Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/14/17
-
Moderate Democrat Calls It Quits
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Texas Rep. Gene Green, a moderate from an energy-heavy district, will not seek re-election next year, vacating a Democratic stronghold in a deeply red state. -
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto (MON) Premium Herbicide Declared Non-Carcinogenic
Nov 14, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The latest research conducted by the National Cancer Institute ('NCI') confirmed that Monsanto Company's MON divisive herbicide - Roundup - is not carcinogenic. The company's share price moved up to $118.15 on Nov 13, after the news surfaced last Thursday. -
(ACC Mentioned) “Tore Apart Our Happy Home”: Another Chemical Embraced By Dourson And Beck Is Contaminating The Drinking Water Supply In Memphis And Across The Country
Nov 14, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison |
That lyric from a Chuck Berry signature song, “Memphis, Tennessee,” takes on a haunting new meaning in light of the latest evidence of contamination of the Memphis Sand aquifer, a main drinking water source for the city, with the highly toxic solvent tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene (PCE), or more commonly PERC). Lest there be any doubt about the human toll this is taking, read this local woman’s heart-wrenching story. -
EPA Chemical Choice A Bad One
Nov 14, 2017 | Burlington Times News
Some of President Trump’s appointments to federal office have been, to put it mildly, a bit out there. -
The Energy 202
Nov 14, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Up next in Congress: Michael Dourson, President Trump’s pick to lead the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, has not yet advanced to the Senate floor for a vote, which The Intercept’s Sharon Lerner writes may be an “indication that Republicans don’t yet have the votes” to confirm him. -
Consumer Health Victory: Seven Major Retailers Commit to Reduce Use of Toxic Chemicals in Products and Packaging
Nov 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
Just in time for the holiday shopping season, today the Mind the Store campaign released its second annual report card on toxic chemicals in consumer products, which found that one-third of 30 major U.S. retailers are leaders, but two-thirds remain serious laggards. -
Senate Banking Bill Would Address Lead, Asbestos Risks
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar,
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee is set to release a bill that would make it easier for governments to use federal dollars to address risks posed by lead and asbestos in homes. -
Commission To Step Up Customs Rules To Enforce REACH At EU Borders
Nov 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has put forward regulatory measures, as well as recommendations and guidelines, to clarify the role of the customs authorities in enforcing REACH, and to promote a harmonised approach to goods entering the trade bloc. -
Echa Urged To Pre-Release Enforcement Questionnaires
Nov 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Questionnaires used by REACH enforcement officers should be published prior to inspections, to allow companies time to prepare properly, delegates heard at Chemical Watch's enforcement summit in Brussels. -
Third EU Authorisation Enforcement Project To Cover Chromates
Nov 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The third authorisation pilot project, to be carried out by EU national enforcement authorities (NEAs) in 2019, will cover chromates with sunset dates that have passed. -
(ACC Mentioned) Should the U.S. Limit Exports of Natural Gas?
Nov 14, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Paul Cicio, and Anna Mikulska
President Donald Trump in June announced to the world an age of “energy dominance” by the U.S. -
(ACC Mentioned) Hancock County Officials Mulling Waterline Extension For Development Potential
Nov 14, 2017 | The Exponent Telegram
By Linda Harris
Hancock County officials are looking at extending public water lines to an undeveloped area near Mountaineer Casino that's been getting a lot of attention from companies doing site reconaissance. -
U.S. Set To Lead World In Fossil Fuel Exports — IEA
Nov 14, 2017 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
The United States is poised to lead the world in crude and gas production, the International Energy Agency said today. -
Enviros Push Back On FERC Bid To Keep Fla. Pipeline Flowing
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental lawyers are urging a federal court to keep a natural gas pipeline out of service until regulators complete a closer review of climate impacts. -
Taking Back Renewable Energy’s Taxpayer-Funded Honeypot
Nov 14, 2017 | The Hill
By Merrill Matthews
The renewable energy industry — which includes wind power, solar, biofuels made from corn or other organic substances — exists because of government mandates and taxpayer subsidies. -
Nebraska Regulators Set To Decide On Keystone XL
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The Nebraska Public Service Commission will announce its decision Monday on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. -
Utility Planners To Push Grid Past 'Breaking Point'
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Utility executives across North America will wake up facing a harrowing combo of cyber and physical threats tomorrow during a simulated attack on the bulk power system. -
Vermont Railway Systems Official Responds To Concerns About Rail Tankers
Nov 14, 2017 | Bennington Banner
By Jim Therrien
A Vermont Railway System official said Monday that the long line of rail tanker cars parked on tracks in North Bennington was placed strategically in response to past wintertime shortages of propane gas in the region. -
The U.S. Is Tackling Global Warming, Even if Trump Isn’t
Nov 14, 2017 | The New York Times
By Michael r. Bloomberg and Jerry Brown
World leaders have been meeting in Bonn, Germany, since last week to discuss carrying out the 2015 Paris climate agreement. -
'Alliance of World Scientists' Launches With Dire Warning
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
More than 15,000 scientists have issued a "warning to humanity" that it will soon be too late to prevent catastrophic environmental damage to the Earth. -
White House Booed For Promoting 'Realities' Of Fossil Fuels
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
A White House roundtable on fossil fuels and nuclear energy became an outlet for international rage at President Trump, who has disdained the world's work to contain climate change. -
Judge To Hold Arguments In Exxon Suit Against New York, Massachusetts AGs
Nov 14, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
A federal judge said today she will hold oral arguments on Nov. 30 over whether to dismiss Exxon Mobil’s lawsuit against the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, Eric Schneiderman and Maura Healey.
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
-
Moderate Democrat Calls It Quits
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Texas Rep. Gene Green, a moderate from an energy-heavy district, will not seek re-election next year, vacating a Democratic stronghold in a deeply red state.
Green took over his seat in the 29th District in 1993 after two decades in the Texas Legislature. In a statement last night, he said his decision was not for a lack of support in a district where he won with more than 70 percent of the vote in 2016.
"I have been fortunate to have never lost an election since 1972 and I am confident that I still have the support of my constituents and would be successful if I ran for another term in Congress," he said. "I think that it is time for me to be more involved in the lives of our children and grandchildren."
Green, who turned 70 last month, told E&E News yesterday he thinks Congress can still function effectively, citing recent bipartisan disaster relief efforts in Texas after Hurricane Harvey.
"Not that I don't like the challenges of the job," he said. "It's just that I've been here and maybe we ought to be able to do some other things."
Green's move comes amid a wave of retirements that has quickly rippled through Congress in recent months.
Fellow Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (R) said he would head for the exits earlier this month, and Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte announced his retirement Thursday.
Other recent retirements have hit the shrinking pool of congressional moderates, including Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey and Dave Reichert of Washington.
On the other side of the aisle, Green is one of the last of a breed of Democrats who take the middle road on energy and the environment.
He holds a powerful spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee but has a 65 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters, which is on the low end for a Democrat.
Green is also a supporter of boosting recreational fishing. And he's the lone Democratic co-sponsor of the controversial sportsmen's package making its way through Congress this year. The bill stalled last month as a result of concerns about a provision that would make it easier to buy gun silencers (E&E Daily, Oct. 4).
Green's successor in the Houston district could take a different stance on those issues, but the seat will likely remain in Democratic hands.
The district is heavily Hispanic, a demographic that generally leans to the left. Though he faced a challenge in the primary last year, Green beat his Republican challenger in the general by nearly 50 points.
At least two candidates, Pedro Valencia and Hector Morales, have entered next year's race on the Democratic side.
No Republican has mounted a 2018 campaign yet.
Reporter Edward Klump contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/11/14/stories/1060066431
-
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto (MON) Premium Herbicide Declared Non-Carcinogenic
Nov 14, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The latest research conducted by the National Cancer Institute ('NCI') confirmed that Monsanto Company's MON divisive herbicide - Roundup - is not carcinogenic. The company's share price moved up to $118.15 on Nov 13, after the news surfaced last Thursday.
Roundup's Glyphosate is Non-Cancerous
Monsanto's Roundup is a widely used weed killer in the United States. Several studies conducted over the last few years claimed that its primary ingredient - glyphosate - poses health problems to mankind by causing cancer. For instance, in 2015 a study conducted by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer characterized glyphosate as probably carcinogenic . Notably, critics also viewed this chemical as harmful to the environment. Such arguments forced countries like Sri Lanka and Colombia to completely ban Roundup's aerial spray.
However, some studies contradicted the industry-wide concern and stated that there is no significant relationship between cancer and glyphosate usage. The European Food Safety Authority noted that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans . In March 2017, the European Chemical Agency confirmed that the Roundup weed killer is entirely safe for public use.
The NCI collected long-term data from the Agricultural Health Study for monitoring the health status of roughly 90,000 individuals in North Carolina and Iowa from 1993 to 2010. The result revealed that there is no linkage between glyphosate and cancer.
Agro-Chemical Industry in Focus
Amid concerns like volatile demand and input cost pressure, the global seed, traits and agricultural chemical industry is anticipated to gain momentum on the back of shale gas revolution in the United States. Per the American Chemistry Council, the U.S. shale boom has carved path for 310 new chemical projects. New provisions of natural gas have captured chemical investors' attention in the country. Moreover, the rebounding construction market and a resilient automotive sector are expected to propel this industry's near-term growth. We note that the Zacks Agricultural Products industry is currently placed at the top 30% out of the 256 Zacks Industries.
However, we also notice that new profit-making opportunities have triggered the degree of Monsanto's business rivalry with the worldwide agricultural chemical market. There is an ongoing trend of consolidation in the contemporary seed, trails and Zacks Agricultural Products . Swiss giant Syngenta AG SYT was successfully acquired by ChemChina for $43 billion in June 2017. Furthermore, in September 2017, The Dow Chemical Company and DuPont joined forces to form the DowDuPont Inc. DWDP .
Monsanto Displays Robust Growth
Monsanto currently carries a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) and has a VGM Score of B. Over the last year, shares of this company yielded a return of 19.2%, outperforming 16.9% growth recorded by the industry .Monsanto anticipates its fiscal 2018 earnings will likely be stronger on the back of improved Intacta penetration and pricing in South America, gains secured from the Precision Planning business spin-off (Sep 5, 2017) and increased Agriculture Productivity segment's gross profit. We believe the aforementioned NCI declaration will increase Roundup's sales and thus boost Monsanto's near-term results.
In addition, Monsanto accepted Bayer AG'S BAYRY buyout offer worth $66 billion, inclusive of debt, in September 2016. The company believes that the deal will likely open up a number of new business opportunities going forward.
Monsanto's earnings per share are predicted to be up 12.1% in the next three to five years.
You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 (Strong Buy) Rank stocks here .
Today's Stocks from Zacks' Hottest Strategies
It's hard to believe, even for us at Zacks. But while the market gained +18.8% from 2016 - Q1 2017, our top stock-picking screens have returned +157.0%, +128.0%, +97.8%, +94.7%, and +90.2% respectively.
And this outperformance has not just been a recent phenomenon. Over the years it has been remarkably consistent. From 2000 - Q1 2017, the composite yearly average gain for these strategies has beaten the market more than 11X over. Maybe even more remarkable is the fact that we're willing to share their latest stocks with you without cost or obligation.http://www.nasdaq.com/article/monsanto-mon-premium-herbicide-declared-non-carcinogenic-cm877055
-
Nov 14, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison |
That lyric from a Chuck Berry signature song, “Memphis, Tennessee,” takes on a haunting new meaning in light of the latest evidence of contamination of the Memphis Sand aquifer, a main drinking water source for the city, with the highly toxic solvent tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene (PCE), or more commonly PERC). Lest there be any doubt about the human toll this is taking, read this local woman’s heart-wrenching story.
The source of PERC in this case is a former dry cleaning business that is now a hazardous waste site, and because of Sharri Schmidt’s case is now nominated to become a Superfund site. The chemical is still widely used in dry cleaning as well as in many other uses. It’s a probable human carcinogen, and is also toxic to the brain, kidney and liver.
Unfortunately, Schmidt is far from alone. PERC contamination of drinking water is widespread in this country. To name just a few, have a look at these stories from towns and cities in North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, and New York.
Data compiled by the Environmental Working Group from local water utilities shows that PERC was detected in tap water samples taken by water utilities in 44 states that serve 19 million people.
One might hope and think that affected local communities could turn to the US Environmental Protection Agency for help in such situations. The sad truth is that under the Trump administration this may well not be the case. Trump has nominated Michael Dourson to lead EPA’s chemical safety office, who, despite the fact that he’s yet to be confirmed, is already working at EPA as a special advisor to Administrator Scott Pruitt. And Pruitt has already installed as a political appointee to that office Nancy Beck, who until May was a senior official at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the chemical industry’s main trade association.
So what do Dourson and Beck have to do with PERC?
Before they arrived at EPA, they were co-authors on a 2016 paper that was funded by ACC. That paper, published in the industry’s go-to journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, asserts that the acceptable risk levels EPA has set for 19 chemicals are all too stringent and should be relaxed by anywhere from 2.5 to 150 fold.
Among these 19 chemicals is PERC. Dourson and Beck call for EPA’s standard for the chemical to be relaxed to a level that is 12.5 times less protective.
Even more alarming, PERC is one of the first 10 chemicals that EPA is examining right now under the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA is implemented by the same office Dourson is nominated to lead and in which both he and Beck serve as politically appointed advisors.
To summarize: As I write, Dourson and Beck are making decisions that will help determine how the risks of PERC and other chemicals are assessed and whether or not they need to be regulated. Both of them have only recently worked for the chemical industry. PERC is made by numerous companies that are members of ACC, Beck’s former employer and the funder of the Dourson-Beck paper.
Yet neither of them has recused themselves from making decisions about its risk and regulatory responses. Indeed, as I noted earlier, Beck’s ethics agreement gives her wide latitude to work on issues in which ACC has financial interests in order to ensure those interests are taken into account. And in Dourson’s nomination hearing held by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on October 4, he was repeatedly asked if he would, if confirmed, recuse himself from work on chemicals he had been paid by industry to work on, and he repeatedly refused to say he would do so.
Residents of Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, New York and any other of those 44 states where PERC is contaminating drinking water simply can’t afford to entrust their health to individuals with such clear conflicts of interest. To start, they should tell their Senators to reject Dourson’s nomination to head EPA’s toxics office, and urge them to insist that political appointees who worked for the chemical industry must fully recuse themselves from such matters.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/11/14/tore-apart-our-happy-home-another-chemical-embraced-by-dourson-and-beck-is-contaminating-the-drinking-water-supply-in-memphis-and-across-the-country/
-
Nov 14, 2017 | Burlington Times News
Some of President Trump’s appointments to federal office have been, to put it mildly, a bit out there.
There was Sam Clovis, the Iowa talk-radio host appointed to be chief science adviser to the Department of Agriculture -- even though he had no training or background in science or agriculture. (Clovis withdrew after reports that he’d been involved in George Papadopoulos’ contacts with the Russians.)
There was the former manager of a muffler shop who became the Energy Department’s adviser on renewable energy; and a former bartender who landed a top Housing and Urban Development post.
The appointment of Michael Dourson to head the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution, however, takes the cake. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.
Unlike Clovis, Dourson is an actual scientist. He has, however, spent the past 20 years or so working for clients such as DuPont (former owner of Chemours), Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, defending the safety of pesticides and other chemicals. Generally, he argued that these chemicals were far less risky than EPA scientists or independent researchers believed.
Through a fluke in ethics rules, there is nothing that bars Dourson from ruling on these companies’ chemicals that he was being paid to defend a year or two ago. That’s not exactly draining the swamp.
Dourson helped DuPont defend its use of the chemical PFOA — better known as C8, the precursor to GenX — after states sued over water contamination. Starting to sound familiar?
DuPont and Chemours agreed to pay $671 million to settle thousands of C8 lawsuits. Dourson, however, insisted that the levels were safe, even though a panel of scientists convened by DuPont found a probable link with six illnesses: kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol.
Nobody expected Mr. Trump to name tree-huggers or Greenpeace activists to environmental posts. We would, though, expect at least a principled conservative with an independent mind, not someone who’s spent much of his career essentially as a paid lobbyist for the chemical industry.
This hits home especially for Southeastern North Carolina, with concern over GenX and other chemicals. Much of what the state Department of Environmental Quality does, or can do, is based on EPA standards set under the Clean Water Act. If the head EPA chemical inspector sees nothing wrong with your children drinking these chemicals at extra-high levels, all bets are off.
Here is where Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis can make a difference. Both have shown sensitivity to the GenX issue. Burr has called on the EPA to undertake a major review of its actions regarding GenX. Both have refused to commit to voting for Dourson, saying they need to further weigh the issues. Both also are very aware of the deaths and illnesses caused by chemicals in the water supply at Camp Lejeune.
When Dourson’s nomination comes before the full Senate (and it shortly will), Burr and Tillis should demand that the president name someone else. If you are ever going to contact your U.S. senator’s office about a national issue, this is it.
This isn’t about political ideology or whether you support or don’t support President Trump. This is about nothing less than the very basic safety of our drinking water.
Contacts Sens. Burr and Tillis
Sen. Thom Tillis: Washington office (202) 224-6342; Raleigh office (919) 856-4630; Email form: www.tillis.senate.gov
Sen. Richard Burr: Washington office (202) 224-3154; Winston-Salem office (800) 685-8916; Email form: www.burr.senate.gov/contact/email
http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/20171114/editorial-epa-chemical-choice-bad-one
-
Nov 14, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Up next in Congress: Michael Dourson, President Trump’s pick to lead the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, has not yet advanced to the Senate floor for a vote, which The Intercept’s Sharon Lerner writes may be an “indication that Republicans don’t yet have the votes” to confirm him. While the Trump administration has signaled that industry experience won’t stand in the way of nominees to the EPA, there seems to be a hold up with Dourson. Red state Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin (W-Va.) has said he will oppose him, and the Intercept reported that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is also expected to vote against him. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who has been leading the effort against Dourson, told The Intercept that “I know some of our Republican colleagues don’t feel good about the votes they cast on the floor.” He added: “After casting votes for one troubling nominee after the other after the other, you reach a point where some of the Republicans will say, Enough already. No more.”
-- Meanwhile: A group of nearly five dozen former EPA attorneys slammed the agency's new "sue and settle" policy. More from The Hill: "Dozens of former [EPA] attorneys are assailing the Trump administration’s policy meant to curb legal settlements with environmental groups. The 57 attorneys, who all served in nonpolitical career roles, accused EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt of deliberately misrepresenting legal settlement practices and the work of attorneys both at the EPA and the Justice Department."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/11/14/the-energy-202-house-gop-wants-to-water-down-tax-breaks-for-wind-energy-the-senate-is-unlikely-to-let-it/5a09e69330fb045a2e002fd9/?utm_term=.e6179df0bce0
-
Nov 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
Second Annual Report Card Also Identifies Nine Retailers Receiving Failing Grades
Washington, DC – Just in time for the holiday shopping season, today the Mind the Store campaign released its second annual report card on toxic chemicals in consumer products, which found that one-third of 30 major U.S. retailers are leaders, but two-thirds remain serious laggards. The report, Who’s Minding the Store? — A Report Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals, includes evaluations of nineteen retailers for the first time.
Overall, eleven retailers evaluated in both 2016 and 2017 have showed substantial improvements in the past year, raising their grade from an average of D+ to C. Seven of these eleven retailers announced significant improvements over the last year alone: Albertsons Companies, Best Buy, Costco, CVS Health, The Home Depot, Target, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. released new safer chemicals policies or initiatives. This improvement shows both the impact of the Mind the Store Campaign, as well as growing consumer concern and scientific evidence of health impacts from dangerous chemicals.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store Campaign Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, and report co-author said, “We are thrilled that major retailers like Walmart, CVS Health, and Target are driving a race to the top to eliminate dangerous chemicals that threaten our families’ health. At the same time, far too many are lagging behind, failing to meet the rising consumer demand for healthy products. This holiday season, retailers should give us the gift of a toxic-free future.”
Apple, Wal-Mart Stores, CVS Health, Ikea, Whole Foods Market, and Target received the highest grades, scoring a B+ or above. These companies are setting the pace for the entire retail sector by making meaningful progress toward safer chemicals in products. Meanwhile the report reveals that some retailers like Amazon, Walgreens, and Staples are developing chemicals policies. Walgreens and Staples plan to launch their chemicals policies in 2018.
However, 70% of the retailers evaluated remain serious laggards, earning D’s and F’s, for failing to publicly announce basic safer chemical policies to ensure the chemical safety of their products and supply chain. Nine retailers received a failing grade of “F”: Ace Hardware, grocery chain owner Ahold Delhaize, Dollar General, Kohl’s, Office Depot, Sally Beauty, TJX, Toys “R” Us / Babies “R” Us, and Trader Joe’s. All of these, except for Toys “R” Us / Babies “R” Us, received 0 out of 135 possible points.
The report also found that, over the past three years, at least a dozen retailers achieved significant reductions or elimination of dangerous chemicals in the products they carry, far ahead of any government-imposed restrictions. Unfortunately, nearly one-half of the 30 retailers evaluated have not publicly reported any progress in reducing or eliminating chemicals of concern over the past three years.
For a full list of the retailers with their letter and corresponding number grades along with the methodology used, please go to: RetailerReportCard.com. This new, interactive website enables users to view and sort retailers by their grades and consumer product sector. Consumers can also use the report website to email and “Tweet” to companies, urging them to improve.
Mike Belliveau, co-author of the report and Executive Director of Environmental Health Strategy Center, said “Retailers remain on the frontline of consumer discontent with the chemical safety of everyday products. The good news is that some are making the grade, but too many are failing to take the most basic public steps to eliminate dangerous chemicals from the products they buy and sell.”
Bobbi Wilding, coordinator of the Getting Ready for Baby campaign and deputy director of Clean and Healthy New York, said “Babies are especially vulnerable to chemicals of concern. You’d expect that stores catering to their needs would be leading the pack in this report, right? But Babies”R”Us got an F, and despite some recent improvements, buybuy BABY has only earned a D+, ranking 12th of the 30 companies surveyed. We call on both companies to make 2018 a year of vast improvement. Families deserve nothing less.”
Jose Bravo, Coordinator of the Campaign for Healthier Solutions, said “It’s disappointing to see the nation’s largest dollar store chains got low or failing grades on hazardous chemicals in their products, but it probably isn’t surprising to many people. When consumers start to expect your products to be dangerous it should serve as a wake-up call that more is needed. It’s time for Dollar General and Dollar Tree to join other major retailers and enact broad corporate policies to protect their shoppers’ families from toxic chemicals, especially because many dollar store shoppers can’t always afford to make safer choices.”
Tom Hucker, Safer Chemicals Advocate for NRDC, said “The Trump Administration is not going to protect you from toxic chemicals. It’s up to retailers to disclose dangerous chemicals in products they sell and to phase them out quickly. This new report card identifies those retailers working to reduce the risk to families and others that don’t seem to care.”
To evaluate retailers’ policies, the Mind the Store campaign, the Getting Ready for Baby campaign, and the Campaign for Healthier Solutions collected and reviewed publicly available information about corporate safer chemicals programs, and shared draft findings with retailers to provide them an opportunity to review the conclusions, disclose additional information, and make new public commitments towards safer chemicals.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/consumer-health-victory-seven-major-retailers-commit-to-reduce-use-of-toxic-chemicals-in-products-and-packaging/
-
Senate Banking Bill Would Address Lead, Asbestos Risks
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar,
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee is set to release a bill that would make it easier for governments to use federal dollars to address risks posed by lead and asbestos in homes.
The measure is part of the bipartisan package aimed mainly at rolling back Obama-era regulations on Wall Street banks. It would authorize "the Department of Treasury to use loan guarantees and credit enhancements as part of the Hardest Hit Fund to remediate lead and asbestos hazards in residential properties," according to a bill summary released yesterday.
The Hardest Hit Fund was established in 2010 "to provide targeted aid to families in states hit hard by the economic and housing market downturn," a Treasury Department webpage on the program says.
Treasury oversees the fund as part of its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was established after the 2008 financial crisis. But states are responsible for handing out money provided to them via the fund.
The lead and asbestos provision of the forthcoming Senate bill seems targeted at addressing some concerns about the fund raised last year by the special inspector general for TARP.
An audit of the program found it's "significantly vulnerable to the substantial risks of unfair competitive practices and overcharging."
Specifically, the audit flagged "payments being made to an entirely different set of recipients than the struggling homeowners who the program was originally intended to benefit." While they were originally earmarked for homeowners, some funds were instead flowing to contractors responsible for asbestos remediation and demolition jobs.
The summary suggests members of the Senate panel are eager to formally repurpose the fund for use in public health efforts. The bill is being led by Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) with the support of Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Warner of Virginia and others.
The House Financial Services Committee doesn't appear to share the same concerns. There are no lead and asbestos provisions in H.R. 10 or H.R. 3312, two major banking bills that the lower chamber has advanced so far this year.
Lead is a heavy metal used for decades in home paints and water service lines. It is a potent neurotoxin that devastates developing brains.
Still reeling from the Flint water crisis, Michigan considered trying to use the Treasury fund to remove private service lines in the city.
The Detroit News reported last year the Michigan State Housing Development Authority was considering using $10 million of a $13.9 million grant to fund lead pipe removals. It is unclear whether the state followed through with that plan.
Drinking water in Flint became contaminated in 2014 when the city began sourcing water from the Flint River, corroding old pipes. As of July, 10 percent of Flint's lead pipes had been replaced, with the rest on track for removal by 2020.
Despite high-profile instances of lead poisoning from water, lead paint is the leading cause of lead poisoning in young children.
Asbestos is a carcinogenic mineral that was once prized for its flame-resistant qualities. Until the 1970s, it was widely used in tiles, shingles, insulation and other home products.
Reporter Ariel Wittenberg contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/14/stories/1060066501
-
Commission To Step Up Customs Rules To Enforce REACH At EU Borders
Nov 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has put forward regulatory measures, as well as recommendations and guidelines, to clarify the role of the customs authorities in enforcing REACH, and to promote a harmonised approach to goods entering the trade bloc.
Harmful substances entering the European Union as part of imported articles, which are not in themselves within the scope of REACH, have been underlined as one of the major failings of European chemicals legislation.
The Commission says customs authorities "can and should" ensure compliance with REACH in line with Article 3(c) of the Union Customs Code (UCC). This calls for them to put in place measures, aimed at "the security and safety of the Union and its residents, and the protection of the environment".
Article 46 of UCC gives the customs authorities general powers to verify REACH compliance of goods, the Commission says in a report. A member state can confer specific enforcement powers on its REACH authorities, but this does not supersede the customs authorities' powers under customs law.
The Commission has suggested the introduction of:implementing measures to ensure uniform application of customs controls, including common risk criteria and standards on the basis of Article 50 UCC;implementing measures on the roles of the customs authorities for REACH enforcement on the basis of Article 132 of REACH; andimplementing measures, adopted in the framework of the future Market Surveillance Regulation.
The Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) will consider these, at their meeting on 15-16 November.
In addition, the Echa forum for harmonised REACH enforcement may carry out recommendations, training and pilot projects and produce guidance documents in cooperation with the Commission and customs authorities, the Commission's report says.
Member states can empower REACH authorities and/or customs authorities to detain and seize substances, and ensure close cooperation between them, it adds. Both types of authorities would "probably need to exchange relevant data and there may be a need for specific criteria on risk management."Request for clarification
The report comes in response to several requests from member states, asking Brussels to clarify the role of customs.
The objectives of REACH and customs legislation differ fundamentally in that customs law focuses on the external aspects of the internal market, whereas REACH aims at the free circulation of substances within it.
However, the report emphasises that "customs controls are not limited to the enforcement of customs legislation", while REACH also "applies to substances placed under various customs procedures and even to temporary storage", where specific conditions of an exemption are not fulfilled.
The issue of hazardous chemicals in imported articles is also likely to be considered as part of the EU's non-toxic strategy, expected to be finalised next year.
And last year, German environment agency UBA said extending REACH authorisation to substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in imported articles would not violate WTO rules, and that the issue would be on the table in the Commission's second REACH Review, due to be concluded in January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61050/commission-to-step-up-customs-rules-to-enforce-reach-at-eu-borders
-
Echa Urged To Pre-Release Enforcement Questionnaires
Nov 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Questionnaires used by REACH enforcement officers should be published prior to inspections, to allow companies time to prepare properly, delegates heard at Chemical Watch's enforcement summit in Brussels.
One of the main conclusions of the REACH Review, published in 2013, was the need to have a harmonised approach towards enforcement in member states. Questionnaires are created for each enforcement project and these are given to all national enforcement authorities (NEAs) to be used by their inspectors.
During a Q&A, that followed a session covering key enforcement issues, some delegates said they would like to receive these documents prior to inspections.
Sylvaine Duarri of car manufacturer Mazda asked representatives of the European Commission and Echa's enforcement forum that if they were not willing to publish the questionnaire, would the agency consider producing some guidance instead. This could include, she said, a checklist of what documents would be required during the inspection, how they should be organised and any other information requirements that could help companies prepare.
DG policy officer, Miquel Aguado-Monsonet, responded by saying there are already "hundreds of pages" of guidance on REACH and CLP compliance and information requirements and therefore it "isn't necessary".
He gave the example of safety data sheets (SDSs), where the legislation is "clear" on what is required, as well as guidance on the different sections of what needs to be included in an SDS.
Johan Nouwen, head of unit at Echa's support, forum and HelpNet secretariat, agreed saying "Echa has produced a hierarchy of guidance documents, which fully explain the compliance obligations in detail."
These provide the information, "so if companies were compliant there wouldn't be an issue with these questionnaires," he added.Goal of harmonisation
The Echa enforcement forum has discussed whether the questionnaires should be published, before an enforcer carries out an inspection.
Mike Potts, inspector for the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE), said that the general consensus was that they would not be released. "The main purpose is to ensure that all inspectors ask the same questions, so that when the level of non-compliance is highlighted, we are comparing like for like."
Using the example of SDS inspection, Mr Potts said the questionnaire would ask what a company would expect, for example: is it labelled and classified properly? Does it contain a phone number?
"All the information a company needs to be compliant with a safety data sheet is already in Annex II and the plethora of guidance that the European Commission and member states have published."
Companies, he added, should not think there is anything secretive in the questionnaires and that the aim is to catch them out. "It's not about that. It's about ensuring consistency across inspections."
The forum decided against making the questionnaire available because a company may simply respond to the questions, Mr Potts said. This may be specific to SDSs for example, and the company may consider itself compliant. However, an enforcer carrying out an inspection may ask other questions, on, for example, registration and restriction issues.
However, moderator of the session, Jean-Philippe Montfort, partner at Brussels law firm Mayer Brown, said companies are not wanting to know if REACH enforcers are going to focus on sections three and four of the SDS, or on substance X on the authorisation list, for example. They instead want to know if certain administrative requirements will be asked of them.
"For example, enforcers may want to ensure workers have access to SDSs. This means that the company needs to make preparations for the inspector to be shown where the staff work and access is available. Or if, for example, only Polish staff work in a German facility, do they need to have a Polish language SDS?
"Companies are not necessarily going to think about these type of questions, and if these are the type inspectors have, then what is the problem in sharing them with companies?" he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61037/echa-urged-to-pre-release-enforcement-questionnaires
-
Third EU Authorisation Enforcement Project To Cover Chromates
Nov 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The third authorisation pilot project, to be carried out by EU national enforcement authorities (NEAs) in 2019, will cover chromates with sunset dates that have passed.
According to the Echa's website, there are 13 chromates on the REACH authorisation list that have sunset dates before or in 2019 (see box below).
Speaking at Chemical Watch's enforcement summit in Brussels, vice chair of Echa's enforcement forum, Sinead McMickan, said that the scope of the project – and whether it will cover all the chromates – is yet to be defined.
The forum members must discuss the scope in detail next year, said Ms McMickan.
She added that there is no particular reason why the chemical group has been chosen, except that "all substances whose sunset dates have passed may be checked and these include the chromates".
The focus of the authorisation project will be to check that those companies placing on the market and/or using the substances, have the authorisation in place and use it accordingly.
During the forum's second pilot project – which ran from January to October 2016 – national enforcement authorities (NEAs) checked the marketing and/or use of substances subject to authorisation. It marked the first time NEAs also reviewed, where relevant, compliance with conditions laid down in the decisions.
The project revealed that about 90% of European companies are in compliance with their REACH authorisation obligations.
Last week, Echa's enforcement forum held its third and final meeting of the year. It discussed, among other things, the results of the REF-4 project, which covered restricted substances.
Sunset dates for chromates on the REACH authorisation list
· lead chromate, lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red – May 2015;
· chromium trioxide – September 2017;
· sodium, potassium and ammonium dichromate – September 2017;
· potassium and sodium chromate – September 2017;
· dichromium tris(chromate) – January 2019;
· strontium chromate – January 2019;
· potassium hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate(1-) – January 2019; and
· pentazinc chromate octahydroxide – January 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61036/third-eu-authorisation-enforcement-project-to-cover-chromates
-
(ACC Mentioned) Should the U.S. Limit Exports of Natural Gas?
Nov 14, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Paul Cicio, and Anna Mikulska
President Donald Trump in June announced to the world an age of “energy dominance” by the U.S.
More drilling for oil and gas and new incentives for nuclear energy are part of the Trump administration’s plans to enlarge the already huge U.S. footprint in increasingly competitive global energy markets.
Another part of the plan: more exports of natural gas. The U.S. has become a major player in international natural-gas markets in recent years. Improved drilling techniques, including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, along with technological developments that have boosted the industry’s ability to liquefy natural gas for shipping have fueled both a global boom and a glut in natural gas.
The fast-growing global market for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, that has arisen makes U.S. supplies more exposed to international prices than before. Some fear this will raise costs for natural-gas customers within the U.S., including manufacturers.
Industry sources, meanwhile, say that natural-gas exports will create more jobs at home and help the U.S. compete globally with other exporters of natural gas, such as Russia and Iran.
Arguing against increasing U.S. exports of natural gas is Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. Anna Mikulska, a nonresident fellow in energy studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, advocates more exports.YES: Exports Raise Prices in the U.S. and Hurt Manufacturing
By Paul Cicio
Years ago, Congress decided that if natural gas were to be exported to non-free-trade-agreement, or NFTA, countries, it would have to be in the public interest. But it can’t possibly be in the public interest to export as much natural gas as the Energy Department has approved for the next few decades: an amount roughly equal to two-thirds of all of our domestic demand last year.
Low-cost, plentiful natural gas has been a critical contributor to the U.S. economy for years. Inexpensive natural gas has played a major role in the revival of manufacturing in this country. The big increase in exports that the gas industry and the Trump administration want will pressure supplies and increase the price in the U.S., as buyers overseas bid up prices—posing a significant long-term risk to the U.S. economy. Plus, gas resource estimates are highly speculative and subject to significant economic and political risk long term.
When Congress passed the Natural Gas Act, which says that the Energy Department can’t approve exports to NFTA countries without it being in the public interest, the message was clear: The U.S. economy as a whole is a priority over exports to NFTA countries.
But last year, according to the Energy Department, some 56% of U.S. LNG exports were shipped to 13 NFTA countries. Such shipments don’t constitute fair trade, nor do they follow the president’s “America First” policy for U.S. manufacturers. Shipping our LNG to NFTA countries rewards them for not having free-trade pacts with the U.S. and undermines our ability to secure bilateral fair-trade agreements. NFTA countries buying our natural gas are often the same countries that subsidize their manufacturers and apply import tariffs to prevent U.S. manufacturers from exporting products into their country.
Increasing LNG exports is damaging to the economy when prices increase to global levels, undermining our manufacturing competitiveness and jobs. Even a study sponsored by the Energy Department to justify its export approvals concluded that increased LNG exports resulted in higher natural-gas and electricity prices, decreased wages, capital and indirect tax income, and created negative impacts to manufacturing competitiveness and jobs. Gas producers, exporters and shareholders are the winners, and everyone else loses.
Australia shows what can happen when LNG exporters reach full export potential. Exporters in Australia contracted for so much of its natural gas that prices increased threefold to levels equal to what foreign LNG buyers were paying. Manufacturers’ competitiveness was severely damaged and jobs were affected.
Exporting LNG isn’t a big job creator. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that from 2010 to 2016, the oil-and-gas industry created only 22,600 direct jobs, while the manufacturing sector created 820,000. Significant job creation attributable to natural gas can only be achieved if the gas is consumed in the U.S. If it is exported, the countries buying the gas will get the job-creation benefits.
Linking our biggest, most affordable energy source more closely to international markets will mean increasing exposure of U.S. consumer prices to global volatility, price shocks and speculative international trading. The Energy Department should define public interest and complete an analysis of proposed LNG exports that includes long-term economic risk assessment. Then it should cancel NFTA approvals that aren’t in the public interest, and establish a consumer safety valve to ensure that exports won’t impose economic harm on the U.S.NO: Increasing Exports Will Have a Positive Economic Impact
By Anna Mikulska
U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas are on the way to becoming a vital part of global trade in natural gas.
The Energy Information Administration predicts LNG exports will more than triple by 2025, driven by growing international demand, record U.S. natural-gas production and added liquefaction capacity. Demand for LNG is poised to grow particularly in Asia, including China, Japan and other countries that don’t share a free-trade agreement with the U.S.
Meanwhile, some U.S. politicians and manufacturers have repeatedly asked the Energy Department not to issue new approvals for LNG exports to the so-called NFTA countries. But the Trump administration is continuing the Obama-era policy of embracing LNG exports as a way to stimulate the U.S. economy and facilitate broader aims of U.S. diplomacy. And there are good reasons for doing so.
To start, the U.S. already exports many manufactured goods, services, oil, refined products, chemicals and agricultural goods to NFTA countries. There is no reason to treat LNG differently. Shipping LNG is a commercial transaction, not a reward. If the U.S. doesn’t export its LNG, the NFTA countries will find other suppliers, including Australia, Qatar, Russia, Mozambique and possibly even Iran.
Advocates of limiting exports are concerned about depleting domestic supply and triggering an increase in domestic prices, to the detriment of U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
But even if exports were to grow to six times their 2016 levels by 2018, they will constitute only about 4% of total U.S. production. And to achieve these levels, U.S. producers must remain competitive in global markets—in other words, domestic prices of natural gas have to remain relatively low.
Though it is true that increasing LNG exports will push domestic prices up, the impacts are modest. A 2015 Energy Department study on the macroeconomic impact of increasing LNG exports finds that LNG exports have a net positive impact on U.S. GDP. And U.S. industries reliant on natural gas grow under all LNG export scenarios, even if at a slightly lower rate.
Indeed, the U.S. natural-gas abundance has already had a profound impact on gas-intensive industries, and long-term investments are proceeding in parallel with continuing construction of LNG export capacity. The American Chemistry Council estimated that shale development as of July has triggered 310 chemical-industry projects (completed, started or projected). These projects are associated with an expected $185 billion in new capital investment, 464,000 direct and indirect jobs, and $26 billion in new tax revenue through 2025.
Critics might look at selective years and narrow job descriptions to try to argue that LNG exports won’t contribute much to job growth. But more than 61,000 jobs were created in the extraction of oil and gas between 2004 and 2017. And if one looks at Bureau of Labor Statistics for extraction, drilling and support activities in the oil-and-gas industry, more than 162,000 jobs were created between 2007 and 2012.
If restrictions were imposed on LNG exports, only a few domestic manufacturers would gain a small advantage, while the broader benefits to the rest of the economy would be lost. Restrictions would weaken the U.S. position in bilateral and multilateral trade discussions and reduce any foreign-policy benefit that could be derived from a growing U.S. role in the global energy market.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-the-u-s-limit-exports-of-natural-gas-1510628640
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hancock County Officials Mulling Waterline Extension For Development Potential
Nov 14, 2017 | The Exponent Telegram
By Linda Harris
Hancock County officials are looking at extending public water lines to an undeveloped area near Mountaineer Casino that's been getting a lot of attention from companies doing site reconaissance.
Commissioner Jeff Davis said the extension, still in the discussion stages, in the Tomlinson Public Service District would cost about $5 million to build if it comes to fruition. He said some preliminary work has already been done.
“Mountaineer uses well-water,” he said. “They have a big tank for fire protection, they have plenty of water. There's a large area the Business Development Corporation and the county commission get lots of calls about, there's one particular section that's about 250 acres. It used to be the quarry area, just south of Mountaineer Casino. But there's lots of other land in that area as well that could be developed, but there's no public water there.”
Davis said Mountaineer and other nearby businesses with an existing water source would not be required to hook in to the line if it's built, “but it would be there if they needed it.” He said the main purpose of the extension is to open the area for development.
“To my knowledge, it would not cement any deal being worked on right now,” Davis said. “But without water, we're not getting anyone in there.”
Davis said there are some homes along the route that could benefit, though. While currently serviced by TPSD, some don't have fire protection because the lines aren't large enough. He said as part of the project, “they'd be replacing smaller lines with larger lines, putting in hydrants” along the way.
The quarry property is part of a larger parcel Royal Dutch Shell had looked at before ultimately deciding to build its $6 billion-plus ethane cracker in nearby Monaca, Pa.
Pat Ford, executive director of the Business Development Corporation of the Northern Panhandle, said the site still generates a tremendous amount of interest.
“We're showing that site fairly regularly to not only national but international prospects,” Ford said “It's because of the land mass, because Norfolk Southern rail goes through the site and because it's on the Ohio River.”
“What's happening is every time one of these sites is (sold), fewer and fewer are available,” he said. “The American Chemical Council said our area could support up to give ethane crackers. In the Northern Panhandle, that means we're down to (the quarry) site and several south of us, so it's just a matter of time.”
Davis points out “hundreds of acres” are also available on the opposite side of WV 2, “so there's a lot of potential.”
He expects TPSD would fund it through low interest loans from the state.
“I'm certain it will happen,” he added. “It's just a matter of when. I would anticipate this project would be ready for construction in late 2019, early 2020.”
https://www.theet.com/statejournal/hancock-county-officials-mulling-waterline-extension-for-development-potential/article_8ade9771-e312-5a32-a99a-18f5a7bb5d8b.html
-
U.S. Set To Lead World In Fossil Fuel Exports — IEA
Nov 14, 2017 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
The United States is poised to lead the world in crude and gas production, the International Energy Agency said today.
The report from the Paris-based agency found that oil and gas production will remain major global power sources for decades, despite sinking solar prices, the rise of electric cars and growing concerns about climate change.
The report predicts oil demand will rise until 2040, and natural gas demand will grow 40 percent.
"It is far too early to write the obituary of oil, as growth for trucks, aviation, petrochemicals, shipping and aviation keep pushing demand higher," said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.
Oil prices hit a two-year high in June, but with U.S. production expected to increase, the report predicts prices will not rise much more.
The United States will be the leading net exporter of oil and gas by the end of the next decade, the report said, with Asian countries leading the net importer list.
Climate advocates criticized the report for discounting carbon emissions goals set by various countries (Associated Press, Nov. 14). — NB
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/14/stories/1060066473
-
Enviros Push Back On FERC Bid To Keep Fla. Pipeline Flowing
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental lawyers are urging a federal court to keep a natural gas pipeline out of service until regulators complete a closer review of climate impacts.
In a legal filing Friday, Sierra Club lawyers argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should reject a government request to allow the Sabal Trail pipeline and related Southeast projects to continue operations before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finishes a supplemental review ordered by the court.
The D.C. Circuit is now poised to either limit the impacts of a momentous climate ruling or double down on it.
The court ordered FERC to conduct additional review in August, ruling that the agency failed to adequately consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. The court's decision called for vacating the underlying permits for the pipeline, barring it from service until FERC updated its analysis.
FERC did not challenge the ruling on the merits; in fact, the agency responded quickly by issuing a draft update that includes estimates of emissions from Florida power plants destined to burn the gas from Sabal Trail (Energywire, Sept. 28).
But the agency asked the D.C. Circuit to reconsider the decision to vacate the permits. According to FERC lawyers, that remedy — which is on hold for now — would be unwarranted and disruptive to natural gas transportation in the Southeast region. Pipeline developers made the same plea last month.
They're urging the court to apply a balancing test known as Allied-Signal that weighs the impacts of scrapping permits against the severity of National Environmental Policy Act violations (E&E News PM, Oct. 6).
The 515-mile Sabal Trail project ships natural gas to Florida generators operated by Florida Power & Light Co. and Duke Energy Corp. The joint venture of Spectra Energy Partners LP, NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke is part of a broader gas transmission project called the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, designed to boost pipeline capacity to expanding gas markets in the Southeast.
Sierra Club lawyers who brought the original challenge to the pipeline project urged the D.C. Circuit to reject that request. They say allowing continued pipeline operations would undermine the purpose of NEPA.
"FERC's violation of law has no consequences unless the Certificate is vacated," attorneys Elly Benson and Eric Huber wrote in Friday's filing. "And the Court should not accommodate them by delaying the mandate."
Plus, they argued, the balancing test weighs in favor of vacating the permits. The Sierra Club attorneys say the seriousness of NEPA violations is clear in the D.C. Circuit's August determination that the original review for the project "fails to fulfill its primary purpose."
To weigh the impacts of vacating the permits, they turn to Sierra Club electric sector analyst Joseph Daniel, who argued that pipeline supporters overstated the need for Sabal Trail to stay in service. Daniel noted that Florida is not in peak demand season, and, in any case, its existing infrastructure can supply levels of gas needed.
The filing also previews criticism environmentalists plan to lodge against FERC's draft update. Sierra Club officials say the five-page document contains technical errors and fails to comply with the court's order because, while it includes emissions estimates, it does not discuss the significance of the impacts or cumulative effects.
Comments on the draft are due next week.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/14/stories/1060066395
-
Taking Back Renewable Energy’s Taxpayer-Funded Honeypot
Nov 14, 2017 | The Hill
By Merrill Matthews
The renewable energy industry — which includes wind power, solar, biofuels made from corn or other organic substances — exists because of government mandates and taxpayer subsidies.
Don’t believe me? Listen to mega-investor Warren Buffet. He explained in 2014 why his company, Berkshire Hathaway, invests in wind energy: “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Notice Buffet didn’t say the taxpayer subsidies are a “good” reason for investing in wind farms, but “the only” reason.
The Financial Times notes,, “Berkshire’s Energy unit also receives tax credits for renewable power generation — reporting $258 [million] of wind energy tax credits in 2014, and $913 [million] of investment tax credits in 2012 and 2013 for opening new solar power plants.”
So U.S. taxpayers shelled out at least $1.17 billion in tax breaks for billionaire Buffet in just two years. Is this what Democrats mean when they complain about tax breaks for the rich?
The House Republican tax reform plan begins clawing back some of those subsidies, including the one receiving the most attention — the per-vehicle tax credit of up to $7,500 for electric cars.
Defenders of the credit warn that eliminating it will likely mean the end of U.S. plug-in electric vehicle sales — except, perhaps, for Tesla. They also note that some states mandate that electric vehicles make up a certain percentage of car sales, and eliminating the credit will make it harder to reach those state-based goals.
But the tax credit was supposed to be temporary, to offset high R&D and start-up costs and promote early sales, until the electric vehicle market got on its feet. Besides, the primary users of that credit are high earners who can afford electric vehicles, most of which are significantly more expensive than cars and trucks with fossil fuel-burning engines. That means that middle-class workers are subsidizing high-income workers’ driving preferences.
The wind industry also takes a hit in the House tax bill by reducing the Production Tax Credit from 2.4 cents per-kilowatt hour to 1.5 cents for new projects. And solar energy loses a 30 percent Investment Tax Credit — which under current law is scheduled to drop to 10 percent — for large solar projects beginning construction after 2027.
News reports also assert that the House Republicans’ tax reform proposal maintains tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. And the Congressional Budget Office does claim that the U.S. provided about $18.4 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel and renewable energy industries in 2016, with 75 percent going to renewable fuels and 25 percent to fossil fuels. But that claim is misleading.
The International Energy Agency does not include the U.S. among countries that subsidize fossil fuels. Neither does the Financial Times energy subsidy assessment, though the Financial Times does claim the U.S. is the second largest subsidizer of renewable energy after Germany. So what gives?
Tax breaks for fossil fuels are generally applied to standard operating expenses such as exploration and depletion costs. Those are costs of doing business in the oil and gas industry and should be normal business write-offs.
Fortunately, Republicans also propose “immediate expensing” for all businesses, which means companies could write off capital expenses the year the money is spent rather than depreciating the asset over several years. That one change could make moot most of the supposed “tax breaks” for the oil and gas industry.
Scaling back or ending renewable energy and electric vehicle tax breaks, as the House Republican plan does, would come closer to putting renewable energy on a level playing field with fossil fuels, while saving the government money.
The Senate Republican plan, by contrast, generally retains the current tax breaks.
Governments shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, which Washington has done all too often, especially during the Obama years — and especially in the renewable energy space. Companies need to compete without taxpayer subsidies, letting consumers determine which companies — and industries — thrive and which don’t survive.
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/360163-taking-back-renewable-energys-taxpayer-funded-honeypot
-
Nebraska Regulators Set To Decide On Keystone XL
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The Nebraska Public Service Commission will announce its decision Monday on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
The five-member, Republican-controlled elected board has been reviewing the proposed oil pipeline since February and will vote on the controversial TransCanada Corp. project at its Lincoln headquarters.
"As the process is a legal proceeding and the potential for appeal exists there will be no comment made by the Commission with regard to decision," the PSC said in a statement.
Keystone XL, an $8 billion, 1,179-mile extension of the Keystone pipeline first proposed in 2008, has been the subject of political back-and-forth for years at the federal level.
It was denied a permit to cross over the Canadian border by President Obama in 2015, a decision that was reversed by President Trump in March. It has also seen votes in Congress and a challenge that reached the Nebraska Supreme Court.
It would pass from Alberta, Canada, through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.
The Nebraska PSC held multiple public hearings over the summer to hear from supporters and opponents of the project and is now due to make its decision a few days before the Nov. 23 deadline. The commission is made up of four Republicans and one Democrat.
The agency is tasked with determining whether the pipeline would serve the public interest. Regardless of how the commission decides, both sides expect the fight to continue with an appeal in the Nebraska court system.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/14/stories/1060066489
-
Utility Planners To Push Grid Past 'Breaking Point'
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Utility executives across North America will wake up facing a harrowing combo of cyber and physical threats tomorrow during a simulated attack on the bulk power system.
The fourth edition of the biennial GridEx security exercise will lead thousands of participants into a mirror world of coordinated hackers, gunmen and nefarious drones, dreamt up by planners at the North American Electric Reliability Corp.
But don't be fooled by the name. GridEx IV may be first and foremost a test for electric utilities, but the plot of this year's exercise will also spill over into the financial, natural gas and communications sectors.
Representatives from those sectors and more are slated to attend the five-hour "executive tabletop" portion of this year's exercise, which kicks off Thursday, according to Bill Lawrence, who has been deeply involved in planning this year's event as director of NERC's cyberthreat information-sharing portal.
"The scenario gets everybody's hair up on edge — but it's not a frantic, 'oh my gosh, this is really happening' sort of thing," Lawrence said, noting that industry and agency participants get a few hints "so they can come well-prepared" to the Washington, D.C.-area tabletop in particular.
The goals of the tabletop and the bigger "distributed play" run-through that precedes it are largely identical: to identify and close gaps in the security of North America's most critical electricity networks.
"Slightly different from past years, the exercise is going to shine a light on some of the interdependencies with other sectors, like telecommunications, and gas pipelines," said Brian Harrell, vice president of security of AlertEnterprise and a former NERC official who helped get the first GridEx off the ground in 2011. "The electricity industry is increasingly reliant on gas-fired generation. ... Failure in either of these sectors has the potential to cascade [into] effects on the other."
A coordinated cyberattack could also disrupt the communications lines utilities need to get the lights back on — as demonstrated during a first-of-its-kind cyberattack on Ukraine's power grid in 2015, when hackers briefly cut off power while simultaneously flooding victim utilities' phone lines with spam calls to hamper recovery efforts (Energywire, July 18, 2016).
But why get banks involved in GridEx IV?
"From an electric utility's point of view, if they're not generating, transmitting or distributing electricity to their customers, they're not getting paid," Lawrence explained in a recent interview. "If the outage is big enough ... the banks might have issues staying open or providing financial relief to the [utility] companies that are not bringing in their normal customer revenue."
If banks couldn't step in, a blackout brought on by a combined cyber and physical attack could put some utilities "in danger of going bankrupt, really quickly," Lawrence noted. "So there's a need for discussion there."
President Trump's cybersecurity coordinator, Rob Joyce, has said White House officials will participate in tomorrow's event (Energywire, Oct. 2). Lawrence said he expects to see some "ebb and flow" from senior-level officials during the tabletop due to time constraints and a range of other pressing grid concerns, but said NERC has "had great support" from the White House, the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security, among other partners.
While the detailed scenarios for both the distributed play and executive tabletop portions are sealed off to keep participants on their toes, some issues are almost certain to come up.
One month after the last GridEx wrapped up in November 2015, Congress granted the secretary of Energy sweeping new authority to act during a presidentially declared grid emergency under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. How that authority would play out in practice is still not entirely clear (Energywire, Aug. 11).
With DOE officials at the table, this year's GridEx will be the "perfect opportunity" for rehearsing how the FAST Act could apply in a grid disaster, Lawrence said.'Real pain'
This year's GridEx will also be the first to take place in the shadow of two real-world cyberattacks on Ukraine's power grid, first in 2015 and again in December 2016.
Those incidents only managed to knock out power to a few hundred thousand people for a few hours — but they still sent shock waves throughout the grid community as a portent of danger.
"Our nation needs to be ready to respond in case there is an attack like this, either by another nation-state or by a terrorist cell," said Tim Yardley, associate director of technology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign's Information Trust Institute. "Ukraine is a good example, showing that it has happened elsewhere already. Is it likely to happen at some point in the U.S.? Yeah."
Yardley is helping show what a GridEx-level event would look like on a digital replica of the grid.
The test bed at Yardley's lab, funded in part through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, uses a sophisticated suite of software tools to model how cyber or physical attacks could ripple across the grid.
Testing cyberweapons on the actual grid is obviously out of bounds, so Yardley's software offers one of the closest available alternatives. He said he plans to run the dire scenarios presented during the executive tabletop sessions through his test bed to understand their real-world ramifications.
"Are we at the point where we can safely represent every nuance of the grid in a box? No," he said. "But we're getting closer and closer to that with each iteration that we work on."
He said some of the cross-sector problems likely to surface during the executive tabletop are still too complex to effectively model with computers. But he noted that "the interdependencies are where the real pain is going to be felt."
"If the electric power grid goes down, that's a bad situation," he said. "But there are other things that — if they go down — could result in cascading effects that are actually more traumatic in terms of the recovery."Northern lights
In another shift from past years, GridEx IV will feature a second, concurrent executive tabletop exercise Thursday in Toronto.
Canadian grid officials have been involved with previous exercises, but this is the first time several dozen top utility executives and government officials there will host their own version of the war game.
"It's essentially the same scenario [as in the U.S.], with a bit of a Canadian accent added to it," said Francis Bradley, chief operating officer of the Canadian Electricity Association, which represents major public and private utilities in Canada.
For example, while the U.S. version of the tabletop typically wipes out power to three major U.S. metropolitan regions, the Canadian version will transpose that emergency to its own cities to affect a similar number of customers.
Bradley said that the goal of the exercises — in Washington and Toronto — is the same: attempting to find a unified effort and message in the face of daunting circumstances.
"You really only get the real significant value out of an exercise when you actually push the system that you're testing to the breaking point and beyond," he said. "Nobody's pushed back after GridEx II or GridEx III and said, 'These scenarios were science fiction.' Very low probability? Perhaps — but those are the things that you want to test."
Past versions of the exercise have brought concrete changes on both sides of the border, from the utility industry's "cyber mutual assistance plan" — which involves sharing cybersecurity professionals and expertise during an emergency — to an upcoming overhaul of Lawrence's threat-sharing portal, the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
Lawrence says the North American industry is better prepared for a Ukraine-style attack on the grid, owing to the diversity of companies and networks that hackers would have to infiltrate.
But he won't say a devastating cyberattack on the grid is impossible. "That's why we do GridEx — let's practice. Let's make it even tougher."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/14/stories/1060066435
-
Vermont Railway Systems Official Responds To Concerns About Rail Tankers
Nov 14, 2017 | Bennington Banner
By Jim Therrien
BENNINGTON — A Vermont Railway System official said Monday that the long line of rail tanker cars parked on tracks in North Bennington was placed strategically in response to past wintertime shortages of propane gas in the region.
Vermont Railway Vice President Selden Houghton said the cars, which have sparked concern among residents of the area, are being moved out as needed for commercial propane gas customers and won't be stored there indefinitely. He said the severe winter of three years ago snarled railyards around the region and prevented the timely delivery of propane to dealers.
"A couple of years ago, during a cold winter throughout New England, there were shortages of propane," Houghton said, "so we adapted to our [commercial] customers' needs."
Houghton added that the rail company has complied with federal reporting and other requirements and has been in contact with Bennington area fire and emergency management personnel, including about related training.
The cars also are being monitored, and safety procedures "beyond federal regulations" were put in place by the company, he said.
On Friday, state Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington said he had fielded complaints from neighbors, some of whom live very close to the parked tankers, which are marked as carrying a flammable material, "non-odorized liquid petroleum gas."
Campion said he had reached out to the governor's office for information and assistance and is considering legislation to deal with the situation.
David Bond, a faculty member at the Center for the Advancement of Public Action at Bennington College, said in an email to Campion and state officials, "Over the past few years, a train has been parked each winter on the railway that lines the eastern border" between North Bennington and Shaftsbury. "In previous years, this train consisted of limestone slurry tanker cars. This year the train appears to be an oil train."
Bond added that the tanker cars are marked with the hazard sign "1075," indicating an explosive gas. "By my estimation," he said, "there are approximately 80 tanker cars parked on the railway tracks."
Copied on the email were Vermont Secretary of Transportation Joe Flynn and state Rail and Aviation Bureau Director Daniel Delabruere.
Bond said that in North Bennington and Shaftsbury there are "about 15 residential homes within 1,000 feet of where the tanker train is parked (including five homes within about 100 feet of the tanker train)." He also expressed concern about the impact on wetlands or water resources should there be a spill from a tanker.
Campion said he spoke with Brittney Wilson, secretary of civil and military affairs for Gov. Phil Scott, and that she said she would seek information from Vermont Rail System on what the cars contain and whether they can be moved away from residential neighborhoods.
In a response to Wilson, released Monday by Campion, Houghton outlined the reasons Vermont Rail has stored the tanker cars locally and listed the safety and compliance steps taken.
Campion has said will investigate whether state law could regulate the placement of rail cars in residential areas and require disclosure of any hazardous materials inside.
"I have reached out to legislative counsel about drafting a bill that would let Vermonters know the contents of such tankers and not allow tankers that contain hazardous materials to be parked anywhere near residential areas," he said.http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/rail-official-responds-to-concerns-about-rail-tankers,524526?
-
The U.S. Is Tackling Global Warming, Even if Trump Isn’t
Nov 14, 2017 | The New York Times
By Michael r. Bloomberg and Jerry Brown
World leaders have been meeting in Bonn, Germany, since last week to discuss carrying out the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Sadly, though not unexpectedly, the White House and federal agencies have largely been absent from the negotiating table. But American leaders from state capitols, city halls and businesses across the country have shown up in force, and we have delivered a unified message to the world: American society remains committed to our pledge under the agreement.
Over the past two months, Americans have experienced or witnessed raging wildfires and devastating storms, from Santa Rosa, Calif., to San Juan, P.R. Warming seas, along with hotter and drier days, make these storms and fires more intense and destructive. Climate change is not a future threat; it is happening now, and we are paying for it in lost lives and billions of dollars in damage.
The United States has always led the way in confronting global challenges, especially ones that profoundly affect our own country. President Trump’s vow to withdraw from the Paris agreement by 2020 was a troubling abdication of that leadership, and it threatened to send a dangerously wrong message: that we are abandoning the pledge we made in Paris to reduce emissions at least 26 percent by 2025.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans strongly supportthe Paris agreement, and thousands of mayors, governors, chief executives and others stepped forward to reaffirm their commitment to it after the president walked away from the accord. Together, these states, cities and businesses constitute more than half of the United States economy and, if they were a separate country, would make up the third-largest economy in the world.
President Trump’s action has had the effect of galvanizing these groups — and many have taken bold actions in recent months.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEOpinion Op-Ed ContributorClimate Progress, With or Without TrumpMARCH 31, 2017
California just extended its landmark cap-and-trade emissions program through 2030, and has adopted incentives that will help put 1.5 million electric and other zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025. Chicago has proposed an energy rating system for its large buildings to drive down emissions substantially, with $70 million in projected annual savings on utility bills. Companies in a wide variety of industries — from Bloomberg to Wal-Mart — have pledged to procure 100 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025 or sooner. And broader trends, including falling renewable energy costs and the retirement of additional coal-fired power plants, continue to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and accelerate the decarbonization of the American economy.
Even Oklahoma and Texas — the home states of Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Rick Perry, the energy secretary, who both oppose the climate accord — are national leaders in wind power production. Coal is a fading energy source in both states.
Climate progress has historically been driven from the bottom-up, not the top down from Washington. Though Congress failed to pass a cap-and-trade bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 during the Obama administration, the United States has still reduced emissions faster and fartherthan any other large nation.
In fact, we are already almost halfway to reaching our Paris commitment, thanks largely to consumer preferences and market forces. Half the country’s coal plants have closed or are being phased out while air quality improves and electricity bills fall for American consumers.
In the current political climate, however, there is a risk that nonfederal actions will go unrecognized by the global community. To ensure the world sees the continued commitment of the United States to tackling climate change, and the extent to which local governments and businesses are driving progress, we have introduced an initiative called America’s Pledge, which will document the progress we are making — and the bolder actions we must still take — to meet our Paris commitments.
This week in Bonn, we released a report detailing existing nonfederal climate initiatives and policies across America. The report also identifies major new opportunities for cities, states and businesses to take climate action without the federal government.
For instance, more states can opt in to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon pricing program involving nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to drive down power plants emissions, or California’s independently managed vehicle emissions programs, including its Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate, which nine states have adopted. More cities can adopt greener building codes, policies and programs to reduce electricity waste.
And more businesses can follow the lead of the 43 American supermarket chains that have committed to reducing their emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas used in refrigeration. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Red Bull and Unilever have installed more than 5.5 million air-conditioning units using HFC-free refrigerants worldwide, with nearly 400,000 of those installed in the United States.
Together, these actions will strengthen the economy and improve public health, while also helping the United States move faster toward its Paris commitment. Over the next year, we will aggregate and quantify these actions and continue pushing for new efforts to speed up decarbonization.
The Paris agreement succeeded where previous attempts failed because it solicited nationally determined pledges from nations based on local actions already taking place. For the United States to reach its commitment, much more needs to be done. But the world should know: We are not waiting for Washington.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/opinion/global-warming-paris-climate-agreement.html
-
'Alliance of World Scientists' Launches With Dire Warning
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
More than 15,000 scientists have issued a "warning to humanity" that it will soon be too late to prevent catastrophic environmental damage to the Earth.
The letter published yesterday in BioScience follows up on a 1992 document backed by the majority of Nobel science laureates warning that humans were on a collision course with the natural world. At that time, they said fundamental change was needed to address everything from damaging forest loss to ocean dead zones.
The "second notice" comes on the 25th anniversary of the original communique. Since then, humans have failed to make progress on nearly every metric, outside of stabilizing the ozone layer, according to the article. Last year, scientists reported the ozone hole over Antarctica was finally shrinking because of a phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but otherwise humanity is doing little to stop a "failing trajectory," the scientists said.
"Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse," states the communiqué. "Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising greenhouse gases."
The letter, which was led by Oregon State University professor William Ripple, cites published research on lack of progress on a range of environmental challenges, including deforestation, agricultural production, mass extinction events and loss of marine life. Ripple was not immediately available for comment, but the authors said collectively this may be the largest number of scientists to co-sign or endorse a published journal article.
The 15,364 signers in 184 countries included climate scientist James Hansen, Nobel Prize winners in neuroscience and physics, and scientists at universities around the world. More than 1,000 scientists endorsed the letter after publication.
Notably absent are some of the world's best-known climate scientists, but that may be more an oversight than a sign of disagreement. In an email, Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann said he wasn't asked to sign on to the letter.
The paper announced the launch of an Alliance of World Scientists with a goal of being a "collective international voice." It also made 13 recommendations, such as prioritizing wildlife reserves and ensuring adults have access to family planning services to keep the global population in check.
The communiqué comes at a time of science activism, with many researchers openly challenging the policies of President Trump or planning to run for office.
Last week, the organization behind this year's March for Science announced an initiative called "Vote for Science" aiming to help register and mobilize voters and provide a conduit between scientists and elected officials.
Koren Temple-Perry, a spokeswoman for the March for Science, said the program is different from 314 Action, which is endorsing specific candidates and working to elect them. Instead, Vote for Science is more focused on connecting science supporters with their elected officials to speak out on science policy issues, she said.
The group will partner with the nonprofit Science Debate and ask supporters to distribute a 10-question science policy questionnaire to encourage all candidates from all political parties to articulate positions on major science policy topics, said Perry.
Last month, the March for Science organization faced criticism from former volunteers who said it was not being transparent about financing. The group said it was taking the concerns seriously and was working to "fill in gaps" (E&E News PM, Oct. 24).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/14/stories/1060066495
-
White House Booed For Promoting 'Realities' Of Fossil Fuels
Nov 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
BONN, Germany — A White House roundtable on fossil fuels and nuclear energy became an outlet for international rage at President Trump, who has disdained the world's work to contain climate change.
Yesterday's event, hosted by White House energy adviser George David Banks, didn't offer the same level of defiance shown by Trump in June when he accused the world of "laughing at us as a country" for joining the Paris Agreement.
Instead, it promoted efficient energy use as a main tool to combat global warming, a message that struck attendees of the U.N. climate talks as a sign of the United States' weakened commitment to combat rising temperatures.
Climate advocates here weren't having it.
Days earlier, foreign delegations and visiting U.S. Democrats criticized the White House exercise as an assault on the work being done by 196 other countries committed to staying in the Paris accord.
"Coming to a climate summit to promote coal is an act of vandalism against our common home," said Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid's international climate lead. "It is offensive to millions of people living with the impacts of climate change."
Banks sought to soothe that frustration yesterday by promising that the United States would play a constructive role in Paris negotiations, even though it's on track to withdraw from the pact in 2020. He said it's possible that the United States could remain a member if more favorable terms could be "identified," and he pledged to make himself available all week to international delegates and press.
"We're happy to sit down with anyone and discuss climate policy and the politics of climate back home and globally," Banks said.
An hour before the event began, a line of young environmental advocates trying to get in, hoping to participate in a planned protest, stretched across the length of the convention center hall. Govs. Jay Inslee of Washington and Kate Brown of Oregon, attending as part of a pro-Paris delegation of Democratic governors, appeared in the room to offer a pre-emptive rebuttal to waiting reporters.
Inslee compared climate solutions from fossil fuel advocates to arsonists counseling fire departments on firefighting. Trump, who has been on a tour of Asia and has yet to comment on the U.N. climate gathering, was the target.
"He can tweet his fingers off, but he cannot stop us," said Inslee, touting his state's carbon regime as a hedge against Trump's policies favoring fossil fuels. Inslee hopes to pass a statewide carbon price.
A protest by 350.org and youth climate justice group SustainUS was permitted by U.N. staff, who do not usually allow rallies at official events. As United States Energy Association Executive Director Barry Worthington began his remarks about the need to reduce government oversight, more than 100 young protesters stood up and began stomping their feet and singing a rendition of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A."
"So you claim to be an American, but we see right through your greed. It's killing all across the world for that coal money," they sang.
"We chose the patriotic tune because part of what 'we the people' are doing here at the [Conference of the Parties] is telling the true story of America leadership taking on climate change and working to protect our communities," said organizer Dyanna Jaye.
After singing several verses, the young people filed out, leaving a room where tensions remained high and a hostile audience frequently interjected comments of "This is such bullshit" and "You lie."
The chilly reception may actually help Banks walk his tightrope between offering partnership in Bonn and avoiding the wrath of climate skeptics in the Trump administration. Marc Morano, who argues against mainstream climate science on ClimateDepot.com, said Banks' forum was a public relations victory for Team Trump.
"If the greenest members of the Trump administration get shouted down and shut down by climate activists for discussing nuclear and coal, the public will perceive the activists as way-out idealists devoid of reality," he predicted.
Earlier this year, Banks was a lead proponent of the United States' staying in the Paris Agreement, albeit with a weaker commitment on greenhouse gas reductions. He offered a vague hint yesterday that that outcome may still be on the table.
"The president has made it known multiple times that he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if suitable terms can be identified," he said. He added that discussions on those "terms" had not yet begun and that it should be a "heads of state discussion."
Before Trump announced his retreat from the Paris accord on June 1, the idea was floated for a new U.S. commitment to replace President Obama's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.
Experts in international law say the Trump administration could make that change without the high-level discussions Banks describes, but U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and others persuaded Trump last spring that it would not be possible. They claimed that weakening the target would result in litigation over domestic rule changes. That argument carried the day.
But Banks quietly acknowledged yesterday that "the Paris pledges are not binding." He also defended President Trump's 2012 tweet that global warming was a Chinese invention to harm U.S. manufacturing.
Banks and Francis Brooke, a policy adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, refused to answer questions from reporters about whether the United States should remain in the Paris accord. But two panel members, Amos Hochstein, an Obama-era State Department special coordinator for international energy who now works for natural gas company Tellurian Inc., and Lenka Kollar of NuScale Power LLC, a nuclear power company, said Trump should reconsider.
"I think that we miss something at the [Conference of the Parties] if we just have a circular conversation and congratulate ourselves on the back about how great we are on climate change but we haven't convinced a single person to change their position on it, either," Hochstein said.
Banks and his panel argued that continued use of fossil fuels is vital to ending energy poverty in the developing world and that nations should focus on improving the efficient use of coal, petroleum and nuclear energy as a means of drawing down emissions.
"This panel is only controversial if we choose to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the realities of the global energy system, if we are unwilling to have an honest, objective discussion about the need to balance effectively climate mitigation, economic development and energy security objectives," Banks said.
Banks touted the Treasury Department's early steps under Trump to roll back World Bank prohibitions on financing coal-fired power plants in poor countries. Hochstein said the export of abundant liquefied natural gas is a boon to international climate goals. And Holly Krutka of coal company Peabody Energy Corp. argued that the developing world will continue to invest in coal-fired power, and the only question is whether nations will reach for lower-carbon technologies.
She drew the ire of the room by suggesting that carbon capture and storage technology is "dramatically underfunded" compared with renewable technologies. Developing countries have decried rich nations' reluctance to provide more financing for climate action, and Alex Doukas, a project manager for Oil Change International, called it "shameful" and "embarrassing" that U.S. coal companies would propose siphoning off what resources there are.
As the talks enter their second week, developed and developing countries are clashing over the provision of climate finance and over rich countries' promises to show how they plan to reduce their emissions before the end of this decade — obligations that pre-date the 2015 Paris Agreement.
"I think we knew coming in that there would be demands from developing countries to have a process to meet those needs and that developed countries would resist that," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"No one expects large sums of money to be put on the table here in Bonn, but if there's not a process to ramp up support for adaptation, loss and damage, that's going to be a real problem," he said.
Rich countries collectively pledged to mobilize at least $100 billion a year to help their poorer counterparts after 2020, and there is so far no road map for how that funding would be provided. Poor countries, including Fiji, which has the presidency of this U.N. climate conference, have also stressed the need for some progress on loss and damage.
Those issues could prevent progress toward designing the Paris rulebook and early efforts to assess the agreement's effort to limit warming. Both are due next year.
"I think that's a reflection of the urgency that developed countries are showing here compared with what we in the smaller states are feeling," said Dorosday Kenneth Watson, a delegate from the island nation of Vanuatu, which is vulnerable to climate change. "There is no sense of urgency that I see in terms of the discussion that we see around the table."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/14/stories/1060066453
-
Judge To Hold Arguments In Exxon Suit Against New York, Massachusetts AGs
Nov 14, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
A federal judge said today she will hold oral arguments on Nov. 30 over whether to dismiss Exxon Mobil’s lawsuit against the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, Eric Schneiderman and Maura Healey.
The dispute stems from Schneiderman and Healey’s investigations into Exxon’s historical knowledge of climate change science and whether the company fraudulently hid those risks from investors. Exxon alleged in its harassment suit that the investigations were politically motivated and sought to prevent being forced to release internal documents under the AGs’ subpoenas.
Both Schneiderman and Healey earlier this year asked Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for Southern New York, an Obama appointee, to toss the suit.
Exxon is already suing Schneiderman and Healey in their respective state courts, which is where the litigation should take place, they argued. The attorneys general also noted Exxon has already voluntarily complied with the subpoenas.
WHAT’S NEXT: Caproni will hear arguments on whether to dismiss Exxon's suit on "certain threshold grounds" at 11 a.m. on Nov. 30 in New York.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
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