Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 11/23/17 - 2nd version

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Work To Get More Voter Registrations
Nov 22, 2017 | KLAS-TV
By Patrick Walker

Republicans are trying to get a leg up on getting people out to vote ahead of next year's general election.
Could The Corporate Lobby Kill NAFTA?
Nov 23, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lori Wallach

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) faces a critical juncture as a fifth round of NAFTA renegotiation talks ended Tuesday in Mexico City. If talks deadlock, the administration is likely to withdraw from NAFTA altogether.

LCSA News

EPA Lists Chemicals Reported Under TSCA Inventory Notification Rule
Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller

The US EPA has published an updated list of more than 10,000 chemical substances that have been reported under the TSCA inventory notification rule.
EPA Releases List of Chemical Substances Reported Under TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule
Nov 23, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Richard E. Engler, Ph.D.and Margaret R. Graham

On November 22, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was releasing a preliminary list of chemical substances reported under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) rule that includes substances reported to EPA through November 10, 2017, and that it will be updated approximately once per month

Chemical Management News

US Senate Spending Bill Would Eliminate IRIS Programme
Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller

The Senate Appropriations Committee has released a proposal that would eliminate the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. Such a move would potentially give control of chemical research directly to political appointees who run the agency's regulatory agenda.
California Moves On Methylene Chloride Paint Strippers Under SCP Programme
Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed regulations to name paint strippers containing methylene chloride a "priority product". The move comes under the state's Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme and is the next step in a process that could lead to the products being restricted or banned in California.
EU Enforcement Pilot To Target Phthalates, Flame Retardants
Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton

Echa’s Enforcement Forum has started work on a pilot project to verify compliance with the notification and communication obligations of substances in articles in REACH. It will specifically target seven substances, or groups of substances, including flame retardants and phthalates.
Brexit Reality Hits U.K. Chemical Companies
Nov 22, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott

The U.K.’s pharmaceutical and chemical sectors say they are increasingly concerned about lack of progress as politicians negotiate the terms of the U.K.’s exit—or Brexit—from the European Union in March 2019.
Canada Will Not Regulate 2-MBS
Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller

The Canadian government has decided that 2-MBS (benzenesulfonamide, 2-methyl) does not pose health or environmental risks, sufficient to warrant regulation under the country's environmental protection act (Cepa).

Energy News

Judge Rejects Trump Administration Call To Dismiss Keystone XL Lawsuit
Nov 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Esther Whieldon

A U.S. judge today rejected the Trump administration's call to dismiss a lawsuit from environmental groups and landowners challenging its approval of the Keystone XL project.
Exxon, Oil Giants Team Up To Reduce Methane Emissions
Nov 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

ExxonMobil Corp. and seven other energy firms have teamed up to tackle natural gas sector greenhouse gas emissions, the companies announced on Wednesday.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

(ACC Mentioned) Exclusive: CSX To Impose Hefty Fees On Some Rail Customers In 2018
Nov 22, 2017 | Reuters (In Business Insider)
By Eric M. Johnson

CSX Corp will charge new fees for freight shipments to Mexico and hike charges for customers that fail to load or discharge railcars by agreed deadlines or ship unsafely loaded or overweight railcars as of Jan. 1, the company said.

Environment News

EPA Paves Way For Greater Use of Climate-Friendly Refrigerants
Nov 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The EPA is making it easier for the refrigeration industry to use climate-friendly chemicals, even amid continued uncertainty about whether the Trump administration will support a global deal to limit greenhouse gases in the sector.
EPA Fights Supreme Court Review Of Air Law 'Contingency Measures' Suit
Nov 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA is poised to next week tell the Supreme Court why it should reject Arizona's call for the justices to scrap an appellate ruling banning the agency from approving states' “contingency measures” to cut air pollution if such efforts are already mandated, with Arizona claiming EPA's opposition to review is to avoid scrutiny of its air policies.
New EPA Documents Boost Critics Of EPA Plan To Scrap 'Glider' GHG Limits
Nov 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

Environmentalists and some states say that newly released EPA documents related to its proposed repeal of greenhouse gas standards for “glider” trucks bolster their claims that the plan includes scant review of possible criteria pollution affects or harms to the competitiveness of companies that produce newer, cleaner vehicles.
Practitioner Insights: Challenges Ahead for Clean Power Plan as EPA Eyes Repeal
Nov 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Viviana L. Heger and Joshua A. Bloom

Under President Barack Obama's administration, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated the Clean Power Plan on Oct. 23, 2015.
Sierra Club To Hold 'Alternative' EPA CPP Hearing
Nov 22, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Sierra Club is planning an “alternative” hearing to the one EPA is hosting next week in Charleston, WV, on its proposal to repeal the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) to cut utility sector greenhouse gases, with the group focusing its event on why the CPP is important to public health.
After ditching Paris, Trump’s Team Has Another Big International Climate Decision To Make
Nov 23, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney

While it’s not the Paris climate agreement, hopes are rising that the Trump administration will not walk away from another international climate accord, one designed to limit emissions of super-polluting gases from air conditioners and refrigerators that could otherwise sharply warm the globe.
Trump Seeks $12 Billion to Fight Flooding Tied to Climate Change
Nov 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Hidden in the Trump administration's $44 billion emergency budget request is a plan to expand an Obama-era effort to make cities and towns resilient to the more frequent storms tied to climate change.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Work To Get More Voter Registrations

Nov 22, 2017 | KLAS-TV

By Patrick Walker

LAS VEGAS - Republicans are trying to get a leg up on getting people out to vote ahead of next year's general election.
But there's also a lot of focus on the primary election which is still seven months away.
The battle over getting people to the ballot box is fought with boots on the ground.
"We're going to be going door-to-door, working on getting voter registrations," said volunteer Michael McDonald.
Get out the vote efforts are well underway as Republicans try to chip away at the Democrats' 100,000 active voter advantage statewide and overcome low turnout in a mid-term election.
"Right now, we don't have enough people going out and voting so a lot of voices aren't being heard," McDonald said.
Democrats in Nevada have prided themselves on their ground game -- that is -- house visits and phone conversations in the months leading up to elections.
Republicans have taken note and in the last six months, the national GOP team in Nevada has trained six times as many volunteers as the entire last election cycle.
"Being a young student, I've always wanted to get more involved," said high school student Daniel Pereira.
He is among the new volunteers.
"I started with the Young Conservatives' Club, out at my school, so we actually brought some volunteers from my school, my little brother's here, and a lot of my friends too," Pereira said.
They've also knocked on 10's of thousands of doors and cut the registration gap by 30 percent. But the election is still a year away.
Republicans face potentially bruising primaries in the governor's race, at least one congressional race and perhaps the most high-profile one -- the senate race.
Money is already pouring into Nevada for the senate primary. The American Chemistry Council is spending $320,000 with Nevada television stations for one Dean Heller ad. It's a reminder that once again election season is upon us.
As of last month, there are 1.6 million registered voters in Nevada. Nearly 673,000 are Democrats, about 538,000 are Republicans and 356,000 are non-partisan.
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/republicans-work-to-get-more-voter-registrations/862460724

Return to headline | Return to top
Could The Corporate Lobby Kill NAFTA?

Nov 23, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Lori Wallach

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) faces a critical juncture as a fifth round of NAFTA renegotiation talks ended Tuesday in Mexico City. If talks deadlock, the administration is likely to withdraw from NAFTA altogether.
If that happens it will be thanks to the corporate lobby, not the unions or groups like my own that have long held that no NAFTA is better than this NAFTA.
Longtime critics of NAFTA are urging Canada and Mexico to engage on U.S. reform proposals with the goal of replacing the 23-year old deal. The corporate lobby is urging the other NAFTA countries to reject the U.S. reforms out of hand, an approach that paves the way to the no-NAFTA outcome.
The administration’s proposals, tabled in October, focus on eliminating NAFTA’s incentives to outsource investment and jobs from the United States. For decades congressional Democrats and Republicans, unions, consumer groups and other NAFTA critics spanning the political spectrum have sought these very changes.
This includes eliminating protections at the heart of NAFTA that incentive outsourcing by making it cheaper and less risky to move production to Mexico to pay workers poverty wages and dump toxins and then import products back to the U.S. for sale. These terms also empower thousands of corporations to sue the NAFTA governments before panels of three corporate lawyers that can award the corporations unlimited sums to be paid by taxpayers, including for the loss of expected future profits, when the firms claim their investor privileges have been violated.
Also proposed is lifting NAFTA’s limits on Buy American preferences in government procurement policy so U.S. tax dollars are reinvested to create jobs here rather than being outsourced to buy goods produced in Mexico and Canada. A proposed review and reaffirmation of the deal every five years would ensure the pact is meeting the desired outcomes or is adjusted as needed.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a chorus of other corporate lobby groups shrilly denounced these proposals as “highly dangerous” and launched a frantic campaign to derails the reforms.
Given the administration’s approach preserves NAFTA’s duty-free trade terms, the corporate meltdown helpfully spotlighted the gap between NAFTA’s “free trade” brand and the pact’s actual terms.
Most of NAFTA’s 22 chapters provide special protections for investors, extend patent and copyright monopolies, constrain regulation of banks and other services, undermine food and product safety standards, limit government procurement policies, and otherwise impose one-size-fits-all rules unrelated to trade pacts’ traditional remit of tariff cutting.
The development of these rules was co-opted by corporate interests, including the 500 official U.S. trade advisors representing business interests who had access to texts and negotiators while the public and Congress were locked out. The business interests’ goal was binding, enforceable rules that protected their investments and profits – not that maximized domestic employment or wage levels.
To date, more than 930,000 American workers have been certified under just one narrow government program as losing their jobs to NAFTA with more middle-class jobs being outsourced to Mexico every week. Almost $400 million in taxpayer funds have been paid to corporations successfully attacking environmental and health safeguards in NAFTA tribunals.
After decades of lobbying and campaign contributions to customize U.S. trade pacts to their benefit, perhaps the Chamber, Coalition of Service Industries, PhRMA and other business groups prefer no NAFTA to a new trade agreement design eliminating their special protections.
But why the American Farmer Bureau and others ostensibly representing U.S. farmers have joined the “our way or the highway” strategy is inexplicable.
If the United States left NAFTA, and a president has authority to withdraw, under the Trade Act of 1974 a president also can proclaim reversion of tariff rates to World Trade Organization (WTO) levels. Forty-six percent of U.S. tariff lines, 50 percent of Mexico’s and 76 percent of Canada’s are duty-free under the WTO. The remaining tariffs are drastically lower than before NAFTA because in the ensuring decades, WTO tariff cuts were implemented. The current average WTO Most Favored Nation applied tariffs on a trade-weighted basis for the United States, Mexico and Canada are respectively 2.4, 4.5 and 3.1 percent.
However, some of agriculture is the outlier: U.S. exports to Mexico of beef, pork, and poultry, for instance, would face significant tariffs. (Almost all U.S. corn exports to Mexico, by far our largest agricultural export, would be duty-free because Mexico zeroed yellow corn tariffs for all WTO countries in 2008. A large share of U.S. soy exports also would be duty-free without NAFTA.)
Assuming the president did not revert to duty free treatment under the 1988 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which was suspended when NAFTA was enacted, WTO tariffs for Canada would be significant for U.S. exports of barley, dairy and beef.
Agricultural interests have no dog in the fight over NAFTA outsourcing protections, but U.S. meat producers could be harmed if NAFTA ends. That is why there is a majority in Congress that could pass a new NAFTA that sustains duty-free access for U.S. exports but eliminates the corporate poison pills and adds strong labor and environmental standards with swift and certain enforcement.
That last element, for which the administration has yet to make a strong proposal, explains why NAFTA critics prioritize getting a new deal.
Average Mexican manufacturing wages are now 9 percent lower in real terms than before NAFTA. After decades of fake “protection” unions conspiring with companies to thwart increases, Mexican manufacturing wages are now lower than in coastal China.
Raising wages in Mexico is not only a moral imperative, but is essential to reversing the draw for firms to outsource U.S. jobs there. Workers represented by the independent Steelworkers union in Goodyear’s American plant earn $26.63 hourly. But when the firm decided to open a new plan in North America, it choose Mexico where it pays workers $1.88 per hour.
Simply withdrawing from NAFTA won’t raise wages here or in Mexico. Nor will it reverse two decades of damage and bring back the million middle class American NAFTA destroyed.
That’s why NAFTA critics seek a new deal that levels the playing field. No NAFTA is certainly better than more years of NAFTA’s ongoing damage, but the best outcome is a new deal that raises standards and wages throughout North America.
Lori Wallach is director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/361575-the-corporate-lobby-might-seek-to-kill-nafta-rather-than

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

EPA Lists Chemicals Reported Under TSCA Inventory Notification Rule

Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Julie A Miller

The US EPA has published an updated list of more than 10,000 chemical substances that have been reported under the TSCA inventory notification rule.
The rule requires manufacturers and importers to report by 7 February 2018 all nonexempt substances that they used in the ten-year 'lookback period' ending 21 June 2016.
Processors (downstream users) have until 5 October 2018. They are not required to report but must do so to avoid having a chemical labelled "inactive".
Agency officials said last month that a final inventory would be published within two months of the October deadline.
The list will be the starting point for identifying high and low priority substances for assessment under TSCA.
The list of 10,370 chemicals published on 22 November includes reports received by 10 November, and the agency plans to update it regularly.
"This list is for informational purposes only" and the listed substances "are not exempt from retrospective reporting by other manufacturers" unless they have obtained a Central Data Exchange (CDX) receipt from the manufacturer who has reported it, the EPA's notice says.
It will probably be most useful to processors, who are not required to report but may want to ensure that chemicals they deal with are on the active inventory.
The EPA has developed a separate list of 13,209 active chemical substances that are exempt from reporting. They are substances reported under the 2012 and 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, and in Notices of Commencement received during the ten-year lookback period.

https://chemicalwatch.com/61958/epa-lists-chemicals-reported-under-tsca-inventory-notification-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Releases List of Chemical Substances Reported Under TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule

Nov 23, 2017 | The National Law Review

By Richard E. Engler, Ph.D.and Margaret R. Graham

On November 22, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was releasing a preliminary list of chemical substances reported under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) rule that includes substances reported to EPA through November 10, 2017, and that it will be updated approximately once per month. EPA states that it is making this list available to help keep the stakeholder community informed of the status of reporting under the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) rule. EPA is providing the list in a downloadable, searchable spreadsheet. The total number of chemicals on the list is 10,730.
This total adds substantially to the 13,209 substances that appear on EPA’s list of substances exempt from Form A reporting. It is important to note that the new list is not an update to the list of interim active substances or to the list of substances exempt from Form A reporting; it is only a list of substances reported via Form A notices of activity through the specified date. The new list of substances reported by Form As will be useful to processors, allowing them to ensure that key substances are reported as active, but it does not relieve manufacturers or importers from the Form A reporting obligations of the rule.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-list-chemical-substances-reported-under-tsca-inventory-notification

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

US Senate Spending Bill Would Eliminate IRIS Programme

Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Julie A Miller

The Senate Appropriations Committee has released a proposal that would eliminate the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. Such a move would potentially give control of chemical research directly to political appointees who run the agency's regulatory agenda.
The Senate committee’s version of the fiscal 2018 appropriations bill covering the EPA was published on its website on 20 November. It would cut the agency’s overall funding by $149m. But it provides $3.8bn more than the counterpart legislation approved by the House in September and $22.5bn above the 30% cut called for in the Trump administration’s requested budget.
The Senate bill includes $111.6m for the "chemical safety and sustainability" line item that funds chemical research. This would be a $15.3m cut, but is more generous than the House and restores more than half of the $27m cut proposed by the administration.Eliminating IRIS
However, the report accompanying the bill’s text says the committee has not provided funding for IRIS. "In order to ensure that important chemical assessment work is completed, the Committee has transferred resources within the agency from IRIS to help implement the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act," it said.
Chemical safety and sustainability is one of six thematic research programmes managed by the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Actual research is carried out by seven laboratory organisations. IRIS is part of one such laboratory, the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), which has facilities in Ohio and North Carolina.
"The bill imposes the IRIS workload onto the recently-reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) programme, which was not designed to accommodate the breadth of the IRIS programme's responsibilities," minority Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee said in a statement.
It is not clear exactly how the committee’s majority envisions redistributing funding and responsibilities, but the office in charge of "implementing" the Lautenberg Act’s TSCA reforms is the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). That is the regulatory division that would be headed by Michael Dourson if his nomination is not defeated in the Senate.
"At best a small fraction of its responsibilities — and only one-third of its funding — would be re-allocated" to the OCSPP, Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), wrote in criticising the Senate bill's treatment of IRIS.
Moving IRIS staff from the non-regulatory ORD into the OCSPP would cost the EPA "scientific expertise that serves the entire agency, severely undermining the legal responsibilities Congress has given it," and would "sever the independence between scientific review and regulatory decisions informed by such reviews," Dr McPartland wrote.
She noted that the EPA's website says placing the IRIS programme within ORD "ensures that IRIS can develop impartial toxicity information independent of its use by EPA’s program and regional offices."Alternative test methods
The Senate panel's report also included unusually specific language regarding development of a strategic plan to promote alternative test methods that is required under TSCA. EPA officials discussed the emerging plan at a recent public meeting. The process of developing the plan should involve public meetings, consultation with "the scientific community and the public" and a final version "documenting response to, and disposition of, public comments". The committee asked for a progress report by 30 September 2018.
Finally, the report addresses a TSCA provision allowing the EPA to collect fees from manufacturers. The bill would earmark $10m in federal funds that would be replaced by the fees that are anticipated to come in during fiscal 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61962/us-senate-spending-bill-would-eliminate-iris-programme

Return to headline | Return to top
California Moves On Methylene Chloride Paint Strippers Under SCP Programme

Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Julie A Miller

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed regulations to name paint strippers containing methylene chloride a "priority product". The move comes under the state's Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme and is the next step in a process that could lead to the products being restricted or banned in California.
The agency said it will accept written comments until 18 January, and will hold a public hearing on 8 January.
Once the regulation is finalised, manufacturers of such products sold in the state will have 60 days to register with the department and begin an analysis to determine if a safer alternative is possible.
The DTSC named the first three chemicals to be scrutinised under the programme in 2014. And children's sleeping items containing the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP officially became the first "priority product" on 1 July. Alternatives analyses for this should be underway. The public comment period on the second priority product – spray polyurethane foam (SPF) containing MDI – ended on 6 June.
It took more than eight months to move from consultation to finalised regulations on the flame retardants, so it is likely alternatives analyses for methylene chloride paint strippers will not begin until the end of 2018.
Methylene chloride paint strippers are not only carcinogenic and neurotoxic, the DTSC says, but "high-level acute exposures can be fatal and there are numerous worker and consumer deaths" associated with their use.
The requirements will apply to any methylene chloride product sold in California "as a chemical substance designed to break down paint, varnish, or any other surface coating to facilitate its removal from any surface."
Separate California regulations already ban the use of methylene chloride in a variety of consumer cleaning products.
Listing as a priority product "sets in motion a strategy to reduce human exposure," the DTSC said in its current proposal, but it is unknown what regulatory action might be taken in response to alternatives analyses.
"Because each manufacturer's proposal will address its specific business situation, DTSC cannot predetermine the actions that paint or varnish manufacturers would need to take, either individually or collectively, to meet the goals of protecting people and the environment and advance green chemistry or green engineering principles," the agency said.EPA considering federal ban
In the last days of the Obama administration, the US EPA issued a proposed rule to ban all consumer, and most commercial, use of methylene chloride as a paint stripper. And the agency solicited feedback on whether to additionally ban n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), or impose rules on concentration, workplace protections and labelling.
The January proposal specifically excluded furniture refinishing, indicating that the EPA would "propose such a regulation at a later date."
At a September EPA stakeholder workshop, manufacturers and industrial users argued for requiring protective measures and possibly restricting the use of methylene chloride to commercial products, arguing that an outright ban would make furniture stripping unprofitable.
The workshop could be a clue that the Trump administration might follow through on some methylene chloride regulation. In addition, the semiannual regulatory agenda the EPA published on 24 August indicated that the agency plans to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, amending its original proposal.
There is no requirement that the EPA act on that rule. However, methylene chloride is also being reviewed separately as one of the first ten priority substances subject to mandatory risk evaluation under the new TSCA. Furniture refinishing is included in the scope of that evaluation.
Sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride is restricted in the EU under REACH.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61957/california-moves-on-methylene-chloride-paint-strippers-under-scp-programme

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Enforcement Pilot To Target Phthalates, Flame Retardants

Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Luke Buxton

Echa’s Enforcement Forum has started work on a pilot project to verify compliance with the notification and communication obligations of substances in articles in REACH. It will specifically target seven substances, or groups of substances, including flame retardants and phthalates.
National enforcement actions, reports from authorities and NGOs, and the low number of notifications being made to Echa indicate that industry is failing to meet its obligations.
The pilot was first announced in November 2015, two months after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling that the 0.1% threshold for notifying SVHCs in articles applies to each component of a complex product rather than the entire product.
The project aims to:check compliance of producers, importers and suppliers of articles with their obligations (REACH Articles 7 and 33);raise awareness and understanding of legal obligations and the level of compliance among duty holders;build a better picture of the actual level of compliance by suppliers of articles;identify reasons for non-compliance and decide whether Echa, the Commission and/or member states competent authorities need to do more, such as providing support to duty holders; andgather experience and establish enforcement methods for a potential future large-scale check of these obligations.
Echa says electrical products, building materials and interior articles are examples of consumer goods that may be inspected. The substances, or groups of, that it will focus on are:brominated flame retardants;phosphorous flame retardants;short-chain chloroparaffins;phthalates;aprotic polar solvents;perfluorinated substances; andphenolic benzotriazoles.
The project runs from from October 2017 to June 2018. A report of the results is expected by the end of next November.
At the end of June, Echa published the long awaited revision of its guidance on substances in articles. The agency said the "comprehensive update", which was expected in 2016, gives more clarity on communication and notification obligations when articles contain SVHCs. It includes new examples, which it says are in line with the judgement of the ECJ ruling.Forum meeting
Textile articles will also be addressed in the pilot, Forum chair Katja vom Hofe told Chemical Watch. This subject was raised at the November Forum meeting by Mauro Scalia, manager of sustainable business at European textiles industry association Euratex. He said the association has faced challenges with some non-compliant companies and asked if there was any enforcement activity around textiles.
"We said we have a number of enforcement projects, which – among other types of articles – are looking into textiles," Ms vom Hofe said. This includes the recently concluded fourth REACH-En-Force project (Ref-4) project, which had "quite a high number" of checks for textiles.
Cefic REACH director Erwin Annys also spoke at the meeting about the enforcement of imported substances and how to protect competition for European manufacturers, which face strict controls inside the EU. Robust checks of imported substances are needed because, he said, Cefic believes some non-EU manufacturers are potentially not following the rules of REACH.
The Forum has "a very high percentage" of checks that address imports, Ms vom Hofe said, and added that "at least half" of the substances or products that it inspects are imported because it knows there is "a fairly high chance" they might not be compliant.
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.
In June, the Forum announced that NEA inspectors will focus on registration obligations – including substances registered as intermediates – under Ref-7. It also launched its first joint action agreement with its accredited stakeholder organisations (ASOs) – trade bodies and NGOs – to improve the quality of safety data sheets.
The working group has now been set up and there is "lots of willingness" among its members, who will report at the end of next year on their findings, Ms vom Hofe says.
The next Forum meeting will take place in March 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61960/eu-enforcement-pilot-to-target-phthalates-flame-retardants

Return to headline | Return to top
Brexit Reality Hits U.K. Chemical Companies

Nov 22, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Alex Scott

The U.K.’s pharmaceutical and chemical sectors say they are increasingly concerned about lack of progress as politicians negotiate the terms of the U.K.’s exit—or Brexit—from the European Union in March 2019.
The U.K.’s Chemical Industries Association (CIA) and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) say Brexit could significantly compromise the chemical sector and damage trade.
A key industry worry is that companies won’t have time to put new business processes in place ahead of the U.K.’s exit from the EU. “We call on negotiators on both sides to make rapid progress,” says Stephen Elliott, CIA’s chief executive.
In a joint statement, CIA and Cefic set out a series of conditions they say politicians must meet if the chemical sector is to avoid being hobbled by Brexit-related costs and logistics problems.
“Considering that cross-channel chemical trade amounts to over $46 billion and given the close interconnection of supply chains, we are very concerned about Brexit causing disruption of chemical markets,” says Cefic’s director general, Marco Mensink.
Compounding the problem is the unwillingness of U.K. politicians to be specific about what must be done once the U.K. has left, says Paul Hodges, chair of the London-based consulting firm International eChem. Hodges, formerly a senior manager with the one-time British giant Imperial Chemical Industries, recalls the complexity of exporting chemicals from the U.K. to Europe before a single EU market was created.
Post-Brexit exports will involve customs and tax systems that will take time to establish, Hodges explains. “I think we are getting close to the point where it is too late,” he says. Among the anticipated changes under World Trade Organization rules, companies will be expected to pay a key tax up front rather than after transactions. Hodges says he knows of one chemical company that must have hundreds of millions of dollars available as a result.
Together, the U.K.’s chemical and pharmaceutical sectors export $35 billion of manufactured products annually, making them the country’s largest goods exporter. Some 75% of their raw materials are sourced from the EU.
For its part, the U.K. drug industry is contending with the European Commission’s recent decision to relocate the European Medicines Agency, the European equivalent of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, from London to Amsterdam. The agency will relocate within 16 months.
The decision “means 1,000 high-quality jobs leaving the U.K.,” says Steve Bates, chief executive officer of the BioIndustry Association, a U.K. trade group.
The U.K. has yet to decide under what mechanisms drugs will be approved in the U.K. and sold to the 27 EU countries after Brexit. “We must now ensure Brexit does not disrupt the safe supply of vital medicines to tens of millions of families in the EU 27 and the U.K.,” Bates says. “Businesses now need certainty.”
But uncertainty is spreading, notably around the talent pool that will be available to U.K. drug and chemical companies after Brexit.
The U.K. trade union Prospect surveyed 650 science, technology, engineering, and math workers from the EU and the wider European Economic Area; it found that almost 70% are considering leaving the U.K. because of Brexit. This is up from 11% in March.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i47/Brexit-reality-hits-UK-chemical.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Canada Will Not Regulate 2-MBS

Nov 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Julie A Miller

The Canadian government has decided that 2-MBS (benzenesulfonamide, 2-methyl) does not pose health or environmental risks, sufficient to warrant regulation under the country's environmental protection act (Cepa).
The substance is used primarily as an intermediate for fluorescent pigments and plasticiser resins, and as a plasticiser for hot-melt adhesives. It is also used as an ingredient in nail polish, and may be formed in small amounts during the manufacture of the food additive saccharin.
The risk assessment of these substances, and the proposal to take no action on them, was published for public consultation in February.
The final determination was published in the 18 November Gazette.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61965/canada-will-not-regulate-2-mbs

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Judge Rejects Trump Administration Call To Dismiss Keystone XL Lawsuit

Nov 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro

By Esther Whieldon

A U.S. judge today rejected the Trump administration's call to dismiss a lawsuit from environmental groups and landowners challenging its approval of the Keystone XL project.
Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Great Falls Division denied motions by the Trump administration and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that the State Department's April issuance of a presidential permit for the controversial project constituted an agency action, not presidential, that is therefore subject to environmental laws and the Administrative Procedure Act.
"The mere fact that the pipeline crossed the international border did not insulate the State Department's analysis of the environmental impacts of the pipeline project from judicial review under the APA," Morris said in the order.
Moreover, "no agency possesses discretion whether to comply with procedural requirements" such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the judge said. He later added that the Endangered Species Act provided "no exclusion for Presidential Permits."
Environmental groups such as the North Coast River Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club claim the pipeline will spill about 4,000 gallons of oil each year, threatening ESA-protected species and the broader environment, the court noted.
On Monday, the Nebraska Public Service Commission approved an alternate route for Keystone XL through the state that opponents say could require TransCanada to apply for a number of new federal permits. The State Department has said it may need to review the new route.
Last week, the original Keystone pipeline was shut after spilling 210,000 gallons of heavy Canadian oil in South Dakota.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
Exxon, Oil Giants Team Up To Reduce Methane Emissions

Nov 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

ExxonMobil Corp. and seven other energy firms have teamed up to tackle natural gas sector greenhouse gas emissions, the companies announced on Wednesday.
Exxon was the only American-owned company to sign an agreement to crack down on emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that producers tend to emit along the natural gas production line.
The companies agreed to take steps to reduce methane emissions, work with institutions and governments to write new methane regulations, improve emissions reporting data and increase transparency.
The oil industry has increasingly touted natural gas as an effective way to cut down on electricity sector greenhouse gas emissions, because it burns cleaner than other fossil fuel alternatives like coal.
But methane emissions pack about 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, a fact that has caused regulators to turn their eye to pollution controls on natural gas producers.
In the United States, the Trump administration is working to roll back methane pollution rules from the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The oil industry has opposed the regulations, arguing they are costly and duplicative of state pollution standards, and noting they have cut emissions on their own. Environmentalists say the warming potential of methane make the regulations necessary.
“Since natural gas consists mainly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, its part in the transition to a low-carbon future will be influenced by the extent to which the oil and gas industry reduces its methane emissions,” read the agreement.
Besides Exxon, oil companies BP, Eni, Repsol, Shell, Statoil, Total and Wintershall all signed the methane reduction agreement.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/361605-exxon-oil-giants-team-up-to-reduce-methane-emissions

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

(ACC Mentioned) Exclusive: CSX To Impose Hefty Fees On Some Rail Customers In 2018

Nov 22, 2017 | Reuters (In Business Insider)

By Eric M. Johnson

SEATTLE (Reuters) - CSX Corp will charge new fees for freight shipments to Mexico and hike charges for customers that fail to load or discharge railcars by agreed deadlines or ship unsafely loaded or overweight railcars as of Jan. 1, the company said.
A Nov. 15 notice of the changes, seen by Reuters, would encourage customers to better conform to CSX's schedules as it faces persistent service delays and disruptions partly caused by its dramatic operations overhaul.
CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle said by phone on Wednesday the charges were "in line with efforts to optimize the use of assets," including railcars. "These changes are intended to improve the efficiency of our operations," he added.
CSX Chief Executive Hunter Harrison, who took the job in March, has been streamlining operations with his "precision scheduled railroading" strategy, which relies on running freight trains based on strict schedules instead of individual shippers' needs.
Independent rail analyst Anthony Hatch said Harrison was using the fees as a "behavior-changing strategy" to make shippers conform to his timetables, rather than to boost profits. They could pose a costly headache for shippers who lack the personnel and infrastructure to speed up or change their rail car-processing capabilities.
"Shipper-caused delays are a part of the whole story along with CSX-caused delays," Hatch said. "Hunter Harrison is trying to reset the whole relationship."
Hatch said similar charges were part of Harrison's strategy when he led a turnaround at Canadian National Railway Co through 2009.
The carrier also said several customers, including U.S. packaged food maker Conagra Brands Inc, would no longer be able to use other railroads to move freight in certain locations if CSX's system can not handle their cars, a process called "reciprocal switching."
The change may force these customers to ship freight by truck, which is costlier than rail.
Conagra did not respond to a request for comment.
Hatch said it was difficult to compare CSX's penalties to other major carriers since such details are not usually publicly disclosed.
Among CSX's changes, demurrage fees for cars carrying flammable materials will rise to $250 per day from $175, and to $150 a day from $105 for non-hazmat cars. Refrigerated cars will be charged $250 per day, up from $200.
Charges for overloaded railcars will rise to $1,000 each from $750, and $1,000 per unsafely loaded railcar, up from $750.
For railcars crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, CSX said it may charge a new fee of $200 per railcar for incomplete or erroneous customs documentation or data, and $25 per railcar for paperwork and processing.
"Customers are already dealing with increased transportation costs and major service disruptions because of the ongoing CSX service failures," said Scott Jensen, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, a lobby group.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-csx-to-impose-hefty-fees-on-some-rail-customers-in-2018-2017-11

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

EPA Paves Way For Greater Use of Climate-Friendly Refrigerants

Nov 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The EPA is making it easier for the refrigeration industry to use climate-friendly chemicals, even amid continued uncertainty about whether the Trump administration will support a global deal to limit greenhouse gases in the sector.
The Environmental Protection Agency released a direct final rule, signed by Administrator Scott Pruitt Nov. 20, to allow larger amounts of climate-friendly refrigerants to be used in household refrigerators and freezers.
Environmental advocates and appliance manufacturers alike say the move will make it easier for the U.S. refrigeration industry to transition away from hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), refrigerant chemicals that are highly potent greenhouse gases.
But even as the White House has been silent on the global agreement to limit HFCs, the EPA's rule provides greater certainty for manufacturers of household refrigerators, said Kevin Messner, senior vice president of policy and government relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
“Regardless of what happens with” the HFC deal, “we as an industry are committed to phasing out of these refrigerants,” Messner told Bloomberg Environment. “This action by EPA takes us out of that uncertain global discussion, and opens the way for manufacturers to do what they want to do in a rational and cost effective way, and an environmentally responsible way.”
Montreal Summit
The EPA's rule comes as countries are meeting in Montreal to discuss the global HFC deal, known as the Kigali Amendment. The agreement amends the Montreal Protocol, the 1987 treaty crafted to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting chemicals. HFCs do not deplete the ozone but have largely served as the replacements for chemicals that do.
The EPA's new rule is critical to ensuring U.S. industry has climate-friendly alternatives to replace HFCs consistent with the Kigali requirements, Avipsa Mahapatra, climate campaign lead with the nonprofit group Environmental Investigation Agency, said
“This is a step that has been due so long that the international community has moved on. Most of the world has already safely and happily installed these refrigerants and has been using them for decades now,” Mahapatra told Bloomberg Environment from the Montreal meetings.
Nonetheless, it is unclear whether the Trump administration will ultimately back the Kigali Amendment, which it would have to submit to the Senate for ratification.
Critical Standard Updates
The EPA rule incorporates updated building standards to allow a larger amount of climate-friendly HFC alternatives to be used in household appliances. Those alternative chemicals, like isobutane and propane, have a lower global warming potential, making them less harmful to the climate, but some are mildly flammable.
But updating the safety and building codes to allow the safe use of those chemicals will be critical to ensure the U.S. industry is able to meet the Kigali Amendment's requirements, manufacturers say.
It's “not a very quick thing,” Steve Yurek, president of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, which represents commercial refrigeration appliance manufacturers and chemical companies, told Bloomberg Environment. It could be 2020 or 2021 before some of the building codes are updated, Yurek said from the Montreal meeting earlier in the week.
The new EPA rule adopts safety standards updated in spring of 2017 by the standard-setting group Underwriters Laboratories for three chemicals. The EPA will now allow more than double the amount of climate-friendly replacements for a common HFC refrigerant to be used in new household refrigerators and freezers—a similar level that has been used in Europe for many years, Messner said.
“It's one of those things that's very hard to find these days in D.C.: an action by EPA that everyone supports. I can't even think of anyone that would say this is a bad thing to do,” Messner said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124157417&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124157417&jd=124157417

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Fights Supreme Court Review Of Air Law 'Contingency Measures' Suit

Nov 22, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA is poised to next week tell the Supreme Court why it should reject Arizona's call for the justices to scrap an appellate ruling banning the agency from approving states' “contingency measures” to cut air pollution if such efforts are already mandated, with Arizona claiming EPA's opposition to review is to avoid scrutiny of its air policies.
Contingency measures are those required by the Clean Air Act where states miss certain targets to achieve national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), such as federal limits on ozone and particulate matter (PM).
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on the agency's behalf faces a Nov. 30 deadline to file its reply to Arizona' most recent legal filing in State of Arizona v. Bahr, et al., in which the state is urging the high court to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's Sept. 12 ruling on contingency measures. The appellate court ruled 2-1 that contingency measures are those “to be undertaken” in the future, not steps states are already required to take.
Citizen petitioners in the suit argued that contingency measures must be separate and additional to measures already being taken by a state to meet the agency's NAAQS. The 9th Circuit agreed, with the majority finding that the air law requires contingency measures “to be undertaken” in the future, but Judge Richard Clifton in a dissent found it “illogical to penalize nonattainment areas that are taking extra steps” early.
Arizona argues that its contingency measures were already tougher than required by the state's existing state implementation plan (SIP) for NAAQS compliance at the time, and refusing to accept them as contingency measures merely delays air quality improvements. The dispute relates to now years-old measures for meeting NAAQS for coarse PM, or dust, in Maricopa County, AZ, such as from paving roads.
Arizona says the 9th Circuit ruling creates a perverse incentive for states to delay air quality measures until they are mandated by the air law, and that the ruling conflicts with a 5th Circuit ruling from 2004 on similar issues and contradicts years of EPA policy applying contingency measures in many states.
In addition to the circuit split that warrants high court review, Arizona says the two judicial circuits applied the high court's Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to federal agency decisions differently. The 5th Circuit in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA deferred to EPA's view under Chevron, which holds that courts may defer to agencies' reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory terms. But the 9th Circuit declined to do so, finding that the air law is clear that contingency measures must be future actions not already in place.
EPA's Opposition
At the appellate level, the Obama administration backed Arizona's arguments -- but the Trump administration has since changed course and DOJ is now urging the Supreme Court against hearing the case.
DOJ outlined its opposition in an Aug. 29 brief, prompting Arizona in a Sept. 8 filing to say EPA's brief is “puzzling. It argues against the very positions EPA espoused earlier in this same case.” Arizona notes that EPA even sought rehearing en banc of the 9th Circuit ruling, which the appeals court denied.
“The federal government reveals its true reason for opposing certiorari on the final page of its Brief in Opposition: EPA hopes to 'limit the immediate effect of the decision below to the Ninth Circuit.,'” Arizona says.
“Enabled by a 2016 change in its regional consistency regulations, EPA proposes to sacrifice the nine States and tens of millions of Americans living in the Ninth Circuit in a gambit aimed at avoiding this Court’s review (and possible affirmance), despite a universally acknowledged split with the Fifth Circuit, the Agency’s own recognition of an incorrect decision . . . and the resulting perverse incentive to delay implementation of pollution-control measures in the western United States,” the state says. The Obama EPA last year updated its litigation policy to allow an agency region to avoid implementing an adverse ruling from an appellate court outside of the region.
California air regulators with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates the greater Los Angeles area, have joined as amici in the pending high court suit to support Arizona.
In its Aug. 29 opposition to high court review, DOJ says, “The court of appeals' decision does not warrant this Court's review. The disagreement between the Fifth and Ninth Circuits concerning the range of contingency measures that are permissible . . . does not create any unmanageable practical difficulties."
Further, while “EPA has often approved SIP contingency measures whose implementation had already begun at the time of SIP approval, the agency has not promulgated any generally applicable regulation that specifies when that course is appropriate,” the brief says.
'Unsuitable Vehicle'
DOJ also claims that the case would be an “unsuitable vehicle” to clarify the scope of Chevron deference, which sets a test for when courts defer to agency decisions. The 5th and 9th Circuits have reached different conclusions over whether to defer to EPA's interpretation of what may qualify as contingency measures, but “the contrasting results in the two cases do not reflect any difference between the two courts' understanding of the framework itself.”
DOJ says that EPA's revised regional consistency regulations are also relevant. The Obama-era revision allows the agency to apply policies regionally outside judicial circuits that have opposed them, but certain industry groups have opposed this approach as inconsistent with uniform national regulatory policy.
“Those regulations allow the EPA to limit the immediate effect of the decision below to the Ninth Circuit, thereby affording the EPA an opportunity to assess the decision's consequences and determine the best regulatory approach going forward,” DOJ says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-fights-supreme-court-review-air-law-contingency-measures-suit

Return to headline | Return to top
New EPA Documents Boost Critics Of EPA Plan To Scrap 'Glider' GHG Limits

Nov 22, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

Environmentalists and some states say that newly released EPA documents related to its proposed repeal of greenhouse gas standards for “glider” trucks bolster their claims that the plan includes scant review of possible criteria pollution affects or harms to the competitiveness of companies that produce newer, cleaner vehicles.
The new documents also indicate that White House officials attempted to bolster the proposal's legal rationale, providing potential fodder for critics' claims that the plan is a hasty attempt to help a specific sector while ignoring the wishes of the broader trucking industry.
“This further shows that this [repeal] is a special deal for one special polluter at the expense of public health and the environment and undercuts those that are playing by the rules,” American Lung Association's Paul Billings told Inside EPA Nov. 20.
The documents were posted Nov. 17 to the official rulemaking docket for the proposal, which would scrap Obama-era GHG limits for glider vehicles, which combine new truck bodies with rebuilt drivetrains. The standards are part of a broader Phase 2 GHG rule for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
Among the documents is a Nov. 15 EPA memo showing that “nearly all” recently produced glider vehicles use model year 1998-2002 engines made before implementation of a key technology to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) -- and that glider production has grown during the past decade to numbers that meet or even significantly exceed EPA assumptions.
In addition, a separate Nov. 16 EPA staff memo acknowledges EPA did not consider several potential economic impacts of the glider proposal, including potential negative effects on some small businesses.
However, the core piece of EPA's proposal is a new legal interpretation that it lacked the Clean Air Act authority to impose the requirements on glider vehicles in the first place -- an argument that could serve to undercut such emissions and competitiveness arguments.
The agency also released a red-line version of the proposal showing significant revisions to the plan during the interagency review process conducted by the White House, including the addition of an apparent fallback option under which the agency would not repeal the glider GHG standards but would instead ease a current cap in the rule limiting glider production to 300 vehicles.
Billings' critique broadly aligns with concerns from other observers, including Northeastern state air regulators, that EPA is subordinating real-world pollution concerns to “legalistic” arguments. Sources also worry that repealing the GHG limits for gliders would disadvantage makers of new, clean trucks and that EPA's emissions experts are being largely ignored in the development of the proposal.
But the critiques come as Senate Republicans released new EPA spending bill language that endorses the repeal effort, suggesting that Congress may not try to throw up roadblocks to the effort. The Obama EPA's “decision to classify glider kits as new motor vehicles raises a number of valid concerns and urges the Agency to complete its review [of the rule] expeditiously.”
Emissions Memo
The new EPA documents include an internal memo based on production data from two glider kit makers that represent the “primary suppliers” of the vehicles, Daimler Trucks North America and PACCAR. The memo underscores that use of gliders has become much more common since 2010 -- when EPA's latest heavy-duty NOx standard took full effect -- though it is heavily redacted to protect confidential business information.
Specifically, the memo notes that glider production peaked at “significantly over” 10,000 vehicles 2015, suggesting that real-world production exceeds prior EPA estimates that roughly 10,000 such kits were expected to be produced at the time. And the memo further states that “nearly all engines for recent glider production” are from MY98-02 and do not include exhaust gas re-circulation (EGR) technology that helps to lower NOx. The memo says there are a smaller significant number of MY04-06 engines, and “very few” MY07 or later engines.
EGR is one of a number of technologies that have historically caused heartburn in trucking industry circles for allegedly contributing to reliability or performance problems in some diesel trucks.
The memo's reference to the fact that many gliders rely on MY98-02 engines echoes materials presented in a prior meeting of state air regulators with White House officials on EPA's draft repeal proposal. The state officials said engines from those model years are a particular concern from an emissions standpoint.
A Northeastern state source responding to the new documents says the agency's flagging of significant numbers of older engines is a fresh reason to criticize EPA's reliance in its proposal on a a study by Tennessee Technical University that glider makers have used to downplay any negative criteria pollution impact from repealing the GHG limits.
This source notes that the study is based on MY02-07 engines, which are much newer than the MY98-02 models that EPA says are used often in gliders.
The study “is not of the quality needed to provide a technical basis for looking at the real-world impact of 10,000 or more glider kits on the road,” the source says.
Also, an environmentalist argues that the Tennessee Tech study is suspect for numerous reasons, including that it appears to be based on testing done at facilities owned by glider maker Fitzgerald Glider Kits -- the same company that petitioned EPA to reconsider the GHG requirements for gliders.
Economic Analysis
Meanwhile, a separate Nov. 16 memo from EPA's Assessment and Standards Division notes that EPA is not including a draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for this proposed rule. “Therefore, EPA is presenting its economic impact assessment required by [Clean Air Act] Section 317 in this memorandum.”
EPA then states that the agency “did not . . . consider this economic impact assessment itself in proposing this action,” before discussing a number of items the agency did or did not weigh in the assessment.
Specifically, the memo concludes there would be “no costs of compliance” for the proposal since it rescinds the glider requirements. It also acknowledges in general terms “potential competitive impacts” from any move to alter the standards -- including impacts on small businesses, primarily dealerships that sell new trucks but not gliders.
But the memo includes little specific analysis on this point, other than general language noting that “EPA agrees that either strengthening or weakening the requirements for glider vehicles could potentially impact the competitive balance.”
The memo also acknowledges claims from glider vehicle makers that “re-manufactured glider engines have better fuel consumption and lower maintenance costs that current new engines,” but also explicitly states, “EPA has not verified these claims. Moreover, to the extent engine manufacturers will continue to improve the reliability and fuel efficiency of their engines, as might be expected, any operating cost advantage for glider engines would likely decrease in the future.”
Underscoring the competitiveness concerns, a statement previously provided to Inside EPA by Volvo Group voices support for the glider kit standards “as currently written,” defending them as an “effort to curtail the rapidly growing practice of installing outdated emissions controls into what are otherwise new vehicles.”
Also just placed in EPA's docket is a red-line version of the proposal that shows changes made during the White House review process.
The document indicates, for example, that language in the proposal floating eased limits on glider kit production as an alternative to scrapping the GHG limits entirely was a later addition.
The red-line version also shows apparent efforts to shore up the proposal's legal rationale, much of which appeared to be added during the review process. Added language includes assertions that decades of legislative history show the definition of a “new motor vehicle” subject to emissions rules is ambiguous, but “it is implausible that Congress would have had in mind that a 'new motor vehicle' might also include . . . a previously owned power train.”
At another point in the document, language that appeared to frame popularity of cheaper glider kits among small business owners as central to the “statutory and regulatory context” for the rule was moved elsewhere in the document, under a listing of issues on which EPA is seeking comment, in order to lead with the agency's legal justification for its proposal rather than the preferences of a specific group.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-epa-documents-boost-critics-epa-plan-scrap-glider-ghg-limits

Return to headline | Return to top
Practitioner Insights: Challenges Ahead for Clean Power Plan as EPA Eyes Repeal

Nov 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Viviana L. Heger and Joshua A. Bloom

Under President Barack Obama's administration, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated the Clean Power Plan on Oct. 23, 2015.
The Clean Power Plan required states to regulate existing coal-fired power plants in a manner that effectively shuts some down in favor of lower-emission fuel sources such as natural gas, wind, and solar (80 Fed. Reg. 64661-964). Soon after 27 states sued the EPA over the rule, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Clean Power Plan on Feb. 9, 2016, which remains in place today in State of West Virginia v. EPA. That case is held in abeyance.
President Donald Trump's administration has drafted a proposed rule to address the Clean Power Plan. The Trump administration intends to “suspend, revise, or rescind” any regulation, including the power plant standards, that “unduly burdens the development of U.S. energy resources” (82 Fed. Reg. 16329-16331; see also March 28 Exec. Order No. 13783).
On Aug. 31, 20 states and localities issued a press release notifying the EPA and the public that they support the Clean Power Plan's current compliance deadlines, which commence Sept. 6, 2018, and disagree that the Supreme Court's stay has the effect of extending the deadlines. The news release was issued in response to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's letter advising 47 states that they are not “expected to work towards meeting the compliance dates set in the” Clean Power Plan. The big unknown is what the Trump administration's actual proposed draft rule will state—how will it change the Clean Power Plan, what will be the direct and indirect impact on coal plants, and will it address overall emission targets and trading?
Clean Air Act Overview and Issues Raised
Before regulating existing sources of pollutants, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to:
• Establish a standard of performance for “new” sources under Section 111(b) (known as a New Source Performance Standard, or NSPS), and then
• Establish emission guidelines for “existing” sources under Section 111(d) and require states to submit plans to meet the guidelines.

Thus, in order for the Clean Power Plan—or any revised rule—to lawfully regulate “existing” sources, the EPA must first have an NSPS in effect for “new” sources. Then, the EPA can in certain ways regulate “existing” sources within the same “new source” category of pollution.
Currently, the EPA has the companion rule for the Clean Power Plan, specifically an NSPS for power plants that the Obama administration promulgated the same day (80 Fed. Reg. 64509-660). However, that standard, like the Clean Power Plan, is currently the subject of litigation by 24 states in State of North Dakota v. EPA, which the court placed in abeyance.
Establishing a Best System of Emission Reduction May be Challenging for New Power Plant Standards
Prior to litigation challenging the new power plant standards and the Clean Power Plan, the EPA was required to show that the standards it established “reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction (BSER) that the EPA has determined has been adequately demonstrated for each type of unit.” The EPA's best system of emissions reduction analysis for the new power plant standards seems to lack evidence that the selected BSER reflects an emission control system that has been “adequately demonstrated” and meets other statutory requirements.
Under the NSPS for power plants, the EPA established a performance standard of 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of gross energy output for newly constructed electricity generating units. New sources of coal-fired electricity generating units cannot meet the 1,400-pound-per-megawatt-hour standard without also implementing carbon capture and storage, as reflected in the rule itself.
The new power plant rule specifies the use of partial carbon capture; however, Clean Air Act § 111(b)(5) prohibits the EPA from requiring any specific technology when it sets a new source performance standard. Further, Section 111(a)(1) requires that a best system of emission reduction be one that has been “adequately demonstrated” and each best system of emissions reduction must take into account the costs of achieving emission reductions. There is an extensive rulemaking record associated with the NSPS for power plants, but it does not appear to establish sufficiently that it was allowable for the EPA to impose partial carbon capture and that carbon capture itself is adequately demonstrated and cost effective.
The future of the new power plant standards is important to the Clean Power Plan or a replacement rule, if any is planned. No Clean Power Plan is permissible unless the NSPS for power plants is effective for “new sources.” There appears to be no dispute that Clean Air Act § 7411(d)(1)(A) only allows the Clean Power Plan for sources “to which a standard of performance . . . would apply if such existing source were a new source.”
Reliance on ‘Outside the Fence’ Measures
BSER-related issues may also exist for the Clean Power Plan itself. The rule finalized a performance rate of 1,305 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt for coal-fired electric generating units that must be met by 2030 with interim standards applying between 2022 to 2030. Existing sources of coal-fired electric generating units cannot meet the performance rate at the facility level at this time, and the final rule does not reflect the possibility of meeting the standard by 2030. The EPA, therefore, expects that to fulfill the Clean Power Plan, states will use “outside the fence” measures to reduce emissions, by using lower-emitting natural gas to generate electricity or by zero-emitting renewable energy. One of the challenges to the Clean Power Plan raised by industry is that the EPA lacks authority to rely on “outside the fence” measures to meet the standard. Another concern is that natural gas infrastructure may not currently exist to support the Clean Power Plan goal of switching from coal to natural gas to generate electricity.
Clean Air Act § 111(d) May Not Provide Legal Authority for the Clean Power Plan
It is not clear that Clean Air Act § 111(d) provides the EPA authority to regulate sources already regulated under Section 112. American Electric Power Co. Inc. v. Connecticut; see also New Jersey v. EPA (“under EPA's own interpretation of the section [111(d)], it cannot be used to regulate sources listed under section 112.”). Thus, if power plants are sources listed under Section 112, which they are, some legal authorities suggest the EPA is without authority to regulate any other pollutants from that source. The EPA, however, for the Clean Power Plan “reasonably interpret[ed] . . . section 111(d) to authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 from fossil fuel-fired” power plants. Relying on Clean Air Act § 111(d) is challenging, in part, because the House and Senate passed different versions of the statute and one precludes application of Section 111(d) when a source is regulated under Section 112, while the other does not.
Keeping Clean Air Act Penalties in Mind is Important When Industry Voluntarily Reduces Emissions
In evaluating the future of the Clean Power Plan and its necessary companion rule, the new source performance standards for power plants, rulemakers should keep in mind the Clean Air Act penalty structure in an environment where, as here, industry is already voluntarily reducing emissions. Subdivisions (c)(1) and (d)(1) of Clean Air Act § 113 impose significant penalties for failures to comply with the requirements, ranging from $25,000 to $200,000 or greater per violation and possible imprisonment. The EPA noted in rulemaking that “owners/operators of affected EGUs are already pursuing the types of measures contemplated in this rule. Out of 404 [EGU] entities..., 178 already own [renewable energy] generating capacity...equal to 25 percent of the aggregate amounts of their affected EGU capacity.”
Thus, whatever Clean Power Plan or revised rule, if any, is implemented, it comes at a time when industry already meets certain Clean Power Plan goals. Promulgating a new Clean Power Plan would enhance the reduction of carbon dioxide, but it would also impose penalties for failures to reduce carbon dioxide to the same extent as penalties that apply to other Clean Air Act pollutants like hazardous air pollutants. Carbon dioxide, however, is not like other Clean Air Act pollutants that impose direct causal impacts on health.
The Pollutant—Carbon Dioxide and its Effects
“Unlike other air pollutants which are results of trace impurities in the fuel, products of incomplete or inefficient combustion, or combustion byproducts, [carbon dioxide] is an inherent product of clean, efficient combustion of fossil fuels, and therefore is an unavoidable product generated in enormous quantities, far greater than any other air pollutant,” the EPA said.
The agency had said that greenhouse gases posed a particular threat to children, the elderly and the poor and low income and minority communities would be disproportionately affected by climate change effects such as heat waves and poor air quality.
The Purpose and Rationale for the Clean Power Plan and New Plant Standards
The Clean Power Plan was described as an “important step in an essential series of long-term actions that are achieving and must continue to achieve the [greenhouse gas] emission reductions needed to address the serious threat of climate change, and constitutes a major commitment—and international leadership-by-doing—on the part of the U.S., one of the world's largest GHG emitters.”
Under the Obama administration, the EPA used the social cost of carbon to value the climate impacts of rulemakings. The social cost of carbon shows, in dollars, the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions in a given year.
The EPA estimated “the total combined climate benefits and health co-benefits for the rate-based approach to be $3.5 to $4.6 billion in 2020, $18 to $28 billion in 2025, and $34 to $54 billion in 2030” with benefits of between $5.3 to $8.1 billion in 2020, $19 to $29 billion in 2025, and $32 to $48 billion in 2030.
Trump's March 28 executive order withdrew the use of the technical support document that was used to monetize the social benefits of the Clean Power Plan and disbanded the working group that developed the guidance documen. Legislation was also introduced in June to eliminate reliance on the social cost of carbon in the future, making unclear what tools EPA will use in the future for economic analysis.
The Clean Power Plan's Requirements are Difficult or Impossible to Achieve
Some legal commentators and scholars “contend that the Clean Power Plan violates the U.S. Constitution because it seizes authority that should be lodged in Congress and the states and runs afoul of the Due Process and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by forcing power plants and the energy industry to shoulder the burden of lessening global carbon dioxide emissions” (Steven A. Weiler). The Clean Power Plan for existing power plants depends on the viability of the new source performance standards for power plants, but, as explained earlier, both rules are subject to litigation. The particular requirements of each rule, and their bases, are relevant to help explore how to address the Clean Power Plan rule.
Emission Limits in the NSPS for Power Plants are Difficult to Achieve
For new fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs), the EPA set a standard of performance of 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of gross energy output. The EPA explained that the standard “can be achieved by new steam generating EGUs—including new utility boilers...through co-firing with natural gas” or “all new steam-generating sources can implement partial-capture CCS.” Critics claim the rule effectively prohibited the construction of new coal-fired power plants, and the EPA seemed to acknowledge the concern during rulemaking, saying: “The [Energy Information Administration] modeling also projects that few, if any, new coal-fired EGUs will be built in this decade and that those that are built will have” carbon capture systems.
The costs for carbon capture are high and the technology is still developing. The EPA explained that “the costs of CO2 capture and compression represent the largest stumbling block to widespread commercialization of CCS,” representing 90 percent of the overall costs. During rulemaking, the EPA reviewed carbon capture projects—none apparently at coal-fired plants—and concluded that “CCS projects...are helping to further develop the CCS technology.”
Due to costs, technological reasons, and other reasons, the North Dakota v. EPA litigation is currently challenging the new source performance standards for new power plants. On Aug. 10, the D.C. Circuit ruled on its own motion that the consolidated cases remain held in abeyance with the EPA ordered to file status reports at 90-day intervals.
Clean Power Plan Requirements are Extensive, Currently Stayed, and Some Impossible to Achieve
The Clean Power Plan finalized a performance rate of 1,305 lb carbon dioxide per megawatt hour for coal-fired EGUs, and required that each state's plan achieve the rate as well as an EPA-determined carbon dioxide emission reduction goal for the state. Several interim deadlines for states apply. The stated goal of the Clean Power Plan was to reach a 32 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2030. Prior to the stay of the rule, the EPA provided until Sept. 6, 2018 for submission of state or multi-state plans; required no mandatory emission reductions until 2022; and provided “a gradual application of the BSER over the 2022-2029 interim period, such that a state has substantial latitude in selecting its own emission reduction trajectory or ‘glide path’ over that period.”
In section III.A of the final Clean Power Plan rule, the EPA set out building blocks: (1) improving heat rate at coal-fired steam electricity generating units; (2) substituting less carbon-intensive generating units (e.g., replacing coal with natural gas); and (3) increasing reliance on low or zero-carbon generation sources such as solar and wind. The first building block occurs “inside the fence” of a facility, while the others occur “outside the fence.”
On Feb. 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme court placed a stay on the Clean Power Plan “pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought.” In light of significant state opposition to the program, the EPA proposed a federal implementation plan to be used by EPA to ensure compliance in states that declined to submit plans under the Clean Power Plan. Following the stay, in June 2016, EPA proposed design details for the Clean Energy Incentive Program optional emission reduction program for states wishing to incentivize certain early compliance projects under the Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Power Plan finalized performance rate of 1,305 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour “is not achievable in practice by any conventional coal unit,” according to a March 28, 2016 “Inside the Fence” analysis by industry attorney, Eugene Trisko. Accordingly, this building block, alone, could not achieve the objectives of the Clean Power Plan. The EPA, itself, estimated that potential heat rate improvements of 2.1 percent to 4.3 percent were achievable for each of three regions in the U.S.
For the Clean Power Plan, the EPA defined BSER to include “outside the fence” emission reduction actions that could be taken throughout the electric grid, such as limiting generation from coal units while increasing the output of existing natural gas combined-cycle units, and increasing reliance on new renewable energy sources. State plans may use any or all of the broad categories or other state measures.
Rescinding or Replacing the Clean Power Plan
Though significant issues with the Clean Power Plan and new power plant standards exist, the current administration's desire to suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan is not an easy task. The EPA would need to engage in notice and rulemaking to rescind or revise the rule, a process that normally takes years. The EPA would need to develop a record in defense of its decision to suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan. To do so, the EPA administration would need to attack the basis for the Clean Power Plan or the basis for the new power plant standards or both. This task is difficult because the Obama administration's record of proceedings for the Clean Power Plan provides multiple sources of support, spanning hundreds of pages in length. Under FCC v. Fox Television Stations, “[EPA] is free to [reconsider the rule] as long as “the new policy is permissible under the statute.., there are good reasons for it, and … the agency believes it to be better.” The administration may not simply stay the rule indefinitely, a tactic that recently failed in a related carbon dioxide rulemaking procedure.
It is unclear how the EPA plans to show a better approach than the Clean Power Plan and the performance standards for new power plants, but the anticipated draft proposed rule is likely to focus partly on findings from North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the National Economic Research Associates. Relying on NERA, Trump said the Clean Power Plan could raise “electricity rates by as much as 14 percent, costing American households $79 billion.”
NERC also identified logistical challenges to implementing the Clean Power Plan. “To begin, a large amount of coal-fired generation capacity—about 103 GW by 2020—will need to be replaced, largely by gas-fired generation,” NERC said. But additional natural gas pipeline capacity will be required in certain parts of the country to satisfy increased gas-fired generation capacity. “As an example, current and planned pipeline infrastructures in Arizona and Nevada are inadequate for handling increased natural gas demand due to the Clean Power Plan.”
Also, the economics supporting the Clean Power Plan have been criticized. Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Robert Pindyck concluded in his 2013 analysis that all three models used by the Obama administration working group for the Clean Power Plan “have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis.” In particular, the EPA's economic analysis, which used the social cost of carbon factor, has been criticized for relying on a 3 percent, instead of a 7 percent, discount rate. “[W]hen changed from a 3 percent discount rate to a 5 percent discount rate, the EPA's $20 billion in projected climate benefits decreases to $6.4 billion,” he said.
Finally, the Clean Power Plan has been criticized for triggering “the closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants across the country” and is contested by labor unions. For example, the Boilermakers have stated: “Through the [Clean Power Plan], the EPA seeks to radically reshape the energy industry by forcing states to adopt plans that in effect would shut down numerous coal-fired power plants and replace them with lower-emission fuel sources, especially natural gas and renewables.”
The EPA met with union leaders in June 2017, according to the Office of Management and Budget. OMB records disclose a presentation by several labor unions on June 26, 2017, that rescinding the Clean Power Plan was “a critical step in reducing future job losses.” The labor unions proposed setting emission targets based on “best performing units,” allowing trading of emission credits (an “outside the fence” measure) to reduce costs; considering a different baseline to provide credit for past reductions of carbon dioxide; and reforming another Clean Air Act rule known as New Source Review to improve plant efficiency.
Given the administration's stated goals and objectives, it is likely that the proposed draft rule to address the Clean Power Plan will be based, in part, on dismantling the economic and logistical structures of the Obama administration's rule as well as demonstrating that an alternative is necessary to prevent coal plant closures. The proposed draft rule is likely to include different emission targets and provisions for emission trading.
Viviana L. Heger is Of Counsel at Meyers Nave in the firm's Land Use and Environmental Law Practice Group. She has more than 15 years of experience assisting clients with matters involving air quality, water quality, hazardous waste and materials management and disposal, greenhouse gas emissions, remediation, failure-to-warn under Prop 65, and chemicals regulations such as TSCA and California's Green Chemistry Initiative.
Joshua A. Bloom is a Principal at Meyers Nave in the firm's Land Use and Environmental Law Practice Groups. With more than 25 years of experience, he specializes in all areas of state and federal environmental and natural resources law, including complex environmental litigation, brownfields, environmental aspects of transactional matters, and compliance counseling, representing both public and private clients.
The opinions expressed here do not represent those of Bloomberg Environment, which welcomes other points of view.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124157433&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124157433&jd=124157433

Return to headline | Return to top
Sierra Club To Hold 'Alternative' EPA CPP Hearing

Nov 22, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Sierra Club is planning an “alternative” hearing to the one EPA is hosting next week in Charleston, WV, on its proposal to repeal the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) to cut utility sector greenhouse gases, with the group focusing its event on why the CPP is important to public health.
In addition, the environmental group plans to submit a transcript of its hearing to EPA so it can become part of the official regulatory docket for the agency's proposal.
Bill Price of the Sierra Club in West Virginia says the alternative hearing will take place Nov. 28, the first day of the two-day EPA hearings there, and will be located at the University of Charleston, not far from the state capitol where EPA is holding its event.
The group will also have a number of people testifying directly to EPA.
The Sierra Club hearing will focus on how the rule would improve communities' health. “It's not a boycott of EPA but an additional space, we would say a more open space, for supporters of the Clean Power Plan to speak. We will be transcribing those comments and submitting them to EPA” the following day, Price says.
Speakers will include former coal miners, a local business owner who is also a climate advocate, front-line community representatives, a public health professional, scientists, policy experts, possibly state legislators and others -- most with a connection to the Appalachian coal community. For example, one scheduled speaker, Jeremy Richardson, a senior climate analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a West Virginia native, Price says.
Supporters of EPA's CPP repeal will also be represented at the EPA hearing in force, with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) holding a press conference at the state capitol at noon Nov. 28 with Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-WV) and state coal association executives from West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All are expected to testify, a coal mining source says.
Also planning to testify in support of repeal are officials with the United Mine Workers of America.
Other business interests are also likely to be represented, including the electric utility industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.
However, a spokesman for Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which represents investor-owned utilities, says that group will not be testifying. EEI and other power companies have largely backed a narrow CPP replacement rule in lieu of repeal to provide regulatory certainty on GHG obligations.
Meanwhile, it is unclear which EPA officials will attend the two-day session. Agency air chief William Wehrum, who was recently confirmed by the Senate, tells Inside EPA that he does not plan to be there. An agency spokesman did not respond by press time to questions about who would be representing EPA.
The agency generally does not reply to any of the testimony at such events, but EPA in the past has sent political appointees and career staff to listen.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/sierra-club-hold-alternative-epa-cpp-hearing

Return to headline | Return to top
After ditching Paris, Trump’s Team Has Another Big International Climate Decision To Make

Nov 23, 2017 | The Washington Post

By Chris Mooney

While it’s not the Paris climate agreement, hopes are rising that the Trump administration will not walk away from another international climate accord, one designed to limit emissions of super-polluting gases from air conditioners and refrigerators that could otherwise sharply warm the globe.
In Montreal this week, countries have assembled for the 29th meeting of the parties to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a widely celebrated treaty to protect the planet’s ozone layer. And they’re welcoming an extension of the protocol, called the Kigali Amendment, which was negotiated last year and late last week crossed a key ratification threshold. Its formal acceptance now by 21 member countries will trigger its going into force in early 2019.
The amendment specifically targets a category of climate pollutants called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are far more potent than leading greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane on a molecule per molecule basis. HFCs were originally a substitute for the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that severely damage the ozone layer, but they’ve since been recognized as coming with their own significant problems.
The chemicals, which often leak from air conditioners, refrigerators and other industrial devices and then make their way into the atmosphere, have the potential to drive a half-degree Celsius (.9 degrees Fahrenheit) of global warming if not controlled in the early part of this century.
The Kigali Amendment, which would phase down HFCs, was strongly supported by the Obama administration. The Trump administration has not yet taken a position on it, other than perhaps one slight and murky signal: Over the summer, it refused to support a large climate change-related section of a G-7 communique that, among a long list of other matters, signaled support for the amendment. But it’s far from clear what that might really mean.
As the meeting proceeds in Montreal, with the U.S. representatives expected to speak later this week, there are positive signs.
“There are a number of steps in our domestic process that we would need to complete before reaching a final decision on joining the Kigali Amendment, and we have initiated that process,” a State Department statement sent from a spokesman said. “The Kigali Amendment represents a pragmatic and balanced approach to phasing down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons, and we support the goals and approach.”
If there’s a reason the Trump administration could support the rather narrowly targeted amendment — yet still plan to exit the far more sweeping Paris agreement — it may have something to do with the Montreal Protocol itself. It’s an uncontroversial treaty with bipartisan domestic support and has traditionally been able to forge a cooperative, rather than adversarial, relationship with the companies making the chemicals subject to regulation.
“This is a Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher agreement,” said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, which tracks the protocol. “Bush used it successfully in 2007, and if the White House looks at it as a trade and competitiveness issue, it should be a slam dunk.”
U.S. companies that currently make products that use HFCs have supported the Kigali Amendment. Some of the most prominent, Honeywell and Chemours, already tout alternative chemicals with fewer environmental problems.
“We’re global companies and we operate in the global marketplace, and one of the advantages to ratification of the agreement is it avoids a patchwork of timelines and schedules globally,” said John Hurst, vice president for government affairs at Lennox International, which makes heating and cooling and refrigeration equipment. “So as any business would, we crave predictability and certainty. If ratified, it allows for research on the safe application of new alternative refrigerants, allows for more predictable product development decisions, allows companies to plan for R&D investments.”
Hurst is also chairman of the board of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, an industry group that has backed the Montreal Protocol and the Kigali Amendment.
U.S. manufacturers are looking at a massive business opportunity as the climate warms and developing nations expand their middle classes; huge swaths of the world, from Brazil to India, are expected to install enormous numbers of air conditioners in the coming decades. These companies want to build those products, but they also generally recognize that future air-conditioners will need to be more energy efficient and not reliant on HFCs.
“We’ve estimated the global market outside the U.S. in these technologies is probably over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years,” said Kevin Fay, the executive director of the alliance.
“The technology that we look to be replacing the high [global-warming potential] refrigerants will be predominantly North American-based technology, both refrigerants as well as systems,” added Stephen Yurek, president of the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, an industry group.
If the United States doesn’t sign onto the amendment, companies could instead suffer damaging trade restrictions starting in the 2030s. “It’s not an environmental game at this point, it’s a competitiveness game,” Zaelke said.
Should the State Department signal its support, the amendment would be forwarded to the Senate for ratification, which requires a two-thirds vote.
“Historically, this has not been a partisan issue,” said Paul Bledsoe, a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy and a former White House staffer on climate change in the Clinton administration. “So I think advocates are hopeful, both in industry and elsewhere, that the Senate would see this as a straight matter of economics and not have it be politicized as other agreements have been.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/22/after-ditching-paris-trumps-team-has-another-big-international-climate-decision-to-make/?utm_term=.f9750e5e6759

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Seeks $12 Billion to Fight Flooding Tied to Climate Change

Nov 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Hidden in the Trump administration's $44 billion emergency budget request is a plan to expand an Obama-era effort to make cities and towns resilient to the more frequent storms tied to climate change.
While President Donald Trump has dismissed global warming as a hoax, and his administration has moved to end efforts to curtail carbon emissions, the White House budget office is seeking $12 billion for a competition for flood-prone communities that scientists say are facing more numerous storms and greater flooding because of climate change.
“Given the Trump administration's position of climate change, and its apparent rejection of the basic science behind it, it's surprising to see a $12 billion proposal for creating greater resilience,” Joel Scata, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. The New York-based environmental group has fought Trump's efforts to reverse climate rules, but praised this idea.
As part of the $44 billion emergency budget request for the recovery from Hurricanes Irma, Harvey and Maria, which was sent to Congress Nov. 17, the White House said it wants to direct $12 billion to a competition to help cities and towns become resilient to flooding. Among the policies the White House said it's considering are “large-scale buyouts in areas of high flood risk.“
Other activities could include “structure hardening, forward-looking land-use plans, adoption of disaster resistant building codes,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a summary of its emergency funding request.
The contest would be run through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, providing community development block grant funds to states and territories that have had more than one major flood disaster in the last four years. Thirteen states, including Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, would meet the criteria for the contest, according to an NRDC analysis.
To be sure, the funding request must be approved by Congress, and lawmakers of both parties have already expressed skepticism of the size and other details in the funding proposal.
The proposal, which is similar to resilience competitions on a smaller scale held by the Obama administration in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, is an idea long championed by groups worried about the risks of climate change.
“It's not a new program but the fact they are putting a new amount of money behind it is great and essentially gives life back to the program,” said Laura Lightbody, director for the Flood-Prepared Communities project at the Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington. It's “a good step in the right direction.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124157420&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124157420&jd=124157420

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested