Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/1/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tax Reform Law Will Boost Industry But Worries Higher Education Officials
Jan 1, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
The most sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code in 31 years was signed into law by President Donald J. Trump on Dec. 22, 2017. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Year in Toxics: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from 2017
Dec 29, 2017 | National Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Needless to say, it was a very strange year. In the world of toxic chemicals, there were disappointing setbacks but also several significant advances. On balance, there is reason for some (guarded) optimism heading into 2018. -
(ACC Mentioned) Prediction: More Plastic is Coming
Dec 30, 2017 | The Garden Island
By Jessica Else
A 40 percent rise in plastic production is on the horizon, according to the American Chemistry Council, and that presents a big problem for little islands like Kauai, conservationists say. -
EPA Crafting Rule to Increase 'Consistency' of Agency Cost Estimates
Dec 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA is developing a new agency-wide rule that would “increase consistency across EPA divisions and offices” on how costs of its rules are assessed, according to a notice in its latest unified regulatory agenda, a step that could intensify criticism that the Trump administration... -
(ACC Mentioned) The New TSCA: Balanced Compromise or Business as Usual?
Jan 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rena Steinzor
Lobbied with great energy by the chemical industry and a prominent national environmental group, Congress managed to pass a bipartisan reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“new TSCA”) on June 22, 2016, even as the presidential election reached new heights of vituperative energy. -
Trump Administration Delays Bans of Toxic Solvents
Jan 1, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The Trump administration is delaying the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to ban high-risk uses of three hazardous solvents. -
Michigan Scrambles to Address Chemical Contaminants in Water
Dec 30, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By David Eggert
While the city of Flint still recovers from a lead-tainted water crisis, Michigan is scrambling to combat potential health risks in other tap water that stem from chemicals long used in firefighting, waterproofing, carpeting and other products. -
Personal Care Product
Jan 1, 2018 | U.S. Pirg
By Dev Gowda
The new shampoos, hand creams, soaps and body washes we unwrapped this holiday season smell like roses, chamomile, lavender, springtime. -
(ACC Mentioned) Here Is the Preview of Oil and Gas Price in 2018 – Part 2
Dec 29, 2017 | FX Daily Report
By Andre
In the previous post, preview on oil and gas price in 2018 was focused on the upstream business, which is predicted to get busier, stronger oil price, and booming midstream industry. -
To Round out a Year of Rollbacks, the Trump Administration Just Repealed Key Regulations on Fracking
Dec 29, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
On the last business day of the year, the Interior Department rescinded a 2015 Obama administration rule that would have set new environmental limitations on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on public lands. -
The Oil And Gas Situation: A Preview Of 2018
Dec 31, 2017 | Forbes
By David Blackmon
As 2017 comes to a freezing close, millions of citizens in New York state are keeping themselves warm and comfortable in their homes thanks to a plentiful supply of cheap natural gas. -
Wyoming Oil, Gas Revenues Surge Amid Visions of 'Boom Time' Returning
Dec 29, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Revenues from federal and state oil/natural gas lease sales this year in Wyoming shot up dramatically compared to their anemic levels a year earlier, prompting industry and government officials to conjure up visions of a return to more boom-like times ahead in the state oil/gas fields. -
Feds Seek to Improve Power Grid Cybersecurity Incident Reporting
Jan 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jimmy H. Koo
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) wants mandatory cybersecurity incident reporting standards lowered so utilities and other related companies inform the commission of all cybersecurity incidents that may affect North America's electricity system. -
Outlook 2018: APTA Leader Forecasts Great Challenges, Greater Opportunities for Transit
Dec 29, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
By Daniel Niepow
It's been a year of mixed messages for public transit leaders. For instance, although President Donald Trump has pledged to unveil a $1 trillion infrastructure package, he's also proposed deep cuts to Amtrak's services and transit grant programs. -
(ACC Mentioned) Smog Problem: R.I., Mass. Among States Suing EPA
Dec 31, 2017 | Eco RI News
President Trump’s war on pollution rules prompted nine states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its decision to ignore smog regulations. -
What Position Does the Trump Administration Take on Climate Change? All of Them.
Dec 29, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
There was never really much doubt that Donald Trump doubted the science of climate change. He had tweeted to that effect repeatedly before becoming president. He told this publication he wasn’t a “big believer” in human-caused climate change. -
Industry Seeks Presumptive BACT Guide in Bid to Extend EPA's NSR Relief
Dec 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves and Stuart Parker
Industry officials are stepping up their push for EPA to grant additional relief from new source review (NSR) permitting requirements, including providing presumptive best available control technology (BACT) guidance, in the wake of the agency's new policy deferring... -
Expect EPA Chief Scott Pruitt's Reckless Spending to Continue in 2018
Dec 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John O'Grady
In 2017, the Trump administration established dangerous new norms in environmental policy. For the coming year, it's become obvious what's "in" and what's "out." -
Is Climate Change Starting to Hurt Some Coastal Home Values?
Jan 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle
Ross Hancock sold his four-bedroom house in Coral Gables, a city of pastel luxury at the edge of Miami, because he was worried that sea-level rise would eventually hurt his property's value.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tax Reform Law Will Boost Industry But Worries Higher Education Officials
Jan 1, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
The most sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code in 31 years was signed into law by President Donald J. Trump on Dec. 22, 2017.
The bill (H.R. 1) includes a number of provisions long sought by the chemical industry, such as slashing the corporate tax rate from the current 35% to 21% and taxing U.S.-based multinationals only on their domestic income. The House of Representatives passed it on a vote of 224-201.
“After decades enduring an outdated tax code that made U.S. businesses less competitive, our nation will soon have a modernized tax structure that promotes sustained American economic growth and new jobs,” says the American Chemistry Council, which lobbies on behalf of U.S. chemical manufacturers.
The legislation, which the Senate approved on a party-line vote of 51-48, also leaves graduate students largely unscathed by preserving tax-free tuition waivers.
A provision in the original GOP House tax plan passed in early November proposed taxing as income the value of tuition waivers that U.S. grad students receive when they teach courses or conduct research for their university. That set off a wave of protests at dozens of universities.
The measure was scrapped after 31 Republican lawmakers who voted for the House tax bill sent a letter to party leaders urging them to remove the provision from the final version of the legislation.
“Repeal of the income exclusion for graduate tuition waivers would subject thousands of graduate students to a major tax increase at a time in their lives when they likely lack the ability to pay,” the lawmakers wrote.
Some private colleges and universities will take a hit, however, from a 1.4% excise tax on investment income from endowments at schools with an enrollment of at least 500 students and with assets valued at $500,000 per full-time student. The endowment tax will affect about 35 institutions and is estimated to raise about $1.8 billion in revenue over 10 years.
“An excise tax on the endowments of some private colleges and universities, regardless of how many or how few institutions it affects, is a remarkably bad idea that takes money that would otherwise be used for student aid, research, and faculty salaries and sends it to the Department of the Treasury to finance corporate tax cuts,” says Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, a higher-education trade group.
For the pharmaceutical industry, the legislation retains but cuts in half a tax credit intended to encourage development of orphan drugs to treat rare diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 people. Since 1983, companies have been allowed to write off 50% of the cost of human clinical studies to develop drugs aimed at small patient populations. The new law sets the tax credit to 25%.
As a result of the smaller tax credit, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) estimates that one-third fewer orphan therapies will be developed going forward.
“The cost of conducting rare disease clinical trials could rise substantially enough to discourage some biopharmaceutical companies from developing orphan therapies altogether,” says NORD, which advocates on behalf of the 30 million Americans with rare diseases.
Republicans say the tax overhaul will boost the economy by incentivizing new investments by U.S. companies and preventing jobs from being outsourced to other countries. But Democrats have lambasted the bill, arguing it provides tax breaks primarily to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i1/Tax-reform-law-boost-industry.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Year in Toxics: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from 2017
Dec 29, 2017 | National Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Needless to say, it was a very strange year. In the world of toxic chemicals, there were disappointing setbacks but also several significant advances. On balance, there is reason for some (guarded) optimism heading into 2018. The chemical industry takeover of EPA’s toxics office is projected to continue, but many of the actions taken there are likely to be temporary and ultimately reversible. That said, the Trump-Pruitt EPA’s refusal to take health-protective action on even the most notoriously dangerous and deadly chemicals like methylene chloride and chlorpyrifos will continue to cause deaths and disabilities to people across the country, including the most vulnerable populations—children, pregnant women, workers—that the Agency is required by law to protect. Ironically, nearly two years after the enactment of major revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), states continue to be in the lead on sound policies to protect the public from toxic chemicals. And the wave of activity by retailers and product manufacturers to get ahead of consumer demand for full ingredient disclosure and non-toxic products continues to build.
Here are a half dozen of the most important (domestic) activities and developments on Toxics in 2017:1. Chemical industry takeover of EPA’s Toxics Office
The biggest story in Toxics World in 2017 was the chemical manufacturers’ occupation of EPA’s Toxics Office. Industry executive and lobbyist Nancy Beck took over the office in April. After receiving a questionable clearance from EPA’s Office of Ethics—an ethics group has called on EPA’s Inspector General to investigate—Beck has spent the last nine months imposing and implementing the chemical industry’s agenda, brushing aside opposition from the Agency’s own scientists and lawyers.
TSCA: Beck’s busy year included rewriting the “Framework Rules” for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act, (TSCA)—NRDC and other organizations have suedover the final rules. Under Beck, EPA is weakening the long-existing system for conducting hazard assessments of new chemicals before they are allowed into household products. Maybe even worse, EPA is doing an about-face and bringing to a grinding halt the proposed rules to ban specific uses of three highly toxic solvents, leaving products on the store shelves that EPA scientists have deemed too dangerous to be used.
Chlorpyrifos: Even before Nancy Beck arrived, EPA anti-Administrator Scott Pruitt was already on the job, working aggressively to undermine the Agency on behalf of the chemical manufacturers and other polluting industries. One of his first significant acts as Administrator was to shelve the Agency’s proposed ban on most outdoor uses of chlorpyrifos—a highly toxic pesticide made by Dow AgroSciences that EPA scientists determined was too dangerous due to scientific evidence linking it to developmental delays in children exposed during fetal development, and acute poisonings of farmworkers. NRDC and Pesticide Action Network petitioned EPA nearly eight years ago to ban these uses; residential uses were banned years ago after EPA scientists found that home and garden uses were routinely poisoning kid’s. Instead, Pruitt announced that the Agency would spend an additional six or seven years studying the issue, thus steamrolling over science to pave the path for Dow Chemical to continue with its toxic business as usual. He also made it a priority to delay (and presumably derail) protections for pesticide applicators—because requiring pesticide applicators to be at least 18 is such a terrible idea? Our friends at Earthjustice have suedover that one.
In less than a year, Pruitt and his staff have painted a very clear picture of what it looks like when an Agency puts politics ahead of science, and does not care at all about the health and safety of the people it is supposed to protect. 2. The Consumer Product Safety Commission did its job, twice
In one month, the CPSC did more to protect the public from exposure to toxic chemicals than EPA will likely ever be able to do under the Trump Administration.
Phthalates: It took a lawsuit by NRDC and our allies, but the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finally took the action mandated by Congress in 2008 and banned the use of five phthalates—toxic endocrine disrupting chemicals used to soften plastic—from toys and child care articles, such as teething rings and pacifiers. An expert science advisory panel issued a peer-reviewed report that found all five phthalates to be associated with harm to the male reproductive system, including undescended testes, testicular atrophy and genital malformation. The largest manufacturer of phthalates is Exxon, and the company, along with the chemical manufacturers’ trade association, the American Chemistry Council, mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign against the Commission at every step in the process, seeking to avoid any restrictions. But at the end of the day, the CPSC scientific and technical staff and a majority of Commissioners reached the right result to protect children.
The major source of exposure to phthalates is through food. Phthalates are allowed by FDA to be used as “indirect” food additives in food processing and packaging, even knowing that they will get into our food supply. NRDC and nine other organizations petitioned the FDA almost two years ago to withdraw its approval for uses of phthalates as indirect food additives. But the FDA has stonewalled on the petition, leaving citizens little choice but to take the fight directly to food manufacturers producing products containing phthalates. NRDC is part of the Coalition for Safer Food Processing and Packaging which tested a range of products including cheese, yogurt and infant formula. Among other products in which phthalates were found, Kraft Mac n Cheese has garnered scrutiny. With FDA historically even worse than EPA at addressing the threat of toxic chemicals, true protection is only likely to come as a result of litigation against the FDA, or direct consumer pressure on processed food conglomerates. The stage is set for some food producers to come clean in 2018.
Flame Retardants: The CPSC took another major step forward that will reverberate in chemical policy for years to come—indeed the effects are already being felt in the states and the marketplace. The Commission granted a lengthy and detailed scientific and legal petitionfrom a range of groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Learning Disabilities Association, Consumer Federation of America and the International Association of Fire Fighters. The petition asked the CPSC to protect children by banning the use of the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants from four product categories: toys, mattresses, residential furniture and plastics casings of electronics (like the plastic shell of your TV screen). The Commission will now move forward with a rulemaking to implement the ban—a process that could take years. In the meantime it also issued a statement—formally called a “Guidance”—advising product manufacturers not to use any organohalogen flame retardants in their products, and warning retailers and consumers to avoid such products to the extent possible. The Commission recognized the overwhelming scientific evidence it was presented in support of the petition: that every member of the organohalogen class that has been tested had been shown to cause harm. The Commission also understood the policy imperatives of acting on the entire class of related chemicals, rather than letting manufacturers switch out one for another, as the science continuously loses ground trying to evaluate each chemical one by one. Addressing chemicals like the organohalogens as a class is the only way to take meaningful steps forward in public protection and avoid toxic ‘regrettable’ substitutions.
The CPSC will likely run aground for the foreseeable future, if and when the Trump Administration’s nominee Dana Baiocco is confirmed, but the Commission has already taken a giant step forward for public policy, and its actions on both phthalates and flame retardants will be carried forward by the states and in the marketplace.3. States continue to fill the vacuum
As the prospect for any publicly beneficial activity under TSCA stalled states continued to fill the vacuum left by a zombie EPA whose brain has been eaten by the corporate trade groups American Chemistry Council and CropLife America, and their toxic chemical producing member companies.
In California, environmental groups and product manufacturers negotiated final legislation resulting in the first law of any state requiring transparency and labelling of the ingredients in cleaning products. NRDC and our allies including Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Women’s Voices for the Earth and Environmental Working Group reached agreement with major product manufacturers including Procter and Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser (they now go by “RB”), SC Johnson, Seventh Generation and the Honest Company. The California law, along with nearly-final rules being developed in New York, is expected to lead to greater information for consumers across the country. Equally notable is the opposition to the negotiated compromise: the chemical manufacturers (via The American Chemistry Council) and their anti-consumer protection allies, The Grocery Manufacturers Association because it set a “bad precedent.” That chemical and grocery manufacturers both want to hide what is in those groceries we’re buying—could it be phthalates?—is more than a little disturbing!
Both Rhode Island and Maine adopted legislation banning the use of flame retardants in specific product categories. Maine adopted a phase out of all flame retardants in upholstered furniture, while Rhode Island banned the use of organohalogen flame retardants—the same class identified by the CPSC—from bedding and furniture. San Francisco also banned the use of flame retardants in upholstered furniture. The states’ (and local governments’) leadership, along with the recent actions by the CPSC, signal the end game on some of the most notorious and unsafe uses of these toxic substances.4. Dupont’s reckless disregard for public health cost Michael Dourson his dream job
The full scope and impact of the pollution of our drinking water with Teflon chemicals has not yet fully come into focus, but it is clearly vast. It is already causing political tremors, and it may soon become an earthquake that rattles both state Houses and Washington. For years, DuPont dumped toxic “Teflon” chemicals into the rivers (and drinking water supplies) of people in both West Virginia and North Carolina. In West Virginia it was “PFOA” and in North Carolina it has been “GenX” the supposedly safer substitute for PFOA. This growing health crisis and corporate scandal intersected in a marvelously karmic fashion with Michael Dourson’s nomination to lead EPA’s Toxics Office. Dourson, a toxicologist-for-hire who pays the rent by downplaying the health threats of toxic chemicals, had previously advised the state of West Virginia on setting an acceptable level for PFOA in drinking water—suggesting a level 50 to 150 times less protective than what DuPont itself had discussed internally. It probably seemed like just-another-day-at-the-office for Dourson, but it became a key piece of the evidence raised against him at his spectacularly disastrous nomination hearing, in which he repeatedly refused to recuse himself from working at EPA on chemicals for which he had previously consulted for the chemical industry. His performance and record were enough to ensure that every Democratic Senator, including West Virginia moderate Joe Manchin, opposed his nomination. But the actual derailment came as a result of citizen pressure on North Carolina’s two Republican Senators—Thom Tillis and Richard Burr. As the backlash in North Carolina against Dupont—which has spun-off its Teflon chemical business as “Chemours”—continued to grow, both Senators opted not to support an industry apologist with such close ties to the company, spelling doom for Dourson’s nomination, which he subsequently withdrew.5. EPA Anti-Administrator Scott Pruitt embraces the industry’s war on independent science
In business terms, independent science—meaning science that is not purchased by the chemical manufacturers—is something that the industry simply cannot afford. Non-industry scientists have the potential to identify the hazards posed by a chemical—is it a carcinogen, or developmental or reproductive toxin; as well as the potential for exposure to chemicals from everyday uses—because it migrates out of household products into house dust that is then inhaled or ingested.
There are risks posed by toxic chemicals, such as cancer, poor sperm quality, infertility, chronic diseases and disabilities, when they migrate out of consumer products and into our homes and ultimately our bodies. Independent scientists also pose the “threat” to the industry of providing EPA with objective scientific advice and feedback, without operating under the industry’s imperative to block or delay any negative assessment or restriction of a chemical for as long as possible.
Thus, EPA Anti-Administrator Scott Pruitt did the industry a huge favor when he implemented one of its more extreme policy goals: purging independent scientists from serving on the Agency’s Science Advisory Boards (SAB) purportedly due to the “conflict” that arises from scientists receiving research grants from EPA. The notion of the conflict doesn’t hold up—the grants are provided through an open and competitive process, with no pre-determined outcome of the research and no policy strings attached. Not surprisingly, Pruitt also moved to fill open SAB seats with industry hacks. Pruitt’s new policy is not only based upon a phony presumption, it is likely illegal. The first of what are expected to be multiple legal challenges has already been filed.6. Retailers signaled their intent to protect their brands, not the chemical manufacturers
There were clear signs that the Retailing sector is beginning to move to increase ingredient disclosure, eliminate chemicals of concern from key product lines, and adopt rigorous chemical management policies in response to growing consumer demand. The dynamic is inevitable in the face of federal government inaction on chemicals—as typified by the industry-protective policies of EPA and FDA (see above). Some of the recent changes are discussed in the year-end Retail Report Card issued by Mind the Store, as well as specific announcements about planned or intended changes made by a number of retailers including CVS, Target, Walmart.
Given the toxic politics of the past year (see what I did there?), it is rather surprising to be feeling a bit of optimism heading into year #2 of the Trump/Pruitt/Beck (and whomever-is-nominated-to-fill-the-still-vacant-Michael-Dourson-slot) Administration. The lobbyists and executives for Dow, Dupont, Exxon, Monsanto and the other chemical manufacturers may still be pinching themselves at their good fortune, but their luck will run out eventually, and 2018 could well be the year of reckoning.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/year-toxics-good-bad-and-ugly-2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Prediction: More Plastic is Coming
Dec 30, 2017 | The Garden Island
By Jessica Else
A 40 percent rise in plastic production is on the horizon, according to the American Chemistry Council, and that presents a big problem for little islands like Kauai, conservationists say.
For instance, the South Pacific’s uninhabited Henderson Island landed in the spotlight in June with its plastic-peppered shores that totaled 18 tons of debris.
Closer to home, the oceanic garbage soup we know as the Great Pacific Gyre has strewn Midway Atoll’s shores with plastic debris — so much so that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hosted cleanup efforts there in 2016.
Buoys, floats, bins, baskets, bottles, spoons, lighters and fishing gear are the mainstays on Kauai’s coastlines, according to beach-cleanup organizations, and they all have plastic components.
“We aren’t inundated with plastic bottles like some of the Third World countries,” said Scott McCubbins of Kauai Surfrider’s Net Patrol. “I truly believe that most of our plastic is from the commercial fishing industry.”
Commercial fishing nets are made from polypropylene, a plastic product, McCubbins pointed out.
The amount of plastic in production is set to nearly double in the next 10 years, according to the American Chemistry Council, which cited $186 billion invested into 318 new facility projects since 2010 — all in the name of shale gas.
Those new facilities are posed to convert shale gas into plastics. Half of them have been completed.
Meanwhile, a separate study by the American Chemistry Council, released in December, shows plastic recycling rates in America are below 30 percent, about 2 percent lower than the previous year.
The Great Pacific Gyre spits out most of that marine debris that’s landing on Kauai, said Mark Manuel, Pacific Islands marine debris regional coordinator for NOAA — especially the derelict fishing gear.
Manuel said the general make-up of the majority of the derelict nets points to a source outside the longline industry around Hawaiian waters.
“From all accounts, the data shows the majority … aren’t from a local source,” he said. “We don’t know what fishery type or region. It’s difficult to define.”
Kauai Surfrider volunteers alone garnered more than 91,000 pounds of debris from the island’s shores in 2017, and the organization estimates around 20 percent of the weight and 40 percent of the volume of their debris is plastic.
Much of the cleanup efforts by 808 Cleanups and Net Patrol target larger pieces of marine debris.
It’s a way to remove as much plastic as possible from the beaches before it breaks down into the microplastic that’s infiltrating birds, fish and other components of the island’s ecosystem.
“Plastics of all sizes are harmful to marine organisms,” said Carl Berg, ecologist with Kauai Surfrider. “Large ropes and nets entangle whales, while micro-plastics get eaten by zooplankton and corals.”
In 2016, 2,906 million pounds of plastic bottles were collected for recycling, a 71-million-pound dip from 2015. In 2016, the recycling rate was 29.7 percent — a decrease of 1.4 percentage points compared to 2015, according to the American Chemistry Council.
With a potential 40 percent rise in plastic production looming in the next decade, conservationists say now is the time for consumers to put their proverbial feet down.
“One thing people can do is not drink out of single-use plastic bottles,” McCubbins said.
Berg said that’s the number-one suggestion in his book as well.
“No plastic bags. No Styrofoam,” he said.
http://www.thegardenisland.com/2017/12/30/hawaii-news/prediction-more-plastic-is-coming/
-
EPA Crafting Rule to Increase 'Consistency' of Agency Cost Estimates
Dec 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA is developing a new agency-wide rule that would “increase consistency across EPA divisions and offices” on how costs of its rules are assessed, according to a notice in its latest unified regulatory agenda, a step that could intensify criticism that the Trump administration is more focused on rules' costs than their benefits.
According to a notice in the Unified Agenda, the agency may issue in the February time frame an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) teeing up the issue.
The EPA notice also says that whether the regulation is a major one is “undetermined,” that the agency's legal authority for the rule is “not yet determined,” and that there is no legal deadline for the regulation. The lack of a legal deadline may set the rule apart in that EPA Administrator Pruitt has repeatedly touted efforts to focus agency resources on regulations that have specific statutory deadlines.
But the notice is puzzling to many observers. “I am as curious as you are,” says one agency source about the implications of the planned rulemaking.
The potential new regulatory effort on costs is listed as a project of EPA's Office of Policy, with the title, “Increasing Consistency, Reliability, and Transparency in the Rulemaking Process,” and it is the first time the item has been included in EPA's unified agenda.
And while the specific implications of the move are unclear, it comes amid existing controversies about the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda, including over the Trump executive order calling for repeal of 2 rules for every new regulation, and offsetting the costs of new federal regulations.
Critics, including environmental advocates, economists and former government officials, have argued that the executive order will effectively block any new rules not explicitly required by statute, and lead to a focus on costsrather than benefits of federal rules.
The potential cost rule also comes with the Trump EPA already offering major revisions to the cost-benefit analyses of Obama era regulations, including revised analysis of the Clean Power Plan, that vastly scales back the estimated climate and non- GHG benefits of the regulation.
'Unusual' Rulemaking
The agency source does not claim to be familiar with the notice in detail, but calls a potential rulemaking associated with EPA's policy office is “unusual” in procedural terms, because that office does not typically craft its own regulations.
EPA in its notice says it is “considering developing implementing regulations that would increase consistency across EPA divisions and offices, increase reliability to affected stakeholders, and increase transparency during the development of regulatory actions.”
The notice then posits a problem where “many EPA statutes, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, provide language on the consideration of costs, but costs have historically been interpreted differently by the EPA depending on the office promulgating the regulatory action. This has led to EPA choosing different standards under the same provision of the statute, the regulatory community not being able to rely on consistent application of the statute, and EPA developing internal policies on the consideration of costs through nontransparent actions.”
The unified agenda language further states that “[b]y developing implementing regulations through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process, it will provide the public with a better understanding on how EPA is evaluating costs when developing a regulatory action and allow the public to provide better feedback to EPA on potential future proposed rules.”
One economist expresses initial surprise that EPA offices could be so significantly divergent from existing EPA and Office of Management & Budget guidance on cost benefit analysis that a rulemaking would be necessary to address differing cost calculation methodologies, which can also reasonably differ based on factors including available data.
EPA's press office in response to a query on the notice initially referred Inside EPA back to the same notice. And in response to a subsequent query on how agency offices currently differ with respect to their treatment of costs, EPA's press office again declined to elaborate, saying, “we have no additional information to offer at this time.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-crafting-rule-increase-consistency-agency-cost-estimates
-
(ACC Mentioned) The New TSCA: Balanced Compromise or Business as Usual?
Jan 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rena Steinzor
Lobbied with great energy by the chemical industry and a prominent national environmental group, Congress managed to pass a bipartisan reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“new TSCA”) on June 22, 2016, even as the presidential election reached new heights of vituperative energy.
Most of the politicians involved in the deal-making felt entitled to a victory lap, including President Barack Obama. “For the first time in 20 years, we're updating a national environmental statute. For the first time in our history, we'll actually be able to regulate chemicals effectively,” the president enthused at the signing ceremony.
This sunny display of consensus dissipated quickly, as expected by any veteran of the decision-making that translates congressional will on environmental issues into action.
Interest groups retreated behind their own lines, assuming that Hillary Clinton, a candidate susceptible to environmentalist pressure but also open to industry concerns, would be the next president of the U.S. With the stunning election victory of President Donald Trump, this premise was turned on its head, as deregulators climbed into the driver's seat of the executive branch, the House, the Senate, and, soon, the courts.
The unusual alignment left the chemical industry with little incentive to honor the delicate balance of trade-offs that propelled the legislation across the finish line. Now, with compromise a distant memory, the new law teeters on the brink of failure, sabotaged by polarized disputes over the language of the new statute, heavily skewed decision-making, funding gaps, and a brain drain at the EPA. It will be implemented in some fashion, but the effective control of toxic chemicals seems elusive.
Typical Process?
Some insist that what is happening now is no more and no less than the typical scenario that occurs whenever Congress passes legislation and the executive branch undertakes the arduous, increasingly fraught process of implementation. When I appeared on a recent American Bar Association panel with Michael Walls, a vice president with the American Chemistry Council, he told me just that in response to my gloomy prediction that a hijack of the compromise was in process. But, as is true in so many other arenas, the Trump administration's hostile takeover of the executive branch means anything but business as usual.
What are the implications of failure for public health? In 2009, the EPA's efforts to assess and control hazardous chemicals was placed on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) “High-Risk List” of government programs that are sufficiently dysfunctional and important to require top-level intervention. The list is quite selective, composed of just 34 entries in 2017. The GAO explained that the “EPA had not developed sufficient chemical assessment information under these programs to limit exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial health risks.”
The vast majority of Americans have no idea that the GAO keeps such a list, and their acute disillusionment with government arises from other priorities. Yet anxiety over toxic exposures erupts periodically with great force, as illustrated by the reaction of activists to emerging science about bisphenol-A (BPA). Its presence in baby bottles and the news that it might be an endocrine disrupter provoked a rapid and successful episode of “regulation by internet,” a phenomenon that chemical manufacturers ignore at their peril.
The bottom line of such incidents is that the popular perception that the EPA is captured by the chemical industry is not good. When government seems inept, and some science indicates a chemical is poisoning people, social media makes boycotts possible, without regard to the elaborate scientific arguments manufacturers make to convince government decision-makers that the public's reactions are hysterical. Should the EPA's implementation of the new TSCA be discredited by the appearance of industry capture, its origin as a compromise will be forgotten.
Four aspects of the new law's implementation bear watching.
Parsing Language
One of the biggest victories scored by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in its negotiations with chemical industry leaders was a provision that prohibits the consideration of costs during risk assessments of existing chemicals. Of course, industry got plenty in return, from the continuation of the cost-preoccupied “unreasonable risk” standard for rule-writing to preemption of more aggressive state regulation of substances that the EPA is evaluating.
But insulating scientific evaluation of exposure hazards from mandatory cost-benefit analysis is a big deal, especially because TSCA assessments will become the gold standard for gauging the threat posed by toxics in all the agency's other programs, from hazardous waste disposal to air pollution. Or, in other words, the implications of TSCA risk assessments extend far beyond the new law's task of allowing specific chemicals to be made and sold for uses in commerce.
The portent of negative risk assessment findings looms large for industry insiders despite the extraordinarily slow pace at which the agency is supposed to complete evaluations of existing chemicals. (It has begun with just 10 chemicals out of a universe of thousands, with those assessments due in June 2019, and it is only required to address 20 assessments annually in the out-years.) In a recent column, Charles Franklin, a lawyer at Akin Gump, warned against “the potentially catastrophic consequences for the marketability of a chemical product and the reputation of the manufacturer from an unexpected adverse risk determination.” No surprise, then, that circumscribing the scope of such assessments became the first battleground, fought first within the agency and now in court.
The chemical industry and its allies inside and outside government were nimble enough to win the naming game regarding the issue when they fought to exclude what they described as “legacy uses” from assessments. This clever nom de guerre leaves the impression that assessments have been saved from wasteful tours of ancient historical uses akin to a 24/7 version of the Antiques Roadshow. If a use occurred in the past, goes this argument, how could it possibly have much significance for the future exposure of people who breathe, wash, eat, or work with existing chemicals for which the agency has approved a future use?
One answer is that many chemicals are persistent inside the body and in the environment. Because they hang around, continuing exposure is a matter of course. A second, related one is that ongoing exposure over a period of several years may have started the process of becoming sick and future exposure will therefore harm a person already made vulnerable by uses the EPA is determined to ignore. In other words, so-called legacy uses have the capacity to make people sick and destroy ecology, no matter when the chemicals were sold and used. Conversely, once an existing chemical clears the hurdle of risk assessment and regulation, the EPA has little control over where and how products are used, whether people already exposed to the chemical might risk further exposure, or how much harm cumulative exposures may do.
Or, to turn the name game around, the new law requires the agency to take members of “susceptible” populations (infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly) as they find them. Past exposures that increase their risk of harm to future emissions must be taken into account.
Needless to say, the two sides have parsed the statutory language in diametrically opposed ways. The new law authorizes the EPA to define and evaluate “conditions of use” under which “a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.” Industry reads the “to be” phrase to mean only future exposure, while environmentalists argue that “known” use means past use and the ongoing exposure caused by such deposits of the chemical into the environment.
The Obama EPA opted for the broader view but the Trump EPA has narrowed its inquiry to nonlegacy uses, defined as the level of production that is occurring today and will occur in the near future. A coalition of environmental groups has challenged the Trump administration's definition in court where it will face the traditional government defense that the statutory language is unclear and judges should therefore defer to agency discretion under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., a case roundly condemned by conservatives like Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Skewed Decision-Making
Nancy Beck, the EPA employee supervising the implementation of the new law, has a high profile among those steeped in the mind-numbing details of toxic chemicals policy making over the last couple of decades. When she was a freshly minted Ph.D., Beck went to work for John Graham, the conservative public policy analyst who served as the regulatory czar under President George W. Bush.
Graham had far-reaching ambitions for the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), including the insertion of its small staff into issues of regulatory science, most particularly the conduct of risk assessment. He assigned Beck to sit down and draft governmentwide standards for risk assessments that, among other things, conflated the distinct activities of assessment and management. The result was that risk was judged through the myopic lens of what management method was affordable. Or, in other words, the government would calculate the levels of exposure to toxic chemicals that regulatory intervention could achieve affordably, but would not address the harmful exposure that remained following such intervention. The guidance was considerably fussier than this core principle, which on its own was a big gift to affected industries, and it was ultimately derailed by objections from within the executive branch and prestigious institutions like the National Academies of Science.
Beck resumed her patrol of day-to-day decision-making at the EPA, compelling career staff to negotiate with her regarding the initiatives, large and small, that were submitted to the OIRA for approval. Eventually, she departed for a job with the American Chemistry Council where she was at the forefront of negotiating the new TSCA. Beck then returned to government service as part of the Trump administration's small cadre of new employees sent to establish a beachhead at the EPA.
Beck was hired in an “administratively determined” position, an unusual category that means she is neither a political appointee nor a competitively hired civil servant. The overriding benefit of this unusual designation is that it exempts such positions from ethical rules that impose a two-year moratorium on political appointees regarding any involvement in matters they had worked on before joining the government. According to Eric Lipton, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, no more than a dozen employees are in such positions among the agency's 15,800 employees because the category is usually reserved for especially qualified experts. In a memo justifying Beck's employment obtained by Lipton through an open records request, Kevin Minoli, the agency's acting general counsel, wrote that Beck's extensive background regarding the preferences of the chemical industry in implementing the new law gave her a distinct advantage.
As a practical matter, narrowing conditions of use to overlap exactly with the current and future production of suspect chemicals can have the same result as the conflation of assessment and management during the risk assessment process. Think of all the ongoing risks that are discarded from consideration by such a process.
Has a chemical leached into groundwater used to irrigate crops and are people ingesting it through food? So long as the current and future production of the chemical does not involve intentional deposition in groundwater, those risks may be ignored, even if the same susceptible people are exposed through the chemical's inclusion in household products or air emissions from nearby factories. Suppose the members of a susceptible population are workers on the line in a factory where the chemical under evaluation is made. If they also live in an airshed where the same chemical once was used in manufacturing processes now discontinued, those same individuals have endured many years of similar exposure. Future exposure resulting from use of a product counts, but exposure resulting from previous use might as well never have happened.
Were she to respond to these concerns, Beck might well say that grave unfairness would result from forcing companies to cease making or using a chemical simply because other companies made or used it in the past. But this kind of balancing is appropriate, if at all, in the risk management phase when the EPA weighs the costs and benefits of potential controls. Under the new law, risk assessments must consider the full range of exposures lest they result in a whitewash of such hazards.
Budget Gaps
The EPA's preparation of assessments of individual chemicals has proceeded at a snail's pace, whether in the context of the old TSCA, toxicological profiles under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), or pesticide licensing. The stakes for chemical manufacturers in each of these decisions are typically quite high, and most have not stinted on the resources devoted to such battles. An inordinately complex and ossified process is the inevitable result because the EPA does not have the resources to keep up with industry's many objections. The recent history of IRIS is instructive for two, closely related, reasons.
First, formulating a toxicological profile under IRIS does not involve original research, but rather takes the form of a meta-analysis of existing studies. The controversy that has hobbled this apparently straightforward mandate to the point that it has eked out only a small handful of profiles over the last decade is quite likely to pale in comparison to the disputes that will accompany risk assessments under the new TSCA. Indeed, Beck and others argue that severely narrowing the scope of such risk assessments is the only way to move them along in a timely manner, as required by deadlines in the new law.
Some public interest advocates have ignored this concern, urging the agency to either undertake elaborate investigations of whether existing laws are working in the field or to assume that they are not working, expanding the scope of cognizable exposures to an unworkable extent. Even a less hostile administration might have difficulty with such recommendations. To implement the new TSCA effectively, a middle ground must be found. What Beck has decreed so far, though, leans so far right as to lack credibility.
Second, rather than try to fix IRIS by shielding it from delay tactics, Senate appropriators have endorsed killing the program as part of a broader effort to cut the EPA budget. In its initial and preposterous budget, the Trump administration demanded a reduction of 31 percent, which was estimated to eliminate 4,000 out of 18,500 employees. No one expects such radical reductions to emerge from Congress. But the passage of a tax bill that will reduce available revenues has redoubled the pressure to keep squeezing the discretionary portion of the federal budget.
Stories about the effect of such deep budget cuts often mention the new TSCA as an exception, in part because industry fees could contribute up to $25 million annually to the program. The industry fees surely will help and it's a shame they are not higher, not least because the EPA also shoulders the daunting responsibility of reviewing applications to approve hundreds of “new” chemicals within tight deadlines. But the conceit that new TSCA implementation will remain immune from chaos in other chemicals programs is wishful thinking, not reality. Already, rumors are circulating that EPA's political leadership plans a reorganization of such programs. The public administration literature warns that this kind of overhaul can set back the productivity of an agency for years.
Brain Drain
Last but not least is the acute problem of the brain drain that increasingly afflicts the EPA. As it has done throughout the government, the Trump administration has offered buyouts to senior civil servants while moving very slowly to nominate people to fill top political positions. Even when it has forwarded names, the administration's insistence on ideological purity has complicated the confirmation process. Its nominee to oversee chemicals programs, Michael Dourson, was controversial because of criticism about his work with industry, and ultimately withdrew from consideration. This illustrates why the administration was reluctant to subject Beck to Senate scrutiny. Meanwhile, hundreds of senior and mid-level managers have taken the buyouts offered by the administration and left the agency, including Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, the lead EPA negotiator on the new TSCA.
Administrator Scott Pruitt appears unconcerned about such departures. If his goal is to stop the agency from continuing to produce affirmative proposals, and instead to focus on the repeal or revision of Obama-era rules, pushing career staff out the door makes some kind of twisted sense, no matter how harmful it is to the agency as an institution. Satisfying chemical industry demands that favorite aspects of the new TSCA be implemented in a timely manner is a very different challenge. If Beck is left with a cadre of young risk assessors to do work that would have been very challenging for a well-staffed unit including experts at all levels of seniority, the new TSCA is unlikely to be the exception its most fervent supporters demand that it be.
A Law for the 21st Century
The full name of the new TSCA is the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.” Sen. Lautenberg lived his long career as a progressive on chemicals policy. He came from New Jersey, after all, a small state with an outsized legacy of petrochemical production and Superfund sites where being branded anti-environmental was the true kiss of the pig. The question therefore is not whether Sen. Lautenberg deserved the honor of having a statute carry his name, but rather whether this particular statute will in fact do him honor.
As the first major overhaul of a 20th century law in the 21st century, the new TSCA's fate is quite important. The law was written as a compromise. But its destiny will be determined by politicians who simply do not believe that more environmental protection is necessary and that far less is quite desirable. Because these issues have historically been second tier politically, their popularity with healthy margins of the voting public does not appear powerful enough to determine either who is president or who controls the House and Senate. Yet five decades of history suggest the pendulum on environmental policy swings both back and forth. Those who discount the possibility that today's extremism will be offset by a wider correction in the opposite direction may have more at risk than they realize.
Rena Steinzor is the Edward M. Robertson professor, University of Maryland Carey Law School, and member scholar and founder of the Center for Progressive Reform. She appreciates the advice of Matt Shudtz and Katie Tracy although any errors are hers alone.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125844430&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125844430&jd=125844430
-
Trump Administration Delays Bans of Toxic Solvents
Jan 1, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The Trump administration is delaying the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to ban high-risk uses of three hazardous solvents.
Those plans took shape in the waning days of the Obama administration. That’s when EPA proposed the ban on methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidine (NMP) in paint strippers and trichloroethylene (TCE) in aerosol spray degreasers, spot-cleaning agents in dry cleaning, and vapor degreasing. These uses put people at risk for cancer and neurodevelopmental effects, the agency determined.
If finalized, the restrictions would mark the first time EPA has prohibited uses of a commercial chemical in more than a quarter-century. In addition, they would be the first such regulations since Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016 to boost EPA’s authority to control high-risk uses of chemicals.
However, the Trump administration on Dec. 14 quietly said it will indefinitely postpone finalizing the planned ban of TCE uses and, at some unspecified time in the future, recast the proposed regulations for methylene chloride and NMP. Such changes could include withdrawing the proposals on methylene chloride and NMP, leaving the two chemicals unregulated.
“EPA is once again kowtowing to the chemical industry,” which has pushed back against the agency’s health conclusions for the three solvents and wants EPA to reassess the compounds, says Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group. He calls the Trump administration’s move an attempt to undermine Congress’s bipartisan reforms to TSCA, which authorize the agency to regulate high-risk uses of chemicals.
Postponement of EPA’s plans for the three solvents is part of a document issued semiannuallyby the White House that lays out an administration’s agenda for creating or withdrawing regulations.
“EPA’s plan balances its statutory requirements to issue regulations and its commitment to providing regulatory certainty through improvements to existing regulations that were flawed, outdated, ineffective, or unnecessarily burdensome,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says in a statement about the agenda.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/12/Trump-administration-delays-bans-toxic.html
-
Michigan Scrambles to Address Chemical Contaminants in Water
Dec 30, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By David Eggert
While the city of Flint still recovers from a lead-tainted water crisis, Michigan is scrambling to combat potential health risks in other tap water that stem from chemicals long used in firefighting, waterproofing, carpeting and other products.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have been detected at military bases, water treatment plants and, most recently, an old industrial dump site for footwear company Wolverine World Wide. The contaminants, classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as “emerging” nationally, have sparked enough concern that Gov. Rick Snyder created a state response team and approved $23 million in emergency spending.
The chemicals do not break down easily and can migrate from soil to groundwater. They were used in scores of U.S. industrial applications and have been detected in human and animal blood around the globe. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says scientists are uncertain about how they affect human health at exposure levels typically found in food and water. But some studies suggest the chemicals might affect fetal development, disrupt hormonal functions, damage fertility and immune systems, and boost the risk of cancer.
At least 1,000 homes with private wells in the Plainfield Township area north of Grand Rapids — near where Wolverine dumped hazardous waste decades ago — have been tested for PFAS contamination in recent months.
Cody Angell, 28, who lives in the area, said he has had “sleepless nights,” even though his home is on the local water system that has been deemed safe. He’s concerned because the chemicals have been discovered in the municipal supply, and Plainfield Township for years pulled water from backup wells that have tested positive for the substances. He wonders if PFAS contamination caused his mother’s thyroid disease.
Angell said he lacks confidence in state regulators, pointing to their failures that led to Flint’s crisis. Environmental activist and legal consultant Erin Brockovich recently met with area residents, urging them to join a class-action lawsuit that alleges Wolverine illegally disposed of PFAS from Minnesota-based 3M’s Scotchgard product in the area. The suit seeks financial damages and steps such as targeted, more frequent medical testing.
Another lawsuit alleges that a family of four living near Wolverine’s unlined tannery waste dump drank highly contaminated well water for 17 years, causing the father to develop colon cancer, the mother to have a miscarriage and one of their children to develop a rare bone cancer.
The chemicals have been identified at 28 sites in 14 Michigan communities. Nearly half are on or near military installations, where the source is believed to be firefighting foam.
The $23 million will be used to hire new state employees to sample and analyze well water, buy lab equipment and help public health departments with unexpected response costs. Samples have been sent to California because no Michigan labs can test for the chemicals; state officials want quicker results.
“People are starting to get an understanding of a whole class of chemicals that ... are in so many things. How much of that is getting into our systems? I don’t think people really know,” said state Rep. Chris Afendoulis, a Republican whose district includes the Wolverine dump area. He warned it could become “a nationwide problem.”
Of about 1,050 homes tested in neighborhoods north of Grand Rapids, 74 had PFAS levels above 70 parts per trillion — the U.S. government’s combined health advisory level for two PFAS in drinking water, set in 2016. Some houses had concentrations measuring hundreds of times higher than the lifetime advisory level. Results are not back yet for every home. Wolverine has provided affected residents with bottled water and whole-house filters and, at the state’s request, is investigating 20 reports of discarded barrels or leather scraps at five sites.
For now, the Snyder administration and majority Republicans in the Legislature are comfortable with the 70 parts per trillion standard — a non-enforceable and unregulated limit unlike the federal restrictions on other contaminants such as lead, asbestos and mercury.
“It is largely used for trying to communicate to the public the point at which if you’re below that, we don’t have public health concern. When you get above that, then that is when we start to say there are some people who may be at risk of harm from a lifetime of drinking levels above 70,” said Kory Groetsch, environmental health director at the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. “I like to think of it as a speed limit. If you’re doing 58 in a 55, your chance of anything bad is very small. If you’re doing 95 in a 55, your chance of something going wrong is quite high.”
Michigan Democrats are proposing legislation to establish a 5 parts per trillion limit, which would be the country’s toughest and follow states such as New Jersey, Minnesota and Vermont that have imposed stricter guidelines. They also are calling for legislative oversight hearings to investigate whether Wolverine and the state moved too slowly to protect people. On its website, Wolverine calls the federal advisory level “very conservative” and says there is no human study proving PFAS exposure causes illness.
Still, the EPA recently announced a “cross-agency effort” to address PFAS contamination nationwide, saying it will identify near-term actions to help communities, enhance coordination, boost research and expand communication about health risks. Snyder, a Republican, said the state is building a “good working relationship” with the EPA, but — echoing criticism from both sides of the aisle in Congress — said he wants a “better response” from the Defense Department.
The former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in northern Michigan has been on officials’ radar for some time. While PFAS levels in samples from private residential wells nearby were not higher than the federal advisory level, the state urged people to not use their water for drinking or cooking because of uncertainty about the duration or amount of previous exposure and other concerns.
“We’re at this point in dialogue with different branches of military, and it’d be good if we could get the Department of Defense to figure out the best way to respond and partner with us on helping address this issue,” Snyder said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/michigan-scrambles-to-address-chemical-contaminants-in-water/2017/12/30/d864a6b2-ed79-11e7-956e-baea358f9725_story.html?utm_term=.eeea80993da7
-
Jan 1, 2018 | U.S. Pirg
By Dev Gowda
The new shampoos, hand creams, soaps and body washes we unwrapped this holiday season smell like roses, chamomile, lavender, springtime.
But the fragrances that fill many of our bottles and bars are far from natural, and because of a lack of transparency in labeling, we could be “cleaning” our bodies with chemicals that can disrupt our hormones, cause developmental issues and even lead to cancer.
We’ve found formaldehyde in baby shampoo and phthalates in cosmetics, but because manufacturers don’t have to disclose what chemicals make up a product’s “fragrance,” everyday consumers have no way of knowing what other dangerous chemicals are hiding in their favorite products.
We’re working to increase transparency about what chemicals are used in personal care products, and to eliminate chemicals of concern from these products entirely.
This kind of change must come from the companies that manufacture the product, and pressure from concerned consumers is already leading to important industry shifts.
In December, SC Johnson — maker of Glade, Pledge, Windex and more — disclosed the presence of 368 potential skin allergens that might occur in its products. Unilever, which owns brands like Dove and Caress, announced that it would disclose most of its fragrance ingredients by 2018. Even Procter & Gamble, maker of brands like Olay, Old Spice and Herbal Essences, announced that it will increase fragrance ingredient transparency in all of its consumer brands.
And while progress is being made on transparency, demand has led to the growth of an $11 billion safe cosmetics industry. The Honest Company, founded on a commitment to make healthy products that don’t contain common chemicals of concern, has skyrocketed to a valuation of $1.7 billion in just its first three years.
Figures like these prove that safe alternatives are possible and profitable, but some major companies are resisting the industry-wide push toward transparency and toxic-free products.
That’s why we’re calling on L’Oreal to disclose all of its fragrance ingredients, and to remove carcinogens and other chemicals linked to health problems from its cosmetics.
The average American is exposed to more than 100 different chemicals from personal care products before they leave the house every morning. And according to the International Fragrance Association, approximately 3,000 different chemicals can be used to make fragrance — some of which are linked to cancer, reproductive and respiratory problems and allergies.
These chemicals are not “trade secrets” — they are health hazards. Consumers have a right to know what’s in the soap they bathe their children with, the lip gloss they buy, the shaving cream they use. It’s time for companies like L’Oreal to commit to making toxic-free, transparent personal care products.
https://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/personal-care-product-trade-secrets-are-hurting-consumers
-
(ACC Mentioned) Here Is the Preview of Oil and Gas Price in 2018 – Part 2
Dec 29, 2017 | FX Daily Report
By Andre
In the previous post, preview on oil and gas price in 2018 was focused on the upstream business, which is predicted to get busier, stronger oil price, and booming midstream industry. Of course, that is not all. Some analysts still have more. Not all of them have positive meaning. The following are some clearer descriptions on the preview of oil price and natural gas price throughout 2018.More Previews on Oil and Gas Price in 2018
Oklahoma’s Government Will Mess Up SCOOP/STACK
The discovery of world-class resource play in Oklahoma, namely SCOOP and STACK areas, has made the state a central point of attention. It seems that the state government wants to mess up things. This is evident from the increasing intensity of drilling activities and increasing number of oilrigs in the region in the last two years.
SCOOP and STACK areas have been successful in attracting major investments with its production tax structure. The initial tax was only 2%. However, the problems related to budget deficit had forced the legislature to raise the tax rate back to its former 7%. If that happens, there will be decreased amount of capital dollars for investments, since the companies have to pay more for tax.Natural Gas-Based Manufacturing Is Booming
Manufacturing industry, which is based upon natural gas, such as petrochemical is booming and it is expected to keep booming throughout the year. As reported by the American Chemistry Council in December 2017, the low price and abundant amount of natural gas jas resulted in the increase of investment in petrochemical plant and related equipment.
In other words, there will have been additional 822.000 jobs by 2025. It is expected that the number of natural gas based manufacture will grow even more throughout 2018, since the price of natural gas will not increase soon.Export of Oil and Natural Gas Will Increase
In 2017, export of domestic crude oil increased by two folds. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), it will double again in the coming two years. The increasing volume of export came primarily from Eagle Ford Shale and Permain Basin. The trend will continue in 2018.
On the other hand, some businesses are predicted to come online this year. They include new LNG export terminals located at Elba Island, LA, Cameron, Freeport, and GA. These will contribute to an increase of export capacity by at least 2 billion feet per day by the end of 2018.Energy Production and Export Will be Supported by Federal Public Policy
It may not be difficult to see how this will happen. It is true that the Trump Administration has implemented so many favorable public policy decisions this year. It is easy to predict that the government will take more policy actions to maximize energy production and increase export capacity in 2018.
Given the previews of oil and gas price in 2018 above, it seems that next year will be the strongest moment for US oil and gas industry. The last time it got the same strength was in 2013. This is certainly good news, and many economists also expect the same.
https://fxdailyreport.com/preview-oil-gas-price-2018-part-2/
-
To Round out a Year of Rollbacks, the Trump Administration Just Repealed Key Regulations on Fracking
Dec 29, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
On the last business day of the year, the Interior Department rescinded a 2015 Obama administration rule that would have set new environmental limitations on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on public lands.
The regulation from the Bureau of Land Management, which had been opposed by the oil and gas industry and tied up in court, would have tightened standards for well construction and wastewater management, required the disclosure of the chemicals contained in fracking fluids, and probably driven up the cost for many fracking activities.
It had been held up in litigation and had not taken effect; a Wyoming district court said it exceeded the agency’s authority. Reversing the regulation, the Interior Department says, clears up that legal question and also lifts a costly regulation for the industry, in line with President Trump’s agenda to slash regulations and advance the United States’ “energy dominance.”
The agency said rescinding the rule would save “up to $9,690 per well or approximately $14 million to $34 million per year” in industry compliance costs. It also noted that because of state, tribal and existing federal regulations, the move “would not leave hydraulic fracturing operations unregulated.”
But Mike Freeman, an attorney with EarthJustice who defended the now-repealed regulation in court, countered that it “was a reasonable and long overdue update of the agency’s old regulations, adopted in the early 1980s, about 35 years ago, and they were developed long before modern fracking became common.”
“The move today represents just another example of the Trump administration sacrificing our public lands, air and water in order to pad the bottom line of oil and gas companies,” Freeman said.
Industry groups, however, hailed the decision.
“Adding a layer of duplicative federal regulations does not improve on the success of existing state and federal regulations,” said Erik Milito, group director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, in a statement. “If the rule were allowed to continue, development in several states, such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming, could have been especially hard hit with slowed permitting and limited access to public lands, stunting economic growth and pushing away jobs.”
Hydraulic fracturing is the process by which oil and gas firms first drill wells that run not only vertically downward, but also horizontally within the ground — and then blast enormous volumes of water down the wells to crack open rock layers and unleash oil or natural gas. The technology has been transformational for the industry, driving down the price of natural gas dramatically and so upending the electric power industry, while also turning the U.S. into a top global oil producer.
But it has also raised many environmental concerns, including that fracking fluids could pollute water supplies and that the flowback fluids or liquids that reemerge from the earth after hydrocarbons are released may be improperly stored and get into waterways.
The precise extent to which fracking operations pollute waterways has been hotly debated. Last year, the Science Advisory Board sent a review to the Environmental Protection Agency faulting the agency for finding a lack of “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,” determining that the EPA had not provided “quantitative analysis” to support that conclusion.
The current decision only affects public lands — which are only a fraction of the total area used in fracking activities but a significant one.
“They’re important for wildlife, important for public use, and they’re some of the last best places in this country,” Freeman said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/29/to-round-out-a-year-of-rollbacks-the-trump-administration-just-repealed-key-regulations-on-fracking/?utm_term=.ee4cd73cbc58
-
The Oil And Gas Situation: A Preview Of 2018
Dec 31, 2017 | Forbes
By David Blackmon
As 2017 comes to a freezing close, millions of citizens in New York state are keeping themselves warm and comfortable in their homes thanks to a plentiful supply of cheap natural gas. This despite the fact that their state government chose to outlaw the conduct of hydraulic fracturing in their state, denying thousands of New Yorkers the freedom to exercise their property rights. And every molecule of that natural gas is brought to New York and its citizens via pipelines, the construction of which has been virulently opposed by their Governor, Andrew Cuomo. For the provision of this great modern luxury, despite the massive obstacles tossed into its way by New York policymakers, the domestic oil and gas industry says, "You're welcome, New Yorkers!"
All that irony aside, the closing of the year means it's time to take a look forward at the prospects for America's oil and gas industry in 2018. This past year will likely come to be remembered as the year during which the industry emerged from the three-year depression created when Saudia Arabia made the decision to flood the market with crude in 2014 in a misguided attempt to recapture market share it had lost to America's growing shale industry.
The big question for the industry going into 2018 is whether it will be able to consolidate the gains made during 2017, and build on the lessons learned from the mid-year 2017 price collapse that was directly caused by its rapid increase in drilling during the first half of the year. I've written many times about the lack of any government mechanisms to bring discipline to the highly-competitive upstream segment of the industry, but as we will see, producers are already receiving help in that regard that they had not anticipated six months ago, but which is exactly the help they need to help them avoid a repeat of the first half of 2017.
With that, let's take a look at what 2018 is likely to hold for the U.S. oil and natural gas industry:
· $60 WTI will produce a domestic supply response, but it will be muted - There is no question that the upstream business will get busier drilling when the new year dawns - the only question is, how busy? The significant increase in new drilling permit applications in Texas and elsewhere during October and November is a strong sign that upstream companies are preparing to implement stronger drilling budgets starting in January. On the other hand, that disciplinary help I mentioned above is coming in the form of strong investor pressure on corporate management teams to increase returns on their investments. This pressure resulted in a slowdown in the pace of drilling for the last 4 months of 2017, and is going to carry over into the new year. The result: Where the industry activated almost 300 additional drilling rigs during the first third of 2017, we should expect an increase of no more than half that many additional rigs in the first 120 days of 2018.
· Oil prices will remain comparatively strong throughout the year - As I noted in last week's year-end wrap-up piece, the export limitation agreement between OPEC and Russia has been a resounding success, both in strengthening the crude price and also in taking much of the volatility out of the system by re-balancing the market. So long as those countries continue to maintain the discipline they exhibited throughout 2017, and U.S. producers don't go wild with new drilling, there is good reason to project that crude prices will move higher at the end of 2018 than they stand today.
· The midstream industry will boom - It's already booming in Texas, where upwards of a dozen projects are underway to build new takeaway capacity for oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids coming out of the pipeline-constrained Permian Basin. These are all intra-state lines that do not require approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). New permitting and construction of interstate lines was held up for much of 2017 due to a lack of a quorum on the Commission, as President Trump's nominees were held up in the U.S. Senate, but FERC has approved more than 8 bcf in new natural gas pipeline capacity since that roadblock was cleared in August. Much of this new capacity is designed to relieve the longstanding bottleneck for gas coming out of the Marcellus Shale. Bottom line: There will be a lot of new steel going into the ground throughout 2018.
· The Permian Basin will continue to boom throughout 2018 - We've seen a rash of speculative "analysis" pieces recently pushing the proposition that producers have drilled up all the best locations in the vast Permian Basin and are now running out of viable drilling projects. We will find out very clearly in 2018 that these analyses are laughably wrong, as drilling and production from the Permian will grow steadily throughout the year, as will the profitability of the companies doing the drilling and producing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/12/31/the-oil-and-gas-situation-a-preview-of-2018/#5ff2149c7613
-
Wyoming Oil, Gas Revenues Surge Amid Visions of 'Boom Time' Returning
Dec 29, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Revenues from federal and state oil/natural gas lease sales this year in Wyoming shot up dramatically compared to their anemic levels a year earlier, prompting industry and government officials to conjure up visions of a return to more boom-like times ahead in the state oil/gas fields.
In total, Wyoming net revenues for the lease sales overall produced $146 million, involving nearly a half-million acres of state and federal lands in 2017. Sales of state land leases brought in about $60 million of that, compared with annual proceeds in previous years of $5-$7 million following the global oil commodity price crash in 2014.
State Oil/Gas Supervisor Mark Watson cautioned that he doesn't think this necessarily points to enough of a resurgence to be designated a "boom" for the oil/gas operators in Wyoming, but it does indicate they are "cautiously optimistic." And that newfound optimism comes for the increase in current prices, Watson told NGI's Shale Daily.
"Our rig county is up a third over last year, and currently it stands at 25, so operators are more positive about the near-term future," Watson said. His latest monthly report to the state commission noted that last year the rig count was 19 at this time of year. Applications for drilling permits in November totaled 1,485, an increase from the previous month's 1,348 total.
Regarding the year-over-year turnaround in lease sale proceeds, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cautioned that a variety of factors influence the lease auction results that the federal agency holds for tracts of public lands.
Among the different factors are: the level of industry interest, location of parcels available, resource objectives and BLM's planning efforts. "These factors can vary from sale to sale," said Kristen Lenhardt, a BLM deputy state communications director in Casper, WY.
"It's difficult to predict if 2017 is a trend because of so many variables that play into BLM's oil and gas lease sales," said Lenhardt, reiterating the federal agency's approach regarding oil/gas development on public lands.
"Environmentally-responsible energy development on public lands continues to be a priority for the BLM, and we will continue to process nominated parcels as quickly and efficiently as possible for each sale," she said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112908-wyoming-oil-gas-revenues-surge-amid-visions-of-boom-time-returning
-
Feds Seek to Improve Power Grid Cybersecurity Incident Reporting
Jan 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jimmy H. Koo
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) wants mandatory cybersecurity incident reporting standards lowered so utilities and other related companies inform the commission of all cybersecurity incidents that may affect North America's electricity system.
The existing threshold for reporting cybersecurity incidents may “understate the true scope of cyber-related threats” facing North America's electric grid, FERC said in a Dec. 28 notice of proposed rulemaking. FERC is proposing that it direct the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) to develop improved reporting thresholds.
“Currently, incidents must be reported only if they have ‘compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks,’ and we propose to require reporting of certain incidents even before they have caused such harm or if they did not themselves cause any harm,” FERC said in the notice.
FERC is an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. NERC is a non-profit international regulatory authority that addresses the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America.
Possible Reporting Gap
The threat of malware attacks against electricity supply systems is real, as shown by a first-of-its-kind December 2015 hacking attack in the Ukraine that took down parts of the country's power grid.
According to the notice, the Foundation for Resilient Societies—a non-profit with the mission to protect technologically-advanced societies from man-made and natural disasters—filed a petition requesting that FERC initiate the rulemaking.
Resilient Societies said that U.S. critical infrastructure, including the electric grid, are “increasingly at risk from malware, resulting in a threat of widespread, long-term blackouts.” NERC opposed the petition, citing existing standards as sufficient, according to the notice. FERC now seeks to order NERC to undertake the review requested by the foundation.
“The lack of any reported incidents in 2015 and 2016, suggests a gap in the current mandatory reporting requirements,” which may result in a lack of timely awareness of the threats, FERC said in the notice of proposed rulemaking. To address this gap, FERC is directing NERC to submit modifications to existing reporting standards.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking are due by Feb. 26, 2018.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125844426&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125844426&jd=125844426
-
Outlook 2018: APTA Leader Forecasts Great Challenges, Greater Opportunities for Transit
Dec 29, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
By Daniel Niepow
It's been a year of mixed messages for public transit leaders. For instance, although President Donald Trump has pledged to unveil a $1 trillion infrastructure package, he's also proposed deep cuts to Amtrak's services and transit grant programs.
Looking into the new year, things likely won't be getting any easier for transit execs in 2018. Funding remains a perennial issue, and ride-sharing companies like Lyft and Uber continue to pose an ongoing threat to ridership.
Still, American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Acting President and Chief Executive Richard White believes 2018 holds a wealth of opportunities for transit agencies. For one, agencies can begin exploring collaborative partnerships with ride-sharing services instead of viewing them as competitors.
"Traditional public transit operators will need to become mobility managers in the broadest sense," White explains. "That transformation needs to begin now, and we're already seeing it happen."
Below, White shares his thoughts on some other big-picture transit industry issues that likely will be crucial ones in the coming year.What are some of the biggest challenges transit agencies will face in 2018?
White: We are entering a time of profound transformational change in the public transportation sector, the likes of which we have not experienced since the advent of the automobile more than 100 years ago. Today, the future of public transit is being shaped by non-stop technological advances, the public's shifting preferences and lifestyle choices, and the emergence of new service providers. The challenges are great, but the opportunities are even greater.
In the short term – the coming 12 months – our industry has two simultaneous challenges: maintain, repair and replace aging infrastructure; and meet the increasing expectations of customers who demand new services, state-of-the-art amenities, greater convenience and solid reliability.
Under the best of circumstances, this dual mission would be difficult. What makes it that much more daunting — and urgent — is the unprecedented $95 billion backlog in state of good repair (SOGR)/modernization work needed just to bring our current public transit assets into acceptable condition. This number grows every day and does not include the additional resources to maintain these improvements. This problem grows bigger every year as the annual capital spend for public transportation is only approximately $20 billion, 43 percent of which is federal dollars.
One of the more formidable infrastructure issues facing many public transit agencies today is the statutory requirement to install positive train control (PTC) equipment by the end of 2018. This important safety improvement is underway in rail systems across the country, but there are complex technical and financial obstacles that require considerable time and resources to address.
Another pressing safety issue is the need for 30 states and Puerto Rico to obtain federal certification of their transit-rail State Safety Oversight programs by April 15, 2019. Only three states (Minnesota, Ohio and Utah) have been certified thus far. If a state fails to meet the deadline, the Federal Transit Administration is prohibited by law from awarding any new federal funds to public transportation agencies within the state until certification is achieved.
Aging infrastructure not only impacts safety and security; it also can create service delays that erode public trust as well as ridership numbers. And even a small dip in riders adversely affects revenue, which puts more pressure on transit systems' ability both to modernize and expand service.
A second challenge for public transportation systems in 2018 is the growth of ride-sharing companies. Trends all point to a future with more transportation choices. Communities of every size and character are choosing to create new options for citizens rather than continue to be automobile dependent.
With ride-sharing companies such as Uber now in the transportation mix, the issue of time competitiveness – that is, how fast one can travel from point A to point B – is an increasingly key factor in whether people choose public transit or an alternative travel solution. And there is evidence that public transit ridership has fluctuated in some places where ride sharing is growing in popularity.
Finally, predictable, consistent, long-term funding is the third challenge not just for this year but also into the future. Like roads, bridges and highways, public transportation is supported by local, state, and federal governments. On a national level, fare revenue only pays for about one-third of operating expenses. A report by APTA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials found that the annual capital investment needed over a six-year period to maintain public transportation service in the United States jumped from $17.7 billion in 2013 to $43 billion in 2015. This is the annual spend amount after assuming that the $95 billion SOGR backlog is addressed. This underscores the importance of a local-state-federal partnership to maintain, modernize and expand public transit in the United States.
Unfortunately, there are several troubling signs on the horizon:
• Despite the long history of beneficial federal support for public transit, the Trump administration has embraced a policy that makes public transportation a local and state issue, not a federal responsibility. As a result, the president's proposed budgets have sought to reduce, phase out or eliminate federal funding for transit programs and grants, including Capital Investment Grants, TIGER grants, Amtrak long-distance routes and inner-city rail programs. To date, Congress has resisted most, but not all these cuts. And another budget battle — and fundamental policy debate — will occur in 2018.
• The Highway Trust Fund will be insolvent by 2021. Without immediate action, the infrastructure backlog will grow and our surface transportation systems will continue to decline.
• The FAST Act expires on Sept. 30, 2020. That may sound like a long time from now, but it often takes years for Congress to approve complex, multi-year funding bills. The FAST Act was the first long-term surface transportation authorization enacted in 10 years, since the passage of SAFETEA-LU in 2005.How can transit agencies prepare to take on those challenges?
White: To meet the short-term challenges above, our industry must take the following initiatives:
1. Mount an expansive, aggressive campaign to make funding for public transportation a national economic and a national security priority. This is a cause that goes beyond state-of-good-repair concerns; it's about investing in our long-term competitiveness and growth, and it demands participation from every industry. We must ensure sufficient federal funding, not just incentives, is included in any infrastructure investment initiative from the Trump administration or Congress in 2018.
This issue ought to have broad support. There is unmistakable evidence that the public wants more public transportation. Voters from diverse locales across the United States approved $170 billion in new investment for public transit in 2016. Most of those investments were in rail transit systems. In fact, in the past five years, Americans passed more than 70 percent of ballot initiatives that included funding for public transportation.
Local communities and multinational businesses should get involved as well, because investment in public transit creates jobs and spurs economic development. Almost nine out of every 10 trips on public transit directly benefits a local economy — by getting people to a job or event where they earn or spend money. And for every $1 invested in public transportation, $4 in economic activity is returned to the community.
Proximity to good public transportation options has been a deciding factor in many companies' relocation decisions because it guarantees access to high-skilled workers. Amazon has publicized its search for a city suitable to establish a second headquarters, and corporations such as Marriott, McDonald's, State Farm, Motorola, Verizon and General Electric have decided to locate or expand near public transportation services.
Residential and commercial property values are higher around public transit facilities. For example, hotels in cities with direct rail access to airports earn 11 percent more revenue per room. Rail cities also attract more revenue-generating events and conventions than do non-rail cities.
2. Forge new partnerships with new public and private service providers. In the emerging new mobility ecosystem, public transportation will become the backbone of a multimodal system involving many different partners and interests.
Traditional public transit operators will need to become mobility managers in the broadest sense. That transformation needs to begin now, and we're already seeing it happen.
For example, many public transit agencies are finding new efficiencies — and new riders — through partnerships with ride-sharing companies for first-mile/last-mile connections, or for demand-response paratransit services. Uber, VIA, Zipcar and Motivate are among the organizations that have joined APTA to strengthen this synergy.
Such innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as new public and private partnerships, are the building blocks for our transportation systems of tomorrow. The long-term trend is that public transportation ridership has exceeded population growth and growth in vehicle-miles-traveled over the past two decades.
3. Build the foundation for the next FAST Act — and a new long-term, sustainable funding mechanism. Our industry has less than 33 months to craft and pass an innovative piece of legislation that will propel public transportation into the middle of this century.
Our future success depends on how we write the chapter that follows the FAST Act and how well it prepares public transit agencies for a new mobility paradigm shaped by new entrepreneurs, innovative financing, autonomous vehicles and changing business models. We must get it right and we need to begin the process now.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Outlook-2018-APTA-leader-forecasts-great-challenges-greater-opportunities-for-transit--53576
-
(ACC Mentioned) Smog Problem: R.I., Mass. Among States Suing EPA
Dec 31, 2017 | Eco RI News
President Trump’s war on pollution rules prompted nine states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its decision to ignore smog regulations.
The lawsuit, filed Dec. 22, asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the EPA’s about-face on a program designed to curb ozone pollutants traveling from upwind states to downwind states.
Despite EPA’s own research showing that air pollution blows from states in the Midwest and the South to the Northeast, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt denied a petition that nine polluting states be added to the Ozone Transport Region.
The Ozone Transport Region was created by Congress to address the interstate pollution problem. Its original members were 11 states that suffer from harmful cross-border emissions: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and the District of Columbia.
Each state within the Ozone Transport Region must develop and implement plans that control smog-causing pollutants. Despite enacting stringent in-state controls on sources of these pollutants, many states within the region are unable to meet federal air-quality standards for smog, significantly due to upwind smog pollution.
As it stands, states outside and upwind of the region are not required to — and generally do not — impose controls as stringent as those required of those within the region. The Clean Air Act allows states to petition the EPA to add states to the Ozone Transport Region if air pollution from them significantly exceeds federal standards for smog.
In 2013, several states in the region asked the EPA to add polluting states to the Ozone Transport Region: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. On Oct. 27, 2017 — the last day for the EPA to respond — Pruitt denied the petition.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin wasn't pleased.
"It’s been long established that Rhode Island and the other Northeast states are negatively impacted by pollution from upwind states, and this latest decision by the EPA flouts sound environmental science and puts many Rhode Islanders — especially young children and older people — at serious risk of health issues,” Kilmartin said.
Smog causes coughing, throat irritation, lung tissue damage, and aggravates medical conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, and emphysema. According to the American Lung Association, more than 10 percent of Rhode Islanders are at risk for pediatric or adult asthma because of smog and particle pollution.
One of Pruitt’s advisers, Robert Phalen, claimed in 2012 that “modern air is a little too clean for optimum health,” and that breathing particulate matter makes children healthier. Phalen is one of a number of advisers, including lobbyists from the American Chemistry Council, to replace scientists on EPA advisory boards.
Trump has taken steps to eliminate federal pollution controls, including beginning the repeal of President Obama's Clean Power Plan.
As federal rules are weakened, states are acting on their own. The most recent lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The coa
https://www.ecori.org/pollution-contamination/2017/12/30/ri-mass-among-states-suing-epa-over-smog
-
What Position Does the Trump Administration Take on Climate Change? All of Them.
Dec 29, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
There was never really much doubt that Donald Trump doubted the science of climate change. He had tweeted to that effect repeatedly before becoming president. He told this publication he wasn’t a “big believer” in human-caused climate change.
That he has now used a bout of cold weather to mock climate change — committing the most basic of errors on the topic, which is to confound any given day’s weather and with long-term trends in climate — should not come as a surprise.
What’s been more surprising, however, is the wide variety of positions taken by the broader Trump administration on the matter — where nobody but the president seems to talk like the president, and where at times, it isn’t even clear whether other members of the administration are representing Trump’s views.
Consider the following three sets of “administration” views on climate change:
Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has questioned whether we can measure “with precision” the role of humans on the climate, and he suggested therefore that humans are not the primary driver of global warming.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the federal coordinating body for climate change research across the government, recently released a report that is completely incompatible with this view, finding that there is “no convincing alternative explanation” for the planet’s warming other than human causation.
Somewhere in the middle, but perhaps closer to Pruitt, is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s view that carbon dioxide is changing the atmosphere but “our ability to predict that effect is very limited.” Tillerson says he knows the change is happening; he’s just not clear on the consequences or how bad they’ll be.
Meanwhile, and as The Washington Post’s Brady Dennis recently chronicled, two of the U.S.’s top Earth-science agencies, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, routinely release new analyses and products that document just how warm the planet is, just how much of its ice is melting, just how rapidly its seas are rising, and more.
They, like the federal climate change science program, show little sign of being censored or suppressed.
Indeed, earlier this month, NOAA released a report finding that the Arctic is now warmer than it has been in at least a millennium and a half. The document’s release was embraced by none other than Trump appointee and acting NOAA administrator Tim Gallaudet, who said that the document’s findings “directly relate to the priorities of this administration” — namely, national security goals in the fast-changing Arctic region.
Even at the EPA — which took down a scientifically accurate Web page about climate change, and where rolling back the Obama administration’s climate change policies is a top priority — the planet’s warming is accepted as a premise, at least in technical documents.
The draft Regulatory Impact Analysis that the agency released to analyze the costs and benefits of rolling back President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan greatly downgraded government estimates of the economic cost of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — but it still said each ton has a cost.
That, itself, is tantamount to accepting that global warming is real and has at least some impact on the world.
At times, it isn’t even clear if top administration officials are actually reflecting the President’s own views on climate change. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said earlier this year that Trump “believes the climate is changing, and he believes pollutants are part of that equation.”
There are at least two questions we should ask about this not-very-consistent approach to climate change in the Trump administration: Why it exists, and how to evaluate its consequences.
As Dennis’s story noted, climate science seems to be far less fettered at science focused agencies than at regulatory agencies — with NASA and NOAA a prime example of the former and the EPA of the latter. At the same time, NASA and NOAA do not yet have permanent administrators in place.
Yet during the administration of George W. Bush — which, like the Trump administration, tried to slow-pedal action on climate change — scientists at NASA and NOAA complained of having their work or ability to communicate with the media interfered with, and scientific documents were edited by political actors.
The difference, really, seems to be that the more tightly organized Bush administration didn’t much appreciate having the president’s message contradicted and potentially undermined by federal scientists. Whereas in the thinly staffed and often chaotic Trump administration, such a push toward message consistency has really never taken hold.
On the one hand, letting scientists and climate science doubters alike say what they think, and then wrestling with the contradictions, seems in many ways consistent with a nation that celebrates free speech but also pays ample tax dollars to employ an army of government scientific experts.
It’s also potentially consistent with a principle that American scientists themselves have stood up for throughout their many decades of marriage to the federal government: Scientists tell it like it is, and then policymakers get to decide what to do about that.
Thus, the Trump administration can go about withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, and rolling back the Clean Power Plan (these are policy decisions), or even choosing to defund some climate research — but it can’t tell its scientists what to say or think.
So far, so good — but at the same time, there’s that small but nagging matter of intellectual consistency.
After all, the experts do largely have one voice on climate change. The top analyses all do say it’s real, it’s happening, and moreover, the window is closing fast if you want to do anything about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/29/the-trump-administrations-position-on-climate-change-is-all-over-the-place/?utm_term=.d79597660052
-
Industry Seeks Presumptive BACT Guide in Bid to Extend EPA's NSR Relief
Dec 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves and Stuart Parker
Industry officials are stepping up their push for EPA to grant additional relief from new source review (NSR) permitting requirements, including providing presumptive best available control technology (BACT) guidance, in the wake of the agency's new policy deferring to facility operators to determine whether they are subject to NSR.
Industry officials say that providing guidance on presumptive BACT for specific sectors would help speed permitting, a top goal of the Trump administration, by avoiding the lengthy five-step process that states must now follow to determine what emissions control technologies facilities that are subject to NSR must install.
They also say it is generally consistent with Administrator Scott Pruitt's Dec. 7 policy memo that the agency will now defer to companies to assess whether their potential to emit (PTE) subjects them to NSR, which the agency said wold ensure that regulators would not “second guess” a company's emissions projections.
“If you follow the logic of this [PTE] guidance on emissions increase, you could see EPA now turning around and saying EPA will no longer second-guess states on BACT as long as they used the correct process,” one industry source says. “I can guarantee you lawyers like us will be telling EPA this.”
Another industry source says that like Pruitt's PTE memo, crafting presumptive BACT and other policy changes can be completed by guidance that does not require notice-and-comment rulemaking and can be quickly adopted and implemented. "There is a lot that he can do by memos," the source says, noting that many EPA policies stem from guidance, or longstanding practice in enforcement, rather than rules.
For example, the source suggests the agency could also seek to revise NSR modeling without being subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. In addition, crafting memos or guidance makes judicial review harder for opponents because EPA can deny it is final agency action subject to review and it is also faster, the source adds.
But environmentalists are nevertheless pledging to aggressively challenge Pruitt's memo, as well any additional NSR relief the agency seeks to provide. Any effort to have EPA no longer “second guess” state BACT reviews would be considered “a reckless and illegal demand that industry would regret,” one source says.
The memo is likely to upend the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) defense of a lawsuit, Detroit Edison Energy (DTE) v. EPA, where government lawyers had successfully argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that regulators can use their own projections of a facility's PTE to trigger NSR permitting requirements.
The suit is now slated to return to federal district court in Michigan after the Supreme Court -- just days after Pruitt signed the memo -- let stand a 6th Circuit ruling upholding EPA's prior position.
Environmentalist intervenors in the case have said they intend to preserve the prior administration's NSR position at the lower court.
And the first industry source expects that environmental groups “are not going to agree with this shift, obviously, and they have got some of their own cases cooking along, and this may encourage them to file more” citizen NSR enforcement cases.
Seize The Opportunity
Despite the legal challenges, industry sources say they intend to seize the deregulatory opportunity that the Trump administration is providing to extend permitting reforms to the BACT reviews that states conduct after a new or modified source is found to be subject to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), which applies to new or modified facilities in areas that attain air quality standards.
While NSR permits are subject to a stricter lowest achievable emissions rate review for facilities built in areas out of attainment with air quality standards, PSD requires less-stringent BACT determinations in attainment areas.
BACT requires a five-step, top-down review to determine what kind of emissions controls a facility needing a PSD permit must install, and the adequacy of those determinations are also highly litigated. The five steps require permitters to identify all control technologies; eliminate technically infeasible options; rank remaining control technologies by effectiveness; evaluate the most effective technology; and select that as BACT. Permit writers are supposed to do so on a national basis, and EPA provides a clearinghouse for comparison purposes, so that if a technology is required at one facility, it must be considered BACT at the next unless there is a site-specific reason not to.
The first industry source says the BACT issue is closely related to the NSR applicability question because enforcers can argue that a facility that triggered NSR did not get an NSR permit, and also pursue the separate charge that a facility failed to go through BACT to control the excess emissions.
And Rich Alonso, a former EPA enforcement attorney now representing industry clients at Sidley Austin, told Inside EPA earlier this year that developing presumptive BACT could help limit NSR litigation since the current case-by-case BACT is “subjective” and is the driver for most NSR litigation.
While EPA has developed BACT guidance for specific pollutants, he wants the agency to develop presumptive controls for specific sectors. “And then, if there is an unusual circumstance, they can still go through BACT on case-by-case” if necessary. He says the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has developed a similar presumptive BACT approach that could serve as a model.
He says he is also urging EPA to allow facilities to begin construction during any permit appeal. This is because permit appeals can drag on for years and 99 percent of the time “the end result is that the permit is the same.”
Alonso also pointed to EPA air chief William Wehrum's recent confirmation as good news for NSR reform. He is already signaling that NSR reform will be a top priority though is vowing a piecemeal approach rather than a broad package. Another industry source describes this approach as getting “singles and doubles” rather than a home run, after Wehrum's efforts to win broad NSR reforms during the George W. Bush administration were largely rejected by the courts.
Statutory Responsibility
But environmentalists say that any EPA effort to undermine BACT reviews will draw aggressive challenges, because the agency has a responsibility to ensure consistent application of BACT in attainment areas across the country.
“BACT cannot mean different things in different states and jurisdictions. It is best available control technology, and there is a single statutory definition and it is EPA's job to uphold the 'best available' meaning in BACT,” one environmentalist says.
As a result, environmentalists say they will file citizen suits against permits that sidestep the requirements.
“Industry is sticking its hand into a bee's nest and thinking it will come out with nothing but honey -- it's not going to work like that,” the source says.
Further, the source notes the Pruitt NSR applicability memo concerns enforcement discretion. But for BACT, industry is talking about an EPA “abdication of permit reviews,” which is “quite a different matter from enforcement discretion” and subject to a different legal standard under the agency's ongoing permit review responsibilities.
The Pruitt memo, “as wrongheaded as it was, was at least nationally consistent. What industry is talking about here is the possibility for 50-plus patchwork approaches to BACT, and with EPA abdicating its responsibility to ensure consistency with the legal standard of BACT.
“So yes, I can guarantee you that public health groups and citizens would oppose what industry is requesting and also will ensure that the law were upheld in the face of EPA defying it.”
BACT reviews also must be put out for public comment, and if anyone opposes a final determination, then those can be challenged. If a state has a state implementation plan to issue its own BACT determinations, then a challenge would first go through a state administrative appeal process and then to a federal appeals court. If a state is delegated to carry out the EPA program, any appeal of BACT would go to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board.
A second environmentalist says it appears that the Pruitt memo “opens up potentially more than just the topic the memo seems to narrowly cover,” is “quite broad” on not second-guessing industry, and may be “where EPA is going on a lot of what are very technical decisions.”
And while many EPA permitting decisions are case by case, the agency historically brings its technical expertise to bear in all of them. “The danger to me . . . is the signal that it sends out to all permitting authorities and industry to go for it” without worrying about being caught by EPA.
The source agrees that an expansion to BACT is a concern but notes that the “plain language of the statute and federal rules trump any of these confusing guidance memos.” The source also promises continued vigilance and citizen enforcement.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-seeks-presumptive-bact-guide-bid-extend-epas-nsr-relief
-
Expect EPA Chief Scott Pruitt's Reckless Spending to Continue in 2018
Dec 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John O'Grady
In 2017, the Trump administration established dangerous new norms in environmental policy. For the coming year, it's become obvious what's "in" and what's "out."
Regarding EPA, and according to this White House, fossil fuel energy lobbyists are in, and federal scientists and engineers are out.
Permits for offshore oil and gas drilling and mineral extraction at our national monuments are in, and air pollution regulations and water contamination protocols are out. Scott Pruitt's climate denial and his refusal to release documents supporting his claims are in, while the federal “endangerment finding” that enabled President Obama’s climate actions including the Paris Agreement is out.
In just 10 months, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has devastated EPA by dismantling its science directives to protect public health and the environment. What will result from backing industry interests over defending public health for 300 million Americans? Only time will tell. Here is an inventory of the major investigations of Donald Trump’s EPA expected to come to fruition in 2018.
Administrator Scott Pruitt is one of several Trump cabinet members (including Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price), who were caught taking expensive private planes for government business on the public’s dime.
EPA’s Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Jr. is now investigating Pruitt's travel through Sept. 30, 2017, considering the "frequency, cost, and extent" and whether travel policies were followed to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. Pruitt used private and military jet travel instead of commercial airlines for EPA work on four occasions at a cost of nearly $60,000. He traveled 48 of his first 92 days as administrator — 43 of those days included stops in his home state of Oklahoma.
The second investigation questions Pruitt advocating lobbying. At a meeting with the National Mining Association in April, he exhorted mining association members to tell Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate deal.
Pruitt’s staff also pressed lawmakers and conservative groups to publicly criticize the climate agreement, increasing public pressure on the resident. Afterward, mining association executives voted to support the U.S. withdrawal.
These actions exemplify a potentially larger pattern of illegal activities by Pruitt and EPA staff as these directives from a cabinet member may violate anti-lobbying laws for government officials.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) provides legal opinions on anti-lobbying questions. But first, the EPA's inspector general must "develop a comprehensive factual record" for conducting the analysis. He has not forwarded its investigation’s findings to the GAO. Once it does, the GAO will complete its inquiry.
The GAO will also investigate an appearance of impropriety by Pruitt in a video sanctioned by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to promote weakening EPA’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule.
In this review to rescind or revise the Clean Water Rule, Pruitt essentially urged the public to comment in favor of repealing the rule. The video advises viewers “tell EPA to kill WOTUS.”
The GAO investigation will examine if Pruitt violated laws on the use of appropriated funds for lobbying, publicity and propaganda purposes and for violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act. Obviously, calling on the public to support a rule’s withdrawal does not appear fair, impartial or open-minded, and undermines the idea that public participation matters.
Yet another investigation will consider possible ethical violations from Pruitt's insistence that he did not use a personal email address for official EPA business and for speeches he gave to conservative organizations about environmental policy while he was Oklahoma attorney general.
He also ran afoul of professional responsibility in rules for Oklahoma Bar Association lawyers for possibly lying under oath and violation of ethical rules associated with the practice of law. Once the investigation is complete, the bar association’s Professional Responsibility Commission may take disciplinary action against him.
The complaint asserts that Pruitt violated Oklahoma's rules of professional conduct for attorneys when he testified during his confirmation hearing for EPA administrator that he did not use a personal “me.com” email address for official state business. Oklahoma public-records revealed that he received at least one email message at his “me.com” email address.
The GAO opened one more inquiry into whether EPA circumvented the Trump administration’s own ethics rules when hiring certain agency employees.
To fulfill his promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, Trump issued an executive order last January prohibiting executive branch employees from participating “in any particular matter” on which they had lobbied in the two years before their appointment.
In August, Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), asked GAO to investigate a violation of Trump’s lobbying rules. The senators alleged that EPA bypassed that order by hiring certain political appointees under a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act that authorizes the EPA to hire up to 30 people “without regard to civil service laws.”
The senators’ joint statement said, “The whole point of ethics laws is to give the American people confidence that the work of their government is being conducted fairly, honestly, and free from special interest sway. But when an agency can just ignore those rules — and congressional oversight — the result often leads to corruption and scandal.”
EPA’s inspector general has agreed to review whether Pruitt misused appropriated funds when he spent $25,000 installing a secure, soundproof communications booth in his office. According to a government contracting database, Pruitt also paid $7,978 more to remove closed-circuit television equipment to accommodate the booth in an area off his third-floor office. Pruitt has come under fire for building the booth when a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility that guards against electronic surveillance and suppresses data leakage of sensitive information is already available to him at EPA headquarters.
On Dec 18, Sen. Carper sent a letter to EPA’s inspector general asking to expand his current audit of Pruitt’s travel a third time to include the administrator’s recent four-day junket to Morocco to increase exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas. It's suspicious since natural gas exports do not fall within the EPA’s mission. Flying first class, the trip cost taxpayers $40,000.
Given the scope and seriousness of the allegations, we think the inspector general will likely grant this request. Carper added, “I presume Mr. Pruitt is aware his agency’s inspector general is conducting an investigation into his questionable travel, which makes his decision to take this trip an odd choice at best.”
So, inspector general investigations are in, while Pruitt has been at EPA’s helm for only 10 months. And, they are expected to provide lots of drama in 2018.
John O’Grady is President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National Council of EPA Locals #238 representing over 8,000 bargaining unit employees at the U.S. EPA nationwide.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/366887-expect-epa-chief-scott-pruitts-reckless-spending-to-continue-in
-
Is Climate Change Starting to Hurt Some Coastal Home Values?
Jan 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle
Ross Hancock sold his four-bedroom house in Coral Gables, a city of pastel luxury at the edge of Miami, because he was worried that sea-level rise would eventually hurt his property's value. He and his wife, Darlene, downsized to a small condo on Biscayne Bay, perched atop one of the highest coral ridges in the area. There, he presumed, they would be safer.
Then Hurricane Irma hit.The September storm pushed water onshore with such force that it penetrated the seams of Hancock's building, defeating stormproof windows and damaging a third of the units. It knocked out the elevators, ruined the generator, and flooded the parking lot. Months later the park next door remains strewn with mangled yachts hurled from from the ocean.
Hancock's unit was spared, but he's facing a potential $60,000 bill from the condo association for his share of what insurance won't cover. Now, four years after leaving Coral Gables, he and his wife want to move again—this time, out of Florida. But more than two months after listing their property, they haven't found a buyer.
“It's not the greatest time to be showing it,” Hancock said, noting the damage to the building. Still, Irma convinced him that it doesn't make sense to wait. “At some point, we won't be able to sell.”
Decisions by people such as Hancock to sell their homes demonstrate that one of the great mysteries of climate change isn't scientific but psychological: When will the growing risks associated with rising seas and more severe storms begin to affect home values in otherwise desirable coastal markets?
Nowhere is that question more pressing than South Florida, which has some of the country's priciest properties—and some of the most vulnerable. A state built on real estate speculation, whose chief attribute was proximity to the water, now faces a whole new problem: There's not enough land, high enough above the water, for its residents to pull back from the rising seas.
By the end of the century, database company Zillow Group estimates, almost a half-million Miami homes could be—literally—underwater. That's more than anywhere else in the country.
In a working paper posted this month on Social Science Research Network, an online repository of academic research, professors from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Pennsylvania State University found that homes exposed to sea-level rise sell at a 7 percent discount compared with equivalent but unexposed properties.
“This discount has grown over time,” the authors wrote, “and is driven by sophisticated buyers and communities worried about global warming.” Properties along both coasts of Florida are at risk of sea-level rise, mapping in the paper shows.
Marla Martin, a spokeswoman for Florida Realtors, which represents the state's real estate agents, wasn't available to comment.
Irma smashed through the Caribbean as a Category 5 hurricane, then weakened before hitting Florida on Sept. 10. With winds topping 100 miles per hour, the storm caused billions of dollars of damage to homes, utilities, and citrus crops.
It's too soon to know how Irma affected the market, says Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow. But there's anecdotal evidence that it's taking a toll on property values: A company that assesses flood risks is booming, and workshops for municipal leaders to deal with the impact are drawing sold-out crowds.
Before the storm, Bloomberg reported about the concerns of homeowners, local officials, business executives, and housing lenders that South Florida's real estate downturn could be closer than many people realize.
This month we checked in with some of the people featured in that story, to find out how Irma affected them—and what their experiences augur for the future of the real estate market in Florida and other coastal areas.
Albert Slap
One of those people is Albert Slap, who would rather not be profiting from other people's misfortune. But his business, determining the flood risk facing specific homes around South Florida, has never been better. And he thanks Irma.
“It changed everything for us,” Slap, owner of Coastal Risk Consulting, said by phone. “As a flood assessment company, it's kind of on fire for us now.”
What's good for Slap isn't necessarily good for the region's property values. His customers include insurance companies worried that federal flood maps underestimate risk, as well as potential homebuyers trying to find out if they're about to buy a house that will be regularly inundated by South Florida's increasingly troublesome tidal flooding.
The region's frothy home values, Slap said, have persisted because of what he calls “a dirty little secret” among real estate agents, who are aware of the flood risks but face no requirement to disclose them to buyers.
Slap said the increase in his business shows that buyers are starting to become more aware of the problem—and as that happens, housing values will fall.
And he said it's only a matter of time before real estate agents are required by law to reveal those flood risks, noting that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to that effect in 2017. The Senate has yet to take it up.
The alternative is a housing market kept afloat by “systemic fraudulent nondisclosure,” Slap said. “Which is pretty much what we have now.”
Dan Kipnis
Irma left Dan Kipnis's Miami Beach house mostly untouched. “I lost three little stick palm trees,” Kipnis, chairman of Miami Beach's Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority, said by phone. “And one of my papayas fell over.”
But it's not hurricanes that have Kipnis worried about the local real estate market. Rather, it's the seemingly endless construction—elevating roads, installing new stormwater drains, and other projects—designed to lessen the impact of sea-level rise. And then there are the property taxes required to pay for all that work: Miami Beach's plans are set to cost as much as $500 million.
The noise and inconvenience of that work pushed Kipnis to try to sell his house. But he worries that the same things which make him want to leave are also scaring off buyers. After 18 months on the market, and despite dropping the price by more than one-third from $3.2 million, Kipnis still hasn't sold his home.
“I had a couple look at it yesterday,” Kipnis said. “They said, ‘This is terrific.’” But when the real estate agent mentioned the roadwork, Kipnis said, the couple lost their nerve. “They're not going to live here while we spend two years raising the streets.”
Jim Cason
When Jim Cason first became mayor of Coral Gables in 2011, he sometimes felt like a lonely voice, warning about sea-level rise and what it could mean for South Florida's real estate market. He argued for then-radical ideas, such as the need for cities to set aside money now to pay for the eventual demolition of homes inundated with water and then abandoned.
Those concerns no longer make him an outlier. Cason, who left office in May, attended a regular gathering of South Florida elected officials in Fort Lauderdale in December to talk about the effects of climate change.
Unlike previous years, he said, the event this time was “totally sold-out.”
He said mayors and city managers shared their anxiety about what rising seas mean for their cities’ property values. Those worries range from the mundane—finding more money to update infrastructure damaged by storms—to the existential: How long will banks keep issuing 30-year mortgages?
“The hurricane certainly added to that concern,” Cason said by phone during a break. “That's why so many people are at this conference. They just saw it.”
Cason said rising property taxes driven by infrastructure costs, combined with ever-higher premiums for flood insurance, would “make it much more expensive for people to live along the water.”
He sounded more philosophical than concerned about that possibility. “Maybe,” he said, “a lot of them shouldn't be living along the water.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125844420&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125844420&jd=125844420
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested