Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 9/14/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Chemical Growth Stocks Worth Betting on Right Now
Sep 14, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry is back on the growth path after being stuck in limbo for a spell, making it an attractive investment proposition. The industry's upturn is supported by an upswing in the world economy and strength across major end-use markets such as construction and automotive. -
(ACC Mentioned) GOP Senators Offer Companion To House EPA Science Bill
Sep 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
A group of Republican senators has offered a companion to a House bill that would overhaul EPA's scientific practices, though the lawmakers have not revised the measure to address concerns that it would impede implementation of the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), increase the agency's costs and limit protections for confidential business information. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Passes Cleaning Product Disclosure Bill
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's legislature has passed a bill that would require increased disclosure of ingredients in cleaning products. The development comes after stakeholder negotiations produced a compromise that addressed industry concerns about protecting confidential business information (CBI). -
US Study Links Regular Disinfectant Use to Lung Disease
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A US longitudinal study has linked the regular use of disinfectants, such as bleach and glutaraldehyde, to a higher risk of developing progressive lung diseases. -
Canada To Take No Further Action On Sulfides
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has provisionally concluded that hydrogen sulfide, sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide are not harmful to people or the environment at current exposure levels. -
100,000 Sign Petition Against REACH Animal Testing
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
More than 100,000 people have signed an open letter to the European Commission and Echa, demanding an end to animal testing. -
UK Government Reveals Draft Law on Microbeads Ban
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The UK government has published a draft of a law that will ban the manufacture of rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads by the end of the year. -
EPA 'Resets The Clock' For Power Plants On Toxics Rule
Sep 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is imposing a two-year delay in key compliance dates for its 2015 regulations aimed at reducing toxic metals in power plants' wastewater, the agency announced this afternoon. -
To Deal With Global Supply Glut, US LNG Export Developers Thinking Outside The Box
Sep 14, 2017 | Platts
A global market overflowing with LNG supplies is squeezing US developers vying for customers and financing in 2017. But that has not deterred a slew of ventures from seeking to move ahead and sway long-term buyers to their view that the market will shift in the first part of the next decade. -
New Initiative Seeks to Boost Economy in Appalachia
Sep 13, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Michael Virtanen
Four U.S. senators and the nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center on Wednesday proposed 19 measures to boost the economy in Appalachia, including expanded broadband and telemedicine and tapping the region’s “vast” natural gas reserves for chemical and advanced manufacturing facilities. -
The New Texas Gold Rush: Buying Sand for Fracking
Sep 14, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Dezember
There is a new land grab going on in the oil-rich fields of West Texas. This time it is over sand. -
Trump Push for Oil Pipelines Upsets Those Concerned About Safety of Transport
Sep 13, 2017 | Washington Times
By Ben Wolfgang
President Trump recently declared that pipelines are “environmentally better” than other methods of moving oil and gas, reigniting an ongoing debate about the safest way to move the nation’s abundant energy supply — but data show the truth is somewhat murky... -
UN Says Hurricane Irma Shows Trump Needs to Re-Engage on Climate
Sep 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sunil Jagtiani
President Donald Trump or his successor will likely re-engage with the global fight against climate change because of the weight of scientific evidence, the head of the United Nations Environment Program said. -
House Votes to Bar Methane Rule, Carbon Cost in EPA Funding Bill
Sep 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The EPA would be barred from enforcing limits on methane gas emitted by fossil fuel operations and from considering in its regulations the costs to society of carbon emissions under amendments the House passed Sept. 13. -
D.C. Circuit To Hear Suit Testing Ozone NAAQS Implementation Mandates
Sep 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral argument Sept. 14 in consolidated litigation over EPA's rule for implementing the 2008 ozone standard, posing a test for what the agency can allow states to include in ozone compliance plans under the rule that environmentalists say is unlawfully weak. -
Democrats Oppose House Bills To Ease Obama EPA Clean Air Act Policies
Sep 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Many Democrats on the House energy panel are opposing GOP-backed bills to ease compliance with Obama EPA Clean Air Act rules for the brick and clay manufacturing sector, wood stove manufacturers, coal-waste burning utilities and makers of motor racing emissions “defeat devices,” warning that the measures will worsen air quality. -
Pruitt Endorses Bid to Ease Regs for Some Industries
Sep 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is offering broad-brush support for a legislative package that would undercut existing air quality requirements for a select few industries. -
Repeal And Replace Approach To EPA Climate Rule May Disappoint Trump Base
Sep 14, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
The Trump administration is leaving the door open to replace former President Barack Obama’s landmark climate regulation for power plants — a move that would fall short of conservatives' calls to erase it all together -
Harrowing Storms May Move Climate Debate, if Not G.O.P. Leaders
Sep 14, 2017 | New York Times
By Alexander Burns
For years, climate change activists have faced a wrenching dilemma: how to persuade people to care about a grave but seemingly far-off problem and win their support for policies that might pinch them immediately in utility bills and at the pump. -
New York’s Buildings Emit Most of Its Greenhouse Gases. The Mayor Has a Plan to Change That.
Sep 14, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Kayla Epstein
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) will announce plans Thursday to force thousands of aging buildings there to become more energy efficient, a first-of-its-kind initiative intended to make the Big Apple a national leader in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. -
Test
|
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Test Finance
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Chemical Growth Stocks Worth Betting on Right Now
Sep 14, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry is back on the growth path after being stuck in limbo for a spell, making it an attractive investment proposition. The industry's upturn is supported by an upswing in the world economy and strength across major end-use markets such as construction and automotive.
The highly cyclical industry put up a commendable performance in the second quarter, continuing the momentum witnessed in the first. The June quarter showed continued strong demand trends for chemicals across key end-markets such as construction, automotive and electronics.
A number of companies in the space also came up with better-than-expected earnings in the second quarter. The outperformance was driven by continued healthy demand across automotive and construction markets as well as strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions.
Notwithstanding some lingering headwinds, the chemical industry's momentum is expected to continue through the second half of 2017 as the fundamental driving factors remain firmly in place.
U.S. Chemical Industry on Solid Ground
The U.S. chemical industry got off to a strong start in the third quarter with chemical production rising 2.3% year over year in July on gains across all regions, per a recent report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group.
The U.S. Chemical Industry is set to ride high this year. The ACC envisions accelerated growth for the domestic chemical industry on the back of an improving global economy and a surge in shale-linked capital investment. The ACC, in its year-end 2016 outlook, said that it expects national chemical production to rise 3.6% in 2017.
The shale gas bounty in the United States has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country and has provided domestic petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The shale boom has also made the United States an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies to invest billions of dollars to beef up capacity.
According to the ACC, domestic chemical investment related to shale gas has reached as high as around $185 billion. Such investments - many backed by Federal government support - are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
European Chemical Sector Back on Track
The European chemical industry has swung back to life on the back of improving global economic sentiment and a resurgent Eurozone economy. Per the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), the business environment for the European chemical industry was more favorable in the second quarter compared with the first. Chemical business confidence also continued to improve in the second quarter.
The European chemical industry also saw a spike in output across most chemical sub-sectors during first-half 2017, with overall production rising 3.1% year over year. The CEFIC envisions chemical output in the European Union to rise 1.5% year over year in 2017 after a paltry growth of 0.5% in 2016.
Favorable Industry Rank & Solid Price Performance
The Zacks Industry Rank of 45 carried by the Zacks Chemicals Diversified industry is a testimony to the fact that the chemical industry is in fine shape. The favorable rank places the industry in the top 18% of the 250+ groups enlisted.
The Zacks Chemicals Diversified industry has also outperformed the broader market over the past year. The industry has gained around 28% over this period, higher than S&P 500's corresponding return of roughly 16.9%.5 Chemical Growth Plays
The chemical industry's momentum is expected to continue through the balance of 2017 on continued strength across major end-markets. Amid such a backdrop, it would be a prudent idea to invest in chemical stocks with compelling growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio.
Growth investors look for stocks with aggressive earnings or revenue growth potential, which should lead to higher stock prices. Here we put a spotlight on chemical stocks that are poised for healthy growth. With the help of our Style Score System , we have picked five stand-out stocks that have excellent prospects and might offer solid investment returns.
Our research shows that stocks with Growth Style Score of A or B when combined with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.Kronos Worldwide, Inc. KRO
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Kronos sports a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score of B. The company has expected earnings growth of 354.8% for 2017. It delivered average positive earnings surprise of 76.1% over the trailing four quarters. Kronos also has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of 5%.
Koninklijke DSM N.V. RDSMY
Our next pick in the space is Netherlands-based Koninklijke DSM armed with a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score of B. The company has expected earnings growth of 46.3% for 2017. It also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 7.1%.
Annual estimates for Koninklijke DSM have also moved north over the past 60 days, reflecting analysts' confidence on the stock. Over this period, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2017 and 2018 for the company have increased by around 11.4% and 8%, respectively
Orion Engineered Carbons S.A. OEC
Luxembourg-based Orion Engineered Carbons is another attractive choice with a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score of A. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings for 2017 is currently pegged at $1.79, reflecting an expected year-over-year growth of 19%. The estimates for both 2017 and 2018 for the company have also increased by around 11% over the last 60 days.
Koppers Holdings Inc. KOP
Pittsburgh, PA-based Koppers sports a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score of B. The company has long-term expected EPS growth rate of 18%. It also delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters with an average beat of 56.6%. Moreover, the company has expected earnings growth of around 13.5% for the current year.
Moreover, the estimates for 2017 and 2018 for Koppers have increased by 2.4% and 1.8%, respectively, over the last 60 days.
BASF SE BASFY
Germany-based BASF has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score of B. The company has expected earnings growth of 30.6% for 2017. It also has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 8.6%. The estimates for 2017 and 2018 for BASF have also increased by around 7.9% and 2.4%, respectively, over the last 60 days.
More Stock News: This Is Bigger than the iPhone!
It could become the mother of all technological revolutions. Apple sold a mere 1 billion iPhones in 10 years but a new breakthrough is expected to generate more than 27 billion devices in just 3 years, creating a $1.7 trillion market.
Zacks has just released a Special Report that spotlights this fast-emerging phenomenon and 6 tickers for taking advantage of it. If you don't buy now, you may kick yourself in 2020.http://www.nasdaq.com/article/5-chemical-growth-stocks-worth-betting-on-right-now-cm845375
-
(ACC Mentioned) GOP Senators Offer Companion To House EPA Science Bill
Sep 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
A group of Republican senators has offered a companion to a House bill that would overhaul EPA's scientific practices, though the lawmakers have not revised the measure to address concerns that it would impede implementation of the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), increase the agency's costs and limit protections for confidential business information.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), together with Senate environment committee chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) Sept. 12 introduced S. 1794, a bill that among other things bars EPA from relying on any technical studies that are not publicly available on the Internet.
The bill text appears identical to H.R. 1430, which passed the House last March on a largely party-line vote of 228-194, with the support of just three Democrats.
As in the House version, S. 1794 directs EPA to use the “best available science,” in all its actions, but bars the agency from using any studies that cannot be released publicly online “in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
The Senate bill does not appear to address EPA staff concerns with the House bill that it would “prevent implementation” of the recently amended TSCA, while also failing to protect companies' trade secret information and limiting its use in EPA chemical, pesticide and other decisions.
An analysis from agency staff, which drew significant attention after staff in Administrator Scott Pruitt's office blocked it from distribution to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), says that if confidential business information (CBI) could not be used in TSCA chemical evaluations, “these chemical programs would grind to a halt, greatly hindering manufacturers' and industries' abilities to get their chemicals approved for use in commerce.”
The analysis adds that "much of the information submitted by manufacturers is CBI, and as stated, EPA does not believe that [H.R. 1430] protects CBI. Because of this EPA, would not meet the new and existing chemical responsibilities under TSCA if EPA were limited to the data required under [H.R. 1430]
The Senate bill, like H.R. 1430, seeks to address the CBI concern by directing EPA to redact any personal medical or financial information or any CBI from what is posted online. But both bills also require the EPA administrator to disclose this redacted information to any person who “signs a written confidentiality agreement with the Administrator."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) urged the Senate to take up the bill after it passed the House last March, though a spokesman acknowledged at that time concerns that the language does not currently include protections for CBI. The group is “advocating strongly that any final legislation that eventually passed Congress must include protection for CBI and competitive intelligence. We’d expect that to be addressed in the Senate if legislation advances there,” he said in March.
But it is unclear whether the legislation will advance. Democrats, like Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the environment committee, have signaled they will strongly oppose the bill.
And lawmakers on another Senate panel are weighing separate legislation requiring EPA and other agencies to utilize only the “best available science” in their regulatory decisionmaking though it takes a different approach than the EPA-specific legislation under consideration in the environment committee.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/gop-senators-offer-companion-house-epa-science-bill
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Passes Cleaning Product Disclosure Bill
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's legislature has passed a bill that would require increased disclosure of ingredients in cleaning products. The development comes after stakeholder negotiations produced a compromise that addressed industry concerns about protecting confidential business information (CBI).
Governor Jerry Brown is expected to sign the measure, whose final version was approved by the Assembly on 12 September and the Senate a day later.
The original Cleaning Product Right to Know Act (SB 258) would have required manufacturers to list all ingredients on the label, indicate any that are "contaminants of concern", and include a pictogram communicating health concerns.
The final version requires no pictogram and the listing on the label of only those chemicals that are "of concern" because they appear on any of 23 specified lists of toxicants, maintained by the state or federal agencies in the US and other countries. The labels must also contain a website address where the full list of product ingredients can be found.
Key concessions
In key concessions to industry, the final bill specifies that the requirements cover only "intentionally added" ingredients and allows manufacturers to omit listing those whose identity is considered CBI. To qualify, a substance must be included on the TSCA Confidential Inventory or the manufacturer must have claimed protection for it under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
The original bill also required labelling of any cleaning product, manufactured or sold in California on or after 1 July 2018. The final measure's online disclosure requirements take effect on 1 January 2020 and the labelling mandates a year later.
The version approved by the Senate on 30 May was opposed by many industry groups, like a similar measure that failed in 2016. Dozens of NGOs, and some manufacturers that already disclose their ingredients, supported it.
The bill's sponsor, Senator Ricardo Lara (D), convened a working group of stakeholders that negotiated for nearly six months to produce the compromise.
"Having sat through many long but unsuccessful past stakeholder processes, it was very rewarding to have our two sides come together on the intricate details to craft a new law that will help protect the health of consumer and workers, yet be workable for business," said Bill Allayaud, California director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group.
The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) joined in the statement of support, saying the final measure "provides meaningful and understandable information to consumers and workers, while also protecting significant financial investments that companies have made in product innovation".
Other industry groups that were against earlier versions, such as the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), dropped their opposition without actively supporting the compromise. An analysis by legislative staff indicated that a list of more than 40 opposing organisations had been whittled down to eight, including the American Chemistry Council (ACC).Other California developments
Proposition 65 enforcement
An industry-backed bill on private enforcement of Proposition 65 remains on the California Senate's agenda and could still pass before the legislative session ends on 15 September.
AB 1583 would require the attorney general, after reviewing a certificate of merit made by a person alleging a violation of Prop 65 warning requirements, to serve a letter to the notifying party and the alleged violator if it is believed the action does not have merit.
Lead poisoning
A bill to address childhood lead poisoning won final approval on 11 September. AB 1316 directs the health department to use an electronic database to collect and report data on lead levels in children, and requires health insurers to cover screening for blood lead levels in children who are at risk from lead poisoning.
FCM evaluation, salon cosmetics
Two other chemical-related proposals that passed the Assembly in the spring died quietly, when the Senate Appropriations Committee failed to send them to the Senate floor in time.
AB 958 called on the state Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) to revise its Priority Product Work Plan under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme to include food contact materials (FCMs) containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances.
The proposal would have required the department, by 1 January 2019, to identify the product-substance pair as a draft priority product and, within a year, begin adopting regulations to address them.
AB 1575 would have mandated that professional cosmetics manufactured after 1 July 2019 bear a label of ingredients in order of weight. In floor remarks, the bill's author, Assembly member Ash Kalra (D), said the bill would apply existing industry requirements for retail cosmetics to professional products.
He said the bill had been "substantially" amended to resolve concerns from industry, and the remaining issue was aligning its language with federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requirements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58699/california-passes-cleaning-product-disclosure-bill
-
US Study Links Regular Disinfectant Use to Lung Disease
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A US longitudinal study has linked the regular use of disinfectants, such as bleach and glutaraldehyde, to a higher risk of developing progressive lung diseases.
The research by Harvard University and the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) analysed data from more than 55,000 nurses in US hospitals, who it followed for eight years, from 2009 until 2017.
During that time, 663 nurses were diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Those who used disinfectants to clean surfaces at least once a week had a 22% increased risk of developing the illness, the study found.
The researchers looked specifically at exposure to glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol and quaternary ammonium compounds (quats). All of these were associated with an increased risk of COPD of between 24% and 32%.
"In our study population, 37% of nurses used disinfectants to clean surfaces on a weekly basis and 19% used disinfectants to clean medical instruments on a weekly basis," Orianne Dumas from Inserm told the European Respiratory Society International Congress, when presenting the study there on 10 September.
The findings, she said, "provide further evidence of the effects of exposure to disinfectants on respiratory problems, and highlight the urgency of integrating occupational health considerations into guidelines for cleaning and disinfection in healthcare settings, such as hospitals".
https://chemicalwatch.com/58696/us-study-links-regular-disinfectant-use-to-lung-disease
-
Canada To Take No Further Action On Sulfides
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has provisionally concluded that hydrogen sulfide, sodium bisulfide and sodium sulfide are not harmful to people or the environment at current exposure levels.
Hydrogen sulfide is a naturally occurring inorganic gas, produced by decaying organic matter. It can also be released by oil and gas facilities, pulp and paper mills, and wastewater treatment systems.
Sodium bisulfide is used in textile dyes, paints and coatings, agricultural products and building and construction materials. Sodium sulfide is used in pulp and paper processing, wastewater treatment, mining and smelting, and in food packaging. Both of these substances change to hydrogen sulfide on exposure to water, or body fluids. So the assessment of human health risk focused on exposure to hydrogen sulfide.
The government's analysis concluded that hydrogen sulfide is not genotoxic or carcinogenic. It also said current concentrations are unlikely to cause adverse effects to the environment or human health. The environment and health ministers therefore propose taking no further action under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).
However, the government is considering follow-up activities to monitor changes in exposure to hydrogen sulfide.
It will accept comments on the assessment until 8 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58645/canada-to-take-no-further-action-on-sulfides
-
100,000 Sign Petition Against REACH Animal Testing
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
More than 100,000 people have signed an open letter to the European Commission and Echa, demanding an end to animal testing.
The letter, from the NGO People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is addressed to Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and Echa head Geert Dancet and urges them to seize the REACH Review as an opportunity to end animal tests and accept alternative research methods.
The report of the second five-year review of the Regulation is due to be published next month, after a four-month delay.
In the letter, Peta says that as long as REACH relies on animal tests "the goal of ensuring the safe use of chemicals will never be met".
The NGO estimates that as of last year, more than one million animals have been used in tests under REACH, making it the largest animal-testing programme in the world.
The high number reflects "Echa's prioritisation of arbitrary deadlines over animal lives, their reluctance to accept non-animal testing approaches and a disproportionate demand for testing cosmetics ingredients," says Dr Julia Baines, Peta's science policy adviser.
The NGO has asked the Commission to "immediately" adopt Peta’s recommendations to help minimise animal tests for the May 2018 registration deadline.
These are:
· prioritise and robustly and uniformly enforce the principle that tests on animals must be conducted only as a last resort;
· make explicit Echa’s legal obligation to avoid tests on animals wherever possible;
· ensure harmonisation with other EU legislation, such as the cosmetics Regulation, which bans testing on animals;
· speed up implementation of newly validated non-animal assessment approaches into the REACH legislative text, test method regulation and associated guidance documents;
· ensure Echa updates administrative processes to introduce flexibility when adopting substance evaluation, compliance check and testing proposal decisions and takes a proactive approach to accepting non-animal methods;
· remove the cumulative requirement for a pre-natal developmental toxicity study in a second species for REACH Annexes IX and X; and
· require testing proposals for any new tests on animals, including Annex VII and VIII tests.
Meanwhile Echa, in a letter in July to the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), confirmed that where it believes possible alternatives exist, it will reject REACH registration testing proposals if they do not adequately consider other methods.
However, the agency says it does not "actively and specifically evaluate" whether a registrant has explored and evaluated all possible alternatives to animal testing.
ECEAE had complained to the European ombudsman that Echa was claiming to abide by a September 2015 ruling, while in practice "systematically and openly ignoring it".
https://chemicalwatch.com/58686/100000-sign-petition-against-reach-animal-testing
-
UK Government Reveals Draft Law on Microbeads Ban
Sep 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The UK government has published a draft of a law that will ban the manufacture of rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads by the end of the year.
The draft follows a public consultation on the government's proposed ban, which closed on 28 February.
Some respondents had called for its scope to be broadened and cover all products that result in microbeads being washed down the drain. This would include leave-on makeup and sunscreen. Others called for inclusion of some polymers and cleaning products.
The draft law has kept to the scope originally proposed. But the UK environment ministry, Defra, has now also committed to working with the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee (HSAC) to assess the case for addressing further categories of products.
NGOs have already started discussing the scope and timeline for this work with Defra and the HSAC, according to the Microbeads Coalition, a campaign umbrella group made up of the Environmental Investigation Agency, Greenpeace, Fauna & Flora International (FFI) and the Marine Conservation Society.
The coalition is "particularly pleased that the ban will not include a limit on the lower size, shape or function of the plastic ingredients covered by the legislation or an exemption for so-called "biodegradable" plastics," FFI told Chemical Watch.
And it welcomes the inclusion in the draft of definitions for 'microbead', 'plastic' and 'rinse-off'. This makes it potentially stricter than the original proposal, FFI said.
Industry scrutiny
Meanwhile, UK cosmetics trade association, CTPA, says it is scrutinising the draft legislation "to ensure it covers those solid plastic microbeads which have been identified as a possible, though minor, contributor to marine litter".
The cosmetics industry has already acted voluntarily to remove those microbeads from rinse-off cosmetics, it said. Use of microbeads by its member companies had fallen by 80% by the middle of 2016 and will be zero by the end of 2018, even without the ban, it said.
CTPA adds that only rinse-off cleansing and exfoliating cosmetic products have been associated with marine litter because only those products had contained solid plastic microbeads.
"It is important that the ban does not inadvertently cover ingredients that are not solid plastic microbeads and for which there is no sound scientific evidence to support legislative action," said CTPA director general, Chris Flower.
Referencing a report by environmental consultants Eunomia that identified the sources of primary and secondary plastic, Dr Flower said, the CTPA looks forward to seeing what action the government will take over "the major sources of marine litter, since more than 99% of the problem still remains to be addressed."
Defra is accepting comments on the draft legislation until 15 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58689/uk-government-reveals-draft-law-on-microbeads-ban
-
EPA 'Resets The Clock' For Power Plants On Toxics Rule
Sep 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is imposing a two-year delay in key compliance dates for its 2015 regulations aimed at reducing toxic metals in power plants' wastewater, the agency announced this afternoon.
"Today's final rule resets the clock" for some parts of the effluent guidelines, "providing relief from the existing regulatory deadlines while the agency revisits some of the rule's requirements," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a news release.
The two-year postponement, which pushes back the compliance dates from November 2018 to November 2020, applies to the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) effluent limits and pre-treatment standards for two waste streams at existing sources, bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater, according to the release.
Last month, Pruitt signaled plans to reconsider the BAT effluent limits and the pre-treatment standards that apply to bottom ash transport water and the flue gas desulfurization wastewater. The agency expects to take about three years to finalize new guidelines; the compliance delay is meanwhile intended "to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of resources," according to the agency.
The rule setting the two-year extension must still be published in the Federal Register, with the Clean Water Act then allowing about four months for any legal challenges to be filed.
Both the Utility Water Act Group, an industry consortium, and the Small Business Administration had petitioned EPA for reconsideration.
Finalized in September 2015 under the Obama administration, the discharge guidelines were the first update to federal standards in more than 30 years for curbing toxics and other pollutants in power plant discharges.
At the time, EPA predicted that they would reduce toxic metals, nutrients and other pollutants from steam electric power plants by 1.4 billion pounds and reduce water withdrawn from streams by 57 billion gallons per year. The agency has also estimated annual compliance costs at $480 million for annual benefits of between $451 million and $566 million.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/09/13/stories/1060060595
-
To Deal With Global Supply Glut, US LNG Export Developers Thinking Outside The Box
Sep 14, 2017 | Platts
A global market overflowing with LNG supplies is squeezing US developers vying for customers and financing in 2017. But that has not deterred a slew of ventures from seeking to move ahead and sway long-term buyers to their view that the market will shift in the first part of the next decade.
The competition is fierce among pending projects seeking to outlast the current glut, with six projects under construction in the US, another three fully permitted but lacking a final investment decision, and more than a dozen representing 25 Bcf/d of capacity in the queue at the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
For the time being, it’s a tough market for LNG export hopefuls who need long-term contracts to sanction their projects.
“The fundamental issue for US LNG is, do the economics still make sense,” said Edward Chow, senior fellow for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. US LNG made a lot of sense when international LNG prices were above $8 MMBtu and domestic gas was at $3 MMBtu or less. “At global spot LNG prices of $5 or even below, I don’t see how US LNG is in the money,” he said.
For some new project developers, it still makes sense because by 2022 there will be sufficient demand and the spot LNG prices won’t stay at the relatively low level they are at today, he continued.
“But that’s a bet, and the question is can you line up enough creditworthy buyers to commit to buying and paying the tolling charges and the capacity reservation charges in order for your project to be financeable,” Chow observed.
The global LNG markets have swung over the last five years from a supply-constrained environment, which drove spot LNG prices to near $20/MMBtu, to the well-supplied environment today, with the Japan Korea Marker (JKM) now trending down to levels equal to European gas prices plus transportation costs.
Analysts are not in agreement on when the market may rebalance, and LNG export hopefuls are taking a similar message of urgency to buyers overseas: If a shortage materializes in 2023, where will you get your supply without any new export projects?
Platts Analytics’ Bentek Energy expects the global LNG markets to be moving back toward equilibrium by 2024 and possibly flip short if no incremental capacity is added beyond 2025 or global demand grows faster than expected. As such, the timing of that transition is based heavily on Asian demand growth assumptions, which could prove conservative amid policy shifts favoring LNG for electricity generation.
With global LNG prices now trading at levels that just barely cover variable LNG costs from the US, many of the non-utility buyers have left the market. Much, if not all, of the profit margin in the US spot LNG trade has disappeared.
Many early buyers of US LNG export projects are having buyer’s remorse. In January, Toshiba was reportedly seeking buyers for its roughly 0.3 Bcf/d of capacity at Freeport, rather than face the possible spot market losses.
In July, India’s Gail, which owns 0.85 Bcf/d of capacity spread across Sabine Pass and Cove Point, was seeking to renegotiate pricing with Cheniere Energy.
“It’s a very, very tough market,” said Ernie Megginson, a consultant with Megginson & Associates.
As some offtakers seek to resell commitments related to brownfield projects already under construction, for instance offering shorter-term contracts, that competes with the projects that haven’t reached FID and still must secure long-term contracts, he said.
Magnolia LNG, which has a contract model much like Cheniere’s, has had regulatory clearance since April 2016 but is still trying to line up financing and long term contracts.
But demand estimates are feeding the optimists.
LNG demand rose to 37.7 Bcf/d in the first half of 2017, a 4.1 Bcf/d (12%) increase over last year, buoyed by a rapid buildout of liquefaction capacity and led by growth in Asia.
Demand growth is expected to remain robust for the foreseeable future, rising another 17.7 Bcf/d by 2025, according to Platts Analytics, but for now it remains unclear how much more liquefaction can be added before global markets become over-supplied and producers are forced to economically shut in capacity.
Platts Analytics expects that the six LNG export terminals under construction will be completed over the next five years, raising total US LNG export capacity to 9.9 Bcf/d, and that US LNG export terminals will reach full utilization by 2024.
That could make the US the third-largest LNG exporter by 2019, with total exports potentially nearing that of rival Australia by the mid-2020’s.
“I tend toward an optimistic view that delays in new financial investment decisions combined with steady demand growth for natural gas are going to work toward a stronger market and one that remains fairly stable,” said Bud Coote, senior fellow of the Global Energy Center at the Atlantic Council.
The current reality is that US sellers have to sell LNG at below their full cycle of costs. “How long they can do it is an open question,” he said. By 2020, those sellers will be close to covering their costs, even as those ventures that have not gone forward may be discouraged, he added.
Some key developers of new projects are bullish nonetheless.
Tellurian CEO Meg Gentle earlier this summer cited estimates that by 2025 there will be demand for another 100 million t/year of LNG around the world, and the call on added capacity from the US will be roughly 70% of that.
“I think there is a consensus that more LNG is needed by 2022,” she told an Atlantic Council forum. “The big question mark is, will that happen earlier… My prediction is that demand will grow faster than we’re expecting.”
The winners, she said, are those that can meet the new demand at the lowest cost. The US can be one of the lowest cost sources, she said, describing ways that Tellurian is driving toward lowering costs all along the gas value chain, including owning production. The company announced September 6 that it had entered into an agreement to buy acreage in Louisiana’s Haynesville Shale for $85.1 million.
Gentle said that price increases last winter for buyers in Asia and Southern Europe started to change the discussion.
Some buyers realized they may not have the luxury to sit in the spot market, she said. Other market observers have also suggested a recent uptick in interest from buyers.
Cheniere CEO Anatol Feygin said in November 2016 that a drop in the number of FIDs over the past few years indicates that the LNG market will “tighten dramatically by the end of the decade.”
As they compete in a market now awash in LNG, US players are trying to be creative in their offerings, for instance by trying to uncover cheaper business models and new types of contracts.
Tellurian is offering Japanese buyers five-year deals through the proposed Driftwood LNG export facility at a fixed $8/MMBtu, a split from traditional 20-year contracts with Henry Hub-linked pricing, as off-takers push for shorter agreements.
Megginson said some yet-unannounced projects are working to offer prices tied to an offtaker’s preferred index or a blend of indexes, potentially including TTF in Continental Europe, NBP in the UK, and Brent.
Buyers such as state utilities are keen to link to an index acceptable to regulators, or to mitigate the potential for price swings of a single index. The capability to provide non-Henry Hub pricing is attractive to European buyers, he said.
Other projects are going modular, employing much smaller liquefaction trains that can be pre-fabricated off-site to cut down on costs and increase flexibility.
Magnolia LNG is offering its own liquefaction technology, which the Australian developer hopes to then sell to other LNG export projects.
G2 LNG project, which was recently removed from FERC’s prefiling process but said it will re-apply, plans for an expansion that would allow for the export of petrochemicals in addition to LNG.
Cheniere has repeatedly said a third train at its Corpus Christi terminal under construction in Texas would be the cheapest liquefaction train to sanction in the US.
Others have looked to Golden Pass, a fully permitted export project backed by Qatar Petroleum and Exxon Mobil. The Lake Charles LNG project also has the help of a major, though Shell has delayed a final investment decision even while project sponsor Energy Transfer has said it is ready to move forward.
Height Securities analyst Katie Bays says she sees Cheniere being the next developer to see a project advance.
“They’ve said that they have the ability to offer a more flexible contract structure, since they’re less dependent upon the capital markets to finance Corpus Train 3,” she said. Cheniere has also signed contracts with EDP Energias de Portugal and Électricité de France for volumes from the third train, leaving as little as 1 million t/year before the unit could be viable for a final investment decision, she said.
Estimates for demand growth after 2020, and the pull on US LNG, are at the mercy of a variety major swing factors that could dramatically alter the picture.
Among those are policies that could influence the turn toward natural gas consumption in key growth areas of China, India and Southeast Asia, the degree to which Russia will protect market share for pipeline gas in Europe, and whether European buyers decide to take the plunge toward long-term contracts to ensure supply diversity.
Other key factors to watch include a possible moratorium on exports from Australia driven by domestic price concerns, and whether Qatar, a key competitor to the US in Asia, follows through on recent promises to increase LNG output by 30% after 2020. Global oil and coal prices also play a critical role.
And Shell has argued that floating storage and regasification units, as well as new demand sources, made predicting demand more difficult than predicting supply.
Gautam Sudhakar, director of IHS Markit’s LNG research practice, said his company’s base case outlook anticipates the global LNG market will balance around 2023, when a price response is likely.
“But we acknowledge there are numerous sensitivities to demand in many major markets,” including new markets and established markets with a large volumetric potential such as China and India.
In South Korea, the newly elected President Moon Jae-in has instituted a policy that backs renewables and LNG for power generation amid air quality concerns about coal and public worries over nuclear safety. Coal is currently the largest power supplier in the country, which Yale University ranked 166 out of 178 nations for air quality.
Sudhakar cautioned that the new policies in South Korea could also swing back. “In just a couple of years you’ve seen the growth trajectories of the fuels change dramatically,” he said. “What’s to say that’s not going to change again with the next flip-over of administrations in South Korea,” he said.
China’s strong LNG demand growth potential, hinges in part on the drive to improve air quality in big coastal economic centers.In December 2016, Chinese LNG imports soared to 6.1 Bcf/d, 1.6 Bcf/d (35%) stronger than any previous month on record, due to a combination of a cold winter and heavy pollution emanating from the country’s coal fleet. By 2019, China will have increased its LNG import capacity to nearly 9.4 Bcf/d, giving it the potential to eat into large portions of the global balance, according to Platts Analytics.
There’s a chance for that growth to be offset if China seeks to outsource power generation to the coal-rich Western side of the country and wire it to the east, according to Sudhakar.
In India, where the government is pushing to increase gas use, even a small percentage of growth could translate into large volumetric supplies, he said.
For now, US market observers see securing financing — rather than regulatory delays — as the key holdup for US projects.
Nonetheless, industry advocates have welcomed the Trump administration’s high-level cheerleading for LNG exports. In meetings with foreign leaders from Asia and Eastern Europe, Trump has touted LNG exports as a way to lower the US trade deficit while bolstering energy security abroad.
US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has signaled that he would move quickly to sign export orders.
“Here are the rules — if you meet the rules, here’s your permit,” Perry said, summing up the current approach, at a July press conference. Any perceived foot-dragging is a thing of the past, he said.
Among industry backers in Washington, that boost is fueling optimism, despite the erratic messaging that has at times beset Trump’s trade policy.
There is still pressure to further grease the skids for LNG exports. For instance, a bill introduced by Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican-Louisiana, and Representative Clay Higgins, Republican-Louisiana, would lift the requirement that DOE make a public interest determination for exports to countries without free trade agreements.
But it’s unclear for now how much attention revamping LNG export reviews will get in the crowded political arena in Washington, as larger battles loom over taxes, health care and the budget. In lieu of actual reform, LNG has gained increased visibility from the White House, DOE, the departments of State and Commerce, as well as the US Trade Representative, said Charles Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas.
“It is more optics at this point, but it is a noticeable effort and the value isn’t lost upon the industry,” he observed.
That signals that LNG exports are aligned with a broader energy policy friendly to added production, and may show buyers that US LNG is a reliable bet, he and other industry advocates suggest.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/09/14/lng-global-supply-glut-us-export/
-
New Initiative Seeks to Boost Economy in Appalachia
Sep 13, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Michael Virtanen
Four U.S. senators and the nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center on Wednesday proposed 19 measures to boost the economy in Appalachia, including expanded broadband and telemedicine and tapping the region’s “vast” natural gas reserves for chemical and advanced manufacturing facilities.
The initiative is intended to help reverse struggles with poverty and isolation in the 13-state region where more than 25 million people live. Other proposals include investments in highways and community water systems and education options like Pell Grants for older, non-traditional students.
The senators involved are Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Warner of Virginia and Republicans David Perdue of Georgia and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Appalachia has been disproportionately hurt by economic shifts and declines in coal mining and traditional manufacturing, they said in a preface to the report.
“With the right investments and smart policy, we can benefit from the energy transition now underway, as well as build and modernize transportation, water and sewer, and broadband infrastructure for the next century,” Manchin said.
West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania are now among the top 10 gas-producing states, the report said. It also noted the mountainous region’s potential for harnessing wind power, federal research underway to extract rare earth elements from coal byproducts and ongoing development of “clean coal” carbon-capture technology that could be accelerated, commercialized and exported to nations like India and China.
Access to skilled workers is one barrier to more job creation in Appalachia, according to the report. It called for expanding federal programs that facilitate business partnerships to establish pipelines of trained workers and identifying the barriers that keep existing businesses from using them.
According to the report, national data show 65 to 70 percent of U.S. jobs require some education and training beyond high school, while 35 percent require a bachelor’s degree at least. In Appalachia, 22.6 percent of its working-age people have those degrees, seven percentage points lower than the national average.
“Lifelong education and worker training — not just to get a job but to hold one — are key building blocks for sustainable economic development,” Warner said.
The report called for accelerated pathways from public schools to community and technical colleges and universities that align with the economy’s skill demands. Noting there are many sub-regions within Appalachia, some that have transformed local economies, it recommended they each establish teams to develop strategies.
More broadly, the report recommended more support and access to online training for growing industries and tax credits for companies to train and raise their employees’ skill levels.
The three drivers of relatively poor health in Appalachia are chronic diseases, opioid addiction and shortages of health care professionals, the report said. It cited federal Appalachian Regional Commission support for health projects, called for better data and analysis on the effectiveness of treatments and interventions and “creative partnerships” among governments, nonprofits and private entities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/4-senators-nonprofit-to-unveil-initiative-for-appalachia/2017/09/13/dedab57c-984c-11e7-af6a-6555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.128d92473edc
-
The New Texas Gold Rush: Buying Sand for Fracking
Sep 14, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Dezember
There is a new land grab going on in the oil-rich fields of West Texas. This time it is over sand.
Big oil-field sand suppliers, Wall Street firms and other investors have been buying up swaths of the West Texas desert. These investors aim to mine and sell the sand to drillers in the region’s booming Permian Basin, who need large quantities of sand to extract oil and gas from shale formations.
Texas energy producers have typically bought the millions of pounds of sand that each well requires from mines located far from their drilling fields. After oil prices collapsed in late 2014, though, cost-conscious drillers reconsidered their well designs and recipes for the slurries they blast underground to unleash fuel from shale formations. Many West Texas drillers discovered that they could replace sand they had been shipping from mines 1,300 miles away in Wisconsin with finer grades found in dunes nearby. Doing so eliminates rail costs that sometimes are equal to or more than the sand itself.
Now investors are lining up to supply local sand to West Texas drillers.
“Local sand is a huge disrupter that is beneficial to the shale producers,” said Ben “Bud” Brigham, an Austin geophysicist who built and sold two oil companies and now is plowing some of his profits into sand pits.
Mr. Brigham is using proceeds from his recent $2.55 billion sale of Brigham Resources to fund a Permian mining operation called Atlas Sand Co., which he expects to begin sand production in the second quarter.
The Atlas mine is one of at least 18 under way or proposed for the desert outside Midland, Texas, according to Jefferies analyst Brad Handler. The first,Hi-Crush Partners LP’s 3-million-ton-a-year facility, began operations in July. More than a dozen plan to open over the next year.
The prospect of tens of millions of tons of Permian sand coming to market could drive down sand prices that have been rising nationally, Mr. Handler said. Analysts say that prices rose to as much as $45 a ton earlier in the year, from as little as $15 a ton last year.
With competition heating up in West Texas, analysts say it’s unlikely that all the planned mines will be get built.
“There’ll likely be many losers who jumped into the game a bit late,” said George O’Leary, an analyst at energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.
Mr. O’Leary says newcomers may not have the industry knowledge or contacts. Many wells might also require coarser grades of sand than can be found in West Texas. And though the long train ride is eliminated with local sand, logistical hurdles remain. Those include a tight labor market in the sparsely populated region and the potential for sand miners to wind up competing with their customers for the huge quantities of water both require.
The sheer number of trucks needed to move the sand around the Permian is daunting. Robert Rasmus, Hi-Crush’s chief executive, recently told investors that it would take 120,000 truckloads to deliver the Permian facilities’ annual output.
A few private-equity firms reaped big profits backing sand producers in Illinois and Wisconsin as shale drilling took off. Shares of such companies soared until the second half of 2014 when they collapsed along with oil prices, and concerns about too much supply.
Even as oil prices have stabilized and sand prices have risen, these stocks have continued to falter. The five big listed sand companies are each down more than 35% this year.
Hedge-fund manager Daniel Loeb is among those betting that sand stocks will fall further. In an April letter to his Third Point LLC investors, Mr. Loeb cited the “important shift” from special sand mined in the Midwest to abundant sand within drilling basins, including West Texas.
Miners with Midwestern operations say they are confident that the types of sand produced there will remain in demand in Texas and other drilling regions, such as those in North Dakota and Appalachia.
The cost of transporting grains by rail from the Midwest typically makes up about a third of the total cost of sand. Permian oil producers estimate they will chop roughly 5% from their drilling costs by using local sand. At a typical well cost of about $8 million, that translates to savings of $400,000.
In shale drilling, sand is mixed with water and chemicals and blasted underground to crack open energy-bearing rock. In this process known as hydraulic fracturing, it is the water pressure that cracks open the shale and the sand that props open the fissures to allow oil and gas molecules to seep out.
Many drillers have preferred coarser grades of sand that are better able to withstand the intense pressures miles deep beneath the surface and can hold cracks open wider than finer grains. A variety of sand called Northern White found mostly in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states has been prized for its uniformity, crush strength and grain size.
In response to low oil prices, however, producers such as Mr. Brigham were able to boost wells output by using larger quantities of finer sand, which propped open additional small fissures and reduced the chemicals needed to keep larger gains afloat in the water.
“People started looking around saying, where can we find this smaller mesh sand? And it was in the Permian Basin,” said Hi-Crush finance chief Laura Fulton.
Hi-Crush, which operates four Wisconsin mines and ships roughly half of its sand to Permian customers, in March bought 1,226 acres of dunes near Kermit, Texas, for $275 million in cash and stock. On a popular spot for dune buggies, the Houston company built a facility to mine, sort, wash and dry the sand and made its first delivery in late July.
By being within 75 miles or so of most Permian drilling sites, Ms. Fulton says Hi-Crush’s Kermit facility can deliver sand to drilling sites within hours instead of days, and at far lower costs.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-texas-gold-rush-buying-sand-for-fracking-1505386800
-
Trump Push for Oil Pipelines Upsets Those Concerned About Safety of Transport
Sep 13, 2017 | Washington Times
By Ben Wolfgang
President Trump recently declared that pipelines are “environmentally better” than other methods of moving oil and gas, reigniting an ongoing debate about the safest way to move the nation’s abundant energy supply — but data show the truth is somewhat murky and depends largely on one’s perspective.
Mr. Trump’s statement came at a North Dakota rally to promote his tax reform plan, and the president also used the event to tout his approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, both of which have become major flashpoints in the energy versus environment debate.
Pipeline champions, including those in the administration, argue that moving American fuel by pipeline is not only safer but also more economical, better for the environment and much more efficient.
“Nobody can quite match the pipeline safety record,” said Brigham McCown, the former head of the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration who also served as an adviser in Mr. Trump’s Transportation Department.
Pipeline opponents, he argues, simply want to stop fossil fuel development.
“They try to cloak their climate change agenda under themes of safety regarding pipelines, and it’s frankly intellectually disingenuous,” Mr. McCown said.
But many environmentalists say that to the extent the U.S. is going to continue drilling and burning oil, they want to see it moved by rail, not pipeline.
“Obviously the best means of transportation of oil is none but I would rather see any kind of new spike in oil, like we saw in the Bakken [Shale], I would rather see that go by train,” said Jane Kleeb, president of the Bold Alliance, a group that’s led the charge against the Keystone XL pipeline.
Ms. Kleeb also contends that rail transport means the U.S. will use most of the fuel domestically, whereas oil moved by pipeline sometimes heads to refineries along the coast and ultimately is sent overseas.
Beneath the political arguments and high-profile incidents of both pipeline spills and train derailments — such as the 2013 crude oil train derailment in Quebec that killed more than 40 people or a 2016 pipeline spill in North Dakota that reportedly released more than 175,000 gallons of fuel — are facts and figures that tell a complicated story. Data show that rail accidents are more common than pipeline spills, but pipeline spills, in many cases, will result in the release of much more fuel.
An International Energy Agency report that examined U.S. data from 2004 to 2012 found that the risk of a rail accident is six times higher than that of a pipeline. At the same time, a pipeline will spill three times as much oil per 1 billion barrel miles of fuel transported.
Even then, however, it’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison. The IEA study, which pulled data from a variety of sources, said there’s also conflicting definitions in what constitutes a spill.
“Any spill constitutes a railway incident in these calculations, while only spills over 5 gallons constitutes a pipeline spill,” the report states, underscoring different reporting standards that make comparisons difficult.
While the sheer volume of crude oil released in pipeline spills may seem staggering — about 9 million gallons since 2010, according to data assembled by the digital magazine Undark — there are other costs to consider.
Perhaps most notably, pipelines carry less of a human risk, as rail and trucks put more vehicles and human beings on the road.
“From a safety standpoint, just think about the issue: Is it safer to transport natural gas or oil through a pipeline, or is it safer to put tens of thousands of rail cars on the rails every day or literally millions of trucks every year to transport that same amount of material?” said Ret. Army Col. Marc R. Hildenbrand, who now serves as a senior adviser at Dawson & Associates and specializes in fuel transportation.
Indeed, rail is by no means a completely safe alternative, especially given the increased use of trains as U.S. energy development has skyrocketed. In 2014 the nation set a new record for “unintentional releases” of fuel from rail cars at 141. Until 2012 the nation had averaged about two dozen spills per year, according to federal figures.
What’s more difficult to calculate is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions eliminated by the use of pipelines versus the use of rail. Specialists point out that rail and trucks require more time and fuel to operate, adding another dynamic to consider.
Pipelines “are the only one-way transportation system we have,” Mr. McCown said. “Everything else requires a round trip.”
Both sides of the debate seem easily able to cherry-pick certain data to make their points, but the president makes no bones about which side of the fence he’s on.
“The Dakota Access Pipeline is finally open for business I also did Keystone,” Mr. Trump said last week in his North Dakota speech. “Tremendous thing. I think environmentally better. I really believe that — environmentally better.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/13/keystone-pipeline-safety-about-the-same-as-moving-/
-
UN Says Hurricane Irma Shows Trump Needs to Re-Engage on Climate
Sep 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sunil Jagtiani
President Donald Trump or his successor will likely re-engage with the global fight against climate change because of the weight of scientific evidence, the head of the United Nations Environment Program said.
Europe, China and India will take the leadership role on the issue in the meantime, Erik Solheim said in an interview in Bangkok. The evolution toward renewable energy in place of fossil fuels is unstoppable, he added.
“We'll expect the Trump administration itself to come back to the climate issue, or the next president of the U.S.,” Solheim said. “If you want to see the need for this, look to Houston or the Caribbean with Irma. The violence of the weather is waking up everyone.”
The Trump administration last month began the formal process of exiting the Paris climate accord and is seeking to eliminate an array of climate funding, transforming the U.S. from a leader in global climate diplomacy into an outlier. Solheim said disavowing evidence of global warming, while relying on science for everything from medical advances to space exploration, is untenable over the long term.
“How can it be possible to believe in all the benefits of science in every other area, but say in this area we don't want to believe in science?” Solheim said in the interview last week.
The State Department said in August it had notified the UN that the U.S. will pull out of the Paris pact as soon as it can under the terms of the 2015 accord, adding Trump would agree to remain in the deal if it was reconfigured to be better for U.S. interests.
Hurricanes Irma and Harvey on some estimates caused total damage of about $150 billion. Irma tore through the Caribbean last week before hitting Florida, while Harvey struck southeastern Texas late August. German and British scientists said climate change made Irma much stronger.
Climate change aside, there are a number of areas where the UN environment arm and the U.S. are in agreement, such as curbing illegal trade in wildlife, Solheim said.
The UN Environment Program is trying to work more with the private sector and tap financial markets to tackle pollution, he added.
“At the end of the day that is the most important of all,” Solheim said. “Unless the big money of insurance companies, banks and pension funds goes green, we will fail.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120702198&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120702198&jd=120702198
-
House Votes to Bar Methane Rule, Carbon Cost in EPA Funding Bill
Sep 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The EPA would be barred from enforcing limits on methane gas emitted by fossil fuel operations and from considering in its regulations the costs to society of carbon emissions under amendments the House passed Sept. 13.
Those prohibitions, now attached to the EPA-Interior fiscal year 2018 funding bill, face an uphill battle to become law because the Senate isn't expected to take up the House version. Republicans will have to negotiate details of any final spending agreement with Senate Democrats.
The House bill (H.R. 3354) heads to an expected Sept. 14 final floor vote. The measure would provide $7.5 billion in Environmental Protection Agency funding for fiscal year 2018, $528 million less than current-year funding but $1.9 billion above the Trump administration's request.
The amendments to block a July 2016 EPA regulation limiting emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, in oil and gas operations, and another to bar the Obama-era policy of accounting for the health, environmental, and economic impact of carbon emissions in developing regulations, were offered by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.).
The proposal to block EPA methane limits passed 218-195; the amendment to block the weighing of the social costs of carbon emissions passed 225-186.
The EPA under President Donald Trump is seeking to roll back the methane limits, a deregulatory effort backed by the oil and gas industry, but has lost several rounds in the courts, most recently in August when a federal appeals court declined to reverse a lower court decision directing the agency to enforce the standards. Trump also has targeted the use of social cost of carbon by agencies in any policy guidance or regulations under an executive order issued in March.
Colorado Democrat Jared Polis saw his amendment to bar the administration from closing any EPA regional office rejected, 198-212. An amendment by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) to strip another $1.87 billion from EPA's fiscal 2018 budget fell 151-260.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=120702194&vname=dennotallissues&fn=120702194&jd=120702194
-
D.C. Circuit To Hear Suit Testing Ozone NAAQS Implementation Mandates
Sep 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral argument Sept. 14 in consolidated litigation over EPA's rule for implementing the 2008 ozone standard, posing a test for what the agency can allow states to include in ozone compliance plans under the rule that environmentalists say is unlawfully weak.
Separate from the environmental group Earthjustice's attacks on the rule, California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at argument will claim that the policy has in fact made it too hard for parts of southern California to attain the 2008 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), by rescinding a former policy allowing areas to get credit for “out-of-area” emissions reductions that improve their air quality.
The judges hearing the argument will be Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Circuit Judge Judith Rogers, both Clinton appointees, and Senior Circuit Judge David Sentelle, a Reagan appointee.
The court's eventual ruling in the case, SCAQMD v. EPA, et al. could set an important precedent on what EPA can and cannot include in its NAAQS implementation rules, which specify how states should write state implementation plans (SIPs) detailing how their will cut air pollution to meet a NAAQS.
And the decision is likely to influence EPA's upcoming implementation rule for the stricter 2015 ozone standard, which was set at 70 parts per billion (ppb) and is stricter than the 2008 limit of 75 ppb. EPA in a recent report to Congress said the rule might include regulatory “relief” for industries affected by the standard, which could include streamlining air permitting reviews and revising monitoring procedures, and more.
Earthjustice argues that the 2008 implementation rule unlawfully allows states to “backslide” on air quality by weakening emissions controls, in large part because it revoked the prior NAAQS, set in 1997 and expressed as 84 ppb. If they win the case it would likely prevent EPA taking similar steps in the implementation rule for the 2015 NAAQS.
EPA says that areas meeting the 2008 standard by definition also meet the prior, less-stringent limit, but environmentalists have long argued that this is an oversimplification and that lifting emissions controls in areas with serious ozone problems, such as the SCAQMD that includes metropolitan Los Angeles, violates the Clean Air Act.
Supplemental Authority
In a Sept. 11 letter advising the court of supplemental authorities supporting their case, environmentalists point to EPA's June 12 partial approval of a California air district's air law compliance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, in which the agency “declined to approve” the plan’s more stringent motor vehicle emission budgets. EPA says the motor vehicle emissions budget is unnecessary because the 1997 standard is now revoked.
“EPA’s action thus provides another illustration of how the agency uses the standard’s revocation to arbitrarily weaken implementation of the standard: rather than tighten the limit on motor vehicle emissions in the area, EPA left in place looser limits approved in 2008,” writes law firm Earthjustice, on behalf of Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Downwinders at Risk, and Physicians for Social Responsibility -- Los Angeles.
“EPA justified its rejection of the stronger emission budgets on the ground that the rule at issue here exempts them from antibacksliding protection,” Earthjustice says. EPA's action “thus confirms that EPA’s approach to anti-backsliding irrationally gives areas 'a weaker regulatory regime,' despite the fact that EPA strengthened the ozone standard.”
Environmentalists in the suit have argued that in areas initially designated attainment for the 2008 NAAQS, but still designated nonattainment under the 1997 standard, EPA must retain “transportation conformity” requirements for the 1997 NAAQS, which ensure that transportation projects such as roadbuilding do not result in NAAQS violations, and also retain new source review air permitting requirements associated with the revoked standard.
'Redesignation Substitute'
They also object to EPA's “redesignation substitute” procedure, which provides an alternative to full redesignation to attainment for NAAQS in order for states to escape some compliance obligations, but which environmentalists call “extra-statutory.” The procedure “allows areas designated nonattainment under the 2008 and prior standards to shed anti-backsliding protections,” they say in their March 17, 2016, opening brief.
“EPA has no authority to invent this substitute, and failed to explain how such a substitute could eliminate anti-backsliding protections,” the advocates say.
The environmental groups further claim that “area-wide averaging” programs cannot satisfy requirements for reasonable available control technology that should apply to individual sources. Some areas in California operate such programs, allowing emissions trading between sources to achieve compliance.
Nor can EPA allow flexibility for states to choose the “base year” from which to measure “reasonable further progress” (RFP), an air law requirement, environmentalists say. They claim the air law specifies this must be the year of designation of an area as “nonattainment."
District's Concerns
Meanwhile, SCAQMD has entirely different concerns over the implementation rule, arguing that the rule could make it harder for states to come into attainment with the 2008 NAAQS.
The district says EPA in its implementation rule wrongly reversed its interpretation of the Clean Air Act to require that areas demonstrate RFP in their NAAQS attainment SIPs exclusively using emissions reductions achieved inside a designated nonattainment area.
This new policy makes it even harder for parts of the state experiencing high levels of pollution from another area to meet the NAAQS, South Coast says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-hear-suit-testing-ozone-naaqs-implementation-mandates
-
Democrats Oppose House Bills To Ease Obama EPA Clean Air Act Policies
Sep 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Many Democrats on the House energy panel are opposing GOP-backed bills to ease compliance with Obama EPA Clean Air Act rules for the brick and clay manufacturing sector, wood stove manufacturers, coal-waste burning utilities and makers of motor racing emissions “defeat devices,” warning that the measures will worsen air quality.
However, a handful of other House Democrats are signaling support for some of the several regulatory relief bills that the Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel debated at a Sept. 13 hearing, in particular the racing car measure that they say would clarify that the air law was never meant to apply to the defeat devices. Nevertheless, the overwhelming response from Democrats at the hearing to the legislative package was negative.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), ranking member of the environment panel, said the four bills “will in my opinion weaken the Clean Air Act."
Full House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said the bills are “more about transferring burdens than relieving them,” with the costs “just transferred from favored businesses to the general public."
Prior versions of two of the measures -- the brick and coal-waste burning bills -- failed in the last Congress, in the face of Democratic opposition.
Pallone said at the hearing, “I opposed them then and I oppose them now."
Among the four bills that the subcommittee debated, H.R. 1917 would block implementation of the Obama EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for the brick and clay products sector until all litigation over the rule is resolved.
Both Tonko and Pallone said that that the brick industry bill would invite frivolous lawsuits to delay the rule indefinitely and set a bad precedent. They argued that the ongoing appellate litigation over the rule is the right venue to determine whether a compliance stay is required.
Environmentalists in the suit say that EPA's first-time use in the rule of “health-based standards,” for the brick industry as an alternative to traditional MACT regulation for acid gas emissions sets a bad precedent, allowing weak pollution controls. The air law allows use of such alternative, weaker limits where a safe threshold of a pollutant can be identified, but environmentalists contest that such a threshold exists for acid gases.
Environmental groups also object to EPA's use of the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL), a statistical method that critics say does not use true averages of emissions performance to calculate MACT floors as required by the air law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral argument for Nov. 9 in the consolidated case Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al. In the suit, the Brick Industry Association and other industry groups are challenging what they say is the rule's excessive stringency, saying, among other criticisms, that EPA set MACT “floors,” or maximum emissions limits, using limited data.
Legislative Proposals
Lawmakers also debated H.R. 1119, which would modify EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program and its MACT for the power sector to allow coal waste-burning utilities to emit higher acid gases and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions than the rules allow.
The bill's supporters note it would not increase overall SO2 allowances under CSAPR, but would instead require that the allowances come from other power plants.
Critics say the bill shifts the compliance burden to other power plants, does nothing to reduce acid gas emissions and does not enable SO2 allowances to ratchet down over time, as foreseen under CSAPR.
In addition, the energy subcommittee discussed H.R. 453, which would delay by three years -- from 2020 to 2023 -- the implementation of the second, tougher phase of EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) for the wood stove production sector. The agency's existing NSPS requires new stoves to be 98 percent lower-emitting than uncontrolled devices by 2020, compared to the current standard of being 90 percent cleaner.
Some manufacturers say they cannot meet the original 2020 deadline, but Pallone said the bill would merely reward laggards in the sector, as others will be able to meet the tougher limits.
Meanwhile, some Democrats expressed sympathy for the motor racing sector, which argues in favor of the defeat devices bill, H.R. 350. Racing interests say the legislation is vital to ensure that those who modify their cars to remove emissions controls for racing are not penalized, despite EPA's prior assurances that they will not be punished.
The Clean Air Act did not envisage emissions controls applying to racing cars, but the Obama EPA proposed -- and then withdrew -- a policy that would have made emissions control modification unlawful.
But the sector says it still faces regulatory uncertainty, and is reliant on EPA's decision not to prosecute racers, GOP panelists and a racing sector witness argued.
Democratic witness Alexandra Teitz, a former House energy committee legal counsel for Democrats and now representing Sierra Club, argued that as drafted the bill would allow defeat devices such as those used illegally by Volkswagen, to be sold to the general public, with no enforcement mechanism to ensure such devices are used for racing on tracks exclusively.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-oppose-house-bills-ease-obama-epa-clean-air-act-policies
-
Pruitt Endorses Bid to Ease Regs for Some Industries
Sep 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is offering broad-brush support for a legislative package that would undercut existing air quality requirements for a select few industries.
The four bills — which got a hearing yesterday from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment — would carve out exemptions or extend compliance deadlines from Obama-era regulations affecting brick makers, wood-heater manufacturers, the amateur car-racing business and the small segment of the electric power industry that relies on coal refuse for fuel.
Although the Trump administration hasn't taken an official stance on any of the bills, Pruitt said in a written statement for the record released by the committee after the hearing: "I am very supportive of the committee's efforts to provide additional flexibilities, extensions, and clarifications for industries complying with various Clean Air Act Regulations."
His position stands in sharp contrast with that of the Obama administration, which had last year strongly opposed earlier versions of two of the bills. But Pruitt highlighted a recent EPA report which found that emissions of sulfur dioxide and five other key pollutants fell by almost 75 percent between 1970 and last year.
Without businesses' compliance, "we would not be able to report nearly as much success and progress to date," he said, adding a now-familiar refrain: "I believe that we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs, and pro-environment. We don't have to choose between the two."
The two-hour hearing suggested, however, that trade-offs are inevitable.
Representatives for the affected industries all warned that jobs — many in rural areas — are in peril if lawmakers don't act.
"It'll be over," Frank Moore, president and owner of a Mississippi wood heater manufacturing company, said when asked about the impact on his company's 50-person workforce if Congress doesn't approve H.R. 453, a measure sponsored by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) that would push back the deadline for meeting particulate matter emissions limits from 2020 to 2023.
The industry calls the current deadline unworkable. "We are not asking Congress to repeal the EPA rule," Moore said. "We are only asking you to provide us an additional three years."
Public health and environmental advocates countered that all four measures would lead to dirtier air and harm to human health.
"Air pollution just makes sick people sicker," said Rebecca Bascom, a physician and Pennsylvania State University medical professor testifying for the American Thoracic Society.
Alexandra Teitz, an attorney speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, singled out H.R. 1119, the "Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act," saying more smog, fine particulates and airborne toxics would result.
"The effects would be real and they would be harmful," Teitz said.
That bill, introduced by Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) would ease emission standards from two major EPA rules on the power plants, mostly found in Pennsylvania, that burn waste coal to produce electricity. A similar measure passed the House last year but died in the Senate following an Obama administration veto threat.
While Vincent Brisini, testifying on behalf of the trade group Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA), said the measure was still needed to keep some plants in business. he also touted the industry's role in ridding Pennsylvania of the vast amounts of waste coal that litters its landscape.
'BRICK Act,' motor sports bill
The subcommittee is also revisiting H.R. 1917 sponsored by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) and dubbed the "Blocking Regulatory Interference From Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act."
It would delay next year's deadline for compliance with EPA's 2015 emission curbs on brick and clay ceramic manufacturers until all pending legal challenges are resolved (E&E Daily, April 6).
The House approved a similar bill last year; it likewise failed in the Senate after the White House objected that it would serve as an incentive to string out litigation.
That complaint was echoed yesterday by Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, the subcommittee's top Democrat, who said it created a bad precedent.
But Ryan Parker, president and CEO of a Nebraska brick company, said the legislation is warranted after the industry invested heavily in compliance with an earlier set of EPA air quality guidelines, only to see them struck down in 2007 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"We believe the 'BRICK Act' can give us the certainty we need," Parker said.
The 2015 set of regulations is facing legal challenges from both industry organizations and environmental groups before the D.C. Circuit. Whatever Pruitt's personal views, the Trump administration has continued to defend the tighter standards; the court this week scheduled oral arguments in the combined litigation for Nov. 9.
The subcommittee also heard conflicting views on the "Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports (RPM) Act," H.R. 350, sponsored by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) with the goal of codifying a loophole that exempts converted racing vehicles from the Clean Air Act's ban on tampering with any part of a vehicle's emission control equipment, as long as the change is needed to outfit the car for competition.
Last year, a trade group representing spare parts manufacturers sparked a nationwide furor by accusing EPA of attempting a crackdown as part of a broader package of proposed regulations. Agency officials, while insisting that wasn't their goal, nonetheless axed the language in question.
While the Trump administration is unlikely to revive it, Steve Page, president and general manager of a Northern California raceway, said the "RPM Act" is needed to make clear that "converting a motor vehicle into a dedicated race car does not violate the law." Teitz, however, said the measure would also hobble EPA enforcement against cheating on vehicle pollution controls in the broader auto market.
In his opening statement, subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) urged action on all four bills as soon as possible. In a brief interview after the hearing, he declined to predict how quickly markups could come.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/09/14/stories/1060060627
-
Repeal And Replace Approach To EPA Climate Rule May Disappoint Trump Base
Sep 14, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
The Trump administration is leaving the door open to replace former President Barack Obama’s landmark climate regulation for power plants — a move that would fall short of conservatives' calls to erase it all together
A mend-it-don’t-end-it approach from the Environmental Protection Agency on Obama’s 2015 rule could appease power companies that say they need some kind of EPA regulations — albeit much weaker ones — to save them from years of legal uncertainty. But it might not satisfy the demands from some conservative activists, who have pressured EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reject the entire idea that climate change is a problem requiring federal action.
The agency is aiming by early October to issue a proposal to undo the Clean Power Plan, along with a separate advance notice of its intent to consider a replacement, a source close to the process told POLITICO.
That approach still leaves a wide array of options on the table — including ultimately deciding against a new rule — and it could allow Pruitt to stretch out the process for several more years without ultimately resolving how the agency should address the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, one of the largest contributors to human-caused climate change.
The Clean Power Plan encouraged the power sector to shift away from coal and toward natural gas and renewable power, an approach that Obama's critics said exceeded EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. At a minimum, Trump’s EPA would likely seek to limit any replacement to require only the negligible carbon emissions reductions that could be achieved at coal plants themselves, without prodding states and utilities to replace those facilities with cleaner generation.
The details about how to begin unraveling Obama’s climate regulations could have political implications for Pruitt, who is widely seen as a potential candidate for the U.S. Senate in his native Oklahoma. Repealing the power plant rule was an explicit campaign promise for President Donald Trump, who has dismissed man-made climate change as a “hoax.”
For now, conservatives appear willing to give Pruitt the benefit of the doubt because he is walking a legal tightrope and could still decide to take aim at EPA's underlying obligation to regulate carbon emissions. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to keep litigation over the Clean Power Plan on hold through Oct. 7, but judges warned Pruitt last month that EPA is dodging its legal obligation to regulate carbon by failing to outline its next steps on the rule.
Myron Ebell, the climate skeptic who led EPA’s transition team, has pushed for Pruitt to fight the agency’s "endangerment finding" that it must address climate change. But he said a replacement rule might be an “adequate stopgap.”
He said if the courts ultimately find that a coal-plant focused rule isn’t enough to fulfill EPA’s legal obligation, then “in order to keep the president’s promise that we’re going to get rid of these economically destructive rules, the only alternative they will have is to reopen the endangerment finding.”
Challenging that finding, which determined that heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide were a public health threat, would mean fighting climate change science, and most lawyers say it is a losing battle. The Obama administration issued the endangerment finding in 2009, two years after the Supreme Court told EPA to determine its role in fighting climate change.
Tom Pyle, a conservative lobbyist with the American Energy Alliance who led Trump’s Energy Department transition team, said he would prefer a straight withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan but wouldn’t oppose a replacement rule.
“Ultimately, the responsibility to fix this mess lies with the Congress, so until they act, the only thing the Administration can do is minimize the damage,” Pyle said via email.
But EPA would be on much shakier legal ground if it just refused to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants, the nation's largest source of greenhouse gas pollution.
EPA wants to move to collect comments about whether to write a new regulation, and is likely to write a new rule, multiple sources said.
Any replacement would be based on a narrow interpretation of EPA’s authority and is unlikely to make a meaningful dent in carbon levels — unlike Obama’s version, which pledged to cut the power industry’s carbon pollution as much as 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan have also argued that the rule is illegal because EPA had already regulated coal plants under a different section of law. EPA could still make that argument while proposing to withdraw the plan and invite comments on the idea in its notice of a potential replacement.
Environmental groups are expected to sue no matter which path Pruitt and Trump take.
“There would be very intense protests to rescinding the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with nothing indefinitely, which is what this would be,” said Sean Donahue, a lawyer at Donahue & Goldberg who represents environmental groups defending the Clean Power Plan in court.
EPA is planning to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), the first step toward issuing a replacement for the Clean Power Plan, according to the source familiar with the process. But that route leaves many options open.
Kevin Poloncarz, a lawyer with the firm Paul Hastings who represents energy companies supporting the Clean Power Plan, said the notice could be “fairly nondescript” and could suggest a replacement rule or ask for feedback on whether EPA can legally regulate power plants under the section of the Clean Air Act that the Obama administration used.
If EPA simply rescinded the Clean Power Plan without announcing plans to consider a replacement, Poloncarz said power companies could face nuisance lawsuits.
Issuing the notice could be a compromise position. While it’s in place, “the industry should feel some degree of comfort that they’re insulated from those lawsuits,” Poloncarz said.
States like New York could still take court action against EPA if the agency is taking too long or questions its own authority on greenhouse gases, he added.
It’s not unusual for an agency to take years to follow up on an ANPR. EPA took about six years to issue its draft Clean Power Plan in 2014.
“The entire point of ANPR is to help agencies decide which course they want to pursue where there are multiple options," said Tom Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring who represents electric cooperatives challenging the Clean Power Plan.
“I think one purpose of an ANPR would be to send a message to the court that EPA is thinking about what comes next,” he added.
Lorenzen said an ANPR could suggest a replacement rule or argue that any regulation is illegal because the agency has already regulated power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Several attorneys noted that Bill Wehrum, the lawyer nominated to run EPA’s air office, has represented power industry clients who likely would back a replacement rule because they consider regulation to be inevitable.
Most utilities assume a future regulation or law will require them to curb carbon emissions, even if Trump’s EPA rescinds the Clean Power Plan.
Even coal-heavy power companies have said they support EPA issuing a replacement rule.
AEP, a Midwestern power company that gets slightly less than half of its electricity from coal, would back a new proposal “consistent with the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said.
In 2005, 70 percent of AEP’s power came from coal, but the company has been intentionally shifting toward renewable power and lower-carbon natural gas.
“We think that future regulation of carbon emissions from power production is likely, and could provide additional planning certainty,” Ridout said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/09/repeal-and-replace-approach-to-epa-climate-rule-may-disappoint-trump-base-161885
-
Harrowing Storms May Move Climate Debate, if Not G.O.P. Leaders
Sep 14, 2017 | New York Times
By Alexander Burns
For years, climate change activists have faced a wrenching dilemma: how to persuade people to care about a grave but seemingly far-off problem and win their support for policies that might pinch them immediately in utility bills and at the pump.
But that calculus may be changing at a time when climatic chaos feels like a daily event rather than an airy abstraction, and storms powered by warming ocean waters wreak havoc on the mainland United States. Americans have spent weeks riveted by television footage of wrecked neighborhoods, displaced families, flattened Caribbean islands and submerged cities from Houston to Jacksonville.
“The conversation is shifting,” said Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii. “Because even if you don’t believe liberals, even if you don’t believe scientists, you can believe your own eyes.”
Despite consensus among scientists, not everyone is convinced that terrifying weather means climate change is an urgent threat. There is virtually no prospect of large-scale federal action on the issue in the near future, and President Trump has made a top priority of unraveling the Obama administration’s environmental policies, including the Paris climate accord. Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, remain broadly skeptical of climate science and rely heavily on the electoral support of oil- and coal-producing states.
But an array of political leaders — including some members of Mr. Trump’s party, along with emboldened Democrats and environmental activists — see the underlying dynamics of climate politics bending, as drastic weather events throw up practical challenges for red and blue states alike. Mr. Schatz, one of the Democrats’ most assertive spokesmen on global warming, said there were already “pockets of opportunity” to work with Republicans on measures to reinforce coastlines and support solar- and wind-energy production, though not on more ambitious policies.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEFlorida Keys Battered but Still Standing After Irma’s Rampage SEPT. 11, 2017Irma Roars In, and All of Florida Shakes and Shudders SEPT. 10, 2017
“We can get a fair amount of bipartisanship if we talk about severe weather and resiliency,” Mr. Schatz said. “For some people, it’s just about the phrase ‘climate change’ being too politically loaded.”
Most movement among Republicans has come from moderates and lawmakers from areas vulnerable to flooding, where seeming oblivious to extreme weather could be politically risky. There have been no notable cracks in Republican opposition to climate policy among party leaders, or even within the powerful Texas congressional delegation — a group battered by Hurricane Harvey but fiercely protective of the state’s oil economy.
For the most part, senior Republicans have avoided directly discussing climate in the aftermath of Harvey and Hurricane Irma, which pounded the Southeast this week. They have focused chiefly on scrambling to get government aid to stricken states. The Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, said debating climate now would be “very, very insensitive.”
But in Florida, where Irma left more than a dozen dead and millions without electricity, a handful of Republicans have been more outspoken. The Republican mayor of Miami, Tomás Regalado, urged Mr. Trump last week to reconsider his climate policies. Several Florida lawmakers founded a bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House of Representatives, and the group’s Republican membership grew this year to two dozen.
The safe ground for Republicans, party strategists say, may be embracing proposals to mitigate certain effects of environmental change, while skirting debate about more drastic actions that experts see as essential.
That approach reached even the White House this week, with Thomas P. Bossert, Mr. Trump’s Homeland Security adviser, declaring that the administration takes “seriously the threat of climate change.” He added, somewhat vaguely, “Not the cause of it, but the things that we observe.”
Representative Scott Taylor of Virginia, a Republican whose district hugs the Atlantic Coast, said his constituents were growing more sensitive to the implications of climate change, including voters who lean to the right. Mr. Taylor, who is a member of the climate caucus, said he was still wary of hobbling fossil-fuel companies, but favors narrower measures to address dangerous environmental conditions. The Republican nominee for governor of Virginia this year, Ed Gillespie, has taken a similar tack, ignoring climate as an issue but releasing a plan on coastal flooding.
“We have to deal with issues like sea level rise and flooding and resiliency,” Mr. Taylor said, cautioning, “I don’t think we’re there, in a bipartisan way, for comprehensive action.”
Jay Faison, a wealthy Republican donor who has made clean energy a personal cause, said he found Republicans increasingly open to engaging around the edges of the climate issue. Mr. Faison said he had reason to believe there was “some appetite” among congressional leaders for backing resilient infrastructure and energy research.
“I’d like to see more, faster,” Mr. Faison said. “But we play the hand we’re dealt.”
Political polling has long found most voters sympathetic to policies that protect the environment, including the Paris agreement and rules proposed by the Obama administration to curb power-plant emissions. But Americans have also tended to rank climate low among their priorities, behind issues like health care and jobs.
Still, the trend toward taking climate change seriously has been unmistakable, and pollsters say it may intensify after a season of superstorms. In a Gallup poll this year, 45 percent of Americans said they worried about global warming a “great deal,” a sharp increase from the share in 2016 and the highest ever recorded in the poll. About 6 in 10 said they believed the consequences of global warming are already being felt.
But liberals and conservatives hold widely divergent views on climate, even within hard-hit states like Texas and Florida. And research conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that many who are concerned about climate change remain less convinced it will harm them directly.
Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who has studied climate as a campaign issue, said that it was most relevant to voters as a “reference point” to judge a candidate’s worldview, and that voters tended to see those who reject climate science as extremists. Mr. Garin said catastrophic weather could make certain hard-line views less acceptable.
“The salience of climate change denialism grows at moments when the consequences of that are more abundantly clear,” Mr. Garin said, “such as when the country is hit by two exceptionally powerful storms, one right after the other.”
Is unclear whether climate will play a major part in the 2018 elections, when Democrats are defending a number of Senate seats in states that produce carbon fuel. Climate may feature more prominently in the 2020 elections, when a wider range of states will be contested and the environmental policies Mr. Trump has pursued through executive action — like withdrawing from the Paris agreement — will be more directly at issue.
But some Democratic candidates and political donors hope to punish conservative politicians before then. In Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat seeking re-election next year, quickly went on the offensive this week, accusing one potential Republican opponent, Gov. Rick Scott, of having ignored the mounting threat of climate change.
And advisers to Tom Steyer, a billionaire investor who has spent millions supporting Democrats, said his political committee might seek to link Republicans in Florida, Nevada and California to environmental catastrophes in those states, like the summer hurricanes and wildfires out west.
Mr. Steyer said in an interview that acknowledging the impact of devastating storms should not get Republicans off the hook for opposing efforts to address global warming over all. He predicted the “human tragedy” of climate change would be a permanent feature of politics. “This is not an isolated incident,” he said of Irma and Harvey. “It’s going to happen again, only worse.”
Mr. Regalado, the Miami mayor, said many of his Republican colleagues were wary of being “called crazy or liberals” if they talked about climate. But he said voters on the ground had grown sharply aware of the risks they face.
“I don’t think my statements are going to change the way the administration thinks or the governor thinks, but let me tell you, people are afraid,” Mr. Regalado said. “People are understanding there is a new normal now.”
Lisa Friedman contributed reporting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/irma-harvey-climate-politics.html?_r=0
-
New York’s Buildings Emit Most of Its Greenhouse Gases. The Mayor Has a Plan to Change That.
Sep 14, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Kayla Epstein
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) will announce plans Thursday to force thousands of aging buildings there to become more energy efficient, a first-of-its-kind initiative intended to make the Big Apple a national leader in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
The initiative would mandate that owners of existing buildings larger than 25,000 square feet invest in more efficient heating and cooling systems, insulation and hot-water heaters in the years ahead.
If approved by the City Council, the requirements would apply to about 14,500 private and municipal buildings, which the mayor’s office says collectively account for nearly a quarter of New York City’s emissions. Most buildings would need to comply with new efficiency targets by 2030, or their owners would face penalties.
“This means bringing the worst-performing buildings in line with the best-performing buildings,” said Mark Chambers, the city’s director of sustainability. Some older structures are “burning three or four times” as much fossil fuel as newer, more efficient buildings, he noted.
“It’s sort of like the Lake Wobegon effect,” added Dan Zarrilli, the city’s chief resilience officer. “We want everyone to be above average.”
The proposed mandates would be the latest — and boldest — action the de Blasio administration has taken to position New York City as a leader in slashing greenhouse-gas emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change.
In 2014, de Blasio announced his “80×50” plan, with a goal to reduce those emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2050. In June, de Blasio signed an executive order reaffirming the city’s commitment to the international Paris climate accord just days after President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement.
“We have to take matters into our own hands,” de Blasio said as he directed city agencies to report by Sept. 30 on their efforts to achieve reductions in carbon emissions.
Though building regulation is a frequent area of contention between New York’s government and its business community, there are indications the two sides could find common ground on this issue. Last month, the Urban Green Council, the Real Estate Board of New York and other groups made joint recommendations for how to make local buildings more energy efficient.
“There is remarkable unanimity across the industry that we need to get to these places,” Russell Unger of the Urban Green Council told Crain’s New York at the time.
But the proposal is unlikely to garner universal support.
For starters, the de Blasio administration will propose annual penalties that increase with a building’s size and its fossil-fuel usage. Beginning in 2030, a 30,000-square-foot apartment building that exceeds certain energy targets would pay $60,000 for each year it doesn’t meet the new standards, according to the mayor’s office. A building with 1 million square feet that was operating outside the required efficiency standards would pay as much as $2 million in annual penalties. Buildings not in compliance also would be prevented from receiving permits for major renovations.
The administration insists the new initiative could lead to lower long-term energy costs and create as many as 17,000 “green jobs” as older structures are retrofitted. But many owners are likely to face big upfront costs to meet the new requirements. City officials said they intend to help owners afford energy upgrades through low-interest financing.
“These proposals require careful analysis, discussion and debate,” said John Banks, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. “The manner in which these goals are pursued will determine whether or not the future of our city is comprised of mini-storage facilities and buildings without windows or 21st-century energy-efficient buildings that yield good jobs and affordable housing.”
New York is not alone in working to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. After Trump’s announcement that he would pull the United States out of the Paris climate pact, numerous governors, mayors and businesses independently pledged to push forward with emissions reductions. A group called Climate Mayors — which has 377 members, including de Blasio — committed to working toward the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.
Not all of New York City’s environmental initiatives have been successful. A city law mandating a fee on plastic bags was blocked in February by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), although he said he would have a task force work on a statewide plan to address the “plastic bag problem.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/13/new-yorks-buildings-emit-most-of-its-greenhouse-gases-the-mayor-has-a-plan-to-change-that/?utm_term=.e49a57bd34f0
-
|
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Test Finance
Add recipients
Suggested