Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 08/02/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) As ACC Advocates Stewardship On Straws, Why Stop There?
Feb 8, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
On Jan. 26, we saw a point of agreement on plastics waste: the American Chemistry Council and the Plastic Pollution Coalition now both agree that we should all use fewer plastic straws. -
Trump DOJ Passes on Perjury Prosecution of Ex-Chairman
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Corbin Hiar
More than a month after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as attorney general, President Trump's Department of Justice decided to pass on prosecuting the Obama-era head of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board for allegedly lying to a congressional committee. -
Did 3M Chemicals Harm Health? Minn. Agency, AG Disagree
Feb 8, 2018 | Minneapolis Star-Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)
By Josephine Marcotty
Minnesota's Department of Health found no cluster of cancer, premature births or low birth weight in an area where the 3M Co. polluted groundwater years ago. -
(ACC Mentioned) Hearing on US EPA's IRIS Programme Becomes Policy Battleground
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
A two-day meeting called to review reforms of the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme has become a battleground in an ongoing war over how the agency conducts chemical research and who will control it. -
EPA Proposes TSCA Fees to Help Cover Chemicals Testing
Feb 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today proposed setting a fee on companies seeking approval to sell new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act that will bring in just over $20 million annually. -
Final EPA Toxic Chemical Rule Proposes $20 Million in Annual Fees to Manufacturers
Feb 8, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency's fourth and final rulemaking to revamp a chemical safety rule would collect over $20 million annually from chemical and petroleum manufacturers and distributors. -
Second Major Setback for EPA in Fluoride Lawsuit under TSCA
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
A federal judge has handed the US EPA its second defeat, in a lawsuit that could end up setting precedent for how the judiciary handles citizen petitions for chemical regulation under TSCA. -
US Provides Detail on Systematic Review of Chloroform Data
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Further details of how the US EPA will use systematic review have emerged with the publication of the draft protocol for the assessment of chloroform. -
Iccvam Makes 'Significant Progress' on Implementation Plans for NAMs
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (Iccvam) has made "significant progress" with implementation plans for its strategic roadmap for new approaches to evaluating the safety of chemicals and medical products, according to one of the senior figures involved. -
Echa Round-Up
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa said it has noticed some pre-registered REACH substances have both an Elincs number and a list number assigned to them. -
Texas Flood: U.S. Oil Exports Pour Into Markets Worldwide
Feb 8, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
In the two years since Washington lifted a 40-year ban on oil exports, tankers filled with U.S. crude have landed in more than 30 countries, ranging from massive economies like China and India to tiny Togo. -
In a Reverse, U.S. Crude Finds Middle East Buyer
Feb 8, 2018 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Tobben/Mahdi
The United Arab Emirates purchased crude oil from the United States in December, in a measure of how deeply American shale production and a revoked ban on exports have changed global oil markets. -
Budget Deal Would Reinstate Oil Spill Tax Next Month
Feb 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
The budget deal headed to the Senate floor today restores a 9-cent-per-barrel tax on oil to pay for spill cleanups. -
Nixing Oil Subsidies Won't Stop Climate Change — Study
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
Ending financial assistance for fossil fuel companies has long been discussed as a tactic to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in renewables. -
Why Tax Law Likely Means Lower Revenue for Pipeline Operators
Feb 8, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher M. Matthews
The U.S. tax overhaul will likely force many pipeline operators to lower the rates they charge customers, a side effect with major consequences for some of the industry’s biggest companies. -
Massive Gas Pipeline Project to Resume; Sunoco Fined $12M
Feb 8, 2018 | AP (In Washington Post)
By Mark Scolforo
Pennsylvania regulators said Thursday that Sunoco has been fined $12.6 million for problems with a massive natural gas pipeline project, but work will resume under a consent agreement. -
PNP's Proposed Pipeline Would Link Permian Basin Natural Gas to Central, Western Mexico
Feb 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
Paso Norte Pipeline Group (PNP) is holding a 30-day open season for a proposed international natural gas pipeline from the Waha Hub to Chihuahua that would link the Permian Basin to underserved markets in Central and Western Mexico, and terminate at the El Encino Hub in Chihuahua. -
Patterson-UTI Reports Profit as Oklahoma Rig Explosion Investigation Continues
Feb 8, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Houston driller and fracker Patterson-UTI Energy reported quarterly profits Thursday, while expressing concerns for the loss of five lives from a January explosion at one of its rigs in Oklahoma. -
Pipeline Shutdown Battle Set to Continue
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Supporters and opponents of the Sabal Trail pipeline and related projects in the Southeast are settling in for another couple of volleys of legal filings, an anticlimactic turn after the project appeared poised to shut down this week. -
Malware Discovery Puts Entergy, Grid Overseer on Alert
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Sobczak
A cyber intrusion at Entergy Corp. put grid operators on edge earlier this week as the utility giant rushed to uproot hackers from its corporate computers. -
Regulators Lag in Testing for Toxic Vapors
Feb 8, 2018 | Detroit News (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Gerstein
There could be over 4,200 sites in Michigan vulnerable to contamination by toxic vapors, but state officials lack the staff or funding to test them all. -
U.S. Releases CO2 Inventory Required by Climate Treaty
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA released an inventory of national greenhouse gas emissions yesterday, but the Trump administration has not yet produced a strategy for curbing them as required by a 1992 climate treaty. -
Dems Float $1T Plan, Boosting Clean Energy, Water Projects
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
House Democrats today laid out their own $1 trillion infrastructure proposal ahead of the much-anticipated release of President Trump's plan Monday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) As ACC Advocates Stewardship On Straws, Why Stop There?
Feb 8, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
On Jan. 26, we saw a point of agreement on plastics waste: the American Chemistry Council and the Plastic Pollution Coalition now both agree that we should all use fewer plastic straws.
OK, it's not exactly a "stop the presses, we have a Middle East peace agreement," kind of news. It's only straws.
But it's worth unpacking for a minute. ACC's Plastics division announced Jan. 26 that it's taken a formal product stewardship position aimed at encouraging consumers to use fewer plastic straws.
"It's the right thing to do," said Steve Russell, vice president of the ACC plastics unit, in a statement that linked it to ACC's work with the Ocean Conservancy and other non-governmental organizations on reducing plastics going into waterways.
"As a member of the Trash Free Seas Alliance, we support many initiatives that help prevent marine litter, and we believe providing straws through an 'on-demand' system gives customers choice and helps prevent waste by ensuring that straws are distributed only to those who need them," Russell said.
It's unusual for business groups to advocate using less of any of their products. One of the reasons they exist is to advocate for their industry's products.
So I was struck by how the industry position is now partly similar to the "Last Plastic Straw" campaign from the Plastic Pollution Coalition.
PPC advocates that consumers:
1: Say "no straw please."
2: Contact local restaurants and ask them to only give straws on request.
3: Encourage them to use non-plastic straws.
4: Screen "Straws the Film."
PPC, though, is more forceful than ACC. Its website, for example, includes a hard-to-watch video of a plastic straw being pulled from a sea turtle's nose, with blood running down the unfortunate turtle's face.
On points of agreement, I'm guessing ACC would go along with 1 and 2, but draw the line at 3 and 4. (Although I wonder if this latest step from the plastics industry would open up the chance for a joint ACC-PPC film screening.)
OK, that's not a serious suggestion. And I admit I haven't seen the film. But here's a serious question: Why should the plastics industry's product stewardship positions stop at straws?
If it's the right thing to do for straws, isn't it also the right thing to do with plastic bags, polystyrene foam clamshell containers and other highly disposable products?
With widespread concern about plastic waste and marine pollution, a stewardship position on those products seems a no-brainer.
I asked ACC what other product stewardship positions it had taken on plastics, and it said it had one in 2015 on microbeads, and an announcement on marine litter.
There's another level to consider: How about asking the industry to fund public service ad campaigns encouraging people to use fewer straws or plastic bags?
That may seem like a crazy way for an industry to spend its money, but some in the European plastics sector debated that last year, when the PlasticsEurope association considered whether it should support some sort of public education effort to reduce plastic bag use.
One leader in the group compared it to the alcohol industry funding advertising campaigns to encourage people to drink responsibly.
The 3 R's of the waste management hierarchy — reduce, reuse and recycle — rank them in order of importance. In that thinking, we should try to reduce before we recycle.
The plastics industry advocates recycling its products, but what PlasticsEurope was debating was taking it to another level: public education aimed at reducing consumption in the first place.
The European association also told us that it is OK with charging people for plastic bags. I think it would be very hard for the U.S. plastics industry to take that position. The European plastics industry clearly faces more public pressure. National governments there are actively considering bottle bills, for example, and the European Union in January adopted an ambitious plastics strategy targeting single use products.
I can imagine a worried industry reaction here. Isn't it bad to advocate less consumption of my products? Won't sales go down?
But to me, advocating less consumption of single-use products does not change the larger value of plastics to society, particularly in longer-lasting products.
Plastics still make cars lighter and save fuel and vehicle pollution, still reduce food waste with better packaging, still make homes more energy efficient and still can make infrastructure better, to give a few examples.
But if it's the right thing, as ACC says, to reduce use of straws, it's also the right thing for industry to advocate less use of plastic bags and other single-use packaging.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180208/BLOG03/180209900/as-acc-advocates-stewardship-on-straws-why-stop-there
-
Trump DOJ Passes on Perjury Prosecution of Ex-Chairman
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Corbin Hiar
More than a month after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as attorney general, President Trump's Department of Justice decided to pass on prosecuting the Obama-era head of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board for allegedly lying to a congressional committee.
At issue were two House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings where former CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso "contradicted other information provided to the committee," the U.S. EPA inspector general said in a closing report obtained by E&E News under the Freedom of Information Act.
In July 2015, the Oversight panel's bipartisan leadership urged DOJ to investigate Moure-Eraso for whether he should be prosecuted for making false statements to Congress, the report says.
The next month, two agents with the EPA IG presented "investigative findings" related to the former CSB chairman's referral to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Hooks in the Washington office as well as a trial attorney — his or her name is redacted — in Justice's Public Integrity Section.
The criminal referral then sat at Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia for more than a year and half — spanning both the Obama and Trump administrations.
On March 16 of last year, DOJ's Public Integrity Section ultimately declined to prosecute the case, and the U.S. attorney's office agreed with that assessment, the report says.
Moure-Eraso denies he committed perjury before the congressional panel. In written responses to questions from E&E News, the former CSB chairman said, "I absolutely believe that I never made false statements in my oral testimony to the House Oversight Committee."
Sessions has been leading DOJ since Feb. 9, 2017, although at that point he was still waiting for additional political appointees to join him or be nominated.
Six days before DOJ passed on the Moure-Eraso prosecution, Sessions requested the resignation of 46 U.S. attorneys.
Channing Phillips, then the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was not asked to leave office. Phillips was nominated for the job by President Obama in October 2015 but was never confirmed by the Senate.
In June, Trump nominated Phillips' successor, Jessie Liu.
It's not clear if officials at Justice or the U.S. attorney's office shared the IG's findings with Trump appointees. Representatives for those agencies declined to answer E&E News' questions about the investigation into perjury allegations against Moure-Eraso.
"We typically do not confirm, deny or comment on investigations and have no comment on this particular matter," said Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
Wyn Hornbuckle, a DOJ spokesman, said the department would decline to comment for this story.
EPA IG spokesman Jeff Lagda told E&E News the watchdog had referred the case to Justice and the U.S. attorney for "prosecutorial review," where it was later denied.Basis for referral
While the IG's redacted report doesn't offer much detail about the precise nature of the perjury charges DOJ declined to pursue, former Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) outlined the potential case in a July 2015 letter to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging Justice to investigate.
The lawmakers claimed that Moure-Eraso had "committed perjury and made knowingly false statements" during their panel's investigation of his agency. They said there were several instances in which Moure-Eraso's testimony from two committee hearings — one in June 2014, the other in March 2015 — had been contradicted by other information received by the committee.
Some of those instances included his statements on who oversaw a release of emails to the EPA IG as well as how long he had been using personal email for work at CSB, which didn't align with sworn statements from his subordinates as well as other documented evidence.
It is not common for lawmakers to make a referral to DOJ on perjury charges against a hearing witness. A Democratic aide for the Oversight panel told E&E News said the committee "has historically, on a bipartisan basis, taken it very seriously when witnesses are not truthful to the committee."
The referral on Moure-Eraso was made due to "the inconsistencies in his testimony," but his resignation was a step toward improving the culture at CSB, according to the Democratic aide.
"We have no reason to second-guess DOJ's decision at this point," said the Democratic aide regarding Moure-Eraso's not being prosecuted.
A spokeswoman for House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) declined to comment for this story.
Federal prosecutors, however, were aware of issues with Moure-Eraso's testimony even before Chaffetz and Cummings' July 2015 letter. Earlier that year, EPA IG Arthur Elkins testified on Capitol Hill that his office had notified the U.S. attorney that the CSB head might have committed perjury (E&E News PM, April 14, 2015).
Moure-Eraso had already left the agency at that point. After increasing scrutiny from Congress for allegations of whistleblower retaliation and mismanagement at CSB, he announced his resignation a few weeks before Elkins' testimony in March 2015 (E&E Daily, March 27, 2015).
Once DOJ declined to pursue the perjury charges, the IG determined that there were "no further investigative steps" to take, according to the report. In addition, there could be no administrative penalties issued against Moure-Eraso, since he was no longer a federal employee. The IG recommended to close its case.
A CSB spokeswoman declined to comment when contacted for this story.
In his written responses, Moure-Eraso acknowledged "trivial discrepancies" in oral testimony he gave the committee. But he went on to say DOJ's decision to pass on prosecution "is a recognition of the frivolous character of the EPA IG claims."
Moure-Eraso, who is currently a professor emeritus with the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, went on to claim that DOJ impaneled a grand jury to consider the charges against him before deciding "that the referral for prosecution had no merit."
"DOJ never informed me of the Grand Jury Investigation or their decision to close the case," Moure-Eraso said.
Both Hornbuckle with DOJ and Miller with the U.S. attorney's office declined to comment when asked if a grand jury was used to weigh the strength of evidence against Moure-Eraso.
'Perjury prosecutions are difficult'
Bennett Gershman, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches at Pace Law School, said he wasn't surprised DOJ passed on the case.
"Perjury prosecutions are difficult," he said. "You have to show, one, that the statement that was given under oath was false. Two, you have to show that it was made with the intention of misleading the questioner."
He added that "if there is any ambiguity, that's going to be resolved in favor of the defendant."
Moure-Eraso claimed the perjury allegations were politically motivated, citing "anti-regulatory forces" at work.
"I believe the aim of the call for an investigation of the Head of the CSB was to discredit and weaken CSB safety recommendations to improve preventive regulations and industry practices opposed by industry groups and their friendly congressmen," Moure-Eraso said.
Gershman said it's more likely that lawmakers had it in for him because of his mismanagement of CSB.
Referrals to DOJ from Congress are "infrequent, very infrequent," Gershman said. "But given Mr. Moure-Eraso's history and background in the agency, he obviously caused quite a bit of controversy. He was somebody who was being targeted for incompetence, for inefficiency, for maybe misconduct, so he would be somebody that might be a prime candidate for that kind of referral."
He added, "Members of [the] Oversight Committee felt he wasn't doing a very good job and wanted to get rid of him. ... [I]n that context, the answers that he gave might look more likely as answers that were perjurious and should be investigated by the federal prosecutor."
Gershman also sees the move by Sessions' DOJ as a possible sign that the agency isn't succumbing to political pressure.
"Maybe people shouldn't assume that the Department of Justice is as corrupt as President Trump thinks it is and that the FBI and all these law enforcement agencies are all biased," he said. "Maybe there are people in the Department of Justice who do a good job and who look at the cases and make decisions based on the facts, based on the law, and try to go straight down the middle."
The former chairman said he only "became aware — by chance — that the case has been closed by an obscure reference in the 'EPA IG Semiannual Report to Congress.'"
The case's closing report, he noted, was only referenced toward the very end of the document.
"You really must search hard to find the announcement," Moure-Eraso said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073315
-
Did 3M Chemicals Harm Health? Minn. Agency, AG Disagree
Feb 8, 2018 | Minneapolis Star-Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)
By Josephine Marcotty
Minnesota's Department of Health found no cluster of cancer, premature births or low birth weight in an area where the 3M Co. polluted groundwater years ago.
This contradicts the findings of an expert hired by state Attorney General Lori Swanson (D). A trial between the state and 3M begins in a few days, and the health implications are a major part of Swanson's suit. Minnesota claims it incurred up to $5 million in environmental damage from the chemical plant.
According to yesterday's report, state health officials remain concerned about perfluorinated compound (PFC) contamination but found no threat to public safety. Similar findings were reached in 2007 and 2015.
But a report obtained by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune indicates state scientists were rushed to finish the study.
In the report, an epidemiologist states that he is confident in the conclusions but that "the cancer portion will be weak; much below our historical standards."
The Department of Health said that the concerns were addressed later and that the results are sound. This sets up a clash with Swanson, who said, "I can only conclude from this that the agency is embarrassed because it is so late to the table in protecting the public health."
3M made products with PFCs at a plant in Washington County for decades and legally dumped industrial waste in nearby landfills.
"We do not believe there is a PFC-related public health issue in Minnesota and look forward to discussing the MDH report with the State during trial," the company said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073281
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hearing on US EPA's IRIS Programme Becomes Policy Battleground
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
A two-day meeting called to review reforms of the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme has become a battleground in an ongoing war over how the agency conducts chemical research and who will control it.
The meeting which began on 1 February, was convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as a followup to its 2014 review of IRIS' response to a report critical of the programme.
IRIS assessments often underpin regulatory action by the EPA and other agencies. Industry has been arguingfor many years about their scientific validity and the transparency with which they are conducted. Congressional Republicans have also called for the reform or elimination of the programme, most recently at a September hearing.
IRIS Program Director Kristina Thayer and Tina Bahadori, director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment, which oversees IRIS, said the programme has been hit hard by the attrition that is widespread at the EPA. Its staff is down to around 30, and the efficiency directives of President Trump’s appointee Administrator Scott Pruitt have limited the use of consultants.
In November, the Senate Appropriations Committee released a proposal that would eliminate IRIS and move some its functions to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), the office that oversees TSCA implementation. Such a move would potentially give control of chemical research directly to political appointees who run the agency's regulatory agenda.
Even if that does not happen, the evaluation process being developed for TSCA could end up competing with, or replacing, IRIS review, Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told the NAS panel.
"We are very concerned that this is a parallel process," she said, one that "has not been open for stakeholder input, has not been vetted by peer review".
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) fired back after the hearing, issuing a statement raising "serious concerns about the direction and substance of many of the comments" made by the EPA and many public commenters throughout the workshop. IRIS’s problems, it added, are not new or related to inadequate resources.
"We trust the professionals on the NAS committee will adhere to the scope of this review and produce a full and fair scientific assessment of whether the EPA has made any substantive or procedural changes to the IRIS programme," the ACC said. "The value of the IRIS and its future within EPA should be left to Congress and EPA leadership to determine."
'The value of the IRIS and its future within EPA should be left to Congress and EPA leadership to determine,' the ACC.
In her presentation at the hearing, Suzanne Hartigan, senior director of regulatory and public affairs at the ACC, said IRIS has not done enough to adopt standardised, transparent practices.
Reforms outlined
Most of the hearing was devoted to IRIS staff making the opposite argument, outlining changes designed to improve its administration and strengthen its scientific approach. They said the most important change has been implementing "systematic review" principles for the integration of multiple data sources, a key NAS recommendation.
In lengthy discussions of how IRIS decides which studies to weight most highly, EPA staff said this has to be dictated by their relative strength and the purpose of the assessment. "We want to avoid perceptions of picking winners and losers," said David Bussard, director of the NCEA’s Washington division. "We give weight dictated by the information in front of us."
'We want to avoid perceptions of picking winners and losers. We give weight dictated by the information in front of us,' David Bussard, NCEA.
IRIS proposed protocols in November for assessments of chloroform, ethylbenzene and the 'nitrates and nitrites' group of substances, the first new studies to incorporate systematic review processes. The EPA published further details on the chloroform protocol on 31 January.
The IRIS officials also discussed plans for evaluations of mercury, manganese, and PFAS compounds.
However, the most eagerly awaited IRIS product is probably its revised assessment of formaldehyde. The NAS slammed the original in 2011 and has been the focus of relentless industry criticism.
The formaldehyde report "will be a really good example of how we have really addressed and taken to heart the committee's" recommendations, Dr Bahadori said.
Dr Bahadori also presented the underpinnings of IRIS’ recent refusal to revise its assessment of the pesticide chloroprene. EPA’s denial of a manufacturer’s petition is based on a systematic review that looked at research published since the assessment was completed in 2010.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63802/hearing-on-us-epas-iris-programme-becomes-policy-battleground
-
EPA Proposes TSCA Fees to Help Cover Chemicals Testing
Feb 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today proposed setting a fee on companies seeking approval to sell new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act that will bring in just over $20 million annually.
The revised TSCA law passed in 2016 allowed EPA to collect industry fees to cover a quarter of its implementation costs or $25 million, whichever was lower. EPA said in its proposed rule that it projects spending $80.2 million annually, and thus set fees at a level projected to generate $20.05 million per year.
The proposal covers fiscal years 2019 through 2021; the law requires EPA to revisit the fees every three years. The fees pay for the costs of testing and regulation of existing and new chemicals.
EPA is also authorized to charge fees of 50 percent or 100 percent, depending on the chemical, for manufacturers who specifically ask EPA to conduct a risk evaluation. The agency said it expects to collect $3.9 million annually from that revenue stream.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Final EPA Toxic Chemical Rule Proposes $20 Million in Annual Fees to Manufacturers
Feb 8, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency's fourth and final rulemaking to revamp a chemical safety rule would collect over $20 million annually from chemical and petroleum manufacturers and distributors.
The proposed fees rule under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), announced Thursday, would collect approximately $20.05 million a year from companies that manufacture or import, distribute in commerce or process chemical substances, according to EPA's copy of the rule. The fees could also impact petroleum and coal products and chemical, petroleum and merchant wholesalers, according to the rule.
The text of the rule said the fee total does not include the fees collected for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations. Under the proposed rule, businesses would begin incurring fees at the start of Oct. 2018.
EPA said the fee is meant to defray some of the agency costs associated with implementing TSCA and will be added to the TSCA Service Fee Fund held at the U.S. Treasury.
"These fees are intended to achieve the goals articulated by Congress to provide a sustainable source of funds for EPA to fulfill its legal obligations to conduct activities such as risk-based screenings, designation of applicable substances as High- and Low-Priority, conducting risk 5 evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, requiring testing of chemical substances and mixtures, and evaluating and reviewing manufacturing and processing notices, as required under TSCA," the rule said.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the fee would ensure that TSCA be implemented with the "highest standards."
"EPA has moved swiftly to implement the amended TSCA requirements. Our proposed TSCA fees rule ensures we have sufficient resources to review chemicals for safety with the highest scientific standards," Pruitt said in a statement.
A chemical safety law passed last year required the EPA to update several internal procedures related to the risk evaluation process for toxic chemicals.
However, some of the previously proposed rules have been met with heavy pushback. Several environmental groups sued the EPA in December over rules the agency published in July, that determined which uses of chemicals the agency will assess before allowing the chemicals to be sold on the open market.
In their lawsuit the groups said the agency watered down the rules and weakened the chemical review process compared to the proposed regulations issued by the Obama administration.
“After Congress took bipartisan action to make desperately needed updates to our chemical safety laws, the Trump administration has turned back the clock, leaving families and workers at risk,” said Eve Gartner, an attorney at Earthjustice, which filed the lawsuit in federal court.
The groups argue the new rules provide “loopholes” for chemical manufacturers.
The EPA said in June the rules “clearly [define] important scientific terms to ensure transparency and confidence in the risk evaluation process,” and ensure “that the agency’s resources are focused on those uses that may pose the greatest risk.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/372919-final-epa-toxic-chemical-rule-proposes-20-million-in-annual-fees-to
-
Second Major Setback for EPA in Fluoride Lawsuit under TSCA
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
A federal judge has handed the US EPA its second defeat, in a lawsuit that could end up setting precedent for how the judiciary handles citizen petitions for chemical regulation under TSCA.
The lawsuit, brought by a group of NGOs demanding the EPA ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water, asks the court to examine the EPA's dismissal of their petition.
The latest ruling rebuffed the agency's demand to limit the scope of the court's review to information originally presented to it in administrative proceedings. The decision allows plaintiffs to offer a broad range of evidence to bolster their case, and to demand that the EPA provide additional information, things it argued they should not be allowed to do.
"The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions," the California court ruled on 7 February.
In an earlier ruling, the court rejected both the EPA’s request to dismiss the case and its contention that citizen petitions must address all potential conditions of use, rather than demanding action against one use of a chemical.
The administrative action underlying the case is the EPA's February 2017 denial of a petition by organisations campaigning against fluoridation of drinking water. The agency argued that other uses must be addressed as well as disputing the scientific evidence of neurotoxicity that the NGOs presented.
The fluoride suit may also have implications for a separate legal action challenging the EPA’s implementation of TSCA’s risk evaluation mandates.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63788/second-major-setback-for-epa-in-fluoride-lawsuit-under-tsca
-
US Provides Detail on Systematic Review of Chloroform Data
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Further details of how the US EPA will use systematic review have emerged with the publication of the draft protocol for the assessment of chloroform.
Systematic review is a methodology for integrating multiple data sources, typically scientific studies, to answer specific research questions. The EPA previously indicated its intention to use the methodology for assessments conducted under its IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) programme.
And it was a key reform cited by IRIS officials at a National Academy of Sciences hearing on the programme.
Chloroform is a chlorinated substance, widely used in industry and research as a chemical intermediate and solvent.
The EPA addressed the risks associated with use of chloroform in an assessment published in 1987. Since then, further data has become available, including a reference dose based on liver effects in dogs and mode of action (MOA) analysis indicating carcinogenicity under certain conditions.
The IRIS team for the new assessment expect to address no more than 30 studies, based on the a preliminary review of the literature. They also expect to focus on adverse effects on:the nasal cavity;nervous system;liver and kidney;immune system; andreproduction and development.
The aim is to determine a new reference concentration (RfC) that could replace the existing inhalation unit risk from 1987.
The team discussed specific needs with EPA programme and regional offices with an interest in the assessment. The Office of Land and Emergency Management (Olem), the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and Region 4 all expressed a need for an inhalation reference value for chloroform. The protocol states that the MOA analysis will be used to determine whether the RfC is protective with respect to cancer, and if the IUR should be removed or updated.
The EPA has launched a 30-day public consultation period for the draft protocol, ending on 2 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63803/us-provides-detail-on-systematic-review-of-chloroform-data
-
Iccvam Makes 'Significant Progress' on Implementation Plans for NAMs
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (Iccvam) has made "significant progress" with implementation plans for its strategic roadmap for new approaches to evaluating the safety of chemicals and medical products, according to one of the senior figures involved.
Published in January, the roadmap describes a "top-down" approach to developing new approach methodologies (NAMs) with the help of Iccvam's 16 federal agencies. It describes Iccvam working groups developing detailed implementation plans for three roadmap goals:to connect end-users with test developers;to see stakeholders and federal agencies working together to establish confidence in NAMs; andto encourage federal agencies and regulated industries to use new methods and approaches.
"The most critical aspect of the new testing paradigm is to understand the specific testing needs of each federal agency, which is far more complex than it may appear", said Warren Casey, director of Niceatm, the inter-agency body providing scientific and operational support to the committee.
Iccvam is currently working on implementation plans for: acute systemic toxicity; eye and skin irritation; and skin sensitisation.
The plans:define testing needs;identify available alternative tests and computer models;describe a plan to develop integrated approaches to testing and assessment and defined approaches for interpreting data; andoutline a plan to adress both scientific and non-scientific challenges, including regulatory ones.
"Significant progress has already been made for acute systemic toxicity and skin sensitisation," said Dr Casey, who anticipates that some US agencies could accept alternative tests for skin sensitisation by 2019.
Iccvam has also set up working groups for read across, in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (Ivive) and developmental toxicity, and is in the process of setting up a working group for ecological toxicology.
"The roadmap really reflects how things are currently being done, or the direction we are currently moving in, as opposed to an 'aspirational vision'," said Dr Casey. "This is a very pragmatic document that reflects the reality and challenges of implementing change in a regulated environment."
https://chemicalwatch.com/63794/iccvam-makes-significant-progress-on-implementation-plans-for-nams
-
Feb 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Update to pre-registered REACH substance list numbersEcha said it has noticed some pre-registered REACH substances have both an Elincs number and a list number assigned to them.
Elincs refers to the European List of Notified Chemical Substances.
The agency says it plans to simplify this situation by updating the list numbers of all affected pre-registrations to refer to the Elincs number of the notified substance. Doing this will make the corresponding list numbers obsolete.
The update will not affect the legal status of substances. Echa said it would inform anyone affected by letter.Cosmetics nanomaterials feature in nano observatory
In its European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON), Echa has published a table linking substances in the EU Commission's catalogue of all nanomaterials used in cosmetic products to their registration data in Echa's chemicals database.
The catalogue was first published in July 2017 and is regularly updated. It lists the nanomaterials in the European Commission’s catalogue, with their EC and CAS numbers, and links them to their registration data in Echa’s database.
EUON is a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market.Case studies to help REACH registrants
Echa has published three case studies to help users with their registrations.
The studies cover:how to decide whether a substance is a polymer or not and how to proceed with the relevant registration;how to gather information to register an inorganic mono-constituent substance (including the chemical safety assessment); andhow to gather information to register a multi-constituent or a UVCB substance – toxicological information.
The case studies are available in 23 EU languages and are designed to complement the support given in Echa’s Practical Guide for SME managers and REACH coordinators.Proposed restrictions consultation – tattoo inks, perfluorocarboxylic acids and salts
The agency is seeking early comments on all aspects of its proposed restriction of tattoo inks; in particular, on its workability, impact on availability of colours and alternatives for restricted pigments.
Comments received by 16 February will be taken into account in the next meetings of the Committees for Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-Economic Analysis (Seac).
The agency is likewise inviting early comments by the same date on its proposed restriction of perfluorocarboxylic acids, their salts and related substances, to allow discussion at the same meetings.
The final deadline for comments on both is 20 June.Current testing proposals webpage updatesEcha has updated its webpage that lists the substances and hazard endpoints for which it is currently inviting third parties to submit scientifically valid information and studies.
It is seeking information on the following substances: 2,4,6,8,10-pentamethylcyclopentasiloxane;2-(4-fluorophenyl)-5-(5-iodo-2-methylbenzyl)thiophene;[[(phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[hexamethylenenitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakisphosphonic acid;amines, polyethylenepoly-, tetraethylenepentamine fraction;ashes (residues), plant;biphenyl;ditetradecyl peroxydicarbonate;everzol red CDN crude;octadecanoic acid, sulfonated, potassium salt;polysulfides, di-tert-dodecyl;potassium salts of {hexane-1,6-diylbis[nitrilobis(methylene)]}tetrakisphosphonic acid (4-7:1); andreaction products of pentaerythritol, propoxylated and 1-chloro-2,3-epoxypropane with hydrogen sulfide.The agency requires comments to be submitted by 19 March.Webinar: how substances are shortlisted and screened
Echa has produced a webinar explaining the screening process, its timelines, and the criteria for shortlisting. It also covered how updating dossiers can influence manual screening and where to get more information on common screening, the agency said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63798/echa-round-up
-
Texas Flood: U.S. Oil Exports Pour Into Markets Worldwide
Feb 8, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
In the two years since Washington lifted a 40-year ban on oil exports, tankers filled with U.S. crude have landed in more than 30 countries, ranging from massive economies like China and India to tiny Togo.
The repeal has unleashed a flood of U.S. shale oil, undercutting global crude prices, eroding the clout of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and seizing market share from many of its member countries.
In 2005, before the shale revolution, the United States had net imports of 12.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude and fuels - compared to just 4 million bpd today.
U.S. producers are making new customers out of some of the world's biggest oil-importing nations in Asia and Europe, posing a serious competitive threat to the only other countries that produce as much crude: Saudi Arabia and Russia. At home, the export boom has filled pipelines and sparked a surge of investment in new shipping infrastructure on the Gulf Coast.
(For an interactive graphic detailing the global impacts of the U.S. shale revolution, see: http://tmsnrt.rs/2EtJgen)Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
U.S. producers now export between 1.5 million and 2 million barrels of crude a day, which could rise to about 4 million by 2022. The nation's output is expected to account for more than 80 percent of global supply growth in the next decade, according to Paris-based International Energy Agency.
Much of the increased flow will go to China, the world's top importer and, since November, the largest buyer of U.S. crude other than Canada.
Chen Bo, president of Unipec - China's largest buyer of U.S. crude - told Reuters that the firm expects to double U.S. imports this year to 300,000 bpd as it seeks to expand sales in Asia and find new customers for U.S. exports in other regions, including Europe.
Unipec - the trading arm of Asia's largest refiner, state-owned Sinopec - is also considering long-term crude supply deals with U.S. pipeline and terminal operators. The firm may also partner with such firms to expand and improve U.S. export infrastructure, Chen said in an interview.
"U.S. crude flowing to Asia is a major trend in global oil trading," Chen told Reuters.
Separately, China's state-owned chemical and oil conglomerate Sinochem Group plans to open a trading office in Houston later this year to source U.S. crude for China's independent refineries, five sources familiar with the plans told Reuters.
Between 2010 and 2017, U.S. oil production rose from 5.5 million barrels a day to 10 million bpd - approaching a record set in 1970 - as shale fields in west Texas and North Dakota lured massive new drilling investments. That brings national production in line with Saudi Arabia and close to top-producer Russia's 10.9 million barrels a day.
Saudi Arabia cut output last year as part of OPEC's 2016 deal to reduce supply - after losing a price war with U.S. shale producers that created a global glut.
Most forecasts show U.S. crude output growing about 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day through the end of 2018, said David Fyfe, chief economist at global commodity trading firm Gunvor Group in Geneva, Switzerland. The U.S. Energy Department is even more optimistic, now expecting growth to rise by 1.2 million bpd - hitting 11 million bpd by year-end.
"The bulk of that growth will likely be exported," Fyfe said.
U.S. producers are also displacing foreign oil at home.
Total U.S. crude imports have dropped to 7.6 million barrels a day from a peak of 10.6 million bpd in 2006. OPEC's share has declined from more than half of U.S. imports to about 37 percent as the United States relies more on domestic production and neighboring Canada.
OPEC members Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Angola have been among the hardest hit. In the second half of 2017, U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia averaged 709,000 bpd, lowest since 1987 and down from a peak of 1.73 million bpd in 2003.
BIG BUYERS IN INDIA, EUROPE
U.S. producers have also broken into the market in India - the world's third-largest oil importer and home to the world's largest refining complex, operated by Reliance Industries.Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main storySign up for the all-new DealBook newsletter
Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them.Sign UpYou agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.SEE SAMPLE MANAGE EMAIL PREFERENCES PRIVACY POLICYOPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
Seeking to diversify its foreign supplies, India first imported U.S. crude in October and bought a total of 8 million barrels of U.S. oil last year, according to Thomson Reuters ship-tracking data and shipping data provided by sources.
In Europe, as of November, the United States had become the fifth-largest oil supplier to France, according to customs data, exceeding Nigeria, Libya, Iran or the North Sea. In November 2016, the U.S. didn't even make the top ten.
China stopped importing Nigerian crude in the fourth quarter, according to Chinese customs figures, and while China's overall imports rose by 12 percent in 2017, imports from Saudi Arabia rose just 2.3 percent.
"They're taking market share really from OPEC nations,” said Olivier Jakob, managing director of PetroMatrix.
GULF COAST SHIPPING BOOM
Surging U.S. exports are rippling through the rest of the domestic energy economy. Shipping terminals Texas and around the Gulf Coast are building out infrastructure to handle larger tankers.
“If we didn’t have the option to send that crude to export markets, I think crude oil production would have been much more distressed," said Jarl Pedersen, chief commercial officer at Port Corpus Christi in south Texas, referring to 2016, when oil prices were still in the 40s.
Pipeline and logistics firms are among the big beneficiaries, as booming crude demand means steadier profits for companies sending oil to the Gulf and storing it for export.
Enterprise Products Partners - which operates more than 5,000 miles of crude oil pipelines and 38 million barrels of crude storage - reported record profits in 2017, boosted by record volumes for its pipelines and marine terminals.
Magellan Midstream Partners, which operates key pipelines from Texas's Permian Basin to the Gulf, expects to spend more than $1.7 billion in the next two years on construction projects. Among those are new docks, storage and marine terminals in the Houston area to meet growing demand.
Terminal operators and shippers in the U.S. Gulf are ramping up investment to guard against supply bottlenecks as more barrels leave the U.S. It can take 18 to 24 months to build an export dock.
Gulf Coast terminals handle three-quarters of U.S. crude exports, but only one - the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) terminal - can handle supertankers that can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil.
Most shipping channels are too shallow. Last year, Occidental Petroleum Corp's Ingleside terminal at Corpus Christi test-loaded a supertanker - but that channel is currently not deep enough to fully load such a vessel.
In late January, the CEO of the Corpus Christi port forwarded a letter from six energy executives pressing the Trump Administration for $60 million in federal funding for ship channel improvements as part of a $320 million project to widen and deepen the port's ship channel.
Lifting the crude export ban allowed for $50 billion in industrial projects in south Texas alone, the executives wrote.
"If that project for some reason should stall," said Corpus Christi's Pedersen, "that would really make U.S. crude less competitive in Asia."
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/02/08/business/08reuters-usa-oil-record-flows-analysis.html
-
In a Reverse, U.S. Crude Finds Middle East Buyer
Feb 8, 2018 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Tobben/Mahdi
The United Arab Emirates purchased crude oil from the United States in December, in a measure of how deeply American shale production and a revoked ban on exports have changed global oil markets.
A person with knowledge of the deal told Bloomberg that a tanker that sailed from Houston to the Persian Gulf in January was carrying American condensate, a very light brand of crude that is better suited for processing plants in the UAE than local varieties.
Outgoing shipments from U.S. ports hit 1.53 million barrels per day in November, up from just over 100,000 in 2013.
About 700,000 barrels of U.S. light domestic crude was exported to the UAE in December, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures.
Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC, said the UAE purchases of U.S. oil probably won't continue.
"As a member of OPEC and a large crude producer, I would imagine they would be very self-sufficient in their own crude supply," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073183
-
Budget Deal Would Reinstate Oil Spill Tax Next Month
Feb 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
The budget deal headed to the Senate floor today restores a 9-cent-per-barrel tax on oil to pay for spill cleanups.
The tax, which goes to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, expired at the end of last year. If the bill, H.R. 1892 (115), passes as written today, it will go back into effect starting March 1. That is a slight tweak from an earlier proposal that would have made the tax retroactive to Jan. 1.
In a letter sent to every Senate office on Wednesday, the heads of several industry trade associations, including the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, warned against a retroactive tax.
“Applying an excise tax to 2018 transactions that have already been processed and the associated products sold multiple times would create significant transactional concerns and potential legal implications within the entire fuel supply chain,” they wrote. “In fact, the draft legislation has already caused confusion and issues within the industry as a result of the proposed language retroactive enactment date.”
The bill’s tax title, which also reinstates several expired renewable energy tax breaks and expands incentives for nuclear energy and carbon capture systems, was based on extenders legislation unveiledlate last year by Sen. Orrin Hatch.
In recent years, the oil spill tax has raised an average of $500 million annually, according to the Congressional Research Service.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Nixing Oil Subsidies Won't Stop Climate Change — Study
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
Ending financial assistance for fossil fuel companies has long been discussed as a tactic to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in renewables. Oil, natural gas and coal companies worldwide receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year in tax breaks or other subsidies — and some experts argue that cutting them off would drive prices up and consumption down.
It's a simple idea, but one that's been sparsely investigated by scientists. Now, new research suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies might not have the global effect that some climate advocates were hoping for.
The study, published yesterday in the journal Nature, used an ensemble of five models to investigate the impact of ending fossil fuel subsidies worldwide by the year 2030, assuming both high and low oil prices in the future. Doing so would have a modest impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, the research finds, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by a half-billion to 2 billion metric tons annually.
Currently, global carbon dioxide emissions come to about 40 billion tons each year. In the meantime, the national pledges submitted under the Paris climate agreement would add up to an annual decrease of about 4 billion to 8 billion tons.
In other words, the effect of removing fossil fuel subsidies would fall far short of the reductions promised in the Paris Agreement — which many experts calculate are still not enough to stay within the desired 1.5- or 2-degree-Celsius temperature target.
"I think this will be surprising news to some people, because folks had just imagined that if you did subsidy reform, that would be beneficial to climate," said David Victor, co-director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego, who was not a part of the new study. "But nobody had actually worked out the analysis, and that's the contribution of this paper."
It's not to say that getting rid of subsidies would have no effect anywhere in the world. On the contrary, the research suggests that impacts would vary substantially by region, even if the total global effect is small. Oil and gas exporting regions, such as the Middle East, Russia and Latin America, could see substantial emissions reductions, perhaps equal to or greater than their Paris pledges. That makes sense, because these are the regions where subsidies are the largest.
In places like North America and Europe, on the other hand, fossil fuel subsidies are much lower, and getting rid of them would have a relatively small impact on the market. Subsidies also tend to be lower in many developing nations. But the researchers also caution that in these emerging economies, removing the subsidies that do exist could disproportionately affect low-income citizens, who benefit from lower energy prices.
"The effect is really limited regionally," said lead study author Jessica Jewell, a research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. "In the future, when we talk about subsidy removal, we really need to focus our efforts on oil and gas exporting regions."
And if subsidy reform is broached in developing regions, she added, it should be discussed alongside "supportive policies to support those lower-income folks."
Subsidy reform has been seriously discussed for at least a decade. In 2009, the Group of 20 nations proposed phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and in the past couple of years, numerous investors and organizations have called on the G-20 economies to remove the subsidies by the year 2020. But addressing climate change isn't the only reason for these discussions, according to Victor, the UC San Diego energy expert.
"There are a lot of important reasons for subsidy reform: distortion effects on the market, pollution — including climate change, not only climate change — the fiscal effects on government budgets," he said. "Those are the main reasons why the G-20 focused on subsidy reform going back to 2009."
So while many climate activists have said that removing fossil fuel subsidies would likely encourage reductions in carbon emissions, subsidy reform is still not directly climate policy, he cautioned. The climate consequences would be indirect — and, as the new study suggests, highly regional.
The findings help reaffirm the idea that effectively tackling climate change "requires an incentive directly focused on the problem, which is emissions," Victor said. More targeted approaches to reducing greenhouse gases include carbon pricing — not just removing financial incentives for fossil fuels, but actually taxing them — or stringent emissions caps.
Fiscal policy expert Ian Parry, of the International Monetary Fund, made a similar point in a commentary on the new research, also published yesterday in Nature.
"I think that reform of fossil-fuel prices needs to go well beyond aligning them with production costs," he wrote. "Fuel prices should also reflect the consequences of their use for global warming and other environmental considerations, such as the costs of deaths resulting from air pollution and, in the case of road fuels, traffic congestion and accidents."
Jewell cautioned that the new research doesn't indicate that subsidy reform should be abandoned, or that it makes no difference from a climate perspective. Rather, the new study helps illuminate the areas where its effects will be most helpful.
"We're not saying that subsidies should live forever, or should not be removed," Jewell said. "We're really pointing to where it's super important to remove them, and where it would have the biggest effect and where there's the biggest political opportunity."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073259
-
Why Tax Law Likely Means Lower Revenue for Pipeline Operators
Feb 8, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher M. Matthews
The U.S. tax overhaul will likely force many pipeline operators to lower the rates they charge customers, a side effect with major consequences for some of the industry’s biggest companies.
Pipeline companies generally stand to benefit from the tax overhaul, including through reduction in the corporate tax to 21% from 35%. But it means many of them will likely be required by federal regulators, who restrict how much they can charge, to cut their rates and pass the savings on to their customers.
On some pipelines, rates could decrease by as much as 10%, which would cut revenue for the companies by hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
One major open question is whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will exempt rates companies negotiated in advance of pipelines starting up from rate cuts, as it has done following prior tax changes. If so, that would have uneven effects across the industry, with some companies harder hit than others.For some large pipeline companies, including Williams Co s., TransCanada Corp., and Dominion Energy Inc., the majority of their revenue on natural-gas pipelines would be subject to a rate decrease, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data compiled by energy analytics company LawIQ. Dominion, for example, got nearly $1.2 billion in 2016 on rate-regulated lines, more than 79% of its overall natural-gas pipeline revenue, according to the analysis.The tax law will force pipeline companies to reduce their rates, depending on how much of their volume is subject to tighter regulations.
Rates on oil pipelines are subject to different rules but could also decrease because of the tax cut. Pipeline companies that are structured as master limited partnerships also benefit from the tax overhaul, through a provision that effectively reduces the tax rate for owners of many so-called pass-through entities to 29.6%.
Other companies, including Enbridge Inc., Energy Transfer Equity and Kinder Morgan Inc.,have more negotiated rates and thus would be less exposed to rate decreases, according to the analysis, though each could still lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue on gas lines as a result.
The analysis didn’t factor new pipelines coming online with negotiated rates, which could reduce a company’s exposure. Dominion, for example, has two major projects scheduled to enter service by 2019, which it said would increase its negotiated-rate revenue to around 60%.
“As with everyone else in the natural-gas pipeline industry, we are waiting to see what, if any, action the FERC takes in response to tax reform,” Dominion spokeswoman Jen Kostyniuk said.
Other companies declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Kinder Morgan Chief Executive Steven Kean said during the company’s earnings call last month that FERC would need to consider all facets of a pipeline’s operating costs, not just taxes, before making any rate adjustments.
“We do not believe that the FERC can or should isolate the tax law change for some separate immediate action,” Mr. Kean said. The company declined to comment further.
In January, regulators from 16 states wrote FERC, requesting that it cut the rates for pipelines, and compel public-utility companies to pass down the tax savings to electricity customers and other rate payers.
FERC regulates the rates on oil and gas pipelines that are part of interstate transmission systems and allows companies to set rates pegged, in part, to how much they cost to operate. Since 2005, regulators have allowed pipeline companies to include federal taxes in that cost of service calculation.
With the tax break, the cost of service will go down and so, too, should rates, say shippers. But FERC’s process for adjusting rates is complex and could take months or longer. So far it has asked 13 pipeline operators to review their rates.
TransCanada told FERC on Monday that it would reduce its rates on the Columbia Gas Transmission pipeline network—which stretches from New York state to the Gulf of Mexico—by 6% as a result of the tax cut.
“The Commission is reviewing requests to reopen rate cases among interstate pipelines to determine potential impacts of the new tax law on existing rates,” said FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen.
The agency previously sought rate cuts from public utilities in 1987 following a cut to the corporate tax from 46% to 34%. That time around, companies that had previously negotiated rates directly with customers weren’t subject to decreases until those contracts expired.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-tax-law-likely-means-lower-revenue-for-pipeline-operators-1518089401?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2
-
Massive Gas Pipeline Project to Resume; Sunoco Fined $12M
Feb 8, 2018 | AP (In Washington Post)
By Mark Scolforo
Pennsylvania regulators said Thursday that Sunoco has been fined $12.6 million for problems with a massive natural gas pipeline project, but work will resume under a consent agreement.
The Department of Environmental Protection said Sunoco Pipeline has made changes since work on the $2.5 billion Mariner East 2 pipeline was halted Jan. 3.
The 350-mile project has been plagued by spills and leaks of drilling fluid and improper construction methods.
“Sunoco has demonstrated that it has taken steps to ensure the company will conduct the remaining pipeline activities in accordance with the law and permit conditions, and will be allowed to resume,” Environmental Protection Secretary Patrick McDonnell said in a statement. “DEP will be monitoring activities closely to ensure that Sunoco is meeting the terms of this agreement and its permits.”
In stopping the work last month, the state agency said Sunoco demonstrated it could not or would not comply with Pennsylvania’s clean streams law and other regulations.
The company did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Thursday.
The state agency called the fine one of the largest civil penalties it has ever imposed and said the money will be deposited into funds for clean water and dams and encroachments.
The 20-inch pipeline will move natural gas liquid products from Marcellus Shale drilling fields in western Pennsylvania to a terminal in Philadelphia. It is scheduled for completion by summer, and a companion 16-inch pipeline is expected to begin operation later in the year.
Environmental groups have vigorously opposed the pipeline, citing concerns about deforestation, crossings of hundreds of streams and wetlands and the impact on farms and drinking water.
Food & Water Watch organizer Sam Rubin called the settlement an “outrageous deal” that put corporate profits ahead of safety.
“Make no mistake,” Rubin said in a statement. “The communities threatened by this pipeline will protect themselves from this danger, with or without Governor Wolf’s support.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/massive-gas-pipeline-project-to-resume-sunoco-fined-12m/2018/02/08/4c91ea8c-0cf5-11e8-998c-96deb18cca19_story.html?utm_term=.7078ad02979e
-
PNP's Proposed Pipeline Would Link Permian Basin Natural Gas to Central, Western Mexico
Feb 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
Paso Norte Pipeline Group (PNP) is holding a 30-day open season for a proposed international natural gas pipeline from the Waha Hub to Chihuahua that would link the Permian Basin to underserved markets in Central and Western Mexico, and terminate at the El Encino Hub in Chihuahua.
The 33-mile long, 32-inch diameter U.S. portion of the Paso Norte Pipeline would originate and interconnect with Kinder Morgan Inc.'s El Paso Natural Gas Southern Pipeline System at Florida Station in Luna County, NM, and would reach the border near the Columbus, NM/Palomas, Chihuahua international crossing, PNP said.
"With the new and evolving Mexican energy laws in mind, the PNP pipeline will interconnect with a corresponding 32-inch Paso Norte Pipeline in Mexico," PNP said. "The Mexican pipeline will be an open access pipeline to accommodate the growing needs of natural gas in Western Chihuahua as well as addressing the El Encino Hub."
The U.S. portion of the project is considered a greenfield lateral pipeline project by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Estimated cost of the project is $60 million. PNP anticipates an in-service date in 3Q2019.
PNP said it intends to match U.S. shippers with corresponding natural gas marketers in Mexico.
In Mexico, the project would be completed in two stages. The first stage would bring service to the port and municipality of Palomas, Ascension, the Apache Power Park and the Palomas Petrochemical Park in the county of Ascension. Estimated length of the fist stage pipeline is 20 miles from the border to the Apache Power Park.
The second stage of the Mexican portion of the pipeline would be from Apache Power Park to the Encino Hub in Chihuahua City. The estimated length with laterals would be 272 miles.
In the Encino hub the pipeline would serve as an interconnect with other pipelines that supply Chihuahua City, the Encino-Topolobampo pipeline and Encino-Guadalajara pipeline.
Details of the open season, which runs through March 8, are available from PNP.
Interest in Permian gas takeaway from the Delaware formation of the Permian to the Gulf Coast and to Mexico is rising, spurred in part by Apache Corp.'s intriguing Alpine Highdevelopment.
Last week Summit Midstream Partners LP announced an open season to test support to carry up to 1.4 Bcf/d of natural gas from the Permian Basin to Gulf Coast and Mexico markets.
In December Apache secured 500 MMcf/d of transport capacity and an option to become a stakeholder via Gulf Coast Express, a $1.7 billion proposed project designed to carry 1.92 Bcf/d from the Delaware to Texas and Mexico markets.
Last month Riverstone Holdings LLC and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to pay $1.6 billion for a portfolio of gas processing properties in the Delaware from Dallas-based Lucid Energy Group and its financial sponsor EnCap Flatrock Midstream.
Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners LP also in early January said it would add 300 MMcf/d of incremental capacity to its cryogenic gas processing facility under construction near Orla, TX, in the Delaware. A third processing train is being added to the facility in Reeves County, increasing the plant’s overall volume capacity to 900 MMcf/d.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113318-pnps-proposed-pipeline-would-link-permian-basin-natural-gas-to-central-western-mexico
-
Patterson-UTI Reports Profit as Oklahoma Rig Explosion Investigation Continues
Feb 8, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Houston driller and fracker Patterson-UTI Energy reported quarterly profits Thursday, while expressing concerns for the loss of five lives from a January explosion at one of its rigs in Oklahoma.
Patterson-UTI posted a $195 million quarterly profit versus a $78 million loss during the final three months of 2016. That new profit is buoyed almost entirely by more than $200 million in benefits from the revaluation of deferred taxes from the new U.S. tax law.
The company's quarterly revenues of $787 million more than tripled from $247 million a year prior. Patterson-UTI is now bringing in more revenues from pressure pumping, which includes the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of wells, than from its historic strengths in drilling. The company is continuing to add new fracking crews to keep up with demand.
But much of the focus remains on the investigation into the January explosion. Three of those killed were Patterson-UTI employees, while the other two worked for small Oklahoma contractors.
"Before reviewing the financial results, I want to express again that all of us at Patterson-UTI are mourning those who lost their lives in the tragic accident in Oklahoma," said Patterson-UTI CEO Andy Hendricks. "There is nothing more important to us than the safety of our employees and others we partner with in the field."
RELATED: Oklahoma drilling rig explosion deadliest in years
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board is investigating the accident, as well as other federal and Oklahoma authorities. The incident is the nation's deadliest oil and gas explosion since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon tragedy int he Gulf of Mexico.
Red Mountain, a small Oklahoma energy producer, owned and operated the well, while Patterson-UTI was the lead contractor and owner of the drilling rig.
The Chemical Safety Board said Patterson-UTI and Red Mountain had just successfully drilled another well nearby without incident. The well where the accident occurred was drilled for 12 days prior to the explosion.
At the time of the incident, the rig crew had pulled the drill piping and tools out of the well in order to change out the drill bit.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Patterson-UTI-reports-profit-as-Oklahoma-rig-12561209.php
-
Pipeline Shutdown Battle Set to Continue
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Supporters and opponents of the Sabal Trail pipeline and related projects in the Southeast are settling in for another couple of volleys of legal filings, an anticlimactic turn after the project appeared poised to shut down this week.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was scheduled to issue an order yesterday that would have scrapped permits for the natural gas pipeline, but industry and regulators made eleventh-hour court filings pleading for more time. The move delays the potential shutdown by a couple of weeks while the court considers the requests (Greenwire, Feb. 7).
The Sierra Club, which filed the underlying lawsuit challenging Sabal Trail, will submit a response to the filings by next Friday. Attorneys for the environmental group say the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is trying to sidestep a 2017 court order that required the agency to take a closer look at climate impacts.
"The court's order was clear: FERC must re-analyze the threats this Project poses to our air and climate to determine whether re-issuing a Certificate is appropriate and on what terms," managing attorney Eric Huber said in a statement. "FERC's analysis that concluded the greenhouse gas emissions of this Project were not significant is not sufficient. We trust the Court will reject FERC's latest efforts to keep this fracked gas pipeline open."
After the Sierra Club files its opposition, FERC and pipeline backers Spectra Energy Partners LP, NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. will have a chance to respond before the court issues its decision on whether to grant a 45-day stay of the mandate, as FERC requested, a 90-day reprieve, as the pipeline companies requested, or neither.
Even if the D.C. Circuit declines to stay the mandate, pipeline backers are hoping the time that passes before the court acts is enough for FERC to step in to save the project. The agency on Monday issued the climate study ordered by the D.C. Circuit last year and now must reach a decision on whether to reissue certificates.
If the pipeline is ultimately shut down, even temporarily, it will be the first time a federal court has suspended operations on a major natural gas pipeline for concerns about unstudied climate impacts.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073233
-
Malware Discovery Puts Entergy, Grid Overseer on Alert
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Sobczak
A cyber intrusion at Entergy Corp. put grid operators on edge earlier this week as the utility giant rushed to uproot hackers from its corporate computers.
Entergy said none of its operational systems, including safety networks at its nuclear power plants, were harmed by the "cyber-attack" Tuesday.
"Since this event started, our initial priorities have been to identify and isolate the threat, find a remedy and return our systems back to normal," Entergy spokeswoman Emily Parenteau said in an emailed response to questions.
The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the nonprofit transmission organization charged with stabilizing the electricity grid in swaths of the central United States and Canada, elevated its system status to Level 2 — orange — in response to the malware discovery, putting other utilities in the region on alert for potential disruptions.
That status reflects a "situation that may involve loss of member monitoring data and a longer-term system impact," according to the grid overseer, which added that its own view of the bulk power system had not been affected.
MISO spokesman Mark Brown said Tuesday's incident "was resolved and MISO returned to Level 0 status," or green, denoting normal operations.
Entergy is still working to clean up its own network and investigate the incident. The New Orleans-based company told its customers that they "may experience slower than normal system response times when calling or logging into their accounts," but said no personal data had apparently leaked.
"We have implemented our security response process, taking proactive steps to not only further contain the impact of this cyber incident, but also identify the cause," Paul Hinnenkamp, Entergy's executive vice president and chief operating officer, said in a statement.
Parenteau said the company is "working closely with the authorities to identify the responsible party" for the intrusion, and said the utility expects to conduct a full forensic analysis "to get solid answers to the origin of the threat."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073235
-
Regulators Lag in Testing for Toxic Vapors
Feb 8, 2018 | Detroit News (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Gerstein
There could be over 4,200 sites in Michigan vulnerable to contamination by toxic vapors, but state officials lack the staff or funding to test them all.
Two hundred seventy-six residents were asked to temporarily leave their homes, apartments, workplaces and a preschool between May 2016 and February 2017 due to potentially carcinogenic fumes, according to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality records obtained by The Detroit News through an open-records request.
The vapors are caused by industrial chemicals that have lingered in the ground or water and then evaporate.
The largest removal was from the Detroit preschool, where 224 people were relocated. The Detroit News submitted its records request after a DEQ official originally said only that "several" people had been removed.
For the Arroyo family of Sturgis, Mich., the experience was troubling. After the Arroyos were asked to leave their home, located less than a football field away from a Superfund site, a test detected unsafe levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) vapors.
The family was forced to stay in a hotel for around a month while workers installed a device to remove the TCE, which can cause neurological damage and even cancer in high doses.
"We're not sure if there's still air in the house that could be bad for us," said teenager Tanya Arroyo. "If we get sick, we don't know if it's because of that or not."
DEQ officials say they lack the necessary funding and staff to tackle the problem more quickly. "Yes, there are thousands of sites, yet we can't just snap our fingers and evaluate those thousands of sites," said Michael McClellan, DEQ's deputy director of environment.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073273
-
U.S. Releases CO2 Inventory Required by Climate Treaty
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
U.S. EPA released an inventory of national greenhouse gas emissions yesterday, but the Trump administration has not yet produced a strategy for curbing them as required by a 1992 climate treaty.
The agency's inventory shows that the United States, the world's richest nation, released 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2015. It also shows that U.S. emissions in 2016 were 11.6 percent lower than in 2005, a downward trajectory supported by the power sector's shift from coal to natural gas. Warmer winters also contributed to that drop.
The inventory also shows that the U.S. transportation sector tied the power sector as the leading contributor of emissions for the first time. Fossil fuel-based power generation contributed 1,809 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, while U.S. transportation emitted 1,795 MMT of CO2 equivalent.
The third-largest contributor of emissions in 2016 was forests, due to an unusually active wildfire season.
The State Department will submit the report to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change by April. What's less certain is whether the Trump administration will provide the UNFCCC with a separate national communication and biennial report, which would include policies and measures to ratchet down emissions to address climate change.
The State Department missed a New Year's Day deadline to produce the report to the portal on the UNFCCC's website.
The State Department has said it plans to comply with the requirement, but late. Meanwhile, the Center for Biological Diversity has signaled it might sue the agency if it fails to release the report outlining U.S. actions on climate change.
Jean Su, associate conservation director at CBD, said she looks forward to seeing the mitigation report.
"Overall, though it's a fine step that the U.S. looks on track to submit the greenhouse gas inventory report, it's still failing to be transparent on its critical all-encompassing National Communications and Biennial Reports," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073239
-
Dems Float $1T Plan, Boosting Clean Energy, Water Projects
Feb 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
House Democrats today laid out their own $1 trillion infrastructure proposal ahead of the much-anticipated release of President Trump's plan Monday.
At a press conference, Democrats proposed spending $1 trillion in federal money, five times more than the $200 billion investment the White House has floated in early talks.
Their plan pushes back on Republican proposals to reform environmental permitting laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. Democrats' ideas also include investments in wastewater infrastructure and renewable energy.
"We can do so much more in terms of energy efficiency, putting emphasis on renewables," said House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). "This relates to the climate debate, obviously, but it also relates to jobs."
The proposals come as part of the Democrats' "Better Deal" messaging campaign and as a pre-emptive rebuttal to Trump's vision for infrastructure. The White House says it will release its plan next week. One thing Democrats have in common with the president, however, is a lack of details, especially when it comes to the tricky issue of paying for such a big federal investment.
The Democratic outline mentions spending existing balances in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to prop up marine infrastructure and investing in energy efficiency measures that could ultimately save money. And House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) noted today that Congress has not hiked the gas tax since 1993, though a raise is unlikely to fly with congressional Republicans.
But for the most part, neither party has said much publicly about pay-fors, even if Democrats say their plan will not add to the deficit.
In the early stages, both parties have talked up bipartisanship, which has historically been a characteristic of big, popular infrastructure bills, even when it comes to politically contentious issues such as permitting reform.
"This has always been bipartisan," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "We've always worked in a bipartisan way about this."
Still, the Democratic proposal illustrates the continuing political distance between the parties as infrastructure talks gear up.
The Trump administration has said it would be able to leverage as much as $1.7 trillion in total investment with public-private partnerships and state and local contributions, but Democrats today scoffed at that idea.
"The federal government is a necessary partner in this effort," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.). "It's not enough to punt this to the private sector, as the president wants."
And it's clear that permitting reform will be a sticking point. Congressional Republicans have made it a central point nearly every time they talk about infrastructure, complaining that it can take a decade to secure permits for a project that can be constructed in under a year.
One of the draft White House plans leaked in recent weeks suggested limiting review time for NEPA permits to two years and reducing the role of states in Section 401 permitting under the Clean Water Act.
Some Senate Democrats have said they would be open to changing environmental permitting, pointing to provisions aimed at permit streamlining in the last two highway bills. But for House Democrats today, the emphasis was on protection and maintenance, rather than repeal.
"It's about achieving all of these objectives while maintaining critical worker protections, safeguarding our air and water, and investing in stronger, more resilient infrastructure to withstand rising sea levels and the changing climate," Cicilline said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/08/stories/1060073317
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested