Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/6
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bottle Bills Deserve More Attention
Dec 6, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
On America Recycles Day Nov. 15, there was a lot of discussion about the challenges facing plastics recycling in the United States. -
(ACC Mentioned) Closed Loop Partners Appoints VP of Closed Loop Oceans
Dec 6, 2017 | Recycling Today
Closed Loop Partners, New York, has announced the appointment of Grant Collins as vice president of Closed Loop Oceans, its initiative to develop a new funding mechanism to prevent plastic materials from leaking into the world’s oceans. -
The US Can't Forget the Benefits NAFTA Has Provided
Dec 6, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sen. Pat Roberts
Facts are stubborn things. And it’s a fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has boosted the American economy for over 20 years. -
EDF Comments at EPA's Public Meeting on New Chemical Reviews Question the Credibility and Legality of Recent Changes
Dec 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EPA held a public meeting today to present information on major changes it is making to its review of new chemicals under last year’s reforms made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Lautenberg Act. -
New Jersey Seeks Stricter Limit on Chemical in Drinking Water
Dec 6, 2017 | The New York Times
By Jon Hurdle
It has been nearly 20 years since a hazardous class of chemicals found in common consumer products like nonstick cookware and mattresses was manufactured in the United States, but it is still present in drinking water. -
Iarc Director Defends Process for Evaluating Possible Carcinogens
Dec 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc), has defended the agency's process for determining whether substances are carcinogenic. -
Canada Criticises EU Action on Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has joined the US and Australia in complaining to the WTO that hazard-based EU proposals to regulate endocrine disrupting substances (EDCs) in biocidal and plant protection products, will harm international trade. -
Voluntary Program Isn't a Way to Head off Regulations, Companies Say
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oil industry officials who rolled out a voluntary methane reduction program yesterday said they're not doing it to ward off federal regulation. -
Commentary: Explaining API's Methane Reduction Initiative
Dec 6, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Erik Milito
When it comes to concrete climate leadership and results, U.S. success should be the world's gold standard. -
Alaska, Producers in Talks on Gas Sale for LNG Project
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska is pushing forward with plans to commercialize its abundant reserves of natural gas, signing a joint development agreement last month with China in the hope of beginning construction of its ambitious LNG export project by mid-2019. -
Wall Street's Fracking Frenzy Runs Dry as Profits Fail to Materialize
Dec 6, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson and Lynn Cook
Twelve major shareholders in U.S. shale-oil-and-gas producers met this September in a Midtown Manhattan high-rise with a view of Times Square to discuss a common goal, getting those frackers to make money for a change. -
DOT Rolls Back Rules for Oil Train Brakes
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Rail safety regulators are reversing an Obama-era mandate to upgrade braking systems on explosive oil and ethanol trains. -
Growing Length of U.S. Freight Trains in Federal Crosshairs After Crashes: GAO
Dec 6, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Eric M. Johnson
The investigative arm of the U.S. Congress is launching a probe into the safety of increasingly long freight trains being operated by CSX Corp, Union Pacific Corp and other major U.S. railroads to boost profitability, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) said. -
House Dems Finally Get to Grill Pruitt. Here's Their Plan
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
As Scott Pruitt makes his long-awaited return to Capitol Hill tomorrow morning, House Democrats are getting a rare chance to question the U.S. EPA boss face to face about his climate change agenda. -
One Pick Believes in Climate Change; One Won't Talk About It
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Two Trump nominees for top energy and environmental jobs — sitting at the same table in a Senate hearing room yesterday — had wildly divergent answers to questions about climate change. -
Obama Says Local Governments Are New Leaders on Climate
Dec 6, 2017 | Associated Press ( In E&E Greenwire)
By Sophia Tareen
City and state governments will be the "new face of American leadership" on climate change, former President Obama told a group of mayors at the North American Climate Summit in Chicago yesterday. -
California AG on Trump EPA: 'It's Almost as If They Believe They're Above the Law'
Dec 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
California’s Democratic attorney general slammed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wednesday, accusing the agency of insufficient transparency and policies that hurt the state under President Trump.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bottle Bills Deserve More Attention
Dec 6, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
On America Recycles Day Nov. 15, there was a lot of discussion about the challenges facing plastics recycling in the United States.
And there are many hurdles, from technical and market issues to government policy.
The headline is that collection was down last year: Plastic bottles collected for recycling dropped 2.4 percent in 2016 in the United States, reversing 25 years of growth, noted Steve Russell, the head of the American Chemistry Council's plastics division, in his ACC blog posted on the recycling day.
Russell ran through some of the technical and market hurdles, like the need for better sortation, increased contamination as more cities use single-stream curbside collection, and the hit that recycling is taking globally as the huge Chinese market cracks down on imported scrap.
As well, he highlighted potential positives, such as demand growing from businesses using more recycled plastic in products as part of their corporate sustainability goals.
He ended his blog optimistically: "I think a compelling case can be made that recent corporate goals and technological innovation will continue to drive recycling on a course for growth."
But to me, that's only half the picture.
It's an important half, to be sure: There's a lot of innovation going on in the plastics recycling space.
But a focus on markets and technology ignores the key role of government policy — or lack of policy — in driving more recycling.
In my opinion, the U.S. continues to be in a kind of straightjacket of our own making on plastics bottle recycling — our bottle recycling rates lag "world-class" levels.
A Nov. 17 report from the United Nations Environment Programme, two days after the festivities around America Recycles Day, touted government efforts worldwide to expand bottle deposit systems.
The U.N. noted that the United Kingdom is the latest, but it said regional governments in Scotland and Wales also are considering deposits.
As well, three Australian states have announced plans and smaller countries including Estonia and Lithuania have implemented deposit systems in recent years, UNEP said.
The pressure to do something is apparently strong enough in the U.K. that Coca-Cola's head of sustainability for Europe recently took the surprising step — surprising for a beverage industry executive — and told a House of Commons committee that the company supported bottle bills there.
"We see from those other schemes in other countries that you can get high 80s and low 90 [percent] recovery rates on plastic packaging," said Nick Brown, the executive with Coca-Cola. "There's no reason in the U.K. we shouldn't be striving for a scheme that achieves those kinds of outcomes."
The UNEP report said a deposit system in the U.K. could push plastic bottle collection rates from the current 57 percent to 80 or 90 percent, a rate seen in Germany and Sweden, which also have bottle bills.
By comparison, what was the plastic bottle recycling rate in the United States last year? It was a disappointing 29.7 percent. It's hovered around that level in recent years.
That, to me, is why the debate in the U.S. is in a straightjacket.
We seem to accept that a 30 percent bottle recycling rate is fine, when clearly, we could and should do a lot better. Other countries do.
A German PET packaging industry last year praised bottle bills as being responsible for that country's 90-plus percent PET bottle recycling rate.
I caught up with Steve Alexander, the president of the Association of Plastic Recyclers, after a talk he gave at an event in Washington, D.C., on America Recycles Day.
APR is very active in promoting recycling. (And to be clear, Russell's group within ACC does a lot of good work in the space as well.) APR itself is mainly a technical and market demand-oriented group, not a political one.
Alexander suggested right now the fight in the U.S. is about preserving the recycling systems we have, rather than expanding them.
"We haven't had an engaged dialogue about, say, deposit programs really in a proactive sense since the late 1970s, early 80s," he said. "Now what we're seeing is going the other way. Now the industry is just trying to maintain what's there."
APR has a nuanced position on bottle bills.
As Alexander explained it to me, APR supports expanding existing bottle bills to cover containers like non-carbonated drinks or water, and not just soft drinks. And APR opposes any rollback of existing bottle bills.
But as Alexander notes, "that's where we stop."
To me, that's where the straightjacket comes in.
UNEP says that drinks makers have long resisted deposit-return schemes. They play a large role in limiting the plastics industry's options here, in my opinion.
Some deposit opponents say it's a tax — although I think one of the few taxes you can have completely refunded to you — or there are more cost-effective ways to boost recycling, like better education and more curbside options.
But if you look at the stagnation of the plastics bottle recycling rates in the U.S. — 30 percent — and how much we lag other countries that get 80-plus percent, I'm skeptical that education or better curbside collection or those sorts of initiatives will ever get us where we should be.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20171206/BLOG03/171209943/bottle-bills-deserve-more-attention
-
(ACC Mentioned) Closed Loop Partners Appoints VP of Closed Loop Oceans
Dec 6, 2017 | Recycling Today
Closed Loop Partners, New York, has announced the appointment of Grant Collins as vice president of Closed Loop Oceans, its initiative to develop a new funding mechanism to prevent plastic materials from leaking into the world’s oceans.
Closed Loop Oceans is a collaborative initiative in partnership with Ocean Conservancy, the Trash Free Seas Alliance, Closed Loop Partners, 3M, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, The Coca Cola Co., the American Chemistry Council and the World Plastics Council.
Research indicates that the majority of plastic debris originates from five fast growing economies in Asia —Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and China, says Closed Loop Partners. As a result, the initiative will focus on galvanizing investment in waste management and recycling solutions in Southeast Asia.
Collins, who has spent more than two decades in the international capital and commodities markets as a financier and a lawyer, joins Closed Loop Partners from Charlotte Square Consulting, where he focused on the development of innovative risk management and investment products with ethical or socially responsible objectives.
“With his multidisciplinary expertise in a broad range of developing economies, particularly those in Asia, as well as his deep knowledge of various investment products,” says Rob Kaplan, managing partner of Closed Loop Partners. “Grant is ideally positioned to lead this complex and impactful initiative to bring capital market solutions to bear on a global challenge—improving environmental, social and economic outcomes across the region.”
Collins says, “I am delighted to be joining Closed Loop Partners and to have the opportunity of contributing to the development of a funding strategy that will facilitate new sources of public and private investment in Southeast Asia’s waste management and recycling ecosystem while also demonstrating positive investment returns and tangible environmental impact.”
At the Our Ocean 2017 conference, a global gathering of world leaders held Oct. 5-6 in Malta to address some of the world’s most pressing ocean challenges, the Closed Loop Oceans initiative was announced. This initiative is designed to fund waste management and recycling solutions in Southeast Asia, with a focus on investments to improve collection, sorting and recycling markets. Nearly half of the plastic that flows into the ocean every year—an estimated 8 million metric tons—escapes from waste streams in just five rapidly developing economies in Asia and Collins will be leading this work, Closed Loop Partners says.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/closed-loop-partners-vice-president-oceans/
-
The US Can't Forget the Benefits NAFTA Has Provided
Dec 6, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sen. Pat Roberts
Facts are stubborn things. And it’s a fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has boosted the American economy for over 20 years.
As renegotiations of the trade pact are well underway, we need to take a good clear look at NAFTA and the undeniable benefits of trade with two of our closest partners — Canada and Mexico.
The facts speak for themselves, especially for my home state of Kansas. In 2016 alone, Kansas exported more than $300 million agriculture goods to our northern neighbor. Since NAFTA entered into force on Jan. 1, 1994, the value of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada has increased by 265 percent and to Mexico by 289 percent.
From agriculture to aviation, NAFTA has benefited my home state of Kansas tremendously. Wichita, Kan., has long been known as the “Air Capital of the World” for our highly skilled workforce and for being the foremost aerospace manufacturing center. Since 1994, Canada has been one of the top export markets for the aerospace industry.
After more than two decades of NAFTA being in force, it makes sense to take a look at areas of the agreement that can be modernized and strengthened.
Could we have done things better negotiating NAFTA? Yes. Can we still do things better renegotiating NAFTA? Absolutely.
However, we must not forget that Canada has long been one of our most reliable and important partners. Multiple times, we have fought side by side to ensure the security of our nations.
Part of that steadfast reliability stems from our mutually beneficial trading relationship. We cannot afford to let this investment go to waste.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have listened to farmers, ranchers and other end users like manufacturers about the importance of access to the global marketplace, especially in a tough economy for farm country. Simply put, our economy needs access to foreign markets if we are to achieve economic growth.
I have taken these concerns with NAFTA renegotiations and international trade directly to the president not once, but on four different occasions. In fact, to ensure the administration has the tools to promote American agriculture exports, our committee created an Under Secretary of Agriculture for trade and foreign affairs position within the USDA. I am working with the U.S. trade representative and his staff to ensure agriculture is a top consideration in negotiations.
From the beginning, I have called on American agriculture to have a unified message for NAFTA renegotiations of “do no harm.” While this unified message has been characterized by some in the administration as “screaming and yelling,” to me it is evidence of the serious and real consequences for farmers, ranchers and American consumers should NAFTA talks collapse or negotiators forget the benefits of this decades-old trading
relationship. Farmers, ranchers and businesses must keep up the pressure.
I support and applaud President Trump for wanting to find ways to make sure other sectors of the American economy will fare better going forward.
Aerospace and defense manufacturers rely on NAFTA and, most importantly, the certainty it provides in the global marketplace. For the last 23 years, businesses have developed their supply chains around trade agreements. Changes to NAFTA would disrupt aerospace and defense manufacturing operations and have a devastating impact on the economy in Kansas.
Aviation manufacturing operations, especially in Kansas, have grown in recent years. It is imperative the U.S. maintains the trade agreements with our allies to ensure success in the future.
That leaves us at a crossroads. We can choose to strengthen the relationship with one of our top trading partners in Canada, and at the same time boost the American economy, or we can choose to allow real damage on both fronts.
Roberts is a member of the Senate Finance Committee and is chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/363479-the-us-cant-forget-the-benefits-nafta-has-provided
-
Dec 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EPA held a public meeting today to present information on major changes it is making to its review of new chemicals under last year’s reforms made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Lautenberg Act.
EPA provided brief opportunities for stakeholders to provide comments. Two of us from EDF – I, and my colleague Robert Stockman, Senior Attorney – gave oral comments at the meeting. We are providing those comments here in written form.
My comments are available here.
Robert Stockman’s comments are available here.
As the comments make clear, EDF believes the changes EPA is making and discussed today are both contrary to the requirements of the new TSCA and represent a retreat from the credible, transparent and accountable new chemicals program Congress sought to establish under the new law.
As I noted in my comments: “Through these actions, many clearly contrary to the law, EPA is returning the new chemicals program to its dark ages under the old TSCA, making it again into a black box within which EPA acts as if its only stakeholder is the chemical industry.”
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/12/06/edf-comments-at-epas-public-meeting-on-new-chemical-reviews-question-the-credibility-and-legality-of-recent-changes/
-
New Jersey Seeks Stricter Limit on Chemical in Drinking Water
Dec 6, 2017 | The New York Times
By Jon Hurdle
It has been nearly 20 years since a hazardous class of chemicals found in common consumer products like nonstick cookware and mattresses was manufactured in the United States, but it is still present in drinking water. Now, New Jersey, which has some of the highest concentrations of the chemicals, is seeking to take the lead in controlling the material and reducing its threat to public health.
The class of chemicals, known as perfluorinated chemicals, has been linked to illnesses including cancer, high cholesterol and developmental problems in young children, prompting the United States Environmental Protection Agency to issue a health advisory about what officials say is a safe limit in drinking water.
While the E.P.A. does not formally regulate the chemicals, some states have started imposing their own restrictions. In New Jersey, a panel of scientists that advises the state government recommended last month that New Jersey impose strict limits on perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, a type of perfluorinated chemical whose health effects may include low birth weight in infants, kidney and testicular cancer, liver damage, and impaired immune system function, according to an E.P.A. health advisory.
The panel’s recommendation would result in New Jersey having the strictest limits on PFOS of any state, according to environmental and health advocates.
Tests conducted by the E.P.A. between 2013 and 2015 found PFOS in 3.4 percent of New Jersey’s public water systems, almost twice the national rate of 1.9 percent.
If accepted by New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, the recommendation would mean that the chemical is subject to a “maximum contaminant limit,” allowing state officials to require operators of water systems to meet the new standard by installing carbon filters or other technology.
The proposal is the third in the last three years by the panel, officially known as New Jersey’s Drinking Water Quality Institute, as it seeks to lower the levels of perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water. State officials have already accepted earlier recommendations by the panel to lower the limits of two other perfluorinated chemicals, perfluorononanoic acid, or PFNA, and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.
The new PFOS limit, 13 parts per trillion, would be much lower than the E.P.A.’s recommendation of 70 parts per trillion for PFOS and PFOA combined, and lower than the limit set by Vermont, another state that is considered a leader in regulating the chemicals.
The E.P.A. issued a statement this week saying it would launch an initiative focused on perfluorinated chemicals that would include accelerating research, working more closely with local governments and the agency’s regional offices, and identifying ways to support local communities. The statement did not say whether the agency would seek to impose rules to curb contamination levels.
Advocates promoting the control of perfluorinated chemicals praised New Jersey’s latest proposal, which they said would likely influence other states to pursue similar regulations.
“These chemicals are extremely persistent, they’ve become global contaminants, and they can seriously impact human health at extremely low concentrations,” said Dr. David Andrews, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based organization.
In 2015, a study by three epidemiologists of about 70,000 people living near a plant operated by DuPont in Parkersburg, W.Va., concluded that there was a “probable link” between PFOA, which had been used by the plant for decades, and illnesses that included testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
Perfluorinated chemicals were used in consumer products for about 50 years until their manufacture was phased out in the United States in the early 2000s because of health concerns. But they are still made by foreign manufacturers overseas and persist in some drinking water systems, and they are present in other sources such as dust that results from the breakdown of certain consumer products, according to a report on PFOS by the New Jersey panel of scientists.
Other sources include water treatment plants, landfills and military bases that have used firefighting foam containing PFOS and other perfluorinated chemicals, the report said. Recreational fishermen who eat fish caught in waters contaminated by perfluorinated chemicals may be at particular risk for health problems.
“Environmental contamination and resulting human exposure to PFOS are anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future due to its environmental persistence, formation from precursor compounds, and continued production by other manufacturers,” the panel’s report said.
The panel’s proposal to curb PFOS was opposed by the Chemistry Council of New Jersey, a trade group for chemical manufacturers, which argued that the new limit is not based on the best available science and would increase costs for smaller providers of water and their customers.
Samantha L. Jones, the director of regulatory affairs for the council, said at one meeting of the panel that it had not considered a study of about 200 residents of Paulsboro, N.J., where last year and this year a team from Rutgers University had tested for several perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOS. The report said any health risks posed by exposure to perfluorinated chemicals had not been “firmly established.’’
Ms. Jones called the proposed PFOS limit “extremely low,” and said that it appeared “motivated by a perceived need to be first or toughest, even without scientific justification or evidence.”
But Dr. Keith Cooper, the panel’s chairman, dismissed the Paulsboro study, saying it was not rigorous enough to be included in the extensive review of published research that led to the PFOS proposal.
“The Rutgers study is too small,’’ Dr. Cooper said, “doesn’t have enough power, and was not designed to do what the Chemistry Council is saying it can do.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/nyregion/new-jersey-pfc-water-limits.html
-
Iarc Director Defends Process for Evaluating Possible Carcinogens
Dec 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc), has defended the agency's process for determining whether substances are carcinogenic. His intervention comes in response to a critical inquiry from a US congressional committee.
"In summary, the cancer hazard classifications made by the Iarc monographs are the result of scientific deliberations of working groups of independent scientists, free from conflicts of interest," Christopher P Wild wrote in a letter to the chairs of two Congress committees.
Representatives Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), chair of its Environment Subcommittee, had earlier written to Iarc and the Department of Health and Human Services on 1 November, demanding information on the agency's monograph programme.
In response to their complaint that Iarc does not make meetings and draft documents public, Dr Wild said this was standard practice in scientific committees, and was necessary "to protect the working group scientists from interference by vested interests".
Draft documents are available to all scientists attending deliberative meetings, including observers from industry, he said.
Mr Wild's letter focused specifically on Iarc's 2015 review of glyphosate – the primary ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide – because the lawmakers had repeated assertions that had appeared in news media reports about the controversial decision to classify it as "probably" carcinogenic to humans.
References to a study co-authored by a Monsanto scientist were deleted from the final monograph because "the working group considered that information in the review article and its supplement was insufficient for independent evaluation of the individual studies and the conclusions reached," Dr Wild said.
He refused the committee’s request to provide a witness for a possible hearing, but offered to answer further questions long distance or at a meeting at the agency's offices in France.
Iarc's work has come under fire before from lawmakers and industry groups in the US, because it has regulatory implications. Substances it lists as carcinogens are also listed as such under California’s Proposition 65. This requires manufacturers and retailers to warn workers and consumers exposed to listed chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62321/iarc-director-defends-process-for-evaluating-possible-carcinogens
-
Canada Criticises EU Action on Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has joined the US and Australia in complaining to the WTO that hazard-based EU proposals to regulate endocrine disrupting substances (EDCs) in biocidal and plant protection products, will harm international trade.
On 4 October, the European Parliament vetoed the European Commission's pending EDC proposal for plant protection products. The action was based on objections to provisions that would exempt some substances with the properties from the criteria.
Canada submitted a document to the WTO on 17 November, echoing concerns raised by the US and Australia a week earlier that the EU appears to be moving toward stricter criteria that would lead to even more substances being classified as EDCs, and subsequently banned.
"Hazard-based cut-offs, without giving any consideration to exposure or without performing a complete risk assessment, can unnecessarily restrict trade," the Canadian document argues. "There is a growing number of examples where active ingredients are prevented from going through the reauthorisation process in the EU based on hazard-based cut-offs, such as glufosinate ammonium, and now possibly propiconazole."
"Even more concerning is the hazard-based approach to regulatory decision making, once a compound is identified as an endocrine disruptor, or meets other hazard-based cut-offs, such as for reproductive toxicants," it says, noting that such classification decisions "trigger regulatory non-approval and default maximum residue limits (MRLs), regardless of actual risk".
Canada asked for "concrete assurance" that MRLs and import tolerances will be "made on the basis of complete risk assessments".
https://chemicalwatch.com/62322/canada-criticises-eu-action-on-endocrine-disruptors
-
Voluntary Program Isn't a Way to Head off Regulations, Companies Say
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oil industry officials who rolled out a voluntary methane reduction program yesterday said they're not doing it to ward off federal regulation.
"It's not that at all," said Greg Guidry, executive vice president for Royal Dutch Shell PLC's unconventionals business. "It's the industry doing something to enhance the progress it has made."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) introduced its "Environmental Partnership" initiative yesterday in a press call. API says 26 companies have signed on to an effort to find and fix leaks, replace controllers that vent and reduce the natural gas liquids that escape into the atmosphere during certain operations. Guidry participated in the call, and Shell is a founding member of the program.
The initiative was quickly criticized by environmental groups who said the program falls woefully short of the Obama-era methane regulations that President Trump's U.S. EPA is trying to dismantle. They said it doesn't even compare well with the efforts of other companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (Climatewire, Sept. 27).
"The last several months have produced a number of good examples of what leadership in reducing methane looks like," said Matt Watson, the Environmental Defense Fund's associate vice president for climate and energy. "This weak initiative does little to show that API is serious about tackling the methane problem."
API officials, though, say their program builds on the industry's success in reducing emissions while increasing natural gas production. The initiative, they said, could be expanded to do more than emissions reduction and to other environmental issues. They also hope to expand it beyond API to the whole industry.
Participating companies are to begin implementing the voluntary program starting Jan. 1, 2018.
API developed three programs to reduce emissions of both methane and volatile organic compounds. They are leak detection and repair, replacing "high-bleed" pneumatic controllers at sites with devices that emit little or zero methane and reducing the volume of natural gas liquids that escape when they're removed to enhance flow.
The 26 original members are expected to participate in all three programs. But new members can choose to do any or all of them. Companies are to report their results annually for a report that will be made public. The first report is expected in 2019, after the first full year of the program.
Scientists say curbing methane levels could slow the rate of warming and buy more time to address the wider challenges of climate change. But API officials did not mention climate change as they introduced the program.
The regulation on methane at oil and gas sites was part of Obama's climate agenda.
Industry fought the regulations but was losing until Trump won the 2016 election. Trump picked an EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, who had fought the rule on behalf of oil companies in his home state of Oklahoma.
Pruitt has sought to pause the rules while EPA reconsiders them.
API officials noted that the voluntary program covers both new and existing well sites, while the regulations finalized in 2016 covered only existing operations, although Obama officials were moving to add existing sites before Trump was elected.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/06/stories/1060068155
-
Commentary: Explaining API's Methane Reduction Initiative
Dec 6, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Erik Milito
When it comes to concrete climate leadership and results, U.S. success should be the world's gold standard. We lead the world in cutting energy-related carbon emissions, which are near 25-year lows, while also leading in natural gas and oil production. And we're making great strides in cutting methane emissions, too, setting an example for the world.
Today, 25 of the country's natural gas and oil companies, including many of our largest natural gas producers, have signed up to be a part of the Environmental Partnership, a new industry program that includes concrete actions and commitments by the industry to continuously improve environmental performance.
The Partnership's first initiative is focused on further reducing emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds. Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, emitted both by natural sources and from human activity. It is also the largest component of natural gas, giving the industry a business – as well as environmental – incentive to prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere.
We've already made remarkable progress. While natural gas production has increased more than 51 percent in the United States since 1990, methane emissions from our natural gas operations have declined by 16.3 percent over the same period. And thanks to the growth in natural gas usage, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from power generation have fallen by 25 percent since 2005.
The U.S. natural gas and oil industry is committed to reducing methane even more, and the Environmental Partnership is bringing the industry together to drive these positive trends forward. The Environmental Partnership is built upon pillars of learning, collaborating and taking action. Through a scientific and fact-based approach, we have relied upon data from the Environmental Protection Agency to identify tangible actions for reducing emissions. Moving ahead, participants in the program will be reducing emissions through three environmental performance programs that will effectively identify and repair leaks, and deploy technologies and best practices to prevent and minimize emissions from our facilities.
To demonstrate progress, participants are committed to annual reporting that will be compiled by the Partnership and released to the public. While addressing air emissions from natural gas and oil production is the Environmental Partnership's first initiative, the program is structured so that it can evolve as needed to address other environmental considerations as well.
Over the past several decades, there has been a growing recognition in American business that environmental awareness must be a central feature of business operations. A recent Core Communications survey found that 63 percent of Americans hope businesses will take the lead to drive social and environmental change moving forward.
The natural gas and oil industry takes this responsibility seriously and, for years, has been working to provide that leadership in the energy sector – to international acclaim. In its World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency included the United States as a positive example of how to responsibly develop natural gas, noting that the emission intensity of gas in the U.S. has been on a steady downward trend.
But as Will Rogers once observed, "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."
Through The Environmental Partnership, the industry is providing another example of how it advances environmental performance by sharing goals, technologies and best practices. These are tangible steps that demonstrate the leadership required to make real environmental progress on a global scale.
Erik Milito is director of Upstream and Industry Operations at the American Petroleum Institute.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Commentary-Explaining-API-s-methane-reduction-12409414.php
-
Alaska, Producers in Talks on Gas Sale for LNG Project
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska is pushing forward with plans to commercialize its abundant reserves of natural gas, signing a joint development agreement last month with China in the hope of beginning construction of its ambitious LNG export project by mid-2019.
Three major Chinese companies have tentatively agreed to buy Alaska's gas and to partially finance the Alaska LNG export project. But the state has yet to nail down an agreement with North Slope oil and gas producers to acquire their gas for the project.
Since the 1970s when oil was first produced in northern Alaska, BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp. have reinjected roughly 35 trillion cubic feet of gas into their wells to boost production of oil.
Now the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state-owned corporation, wants to sell that gas. AGDC is proposing to build a North Slope processing plant, an 800-mile pipeline and a liquefaction and export facility along the state's southern shore. The total cost of the megaproject is estimated at $43 billion.
Under the nonbinding pact with the Chinese companies, 75 percent of the gas would be sold and shipped to China. The rest would be sold to other Asian countries and to Alaska customers.
At an Alaska legislative hearing Monday, AGDC President Keith Meyer said the state has calculated that it can offer to pay producers $1 per million British thermal units for the gas that they own at their northern Alaska fields.
"It's not as high as Henry Hub, which is north of $2 now, you know, $2.50," he said. "But Henry Hub's at the beach in Louisiana, not up on the North Shelf."
So far, the oil companies have not walked away from AGDC's proposal, Meyer told state lawmakers. "I know everybody wants more," he said. "But none of the producers have said, 'Gee, this doesn't work. This is lower than our cost.'"
Asked about Meyer's comments, the three producers said they continue to support the Alaska LNG project.
BP said in an email that the company looks forward "to better understand[ing] the terms of the agreement and the role envisioned for gas resource owners, like BP." The company operates Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil fields.
In a separate email, Exxon Mobil officials said they have "received the AGDC's proposal for the purchase of our Prudhoe Bay gas and have responded to that offer. The proposal contains a number of terms that warrant further discussion."
Meanwhile, ConocoPhillips noted that the company is negotiating to sell its gas to the state "on mutually acceptable commercial terms. ... Those negotiations are still in progress and sales price as well as many other terms and conditions have not been agreed."First look at Alaska-China agreement
The Alaska legislative hearing provided the lawmakers with their first look at the tentative Alaska-China development agreement on the state LNG export project. That accord was signed at an elaborate ceremony in Beijing during President Trump's trade mission to Asia.
Under the pact, the Bank of China and CIC Capital Corp. would provide 75 percent of the funding — roughly $32 billion — to build the project. The state would repay that loan by providing China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec, with 75 percent of the LNG capacity of the Alaska pipeline for the length of the loan (Energywire, Nov. 22).
Alaska anticipates financing the remaining pipeline costs — $11 billion — through deals with financial investors, Alaska Native corporations, and state municipalities and residents.
At the legislative hearing, Alaska lawmakers expressed concern that the agreement would allow Chinese companies to dominate construction and operation of the Alaska LNG project. Specifically, they asked about contract language suggesting that Sinopec wants to play a role in fundamental engineering, procurement, construction and management of the venture.
State Rep. Dan Saddler (R) asked Meyer for a commitment that the Chinese companies won't be awarded a major percentage of the contracting and labor work.
Meyer assured that Alaska contractors and workers will have priority in project development. "Every able body in Alaska is going to be working on this project," he said. "I certainly don't expect the Chinese companies to come in with a bunch of labor."
"We're going to have Alaska contractors, Alaska labor," Meyer said. But he also noted that no Alaska company has the experience and technical ability to oversee the entire LNG megaproject. "So we have to get that expertise elsewhere," he added.
Several legislators also warned that the state is relying too heavily on the Chinese companies to make the Alaska LNG project a success.
"I'm concerned that we put so many eggs in their basket that now we are no longer a partner, but almost seen as a vassal," said state Rep. Lance Pruitt (R). "And Alaska has a long history of being concerned about being treated like a colony."
State Rep. Chris Birch (R) noted that Alaska cannot rely on the expertise of the North Slope oil producers, who have partnered in past state efforts to commercialize its natural gas reserves.
In fact, Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips dropped out of the Alaska LNG project a year ago due to low gas prices.
Raising questions about China's participation, Birch noted that "you're talking about major multinational government-owned concerns with a tremendous amount of resources. And what I'm worried about is getting outgunned here."
But Meyer consistently assured the legislators that the state will retain control over the Alaska LNG project.
"There's no scenario where we have contemplated or envisioned where the Chinese would own a majority interest in the project," he maintained. "They're going to be a big customer. They're going to be a partner. But they're not going to have a controlling interest."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/06/stories/1060068215
-
Wall Street's Fracking Frenzy Runs Dry as Profits Fail to Materialize
Dec 6, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson and Lynn Cook
Twelve major shareholders in U.S. shale-oil-and-gas producers met this September in a Midtown Manhattan high-rise with a view of Times Square to discuss a common goal, getting those frackers to make money for a change.
In the months since, shareholders have put the screws to shale executives in ways that are changing the financial calculus of hydraulic fracturing and could ripple through the global oil market.
In the past decade, the shale-fracking revolution has made the U.S. the world’s largest oil-and-gas producerand reshaped markets. Yet shale has been a lousy bet for most investors. Since 2007, shares in an index of U.S. producers have fallen 31%, according to data provider FactSet, while the S&P 500 rose 80%. Energy companies in that time have spent $280 billion more than they generated from operations on shale investments, according to advisory firm Evercore ISI.
The shale boom continues in places such as Midland, Texas, where a frenzied land rush has driven oil-and-gas-acreage price tags to new highs and the smell of crude wafts over highways thick with 18-wheelers hauling fracking equipment to the Permian Basin.
The persistently paltry returns—and incongruous boom scenes like those in Midland—prompted the Manhattan meeting, which included portfolio managers and fund officials holding a total of nearly 5% of shares in 20 large shale companies, say several attendees.
The confab began with ground rules: No one would speak of specific companies or action plans, to avoid running afoul of antitrust regulations and rules governing passive and activist investors. Instead, they discussed how to make frackers pump less and profit more. “We’re not backing down,” one investing participant told the assembled, some of the attendees say. “This is an existential issue for us.”
The participants, which included giants such as Invesco Ltd. and smaller shareholders including Sailing Stone Capital Partners LLC, occasionally stopped to express doubts, these attendees say. Several wondered aloud: Are these guys really capable of change?
They came away determined to force operators to turn profits in part by changing compensation practices that critics say reward CEOs for increasing production no matter what, say participants including Todd Heltman, a senior energy analyst at Neuberger Berman Group LLC, an asset-management firm that owns shares in shale producers.
“Investors are tired of getting burned,” Mr. Heltman says. “Many are telling companies that unless this becomes a more disciplined industry, they aren’t going to come back.”
Thirty companies produce about 70% of U.S. shale oil, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. If shareholders could prod most into focusing on profitable drilling, it might also have the side benefit of achieving what the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the global oil cartel, couldn’t accomplish—getting shale companies to help shrink oil supplies and boost prices.Demand letters
In following weeks, normally cordial discourse at company presentations and investor meetings occasionally grew tense, according to shareholders, shale executives and bankers familiar with the discussions.
At a Houston steakhouse in September, shareholders questioned Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Chief Executive Al Walker and other company leaders about what they planned to do with $6 billion in cash on the balance sheet. Anadarko’s stock price had fallen almost 40% in 2017, and several shareholders feared Anadarko would spend the money on questionable drilling campaigns, according to people familiar with the meeting. When executives declined to provide details, one investor grew frustrated and walked out, some of the people say.
Mr. Walker got the message. A week later, Anadarko announced plans to buy back $2.5 billion in stock rather than pour money back into production. The company also changed executive compensation metrics to focus more on returns and to reward growth only if it comes without increasing debt or issuing new shares.
“As you reward that,” Mr. Walker says, “you will do the things that will help us improve and stabilize the price of oil.”
Many shale executives say they are making faster returns a priority. The recent rise in crude prices hasn’t changed that, they say, because shareholders aren’t backing down on calls for returns. U.S. crude has gained $3 a barrel in the past several weeks to hover around $57, giving some CEOs breathing room but doing little to make up for the billions already lost.
The chorus of shareholders calling for change goes beyond the Manhattan meeting. In a letter to Continental Resources Inc., which Continental shared with The Wall Street Journal, Trent Stedman of Seattle-based Columbia Pacific Advisors LLC wrote that listening to CEOs outline big production growth plans “has become as unpleasant as fingernails on a chalkboard.”
Continental CEO Harold Hamm says he agrees with the letter’s sentiment and shared it with his board. He wrote back: “You are truly preaching to the choir.” Continental has drilled few new wells this year.
Mr. Stedman says he has asked several shale producers why they appear hellbent on giving away their product as fast as possible at low prices. “Some would say, ‘We know it’s bad economics, but it’s what The Street wants,’ ” he says.
“We wanted to provide another voice that says, ‘We’ve got skin in the game, and we don’t want to see you do that.’ ”
U.S. oil production has grown to about 9.6 million barrels a day from 5 million a decade ago with the boom in fracking, in which water, sand and chemicals are blasted down wells to crack open rocks and let oil and gas flow out.
As a group, U.S. shale companies have been forecasting they are on the brink of generating free cash flow—taking in more revenue from operations than they spend on new investments—for the first time since 2014, when oil traded at over $100 a barrel. Since then, they have largely repeatedly moved those goal posts back.
Wood Mackenzie estimates that if oil prices hover around $50, shale companies won’t generate positive cash flow as a group until 2020. Even then, only the most efficient operators will do well, says Craig McMahon, a senior vice president of research for the consultancy.
Returns from individual wells can be good, but shale wells tend to pop online with a gush and then peter out fairly quickly. That has meant operators sink profits back into more new wells that can take another two years to become profitable, with shareholders told to hang on for a payday.
“The mañana never quite materializes,” Mr. McMahon says.
One factor sapping profits is that many shale producers paid extravagantly to lease land for drilling in places such as the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. Many operators drop out those land-acquisition costs from the break-even-price calculations they tout to shareholders.
While most shale operators claim they have hundreds, if not thousands, of well locations they say can muster a 10% profit margin or more, the number of in-the-money wells is far smaller when costs for land, pipelines and other infrastructure and overhead is factored in. That kind of all-inclusive analysis isn’t required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Pioneer Natural Resources Inc., one of the biggest operators in West Texas, said in 2016 that its production costs at some wells were $2.25 a barrel, a level that would rival Saudi Arabia’s. It didn’t include costs for taxes, overhead and finding and developing new wells. That year, Pioneer reported $556 million in losses—spending $1.24 for every $1 it took in from operations, according to a Journal analysis of numbers from FactSet.Production surge
American production has surged so quickly that it appears on course to surpass 10 million barrels a day in 2018, breaking a record set in 1970. But as companies have ramped up, investors have started to pull back. About $800 million flowed out of energy-focused equity funds for the year through November, compared with inflows of more than $6 billion in 2016, according to data from fund-data tracker EPFR Global.
Oil prices have been rising since June, but the stock prices of shale companies haven't followed.
The September Manhattan meeting homed in on one factor in particular: the role executive pay plays in driving a growth-at-all-costs mentality.
In the past decade, CEOs at 15 of the biggest oil-and-gas companies were paid $2.8 billion, despite providing total shareholder returns of 2.7% a year, and saw pay exceeding 100% of their targets in 95% of pay years in that period, according to Evercore ISI, which has also pushed the industry for change.
“Enough is enough,” says Paul Grigel, an energy analyst at Australian bankMacquarie Group Ltd. who helped moderate the meeting. “Investors are saying, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve had this growth focus for a long time, and it doesn’t seem to be working.’ ”
Aware that company boards of directors were likely to review pay practices and spending plans for 2018 in October and November, some shareholders began to aggressively press their case for financial discipline. Company boards began to seek counsel on how to improve the industry’s poor profit performance, according to people familiar with the presentations.
The shareholder letters started to roll in at Devon Energy Corp. Invesco, its fourth-largest shareholder at just under 5%, and others began peppering CEO David Hager with suggestions about improving returns, Mr. Hager says, including reducing its debt load and declaring dividends and share buybacks.
Recently, the Oklahoma-based shale driller concluded it can probably start to pay a dividend or buy back shares by selling off billions in noncore assets and not plow all the money back into new wells. “The industry was not nearly as efficient with its capital as it should have been,” Mr. Hager says, “and I include Devon in that.”
Some other companies say their transitions could take time, including ApacheCorp. , which announced a massive new natural-gas find in West Texas last year.
“We believe that over the long term, growth should be funded through operating cash flows,” said Apache CEO John Christmann during an investor call in October. “However, there are times when outspending operating cash flows is compelling.”
An Apache representative said the company had greater fiscal discipline than most for the last several years when that was out of vogue, but now it needs more upfront spending to develop this discovery.
Among those who are skeptical that shale drillers will change their ways is Jan Stuart, chief energy strategist for Cornerstone Macro, a research firm based in New York.
“If we do get to $60, it’s all guns blazing all over again,” he says. “There is no such thing as a Texas wildcatter getting religion.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-streets-fracking-frenzy-runs-dry-as-profits-fail-to-materialize-1512577420
-
DOT Rolls Back Rules for Oil Train Brakes
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Rail safety regulators are reversing an Obama-era mandate to upgrade braking systems on explosive oil and ethanol trains.
The Department of Transportation announced Monday that revised analyses can no longer justify requiring railroads to add advanced, electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking technology to certain "high hazard" trains hauling flammable liquids.
As a result, the agency said it "will rescind the ECP mandate" for oil and ethanol shippers to phase out older air brakes by 2021 and 2023 deadlines, respectively.
The move drew swift applause from rail and energy industry groups, who have long claimed support for ECP brakes is based on flimsy data.
Robin Rorick, midstream and industry operations group director for the American Petroleum Institute, called the brakes' safety advantages "marginal at best," adding that "mandating implementation of these systems ignores concerns about their reliability, availability and intrinsic safety while various other braking technologies have been proven reliable and effective."
Environmental groups and rail safety advocates had defended the 2015 ECP braking requirement as necessary following a series of train crashes and explosions, including a July 2013 oil train derailment that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec (Energywire, July 9, 2013).
"The risk of explosions, fires and spills from oil trains is well documented — tragically so," said Sean Dixon, senior attorney for the environmentalist group Riverkeeper, in a statement yesterday. "To eliminate a requirement for safer braking systems is exactly the wrong direction to move in."
To justify its decision, DOT cited a review by the National Academy of Sciences, noting the nonpartisan research organization was unable to conclude ECP brakes were any safer than other braking systems in an emergency.
Two years ago, DOT estimated ECP braking technology could lead to anywhere between $215.3 million and $358.4 million in added safety benefits from 2015 to 2034. The agency also estimated the technology could bring in $254 million in business benefits through fuel savings, fewer brake inspections, and reduced wear and tear on wheels, while costing the rail industry nearly $500 million to install.
That cost-benefit analysis was part of a sweeping overhaul of rail tank car and hazardous material safety standards enacted in 2015.
API sued over DOT's regulation in May of that year, complaining that the agency's compliance deadlines — which were phased in over three years — were too aggressive. The industry group asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to scrap DOT's timeline for tank car upgrades and ECP brakes and force the agency to consider a longer rollout.
But the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, signed by President Obama in December 2015, replaced many of the provisions DOT had proposed in the regulation. The law didn't displace DOT's requirements for ECP brakes but ordered the agency to conduct further study on the system's costs and benefits.
The D.C. Circuit in mid-2016 agreed to hold the API case in abeyance while DOT reviewed the issue.
The litigation has been on hold since then, while the oil-by-rail business has slowed down amid a slump in crude prices and an uptick in available pipeline capacity from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play.
Those developments, along with President Trump's call for a widespread review of federal regulations, prompted DOT to update its ECP cost-benefit analysis this year.
The new numbers cast the technology in a less favorable light, demonstrating "that the costs of this mandate would exceed three-fold the benefits it would produce," according to DOT.
ECP brakes work by applying braking pressure to every car along a train's consist simultaneously. By contrast, air brakes, the current industry standard for oil and ethanol trains, transmit the "stop" signal back from the locomotive at the speed of sound, taking several seconds longer to apply to all cars.
The freight rail industry, through the Association of American Railroads, has long contended that those few seconds would not significantly change safety outcomes during a typical crash. But DOT claimed the faster brakes could reduce the number of damaged oil tank cars by 20 percent during an accident, according to its 2015 analysis.
Those figures later came under scrutiny by the Government Accountability Office, which chided DOT for failing to produce models that could be replicated by outside analysts (Energywire, Oct. 13, 2016).
The AAR said in a statement yesterday that it was "pleased" with the DOT's decision to roll back the rule.
"Following a thorough, independent, evidence-based evaluation of ECP brake systems, there was only one possible conclusion — the ECP brake mandate was not justified and must be repealed," the group said.
Still, DOT's revised regulatory impact analysis left a door open for future review.
"If crude by rail bounces back due to an increase in production ... the safety environment has the potential to backslide to some degree," the regulator warned.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/06/stories/1060068213
-
Growing Length of U.S. Freight Trains in Federal Crosshairs After Crashes: GAO
Dec 6, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Eric M. Johnson
The investigative arm of the U.S. Congress is launching a probe into the safety of increasingly long freight trains being operated by CSX Corp, Union Pacific Corp and other major U.S. railroads to boost profitability, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) said.
Train length is currently unregulated. Any push to add rules would likely face stiff industry opposition because railroads use longer trains to boost margins through the better use of fuel, locomotive power, and rail cars without having to add extra crew.
In addition to the GAO study, safety regulator the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has beefed up its presence at CSX rail yards, according to CSX employees and SMART Union Chairman Dale Barnett, citing conversations with FRA inspectors.
FRA spokesman Marc Willis declined to characterize concerns over CSX train length but said any appearance of increased inspections is due partly to safety complaints and a spike in railroad accidents or incidents.
"In recent months, there have been accidents involving long trains which are currently under investigation by the NTSB and the FRA," Willis said.
The GAO will launch its study on safety and other impacts of longer trains in February, GAO spokesman Chuck Young told Reuters on Tuesday. The action was prompted by a Nov. 7 letter, seen by Reuters, from U.S. Representatives Peter DeFazio and Michael Capuano, both Democratic members of the House Transportation Committee.
DeFazio said his office has received complaints over safety and traffic jams at rail crossings.
CSX, the No.3 U.S. railroad by revenue, told investors in October its freight trains have increased more than 400 feet to 6,833 feet (2.08 km) on average since March, when newly appointed Chief Executive Officer Hunter Harrison launched his plan to boost profits and streamline operations.
CSX's eastern U.S. rival Norfolk Southern Corp's trains average longer than 5,500 feet, a year-to-date record, the company said in the third quarter.
Western U.S. railroad Union Pacific said it posted record third quarter "train size performance" after hitting a record in 2016.
"Longer trains maximize crews, locomotives, fuel and other resources," said Union Pacific spokeswoman Raquel Espinoza.
FRA data shows CSX's train accidents and incidents as a portion of miles traveled at the highest level in a decade after climbing in each of the last five years. (https://tinyurl.com/ybf6bqyy)
SMART Union transportation division spokesman John Risch told top rail regulator the Surface Transportation Board (STB) at an October hearing on CSX service problems the average U.S. train is up to 1.5 miles long (2.41 km), but CSX has routinely operated trains two or even three miles long since Harrison took over.
The STB declined interview requests.
CSX spokesman Bryan Tucker said the industry trend toward longer trains is a "tried and proven way to increase efficiency."
The latest concerns follow the fiery derailment of a 178-car CSX freight train in Hyndman, Pennsylvania in August, and the Nov. 27 derailment of a CSX train with 192 cars - nearly 2 miles long excluding locomotives - in Lakeland, Florida, spilling hazardous molten sulfur.
The FRA told Reuters it is also investigating the June derailment of a 13,147-foot CSX train in Crestline, Ohio.
National Transportation Safety Board rail division head David Bucher told Reuters train length and build were "an important part of the investigation" into the Hyndman crash, adding he was hesitant to draw conclusions about an ongoing investigation.
"Train lengths are increasing across the country," Bucher said. "It is becoming more and more common, not just with CSX."
The NTSB, FRA, and STB do not collect data on train length, except for specific accidents or mediations.
The American Association of Railroads (AAR) declined to comment.
CSX employees and union officials said many conductors lack experience to run long trains.
CSX's Tucker said the railroad's crews are fully qualified to operate longer trains and CSX uses computer modeling before running longer trains on a new route.
One CSX manager told Reuters FRA inspectors have showed up almost daily in recent weeks looking for long trains and conducting inspections at terminals in Cincinnati, Ohio, Waycross, Georgia, and elsewhere.
"They (FRA inspectors) do more blitzes than they used to, where several inspectors will show up in a place and stay for a couple days," the manager added.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/12/06/business/06reuters-usa-train-safety.html
-
House Dems Finally Get to Grill Pruitt. Here's Their Plan
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
As Scott Pruitt makes his long-awaited return to Capitol Hill tomorrow morning, House Democrats are getting a rare chance to question the U.S. EPA boss face to face about his climate change agenda.
Pruitt is slated to testify before members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee during a hearing about EPA's mission. Democrats on the Subcommittee on Environment holding the hearing say they plan on addressing everything from the agency's rollback of climate regulations to its shrinking budget.
"I'm concerned about the culture of secrecy that Administrator Pruitt has taken into EPA, in particular I want to know what his plan is for dealing with climate change because he has been pretty secretive about what he wants to do about that," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a subcommittee member.
Pruitt has taken a number of steps to undermine the agency's work on controlling greenhouse gas emissions — like rolling back the Clean Power Plan, attempting to stall methane regulations on the oil and gas industry, and drastically revising estimates of how much greenhouse gas emissions are costing the country. He also pushed for the United States to exit from the Paris climate accord. However, it is still unclear how thoroughly Pruitt intends to reverse the agency's course on climate action. The administrator has yet to launch his promised "red team, blue team" debate on climate science, and he has been murky about whether he plans to reconsider EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gases.
"We really need to get answers here, this will be our first hearing with [Administrator] Pruitt, I think it's important that he come in prepared to answer our questions and work collegially with the committee," DeGette said.
Among the regulatory changes that concern Democrats on the committee are the reconsideration of vehicle emissions standards and the rollback of the Clean Power Plan and methane regulations.
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), said in a statement: "Climate change can't be ignored. We have effective, available policies that are good for both the environment and our economy, which I plan to discuss with Administrator Pruitt on Thursday."
The representatives also have concerns on EPA-related work happening closer to home.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) will focus on questions about her district, including the futures of EPA's fuel economy lab and Region 5 office. Rumors swirled earlier this year that Pruitt was planning to shut down the regional office that oversees Michigan and other states, and the Trump administration's budget slashed funding for the lab (Climatewire, May 24). Dingell will also be asking questions about the lead contamination in Flint, Mich.; stalled progress in updating the lead and copper rule; and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, according to a spokesperson.
Other hot-button topics, like EPA's budget cuts, concern Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), too.
"A lot of these budgets are being decimated, it's hurting not just the ability to regulate but to be able to respond to industry requests," said Peters. "I don't understand why anyone thinks these drastic underfunding plans are good for anyone, whether it is a regulated community or industry."
The hearing comes as the agency has faced sharp criticism of Pruitt from the public and environmental groups. Yesterday, over 1,000 scientists sent a letter to Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), requesting oversight of EPA's new policy to exclude scientists from its advisory panels who receive EPA grant funding.
The letter also went to Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, respectively.
In a blog post, Ken Kimmell, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, also urged the House committee to focus its questions on Pruitt's regulatory oversight record, his "Back to Basics" agenda, staffing cuts to the agency and science.
"These oversight hearings offer a critical opportunity for leaders on both sides of the aisle to ask tough questions, demand responsive information rather than platitudes, and voice their disapproval about how Administrator Pruitt has run the EPA," Kimmell wrote.
EPW will get its chance to question Pruitt early next year. It has a hearing scheduled for Jan. 31.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/06/stories/1060068197
-
One Pick Believes in Climate Change; One Won't Talk About It
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Two Trump nominees for top energy and environmental jobs — sitting at the same table in a Senate hearing room yesterday — had wildly divergent answers to questions about climate change.
Timothy Petty, President Trump's pick to be the Interior Department's assistant secretary of water and science, assured Senate lawmakers he believed climate change was real and said the agency's policies should reflect that fact.
"I think it's very important that you get the scientific data in the hands of decisionmakers," he told members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Petty, if confirmed, would oversee two branches of Interior deeply rooted in science: the agency's chief science division, the U.S. Geological Survey, and its water arm, the Bureau of Reclamation. He told lawmakers he was committed to making sure the science community was "heard" and its research disseminated.
Sitting mere feet away, another Trump nominee took a decidedly different approach.
Linda Capuano, the president's pick to be administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told an increasingly flummoxed Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) that it would be "inappropriate" to take a stance on climate change.
"The EIA provides unbiased data to inform those kinds of discussions," Capuano said after a sizable pause. EIA provides analytical and statistical analysis on energy trends, production, emissions and other data. Capuano has a background in science and statistical analysis, and until 2013 headed Marathon Oil Corp.'s technology operation.
"They're very complex ... and as the administrator of EIA, if I am appointed, it would not be wise for me to take a position on any particular issue, but to make sure that accurate and credible data is provided so those issues can be debated and discussed," she continued.
Hirono pushed back, asking Capuano if she was aware that the bulk of scientists acknowledge the reality of climate change, as does the Department of Defense, which has indicated rising seas and other impacts from a changing climate are a threat to national security.
Capuano maintained her position even after a separate line of questioning by New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich, who challenged the nominee to defend her understanding of other scientific theories including gravity.
"Is gravity real?" Heinrich asked. "We can't see it, but the data would suggest it's real."
After securing an affirmative answer on gravity from Capuano, he continued by asking her to comment on what the data suggest about climate change.
"So the EIA does present data around greenhouse gas emissions that is used to debate on both sides of that issue," she said. "And we all know that it's very important to protect the environment and that we need to work toward that, but again, putting me into the position of taking a side on such a hotly debated issue would introduce bias to a leader of the EIA."Trump team's climate lexicon
Capuano's answer to Democrats' inquiries on climate change — which has become a stalwart part of their nomination hearing playbook questioning — adds a layer to the lexicon employed by Trump nominees on the topic.
Many of the administration's choices — including Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — distanced themselves from Trump's idea that global warming is a hoax. While they told lawmakers they believed in climate change, they often deployed some level of skepticism as to the extent to which humans are its cause.
Pruitt, for example, acknowledged man-made climate change but said human impacts couldn't be measured precisely and required more debate. He called his personal opinion on the matter "immaterial" (Climatewire, July 25).
During his hearing, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said climate change is real, but the ability to predict the effects of greenhouse gases is "very limited."
Questioning to what extent humans are to blame for the current changes in the atmosphere is an oft-deployed talking point.
"I think where there's debate on it is what that influence is and what we can do about it," Zinke said during his January confirmation hearing (Climatewire, Jan. 18).
When Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt testified before senators earlier this year, he acknowledged the science behind climate change, but demurred on if and how the agency might factor it into its regulatory agenda (Climatewire, May 19).
By contrast, Petty told the Senate committee that scientific data, and the debates it can spur, are important tools for policymakers at the public lands agency.
"I think it's important that we realize that in the science community, and as a scientist and looking at peer review, that it's important that the science is clearly communicated in that area of resources that it can then be provided to the specific decisionmakers," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/06/stories/1060068201
-
Obama Says Local Governments Are New Leaders on Climate
Dec 6, 2017 | Associated Press ( In E&E Greenwire)
By Sophia Tareen
City and state governments will be the "new face of American leadership" on climate change, former President Obama told a group of mayors at the North American Climate Summit in Chicago yesterday.
He did not specifically mention President Trump during his brief appearance. But he said the U.S. is in an "unusual time" given the administration's actions to downplay mainstream climate science and pull out of the Paris climate agreement.
"Ultimately, the work is done on the ground," Obama said at the conference, hosted by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. "Cities and states and businesses and universities and nonprofits have emerged as the new face of American leadership on climate change."
Obama's comments came after dozens of mayors yesterday signed their own version of the Paris Agreement, which calls for several major cities to cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 30 percent (Greenwire, Dec. 5).
Emanuel, Obama's former chief of staff, also declined to mention Trump by name yesterday, but he said cities would address the fact of climate change despite inaction in the White House.
"Climate change can be solved by human action," he said. "We lead respectively where there is no consensus or directive out of our national governments" (Sophia Tareen, Associated Press, Dec. 6). — NS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/06/stories/1060068231
-
California AG on Trump EPA: 'It's Almost as If They Believe They're Above the Law'
Dec 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
California’s Democratic attorney general slammed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wednesday, accusing the agency of insufficient transparency and policies that hurt the state under President Trump.
At a National Press Club event in Washington, Xavier Becerra repeatedly cited a lawsuit he filed regarding a Freedom of Information Act request as evidence that the EPA isn’t being open and forthcoming.
“The issue of the administrator of the EPA refusing to provide documents under the Freedom of Information Act, as he is required by law, is, I believe, an absolute abuse of power and discretion,” Becerra said.
“The fact that I have to sue ... the Environmental Protection Agency and its administrator, Mr. [Scott] Pruitt, simply to get access to documents which are public record, is in outrage. It’s unconscionable. It’s almost as if they believe they’re above the law.”
Becerra, a former high-ranking House member whom Gov. Jerry Brown (D) appointed to the law enforcement post in January, requested numerous documents from the EPA in April regarding potential conflicts of interest by Pruitt, who was a vocal critic of the agency before he was chosen to lead it.
“I’m not requesting that as some powerful elected official in the biggest state in the union. I’m doing it because every one of us in the United States of America has a right to request that our government be open and transparent,” he said.
The agency didn’t produce the records by August, leading Becerra to sue. At the time, the EPA criticized Becerra for suing, saying the resources for the case could have been used better elsewhere.
Becerra has also filed numerous lawsuits against the EPA and other agencies over Trump’s environmental policies, in addition to lawsuits over matters like immigration, education and health care.
“By the way, we have not lost a case yet against the federal government on these environmental matters,” he said.
The lawsuits have fought delays, rollbacks and changes to federal methane pollution rules, ozone pollution rules, appliance energy efficiency standards and vehicle fuel efficiency, among other policies.
He framed the court fights as protecting the interests of the citizens and businesses in California, which has a history of very liberal environmental policies.
“I can show you the investments in the billions of dollars that California businesses and consumers have made to make California a cleaner state and a clean energy-producing and using state,” Becerra said. “We’re not about to let someone, because they think they have by fiat the right to change things, all of the sudden impact our consumers, and most importantly our businesses, and put them at a disadvantage with somebody who doesn’t want to be as clean and is willing to be reliant on polluting energies.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/363539-california-ag-on-trump-epa-its-almost-as-if-they-believe-theyre
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested