Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 05/12/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Campaign will Allow for More Recycling of Plastic Wraps and Bags in Omaha, Neb.
Dec 5, 2017 | Waste360
The Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) joined partners in Omaha, Neb., this past weekend to launch a new campaign to increase the recycling of plastic wrapsand bags in the city. -
Trump Science Job Nominees Missing Advanced Science Degrees
Dec 5, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Michael Biesecker, Catherine Lucey, Maureen Linke and Kevin Vineys
When it comes to filling jobs dealing with complex science, environment and health issues, the Trump administration is nominating people with fewer science academic credentials than their Obama predecessors. -
Staff Urge Changes To Risk Assessment Division In OPPT Reorganization
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Staff in EPA's toxics office, which senior officials are reorganizing to better implement the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), are urging managers to also reorganize the Risk Assessment Division (RAD) as part of the effort, saying any failure to tap the RAD for overhaul would hobble TSCA implementation. -
Les Miserable Chemists: Will The French Replace Glyphosate With Something 'Worse?'
Dec 5, 2017 | American Council on Science and Health
By Josh Bloom
French President Emmanuel Macron has declared he will ban the American herbicide glyphosate within three years, and sooner if a replacement is ready. -
Impact of EU Nano Observatory ‘Limited’, RIVM Says
Dec 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The impact of Echa’s nano observatory on the safety and transparency of nanomaterials on the EU market will be minimal, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has said. -
What New Research Reveals About Crafting A Non-Toxic Home For Kids
Dec 5, 2017 | MindBodyGreen
By Emma Loewe
These days, limiting kid's chemical exposures can seem next to impossible. -
Key Plastic Ingredient Affects Pregnancy Hormones — Study
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By David Templeton
A key chemical ingredient in everything from soap to vinyl flooring may affect pregnancy hormones responsible for the health and sexual development of human fetuses, according to a new study. -
Chemicals Under the Spotlight at UNEA3
Dec 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
The UN Environment Assembly (Unea3) has begun its annual meeting in Nairobi. -
Oil Firms Pledge to Plug Methane Leaks in Bid to Burnish Image
Dec 5, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
As the Trump administration rolls back Obama-era curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, more than two dozen oil companies are uniting in a voluntary effort to pare methane leaks and better position natural gas for a clean-energy future. -
Ewire: API Launches Voluntary Methane Reduction Program
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is launching a voluntary program to reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane, with more than 25 member companies expected to sign on, according to a news report. -
Trump Admin Takes BLM Methane Fight to Appeals Court
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration is not done fighting for its right to sideline Obama-era standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
Enviro Lawsuit Would 'Cripple' FERC — DOJ Lawyers
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A sweeping challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's funding structure has caught the eye of the U.S. Justice Department. -
Trump Appeals Court Decision Against Oil Drilling Rule Delay
Dec 5, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is appealing an October federal court decision that found that it was “unlawful” to delay an Obama administration rule limiting methane pollution from oil and natural gas drilling on federal land. -
Enviros Take Aim at Millennium Eastern System Upgrade
Dec 5, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) is wasting no time challenging Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC’s Eastern System Upgrade (ESU) project, filing both at FERC for a rehearing authorizing the project and in federal court to appeal New York state permits. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Reality of Risk
Dec 5, 2017 | Oil & Gas Technology
By Mike Neill,, Jeff Thomas, and Greg Cline
Unavoidably, process safety risks are often managed in different parts of an organisation. -
Environmentalists' Suit Aims to Compel Ozone Designations
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
A coalition of environmental groups is suing EPA in a bid to compel the agency to designate areas of the country failing to meet the agency's 2015 ozone standard, after the agency Nov. 6 issued designations for areas meeting the limit but held off on issuing any findings for areas not attaining the standard. -
Instrument of Power: How Fossil Fuel Donors Shaped the Anti-Climate Agenda of a Powerful Congressional Committee
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside Climate News
By Marianne Lavelle, David Hasemyer
It's midway through fall, and cold has yet to settle over the Eckhardt family orchard. -
ALEC Slated to Vote on Divisive Measure Urging EPA to Scrap GHG Finding
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the group of conservative state legislators and industry officials, is hosting its annual meeting this week in Nashville, TN, with its members slated to vote on a divisive resolution urging EPA to scrap its greenhouse gas endangerment finding that forms the basis of nearly all its climate rules. -
Climate Club: Sincere or Just Politically Convenient?
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
A Sierra Club official last month complained that the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus is a convenient way for Republicans to take political cover, since their leaders have no intention of addressing climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Campaign will Allow for More Recycling of Plastic Wraps and Bags in Omaha, Neb.
Dec 5, 2017 | Waste360
The Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) joined partners in Omaha, Neb., this past weekend to launch a new campaign to increase the recycling of plastic wrapsand bags in the city. Representatives from the FFRG, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and First Star Fiber material recovery facility (MRF) were onsite at four Hy-Vee grocery stores to educate consumers about the campaign and encourage them to recycle plastic wraps and bags at participating retail and grocery stores.
The Omaha campaign is part of the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP), an innovative public-private partnership that promotes recycling of plastic wraps and bags. The WRAP launch coincided with a promotional event for the Hefty Energy Bag Program, which the city has participated in for more than a year. The Energy Bag Program allows consumers to separate their non-recycled plastics from their waste so that the plastics can be collected at the MRF and converted into fuel. Omaha’s WRAP campaign and Energy Bag Program will help the city to divert more plastics from landfill.
“We’re thrilled to work with our partners in Omaha to educate consumers about recycling plastic wraps and bags,” said Shari Jackson, director of film recycling for ACC, in a statement. “Omaha residents can play an important role in keeping these items out of landfill by bringing their plastic wraps and bags to a Hy-Vee grocery store or other participating retailer for recycling. Recycling plastic wraps and bags at retail drop-off locations instead of through curbside collection programs helps ensure that this material does not damage equipment at the local MRF. Moreover, recycling plastic wraps and bags at grocery and retail locations helps keep the material clean and dry, which is critical to maintaining quality for recycling.”
Consumers in Omaha and across the nation can recycle the following clean and dry plastics at participating stores: plastic bags such grocery bags, produce bags, bread bags, dry cleaning bags, newspaper bags and food storage bags (even sealable food bags and bags with “zippers”); plastic wraps from beverage cases, diapers, bathroom tissue and paper towels; bubble wrap and shipping pillows. Residents can recycle any thin, flexible plastic wrap labeled with a #2, #4 or the How2Recycle store drop-off label. These plastics can be recycled at more than 18,000 retail stores in the U.S.
These valuable materials are recycled into new products such as durable lumber for backyard decks, fences and benches and new bags and packaging.
http://www.waste360.com/plastics/new-campaign-will-allow-more-recycling-plastic-wraps-and-bags-omaha-neb
-
Trump Science Job Nominees Missing Advanced Science Degrees
Dec 5, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Michael Biesecker, Catherine Lucey, Maureen Linke and Kevin Vineys
When it comes to filling jobs dealing with complex science, environment and health issues, the Trump administration is nominating people with fewer science academic credentials than their Obama predecessors. And it's moving slower as well.
Of 43 Trump administration nominees in science-related positions — including two for Health and Human Services secretary — almost 60 percent did not have a master's degree or a doctorate in a science or health field, according to an Associated Press analysis. For their immediate predecessors in the Obama administration, it was almost the opposite: more than 60 percent had advanced science degrees.
The AP analyzed 65 Senate-confirmable positions that deal with science and environment, many of which haven't been filled yet after 10 months. The analysis focused on earned degrees, not life experience.
"This is just reflective of the disdain that the administration has shown for science," said Christie Todd Whitman, a former Republican New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency chief.
"When you're talking about science, issues about protecting human health...it's very, very complicated and sophisticated work," said Whitman, who was appointed by George W. Bush and does not have an advanced degree herself but surrounded herself with people who did. "You need the background and experience to handle these things."Continue reading the main story
Including now-resigned Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, a medical doctor, the number of political appointees with a doctorate in science or a medical degree dropped 21 percent from Obama's 19 to Trump's 15 in those equivalent positions. And when it comes to master's degrees, the number decreased one-third from 27 in Obama to 18 in Trump.
Public health researcher Dr. Caroline Weinberg, who helped organize last spring's protest March for Science, said in an email, "I knew the dire straits we were in but seeing it laid out with percentages really amplifies the horror."
Trump administration officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
It is especially noticeable in the Energy Department, which oversees the nation's nuclear stockpile.
None of the seven Trump energy science-oriented nominees — including the undersecretary for science, who did research while in the U.S. Navy — has even a master's degree in a science field, although some are lawyers and have MBAs. Five of their Obama predecessor's had master's degrees in science field and four had science doctorates — not including the Obama deputy Energy secretary, who had a doctorate in international relations. The two Obama Energy secretaries both had doctorates in physics, and Steven Chu was a Nobel prize winner in physics. Trump Energy Secretary Rick Perry has a bachelor's degree in animal science and was a former governor.
"This is just hollowing out of expertise in these posts," said Max Boykoff, director of Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado. "It's a really worrisome trend."
This isn't about making jobs for science, but providing the best advice for government leaders who have to make tough decisions, said Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society.
"It's the policy-makers themselves who need it. If they want to develop policies that are most likely to succeed, they should make those policies with the understanding available of how things are," said Holt, a former physicist and Democratic congressman from New Jersey. "We do this with the age-old, time-tested procedure of determining how things are. We call that science."
The now-withdrawn undersecretary for research in the Agriculture Department told the Senate in a confirmation questionnaire that while he had an economics degree, he took no science classes in graduate school, according to his letter obtained by The Washington Post.
Many of the Trump nominees who do have advanced science degrees, especially those in the EPA, come from working in or with the industries that they are now supposed to regulate, with even some Republicans raising questions among the independence of their scientific advice. EPA chief Scott Pruitt also has raised eyebrows by purging academic scientists from the agency's science advisory board because they received EPA grants and replacing them with industry-connected experts.
"The pattern of a repeated tilt toward industry scientists, and ones known for disparaging the record of the agencies they are appointed to, is worrisome," said William K. Reilly, who was EPA administrator under George H.W. Bush.
Reilly, along with several of the more than a dozen outside experts interviewed, said people with scientific expertise are important, but there have been good top government officials in the past who were lawyers. Current EPA chief Pruitt is a lawyer.
"Some of the best regulators I have known have had law or business backgrounds (both parties)," John Graham, dean at Indiana University's School of Public & Environmental Affairs, said in an email.
Graham, who headed regulatory affairs in the George W. Bush administration, said he was most concerned that "many important nominations have not yet been made" highlighting no appointments for the top White House science adviser and head of research and development at the EPA.
In 35 percent of the 65 senate-confirmable positions that deal with science and environment, the Trump administration hasn't nominated someone yet, including all four top positions at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Of the 23 positions that President Donald Trump hasn't nominated anyone yet to fill after 10 months, Barack Obama had picked nominees in 18 of those posts by the same time in 2009.
"I don't know if the problem is on the side of them identifying people or the people they want being willing to go through the process" of confirmation, which can be unpleasant, said George Gray, who was the EPA research chief for President George W. Bush and now is a professor of environmental health at George Washington University.
Initial Obama appointments included two winners of the Nobel Prize for physics — Energy Secretary Chu and Carl Wieman, who was associate director for science of the White House Office of Science and Technology — and a winner of a MacArthur "genius" grant, White House science adviser John Holdren. Obama tried to appoint another Nobel winner, Peter Diamond who won the Nobel prize for economics, to the Federal Reserve Board. That was held up by Republicans in the Senate who said he didn't have enough experience and his nomination was withdrawn.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/12/05/us/politics/ap-us-trump-science-nominees.html
-
Staff Urge Changes To Risk Assessment Division In OPPT Reorganization
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Staff in EPA's toxics office, which senior officials are reorganizing to better implement the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), are urging managers to also reorganize the Risk Assessment Division (RAD) as part of the effort, saying any failure to tap the RAD for overhaul would hobble TSCA implementation.
"If there is to be a reorganization of OPPT, which is being touted as necessary to improve the implementation of TSCA, then it would make sense that one effect would be to improve the structure and function of RAD. It's well-known that RAD is responsible for many bottlenecks and other inefficiencies when it comes to chemical reviews," states a summary of staff comments on the proposed reorganization plan obtained by Inside EPA.
Such comments, which were filed ahead of an internal Dec. 1 internal comment deadline for agency staff, reflect heightened concern within OPPT -- and among industry and environmental groups -- over bottlenecks that have delayed key decisions within OPPT since enactment of the TSCA reform law in June 2016.
For example, shortly after the new law was enacted in June 2016, OPPT faced a backlog in its review of new chemicals that manufacturers were seeking to bring to market as a result of changes to the law. The reformed TSCA generally requires EPA to review all proposals and issue a finding on whether they meet the TSCA risk standard.
Unlike existing chemicals, EPA reviews these proposed products before they are brought to market.
The changes for new chemicals took place immediately upon enactment of the new law, without a phase-in period, a situation that former acting toxics chief Wendy Cleland-Hamnett and OPPT Director Jeff Morris have blamed for the resulting backlog of new chemicals reviews.
This backlog has been a major issue for industry, and EPA pulled staff from all over the agency to address it, announcing last August that it had been eliminated.
RAD, which was created with OPPT's last reorganization in 2014, performs all of OPPT's risk analyses for both existing and new chemicals. Sources have suggested that issues within RAD have contributed to the new chemical review bottleneck and other delays within OPPT.
"If this reorganization is to make chemical reviews under TSCA more efficient, why are other divisions and programs being much more affected than the one division primarily responsible for much of the office's holdups with TSCA-related work?" comments to OPPT on RAD and the reorganization state.
Staff's Suggestions
Asked whether OPPT leaders will consider staff's suggestions regarding RAD, an agency spokesman replies, "Employees had an opportunity to provide comments, and senior leadership will consider all the comments as they work to develop a proposed reorganization package."
OPPT leaders have yet to respond to other reorganization comments, though sources say Morris has assured staff they would do so.
Morris announced the plans to reorganize OPPT to better perform the new TSCA responsibilities in a Sept. 22 memo to staff that Inside EPA obtained.
Along with the memo, Morris presented diagrams of three new possible structures for OPPT, labeled straws A, B and C. Key among the major changes to OPPT's existing structure is the plan to consolidate OPPT's seven current divisions into five.
In each of the straw proposals, RAD is the only division with little change compared to proposals for the other divisions. For RAD, only expansions are considered, presumably to address the increased need for risk assessment heralded by TSCA reform. Different options propose adding one to three more branches to RAD's existing five branches.
EPA last reorganized OPPT just three years ago. Morris references the 2014 reorganization in his memo, noting that at that time, "the office's exposure, hazard, and engineering functions were integrated into the [RAD], and the senior leadership does not believe that additional major organizational changes to RAD are needed."
Some staff, however, disagree with OPPT leadership's conclusion to allow RAD to remain unchanged.
In more staff comments compiled by management and disseminated across OPPT, additional concerns with RAD are raised. "I disagree with all 3 straw proposals which basically do not touch [RAD]. RAD staff has not been satisfied with the way RAD was reorganized [in 2014]," the comments summary states. "The branches are not as effective and efficient as Senior management would like to believe. There needs to be additional thought placed onto structuring RAD into a leaner division which enables new staff to work closer with and learn from senior staff."
RAD Structure
Other comments allude to the existing structure of RAD, which consists of five seemingly uniform branches, labeled assessment branch one through five. Commenters propose various ways of specializing the branches instead, such as by clustering staff with similar specialties in branches and/or dedicating some staff specifically to new chemicals reviews or existing chemicals evaluations.
The summary includes other suggestions, such as "Each branch should be discipline-specific. E.g., human health hazard, ecotoxicologists, exposure fate, etc. Each branch should have a Coordinator so that staff, both new and the ones that need more monitoring and guidance, can go up to the Coordinator for help, guidance, and [quality assurance/quality control]."
A summary of cross-cutting comments indicates that some staff see problems with RAD's existing branch structure, which has led to the creation of several discipline-specific "tech teams" to advance some work. This has confused lines of authority and work, the comments suggest, leading one commenter to suggest an additional straw proposal.
"This proposal eliminates the need for Tech Teams, whose creation, while enabling more consistent approaches to specific technical tasks, has set up confusing and conflicting managerial lines of communication and authority with RAD, including reduction [of] the roles of line managers without affording them with administrative task relief. Mangers must now establish separate and frequent meetings with staff of different backgrounds, simply to find out what they are doing. In effect, discipline specific pseudo-branches have thus been set up already. If, instead, line managers were aligned with related discipline staff, single combined staff sessions would suffice to keep both managers and staff current. The branch staff could meet as de facto tech teams, but only need to report [to] a single manager. Review specific teams would still enable staff interaction among the discipline experts, as is now the case."
Others suggest that "RAD should have some core staff dedicated to either New Chemicals and Existing Chemicals (with adequate staff dedicated to each)." Other comments support this view, adding that there be "an equal number of branches reviewing existing [chemicals] as reviewing new [chemicals]." Furthering this perspective, the summary indicates some staff recommended that RAD's management be changed to include "two deputy directors; one for new and one for existing chemicals [to] provide coordination [and] facilitate decision-making."
Cross-Cutting Issues
In a summary of cross-cutting issues, the summary of staff's comments illuminates a concern for some that RAD's focus has been on existing chemicals rather than new chemicals. The reformed TSCA has a slew of new requirements for EPA's management of existing chemicals -- those that were on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976 -- which were largely grandfathered under the original statute.
"Without RAD support, there is no new chemicals program. I have angry and frustrated [new chemical] submitters asking why these cases are taking so long. My response can't be 'because RAD's priority is Existing Chemicals, so they'll get to it when they get to it, by the way, would you like to request a 15-day suspension?' Please either have a risk assessment branch in the New Chemicals Division or have a New Chemicals Branch in RAD."
Some staff also suggest moving the Industrial Chemicals Branch (ICB) to RAD, instead of management's existing three proposals which place it in one of the new divisions, called the New Chemicals Management Division. A summary of the comments explains that ICB "functions parallel and support existing RAD functions. They include establishing the chemical and biological identity of the substance that is subject to New Chemical review. They help determine if the subject substance is 'new' and provide guidance to subsequent reviewers by establishing structural features that can then be analyzed for potential effects issues by RAD modelers. Moving ICB to RAD finally integrates the chemists with the remainder of the reviewers."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/staff-urge-changes-risk-assessment-division-oppt-reorganization
-
Les Miserable Chemists: Will The French Replace Glyphosate With Something 'Worse?'
Dec 5, 2017 | American Council on Science and Health
By Josh Bloom
French President Emmanuel Macron has declared he will ban the American herbicide glyphosate within three years, and sooner if a replacement is ready. Italy has vowed to do the same. Activists have said the replacement is already available, and it has been used in France since 1863 - a fatty acid called pelargonic (a.k.a. nonanoic) acid. Does this make any sense toxicologically? Is this another case of "natural = safe?" Or is something else going on? Let's take a look at the toxicological and environmental properties of both chemicals.
First, a qualitative look at safety
For a quick and dirty way to get a rough idea of the toxicity of a chemical, the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) maintains an enormous database of tens of thousands of chemicals. It is always a good place to start. A fire prevention database? Yes, because first responders need to know on a practical level what they're dealing with in the event of a chemical spill or fire, no endocrine disruptor or parts per billion nonsense. It classifies chemicals by toxicity, flammability, and water reactivity. Chemicals are placed into five toxicity categories, zero through four. In categories zero and one are things like salt, water, and baking soda. Harmless.
Figure 1. NFPA safety diamonds
Group 2 hazards, where these two both reside, are slightly worse.
"Intense or continued exposure could cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury unless prompt medical attention is given." - NFPA definition of a Group 2 toxin. (1)
Members of this group include ether, benzaldehyde (almond oil), butyric acid (in rancid butter), and hydroquinone (skin bleaching agent). Like vinegar, you wouldn't want to drink a glassful, but they are unlikely to do serious harm with normal exposure.
Both pelargonic acid and glyphosate are characterized as Group 2 chemicals for acute issues but there is more to overall toxicity than a diamond will tell you so let's look at the animal toxicity data. One important parameter is called the LD50 and that is the dose at which half the animals will die. The lethal dose data of pelargonic acid and glyphosate in animals is interesting...because they are both uninteresting. Neither compound has any appreciable acute toxicity.
Figure 1. Relative toxicity glyphosate and pelargoic acid.
By comparison, the LD50 values in rats for aspirin, caffeine, and alcohol are 200, 192, and about 500. All three are significantly more toxic than either herbicide.
So neither glyphosate nor pelargonic acid has worrisome acute toxicity in animal models. But what about the scary stories that environmentalists tell regarding glyphosate? Ignore the hysteria. It is one of the most thoroughly studied chemicals of all time because it is one of the top chemical boogeymen for environmental activists. While there are numerous methods for determining toxicity, carcinogenicity, etc., it doesn't cause cancer, even though IARC claimed it probably did and was even jeered by its own bosses at the United Nations for shoddy, agenda-driven work. (See "Glyphosate-Gate: IARC's Scientific Fraud," my colleague Alex Berezow's exposé of glyphosate here.)
Both chemicals are so non-toxic that it would be impossible to eat enough of either to harm yourself unless you were really, really trying.
What about the environment?
This may surprise you, for being a "natural" product that organic activists want to use instead of a modern compound:
Pelargonic acid
Figure 2. The relative marine toxicity of pelargonic acid (top) and glyphosate (bottom). References: http://bit.ly/2ATxWtf http://bit.ly/2BHCgsz
Pelargonic acid is significantly more toxic than glyphosate for aquatic organisms. Pelargonic acid is about 100 times more toxic to fathead minnows than glyphosate is to trout. The magnitude of toxicity of pelargonic acid toward various fish varies, but in all cases it's far more dangerous. This same pattern is seen in the water flea. There, Pelargonic acid is more toxic (30X) than glyphosate to Daphnia magna, a small, wide-spread crustacean which plays an important role in determining the toxicity of chemicals in water.
Although this is hardly a comprehensive set of marine organisms the pattern is obvious. Pelargonic acid is more toxic to marine life than glyphosate. With green algae, pelargonic acid is about 8X more toxic but perhaps with algae blooms routinely polluting bodies of water environmentalists can live with this.
How about cost?
With regard to expense, the material cost of the alternative herbicides was more than the conventional herbicides, sometimes substantially more. The need for repeated applications of the alternative herbicides further increases the costs of their use
Source: "Herbicide Alternatives Research" Department of Plant, Soil, and Insect Sciences University of Massachusetts
Alternatives like pelargonic acid cost more. How much more? A whole lot, according to the New York State Department of Transportation:
"Scythe (57.0% pelargonic acid a.i.) was mixed with water at a 10.0% volume to treat the guiderails along the entire 8-mile section of Route 80, from mid-morning to mid-afternoon on July 22, 2014. ... Total area of treatment was 1.48 acres... Treatment costs were $1,954 based on materials alone."
Compare that to:
"In comparison, estimated cost of Materials and Methods 3-3 materials for conventionally treating the same area using Accord XRT II herbicide (synthetic glyphosate as active ingredient) would have been $18.24 total."
Does *anything* about French and Italian politics make sense here? Neither herbicide has any appreciable mammalian toxicity, that's good, but the "organic" pelargonic acid is a lot more toxic to marine life than glyphosate. And pelargonic acid costs 100-times more. And it works less on weeds.
If you're a farmer in France you may have no choice than to use it but if you're anywhere else and decide to switch to pelargonic acid simply because it is "natural" you may want to think twice. Instead of growing food you may end up selling it. At McDonalds.
NOTE:
(1) Group 3 chemicals are to be avoided. Some of them are very nasty. Some group 4 chemicals can kill you immediately.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/05/les-miserable-chemists-will-french-replace-glyphosate-something-worse-12222
-
Impact of EU Nano Observatory ‘Limited’, RIVM Says
Dec 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The impact of Echa’s nano observatory on the safety and transparency of nanomaterials on the EU market will be minimal, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has said.
Launched in June, the observatory – or the EUON – is a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the single market. This came after the European Commission opted not to create an EU nano register, given delays in the introduction of new REACH information requirements on the substances.
The Netherlands and some other member states asked for a mandatory European registration system and because this is not the case, the EUON is "limited in detailed information", RIVM says in its analysis The European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials – a step forward?
"Consequently, RIVM expects the EUON's contribution to reducing the uncertainty regarding the safety of nanomaterials to be limited."
According to Echa, it offers "factual and neutral content", and is targeted at a wide audience including consumers, workers, regulators and scientists. Visitors can read about where they are used and obtain information on health and safety issues, research, regulatory and international activities.‘Narrow’ scope
However, RIVM says the information is "limited to broad categories of products and articles, and brand names are not specified". As a result, it adds, "it will remain difficult for consumers, as well as others, to judge whether they are actually using a ‘nanoproduct’ and what the potential health consequences are of such use".
Even though the EUON maintains a separate web portal for consumers, "it appears most relevant for experts, competent authorities and industry," it says.
The website will pull information from sources such as REACH, but RIVM says the risk assessment framework of this Regulation "is not yet sufficiently suitable for nanomaterials".
In comments to the Commission’s recent consultation on a draft Regulation amending REACH annexes for the registration of nanomaterials, NGOs said it is not ‘future proof’. Meanwhile, industry said the EU executive should revise the nano definition before amending REACH annexes.Other criticism
In October, the European Trade Union Institute (Etui) said plans to set up the observatory were "not an ideal option". It proposed an alternative monitoring scenario, "based on rules that would ensure transparency and improve the ability of national authorities to track the materials along the supply chain".
Speaking shortly after the EUON’s launch, the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) said NGOs were disappointed that the Commission opted for listing existing information, rather than demanding new data. It "will not help fill the ongoing knowledge gap in relation to nanomaterials; and in relation to exposure in particular", Ciel’s David Azoulay said.
Echa said in the summer that it will be further developed in the coming years, with new content to meet the audience needs. It added that the observatory will also carry out studies and make use of external databases and publications.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62304/impact-of-eu-nano-observatory-limited-rivm-says
-
What New Research Reveals About Crafting A Non-Toxic Home For Kids
Dec 5, 2017 | MindBodyGreen
By Emma Loewe
These days, limiting kid's chemical exposures can seem next to impossible. And recent reports that some popular baby formulas and foods tested positive for lead and arsenic, and BPA and its potentially harmful substitutes can be passed from mother to child in utero only make matters worse for health-conscious parents.
A new guide by Made Safe—a certification scheme that labels products with ingredients that don't harm our health or the environment—seeks to demystify some of the over 80,000 chemicals in our products today. It presents parents with information on which ones are actually dangerous and small swaps they can make to craft a healthier home.
"The problem is that right now, parents almost need a Ph.D. just to go shopping and figure out whether or not something is safe to use with their families," says Cassidy Randall, Made Safe's director of marketing and business development. "Parents are already busy enough without having to research what harmful chemicals might be lurking in their child’s bottle, mattress, or baby wash. With scant regulation of harmful chemicals, confusing labeling, and rampant greenwashing, parents are left to navigate a health minefield with little help."
The guide is focused on plastics in particular, and it analyzes the threat certain plastic products pose to our bodies, our children's bodies, and the world around us. (Since many kids' products are used for a brief period and then tossed, it's an especially wasteful market.) It breaks down some of the toxic chemicals in plastic, recommends plastic alternatives, and points to products that are certified eco-friendly by the Plastic Pollution Coalition, an organization that seeks to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment, and deemed safe by the Made Safe label. Developed last year, this relatively new certification for nonfood items like household products, skin care, cleaners, etc., names a product safe when third-party scientists find that it's free of chemicals thought to harm human health (meaning no carcinogens, endocrine disrupters, fire retardants, or VOCs allowed). Here's what the report had to say about how to cut down on chemicals at home without driving yourself crazy:1. First and foremost, look for BPA-free plastics.
The FDA banned BPA—a chemical shown to cause reproductive problems—in baby bottles and children’s sippy cups in 2012. However, it’s still present in many other plastics products and is easily absorbed by adults and children. BPA alternatives like BPS could be just as potent and harmful. Made Safe recommends making this one of the first class of chemicals you look to phase out at home, especially if you have kids. Other chemicals of concern include phthalates—plastic softeners that come in a variety of toys that can cause endocrine disruption. The solution? Avoid baby products that are made of plastic and foam (another material that's often loaded with chemicals) whenever possible, starting with toys, since they often end up in kid's mouths. Instead, look for toys made from wool, cotton, and uncoated wood. They list Bioserie and Baby Green Thumb as good brands to start with. For when you can't avoid plastic, like with pacifiers, look for ones made with 100 percent hospital-grade silicone, like those from Life Factory.2. Avoid single-use baby and personal care products when possible.
Once you've started to phase out plastic toys, move on to single-use plastic products for the sake of the environment. "Whenever you can, avoid things that get used once and disposed of. Think plastic baggies, disposable plastic bags, straws, etc. With baby products, think less is more and try to simplify the number of products in your home," advises Randall. Items like baby food pouches are especially troublesome. The market for them grew from $8 million in 2010 to $45 million in 2015, and that means a lot more plastic in the environment since they're not recyclable. Baby wipes pose another problem, and while they're harder to avoid, Made Safe recommends trying out soft cotton washcloths with warm water (and gentle soap when necessary) instead. When you do need to use wipes, go for ones that are made from compostable materials and don't use fragrance, like Bloom Centric's.
Article continues below3. Remember that little changes go a long way.
If you're someone who constantly worries about your child's health at home, Randall gives you permission to stop panicking. "While it can seem overwhelming to try to protect your child from all the chemicals lurking, studies show that even small steps to reduce exposure can tip the scales toward better health," she says. "For example, replacing a plastic baby bottle or sippy cup with a stainless-steel option can lower the levels of BPA and other bisphenols in their bodies, which are hormone disrupters linked to cancer, infertility, heart disease, and other health problems. So pick one room or product to start with, celebrate your efforts, and keep moving from there. Every little thing you do to protect your children from toxics truly matters."
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/made-safe-clean-home-guide-for-moms
-
Key Plastic Ingredient Affects Pregnancy Hormones — Study
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By David Templeton
A key chemical ingredient in everything from soap to vinyl flooring may affect pregnancy hormones responsible for the health and sexual development of human fetuses, according to a new study.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, indicates that exposure to chemicals known as phthalates can disrupt several key hormones in the placenta.
The study confirms previous research that showed the chemicals can alter the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone, which helps masculinize fetuses and develop male genitalia. But in the new study, researchers found that phthalates can disrupt two other important pregnancy hormones.
Still, almost everyone is exposed to phthalates in the modern world, and it's still unclear what, if any, health effects the chemicals cause for newborns.
"There's been a lot of work on phthalates in pregnant women," said Jennifer Adibi, the study's lead author. "Early on we saw interesting effects on placentas. Before we move on to other exposure, we are working to carry through with the full story."
Phthalates are used in a wide variety of products to make plastics more flexible, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/05/stories/1060068089
-
Chemicals Under the Spotlight at UNEA3
Dec 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
The UN Environment Assembly (Unea3) has begun its annual meeting in Nairobi. This year's event, which runs from 4 to 6 December, will focus primarily on pollution.
The three days of the assembly will see the launch of several projects and reports, including:a global partnership on women, chemical safety and sustainable development, run by the Swedish government, Unep and the NGO Ipen;the UN Environment's annual flagship Frontiers Report this year focuses on antimicrobial resistance, nanomaterials, marine protected areas, sand and dust storms, solar solutions and environmental displacement; anda report that looks at mercury levels in COP1 delegates suggests even global decision makers are not protected from the pollutant.
There will be a meeting on marine litter and microplastics and also on the recently published report Towards a Pollution-Free Planet. In this, UN Environment executive director, Erik Solheim, outlines actions to tackle hazardous chemicals around the world and highlights substances of concern as needing "targeted intervention".
https://chemicalwatch.com/62271/chemicals-under-the-spotlight-at-unea3
-
Oil Firms Pledge to Plug Methane Leaks in Bid to Burnish Image
Dec 5, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
As the Trump administration rolls back Obama-era curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, more than two dozen oil companies are uniting in a voluntary effort to pare methane leaks and better position natural gas for a clean-energy future.
As part of the new initiative, dubbed "the Environmental Partnership," ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and 23 other oil and gas companies have signed agreements committing to phase out certain leak-prone devices and take other steps to keep methane from being released into the atmosphere.
The effort, coordinated by the industry's top trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, follows a series of separate announcements by major oil companies committing to rein in the potent greenhouse gas. It also comes as oil companies seek to burnish their image and boost the clean energy profile of gas to make it more attractive for foreign buyers seeking lower-carbon sources of electricity.
"Producers have to think about the world outside the United States, and they have to think about the world after Donald Trump -- and both of those things matter when it comes to making an investment with a 15-, 20- or 50-year life" said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners LLC. "For producers to credibly sell natural gas as a clean fuel into a greening world, they have to credibly show emissions-reduction technologies."
Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, has been shown to warm the atmosphere 84 times more than carbon dioxide when measured over two decades. Oil companies have been selling gas around the world as a low-carbon alternative to coal, which produces twice as many carbon dioxide emissions when burned to generate electricity.
But that sales pitch is undermined when methane leaks from wells and pipelines. And the Trump administration's efforts to loosen emission-cutting requirements could worsen the situation. Under President Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has halted writing another methane regulation for new and modified wells, and the Interior Department is planning changes to a separate Obama-era rule that applied on public land.
Erik Milito, an API group director, said the initiative is "robust" but flexible, designed to encourage companies to collaborate and share data from the field. The participating energy companies -- representing at least 26 percent of U.S. gas production -- commit to take "tangible steps" to address methane emissions and in exchange are free to use the initiative's green-and-blue emblem on websites and in other material.
"Companies are signing agreements and they're reporting the actual progress they are making," Milito said. "This is not an initiative where we are talking about what can be done; this is an initiative where companies have agreed and signed agreements to actually take the action and follow it up with reports."
Companies in the API initiative have agreed to seek out and repair methane leaks at tens of thousands of sites located in every major U.S. gas and oil basin, with detection required at least once every two years. That is less frequent than the twice-annual timetable the Interior Department imposed under a regulation last year, and the standard in some states.
Pneumatic Controllers
The companies also are committing to phase out high-bleed pneumatic controllers that release gas as part of their normal operation. Analysts say it's one of the most cost-effective emission control technologies industry can employ, with replacement devices potentially paying for themselves after just six months -- one reason some 25,000 have already been swapped out across the U.S.
Participants will provide information on their efforts annually to API, with the trade group releasing an annual report using aggregated information. That may fall short of the transparency some environmentalists and shareholders have been demanding. Oil companies have been under increasing pressure from shareholders and local communities where they operate to address the issue.
Voluntary methane-reduction programs should embody leading practices for controlling emissions and be backed by robust transparency, said Matt Watson, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund's climate and energy program.
"If you're going to put forward a voluntary program as part of the solution here -- and it can never be the full solution -- those emission reductions need to be verifiable," Watson said.
The new effort also departs from some recent methane-cutting commitments that have set a more robust "near-zero" emissions target. When eight major oil companies, including BP Plc, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Statoil Asa, pledged on Nov. 22 to cut methane emissions, they also said they would support "sound" regulations governing the issue.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Oil-firms-pledge-to-plug-methane-leaks-in-bid-to-12406341.php
-
Ewire: API Launches Voluntary Methane Reduction Program
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is launching a voluntary program to reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane, with more than 25 member companies expected to sign on, according to a news report.
But even before API formally announces its plan, environmentalists are strongly criticizing it, saying it does not go far enough -- especially given the industry trade group's efforts to roll back mandatory methane rules at EPA and other agencies.
According to Axios, API's Environmental Partnership, which is slated for public launch later today, reports that the program would not have an “overarching reduction goal,” but participating companies would be required to report their implementation progress.
It would consist of three parts, according to Axios: “Monitoring and fixing” emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds, replacing and upgrading pneumatic controllers, and minimizing emissions associated with separating liquids such as oil from natural gas.
Axios reports that nearly all of API's member companies with onshore operations have signed on including: Anadarko, Devon Energy, Occidental Petroleum, Apache, Encana, Pioneer Natural Resources, BHP, EOG Resources, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy, Southwestern Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Marathon Oil, Statoil, Chevron, Murphy Oil, TOTAL, Cimarex Energy, Newfield, Western Gas Partners, ConocoPhillips, Noble Energy, CrownQuest and Cabot Oil and Gas.
The news has not gone over well with environmentalists. “At a time when API is aggressively putting its full weight into tearing down federal methane rules, this weak initiative does little to show that API is serious about tackling the methane problem,” Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement.
And the news comes in an uncertain time for methane regulation targeting the oil and gas sector.
On the one hand, eight large oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, recently promised to voluntarily implement procedures to “systematically monitor and reduce” methane emissions in their operations while also pledging to advocate for “sound policy” to cut emissions from the broader sector.
However, the Trump EPA has proposed to stay or “phase-in” key requirements in its methane new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector, prompting environmentalists to call for industry compliance reports while the rule continues to be implemented.
Rolling back the rule comes in response to opposition from components of the oil and gas industry -- including smaller companies -- as well as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's broader push to roll back the agency's climate regulations. Pruitt has also blocked a data collection effort that was intended to help craft methane rules for existing oil and gas equipment.
Stay tuned for more details on this story.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-api-launches-voluntary-methane-reduction-program
-
Trump Admin Takes BLM Methane Fight to Appeals Court
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration is not done fighting for its right to sideline Obama-era standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
After a major rebuke from a district court in October, the government is taking its fight to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The high-stakes battle has big implications for both wonky administrative law issues and oil and gas operations across the United States' public and tribal lands.
At issue is whether the Interior Department exceeded its authority when it used a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act to postpone parts of the Bureau of Land Management's methane venting and flaring rule.
A federal court in California ruled that Interior misused the APA on both the methane rule and a separate Obama-era reform to how royalties are calculated for federal fossil fuels. The judge wrote that the APA provision was only intended to allow agencies to delay rules that had not yet taken effect.
Environmentalists and other critics of the administration hailed the court's decision as a win for the rule of law and a clear signal that the courts will not tolerate hurried regulatory rollbacks that do not follow proper procedures (Energywire, Oct. 5).
Now the Trump administration is pushing back at the 9th Circuit, and environmental lawyers are promising to continue fighting.
"Rather than moving forward to implement this common sense rule that prevents waste, saves millions of taxpayer dollars, and protects the air we breathe, the Trump administration is wasting everyone's time with frivolous appeals and illegal attempts to stop the rule from taking effect, all to appease its friends in the oil and gas industry," Earthjustice attorney Robin Cooley said in an email.
"The public has made its support for this rule crystal clear," she added, "and we will use every legal tool at our disposal to block the Trump administration from rolling back these important protections for our public lands."
Earthjustice is representing a coalition of environmental groups in support of the rule. California and New Mexico are also defending the Obama measure.
The Trump administration's appeal is facing a time crunch. BLM is working on a long-term postponement of the methane standards, but it may not be finalized in time to relieve industry from strict January 2018 compliance deadlines.
Industry groups have not said whether they plan to join the government in appealing the California decision.
According to lawyers for the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance, small companies have been severely harmed by the regulatory uncertainty that has followed the roller coaster over the methane rule.
First, industry groups and Western states sued after the Obama administration finalized the regulation more than a year ago. In January 2016, the federal court in Wyoming rejected their request for a preliminary injunction that would have frozen the rule. The standards took effect that month, with various provisions to be phased in over time.
Republicans in Congress then tried to kill the rule through the Congressional Review Act but failed.
Interior then used Section 705 of the APA to put off the deadlines for portions of the rule that had not yet been phased in. The California court rejected that attempt in October.
Separately, BLM began a more involved process to delay the standards: a notice-and-comment rulemaking to postpone the provisions for two years.
While that effort is still under way, the industry is using the original Wyoming litigation to make a second attempt at securing an injunction of the rule (Energywire, Dec. 1).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/05/stories/1060068077
-
Enviro Lawsuit Would 'Cripple' FERC — DOJ Lawyers
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A sweeping challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's funding structure has caught the eye of the U.S. Justice Department.
Though FERC's own lawyers are defending the agency in the case, DOJ chimed in yesterday to push back on environmentalists' claims that the commission is fundamentally biased toward approving pipelines.
DOJ's amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a relative rarity in FERC-related litigation there. Chad Readler, principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote that the United States submitted the brief to express concern that the environmentalists' argument, if successful, could cripple FERC and other agencies with comparable funding schemes.
"If accepted, plaintiffs' argument could cripple FERC's ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities and potentially compromise the adjudicative functions of numerous federal agencies with similar funding schemes," he wrote.
"The United States has a strong interest in ensuring these agencies' ability to continue adjudicating administrative disputes under the funding arrangements established by Congress, and in preserving Congress's ability to place the costs of agency adjudication on the regulated parties that invoke the agencies' adjudicative functions," the brief continued.
At issue is an appeal from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which says FERC's funding creates a "structural bias" toward approval of natural gas pipelines. Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, the agency relies in part on fees and annual charges from natural gas companies to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the commission's operating expenses.
The Pennsylvania-based group filed the lawsuit both to oppose the PennEast pipeline and to raise a broader challenge to FERC's structure. DRN lawyers say the system violates stakeholders' due process rights by rubber-stamping projects (Energywire, Aug. 21).
A lower court tossed the challenge earlier this year, and the group appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
But FERC and DOJ lawyers say the group has it all wrong: The agency's funding does not create a bias toward pipeline approval, they argue, because revenue ends up at the U.S. Treasury, and FERC's budget is separately set by Congress.
"The relationship between FERC's institutional budgetary interests and its review of a pipeline application is, therefore, far too remote to support plaintiffs' claim of structural bias," DOJ's amicus brief said.
The filing also noted that FERC is not able to benefit from additional charges to natural gas companies because it must refund any overages to the industry.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/05/stories/1060068075
-
Trump Appeals Court Decision Against Oil Drilling Rule Delay
Dec 5, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is appealing an October federal court decision that found that it was “unlawful” to delay an Obama administration rule limiting methane pollution from oil and natural gas drilling on federal land.
Justice Department attorneys, representing the Interior Department, filed a brief notice in the District Court for the Northern District of California late Monday, saying they are asking the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review and overturn the ruling.
In the October decision, Judge Elizabeth Laporte said the Interior Department acted improperly when it tried to push back the January deadline for oil and natural gas companies to comply with the requirements of the Obama rule.
Agencies are allowed to delay the “effective date” of a regulation, but not the “compliance date,” Laporte said. The “effective date” was January 2017, and had already passed by the time Interior tried to implement its new delay, though companies did not have to comply for a year.
“Effective and compliance dates have distinct meanings,” she said.
“Not only is this argument contrary to the plain language of the statute, but it collapses the clear statutory distinction between the two periods before and after a rule takes effect,” she wrote, declaring the delay to be “unlawful” and overturning it.
The case had come about after Democratic state attorneys general and environmental groups sued Interior.
The Trump administration is separately working to repeal the methane rule entirely.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/363292-trump-appeals-court-decision-against-oil-drilling-rule-delay
-
Enviros Take Aim at Millennium Eastern System Upgrade
Dec 5, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) is wasting no time challenging Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC’s Eastern System Upgrade (ESU) project, filing both at FERC for a rehearing authorizing the project and in federal court to appeal New York state permits.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued the project certificate last week so Millennium could build and operate the expansion. DRN has asked FERC for a stay of construction activity until a decision can be made on its rehearing request.
DRN wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to review the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) September decision to issue a water quality certification (WQC) and other permits for ESU. Specifically, DRN is challenging the pollutant discharge elimination system general permit, which it wants thrown out. The organization’s petition was short on details, however, and did not include arguments for review.
“Our state authorizations for this project were granted after a great deal of work and cooperation with the NYSDEC,” Millennium spokesperson Michelle Hook said. “The Delaware Riverkeeper has not yet provided us with any basis for their appeal to the Second Circuit of Millennium’s coverage under this state permit.”
In its challenge before FERC, the environmental groups claim the Commission violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to properly evaluate the project’s environmental impacts. DRN said in its rehearing request that the project’s environmental assessment (EA) is “deficient.” FERC issued the certificate last week, saying as the EA did, that ESU does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore, that an environmental impact statement is not required.
DRN said ESU poses a risk to the environment because it would be part of Millennium’s broader 240-mile system in New York and other projects like the Valley Lateral and future expansions. The Valley Lateral project would serve a natural gas-fired power plant under construction in the state. While New York denied the Valley Lateral project’s WQC over potential environmental impacts, FERC reversed that decision and cleared the lateral to move forward.
New York is currently fighting that decision in court. The two new legal challenges, DRN said, further embroil Millennium in such proceedings.
The DRN’s filings are the latest in a series of similar legal challenges against Atlantic Sunrise, Atlantic Bridge, Nexus Gas Transmission and other pipeline projects as environmental groups have increasingly turned their attention to slowing down natural gas infrastructure projects both at the state and federal levels.
ESU would include building about eight miles of 30- and 36-inch diameter pipeline looping in Orange County, NY, and a new compressor station with 22,400 hp in Sullivan County, NY, to add 223,000 Dth/d of firm transportation service to local distribution companies and municipalities.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112638-enviros-take-aim-at-millennium-eastern-system-upgrade
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Reality of Risk
Dec 5, 2017 | Oil & Gas Technology
By Mike Neill,, Jeff Thomas, and Greg Cline
Unavoidably, process safety risks are often managed in different parts of an organisation. Bringing them all together in a consolidated way, to view their impact on the operational reality of hydrocarbon asset or plant is a real challenge. Oil and Gas Technology spoke to four experts - Mike Neill, president, Pyrotechnics USA, Jeff Thomas Sr process safety and reliability engineer, Process Improvement Institute, Kelly Keim, a retired chief process safety engineer, and Greg Cline, principal market analyst, Aberdeen Group – to get their views on the subject.
What the industry needs is to make sure everyone assesses risk using the same criteria – and has a practical understanding of how their decisions directly or indirectly influence the risk picture, and ultimately, process safety performance. By making process safety more operational, that is ensuring front line personnel are aware of their roles and responsibilities, and are effectively and consistently implementing processes and procedures, we can reduce incidents and improve sustainable production.
What is today’s reality of risk in the hydrocarbon sector? In this roundtable, senior industry executives discuss what happens when process safety intent meets the reality of operations. This includes how we think we manage risk, how we actually manage it, and how we can improve it practically and tangibly.
Industry regulation is at an all-time high. Every operator is committed to safety and risk avoidance. So why do you think incidents and accidents still happen?
Jeff Thomas Sr (JT): There are a number of reasons why accidents still happen. First, not all countries have process safety regulations. Second, even where good, detailed regulations exist, it’s hard to implement all the processes and procedures they require 100 per cent correctly, all the time. There are often conflicting priorities, particularly in the field, between safety, production, and cost. In addition, there are often not thorough operating and maintenance procedures that cover all modes of operations, such as start-up, shutdown and other infrequent tasks. In some cases, companies in countries without regulations have implemented excellent PSM programmes - so adding regulations may not always be the answer.
Greg Cline (GC): Incidents and accidents depend on many things, including the regulatory environment and the overall level of safety awareness. And often it’s just human nature. People try to prepare and create a culture of safety, but slip-ups happen.
Mike Neill (MN): I’d say most people in the industry think, ‘I could almost guarantee we will have an accident,’ rather than, ‘I can guarantee that we won’t.’ But they don’t know when, and they don’t know how big. And the chances are if you’re a big organisation with a lot of operations, you pretty much know eventually something will happen.
Kelly Keim (KK): The good news is the American Petroleum Institute (API), American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) collect information on causes and causal factors on a consistent basis. They’re beginning to get a much clearer picture of process safety related issues. Traditionally, the industry looked at facility causes – equipment failure, corrosion, etc. and those are still big factors. But the greatest proportion of incidents, based on industry evidence, is related to human performance, which is people failing to execute a procedure properly, or missing an operating step.
Is there a gap between what process safety KPIs and operational management systems are telling us and the feeling on the front line?
MN: I think there are. I’ve heard anecdotally from operators the KPIs say one thing and the reality on the plant is another.
JT: A lot of people are still trying to figure out the process safety indicators they should focus on. We’ve only had API standards in place for less than ten years. There’s also probably a communication gap between field and office personnel, engineers, and management who set up process safety indicators and processes. Generally, these indicators are not clearly communicated at an operator level in terms of what they are and their importance. I’m not sure actions are taken as a result of the process safety related data and the KPIs produced. One important KPI mentioned in the Centre of Chemical Process safety (CCPS) book on incident investigation is near miss data. It is critical to report both incidents and near misses, and periodically analyse them to determine causal factors and root causes in order to prevent future incidents.
KK: I don’t think we do a great job on KPIs. I know very few sites that make a big deal of reporting their process safety performance to operations. They also don’t publicise their safety-critical equipment performance and inspections. And so, if operations aren’t aware, performance starts to slip.
GC: There’s always a gap, and there shouldn’t be. We need to put capabilities in place to minimise gaps and ensure metrics are available enterprise-wide. Also, it’s important that peoples’ perception of certain metrics match the reality of operations.
MN: Major accidents are by definition low frequency but high consequence. If something happens, you can’t really make a judgement on whether there is a trend, or whether you’re particularly vulnerable. Some people try and extrapolate near misses and look at other performance indicators, but a lot of KPIs are based on how well an organisation implements safety processes.
KK: Evaluating risk is always somewhat subjective. And for the most part, companies have not been terribly transparent in the information they use for monitoring process safety risk. Most people can point to their numbers for personnel injuries and behavioural safety observations – but catastrophic events are rare, so they aren’t front of mind, even if the risk is always there.
Does the reality of risk management measure up to the intent of risk management?
JT: I’d say most companies probably recognise their process safety performance is not where they want it. But overall, we’re doing a better job today of understanding risk than we did, when I started, say, 30 to 40 years ago.
MN: People are experienced enough to know that hazardous industries mean risky business. I don’t think people would publicly admit that risk is so unpredictable. But other industries, nuclear and airline, have managed to eliminate some sources of unpredictable risk. These sectors put a lot of emphasis on training, stop work authority and redundancies in design so that if a system fails, there’s another that would take over. In the process industries, we’ve become somewhat normalised to risk, and we don’t come anywhere close to investing the same level of risk management resources. But there is a lot to gain from investing in safety. Typically, with safety comes improved operational performance.
KK: Actually, I do think there’s an undue confidence at both the executive and field levels that ‘those things just don’t happen to us’. There isn’t that everyday sense of caution that should be present in people who are one procedure away from a major catastrophic event. Most plant workers and managers have never experienced a major process safety event, so they believe it won’t happen to them. We know that’s not true.
GC: Real safety happens on the ground when people internalise it and don’t view it as a burden on everyday business. That means risk exposure must be made visible, prominent and available so everyone can understand its impact on the operational reality.
Do you think the relationship between PSM and operational risk management is close enough?
GC: No! I think PSM is always aspirational, and the relationship between process safety and its impact on front-line operations can be better understood.
JT: There are gaps in most cases. There’s been a lot of work focused on developing PSM systems, improving risk related practices, and developing PSM tools. But there is often a disconnect between what the practices and processes intend and what actually happens at the grassroots operator level. Lots of companies are working on it – but I don’t know any that have a magic bullet.
KK: Operators don’t get a good picture of how change affects risk management or the aspects of the job where they are the critical factor in managing risk.
Who is responsible for managing risk?
JT: Everyone, from the CEO, all the way to an operator, mechanic, engineer, supervisor – all levels of management and workers. Everyone has a key and different role to play, but risk management should permeate throughout the organisation.
MN: Yes, ultimately it lands at the top of the tree. Executives must make sure the right people are involved in the right processes and they do the right things. But I would say operations are in control of the plan. They are at the sharp end, so they should be satisfied personally that the risk level is acceptable. That said, where there are multiple levels of decision-making, it can be confusing when it comes to who owns risk.
GC: In our most recent Aberdeen Group environmental, health and safety study, about a third of respondents have a formal risk management organisation in place. That’s presumably how they establish a framework for risk management. Does it build a risk awareness culture across the organisation? It can. Whether those companies have also got the necessary collaborative approach across business units to make it happen is another question.
What critical process safety information do people who make the daily decisions about operating a plant need?
KK: Consolidation of information is certainly vital to more rational decision-making. The trouble is we don’t provide consolidated systems for operations to effectively assess if they can take one more step in their procedure.
At Deepwater Horizon, for example, roughly 11 layers of protection needed to be in place to prevent the scenario that happened. One-by-one those layers of protection were whittled away. The response was always, ‘well that’s okay because we’ve got this other ultimate layer of protection’.
It shows even a plant with multiple protection layers can experience a major hazard because of an accumulation of relatively harmless decisions. The current process safety barrier status must be visible to operations, the front line, but also management so appropriate decisions can be made.
GC: I think building a culture with the right tools, right attitudes and right training can enhance the awareness of process safety barriers by making them part of the standard operating procedures of front line leaders and workers.
MN: I think that there is still a lack of information available. And the further down the chain you go, the more abstract some of that information is. I’m not sure people really understand risk and what it means to them. And that can put them in a vulnerable position to be exposed to risk they don’t understand. If they did understand it, I think some of their decisions might be different. I think that’s the industry’s challenge. We need to give the front line the ability to be better informed about the possible consequences of their actions – even when making minor decisions.
What are the current obstacles to access this information in a timely manner and how can they be eliminated?
JT: There are a few. First, we have so much data, particularly with things like digital process control systems (DCS), safety instrumented systems (SIS), maintenance systems, etc. We get information overload, and it’s not always clear what’s most important. Second, there can be a lag in the data. We don’t always get it when we need it - and things can be missed. Third, maintenance management and process control systems don’t always make it easy to extract data. And that’s just the start!
GC: The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) is enabling a new era where we have the capability to monitor and improve processes to ensure they’re safe. Safety must be implicit. I think, to the extent that operators can connect operations with the information needed, via IIoT or another framework, they can overcome risk and help prevent incidents.
MN: We need to connect the data we have. We also need ways of assessing the impact of doing something or – equally important – NOT doing something. But individuals also need multiple viewpoints – from maintenance and asset integrity to drilling and subsea. That’s the source of informed decision-making, using technology to put everyone in a much better position.
http://www.oilandgastechnology.net/news/reality-risk
-
Environmentalists' Suit Aims to Compel Ozone Designations
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
A coalition of environmental groups is suing EPA in a bid to compel the agency to designate areas of the country failing to meet the agency's 2015 ozone standard, after the agency Nov. 6 issued designations for areas meeting the limit but held off on issuing any findings for areas not attaining the standard.
In their suit filed Dec. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 10 public health and environmental organizations groups including the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club sue EPA for its failure to discharge a nondiscretionary duty to designate all areas of the country.
The Obama EPA issued its tougher ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb) Oct. 1, 2015. This triggered a Clean Air Act duty for the agency to issue designations of attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable for all areas of the country within two years. The designations are necessary for states to craft state implementation plans outlining measures they will take to attain the NAAQS.
EPA missed this deadline Oct. 1, and the issuance of designations excluding any determinations of nonattainment in November fails to satisfy EPA's responsibility, the environmentalists say. The groups ask the court to compel EPA to issue all remaining designations “forthwith.”
States dissatisfied by EPA's failure to issue designations may also file suit in the near future. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, and the District of Columbia, informed EPA of their intent to litigate the issue in an Oct. 5 letter giving 60 days' notice of intent to sue.
Meanwhile, environmentalists have argued that EPA's Nov. 6 action designating only part of the country is itself unlawful, and a potential target for litigation in federal appeals court as an “arbitrary and capricious” decision.
Environmentalists have made this point in existing litigation over EPA's initial decision to delay all designations by one year, then in August abandon that decision, reinstating the Oct. 1 deadline. That case, American Lung Association, et al. v. EPA, et al., is in abeyance in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, pending the court's decision on whether the case is moot, as EPA claims, or whether the court should vacate EPA's initial decision to delay designations by one year, as environmentalists seek.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-suit-aims-compel-ozone-designations
-
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside Climate News
By Marianne Lavelle, David Hasemyer
It's midway through fall, and cold has yet to settle over the Eckhardt family orchard. So, Diane Eckhardt waits with rising apprehension.
Cold is the switch that triggers the growing sequence that by summer has limbs sagging with ripe, juicy peaches. The reliable chill season in Texas Hill Country allowed Eckhardt's grandfather, Otto, to start the family business here in the 1930s.
But last year, with temperatures the warmest since 1939, Eckhardt's trees produced just 10 percent of their usual yield. And the year before, warm weather reduced production between 60 and 70 percent. Now, Eckhardt worries not only about the next crop, but about the future of a business she hopes will be passed on to her niece and nephews.
"We know climate change is happening," she said.
But while the Eckhardts face that certainty, their congressman sows uncertainty, casting doubt on the consensus science that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of rising global temperatures, and opposing government action to curb them.
Sixteen-term Republican Lamar Smith has used his power as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee for the past five years to do battle on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. Embracing the arguments of a small group of climate contrarians, Smith acknowledges that warming is happening but says more research is needed to determine the amount and causes, and whether it does more good than harm.
Smith's critics say he misrepresents facts, cleverly casts doubt on legitimate studies by claiming they are based on "secret data" and uses his subpoena power to help industry battle state and federal regulators and environmental groups. The result is that a panel with vast jurisdiction over all government non-military science, research and development has become an instrument of attack on mainstream climate science.
"Anyone stating what the climate will be in 500 years or even at the end of the century is not credible," Smith said at a hearing he chaired in March. "In the field of climate science, there is legitimate concern that scientists are biased in favor of reaching predetermined conclusions. This invariably leads to alarmist findings that are wrongly reported as facts."
Things weren't always this way. Under both Democratic and moderate Republican leadership, the science committee had educated lawmakers and the public about the threats posed by rising temperatures caused by human activity and the need for decisive action.
But in a case study of the power of fossil fuel interests to shape government policy, the industry's money and alliances with conservative think tanks and advocacy groups transformed the committee's membership and supported the rise of Smith, son of an old oil and ranching family in South Texas.
Today, "we're in total denial," says the highest-ranking Democrat on the panel, fellow Texan Eddie Bernice Johnson. Instead of looking at the evidence and making policy recommendations on climate—as once happened—the committee is "pretending to be oblivious."
"When you look at the [campaign] contribution list, it becomes very clear" that the forces that oppose regulation are calling the shots, she said.
Smith, 70, has announced he will retire after his term as chairman ends next year. But many believe his legacy will be lasting. The committee under Smith has "contributed to the sort of diminishment of science in public policy," said Andrew Rosenberg, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization that has been one of Smith's targets. "It has reinforced the view that everything must be partisan, and you've got to choose sides. It sends a message that science is partisan, too."The Science Committee Transformed
The House Science Committee held Congress' first hearings on climate science in 1976, and it resulted in passage of bipartisan legislation to establish a National Climate Program Office. Five years later, Al Gore, then a congressman and committee member, co-chaired another set of hearings on "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: The Greenhouse Effect."
With fidelity to its nonpartisan tradition, the committee championed scientists who found themselves under fire during President George W. Bush's administration. The Republican chairman at the time, Sherwood Boehlert of New York, faced off against Bush officials and GOP colleagues on Capitol Hill, armed, he says now, with what he learned about global warming during 24 years on the committee. "I [witnessed] a parade of some of the most distinguished scientists...from around the world testify that climate change is for real, it has serious and negative consequences, and we damn well better do something about it," Boehlert said.
But by 2013, Republican moderates like Boehlert who accepted climate science were eliminated. Redistricting by both parties—to make red districts redder and blue districts bluer—was partly to blame. But much of the change was due to a systematic effort by conservatives, with significant help from fossil fuel interests that were seeking to stave off policies that might cut into their profits.
Helping the effort was the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited political spending. The decision empowered hugely wealthy donors like the oil billionaire Koch brothers seeking to shape politics in America. Between 2010 and 2012 alone, individuals and companies in the fossil fuel industry spent an unprecedented $90.5 million to elect friendly Republicans, an increase of 66 percent over the previous two election cycles (compared with $15.7 million they gave to Democrats), according to Center for Responsive Politics data.
In the end, nearly a third of the Republicans who sat on the committee in 2006—seven of 24, including Boehlert—were defeated or retired over the next six years in the wake of primary challenges from the right.
The conservative advocacy group, the Club for Growth, financed many of the challenges. The group has a broad low-tax, less-government agenda, but its victims saw the hand of fossil fuel interests at work.
"My most enduring heresy was saying that climate change was real," said Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who became convinced of climate reality on a science committee trip to Antarctica. He lost in 2010 to Rep. Trey Gowdy, who was endorsed by the Club for Growth. "It had appeared that I had crossed to the other side and had become unfaithful to the tribe."
Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, a science committee Republican defeated in the 2008 primary, believed the conservative activists had a deeper objection than his stand on climate issues. "The foundation upon which their enterprise was built was to select members of Congress that could be told what to do," Gilchrest said. "They wanted a puppet."
The Club for Growth, which spent between $6 million and $22 million each election cycle between 2004 and 2016, did not have to disclose its donors until it established a Super PAC in 2010. But at least $3 million came into the club from the labyrinth Koch network between 2009 and 2015, according to the tax returns of their various nonprofit advocacy groups. And the club's Super PAC disclosures show that its wealthy donors include some heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry and connected to the Koch brothers, like hedge fund manager Paul Singer of Elliott Management, and Quantum Energy, a Houston private equity and venture capital firm specializing in oil and gas.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry became the biggest contributor to science committee members, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.
The oil and gas industry has been Smith's biggest contributor, with $764,000 in donations over the course of his career in Congress. Smith points out that the industry's share is just a small portion of his overall contributions—about 5 percent of the $14 million he has raised since the 1989 election cycle.
"I'm supported by a wide variety of individuals and industries, including the energy sector, which employs 400,000 Texans statewide," Smith told InsideClimate News.
After the 2012 election, with GOP moderates on the science committee wiped out, the House Republican leadership chose Smith from among three climate deniers vying for the chairmanship. He had raised four times more money that election cycle than his competitors, F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Dana Rohrabacher of California, and had doled out more than $147,000 to help other Republican candidates.'Secret Science' Charge Returns
Even before Smith took over the committee, he co-signed a letter in December 2012 calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release the "secret data" behind proposed air pollution regulations. On the letter with him was Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), a conservative who had unseated Gilchrest and who then chaired the panel's energy subcommittee. "It is likely that the majority of benefits from all federal regulations are grounded in data sets that have never been available to the public," the letter said.
The "secret science" charge was false. At issue was a large, long-term federally funded study published by Harvard researchers in 1993 showing that fine soot pollution, largely from burning fossil fuels, shortened lives. The researchers had obtained personal health information from 22,000 participants on the promise of confidentiality. Fossil fuel interests and advocacy groups they funded rebranded this common health research privacy measure as sinister. In 1997, when the Clinton administration was finalizing the first-ever air quality standards on fine soot, protesters in white lab coats appeared on Capitol Hill holding signs that said, "Harvard, release the data!" The protesters were hired by a group called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which was founded by the Koch brothers and which also received funding from the Exxon Foundation that year.
The oil and gas industry has been Rep. Lamar Smith's biggest campaign contributor. The Texas Republican was first elected to Congress in 1986. Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Since that time, hundreds of studies have affirmed that fine soot causes respiratory and cardiovascular disease and death. And a panel jointly funded by the EPA and the auto industry received access to the Harvard study's raw data for a reanalysis in 2001 that validated the original study.
But 16 years after the white lab coat protests, Smith was reviving the "secret science" charge just as the Obama administration was finalizing a plan to tighten the fine soot regulations, a move vehemently opposed by coal-fired power generators and oil refiners.
Eight months after assuming the chairmanship, Smith slapped the EPA with the first subpoena that the House science committee had issued in 21 years. The subpoena demanded the EPA release data from the Harvard study and a separate American Cancer Society study in sufficient detail "to allow one-to-one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject." The EPA worked to obtain the data without personal information, and the agency ultimately released some to Smith, but he was not satisfied. "What is EPA Hiding From the Public?" was the title of a Smith op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in June 2014.
Smith drafted legislation called the Secret Science Reform Actto require that the EPA base its regulatory decisions only on scientific data that is publicly available and reproducible. Science advocacy groups say the restriction would curb all regulation to protect public health because health research routinely relies on confidential patient information. It also would rule out regulations based on studies of natural disasters or human-caused events—like spills of oil or fracking wastewater—since they could not be reproduced. And it might put at risk EPA's 2009 finding that carbon pollution was an endangerment to health—the underpinning of all Obama administration action on climate change. The bill is "based on a misunderstanding of how science works," said Rush Holt, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at a hearing earlier this year.
Smith's legislation, which passed the House twice in the Obama era but died in the Senate, was approved by the House again in March with a new name: the HONEST ACT (the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017).
"Our goal has been to rely on good science, the facts and reliable data in an effort to discover the truth," Smith told InsideClimate News, when asked to sum up the role he has tried to play. "It is my responsibility to ensure that federal agencies rely on science that has integrity and is free from political influence."Political Operatives Replace Scientists
Smith's first subpoena came only after a contentious debate and party-line vote in the committee. But his powers were greatly expanded in 2015, when the House leadership allowed him unilateral subpoena power. Smith said it was necessary because, under Obama, "federal agencies often stonewalled the committee's constitutional obligations to conduct oversight." He would issue 25 subpoenas over the next two years, against scientists, regulators, environmental groups and even state attorneys general.
Smith also hired seven staffers from the aggressive House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which had provided fodder for Republican attacks on the Obama administration with its probes on Benghazi, IRS treatment of conservative groups, solar manufacturer Solyndra's bankruptcy and other issues. "In 2015, it became increasingly apparent that the Obama administration was advancing a one-sided, unconstitutional agenda," Smith told InsideClimate News. "We needed to bring in staff who had strong backgrounds in conducting oversight of government agencies and getting them to answer questions."
The science committee majority staff, which had more than a dozen Ph.D. scientists during the Boehlert era, now was loaded with political operatives like Mark Marin, who had been deputy staff director for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Joe Brazauskas, who had been a law clerk for the National Mining Association before serving as a counsel on Issa's House Oversight committee.
In June 2015, Smith and his team targeted research published by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The paper in the peer-reviewed journal Science undercut a key talking point of climate science deniers: It found that there had been no pause in global warming over the past two decades.
In response to Smith's subpoenas and letters, NOAA provided the science committee with its raw data and methodology, and its scientists gave briefings on their research for committee staff. But Smith wanted the researchers' emails.
He said an agency whistleblower had alleged that the paper had been rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of agency employees. The purported whistleblower, a NOAA scientist named John Bates, later said his complaint had been mischaracterized; he disagreed with how the scientists stored and archived their climate data, but he did not dispute the study's findings or allege data manipulation. "I knew people would misuse this," he told Science magazine's website.
Eddie Bernice Johnson fired back at her committee's chairman in a letter: "The only thing you accused NOAA of doing is engaging in climate science—i.e., doing their jobs."
Smith's NOAA investigation provoked an unusual rebuke from the American Association for the Advancement of Scienceand six other major scientific groups, who accused him of chilling scientific inquiry.
Since the NOAA paper's publication, several studies as well as a reanalysis of the original NOAA work have affirmed the finding that there has been no hiatus in global warming.
But Smith continued to accuse the scientists of wrongdoing. In a March hearing, Smith reiterated that the committee heard from whistleblowers that NOAA employees "put their 'thumb on the scale' during the analysis of data." And in an April speech at an annual conference of climate deniers sponsored by the Heartland Institute, Smith said both NOAA and EPA during the Obama administration had been "complicit in furthering a one-sided partisan agenda focused on climate change."
MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel believes he gained insight into Smith and his approach after an exchange a couple of years ago. It began with a discussion on a topic on which they agreed—how the U.S. had fallen behind Europe in numerical weather prediction. Emanuel took the opportunity to give Smith a copy of a primer he had written for non-scientists on climate science and risk.
A few days later, Emanuel got a call from Smith, who wanted to talk about the book. "He struck me as a very astute man," Emanuel said. "Clearly he had read the book very thoroughly or had been thoroughly briefed on it.
"He proceeded politely to ask sharp questions. Could this be wrong? Could it be not as bad? A lot of the questions were about uncertainty," Emanuel recalled. At first the scientist felt he was making headway with the congressman, a hope that was quashed the next time he heard Smith publicly dismissing climate science. "In hindsight, I think I was unwittingly a coach, helping him armor himself against reasonable arguments."
"There's nothing stupid about Lamar Smith," said Emanuel. "He's not uniformly anti-science. It's not that he doesn't understand the science. He struck me as a lawyer for the defense, who knows his defendant is guilty, but is bound by law or honor or legal code to defend."Subpoena Power Unleashed
Smith's tactics to defend fossil fuel energy created legal worries for the EPA, which was battling the industry in court. Officials feared that the constant document requests by Smith would help industry lawyers obtain otherwise confidential material that could be used against the agency in court.
In one instance, Smith acted with a like-minded Republican committee chairman, Jason Chaffetz of House Oversight, to demand internal documents on one of the Obama administration's most contentious regulations, intended to protect thousands of waterways and marshlands. After Chaffetz obtained memos showing an interagency dispute over the rule, he released them. EPA's foes, including the oil industry, which would not normally have had access to the records, sought to introduce them in a court challenge to the new clean water regulation. "Once documents have been disclosed and widely disseminated, an agency has waived any deliberative process or other privilege that may have applied," argued North Dakota's attorney general, the lead litigant.
In letters to Smith, EPA repeatedly raised its concern about the risk of releasing documents in cases involving the Clean Water Act, the regional haze pollution standards, a decision over a controversial copper mine decision in Alaska, and others.
Smith's most dramatic rush to the legal defense of the fossil fuel industry was his unprecedented move last year to issue subpoenas to two state attorneys general and several nongovernmental advocacy groups over the states' climate change fraud investigation of Exxon. He accused the attorneys general of colluding with environmentalists, violating Exxon's free speech rights and chilling private sector science funding.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, refused to comply with the subpoena, which he said "oversteps the boundaries of federalism, separation of powers, and the committee's own jurisdiction."
Smith disagreed. "The science committee has jurisdiction over all non-military, non-medical research and development," he said in the email to InsideClimate News. "We had an obligation to the scientific community and the American people to find out whether the attorneys general have intentionally intimidated researchers who disagree with them."
Legal experts see another possible outcome of Smith's inquiry. If he were to obtain and make public internal documents like correspondence among the attorneys general—material that Exxon would have trouble obtaining as a litigant—the company could use it in court.
"It sure looks like he is acting on behalf of Exxon," said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat who is part of a coalition supporting the investigation by New York and Massachusetts. "It's hard to understand why he thinks that it's an appropriate role for a congressman and Congress to get involved on behalf of an entity like Exxon. It's not like ExxonMobil is incapable of defending itself."
And, indeed, even though Smith did not obtain documents, Exxon cited the mere fact of his inquiry to give weight to its effort last year to derail the probe. Exxon picked up Smith's argument that the attorneys general were appointing "themselves to decide what is valid and what is invalid regarding climate change." For that reason and on multiple constitutional grounds, Exxon lawyers asked a federal judge in Texas to dismiss the investigations.
Although the Texas judge declined to rule, he embraced Exxon and Smith's contentionthat the New York and Massachusetts investigations were intended to "squelch public discourse by a private company that may not toe the same line as these two attorneys general." The case has been transferred to New York federal court, where a judge has yet to rule.Back Home in the 21st District
For the most part, Smith hasn't had to address the climate issue back home, even though polls show that a majority of his adult constituents believe human activity is causing global warming and Texas has suffered more severe climate and weather disasters since 1980 than any other state.
Only last year did a Democratic opponent, Tom Wakely, try to make climate change a major campaign issue. Smith won with 57 percent of the vote—the first time he had fallen below the 60 percent mark. Boehlert believes voters don't care as urgently about climate change as they do about jobs, health care and the economy. "People don't think the environment touches them dramatically and personally, but it does," he said.
For Diane Eckhardt, it's hard to ignore what's happening. She kicks up an orange cloud of dust as she walks through her family's orchard at sunset with her 85-year-old father, Donald, and her 9-year-old nephew, Quentin.
Eckhardt, 43, who has a degree in biology, tries to keep politics and peaches separate. But it's clear she disagrees with policymakers like Smith whose distrust of the science imperils her family business and its future.
"We have to pay attention to climate science because the science is there," she said. "We have to extend outside of our ideologies to protect what we have."
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05122017/lamar-smith-congress-climate-change-fossil-fuel-industry-house-science-committee
-
ALEC Slated to Vote on Divisive Measure Urging EPA to Scrap GHG Finding
Dec 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the group of conservative state legislators and industry officials, is hosting its annual meeting this week in Nashville, TN, with its members slated to vote on a divisive resolution urging EPA to scrap its greenhouse gas endangerment finding that forms the basis of nearly all its climate rules.
The resolution is scheduled for a Nov. 7 vote during a meeting of ALEC's energy, environment and agriculture subcommittees.
If adopted, it would be presented to state legislatures as “model” legislation calling on EPA “to reopen and review the 2009 endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”
Much of the material in the draft resolution contradicts mainstream scientific conclusions that human-induced climate change is linked to a range of impacts, including sea level rise, more intense severe weather and higher global average temperatures.
But according to E&E News, the resolution is driving a brewing “civil war” in ALEC between hard-line conservative groups that back the resolution and some industry groups and specific corporations that are shying away from it.
The outlet quotes several long-time ALEC “watchdogs” who view the resolution “as an attempt by its conservative members to reorient the organization to its roots after several rudderless years on energy and environment matters.”
However, it also notes that some conservatives believe the group has drifted toward the center on energy issues in response to an exodus of high-profile companies that were displeased with ALEC's stance on climate change.
The divisions within ALEC reflect similar splits that have plagued industry and conservative advocacy at EPA, where conservative groups have been urging Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the finding while industry and more-mainstream groups have backed Pruitt's stance to refrain from reconsidering the issue.
Pruitt has not indicated any interest in seeking to revoke the finding given the legal battle that environmentalists have promised and the resources that would be required to defend any action. However, he has voiced significant doubts about the harms of CO2 and is planning a “red team, blue team” review of climate science that skeptics are embracing.
Nevertheless, hard-line conservative opponents of the finding are pushing hard to get Pruitt to change his mind. For example, Inside EPA's Dawn Reeves recently reported on posturing on the endangerment finding from hard-line conservative groups. She quoted Fred Palmer, who joined the Heartland Institute early this year after stints at coal mining company Peabody Energy and the Western Fuels Association, saying the finding “has to be taken out. It demonizes CO2. It treats it as if it is a toxic pollutant, and it's not, it's just not.”
The group's second chief goal is to persuade the Trump administration to withdraw from the 1992 United Nations Rio Treaty that established the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
While Heartland, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have sought to fundamentally eradicate any possibility of federal or state climate controls, those efforts contrast with major business groups, scores of individual corporations, some Republican lawmakers and even, to some extent, the Trump administration.
For instance, an official with the National Association of Manufacturers recently told a Senate hearing that “we should be acting on climate, period.”
Also a growing number of House Republicans has joined the “Climate Solutions Caucus” that seeks to discuss ideas to address anthropogenic climate change, and Congress recently passed legislation requiring the Defense Department to study climate risks -- a policy opposed by Heartland.
Further, despite the administration's myriad climate policy rollbacks, a State Department official told a U.N. climate conference Nov. 16 that the United States is “committed to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through, among other things, increased innovation on sustainable energy and energy efficiency, and working towards low greenhouse gas emissions energy systems.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/alec-slated-vote-divisive-measure-urging-epa-scrap-ghg-finding
-
Climate Club: Sincere or Just Politically Convenient?
Dec 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
A Sierra Club official last month complained that the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus is a convenient way for Republicans to take political cover, since their leaders have no intention of addressing climate change.
Regardless of the motives of the 31 Republicans who have joined the caucus along with 31 Democrats, the political incentives are clear.
Many of the Republicans who have signed on are vulnerable in 2018, running for re-election in swing districts where climate action is broadly popular — if not an existential imperative. So going on the record as being concerned about climate change is, at a minimum, a wise political move.
"Most of the vulnerable Republicans represent districts that are competitive or even Democratic-leaning, and they are looking for ways to carve out their own image that's different from the national Republican Party or the GOP establishment brand," said Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan political tip sheet. "Breaking from the party on climate change may cause voters in those districts to take a second look."
In an election cycle that is currently looking pretty good for Democrats, 30 of the 31 districts held by Republican climate caucus members are among the 91 seats being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Democrats need to flip two dozen GOP-held seats to win control of the House.
But even if the Democratic hit list appears quite ambitious, the numbers are pretty stark for Republicans. The Cook Political Report currently counts 79 House districts in play in 2018 — 16 seats held by Democrats, 63 held by Republicans.
Nineteen Republican members of the climate caucus are currently in competitive races, by Cook's account. The districts of two of the GOP caucus members who are retiring are major Democratic pickup opportunities.
Several of the other members' districts have been competitive in recent elections and could become so again if a Democratic wave develops. At most, a handful of the Republican climate caucus members' districts appear completely out of reach for the Democrats this cycle.
Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce lashed out at the climate caucus late last month when freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who introduced legislation earlier this year to eliminate U.S. EPA, joined. The caucus has yet to collectively advance any proposal for addressing warming, though individual members of both parties have.
"The supposed Climate Solutions Caucus is welcome to add any member they'd like — even climate deniers who propose legislation to terminate the EPA," Pierce said at the time. "But until the silent half of the caucus backs up the name of the caucus with actual votes for clean energy solutions and against the fossil fuel industry, being a member will be nothing more than a line on representatives' resumes."
But leaders of the Citizens' Climate Lobby, which helped create the bipartisan caucus, responded that the more members they can recruit, regardless of their public position on global warming, the better (E&E Daily, Nov. 28).Precarious position for GOP
Chris Martin, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said there is no concerted GOP strategy on climate change and that strategists have offered no advice to members on how to address the issue — on Capitol Hill or on the campaign trail.
"We tell people to vote their district," he said.
Martin added that he hasn't seen Democrats attacking House Republicans on climate change as much as they have in the recent past and said of members of the caucus, "I commend them for taking steps to address climate change."
Both Gonzales and Martin suggested that other issues will be more decisive in the battle for control of the House.
"Right now, this election is about taxes and health care," Martin said.
Still, the political risks for the GOP this cycle are undeniable, and congressional Republicans could be playing defense on a variety of fronts. The fact is, a significant number of Republican members of the climate caucus could be gone in the next Congress — which could change the dynamic and debate over the issue yet again.
Three Republican members of the caucus are retiring next year. The Columbus-area district of Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) is almost certain to remain in GOP hands, even though it is on the DCCC's ambitious target list.
But the districts of Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) could easily flip. The Cook Political Report rates Ros-Lehtinen's Miami-based district "lean Democrat," and it calls Reichert's suburban Seattle district a "toss-up."
Here are snapshot looks at the re-election prospects of the 28 other Republican members of the climate caucus. They are listed in the order of which they joined the caucus.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Carlos Curbelo — 2nd term, Florida's 26th District
2016 winning percentage: 53%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 56%, Trump 40%
2016 League of Conservation Voters score: 53%
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Curbelo, the co-chairman and co-founder of the caucus, is, along with Ros-Lehtinen, the most vocal in the House GOP about the necessity of addressing climate change — and particularly sea-level rise. Politically, he has proven to be lucky so far. He was a top Democratic target in 2016, but the party had a flawed challenger. Curbelo is again a major target, but right now most of the top-tier Democrats in the Miami area are running for the open seat of retiring Ros-Lehtinen. Curbelo had a robust $1.3 million in the bank as of Sept. 30.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Ryan Costello — 2nd term, Pennsylvania's 6th District
2016 winning percentage: 57%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 48%, Trump 47%
2016 LCV score: 39%
Cook Political Report rating: Lean Republican
Democrats think Costello, whose district extends from the Philadelphia suburbs to the Reading area, is ripe for the taking. The DCCC put him on its "Red to Blue" list — an early compilation of the party's top dozen pickup opportunities. National Democrats are high on Air Force veteran and nonprofit executive Chrissy Houlahan, though construction executive Bob Dettore is also seeking the Democratic nomination. Houlahan has been raising money at a rapid pace for a challenger, with $662,000 on hand as of Sept. 30 — including $50,000 from her own pocket. But Costello was sitting on almost $1.2 million. Last week, Costello was one of three lead authors of a letter 10 House Republicans sent to congressional GOP leaders, urging them to keep drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge out of the tax reform legislation that is making its way through Congress.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Patrick Meehan — 4th term, Pennsylvania's 7th District
2016 winning percentage: 60%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 49%, Trump 47%
2016 LCV score: 29%
Cook Political Report rating: Lean Republican
Meehan is a former aide to the late Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican turned Democrat, and he is a moderate Republican in the same mold. But Democrats believe they can score on the ex-college hockey player and one-time National Hockey League referee in his suburban Philadelphia district. There's a five-way primary brewing, with state Sen. Daylin Leach the best-known of the Democratic candidates. Meehan was sitting on more than $2.4 million as of Sept. 30. Meehan talks about environmental issues fairly regularly on his website and said President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement "diminishes America's leadership role on the world stage."
Congress/WikipediaRep. Lee Zeldin — 2nd term, New York's 1st District
2016 winning percentage: 58%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 54%, Clinton 42%
2016 LCV score: 8%
Cook Political Report rating: Likely Republican
Zeldin appears strong at the moment, but his district, on the eastern end of Long Island, is one of the swingiest of swing districts in the Empire State, and he has moved to distance himself from Trump over the past several months. His vote against the Republican tax reform bill brought a rebuke from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who canceled a fundraiser for Zeldin last week. Zeldin is certainly mindful of coastal issues in his district, despite his low LCV score. Last month, he put pictures of his Capitol meeting with members of the Citizens' Climate Lobby from his district on his official website. At least seven Democrats are seeking his seat. Perry Gershon, a lending corporation executive, had the most cash on hand as of Sept. 30: $411,000 — including $60,000 from his own pocket. Zeldin had more than $1.1 million on hand.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Mark Amodei — 3rd full term, Nevada's 2nd District
2016 winning percentage: 58%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 52%, Clinton 40%
2016 LCV score: 3%
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
Amodei is the lone Republican in the Silver State's House delegation and is probably safe in any general election. If anything, he probably faces more danger in the GOP primary, where former state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, an early tea party leader, is taking him on. Amodei has a long section on his official website about "responsible stewardship" of the environment and touts legislation to create new wilderness areas in his Reno-area district. Of climate change, he writes, "I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over another in discussions of climate change. I do think that we should promote unbiased scientific research funded by both the government and the private sector to help answer climate change questions and bring effective solutions to any human causes."
Congress/WikipediaRep. Mia Love — 2nd term, Utah's 4th District
2016 winning percentage: 54%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 39%, Clinton 32%
2016 LCV score: 3%
Cook Political Report rating: Lean Republican
Love represents a solidly conservative district in the suburbs of Salt Lake City, yet cannot solidify her political standing. She has spoken out lately against the Interior Department proposal to hike entrance fees at certain national parks but has not had much to say about climate. Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams is her likely Democratic challenger. Love has struggled with fundraising to date, with just $312,000 on hand as of Sept. 30 — low for a vulnerable Republican incumbent.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Brian Fitzpatrick — 1st term, Pennsylvania's 8th District
2016 winning percentage: 54%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 48%, Clinton 48%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Lean Republican
Fitzpatrick, a freshman who took over the suburban Philadelphia seat from his brother, ex-Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R), was an early co-sponsor of a House GOP measure urging congressional leaders to address climate change and also co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to prevent drilling in ANWR. Democrats have targeted his seat for several cycles, but except for 2007-2011, it has been held for decades by moderate Republicans. Democrats are very high on their likely nominee, Rachel Reddick, an attorney and Navy veteran. Through Sept. 30, Fitzpatrick had $970,000 in the bank.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Elise Stefanik — 2nd term, New York's 21st District
2016 winning percentage: 65%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 53%, Clinton 39%
2016 LCV score: 29%
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
Stefanik's scenic district, which borders Canada and takes in the Adirondack Park, has been pretty competitive for several election cycles and went Democratic in the last few White House races before Trump's surprisingly easy victory last year. Stefanik has benefited from having tepid Democratic opponents so far, whose support was diluted by an active Green Party nominee. Stefanik has worked hard to vote the interests of her district. She was a lead sponsor of the House GOP climate resolution and has also worked on forestry and conservation issues. Democrats aren't showing many signs of contesting the race just yet, even though seven candidates are currently running. Stefanik banked more than $1 million as of Sept. 30.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Brian Mast — 1st term, Florida's 18th District
2016 winning percentage: 54%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 53%, Clinton 44%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Likely Republican
Mast won a Palm Beach-area seat last year that had previously been held by a Democrat. An Army veteran who lost both legs while serving in Afghanistan, Mast has been raising money at a furious pace and reported $921,000 on hand as of Sept. 30. Democrats vying to run against him include attorney Lauren Baer, a former State Department official whose family runs a well-known South Florida furniture business, and Pam Keith, a Navy veteran and attorney who ran unsuccessfully for Senate last year. On his website, Mast calls the Climate Solutions Caucus "an important tool to educate members on economically-viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation's economy, security, infrastructure and environment."
Congress/WikipediaRep. Don Bacon — 1st term, Nebraska's 2nd District
2016 winning percentage: 49%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 47%, Clinton 45%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Bacon ousted one-term Rep. Brad Ashford (D), who is seeking a rematch in the Omaha-based district. Neither has set the world on fire on the fundraising front: As of Sept. 30, Bacon had $488,000 in the bank. Bacon prominently touts his membership in the Climate Solutions Caucus on his campaign website and calls his work to find bipartisan solutions to climate change a fulfillment of a campaign promise. Bacon expressed disappointment when Trump pulled out of the Paris accord but wasn't as vehement as some of his GOP colleagues. "We should have kept a seat at the table to advocate our interests and fix the problems with the current agreement that put us at an economic disadvantage with other countries," he said. "Regardless, I am confident our nation will continue to pursue more environmentally friendly energy solutions."
Congress/WikipediaRep. Darrell Issa — 9th term, California's 49th District
2016 winning percentage: 50%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 50%, Trump 43%
2016 LCV score: 3%
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Some cynics have called Issa's decision to join the caucus a deathbed conversion, since he was highly critical of the Obama administration's environment and energy policies as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. But with Issa's San Diego-area district now heavily in play — he never got less than 58 percent of the vote until last year's near-defeat — he is clearly trying to moderate some of his positions. On the environmental front, Issa has been touting his legislation to clean up the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station — though his website still includes harsh criticism of Obama-era policies. Four Democrats are running aggressively to take Issa on, including Doug Applegate, the attorney and Iraq War veteran who came within 1,600 votes of ousting him last time. Another leading Democratic contender is Mike Levin, director of government affairs at FuelCell Energy Inc., a clean energy company. Issa reported $852,000 in his campaign account as of Sept. 30, but the number is largely immaterial, as he is one of the three or four richest members of Congress, with an easy ability to self-fund if necessary.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Rodney Davis — 3rd term, Illinois' 13th District
2016 winning percentage: 60%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 49%, Clinton 44%
2016 LCV score: 3%
Cook Political Report rating: Likely Republican
Davis, a former aide to Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), is a fairly conventional Main Street Republican in a fairly middle-of-the-road district in west-central Illinois. But it's the type of district that could become uncomfortable for Republicans if 2018 is a wave election. Five Democrats are running; the leading contenders for now appear to be Erik Jones, a former congressional committee staffer, and Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, a former aide to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Davis had more than $1 million on hand as of Sept. 30, more than five times as much as his potential Democratic foes.
Congress/WikipediaRep. John Faso, 1st term, New York's 19th District
2016 winning percentage: 54%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 50%, Clinton 44%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Faso, a veteran politician, won a spirited and expensive race in this Hudson Valley district against Zephyr Teachout (D), a law school professor and progressive icon, to replace ex-Rep. Chris Gibson (R), one of the first House Republicans to talk meaningfully about climate change. Democrats are bullish about their prospects of winning the district next fall, but they must first sort through a crowded primary with several aggressive contenders. As of Sept. 30, five Democrats had more than $172,000 in the bank, led by businessman Brian Flynn, with $911,000 on hand, and attorney Antonio Delgado, with $881,000. Faso, by contrast, reported $572,000. Faso has worked aggressively on local environmental cleanup issues and called Trump's decision to withdraw from Paris "ill-advised."
Congress/WikipediaRep. Peter King — 13th term, New York's 2nd District
2016 winning percentage: 62%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 53%, Clinton 44%
2016 LCV score: 13%
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
King, a pugnacious senior lawmaker, won easily last year but occasionally has to sweat re-election. His district voted for President Obama twice, and the likely Democratic nominee, lighting company executive Tim Gomes, has dropped $1 million of his own money into the campaign. (King had $2.7 million on hand as of Sept. 30.) In a wave year, King could be in trouble. He was highly critical of his Republican colleagues when they moved slowly to provide Superstorm Sandy relief in 2013 and has criticized the Trump administration on its response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Tom Reed — 4th term, New York's 23rd District
2016 winning percentage: 58%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 54%, Clinton 39%
2016 LCV score: 8%
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
Reed, who represents New York's Southern Tier and Finger Lakes regions, is a centrist who keeps his head down. Democrats have talked about trying to take him on but without much success so far. There are seven Democrats currently running against him, but none has done any significant fundraising. Reed, a former mayor of Corning, had $852,000 on hand as of Sept. 30. The Republican has mainly voted with his caucus on energy and environmental matters. On his website, he says, "We must use all available resources to diversify our energy portfolio and support the American economy, while at the same time protecting our environment with reasonable regulations."
Congress/WikipediaRep. Mike Coffman — 5th term, Colorado's 6th District
2016 winning percentage: 51%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 50%, Trump 41%
2016 LCV score: 3%
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Coffman has been a top Democratic target for the last few election cycles, and each time his challengers have fallen just short. He is on the DCCC's "Red to Blue" hit list, making his race a top priority. Democrats must sort through a crowded primary, though attorney and Iraq War veteran Jason Crow leads the money chase, with $393,000 on hand as of Sept. 30. (Coffman reported $722,000.) On his website, Coffman, who represents a suburban Denver district, writes, "There is no question that climate change is real and a factor that negatively impacts our environment. The U.S. should take all practical efforts to reduce carbon emissions and improve the quality of our global environment."
Congress/WikipediaRep. Mike Gallagher, 1st term, Wisconsin's 8th District
2016 winning percentage: 63%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 56%, Clinton 38%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
Gallagher easily won what was supposed to be a close race, and there's no sign yet that a competitive race is emerging in the Green Bay-area district. But it's one of those districts that can swing to the Democrats in a wave election. Gallagher has made cleaning up Green Bay and Lake Michigan from phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment major environmental priorities.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Claudia Tenney, 1st term, New York's 22nd District
2016 winning percentage: 47%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 54%, Clinton 39%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Lean Republican
Tenney is a major Democratic target, an early entrant on the DCCC's "Red to Blue" list. She represents an upstate New York district once held by former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican who was beloved by environmentalists. Her immediate predecessor, ex-Rep. Richard Hanna (R), was considerably more moderate — and he once suggested that Tenney was unelectable there. She proved him wrong, but Democrats hope to prove him right. A DCCC poll in October showed state Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi (D) with a narrow lead over Tenney. Through Sept. 30, Tenney had $527,000 in the bank to Brindisi's $399,000.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Scott Taylor — 1st term, Virginia's 2nd District
2016 winning percentage: 61%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 48%, Clinton 45%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Likely Republican
Taylor cannot be happy with last month's election results in Virginia, which saw a Republican state lawmaker from his area who was a hero to environmentalists lose to a Democrat just because of his party affiliation. The 2nd District, based in the Hampton Roads area, has traditionally been good to Republicans. The district is among the most vulnerable in the country to sea-level rise, and Taylor has worked to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program and criticized the Trump budget for eliminating funding for Chesapeake Bay cleanup. Taylor caught a break politically when the leading Democrat seeking to replace him, retired Air Force officer Dave Belote, abruptly dropped out of the race last month for family reasons.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Barbara Comstock — 2nd term, Virginia's 10th District
2016 winning percentage: 53%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 52%, Trump 42%
2016 LCV score: 3%
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Comstock is one of the Democrats' biggest targets this cycle, and they have a multitude of candidates looking to take her on. Comstock represents a suburban district outside of Washington, and she has tried to present herself as a moderate. But legislative races in and around her district broke decisively in the Democrats' favor last month, and that could be a harbinger of what's to come. Comstock was sitting on $987,000 as of Sept. 30, but four Democrats had each banked at least $341,000.
Congress/WikipediaRep. David Joyce — 3rd term, Ohio's 14th District
2016 winning percentage: 63%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 53%, Clinton 42%
2016 LCV score: 5%
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
Joyce, the son of a coal salesman, appears to be one of the safest Republicans in the Climate Solutions Caucus. He represents a district along Lake Erie, and he was chief sponsor of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which Obama signed into law in 2016. Betsy Rader, an attorney, is the likely Democratic nominee.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Leonard Lance — 5th term, New Jersey's 7th District
2016 winning percentage: 54%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 48%, Trump 47%
2016 LCV score: 13%
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Lance is one of four House Republicans currently serving who voted for the cap-and-trade legislation in 2009 and has always been moderate on environmental and social issues. Democrats have eight candidates seeking to take him on in the suburban district, but it isn't clear yet who will emerge from the primary.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Steve Knight — 2nd term, California's 25th District
2016 winning percentage: 53%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 50%, Trump 43%
2016 LCV score: 0%
Cook Political Report rating: Toss-up
Democrats invested a little in Knight's northern Los Angeles County district last year, but they plan to take a closer look this time around. Knight's district went for Hillary Clinton over Trump by a pretty wide margin, after going for Mitt Romney over Obama by 2 points in 2012. Knight caught flak during the last election for the government's slow response to the massive methane leak at a natural gas facility in the Porter Ranch neighborhood in his district (E&E Daily, April 4, 2016). Several Democrats are running this time, including 2016 nominee Bryan Caforio, an attorney.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Ed Royce — 13th term, California's 39th District
2016 winning percentage: 57%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 51%, Trump 43%
2016 LCV score: 5%
Cook Political Report rating: Lean Republican
Royce's winning percentage, against a Democrat whom he outspent almost 50-1, was his lowest since his first election, in 1992. Add to that Clinton's strong showing over Trump, and Democrats smell blood — even with Royce's status as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In a district that touches parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties and has never been a political battleground before, Democrats have several strong contenders running, including businessman Andy Thorburn, who had $1.9 million in his account on Sept. 30 after he loaned the campaign $2 million; Gil Cisneros, a retired Navy officer who won millions from a lottery ticket and became a philanthropist; and Mai-Khanh Tran, a pediatrician. Royce, who had $3.4 million in the bank, has been working on flood control and wildfire issues at the local level.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Chris Collins — 3rd term, New York's 27th District
2016 winning percentage: 67%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 59%, Clinton 35%
2016 LCV score: 0%
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
Collins was one of Trump's earliest supporters in Congress and remains one of his staunchest defenders on Capitol Hill. He's a reliable conservative who retains a dose of pragmatism from his days as a self-made millionaire and as an Erie County executive.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Jack Bergman — 1st term, Michigan's 1st District
2016 winning percentage: 55%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 58%, Clinton 36%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
Bergman, whose district takes in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, won an easier-than-expected race in 2016 and doesn't appear to have a major challenge in 2018. However, conservative Democrats have held the district in the not-too-distant past, and Michigan has an unpredictable gubernatorial election on tap. With a district that touches three Great Lakes and has abundant wildlife, Bergman has spoken frequently about pipeline safety, invasive species, the fishing industry and improvement of locks.
Congress/WikipediaRep. Mimi Walters, 2nd term, California's 45th District
2016 winning percentage: 59%
District's 2016 White House vote: Clinton 49%, Trump 44%
2016 LCV score: 5%
Cook Political Report rating: Lean Republican
Walters is one of several Southern California Republicans who find themselves more vulnerable than they imagined they would be — but that's part of the changing nature of the region. She's got no less than five Democrats running serious campaigns to take her on. A member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Walters had $1.4 million in the bank on Sept. 30.
@RepMattGaetz/ TwitterRep. Matt Gaetz — 1st term, Florida's 1st District
2016 winning percentage: 69%
District's 2016 White House vote: Trump 67%, Clinton 28%
2016 LCV score: NA
Cook Political Report rating: Safe Republican
It was Gaetz's decision to join the Climate Solutions Caucus, after lambasting EPA, that prompted the Sierra Club's criticism of the caucus and its role. But in a very conservative Panhandle district, he should have no trouble earning a second term.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/05/stories/1060068019
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested