Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 19/12/17
-
The Trump Administration’s War on Science Agencies Threatens the Nation’s Health and Safety
Dec 19, 2017 | Scientific American
By Andrew A. Rosenberg, Kathleen Rest
As scientists, we have watched with dismay as senior positions in our federal science agencies remain unfilled, science advisory panels get disbanded and science-based policies are undermined. -
EPA Finds Glyphosate Likely Doesn't Cause Cancer
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Mark Heller
The common weedkiller glyphosate likely doesn't cause cancer, U.S. EPA said in its latest review of the farm chemical better known by the brand name Roundup. -
ClientEarth Attacks Echa's 'Failure to Meet Transparency Obligations'
Dec 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Failure to share strategic information with third parties means that Echa is missing a "major opportunity" to speed up the substitution of dangerous chemicals for safer alternatives, according to a report by NGO ClientEarth. -
EU Member States Back SVHC Status for DCHP
Dec 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states approved a European Commission proposal to identify the phthalate DCHP as an SVHC. -
Worker Safety Standards to Take Effect Next Month — EPA
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Mark Heller
U.S. EPA said yesterday it won't delay new regulations on pesticide worker standards but will consider tweaks after they take effect. -
Trump Drops Climate Threats from Security Strategy
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump argued yesterday that the true threat to national security is not climate change but regulations that get in the way of U.S. economic and energy "dominance." -
AP FACT CHECK: Trump Sells Short the Record of Predecessors
Dec 19, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
In laying out his national security strategy, President Donald Trump sold short the records of his predecessors, speaking as if the energy boom started with him and the gates of America were wide open before he came along. -
6 Takeaways as Trump Moves Toward Replacement
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender, Niina Heikkinen and Zack Colman
After spending most of its first year tearing down climate rules, the Trump administration is now taking steps to write its own. -
States Sue Interior Over Delay to Methane Waste Rule
Dec 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
The California and New Mexico attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department for suspending the methane waste prevention rule, alleging the move posed threats to human health and the environment. -
Layne Christensen Studying Frack Water Recycling Market
Dec 19, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
The Woodlands-based water company Layne Christensen is looking hard at the business of recycling dirty water left over from oil and gas production. -
Carper Asks IG to Probe Pruitt's Morocco Trip
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's top Democrat is calling on U.S. EPA's internal watchdog to expand its audit of Administrator Scott Pruitt's travel to also review the agency chief's trip to Morocco last week. -
Oil and Gas Plumes Found at 13-year-old Leak Site
Dec 19, 2017 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Kunzelman
Federal officials have found two previously undiscovered plumes of oil and gas flowing at the site of a leak that began more than a decade ago. -
Nosebleeds, Headaches Reported After New Aliso Canyon Leak
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Dozens of residents reported headaches, nosebleeds and burning sensations after Southern California Gas Co.< yesterday reported a minor natural gas leak at its Aliso Canyon facility near Los Angeles. -
Could Positive Train Control Have Prevented the Washington Wreck?
Dec 19, 2017 | The Atlantic
By David A. Graham
Early indications suggest a train that derailed Monday morning near Dupont, Washington, killing several people, was traveling about 50 miles over the speed limit on the stretch of track where it crashed. -
State Regulators ask FERC to Revamp 1978 Utilities Law
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
State regulators urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday to reform the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA. -
Pfizer and UPS’s Victory on Climate Change
Dec 19, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Ken W. Cole
On Dec. 5, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) singled out Pfizer and UPS in an online op-ed for The Post titled “UPS and Pfizer’s dirty little secret.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
The Trump Administration’s War on Science Agencies Threatens the Nation’s Health and Safety
Dec 19, 2017 | Scientific American
By Andrew A. Rosenberg, Kathleen Rest
As scientists, we have watched with dismay as senior positions in our federal science agencies remain unfilled, science advisory panels get disbanded and science-based policies are undermined.
But amid this governmental turmoil, another, longer-term development is under way that will affect the lives of everyone in the U.S. and take its toll on others around the world—the loss of critical expertise and capacity in the science agencies of the federal government, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among many others.
The science-related cuts proposed by the Trump administration come in programs that deal with issues it opposes ideologically, such as climate change and the use of regulation to reduce pollution. These changes are only part of a larger effort to “deconstruct the administrative state,” as former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has put it, and they reflect this administration's uniquely antiscience attitude.
Thousands of highly trained scientists across a huge range of disciplines have worked diligently at the federal level for decades. These government scientists—and we were once among them at different stages in our careers—are critical to the missions of these agencies. These departments are essential to the health and safety of all Americans: protecting public health; ensuring clean air, water, and the safety of our food and consumer goods; protecting our natural resources; and responding to national emergencies of all kinds, from terror attacks to natural disasters.
Budget cuts are only one highly visible strategy. Other executive actions are eroding the capacity of our nation's science agencies. For one thing, Trump officials are taking advantage of additional methods to reduce agency staffing. In the fine print of the president's budget proposal are reductions in staffing by 20 percent or more in some bureaus (the EPA, for example), often with science programs faring the worst. There are buyout offers for eligible employees and staff transfers to shut down specific areas of work. Virtual hiring freezes have been put in place for most civilian agencies. And there are ongoing consultations on how to conduct “reductions in force,” otherwise known as layoffs.
We are seeing three troublesome developments unfold: the loss of senior scientists in public service, the dwindling of new scientific and technical talent coming into public service, and the chilling effect on the work of scientists who decide to stay. These issues have come up over and over again in many conversations with our colleagues who have experience as scientists and managers in the federal agencies.
A loss of senior scientists means a downgrading of expertise, institutional knowledge, and perhaps even entire programs and areas of work led by those scientists. This is the science that helps us identify, understand and deal with existing risks, as we anticipate future, unknown risks. Science that spurs innovation and incubates solutions. This loss of decades' worth of experience will take even more time to rebuild, precisely as the complexity and pace of the world's science-based challenges increase.
Then there's the pipeline issue—even more concerning from a public service perspective. All the signals seem to be telling scientists (and nonscientists as well) not to go into federal public service. Talented, highly trained scientists early in their careers are turning away from the idea of joining federal laboratories or divisions. Many of these younger scientists tell us they just assume there are no opportunities with federal agencies, historically one of the major employers of scientists in many fields. Or that they worry about working in the current political climate.
Our agencies need that new talent to draw on in years to come to protect our nation's public health, safety and environment. Government organizations, as with most large groups in any sector, depend on people. Without the influx of new talent, the Trump administration, whether by strategy or ineptitude, or some combination thereof, is threatening to hollow out these vital government bodies to the point at which they will cease to function as we need them to. We can't let this happen.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-trump-administration-rsquo-s-war-on-science-agencies-threatens-the-nation-rsquo-s-health-and-safety/
-
EPA Finds Glyphosate Likely Doesn't Cause Cancer
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Mark Heller
The common weedkiller glyphosate likely doesn't cause cancer, U.S. EPA said in its latest review of the farm chemical better known by the brand name Roundup.
In a draft risk assessment released yesterday, EPA said its comprehensive review of dozens of studies surrounding the chemical found no evidence of associations between glyphosate and multiple types of cancer.
But the agency said it didn't have enough information to conclude whether there's a link between glyphosate and one type of cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The report, part of a broader review of glyphosate, backs up prior EPA findings indicating no link to cancer, and it throws further doubt on a 2015 finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen. EPA said its review was based in part on 63 individual studies.
EPA's reassurances come on top of similar findings by other scientific agencies and organizations in Europe, although some countries there continue to contemplate banning glyphosate based on the IARC findings.
"The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans," EPA said in a press release. "The Agency's assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label."
In its report, EPA said animal cancer and genotoxicity studies were "remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcinogenic potential."
The agency added, "In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes."
Due to conflicting results and limitations in studies, however, EPA couldn't reach a conclusion regarding risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the agency said.
Critics say EPA's reviews of glyphosate are tainted by close relationships with the farm chemical industry and particularly Monsanto Co., which sells the weedkiller under the Roundup brand name.
"The only way the EPA could conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to human health was to only analyze industry studies and ignore its own guidelines when estimating cancer risk," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "A federal scientific advisory panel unanimously agreed that EPA broke protocol and that is how it was able to come to the opposite conclusion as the highly respected World Health Organization."
In turn, groups opposed to further restrictions on glyphosate have accused IARC of its own conflicts, and House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has called into question U.S. funding of IARC, which is part of the World Health Organization (Greenwire, Dec. 8).
Although the report dismisses cancer risks, it raises alarms over other risks, including drifting of glyphosate away from the fields it's supposed to treat. In those cases, EPA said, it poses a threat to birds and other animals, and it kills milkweed, the chief diet of the declining monarch butterfly population.
Buffers of 600 feet would be required to spare milkweed, EPA said.
Glyphosate use has grown dramatically since the mid-1990s, EPA said, driven largely by Monsanto's development of corn that can withstand the chemical. Farmers are applying more glyphosate, more often, the agency said, but not in an expanding geographic area, based on U.S. Geological Survey maps.
"In addition, during the 2000s there was also an increase in growing corn for ethanol production, which could also have resulted in increased acreage dedicated [to] glyphosate-tolerant corn," the report said.
More study is to come, EPA said, focused on formulations of glyphosate mixed with other chemicals. Researchers have limited studies to draw on dealing with the toxicity of glyphosate across multiple formulations, EPA said, adding that it will work with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on such a research plan.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069427
-
ClientEarth Attacks Echa's 'Failure to Meet Transparency Obligations'
Dec 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Failure to share strategic information with third parties means that Echa is missing a "major opportunity" to speed up the substitution of dangerous chemicals for safer alternatives, according to a report by NGO ClientEarth.
The environmental law organisation argues that, although Echa now releases more information, and organises it better on its website, it is failing to meet its legal obligations on transparency.
The report – 10 years in: time for Echa to disseminate strategic information to empower third parties – acknowledges the efforts made to improve the dissemination of information it collects. However, it says its commitment to transparency "falls short in many ways".
ClientEarth's report says there are information gaps, for example, surrounding the precise quantities in which chemicals, including those known to be particularly dangerous, are manufactured, sold or used in the EU. This information is essential, but is not systematically disclosed, it says.
According to the report, the agency does not fulfil the minimum requirements set by REACH on information that must be made available by default including:on exposure scenarios;the existence of a chemical safety assessment; andindividual tonnage bands.
It also says Echa disregards its obligations under the Aarhus Regulation and the Regulation on Access to Documents. Echa has, in the past, ClientEarth says, waited until legal action forced it to comply with its obligation to disseminate key information.Transparency as a tool
The report adds that Echa overly depends on information from industry and "fails to use transparency as a tool to empower third parties – civil society, citizens, consumers, investors or alternative providers – to contribute to the implementation of REACH".
Those third parties, the report says, could play a valuable part in:scrutinising information provided by industry;contributing to the decision-making process by providing information; andhelp make informed choices that could lead to investment incentives in safer alternative chemicals or technologies.
"Harmful chemicals would be phased out faster if consumers, investors, chemical buyers, providers of safer alternatives and civil society had the information necessary to push for it," said ClientEarth lawyer Apolline Roger. "EU institutions would benefit hugely from this help. But to get it, Echa must meet its legal obligation to disseminate information on chemicals and on how, why, where and by whom they are used."
'Harmful chemicals would be phased out faster if consumers, investors, chemical buyers, providers of safer alternatives and civil society had the information necessary to push for it,' Apolline Roger, ClientEarth
In response to the criticism, Echa says transparency and stakeholder engagement are key to its way of working. "We have invested a lot in both aspects because we believe it helps achieving the objectives of the legislation," an agency spokesperson said.
"We feel that, with our approach, we are honouring the spirit of the legislations we implement and are, in fact, considered one of the most proactive agencies when it comes to transparency and involving stakeholders."
Nevertheless, the agency said it appreciates the "challenge from the civil society to be an even more trustworthy and transparent EU agency. We take note of the report’s findings and consider them as we develop the way we work further."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62705/clientearth-attacks-echas-failure-to-meet-transparency-obligations
-
EU Member States Back SVHC Status for DCHP
Dec 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states approved a European Commission proposal to identify the phthalate DCHP as an SVHC.
The proposal, given the go–ahead at the REACH Committee meeting on 12–13 December, said the substance is classified as toxic for reproduction category 1B (according to REACH Article 57 (c)) and has endocrine disrupting properties with probable serious effects to human health (according to Article 57 (f)).
The substance is used in plastisol and in PVC, rubber and plastic articles, plus as a phlegmatiser and dispersing agent for formulations of organic peroxides.
Sweden made the original proposal to identify the substance as an SVHC under Article 57(f). However, it later withdrew it.
Meanwhile Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC) reached a unanimous agreement to identify the chemical as an SVHC because it meets the criteria of Article 57(c). However, it did not reach unanimous agreement on the identification of DCHP under Article 57(f).
According to five members of the MSC, the effects for human health pointed out in the Annex XV dossier were the same effects, caused by the same mode of action, as those already taken into account in the dossier for identification of the substance as an SVHC in accordance with Article 57(c) due to the adverse effects on development.
In June last year, Echa referred the MSC opinion to the European Commission for a decision. In its proposal presented to the REACH Committee, the European Commission said that Article 57 "does not preclude identifying a substance as being of very high concern several times based on more than one intrinsic property causing the same effect on human health and relying on the same scientific evidence".
This approach, it said, was also followed for the identification, earlier this year, of the phthalates DEHP, DBP, BBP and DIBP in accordance with Article 57(f).
TMA
The REACH Committee also endorsed a European Commission proposal to classify benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid 1,2 anhydride (trimellitic anhydride or TMA) as an SVHC due to its respiratory sensitising properties.
It is mainly used in the synthesis of plasticisers for PVC resins, while smaller amounts are used as a reactant in wire and cable insulation enamels and polyester resins for powder coatings.
The Netherlands made the original proposal, but it did not meet unanimous agreement in the MSC, as three members said there was not sufficient scientific evidence of TMA's probable serious effects to human health according to Article 57.
Echa referred the MSC opinion to the European Commission for a decision. In its proposal, the European Commission said that the data presented and discussed in the Annex XV dossier show that TMA causes serious and permanent impairment of lung functions, if the exposure is prolonged and no intervention takes place.
The proposal said that, while certain effects of TMA are reversible when there is no more exposure, the first stage of sensitisation (induction) is irreversible. In addition, the European Commission said it is not possible to derive a concentration level of TMA below which sensitisation does not happen. And it seems that severe effects have some latency time.
The proposals will now undergo three months of scrutiny by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. They can either veto or allow the European Commission to adopt them. If the latter happens, the substances will be added to the REACH candidate list.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62715/eu-member-states-back-svhc-status-for-dchp
-
Worker Safety Standards to Take Effect Next Month — EPA
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Mark Heller
U.S. EPA said yesterday it won't delay new regulations on pesticide worker standards but will consider tweaks after they take effect.
In a letter to Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention said revised worker protection standards will take effect in January, reversing an earlier decision by the agency to delay implementation by a year.
Udall has urged EPA to move quickly on the standards, and the agency was responding to a letter he had written in October to Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and committee ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
EPA's promise to put the worker protection standard in place without delay, as of Jan. 2, could smooth the way in the Senate for the "Pesticide Registration Improvement Enhancement Act" (H.R. 1029), which outlines registration fees charged to farm chemical companies putting their products on the market. Udall and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) have been holding up the legislation to address concerns about worker protection standards.
The measure passed the House in March.
The EPA worker standard provisions set rules for the certification and training of people who apply farm chemicals, which EPA wrote in coordination with state departments of agriculture and other stakeholders. Among the details is the minimum age for pesticide applicators, which the pending regulations set at 18, with an exception of 16 for farms under the supervision of a pesticide applicator who is a family member.
The minimum-age provision will receive a closer look after the rules go into effect, the agency said. Among issues to be discussed, EPA said, is whether states should be permitted to set their own minimum age requirements — an idea the agency said was proposed by some stakeholders meeting with EPA officials.
Stakeholders agreed that the minimum age requirement isn't flexible enough and that the "family member" exemption is more restrictive than the Department of Agriculture's definition of "family member."
"In order to maintain current practices in rural America that allow young people to contribute to all aspects of farming operations, the EPA intends to issue a proposed rule for public comment that would reconsider the worker protection standard minimum age requirements to address these stakeholder concerns," EPA said in the letter, which was obtained by E&E News.
The letter was signed by Charlotte Bertrand, acting principal deputy assistant administrator.
EPA had said in May that it would delay implementation of the worker protection standards to address issues raised by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (Greenwire, May 11).
In her letter, Bertrand also addressed Udall's and other senators' requests to move toward a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which can leave residue on certain crops. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network have petitioned EPA for a ban, saying the chemical poses a human health risk on crops such as apples and broccoli.
Farm groups say a ban on the pesticide would seriously impair farmers, and USDA has supported EPA's refusal to ban it. In July, a federal court rejected a bid by environmental groups to overturn EPA's decision (Greenwire, July 18).
Bertrand pushed back against quick action on chlorpyrifos, telling Udall that the agency's review, and its response to groups' objections, will take additional time as staff juggles multiple pesticide reviews.
"As recently discussed with your staff, the same individuals that support the agency's response are also working on many other competing time-sensitive deadlines and priorities," Bertrand wrote.
The review of chlorpyrifos is among nearly 725 such reviews for pesticides due for completion by Oct. 1, 2022, Bertrand said. She said a draft revised update to the risk assessment for chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates will likely be issued for public comment in late 2019 or in 2020.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069399
-
Trump Drops Climate Threats from Security Strategy
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump argued yesterday that the true threat to national security is not climate change but regulations that get in the way of U.S. economic and energy "dominance."
Trump introduced his first National Security Strategy, in which he broke from the Obama administration in not listing climate change as a chief threat. His remarks at times sounded like an economic address, frequently veering into discussion of tax and trade, industrial deregulation, and a celebration of the stock market. Trump insisted that wealth and national security go hand in hand.
"Economic vitality, growth and prosperity at home is absolutely necessary for American power and influence abroad," he said in an address that heavily focused on global competition over cooperation.
"Any nation that trades away its prosperity for security will end up losing both," he added, seeming to echo Benjamin Franklin's famous remarks about liberty.
It was a sentiment that permeated the 56-page security strategy, and in particular the section titled "Embrace Energy Dominance," which dealt with energy and climate issues.
"Access to domestic sources of clean, affordable, and reliable energy underpins a prosperous, secure, and powerful America for decades to come," the document says.
National security adviser H.R. McMaster oversaw the strategy's preparation with input from staff, including White House political personnel. The energy section is similar to themes espoused by White House energy adviser George David Banks, who at climate talks in Bonn, Germany, sought to demonstrate how the U.S. could use its continued involvement in the United Nations climate process to advance a domestic energy agenda.
"U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests," the strategy document reads.
Climate change, meanwhile, is treated as a parenthetical.
"The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while expanding our economy," it states, clarifying that those gains won't be due to "onerous regulation."
But Trump's speech showed his views had changed little from the Rose Garden speech he made on June 1, in which he announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. He blasted past presidents yesterday for agreeing to "put American energy under lock and key."
"They surrendered our sovereignty to foreign bureaucrats in faraway and distant capitals," he said.
Sherri Goodman, a member of the Center for Climate and Security's Advisory Board, said Trump's dismissal of climate change was misguided and could undermine U.S. competitiveness.
Trump pledged to use all of the tools of statecraft to protect U.S. interests.
"Those tools of statecraft in my view include both climate and energy strategies, and to ignore one that's staring us right in the face is not to fully recognize some of the key challenges that we face," Goodman said.
When it comes to the non-fossil-fuels energy industries that are set to expand in the 21st century, Goodman said, "China is eating our lunch."
"Why are we giving away our economic leadership by failing to pursue some of the greatest economic and clean energy opportunities that are right in front of us and that our great land of innovation has the ability to make us global leaders on?" she asked.
The document does tout U.S. natural gas "innovation," offering it as a hedge against coercion by other gas-producing nations. Stephen Hadley, a former U.S. national security adviser now in private practice, commended the administration for this new focus on innovation.
"I think that's very strong," he said on a conference call with reporters.
The National Security Strategy is regarded more as a political statement than a policy driver. And some experts questioned how important it would be, given that little is expected of the Trump presidency when it comes to climate change.
Congress passed and the president signed a defense authorization bill last week naming climate change a threat to national security, and the Defense Department's policy guidance affirms the need to consider the impacts of warming. Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated during his Senate confirmation process in March that climate change "is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today." Trump said yesterday his strategy has the backing of the whole Cabinet.
The Quadrennial Defense Review and the defense authorization law have deeper impacts on policy than the National Security Strategy, said retired Rear Adm. David Titley.
"The administration's National Security Strategy won't stop Arctic ice from melting. It will continue to melt at an increasing rate, and our national security leaders know that we need to address it as we manage many other risks from climate change," said Titley, a former oceanographer for the Navy who now directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Pennsylvania State University.
"Climate change impacts here and abroad are now recognized by our national security leadership as 'facts on the ground,' and this will continue even if they aren't explicitly recognized in the NSS," he added.
Military brass has incorporated climate change preparation into its mindset, said Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project. The National Security Strategy won't tear that out by the root, he said.
"The National Security Strategy is a political document put out by the White House. It's almost as if that's how the administration is going to deal with the world, as they want it to be," Holland said. "The top-ranking individual who has a position on this is Secretary Mattis, and he's said climate change is real, it's happening and we have to plan for it, we have to prepare for it."
Francesco Femia, co-president of the Center for Climate and Security, said Trump's omissions on climate would send a message to the world that the U.S. might not engage in discussions on warming now underway.
"I do think it's a negative signal and could have some implications for our partners and allies abroad," he said.
Meetings were held last week in The Hague, Netherlands, and at U.N. headquarters over how the U.N. Security Council might incorporate climate change into its agenda. Another meeting is set for this week in New York. The U.S. has a permanent seat on the council but has been absent from those meetings, and Femia said yesterday's security strategy could show U.S. indifference to an issue of importance to some allies.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069353
-
AP FACT CHECK: Trump Sells Short the Record of Predecessors
Dec 19, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
In laying out his national security strategy, President Donald Trump sold short the records of his predecessors, speaking as if the energy boom started with him and the gates of America were wide open before he came along.
On Twitter, meanwhile, Trump tweeted a wrong score in the game of politics and got ahead of the facts in the deadly Washington state Amtrak crash.
A look at some of his statements Monday:
TRUMP on his predecessors: "They put American energy under lock and key."
THE FACTS: On the contrary, energy production was unleashed during Barack Obama's presidency, largely because of advances in hydraulic fracturing that made it economical to tap vast reserves of natural gas. Oil production also greatly increased, reducing imports. Before the presidential election last year, the U.S. for the first time in decades was getting more energy domestically than it imports. The government estimated this year that the U.S. could switch from being a net importer of energy to being a net exporter as early as 2019, depending on what happens to oil prices, energy resources and economic growth.
Trump, a Republican, has rolled back some obstacles for the coal industry, which indeed complained of overregulation by Obama, a Democrat. But coal's decline in recent years was driven mainly by competition from cheap natural gas.
Despite his rhetoric about U.S. energy production, one of Trump's most consequential actions as president has been to open the U.S. to another source of foreign oil, with his approval of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada.
Obama's two-term predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, was no adversary of the energy industry. Neither president put energy "under lock and key."
___
TRUMP: "Over the profound objections of the American people, our politicians left our borders wide open."
THE FACTS: Even as literary license, "wide open" does not describe the border enforcement, refugee vetting or deportation record of recent years, however flawed some controls might have been.
Trump's get-tough push has had some effect: Far fewer people have been trying to sneak across the border and more people already in the U.S. illegally have been arrested. But critics once slammed Obama as "deporter in chief." Agents deported more than 2 million immigrants during the eight years Obama was in office, more than in previous administrations. They sent back 409,000 in 2012 alone, a record.
More than 240,000 people were deported in Obama's final budget year. Trump-era deportations have slightly lagged that pace for most of his first year, despite unquestionably aggressive enforcement. One likely factor: With fewer people sneaking in, there may be fewer to send back home. But the gates were far from ajar before Trump took office.Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main storyMorning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.Sign UpYou agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
___
TRUMP tweet, knocking the media for refusing to say "Republicans are 5-0 in Congressional Races this year."
THE FACTS: That's because they aren't. In this year's House elections, the score is 5-1 for Republicans. Democrats held a California seat.
Add the Alabama Senate election, and the scorecard is 5-2.
Trump has boasted before the Senate race about a 5-0 scorecard this year. He chanted "Five and 0" at an Iowa rally in June — but the real tally then was 4-1.
Also in his tweet, Trump said he knew Republicans would lose the governor's race in Virginia and Alabama Senate race. Publicly, he'd predicted a Republican win in Alabama.
___
TRUMP tweet: "The train accident that just occurred in DuPont, WA shows more than ever why our soon to be submitted infrastructure plan must be approved quickly. Seven trillion dollars spent in the Middle East while our roads, bridges, tunnels, railways (and more) crumble! Not for long!"
THE FACTS: From what's known, it's not at all clear his coming infrastructure plan is relevant to the accident that happened when the train tumbled off an overpass south of Seattle.
It did not occur on a crumbling railway but rather on a section of track that had just been upgraded as part of a $181 million project for a new, faster route. The high-speed train was making its first run on newly constructed tracks when it derailed.
The new route was designed to speed up service by drawing passengers away from the sort of aging system that Trump speaks about: a route with curves, single-track tunnels and freight traffic.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/12/19/us/politics/ap-us-trump-fact-check-3rd-ld-writethru.html
-
6 Takeaways as Trump Moves Toward Replacement
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender, Niina Heikkinen and Zack Colman
After spending most of its first year tearing down climate rules, the Trump administration is now taking steps to write its own.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday asked for wide-ranging comment about how to replace the Obama administration's signature climate change rule, the Clean Power Plan. In the lengthy document known as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), the administration offered important clues about the way forward, claimed that the Obama rule was illegal and gave critics fodder for counterattacks.
"This notice is a lot more substantive than a lot of us expected," said Jeff Holmstead, an industry attorney who served as EPA's top air official during the George W. Bush administration. "The expectation was the EPA was going to do a short ANPR and say, 'Send us your ideas,'" he added. But the level of detail in the 44-page document "suggests they're serious about coming up with a replacement rule."
Here are six takeaways from EPA's notice:
Trump's first climate rule?
If the administration finalizes a replacement rule, as it's signaling it will do, President Trump would be the first chief executive to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at power plants.
Obama's Clean Power Plan was halted by the Supreme Court last year, well before states would have been required to write plans to comply with it and years before reductions were mandated.
Trump — who has previously called global warming a "hoax" — may not want the distinction of regulating carbon, but he could get it as early as next year if EPA finalizes a replacement rule. The administration said last week that it plans to issue a draft replacement rule by June.
That may be the inevitable outcome as Trump and his team try to walk a fine line between showing the courts that they're meeting its Clean Air Act obligations, appeasing conservatives who want to see climate rules torn down and satisfying industry constituents who say having a rule would give them certainty (Climatewire, Sept. 27).
Dodging the endangerment finding
The notice doesn't ask for comment on repealing the endangerment finding, the scientific determination that underpins EPA's climate rules.
In a footnote, EPA says that nothing in the document "should be construed as addressing or modifying the prior findings made under titles I and II of the [Clean Air Act] ... with respect to endangerment and the requirements under 111."
Some conservatives are pushing for EPA to repeal the endangerment finding, arguing that future administrations will be able to reconstruct EPA climate rules more easily if that finding isn't unraveled.
But other conservatives and industry representatives caution against that approach, arguing that it's a losing legal battle.
"I think the Trump folks at EPA have decided that they want to focus on regulatory reforms that will be durable," Holmstead said. "By doing a substantive, meaningful replacement rule, they can provide long-term certainty for the industry and also make it clear what EPA can and cannot do under the Clean Air Act. ... If the Trump folks tried to reverse the endangerment finding, this wouldn't be durable. It probably wouldn't stand up in court, and it would be easy for a future administration to put the endangerment finding back in place again."
North Carolina as a model?
EPA pointed to North Carolina as a state whose draft rule to comply with the Clean Power Plan might offer a "useful example" to limit emissions.
North Carolina's draft plan was an "inside the fence line" approach that focused on power plants making efficiency improvements for coal plants (Energywire, Nov. 5, 2015). The state's plan included a list of highly specific technical fixes like "air heater leakage reduction" and "intelligent soot blowing." The effectiveness of those fixes would be measured based on the manufacturers' "performance acceptance test procedures."
Under the Obama administration, the state raised strong objections to the Clean Power Plan's legality. North Carolina was among two dozen states that challenged the rule in a federal lawsuit that's been stalled as the Trump administration decides how to proceed.
David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean air program, said that the state's draft rule, developed under former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, "was deliberately designed to let states decide to require no carbon reductions. It makes a mockery of the Clean Air Act and of cooperative federalism."
Holmstead said North Carolina's "approach is certainly one option that EPA could adopt. It's interesting because N.C. essentially did a unit-by-unit evaluation of potential energy efficiency upgrades and then decided which ones would be cost-effective for each unit. There are pro and cons to this approach, and it will be interesting to see what states and power companies have to say about it."
He added, "I wouldn't say it's necessarily EPA's preferred option at this point."
Wades into New Source Review fight
The notice also opens the door for changes to a program that requires new permitting at power plants that have undergone significant upgrades and modifications that would lead to increased emissions of a regulated pollutant.
Known as "New Source Review," the program has been a political football between parties over the years. EPA in its notice signaled it would field questions on whether New Source Review would conflict with an inside-the-fence rule.
According to its detractors, the logic for changing New Source Review is that it deters power plant operators from making energy efficiency upgrades because they fear it would compel a round of costly permitting.
That's because under Obama, the Clean Power Plan suggested that efficiency upgrades would cause a power plant to run more frequently — and therefore emit more pollutants that compel New Source Review permitting, Holmstead said. Improved efficiency would have lowered operational costs, in turn moving those units to the front of the electricity dispatch line under the Obama system, he said.
"Even the Obama folks knew this was an issue, so it's something I think they're going to have to deal with," said Holmstead.
But supporters of the current New Source Review program say it's a crucial check on pollution from power plants. Changing the program is therefore likely to draw lawsuits, Jody Freeman, a former Obama climate adviser, said in a recent interview.
"That's been a moving target, and we always expect a Republican administration to give the old coal plants more room," said Freeman, who is now a professor at Harvard Law School. "Then it becomes a legal battle ... that gets into the trench warfare that's always been true of New Source Review."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006 struck down a George W. Bush EPA rule that tried to carve out exceptions to New Source Review for certain upgrades at power plants. But, as the law firm Marten Law wrote in its March 2006 summary of the case: "[O]ne thing is clear: controversy over interpretations of the [New Source Review] rules will continue."
Holmstead, who oversaw the implementation of those court-rejected policies, said the Pruitt-led EPA could try to initiate a wholesale shake-up of New Source Review. The Trump administration appears to already be heading in that direction, as EPA has convened a New Source Review task force to explore alterations.
The notice released yesterday also offered hints that alterations could become part of the approach to replace the power plant rule.
"Over the years, some stakeholders have expressed concerns that NSR regulations do not adequately allow for some sources to undertake changes to improve their operational efficiency without being 'penalized' by having to get a major NSR permit," the notice said. "In the context of [electricity generating units], stakeholders have asserted that heat rate improvement projects could result in greater unit availability and increase in dispatching, which under the NSR program might translate into projected increases in emissions that trigger major NSR permitting."
Focus on heat rate improvements
Yesterday's document also seeks comment on the potential for additional heat rate improvements.
A power plant's efficiency is often referred to as its heat rate. A low heat rate means a plant is an efficient producer of power, using less energy to generate electricity and producing fewer emissions as a result. A high heat rate, by contrast, means just the opposite.
Heat rate improvements were one of the three proposed emission reduction strategies outlined in the final version of the Clean Power Plan released under Obama. EPA initially targeted a 6 percent improvement in heat rate efficiency for coal plants in the draft rule. The agency later reduced that target to account for regional discrepancies in the age of plants and the type of coal they burn. Older, less efficient plants in the eastern U.S. that generally burn a dirtier form of coal were given a target of 4.1 percent; the West's younger and, by comparison, cleaner coal plants were given a target of 2.1 percent.
Experts say it is not entirely clear how much more can be done to improve coal plant efficiency, at least not without dramatically raising plants' costs. While gas plants have seen their heat rate decrease by 7 percent between 2005 and 2016, coal plant heat rates increased by 1 percent, according to Energy Department data.
"The operating utilities, the power companies have really done a great job of harvesting that low-hanging fruit," Sam Korellis, principal project manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, told E&E News in October (Climatewire, Oct. 25).
"That's how they're staying alive, that's how they're staying competitive. So eight to nine years ago, there was much more available than there is today."
Foes prepare for legal fight
Green groups are gearing up for a legal fight against an efficiency-focused rule, as some trade groups praised the possibility of a Clean Power Plan reboot.
NRDC's Doniger called a weaker replacement of the Clean Power Plan a "non-starter."
"Americans — who depend on EPA to protect their health and climate — deserve real solutions, not scams," he said in a statement.
While a final replacement rule and subsequent court battles are still a long way off, lawyers for environmental groups have already begun to craft their arguments. They note that a plan that has a limited impact on cutting carbon emissions would not stand up in court. They also argue that a limited plan for restricting emissions would not meet the Clean Air Act's standard of implementing the "best standard of emissions reductions."
Vera Pardee, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, argues that technology improvements don't necessarily have to be cheap to pass federal muster, just as long as they doesn't break the industry financially (Climatewire, Oct. 25).
"The most frustrating thing about this is that the ANPR asks precisely the questions that have been fully litigated and briefed and are pending before the D.C. Circuit," Pardee said.
She noted that EPA under the Trump administration had worked to prevent the D.C. Circuit from deciding the case.
"It makes it absolutely clear the agenda is to do as little as possible," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069349
-
States Sue Interior Over Delay to Methane Waste Rule
Dec 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
The California and New Mexico attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department for suspending the methane waste prevention rule, alleging the move posed threats to human health and the environment.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is the latest complaint against Interior’s attempted rollbacks of Obama-era environmental regulations. Interior finalized a rule earlier this month delaying the methane waste rule until January 2019, a move designed to give the department time to repeal the rule.
In the suit, the attorneys general request that Interior immediately reinstate the rule, and they charge that Trump administration’s suspending the rule earlier this month violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
“Defendants have prioritized a negligible increase in oil and gas operators’ profits over the public interest in preventing the waste of a public resource that belongs to the American people,” the suit claims. “In doing so, Defendants dismiss out of hand the harmful impacts of the thousands of tons of toxic air pollutants and hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gases emitted as a result of operators’ inefficient, outdated, and wasteful practices.”
The methane waste prevention rule as written would force oil and gas producers to tighten methane leak detection and repair requirements on federal lands. Some in the industry have complained the upgrades are too expensive.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Layne Christensen Studying Frack Water Recycling Market
Dec 19, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
The Woodlands-based water company Layne Christensen is looking hard at the business of recycling dirty water left over from oil and gas production.
“That’s one of the things everybody’s talking about,” said Layne CFO Michael Anderson.
Layne jumped into the oil and gas business earlier this year, first drilling a half-dozen water wells for hydraulic fracturing operations in West Texas, then, in November, announcing a pact with the Texas General Land Officeto drill for water on 88,000 state acres in the Delaware Basin, the western lobe of the Permian Basin, which covers 75,000 square miles in West Texas and New Mexico.
Hydraulic fracturing injects water, chemicals and sand into oil wells in such high volumes the concoction over-pressures the wells and fractures the shale rock, releasing the hydrocarbons.
Oil companies need millions of gallons of water to frack a single well. Layne’s water wells and pipelines tap into that market.
But oil and gas operations also produce millions of gallons of wastewater — water tainted with salt, oil and fracking chemicals. Most companies now pump that water deep underground into disposal wells to get rid of it. The fracking vanguard is trying to figure out how to cheaply clean the slurry and use it to frack another well.
Anderson said Layne wants a piece of that market.
State regulators, scientists and conservationists are increasingly scrutinizing waste water disposal. Research has tied disposal to small earthquakes across Texas and Oklahoma. Layne thinks recycling water is going to be a bigger and bigger deal, Anderson said.
“We love this industry,” Anderson said. “We just think there’s such a huge opportunity.”
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Layne-Christensen-studying-frack-water-recycling-12440386.php
-
Carper Asks IG to Probe Pruitt's Morocco Trip
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's top Democrat is calling on U.S. EPA's internal watchdog to expand its audit of Administrator Scott Pruitt's travel to also review the agency chief's trip to Morocco last week.
In a letter sent yesterday to Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Delaware Sen. Tom Carper asked investigators to review the purpose of Pruitt's trip and whether it was in line with the agency's mission.
"I write to ask you to expand the scope of your current audit regarding Administrator Pruitt's travel in light of his recent trip to Morocco," Carper wrote.
"This trip reportedly cost taxpayers $40,000, and one purpose of the trip was to promote U.S. liquefied natural gas exports," he wrote. "Specifically, I request that you review the purpose of Administrator Pruitt's travels to determine whether his activities during each trip are in line with EPA's mission 'to protect human health and the environment.'"
Last week, Pruitt traveled to Morocco and met with foreign officials there to discuss an environmental work plan under the Morocco Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and the country's interest in LNG imports. The trip angered environmental groups (Greenwire, Dec. 13).
Jeff Lagda, an EPA IG spokesman, told E&E News that the office had received the senator's letter and that Carper's request "is currently under review."
At the end of August, the IG announced that it planned to audit Pruitt's frequent travel back home to Oklahoma. The watchdog has already expanded the scope of the probe once before, saying in early October that it planned to examine all of Pruitt's travel up to Sept. 30 after it was found the administrator had used charter and military flights (E&E News PM, Oct. 6).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069419
-
Oil and Gas Plumes Found at 13-year-old Leak Site
Dec 19, 2017 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Kunzelman
Federal officials have found two previously undiscovered plumes of oil and gas flowing at the site of a leak that began more than a decade ago.
Justice Department attorneys said in a court filing last week that surveys had uncovered evidence of an "ongoing oil release" in the area where an underwater mudslide pushed over an offshore oil platform during Hurricane Ivan in 2004.
The incident buried a well cluster owned by Taylor Energy Corp. The court filing does not say whether Taylor's wells are the source of the ongoing spill, but the company has repeatedly denied that there are leaks.
"There is no evidence of an actively leaking well, and all evidence continues to support the conclusion of remnant oil that has long been trapped in sediment on the sea floor," Taylor Energy spokesman Todd Ragusa said in a statement yesterday.
The company is in the middle of negotiations on a settlement to recover more than $400 million from a trust for recovery work on the original leak after Ivan.
The plumes may complicate the company's legal effort. Regulators warn the leak could last 100 years without intervention.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069395
-
Nosebleeds, Headaches Reported After New Aliso Canyon Leak
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Dozens of residents reported headaches, nosebleeds and burning sensations after Southern California Gas Co.< yesterday reported a minor natural gas leak at its Aliso Canyon facility near Los Angeles.
The leak, which began just before 5 p.m. PST, produced an odor in the surrounding area but was not a health risk, the company said in a community alert. It was shut off after about 50 minutes, and the company notified residents later that evening.
But 34 people reported various symptoms on an app developed by local resident Andrew Krowne to track health effects in the area near the facility.
Krowne launched his app in October, and more than 150 people have used it to report about 2,200 health issues, he said.
Aliso Canyon is the infamous site of a 2015 methane leak, the largest in American history, that sent 8,000 families fleeing their homes.
"It has no business being around homes," Krowne said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069393
-
Could Positive Train Control Have Prevented the Washington Wreck?
Dec 19, 2017 | The Atlantic
By David A. Graham
Early indications suggest a train that derailed Monday morning near Dupont, Washington, killing several people, was traveling about 50 miles over the speed limit on the stretch of track where it crashed. If that proves correct, it will be the latest example of delayed implementation of a safety failsafe in the United States leading to a fatal train wreck.
The Amtrak Cascades train was traveling from Seattle to Portland, traveling a brand-new, faster route, when it jumped the rails south of Tacoma, sending cars careening off the tracks and off an overpass over Interstate 5, where it struck several vehicles. There’s still no confirmed death toll from the wreck. But the National Transportation Safety Board said late Monday night that the train was traveling 80 miles per hour, close to the 79 mph limit on the run, citing the train’s data recorder. The train was supposed to slow to 30 miles per hour as it curved over the highway.
Amtrak argued that any such judgments are too hasty. “It’s being investigated by the NTSB and anything beyond that, until their findings are out, is pure speculation,” Gary Banks Olson, assistant superintendent of operations, told the Seattle Times.
But while it is true that the NTSB’s full investigation will probably take months to complete, the cause of a wreck is often quickly clear from the data recorder, which is similar to those used in airplanes. Train-safety experts who examined photos and footage of the crash said that the arrangement of the cars—including the direction of one locomotive that left the tracks, and jackknifed cars on the overpass—suggested the train had been moving too fast headed into the curve. (The train had locomotives at both ends, a common configuration.)
Amtrak said Monday that Positive Train Control, a technological failsafe intended to avoid collisions, excessive speed, and other human errors, was installed on the stretch of track where the train derailed but was not in effect and was still in testing.
Mechanical and equipment failures are more common causes of train wrecks than human error, but human error often plays a role in the most spectacular crashes. In May 2015, Amtrak 188 derailed in Philadelphia, killing eight people. The NTSB concluded that the engineer had been distracted by radio traffic and failed to slow down headed into a curve. In 2016, a New Jersey Transit train going too fast crashed at Hoboken Terminal. In 2008, a Metrolink train collided with a freight train in Los Angeles, killing 25, an accident NTSB said was caused by its engineer texting and missing signals.
Each of these cases would likely have been preventable with PTC, which acts somewhat like an autopilot on a train. If an engineer fails to slow down to speed limits, or blows through a signal, the system will override the manual controls and slow the train down.
The 2008 crash led Congress to mandate that PTC be in place on all passenger, commuter, and hazardous-materials trains by the end of 2015. Railroads warnedthat they would be forced to halt service on January 1, 2016, if an extension was not granted. Toward the end of 2015, with railroads complaining they could not roll the system out fast enough, Congress extended its deadline to 2018. Amtrak, which is perpetually strapped for cash, has struggled to pay for the installation of the system.
Yet horrifying and fatal crashes continue to pile up in the absence of PTC. In the curve where Amtrak 188 crashed in Philadelphia in 2015, PTC was in place on the southbound side of the track but not the northbound side. NJ Transit had received a waiver excusing it from installing PTC at the Hoboken stretch where the 2016 crash occurred. Now comes the Washington state case, where PTC was installed but not yet in place.
“If a PTC system has been active, this train might not have derailed,” then-NTSB Chair Christopher Hart said when the board completed its investigation of Amtrak 188. “Close to 200 passengers would not have been injured and eight other passengers would still be alive today.”
Even if PTC would have prevented Monday’s derailment, that leaves many questions about why the train was overspeed. For example, was the train moving too fast because of an equipment problem, or because the engineer didn’t try to slow down? If the latter, what happened? Was the engineer distracted, whether by a phone or something else? Could the engineer have blacked out or had a health problem?
Richard Beall, a longtime train-wreck investigator, told me railroads ought to have more than one person in the cab of a train, especially in the absence of PTC. “If this guy had a brain fart and didn’t realize where he was and, oh crap, I’ve got a 20 or 30 mph curve coming up, that’s why you have another pair of eyes up there to help you with that stuff,” Beall said.
Because Monday’s voyage was the first run with passengers on the new line, the safety preparations and training ahead of the launch will come in for scrutiny, with questions about whether the engineer’s unfamiliarity with the route might have contributed to speeding through the curve.
The Washington State Department of Transportation said that the tracks would be inspected in January 2017, with dry runs using the actual trains starting in February. But it’s not clear how many test runs the train made, what the staffing was, or when that testing concluded, which might shed some light on how familiar the crew was with their route.
“What troubles me here is this is a startup operation,” Beall said. “Usually if you have a startup operation you’re running the equipment daily for months with no one on it to get the crews familiarized with all the lines.”
There were 78 passengers and five crewmembers on board, according to Amtrak. Around 77 people were hospitalized after the crash, including some people injured when the train fell off the overpass onto busy I-5. But officials have not yet released a solid number for those killed, citing confusion at the scene, multiple responding agencies, and the difficulty of inspecting all parts of a dangerous scene.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/washington-wreck-positive-train-control/548744/
-
State Regulators ask FERC to Revamp 1978 Utilities Law
Dec 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
State regulators urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday to reform the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA.
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) argued in a letter for changing the 1978 law that's aimed at encouraging energy conservation and developing renewable technologies.
Energy markets have changed significantly since the law was created, and some critics say it's outdated and drives up costs for consumers.
NARUC's requests track closely with a bill from Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) (Energywire, Dec. 4).
"As the primary point of responsibility for PURPA's on-the-ground implementation, the States have a strong interest in the reform of PURPA's associated federal administrative regulations and we hope this reform will continue to be a priority under the leadership of [FERC Chairman Kevin] McIntyre," NARUC President John Betkoski III wrote.
Renewables advocates say some proposed changes to PURPA would tilt the balance in favor of utilities and restrict the ability of renewable energy sources to connect to the grid.
At FERC, several commissioners, including the recent former NARUC President Robert Powelson, have said PURPA reform needs to come from Congress.
"We need consistency and regulatory certainty," Powelson told E&E News this week. "Congress needs to get its hand around addressing things like PURPA reform and energy infrastructure siting."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/19/stories/1060069433
-
Pfizer and UPS’s Victory on Climate Change
Dec 19, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Ken W. Cole
On Dec. 5, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) singled out Pfizer and UPS in an online op-ed for The Post titled “UPS and Pfizer’s dirty little secret.” In the piece, both senators acknowledged UPS and Pfizer’s responsible record on climate change, but still criticized the companies for being associated with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). But their criticisms did not tell the full story.
Both Pfizer and UPS engage in policy discussions with numerous groups and associations across the political spectrum, none of whom we agree with on all issues, but with all of whom we actively engage and educate on our policy positions. An objectionable resolution proposed at ALEC’s recent meeting to reopen the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases was set to come to a vote the day after the senators’ opinion piece was published. Both Pfizer and UPS were already working hard to defeat it because it conflicted with our vision of responsible environmental actions and sought to undermine efforts to address the critical issue of climate change. As a result of the engagement of companies such as ours, the resolution was rightfully withdrawn. We are pleased with that outcome.
Pfizer strongly opposed the resolution for a number of reasons, including the unsupported challenge to the science upon which the finding is based. As a science-based company, Pfizer has long recognized the health risks posed by climate change. We are proud of our sustained reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions since 2000 and are working diligently to meet our current, evidence-based, emissions reduction goal. Throughout the entire process, we consistently opposed the resolution and forcefully made our views known to ALEC staff and board members.
Pfizer firmly believes that we can be more effective in affecting policy on climate change at ALEC by strongly advocating for our principles from within the organization rather than from the outside. We have encouraged both public officials and private-sector representatives within ALEC to join us in this fight. By working together with other like-minded entities within ALEC, we have been successful on a number of issues.
Had we not been engaged within ALEC, we would not have had the chance to make our position known and be an agent of change. Operating in a silo rather than participating in a constructive debate only encourages the divide that works against advancing good policy positions.
Pfizer is a member of various organizations. Our participation as a member of these groups comes with the understanding that we may not always agree with all the positions of the larger organization or other members. We do believe there is value in making sure our position on issues important to Pfizer and our industry is understood within these organizations. Our engagement with ALEC is no different. We remain committed to raising our voice consistent with our position on climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pfizer-and-upss-victory-on-climate-change/2017/12/19/eafd79c4-e43d-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?utm_term=.3b408a6d7306
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested