Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 20/02/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Recycling 2018 Hits Attendance Record in Nashville
Feb 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Dan Leif
The 13th annual Plastics Recycling Conference, taking place this week in Tennessee, has brought together nearly 2,000 sector executives. -
(ACC Mentioned) In My Opinion: Fix the Broken System
Feb 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Nina Bellucci Butler
More than just being a pivotal year for recycling, I hope 2018 is a pivotal year for humankind. -
Downplaying Appeal, EPA Vows To Fight Adverse TSCA Ruling On 'Merits'
Feb 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
In a surprise to some industry observers, EPA appears to be downplaying prospects that it will appeal a recent precedential ruling that rejected its efforts to limit litigation over its denial of a citizen petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the administrative record, saying the agency will fight the litigation "on the merits." -
Contaminated Cosmetics Pose Growing Risk to Consumers
Feb 20, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
A rash of product recalls, government warning notices and contaminated cosmetics may finally push Congress to give our broken cosmetics law a makeover. -
New Study Links PFAS Exposure and Body Weight Regulation
Feb 20, 2018 | EDF Health Blog
By Ryan O'Connell
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), sometimes referred to by the broader term “PFCs” (perfluorinated chemicals), are a large class of chemicals used to make products water- or grease-resistant. -
Chemical Regulation Measures Pending in 23 US State Legislatures
Feb 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
More than 100 proposals related to chemical regulation are pending in 23 US state legislatures. They include some carried over from 2017 and at least 20 that have been introduced since the start of the year. -
Lawmakers Try to Crack Down on Asbestos After News Reports
Feb 20, 2018 | Detroit Free Press (In E&E Greenwire)
By Jennifer Dixon
Michigan lawmakers are trying to get tough on contractors that break environmental and workplace regulations on asbestos, after a series of articles in the Detroit Free Press found a "lack of oversight" of contractors in Detroit, which is in the middle of a huge redevelopment project. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Delays Israel Trip
Feb 20, 2018 | Politico
By Kelsey Tamborrino
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — who has taken some heat for his expensive travels, citing unsafe confrontations with fellow travelers — is postponing his nearly week-long trip to Israel. -
U.S. Ethane Consumption Expected to Boom
Feb 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that during the next two years, domestic growth in ethane consumption in the burgeoning petrochemicals industry will surpass that of all other petroleum and liquid products combined as ethylene crackers and plastics plants expand along the Gulf Coast. -
BP Says Future is Electric, But Oil Not Done Yet
Feb 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Anna Hirtenstein
The future is electric for BP Plc, though it's not giving up on oil just yet. -
Refiner Goes Belly-Up After Big Payouts to Carlyle Group
Feb 20, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jarrett Renshaw
Throughout 2016 and 2017, a rail terminal built to accept crude oil for the largest East Coast refinery often sat idle, with few trains showing up to unload. -
Fracking Has Its Costs And Benefits -- The Trick Is Balancing Them
Feb 20, 2018 | Forbes
By Michael Greenstone
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is perhaps the most important energy discovery in the last half century. -
OMB Greenlights Bid to Scrap Obama Oil and Gas Guidelines
| E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly and Niina Heikkinen
The White House Office of Management and Budget has cleared U.S. EPA's proposal to scrap pollution-reduction guidelines for existing oil and gas operations, setting the stage for the rollback of another piece of the Obama administration's environmental agenda. -
States Want to Counter Trump on Climate. It's a Struggle
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Climate hawks shifted their focus from Washington, D.C., to state capitals in the wake of President Trump's 2016 victory, hoping state lawmakers might usher in the types of carbon reduction strategies the federal government could not. -
N.J. Says FERC Approval of PennEast Project Incomplete
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New Jersey has asked federal regulators to retract their approval of PennEast Pipeline Co.'s natural gas pipeline. -
DOE’s New Cybersecurity Office Designed to Protect Energy Sector
Feb 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
With the energy sector, including the oil and gas industry, making preparations for cyber attacks, the Department of Energy (DOE) has established a cybersecurity office to help protect and prepare the industry. -
CEO: Amtrak Won’t Run Trains on Non-PTC Track
Feb 20, 2018 | RailwayAge Magazine
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
Amtrak won’t operate its passenger trains on tracks without Positive Train Control in 2019 if host railroads fail to meet the deadline for installation of the federally-mandated safety technology. -
Bipartisan Senate Bill Would Allow Ban on HFCs
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
A bipartisan group of lawmakers last week introduced legislation that would allow U.S. EPA to implement a deal meant to phase out certain greenhouse gases. -
David Banks Had a Plan to Re-enter Climate Pact
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Zack Colman
The year 2020 was when the United States was supposed to return to the Paris Agreement. -
Obama EPA Chief: Trump Regulation Rollbacks Won't Hold Up Legally
Feb 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2
By Miranda Green
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says that regulations struck down by the Trump administration simply because they were issued under President Obama won't carry weight in court.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Recycling 2018 Hits Attendance Record in Nashville
Feb 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Dan Leif
The 13th annual Plastics Recycling Conference, taking place this week in Tennessee, has brought together nearly 2,000 sector executives. That record-high number is a sign of the widespread industry thirst for connection and guidance at a time of unprecedented market disruption.
Indeed, China’s recent action to restrict recyclables imports will be a key talking point throughout the three-day Plastics Recycling 2018 event, which kicked off yesterday at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center.
The event has drawn over 1,900 attendees from 35 countries. The attendee number is up from last year’s tally of around 1,700, which was the previous high for the conference.
The opening plenary session today features three analysts from IHS Markit who will discuss the realities of markets both in China and elsewhere around the globe. Another morning session will feature major exporters, including Waste Management, and the discussion is expected to focus on how companies are shifting their strategies and searching for fresh opportunities to profitably move recovered plastics.
Meanwhile, another panel today has been organized by the China Scrap Plastics Association and will delve into the ways Chinese plastics recycling entities are pushing forward plans to invest in the U.S. and elsewhere to reshape processing pipelines in the wake of China’s import policies.
And the market fluctuation theme at the conference is extending beyond the sessions that directly address the topic. The conference exhibit hall, featuring 200 companies and associations, opened yesterday afternoon, and many vendors were talking up technologies and partnerships to help stakeholders overcome today’s downstream challenges.
The conference also has around 180 companies and organizations acting as sponsors.Discussion of domestic opportunities
Furthermore, sessions organized by groups including the American Chemistry Council, the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries all have a focus on boosting domestic demand for scrap plastics in different ways.
“In light of the latest Chinese ban on plastics, there is an even bigger need for domestic avenues for low-value plastics such as Nos. 3-7 plastics,” Priyanka Bakaya, the founder and CEO of plastics-to-fuel enterprise Renewlogy, recently told Plastics Recycling Update in a preview to her speaking engagement, which will take place at the conference this afternoon. “There is also a growing awareness of marine plastic pollution, which is another interesting application of plastic to fuel.”
This year marks the first time the Plastics Recycling Conference has come to Nashville, Tennessee’s music-filled capital. It’s a fitting location, given the concentration of plastics recycling enterprises based in the Southeast. A number of conference attendees yesterday toured the manufacturing sites of MSS, Inc. and NRT, both of which are providers of plastics recycling sortation equipment.
The sounds of Music City will permeate the conference’s reception tonight, with dozens of musicians scheduled to “busk” in the aisles of the exhibit hall as attendees talk business around them.
Perhaps that local country and blues can serve as inspiration for the industry executives gathered here. With China’s policies rapidly rewriting the economics of plastics recycling, many companies are trying their best to sing a new tune. The question now is how well all these voices will harmonize.
The conference wraps up tomorrow. Look for more coverage of the perspectives shared at the event in Plastics Recycling Update in the coming weeks.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/02/20/plastics-recycling-2018-hits-attendance-record-nashville/
-
(ACC Mentioned) In My Opinion: Fix the Broken System
Feb 20, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Nina Bellucci Butler
More than just being a pivotal year for recycling, I hope 2018 is a pivotal year for humankind. Our survival depends on us protecting “the commons” (our shared land, forests, oceans, air and other natural elements). However, we as a society continue to allow financial reasons to get in the way of fully protecting our most essential resources.
This disheartening reality becomes clear when we look through the prism of recycling.
Many recycling entities – particularly those in the plastics recycling segment – are facing severe financial challenges right now despite the environmental benefits that come when recovered materials are used to make new products.
Why is this happening? In short, the market for recycled materials is broken. We have equated collection with recycling when in reality that is just the first of many steps to ensure complete reabsorption of resources.The China factor
While many of our recyclables have been “out of sight, out of mind” with the seemingly endless demand from China over the last 20-plus years, China’s demand for feedstock has effectively stunted the investments necessary for a healthy recycling ecosystem in the United States. But it’s not China’s fault; manufacturers in that country needed raw material. Now the Chinese are working to reabsorb their own scrap and reduce leakage into our oceans. Plus, there is plenty of low cost virgin resin on the market due the “shale gas revolution.” Although they may still want processed recycled plastic, Chinese stakeholders don’t need our scrap enough anymore to justify handling the world’s waste.
Before virgin resin prices dropped due to greater access to natural gas, we saw some investments made in secondary processing. They turned out to be a saving grace during the first restrictions on the import of scrap into China back in 2013. The National Sword was not sprung upon us. As far back as 2004, groups like the Northern California Recycling Association warned about dependence on China in their video, “Point of Return.”
In late 2017, my company, MORE Recycling, released the “End Market Demand for Recycled Plastic” study which documented insufficient domestic demand for polyethylene post-consumer resin (PCR): In 2015, converters had the capacity to process only 76 percent of the PE PCR acquired for recycling in the U.S.
So now we have less demand from China and less end market demand domestically with low virgin prices. It’s hard for companies to justify paying as much or more for PCR – even though life-cycle studies indicate that PCR has a lower carbon footprint than virgin resin and should, therefore, enjoy preferential purchasing in a time when curbing carbon emissions is critical.
The “End Market Demand Study” also found that the most significant barrier to converters’ use of PCR is insufficient supply of material that matches their specifications (and price point). While there are clear examples of high performing PCR, especially with mature recycling commodities like HDPE or PET bottles, U.S. businesses need both more supply of high quality PCR (all resins) and greater demand for products with PCR content. Both are necessary to attract investment in reclamation capacity. So, on the one hand, we have material that desperately needs a destination. And on the other, we have potential buyers that say many of the recyclables flowing through the industry pipeline are not up to snuff. It is this tension that must be addressed.
While some of the giants of the industry have made major strides in reducing processing costs and improving quality to compete with virgin, not all reclaimers have been able to make the investments necessary to specialize or vertically integrate (i.e., reclaim scrap and process into a new end use product) to ensure their survival in a down market.
Market challenges are being felt at the community level as folks search for new markets to replace the export market for low quality or mixed material bales. The drumbeat for bans on lightweight materials such as plastic bags and foam will likely get louder, especially when the cost to process lightweight or small items exceeds their value in the market.Exploring tradeoffs
But if we ban the light material and simply replace those items with heavier materials, we directly increase greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation sector dwarfs plastics production in terms of fossil resource consumption. Thus if we want to protect our oceans from other dangers (such as acidification and marine debris), we need to embrace responsible material choices – we should strive to use the lightest material that protects products that carry embodied energy from extraction through production.
A quarter of greenhouse gas emissions come from food production. More than 70 percent of our water consumption is used to grow crops, yet we waste more than a one-third of food produced. When it comes to food packaging, plastics extend shelf life, thus reducing waste, and are the lightest weight option, which minimizes the environmental impacts of transportation.
While banning materials may not be the best option, we cannot continue to litter our world with plastic. We have to embrace responsible handling, starting with using less, reusing more, getting our chosen material into the appropriate bin, and buying products that contain recycled content. We must find value in PCR so that material can be reabsorbed into the economy. Otherwise, we fall short in truly achieving sustainable materials management.Tangible steps to take now
My advice for what we can do today is to first provide clear messaging about keeping plastic film out the curbside stream. Ongoing, consistent, and clear messaging to keep film out of the curbside stream has been shown to boost the quality of recovered rigid plastics as well as the quality of fiber, which continues to make up most of the weight in the recycling stream.
Sustained educational campaigns that encourage residents to make use of return-to-retail programs do work. People respond by putting less film in their curbside bin. They return more types of film in addition to bags, and they are more likely to remember their reusable bags when shopping.
As far as how to handle other portions of the recycling stream, there are markets for segregated PET bottles, HDPE bottles, rigid PP, and even PS and flexible PE (if it’s clean and dry). The key word is “segregated.” What is a community to do if they lack the capacity to sort plastics into discrete resins? Who will pay for the investment for additional sorting capacity? There may be a materials recovery facility (MRF) or secondary MRF, like Titus, that can further sort mixed bales. Also, how far is too far to ship mixed materials? We need to start asking some hard questions.
The additional cost to sort will need to be covered by either the public sector or producers. We can’t expect MRFs to absorb all of the cost.Funding the system
Admittedly, the trillion-dollar question is this: How do we fund a system when we haven’t yet recognized the inherent environmental value in PCR?
We should draw from the institutional knowledge of market development programs of past and present, a point recently articulated by Betsy Dorn and Susan Bush of RSE USA. Recycling market development programs are currently at work in states including California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. How can we as an industry help those initiatives grow stronger and duplicate them elsewhere?
If we fail to reinstitute market development programs and implement the policies necessary to stimulate value in PCR scrap, plastic will undoubtedly become waste or marine debris. We now know this probability is greater with scrap shipped overseas based on the Ocean Conservancy’s “Stemming the Tide” report.
It may take time to figure out how to fund the system so in the short term, considering what MORE Recycling illustrates in the “Data Sort” section of the current print edition of Plastics Recycling Update (see chart below). By simply upping recycled content in one application – trash bags – end market demand could increase. We extrapolate from the current California law requiring 10 percent PCR in trash bags to determine the effects that could be seen if similar mandates were put in place nationwide.Bringing it together holistically
An ultimate task is for stakeholders to find a meaningful way in which recycling becomes a primary tool in helping us address climate change and other monumental environmental threats that are increasingly being prioritized by governments, citizens and companies across the globe.
Returning to the example of increasing PCR content in trash bags, we find that replacing virgin plastic with 30 percent PCR would create a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing 173,000 cars from the road for a full year. This approach fits in neatly with the overarching corporate sustainability goals that are already heralded by many brands, retailers and manufacturers.
We as U.S. citizens can either brace for further erosion of our recycling ecosystem or we can start addressing the fundamental economics of recycling. Let’s create jobs by handling our own material more responsibly.
To be clear, the ideas and steps outlined above all bring challenges when it comes to achieving stakeholder buy-in and ultimate implementation. But it’s up to our industry and others to find ways to tackle the difficulties that are causing the world to continue externalizing environmental costs.
At MORE Recycling, we’re helping out through information and organization. Look out soon for new resources as we strive to highlight leaders in the industry through a recycled content products directory and stimulating a #buyrecycled trend. We also have plans to report on aggregate greenhouse gas savings from demand champions and to produce tools to help communities engage residents and navigate tough decisions.
Nina Bellucci Butler is the CEO of MORE Recycling, a research and technology firm with a mission to provide tools and services (including PlasticsMarkets.org) to accelerate the transition to a society that manages resources sustainably. Butler has worked to help overcome barriers in plastic recycling for more than 17 years. She can be contacted at nina@morerecycling.com.
MORE would like to acknowledge the American Chemistry Council, the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition for funding the “End Market Demand for Recycling Plastics” study.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to news@resource-recycling.com for consideration.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/02/20/opinion-fix-broken-system/
-
Downplaying Appeal, EPA Vows To Fight Adverse TSCA Ruling On 'Merits'
Feb 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
In a surprise to some industry observers, EPA appears to be downplaying prospects that it will appeal a recent precedential ruling that rejected its efforts to limit litigation over its denial of a citizen petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the administrative record, saying the agency will fight the litigation "on the merits."
"While EPA disagrees with the [court's] decision to deny the motion to limit the court's review to the administrative record, the court's decision simply means that EPA will continue to vigorously defend its decision to deny the petition on the merits as the litigation moves forward," according to the agency.
At issue is a Feb. 7 ruling that opened the door to plaintiffs that challenge EPA petition denials, offering a broad range of evidence to bolster their case rather than relying on information in EPA's record.
In this case, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, that the citizen petition provisions of TSCA allow petitioners whose request for a section 6 rule is not addressed by EPA to seek wholesale de novo consideration of the facts of their case before a federal district court. The opinion overrules EPA's arguments that such reviews are limited to the information contained in the administrative record.
"The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition," Chen writes.
"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."
Chen ordered the parties to "meet and confer and agree" on a discovery plan consistent with the order.
"I couldn't ask for a better opinion. It's a slam dunk," Michael Connett, the plaintiffs' pro bono attorney tells Inside EPA. He adds that the citizen petition provisions included in TSCA section 21 were part of the original 1976 statute, yet "this is the first court proceeding to address the de novo [judicial] proceeding."
The question of whether petitioners who appeal EPA's action on their section 21 petition seeking a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking can seek a completely new "trial" of their case before a judge was "never raised in a published court document in 41 years. It's striking," Connett says. "If you look at the legislative history, Congress wanted a robust mechanism for citizen oversight over EPA. This court's decision highlights for environmental groups that Congress created a powerful tool."
The possibility of de novo review of fluoride risks appealed to petitioners in this case, who have long sought to end drinking water fluoridation but believe their case has received short shrift from EPA and other agencies. They argue the practice -- recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service in the 1940s to improve dental health -- can result in people ingesting too much fluoride. They point to recent studies showing neurotoxic health risks from fluoride exposure at lower levels than previously considered of concern.
"One of the reasons I was interested in the TSCA petition was to obtain a different forum" for consideration of fluoride and its risks, Connett told Inside EPA in 2016.
"It will be good to get the issue considered by people not entrenched in the issue," he added. "EPA never really applied its own risk assessment procedures to fluoride. We believe if EPA does, then it will see . . . that fluoridation would be incompatible with the dose that would be appropriate."
Litigation 'Risk'
But that is precisely what some don't want to see. One industry attorney tells Inside EPA that "EPA has no choice but to appeal" Chen's ruling on de novo review. "If the appeal is denied, I would think the best course of action is for EPA to settle the case by agreeing to issue a proposed rule," the source adds.
"The alternative is taking the risk that Judge Chen in a trial de novo will make factual finding about the risk of water fluoridation that will tie EPA's hands in a subsequent rulemaking."
Chen's decision is worrisome for industry officials given their expectation that environmentalists will increase the number of TSCA section 21 petitions they file after his December ruling rejected EPA efforts to dismiss the suit. They say they now expect petitions will become a new way to force EPA to address their concerns as they seek rules to ban or limit uses of chemical that pose unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
"It'll be interesting to see if there is an increase in TSCA section 21 petitions," Connett says.
But he welcomes the court's decision to allow de novo reviews. "Imagine, you can now get internal documents from EPA. It's surprising it's never been tried before."
But Herb Estreicher, an attorney and chemist with the law firm Keller and Heckman, cautions that the ruling poses significant risks for EPA and industry groups when the agency seeks to reject petitions.
"Obviously the stakes for EPA are high. If the Court hears new evidence and concludes that it is more likely than not that water fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk, EPA will be hard pressed to avoid issuing a Section 6(a) rule to limit or ban the activity," he says.
Like Connett, Estreicher also believes Chen's ruling is precedential, and a first-time opinion on the specific issue of de novo review of appealed section 21 petitions.
Pointing to a 1990 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision that Chen cites in his ruling, Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, Estreicher notes "that case contained language that seems to address this question indirectly [but] I believe Judge Chen's ruling is the first time a court has squarely ruled on the matter."
In his methodical ruling, Chen considers statutory language and structure, case law and legislative history. Of the Reilly case, he writes that the "D.C. Circuit reasoned in Reilly not only that the standard of review (i.e., the degree of deference owed to the agency's position) differed under the TSCA and [the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)], but also that the scope of review was distinct, as the court reiterated several times the APA's presumptive limitation to the administrative record as a factor distinguishing TSCA from APA review. The clear implication of Reilly is that Section 21 petitions are not limited to the administrative record."
An environmental attorney close to the case calls Chen's ruling "another big win for petitioners in section 21 cases. It allows them to introduce new evidence and present live testimony by experts and other witnesses, and also to conduct discovery against the agency, to support the case they present to the court that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk or otherwise merits action under section 21. This will make it easier to prevail than if the court were limited to reviewing the administrative record for the petition, as EPA argued."
This source adds that Chen "wrote a thorough and careful opinion, amply supported by the case law and the wording of section 21, that will be hard to reverse on appeal. It's possible that EPA could take an interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals but most likely Judge Chen's decisions won't be appealable until after the trial and a decision on the merits, which may be a long time in coming.
'Persuasive Job'
Estreicher says he has yet to reach a conclusion on the ruling. "Although Judge Chen does a persuasive job parsing through the Statutory language, legislative history, and the use of the phrase 'de novo proceeding' in other statutory contexts without more study it is difficult to tell whether EPA has any basis or not for its position," he says.
Estreicher also thinks EPA has an opportunity "to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit in what is termed an interlocutory appeal or by seeking a writ of mandamus," but he cautions that both means of appeal "are considered extraordinary forms of relief and the appellate courts are usually not inclined to jump in until the district court has issued a final decision on the merits."
EPA's statement, however, appears to indicate the agency doesn't plan to appeal. "I guess they are basically saying they will defend on the merits their decision to deny the petition before the Court," Estreicher says of EPA's statement. "It also doesn't look like EPA plans to file an interlocutory appeal."
Connett, meanwhile, is focused on the next steps in the suit. He says that Chen's ruling does not have any pre-set limits on discovery -- the information that plaintiffs can try to seek from EPA.
"Now we have to work with EPA on discovery," he says, before alluding to a recent epidemiology study of fluoride's effects that was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published last fall, long after his clients petitioned EPA to ban drinking water fluoridation.
"I told the judge about the NIH study from September," Connett says of the last hearing in the case, held late last month. "He clearly thought it should be considered. If further studies [are published before trial] we'll be introducing those. I clearly see this case being expert heavy."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/downplaying-appeal-epa-vows-fight-adverse-tsca-ruling-merits
-
Contaminated Cosmetics Pose Growing Risk to Consumers
Feb 20, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
A rash of product recalls, government warning notices and contaminated cosmetics may finally push Congress to give our broken cosmetics law a makeover.
This month, a key Senate committee announceda bipartisan plan to consider cosmetics reform legislation this spring and work for its passage by the full Senate this year.
Since 2015, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, have been relentlessly pushing their colleagues to take up their bill to give the Food and Drug Administration the power to review the most dangerous chemicals in cosmetics. Their bill has broad support from cosmetics companies of all sizes and public health groups.
Recent events have lent new urgency to the need for reform. Key issues include:Asbestos in kids’ products. Experts have found asbestos in cosmetics marketed to kids by Justice and Claire’s.Burned scalps. A class-action lawsuit was recently settled by a company making hair relaxers that have been linked to burned scalps.Hair loss. Thousands of women and girls lost some or all of their hair after using a shampoo sold by a celebrity hair stylist.Mercury poisoning. A skin whitening cream was recently the subject of an import alert after the FDA detected mercury in the product.Unsafe hair spray. The FDA also found an imported hair spray that contained methylene chloride, one of the few chemicals currently banned from cosmetics.Contaminated cosmetics. The FDA continues to find cosmetics contaminated with bacteria, including a body wash, face powders, shadows, and lotions.Eye shadow with coal tar. The FDA recently found imported eye shadows containing coal tar chemicals – including this product and this product.Eyeliners with lead. The FDA continues to intercept eyeliners containing an ingredient called kohl, which can contain significant lead levels.Unsafe colors. Many cosmetic products contain banned color chemicals, including shampoos, cleaners, temporary tattoos, and “Piggy Poop” soap.
Last year, The New York Times reported that contaminants such as mercury, lead, bacteria and other banned ingredients were showing up in an alarming number of imported personal care products.
The Times story was based on an FDA letter that revealed imports of personal care products have doubled in the last decade and imports from China have increased 79 percent in the last five years.
In 2016, 15 percent of imported personal care products inspected had “adverse findings” and 20 percent of products the FDA tested in its own labs had adverse findings.
In addition to requiring FDA review of the most dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, the Feinstein-Collins bill also requires companies to ensure that products are produced in ways that reduce the risk of contamination. If contaminated products pose serious risks to consumers, companies would be required to alert the FDA within 15 days.
Whether Congress will pass new cosmetics legislation this year remains to be seen. But the case for reform has never been clearer.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/02/contaminated-cosmetics-pose-growing-risk-consumers#.WoxVFINubIW
-
New Study Links PFAS Exposure and Body Weight Regulation
Feb 20, 2018 | EDF Health Blog
By Ryan O'Connell
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), sometimes referred to by the broader term “PFCs” (perfluorinated chemicals), are a large class of chemicals used to make products water- or grease-resistant. They can be found in everything from nonstick cookware and clothing to food packaging and adhesives. While PFAS have useful commercial and industrial applications, these chemicals also persist in the environment and in people, and a number of them have been shown to be very toxic.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perhaps the most infamous PFAS, has carcinogenic properties as recognized by authoritative bodies (see: here, here, and here). Other negative health outcomes associated with PFOA and other PFAS include increases in cholesterol, developmental effects in children, reproductive effects, endocrine disruption, and increases in cancer risk.
That is already a long list of serious health concerns. Yet a studypublished last week in PLOS Medicine suggests that we may need to add another health risk: interference with human weight regulation that may contribute to obesity. The study, a collaboration by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Louisiana State University, and Tulane University, examines the relationship between exposure to certain perfluoroalkyl substances and changes in body weight and resting metabolic rate (RMR)—the amount of energy the body burns when at rest.
The authors of this new study used data from the two-year POUNDS (Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies) Lost trial, a clinical trial in which participants (overweight and obese men and women, ages 30-70) were prescribed controlled diets that restricted their daily caloric intake for weight reduction. The trial showed that weight loss occurred largely in the first 6 months, followed by 18 months of gradual weight regain.
Weight regain did not occur uniformly, however. As part of the study, the levels in participants’ blood of five specific PFAS, including both long- and short-chain perfluoroalkyl substances, were recorded. Researchers observed that the higher the blood levels of these PFAS were, the more weight was gained back after the initial period of weight loss. Higher blood levels of these PFAS were also correlated with lower RMR values during the weight-regain period.
Taking these two associations together, the researchers propose that certain PFAS may contribute to weight gain by lowering the body’s resting metabolic rate, which decreases its energy burning capacity.
While the authors note that exactly how these PFAS exposures influence metabolic rate is not understood, they are clear about the study’s possible implications: “These findings suggest that environmental chemicals may play a role in the current obesity epidemic.”
The potential significance of this research is apparent when one considers that:Biomonitoring studies routinely show that Americans have PFAS in their bodies.PFAS enter our bodies from the food we eat and the water we drink; a recent Harvard study determined that PFAS levels in public drinking water sources serving six million people in the U.S. exceed federally recommended safety levels.PFAS are known to persist in people and in the environment.
Unfortunately, we know little about the majority of PFAS, especially shorter-chain substances that are increasingly being used to replace the better-studied – and clearly risky – longer-chain substances within this class of chemicals. This puts us in the grim position of not understanding the risks these substances present until after they have been allowed in thousands of consumer products. For example, after approving their uses in food packaging for years, FDA just published a study showing that short-chain PFAS, like their long-chain counterparts, have the potential to biopersist in the body.
The need for more information on the risks and safety of chemicals, and the ability to address concerns when they arise, underscores the importance of having a strong and well-resourced EPA. Yet EPA’s proposed FY19 budget, just released by the Trump Administration, slashes the agency’s overall budget by 23% and its research budget by over 48%.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/02/20/new-study-links-pfas-exposure-and-body-weight-regulation/
-
Chemical Regulation Measures Pending in 23 US State Legislatures
Feb 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
More than 100 proposals related to chemical regulation are pending in 23 US state legislatures. They include some carried over from 2017 and at least 20 that have been introduced since the start of the year.
Proposals to restrict exposure to PFAS chemicals and flame retardants are the most popular types of chemical legislation under consideration, according to an analysis by the NGO network Safer States and reporting by Chemical Watch.
"States are doing what the federal government is not: protecting the health of families by pursuing stronger protections against harmful chemicals," said Gretchen Salter, Safer States' interim director.
Proposed bans on some flame retardants, or the whole class of chemicals, have been introduced in 14 states: Alaska, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
A measure had been introduced in Mississippi as well, but did not make it through committee before a 30 January deadline.
PFASs
As predicted by state policy experts, legislation regarding perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and related chemicals is also popular.
Measures regulating their use in food packaging is pending in California, New Jersey, New York state, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington state. Measures that would limit allowable levels of the chemicals in drinking water have been introduced in Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New York state, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington state.
Related legislation that would bar the sale of firefighting foam containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances has begun moving in Washington's legislature, winning passage in the Senate on 10 February.
Measures requiring disclosure of chemicals in one or more categories of consumer products are pending in Alaska, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York state and Rhode Island. The most commonly targeted area is cosmetics.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64166/chemical-regulation-measures-pending-in-23-us-state-legislatures
-
Lawmakers Try to Crack Down on Asbestos After News Reports
Feb 20, 2018 | Detroit Free Press (In E&E Greenwire)
By Jennifer Dixon
Michigan lawmakers are trying to get tough on contractors that break environmental and workplace regulations on asbestos, after a series of articles in the Detroit Free Press found a "lack of oversight" of contractors in Detroit, which is in the middle of a huge redevelopment project. Thousands of homes have been knocked down.
The bipartisan legislation, to be introduced today in the House, would protect workers and local residents from mishandled asbestos. Public agencies would be required to do background checks on contractors, and contractors would be required to disclose state or federal environmental violations. And agencies would be able to withhold payment to contractors that have received more than five environmental citations in the past year.
It would also allow the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to impose tougher penalties on violators.
"What I'm hoping for is a little bit more accountability and transparency when it comes to contracting," said state Rep. Stephanie Chang (D). "The hope is that this will help improve the process for making sure we have environmentally sound practices for abating asbestos. ... Given the high numbers of abatement projects that are going on, I wanted to protect public health so that people can be sure that when blight is being addressed in their neighborhood, they're not also going to be breathing in asbestos."
A Free Press investigation found lax oversight, with dozens of cases in which workers handled the dangerous substance without training or equipment. Untrained workers accidentally caused the largest asbestos release ever in 2016 near Kalamazoo.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/20/stories/1060074255
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Delays Israel Trip
Feb 20, 2018 | Politico
By Kelsey Tamborrino
PRUITT POSTPONES ISRAEL TRIP: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — who has taken some heat for his expensive travels, citing unsafe confrontations with fellow travelers — is postponing his nearly week-long trip to Israel. Pruitt had been scheduled to leave this weekend for a tour of Israel, but agency spokeswoman Liz Bowman said the trip has been pushed back. “We decided to postpone; the administrator looks forward to going in the future,” she said in a statement.
The cancellation was first reported in The Washington Post, which said Pruitt would have stayed at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem until Thursday, according to people in Israel who were briefed on his plans. Support staff from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv had been tapped to accompany him on his trip.
DOC WATCH: Meanwhile, travel documents newly released by watchdog Environmental Integrity Project show how EPA justified Pruitt’s expensive travel — including a $14,000 business trip to his home state of Oklahoma that included a side trip to the city of Guymon to talk about the Waters of the U.S. The documents include “memorandums from EPA attorneys to Pruitt's office justifying the charter flights in June, July and August of 2017,” CNN reports. Read more.
WELCOME TO TUESDAY! I'm your host Kelsey Tamborrino, and the American Chemistry Council’s Jon Corley was first to answer that Theodore Roosevelt wore a lock of Abraham Lincoln’s hair during his inauguration. For today: Who was the first non-head of state to address a joint meeting of Congress? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
SPEAKING OF TRAVEL: The Hindustan Times reports Energy Secretary Rick Perry will travel to India, where he is "scheduled to hold talks with petroleum minister Dharmendra Pradhan and coal and railways minister Piyush Goyal on March 1 with a focus on crude oil, LNG and cleaner coal technologies." Perry is also expected to call on Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the visit, but timing and dates have not been confirmed. No word, however, on whether Perry might wade into the U.S.-India fight over solar power. More here.
NO TLC FOR HFCs? George David Banks’ exit from his role as energy adviser at the White House poses potential problems for the treaty pushing the phase out of hydrofluorocarbons, Pro’s Eric Wolff reports, but it doesn’t mean the effort is doomed. Banks, who served on the National Economic Council, was a key proponent of the amendment to the Montreal Protocol adopted in Kigali, Rwanda in 2016, which would reduce emissions from HFCs, a potent climate change pollutant. But Eric reports that U.S. companies, which are the biggest producers of the next-generation coolants that would replace HFCs, plan to continue to push President Donald Trump to submit the agreement to the Senate for ratification. Greens meanwhile have gone quiet on the Kigali amendment since the election of Trump, hoping it would fly under the radar of the administration that has gutted climate change policies. The administration has not decided whether it will back the deal.
Banks told POLITICO he expected the White House to ultimately get behind the measure. "The real issue here is the economic analysis. What does this mean from an economic perspective for the United States?" he said. "The president, as I've said before, he’s not ideological on these issues. The president is going to care if it's going to create jobs and create exports." And industry groups are already at work on an analysis to make their case, Eric reports, in the meantime, continuing their discussions with the Departments of State, Commerce, and EPA, as well as the White House.
Movement made on the Hill: Sens. John Neely Kennedy, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy and Jeff Merkley introduced a bill S. 2448 (115)last week on HFCs. “The American Innovation and Manufacturing Act” would give EPA the necessary authority to implement the amendment, if it is ratified by the Senate. “This bill gives a $206 billion U.S. industry the clarity it needs to invest, transition and protect American jobs,” Kennedy said in a statement. “It’s not often that Democrats, Republicans, industry and environmental groups come together to agree on anything, but we are all in agreement on this one.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down an EPA implementation rule last year, leaving observers uncertain how HFCs would be regulated. Read more.
UTILITIES ADD IT UP: By ME's count, a handful of the country’s biggest utilities, including American Electric Power, PG&E and ConEd, have flagged more than $22 billion in excess so-called deferred tax balances in their annual earning reports. As Darius Dixon reported earlier this month, that money, freed up because of December's tax cut, could become available for a buildout of energy infrastructure, for projects such as modernizing the electric grid, installing pipelines or putting up wind farms — or state regulators could return it to the ratepayers. State utility commissioners are still in the early stages of processing the impact of last year’s tax law, but with companies including Duke Energy, Southern Co., FirstEnergy Corp., Entergy Corp. and Edison International slated to report their 2017 earnings this week, the money pile is set to grow.
EPA CONSIDERING CHANGE IN CWA REGULATION: EPA is asking for comments on whether it should revise its wishy-washy policy on pollution discharges through groundwater — a move the agency describes as one of “certainty,” but that has environmentalists fearing that Pruitt’s EPA is preparing to create a major loophole for concentrated animal feeding operations, power plants and other industries. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that a Hawaii sewage treatment plant that injects its wastewater into underground wells that are directly connected via groundwater to the Pacific Ocean needs to get a Clean Water Act pollution permit — the latest in a series of conflicting cases over whether discharges through groundwater are regulated under federal law.
EPA has not been clear on the issue, saying in the past only that such cases “may” require permits. Now, the agency is asking whether those past statements should be revised — by memo, guidance or rule — and what the consequences of doing so would be. EPA posits the issue as one of regulatory clarity and certainty, but environmental groups fear the move presages another regulatory rollback that could hamstring their ability to challenge pollution from coal ash ponds, CAFOs and landfills. “The Clean Water Act is absolutely clear that this kind of dangerous pollution is illegal and political appointees at EPA don’t have the power to change it,” Frank Holleman, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said in a statement.
ENERGY CABINET IN FULL FORCE AT CPAC: All three energy principals will appear at the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference this week. Not only will the president and vice president address the conservative confab during the week, but so will the heads of EPA, DOE and Interior. Ryan Zinke, Perry and Pruitt will all appear on Friday, with Zinke and Perry scheduled to join a conversation with former Colorado Rep. Bob Beauprez at 8:35 a.m. Pruitt will address a 7 p.m. dinner reception with Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro. See the full agenda here.
COMMERCE GIVES TRUMP PLAN FOR STEEL, ALUMINUM TARIFFS:Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Friday put forth a plan for Trump to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, Pro’s Doug Palmer and Adam Behsudi report. “Commerce's plan gives Trump multiple options to choose from, including one potential play on steel that calls for a 24 percent tariff on all foreign imports, a move that would hit allies such as Canada, the European Union and Mexico, as well as China and other suppliers,” Doug and Adam write. The department was tasked by the president to study possible ways to restrict imports of steel and aluminum to defend national security interests. The two resulting reports were sent to the White House last month and released publicly Friday.
Industry reacts: American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard raised concerns with Commerce’s recommendations, calling it a “guise of national security concerns” that “doesn’t make sense for the U.S. economy.” The tariffs “would undoubtedly raise costs for U.S. businesses that rely heavily on steel and aluminum for the majority of their products — and ultimately consumers,” Gerard said in a statement.
JUDGE SAYS EPA WRONGLY DELAYED FORMALDEHYDE RULE: EPA unlawfully delayed compliance dates for a rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such as particleboard and plywood, a federal judge ruled Friday. Congress passed a bill in 2010 directing EPA to set emission standards for formaldehyde emissions by 2013, though EPA did not issue a final rule until December 2016. It then got caught up in the Trump administration's regulatory freeze and eventually pushed key compliance dates back by a year, to December 2018, more than three years after EPA was supposed to have required compliance. Judge Jeffrey White of the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled that that the delay was "in excess of the EPA’s authority under the Formaldehyde Act and is not in accordance with law." He ordered EPA and environmental groups to come up with an "expeditious" plan by March 9 rather than ordering the standards take effect immediately.
MORE DRILLING OPPOSITION IN FLORIDA: The Interior Department’s move Friday to auction leases for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico come March, including a portion of the Eastern Planning Area off Florida’s western coast, has prompted outcries from environmentalists — even though the sale area lies outside an area closed to drilling until 2022 under federal law. "There is a pattern here — Zinke is saying, 'Drill everywhere and drill anywhere regardless of what the environmental impacts are going to be,'" said Sierra Club Florida chapter director Frank Jackalone. "Zinke and Trump just don't care about the damage they do to our fisheries, our marine life and our coast." Read the story from Pro’s Bruce Ritchie and Ben Lefebvre here.
ROCK ON: Zinke on Friday released a draft list of critical minerals, pursuant of an executive order signed by Trump in December. The draft list contains minerals deemed important to the economy and national security, and was applauded by Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “This list provides a good starting point as we seek to develop more of the minerals that are fundamental to energy, defense, agriculture, and many other technologies that make up the foundation of our modern society," she said in a statement. Meanwhile, the National Mining Association called on the administration to broaden the scope of the list.
MAYORS ACT ON CPP REPEAL: A group of more than 200 mayors from 46 states will send a joint letter today to EPA warning against a repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The letter, which is organized by the Climate Mayors, will tell the agency that the Clean Power Plan is vital for state and city governments to address climate change. It will coincide with EPA’s listening session in Kansas City, Mo., on Wednesday focusing on the proposed repeal of the rule. Read the letter here.
MAIL CALL — DON’T PAY DEBT WITH DISASTER FUNDS: A bipartisan group of lawmakers voiced concern that federal disaster assistance funding for Puerto Rico could be used to increase payments to holders of the territory’s $70 billion bond debt, Pro’s Colin Wilhelm reports. “[I]t is vital that [the board] and the Governor fully preserve the intent of Congress that none of the funding provided under the disaster supplemental be diverted to service Puerto Rico’s debt,” wrote the lawmakers. Read the letter here.
STATE NEWS — MICHIGAN UTILITY TO STOP BURNING COAL: Michigan utility company Consumers Energy will stop burning coal for electricity production by 2040, the company’s president and CEO told the Associated Press. “We believe that climate change is real and we can do our part by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and we also believe it doesn’t have to cost more to do it,” Patti Poppe told AP. “We believe we’re going to be on the right side of history on this issue.” Poppe told the news outlet that Consumers Energy will generate 40 percent of its power from renewable sources by that year. Read more.
— NEW JERSEY DEP FILES MOTION ON PENNEAST: New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection filed a motion requesting that FERC rescind its approval of the PennEast pipeline project, Pro New Jersey’s Danielle Muoio reports. DEP filed a request for a rehearing, essentially appealing FERC's decision to grant the order, and it also filed a motion for a stay that would ensure the project cannot proceed until FERC decides whether to grant a new hearing. Read more.
QUICK HITS
— Perry tours RELLIS campus' new infrastructure facilities, The Eagle.
— Turmoil shakes up agency in charge of vast U.S. lands, Associated Press.
— Animals are losing their vagility, or ability to roam freely, The New York Times.
— ‘It’s not fast enough. It’s not big enough. There’s not enough action,’ The Washington Post.
— South Carolina lawmakers getting pro-SCE&G emails impersonating constituents, The Post and Courier.
— Share of Alaskans working in state’s oil industry shrinks to lowest in decades, Anchorage Daily News.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/02/20/pruitt-delays-israel-trip-110593
-
U.S. Ethane Consumption Expected to Boom
Feb 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that during the next two years, domestic growth in ethane consumption in the burgeoning petrochemicals industry will surpass that of all other petroleum and liquid products combined as ethylene crackers and plastics plants expand along the Gulf Coast.
Ethane is a natural gas liquid used as a feedstock for ethylene, which is the building block for most plastics. Last year, three new Gulf Coast ethylene crackers boosted domestic ethane consumption to 1.2 billion barrels a day, the agency reported.
The ethylene surge comes amid a Gulf Coast petrochemicals boom driven by an abundance of cheap natural gas flowing from West Texas shale fields such as the prolific Permian basin. By 2019, the agency expects ethylene crackers now under construction to boost ethane consumption to 1.6 million barrels a day.
Other major projects are underway. French oil major Total SA, for example, affirmed this week plans to build a $1.7 billion ethane steam cracker alongside its Port Arthur refinery as part of a joint venture with Austrian and Canadian companies Borealis AG and NOVA Chemicals Corp.
The Energy Department also anticipates ethane exports to increase to 310,000 barrels a day in 2019, up from from 180,000 barrels a day last year. Kinder Morgan's Utopia pipeline, which last month began transporting ethane products to Canada from Ohio's Utica shale play, is expected to drive part of that growth.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/U-S-ethane-consumption-expected-to-boom-12626940.php
-
BP Says Future is Electric, But Oil Not Done Yet
Feb 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Anna Hirtenstein
The future is electric for BP Plc, though it's not giving up on oil just yet.
The British company bumped up its forecast for electric vehicles by 80 percent to 180 million by 2035, according to an energy outlook released Tuesday. It expects a third of the miles driven in 2040 will be powered by electricity.
The company forecasts the abundance of gasoline and diesel cars will ensure overall oil demand will continue to grow at about 0.5 percent per year. But that's slower than the 0.7 percent annual increase it forecast last year. Consumption is expected to peak at 110 million barrels per day in the mid-2030s, BP's Chief Economist Spencer Dale said. That's earlier than the mid-2040s he predicted last year.
"The suggestion that rapid growth in electric cars will cause oil demand to collapse just isn't supported by the basic numbers -- even with really rapid growth," Dale said. "It's almost nothing. Oil used in the car market is essentially flat for the next 20 years."
BP said this year's outlook doesn't have a base case scenario, like in previous editions. It instead has a "evolving transitions scenario," which has a stable pace of change.
Demand from cars, the backbone of oil consumption growth in the past century, may drop after 2030 and be at about today's level by 2040, BP said. The surge of electric cars means manufacturers may not need to put as much effort and investment in increasing the efficiency of gasoline and diesel vehicles, Dale said.
"Selling more EVs will tend to have almost no effect on oil demand because now I can sell a greater number of large cars or I can do less investment in light weighting," Dale said.
The change to cleaner energy is going to be slow and BP won't be left holding any oil assets it can't produce from economically, Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley said in an interview Tuesday. Cleaner burning natural gas will be an important fuel in that transition, he said.
Gas is expected to grow faster than oil, adding about 1.6 percent per year as it increasingly becomes the fuel of choice for power producers, according to the outlook report. Coal consumption is projected to flatline.
"It's significant that BP has kicked the notion of an energy transition to the forefront of its latest outlook," said Luke Sussams, senior researcher at Carbon Tracker Initiative, a London-based think tank. Still, its business-as-usual projection "shows the yawning gap between company expectations and the 2˚C climate target set by the world's leaders in Paris in 2015."
BP has also raised its forecasts for renewables. It expects clean-energy technologies will make up 40 percent of the growth in energy supplies in the years ahead. The London-based company increased solar power projections by 150 percent compared with 2015 as panel costs fell faster than anticipated amid strong policy support globally.
"We cannot predict where these changes will take us, but we can use this knowledge to get fit and ready to play our role in meeting the energy needs of tomorrow," Dudley said in a statement.
The oil company recently bought a stake in British solar developer Lightsource Renewable Energy Ltd. for $200 million. It's also said to be weighing a bid for Terra Firma's Rete Rinnovabile Srl, a solar company based in Italy.
The biggest driver of oil consumption is likely to be petrochemicals. However, BP has reduced its forecast for demand from that sector by 2 million barrels a day as governments around the world are beginning to regulate the use of products such as plastic bags. Packaging makes up about 3 percent of global oil use.
"We think we're going to see increasing regulation against some types of petrochemical products, particularly single-use plastics," Dale said. "As a result of that, we have less growth in non-combusted oils than we otherwise would have done."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/BP-says-future-is-electric-but-oil-not-done-yet-12627111.php
-
Refiner Goes Belly-Up After Big Payouts to Carlyle Group
Feb 20, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jarrett Renshaw
Throughout 2016 and 2017, a rail terminal built to accept crude oil for the largest East Coast refinery often sat idle, with few trains showing up to unload.
Although little oil flowed, plenty of money did.
Under a deal Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) signed in 2015, the refiner paid minimum quarterly payments of $30 million to terminal owner North Yard Logistics LP - even if little crude arrived. Much of that cash, in turn, flowed to the investors that own both PES and North Yard, led by the Carlyle Group, a global private equity firm with $178 billion in assets.
The deal in effect guaranteed lucrative payouts to Carlyle regardless of whether the refinery benefitted from the arrangement. When oil market conditions made the rail shipments unprofitable later that year, the refinery took heavy losses while its investors continued to collect large distributions for two more years.
The rail contract exemplifies the financial demands Carlyle imposed on PES in the years leading up to the refiner’s bankruptcy in January. The Carlyle-led consortium collected at least $594 million in cash distributions from PES before it collapsed, according to a Reuters review of bankruptcy filings. Carlyle paid $175 million in 2012 for its two-thirds stake in the refiner.
(For a graphic detailing how PES went bankrupt, see: http://tmsnrt.rs/2BzYUW2 )
More than half the distributions to the Carlyle-led investors were financed by loans against PES assets that the refiner now can't pay back, the filings show. The rest came from the refiner's operating budget and payments PES made under the terminal deal to North Yard, a firm with no offices or employees that PES spun off in 2015.
PES has blamed its bankruptcy on environmental regulations that require all U.S. refiners to cover the costs of blending corn-based ethanol into the nation’s gasoline. But the ill-fated train terminal deal and other large payouts to investors played key roles in the refiner's collapse, according to filings and five current or former PES employees who were involved in the refinery's decision-making. The employees spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The investor payouts, along with a slump in refining economics, left PES unable to cover its obligations under the decade-old U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard or the loans it took to finance the distributions to Carlyle, the filings show.
PES had $600 million in debt and $43 million in cash on hand when it filed bankruptcy last month. It now hopes to restructure and continue operations, which employ about 1,100 people.
Carlyle Group spokesman Christopher Ullman declined to comment on whether the distributions or the rail-terminal deal contributed to the refiner's bankruptcy. PES spokeswoman Cherice Corley defended the payments to Carlyle and said the biofuels regulations played a "significant" role its collapse.
"We feel our capital structure was appropriate, and any suggestion that it was the cause of our restructuring is completely ignoring the significant effect of the flawed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)," Corley said.
Other refiners and Pennsylvania officials have also blamed biofuels regulation for the South Philadelphia refinery’s failure, triggering renewed debate about the program on Capitol Hill.
Refiners without the necessary blending facilities, such as PES, are required to purchase regulatory credits, known as RINs, from firms that do such blending. The cost of compliance for PES rose from $13 million in 2012 to $218 million in 2017 as prices increased for the credits, which are traded in an open market.
The refiner, however, failed to pay a large portion of that obligation. In addition to its conventional debt, PES still owes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory credits worth about $350 million, an amount tied to the fuel it produced over the past two years, according to filings. The firm stopped buying RINs last year - and instead sold them to other refiners for what likely amounted to tens of millions of dollars, Reuters reported in November.
The corn and ethanol lobby has pushed back on the argument that biofuels regulation sunk PES, pointing out that other refiners governed by the same law are raking in their highest profits in years. The refinery’s failure had more to do with the hefty profits it paid to Carlyle as its cash reserves dwindled and its debt soared, said Brooke Coleman, head of the Advanced Biofuels Council.
"The Carlyle Group looks more like a corporate raider than a savior in this deal," Coleman said.
Carlyle would not lose any of its gains on the PES investment under the refiner’s proposed restructuring plan, which has the support of almost all creditors, according to filings. PES also asks the bankruptcy court to entirely absolve its $350 million obligation to the EPA.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman declined to comment on the delinquent PES credit obligations, citing the bankruptcy proceedings.
CARLYLE RECOUPED INVESTMENT WITH DEBT
Carlyle bought its stake in PES as many other East Coast refineries were closing down because of weak margins. The previous owner, Sunoco - now Energy Transfer Partners - contributed the refinery’s assets and became a non-controlling partner.
The $175 million Carlyle paid was its only investment in PES, filings show, and the firm soon recouped its acquisition costs through a loan against the refinery.
At the direction of its investor-controlled board, PES borrowed $550 million in March 2013 and paid $200 million of that to investors, according to bankruptcy filings.
PES then spent $100 million building the rail terminal that year and $30 million in 2014 to double its capacity. At the time, U.S. oil production was skyrocketing as improved drilling technology unlocked new reserves in places such as North Dakota. Carlyle saw an opportunity to tap this cheaper supply and wean PES off costly imports.
The plan worked well at first, in 2013 and 2014, and PES posted earnings of about $500 million for the two years combined.
In January 2015, PES spun off the terminal, creating North Yard as a separate firm. PES then signed a ten-year agreement with North Yard to pay $1.95 for each barrel unloaded and agreed to a minimum quarterly volume of 170,000 bpd, guaranteeing the $30 million quarterly payments to North Yard. For any barrel PES unloaded above the threshold, the refinery paid North Yard 51 cents.
The system was designed to reward PES for success, but had no contingency plan to protect the refiner against the failure that would quickly follow the deal. The rail terminal has averaged just 58,000 bpd since the contract was signed, according to figures provided to Reuters by energy intelligence service Genscape, because Carlyle and PES could no longer access crude at prices low enough to make the rail shipments profitable.
That left PES paying millions of dollars to Carlyle, through North Yard, for oil shipments it never received.
BAD BET ON CHEAP CRUDE
Carlyle’s purchase of PES and the rail terminal investment were bets that U.S. oil would remain cheap relative to imports. A glut of domestic production had caused U.S. crude to sell at a deep discount to imported barrels, with the gap averaging about $8.60 between 2012 and 2015.
But by late 2015, an oil price rebound slashed the domestic discount to less than $3 a barrel – not enough to cover the cost of a long rail journey.
PES nonetheless continued to pay North Yard a total of $298 million between 2015 until August 2017, filings show. The Carlyle-led investor group received $151 million, in eight distributions, of the total paid to North Yard.
In November of that year, PES took on more debt to finance more payouts to investors, borrowing a total of $160 million in two loans against the rail terminal and delivering the proceeds its Carlyle-led backers, filings show.
Corley, the PES spokeswoman said terminal investment more than paid for itself during its more profitable period. But for last two years, PES said in filings, the refinery remained largely cut off from the cheap crude it needed to survive.
"Perversely, it became cheaper to transport crude oil from North Dakota to points in Western Europe than it was to transport the same crude oil to Philadelphia," the firm said.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/02/20/business/20reuters-usa-biofuels-pes-bankruptcy-insight.html
-
Fracking Has Its Costs And Benefits -- The Trick Is Balancing Them
Feb 20, 2018 | Forbes
By Michael Greenstone
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is perhaps the most important energy discovery in the last half century. As a result of fracking, U.S. production of oil and natural gas has increased dramatically. This increase has abruptly lowered energy prices, strengthened energy security and even lowered air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal in electricity generation. The lower energy prices have meant more money in the pockets of American families and businesses. And the lower emissions are certainly good news for our health with large reductions in air pollution dispersed across the country and, at least for the near term, our climate.
Whether or not we as a society continue to gain from the broad benefits of fracking rests on the shoulders of the local communities where drilling takes place, or could take place. These communities must determine if the local benefits exceed the local costs, a calculation that requires a lot of information to be done well. Over the past year, we have been part of two research efforts that have shed light on what’s at stake in the choices communities are making.
On the benefits side, fracking increases economic activity, employment, income and housing prices. But, it also brings more truck traffic, increases in crime and potential health impacts possibly due to air and/or water pollution. In some recent work, we’ve added it all up. We discovered that for the average household living in a community where fracking takes place the benefits exceed the costs—indeed, it is worth about $2,000 per year to them. That calculation of $2,000 per year is based on people’s current understanding of the health impacts at the time of our study. If people’s understanding of the health impacts were to change, it is likely that this would alter the net benefits of allowing fracking.
Since health is such a critical factor, we decided to dig in further by looking at the health of those born near fracking sites. Our findings, published recently in the journal Science Advances, present the first large-scale peer-reviewed evidence of a link between hydraulic fracturing and health.
Specifically, we found that babies born within 3 kilometers, about 2 miles, of a fracking site are more likely to suffer from poor health. The largest impacts were to babies born within 1 kilometer, about a half mile, of a site, with those babies being 25% more likely to be born at a low birth weight (i.e., less than 5.5 pounds). Equally important, those babies born to mothers living further than 3 kilometers didn’t show any health impacts, indicating that the health impacts are highly localized. Out of the nearly 4 million babies born in the United States each year, back of the envelop calculations suggest that about 30,000 of them are born within a kilometer of a fracking site and another 100,000 are born between 1 and 3 kilometers away.
Our findings are based on a massive amount of data: 9 years’ worth of birth records from throughout Pennsylvania, totaling 1.1 million births. These records included information about the infant’s health at birth, where the mother lived, and detailed demographic information about the mother such as race, education and marital status. We then combined this data with a list of all fractured wells in Pennsylvania through 2014, which included 7,757 wells.
One big question that naturally arises from this kind of work is whether the analysis controls for other factors that might contribute to low birth weight such as socio-economic or behavioral factors. For example, mothers who live nearby active fracking site are younger, less likely to have been married at the time of the birth, and less educated—characteristics that might lead to worse infant health outcomes.
We account for these differences by comparing infants born to mothers living up to 3 kilometers away from a site to those living between 3 and 15 kilometers, both before and after fracking began. Conducting the analysis this way does a great deal to control for these other factors that affect infant health. Specifically, any explanation besides fracking activity would need to involve differential changes in the determinants of health among infants born to mothers living within 3 kilometers of a fracking site, relative to infants born to mothers living 3-15 kilometers away, after fracking was initiated. In other words, at the onset of fracking, mothers living closer to wells would have to suddenly become poorer or use more alcohol or eat less healthy, and they would have to do so more than mothers living farther away. We can’t rule out this possibility, but our investigations failed to turn up credible evidence for such changes in the data.
Nevertheless, we further probed the health of babies born after fracking, comparing it to that of their siblings born to the same mother before fracking. This test’s appeal is that many of the concerns about unobserved differences in determinants of infant health are much less likely to be relevant when comparing siblings that share the same mother. Here again, the data shows that the initiation of fracking is associated with an increase in the probability of low birth weight. The limitation of this test is that it is very demanding of the data, so these results are not significant on their own, but they provide a compelling validation of the main results.
While our study provides a link to fracking activities and poorer infant health, it doesn’t tell us what aspects of fracking lead to those poorer health outcomes. Because many people in the study got their water from municipal sources not close to fracking sites, we suspect water contamination isn’t to blame. The most plausible explanation appears to be localized air pollution caused by the increased truck traffic, the diesel generators powering the sites, or perhaps other emissions, but the evidence on the cause is not decisive. Indeed, future work exploring the mechanism is warranted. Another important area for future research is to explore whether fracking affects health at other ages. We hope that our paper will open up these lines of inquiry.
Fracking has upended the American energy system. It has brought substantial benefits to the nation in terms of lower energy prices, greater energy security, reduced air pollution, and fewer carbon emissions (although its long-run impact on carbon emissions is less clear). Our research shows that there are also health and other costs to local communities where fracking takes places.
As governments and communities with shale deposits in the United States and around the world continue to grapple with whether to allow fracking, it is vital that they have the facts on its impacts. This is the only way to ensure that we get fracking’s benefits and minimize its costs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/02/20/fracking-has-its-costs-and-benefits-the-trick-is-balancing-them/#7724c3d319b4
-
OMB Greenlights Bid to Scrap Obama Oil and Gas Guidelines
| E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly and Niina Heikkinen
The White House Office of Management and Budget has cleared U.S. EPA's proposal to scrap pollution-reduction guidelines for existing oil and gas operations, setting the stage for the rollback of another piece of the Obama administration's environmental agenda.
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs finished a standard interagency review of the proposed withdrawal notice for the "control techniques guidelines" on Friday, according to the Reginfo.gov website. Once the notice is signed, EPA will put the proposal out for public comment, an agency spokeswoman said in an email today.
The guidelines, issued in October 2016, were a key part of EPA's strategy then for reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from existing oil and gas facilities. In sunshine, VOCs react with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog.
Although not a regulation, the guidelines are technical recommendations for states to consider for areas deemed in "moderate" nonattainment or worse for EPA's 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion. They also apply in the Ozone Transport Region, which encompasses 11 Northeastern states, the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia.
"It is addressing sources that you wouldn't otherwise get at from ozone regulation," Joanne Spalding, senior managing attorney at the Sierra Club, said in a recent interview.
States can use "reasonable cost" technological fixes to control the pollutants, such as replacing high-bleed pneumatic controllers with low-bleed controllers. At the time, EPA billed the recommendations as a way to also reduce emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and save the industry money in lost product.
While EPA officials have so far not formally laid out their rationale for now seeking the guidelines' repeal, that step would mesh with the Trump administration's goal of easing requirements that would be seen as hindering domestic energy production (Greenwire, Dec. 15, 2017). The oil and gas industry, citing the potential price tag for smaller producers, had opposed the guidelines' adoption.
The guidelines — often known by their acronym, CTGs — were released as part of an Obama-era suite of requirements aimed at controlling a range of pollutants from the oil and gas industry. This included landmark regulations to reduce methane releases from new and modified sources, according to Spalding.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's decision to withdraw the CTGs comes on the heels of efforts to roll back or delay parts of those methane regulations. EPA plans to release a notice of proposed rulemaking on changes to the new source rule in August and anticipates the release of a final rule in 2019.
EPA had sent the proposed notice of withdrawal of the control techniques guidelines to OMB in mid-December (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/20/stories/1060074297
-
States Want to Counter Trump on Climate. It's a Struggle
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Climate hawks shifted their focus from Washington, D.C., to state capitals in the wake of President Trump's 2016 victory, hoping state lawmakers might usher in the types of carbon reduction strategies the federal government could not.
But more than a year later, state climate action remains stuck in neutral, and the prospects for victory in 2018 remain far from certain.
To date, state climate victories have largely been limited to the expansion of existing programs. California reapproved its cap-and-trade program last year. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program covering the electricity sector in nine Northeastern states, agreed to further reductions in its emissions cap. New Jersey is now on track to rejoin RGGI, and Virginia may also join soon.
Notching victories on new fronts, however, has proved far more difficult. Nowhere has that been more evident than on the subject of carbon pricing, long the holy grail of climate action advocates. Many economists believe a carbon price is the most cost-effective climate mitigation policy because it incentivizes businesses to develop strategies to reduce emissions.
"I think state governments as a whole have underperformed," said Massachusetts state Sen. Michael Barrett, a Democrat who has long advocated for a carbon price.
"I don't think they've risen to the occasion," he added. "I think the focus has moved on to other forms of resistance. I'd like to see the states plant the flag firmly by moving together in the energy area, but I would be the first to say that state government has yet to prove itself to people's point of resistance. That is disappointing to me."
The challenge is reflected by the significant hurdles carbon pricing faces in some of America's greenest states. Environmentalists have little hope of passing a proposed $35-per-ton carbon tax in New York, where Republicans control the state Senate. Connecticut and Rhode Island both have proposed enacting a $15-per-ton carbon tax, but only after Massachusetts acts. Massachusetts and Vermont both have Republican governors who acknowledge climate change, but are cool to the idea of a carbon tax.
Even in Oregon and Washington, states where the prospects for a carbon price may be best, climate hawks face long odds. Short legislative sessions and entrenched opposition to a cap-and-trade program in Oregon and carbon tax in Washington complicate the outlook for both proposals.
"Failure to move in states beyond New Jersey this year would signify the challenges remain pretty substantial and the diffusion to other states is pretty limited," said Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan and author of a forthcoming book about state carbon-pricing efforts.
Pointing to the considerable efforts of Washington's Democratic governor to sell the idea, Rabe added, "How much more time can Jay Inslee spend on this issue?"State efforts continue
Climate hawks are unbowed. Legislators in nine states recently announced they were forming a coalition to price carbon in their home states. And while carbon pricing is perhaps the marquee climate policy, greens noted it is hardly the only one.
States continue to move on new requirements to promote electric vehicles, boost energy efficiency programs and procure increasing amounts of low-carbon electricity.
Massachusetts and Illinois, which each recently implemented requirements for utilities to buy large amounts of wind, solar and other low-carbon resources, are good examples of state climate action, said David Ismay, a lawyer at the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based environmental group that has had a say in the crafting of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island carbon proposals.
"States are moving forward. They are doing things within their power," he said.
State climate hawks still face several immediate challenges. First, renewable energy mandates tend to be the most popular form of climate policy. But such requirements are generally targeted at the electricity sector, and transportation emissions now account for the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The issue is exacerbated in the Northwest, which has long received a disproportionate amount of its electricity from hydropower, and the Northeast, where the combination of cheap natural gas prices and RGGI's carbon caps has all but led to the elimination of coal.
Second, disagreements over what to do with the money a carbon price generates can divide supporters of pricing plans. Divisions over how to spend the revenue from a carbon tax helped contribute to the defeat of a 2016 ballot measure in Washington state, which proposed using the money to offset other taxes.
Bills in Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington all envision using revenue from a carbon price to fund renewable energy, climate adaption and transition assistance programs.
A Vermont bill largely calls for returning the revenue to residents in the form of a rebate. Massachusetts greens considered both approaches before settling on a new proposal that avoids the messy revenue debate by simply giving the governor a deadline to implement a carbon price.
Climate hawks argued that the revenue disagreements distract from the larger issue.
"What's most important is limiting the amount of carbon and ensuring there are declines in the amount of carbon being emitted every year," said Noah Long, legal director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's western energy program. "It's appropriate that states figure out the way that works out for them."
Finally, not all states are equally committed to the idea. New York is one of the few large states considering a carbon tax, but the idea is unlikely to move forward unless Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) really pushes it, said Conor Bambrick, air and energy director at Environmental Advocates of New York.
Thus far, Cuomo has been silent on the subject, prompting greens like Bambrick to look longingly toward Washington state.
"New York needs to take the same route," he said. "It can't be talking and talking and not doing what needs to be done."
In Vermont, lawmakers have proposed a bill that calls on instituting a carbon price on transportation and home-heating fuels. Some had hoped the plan could win the support of Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican who acknowledges climate science and criticized Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
But those hopes suffered a setback when Scott rejected a recommendation by his Vermont Climate Action Commission to study a carbon tax, saying it would ultimately prove costly to Vermont consumers. Supporters have pledged to continue pushing.
"I appreciate the governor being willing to step up and step in when the federal government has abrogated its responsibility and the opportunity, but I'm hoping it's not just rhetoric," said Johanna Miller, energy and climate program director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council and a member of Scott's climate committee. "I've been very concerned, to date, that being supportive in theory and being supportive in action is not matching up."
Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.Policies face hurdles in Northeast, Pacific Northwest
If there is going to be movement on a carbon tax in the Northeast, it will likely be in Massachusetts. Connecticut and Rhode Island's carbon tax proposals contain provisions calling for their states to act after the Bay State. Climate hawks have some reasons for optimism in Massachusetts.
A 2008 law obligates the state to legally binding carbon reductions. State senators unveiled a plan last week to strengthen it further by requiring the governor to implement a market-based emissions strategy. The proposal, included as part of a wider energy bill, would require a price for the transportation sector by 2021, the industrial sector by 2022 and the residential sector by 2023. The approach is designed to win political support and provide flexibility to policymakers, who may now be divided over whether to pursue a cap-and-invest or revenue-neutral approach, said Barrett, the Massachusetts state senator.
"This is a paradigm shift in terms of carbon pricing," Barrett said. "It's less about the tool and more about the deadline."
Whether it can win the support of Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) remains to be seen. Katie Gronendyke, a spokeswoman for the governor, noted Baker is supportive of RGGI and backed the law that requires Massachusetts to significantly boost low-carbon energy sources like offshore wind and hydropower.
"But the administration does not support implementing any additional 'carbon tax' that would adversely impact businesses' and families' utility bills," she said.
That leaves the Pacific Northwest as the most likely arena for action. Yet timing could be a limiting factor in both states. Oregon lawmakers have proposed a bill that would essentially pave the way for the state to join California's cap-and-trade program. The proposal has the support of the Democratic legislative leaders who control both chambers in Salem and Gov. Kate Brown (D). But the bill's prospects are complicated by Oregon's off-year legislative session, which lasts for one month. Some lawmakers and business interests have questioned whether the state can effectively tackle such a complicated issue in such a compressed period of time.
The situation is similar in Washington state, where lawmakers have 60 days to pass a bill this year. The proposal cleared a key hurdle recently when it passed the state Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee, but not before legislators halved Inslee's proposed initial carbon price of $20 per ton. The amended bill is expected to pass the state Senate Ways and Means Committee next week before heading to the full Senate for a vote.
Democrats, who maintain one-seat majorities in both chambers, have sought to rally their members to the cause. Former Secretary of State and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry visited Olympia last week to help bolster support for the proposal. But it still remains unclear if the plan has the votes to pass the Senate and the House, where state Speaker Frank Chopp has said lawmakers have other priorities this year.
"It's absolutely a heavy lift politically, but the traction is very real," said state Sen. Reuven Carlyle, a Seattle Democrat who is championing the proposal. "We have a moral imperative to do our best. This is not a small little bill down the hall."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/20/stories/1060074239
-
N.J. Says FERC Approval of PennEast Project Incomplete
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New Jersey has asked federal regulators to retract their approval of PennEast Pipeline Co.'s natural gas pipeline.
In filings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said FERC performed an incomplete environmental review of the project and did not take the state's input into consideration.
FERC should withdraw its approval of PennEast, reopen the environmental review process and prevent the company from taking land through eminent domain, NJDEP said.
The filings were signed by state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, whom Gov. Phil Murphy (D) appointed after winning the gubernatorial election last November.
"Even though environmental impacts to almost two-thirds of the route are unknown, [FERC's certificate of public convenience and necessity] allows condemnation of land along the entire route, including environmentally sensitive State-preserved land," Grewal wrote. "A stay here would ensure the pipeline route is mapped based on sound environmental data and would avoid future changes and uncertainty due to the current lack of information."
The filings mark an escalation of Murphy's involvement since he took office in January. Murphy won office with wide support from labor unions and environmentalists, but the controversies around the $1 billion PennEast project have threatened to fracture that coalition. Murphy so far has declined to take an up-or-down stance on PennEast, saying it needs to be considered in the wider context of the state's energy plan.
The 120-mile project would start in Pennsylvania and land at a major natural gas interconnection in New Jersey. The state gets more than half of its power from gas, and PennEast has argued that the project is critical to ensuring reliability and economic competitiveness. A coterie of labor unions, some of which campaigned for Murphy and other top Democrats in the state, lent their support.
But officials under former Gov. Chris Christie (R) turned away the project last summer, saying PennEast had failed to collect necessary environmental information about land on its proposed route (Energywire, June 29, 2017).
PennEast continued its process at the federal level, getting the green light from FERC in January in a 4-1 vote (Energywire, Jan. 22). The project still needs water approvals from New Jersey, however, and it has yet to reapply to the state.
New Jersey environmentalists, meanwhile, have taken heart from actions by New York, where Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's environmental officials have turned away multiple interstate gas pipelines in recent years using state authority under the Clean Water Act. Many New Jerseyans along the pipeline route, especially, have refused to surrender their land even though PennEast currently has the authority to access it.
Grewal said PennEast hasn't been able to survey more than 65 percent of the properties it needs to, and that's why it must have the FERC-delegated powers to access the land.
But New Jersey argued that because FERC's environmental review was incomplete in the first place — lacking data on the impacts of horizontal drilling, for example — FERC should rescind, or at least amend, its approval of PennEast.
Gurwal suggested an amended order, "which provides PennEast the authority to condemn only those property interests absolutely necessary to conduct surveys, soil borings, and other environmental analyses along the proposed route."
Pat Kornick, a PennEast spokesperson, said the company needs access to the land to do the surveys necessary to understand potential environmental impacts. The company cannot build until it has made those assessments, she said.
"Although PennEast understands Friday's administrative filing is part of the multi-year, multi-agency process, the issues raised by the Department in the request aren't new and have been considered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; therefore, the Request for Rehearing should be denied," she wrote in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/20/stories/1060074211
-
DOE’s New Cybersecurity Office Designed to Protect Energy Sector
Feb 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
With the energy sector, including the oil and gas industry, making preparations for cyber attacks, the Department of Energy (DOE) has established a cybersecurity office to help protect and prepare the industry.
Last Wednesday, DOE Secretary Rick Perry announced the creation of the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response (CESER). DOE said President Trump's proposed $4.4 trillion budget for fiscal year 2019 included $96 million in funding for the new office.
"DOE plays a vital role in protecting our nation's energy infrastructure from cyber threats, physical attack and natural disaster, and as secretary, I have no higher priority," Perry said. "This new office best positions the department to address the emerging threats of tomorrow while protecting the reliable flow of energy to Americans today."
According to DOE, CESER is to be led by an assistant secretary who "will focus on energy infrastructure security, support the expanded national security responsibilities assigned to the department and report to the Under Secretary of Energy." DOE added that the establishment of CESER "will elevate the department's focus on energy infrastructure protection and will enable more coordinated preparedness and response to natural and man-made threats."
Cybersecurity has taken on a new urgency since Trump took office last January, the same month DOE -- under then-President Obama -- recommended that it coordinate with other government agencies to determine whether additional cybersecurity protections for the nation's natural gas pipeline network are warranted.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Perry pledged to take cyber threats to the energy sector seriously, and that DOE had a "massive role to play" in protecting the industry.
Last May, the American Gas Association said no natural gas utilities had been hit by WannaCry ransomware, a cyberattack that affected computer systems and caused mayhem worldwide. In June 2017, a group of Democratic senators urged Trump to direct DOE to examine the threats Russian hackers pose to energy infrastructure in the United States.
Cybersecurity was also a topic of discussion at the 2017 winter policy meetings of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). A panel of experts told NARUC that the nation's electric utilities have resources at their disposal to fight cyber threats, but concerns remain over how much training their personnel receives.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113431-does-new-cybersecurity-office-designed-to-protect-energy-sector
-
CEO: Amtrak Won’t Run Trains on Non-PTC Track
Feb 20, 2018 | RailwayAge Magazine
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
Amtrak won’t operate its passenger trains on tracks without Positive Train Control in 2019 if host railroads fail to meet the deadline for installation of the federally-mandated safety technology.
Amtrak Chief Executive Richard Anderson also told a House committee hearing that the carrier won’t permit non-PTC compliant equipment on the tracks it owns, mostly on the Northeast Corridor.
His comments came during the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing Feb. 15 examining the implementation of PTC.
Juan D. Reyes III, chief counsel, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Edward Hamberger, president and CEO, Association of American Railroads (AAR), Anderson, Paul Skoutelas, president and CEO, American Public Transportation Association (APTA), John P. Tolman, vice president and national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and Robert Sumwalt, chairman, National Transportation Safety Board all testified at the hearing.
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the committee, said, “Throughout the implementation process, railroads have faced a complex set of challenges. One of the biggest issues was the ability to obtain spectrum. Both FRA and [the Government Accountability Office] have published multiple reports articulating the other obstacles faced, such as the integration and field testing of PTC components, the development of PTC technology, issues with availability of suppliers of PTC technology, radio interference, and interoperability issues. Today we are here to see if these issues, among others, still linger for the railroads.”
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Ca.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, said, “From its inception a decade ago, Congress and stakeholders anticipated that the PTC mandate would be a daunting undertaking. PTC had never been implemented on such a large scale, and has never required such a high level of interoperability…we want to hear about any implementation challenges for the industry, and how we can work together to ensure PTC deadlines are met.
Andersen testified that Amtrak would have PTC installed on all tracks and equipment it owns by December 2018. But Amtrak is facing non-compliance issues on two fronts. Anderson said it is doubtful that Amtrak will operate trains along routes where delays in PTC implementation occur with host railroads. The other side of the issue is that Amtrak will not permit non-compliant equipment on its railroad after the deadline, which could present problems along the Northeast Corridor. Andersen said Amtrak is working with the FRA and those railroads that may be affected to determine a path forward.
Reyes said railroads had communicated a number of challenges to FRA regarding PTC implementation including a limited number of PTC system vendors and suppliers, lengthy time to negotiate contracts with those vendors and suppliers, hardware and software technical reliability issues, delays in testing interoperability and lack of progress by tenant railroads on equipping locomotives with PTC.
Hamberger said that all Class 1 railroads will meet or exceed the statutory requirement with 56 percent of all route miles required to have PTC in operation by the end of 2017. He explained that number is expected to increase to more than 80 percent of all PTC required network miles to be in operation by the end of 2018.
The T&I Committee provided a link to a Summary of Subject Matter, available here.
The hearing in its entirety is available to view here.
https://www.railwayage.com/news/ceo-amtrak-wont-run-trains-non-ptc-track/
-
Bipartisan Senate Bill Would Allow Ban on HFCs
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
A bipartisan group of lawmakers last week introduced legislation that would allow U.S. EPA to implement a deal meant to phase out certain greenhouse gases.
The legislation would give EPA authority to ban hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), greenhouse gases used in refrigeration and air conditioning that are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the "American Innovation and Manufacturing Act."
"On the surface, this bill seems more complicated than high school chemistry, but really it's pretty simple," Kennedy said in a statement. "It's about jobs. And it's about protecting the investment by Louisiana companies in new technologies and protecting Louisiana jobs."
In 2015, world leaders agreed to phase out the potent greenhouse gas under the Kigali Amendment — named for the Rwandan capital where it was finalized. The agreement, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to be ratified by the U.S., would avert enough emissions from air-conditioning units and refrigerators to reduce warming by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit) by 2100.
After the Kigali Amendment was signed, EPA wrote its own regulation to restrict HFC use in the United States, but a federal court overturned the rule, saying the agency did not have the authority to implement it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that decision early this year (Greenwire, Jan. 29).
This new legislation would give EPA the authority to regulate HFCs. The hydrofluorocarbon industry employs 593,000 workers in the U.S. and generates annual sales of $206 billion.
"Our bipartisan AIM Act continues support for American development and manufacturing of next-generation HFC-alternatives, while also protecting our environment and helping the U.S. meet its obligations under the amended Montreal Protocol — a true win-win," Carper said in a statement. "After more than a decade of work to support domestic manufacturing of HFC-alternative products, our efforts are clearly paying off with American companies leading the world in this growing industry."
Phasing out HFCs has found favor with both environmentalists aiming to address climate change and industry groups that want the same rules worldwide for their products.
Rajeev Gautam, president and CEO of Honeywell Performance Materials and Technologies, said phasing out HFCs is critical for American competitiveness. "Decisive action at the federal level is critical to supporting economic growth and job creation at home and the success of exporting U.S. innovation abroad," Gautam said in a statement.
David Doniger, senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed that as other nations are moving forward with the HFC phase-down, it's vital the United States keeps up.
"[It] is important for the United States to maintain its leadership in the development of climate-friendlier alternatives and for American industry to seize the global economic opportunity in the market for alternative chemicals and products," he said in a statement.
The Trump administration has been divided on the Kigali Agreement, and it is now likely to lose steam given the departure of George David Banks, Trump's former climate and international energy adviser who resigned last week (Greenwire, Feb. 19).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/20/stories/1060074287
-
David Banks Had a Plan to Re-enter Climate Pact
Feb 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Zack Colman
The year 2020 was when the United States was supposed to return to the Paris Agreement.
That was the plan of George David Banks, who until seven days ago was the White House's top adviser on international energy and environment issues.
Banks was on the losing end in the skirmish last year over whether the U.S. should remain part of the landmark 2015 climate deal when President Trump announced plans to withdraw in June. But the president continues to hint at a possible return to the deal if the right terms are found — most recently in a televised interview with Piers Morgan from Davos, Switzerland. And Banks told E&E News on Friday that a reversal could help Trump win a second term.
"There's nothing in it for the president this year," Banks told E&E News, days after leaving the White House. "There's nothing in it for the president next year."
But in 2020, Banks said, "he's going to want victories."
Election year could be an advantageous time for Trump to reconsider, Banks said. For one thing, the rules of the deal make it impossible for the United States to formally withdraw until November of that year — one day after the election. And Trump will host the Group of Seven major developed countries in 2020; its members overwhelmingly support the Paris deal, and they promise to cheer loudly if the world's second-largest emitter decided to stay in the deal.
Trump's role as leader of the G-7 could help him find an elegant reversal on Paris.
"You get to control the agenda, you get to control all the conversation," noted Banks. "The president theoretically could walk out of the meeting with heads of state and say that he had renegotiated the Paris Agreement."
Speculation has swirled for months about the tweaks or concessions that might bring Trump back into the Paris accord, after his blistering rejection of the deal on June 1 in the White House Rose Garden. Ideas for re-engagement — termed "renegotiation" until foreign leaders protested — ranged from a new trade deal to concessions in the Paris rulebook that would favor the U.S. over major developing emitters, like China.
But Banks told E&E News that the key component of a Paris return would be a change to the United States' voluntary emissions reduction commitment, known in U.N. parlance as the nationally determined contribution (NDC) to Paris.
Paris Agreement defenders point out the treaty is nonbinding and that President Obama's pledge of 26 to 28 percent national emissions cuts below 2005 levels by 2025 is aspirational and can be changed at will. There's no penalty for missing the target, and in fact some countries are already struggling to meet their marks.
Still, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, White House counsel Don McGahn and others appear to have swayed Trump to leave Paris last year by successfully arguing that the president could not stay in the deal and weaken Obama's pledge. Doing so would open the administration to lawsuits, they argued, and impede Trump's plans to scrap his predecessor's emissions rules for everything from power plants to fossil fuels producers.
Banks, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and members of Trump's family sought to stay in the agreement, and ultimately lost the fight.
While Banks takes the majority view that countries can unilaterally alter their NDCs, he said the international commitment does have the potential to shape U.S. regulation. So he proposes that, before Trump rolls out potentially new emissions commitments at the G-7 summit in 2020, he first ask both chambers of Congress to bless it with legislation.
Doing so could satisfy conservatives who blamed Obama for joining Paris and offering an NDC without consulting the Senate, Banks said. A group of conservatives, including Trump EPA transition lead Myron Ebell, still hope the Trump administration will submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty and watch it fail to receive the two-thirds vote needed for ratification.
But Banks said his plan would put Congress in the driver's seat on future regulations while avoiding setting a precedent that would make it hard for presidents to enter executive agreements going forward.
"If you want to have some control over the regulatory agenda — you know, putting regulatory reform aside — then what you want to do is to have the ability to approve or disapprove the number because that controls what regulation is pursued to implement and make the target a reality," Banks said. "That's what I would argue. It's in the Republican Party's interest to do that."
But it's unclear whether Republicans would go for that plan, which Banks said he'd promote more openly now that he has left the White House. While some Republican lawmakers, like Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), have said in the past that the United States should retain membership in Paris to keep a seat at the negotiating table, others will be reluctant to support membership in Paris — even with a reduced commitment.
It's harder to see why Democrats would back the proposal. It could frustrate the ability of future Democratic administrations to set stringent targets by enshrining a role for Congress when establishing each new NDC.
The Paris Agreement encourages all countries to strengthen their commitments every five years, to achieve a long-term goal of avoiding catastrophic warming. The U.S. would have to play catch-up if emissions reductions slow under Trump, who prioritizes the growth of fossil fuels. But Banks said Congress will need to have a role in implementing Paris by setting policies that promote advanced technology and reduce emissions.
"I don't think that U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement can ever be effective without congressional support," he said.
Banks had planned to remain at the White House through this year's climate talks in December in Poland, to ensure that the negotiations "land in the right place." That was before he learned that his past use of marijuana prevented him from receiving a permanent security clearance.
Banks said the U.S. delegation is committed to bolstering the rulebook guiding the Paris process, including measures on transparency and emissions accounting. The guidelines should be final at the end of this year.
"You're trying to correct the flaws of the framework convention, which gives China a competitive advantage," Banks said. "So regardless of U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, it's in our interest to negotiate a Paris Agreement rulebook that creates a more level playing field."
Trump has blasted Paris for putting China at a competitive advantage compared with the United States. His belief that China's Paris pledge is far laxer than the Obama NDC convinced Trump that the U.S. was not getting a fair shake, Banks said. That was critically important for a president who views relationships in zero-sum terms and feels the deck is stacked against the U.S. in trade and multilateral arrangements.
With that competitive issue in mind, Banks said it's worth noting the U.S. will continue playing an active role in setting the Paris framework.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/20/stories/1060074241
-
Obama EPA Chief: Trump Regulation Rollbacks Won't Hold Up Legally
Feb 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2
By Miranda Green
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says that regulations struck down by the Trump administration simply because they were issued under President Obama won't carry weight in court.
McCarthy, who led the Environmental Protection Agency from 2013 to 2017, called the recent political targeting of regulations at the agency a "real problem."
"I think the important thing is none of them should be touched unless the administration has a real reason to touch them, other than it was done under the Obama administration, and that is the real problem that we see," McCarthy on Tuesday told BuzzFeed's morning livestream program, "AM to DM."
The former administrator, who has been an outspoken opponent of changes made under current EPA head Scott Pruitt, specifically mentioned the administration's desire to change the Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the United States rule.
"We see the Clean Water Rule being proposed to be repealed, all that rule really did was do what the Supreme Court and what science told us to do to make sure we are protecting the rivers and streams that are necessary to ensure safe drinking water and fishable and swimmable waters," McCarthy said.
"That is being challenged just because the president told them to do that in an executive order. That’s legally not going to hold up."
President Trump had made it a campaign trail promise to repeal the controversial 2015 Clean Water Rule. He signed an executive order in February 2017 formally asking Pruitt to consider repealing the rule and replacing it with a more limited one.
Last June, the EPA made its first steps to repeal the Clean Water Rule, and last month Pruitt formally suspended the Obama-era rule for two years while the administration works on a replacement draft rule.
McCarthy also touched on another hot point in environmental regulations, the Clean Power Plan, which she called one of the Obama administration's "premiere" steps.
Under Obama, the rule was met with many hurdles and has yet to be implemented. Prior to Trump taking office, the rule was awaiting final word from a federal appeals court.
Repealing the plan was part of Trump's promise to eradicate Obama's environmental legacy.
In October, the EPA formally announced plans to scrap the Obama administration’s signature climate change rule for power plants. Pruitt signed the plan saying the rule exceeds the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act.
"I don’t understand the reason why they’d want to delay decision in the DC Circuit over that, that are charging the legality of the rule," McCarthy said of the EPA's delay tactic. "Let them play out. Let us see whether we did it right. I think we did and I think they will hold up under court even if this administration wants them to go away."
When asked about recent news that Administrator Pruitt flies all work-related trips in either business or first class, frequently racking up thousands of dollars in tax-payer expenses, McCarthy said she always flew coach.
"It was comfy for the people in my family, it's comfy for me and the people that I serve," she said. "It’s perfectly appropriate and that’s how we travelled because our job was to make sure we were protecting public dollars as best we could and making sure that every public dollar we could was being spent on the real mission of the agency, not the luxury of the administrator who was leading it."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/374633-former-epa-admin-regulation-rollbacks-legally-not-going-to-hold-up
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested