Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 06/02/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) LyondellBasell CEO Bob V. Patel Appointed as Chairman of American Chemistry Council
Feb 5, 2018 | News India Times
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced today that Bhavesh (Bob) V. Patel, the Chief Executive Officer of LyondellBasell Industries had become the Council’s Chairman of the Board on Jan. 1. -
Trump’s Climate-Denying Coal Lobbyist Nominee Inches Closer To EPA’s No. 2 Job
Feb 6, 2018 | HuffPost
By Alexander C. Kaufman
Andrew Wheeler, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Environmental Protection Agency deputy administrator, appeared poised and polished at his Senate confirmation hearing in November. -
Trump Plans Shakeup of Science Council
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The White House plans to restructure the National Science and Technology Council, raising new questions about the Trump administration's intentions on climate and energy policy. -
Record-Breaking Number of Scientists Seek Office
Feb 6, 2018 | HuffPost (In E&E Greenwire)
By Alexander Kaufman
A historic number of candidates with science backgrounds are seeking public office in the 2018 midterm elections, according to data from 314 Action, an advocacy group that aims to get scientists elected. -
EDF Lends Strong Support to EPA’s IRIS Program in Comments at National Academies Workshop
Feb 6, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Last week the National Academies held a public workshop as part of its review of changes that have been made, or that are planned, by the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. -
EPA Denies Denka's Chloroprene IRIS Correction Request Using New Tool
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Citing a new analytical approach recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), EPA has denied a chemical company's request to withdraw or correct its assessment of the health risks of the chemical chloroprene - which the company charges is driving an unusual and costly enforcement action at its Louisiana facility. -
GOP Chairman Questions US Funding for International Chemical Research Agency
Feb 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The chairman of the House Science Committee on Tuesday slammed an international body’s cancer research on a common pesticide and questioned whether the United States should contribute funding to the body. -
EU Targets EDCs in Drinking Water
Feb 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has adopted a proposal for a revised drinking water Directive that would, among a number of changes, add limit values for three endocrine disrupting chemicals to the list of criteria for monitoring water quality. -
Halliburton Takes Fracking Fight From Oil Field to Patent Office
Feb 6, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Susan Decker, David Wethe, and Christopher Yasiejko
Halliburton Co. isn’t content to limit its battle for market share with Schlumberger Ltd.to the oil field these days. -
Delivery of Russian LNG Heats Up Discussion About U.S. Energy Dominance & Sanctions
Feb 6, 2018 | Forbes
By Anna Mikulska
-
ExxonMobil's New US Cracker Mechanically Complete, Commissioning Underway
Feb 6, 2018 | ICIS
By Stefan Baumgarten
ExxonMobil’s new ethane cracker at Baytown, Texas, is mechanically complete, with commissioning progressing well, the US-based energy and chemicals major said on Tuesday. -
No OSHA Standards for Okla. Rig Where Blast Killed 5
Feb 6, 2018 | Oklahoman/Tulsa World (In E&E Energywire)
By Corey Jones
Federal safety standards for handling hazardous chemicals did not cover an Oklahoma natural gas rig that exploded in late January, killing five workers, due to a fossil fuel industry exemption. -
Regulators Propose Doubling Fees on Shale Wells
Feb 6, 2018 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (In E&E Greenwire)
By Laura Legere
Pennsylvanian regulators want to more than double the cost for obtaining a permit to drill a shale gas well in the Keystone State. -
FERC Issues New Climate Review, But Pipeline's Fate Still Hazy
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A natural gas pipeline in the Southeast could be forced to shut down tomorrow, and it's unclear if federal regulators will step in to save it. -
Oil is Still Hot, But Majors Dabbling in Renewables
| E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The planet's oil and gas giants continue to have mixed feelings about renewable energy investments. -
EIA: U.S. to Become Net Energy Exporter by 2022
Feb 6, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
The U.S. will become a net energy exporter by 2022, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday in its latest long-term forecast, accelerating the date for when the country breaks with its 70-year history of importing more energy than it ships out. -
Environmentalists Sue EPA over FOIA Procedures, 'Interference'
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA over alleged mishandling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, charging in part that under Administrator Scott Pruitt there have been “unprecedented changes” in how the agency handles the requests, including interference and delays by high-ranking officials. -
Democrats Push Bills to Price Carbon Emissions
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) along with Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) have reintroduced legislation to put a price on carbon emissions. -
California Stresses Its HFC Plans As D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA Rule Vacatur
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California's top air regulator is emphasizing the importance of the state's pending rule to adopt strong controls on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in the wake of a federal appellate decision denying to rehear a split panel ruling that vacated key parts of EPA's major rule to reduce the refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases. -
As Trump Mulls HFC Treaty, Observers Say Senate Backing Could Boost EPA
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
In the wake of a court ruling limiting EPA's authority to regulate refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, a top industry attorney says the agency would not need new Clean Air Act authority to cut production of the chemicals if the Senate ratifies a global treaty to sharply restrict use of the chemicals. -
Trump Admin Vows to Send Overdue Climate Report
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Trump administration will submit its overdue U.S. Climate Action Report to the United Nations, the State Department confirmed yesterday. -
Trump Would Back Pro-Business Climate Treaty — Aide
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump will support an international climate deal to limit heat-trapping refrigerants and coolants if he thinks it's good for U.S. business, according to a White House energy aide.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) LyondellBasell CEO Bob V. Patel Appointed as Chairman of American Chemistry Council
Feb 5, 2018 | News India Times
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced today that Bhavesh (Bob) V. Patel, the Chief Executive Officer of LyondellBasell Industries had become the Council’s Chairman of the Board on Jan. 1.
“Advancing the understanding, value, and need for science- and risk-based decision-making in both the marketplace and public policy is central to our mission at ACC. As chief executive of one of the world’s largest plastics, chemicals, and refining companies, Bob possesses the insight and expertise to drive the continued expansion and prosperity of American chemistry in a global manufacturing future. His fiscal, strategic, and operational discipline; together with his leadership, will help ensure ACC’s continued success as we navigate an increasingly challenging political and regulatory environment,” Cal Dooley, President and CEO of ACC, stated in a press release.
Patel will chair his first ACC board meeting at the Council’s Washington D.C. headquarters on Feb. 7.
Patel became an officer of the organization in 2016 and served as the vice chairman of the board and the chairman of the board Finance, Audit, and Membership Committee.
Patel was first elected to ACC’s board of director’s in 2015, when he served as a member of the executive committee and became the chairman of the executive committee last year.
“Our industry is critical to advancing solutions to many of today’s most challenging global issues like enhancing food safety through lightweight and flexible packaging, protecting the purity of water supplies through stronger and more versatile pipes, and improving the safety, comfort and fuel efficiency of many of the cars and trucks on the road today. This is an exciting time and I am honored to help tell our story and advocate for sensible policies that encourage growth and further competitiveness around the world,” said Patel.
As CEO of LyondellBasell, Patel has focused on the development and implementation of the next phase of the company’s long-term growth strategy.
Patel has overseen major capacity expansions at the company’s sites in the United States, including the construction of the company’s industry-leading Hyperzone high density polyethylene (HDPE) plant in La Porte, Texas, and the world’s largest propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol (PO/TBA) plant in Channelview, Texas – the largest single investment in the company’s history.
Under Patel’s leadership, LyondellBasell was named to Fortune Magazine’s “World’s Most Admired Companies” list for the first time this year.
Patel joined LyondellBasell in March of 2010 as the senior vice president of Olefins and Polyolefins – Americas, where he was one of the leaders who helped position the company to take advantage of the shale gas expansion in the U.S.
He was then promoted to executive vice president of Olefins and Polyolefins – Europe, Asia and International in October 2013 and appointed CEO in January 2015.
Prior to joining LyondellBasell, Patel worked for Chevron Corporation and its affiliates for more than 20 years.
He is a board member of the Junior Achievement of Southeast Texas, the U.S.-India Business Council and the Greater Houston Partnership.
He is also a member of the external advisory council of the College of Engineering for Ohio State University and a member of the dean’s advisory council for the Fox School of Business at Temple University.
Patel earned a Bachelor of Science in chemical engineering from Ohio State University and he also holds a Master of Business Administration from Temple University.
In 2015, LyondellBasell was named a Responsible Care Company of the Year by ACC for the company’s outstanding achievement in health, safety and environmental performance.
LyondellBasell is one of the largest plastics, chemicals, and refining companies in the world.
http://www.newsindiatimes.com/lyondellbasell-ceo-bob-v-patel-appointed-as-chairman-of-american-chemistry-council
-
Trump’s Climate-Denying Coal Lobbyist Nominee Inches Closer To EPA’s No. 2 Job
Feb 6, 2018 | HuffPost
By Alexander C. Kaufman
Andrew Wheeler, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Environmental Protection Agency deputy administrator, appeared poised and polished at his Senate confirmation hearing in November. He couched his objections to widely accepted climate science in ambiguous legalese, and kept his cool when, at the same hearing, Kathleen Hartnett-White, the president’s pick for the Council on Environmental Quality, flamed out, stammering over questions of basic science.
On Saturday, the White House announced plans to pull Hartnett-White’s nomination amid waning Republican support. But Wheeler is inching closer to the EPA’s No. 2 job, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is expected to advance his nomination in a vote on Wednesday.
The restraint that steeled Wheeler’s nomination seems likely to clear the way for his confirmation. Unlike other Trump nominees whose outrageous opinions or lack of qualifications put them on the political fringe, Wheeler boasts both the Beltway aesthetic and the experience needed to become a powerful EPA operator. His confirmation, critics fear, will speed the Trump administration’s rollback of environmental and public health protections, and make a lasting, if quieter, impact.
“It’s very alarming and distressing,” Mary Anne Hitt, a campaign director at the Sierra Club, told HuffPost. “He is right up there with the list of the most extreme people that Trump has nominated for any agency.”
Wheeler, a coal lobbyist and former legislative aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), is widely seen as having the relationships and finesse needed to avoid legal potholes while driving the EPA’s deregulatory agenda. He knows how to work the system from within, having spent four years working at the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He said the right things to woo critics at his confirmation hearing, calling EPA staffers “the most dedicated and hard-working employees in the federal government.”
“The mission of the EPA to protect human health and the environment is critical to our country and its citizens and something that I take very seriously and I know you do, too,” Wheeler said.PETE MAROVICH VIA GETTY IMAGESEPA Administrator Scott Pruitt testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Dec. 7.
The EPA did not respond to HuffPost’s request interview Wheeler, and directed questions about his nomination to the Senate committee. Faegre Baker Daniels, the law firm where Wheeler currently works, directed HuffPost to the EPA.
“Andrew will bring extraordinary credentials to EPA that will greatly assist the Agency as we work to implement our agenda,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said when Wheeler was nominated in October. “He has spent his entire career working to improve environmental outcomes for Americans across the country and understands the importance of providing regularity certainty for our country.”
Wheeler won approval from the Senate panel last year, but his nomination never came to the full chamber for a final confirmation vote. His nomination was returned to the committee as a matter of procedure when the new legislative session began last month.
If Wheeler has anything stacked against him, it could be a 2016 Facebook post he wrote calling Trump a “bully” who “hasn’t been that successful” in business and who “has more baggage then all the other Republican candidates combined.” The remarks, surfaced in October by The Washington Post, gained new relevance this month after reporters unearthed two 2016 radio interviews in which Pruitt called Trump a “bully” and an “empty vessel” on “the Constitution and rule of law.”
But that doesn’t seem to be deterring Republicans.
“Mr. Wheeler has proven himself to be a well-qualified, experienced, and dedicated public servant,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Senate committee, said in November. A spokesman directed HuffPost to the statement on Monday.
Wheeler is likely to be confirmed in the full Senate, where the GOP holds a narrow majority. No Republicans publicly oppose him, and Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) ― who generally vote with the GOP on fossil fuel issues ― are likely to vote for Wheeler. Neither senator responded to requests for comment on Monday.
To boot, Democrats have already spent political capital to upend more egregious environmental nominations. Those include Hartnett-White ― who credited coal with abolishing slavery and suggested increased carbon dioxide emissions were good for the planet ― and Michael Dourson, whose consultancy was described in 2014 by InsideClimate News as the “one-stop science shop” favored by the chemical and tobacco industries seeking affirmative research. Pruitt picked Dourson to lead the EPA’s chemical safety division, but withdraw the nomination in December after two Republican senators said they would not vote for him.
Democrats seem more at ease with Wheeler’s nomination. No Democrat raised concerns about Wheeler last week during Pruitt’s first Senate hearing since taking office.
Yet the choice of Wheeler is itself a naked gift to the coal industry, which has yielded outsized influence over the Trump White House. Wheeler lobbied on behalf of coal mining giant Murray Energy as recently as last year, disclosure filings show.
The company’s bombastic chief executive, Bob Murray, already has played a major role in shaping Trump administration energy and environmental policies. Last month, Murray’s so-called “action plan,” became public. The proposals include a federal bailout of coal-fired plants, repeal of the Clean Power Plan and reopening of the 2009 EPA “endangerment finding” that determined carbon dioxide pollution poses a risk to public health.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a break with the White House, rejected the bailout plan. Pruitt announced his repeal of the Clean Power Plan, a suite of rules to reduce emissions from power plants, in October. But the administration’s decision on the so-called endangerment finding is up in the air. Despite calls from ardent climate-change deniers to reopen the finding, overturning the conclusion would require disproving the science behind human-caused climate change in court ― an extremely unlikely prospect. Pruitt said last week that he had not yet decided whether to challenge the finding.Democrats seem more at ease with his nomination. No Democrat raised concerns about Wheeler last week during Pruitt’s first Senate hearing since taking office.
Wheeler could be the man to lead that assault. In October, Pruitt railed against the endangerment finding for citing the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In what appeared to be a dog whistle to nationalists, he claimed the endangerment finding “represents, and this is the first time in history this has ever occurred, this agency took work product of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and adopted it, transferred it to this agency and used that as the basis, underpinnings, of the endangerment finding.”
In reality, the technical support document on the endangerment finding references more than 100 published scientific studies and cites peer-reviewed syntheses of climate research by the White House’s Global Change Research Program, the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.N.’s IPCC.
But the criticism echoes Wheeler’s own suggestions. In March 2010, he accused the IPCC of blurring “the lines between science and advocacy” and functioning “more as a political body than a scientific body.” He suggested the EPA could “reconsider its endangerment finding without almost exclusively relying upon the IPCC,” according to remarks posted to his website.
“I believe that man has an impact on the climate, but what’s not completely understood is what the impact is,” Wheeler said at his confirmation hearing when aggressively questioned about the findings of the federal government’s latest climate report.
Wheeler’s Senate career gives pause to environmentalists, too. Inhofe, who serves on the Senate panel voting on his nomination, is one of the most ardent climate-change deniers in Congress. In 2015, the Oklahoma Republican brought a snowball to the Senate floor in a comically flamboyant attempt to prove climate change is a hoax. Inhofe is a close ally of Pruitt, who is said to be considering a bid for his seat when the 83-year-old senator retires.
“Andrew Wheeler’s nomination is very much in keeping with the Trump administration’s agenda of fossil fuel exploitation and climate inaction,” Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University and co-author of a book on climate change denialism, told HuffPost. “The environmental community’s celebration of the failed nomination of climate-change denier Kathleen Hartnett-White to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality may be short-lived.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/andrew-wheeler-epa_us_5a78dc2ce4b0164659c73e97
-
Trump Plans Shakeup of Science Council
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The White House plans to restructure the National Science and Technology Council, raising new questions about the Trump administration's intentions on climate and energy policy.
An administration official said today that agency comments are being submitted this week on changes to the council, which is chaired by the president and includes the vice president and agency science leaders. There was a closed-door meeting last week with representatives from the Department of Energy, NASA and other agencies to discuss possible alterations that were "met with enthusiasm," the official said.
Started in 1993 by executive order, the NSTC coordinates science policy across the government and influences budget decisions in agencies. Historically, it has produced multiagency reports on topics ranging from ocean acidification to wildfires.
We need "to make sure that the work coming out of the NSTC is best aligned with the priorities of the administration," the administration official said.
The official said the council's top-level committees, which currently includes a panel on environment, natural resources and sustainability, likely will remain intact. There could be shifts to the subgroups within those committees that could alter how the federal government debates and plans science policy. The environment sub-arm, for example, includes working groups on climate science, ocean science and disaster reduction, and their fate is unclear.
Kumar Garg, an Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) staffer during the Obama administration, questioned whether restructuring would ensure that agencies are talking to each other and are focused on specific issues. In the past, the council produced multiagency reportson topics such as algal blooms that were not always congressionally mandated.
During the Obama years, the number of annual reports from the council increased, so there were more than 30 in 2016. Last year, the council released one report on biosecurity, and a 2016 executive order mandated the council to establish a space weather committee (E&E News PM, Oct. 13, 2016).
Garg also asked why the restructuring is happening now, considering there still is not an OSTP director. The OSTP director typically oversees the council's activities. Trump has gone longer than any modern president in picking a science adviser.
"It's a little odd to lead a restructuring when you haven't designated someone to represent the office," Garg said.
The official defended moving forward on restructuring without an OSTP director in place, as the nomination and confirmation process could take time. "Why wait if agencies are spending their time and talent" on the council, the official said.
A search for an OSTP director "is very much in progress," but there is not a definitive timeline for a nominee.
In the interim, a "triumvirate" is running OSTP, according to the official. That includes Deputy Assistant to the President Michael Kratsios, Deputy Chief of Staff Ted Wackler and General Counsel Rachael Leonard.
Last year, obtained documents showed that OSTP staff had dwindled to about a third of the size of the last year of the Obama administration, with the elimination of many positions focused solely on climate change (Greenwire, Aug. 4, 2017).
An OSTP roster obtained this week by E&E News through a Freedom of Information Act request shows staffing levels up to about 50 people, although many of the former climate positions have not been replaced.
Among the new hires are former Idaho National Laboratory employee Michael Goff, who is now a senior policy adviser on nuclear energy. OSTP is conducting a review of nuclear power.
Also on the staff list is Guillermo Mendoza, a former Army Corps of Engineers official who is now OSTP's senior policy adviser on water policy.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/06/stories/1060073025
-
Record-Breaking Number of Scientists Seek Office
Feb 6, 2018 | HuffPost (In E&E Greenwire)
By Alexander Kaufman
A historic number of candidates with science backgrounds are seeking public office in the 2018 midterm elections, according to data from 314 Action, an advocacy group that aims to get scientists elected.
That includes more than 60 candidates for Congress and at least 200 more for state legislature seats.
314 Action, which launched in 2016, said it is in talks with 500 more people with science backgrounds and notes another 200 school board candidates around the country.
Group leaders say the Trump administration's cuts to environmental regulation and federal research have spurred the trend.
"The sheer number is really astonishing," 314 Action founder Shaughnessy Naughton said. "We've never seen anything like this. ... These are not people that envision themselves as politicians and build a resume around that. These are people that are genuinely outraged and concerned by the direction the country is going in, especially in this administration and this Congress."
The group plans to spend between $5 million and $7 million during this campaign cycle.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/06/stories/1060072993
-
EDF Lends Strong Support to EPA’s IRIS Program in Comments at National Academies Workshop
Feb 6, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
Last week the National Academies held a public workshop as part of its review of changes that have been made, or that are planned, by the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. The last National Academies review, published in 2014, pointed to significant advancements the program had already achieved since its prior 2011 report:
Overall, the committee finds that substantial improvements in the IRIS process have been made, and it is clear that EPA has embraced and is acting on the recommendations in the NRC formaldehyde report. The NRC formaldehyde committee recognized that its suggested changes would take several years and an extensive effort by EPA staff to implement. Substantial progress, however, has been made in a short time, and the present committee’s recommendations should be seen as building on the progress that EPA has already made.
As I’ve blogged before, the EPA IRIS program is a non-regulatory program that provides critical information and scientific expertise that helps ensure that the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the land where we live, work, and play are safe. For example, the IRIS program has a central role to play in helping address widespread contamination of drinking water with perfluorinated chemicals.
The American public depends on the IRIS program and it is imperative that the program remain intact, housed apart from regulatory parts of the agency, and adequately resourced.
In the comments I provided on behalf of EDF at the meeting, I emphasized that the IRIS program is: critical to protecting public health;making significant progress toward advancing systematic review in chemicals assessment, adopting best practices from the clinical sciences in line with earlier National Academies recommendations;approaching the integration of mechanistic information in chemical assessment in a scientifically sound manner;making important investments in specialized software tools designed to make the development and updating of chemical assessments more efficient; and appropriately and necessarily situated within the science arm of EPA where it is best positioned to conduct strong, independent science.
The IRIS program has unquestionably been responsive to earlier recommendations of the National Academies and is arguably yet again surpassing expectations. The American public depends on the IRIS program and it is imperative that the program remain intact, housed apart from regulatory parts of the agency, and adequately resourced.
A final report by the Committee is expected this spring.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/02/06/edf-lends-strong-support-to-epas-iris-program-in-comments-at-national-academies-workshop/
-
EPA Denies Denka's Chloroprene IRIS Correction Request Using New Tool
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Citing a new analytical approach recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), EPA has denied a chemical company's request to withdraw or correct its assessment of the health risks of the chemical chloroprene - which the company charges is driving an unusual and costly enforcement action at its Louisiana facility.
"The EPA, after careful review of the [request for correction (RFC)] submitted by [Denka Performance Elastomers (DPE)], has concluded that the underlying information and conclusions presented in the Toxicological Review of Chloroprene . . . are consistent with the EPA's Information Quality Guidelines," EPA's top staff research official concludes in a Jan. 24 response to the company.
The agency's denial of the RFC appears to undercut efforts by congressional Republicans who had cited the Integrated Risk Information System' (IRIS) chloroprene assessment and the resulting enforcement action against Denka as a poster child for why the program needed to be eliminated or overhauled.
But it is not clear what effect the denial will have on some House Republican lawmakers' request for the agency to create a special mechanism by which the agency can "correct" IRIS analyses.
"Given that the IRIS program appears to continually reject requests for correction based on credible scientific data, there appears to be no means of establishing the scientific integrity of the program as a whole," Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House science committee, and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), chair of the committee's environment panel, said in an Oct. 12 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
EPA's denial of Denka's request is based in part on a systematic review performed by IRIS staff, who used the approach to evaluate research on chloroprene health risks published since the assessment was completed in 2010 to determine if there were new information that would justify updating the assessment.
Systematic review is a structured and documented process for transparent literature review and evaluation of the information.
In this case, IRIS staff conclude that seven new chloroprene studies evaluated "represent novel approaches to analyzing existing epidemiologic, toxicological, and toxicokinetic data available for chloroprene. However … it is the opinion of the EPA that these studies do not present sufficient evidence or provide adequate rationale for re-evaluating the entire chloroprene toxicity database."
The document goes on to describe various concerns with three of the studies. "Ultimately, the Agency stands behind the conclusions made in the 2010 IRIS Toxicological Review of Chloroprene, including the derived cancer values. The new studies on chloroprene do not provide a reasonable basis for reassessing the human health effects due to chronic chloroprene exposure."
The IRIS program has been working to adopt systematic review methodologies over the course of the past year under the direction of new leadership specializing in the approach, which NAS recommended that EPA adopt to strengthen IRIS' scientific conclusions and enhance the program's transparency.
The chloroprene systematic review has become one of a handful of documents presented to a new NAS committee that is reviewing the IRIS program, focusing largely on its systematic review work, which kicked off with a Feb. 1-2 workshop.
NATA Data
Concerns with the Denka plant originated with EPA's 2015 release of its 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data showing high levels near the plant of the likely carcinogen chloroprene. The chemical is a feedstock for neoprene.
EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) are using NATA to target the plant's emissions - a novel use of the air toxics data to support specific compliance action rather than broader strategic efforts.
Denka filed the request for correction last June, along with a letter from its president and CEO, Koki Tabuchi, who formally petitioned Pruitt to "withdraw and correct" what it considered errors in EPA's 2010 IRIS assessment of chloroprene, which classifies the chemical as a likely human carcinogen and sets an inhalation unit risk (IUR) estimate for cancer potency of 5x10^-4 per microgram per cubic meter of air (ug/m^3)^-1 when chloroprene is inhaled daily over a lifetime.
This IUR, together with the NATA data, is the basis for the enforcement effort to reduce the plant's emissions to 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m^3).
But Tabuchi blamed the IRIS assessment for enforcement actions from state and federal officials that he says could force the facility to close.
Tabuchi charged that EPA and LDEQ "pressed DPE to reduce emissions to achieve an extraordinarily miniscule ambient air target concentration of 0.2 ug/m^3 for chloroprene on an annual average basis … based on a risk assessment that applied the erroneous and scientifically unsubstantiated IUR from the 2010 IRIS" assessment.
But plaintiffs in a pending class action suit against the company charged in a response to the RFC that Denka failed to present any new evidence to EPA, and that the report from Denka's consultant, Environ, "suffers from various fatal objections to its methodology that justify dismissal of its arguments..."
"Denka's RFC aims to replace EPA's peer-reviewed IRIS Assessment with Environ's proprietary science, radically altering the agency's duty to use scientific decision-making to regulate air quality to protect human health. Denka's RFC demands a new chloroprene emission limit that would dramatically increase the average amount of chloroprene vapor allowed into the ambient air. . . . If Environ's proprietary science replaces EPA's . . . that will be incorporated into Denka's LaPlace permits, then Denka's success will reverberate far beyond LaPlace and surrounding communities."
Pending Lawsuit
Even as EPA rejected Denka's RFC, the company remains embroiled in a class action lawsuit with residents of LaPlace, LA, who are suing over their exposure to chloroprene releases from the plant.
An amended complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in Taylor et al v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC et al, proposes a class-action suit against Denka and DuPont, which built the plant in the late 1960s and operated it until selling it to Denka in 2015.
The suit charges Denka and DuPont with nuisance, trespass and negligence to protect the community, arguing the companies were aware of the health effects of exposure to chloroprene air emissions since the 1980s but withheld that information from the community and state and federal agencies.
The suit argues the companies "failed to act reasonably to prevent emissions of chloroprene that would result in concentrations of greater than 0.2 ug/m3 around the surrounding community - indeed, those concentrations were hundreds of times the threshold for reasonable and safe chloroprene exposure."
The suit points to an EPA report detailing numerous issues of concern with the plant following an enforcement inspection over the summer of 2016, and urges Judge Martin Feldman to order Denka to stop or reduce the plant's production until it can meet emissions levels EPA deems safe.
Denka and DuPont, which still owns the land the facility sits on, have responded with filings arguing that Feldman should dismiss the suit for failure to cite a claim.
"Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts showing an irreparable injury . . . [which] requires a showing that 'the harm to Plaintiffs is imminent,'" Denka writes in its Dec. 22 motion to dismiss the suit. "[T]he risk level cited by the Plaintiffs is based on exposure for 24 hours a day for 365 days a year over a period of 70 years. Accordingly, Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the non-speculative and imminence requirements for irreparable injury, as the NATA basis for Plaintiffs' entire case sets forth that such injuries are neither definite nor imminent."
Denka is also resisting the plaintiffs' request to certify a class. "Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification should be denied because it is untimely, and because the Court has expressly prohibited Plaintiffs from filing it," Denka argues. The defendant points to Feldman's Jan. 9 order denying plaintiffs' request for more time to file their petition to certify as a class.
"In the Order, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time because 'no good cause supports an extension and the request itself is untimely. ... Absent a showing of good cause, the plaintiffs' motion to extend should be denied as untimely, and the class allegations should be stricken or dismissed.'"
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-denies-denkas-chloroprene-iris-correction-request-using-new-tool
-
GOP Chairman Questions US Funding for International Chemical Research Agency
Feb 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The chairman of the House Science Committee on Tuesday slammed an international body’s cancer research on a common pesticide and questioned whether the United States should contribute funding to the body.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) called the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) conclusions on the pesticide glyphosate “unsubstantiated” and “not backed by reliable data.”
He also accused the agency of using “cherry-picked” information.
“IARC’s conclusion about glyphosate relied only on data that was favorable to its conclusion and ignored contradictory data,” Smith said at a hearing about the IARC process.
“The selective use of data and the lack of public disclosure raise questions about why IARC should receive any government funding in the future.”
IARC is part of the World Health Organization, itself a United Nations agency. It gets money from the U.S. through the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The hearing focused on a 2015 conclusion from IARC that found that glyphosate, an extremely common pesticide sold by Monsanto Co. as Roundup, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
That finding contrasts with studies by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and government researchers in Canada and Europe.
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), the Science Committee’s vice chairman, called IARC’s work “shoddy” and said it is “unacceptable from any scientific body, let alone one funded by the American taxpayer.”
Democrats on the committee pushed back at the GOP’s characterizations of IARC and tried to turn the tables against Monsanto, which has been pushing against the 2015 finding through numerous means.
“It is important that we review the methods and tactics that industry has used to influence this [Trump] administration and attack independent scientific organizations like the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.).
“We must make sure any chemical review is not undone by undue industry influence or misleading scientific studies.”
Bonamici said the discrepancy between IARC’s findings and those of agencies like the EPA may have a simple explanation: IARC examines whether a chemical could possible cause cancer under particular circumstances, while the EPA seeks to estimate the cancer risks.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/372517-gop-chairman-questions-us-funding-for-international-chemical
-
EU Targets EDCs in Drinking Water
Feb 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has adopted a proposal for a revised drinking water Directive that would, among a number of changes, add limit values for three endocrine disrupting chemicals to the list of criteria for monitoring water quality.
The proposal, adopted on 1 February, follows a REFIT evaluation of the Directive. This called for an examination of whether the safety parameters, set more than 20 years ago, deal with "existing and emerging pressures", the Commission says.
REFIT is part of the Commission's better regulation agenda that aims to ensure EU laws deliver their intended benefits for citizens, businesses and society, while removing red tape and lowering costs.
Under the proposal, the following EDCs and limit values would be added to the Directive's list of parameters to be monitored:bisphenol A: 0.01μg/l;beta-estradiol: 0.001μg/l; andnonylphenol: 0.3μg/l.
These and several other chemicals were included on the basis of the precautionary principle, and following the recommendations of the World Health Organisation, it adds.
While the WHO does not provide guideline values for EDCs, it suggests using benchmarks "close to existing or possible future environmental quality standards", for the protection of aquatic life. This, it said, is much more sensitive to the effects of oestrogenic EDCs than humans.
"Even though the WHO indicated that currently there is no evidence of risks to health from drinking water, which is a minor source of exposure, and that such risks are unlikely, it was decided to include these parameters in the Directive on the basis of the precautionary principle," the Commission says.EDCs
The three substances were chosen because they are known to be present in surface water sources, impacted by treated sewage effluent and other discharges.
Other EDCs were not included, the Commission says, as the WHO considers that routine monitoring for the full range of these compounds would "currently be difficult, expensive and not effective at preventing contamination of drinking water".
BPA, which is mainly used in the manufacture of some plastics and epoxy resins, is on the REACH candidate list for its endocrine disrupting properties causing adverse effects to humans and the environment, and it has reprotoxic effects.
Nonylphenol is used as a surfactant, and is also on the candidate list as an EDC for the environment. Beta-estradiol is a natural oestrogen and is not on the candidate list.New parameters
The proposal also includes the addition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) to the list of monitored parameters.
Unlike in the case of EDCs, however, the Commission proposes to deviate from the WHO recommendation for two individual PFASs – PFOS and PFOA – and will instead regulate the whole group.
It suggests values of 0.1μg/l for an individual PFAS and 0.5μg/l for PFASs in total, the same as for pesticides. The WHO recommends 4μg/l for individual PFOA and 0.4μg/l for PFOS.
And in the case of metals, the WHO recommends maintaining the current parametric value of 10µg/l for lead and 50µg/l for chromium. However, the Commission has proposed lowering the value of both by 50%, ten years after the Directive is enforced.
This is because lead is one of a few substances known to cause direct health impacts through drinking water. Therefore concentrations should be "as low as reasonably practical", according to the WHO. While the value for chromium remains under review, ongoing WHO discussions with toxicologists suggest introducing a lower value for chromium.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63723/eu-targets-edcs-in-drinking-water
-
Halliburton Takes Fracking Fight From Oil Field to Patent Office
Feb 6, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Susan Decker, David Wethe, and Christopher Yasiejko
Halliburton Co. isn’t content to limit its battle for market share with Schlumberger Ltd.to the oil field these days. It’s opened a new front in an unlikely place: the patent office.
The Houston-based provider of drilling services is waging an aggressive campaign to persuade the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel some of Schlumberger’s fracking-related patents, telling the agency they’re not inventions but old ideas repackaged. At the same time, Halliburton is pursuing more patents and was awarded 35 percent more in 2017 compared to the previous year.Drilling for Patents
Oilfield service providers receive hundreds of U.S. patents each year.
Source: IFI Claims Patent Services
“They’re the two big dogs in the space,” said J. David Anderson, an analyst at Barclays. “Halliburton and Schlumberger have been battling for that top spot in North American services for a decade, so the fact they’re going after each other with patents is not surprising.”
Halliburton has long been the top North American contractor while Schlumberger has dominated international markets, but they’ve been increasingly encroaching on each other’s turf as crude recovers from its worst crash in a generation.
Read More: Drilled But Uncompleted Wells About to Flood the Market
In North America, Schlumberger is directly challenging Halliburton’s title as the top fracker after recently acquiring roughly 1 million horsepower-worth of rock-crushing pumps from Weatherford International Plc. Meanwhile, Halliburton grew at a faster pace in all international markets than Schlumberger in the final three months of last year.
Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, blasts water, sand and chemicals underground to release trapped oil and gas.Shale Rebound
Oilfield spending budgets in U.S. and Canada are poised to rise again next year
Source: Evercore ISI
Oilfield service providers such as Halliburton and Schlumberger are being asked by their customers for greater technology to help them do more with less so they can be more prudent with spending and return cash to shareholders.
“Everybody’s fighting for that small little edge,” said James Wicklund, an analyst at Credit Suisse in Dallas. “You’re already so deep in technology it’s ridiculous.”
Patents can help provide an edge and Halliburton has racked up some early wins. Since December, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has agreed to review the validity of six Schlumberger patents after making a preliminary finding that Halliburton had shown a “reasonable likelihood” of winning its arguments.
How Fracking’s Stared Down Foes, Quakes, Price Swoons: QuickTake
Schlumberger has given up on one of the patents; and the board is considering Halliburton challenges on four others. Final decisions on the patents under review are expected by the end of the year.
Among the Schlumberger patents Halliburton has challenged are those covering the use of fiber optic tools to monitor interior well conditions, sensors to collect temperature readings across a broader area and ways to more precisely control where the fracking fluid goes.
Halliburton, in several petitions, said the patents are simply “a classic
situation where known elements are combined according to known methods to yield predictable results.”Emily Mir, a spokeswoman for Houston-based Halliburton, said the company focuses its own research “on products and services that will improve efficiency and enhance production while reducing costs for its customers.” As for the Schlumberger patents, the company “cannot comment on pending disputes,” she said.
Schlumberger, in filings with the patent board, rejected Halliburton’s characterizations. In individual responses, one patented invention provided “many advantages and efficiencies” while another was “a significant advance” over earlier techniques, company lawyers wrote.
Officials with Schlumberger, based in Houston and Paris, didn’t immediately return messages seeking comment.
There’s no guarantee that the patent board will invalidate Schlumberger’s patents, despite its reputation as a “death squad” with a high rate of ruling against patent owners. Baker Hughes Inc. tried to challenge one owned by Schlumberger’s Smith unit, for a drill bit to widen a hole. In a Feb. 1 decision, a three-judge PTAB panel said Baker Hughes hadn’t proven its case.
Even as it attacks Schlumberger’s patents, Halliburton is on a record pace to obtain its own, putting it in the neighborhood of tech heavyweights like Oracle Corp. and Micron Technology Inc. The company received 738 patents last year, making it No. 44 in the list of recipients, according to a study by IFI Claims Patent Services, a unit of Fairview Research LLC.
It was the only oil-and-gas company in the list of IFI’s top 50 recipients, which was dominated by companies involved with electronics, software and automobiles. Baker Hughes, now controlled by General Electric Co., was No. 74 on the list, with 496 patents, and Schlumberger was 86, with 434 patents.
“It is striking how fast Halliburton has grown” since 2009, said Larry Cady, a senior analyst with IFI who took a look at Halliburton’s patenting. Schlumberger and Baker Hughes “do not show the same trend.”
Among the patents Halliburton received last year were ones for modeling software to improve the efficiency of fracking, a downhole tool that limits hydraulic pressure, and a gel breaking system that Halliburton says is more environmentally acceptable.
It can take two or more years to obtain a patent, so the new ones reflect years-old investments. Halliburton also is getting patents through acquisitions as it tries to keep up with the next-generation upstarts that are developing new ways to boost output and avoid downtime in old wells.
So far, there’s no sign that Schlumberger is striking back at Halliburton’s patents. Instead, in October it challenged a patent owned by EnerPol LLC, founded by a former ExxonMobil Corp. researcher, that had filed a patent-infringement suit over technology to create wide fractures near the wellbore.
Schlumberger said in its petition that fracturing for oil and gas wells is a 70-year-old technology, and EnerPol’s patent covers “well-known fracturing steps.”
Other suits last year included ones by Canada’s Trican WellService Ltd. against Preferred Proppants LLC, over the material that keeps the fractures open once they’ve been created. Technologies that have been the subject of patent disputes also include a type of equipment called a dart that creates a seal, a step required for fracking. The patented method allows for higher hydraulic pressure than known methods.
Those types of disputes have been going on for decades and rarely result in any definitive blow against a competitor, Wicklund said. That doesn’t mean they don’t have value to the challengers.
“The longer you can keep your opponent off balance, then the more opportunity you have to grab that small part of market share,” Wicklund said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-06/halliburton-takes-fracking-fight-from-oil-field-to-patent-office
-
Delivery of Russian LNG Heats Up Discussion About U.S. Energy Dominance & Sanctions
Feb 6, 2018 | Forbes
By Anna Mikulska
On January 28th, a French tanker, Gaselys, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) docked in Boston, where a cold snap that curtailed regional gas supplies had created demand for imports. The delivery came as a shock to many international and national observers as it seemingly contradicted the recent narrative of U.S. self-sufficiency in natural gas. To add insult to injury, the shipment included gas from Russia’s Yamal LNG project, where a newly built LNG export terminal has been just opened despite U.S. sanctions.
But while this may sound alarming, a closer look into the issue tells a more nuanced story.
First, the U.S. has to import LNG not because it lacks sufficient natural gas production but because market and non-market mechanisms prevent natural gas from being delivered to the northeastern part of the country whenever demand increases rapidly and at a relatively short notice. The underlying obstacle here is insufficient pipeline and storage capacity to bring in and store otherwise abundant U.S. natural gas. In addition, the region is not able to cost-effectively import U.S.–sourced LNG due to barriers caused by the Jones Act. This 1920 policy prevents ships built and registered outside of the U.S. from delivering goods between U.S. ports. And there are currently no U.S.-made, U.S.-flagged LNG tankers.
But while these obstacles prevent sufficient volumes of U.S. gas from accessing the Northeast during times of shortage, they do not limit the U.S.’s ability to produce or export natural gas. By 2022 the US is expected to produce 1/5 of global natural gas, output with half of the increase in U.S. production to be used for LNG exports. In this context, Northeast delivery limitations may even facilitate US LNG exports as gas that does not find its way via pipelines to Northeast will instead be liquefied and sent abroad.
This brings us to the second concern spurred by the Gaselys shipment - an apparent loophole in sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. While these sanctions include measures against Yamal LNG’s major shareholder, Novatek, they do not cover the natural gas it produces. The gas that entered the U.S. market not only did not come directly from Yamalbut also is not the property of Novatek. Instead, it is owned by a French company, Engie, and is sourced from many locations, one of which is Yamal. This would suggest that Novatek indeed found a way to evade U.S. sanctions.
But while U.S. sanctions did not prevent Russian LNG from accessing the global market, they made it difficult to find financing for the Yamal project. To help, the Russian government effectively subsidized the terminal by granting a 12-month Mineral Extraction Tax holiday, exempting it from export taxes, and financing some of the construction activity. Thus, even though in a limited way, U.S. sanctions worked by burdening Russian government with infrastructure expenses and restricting the revenues that Yamal sales could otherwise bring into the Russian federal budget. All this comes against the backdrop of the Russian economy’s weak performance in 2017. Official data shows Russian GDP only grew by 1.5%, which is lower than most- already low- predictions that ranged between 1.7 and 2.2%.
As such, the U.S. sanctions have achieved what was possible for unilaterally imposed and narrowly defined measures in an increasingly global natural gas market l. As long as there are other market players who are willing to trade with the sanctioned entity, the (non-sanctioned) natural gas this entity produces will be able to find its way onto the market via (1) actual delivery of indistinguishable molecules sourced from numerous producers by a non-sanctioned entity (as in the case of Gaselys delivery) or (2) displacement.
In this context, the U.S. should rethink its approach to Russia and sanctions; it should look for multilateral, broad commitments rather than unilateral and narrow measures. At the same time, the recent importation of Russian LNG does not suggest that the U.S. is unable to produce sufficient natural gas to meet domestic and export demands. It points, however, to regional market barriers (insufficient pipeline and storage capacity) and damaging effects of an old policy—the Jones Act—that does not reflect current market realities and needs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2018/02/06/delivery-of-russian-lng-heats-up-discussion-about-u-s-energy-dominance-sanctions/2/#3ff8634959e4
-
ExxonMobil's New US Cracker Mechanically Complete, Commissioning Underway
Feb 6, 2018 | ICIS
By Stefan Baumgarten
ExxonMobil’s new ethane cracker at Baytown, Texas, is mechanically complete, with commissioning progressing well, the US-based energy and chemicals major said on Tuesday.
Start-up of the cracker, with a capacity of 1.5m tonnes/year of ethylene, is expected during the second quarter of 2018.
The cracker will provide ethylene feedstock to new performance polyethylene (PE) lines in Mont Belvieu, Texas, which began production in autumn last year.
“With the completion of the project in Baytown, we are on the verge of fully realising one of ExxonMobil’s most significant US Gulf Coast investments,” said John Verity, president of ExxonMobil Chemical.
“Our new ethane cracker will allow us to economically meet rapidly growing demand for high-performance polyethylene products around the world while continuing to sustain economic development and create jobs for decades to come,” he added.
The Baytown chemical expansion project is a key component of ExxonMobil’s ‘Growing in the Gulf’ initiative.
In addition to the ethane cracker in Baytown, ExxonMobil and SABIC are proposing to build a jointly owned petrochemicals complex in San Patricio County, Texas, that would include an ethane cracker with a capacity of 1.8m tonne/year of ethylene – “the largest capacity of any ethane cracker built to date”, the company said.
Massive new supplies of oil and natural gas have dramatically reduced energy costs and created new sources of feedstock for US refining and chemical manufacturing, the company said.
Most of ExxonMobil’s planned new chemical capacity investment in the Gulf region is focused on supplying export markets such as Asia with high-demand products, which will contribute to strengthening the US balance of trade, it said.
Recent changes in the US corporate tax rate also create an environment for increased future capital investments in projects such as these, and will further enhance the company’s competitiveness in global markets, the company added.
“The US chemical industry is rapidly expanding along the Gulf Coast due to abundant supplies of domestically produced natural gas, as demonstrated by the investments ExxonMobil alone is making,” Verity said.
“This expansion will not only increase the nation’s existing manufacturing and export capacity, but also further stimulate economic growth and create thousands of full-time jobs.”
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/02/06/10190851/exxonmobil-s-new-us-cracker-mechanically-complete-commissioning-underway/
-
No OSHA Standards for Okla. Rig Where Blast Killed 5
Feb 6, 2018 | Oklahoman/Tulsa World (In E&E Energywire)
By Corey Jones
Federal safety standards for handling hazardous chemicals did not cover an Oklahoma natural gas rig that exploded in late January, killing five workers, due to a fossil fuel industry exemption.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration drew up a series of regulations in the early 1990s known as the "Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals" standards, or the PSM.
That came in response to accidents occurring during chemical industry operations. But rules specific to the oil and gas industry were left out in order to be drawn up separately, then later were abandoned. The industry successfully resisted another, long-standing attempt by OSHA to institute industrywide requirements for drillers.
Recent years have seen official pressure to include oil and gas companies in the PSM regulations. A 2013 order from President Obama directed OSHA to evaluate the exemption, and the following year, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommended eliminating it.
Safety standards drawn up by the American Petroleum Institute in 2001 weren't sufficient, the board said in its recommendation.
"Unfortunately, despite the existence of this guidance, serious incidents continue to occur at oil- and gas-production facilities, which suggests that voluntary guidance is insufficient to address the catastrophic hazard potential posed by these sites," it wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/06/stories/1060072917
-
Regulators Propose Doubling Fees on Shale Wells
Feb 6, 2018 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (In E&E Greenwire)
By Laura Legere
Pennsylvanian regulators want to more than double the cost for obtaining a permit to drill a shale gas well in the Keystone State.
The cost would go from $5,000 to $12,500 per well. The state Department of Environmental Protection found in a report that the increase is needed to keep an oil and gas oversight program from running a deficit starting in summer 2019.
"The number of well permits submitted to DEP does not generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of administering DEP's oil and gas program," the agency wrote.
The agency will go over the proposal with its oil and gas technical advisory board next week.
Industry officials say they were blindsided by the fee increase proposal.
The proposed amount "appears excessive and may be prohibitive for some operators, particularly given that permit wait times have more than doubled in the past year alone," David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/06/stories/1060073011
-
FERC Issues New Climate Review, But Pipeline's Fate Still Hazy
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A natural gas pipeline in the Southeast could be forced to shut down tomorrow, and it's unclear if federal regulators will step in to save it.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday did half of what's needed to keep the Sabal Trail pipeline in service: It completed a court-ordered analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. But the agency hasn't yet taken the second critical step of issuing an order to reauthorize the project.
FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen said the order is still pending.
"I can't speculate on when the Commission's Order on Remand will issue," she said in an email yesterday.
The administrative tangle relates to a Sierra Club legal challenge that has dire implications for Sabal Trail and a related $4 billion network known as the Southeast Market Pipelines Project in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in August ordered FERC to take a closer look at certain climate impacts from the pipeline project under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The judges sealed the deal on that decision last week when they rejected government and industry requests for reconsideration, setting a seven-day countdown — which ends tomorrow — for a court mandate that will vacate the project's permits until FERC completes the added climate review (Energywire, Feb. 1).
Pipeline backers Spectra Energy Partners LP, NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. on Friday asked FERC to quickly finish its supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and reauthorize the project (Energywire, Feb. 5).
Yesterday, the agency issued its final SEIS analyzing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning natural gas delivered by the Southeast pipelines.
FERC's action confused many agency watchers. The completion of the SEIS sets the stage for the project's reauthorization, but the commission didn't actually issue an order doing that. It's unclear if FERC will issue its decision today.NEPA regulations
The absence of an order reissuing certificates for Sabal Trail may stem from Council on Environmental Quality regulations that generally require agencies to wait 30 days after the publication of a final NEPA document to issue a decision.
The CEQ regulations include an exception to the timing requirement for agency decisions that are subject to a "formal internal appeal" process that allows other agencies and the public "a real opportunity" to weigh in.
Does FERC's built-in rehearing process qualify for that exception? Sabal Trail backers say yes; opponents say no. Nobody's quite sure what FERC thinks.
In a filing yesterday, attorneys for the Sierra Club argued that the CEQ exception does not apply because FERC's rehearing process can drag out almost indefinitely as the agency issues so-called tolling orders to repeatedly extend its deadline to respond to critics of a decision.
"FERC's track record of issuing tolling orders and ultimately denying environmental petitioners' rehearing requests shows that no such 'real opportunity' exists here," the group wrote. "Moreover, this exception should only apply where there is a stay of the decision pending administrative appeal, which is not the case with FERC decisions.
"Otherwise," the filings adds, "the exception would be at odds with NEPA regulations prohibiting the irretrievable commitment of resources during the NEPA process."
FERC mentioned the exception in yesterday's SEIS and referenced the agency's standard 30-day rehearing period. But it did not explicitly say whether the agency intends to invoke it — prompting uncertainty on both sides about whether to expect a final order today.Emergency certificates
The Sierra Club is also pushing back on the developers' alternative request that FERC issue temporary emergency certificates that allow the pipeline to avoid service interruptions.
Emergency permits would allow gas to continue flowing but would not allow work to continue on parts of the project that are still under construction.
"But issuing temporary certificates would allow the Applicants to do what the Court determined is unlawful: operate the pipeline before its impacts have been fully analyzed, as required by NEPA," the group's filing says.
Sierra Club attorneys say emergency permits aren't intended for situations in which a court order is halting pipeline operations. Plus, they argue that a shutdown would not cause an emergency, noting that in-service sections of the Southeast pipeline network have carried low volumes of gas in recent months, sometimes reaching zero.Dissecting the new review
Experts are still digesting the substance of FERC's newly finalized SEIS.
The document tallies greenhouse gas emissions anticipated from power plants that burn natural gas delivered by Sabal Trail and the related pipelines — a quantitative analysis FERC has already incorporated into most other pipeline reviews completed over the past year.
The review estimates that the project could increase Florida's greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 to 9.9 percent over 2015 data, with the higher number representing an "unlikely, upper bound scenario."
FERC declines to explore specific potential environmental effects from that increase, noting that it could not find a "suitable" scientific method for doing so.
Notably, the SEIS also declines to say whether such an increase in greenhouse gas emissions is significant at all.
"There are no widely accepted international, federal, or state definitions of what is considered a 'significant' emission rate for GHG emissions," it says. "Additionally, we have not identified any research that identifies a project level significance threshold of GHG emissions for climate change. Without some specific definition, or basis in physical science, it would be inappropriate to ascribe significance to a rate or volume of GHG emissions."
FERC's analysis adds that a "no-action" alternative of not approving the pipeline wouldn't zero out the anticipated emissions increase because gas shippers could find other ways to move their product.
The agency concludes that while the climate impacts are impossible to fully assess, its examination "with respect to the impacts for which staff could assess significance" shows that the project's overall impacts would not be significant.
The SEIS also rejects critics' calls to incorporate the social cost of carbon tool to assign a cost to the added emissions.
The document defends FERC's longtime refusal to use the tool and says opposition to that approach raises "matters of Commission policy that are more appropriate for the Commission to consider and address in a Commission order, rather than for the final SEIS to respond and address."
Jason Schwartz, legal director for New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, slammed the analysis as an attempt to pass the buck on the issue.
"It's a shame FERC continues to dismiss this readily available, easy-to-use, hugely informative metric," he said. "This SEIS still leaves the public and decisionmakers in the dark on the climate impacts of the project."
Pipeline opponents are expected to challenge the adequacy of the analysis.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/06/stories/1060072951
-
Oil is Still Hot, But Majors Dabbling in Renewables
| E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
The planet's oil and gas giants continue to have mixed feelings about renewable energy investments.
New investments in renewable energy technology companies announced recently by some of the world's largest crude oil and natural gas producers caused some to speculate that Big Oil has changed its tune on clean energy. But the weight of companies' investment portfolios and the focus of discussions by executives during financial update calls tell a different story.
Wind, solar and other corners of the renewables business weren't mentioned during earnings announcements and calls with analysts by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. And despite some recent announcements of clean energy investments, European oil and gas supermajors continue to spend far more on new upstream hydrocarbon production. Their oil and gas capital expenditures still easily dwarf any stakes they may have in renewable energy.
There also remains a divide across the Atlantic. U.S.-based oil companies continue to largely shun wind and solar, focusing on their core oil and gas businesses. Chevron uses concentrated solar for enhanced oil production at a project in California. Exxon invests in alternative biofuels research.
European oil majors, on the other hand, are slowly and tentatively diversifying into cleaner electricity generation, and even are dabbling in alternative vehicle and mobility technology. Valentina Kretzschmar, director of research at Wood Mackenzie, says pressure by European governments concerned about climate change is compelling the European oil giants to at least dip their toes into emissions-free power generation and clean transportation.
Announcements making headlines include BP PLC's decision to purchase a 43 percent stake in European solar power developer Lightsource, a $200 million investment decision. BP also recently said it will provide $5 million in venture capital to a company called FreeWire Technologies. According to BP, the money will be used toward developing electric vehicle rapid charging stations.
"The recent announcements are line with the majors' strategic diversification into renewables and other clean technologies," Kretzschmar explained. "The majors, especially Euro-majors, are under increasing government, regulatory, investor and consumer pressure to diversify, in order to mitigate risk of climate change policies on their portfolios and future cash flows. However, the current level of investment into renewables is still very low compared to their investment in oil and gas projects."
Kretzschmar estimates that oil majors' investments in renewables represents just 3 percent of what they invest in new upstream oil and gas production. She also noted that where investments are being made, they are spread thinly, an indication of lingering uncertainty over which renewable technologies oil companies must focus on the most. "They are not really sure which one will be the winning one," she said.The end of oil
Exxon disclosed in a recent report that its executives believe strong government efforts at tackling climate change could see sharp declines in global oil demand from 2040 onward. Other companies have touted their ventures in renewables as much more than just symbolic gestures.
Due to BP's $200 million infusion, Lightsource will be renamed Lightsource BP, and two BP executives will be put on its board of directors. The investment marked BP's return to the solar energy business. BP still maintains a wind energy division.
"BP has been committed to advancing lower-carbon energy for over 20 years and we're excited to be coming back to solar, but in a new and very different way," said CEO Bob Dudley in a release. "While our history in the solar industry was centered on manufacturing panels, Lightsource BP will instead grow value through developing and managing major solar projects around the world."
In terms of mergers and acquisitions spending, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Total SA top the ranks. Jonathan Weber, an investment analyst at Seeking Alpha, pointed to Shell's commitment to renewables as a reason to invest in the company. He praised Shell's pledge to spend billions in the coming years on wind and electric mobility and that company's recent purchase of a French renewable energy company.
Citing these trends, Weber concluded in a recent research note that Shell is "the most attractive oil major right now, as it combines an attractive dividend, great cash generation, and a management that is focused on preparing the company for the coming decades," meaning it is "positioning the company for a post-oil future."
Kretzschmar confirmed that Shell and France's Total topped the rankings in terms of clean energy company acquisitions, but added that even those oil companies spend relatively little internally on their own renewable energy technology acumen, preferring to buy stakes in existing opportunities.
At the end of January, Spanish oil giant Repsol SA announced that it will be partnering with Korean automaker Kia Motors Corp. to launch a pilot ride-sharing service in Madrid with electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The companies didn't say how much the partnership would spend, but it's likely tiny when compared to Repsol's global oil operations.France's Total boosts gas investment
Over time, the largest oil companies in the world could make fundamental shifts toward a lower-carbon-emitting source of energy, as these companies seem committed to weighting their operations more toward natural gas in the longer run.
According to Reuters, a BP executive recently told an audience in Vienna that the company deems it likely that natural gas will overtake oil and coal to become the dominant source of energy by 2040. The projection assumes average gas demand growth of 1.6 percent a year for the next couple decades, while demand for oil may expand by only 0.8 percent per year during the same time period.
Aside from its renewable energy investments, Total recently invested about $1.5 billion to buy a liquefied natural gas business from Engie, making Total the world's second-largest holder of upstream LNG assets. The purchase gives Total a 16.6 percent equity stake in the Cameron LNG project in Louisiana. Shell took the top spot in global LNG capacity with its purchase of BG Group.
For Chevron, one bright spot in an otherwise disappointing earnings report that analysts pointed to was the company's newly finished LNG export platforms in Australia.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/06/stories/1060072953
-
EIA: U.S. to Become Net Energy Exporter by 2022
Feb 6, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
The U.S. will become a net energy exporter by 2022, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday in its latest long-term forecast, accelerating the date for when the country breaks with its 70-year history of importing more energy than it ships out.
That scenario, which the EIA had said last year would occur in 2026, would mark a fundamental change for a country that has been a net importer since 1953. It would represent a culmination of the U.S. shale oil and gas boom that began in 2006 to turn the country into a global energy powerhouse — and drive a drill through the heart of the domestic coal industry.
“The United States energy system continues to undergo an incredible transformation,” EIA Administrator Linda Capuano said during a presentation on the new forecast. The forecast shows “a very different set of expectations than we imagined even five or 10 years ago.”
Oil production is expected to increase to 12 million barrels per day around 2040 before rolling off as currently producing shale fields are tapped out, according to the forecast. At the same time, EIA says gains in domestic energy efficiency will keep consumption increases to less than half a percent per year and cause most of the new oil and gas to be exported. The outlook assumes GDP growth of 2 percent per year.
EIA dropped the Clean Power Plan from its latest forecast, but the outlook predicts that the Trump administration's plan to repeal the rule would not be enough to turn around the long-term decline in coal demand among utilities. Nearly all new electricity generation capacity added after 2022 will come from natural gas and renewable energy, according to the EIA reference case.
“Even without Clean Power Plan, new coal plants are not expected to be built since they have a cost disadvantage compared to gas and renewables,” Capuano said.
The forecast does not take into account possible drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as legislation to open that area to drilling was passed in December, after the EIA started work on the report, Capuano said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/02/eia-us-to-become-net-energy-exporter-by-2020-326112
-
Environmentalists Sue EPA over FOIA Procedures, 'Interference'
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA over alleged mishandling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, charging in part that under Administrator Scott Pruitt there have been “unprecedented changes” in how the agency handles the requests, including interference and delays by high-ranking officials.
“This apparent new EPA procedure of political staff involving themselves in review of FOIA responses before they
are released to the public contributes additional delay to the time that EPA takes to process and respond to FOIA requests, and it raises concerns that political considerations are improperly influencing the timing and substance of EPA’s responses to FOIA requests,” states the complaint, Sierra Club v. EPA, which was filed Feb. 1 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Sierra Club suit echoes similar actions brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is suing to win information on high-level “awareness reviews” being conducted in at least two separate undisclosed FOIA requests, while the Waterkeeper Alliance and several other groups are suing EPA alleging the agency is violating FOIA by conducting “senior management reviews'” of their requests for data on power plant effluent discharges.
Earthjustice attorneys, who are representing Sierra Club, in part cite recent New York Times and Washington Poststories as evidence of their claims.
An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment, saying the agency “doesn’t comment on pending litigation.”
Earthjustice submitted a FOIA request to EPA seeking records about its FOIA policies on June 22, 2017, and followed up with a similar FOIA request on behalf of Sierra Club on Oct. 31, 2017, according to a Feb. 1 Earthjustice press release. “To date, EPA has not released any records in response to either request, nor given any indication of when it will do so. This delay violates the clear legal deadline for an agency response.”
The FOIA requests in the lawsuit “seek information on EPA’s increasingly aggressive tactics to delay responding to FOIA requests,” according to Earthjustice.
The environmentalists contend that EPA is implementing tactics to pressure FOIA requesters to narrow or even drop their requests. These include denials of requests for public-interest fee waivers, which had previously been routinely granted; and “unfounded claims that requests 'do not reasonably describe' the records sought, including on requests with transparent, clearly defined subject matters,” the release says.
“It’s time to find out why the public is not getting the information it is supposed to get by law” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. “There has never seen so much secrecy at [EPA], yet the reason is clear: Scott Pruitt and the fossil fuel lobbyists surrounding him have a lot to hide. From nonstop collaboration with corporate polluters, to lavish taxpayer-funded travel, to shameful scrutiny of anyone actually trying to fulfill the agencies’ mission, Pruitt has plenty of secrets he’s trying desperately to keep under wraps.”
Earthjustice is asking the court to declare that EPA has violated FOIA by failing to provide all records responsive to Sierra Club’s FOIA request; order that EPA make all requested records available to Sierra Club promptly and at no
cost; and retain jurisdiction over this case to rule on any assertions by EPA that any responsive records, in whole or in part, are exempt from disclosure, the complaint says.
An EPA source claims the agency has been working to clear the backlog of FOIA requests “that existed at the start of 2017, prior to the Trump administration's taking office.”
The agency had 652 open FOIA requests as of October 2017 that were submitted in earlier years, the source says. “We are committed to transparency. EPA staff are working to clear the backlog of FOIAs that built up from the previous administration, all while continuing to respond to the large volume of incoming requests.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-sue-epa-over-foia-procedures-interference
-
Democrats Push Bills to Price Carbon Emissions
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) along with Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) have reintroduced legislation to put a price on carbon emissions.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) also introduced a bill yesterday to mitigate the impact of global warming on women and girls around the world. The measure has 19 co-sponsors.
The emissions measure, the "American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act," is an updated version from the legislation Democrats introduced last year.
It now reflects recent changes in the tax code. The bill, backers say, would significantly lower the country's greenhouse gas emissions while boosting the economy.
"A carbon fee is the way economists of all stripes say we should end the massive subsidy to the fossil fuel industry and reduce carbon pollution," Whitehouse said in a statement.
"Our bill would harness the power of markets to ensure carbon polluters pay for the harm of their products, and then return the revenue directly to the American people," he said. "That would mean a win for our environment, a win for our economy, and a win for American families."
The legislation would set a fee at $50 per metric ton of emissions in 2019, reflecting the midrange of President Obama's estimate of the social cost of carbon. The fee would increase 2 percent annually above inflation.
The fee would be adjusted to take into account methane emissions from venting and flaring. The Treasury Department would be tasked with assessing and collecting the fee.
"Climate change shouldn't be a partisan issue. We need bipartisan leadership, and market-based solutions have support across the ideological spectrum," Schatz said in a statement.
"Our bill would establish a set of incentives that allows capital to flow and businesses to thrive when they use clean energy, letting the free market hold polluters accountable," he said. "The price on carbon in our bill is predictable, straightforward, and gets the carbon pollution reductions we need to fight climate change."
Revenue generated would be used to fund an annual inflation-adjusted $800 refundable tax credit for workers to offset payroll taxes.
It would also be used to give $10 billion annually in grants to states to help low-income and rural households, help workers transition to new industries, and aid communities in mitigating global warming impacts, among other uses.
"Climate disruption is not going away — it is only getting worse. Putting a price on carbon is an imperative," Blumenauer said in a statement.
"It's past time that Congress update our public health policies and our tax code to reduce carbon pollution and ensure we have a safer climate for future generations," he said.
While the notion of a carbon tax has gained steam in conservative and libertarian communities, the measure does not have Republican co-sponsors.
Lee's bill, the "Women and Climate Change Act," H.R. 4932, would address the disproportionate impact global warming could have on women and girls, and support global efforts to mitigate those risks.
"Climate change is already impacting communities around the world, with a disproportionate effect on the world's poorest residents. Women make up the majority of the world's poor and are especially vulnerable to abrupt changes in the environment," Lee said in a statement.
"As climate change worsens, provoking historic droughts, rising sea levels and violent storms, women and girls will bear the brunt of this global crisis," she said. "My legislation, the Women and Climate Change Act, encourages approaches to climate change mitigation that uplift, include and empower women."
The Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood have both endorsed the bill.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/06/stories/1060073017
-
California Stresses Its HFC Plans As D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA Rule Vacatur
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California's top air regulator is emphasizing the importance of the state's pending rule to adopt strong controls on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in the wake of a federal appellate decision denying to rehear a split panel ruling that vacated key parts of EPA's major rule to reduce the refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases.
“The recent court decision undermining the current federal program further underlines the importance of state regulation and innovation, even as we continue to seek strong federal controls,” California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chairwoman Mary Nichols says in a Feb. 2 press release.
CARB “is moving ahead to control super pollutants, including high global warming potential F-gases like [HFCs] and has already developed draft regulations that would preserve the federal framework for controlling these gases in California,” Nichols said, noting that the board is scheduled in March to “hear California's version of the federal program including possible adoption of some of the federal Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) provisions into state regulation.”
CARB also plans to consider “further control of these dangerous gases with an additional regulation at a later date,” Nichols said, adding that EPA should “should move quickly to explore its options to provide similar protections at the federal level, to the greatest degree possible.”
CARB's draft regulatory proposal, outlined in detail in October, has drawn substantial push-back from industry representatives, who fear the state will adopt standards that conflict with the rest of the country.
One environmentalist is citing California's efforts as the logical outgrowth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's Aug. 8 ruling that limits EPA's power under SNAP to restrict the use of HFCs if users had previously transitioned to the chemicals in place of those that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer.
David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council told a Feb. 5 event hosted by the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., that environmentalists are “strongly considering” appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.
He added that if the Trump administration were to embrace a global agreement to limit HFCs, known as the Kigali Amendment, it would “lessen the pressure” on states to adopt their own measures to restrict the high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants.
Two Rulemakings
CARB's pending HFC measures are part of California's plan to achieve its 2030 GHG target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. They focus on new and retrofitted supermarket refrigeration systems; remote condensing units; standalone refrigeration; refrigerated vending machines; retail food refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment; cold storage; and chillers.
CARB is considering two rulemakings -- adopting EPA's existing SNAP program Rules 20 and 21; and a longer-term, California-specific short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP) regulation that would take effect in 2021.
CARB's press release says its previously adopted SLCP strategy anticipated that California could rely on the federal rules to meet a large portion of its HFC reduction goals.
EPA's SNAP Rules 20 and 21 prohibit specific high-GWP HFCs in new retail food refrigeration, food dispensing equipment, air-conditioning chillers, and refrigerated vending machines.
Nichols' comments come in the wake of a Jan. 26 order from the full D.C. Circuit rejecting a request to reconsider a split panel ruling that vacated key parts of EPA's 2015 SNAP rule, which dealt a blow to environmental groups and chemical firms that supported the rule.
The order in Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, et al., said that “a majority of judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of” rehearing the suit en banc. Of the 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit, two did not participate in the decision: Judges Patricia Millet and Greg Katsas.
The ruling held that EPA lacks authority to require companies to “replace” substances that do not deplete the ozone -- including HFCs -- with other non-ozone-depleting substances that are friendlier to the climate. However, the ruling upheld EPA's decision to list HFCs as “unacceptable” for use in future equipment.
However, some industry representatives say numerous companies are already implementing lower-GWP gases in their operations to help achieve cost savings and bolster their reputations. They add that if California and Canada implement the strict federal rules, many companies may still strive to meet the more stringent standards in part to avoid carrying out two different compliance strategies.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-stresses-its-hfc-plans-dc-circuit-upholds-epa-rule-vacatur
-
As Trump Mulls HFC Treaty, Observers Say Senate Backing Could Boost EPA
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
In the wake of a court ruling limiting EPA's authority to regulate refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, a top industry attorney says the agency would not need new Clean Air Act authority to cut production of the chemicals if the Senate ratifies a global treaty to sharply restrict use of the chemicals.
Bracewell attorney Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air chief under the George W. Bush administration, told a Hudson Institute event Feb. 5 that the air act “makes clear” that EPA would have such authority -- assuming the Senate ratified the deal.
However, the Trump administration remains engaged in a drawn-out process to determine whether it will submit the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which sets a global phase down schedule for hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), to the Senate for ratification, even though it is strongly backed by the refrigeration and chemical sectors, as well as environmentalists.
According to Dave Banks, a White House international energy and environment adviser, officials are grappling both with legal concerns and with how the treaty would affect domestic manufacturing and the country's exports.
Before the officials give President Donald Trump a recommendation on whether to back the deal, “we will need to have really, really good economic information,” he said. “We really want to understand in a more concrete way how this benefits U.S. companies, how it preserves and creates U.S. jobs and how it can help the trade balance.”
HFCs were widely adopted as replacements for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the Montreal Protocol because they do not damage the stratospheric ozone layer. However, countries in 2016 agreed to the Kigali deal to significantly curtail use of HFCs because they act as potent GHGs.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Jan. 26 affirmed an August ruling that limited EPA's authority under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program to ban the use of HFCs in a range of equipment, provided that users had already transitioned to HFCs.
In the wake of the ruling, environmentalists and several states are ramping up their calls for the administration to craft regulations limiting HFCs to help address climate change, arguing that a national program to do so would reduce the pressure on states to adopt their own measures to limit the refrigerant chemicals.
Speaking at the event, David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said environmentalists are “seriously considering” seeking Supreme Court review of that ruling.
He warned that the ruling -- coupled with the possibility that the Trump administration might not send Kigali to the Senate for ratification -- is spurring California and other states to consider adopting their own versions of EPA's SNAP rules to address “incumbent” HFC users.
Environmentalists' top priority is to “get these reductions,” Dongier said. “If it takes going to the state level to implement the [SNAP] controls as a means to do that, then we'll do that, and we are doing that.”
He noted that historically, “when federal [air pollution] controls are good, the states don't feel a sufficient driver to do their own thing. When the federal controls falter, states step in to fill the gap.”
That dynamic could lead to a wide variety of state rules that might not be as “convenient, certain or well-organized” as a federal program, he said.
However, if the Trump administration embraces Kigali and EPA moves forward with rules under a separate Clean Air Act provision to set production caps on HFCs, that “lessens the pressure” to work with states on “in use” rules like SNAP. Without a federal program, “it increases the pressure to work at the use level and at the state level.”
'Clear' EPA Authority
Observers have long debated about whether the United States could implement Kigali without new legislation. But Holmstead, the former EPA air chief, told the Hudson Institute event that Title VI of the Clean Air Act -- which was enacted to implement the Montreal Protocol -- defines the treaty broadly and provides EPA with explicit authority to implement future amendments.
Further, section 614(b) of the air law says that in the case of a conflict between the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol, “the more stringent provision shall govern.”
In addition, he cited a 2006 D.C. Circuit ruling in NRDC v. EPA, in which the group unsuccessfully challenged a regulatory exemption for methyl bromide.
That case, Holmstead said, turned on whether an “informal agreement” by countries, reached after the Montreal Protocol was adopted, creates domestic obligations for EPA. The court held such deals are not binding domestic “law.”
However, the ruling suggests that Senate ratification of an amendment to the Montreal treaty would give the new deal domestic legal status. “Without congressional action, . . . side agreements reached after a treaty has been ratified are not the law of the land; they are enforceable not through the federal courts, but through international negotiations,” the court said.
The ruling “makes it pretty clear that once this amendment is ratified, EPA will have this authority to implement the provisions of the amendment,” Holmstead said.
The lack of a need for new legislation is important, he added, because treaties receive “an up-or-down vote” in the Senate, while amending the Clean Air Act would be a “herculean task.”
He argued that if Trump embraces Kigali, a ratification vote in the Senate would not be a tall order because Trump “has a lot of influence” with Republicans, and the deal has significant backing of industry. “Oh by the way, you happen to have environmental groups that support it as well. It's an unusual confluence of events.”
Banks, the Trump adviser, told the event that economic concerns will be “the lens” through which “our team is viewing Kigali.”
He added that his counterparts working on domestic policy are also closely reviewing the legal debates about implementation. “We don't join agreements that we cannot implement,” he said, suggesting that some believe there might be “a need for additional legislative authority to implement Kigali.”
Asked later if he agreed with Holmstead's analysis, Banks demurred. “I know my lane. I do foreign policy.”
He also declined to provide any timeline for submitting a recommendation to Trump on whether to submit Kigali to the Senate for ratification. “We have a lot more work to do,” he said. “We have to have a better understanding of the economics of this issue before we can move forward with a recommendation.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-mulls-hfc-treaty-observers-say-senate-backing-could-boost-epa
-
Trump Admin Vows to Send Overdue Climate Report
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Trump administration will submit its overdue U.S. Climate Action Report to the United Nations, the State Department confirmed yesterday.
The Trump administration missed a New Year's Day deadline to report U.S. progress on curbing greenhouse gas emissions in a biennial report to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United States has no current plans to leave. A failure to join other parties in producing a report would have been unprecedented, but the State Department has now said it intends to meet its obligation.
"The State Department intends to submit a National Communication to the UNFCCC," a spokesman for the department said yesterday. "The report is under development."
That means the Trump administration will soon update the international community on progress toward the Obama administration's 2020 emissions reduction goal — a target the Trump team has effectively abandoned along with the 2025 target that made up the core of the U.S. commitment to the Paris climate agreement.
The expected report from the United States is expected to lay out emissions inventories and mitigation plans.
This comes after the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity yesterday threatened to sue the State Department if it failed to produce the report, citing it as a violation of both the U.N. treaty and the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/06/stories/1060072961
-
Trump Would Back Pro-Business Climate Treaty — Aide
Feb 6, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump will support an international climate deal to limit heat-trapping refrigerants and coolants if he thinks it's good for U.S. business, according to a White House energy aide.
"The president is not ideological on these issues," White House energy adviser George David Banks said yesterday at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. Banks spoke at a forum about the fate of the climate agreement — known as the Kigali Amendment — that was finalized in 2016 with the support of the Obama administration.
If Trump ultimately decides to ask the Senate to allow the United States to join the 2016 amendment, he said, "it will be largely because he wants to protect and create U.S. jobs and advance U.S. commercial interests."
Banks' comments come after Trump last year declared he would pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, leaning heavily on arguments that it didn't make economic sense. He has suggested the United States might re-enter that treaty if a "better deal" were reached, but the White House hasn't spelled out what such a deal would entail.
The Kigali Amendment was added to the Montreal Protocol, a 1987 ozone treaty Banks called a "remarkable success story of international cooperation." But the protocol led to the rise of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, a powerful class of climate-forcing chemicals, to replace ozone depleters. The Kigali Amendment is expected to help avoid at least half a degree Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
All previous Montreal Protocol amendments were ratified by the Senate rather than joined as executive agreements, as the Obama administration did with the Paris Agreement. Ratification requires a two-thirds vote. Banks said the Trump administration would ask the Senate for its advice and consent on the HFC amendment as well if it chose to join.
"This administration is not going to circumvent the Congress," he said.
Banks gave no timeline for a decision but enlisted representatives from business and other sectors attending the Hudson meeting to help furnish economic data on why Kigali is a boon to domestic businesses.
U.S. industry supports the amendment, and U.S. companies developed many of the non-HFC alternative chemicals. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit complicated domestic compliance with the agreement last year when it vacated a U.S. EPA rule that mandated a phase-down of HFC use in line with Kigali. The rule was developed under President Obama, then defended by the Trump administration's Justice Department (Greenwire, Aug. 8, 2017).
That ruling created questions about how the United States would comply with Kigali if it joined. But Jeff Holmstead, who ran the EPA air office under George W. Bush, said Article 6 of the Clean Air Act allows the agency to promulgate regulations to comply with a treaty if the president has submitted it and the Senate has ratified it.
And while Holmstead acknowledged that Kigali is not top of mind for most members of the Senate now, he predicted that if Trump blessed it and submitted it for the Senate's consent, it would pass easily.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/06/stories/1060072933
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested