Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 10/3/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) With Dourson and 4 New Big Chem Nominees, Trump EPA Grows Increasingly Stacked with Industry Cronies
Oct 2, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
With the staff, current and pending, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency appears due for a name change. -
(ACC Mentioned) Analysis: Asia ABS, PP Bock Copolymer Get Support from Firm Chinese Auto Demand
Oct 3, 2017 | Platts
By Frank Zeng and Yi-Jeng Huang
The acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene margin in Asia is holding near a four-year high despite the fall in prices last week, after riding on bullish Chinese automobile demand throughout the third quarter. -
E.P.A. Chief’s Calendar: A Stream of Industry Meetings and Trips Home
Oct 3, 2017 | New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Lisa Friedman
For lunch on April 26, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, dined with top executives from Southern Company, one of the nation’s largest coal-burning electric utilities, at Equinox, a white-tablecloth favorite of Washington power brokers. -
Walmart, Amazon Respond to Lead in Fidget Spinners Study
Oct 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A US study has identified high levels of lead in four fidget spinner toys, bought online at Walmart and Amazon. -
EU Member States Approve New Batch of Authorisation Applications
Oct 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states have approved applications for uses of certain chromates, listed as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) under REACH Annex XIV. -
Fossil Fuel, Renewables Groups Fight Trump's Coal Plan
Oct 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to rescue money-losing coal and nuclear plants has spawned a coalition of unlikely bedfellows. -
Lower Corporate Tax Rate May Alter New Energy Project Investment
Oct 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Allyson Versprille
A 20 percent corporate tax rate proposed in the new Republican tax framework Sept. 27 could reduce tax equity investments in future renewable energy projects, meaning that developers may need to find new funding mechanisms. -
Seneca Wins Another Fight to Ban Injection Wells in Pennsylvania Township
Oct 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A federal judge last week dismantled another community bill of rights passed by voters last November in Highland Township, PA, to ban underground injection wells and fossil fuel extraction. -
Residents Say Tests Find Toxic Chemicals After Plant Fire
Oct 3, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Reese Dunklin
Tests detected toxic substances in soil, water and ash samples taken miles from a chemical plant that flooded during Hurricane Harvey, caught fire and partially exploded, nearly 20 Houston-area residents said. -
Oil Train Project Stopped in its Tracks as Company Drops Fight
Oct 3, 2017 | Public News Service
By Suzanne Potter
A project to send hundreds of oil trains rumbling up and down the central California Coast appears to be dead. The oil company announced Monday it is giving up the fight to secure county approval. -
EPA Says No Update on Ozone Designations as NRDC Threatens Lawsuit
Oct 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA says it has “no further information” about when it will issue designations for which areas of the United States are either attaining or in nonattainment with the 2015 ozone standard after appearing to miss a Clean Air Act deadline of Oct. 1 for the findings... -
Environmentalists Fight EPA Ozone 'Backsliding' Argument
Oct 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists in a new legal filing say EPA “misses the point” in its defense of an agency rule implementing Bush-era ozone air standards that critics argue allows “backsliding” or weakening of emissions controls, after EPA recently told a federal appeals court ... -
House Dem Plan Calls for Climate 'Leadership'
Oct 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
House Democrats plan to resurrect their clean energy and climate focus if they regain the majority, according to an alternative budget they unveiled yesterday ahead of this week's floor debate on the GOP's own blueprint. -
Earlier 2020 Primary Could Boost Climate Debate, Green Issues
Oct 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's decision to move its primary elections to March could push climate and other environmental issues onto the national stage, giving those a prominence not seen in past presidential campaigns, political experts said.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Oct 2, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
With the staff, current and pending, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency appears due for a name change.
The Profit Protection Agency, perhaps? Or how about the Environmental Profiteers Association? Or they could come clean and just openly merge with Big Chem lobby shop American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The EPA’s offices are being filled one by one with veterans of the chemical industry who are inclined to offer friendly benefits to their old colleagues, including Nancy Beck, formerly Senior Policy Director at ACC, now Deputy Assistant Administrator in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). Now, Trump has nominated Dr. Michael Dourson, who has close connections to Big Tobacco, to lead the OCSPP as Assistant Administrator for that Office.
Dourson’s deep-rooted industry ties make him a concerning and entirely unfit choice for this post. His research firm, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), is known for conducting industry backed studies that are widely questioned by the scientific community. TERA’s clients include Big Chem giants Dow, Monsanto, and many more. Dourson will face a Senate EWP committee hearing on Wednesday — essentially the last chance to block his appointment.
“Dr. Dourson’s consistent endorsement of chemical safety standards that not only match industry’s views, but are also significantly less protective than E.P.A. and other regulators have recommended, raises serious doubts about his ability to lead those efforts,” Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware, told the New York Times. Sen. Carper is the ranking minority member on the panel that will assess Dr. Dourson’s qualifications. “This is the first time anyone with such clear and extensive ties to the chemical industry has been picked to regulate that industry.”
Despite these startling conflicts of interest, and significant and adamantly voiced concern from environmental agencies, the EPA itself issued a press release in support of Dourson’s nomination — a move chillingly out of the EPA’s pre-Trump norm.
It doesn’t end there. Just this week, ACC nominated four of its own folk and fellow industry scientists to serve on the EPA’s new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals:
· Dr. Richard Becker is a Senior Director within ACC’s Science and Research Division;
· Steven Bennett, vice president for scientific affairs at the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA);
· Sheri Blystone, director of regulatory affairs and product safety at SNF Holding Company; and
· Stuart Cagen, a toxicologist at Shell Health.
“Expert” Opinions for Sale
The people who make up this advisory committee matter. They’re the “experts” whose opinions will matter when the EPA is designing — or destroying — environmental regulations, and the results of these regulations have permanent impacts. Chemical trade associations like ACC are infamous for using their deep pockets to fund junk science and propaganda in order to protect the toxins they profit off of, no matter how deadly and destructive they might be.
In fact, it is exactly this kind of junk science that has kept asbestos legal and lethal in the U.S., even though it kills 15,000 Americans — and an estimated 200,000 worldwide — every year.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was reformed last year, with bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, there was renewed hope that the EPA would finally be able to regulate the some 80,000 dangerous chemicals in our environment. The earlier version of TSCA left gaping loopholes and exemptions that favored industry, “making it impossible to ban known carcinogens like asbestos,” as President Obama said when signing the TSCA reform bill.
Public Pressure is Tried and True with Team Trump
On Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigned after facing severe public criticism for racking up $400,000 in chartered flights — less than Pruitt’s $900,000 spending spree, though that number includes other costs like a nearly $25,000 soundproof phone booth.
However, what it shows us is that our voices are being heard. This is just one example of many, too — we’ve seen public pressure win out in multiple failed attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act, when controversial Labor Secretary nominee Andrew Pudzer withdrew his nomination, and in the other high-level departures from Trump’s cabinet and other key posts.
We need to harness this power of public pressure once again in defense of an EPA that actually protects the environment. The Agency has deviated too far from that crucial purpose, so we must call on Congress to intervene.
Our elected representatives have several stopgaps for some of the problems the EPA is creating:
· Most immediately, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee has a chance to prove Dourson’s unfitness to hold a high-level EPA role in Wednesday’s hearings. Call or email the Senators on the EPW committee and share your concerns about Dourson’s industry ties and for-sale science.
· Members of Congress can call for an Oversight Hearing to assess whether or not the EPA is executing TSCA in the way the legislature intended. Reach out to your district representative to bring up this issue.
· Most effectively, with chemicals like asbestos, for which there already exists overwhelming evidence of undue risk, Congress can preempt watered down regulations by passing ban bills like the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act.
Congress answers to US, and they’re listening harder now than perhaps ever before. Use your voice and ask them to stand up on behalf of the safety and future of the American people.
NOTE: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, October 4 at 10:00 AM re: the “Nominations of Michael Dourson, Matthew Leopold, David Ross, and William Wehrum to be Assistant Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Jeffery Baran to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/with-dourson-and-4-new-big-chem-nominees-trump-epa_us_59d271e3e4b0f58902e5ce59
-
(ACC Mentioned) Analysis: Asia ABS, PP Bock Copolymer Get Support from Firm Chinese Auto Demand
Oct 3, 2017 | Platts
By Frank Zeng and Yi-Jeng Huang
The acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene margin in Asia is holding near a four-year high despite the fall in prices last week, after riding on bullish Chinese automobile demand throughout the third quarter.
Asian spot prices for ABS, a polymer used in the manufacturing of automobiles and consumer electronics, fell below $2,000/mt CFR China last week for the first time since early September, S&P Global Platts data showed.
ABS was assessed at $1,980/mt CFR China Friday, down $60/mt week on week on retreating feedstock styrene monomer and butadiene prices.
ABS margins averaged at $290.82/mt in Q3, compared to an average of $164.36/mt in Q2, and just $5.02/mt in Q3 last year, Platts data showed.
This is in stark contrast to 2016, when sluggish downstream demand pushed ABS prices to below $1,500/mt until November, resulting in negative margins for non-integrated ABS producers for pro-longed periods.
AUTOMOBILE SALES SHOW NO SIGN OF SLOWING DOWN
A large contributing factor is the increase in automobile sales in Asia, owing to robust demand from China -- the world's largest automobile market. China currently accounts for around half of global demand for ABS, according to market participants.
China's automobile demand is expected to rise 6% year on year from 2016, according to industry estimates.
China's ABS imports rose 4.2% month on month for August at 167,068 mt. This also represents a 14% rise year on year, reflecting the strong demand for ABS and its downstream sectors in Q3.
According to the latest statistics released by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, automobile sales were up 10.9% month on month to 2,186,000 units in August. This is a third consecutive month of growth and also represents a 5.3% increase in sales compared to the same period last year.
Production figures were equally positive, up 1.6% month on month to reach 2,093,000 units in August. Year-on-year, this figure represents a 4.8% increase.
Another contributing factor is the pickup in seasonal plastics demand ahead of the week-long National Day holidays in China that started October 1. During this week, downstream users of ABS typically observe a large spike in both consumer electronics and automobile sales.
This increase in manufacturing activity ahead of the National Day holidays was evident in China's latest Purchasing Managers' Index for September, which was up 0.7 points from August to 52.4 -- a year-to-date high.
PP BLOCK COPOLYMER HITS TWO-YEAR HIGH IN SEPTEMBER
The same trend could also be observed in the polypropylene market, especially block copolymers which are being used increasingly by Chinese manufacturers in automobile applications.
China's PP block copolymer import prices surged to two-year highs early September, as downstream demand from the automobile sector rose, according to industry sources.
The Platts CFR Far East Asia PP block copolymer assessment had risen 5% since the beginning of the year to $1,180/mt on September 6, 2017 -- a price level not seen since July 15, 2015 -- with the industry expecting relatively firm demand in Q4. But since then the price has edged down to $1,150/mt on September 27, down $5/mt week on week ahead of the Chinese holidays.
PP copolymer imports into China are also on track to rise 15% to about 300,000 mt in Q3, compared with Q2, according to China customs statistics. Block copolymer, also known as impact copolymer, is used increasingly by the automobile industry to substitute metal components to build lighter cars and promote fuel efficiency -- an industry trend known as "lightweighting."
An average car used about 150 kg of plastics and polymer composites in 2014, according to the American Chemistry Council. This amount is expected to double by 2020, making it one of the most important growth sectors for PP producers, industry sources said.
Q4 ABS PRICES TO REMAIN SUPPORTED ON SUPPLY TIGHTNESS
Looking ahead to Q4, with no new ABS plants scheduled to begin production later this year, demand is expected to outstrip supply, sources said.
"Despite a fall in both feedstock butadiene and styrene monomers prices last week, the tightness in the Asian ABS market will likely continue to provide support to ABS prices in the short term," an ABS producer said.
Feedstock butadiene was assessed at $1,450/mt CFR China on September 29, down $150/mt week on week, while SM fell $95.50/mt over the same period to $1,263.50 CFR China. This represents a $79.80/mt or 7.6% fall in feedstock costs week on week for non-integrated ABS producers, which will likely exert some pressure on producers to adjust offer prices lower when the market reopens after the National Day holidays, next week.
Meanwhile, European ABS prices in October are expected to be steady, tracking a stable outlook on costs, Platts reported earlier. The European ABS spot price was last assessed at Eur1,820/mt ($2,180/mt) FD NWE Wednesday, up Eur90/mt over the month.
With the CFR China ABS spot price falling below $2,000/mt last week, the import arbitrage from Asia into Europe may re-open in October, based on indicative freight costs of around $100/mt between the Far East Asia and Europe and additional inland freight costs of around Eur20-30/mthttps://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/singapore/analysis-asia-abs-pp-block-copolymer-get-support-27876254
-
E.P.A. Chief’s Calendar: A Stream of Industry Meetings and Trips Home
Oct 3, 2017 | New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Lisa Friedman
For lunch on April 26, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, dined with top executives from Southern Company, one of the nation’s largest coal-burning electric utilities, at Equinox, a white-tablecloth favorite of Washington power brokers.
That evening, it was on to BLT Prime, a steakhouse inside the Trump International Hotel in Washington, for a meal with the board of directors of Alliance Resource Partners, a coal-mining giant whose chief executive donated nearly $2 million to help elect President Trump.
Before those two agenda items, Mr. Pruitt met privately with top executivesand lobbyists from General Motors to talk about their request to block an Obama administration move to curb emissions that contribute to climate change.
It was just a typical day for Mr. Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general. Since taking office in February, Mr. Trump’s E.P.A. chief has held back-to-back meetings, briefing sessions and speaking engagements almost daily with top corporate executives and lobbyists from all the major economic sectors that he regulates — and almost no meetings with environmental groups or consumer or public health advocates, according to a 320-page accounting of his daily schedule from February through May, the most detailed look yet at what Mr. Pruitt has been up to since he took over the agency.
Many of those players have high-profile matters pending before the agency, with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in regulatory costs at stake. Some of these same companies and trade associations were allies of Mr. Pruitt when, as Oklahoma’s attorney general, he sued the E.P.A. at least 14 times to try to block rules Mr. Pruitt is now in charge of enforcing.Continue reading the main storyThe Trump White HouseThe historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.Supreme Court to Hear Case on Wisconsin Voting Maps Warped by PoliticsOCT 3False ISIS Connections, Nonexistent Victims and Other Misinformation in the Wake of Las Vegas ShootingOCT 2U.S. Service Member Killed by Roadside Bomb in IraqOCT 2Full Transcript and Video: Trump Speaks After Las Vegas ShootingOCT 2Trump Takes On All Comers, Believing Himself the VictorOCT 1
See More »RELATED COVERAGEScott Pruitt Spent Much of Early Months at E.P.A. Traveling Home, Report SaysJULY 24, 2017Scott Pruitt Is Carrying Out His E.P.A. Agenda in Secret, Critics Say AUG. 11, 2017Secrecy and Suspicion Surround Trump’s Deregulation Teams AUG. 7, 2017Chemical Industry Ally Faces Critics in Bid for Top E.P.A. Post SEPT. 19, 2017E.P.A. Promised ‘a New Day’ for the Agriculture Industry, Documents RevealAUG. 18, 2017
He also took several trips home to Oklahoma for long weekends, often with one or two brief work meetings, followed by long stretches of downtime.
E.P.A. officials defended Mr. Pruitt’s industry-heavy appointment book.
“As E.P.A. has been the poster child for regulatory overreach, the agency is now meeting with those ignored by the Obama administration,” an emailed statement from the agency said, adding that the agency believed that The New York Times was making an “attempt to sensationalize for clicks” the administrator’s detailed calendar.
But William K. Reilly, the E.P.A. administrator under the first President George Bush, described the level of meetings between Mr. Pruitt and industry executives as unusual.
“My sense is there is almost nothing about this administration that is traditional,” Mr. Reilly said. He said Mr. Pruitt’s history of suing the E.P.A. should have prompted him to meet regularly with public health advocates and environmentalists.
“I would think he would feel a responsibility to bend over backward to show a sense of judicious impartiality,” Mr. Reilly said.
In just the first 15 days of May, Mr. Pruitt met with the chief executive of the Chemours Company, a leading chemical maker, as well as three chemical lobbying groups; the egg producers lobby; the president of Shell Oil Company; the chief executive of Southern Company; lobbyists for the farm bureau, the toy association and a cement association; the president of a truck equipment manufacturer seeking to roll back emissions regulations for trucks; and the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
The E.P.A. leader also scheduled a call with the Family Research Council, whose self-described mission is to “advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview.” The topic: pulling “together a small group of key business leaders around the country who are very excited about Administrator Pruitt’s new leadership role.”
In recent weeks, Freedom of Information Act requests from environmentalists, other nonprofit groups and news organizations including The Washington Post have dislodged documents that hint at Mr. Pruitt’s typical day. But for the first time, the most recent release, based on an open records request by the liberal nonprofit American Oversight, includes a description of the topics discussed at each of the meetings, and a list of all the agency officials and corporate executives scheduled to attend.
Mr. Pruitt also has made frequent, government-funded trips to his home state of Oklahoma, even when the journeys included only a bit of official business. A trip to Oklahoma on May 5, which cost $1,043, was justified by the E.P.A. as an “informational meeting.” It consisted of a one-hour sit-down that Friday with Sam Wade, the chief executive of the National Rural Water Association, then a return flight to Washington the following Monday.
Mr. Pruitt flew to Oklahoma on May 19, a Friday, toured a chemical company for three hours the next day, then returned to Washington on Monday. The flight for that trip cost $2,122. These trips are being examinedby the agency’s inspector general. In later trips Mr. Pruitt appears to have scheduled a greater number of meetings around trips to Oklahoma, such as a three-day trip in July during which he toured a Phillips 66 energy plant, spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in Tulsa, held a round table on the rollback of a Clean Water Act regulation and met with Gov. Mary Fallin.
Mr. Pruitt generally takes commercial flights when he travels, records show, but on at least one occasion he flew on a much more expensive charter flight, and on two other occasions, on federal government and military planes, after getting authorization from agency officials.
But many of Mr. Pruitt’s trips outside Washington, the records show, also involved speeches to industry groups and conservative activists who worked closely with the energy industry to challenge the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda.
Destinations included the Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort in Naples, Fla., in late April, where Mr. Pruitt spoke to the National Mining Association; the Phoenician, a golf resort and spa in Scottsdale, Ariz., where he spoke to the National Association of Manufacturers; and the Broadmoor, a Colorado Springs hotel, for a gathering of conservative activists, sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, where the agenda included sessions like “Innovative Ways to Roll Back the Administrative State.”
The Times also examined more than a year’s worth of calendar records maintained for Gina McCarthy, Mr. Pruitt’s predecessor under President Barack Obama, which also demonstrated a partisan bent. Ms. McCarthy held a disproportionate number of meetings with Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups, particularly in the summer of 2014, when the administration was making the case for sweeping climate-change regulations.
But the documents show Ms. McCarthy apparently spent much more time meeting with E.P.A. professional staff and other federal government officials than Mr. Pruitt, discussing agency programs and policies. She also met with industry players, like the American Gas Association, the National Pork Producers Council and Edison Electric Institute, the utility lobby.
One of Mr. Pruitt’s first scheduled meetings with a public health advocacy group, according to the calendar, came on May 24 when he sat down with the American Academy of Pediatrics. A day later he had two meetings with environmental activists, including a group called Trout Unlimited, a conservation group. Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said the agency (she would not specify who) had met with more than two dozen other health and environmental groups, including the Audubon Society and the American Lung Association.
The newly released documents, for the first time, create a direct link between Mr. Pruitt’s meetings and actions that the industry wants him to take.
The oil and gas industry, for example, opposed an Obama-era rule that required it to collect information on the emission of methane, a gas that is considered at least 25 times as effective at warming the planet as carbon dioxide.
On March 27, A.J. Ferate, the vice president of regulatory affairs at the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, saw Mr. Pruitt for half an hour in the administrator’s office to offer, according to the schedule notes, “just a few words of appreciation for canceling the Information Collection Request (ICR) on the oil and gas industry.” Mr. Ferate and Mr. Pruitt had been working together since at least 2011 — when Mr. Pruitt was Oklahoma’s attorney general — to try to kill the methane rule.
The calendars show how companies often turn to people with close personal ties to Mr. Trump or Mr. Pruitt to set up meetings. Roy W. Bailey, the Texas co-finance chairman for the Trump campaign, helped organize a meeting for Intrexon, a Maryland company that wants E.P.A. approval for a biotech-based mosquito control system. Jessica M. Garrison, a former consultant to the Republican Attorneys General Association, helped set up the lunch that Mr. Pruitt had at Equinox with electric utility executives.
The schedule also includes a number of meetings with automakers who pressed the Trump administration to roll back Mr. Obama’s decision to lock in vehicle emissions rules through 2025. Mr. Pruitt met in his office on March 17 with the chairman of BMW, Harald Krüger. On April 27, Mr. Pruitt met with G.M. a second time, along with nine other automakers represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The topic: “key E.P.A. priorities affecting the auto industry.”
Mr. Pruitt in late April welcomed five executives from a trade association representing sorghum cereal grain growers, including their lobbyist, Joe Bischoff, a former official at the Department of Agriculture. The message they offered Mr. Pruitt: The industry had “witnessed significant pesticide-related restrictions and the threat of revocation of more than half of the crop’s reliable insecticides.”
Representatives from CropLife America, a trade association run by giant pesticide companies such as Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience, separately met with Mr. Pruitt to “acknowledge the many actions taken already to correct recent regulatory overreach.” The meeting with CropLife came the day after Mr. Pruitt overruled E.P.A. scientists who had recommended that the agency ban a pesticide named chlorpyrifos, which has been blamed, in E.P.A.-funded research, for causing developmental disabilities in children, particularly among the families of farm workers.
Another theme emerges in the calendar: Industry executives and conservative activists often scored meetings to press Mr. Pruitt to kill or modify Obama-era climate change regulations, particularly the so-called Clean Power Plan. A May 18 conference call included representatives from the State Policy Network and American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization with ties to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the billionaire industrialists.
“Many people on this call were leading the Clean Power Plan pushback in their state and are advocates for devolving decision making to the local level,” the calendar notes.
The E.P.A. is expected to issue a legal justification and plan for rescinding the Clean Power Plan as soon as this week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-calendar-industries-coal-oil-environmentalists.html
-
Walmart, Amazon Respond to Lead in Fidget Spinners Study
Oct 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A US study has identified high levels of lead in four fidget spinner toys, bought online at Walmart and Amazon.
One fidget spinner, sold at Walmart.com, contained a part that was found to be over 400 times the legal limit.
The study carried out by Fox6 News used a third-party facility to test ten fidget spinners for lead.
With a few exceptions, federal law requires that all children’s products manufactured after August 2011 contain no more than 100 parts per million (ppm) total lead content in all accessible parts.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the government body that has authority to recall toys, defines accessible parts as those that a child could reach through "normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the product".
Fox6 found three fidget spinners that contained excessive levels of lead from Amazon:
· the first contained a pin 38,151ppm lead content;
· second: arms 38,308ppm, a centre 10,370ppm and pin 14,731ppm;
· third: arms 44,827ppm, a centre 17,241ppm and pin 34,875ppm.
The spinner from Walmart.com contained:
· arms 34,510ppm lead content, centre 28,048ppm and pin 10,086ppm.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that all products intended for use by children contain no more than trace amounts of lead, defined as 40ppm.
A Walmart spokesperson told Chemical Watch: "We take all reports of product safety seriously. Once this was brought to our attention, we removed the item, which was sold by a third-party seller on our marketplace, from our site and notified the seller."
The company is investigating how the item was allowed to go on sale.
An Amazon spokesperson did not comment on the study, but said: "Safety is among our highest priorities. We want customers to buy with confidence anytime they make a purchase on Amazon.com. All fidget spinners currently sold on Amazon must comply with testing standards for toys for children ages 3 and up."
'Invisible poison'
In a press release the NGO, US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) said that lead could be found in imported toys and is "particularly damaging for young children because of its impact on development. Even low levels of lead in blood have been shown to undermine IQ, attentiveness and academic achievement."
It called for the CPSC to perform testing on fidget spinners for lead and recall products that contain high levels.
"It’s nearly impossible for consumers to tell if their fidget spinner has high levels of lead since it’s an invisible poison, so the CPSC should step up and test these products since it has the authority to recall them," the press release reads.
It also said that companies manufacturing and selling lead-tainted fidget spinners should be held accountable, which would send "a message to other companies".
Karla Crosswhite of the CPSC said the agency was reviewing the Fox6 report.
She added: "The federal regulations for lead apply to children’s products that are primarily intended for children 12 years of age and younger. Most fidget spinners are general use products, unless they are primarily intended for children 12 years of age and younger."
But Dev Gowda of US PIRG said that fidget spinners are routinely sold in toy stores and in the toy sections of major retailers.
"The CPSC should treat fidget spinners as a children's product, further investigate lead in them, and take appropriate action against manufacturers if they contain high levels," he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59659/walmart-amazon-respond-to-lead-in-fidget-spinners-study
-
EU Member States Approve New Batch of Authorisation Applications
Oct 3, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states have approved applications for uses of certain chromates, listed as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) under REACH Annex XIV.
At the REACH Committee meeting on 27 September, they granted companies authorisation for the following substances and conditional uses:
· Veco for use of ammonium dichromate as a photosensitive component in a polyvinyl alcohol photolithographic lacquer system for the production of mandrels used in nickel electroforming processes. The recommended review period is seven years, expiring on 21 September 2024;
· Gruppo Colle for use of sodium dichromate as mordant in wool dyeing with dark colours. During committee discussions, some member states said suitable alternatives were available, and therefore the Commission reduced the recommended review period from seven years to four years from the date of adoption; and
· eight companies – Hoogovens Court Roll Surface Technologies, Wavec, Trattamento Cilindri Laminazione, Walzen-Service-Center, Nord Chrome, Rhenaroll, Texturing Technology and NC Poland – for use of chromium trioxide in functional chrome plating of work rolls, used in the steel and aluminium industry. The recommended review period is 12 years, expiring on 21 September 2029.
Two companies were granted authorisation for separate uses of trichloroethylene with a seven-year recommended review period, expiring on 21 April 2023. They are:
· Entek International for use of the substance as an extraction solvent for removal of process oil and formation of the porous structure in polyethylene based separators, used in lead-acid batteries; and
· Microporous for use as a degreasing solvent in the manufacture of polyethylene separators for lead-acid batteries.
And member states backed an application by GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences for industrial use of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) as an emulsifying solvent in the manufacture of porous particles for beaded chromatography and cell culture media. The recommended review period is 12 years and will expire on 22 November 2029.
According to a recent Echa report, analysis of the first 100 applications for REACH authorisation shows the socio-economic benefits of continued use of SVHCs "outweigh" the risks to human health and the environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59667/eu-member-states-approve-new-batch-of-authorisation-applications
-
Fossil Fuel, Renewables Groups Fight Trump's Coal Plan
Oct 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to rescue money-losing coal and nuclear plants has spawned a coalition of unlikely bedfellows.
Oil and natural gas trade groups joined with renewable power and utility groups Oct. 2 to oppose Perry's proposal, which would expedite changes in the way electricity's priced so that coal and nuclear plants get a “fair rate of return.” On Sept. 29, he asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to act within 60 days or accept his plan immediately as an interim final rule.
Gas, renewable energy and environmental groups were quick to characterize Perry's proposal as a retreat from wholesale competition and a handout for the coal and nuclear industries. On Oct. 2, 11 of them—including the American Petroleum Institute and American Council on Renewable Energy—called on the energy commission to reject his request, hold a technical conference on the matter instead and give parties three months to comment.
Their opposition underscores the lines being drawn between potential winners and losers of the Energy Department's plan to reward so-called baseload power plants capable of producing electricity around the clock. It is a term typically reserved for coal and nuclear resources. The push by Perry comes as President Donald Trump vows to revive America's ailing coal industry and put miners back to work.
“This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets,” the trade groups said Oct. 2.
“When agencies consider a proposed rule that could affect electricity prices paid by hundreds of millions of consumers and hundreds of thousands of businesses,” they said, it's customary to allow enough time for “meaningful comments to be filed.”
Upending Markets
The Energy Department and energy commission didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The coalition includes the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American Wind Energy Association, American Public Power Association and Solar Energy Industries Association, among others.
“If you upend electricity markets in the next 45 days,” Solar Energy Industries Association President Abigail Ross Hopper said, “it's a threat to the entire electricity system, not just the solar industry.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121655181&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121655181&jd=121655181
-
Lower Corporate Tax Rate May Alter New Energy Project Investment
Oct 3, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Allyson Versprille
A 20 percent corporate tax rate proposed in the new Republican tax framework Sept. 27 could reduce tax equity investments in future renewable energy projects, meaning that developers may need to find new funding mechanisms.
Tax equity investors—typically banks or insurance companies—"would give less than they would under the 35 percent tax rate,” Vadim Ovchinnikov, a director at Alfa Energy Advisors LLC, told Bloomberg BNA. Alfa assists project developers, investors, lenders, and government institutions in developing and financing energy projects.
Tax equity investors have a passive ownership interest in a project and receive a return based on federal and state income tax benefits and cash flow from the deal. An investor discounts its projected net benefits stream—tax credits, depreciation, and other benefits minus the taxes it expects to pay on its share of allocated income—at its target yield to determine what to invest, said Keith Martin, co-head of U.S. projects at Norton Rose Fulbright.
“The lower the corporate tax rate, the smaller the tax savings from losses (depreciation), but the less in taxes the investor will have to pay on the income it is allocated,” Martin said. “Because losses come first and then income comes later, the time value of the reduction in tax savings usually exceeds the benefit from having to pay less in taxes later.”
Tax equity investments can comprise up to about 70 percent of the total capital structure for wind projects and 50 percent for solar projects, according to a joint presentation by Alfa Energy Advisors and Mayer Brown LLP in June. The impact of tax reform on renewable energy projects was also a topic of conversation at the American Bar Association tax section meeting in Austin, Texas, in early September.
Running the Numbers
Tax equity investment in new wind projects would fall in 2018 from an average of 68 percent of total capital to between 62 percent and 57 percent if the corporate rate is between 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively, according to an analysis by Alfa. For new yield-based solar projects in 2018, tax equity investment would decline from about 40 percent to between 38 percent and 36 percent. These figures assume that current tax benefits, such as the production tax credit for wind and the investment tax credit for solar projects, are unchanged in tax reform.
If the rate is lowered and tax equity investments decline, developers will have to make up the gap in the capital stack through more debt or with equity, Martin said in an April article.
“Lower rates in general could certainly impact the overall value of a tax-equity project, which could impact the ability to raise capital,” but the corporate rate is only part of the equation, said Greg Matlock, Ernst and Young LLP's Americas Energy Tax Leader. Cost recovery provisions such as immediate expensing—which the tax framework proposed for at least five years for new investments in depreciable assets other than structures—are also important, he said. Those types of provisions can affect a renewable energy project's overall internal rate of return, which is a driving force in tax equity deals, he said.
Core Financing Tool
In the U.S. renewable energy market, “partnership flips” are the most common structures for raising tax equity—approximately 80 percent of the solar market and 100 percent of the wind market, Martin said.
In a partnership flip, the project developer and the tax equity investor become partners in a limited liability company. The developer acts as the managing member, making day-to-day decisions, while the investor plays a relatively passive role. The investor takes advantage of tax benefits generated by the project—which few developers can use efficiently because of various tax regulations—in return for providing capital.
Generally, the investor is initially allocated as much as 99 percent of the tax benefits—credits and depreciation—and subsequently “flips” down to as little as 5 percent after achieving a specified after-tax internal rate of return.
Tax rate changes would affect existing renewable energy partnership flip deals differently than new ones, Martin said. The effect on current projects depends on where the deal is in its life cycle when the rate is cut, he said. “If the rate is reduced early in the deal, then it's more likely to push out the flip date. If it's later, it's more likely to accelerate it,” Martin said.
“The reason is that these deals tend to show tax losses for the first three years and then they turn tax positive,” he said. If the rate is slashed when the partnership is tax positive “that just means less in tax will be paid by the owners and therefore, the tax equity investor reaches” its target internal rate of return sooner.
Will Investors Lose Interest?
David K. Burton, a partner in Mayer Brown LLP's New York office and a member of the firm's tax transactions & consulting practice, said a lower corporate rate also raises the question of whether fewer companies will invest in new renewable energy projects through tax equity deals because they will have less need for the tax benefits.
While lower tax rates may deter some participants “on the margins,” even at a 20 percent rate the largest tax equity investors, “such as JP Morgan and US Bank, will have tax liability that they would rather satisfy by making a tax equity investment that earns a return than to just cut a check to the United States Treasury,” Burton said.
Tax rates and overall after-tax positions are important, Matlock said, but certain investors will continue to be interested in renewable projects because of sector focus, geographic preferences, or diversity of investment preferences.
Renewable investments should continue to attract investors because of overall global and domestic energy needs, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121655177&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121655177&jd=121655177
-
Seneca Wins Another Fight to Ban Injection Wells in Pennsylvania Township
Oct 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A federal judge last week dismantled another community bill of rights passed by voters last November in Highland Township, PA, to ban underground injection wells and fossil fuel extraction.
Seneca Resources Corp. challenged the home rule charter shortly after it was passed, asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to permanently enjoin its enforcement. Seneca argued that the charter is preempted by state and federal law, in violation of its due process rights, and amounts to an impermissible exercise of legislative authority, among other things.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter agreed, granting Seneca’s motion for judgment on six of the nine counts. She found that the charter is in fact preempted by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, more commonly known as Act 13, and wrote that it stands as an obstacle to federal law, is an illegal exercise of legislative authority and violates the company’s constitutional and substantive due process rights with “irrational and arbitrary” language.
Similar charters have been unsuccessful when challenged in court. Highland’s was drafted with the help of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which has assisted communities across the basin in drafting the anti-fossil fuel bills for referendum votes. The Highland case, however, was different in the sense that the township agreed with Seneca that the charter is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Before voters approved the referendum, new supervisors on the township’s board voted to scrap an ordinance banning underground injection wells for oil and natural gas wastewater disposal. They did so facing a lawsuit from Seneca, which has since received a permit from state regulators for an injection well.
The home rule charter enshrined the provisions of the ordinance, which prompted the company to take legal action against it. Baxter wrote that the court could “not locate precedents for situations such as this case where a plaintiff has filed the motion and defendants do not oppose, and indeed, actively concur in the plaintiff’s motion.”
The township is in Elk County, which is part of Seneca’s Western Development Area. The company has fought every effort to ban oil and gas-related activity because it would prevent the company from converting natural gas wells into injection wells.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111934-seneca-wins-another-fight-to-ban-injection-wells-in-pennsylvania-township
-
Residents Say Tests Find Toxic Chemicals After Plant Fire
Oct 3, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Reese Dunklin
Tests detected toxic substances in soil, water and ash samples taken miles from a chemical plant that flooded during Hurricane Harvey, caught fire and partially exploded, nearly 20 Houston-area residents said.
The findings were disclosed Monday afternoon in a letter the residents’ lawyers mailed to the chief executive of the plant’s owner, France-based Arkema Inc., and several regulatory agencies, giving notice that they planned to sue.
The letter accused Arkema of violating multiple environmental protection laws because of unauthorized chemical spills and releases that happened when the company failed to properly store and contain its organic peroxides before and after 6 feet (1.8 meters) of water overwhelmed the facility.
Arkema representatives could not immediately be reached Monday evening. The company has refused to say which chemicals were released during the fire and has repeatedly declined to discuss how large its inventory quantities were prior to the incident. It provided only the names of its chemicals on its website last month after days of public pressure.
Arkema’s legal troubles have widened in the last week, as the civil attorney and criminal district attorney for Harris County, home to Houston, announced a pending lawsuit and investigation.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and U.S. Chemical Safety Board announced last month that they were investigating.
And a group of about two dozen homeowners and first responders are part of a state lawsuit that seeks more than $1 million. They also blame Arkema for sickening them and failing to fully warn them about the hazards of breathing the contaminated air.
Arkema executives have insisted that they planned for flooding conditions, bringing in backup generators and moving containers with the chemicals to higher ground. Accident plans the company had filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in recent years noted hurricanes, flooding and power loss were potential hazards.
But despite a National Hurricane Center warning on Aug. 27 that areas around Houston could get 50 inches (130 centimeters) of rain, company officials said they couldn’t have predicted the unprecedented flooding.
As Harvey dumped the rain, Arkema’s power and generators at its Crosby facility failed, leading refrigeration systems to shut down. That caused its organic peroxides, used in a range of products from plastics and paints, to destabilize.
Arkema abandoned the site in Crosby, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of Houston, on Aug. 29. A mandatory 1.5-mile (2.4-kilometer) evacuation zone was created in anticipation of a fire and explosion, displacing hundreds of residents for about a week.
After one container storing hazardous materials caught fire Aug. 31 and exploded, an Arkema executive claimed that smoke from that was a “non-toxic irritant.” Fifteen responders were treated for exposure at local hospitals.
On Sept. 4, after a second container caught fire and then the remaining others were burned under supervision, an executive said Arkema’s air-quality testing within the evacuation zone had shown “no evidence of any issues.”
But the lawyers’ letter Monday said the residents had found “a strange ash material and a mysterious black residue on the ground” after each Arkema explosion sent black plumes of smoke in the air.
Scientific testing of samples — some collected several miles outside the evacuation zone — found materials from multiple families of toxic chemicals, according to the letter signed by lawyer Mark F. Underwood.
The toxins identified include volatile organic compounds, which can cause cancer, and harmful polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons formed during the incomplete burning of organic substances. The letters said tests also detected dioxins and furans, which the EPA has said may change hormone levels in those exposed.
“Given the toxicity of the substances released,” according to the letter, “the 1.5-mile perimeter was not far enough to adequately protect either first responders or those living beyond the perimeter who were not evacuated.”
The letter by the residents’ lawyer said some of them have had negative health effects persisting after the exposure ended, though no specifics were provided. The exposure came through air and surface water, which, unbeknownst to them, had been contaminated by spills.
“Exposure to this toxic mixture in the environment through human pathways caused bodily injury,” the letter said, “and has created a need for a community-wide remediation effort, changes in Arkema’s operation and a medical monitoring program to protect the public from risk.”
In 2016, an analysis led by Texas A&M University researchers identified Arkema’s facility as one of the biggest risks in a corridor with the country’s greatest concentration of petrochemical plants.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/residents-say-tests-find-toxic-chemicals-after-plants-fire/2017/10/02/81969870-a7d5-11e7-9a98-07140d2eed02_story.html?utm_term=.270a9133c103
-
Oil Train Project Stopped in its Tracks as Company Drops Fight
Oct 3, 2017 | Public News Service
By Suzanne Potter
A project to send hundreds of oil trains rumbling up and down the central California Coast appears to be dead. The oil company announced Monday it is giving up the fight to secure county approval.
Oil giant Phillips 66 has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against San Luis Obispo County - that challenged the denial of permits to build a rail spur starting in Nipomo that would have facilitated transport of millions of gallons of flammable oil each year.
Attorney Alicia Roessler with the Environmental Defense Center, who worked on the case, says residents from multiple cities opposed the oil train project for safety reasons.
"And it's just a very, very dangerous project that has significant hazards from dangerous explosions, and these rail trains have horrific rail accidents and just a terrible record for that," she explains.
In 2013, an oil train derailment caused a massive fire in Quebec that killed 47 people. Phillips 66 has said the line would diversify oil supply in the state.
Roessler notes that this project would have allowed more than 2 million gallons of oil to pass through dozens of communities every week.
"If the project was approved it would have allowed up to five 80-car trains each carrying more than 26,000 gallons of crude oil through Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties each week," she says.
Multiple community groups opposed the project, including the Surfrider Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Stand.Earth and Communities for a Better Environment.http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2017-10-03/childrens-issues/oil-train-project-stopped-in-its-tracks-as-company-drops-fight/a59664-1
-
EPA Says No Update on Ozone Designations as NRDC Threatens Lawsuit
Oct 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA says it has “no further information” about when it will issue designations for which areas of the United States are either attaining or in nonattainment with the 2015 ozone standard after appearing to miss a Clean Air Act deadline of Oct. 1 for the findings, and environmentalists are threatening a suit to force issuance of the designations.
Under the air law, EPA has two years from the issuance of a new national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) to issue final designations, which triggers an air law timeline for states to craft state implementation plans outlining the air pollution control measures they will impose in order to either stay in attainment or get out of nonattainment. EPA finalized its revised ozone NAAQS Oct. 1, 2015, making the designations deadline Oct. 1 this year.
EPA has statutory power to delay designations by one year if the administrator deems there to be insufficient data to make a decision. However, when Administrator Scott Pruitt formally delayed all designations by one year in June without any prior notice, he drew an immediate legal challenge from environmentalists and 15 states. Critics said his claim that data was missing from all states was not plausible, or legally defensible.
Pruitt in August then changed course and scrapped the one-year delay, leaving in place the Oct. 1 deadline to designate areas for the 2015 NAAQS. The Obama EPA set the NAAQS at 70 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the prior limit set in 2008 of 75 ppb. EPA indicated that it might designate some areas by Oct. 1, but delay others.
State air regulators note that for air law procedural reasons, EPA cannot now issue on-time designations for areas where EPA and states disagree over states' recommended designations, or where states disagree with each other. States have said the delay in designations has created major problems for their air quality planning.
As of late Oct. 2, however, EPA appeared not to have issued any area designations for the new ozone standard. An EPA spokesperson tells Inside EPA only, “We have no further information at this time.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the groups that sued Pruitt over his initial delay, could sue EPA over the failure to issue all designations by Oct. 1. In a Sept. 29 statement, NRDC warned that if he “tries the same delaying tactic again now, he should expect legal action to force him to to follow the law again.”
Pruitt may attempt to “low-ball the number of areas suffering from unhealthy amounts of smog,” or “deem an area in compliance with the standard if the agency claims it doesn’t have enough information to deem it otherwise. This option lends itself to abuse by an administration seeking to low-ball the number of areas identified with unsafe ozone levels because most U.S. counties don’t have ozone monitors,” NRDC says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-says-no-update-ozone-designations-nrdc-threatens-lawsuit
-
Environmentalists Fight EPA Ozone 'Backsliding' Argument
Oct 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists in a new legal filing say EPA “misses the point” in its defense of an agency rule implementing Bush-era ozone air standards that critics argue allows “backsliding” or weakening of emissions controls, after EPA recently told a federal appeals court that measures to prevent such an outcome remain in effect.
In a Sept. 29 letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, environmentalists challenging the March 2016 rule reject EPA claims that anti-backsliding steps remain in effect in state implementation plans (SIPs) outlining measures for NAAQS attainment, even after the rule revoked an earlier NAAQS.
The Obama EPA in the 2016 rule revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS, expressed as 84 ppb, but environmental groups say revoking the prior standard results in weakening of pollution controls, in violation of D.C. Circuit precedent.
At Sept. 14 oral argument in South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), et al. v. EPA, et al. Justice Department (DOJ) lawyers for EPA insisted that measures remain in effect in states' SIPs crafted to meet the 1997 NAAQS, even after that standard is revoked.
DOJ in a Sept. 22 letter to the court provided Federal Register and other citations to back its arguments on anti-backsliding provisions in SIPs, and also to defend the agency's use of a “redesignation substitute” procedure to determine when such measures can be lifted following the revocation of an older NAAQS.
But environmentalists in their response letter say “EPA’s letter misses the point.” They say, “revocation of the 1997 standard eliminated the Clean Air Act’s mandates for adoption of additional, more stringent measures triggered by an area’s failure to timely attain the 1997 standard -- measures beyond those already in place (including measures retained under anti-backsliding rules).”
Further, “Because it dropped the Act’s mandates for those additional, stronger controls, EPA’s revocation was arbitrary and unlawful.”
Environmentalists note that the revocation results in the lifting of certain new source review permit requirements, and also requirements that transportation projects that generate additional air emissions “conform” to SIP measures to attain NAAQS.
Further, they again reject as illegitimate EPA's “redesignation substitute,” saying that the agency cannot construct an alternative process for areas to be redesignated from “nonattainment” to “attainment” for a given NAAQS. “EPA uses substitute redesignation to treat areas as if they had won redesignation to attainment -- and thus may weaken, avoid, or eliminate antipollution controls,” environmentalists write.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-fight-epa-ozone-backsliding-argument
-
House Dem Plan Calls for Climate 'Leadership'
Oct 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
House Democrats plan to resurrect their clean energy and climate focus if they regain the majority, according to an alternative budget they unveiled yesterday ahead of this week's floor debate on the GOP's own blueprint.
The Democrats' largely symbolic document, unveiled yesterday by Budget ranking member John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), emphasizes both energy independence and climate change, which were hallmark issues of the 110th and 111th Congresses under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the current minority leader.
Pelosi convened a select committee on energy independence and climate issues early in her tenure as speaker, and later oversaw passage — by a slim margin — of a comprehensive cap-and-trade and energy bill in June 2009.
Efforts to pass a companion faltered in the Senate, and Republicans retook control of the House during the November 2010 elections, effectively ending efforts to legislate a comprehensive solution to climate change.
House Democrats' new plan vows continued funding for research into innovative clean energy technologies to fight global warming.
Specifically, the Democrats' blueprint would create a "deficit-neutral reserve fund" — essentially a legislative placeholder in budget parlance — for "increasing energy independence and security" through policies that advance clean energy.
Among the policy mechanisms detailed in the Democrats' budget, which is likely to be offered as an alternative to the GOP majority's plan this week, are tax breaks that encourage renewable power and efficiency, investments in "emerging clean energy or vehicle technologies" or carbon capture and sequestration, tighter policing of oil and gas markets to limit speculation, clean tech job training, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Republicans, in contrast, have been using the budget process to push their pro-development message, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (E&E Daily, Oct. 2).
A second section of the Democrats' budget, titled "Policy of the House on Climate Change Science," reiterates long-standing scientific conclusions by U.S. government agencies and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about the risks of climate change, while also noting the Government Accountability Office's findings that a warming world poses "a significant financial risk" to the government.
The document also references current Defense Secretary James Mattis' testimony before the Senate Armed Services panel earlier this year, during which he highlighted climate change as a "driver of instability" that the Pentagon "must pay attention to."
"The most vulnerable among us, including children, the elderly, low-income individuals, and those with underlying health conditions, face even greater health risks as a result of climate change," states the Democrats' budget, which would define as House policy that "climate change presents a significant public health, environmental, and financial risk to the United States."
Democrats would further define House policy on climate to encourage international engagement. "The United States must continue to play a leadership role on climate change policy and should not retreat from global commitments on climate change," says the minority's budget.
"Congress must provide robust funding for climate change science, which provides critical information for protecting human health, defending the United States, and preserving economic and environmental systems throughout the world."
The Democratic plan also backs $1 trillion in investment in infrastructure, including highways, schools, drinking water systems and energy projects. It "reflects the needs and priorities of the American people," Yarmuth said in a statement.
"Unlike the Republican proposal, which betrays hardworking families to give massive tax breaks to the wealthy, our budget invests in education, infrastructure, health care, and our national security. It will create economic growth, good-paying jobs, and opportunities for all Americans. It is a responsible budget that values the American people above all else."
Clean energy and climate change could also resurface when the Senate Budget Committee marks up its own budget resolution tomorrow and Thursday.
Both issues have been longtime priorities for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member on the Budget panel, as well as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and other Democrats on the committee.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/10/03/stories/1060062369
-
Earlier 2020 Primary Could Boost Climate Debate, Green Issues
Oct 3, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's decision to move its primary elections to March could push climate and other environmental issues onto the national stage, giving those a prominence not seen in past presidential campaigns, political experts said.
The schedule switch signed into law last week by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) comes as a bid by the nation's most populous state to play a bigger role in picking the president. Last year California held its primary in June.
"The Golden State will no longer be relegated to last place in the presidential nominating process," said Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D).
"Candidates will not be able to ignore the largest, most diverse state in the nation as they seek our country's highest office," Padilla said. "California has been a leader time and time again on the most important issues facing our country — including immigration, education, and the environment."
Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., a nonpartisan group that analyzes voting records, was more direct.
"Overall what we're essentially doing is saying the state would rather be earlier in the process rather than waiting til the end," he said.
California now would hold its primary after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. It would be held on "Super Tuesday," March 3, along with six other states, including Virginia.
As things stand now, however, it would be before other states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the Frontloading HQ blog. Many states have not yet scheduled their 2020 elections, however, so things could change.
If presidential primary candidates in 2020 or other cycles campaign earlier and more aggressively in California, environmental issues will grab greater attention, said Darry Sragow, veteran political strategist and publisher of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan guide on congressional and state races.
With California toward the front end of the primary calendar, as opposed the very end, issues such as clean air, clean water and vehicle emissions are likely to be front and center on candidates' minds, he said.
"If California becomes the focus of more attention by presidential candidates, we're going to be hearing a lot more about those issues than if other states, where those issues are less important, remain the focus," he added.
More popular than Lady Gaga
California offers a big prize in terms of delegates as a result of its size. The Democratic Party awards those proportionately in the Golden State. Last year Hillary Clinton won 325 and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) nabbed 222. Before that June election, Clinton technically had enough delegates to take the nomination but waited until after the contest to claim it.
The Republican primary winner takes all the California delegates. Donald Trump, at that time still a candidate, had locked up the nomination before June and didn't need the state's 172 delegates in 2016.
Dan Jacobson, Environment California state director, said he hoped the earlier California primary would highlight green issues. With Iowa having an early primary, he said, ethanol has gotten a lot of attention, even though it's a small part of the nation's energy portfolio.
"If presidential candidates have to start coming to California and they're going to do their stump speeches, etc., in front of solar farms and wind farms and distributed generation, factories producing solar panels, does that mean we can get a lot more attention?" Jacobson asked.
He said it also could prompt senators interested in running for president to support clean energy solutions because "they'll want to brag about things they've already done, not what they're planning to do as president."
Californians overwhelmingly support green solutions, he said. A June poll from the Public Policy Institute of California found 76 percent of adults supported the state passing a measure requiring 100 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewables by 2045.
Republicans questioned in that survey supported the renewables measure 53 percent. Independents 71 percent and Democrats 81 percent.
"Lady Gaga doesn't have numbers as good as that in California," Jacobson quipped.
Debate questions on climate
An earlier primary in California, if it's prominent, could mean televised debates in the state in late-February, said Mitchell, who also writes blogs for Capitol Weekly, a publication of Open California, a nonprofit focused on governance issues.
Journalists asking questions in those debates likely would ask about environmental issues such as climate change and renewable energy, Mitchell said.
"In California they're going to be asked about these issues in a way they wouldn't be asked in New Hampshire or Iowa," he added, noting this will help bring greater attention to the issues nationally.
It's not clear yet, however, if the move to March will work precisely as intended.
In 2008 California moved its primary to February and other states followed suit. That year 24 states and American Samoa held primaries Feb. 5, a day dubbed "Super Duper Tuesday."
California's contest was not decisive. Clinton won the state's Democratic primary and claimed 204 delegates. Obama received 166. At the end of day, Clinton had 1,056 delegates to Obama's 1,036. Their battle stretched on for four more months, with Obama clinching the nomination.
In 2008, however, even after other states moved up their primaries, Mitchell noted in a Capitol Weekly blog post, California on the Democratic side represented one-third of the total delegates awarded on Super Tuesday.
In 2012 California moved its primary back to June. This was done in part to appease the state Legislature and congressional candidates who didn't like the early primary because it required fundraising during the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons and precinct walking in January.
Looking ahead to 2020, energy and environment issues might factor in for Democrats, they're unlikely to play a role in the Republican nomination, even if California takes on new significance, said Kevin Spillane, a Republican strategist. If President Trump runs for re-election, "in all likelihood" he's the nominee, he said. So far Trump hasn't supported most green issues.
If it's an open race, "then the dynamics change somewhat," Spillane said. However, "the reality is for Republican voters, that's not as important an issue as it is for some Democrats. Republicans here are more pro-environmental than people realize," but it's "not a voting issue."
Spillane said even Democrats don't vote primarily on environmental issues and that they focus on jobs, taxes, housing, other cost-of-living issues and education.
Sragow said while that's true, positions on environment issues could still influence voters. If Democratic candidates agree on health care, for example, approaches to dealing with environmental issues "might make a huge difference."
Boosting Calif. candidates?
Campaigning in California is expensive and logistically difficult because of its size. That's why candidates have preferred to start in smaller states that include Iowa and New Hampshire, Spillane said.
"They will create momentum for a front-runner and make them household names, where you don't have to spend $10 million on California TV, or $20 million on California TV to be known," he said. "If you win New Hampshire, if you win Iowa, you're going to be a major factor in the California primary. If can get enough media, you can get enough name identification."
Spillane noted that Trump during the Republican primary contest "got $2 billion in free TV time" and that his opponents largely were ignored.
There's some disagreement on whether an earlier state primary might help a California candidate for president, should Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) or Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) decide to run.
Spillane said he doesn't believe either candidate would be a front-runner, even with an early California contest.
"Harris and Garcetti are both inflated in terms of their political reputations," Spillane said. "Once you get them out there" in a presidential nomination contest "others will be more likely to shine," he said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Sanders "will be formidable and they already are household names in California," he said. "They're better known than Kamala Harris or Eric Garcetti."
Mitchell in his Capitol Weekly blog said Garcetti could combine delegates from California with "the heavily Latino Democratic electorate in Texas and Nevada." Together that could account for 56 percent of total delegates awarded.
Harris could pool California votes with those in the "heavily African-American states of South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia," he wrote.
"Combine the California base with these Southern African-American states, and even throw in the heavily Asian-American Samoa, and you've got Kamala Harris with a geographic base, which comprises 68 [percent] of the delegates awarded," Mitchell said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/10/03/stories/1060062379
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested