Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/17/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Miscellaneous Tariff Bill
Jan 16, 2018 | World Trade Online
The House on Tuesday passed the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill by a 402-0 vote, leaving its fate up to the Senate. The House voted under suspension of the rules to pass the bill, which would cut tariffs on nearly 1,700 products not made or found in the U.S... -
(ACC Mentioned) Polyone Corp (NYSE:POL) Institutional Investor Sentiment Is 0.99
Jan 16, 2018 | Weekly Register
By Richard Conner
Polyone Corp (NYSE:POL) institutional sentiment increased to 0.99 in 2017 Q3. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Eases Path for New Chemicals, Raising Fears of Health Hazards
Jan 17, 2018 | NBC News
By Suzy Khimm
The Environmental Protection Agency is shifting course under the Trump administration on how it assesses new chemicals for health and environmental hazards, streamlining a safety review process that industry leaders say is too slow and cumbersome. -
Industry Readies Options for EPA to Speed TSCA New Chemical Reviews
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Industry attorneys are backing EPA plans to streamline its process for reviewing new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but they are crafting comments that will offer additional options, including improved pre-submission consultations... -
The Growing Crisis over PFCs: a Clear Example of the Need for EPA’s IRIS Program
Jan 16, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
As I blogged about earlier, the FY2018 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies bill posted in November by the Senate Appropriations committee majority would eliminate EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. -
States Urge Trump Administration to Ensure Consistent Response on PFAS
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State regulators are asking EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to work with states and the Defense Department to address a number of concerns related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water... -
EU Chemicals Agency Adds Seven Substances to High Concern List
Jan 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Specialist manufacturers of batteries and laboratory chemicals could be among the companies affected by a European Chemicals Agency decision to list seven hazardous chemicals as “substances of very high concern” under the European Union's REACH regulation. -
Switzerland and Echa Agree Limited Technical Cooperation on REACH, CLP
Jan 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Echa's Management Board has approved limited technical/scientific cooperation between the agency and the Swiss Notification Authority for Chemicals in the areas of REACH and CLP. -
Little Drilling Expected Before 2030; Murkowski Seeks New Bill
Jan 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The director of the International Energy Agency doesn't think the market is good right now for oil exploration in the Alaskan Arctic. -
How a Nafta Breakdown Could Blow Back Into Shale Patch
Jan 16, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Liam Denning
Long before the Trump Administration called for "energy dominance", the pre-election Trump campaign derided the North American Free Trade Agreement. There's a brewing clash between these two populist positions. -
Pipeline Fees Coming as Texas Seeks More Inspection Funding
Jan 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Texas pipeline companies aren't opposed to a new round of regulatory and safety fees coming later this year as regulators look to retain inspectors. -
Early Strength of U.S. Land Permitting Potentially a Tell-Tale Sign of Higher Rig Count
Jan 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
With West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices charging toward $70/bbl, concerns are overblown that the U.S. rig count will slow, according to Evercore ISI. -
(ACC Mentioned) Q&A: Chemical Shippers Seek More Rail Options
Jan 12, 2018 | Argus Rail Business
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has been one of the leading voices in calling for enhanced regulatory remedies to increase competition between rail carriers, including through reciprocal switching. -
CSX Still Winning Back Business After Service Disruptions
Jan 16, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Paul Ziobro
CSX Corp. CSX -1.89% still has work to do to win back shippers following last year’s service disruptions that occurred after a massive overhaul of the railroad network under its prior chief executive. -
Infrastructure Group Says Bipartisan Deal on Permit Streamlining Possible
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
A coalition of labor, gas, manufacturing and other business organizations hopes the potential jobs boost from President Donald Trump's pending infrastructure initiative could be enough to win Democratic votes for an infrastructure package... -
Business Lobby to Call for Gas Tax Hike
Jan 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Camille von Kaenel
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will call on the White House and Congress to increase the gas tax to 25 cents a gallon over the next five years to help fund improvements to roads and bridges. -
Carbon Emissions Reporting Rollback in Tax Extender Splits Alliance
Jan 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A GOP-led effort to offer simpler greenhouse gas emissions reporting for oil and gas operations that capture and store carbon dioxide—part of a Senate tax extenders package—is testing a bipartisan coalition backing more generous tax credits. -
Court Advances Environmentalists' Clean Air Act Suit
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
A federal district court in Texas has rejected a refiners' motion to dismiss environmentalists' Clean Air Act citizen suit alleging air emissions in excess of permitted limits, clearing the way for a trial. -
FEATURE-2018 Could See Wave of West Coast Climate Pollution Pricing
Jan 17, 2018 | Reuters
By Gregory Scruggs
If elected officials get their way, the entire West Coast of North America could be putting a price on pollution by the end of this year.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Miscellaneous Tariff Bill
Jan 16, 2018 | World Trade Online
Editor's note: This story was updated after initial publication to reflect the passage of the bill.
The House on Tuesday passed the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill by a 402-0 vote, leaving its fate up to the Senate. The House voted under suspension of the rules to pass the bill, which would cut tariffs on nearly 1,700 products not made or found in the U.S. that are used as inputs in goods made in the U.S...
...The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers are urging the House to quickly pass the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill when it comes to a vote this evening. The Chamber of Commerce sent out a “ key vote alert ” on Tuesday afternoon calling on House members...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://insidetrade.com/trade/house-passes-miscellaneous-tariff-bill
-
(ACC Mentioned) Polyone Corp (NYSE:POL) Institutional Investor Sentiment Is 0.99
Jan 16, 2018 | Weekly Register
By Richard Conner
Polyone Corp (NYSE:POL) institutional sentiment increased to 0.99 in 2017 Q3. Its up 0.06, from 0.93 in 2017Q2. The ratio has increased, as 99 active investment managers increased and started new positions, while 100 reduced and sold stock positions in Polyone Corp. The active investment managers in our partner’s database reported: 72.65 million shares, down from 73.89 million shares in 2017Q2. Also, the number of active investment managers holding Polyone Corp in their top 10 positions was flat from 1 to 1 for the same number . Sold All: 26 Reduced: 74 Increased: 74 New Position: 25.
PolyOne Corporation provides specialized polymer materials, services and solutions in the United States and internationally. The company has market cap of $3.69 billion. The Company’s Color, Additives, and Inks segment offers specialized color and additive concentrates in solid and liquid form for thermoplastics; dispersions for thermosets; and specialty inks, plastisols, and vinyl slush molding solutions. It currently has negative earnings. The companyÂ’s Specialty Engineered Materials segment provides specialty polymer formulations, services, and solutions for designers, assemblers, and processors of thermoplastic materials; and long glass and carbon fiber technology, and thermoset and thermoplastic composites.
The stock decreased 1.25% or $0.58 during the last trading session, reaching $45.65. About 299,753 shares traded. PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) has risen 5.26% since January 16, 2017 and is uptrending. It has underperformed by 11.44% the S&P500.
Analysts await PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) to report earnings on January, 26. They expect $0.39 earnings per share, up 2.63 % or $0.01 from last year’s $0.38 per share. POL’s profit will be $31.52 million for 29.26 P/E if the $0.39 EPS becomes a reality. After $0.58 actual earnings per share reported by PolyOne Corporation for the previous quarter, Wall Street now forecasts -32.76 % negative EPS growth.
Channing Capital Management Llc holds 3.05% of its portfolio in PolyOne Corporation for 2.02 million shares. Private Harbour Investment Management & Counsel Llc owns 50,465 shares or 1.69% of their US portfolio. Moreover, Stanley has 1.25% invested in the company for 116,829 shares. The Florida-based Deprince Race & Zollo Inc has invested 1.04% in the stock. Dalton Greiner Hartman Maher & Co, a New York-based fund reported 433,060 shares.#img1#
PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) Ratings Coverage
Ratings analysis reveals 67% of Polyone Corporation’s analysts are positive. Out of 9 Wall Street analysts rating Polyone Corporation, 6 give it “Buy”, 0 “Sell” rating, while 3 recommend “Hold”. The lowest target is $31 while the high is $49.0. The stock’s average target of $42.38 is -7.16% below today’s ($45.65) share price. POL was included in 23 notes of analysts from July 28, 2015. Robert W. Baird maintained PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) on Tuesday, October 10 with “Buy” rating. KeyBanc Capital Markets maintained the shares of POL in report on Thursday, October 26 with “Overweight” rating. Oppenheimer initiated PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) on Wednesday, August 16 with “Buy” rating. Jefferies maintained the stock with “Hold” rating in Thursday, June 15 report. The stock of PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) has “Hold” rating given on Friday, September 15 by Jefferies. The stock has “Hold” rating by Jefferies on Friday, August 4. The firm has “Hold” rating by Jefferies given on Wednesday, October 25. The stock of PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) has “Buy” rating given on Monday, April 18 by Seaport Global. On Friday, April 7 the stock rating was maintained by Jefferies with “Hold”. The firm earned “Buy” rating on Monday, August 24 by Robert W. Baird.
More important recent PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) news were published by: Prnewswire.com which released: “PolyOne Corporation To Host Investor Day” on January 11, 2018, also Twst.com published article titled: “PolyOne Corporation: PolyOne To Hold Fourth Quarter 2017 Conference Call”, Prnewswire.com published: “PolyOne Achieves Responsible Care® Certification by American Chemistry Council” on January 04, 2018. More interesting news about PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) was released by: Prnewswire.com and their article: “PolyOne Expands Specialty Color and Additives Expertise with Acquisition of …” with publication date: January 02, 2018.
http://weeklyregister.com/polyone-corp-nysepol-institutional-investor-sentiment-is-0-99/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Eases Path for New Chemicals, Raising Fears of Health Hazards
Jan 17, 2018 | NBC News
By Suzy Khimm
The Environmental Protection Agency is shifting course under the Trump administration on how it assesses new chemicals for health and environmental hazards, streamlining a safety review process that industry leaders say is too slow and cumbersome.
But some former EPA officials, as well as experts and advocates, say the agency is skipping vital steps that protect the public from hazardous chemicals that consumers have never used before, undermining new laws and regulations that Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2016.
According to these critics, that could mean that manufacturers might get approval to introduce a new chemical for one purpose, without getting a thorough, timely review of the chemical’s safety if it is later used for a different purpose. Asbestos, for example, was commonly used in building insulation before the EPA cracked down on its use, but the carcinogenic chemical is still found in brake pads for automobiles — posing hazards for garage mechanics — and is widely used to manufacture chlorine.
In recent months, the EPA has quietly overhauled its process for determining whether new chemicals — used in everything from household cleaners and industrial manufacturing to children’s toys — pose a serious risk to human health or the environment. Among other changes, the agency will no longer require that manufacturers who want to produce new, potentially hazardous chemicals sign legal agreements that restrict their use under certain conditions.
Such agreements, known as consent orders, will still be required if the EPA believes that the manufacturer’s intended use for a new chemical poses a risk to the public health and the environment. But the agency won’t require consent orders when it believes there are risks associated with “reasonably foreseen” uses of the new chemical — ones that go beyond what a manufacturer says it’s intending to do, but which the agency believes are reasonable to anticipate in the future.
Instead the EPA will rely on a broader measure, known as significant new-use rules, to regulate chemicals that are likely to pose a risk if they're used for a different purpose. The agency typically has to issue these rules whenever they want to restrict the broad use of potentially hazardous chemicals, since consent orders apply only to a single manufacturer.
Eliminating consent orders in these cases would be “more efficient,” said Jeff Morris, director of the EPA’s toxics program. He laid out the agency’s shift to significant new use rules at a public meeting in early December: “It’s our belief that they could be equally protective but eliminate this one step.”
Chemical industry lobbyists had pushed for the change, arguing that the EPA’s rising use of consent orders was unwarranted. Chemical manufacturers “are burdened by the delay of waiting for EPA to draft the orders, negotiating them with EPA, and then waiting for EPA to issue the orders,” the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s largest trade association, told the agency days before President Donald Trump took office.
But consumer advocates, along with some former agency officials and research experts, believe that EPA’s moves are sabotaging a safety review process that Congress had taken great pains to bolster. Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, points out that the 2016 law requires the EPA to assess the broad use of chemicals because manufacturers frequently find different uses for hazardous substances over time, as in the use of asbestos.
“EPA is explicitly disavowing and downplaying a tool that’s really been a cornerstone of new chemical regulation,” said Bob Sussman, a former EPA attorney under Obama and counsel for the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, which represents environmental and public health advocates. “We believe EPA is taking a big step backward in the protection of health and the environment without an offsetting benefit.”
'Playing a dangerous game'
Under EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s leadership, the agency has taken major industry-friendly steps to loosen its regulation of legacy chemicals. Last year, the EPA delayed bans on chemicals already in widespread use, including a lethal substance in paint strippers and a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children.
But the agency is also overhauling its process of reviewing new, unproven chemicals that have yet to hit the marketplace. The changes come in the wake of intense lobbying by the chemical industry, which complained that the EPA was taking too long to clear innovative new products for commercial use that the industry considered safe.
"We were very concerned as an industry — that was one of our top priorities when I talked to the administration," said Robert Helminiak, a lobbyist for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, who met with Pruitt last year.
When the Trump administration took office, the EPA was facing a serious backlog of new chemicals awaiting safety reviews. About 600 cases had piled up after Congress approved the sweeping reforms to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which passed in June 2016 after decades of deliberation and was called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the Democratic senator from New Jersey.
For the first time, the EPA under the act was required to make an explicit determination that a new chemical was safe before it could be sold to consumers, using stricter criteria to evaluate their health and environmental risks. The new law also required the EPA to evaluate the risks of chemicals already in commercial use, by specific deadlines.
At the urging of industry, Pruitt promised to expedite the post-Lautenberg review process for new chemicals “to make the process faster and more efficient, while ensuring chemical safety." With great fanfare, he announced the EPA had cleared its backlog in August and unveiled its early reforms to the safety review process.
But some public-health experts and former officials say that the EPA's efforts to streamline the program are undermining its newly expanded authority to require testing when it believes there is insufficient data, or when future uses may pose a risk.
“What I’m observing is an effort by the agency and also some in the industry to turn back the clock and behave as though the Lautenberg Act was never passed in the first place,” said Lynn Goldman, dean of George Washington University’s school of public health and a former EPA official under Clinton. “The agency has been granted more authority to do testing, then it put hands in its pockets and said it doesn’t want to use this authority.”
Critics say there’s a big difference between the consent orders they want the EPA to issue and the agency’s proposed alternative. Consent orders often include mandatory testing of new chemicals for potential health and environmental hazards. By contrast, significant new-use rules typically don’t require testing, though they can recommend that it should happen in the future if a manufacturer wants to use a restricted chemical.
At that point, however, the harm may have already been done, says Veena Singla, an environmental health researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. “Chemicals do end up being used for many different applications than what the manufacturer originally thought or intended,” she said. “After the fact, we’ve seen what the problem is: The chemical is out there.”
The Trump administration says that its safety reviews will be just as robust under its changes to the program. If a manufacturer wants to use a chemical for a new purpose that might be risky — say, by putting the substance in water — it’s still legally required to seek the EPA’s approval if there are significant new-use restrictions in place. The EPA can then mandate more testing at that point, said Morris: “The end result is that there would be the same amount of testing.”
But public-health advocates say there’s no guarantee that the EPA will require the same testing further down the line, arguing that consent orders provide far more assurance that the agency is properly scrutinizing toxic substances. They now fear that the EPA will go even further to relax the law: The agency is currently deciding whether it will allow manufacturers to commercialize new chemicals while it is still hammering out the rules restricting future, reasonably foreseen uses — something that industry groups are currently pushing for.
If the EPA lets these chemicals on the marketplace early, then it will be “blatantly violating the law” that Congress passed to tighten these safety reviews, said Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who co-authored the Lautenberg Act and help push it into law after Lautenberg’s death in 2013.
The new law requires the EPA “to review the safety of all uses of a new, and potentially dangerous, chemical before allowing it to be sold to consumers, not just selective uses,” said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. If the agency allows a chemical to be sold before putting all its restrictions into place, that “contradicts the spirit and letter of the law,” he added.
“This may please Pruitt’s corporate allies, but it is playing a dangerous game, with the safety of millions of Americans at stake,” Udall said.
‘Regrettable substitutions’
Consumer advocates say that it’s critical for the EPA to be aggressive about putting the 2016 law into effect, given the agency's past failures to protect the public from toxic chemicals.
Older flame retardants linked to cancer were phased out in the 1970s, only to be replaced by new flame retardants that were also linked to cancer, hormone disruption and development problems, despite passing the EPA’s safety review process.
Other “regrettable substitutions” include BPA, which was intended to be a safe replacement for bisphenol-S; and GenX, a substitute for a carcinogenic substance used to make Teflon, only to be later linked to cancer as well. Right before Trump took office, the federal government agreed to pay more than $2 billion to veterans who developed leukemia, liver cancer and Parkinson’s disease after exposure to GenX-contaminated water at a North Carolina military base.
Such horror stories helped build broad bipartisan support for the 2016 overhaul, which Congress passed on a nearly unanimous vote. Under the old regime, the EPA didn’t have to sign off on new chemicals if it concluded that they were likely to be safe. If the manufacturer never heard anything from the agency within 90 days, it could go ahead and start making its new product. Under the new law, the EPA has to make an affirmative decision that a new chemical is safe before it can be commercialized — the crux of its new safety review process.
Getting to market sooner
The chemical industry, however, insists that the 2016 overhaul was never intended to make radical reforms across the board. The new law “really doesn’t do very much for new chemicals — the process was the part of TSCA that was really working pretty well,” Helminiak said.
Before the EPA had unveiled its Trump-era changes, industry groups argued that the agency was taking a needlessly draconian approach toward new chemicals reviews, requiring consent orders where none were necessary. When a manufacturer wants the EPA to approve a new chemical, it describes its intended use for the substance. So the EPA “accomplishes nothing useful” by subjecting them to consent orders for other purposes they have no intention of pursuing, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said in January. Instead, it would simply burden manufacturers with onerous testing requirements and other conditions that make it harder for them to sell innovative new products, industry groups said.
The EPA’s new approach is likely to reduce the testing that manufacturers who first bring these new chemicals to market are required to do. Using significant new-use rules (SNURs) “reduces the testing that the EPA is seeking to impose, because testing is rarely required in a SNUR,” said Richard Engler, a former EPA scientist who now works for Bergeson & Campbell, a law firm that represents chemical manufacturers. “If someone is of the view that every consent order should have testing in it, then yes, switching to SNURs is going to produce less data,” Engler said, though he believes EPA’s new approach will be just as protective.
But industry groups say the agency still hasn’t gone far enough to speed up the safety review process, warning that the latest reforms could bring their own delays.
Significant new-use rules can take far longer to finalize than consent orders, since they are regulations subject to a public notice and comment period. If the EPA determines that a new chemical is safe for its intended use, a manufacturer should be able to start making and selling that product immediately, without waiting for the EPA to finalize its new rules for separate, reasonably foreseeable uses, said the ACC’s Michael Walls: “There’s got to be a way to get to market earlier.”
Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund warns the EPA against giving the green light too early. Even if a company sticks to the use of a chemical that the agency has deemed safe, it can’t predict what other parties might do with it once it’s on the market, said Denison: “Companies say they can’t control how chemicals are being used.
”‘This EPA has worked very well with industry’
The EPA says that it’s still deliberating how long manufacturers will have to wait to bring their new chemicals to market. “This is an area that we are discussing,” Morris said in December.
Consumer advocates fear the EPA will ultimately heed industry's call. Under the new administration, industry heavyweights have been able to appeal directly to their former colleagues: Trump appointee Nancy Beck, a former senior executive at the ACC, is now a top deputy for the EPA’s chemical safety office. Trump’s nominee to lead the office, Michael Dourson, spent decades conducting industry-friendly research for the ACC and Dow Chemical, among others. He worked as a senior EPA adviser for months before withdrawing his nomination in December, under fire for his industry ties.
In recent months, the agency has worked closely with the ACC to revamp the paperwork that manufacturers must submit to get new chemicals approved. With the group's help, the EPA consulted three industry giants — Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, and the BASF Corporation — to revise its new chemical application process.
“It’s always important to get feedback from companies using the document,” David Tobias, an EPA scientist, said at the agency’s December meeting. “We’ve already made some changes based on this consultation.” (The EPA declined to specify the changes it's made and said it is working with “a variety of stakeholders” on the new chemicals program.)
Industry groups say they’re hardly getting a free pass: From their perspective, the EPA hasn’t hesitated to tighten its scrutiny of new chemicals, placing more stringent restrictions on their use and expanding the scope of their reviews. But they acknowledge that Pruitt’s EPA has been receptive to their concerns.
“This EPA has worked very well with industry,” Helminiak said. “They really have certainly listened to what the specialty chemical industry has to say.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epa-eases-path-new-chemicals-raising-fears-health-hazards-n838201
-
Industry Readies Options for EPA to Speed TSCA New Chemical Reviews
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Industry attorneys are backing EPA plans to streamline its process for reviewing new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but they are crafting comments that will offer additional options, including improved pre-submission consultations, new data guidelines and consideration of existing rules before regulating new chemicals and their uses.
“What industry wants is to be able to have an efficient, predictable process with predictable 90-day review times,” a chemical sector attorney tells Inside EPA.
EPA is seeking comment through Jan. 20 on a “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework,” which it is currently using but intends to further refine. Comments also will inform agency guidance on its new chemicals review process.
The framework seeks to implement new requirements under TSCA section 5, including that EPA make a definitive finding regarding the safety of each new chemical that it reviews and approves in a premanufacture notice (PMN).
The law also requires that EPA consider "reasonably foreseeable" uses -- such as uses of the chemical that are not included in a PMN application but could occur once a chemical is added to the TSCA inventory.
The new process is intended in part to prevent a future backlog of reviews, such as occurred after the new law was enacted in June 2016 without any transition period for the changes to the new chemicals program.
But environmental groups have already urged EPA to stop using the new framework until it weighs comments on the still-open docket, arguing that some current approaches violate both TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Of special concern to environmentalists is EPA's decision to drop the use of enforcement orders under section 5(e) as an interim step in regulating and approving some substances.
“Obviously, the possibility of a challenge is in our thinking but how you would file that challenge and what theory you would use are under consideration,” one environmentalist said last year.
But industry officials are pushing back on environmentalists' opposition and are expected to back EPA's decision to drop use of consent orders in upcoming comments.
Martha Marrapese of the law firm Wiley Rein LLP, who represents chemical sector clients, says companies seeking to commercialize a use that EPA considers safe should not have to wait for the agency to craft a consent order as an interim measure to issuing the broader significant new use rule (SNUR) restricting other uses.
“If that PMN submitter is only going to undertake a use or uses that meet the safety standard then it really is a waste of resources for EPA to execute that order,” she says. “Why should a company doing something appropriate and compliant with the law have to sign a consent order or wait several months to commercialize? There should be a better balance.”
Given recent changes to TSCA, Marrapese said that companies essentially have “to relearn how to file a PMN to meet the agencies' current information needs.” Citing the law's requirement that EPA consider "reasonably foreseeable" uses, Marrapese said companies should seek to include in their submissions any information on such possible uses to help the agency craft the scope of its review.
'Disincentive . . . To Better Chemistries'
Industry groups are also readying comments that will offer additional options that will outline how EPA may further improve its process to ensure reviews are completed within TSCA's 90-day time frame for new chemicals.
The industry attorney says comments will focus on expediting the current new chemicals review process by maximizing companies' meetings with the agency prior to PMN submissions, expanding the types of data EPA considers in reviews, and encouraging use of existing environmental or worker safety measures to reduce chemical risks and preclude the need for issuing SNURs, which have increased significantly under the new law.
An issue “the agency needs to think about is, how do we practically handle a world where almost every chemical now going forward is subject to a SNUR,” the source says, noting that SNURs may bring export restrictions or other regulatory hurdles that hamper use of a new chemical.
“It may mean that newer, cleaner chemicals don't get used, and companies stick with older approaches that are not regulated yet until they go through” review under section 6 of the revised TSCA, which pertains to existing chemicals and could take years. “It creates a disincentive to moving on to better chemistries."
The source argues that unlike EPA's reviews of existing chemicals, which must be completed within three years, the revised TSCA calls for new chemical reviews to be completed within 90 days, and says industry will offer suggestions to support a process suitable for that time-frame.
Among other things, industry comments will seek to improve the pre-submission consultations that EPA staff conducts with PMN-submitters. The comments will call for EPA to devote greater staff resources to those meetings and seek clarity on how the agency evaluates data that companies provide in those meetings.
“There will be a set of comments around how the pre-notice consultation system ought to work to make it more useful,” the source says.
Industry will also urge EPA to consider a broader array of data in new chemical reviews. The source says that EPA often gives short shrift to information that does not meet the agency's existing guidelines, and instead falls back on default assumptions that are generally more conservative.
For example, the source cited “robust summaries” of studies for which industry lacks access to the actual study. While European regulators consider such summaries of chemical risk studies, EPA toxics staff often does not. The source says industry will seek greater flexibility or guidance on how EPA may use data that does not meet its guidelines.
“What level of information does the agency need to get to 'not likely to present an unreasonable risk,'” the source added, describing the type of clarification companies will seek in forthcoming comments to the agency. “And how likely does it need to be that” EPA will find other foreseeable uses that raise a risk concern regulators will seek to address?
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-readies-options-epa-speed-tsca-new-chemical-reviews
-
The Growing Crisis over PFCs: a Clear Example of the Need for EPA’s IRIS Program
Jan 16, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
As I blogged about earlier, the FY2018 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies bill posted in November by the Senate Appropriations committee majority would eliminate EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. Located within the research arm of EPA, this non-regulatory program produces top-tier chemical hazard assessments used not only by multiple regulatory offices within EPA, but also by other federal agencies, regions, and states. IRIS chemical assessments, and the scientists that develop them, are relied on to support a broad range of core environmental decisions from setting clean-up levels at contaminated sites to evaluating health risks of chemicals in commerce and setting standards to ensure clean air and drinking water.
The widespread contamination of drinking water with perfluorinated compounds (PFCs)—chemicals that stick around in the environment for years and years—is a timely example of just how critical scientists within IRIS and related EPA research programs are. Across the country, governments are grappling with how to manage contamination from well-known toxic PFCs, like PFOA and PFOS, while simultaneously trying to understand potential health risks from a plethora of other less well-studied PFCs like GenX.
So what’s the job of EPA IRIS in a situation like this?
Along with other EPA scientists, IRIS staff are critical to developing robust assessments of PFC hazards; to coordinate with researchers at the National Toxicology Program and the National Center for Computational Toxicology on what additional data are needed and how best to get them; and importantly, to provide support to resource- and expertise-strapped state and local governments that desperately need scientific advice.
When persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals, some known to cause cancer, are showing up everywhere from polar bears in the Artic to drinking water in places including North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginiaand New York, our best scientists with the most relevant experience need to be deployed. This is no time to be talking of eliminating or cutting back IRIS—a program specifically designed to provide scientific support in critical public health situations. It’s worth noting that the IRIS program received high marks from National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2014 and a new NAS review is currently underway. If some have questions about the IRIS program and its value to the nation, why not wait until this review by the nation’s premier scientific body is completed before considering whether to retain, eliminate or make changes to the IRIS program?
What’s really going on here is that certain segments of industry and their allies in Congress and political appointees at EPA would rather IRIS not exist. They would rather shut it down in order to shut out strong independent science, leaving stranded the state and local governments doing their best to manage complicated public health situations like the one unfolding with PFCs.
Good government, scientific integrity and public health protection demand that EPA research programs like IRIS are maintained and strengthened, not dismantled by those with little interest in any of these objectives.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/01/16/the-growing-crisis-over-pfcs-a-clear-example-of-the-need-for-epas-iris-program/
-
States Urge Trump Administration to Ensure Consistent Response on PFAS
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State regulators are asking EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to work with states and the Defense Department to address a number of concerns related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, including ensuring that state and federal agencies avoid different risk values when addressing the chemicals.
“Knowledge is continually evolving on a wide range of PFAS issues, and this new knowledge needs to be transferred to the public and state regulators in a coherent and cogent manner,” the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) writes to EPA and CDC in a Jan. 12 letter. “Without this unified message and information, we’re concerned that several sets of differing risk numbers will be communicated from each agency, which will cause confusion, delay, or worse, no action at all.”
ASDWA asks the federal agencies to first form a working committee with states to address a list of recommendations covering all aspects of drinking water programs, including underground injection control, source water protection and laboratory analytical methods.
As a second urgent step, the states say the federal government needs to develop a unified message on PFAS.
The states' call appears likely to force EPA and CDC to take new steps to address the ubiquitous substances, though they may not involve new regulatory standards.
EPA in 2016 set health advisory levels for two PFAS compounds -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- at 70 parts per trillion, but the agency stopped short of setting an enforceable drinking water standard and provided limited guidance to states and public water systems on how to use the advisory levels.
Instead the agency is leaving it up to states to shoulder the responsibility for what may become a patchwork of standards even as public pressure to address the issue grows.
While Michigan has set an enforceable drinking water standard equal to the EPA health advisories, three other states -- Minnesota, New Jersey and Vermont -- have proposed or established PFAS standards or guidelines that are stricter than EPA's advisories.
“These differences among states demonstrate the difficulty in calculating health risk goals and determining risk reductions without federal standards, and are creating public confusion about what levels of PFAS are safe in drinking water,” ASDWA writes.
Susceptible Populations
In addition, EPA's FAQ document and health advisories for PFOA and PFOS are unclear on what actions public water systems should take to protect susceptible populations, “which is causing some states to recommend that water systems issue 'do not drink' public notices, while other states are interpreting EPA’s [advisories] to recommend that water systems provide public notice without any explicit actions,” the letter says.
Furthermore, when EPA's 2016 PFOA and PFOS health advisories were combined with the occurrence data from the Safe Drinking Water Act Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3), state drinking water program administrators had to determine how to handle all the information on their own, ASDWA says.
“The result has been some confusion on appropriate actions and a lack of consistent responses from state to state. As the number of PFAS compounds and PFAS contaminated sites continues to grow, so will the complexity and urgency of this problem,” the letter says.
EPA announced in December that it was launching a cross-agency workgroup to address PFAS, in an effort to help a growing number of states, localities and tribes that are struggling to deal with the chemicals in their jurisdictions.
But the state drinking water regulators are asking the agencies to take specific steps. These include directly engaging with states in the development of any new PFAS guidelines or health advisories and on developing guidance for public water systems “with clear recommendations to ensure more consistent response actions and protocols, explain the associated health risks with PFAS, and provide clear direction for consumers to reduce their risk from PFAS in drinking water and other identified pathways.”
They also ask EPA and CDC to conduct more health effects research and develop consistent risk levels for known and unknown PFAS; increase funding for non-targeted analyses of drinking water for PFAS and substitute compounds to ensure that any potential adverse impacts of new chemicals on groundwater and surface water are identified, and the associated health risks are understood; and develop rules or guidance to prevent PFAS from contaminating drinking water through other media, such as soil leaching or air emissions deposition.
Another recommendation is for the federal agencies to directly engage with stakeholders and industry to assess and address the universe of known and unknown PFAS compounds that are being used and evaluate fire-fighting foam alternatives.
They also ask EPA and CDC to “consider bias and error in analytical methods and develop additional analytical methods for drinking water and other media, develop standards for branched and linear isomers, coordinate with lab vendors, develop guidance for standardization of lab results for PFAS analytes (i.e., acid form and/or different salt forms), and increase lab programs and capacity beyond UCMR3.”
An EPA intra-office work group, comprised of representatives from the Office of Land & Emergency Management, Office of Research & Development and Region 3 representing regional labs, has been working on developing multi-lab validated methods for analyzing sample types other than drinking water and developing more validated test methods to address a wider array of PFAS.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-urge-trump-administration-ensure-consistent-response-pfas
-
EU Chemicals Agency Adds Seven Substances to High Concern List
Jan 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Specialist manufacturers of batteries and laboratory chemicals could be among the companies affected by a European Chemicals Agency decision to list seven hazardous chemicals as “substances of very high concern” under the European Union's REACH regulation.
The substances could be used in a range of industrial processes, including in glass and ceramics production, in electronics, as lubricants, and in laboratory chemicals.
The listing of the chemicals as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) triggers obligations for companies, including a requirement for importers of products containing one or more of the substances above 0.1 percent by weight to file a notification with the European Chemicals Agency. Those substances can also be prioritized for phaseout from use in the EU.
However, the seven substances newly designated as SVHCs are either registered in the EU under REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the restriction, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) by only a few companies, or are not registered, meaning use of the substances in the bloc is likely to be limited.
The new SVHCs that are manufactured are:
• cadmium carbonate;
• cadmium hydroxide;
• cadmium nitrate;
• 1,6,7,8,9,14,15,16,17,17,18,18- dodecachloropentacyclo[12.2.1.16,9.02,13.05,10]octadeca-7,15-diene;
• reaction products of 1,3,4-thiadiazolidine-2,5-dithione, formaldehyde and 4-heptylphenol, branched and linear (RP-HP).
Two other substances—benz[a]anthracene, and chrysene—are not manufactured but exist as impurities in other substances.The chemicals agency listed all seven substances Jan. 15.
Saft S.A., Flaurea Chemicals
Companies have filed four REACH registrations for cadmium carbonate, three for cadmium hydroxide, and two for cadmium nitrate. No companies have filed REACH registrations for the other two manufactured substances.
None of the seven substances are made or imported into the EU in large volumes.
Among the registrants for the substances, France's Saft S.A., which manufactures advanced batteries, holds REACH registrations for cadmium hydroxide and cadmium nitrate, while Belgium's Flaurea Chemicals, which makes chemicals for batteries and other products, holds registrations for cadmium carbonate and cadmium nitrate. Saft did not respond to a request for comment Jan. 16.
The European Chemicals Agency told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 16 that the listing of the cadmium compounds as SVHCs could help prevent their future use as “regrettable” substitutes for other hazardous substances being phased out in the EU.
The addition of the seven substances brings the number of SVHCs under REACH to 181. Those substances can be prioritized for phaseout from use in the EU unless specific continued-use authorizations are granted. So far, phaseout decisions have been made for 43 substances.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127000560&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127000560&jd=127000560
-
Switzerland and Echa Agree Limited Technical Cooperation on REACH, CLP
Jan 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Echa's Management Board has approved limited technical/scientific cooperation between the agency and the Swiss Notification Authority for Chemicals in the areas of REACH and CLP.
The December board meeting agreed that this should be formalised through an exchange of letters between the two organisations. Echa's then executive director Geert Dancet sent the agency's letter on 17 December.
The Swiss authority has been participating in Echa's work under the biocidal products Regulation (BPR) since early 2015. This was allowed by a mutual recognition agreement between the EU and Switzerland. During a visit to Echa in November of that year, the Swiss organisation expressed an interest in exploring other potential fields of collaboration.
Meanwhile, discussions have continued at a political level.
Limitations
The cooperation will be restricted to matters within Echa's remit of managing the implementation of the REACH and CLP Regulations.
And it will be more limited than the joint work done on the BPR. As the exchange of letters points out, the agreement "solely formalises scientific and technical contacts in a structured way, without opening any pathway to the participation of Switzerland in Echa's REACH or CLP-mandated work".
As a result Switzerland will, for example, be excluded from participating in Echa's scientific committees. And Swiss authorities will not participate as observers or in closed meetings with member states preparing regulatory decisions.
Both organisations have nominated a contact person to act as a focal point for the dialogue. Matters of mutual interest will be identified during twice yearly video conferences.
The Swiss authority has asked that the initial conference be held during the first quarter of 2018, "so that our experts can lay down the cooperation areas of mutual scientific or technical interest over the years to come".
https://chemicalwatch.com/63141/switzerland-and-echa-agree-limited-technical-cooperation-on-reach-clp
-
Little Drilling Expected Before 2030; Murkowski Seeks New Bill
Jan 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The director of the International Energy Agency doesn't think the market is good right now for oil exploration in the Alaskan Arctic.
Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling has been a goal of Alaska politicians for four decades. They finally got their wish last month when congressional Republicans voted to open ANWR's coastal plain as part of their sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code.
But IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol yesterday told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led by Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, that low prices, abundant shale oil in the Lower 48 and environmental concerns mean companies might be skeptical about investing in the refuge for the time being.
"With the current context it would be difficult to believe that there will be a substantial amount of oil production coming from that region before 2030, unless we see some surprises in the markets," Birol said in response to a question from Murkowski.
"Having said that," he said, "if significant resources and production come from that, this will be good news for the economy and jobs in Alaska."
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that opening the 1.57-million-acre region, also known as the 1002 area, to drilling would rake in a total of $2.2 billion for the federal and state governments over the next decade.
But Democrats and environmentalists say that estimate is far too generous. They point to the paltry results of the Bureau of Land Management's lease sale last month in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska — which produced seven bids totaling $1.1 million — as well as uncertain outlooks on the 1002 area from industry analysts (E&E Daily, Dec. 8, 2017).
Birol said the nearby Trans-Alaska pipeline could make the region attractive in the long term because it provides an easy, inexpensive way for producers to send their product to market.
Murkowski and others also hope ANWR development would, in turn, prop up the pipeline, which needs to maintain a minimum threshold to continue operating amid dropping supply from the Alaskan North Slope.
But, Birol added, liquefied natural gas might be a better bet for the Last Frontier. Demand is skyrocketing in Asia, and Alaska is well-positioned geographically to take advantage, despite its relative lack of LNG pipeline infrastructure.
"I see from an LNG point of view significant chances to provide for a gas-hungry region," he told the committee during a hearing on global energy markets.
Birol's assessment pleased ENR Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who has long sparred with Murkowski over ANWR drilling.
"I think the chair would note that I have suggested to her many times that that would be a good focus for Alaska — natural gas — as opposed to the more recent discussion on the ANWR," she said.
Another ANWR bill?
Murkowski, for her part, told reporters yesterday she wants to pursue another bill on ANWR to provide more environmental protections for the 1002 area.
The language advanced in the tax bill last month is relatively limited in scope because Republicans used a procedural process known as reconciliation, which allowed them to pass the overhaul with a simple majority in the Senate.
"Through the reconciliation process, you're very limited in terms of what you can put into that legislation," she said. "So there are other things we would like to provide by way of protections, whether environmental or just process."
It's unclear whether another ANWR bill would be advanced in a spending bill or on its own. And Democrats may be unwilling to support any legislation that eases the path for drilling in the region, even if it includes environmental safeguards.
"You can do anything through the appropriations process, but I do think that this is important that we have a process through the committee to take it up," Murkowski said. "There's no reason not to."
Shale boom, green energy
Birol made the trip from France, where IEA is based, to Capitol Hill yesterday to field questions on the intergovernmental agency's World Energy Outlook, which was released in November.
Among other projections, the report said the U.S. is set to lead the world in crude oil and gas production and will be the leading exporter of those fuels by the end of the next decade.
At the hearing, Birol highlighted what he said were major changes to international energy markets led by the shale revolution in the U.S. and a growing emphasis on green energy in China.
"Even the United States is not an energy island," he said. "Developments in other countries affect all of us, and developments in the United States will affect everyone else."
Oil and gas will continue to drive world energy markets for the near future, especially with growth in the petrochemicals industry and rising consumption by commercial trucks and shippers, said the IEA report.
But renewables are increasingly becoming one of the cheapest options for new power plants, making them attractive even for developing countries as worldwide electricity use grows, Birol said.
"I believe the U.S. has huge potential to make more use of renewable energies, solar and wind especially," he said. "We expect that by the year 2020, most of the renewables in the world will not need any more subsidies."
The hurdles, Birol said, are lagging energy efficiency standards and low up-front investment from the private sector.
The bulk of research and development money for renewables still comes from governments, Birol said. "There is a need for the private sector to be more part of the game to push clean energy technologies and energy efficiency," he added.
The fact remains, however, that with the shale boom in the U.S., IEA expects fossil fuels to remain the primary drivers of energy geopolitics. Murkowski was quick to highlight that point.
"We cannot emphasize too strongly how significantly the role of the United States has evolved in recent years," she said. "We have gone from lamenting our reliance on foreign oil, and the steep price of that oil, to the United States being the world's swing producer in an era of abundant energy."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/17/stories/1060071129
-
How a Nafta Breakdown Could Blow Back Into Shale Patch
Jan 16, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Liam Denning
Long before the Trump Administration called for "energy dominance", the pre-election Trump campaign derided the North American Free Trade Agreement. There's a brewing clash between these two populist positions.
Talks to renegotiate Nafta have been going on since last summer and there is growing concern it could unravel altogether.
North America's energy market has been transformed since Nafta came into force in 1994, though more coincidentally than anything else. U.S. fears of scarcity, which accelerated in the first decade of this century, have given way to dreams of energy independence and, of late, "dominance.'' At just under three million barrels of oil equivalent a day, U.S. net imports of oil and natural gas from its two nearest neighbors are now actually back to where they were when Nafta began 1 . But the underlying balances have shifted significantly:
All in all, assuming everyone stayed friendly, U.S. dependence on fossil-fuel imports from outside North America has fallen to remarkably low levels already. Which might have been fine when the goal was something approximating energy independence. Dominance, however, is all about flogging fossil fuels overseas (see this). And that's where Nafta's demise could present a problem.
"There's this enormous contradiction in the administration's energy and trade policies," says David Goldwyn, an independent energy security consultant who has held senior energy-related posts in several previous U.S. administrations. He continues:
The reality is U.S. energy demand is flat. All the growth is in exports and the trade approach punishes trading partners.
At this point, it's worth emphasizing that Nafta may well survive and, even if it doesn't, this wouldn't automatically mean huge tariffs being slapped immediately on energy-related trading. The three countries' mutual dependence on each other for various bits of the energy value chain -- as seller, buyer, or investor -- offers a strong argument for caution in the aftermath of any breakdown.
That doesn't mean it's without risk, though. A good example of this concerns the engine of U.S. oil production growth: The Permian tight-oil basin. The risk there actually arises in a by-product of that boom: natural gas. As I wrote here, all those fracked oil wells in west Texas also throw off a lot of gas. With supply surging in the U.S. in general, finding a profitable outlet for that gas is getting tougher and exports are a critical safety valve. In west Texas, that mostly means Mexico.
Analysts at Sanford C. Bernstein estimate the amount of Permian gas needing to find a home outside the region could rise from 5.5 billion cubic feet a day last year to more than 11 billion by 2022. Pipelines to other parts of the U.S. can carry 7.3 billion cubic feet a day, which will be maxed out by the middle of 2019.
There is another 3.5 billion cubic feet a day of pipeline capacity linking the Permian basin to Mexico. Several planned export pipelines could add another 7 billion a day from late 2019. Add that all up and there is no problem -- provided it all gets built and used.
As of October, barely any Permian gas was flowing to Mexico. Those export volumes must increase substantially if drillers in the basin aren't to be forced at some point to either flare a lot of gas -- undesirable both environmentally and economically -- or shut-in their wells for want of a pipeline. This could constrain oil production, which could have global implications given the outsize role that expectations about the Permian play in setting oil prices.
An unraveling Nafta could present a danger to gas exports in two ways. First, if the resulting dislocation in Mexico's trade and foreign direct investment slowed economic growth, that could have a knock-on effect in energy demand.
It's also possible that a breakdown in Nafta interferes with planned pipelines. Losing the agreement's protections for foreign investors could deter U.S. companies from deploying dollars south, or create other barriers to moving staff and equipment quickly over the border.
A related question concerns whether a breakdown in Nafta might strengthen nationalists in Mexico opposed to the country's recent energy reforms, which opened the sector to more foreign investment in the first place. Don't forget the wider context: Mexico has a (left-wing) populist of its own leading in the polls for July's presidential election and we're likely to see more utterances about The Wall (and who knows what else about some foreigners) emanating from the White House in the weeks and months ahead.
On this front, however, there is reason for optimism says Dr. Lourdes Melgar, Mexico’s former deputy secretary of energy for hydrocarbons and now a fellow at MIT. She points out that Mexico's energy reforms were enacted via changes to the constitution -- and, therefore, tough to reverse -- and were grounded in rising concerns about energy security, which would hardly be alleviated if Nafta collapsed.
Rather, Mexico may redouble efforts to court more investment in developing its energy sector from European and Asian companies if U.S. firms are deterred. It is notable that, less than a week ago, Mexico's economy minister signed the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes, an intergovernmental organization of the World Bank that offers protection for outside investors. If ratified in Mexico's senate, it would offer some reassurance to foreign energy companies unnerved by Nafta's collapse or the upcoming elections.
By the mid-2020s, with the U.S. and Mexico presumably having diversified their respective export and import options somewhat, a changed trading relationship may matter less to energy markets. Right now, though, the potential for real disruption is there if Nafta, and cool heads, exit altogether.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
1.Net imports from Canada and Mexico peaked at just over 5 million barrels of oil equivalent a day in early 2006, on a trailing 12-months basis.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-16/trump-would-jeopardize-energy-dreams-with-nafta-exit
-
Pipeline Fees Coming as Texas Seeks More Inspection Funding
Jan 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Texas pipeline companies aren't opposed to a new round of regulatory and safety fees coming later this year as regulators look to retain inspectors.
The Texas Railroad Commission, which is the state agency tasked with regulating the state's oil and gas industry, is developing new fees to fund its operations as the industry continues to grow in the state.
“We will have a fee in place by the end of August,” Railroad Commission Chairman Christi Craddick told members of the Texas Pipeline Association during a Jan. 12 keynote address in Houston. “So plan for it. Give us some feedback.”
The commission can establish annual fees for permit and registration holders as well as individual fees for new permits or registrations, renewals, or amendments under a 2017 law that sought to improve pipeline safety and reporting requirements.
The pipeline industry doesn't oppose the fees to keep the Railroad Commission fully staffed, Thure Cannon, president of the Texas Pipeline Association, told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 16.
“Industry will certainly do its part to keep the [Railroad Commission] pipeline safety division the best in the country,” Cannon said.
While the Railroad Commission did get some additional money from the legislature in the 2017 session, the agency is primarily funded by fees paid by industry for permits. As the price of oil dropped over the past several years, the agency's revenues have also diminished significantly, Craddick said.
This has presented challenges for the agency that is responsible for inspecting the almost 450,000 miles of pipeline in the state. It didn't have the money to replace its aging fleet of trucks or pay its inspectors a competitive salary, which at one point was lower than federal inspectors at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Turnover for state inspectors was at 20 percent, with a number of employees going to the Department of Transportation or Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Craddick said.
Review of Regulation
Within six months to a year, the commission is also planning to begin the second phase of a project, called the Oilfield Relief Initiative, to review rules and regulations “that either don't make a lot of sense or ones that need to change or improve,” Craddick said. Her office estimated that by getting rid of rules that it identified as “unnecessary,” industry could save $35 million in regulatory fees.
“Less testing, less paperwork, it saves us time and money,” Craddick said.
The pipeline association also supports the initiative, Cannon said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127000548&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127000548&jd=127000548
-
Early Strength of U.S. Land Permitting Potentially a Tell-Tale Sign of Higher Rig Count
Jan 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
With West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices charging toward $70/bbl, concerns are overblown that the U.S. rig count will slow, according to Evercore ISI.
To determine the direction of U.S. activity on land and offshore, Evercore’s team each month reviews all major state and federal permits that are filed by exploration and production (E&P) companies to drill new wells or to bypass/sidetrack existing wells. Most onshore permits are issued several months before drilling begins, while offshore permits are often secured even further in advance.
For the first five days of the month, U.S. land permitting stood at 858. The four-week rolling average of 836 was down from the multi-year high in mid-December, but that was attributed to the holiday slowdown. Meanwhile, Texas permitting rose 268% through Jan. 5 week/week, the highest in the country.
The 850-plus permit/week run rate through Jan. 5 implies a total for the full month of nearly 3,500, “which would be the highest January total since 2015,” said Evercore’s James West. Drilling efficiencies already are baked in, which suggests “robust spudding trends in the early part of the year, driven by both dedicated drilling programs from the prominent E&Ps and also one-off spot work from opportunistic private equity (PE).”
Evercore isn’t revising its year-end 2018 rig count forecast of 980, nor its year-end 2019 prediction of 994. However, continued permitting strength through the early part of this year could skew estimate risks to the upside.
Toward the end of last year, inflation in the oilfield services sector and increasing pad efficiencies pushed drilling programs ahead of an undersupplied completions subsector, according to West. Operators were forced in part to reduce their rig counts and instead turned their focus to the plethora of drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells.
The DUC count now stands at about 7,500, mostly in the Permian Basin. For context, if every U.S. rig stopped working immediately, the active pressure pumping fleet would have one-to-two quarters of fracture demand, according to Evercore.
That figure could give some investors pause on concerns that E&Ps may reduce new drilling programs to work through the DUCs.
However, Evercore plotted the four-week permit average against the four-week rig count average and found that a temporary drilling slowdown yielded a “fairly wide disassociation” between “drilling intentions” and active rigs.
“We surmise, then, that the rig count is due to catch up to permit volumes as operators continue to finalize their drilling budgets and PE-backed independents rush to prove out acreage at current commodity prices,” said West.
Last year’s U.S. land permitting eclipsed 2016 and 2015 permit levels. Domestic land permits in December totaled 4,945, 25% higher than in November and up 79% year/year.
For the full year, 2017 was 62% higher than in 2016. Texas and Oklahoma permitting each gained 48%, while North Dakota permitting rose 46% and Louisiana was 13% higher.
Permitting in December fell month/month in Pennsylvania (down 3%) and West Virginia (down 42%), which pressured Appalachia. However, California permits rose 71% from November, while Oklahoma was up 67%.
Overall, Texas continues to be the barometer for land permits and drilling, West said.
“Texas permitting exhibited a 13% sequential increase on the back of a 2% increase the month before; with over half of the working U.S. oil rigs, Texas continues to be the single-most important state in terms of evaluating the magnitude and direction of U.S. permitting trends,” he said.
Meanwhile, Gulf of Mexico permitting showed momentum through the end of 2017. Planning “remains muted,” though. There were 14 new permits in December, up from 12 in November and 27% higher year/year.
“The sharpest decline from the 2014 peak has come from shallow water permitting, down 71% in 2017 from year-to-date 2014,” West said. “We believe that offshore drilling (and specifically jackup utilization) is starting to turn the corner, but continued attrition/consolidation will be critical in supporting slowly-improving permit and drilling activity.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113063-early-strength-of-us-land-permitting-potentially-a-tell-tale-sign-of-higher-rig-count
-
(ACC Mentioned) Q&A: Chemical Shippers Seek More Rail Options
Jan 12, 2018 | Argus Rail Business
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has been one of the leading voices in calling for enhanced regulatory remedies to increase competition between rail carriers, including through reciprocal switching. Jeff Sloan is ACC's senior policy director and also works closely with the Rail Customer Coalition, of which ACC is a member. In this interview, edited for length and clarity, he discusses issues before the Surface Transportation Board that are important to ACC and other shipper groups.
What is the outlook for what can and should be done about the regulatory pause that is in place at the STB for major policy decisions like reciprocal switching?
We are hopeful that the pause does not last too long and that early next year that we will have nominees that will get through the confirmation process relatively quickly because it is important that we have a fully staffed board. There are too many issues important to too many different stakeholders to not have a fully-staffed board.
Of the major issues before the agency, are there one or two that are higher priority for ACC and its members than the others?
Rate reasonableness standards and reciprocal switching are the two priorities for us.
We want greater competition in the freight rail industry and competitive switching is the best opportunity to do something on that front. And where there is not competition, you have to have a functioning rate review process, and the stand-alone cost methodology is widely recognized, even by board members, as not being workable for carload shippers.
In recent cases involving chemical companies, it was not that the rates were proven to be reasonable, just that the rates could not be determined to be unreasonable and therefore the shippers lost after spending three and a half years and $5mn per case on the shipper side in all three of those cases and the shipper lost in every case. And some of the rates that were found not to be unreasonable were 900pc of the cost of providing the service by carriers. Between the time it takes, the money it costs and the results you get, it has proven itself to not be a workable process.
Does ACC have a preferred solution to make rate cases more efficient for shippers?
There needs to be an alternative process to determine whether rates are unreasonable and our preferred solution is based around rate benchmarking that is pretty well developed by the Transportation Research Board.
Instead of comparing the rate to the cost of a rate on a completely new railroad, you compare it to what you would expect a competitive rate to be in a competitive market. There are plenty of studies and data out there on rates that can be used. You can do economic modeling about what drives that rate, and you can compare the captive rate to what the model says you should expect to pay in a competitive environment.
And the amount of additional money you are paying between the two rates that should be the basis of whether the rate is reasonable. Rate benchmarking is a pretty well established economic tool. Government agencies use it and that is the most promising path forward, and we think that could be a much more reliable and predictable process because you would know what you are comparing it to at the front end.
How would this approach be different from the board’s existing three-benchmark, and other simplified methodologies?
In this model you would be solving for what a competitive rate would be in the marketplace and comparing the rate to those.
Under the existing rules, you are comparing those to other captive rates for traffic so it is only the really extreme outliers who have any chance of obtaining rate relief. This could be more applicable more broadly to all captive shippers. You would still have to prove market dominance and it would not be an across the board rate reduction but would provide a basis for comparison. The board would have to decide a reasonable margin above a competitive rate for a railroad to be revenue adequate and everything else that goes into it. But it is the differential in rates that STB should be focused on.
Several carriers have been deemed revenue adequate in recent years. Is development of a revenue adequacy constraint on railroads pricing something ACC would like to see?
Yes, absolutely. We have submitted substantial comments in the revenue adequacy proceeding. We think the concept of rate benchmarking kind of gets at that.
It is not the revenue adequacy constraint as much as a different way of looking at whether a rate is reasonable or not. In the coal rate guidelines, that created the stand-alone cost that recognized differential pricing up to the point that carriers are revenue adequate. You cannot continue to charge more and more to your captive shippers. This is not advocating for an across the board rate limit. If the railroad can earn more than adequate revenues by charging competitive prices, there are no constraints in competitive markets. Once they are revenue adequate, there is not a reason to continue to charge higher differentials to their captive customers.
What would be the biggest benefit of reciprocal switching to an average carload customer?
Having the ability to get multiple bids for traffic. We think the service issues that we have seen on CSX recently provides further evidence that additional competition is a good thing. It is unimaginable that CSX could treat its customers the way they have if it was truly a competitive marketplace. It would be impossible for them to stay in business.
Competitive switching is not a cure-all, but it provides some competition to shippers that currently do not have any options at all.
Has ACC done things to try and speed up STB’s consideration of the reciprocal switching issue since it has been at the board since 2011?
We have been frustrated at the slow pace. We have been very clear that we want to see final action on this. When the board is fully manned, they do not need to start over on this. There is a tremendous amount of information already in the record on this. There is the board’s proposal which we support. There could be some modifications made to that if they felt it was necessary, but this should not be starting from scratch.
The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) provided extensive amounts of data to them. There was an extended public comment period. They have the data they need. They just need to decide what they are willing to do. They need to recognize that the status quo here is not working. No shipper has been able to get access to switching and we believe that is a failure. The Staggers Act specifically gives STB the authority to use competitive switching as a tool to promote competition. For all practical purposes, it is impossible to meet the current standard.
How would ACC respond to railroad objections that switching will degrade service or undermine their ability to invest in their networks?
Competitive switching would not harm efficiency at all and may provide additional efficiency as there may be shorter routes that are available through switching that are not available today.
In many cases, there is already a switch off from the long-haul train to the local, so you are not adding an additional switch. You are simply switching from the local to a different carrier’s long-haul train so there is no additional step there. For cases where it would be much more complicated, that is exactly why STB proposed a case-by-case approach, because if it would degrade service or become unduly complex, the board can deny switching.
Is there any concern that because the board has proposed that case-by-case approach, these cases could get bogged down at the board?
It needs to be a timely and less burdensome process. We recognize that a case-by-case approach could get bogged down, but we are hopeful the board will create rules that minimize the time and the burden associated with getting switching.
Would categorical presumptions like those in the original shipper proposal be a way to do that?
Yes, and we support NITL’s original proposal that had a set of presumptions that were rebutable by the railroad would be an efficient way to handle these cases.
Have you heard of any timeline to fill the empty slots at the STB? And does ACC have any preferred candidates among the names being floated in the industry?
We have heard the same names that everyone else has. The Rail Customer Coalition, of which ACC is a member, has publicly supported Patrick Fuchs from the Senate Commerce Committee, but have not publicly endorsed any other candidates.
We want to see candidates committed to moving the board forward on some of these key reforms. We want to see candidates that are committed to changing the status quo and making the board a more effective and efficient agency. We remain committed to supporting chairwoman Ann Begeman and vice chair Deb Miller. We would certainly be supportive of Miller being re-nominated for another term if she were willing. (Miller is in her holdover year after her term expired at the end of 2017.)
Have ACC members been affected by the recent CSX service issues and what have they been doing to cope with that?
Yes, the CSX service issues have definitely affected ACC members. Members have seen some improvement since the bad situation that shippers experienced over the summer, but service levels are still not up to where they were before. There continue to be serious local disruptions and those have led to many situations where a facility has either shutdown or come very close. Either a production facility or a customer facility.
Companies have had to go to extraordinary lengths to keep customers supplied at much higher costs than they were expecting, if CSX service had been acceptable.
The Rail Customer Coalition had asked for a follow-up meeting with the board members about the service issues. Did that ever occur and what, if anything came from it?
The coalition did have meetings with the board members before the agency sent its letter to CSX last month, and we view the letter as a positive first step.
We would like to see the board look at the metrics they are getting from CSX to make sure they are the most useful numbers and also streamlining their emergency relief procedures so that it is quicker and easier for shippers to seek relief the next time there is a major service issue. There would be an easy process in place for a broad swath of shippers to seek relief in the event of another large service issue.
https://www.freightrailreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Argus-ACC-STB-Reform-QandA.pdf
-
CSX Still Winning Back Business After Service Disruptions
Jan 16, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Paul Ziobro
CSX Corp. CSX -1.89% still has work to do to win back shippers following last year’s service disruptions that occurred after a massive overhaul of the railroad network under its prior chief executive.
James Foote, who took over as CEO last month after the death of the railroad turnaround specialist Hunter Harrison, said CSX is starting to win back some of that business but still has to prove to some shippers that its railroad network is more reliable.
On Tuesday, CSX reported lower revenue and freight volumes for its fourth quarter compared with the year-earlier period. The Jacksonville, Fla., company also said it would continue to cut costs by eliminating another 2,000 positions this year.
Mr. Foote said he has paid visits to customers. “I get on an airplane, go to someone’s office with my hat in my hand and say, ‘I’m sorry about last year, we screwed up and we didn’t do a really good job for you,’” Mr. Foote said in an interview Tuesday. But he tells them, “We’re getting it fixed and it’s going to run a like a railroad you haven’t seen before.”
The executive is taking over the unfinished work of Mr. Harrison, who spent about eight months last year reshaping how CSX is run by idling hundreds of locomotives, closing rail yards and implementing a new schedule. The quick implementation caused widespread delays and disruption along the network.
Mr. Foote said he agreed with the changes made by Mr. Harrison, with whom he worked previously on the turnaround of Canadian National Railway Co. , and said the aggressive timeline to implement the changes caused problems.
“We always agreed 99.9% of the time on what needed to get done,” Mr. Foote said. “We didn’t always agree on how you went about doing it.”
Most of the disruptive changes are done and CSX is now focused on running the railroad in accordance with the new framework and winning back customers, the new CEO said. CSX anticipates only slight revenue growth in 2018, as it expects to win over more customers toward the second half of the year.
One task still left on the table is simplifying CSX’s intertwined railroad network. Mr. Foote said CSX is reviewing plans to rationalize the network by selling off some track to other rail operators. “It’s something that needed to be done and hadn’t been done, but we’re now doing it,” he said.
The company is also working to fill out its management team after several senior-level departures throughout last year. Last week, Mr. Foote formed a new executive committee of about a dozen leaders to oversee the next phase of the turnaround.
It will still continue to lower costs, another hallmark of Mr. Harrison’s model, with plans to cut another 2,000 jobs in 2018. The company said most of the reduction would come from employee attrition and from eliminating consultants. After cutting 4,700 positions in 2017, CSX finished last year with 24,000 employees.
The outlook came after CSX reported a sharp rise in fourth-quarter earnings to $4.1 billion, largely on a $3.6 billion benefit tied to the recently passed tax legislation. Revenue fell 5.9% to $2.86 billion, as the latest quarter was one week shorter than the year-earlier period. Otherwise, it rose slightly, with high prices offsetting a slight decline in volume.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/csx-still-winning-back-business-after-service-disruptions-1516149292
-
Infrastructure Group Says Bipartisan Deal on Permit Streamlining Possible
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
A coalition of labor, gas, manufacturing and other business organizations hopes the potential jobs boost from President Donald Trump's pending infrastructure initiative could be enough to win Democratic votes for an infrastructure package that includes EPA and other environmental permit streamlining Democrats have previously opposed.
Craig Stevens, the spokesman for the Grow America's Infrastructure Now (GAIN) coalition said in a Jan. 4 interview with Inside EPA that Republicans' tentative plan to offer $200 billion in federal infrastructure spending over 10 years boosts prospects that Democrats will accept some measure of permit streamlining in a final bill in exchange for the ramped-up infrastructure funding.
“I think $200 billion isn't that great of a leap, even a little bit more. . . . And you're going to see bipartisan support as a result. Getting that federal funding won't be too heavy of a lift,” Stevens said. “The question will be, how much is enough” to win 60 votes in the Senate.
Trump and White House officials have signaled that the administration will unveil an infrastructure agenda before the State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 30.
Environment committees in both chambers have already held hearings in anticipation of a new infrastructure push, with Senate Republicans calling for streamlined infrastructure permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 dredge-and-fill program, while a bipartisan group of House representatives has outlined a number of actions they hope to see on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
The House agenda includes boosted spending for EPA's water infrastructure funds that support state and local projects; addressing impacts of water and sewer systems' capital costs on their rate-payers; and investing in high-risk, high-reward technology development through a water equivalent of the existing Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
Speaking with Inside EPA, Stevens said his group expects higher federal spending on infrastructure, both through direct funding like EPA's state revolving funds (SRFs) and technology development, as a path to achieving their main goal of streamlining environmental approvals of new projects under the CWA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes.
“The one thing that they keep on coming back to [is] regulatory certitude -- making sure these regulations are enforced in a fair and predictable manner,” he said of GAIN's members.
“I think if there could be more coordination between federal and state permitting, that would be helpful,” Stevens said. He continued that in some arenas, “Project by project, there is some question as to which agency has authority in which jurisdiction. If there was some clarity on that, so there would be legal clarity and not so much court shopping, that would be helpful."
In particular, he said, the group is focusing on oil and natural gas pipeline construction, which is governed in part by nationwide permits (NWPs) issued by the Army Corps of Engineers under CWA section 404.
The Corps is already weighing changes to nine NWPs that it said in a November report could help achieve the goals of Trump's executive order promoting energy independence. Stevens said the sector hopes those reforms will take the permit program outside the political sphere to at least some degree.
Rule Changes
The Trump administration is already taking steps to ease permitting through regulatory changes, including changing CWA policies at EPA and speeding NEPA reviews across the executive branch.
But Stevens said those reforms are seen as less favorable for industry than statutory reforms.
“Administrations of either party or both parties do this, where they just use the regulatory power to make changes. . . . But everyone is sort of wary about that, and would prefer a stronger, legislative fix,” he said, citing both the ease with which future administrations could undo Trump's regulatory changes and the fact that new rules can be delayed, weakened or overturned entirely through litigation.
“It's very difficult to undo something that was done through legislation. With regulation, there are many avenues,” he said.
Stevens continued that uncertainty over permit streamlining through regulation could depress investment in the sector even while such rules remain in place, simply because of the prospect that they could be revoked before any particular project is finished. “If you're basing your investment on something that could be repealed or changed, that certainly raises the risk on a capital investment.”
Addressing the changes to how agencies approach NEPA reviews under Trump's August executive order (EO) that seeks to limit federal agencies' environmental reviews of infrastructure projects under NEPA to two years, and set up “accountability” measures for federal agencies involved in the permitting process, Stevens said there have been few observable effects from the shift so far, but that industry is optimistic for its long-term prospects.
“I think it's all relatively new. Certainly the agencies want to work with companies to get these things done. I don't think we've seen a noticeable change at this point, but we're all hopeful that it will lead to a more streamlined process,” he said.
GAIN members that have called in to the administration on implementation of the EO “seem to think that we've received a receptive ear, at EPA and Interior and the White House. So folks are hopeful that things are going to get better,” Stevens continued.
And he downplayed warnings that the changes will make it easier for environmentalists to sue over inadequate NEPA reviews and win rulings that would block or delay the projects in question beyond even the timeframe of a lengthier permit process. He said that such suits are seen as inevitable for any major project regardless of its merits, to the point where litigation costs “are now seen as part of the cost of doing business.”
“Environmentalists often shop for a court that's sympathetic to their perspective, and I would expect that to continue, but agencies -- if their actions are based on the law that's duly enacted -- are given a lot of deference,” he said.
60-Vote Threshold
Despite Democrats' opposition to measures they see as weakening environmental reviews of new projects, Stevens said, “You do have bipartisan support” for permit certainty, at least to the point where Republicans can attract enough Democratic support to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to defeat a Senate filibuster.
Stevens continued that expectations within the firms he represents are that the Trump administration, though relatively unpopular compared to other first-year presidents, has enough political capital to shepherd an infrastructure deal through Congress given the popularity of the subject matter itself.
“If he's able to retain even a modicum of leadership here, I think you will see folks come together,” he said.
That is the case despite Democrats' opposition to Trump's agenda overall because infrastructure would be a winning issue with swing voters who abandoned the party in the 2016 presidential election, such as union workers, he said. “I think you will see [Democrats] try to strengthen their support with unions in 2018 and 2020, and one way to do that is supporting infrastructure and taking credit for infrastructure growth.” Those programs “are seen as jobs programs,” he said.
In particular, Stevens expects outgoing House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), who is retiring at the end of his current term, to push for such efforts. “He wants a swan song -- something he can tout. I have to believe that since he announced his retirement, this is something he's really focused on -- a major infrastructure bill,” Stevens said
https://insideepa.com/interview/infrastructure-group-says-bipartisan-deal-permit-streamlining-possible
-
Business Lobby to Call for Gas Tax Hike
Jan 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Camille von Kaenel
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will call on the White House and Congress to increase the gas tax to 25 cents a gallon over the next five years to help fund improvements to roads and bridges.
The proposal is set to be formally introduced at an infrastructure event held by the U.S. Chamber on Thursday in Washington. The business lobby will also present other recommendations for a broad federal infrastructure initiative.
The White House has said it would release details on an infrastructure bill in the next couple of weeks, but officials have struggled to agree on the funding source. President Trump said he wants to spark $1 trillion of state, local and private spending on infrastructure over the next 10 years.
Administration officials like Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao have said they are considering a gas tax hike as part of their infrastructure push, but Republican lawmakers have bristled at the idea.
The federal gas tax has not been increased since 1993. The Highway Trust Fund, which pays for roads, tunnels, bridges and other infrastructure construction and maintenance, is hurtling toward insolvency as inflation and improving fuel economy erode gas tax revenue.
The current tax stands at 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. Increasing it by 25 cents would raise more than $375 billion over the coming decade, the U.S. Chamber estimated.
In its budget blueprint, the White House proposed spending $200 billion in federal cash on infrastructure over the next decade by making cuts elsewhere, including two popular transportation grants.
The details of the U.S. Chamber's proposal were first reported by The Washington Post. It is not the first time the powerful business lobby has endorsed a gas tax.
A bipartisan group of 48 House members proposed a slight gas tax increase as part of a policy report to fund infrastructure last week (E&E Daily, Jan. 11).
Last year, several state legislatures, including California's, passed gas tax hikes to fund road maintenance and construction projects.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/16/stories/1060071097
-
Carbon Emissions Reporting Rollback in Tax Extender Splits Alliance
Jan 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A GOP-led effort to offer simpler greenhouse gas emissions reporting for oil and gas operations that capture and store carbon dioxide—part of a Senate tax extenders package—is testing a bipartisan coalition backing more generous tax credits.
The tax extender bill, introduced last month by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), would extend several expired tax credits for renewable energy and biodiesel and also would significantly increase credits for carbon capture and storage efforts under Section 45Q of the tax code.
Boosting carbon capture credits is backed by the oil and gas industry and an unlikely alliance of Democratic climate hawks such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Republican climate policy critics such as Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming.
But language in the Hatch extender bill sets out more modest Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas reporting requirements for operations that use carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, while more stringent reporting rules apply to carbon dioxide more permanently stored in geological formations underground.
The bill would raise the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery efforts to $30 per ton from the current credit of $10 per ton. The tax credit for more permanent storage would be increased to $50 per ton from the current amount of $20 per ton.
An aide to Whitehouse said the senator has concerns about any easing of the emissions reporting requirements but is hopeful a compromise can be found to allow the bill to go forward.
Companies backing the legislation include Occidental Petroleum Corp. as well as NRG Energy, which helped develop the $1 billion Petra Nova carbon capture project southwest of Houston.
The reporting language—which various Senate offices said was inserted at the request of Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)—"is a simplification of reporting procedures,” said Brad Crabtree of the Great Plains Institute, who works with environmental and energy groups that are backing an increase in CCS credits. Crabtree said the coalition isn't taking a formal position on the measure.
More Money Should Mean More Reporting
Kurt Waltzer of the Clean Air Tax Force said the possibility of separate reporting requirements has raised concerns among environmental groups, who argue that oil and gas operations should be willing to comply with the same reporting requirements for permanent storage, given they would be rewarded with a significantly increased tax credit under the bill.
Hoeven aides say oil and gas operations aren't seeking more modest reporting requirements but rather are trying to ensure that any future Treasury Department interpretations of the tax laws follow the current distinction the EPA makes between carbon captured for oil and gas recovery and more permanent storage. The Treasury Department typically has to issue such guidance to implement changes made in tax law.
Even if a compromise is found, the effort to boost carbon capture credits still faces an uncertain future, in part because House Republicans are not as enthusiastic about moving a tax extender package in that chamber. The increased tax credits in the tax extender bill were drawn from a Senate bill introduced by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) in July 2017, known as the Furthering Carbon Capture, Utilization, Technology, Underground Storage, and Reduced Emissions, or FUTURE Act.
Cosponsors of that 2017 bill included Whitehouse, Barrasso, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) has been skeptical about extending such tax breaks and has noted that lawmakers already have plenty on their plates for the next few weeks, including a continuing resolution to fund the government past Jan. 19 and a spending bill for when that continuing resolution runs out.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127000541&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127000541&jd=127000541
-
Court Advances Environmentalists' Clean Air Act Suit
Jan 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
A federal district court in Texas has rejected a refiners' motion to dismiss environmentalists' Clean Air Act citizen suit alleging air emissions in excess of permitted limits, clearing the way for a trial.
Judge Kenneth Hoyt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled Jan. 11 in Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, et al. v. Pasadena Refining System, Inc. (PRSI) to reject defendants' claims that the plaintiffs cannot prove injury and lack standing to sue.
The ruling comes amid doubts among some observers over the Trump administration's willingness to pursue environmental enforcement actions against industry, adding to the perceived importance of citizen enforcement actions.
In the suit, Texas citizens are seeking injunctive relief and financial penalties for what they claim are years of permit violations by Houston-area refiner PRSI for excessive releases of various pollutants.
Hoyt writes, “Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the plaintiffs are not required to prove that the defendant is the one and only cause of their injuries” in order to have standing to sue. “It is enough that the emissions contribute to the kinds of injuries alleged by the plaintiffs."
Such alleged injuries include “asthma, headaches, sneezing, and coughing, all of which have been linked to the air pollutants that are released by the defendant.” Pollutants at issue include sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.
PRSI's argument that plaintiff's alleged injuries are not “redressable” also fails, “as the Supreme Court has held that civil penalties can serve to act as a future deterrent and to satisfy the redressability requirement,” Hoyt writes, citing the high court's 2000 ruling in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, (TOC), Inc.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/court-advances-environmentalists-clean-air-act-suit
-
FEATURE-2018 Could See Wave of West Coast Climate Pollution Pricing
Jan 17, 2018 | Reuters
By Gregory Scruggs
If elected officials get their way, the entire West Coast of North America could be putting a price on pollution by the end of this year.
As state legislature sessions opened this month, Washington state Governor Jay Inslee called for a carbon tax and Oregon legislators proposed a “cap and invest” system.
Both policies are designed to make industrial emitters of carbon dioxide pay some of the costs of damage caused by growing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and to create incentives for them to reduce emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions are one of the major drivers of human-caused climate change.
If the Washington and Oregon legislatures pass such measures, they would join California’s cap-and-trade system to the south and British Columbia’s carbon tax to the north. The jurisdictions would be part of a united Pacific front on climate change.
“It is time to step up and give our citizens what they demand and deserve — and what is the law — which is a fight against climate change and the damaging health effects of carbon pollution,” Inslee, a Democrat, said in his State of the State speech on January 9.CARBON CUTTING OPTIONS
In Oregon, political observers see the 2018 legislative session as the best opportunity to create a so-called “cap and invest” system that would cap the amount of carbon that industrial polluters can emit, forcing them to buy allowances for any excess.
Early estimates suggest the plan could raise up to $1.8 billion annually that could in turn be invested in renewable energy, low-carbon transportation, and other climate-friendly measures.
Governor Kate Brown has been less vocal than Inslee about her state’s carbon plan, whose details remain less developed than the Washington proposal.
In 2016, Washington state voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have created the first carbon tax in the United States.
Environmental groups split on the measure, with some criticizing the fact that cash from the tax would used to lower other taxes, rather to invest in the needs of vulnerable communities most affected by climate change.
But with a Democratic majority in both houses of the Washington state legislature, Inslee, who has made climate change a signature issue, has a good chance of seeing his landmark policy proposal come to life, experts say.
Inslee has proposed a $20 per ton tax on industrial carbon emissions that would increase 3.5 percent annually above the rate of inflation in order to deter increased carbon emissions.
The money raised would be reinvested in climate mitigation and adaptation efforts such as expanded public transportation, subsidized home insulation, and improving forest health.
The tax would increase consumer costs for heating oil, petrol, and electricity in areas not served by hydropower, which is a major energy source in Washington.
The governor’s office estimates that by 2020, electricity prices could increase 4 percent per unit, natural gas 9 percent and gasoline 6 percent per gallon.
The governor’s office said such price increases “are well within the range of normal price fluctuation for oil and gas, and normal rate increases for utilities”.
Inslee’s office said the tax would raise $3.3 billion in its first four years.
“We are still reviewing the details, but, yes, we think the policy gets the big pieces right and we are broadly supporting it,” Carbon Washington Executive Director Kyle Murphy told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The grassroots group led the signature drive to put the failed 2016 carbon tax initiative on the ballot.WHERE TO DIRECT THE CASH?
Others grassroots climate groups are more cautious, however.
Front and Centered is a coalition of communities of color seeking climate justice. Many of the groups represented by Front and Centered opposed the carbon tax initiative that made it to the 2016 ballot because it did not reinvest the revenue raised by the tax in their communities.
Instead, the tax money would have been offset by tax cuts, with only 10 percent of Washington residents receiving assistance to pay higher energy and fuel prices.
“We support Governor Inslee’s ongoing leadership, as well as the idea of taxing carbon and reinvesting revenue,” Front and Centered spokesperson Aiko Schaefer told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
But “we would like to see the bill strengthened in terms of ensuring that communities that are highly impacted both have greater investment and have a voice in the process,” she said.
According to a 2016 study by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, over half of all Republicans and nearly 90 percent of Democrats in both Washington and Oregon states believe in global warming, which is above the U.S. national average.
Both states voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 by wide margins and currently have entirely Democratic majorities in their state legislatures as well as Democratic governors.
“I believe we have to pay for our waste,” said handyman Ed Dep, sitting at a café in a Seattle co-operative grocery store. “Mitigating climate change is a cost we should be willing to pay.”CANADA AND CALIFORNIA LESSONS
As the details of carbon pricing enter the negotiation phase in the Washington and Oregon legislatures, lawmakers can look both north and south for lesson learned.
British Columbia’s carbon tax of 30 Canadian dollars per ton, the continent’s first when it was adopted in 2008, has reduced emissions by 5 to 15 percent while not hampering economic growth, according to a Duke University and University of Ottawa study.
California’s cap-and-trade system, introduced in 2013, had a rocky start but has now sold out its pollution allowances for consecutive quarters, prompting critics to suggest it has been too successful as polluters buy up credits rather than aggressively reduce emissions.
Inslee previously tried a cap-and-trade system such as the one Oregon is now pursuing, but abandoned it in favor of a carbon tax.
Environmentalists tend to prefer cap-and-trade because such systems fix the total amount of carbon emissions allowed and that amount can be lowered over time.
Business groups tend to prefer carbon taxes because the price of pollution is fixed, whereas prices for emissions can fluctuate in a cap-and-trade market system.
Whatever the system of pricing carbon, climate justice activists say they want to make sure one principle is adhered to.
“We don’t want to make people poorer in the process,” Schaefer said.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/usa-climatechange-carbon/feature-2018-could-see-wave-of-west-coast-climate-pollution-pricing-idUKL8N1PC244
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested