend beyond the expected responses to the individual components of a mixture, creating a greater response on exposed biota. The petition describes this synergy as the interaction of two or more ingredients in a mixture in such a way as to enhance the pesticide's toxicity, ecotoxicity, or bioavailability. CFS specifically alleges that:
• The use of certain surfactants enhances the herbicidal efficacy of glyphosate so that it is more toxic to plants and amphibians.
• Organosilicones that are widely used as nonionic surfactants in tank mixtures for sprayed pesticides enhance the penetration and spread of active ingredient(s) in a way that increases their toxicity.
• Neonicotinoids and fungicides when mixed in commercial and farmer tank mixtures lead to simultaneous and increased pollinator exposure of these two classes of active ingredient.
CFS also asserts that inerts and adjuvants in tank mixtures are being intentionally added to increase the efficacy of pesticides, but that EPA is not adequately taking synergistic effects into consideration. As a result, the petition argues, EPA is failing to meet its obligations under FIFRA and is violating the ESA by registering pesticides that may harm endangered species.
The petition asks EPA to initiate proceedings to revise the existing pesticide registration regulations in several ways, so that these rules:
• take into account the effect of all pesticide ingredients on the environment,
• require whole pesticide formulation and tank mixture testing,
• require testing for inert ingredients and whole pesticide formulations for chronic toxicological effects and degradation,
• require ESA consultation on the effects of whole pesticide formulations and tank mixtures on threatened and endangered species, and
• comply with the above in conducting statutorily mandated registration reviews of pesticides.
Historically, EPA might have been tempted to address many of these issues informally, without rulemaking. That seems less likely in the current administration. But even if the EPA fails to respond to it, the petition may eventually form a basis for litigation against EPA.Implications
With EPA data requirements for inert ingredients increasing, the current pre-submission consultation process has been effective for tailoring the amount of data needed to adequately assess risk. If the EPA were to take the more formal approach sought by CFS and issue new rules, those requirements might be more predictable but could also be more rigid or be expanded to permit testing for the entire mixture.
This petition also may open another front in the long-running controversy about the relationship between FIFRA's pesticide regulatory provisions and the ESA. The petition's attempt to elevate the importance of this potential causation pathway as the basis for an unreasonable risk finding adds yet another layer to the current debate about whether pesticide consultation process is the best use of federal agency resources.
The ESA directs that federal orders should not be “likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of any threatened or endangered species (“TES”) or result in the “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.” But this “jeopardy standard” is not the threshold set forth in the regulations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its counterparts (Services) to determine whether EPA must “consult” with them. Under those regulations, if EPA determines that a FIFRA approval “may affect” TES, then consultation is triggered. This overly conservative approach is wasteful and prevents successful integration of EPA's FIFRA and ESA obligations as “consistent” and “complementary,” diverting time and attention from the conservation and recovery of TES.
Resources for “consultation” were not sustainable before a proposed geometric increase in ecological risk factors for EPA to study. The services probably would need to add 5,000 personnel full time equivalents (FTEs) and spend more than $1 billion above 2017 appropriations just to complete 740 FIFRA Registration Review dockets required by current law to be completed by 2023. This translates to a 40-fold increase in the budget of National Marine Fisheries Services; a 30-fold increase for Fish and Wildlife Service; and $270 million more for the EPA. And that estimate does not include any work associated with decision-making outside of the registration review context, such as evaluation of new pesticides intended for use with GMO crops or expanded uses of existing products.
Increasing data requirements for inerts would only exacerbate the shortfall in agency resources. But that fact has not historically been a matter on which CFS and its colleagues have focused.
The EPA is under no deadline to respond to the CFS petition and has a range of options. The EPA could publish the petition for public comment, convene a science advisory committee, hold public hearings to receive science and policy recommendations, propose amendments to existing regulations, commit to issuing guidance or to reviewing the potential for synergistic effects during the registration review process, or do nothing. But potentially affected companies would be wrong to await a formal invitation before raising their concerns about the petition with the Agency and other policy makers.
David B. Weinberg and Tracy Heinzman are partners and co-chairs of the Environment & Safety Practice at Wiley Rein in Washington. Martha E. Marrapese, partner, and Steven Richardson, consulting counsel, are also members of the Environment & Safety Practice. Wiley Rein handles pesticide and chemical litigation and regulatory matters, environmentally-based land use programs such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the laws applicable to product stewardship.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119513961&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119513961&jd=119513961
-
Every American Deserves Clean, Safe Water
Aug 24, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By D. Michael Langford
Our nation is facing a huge problem impacting communities around the country: the quality of our water. Our leaders say they’re interested in fixing America’s aging water infrastructure but they’re unwilling to bring the resources to bear to revamp a system that has countless miles of lead pipes and an estimated 240,000 water main breaks a year and leaking pipes that waste two trillion gallons of treated water.
They say they want clean drinking water in schools, businesses, and homes, but the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to undermine the Clean Water Rule. It's a safeguard put in place last year that would protect the drinking water of 117 million Americans.
These are not the actions of people actively looking to ensure all Americans, no matter where you live, have access to clean and safe drinking water or water to play, fish, or swim in.
This isn’t just a problem in Flint, Michigan it’s a problem from coast to coast. High levels of lead plague schools, the industrial chemical polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) permeates water supplies around the country, and other industrial pollution continues to seep into our lakes, rivers, and streams.
Our drinking water infrastructure is in a sorry state. Utility workers see big problems each day. But, beyond what our members experience, it’s been recognized by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in their 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. ASCE gave our systems a “D” grade and recommended reinvigorating the federal government’s revolving loan program by tripling appropriations to it, fully funding the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation act, and helping local communities get tax-exempt bonds to make sure they can get the money needed to fix local problems.
There’s no lack of solutions out there to help communities deal with water quality issues and to prevent them in the first place at the source. There is a lack of political will in Washington, D.C. to do the right thing.
Utility workers see every day how a lack of investment has resulted in a wasteful and increasingly dangerous water system. We know how to fix the problems facing us and how fixing them will create quality jobs for people all around the country. There is an incredible economic opportunity here that we’re missing out on and it is one that is truly a no-brainer to fix.
The bottom line is that this is not the time for local, state or federal governments to be rolling back protections for clean water. Instead, they should be investing in our water systems and making sure that every American, no matter who they are or where they live, has access to clean and safe water.
D. Michael Langford is the National President of the Utility Workers Union of America. Under his leadership, the Utility Workers Union of America has committed to represent the interests of both the public and its workers to bring about long over-due national reform that will deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective and environmental friendly utility services across the country.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/347862-every-american-deserves-clean-safe-water
-
National Monuments May Change, But Probably Not for Energy
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Recommendations sent to the White House Aug. 24 to reduce the boundaries of some national monuments may make little or no difference to oil and gas companies, even if President Donald Trump agrees to them.
Full details of the recommendations from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have not yet been released, but the Interior Department said some boundaries likely were set by former presidents for political reasons rather than to protect objects of historical or scientific interest as mandated by the Antiquities Act of 1906. Zinke indicated he will not recommend eliminating any of the 27 monuments reviewed.
Interior released statements emphasizing Zinke's determination to allow public access for hunting and fishing, recreation, and traditional uses, plus a general reference to economic development. The statements did not mention the potential for further energy development.
The latest remarks by Zinke as well as Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, and experts on Utah oil and gas development suggest the odds are low of a boundary change that would pave the way for a surge of oil drilling in or near two big national monuments in that state, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
“The oil and gas elements in this are really minimal, if at all,” Bishop said. He told reporters the proposed changes in Bears Ears, if reinforced by appropriate federal legislation, could be significant to local livestock grazing rights and overall management of public land in the area.
Drilling Activity Doubtful
“There has been drilling in there in the past, but no one found anything of significance,” John Rogers, associate director of oil, gas, and mining in the Utah Department of Natural Resources, told Bloomberg BNA regarding the Bears Ears monument.
Even when things were booming in the oil industry a few years ago, while oil prices were high, limited activity took place in what later became the Bears Ears National Monument, Rogers said. President Barack Obama created the monument in the last days of 2016.
Big companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. departed an oil-producing region near Bears Ears more than a decade ago. EOG Resources Inc. has held two permits to drill just outside Bears Ears for a couple of years but has not made use of them.
Over the decades, about 75 to 100 exploratory wells were drilled in what is now Bears Ears, said Michael Vanden Berg, energy and minerals program manager of the Utah Geological Survey.
“Every one of them was a dry hole,” he said.
In the oil industry, a dry hole means a well that encountered no oil or gas at all, or not enough for commercial development.
Oil and Gas Output Down
Bears Ears covers 1.35 million acres in southeastern Utah.
Grand Staircase-Escalante, also in southern Utah, covers 1.87 million acres and is known to include high-quality coal reserves and a part of one oil field. Both areas also contain ancient rock art, and Bears Ears especially is known for some ancient ruins.
Of the 27 national monuments reviewed by Zinke, the two in Utah are the most controversial, largely because of their size and strong opposition by Utah's government and local interests.
Vanden Berg, like Rogers, will not say there is no chance of oil or gas in Bears Ears, but that he assumes erosion of the land probably allowed any oil or gas to escape ages ago, if in fact oil or gas ever existed in the area.
Bears Ears is on the edge of what geologists call the Paradox Basin region of oil and gas fields in San Juan County, the largest field being Greater Aneth. Oil and gas production has been slumping in the area for years.
Chevron sold its production assets in the Greater Aneth area in 2004, and Exxon Mobil sold its production assets there in 2006. Resolute Energy Corp., which bought large percentages of those assets, is now trying to sell them. Most of the other companies listed as producers in San Juan County are relatively small and privately held companies that avoid high-risk exploration.
Some Oil and Coal
Grand Staircase-Escalante is a vast area of plateaus and canyons in southern Utah. Forty-seven exploratory wells were drilled with little results before President Bill Clinton created the monument in 1996.
The Upper Valley oil field, discovered by Tenneco Oil Co. in 1964, was a rare commercial success in the area and is still producing. The field had 22 active wells, including five inside the monument, when Clinton made his decision. Production from Upper Valley continued later, both inside and outside the monument, under ownership of Citation Oil & Gas Corp.
Grand Staircase-Escalante also is known to contain a reserve of high-quality coal on the Kaiparowits Plateau.
The Interior Department did not release details Aug. 24 about Zinke recommendations on Grand Staircase-Escalante or any changes he may have made to his earlier recommendations on Bears Ears.
Zinke in June issued a tentative recommendation to reduce the size of Bears Ears. He also recommended tribal co-management, with the understanding that co-management would require Congress to amend the Antiquities Act.
Bishop said Congress should amend the act not only to allow co-management but to restrict the use of the law to its original intent. It was written to protect objects of historical and scientific interest but was never intended to allow a president to determine the management of enormous swaths of public land, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119513946&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119513946&jd=119513946
-
U.S. Lays Groundwork for Rescuing Coal Plants With Grid Report
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick and Jim Polson
The Energy Department, in a long-anticipated report on the security of the U.S. electric grid, makes the case for rescuing the nation's coal industry from widespread plant shutdowns, but stops short of an assault on renewable power that environmentalists had feared.
The study, commissioned by Energy Secretary Rick Perry who has warned that policies favoring solar and wind may be forcing shut plants and threatening the grid, recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency ease rules on coal plants. It also calls for changes to how wholesale electricity is traded and easier permitting for resources such as coal, nuclear, and hydropower.
The report hands President Donald Trump a plan for fulfilling his campaign promise to revive America's ailing coal industry and put miners back to work. It paints a somewhat grimmer picture of grid security than an earlier draft that concluded the nation's power system is more reliable than ever, in spite of coal plant shutdowns. By contrast, the final report cautions that “market designs may be inadequate” to keep “traditional” power generation online.
“It is apparent that in today's competitive markets certain regulations and subsidies are having a large impact on the functioning of markets, and thereby challenging our power generation mix,” Perry said in a statement. “Customers should know that a resilient electric grid does come with a price.”
The U.S. power industry has been waiting for the Energy Department to release the study for months. Power generator FirstEnergy Corp. said in April that it wanted to see the results before pressing ahead with a plan to divest money-losing coal and nuclear plants. Rival Exelon Corp., the largest operator of reactors in the U.S., told investors this month that it expected the report to highlight the “critical role” that nuclear plays.
Cheap Gas
The sweeping 181-page report concludes that coal-fired and nuclear power plants are being forced out of business primarily because they can't compete against cheap and abundant natural gas, which is flowing out of U.S. shale formations at a record pace. Policies favoring solar and wind energy also have played a role, the study shows.
It stresses the critical need to preserve coal, nuclear and other baseload plants that continue to produce power when the wind isn't blowing and sun isn't shining. The report argued that even natural gas-fired generators, which rely on pipelines to receive fuel, may be less resilient.
“The more we rely on natural gas, the more we're relying on fuel that arrives just in time” at a power plant, said Joseph Dominguez, Exelon's vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy.
‘Warped View’
Federal regulators are “going to have to value these resilience attributes” of dependable resources, especially coal plants that can store enough fuel on-site to last months, said Paul Bailey, chief executive officer of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Coal stacks up really well. Natural gas does OK. Nuclear does pretty well. Renewables don't do well in some respects and do OK in others.
“You need a coal fleet in order to have a resilient and reliable grid,” Bailey said.
John Shelk, president of the Washington-based Electric Power Supply Association, said ensuring the resilience of the U.S. power grid doesn't simply mean handing out subsidies for coal and nuclear plants.
“Coal and nuclear want resilience to be a code word to subsidize them when they can't compete,” said Shelk, whose group represents power generators such as NRG Energy Inc. and Dynegy Inc. that sell their supplies into wholesale markets. “That's a warped view of resilience. All fuels, technologies and attributes should be considered together.”
Advanced Energy Economy, a group that promotes solar and wind, said the report “seriously overstates” the challenges associated with new energy resources. The American Petroleum Institute meanwhile noted that natural gas is now the source of more electricity in the U.S. than any other fuel and has cut consumers’ energy costs “without government mandates and subsidies.”
One way that the federal government can assist uneconomic coal plants is to compensate baseload plants for the resilience they offer the power grid, according to the report. The authors recommend that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees power markets, study ways in which those reliability attributes can be appropriately valued. That could include the creation of new pricing mechanisms or changing the agency's approach to energy price formation, the report says.
That recommendation echoes comments recently made by Neil Chatterjee, who was tapped by Trump to temporarily lead the energy commission. Chatterjee said coal-fired plants are a crucial part of America's energy mix that needed to be “properly compensated to recognize the value they provide.”
The commission is already weighing whether it should redesign market rules to better account for state policies encouraging the use of zero-emissions power. New York and Illinois recently established subsidies for nuclear power and others are considering doing the same.
The “study reaffirms our view that nuclear energy is a key and necessary contributor to a clean, reliable and resilient electric grid, which now is more important than ever,” Nuclear Energy Institute Chief Executive Officer Maria Korsnick said in a statement.
One regulation cited by the report requires coal plant operators to apply for a permit before making substantial upgrades. That requirement “creates an unnecessary burden that discourages rather than encourages” investments, the report says.
Since ordering the study in April, Perry has taken a deliberately hands-off approach and was only briefed on its findings on the morning of Aug. 22, agency officials said. The report was overseen by Travis Fisher, a senior adviser at the department, and Brian McCormack, Perry's chief of staff.
—With assistance from Tim Loh, Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Mark Chediak.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119513948&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119513948&jd=119513948
-
Conventional Plays Target of Oklahoma's Expanded Long-Lateral Drilling Rules
Aug 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Implementing a law passed earlier this year by the state legislature, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) has adopted on an emergency basis long-lateral drilling rules that apply to all oil and natural gas formations in the state, not only unconventional plays.
The rules were set to take effect Friday, assuming approval from Gov. Mary Fallin.
The OCC "doesn't make law, it only sets rules under the law," said spokesperson Matt Skinner. The expanded requirements are categorized as "emergency" rules to permit a quicker approval process, but they are nevertheless permanent requirements, he said.
The new standards allow for long laterals anywhere in Oklahoma, including areas where vertical wells predominate, Skinner said. Although additional rules are likely to be added, he said there is broad stakeholder agreement that the initial ones are a good start at protecting the correlative rights and people already operating in the nonshale formations.
The Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association (OKOGA), the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, and Continental Resources Corp. all support the new rules as an extension of the state legislation (SB 867) that called for them to be put in place.
"SB 867 is the compromise result of years of work and months of negotiation this year alone" among the major oil/gas and royal trade associations, OKOGA said in written comments to the OCC.
OCC drafted the measures in July and adopted them following a public hearing on Tuesday. At the end of May Fallin signed the Oklahoma Energy and Jobs Act, establishing a three-month window for the regulatory commission to establish the new long-lateral rules.
Owner and operators of oil, natural gas, disposal and injection wells, along with royalty owners, would be affected by the rules concerning horizontal well unitizations and multi-unit horizontal wells in targeted reservoirs, whether unconventional or not. They include authorizations for expenditures on pooling order applications, as well as setting requirements for horizontal spacing units.
"It is anticipated that the proposed emergency rules will encourage the drilling of horizontal wells, and will result in cost savings to owners and operators," according to an OCC analysis of the rules' impact. Operators and royalty owners should get increased revenues from their wells and there are no fee changes involved, according to the OCC, which does not expect its regulatory costs to increase.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111511-conventional-plays-target-of-oklahomas-expanded-long-lateral-drilling-rules
-
RMP Case Shows Stricter EPA Oversight of Facility Process, Attorneys Say
Aug 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A recent EPA enforcement action against a Rhode Island metals company shows agency inspectors delving deeper into facility processes to bring complex cases and increasing civil, and potentially criminal liability, though it is unclear whether the Trump EPA will continue the more detailed approach, say attorneys who track enforcement of industrial facility safety rules.
An industry attorney and a former Justice Department (DOJ) attorney both say that the agency's recent action against the ChemArt Company of Lincoln, RI, for various violations of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program shows that agency inspectors have significantly improved their understanding of process safety management (PSM).
The PSM issue is traditionally overseen by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but the Obama administration formally increased use of environmental statutes to address worker safety issues such as PSM in part because they bring larger fines and penalties.
In a sign that EPA is ramping up its application of PSM to RMP enforcement actions, EPA Region 1 on Aug. 15 announced a $221,326 penalty against the ChemArt for various violations of the RMP facility accident prevention program.
Region 1 -- which covers several Northeast states -- charged ChemArt with failing to adequately address hazards, and the consent agreement requires that the company reduce holdings of hazardous materials and update manufacturing equipment to lessen the likelihood and consequences of a release.
“There are a number of allegations in the complaint that are fairly sophisticated allegations. You need to understand the way the PSM program works to make these findings,” said Steve Richmond of Beveridge & Diamond PC, who represents industry clients in EPA's Region 1 and tracks the agency's RMP enforcement nationwide.
Separately, the former DOJ attorney says EPA's allegations, including that ChemArt failed to adequately review operating procedures, shows agency staff making more subjective judgments than in years past. The source adds that federal officials could use similar process safety allegations to bring criminal cases when violations are deemed intentional.
Industry needs “to pay attention to how the agency is interpreting its authority,” the source says. “They need to be aware of how the government is enforcing, not only straightforward things, like not keeping a required training record, but on things that might be less cut and dry."
The former DOJ source also notes that the Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) Region 1 included in the consent decree appears consistent with Attorney General Jeff Sessions' June 5 memo that aims to put some limits on the SEPs that can be funded through settlement agreements with the agency.
The source notes that the SEP requirements to reduce chlorine holdings and upgrade equipment fit with Sessions' memo favoring SEPs within the confines of a facility, rather than outside, and barring payments to third parties.
'Holdover' Case
But both attorneys say it is unclear whether EPA's more detailed approach to RMP enforcement evidenced by the case will carry over to the Trump administration.
The former DOJ source described the ChemArt case as a “holdover” from the Obama EPA because it began in January 2015. It remains uncertain whether the agency's enforcement office under Administrator Scott Pruitt will continue to enforce RMP strictly at a time when Pruitt is seeking to delay implementation of revisions to the RMP program made during the previous administration that aimed to strengthen RMP mandates.
“We're going to have to look at the typical enforcement case in a year to 18 months” to see how far the Trump EPA will go in assessing process hazards in RMP inspections, the former DOJ source says. “Until we're a little further along it's going to be hard to say.”
The EPA Region 1 inspectors' emphasis on process hazard analysis comes after the Obama administration sought to bolster enforcement in cases where violations of environmental and worker safety laws occur in tandem.
Most notably, in December 2015 former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates issued a memo codifying efforts to increase DOJ's use of criminal and civil enforcement authorities in environmental statutes in cases where those violations occur along with workplace safety violations.
The Yates memo noted that workplace violations could be prosecuted under the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), and Toxic Substances Control Act -- all environmental laws under which DOJ often pursues enforcement actions on behalf of EPA.
DOJ and Labor Department officials have said that violations of worker safety provisions in labor law are generally considered only misdemeanors, though environmental crimes are more often categorized as felonies, raising the prospect of even harsher penalties including prison terms and larger fines.
The memo built on long-standing efforts to improve EPA inspections under RMP. Although EPA's RMP rule incorporates elements of OSHA's PSM program, EPA inspectors had not been accustomed to delving into the nuances of facilities' process safety to bring violations.
The Sept. 30 complaint alleges violations under the Clean Air Act, which authorizes EPA's RMP program and under RCRA. EPA charges that ChemArt failed to conduct a proper worst-case scenario analysis, failed to perform a proper process hazard analysis, and failed to have an adequate emergency response program, among other allegations.
EPA faults ChemArt's worst-case scenario analysis, in part because the company considered a release inside the facility rather than one that occurs outside. And EPA says the company's process hazard analysis failed to consider all possible hazards.
The former DOJ attorney says that RMP enforcement has traditionally focused on whether companies took certain risk management steps, and that subjective terminology like “all possible hazards” shows a more nuanced approach. “It raises a question of who gets to decide what is good enough to pass muster in terms of what the regulations require?” the source says.
Richmond, the industry attorney, notes that EPA also faulted the company's process hazard analysis as “incomplete,” a finding that requires inspectors to understand the full breadth of facility processes for handling chlorine.
During the early years of the RMP program in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Richmond says EPA's Inspector General criticized agency inspectors for failing to understand PSM rules, which are generally more performance based than prescriptive EPA regulations agency staff was accustomed to enforcing.
“They seem to have taken the criticism to heart and substantially beefed up the training and joint efforts with OSHA, and within EPA on its own, to increase the education of its inspectors,” Richmond says. The “case shows EPA has learned from the past.”
But Richmond also suggests that a consequence of that advancement is a larger penalty for violations that in years past might have been addressed by OSHA rules, which generally bring lesser fines.
“Given the nature of the allegations of the RMP, this is a case that OSHA could have brought,” Richmond said, noting the numerous allegations of process safety violations. “If OSHA had brought it, the penalty would have been much less, guaranteed.”
RMP Revisions
Meanwhile an environmentalist attorney, who supports the Obama EPA's Jan. 12 final rule updating RMP with new requirements, says the mandate to reduce chemical holdings to limit the risk or consequences of an accident shows that EPA officials believe such changes are feasible in some cases. The source adds that the safety changes cost the facility $25,000, which is unlikely to put the company out of business.
A second industry attorney notes that by spending $25,000 on process changes, ChemArt will reduce its chlorine holdings to a level below the threshold level that makes the company subject to EPA oversight under RMP.
“That way they don’t have to spend money, and otherwise worry about, having to comply with the rule anymore,” the source says in an email to Inside EPA. “Too bad they didn’t take those steps in the early 1990s to avoid ever having to comply -- it probably would have saved them money in the long term even apart from the cost of the settlement.”
Environmental and labor groups urged the Obama administration to use the rulemaking to require facilities use inherently safer technologies (IST), such as alternative chemicals or process changes to reduce risks, where feasible. The Obama EPA declined to mandate IST in the final rule, but required certain facilities to assess whether such changes would improve safety.
The Trump administration in a June 14 final rule delayed the RMP update rule's effective date 20 months, from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 to allow time to revise the Obama EPA RMP update rule. Environmentalists and some Democratic state attorneys general have filed lawsuits in federal court seeking to vacate the delay.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rmp-case-shows-stricter-epa-oversight-facility-process-attorneys-say
-
Aug 24, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Geller
Seven members of President Donald Trump’s infrastructure advisory group have resigned, citing concerns that Trump was not taking urgent matters like cybersecurity seriously.
“You have given insufficient attention to the growing threats to the cybersecurity of the critical systems upon which all Americans depend, including those impacting the systems supporting our democratic election process,” the resigning members of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council wrote in a Monday letter to Trump obtained by POLITICO.
The letter also criticized the comments Trump made after this month's deadly white nationalist demonstration in Charlottesville, Va., writing that "you failed to denounce the intolerance and violence of hate groups, instead offering false equivalences and attacking the motives of the CEOs who had resigned from their advisory roles in protest."
Those resigning from the infrastructure council are Cristin Dorgelo, who was the chief of staff at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Obama administration; former U.S. chief data scientist DJ Patil; former White House Council on Environmental Quality managing director Christy Goldfuss; former General Services Administration chief Daniel Tangherlini; Dan Utech, who advised Obama as deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change; Charles Ramsey, the former Philadelphia police commissioner; and Amy Pope, a deputy homeland security adviser during the Obama administration.
Dorgelo, Patil, Pope, Tangherlini, Utech and Ramsey confirmed their departures to POLITICO. Goldfuss tweeted that she had resigned. Roll Call first reported the letter and some of the departures.
A White House official confirmed Wednesday that "several" NIAC members had resigned but said the remaining participants were "committed to the important work of protecting our nation’s critical infrastructure."
The council, composed of current and former industry executives, met on Tuesday to discuss and approve a report to Trump with recommendations for protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure systems, such as banks and hospitals, from cyberthreats. They urged the Trump administration to expand biennial cyberattack drills, create dedicated emergency communications networks and improve the sharing of cyberthreat data between government and industry.
The resigning members told Trump that they did not believe his administration was “adequately attentive to the pressing national security matters within the NIAC’s purview, or responsive to sound advice received from experts and advisors on these matters.”
“Your actions have threatened the security of the homeland I took an oath to protect,” they said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/08/white-house-infrastructure-council-members-resign-citing-trumps-insufficient-attention-to-cyber-threats-161048
-
Editorial: Override Christie’s Oil Train Veto
Aug 24, 2017 | NorthJersey.com
By Editorial Board
The Democratic-controlled Legislature has so far been unable to muster the votes needed for an override of any of Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s vetoes in his eight years in office. That could change, though, in coming days or weeks, as lawmakers weigh the merits of a safety and transparency bill regarding so-called “oil trains” — a measure championed by Senate Majority Loretta Weinberg of Teaneck.
Whether enough votes can be found this fall, lawmakers should continue to pursue the override. The issue is that important.
The threat posed by the oil trains represents a real and present danger to 11 Bergen County municipalities along one of the routes that over the last several years has transported millions upon millions of gallons of volatile Bakken crude from the North Dakota oil fields.
As Staff Writer Curtis Tate reported, the number of those oil trains coming through North Jersey has diminished in the past few years, due in part to the declining price of oil. Still, the danger remains. Residents and first responders deserve greater transparency from their government and more information from rail operators about the hazardous transports.
“Each and every day is a possible emergency,” said Assemblyman Gary Schaer, D-Passaic, who joined in a rally in favor of the legislation earlier this week. “Each and every day we cross our fingers and hope everything will be all right.”
The measure Christie conditionally vetoed earlier this summer, claiming that more transparency about the trains would be “irresponsible and reckless,” has the backing of firefighters, labor groups and environmentalists. It would require railroads to submit disaster response and cleanup plans to state officials, make their bridge inspection reports available to the state Department of Transportation and disclose routing and volume information publicly to assist emergency response personnel.
Failing to give first responders in North Jersey full disclosure on emergency and cleanup plans makes no sense, and is a slap in the face to those whose job it is to protect the public in the event of a potentially devastating spill or explosion. Though several oil trains have derailed in the United States since 2013, nobody has been killed or seriously injured.
http://www.northjersey.com/story/opinion/editorials/2017/08/24/editorial-override-christies-oil-train-veto/598714001/
-
Trump and Pruitt, Making America Polluted Again
Aug 25, 2017 | New York Times
By Paul Krugman
Efforts to kill Obamacare have failed, at least for now. Tax “reform” — which really means big tax cuts for the rich — faces doubtful prospects. Indeed, these prospects may have become even more doubtful thanks to Louise Linton, wife of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin: Her now infamous Instagram rant may open at least a few voters’ eyes to the contempt “populist” Donald Trump’s inner circle really feels for the little people.
So many observers are asking whether Trump can restart his stalled agenda. But that turns out to be a bad question, in a couple of ways.
First, Trump doesn’t really have an agenda beyond “winning.” He has instincts and prejudices, but no interest in the details, or even the broad outlines, of policy. For example, it’s obvious that he never had any idea what was in his own party’s health care plan. And he has definitely shown no interest in turning his populist rhetoric into anything concrete.
As a result, whatever personal feuds Trump may have with the Republican establishment, that establishment — the same interest groups and ideologues who’ve been driving G.O.P. positions for decades — is setting his administration’s policy agenda.
Which brings me to my second point: While the legislative agenda does indeed appear stalled, a lot of what those interest groups want doesn’t require legislation, and is anything but stalled. This is especially true for environmental policy, where decisions about how to interpret and enforce laws already on the books can have a huge impact.
So Trump’s true legacy may well be defined not by the laws he does or more likely doesn’t pass, but by his decision to put Scott Pruitt in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency.
As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt effectively acted as a servant, not of the public, but of polluting industries. That’s not an accusation; it’s confirmed by his own email trail.
Now, at a time when much of the Trump administration seems paralyzed by lack of leadership and key personnel, Pruitt is firing on all cylinders — but not because he’s making the E.P.A. more effective. On the contrary, he’s engaged in sabotage from the top, moving quickly to undermine his own agency’s mission — not just its efforts against climate change, but its role in protecting the environment across the board.
Trump won’t make America great again, but Pruitt, who clearly has Trump’s full backing, can do a lot to make it polluted again.
This is an unpopular agenda, or it would be if people knew about it.
The improvement in air and water quality since the E.P.A. was founded in 1970 is one of America’s great policy success stories. It’s also largely unsung.
When Donald Trump was young, New York’s air was filthy, and killer smogs sometimes killed hundreds; meanwhile, New York’s own governor described the Hudson as “one great septic tank.” But Trump probably doesn’t remember that or realize that regulation made the difference, and neither do many voters.
True, that could change quickly if people realized that the relatively clean air and water they take for granted was being put at risk. Think of how support for the Affordable Care Act surged once people realized that coverage for millions might really be taken away. There would be a similar but even bigger surge in support for environmental protection if, say, Republicans tried to repeal the Clean Water Act.
As I said, however, Pruitt can do a lot of harm without changing the law. He can, for example, reverse the ban on a pesticide that the E.P.A.’s own scientists say may damage children’s nervous systems. Or he can move to scrap a rule that would limit heavy-metal contamination from power-plant wastewater.
And he can cripple enforcement of the rules he doesn’t undo simply by working with Trump to starve his own agency of personnel and funds. The Trump budget released in May won’t actually become law, but it was an indication of priorities — and it called for cutting funding for the E.P.A. by 31 percent, more than any other agency.
Individually, no one of these actions is likely to be treated as front-page news, especially given everything else going on. Cumulatively, however, they will kill or cripple large numbers of Americans — for that is what pollution does, even if the damage is gradual and sometimes invisible.
By the way, if you’re wondering whether an anti-environmental agenda will at least be good for job creation, the answer is no, it won’t. Coal jobs, in particular, aren’t coming back no matter how much leeway we give corporations to blow the tops off mountains and dump toxins in waterways. This agenda will, however, be worth billions to certain campaign donors.
So don’t say that the administration’s agenda is stalled. Some parts are, but other parts are moving right along. When it comes to environmental policy, Trump will definitely change America — and his legacy will literally be toxic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/trump-pruitt-polluted-climate-.html
-
State Street Adds $2.6 Trillion Muscle to Climate Disclosures
Aug 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
State Street Corp., with $2.6 trillion of assets under management, is strengthening the hand of investors that want companies to explain the risks posed by climate change.
As shareholders pass climate proposals at companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. for the first time, State Street Global Advisors is urging boards to provide clear climate goals and carbon price assumptions. The asset manager published “Perspectives on Effective Climate Change Disclosure” last week.
“We as investors have to explain what looks good to us in terms of climate reporting—we owe that to companies if we have supported shareholder proposals,” Rakhi Kumar, who leads environmental, social and governance investment strategy at State Street, said in an interview.
The move by State Street follows last month's recommendations to Group of 20 Countries by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney. His task-force, led by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News and its parent Bloomberg LP, said companies impacted by climate change should conduct scenario analysis and include results in financial reports.
Eleven major banks representing more than $7 trillion, including Barclays Plc, Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG, began a pilot project last month to address the financial risks of global warming. Scientists predict higher frequencies of floods, famines and superstorms unless the world keeps temperature rises well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century.
Only a small portion of companies currently disclose internal carbon pricing for risk purposes and prices used vary from less than $1 to $800 a metric ton, according to a CDP Worldwide report published last year.
“In some cases there's a U.S. company with a carbon price of $7, but in Europe there's a company with a similar geographic footprint and a carbon price of $14,” Kumar said. “We want to know what's going on there.“
Directors have been more willing to discuss climate issues during annual meetings than in previous years, according to Kumar. State Street had already forewarned board members in a January letter that it expected more disclosure about climate risks from the companies in which it owns stakes.
State Street wants to see companies set climate goals that are “meaningful for the company,” and show evidence of “robust scenario planning and incorporation into long-term goals,” Kumar said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119513954&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119513954&jd=119513954
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested