Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/22/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rigid, Film Plastic Recycling Rates Up In U.S.
Feb 21, 2018 | Canadian Plastics
Recycling rates in the U.S. for non-bottle rigid plastics and plastic film wraps each improved by 10 per cent in 2016, according to two recently released reports. -
Investor Dispute Provision In NAFTA Still At Impasse Ahead Of Washington Meeting
Feb 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Adam Behsudi and Doug Palmer
The contentious issue of what to do about investor disputes in the new NAFTA seems to be at an impasse as Canada is pledging to hold out on an earlier proposal. -
EPA Acting No. 2 To Retire, Setting Clock to Get Trump Pick In Place
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA's acting deputy administrator plans to retire in early April, giving Trump administration officials just over a month to get their nominee in place to avoid any vacancy in the agency's No. 2 spot. -
How Will Expansion Of Chemical Safety Law Impact Arizona Businesses?
Feb 21, 2018 | AZ-BIG-MEDIA
By Chris S. Leason
In 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated significant amendments to its chemical regulations to implement new requirements of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Lautenberg Act”). -
(ACC Mentioned) California Publishes Evidence For Restricting Carpets Containing PFASs
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has published a rationale for naming carpets and rugs containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) as a "priority product". It is now seeking comments on its "product-chemical profile". -
Inspector General Mulls GOP-Backed Probe of Safety Board Official (1)
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The EPA's inspector general could probe whether a Chemical Safety Board member improperly lobbied for more funds for his agency after a congressional Republican echoed claims made by a conservative website about the board member. -
Monsanto Backs Farmer Health Study It Once Criticized
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Monsanto Co. is confident that its signature Roundup weedkiller doesn't lead to cancer, a conclusion buttressed by recent findings in a long-term study of tens of thousands of farmers. -
North Carolina: Chemours Chemical Penalties Delayed To Stick
Feb 21, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Emery P. Dalesio
North Carolina environmental regulators are delaying penalties against a chemical company for discharging compounds with worrying but little-researched health effects until they’re confident a case will stand up in court, a state official said Wednesday. -
Chemicals in Everyday Products Rival Cars as Source of Air Pollution
Feb 22, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo and Samara Geller
Releases from chemical products, including ones we use every day in our homes, are as much a cause of air pollution as automobile emissions, according to a new study that has big implications for how airborne pollutants are regulated. -
3M Settles Minnesota Scotchgard Lawsuit for $850 Million
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Kary
3M Co. has settled a lawsuit with Minnesota's Attorney General Lori Swanson for $850 million, putting an end to eight years of litigation over a former Scotchgard ingredient that got into the state's drinking water. -
3M To Pay $850 Million To Settle Fluorosurfactants Lawsuit
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
3M has agreed to pay $850 million to the state of Minnesota to resolve a $5 billion lawsuit over drinking water contaminated with fluorochemicals such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). -
Sweden Takes Action On 16 Electronics Importers
Feb 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) has reported 16 companies to environmental prosecutors after investigators found prohibited levels of hazardous chemicals in products, including lead in imported electronics. -
America Needs NAFTA to Maintain Energy Dominance
Feb 21, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Richard D. Kauzlarich
It is clear today that our nation’s economy is on the path toward a full financial recovery. Some recent corrections notwithstanding, the stock market seems to hit a new high daily, and thanks to President Trump and the members of Congress who helped pass comprehensive tax reform, many companies are moving assets back to the U.S. and showering their employees in financial perks and shares of stock. -
North America Becoming Major Natural Gas, Oil Exporting Region by 2020, Says BP
Feb 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
North America is expected to become a net energy exporting region by 2020 and remain the world’s largest natural gas producer, BP plc predicts in its latest global outlook. -
Kansas Is Shaking: Earthquakes Tied To Oil And Gas Production Have Skyrocketed In The State
Feb 21, 2018 | Newsweek
By Sydney Pereira
Injections of wastewater back into the Earth have been linked to a rise in earthquakes in Kansas. The news follows a similar pattern in Oklahoma and points to a disturbing consequence of extracting natural resources. -
Industry Attorneys Question Need For EPA Fees For RMP, Spill Programs
Feb 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Industry officials are raising significant hurdles to the Trump administration's proposal to charge fees to assist facilities in complying with the agency's accident and spill prevention rules, arguing such a program is unnecessary or that companies will need liability waivers or other incentives to participate. -
Let's Not Wait For A Crippling Cyberattack Before We Strengthen The Grid
Feb 10, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Michael Curley
“Grid emergency” is not a household term. At least, not yet. A grid emergency is an event that threatens to shut down all electric power in a specific area, which could be a few states or the entire country. -
Infrastructure Push Needed in Congress, White House Official Says (2)
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The president's infrastructure plan is going to require lots of salesmanship on Capitol Hill to become law, a top Trump administration environmental official told Bloomberg Environment. -
Bush's CEQ Chief Urges Montreal Protocol For Greenhouse Gases
Feb 21, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A former top White House official under President George W. Bush said the Montreal Protocol would be a more effective model than the Paris Agreement for combating the effects of global warming. -
Hundreds Of Mayors Unite Against Trump Reversal Of Obama-Era Climate Plan
Feb 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Hundreds of mayors representing cities in 47 states and territories have signed a letter opposing the Trump administration's move to roll back the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP). -
U.S., Canadian Provinces Launch First Cap-And-Trade Auction To Battle Climate Change
Feb 22, 2018 | Reuters
By Sebastien Malo
The U.S. state of California and two Canadian provinces kicked off a cross-border auction of greenhouse gas emission credits on Wednesday, their first joint effort to buy and sell in the “cap and trade” market to fight global warming, experts said. -
New Candidates Emerge for Trump’s Top Environmental Adviser
Feb 21, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Trump administration is considering a North Carolina regulator who questions mainstream climate science to be the next White House environmental adviser, just weeks after withdrawing a previous nominee who held similar views.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rigid, Film Plastic Recycling Rates Up In U.S.
Feb 21, 2018 | Canadian Plastics
Recycling rates in the U.S. for non-bottle rigid plastics and plastic film wraps each improved by 10 per cent in 2016, according to two recently released reports.
Recycling rates in the U.S. for non-bottle rigid plastics (rigids) and plastic film wraps (film) each improved by 10 per cent in 2016, according to two recently released reports.
Rigids reached a minimum of 1.46 billion lbs and film climbed to 1.3 billion lbs collected for recycling.
These figures are found in the 2016 National Post-Consumer Non-Bottle Rigid Plastic Recycling Report and the 2016 National Post-Consumer Plastic Bag and Film Recycling Report. Both were released at the annual Plastics Recycling Conference, being held in Nashville, Tenn. from Feb. 19-21.
The reports also demonstrated dramatic long-term growth in both plastics recycling categories.
The volume of rigid plastics collected for recycling in 2016 is nearly 4.5 times greater than the volume collected in the 2007 inaugural report.
Additionally, plastic film recycling has grown for 12 consecutive years and has more than doubled since 2005 when the first report was compiled.
“We are pleased to see the increase in plastic film and rigid plastics recycling in 2016 and the dramatic growth over the last decade,” said Steve Russell, the vice president of the American Chemistry Council’s plastic division. “America’s plastic makers are committed to supporting plastics recycling growth through improved infrastructure and education, and believe that these efforts will continue to support the industry in future years.”
Both reports attribute the increase in material collected for recycling partly to demand from export markets. As a result of China’s 2017 policy restricting imports of scrap materials, including plastics, the plastics recycling value chain is working to develop stronger domestic end markets to continue the increase in plastics recovered for recycling.
“From investments in recycling facilities and advanced technologies, to public commitments to use more recycled plastics in products and packaging, we see real dedication from the recyclers and end users to grow end-market opportunities for plastics recycling here in the U.S.,” Russell said.
Currently, recycled plastic film is used in composite lumber, new film and sheet, agricultural products, crates, buckets, and pallets. Typical end markets for non-bottle rigids include automotive parts, crates, buckets, pipe, lawn and garden products, and thick-walled injection molded products.
Plastic film includes flexible product wraps, bags and commercial stretch film made primarily from polyethylene.
The rigid plastics category contains food containers, caps, lids, tubs, clamshells, cups and bulky items, such as buckets, carts and lawn furniture, along with used commercial scrap, such as crates, battery casings and drums.
As in prior years, high-density polyethylene and polypropylene comprised the two largest resins in this category representing 40 per cent and 36 per cent, respectively, of total rigid plastics collected.
Both the film and rigids reports were based on an annual survey of reclaimers conducted by research firm More Recycling.
https://www.canplastics.com/recycling/rigid-film-plastic-recycling-rates-u-s/1003447789/
-
Investor Dispute Provision In NAFTA Still At Impasse Ahead Of Washington Meeting
Feb 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Adam Behsudi and Doug Palmer
The contentious issue of what to do about investor disputes in the new NAFTA seems to be at an impasse as Canada is pledging to hold out on an earlier proposal.
NAFTA negotiators will gather this week in Washington to try to work on the issue. Despite some rumors that Canada was coming to the table with a plan that is favored by the U.S., officials say Ottawa will be pushing for the idea that it has previously floated related to the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS.
“We've proposed a comprehensive investment chapter with a progressive approach to ISDS building off the CETA,” said Adam Austen, a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, referring to Canada’s trade deal with the European Union where it agreed to a permanent dispute tribunal with an appeals process and protections against frivolous claims.
“That was our position last fall and it remains our position today,” Austen told POLITICO.
The assertion comes after business and congressional sources told POLITICO on Tuesday that Canada was weighing a proposal that would rid NAFTA entirely of the dispute settlement procedure. ISDS, which is in the existing pact, sets up ad hoc tribunals under which corporations can seek monetary damages for any perceived violations of the agreement’s investment rules.
“The United States has been public about its preference to opt out of ISDS in NAFTA, which would therefore render it meaningless,” Austen said. “If the U.S. maintain their current position and still intend to opt out of ISDS, Canada and Mexico will focus their efforts on a bilateral and progressive ISDS mechanism in the context of NAFTA.”
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer drew the ire of business groups after he introduced a proposal at the beginning of the negotiations that would allow the U.S. to opt out of the dispute mechanism.
During the last round of talks in Montreal, Canada responded to the U.S. proposal by floating the idea of creating a bilateral investor dispute mechanism with Mexico in lieu of U.S. participation. The informal proposal would set up a special NAFTA annex establishing a Canada-Mexico ISDS mechanism that would exclude U.S. companies from being able to file investment claims in either country.
The three biggest U.S. business lobby groups have previously warned that their support of the deal could ultimately hinge on whether ISDS is included in the revised agreement.
“If this administration drops ISDS from NAFTA, the business community will lose it,” said one trade lobbyist involved in the discussions. “Strong legal protections when U.S. companies are doing business overseas is as fundamentally American as having a low U.S. corporate tax rate. Why do some in this administration understand one and not the other?”
Some business groups wasted no time this week reminding the administration how they viewed ISDS as a vital tool for cross-border investment.
“Ongoing negotiations to modernize NAFTA must advance our role as a global energy leader by retaining US access to Mexico’s newly-opened oil and natural gas market and providing strong protections, including Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), for these U.S. energy investments,” American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Jack Gerard said in a statement. Gerard also penned an op-ed that ran on Tuesday defending the dispute mechanism.
One international arbitration lawyer said he first read that Canada might propose dropping investor-state dispute settlement from NAFTA on a popular discussion board called OGEMID, which caters to people who work on investment disputes.
“There was a post on it last Friday to this effect,” the lawyer said. “But the additional color that I got from both that post and from a couple of conversations I’ve had since then, is that while the proposal would come from Canada, it was suggested by Ambassador Lighthizer that Canada make that proposal and if they did, they would be pushing on an open door.”
A spokeswoman for the Office of U.S. Trade Representative did not reply to a request for comment on whether Lighthizer suggested Canada make the proposal.
Republican members of Congress that side with business on the issue would likely take a dim view eliminating ISDS from the deal. However, such a move could result in more support from Democrats, who have generally opposed the dispute mechanism.
Lighthizer is keen to pick up Democratic votes for the new NAFTA pact and a number of Democrats have demanded the Trump administration drop ISDS in the agreement, as well as make other changes, to get their support.
Still, lawmakers could make final passage of a NAFTA deal harder if a majority feels the move to exclude ISDS violates a list of negotiating objectives set out in Trade Promotion Authority legislation. The 2015 bill, which is expected to be renewed this summer, lays out congressional expectations for a trade deal in exchange for lawmakers fast-tracking passage of a final trade deal with an up or down vote.
The TPA bill requires the administration to provide “meaningful procedures for resolving investment disputes.” USTR had offered similar language in its updated NAFTA negotiating objectives with the added disclaimer that any dispute procedure would ensure “protection of U.S. sovereignty and the maintenance of strong U.S. domestic industries.”
There are “really interesting questions” about whether the Trump administration would run afoul of congressional negotiating objective laid out in the 2015 TPA bill if Lighthizer negotiates a NAFTA 2.0 deal without ISDS, said the lawyer.
“For the past 16 years, the prevailing wisdom in TPA means that you’ve got to have the core substantive obligations, such as compensation for expropriation and non-discrimination and fair and equitable treatment and it has to be backed by meaningful investor-state arbitration,” the lawyer said.
If Lighthizer comes back with an agreement that excludes ISDS, then it could be argued that all of the negotiating objectives under TPA are “meaningless” since they allow virtually any possible outcome, he said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/02/canada-stands-firm-on-pursuing-bilateral-investor-dispute-process-with-mexico-in-nafta-356665
-
EPA Acting No. 2 To Retire, Setting Clock to Get Trump Pick In Place
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA's acting deputy administrator plans to retire in early April, giving Trump administration officials just over a month to get their nominee in place to avoid any vacancy in the agency's No. 2 spot.
Mike Flynn, who has been serving as the Environmental Protection Agency's acting No. 2 official, told agency staff he will retire April 3.
“After a long and rewarding career at EPA, I have decided it is time for me to move on,” Flynn said in an email to staff obtained by Bloomberg Environment.
Andrew Wheeler, nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as the EPA's deputy administrator, is still awaiting a confirmation vote by the full Senate.
Wheeler, who as an attorney for Faegre Baker Daniels lobbied on behalf of companies such as Murray Energy Corp and Xcel Energy, cleared the Senate environment committee on a party-line vote Feb. 7. If confirmed to the EPA, he would join a number of former Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) staffers that hold positions at the agency.
Flynn's retirement will mark the end of a 38-year career at the EPA. In addition to serving in the administrator's office, Flynn worked in the EPA's land and emergency management, environmental information, and air and radiation offices.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128643603&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128643603&jd=128643603
-
How Will Expansion Of Chemical Safety Law Impact Arizona Businesses?
Feb 21, 2018 | AZ-BIG-MEDIA
By Chris S. Leason
In 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated significant amendments to its chemical regulations to implement new requirements of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Lautenberg Act”). These “framework” rules, covering all existing chemicals in commerce, are currently being challenged in Federal courts by environmental groups. EPA’s framework rules, coupled with the ongoing litigation challenging them, will shape the future of chemical manufacture and use within the U.S. Manufacturers and processors of chemicals in Arizona will need to keep abreast of developments to ensure that their operations are not adversely affected by EPA’s actions, or any resulting litigation.
The Lautenberg Act, named after the late Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey, reflects the most substantial amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) since its original enactment in 1976. The Lautenberg Act imposes mandatory requirements on EPA to (1) identify all existing chemicals in commerce as either “high” or “low-priority” for risk evaluations, (2) apply a new risk-based safety standard when performing a risk evaluation of designated “high-priority” chemicals, which excludes costs and other non-risk factors, and (3) implement actions within designated time periods to address any “unreasonable risks” posed by a chemical.
Although many think of TSCA as the law that regulates the manufacture of chemicals, the law also applies to “processors,” those that neither manufacture nor import chemicals, but use chemicals in their manufacturing processes. As such, actions by EPA in both implementing the Lautenberg Act and evaluating chemicals pursuant to it, and lawsuits brought by environmental groups challenging EPA’s actions, will shape the application of the Lautenberg Act to Arizona businesses.
This article discusses the primary obligations and EPA rulemakings under the Lautenberg Act and litigation challenging EPA’s actions.EPA’s Framework Rules
To ensure that EPA performed its non-discretionary duties under the Lautenberg Act, Congress mandated that EPA promulgate three framework rules within one year of its enactment. TSCA Inventory “Reset” Rule
The TSCA Inventory sets forth a list of chemicals that are manufactured or processed in the U.S. The initial Inventory was compiled through manufacturer and processor reporting in 1978, and has been modified over the years as new chemicals have been introduced into commerce. The TSCA Inventory now contains approximately 85,000 chemicals.
The Lautenberg Act requires EPA to evaluate chemicals to determine whether they present a “high” or “low-priority” for a risk evaluation. However, recognizing that the TSCA Inventory has never been “scrubbed” to determine which chemicals on the Inventory are currently being used in commerce, the Lautenberg Act first requires EPA to perform an Inventory “reset” to identify “active” or “inactive” chemicals.
On August 11, 2017 (82 FR 37,520), EPA finalized its TSCA Inventory “reset” rule. The rule sets forth a mandatory retrospective electronic reporting period for chemicals identified on the TSCA Inventory and manufactured during a ten-year “look-back” period (between June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016), and a voluntary reporting period for TSCA Inventory chemicals that were processed during the “look-back” period. The mandatory reporting period for manufacturers runs from August 11, 2017 to February 7, 2018, and the voluntary reporting period for processors runs from August 11, 2017 to October 5, 2018.
Chemicals reported during the applicable reporting periods will be designated as “active” by EPA, meaning that they will be subject to a mandatory evaluation of whether they represent a “high” or “low-priority” for a risk evaluation. Any substance not reported during the period will be deemed “inactive,” meaning that once EPA publishes its final list of “active” substances, the “inactive” substance cannot be manufactured or processed without an entity first filing a notice with EPA of its intent to manufacture or process the chemical. Thus, even if an entity is using a chemical (i.e., it is a processor, not a manufacturer), it should either (1) confirm with the manufacturer that they will report the chemical as “active,” or (2) report the chemical during the processor voluntary reporting period.
EPA intends to release the initial list of “active” substances in November 2018 (after the close of the processor reporting period), and the initial list will become final 90 days thereafter (anticipated in February 2019).
The Environmental Defense Fund filed a legal challenge to EPA’s TSCA Inventory “reset” rule in the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A coalition of chemical industry trade associations entered the litigation as intervenors in support of EPA. To date, the Court has not set a briefing schedule for the litigation.Prioritization Rule
Each “active” TSCA Inventory chemical must be run through a risk prioritization process to determine if the chemical represents either a “high” or “low-priority” for a risk evaluation and possible limits on the chemical’s use in commerce. The Lautenberg Act mandates that by December 22, 2019, EPA must designate at least 20 chemicals as either “high” or “low-priority,” and that upon completion of a risk evaluation on a “high-priority” chemical, EPA must designate at least one additional “high-priority” chemical to takes its place. The Lautenberg Act requires that EPA complete the prioritization process for a chemical within nine to twelve months of identifying the chemical for prioritization.
On July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33,753), EPA published its final prioritization rule. The rule identifies EPA’s chemical selection process, initiation of prioritization process, screening protocols, and designation (as “high” or “low-priority”) protocols. Throughout the prioritization process, there are opportunities for public comment. EPA will publish its final designation of the substance as “high” or “low-priority,” and a “high-priority” designation will identify the conditions of use that were the basis for the designation. A “high-priority” designation will lead to the commencement of a risk evaluation to determine whether the substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
A number of environmental groups challenged both EPA’s final TSCA risk prioritization rule and risk evaluation rule (discussed below) in three U.S. Courts of Appeal, the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. Initially, a multidistrict judicial panel randomly selected the Fourth Circuit to hear the challenge to the prioritization rule, and the Ninth Circuit to hear the challenge to the risk evaluation rule. However, as a result of various motions, the Fourth Circuit granted the environmental groups’ request to have both cases heard in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has not issued a briefing schedule, and has not ruled on a motion to intervene filed on behalf of industry trade associations. Risk Evaluation Rule
Once a chemical is designated as a “high-priority,” it must undergo a risk evaluation to determine whether it presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under its conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. As part of the evaluation process, EPA must evaluate both the hazard and exposure, excluding consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, and ensure that its decisions are based on the “weight of scientific evidence.” By the end of 2019, EPA must have at least 20 “high-priority” chemicals undergoing risk evaluation.
On July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33,728), EPA published its final risk evaluation rule. The risk evaluation process includes (1) identification of the scope of the risk evaluation, including the conditions of use that the chemical will be evaluated under, (2) a hazard assessment, including the adverse health or environmental effects caused by exposure to the chemical, (3) an exposure assessment, identifying the likely duration, intensity, frequency and number of exposures to the chemical under the identified conditions of use, (4) a risk characterization, integrating the hazard and exposure results, and (5) a risk determination, concluding whether the chemical substance under the conditions of use presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
EPA will publish a draft scope of the contemplated risk evaluation and its draft risk evaluation for public comment, and must complete its risk evaluation of a chemical within three years of commencing the process, with up to a six-month extension permitted by the Lautenberg Act. If EPA determines that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under one or more conditions of use, it must initiate a rulemaking to impose requirements on the use of the chemical to the extent necessary so that the substance no longer presents such risk.
The Lautenberg Act mandates that EPA propose a rule to eliminate any unreasonable risk not more than one year after completion of the risk evaluation. And, EPA must promulgate a final rule within two years of the final risk evaluation, although extensions are allowed under the Lautenberg Act.
Possible EPA actions to eliminate the risk include (1) warnings and instructions regarding the use, distribution in commerce, or disposal of the chemical, (2) restrictions on the quantity of the chemical that may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce, or (3) a ban or phase-out of the chemical associated with a particular use, a particular use at a concentration in excess of a certain level, or all uses.Conclusion
The Lautenberg Act imposes substantial obligations and deadlines on EPA to evaluate and regulate the manufacture and processing of chemicals. The litigation involving EPA’s framework rules will shape how EPA implements its statutory requirements. Manufacturers and processors of chemicals in Arizona will need to keep abreast of these developments to ensure that their operations are not adversely affected by EPA’s actions, or any resulting litigation.
https://azbigmedia.com/will-expansion-chemical-safety-law-impact-arizona-businesses/
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Publishes Evidence For Restricting Carpets Containing PFASs
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has published a rationale for naming carpets and rugs containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) as a "priority product". It is now seeking comments on its "product-chemical profile".
This document explains the chemical properties of PFASs and how they are used in carpets and other products. It discusses research that, the DTSC argues, provides evidence that the entire class is persistent and bioaccumulative and is implicated in "significant or widespread adverse impacts".
However, while it presents animal studies that link PFASs to an array of negative outcomes including cancers and developmental effects, it also acknowledges that "the relationship between exposure and toxicological outcomes, particularly for PFASs other than PFOA and PFOS, is a major data gap".
The DTSC's action is a step towards a formal priority product listing under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. That triggers a requirement for manufacturers to register with the DTSC within 60 days and either stop using the target chemicals, or begin an alternatives analysis to determine if a safer alternative is possible.
The process, which is relatively new, is intended to "reduce human exposure" to targeted chemicals and could lead to products being restricted or banned in California.PFASs
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are the best known PFASs. The US EPA has published drinking water health advisories on them, but has not formally regulated them. Instead, the agency took the approach of working with industry to phase out their use under a stewardship programme that should have been completed by 2015.
In November, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) listed PFOA and PFOS as developmental toxicants under Proposition 65, requiring warnings if the public or workers are exposed to the substances. The action was based on the EPA's findings and industry groups protested against taking that action in the absence of formal federal regulation.
However, industry is focusing its efforts to combat increasing controversy over this chemical family on arguing that newer chemicals, which have largely replaced PFOA and PFOS, are safer. A website launched in January by the American Chemistry Council's FluoroCouncil focuses almost entirely on making the case for the safety of newer, "shorter-chain" PFASs.Emerging issue
The proposed "priority product" designation is one of the first state actions on PFASs, but policy experts predict it will be the biggest emerging chemical regulation issue at state level in 2018.
In December, the EPA announced "a cross-agency effort to address per and polyfluoroalkyl substances", but the plan notably included no regulatory action.
Carpets containing PFAS chemicals will be California's fourth "priority product." Children's sleeping items containing the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP officially became the programme's first priority product in July 2017. The second priority product will be spray polyurethane foam (SPF) containing MDI. The DTSC has also proposed regulations to list paint strippers containing methylene chloride.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64234/california-publishes-evidence-for-restricting-carpets-containing-pfass
-
Inspector General Mulls GOP-Backed Probe of Safety Board Official (1)
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The EPA's inspector general could probe whether a Chemical Safety Board member improperly lobbied for more funds for his agency after a congressional Republican echoed claims made by a conservative website about the board member.
Safety board member Rick Engler allegedly violated anti-lobbying laws by encouraging advocacy groups to contact Congress to support more funding for the Chemical Safety Board, which advocates for safety recommendations after chemical and energy plant accidents. The Trump administration has twice proposed to eliminate funding for the independent federal agency, arguing that it is redundant and unnecessary.
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment, asked the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general to investigate Engler's actions in a letter released Feb. 21. Farenthold's letter echoes claims made in a May 2017 story on the conservative website Daily Caller.
The inspector general is considering whether to launch an investigation, Jeffrey Lagda, a spokesman for the office, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 21. CSB Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 21 she was still examining the claims.
Engler didn't respond to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment. He was confirmed in December 2014 to a five-year term on the panel.
Claims Disputed
The Daily Caller story said Engler forwarded an email from a labor organization and a flier to other CSB members, and forwarded a news article to a listing of advocacy organizations describing a letter from members of Congress about the CSB's need to receive continued funding.
Engler's alleged actions urging the recipients to contact Congress “appear to implicate federal provisions restricting lobbying activities by federal officials,” Farenthold wrote.
Another Daily Caller story in June 2017 not included in Farenthold's request cited an unnamed source that contended that Sutherland, Engler, and board member Kristen Kulinowski acted improperly in discussing the value of CSB operations at a conference in March 2017. Sutherland told Bloomberg Environment in July 2017 she disputed the claim.
“I firmly believe I was not engaged in any activity that's even close to lobbying, or anything else,” Sutherland said at the time.Laws at Play
Farenthold's letter doesn't specify, but federal officials are barred under the Antideficiency Act from spending federal funds in ways that promote grass-roots advocacy, and can't lobby Congress to take action on pending legislation under the Anti-Lobbying Act.
The CSB's authorizing statute allows the agency to send its own budget request to Congress. Under the most recent Feb. 12 request, CSB asked for $12.1 million from lawmakers for fiscal 2019, and Sutherland issued a statement that agency officials “hope that the important mission of this agency will be preserved.”
Board members are also tasked with advocating for agenda items on the CSB's Drivers of Critical Safety Change program, including through correspondence with outside organizations.Others Also in Crosshairs
The IG is examining similar allegations against EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Democrats and environmental groups alleged Pruitt improperly asked the National Mining Association in April 2017 to tell the White House to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.
Pruitt was also accused of violating the same restrictions when he appeared in a National Cattlemen's Beef Association video in August 2017 that directs viewers to a website where they could submit prewritten comments telling the EPA to oppose the Waters of the U.S. rule, which defines the reach of the nation's clean water law. That video drew an investigation from the Government Accountability Office last year at the request of House Democrats.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128643602&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128643602&jd=128643602
-
Monsanto Backs Farmer Health Study It Once Criticized
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Monsanto Co. is confident that its signature Roundup weedkiller doesn't lead to cancer, a conclusion buttressed by recent findings in a long-term study of tens of thousands of farmers.
But new documents in litigation against the agribusiness giant show that Monsanto's scientists didn't always put stock in the Agricultural Health Study. Two decades ago the company highlighted the same weaknesses that Monsanto's opponents are now bringing to court to prove a cancer connection.
It's the latest twist in a multi-district lawsuit against the company, in which hundreds of cancer victims and their family members sued Monsanto for allegedly misleading the public on Roundup's safety, specifically on the weedkiller's potential to cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a relatively common cancer of the lymphatic system.
The National Institute of Health's Agricultural Health Study is a survey of 54,000 farmers and their spouses in North Carolina and Iowa. The study's latest findings, published online Nov. 9. 2017, and in print earlier this year, indicate that there is no statistically significant link between glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—and cancer.
Glyphosate is one of the most widely-used herbicides globally with applications ranging from home garden uses to major crops.
Monsanto's ‘Gold Standard’
Monsanto's chief spokesman on glyphosate, Vice President of Global Strategy Scott Partridge, recently called the Agricultural Health Study the “gold standard” for population studies examining the effects of Roundup on health. But attorneys representing the cancer patients say the survey is riddled with inconsistencies.
Concerns regarding exposure, usage recall, and statistical significance crop up depending on the conclusion each party supports.
Plaintiff attorneys highlight that Monsanto's own experts once had doubts about the study. In one instance, a consultant for the company said it was designed in a way that could “produce spurious results.”
“It's ironic they want to rely only on the AHS when they got a negative result,” Michael Baum, an attorney with Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC in Los Angeles who is representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told Bloomberg Environment.
A spokesman for Monsanto was not immediately available for comment. But in Monsanto's brief to the court, the company's attorneys said that the criticisms were made during the initial design stage of the Agricultural Health Study, and that the recommendations made by the company's scientists were adopted years before the latest study.
One of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, epidemiology professor Beate Ritz of the University of California, Los Angeles, acknowledged in her deposition that the Agricultural Health Study investigators incorporated recommendations into the study that addressed some of Monsanto's concerns, the company's lawyers wrote.
Study Relied on Farmers’ Memories
Epidemiologist John Acquavella, who has worked as a consultant for Monsanto, sent a memo to the company in 1997 picking apart the potential pitfalls of the Agricultural Health Study, at that point a four-year old federal project to study different factors that could affect health in farming communities.
Acquavella told Monsanto that the AHS could introduce a number of confounding problems that could skew results in one direction.
“Large studies with many statistical analyses will have a number of ‘statistically significant’ findings by chance alone,” Acquavella said in his memo, added to the court docket Feb. 16. He also raised concerns about the study's reliance on farmers’ memory to gauge by how much an individual was exposed to glyphosate.
“Recall can be faulty or biased, especially when historical usage information is collected. Attempts at verification over a 3 year period have found less than 70 percent agreement between purchasing records and reported usage,” Acquavella wrote.
These concerns are similar to the ones that Monsanto's opponents have voiced more recently, Baum said.
“The study is so large they don't have the personnel to verify that recall data,” he said.
Acquavella's concerns were echoed in a paper commissioned by the pesticide trade group the American Crop Protection Association—now CropLife—in which the authors highlighted the Agricultural Health Study's “potentially biased and imprecise exposure assessment.”
The plaintiffs also allege that Donna Farmer, a scientist working for Monsanto, criticized the Agricultural Health Study in a 1999 presentation. The presentation is currently under seal and has not been made public.
The case is In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-md-02741, 2/16/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128643596&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128643596&jd=128643596
-
North Carolina: Chemours Chemical Penalties Delayed To Stick
Feb 21, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Emery P. Dalesio
RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina environmental regulators are delaying penalties against a chemical company for discharging compounds with worrying but little-researched health effects until they’re confident a case will stand up in court, a state official said Wednesday.
The state Department of Environmental Quality has issued two violation notices in less than six months, warned of pending civil penalties and threatened to revoke the permit that legally allows The Chemours Co. plant near Fayetteville to discharge pollutants. Despite that, the agency hasn’t imposed concrete penalties.
Legislators investigating why the chemical GenX has been found in nearby water wells and public drinking water in Wilmington, nearly 100 miles downriver, wanted answers why regulators have held back. GenX is used in the production of Teflon and other non-stick surfaces. Little research exists about the health effects of GenX.
“How much more is Chemours going to get away with before something is done?” asked Rep. Ted Davis, who represents Wilmington and neighboring communities.
State assistant environment secretary Sheila Holman said regulators are being methodical with the prospect of a court challenge in mind.
“We’ve talked before about not taking an action that we can’t defend in court,” she said.
Tests are also trying to determine the extent of related chemicals in Jordan Lake — which supplies water to the cities of Durham and Cary — and at a Marine Corps secondary airfield near the coastal town of Emerald Isle.
Wilmington, Delaware-based Chemours didn’t respond Wednesday to an invitation to comment.
Chemours CEO Mark Vergnano last week told stock analysts the company has been intentionally avoiding public comments about its North Carolina plant while working with regulators on a long-term solution. He said the company is committed to continuing operations at its Bladen County plant.
“We continue to believe that none of the discharges — either before we became an independent company in mid-2015 or after — have adversely impacted anyone’s health,” Vergnano said. The company was spun off by DuPont Co. in 2015.
Both companies reported in annual reports filed last week that they have been subpoenaed repeatedly for information about their operations at the North Carolina plant.
Chemours has received three federal grand jury subpoenas, the company said without specifying where they were issued. DuPont was directed by federal prosecutors in eastern North Carolina last August to provide testimony and documents to a grand jury, the company said. Federal prosecutors then served DuPont with additional subpoenas in the last quarter of 2017.
Earlier this month, Ohio’s attorney general accused Chemours and DuPont of releasing into the environment for decades a harmful chemical that was replaced by GenX. The lawsuit seeks damages and the costs of cleaning up contamination from the chemical — perfluorooctanoic acid, also called C8 — which DuPont used to manufacture Teflon products from the 1950s through 2013.
DuPont and Chemours last year agreed to pay nearly $671 million to settle more than 3,500 federal and state lawsuits filed over the dumping of C8 into the Ohio River near Parkersburg, West Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/north-carolina-chemours-chemical-penalties-delayed-to-stick/2018/02/21/f9a5a86e-1734-11e8-930c-45838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.c5ee8f6a5a0a
-
Chemicals in Everyday Products Rival Cars as Source of Air Pollution
Feb 22, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo and Samara Geller
Releases from chemical products, including ones we use every day in our homes, are as much a cause of air pollution as automobile emissions, according to a new study that has big implications for how airborne pollutants are regulated.
Household cleaners, personal care products, perfumes, and other consumer and industrial products emit chemicals known as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. Researchers led by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that as cars have gotten cleaner, tailpipe emissions have gone down. As a result, the researchers estimate that emissions from consumer and industrial products now contribute half of the VOCs that cause air pollution.
The study “shows that everyday consumer choices can have an impact on air quality,” Christopher Cappa, an engineering professor at the University of California at Davis and a co-author of the paper, said in a news release. The release also notes that for one type of pollution particularly harmful to health – tiny particles that lodge deep in the lungs – such products contribute twice the emissions as auto exhaust.
VOCs include many different hazardous chemicals, including formaldehyde, toluene and acetone. They come from a wide array of products, including cleaners, air fresheners, pesticides, composite wood or particle board, glues, sealers, finishes, fiberglass, carpets and gas stoves. VOCs are also found in some of the products we use on our bodies every day, like hairspray, rubbing alcohol, nail polish, nail polish remover, colognes and perfumes.
VOCs can irritate your eyes and nose, or trigger asthma attacks. Possible long-term effects include liver, kidney and central nervous system damage, and cancer. Because air pollution ranks fifth as a health risk factor worldwide, it is critical to identify, quantify and control the major sources of VOC emissions. But unlike auto emissions, regulation of VOCs in consumer products is lagging.
The federal government has not updated the law that regulates the personal care industry since 1938. While the European Union has banned or restricted more than 1,300 ingredients in personal care products, the U.S. has only banned or restricted less than a dozen.
You can learn more about VOCs in personal care products by searching EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetics database. For information about VOCs in your home, look to our interactive Guide to Healthy Cleaning and our Healthy Living: Home Guide.
How can I minimize my exposure to VOCs?
· Use EWG’s guides to avoid products with VOCs. Some products, such as paint, are available with low or no VOCs. Look for Green Seal-11 certified paint, wood stains and finishes.
· If you must use products that contain VOCs be sure to properly ventilate the area. Open windows and the door if you can. Point a fan out the window to get VOCs cycling out of the room, or turn on an exhaust fan. Follow the instructions for safe use. If the packaging of a product tells you not to use it without proper ventilation, don't.
· Buy products known to release VOCs in small quantities, keep them tightly closed and use them as quickly as possible.
· A mixture of vinegar and baking soda is a good alternative cleaner. And, when possible, you can swap cleaning sprays and liquids for water-dampened sponges, or microfiber or cotton cloths.
· Use water-based adhesives when possible.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/02/chemicals-everyday-products-rival-cars-source-air-pollution#.Wo6l30BuaUk
-
3M Settles Minnesota Scotchgard Lawsuit for $850 Million
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Kary
3M Co. has settled a lawsuit with Minnesota's Attorney General Lori Swanson for $850 million, putting an end to eight years of litigation over a former Scotchgard ingredient that got into the state's drinking water.
The funds will be used to finance projects that involve drinking water and water sustainability, according to statements from 3M and the state, after Minnesota alleged that chemicals known as PFCs could cause harm to citizens.
The agreement materialized just as jury selection got underway Feb. 20, and after Judge Kevin S. Burke urged the parties to compromise, saying that it wasn't in the best interests of the state's citizens or 3M's shareholders for the case to drag on.
“While we have never believed there is a PFC-related health problem, this settlement allows us to move past the litigation,” John Banovetz, a 3M representative, said in the courtroom in Minneapolis after the agreement was announced.
What began in 2010 as a lawsuit over fish and waterways in Minnesota had turned into a battle over whether 3M had contributed to health problems in its home state. In November, Minnesota said it had found cancer and premature births outside Minneapolis and would seek punitive damages that would bring its total demand in the lawsuit to $5 billion. 3M and a state study released on the eve of trial said there is no health problem.
Growing Controversy
Controversy is growing over the main chemicals involved, PFOS and PFOA, as well as the entire class of perfluorinated compounds—or PFCs—which are still used in stainproof and waterproof treatments and food packaging. The situation tested a state's ability to force a major employer to pay for pollution as the U.S. relaxes environmental rules. It also shows how liability can mushroom long after companies stop making chemicals like PFCs that don't degrade, but accumulate in the food chain.
“These chemicals have been put into the ground for a long period of time,” said Swanson in an interview after the settlement. The state pursued funds to “relieve the burden on taxpayers who may otherwise have to pay for these problems,” she said. The first priority for the funds will be to improve water quality, she said.
3M has also been sued by people, towns and water districts across the U.S., with claims the chemicals got into drinking water from sites like air force bases where they were used in firefighting foams, and in one case, a tannery where they were used to treat leather.
3M, best known for Post-It notes, dumped chemicals at sites near Minneapolis for more than 40 years—allowing them to get into wildlife and drinking water, Swanson claimed. The company knew the chemicals were harmful, but concealed the effects from regulators and distorted science on them, according to the lawsuit.
The $5 billion the state had sued for was one of the biggest amounts sought yet in growing lawsuits over PFCs, and Swanson called it the largest environmental suit in the state's history.
3M denied the claims, and said it hasn't found adverse effects among its employees, who are exposed at higher levels than the general population. The company announced a phase-out of PFOA and PFOS—chemicals commonly used in nonstick applications such as Teflon—in 2000, around the same time as reports emerged that they were being found in most humans, including babies, and remote animals like polar bears.
It's unusual to see a natural-resources suit raise human health issues, said Karen Bradshaw, an associate professor at Arizona State University who tracks such litigation.
“States are becoming more aggressive on natural-resources claims,” Bradshaw said in a phone interview before the settlement.
Legal Detour
As 3M's case progressed—at one point taking a four-year detour when the company sought to disqualify Minnesota's counsel Covington & Burling because it had once represented 3M on the chemicals’ use in microwave popcorn bags—science advanced. In 2012, the results of a massive study of 80,000 people who sought to sue DuPont over PFOA were released, establishing links to cancers, ulcerative colitis and other health issues.
New reports on the health of Minnesota-area residents were expected to be a centerpiece of the trial. Minnesota said its expert report shows higher rates of cancers, leukemia, premature births and lower fertility in the suburbs east of St. Paul prior to 2006, when there were particularly high amounts of the chemicals in municipal water. But a week before the trial, Minnesota's Department of Health said it didn't find unusual rates of cancers or adverse birth outcomes.
The settlement hasn't resolved that rift. “We have our own problems in Minnesota with regulatory agencies captive to the industries they are supposed to regulate,” Swanson said in Tuesday's statement, adding that she expects further action from the Health Department and that it will be up the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to enforce remediation.
Minnesota's Department of Health said in a statement that it based its information on the “best scientific information available without favor or prejudice.”
‘Power Abuse’
William A. Brewer III, a 3M lawyer, had called the suit an “abuse of power” by Swanson.
DuPont, which spun off the PFC business line as Chemours Co. and merged into DowDuPont Inc., has faced lawsuits and regulatory actions related to the chemicals, as well as a current Teflon agent. In February last year, the companies agreed to pay $670.7 million to settle about 3,550 personal-injury lawsuits.
While most major makers phased out PFOA and PFOS, many reformulated products with other PFCs. They say the new chemicals aren't harmful, even as scientists and regulators express growing concern.
The case is Minnesota v. 3M, 27-cv-10-28862, County of Hennepin, District Court.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128643609&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128643609&jd=128643609
-
3M To Pay $850 Million To Settle Fluorosurfactants Lawsuit
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
3M has agreed to pay $850 million to the state of Minnesota to resolve a $5 billion lawsuit over drinking water contaminated with fluorochemicals such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). 3M resolved the case on Feb. 20, just as it was about to go to trial in state court.
The settlement comes in the form of what 3M calls a grant to the state for water quality and sustainability. The firm says the funds will be used to reduce perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in the region. 3M adds that it “does not believe there is a PFC-related health issue.”
Others do see health concerns. “The settlement is an enormously important advance to protect the health of over 67,000 Minnesotans ... who deserve clean and safe drinking water,” Michigan Governor Mark Dayton said in statement.
3M produced PFCs, including PFOA, at a plant in Cottage Grove, 16 km south of St. Paul. The firm says it ceased manufacturing PFOA and associated chemicals in 2008. Among PFOA’s uses was as a surfactant to make 3M’s Scotchgard stain repellent finishes for textiles.
About two dozen additional suits involving PFCs are pending against 3M, according to documents the firm filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The chemicals are persistent in the environment and are associated with health conditions such as thyroid disease and kidney cancer.
Other companies with PFC-related troubles include DuPont and Chemours. Both face suits from North Carolina residents over PFC-contaminated drinking water in the Cape Fear River. A year ago, the two agreed to pay $670 million to Ohio and West Virginia residents who claim they were sickened by contaminated water.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i9/3M-pay-850-million-settle.html
-
Sweden Takes Action On 16 Electronics Importers
Feb 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) has reported 16 companies to environmental prosecutors after investigators found prohibited levels of hazardous chemicals in products, including lead in imported electronics.
In 2017, Kemi conducted a review of 19 commodity importers - mostly of electronics products - that it had previously notified to prosecutors. It found that sixteen of them were still not complying with chemicals legislation and subsequently reported them.
In total, 261 goods were checked, including consumer electronics, toys and sporting goods. In 61 of them – 23% of the total – at least one dangerous substance was detected above the limit value, the agency said.
All companies have now stopped selling the products that contained harmful substances, Kemi added.
The most common violation was high levels of lead found in the soldering of electrical and electronic components. The second was soft plastic containing short-chain chlorinated paraffins, which are suspected carcinogens. Plasticisers and phthalates were also detected in some of the products.
Many of the audited importers sell low-cost products, in which it "usually finds hazardous substances," the agency said.
Most of the inspected companies have improved controls on chemicals, inspector Camilla Westlund said, "but still many products contain hazardous substances".Slow process
The legal process for environmental cases in Sweden is lengthy and often does not lead to sanctions.
Between 2012 and 2016, the agency notified 664 instances of environmental violations for prosecution – and yet 435 of the 500 cases processed in the legal system were cancelled because of a lack of evidence. Fines were imposed only in 13% of the cases.
The government is considering a review of chemicals sanctions after Kemi called for a change to the environmental code so that it has the authority to impose sanctions.
Meanwhile, a European enforcement project, involving 29 EU and EEA countries, last week revealed prohibited levels of cadmium, nickel and lead in jewellery. Inspectors also found restricted phthalates in a fifth of all toy products tested.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64208/sweden-takes-action-on-16-electronics-importers
-
America Needs NAFTA to Maintain Energy Dominance
Feb 21, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Richard D. Kauzlarich
It is clear today that our nation’s economy is on the path toward a full financial recovery. Some recent corrections notwithstanding, the stock market seems to hit a new high daily, and thanks to President Trump and the members of Congress who helped pass comprehensive tax reform, many companies are moving assets back to the U.S. and showering their employees in financial perks and shares of stock. We may even see a full recovery earlier than expected.
But while headlines tout the success of the Trump administration and the revitalization of the U.S. economy, many have been scratching their heads at the administration’s overly protectionist approach to trade policy.
Today, no economist would tell you that the U.S. should revert to the frequently protectionist trade practices of the 1800s or 1930s. Under such policies, our leaders dramatically exacerbated the largest financial crash in American history. So why, then, is the Trump administration threatening to withdraw the U.S. from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? Have we learned nothing from our previous failures?
After the 2008 financial crisis did a number on the American middle class, some on Capitol Hill were quick to blame NAFTA for the ensuing decline in manufacturing jobs. Though real issues plague the manufacturing sector, including a decline in low-skilled labor jobs, the cause is far more nuanced than U.S. free trade policies. Automation, cheap labor abroad, and a preferential shift towards smaller brands and cottage industries among millennials are all contributing.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce projects that the U.S. economy is slated for 3 percent growth in the wake of comprehensive tax reform, with one caveat: the growth is contingent on the continued preservation of NAFTA.
The reversal of our sensible participation in NAFTA would harm no sector of our economy more acutely than energy. A withdrawal would cause the bottom of the energy sector to fall out, negatively impacting our entire economy. Triggering such an economic collapse is the antithesis of President Trump’s “America First” agenda.
Over the past two decades, U.S. energy production of nearly every type has grown substantially. Total production rose from 71,332 trillion Btu in 1995 to 88,049 in 2015, with the largest growth exhibited by natural gas and crude oil — crucial components of our nation’s trade with other NAFTA countries. Without NAFTA the United States would surely have been less able to capitalize on the shale boom of recent years, which created thousands of jobs and boosted the economy significantly — even in states that don’t actually have shale deposits.
NAFTA has made Canada and Mexico our top trading partners, and after the U.S. shale boom, NAFTA helped the U.S. produce more than 10 million barrels of oil each day — for the first time in over 40 years. NAFTA has provided the North American region with energy dominance and independence. Combined, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico account for 19 percent of crude oil, 28 percent of natural gas, and 12 percent of coal outputs globally.
NAFTA should be modernized and improved. Over the last 20 years, the U.S. economy has developed and matured. When NAFTA was ratified, we didn’t have e-commerce like today’s; companies like Amazon sold nothing more than books. The U.S. has grown to become a dominant global supplier of energy and consumer goods. The Trump administration should look to improve global trade — starting with our neighbors to the north and south.
Richard D. Kauzlarich is co-director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. He served as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1997 to 1999 and to Azerbaijan from 1994 to 1997.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/02/21/america_needs_nafta_to_maintain_energy_dominance.html
-
North America Becoming Major Natural Gas, Oil Exporting Region by 2020, Says BP
Feb 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
North America is expected to become a net energy exporting region by 2020 and remain the world’s largest natural gas producer, BP plc predicts in its latest global outlook.
The BP Energy Outlook, an annual compilation by a team of energy economists, was extended this year by five years to 2040.
The United States is forecast to become “energy self-sufficient” in the early 2020s and should maintain its position as the world’s largest producer of liquids fuels and natural gas through the outlook period to 2040.
Chief economist Spencer Dale and CEO Bob Dudley helmed a webinar on Tuesday from London, putting broad strokes on an increasingly diverse picture for fossil fuels and renewables.
“Predicting to a degree of certainty how these changes will turn out is a tricky business,” Dudley said. “Competitive pressures within global energy markets continue to intensify as demand for energy continues to grow. However, technological advances mean our ability to produce energy is growing even faster, be that in unconventional oil and gas or in renewables like wind and solar energy.
“The continuing rapid growth of renewables means that, in a couple of decades, we can expect the fuel mix to be the most diverse ever seen. This combination of diversity and abundance is going to mean the marketplace will be highly competitive for some time to come.”
Economists in the new report highlighted the “speed of the transition” from traditional fossil fuels to renewables, along with “the intensifying competition and most importantly, the need to keep downward pressure on carbon emissions,” Dudley said. “While no one can say exactly how
these trends will play out, the outlook can help manage the uncertainties ahead to ensure we are fit and ready to play our role in meeting the energy needs of tomorrow.”An ‘Evolving Transition’
Dale said economists detailed six different scenarios for energy through 2040. He concentrated his comments on the “evolving transition,” or ET view.
The United States to 2040 s set to extend its lead in oil and gas production, enhancing its position as the largest global producer, Dale said.
By fuel, North American natural gas growth, estimated to be up 35% over the outlook period, and growth from renewables, with a forecast 226% increase, are expected to largely offset declines by coal (-69%), oil (-16%) and nuclear power (-27%) in the ET scenario.
“Natural gas and renewables see the largest growth increments,” Dale said. “Natural gas becomes the region’s leading fuel, accounting for 41% of energy consumption, up from 32% today.” Renewables, with an increase to 15% market share in 2040, outstrips coal’s share at 4% and oil, down to 29%, by 2040.
Gas in the “next few years” is expected to overtake coal as the largest source of power generation in North America by fuel input. The continent should not only remain the largest gas producing region in the world but become the largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporting region.
In the ET scenario, North America’s gas production by 2040 is forecast to increase by 55 Bcf/d to 146 Bcf/d; gross LNG exports should rise to 20 Bcf/d.
North America also is seen as the second largest oil-producing region in 2040 after the Middle East. By 2025, North America should slip to second largest for nuclear power after Asia.
For the United States specifically, the ET scenario estimates that its share of global oil production, i.e. crude plus natural gas liquids, “increases from about 12% today to about 18% by 2040, well above Saudi Arabia, the world’s second largest producer, which has a market share of about 13% by 2040,” Dale said.
“For natural gas, the U.S. lead is even more pronounced: accounting for 24% of total gas production in 2040, compared with Russia’s share of 14%.”
However, the United States by 2040 also looks to remain the world’s largest consumer of gas and second largest consumer of oil.
Gas by 2040 should become the leading U.S. fuel, accounting for 40% of domestic energy consumption from 32% today.
U.S. Tight Oil to Flatten In 2030s?
In the ET scenario, most of the initial growth in oil demand is to be met by increases in U.S. tight oil, Dale said. U.S. tight oil should begin to “flatten off in the early 2030s,” and then handed off to members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
“OPEC members are assumed to gradually diversify their economies, reducing their dependency on oil, allowing them to adopt a more competitive strategy of increasing their market share,” Dale said.
“A key uncertainty when thinking about the precise split between U.S. tight oil and OPEC is the potential for U.S. tight oil to keep growing,” he said. “In the ET scenario, U.S. tight oil grows by around 5 million b/d from current levels, peaking at close to around 10 million b/d in the early 2030s.
“This is consistent with rigs remaining around current levels...with rig productivity increasing by around 40% or so. But there's significant uncertainty concerning both the pace and duration of tight oil growth, depending on the availability of finance and other inputs required to support rapid expansion in the short run, the pace and, over the longer run, the total volume of resources that can be economically extracted, the longer run duration of that growth.”
One possibility, laid out in BP’s “early peak” scenario” is that the “availability of finance and resources allows a more rapid expansion in production without that peaking around 12 million b/d in the mid-2020s.
“But if overall production is the same as in the ET scenario of around 70 billion b/d produced by 2040, this would then be followed by more rapid decline...This is purely a timing issue here, rather than telling us anything about the underlying resource.”
If U.S. tight resources prove to be more plentiful, putting total cumulative production around 50% higher than in the ET scenario, “this would allow U.S. tight oil to potentially grow to around 15 million b/d by 2030 and remain around that level for the rest of the outlook.”
U.S. renewables are expected by 2040 to hold 17% of the market in the ET scenario, while coal would account for 5% and oil for 30%.
Of all fuels used in the United States, economists are projecting that renewables grow the fastest by around 5% a year.
However, by the end of the forecast period, the United States is seen relinquishing its position as the largest renewable energy producer, with its share of global output falling to 15% from current levels of 24%. In contrast, China’s share of renewables increases to around 30%.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113450-north-america-becoming-major-natural-gas-oil-exporting-region-by-2020-says-bp
-
Kansas Is Shaking: Earthquakes Tied To Oil And Gas Production Have Skyrocketed In The State
Feb 21, 2018 | Newsweek
By Sydney Pereira
Injections of wastewater back into the Earth have been linked to a rise in earthquakes in Kansas. The news follows a similar pattern in Oklahoma and points to a disturbing consequence of extracting natural resources.
When oil and gas is extracted from deep beneath the Earth’s surface, it is accompanied by saltwater. That wastewater is so brackish that it’s too toxic to dispose of above ground. To get rid of it, companies inject it back underground.
The practice has skyrocketed across the central U.S. in the past several years alongside an increase in a form of fracking that makes it easier to produce more oil and gas than before. And more earthquakes.
A new study linked these wastewater injections to the rise in earthquakes in southern Kansas. Prior to 2012, Kansas had one earthquake over several decades. But since then, the state has experienced a dramatic increase in such events.
The study used data from seismic stations across Harper and Sumner counties in Kansas, analyzing 6,845 earthquakes that occurred between March 2014 and December 2016. Researchers found that the rise in wastewater injections beginning in 2012 correlated with the following rise in earthquakes. They also found that hydraulic fracturing and oil production are not linked to the earthquakes, though the rise in saltwater injections is largely due to technological advances in fracking.
Between 1973 and 2012, there was one magnitude-2 earthquake in Kansas, according to researchers. Between 2013 and 2016, there were 127 earthquakes of a magnitude 3 or above in Kansas; 115 of those shook Harper and Sumner counties alone.
The study, published Monday in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, also noted that a drop-off in wastewater injections resulted in fewer earthquakes around 2015, when oil prices dropped and regulations were set.
Experts weren't surprised by the findings. The conclusion was “pretty much assumed to be the case just from a very qualitative view of what was going on,” Rick Miller, senior scientist at the Kansas Geological Survey who was not involved with the study, told Newsweek. But, says Miller, the data help confirm the disturbing phenomenon. “They put a quantitative spin to it—very technically solid development of that particular aspect.
The researchers behind the study think more work needs to be done to understand the ramifications of wastewater injections due to oil and gas extraction. “I think it’s—to some degree— the tip of the iceberg as far as what we’re going to learn,” Justin Rubinstein, lead author and seismologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, told Newsweek. Last month, another study in Oklahoma revealed a similar link between wastewater injections and earthquakes.
Miller noted the study accounted for the various contributing factors that can spark a link between injection wells and earthquakes, such as local geology and volume of saltwater being injected.
The patterns observed in the new study shed light on the connection between the injections and the earthquakes. “You can’t take one well with [injections] at a single well and tie that to a single earthquake that occurs at some point in time at some distance away,” Miller said. Rather, he explained, all of the injections contribute to the earthquakes.
Better understanding these factors can help scientists pinpoint how to reduce the induced earthquakes. “Obviously limiting injection is probably your best solution,” Rubinstein said. Distributing injections over a wider area and recovering oil and gas in areas that produce less water in the first place are also under consideration, he said.
“If we can work together to come up with ways to minimize the hazards of their operations, [oil and gas operators] stand to benefit from it,” Rubinstein said. “I think it’s a really forward looking approach, and I think that’s something that’s really changed over the years.”
http://www.newsweek.com/kansas-shaking-earthquakes-tied-oil-and-gas-production-have-skyrocketed-state-813870
-
Industry Attorneys Question Need For EPA Fees For RMP, Spill Programs
Feb 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Industry officials are raising significant hurdles to the Trump administration's proposal to charge fees to assist facilities in complying with the agency's accident and spill prevention rules, arguing such a program is unnecessary or that companies will need liability waivers or other incentives to participate.
“If you’re a regulated entity there has to be a compelling enough incentive to invite a regulatory visit,” one industry source says, noting that EPA's budget justification describes the program as including an on-site walk-through.
In its fiscal year 2019 budget justification, EPA says it plans to ask Congress to authorize voluntary fee programs that would help industries comply with the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP), and Facility Response Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rules to offset significant cuts to the programs.
But industry officials are suggesting major obstacles to the fees programs, arguing that existing industry and agency programs limit the utility of such fee-based EPA compliance assistance programs, and that companies would need incentives, such as a waiver from enforcement liability, to participate.
The source also says facilities already may receive significant penalty reductions for disclosing potential violations through EPA's audit policy. “If you're paying fees, what's the benefit of participation when you already have the audit policy,” the source says. “What is this really offering regulated entities except to offset the budget reductions?”
That source and a second industry attorney say facilities would need further clarity before paying for a federal audit, which raises the prospect of enforcement liability, when private companies offer similar services with no risk.
“If EPA gave you a waiver or limited the scope of an audit, that may work,” the second source says. Otherwise “I don't see what benefit you would get from EPA doing that versus a normal company.”
A third industry source says any new EPA compliance assistance program could be of interest, especially to companies that have already benefited from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) On-Site Consultation program. The source says the OSHA program, which does not charge a fee, is separate from enforcement and that EPA would need to offer a similar assurance to gain private-sector support.
“In this proposal, if there is not some clarity [on whether] facilities are putting themselves in potential jeopardy by doing this voluntary service I don't think many people are going to take advantage of it,” the source says.
An official with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) described the proposed RMP and SPCC fees programs as a part of broader Trump administration claims that they can protect public health and the environment while cutting EPA enforcement.
“The fees don't make up for the cuts,” the environmentalist says. “All departments and agencies have some opportunities for increasing efficiency, but efficiency gains and management attention and all the other magic words the administration is tossing around simply don't compensate for the magnitude of cuts being proposed.”
Compliance Assistance Fees
While floating voluntary fees to support industry compliance with the RMP program, EPA's FY19 budget justification proposes cutting funding for state and local accident prevention preparedness efforts from the FY18 level of $15.269 million to $10.031 million, a $5.238 million decrease.
Similarly, EPA is proposing to cut its Oil Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response from an FY18 level of $14.311 million to $12.273 million in FY19.
The agency programs are responsible for tasks including conducting inspections and providing inspector training, among others. On RMP, the justification says the reduction in funding “reduces resources for technical support and outreach, and eliminates grant support for certified RMP inspectors.”
The proposed cut to the agency program that oversees RMP comes as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has delayed by nearly two years the Obama administration's January 2017 final rule updating RMP to allow for revisions. The rule brought new auditing and hazard analysis for certain facilities and sought to boost coordination with first responders.
Even as it proposes to cut funds, EPA is also seeking legislation to impose fees that would bolster the program to ensure that EPA “would conduct an on-site walk-through within one year of the accepted request and provide a report to assist RMP facilities in complying with EPA regulations.”
While some industry sources say EPA should clarify its plans for the program -- including whether site visits could bring enforcement liability -- others say it appears unnecessary. For example, one of the industry attorneys says that private companies already offer similar programs, and that it is unclear whether EPA could offer a better service.
“How having EPA involved would provide any type of benefit,” is not clear, the source says, adding that industry often has to educate EPA on facility processes. “Their knowledge of the process of how things work generally isn't terrific.”
A source with the Agricultural Retailers Association said that the proposed EPA fees programs are unnecessary, and that the agency should support existing industry safety programs, like Responsible Ag, or the chemical sector's Responsible Care, which assist facilities in complying with federal rules.
“If they could work with our industry on those voluntary programs, they can go a long way to stretch scarce taxpayer dollars and help ensure facilities are complying with existing regulations,” the source says.
Some of the industry sources also suggested that the proposed cuts associated with the RMP and SPCC fees programs could pose problems. The first industry attorney said that EPA enforcement helps create a level playing field and that major cuts could put facilities that invest in safety at a competitive disadvantage.
“It's actually beneficial to know that other similarly-situated large companies are also getting enforcement attention, because for the most part companies are trying to proactively be in and maintain compliance,” the source says. “With these budget cuts and [staff] reductions you lose that level playing field in having the EPA and state presence out there.”
The industry attorney who cited the benefit of OSHA's On-Site Consultation program, said that if the cuts limit training and therefore the availability of independent auditors that would also be problematic for companies. A shortage of well-qualified auditors, who are familiar with various facility processes, was a driving concern in industry opposition to the Obama-era RMP update rule, which included a requirement for use of independent auditors.
The source also suggested that the fees program could signal a path forward for the Trump administration in revising the Obama-era RMP rule's requirement that certain facilities conduct independent audits.
They could “make the third-party audits a voluntary process and then offer the agency as a resource to accomplish that concept,” the source said, adding that the agency's path forward for revising the rule remains unclear.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-attorneys-question-need-epa-fees-rmp-spill-programs
-
Let's Not Wait For A Crippling Cyberattack Before We Strengthen The Grid
Feb 10, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Michael Curley
“Grid emergency” is not a household term. At least, not yet. A grid emergency is an event that threatens to shut down all electric power in a specific area, which could be a few states or the entire country.
A grid emergency could come from a cyberattack from an enemy state, terrorists, or just hackers. It could also come naturally from our neighbor in the galaxy: the sun. An electromagnetic storm on the sun — called a Carrington Event — could shut down all electrical systems on Earth.
On Dec. 17, 2017, no enemy — just a fire in an electrical switch room — caused a blackout at the Atlanta Airport stranding thousands of passengers in the dark terminal and disrupting thousands of flights all over the country. The power outage lasted 12 hours. That nightmare was just a micro-example of what could happen in a grid emergency.
The Federal Power Act (FPA) gives the president the authority to declare a grid emergency and to delegate the authority to deal with it to the secretary of Energy. In 2015, Congress passed a law with a delightful acronym: the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or the FAST Act. This law authorizes the Energy Department to issue rules governing the secretary’s actions in a cyberattack.
After deliberating for about three years, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a final rule two weeks ago defining the powers of the secretary if the president declares a grid emergency.
Let us say that an enemy state realizes that they could never physically invade the United States, but that they could bring the country to its knees by detonating nuclear weapons overhead at high altitude creating electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) that would cripple our power grid. (Best selling author, Brad Thor writes about this scenario in his 2014 novel Act of War. Over 30 years ago, another novel, Warday, also dealt with high altitude detonation of nuclear weapons knocking out our power.)
And so we learn of this threat. The secretary of Energy gets a grid emergency declaration from the president. As the threat gets closer, the secretary orders all electrical generating and distribution systems — all power systems — to shut down to avoid being fried by the EMP.
When this happens our power goes out. What happens to those running businesses from their computers? What about those on life support devices like dialysis machines or medical monitors that suddenly quit or go dark?
Next the secretary advises all electrical systems that deliver critical human services — such as drinking water — to go to back-up power, such as generators, that would not be so vulnerable.
There are over 52,000 community water systems in the United States. Many are very small. More than 31,000 systems have fewer than 10,000 customers. How many of these small systems do you think have back-up power?
The common denominator with all of these consequences of grid emergency scenarios is to realize what could happen and to take preventative action today, long before the trouble starts.
With the dialysis machine or health monitors it’s a battery or a home generator. With a business, there’s a real problem. A battery or generator will get the computer back on, but if the Internet is gone, what good will it do?
What about fuel for a generator? If someone doesn’t have it, they have to get it. Drive to a gas station? An EMP will fry the electrical system in their car. No driving; they’ll have to walk.
Finally, when people get thirsty from all of this anxiety and hassle, they go get a drink of water. They turn on the tap. Nothing happens. The board of directors of the water system in their small town didn’t want to raise rates to pay for a back-up generator.
What’s the secretary of Energy going to do about the dialysis machine or the health monitor, internet businesses, and drinking water? Some of these problems — like the dialysis machine — are easy. Others like the businesses can be very difficult. The drinking water problem is a question of money.
So what advice should we give ourselves today, before there is any threat of a grid emergency?
“Let’s not wait until the cyberattack happens!”
Michael Curley is a lawyer and visiting scholar at the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, D.C. He teaches and has written four books about environmental and energy law and finance. He has published over 40 articles. He served on the Environmental Financial Advisory Board at EPA for 21 years under four presidents. He is also on the Advisory Board of the 501(c)(4) corporation “Protect Our Power”.
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/373292-lets-not-wait-for-a-crippling-cyberattack-before-we-strengthen-the-grid
-
Infrastructure Push Needed in Congress, White House Official Says (2)
Feb 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The president's infrastructure plan is going to require lots of salesmanship on Capitol Hill to become law, a top Trump administration environmental official told Bloomberg Environment.
Alex Herrgott, the point man for infrastructure at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said there's a “tremendous amount of education that's required” for lawmakers because the president is proposing radical new ways to allocate federal infrastructure dollars.
The proposal, released Feb. 12, would centralize federal dollars for water, transportation, and other projects and provide them to municipalities as matching funds, with the intent of encouraging local officials to use new sources of revenue to fund projects. This is in contrast to the current model of providing states and cities with grants and loans through dozens of different programs spread out through the federal government.
“There's a legacy approach where many people would just like to fund existing programs because they understand them and they have their own advocacies and constituencies,” Herrgott told Bloomberg Environment following a Feb. 21 Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee meeting. “We've written a new program out of whole cloth.”
Republicans on the Hill have so far offered measured but consistent support for the plan. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, praised the president for introducing the plan and scheduled a hearing for March 1 to hear from administration officials on it.
However, Democrats, such as Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), say the plan is half-baked at best.
“I'm still waiting on a plan. You can't with a straight face call this a plan,” Huffman told Bloomberg Environment after a Feb. 14 hearing. “We need to let the real policy people do their work.”
A staffer with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he couldn't be reached in time for this story. Other Democratic and Republican leaders of relevant committees in both chambers of Congress could not be reached for comment.
Paradigm Shift
Herrgott joined the White House after several years working for Republicans on the Senate environment committee. He called the way the federal government currently funds infrastructure “a joke” and said the decades-long backlog of projects across the country offends him.
One of the main goals of the White House's proposal is to give local officials some political cover to raise funds for something that is often out of sight and out of mind, Herrgott said. He said infrastructure, especially water infrastructure, is chronically underfunded because it has to compete against other priorities that are more visible to voters.
“These guys need cover, political cover, from us to be honest with their electorate about what these things cost,” Herrgott told the EPA's water infrastructure finance advisory committee.
Herrgott said the infrastructure plan is an alternative to the current model, which allocates funding through programs like the EPA's State Revolving Fund and the Department of Transportation's Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grants. He said these programs take an inadequate amount of federal funding and spread it across the country too thinly, with no regard to whether recipients can pay for projects over the long run.
“We are putting states and locals in impossible situations where oftentimes they need to choose between schools, roads, and hospitals,” he said. “It's a triage just to keep up with potholes and to keep things from shutting down.”
By changing these programs to a matching funds format, the White House hopes to encourage more local investment in water, roads, and other public facilities, Herrgott said.
In addition to establishing a matching funds program, the White House's plan would lift many restrictions on several existing infrastructure grant and loan programs, opening them up for uses that are currently not eligible. That plan calls for Congress to spend $200 billion in taxpayer money to stimulate a projected $1.5 trillion in infrastructure projects.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128643595&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128643595&jd=128643595
-
Bush's CEQ Chief Urges Montreal Protocol For Greenhouse Gases
Feb 21, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A former top White House official under President George W. Bush said the Montreal Protocol would be a more effective model than the Paris Agreement for combating the effects of global warming.
Jim Connaughton, the former chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said that while he agrees with the goals of the Paris climate accord, the deal does not provide an international policy framework to achieve them. Instead, he advocates for a policy like the Montreal Protocol, the 1987 agreement to phase out a number of substances that cause ozone depletion.
"We have an international framework that has stood the test of time. That is binding. It is internationally enforceable through border adjustments such as excise taxes and includes the participation of all of the major emitters, including China and India," he said in a recent interview with Jeff McMahon, the host of the podcast "Off the Charts."
The Montreal Protocol's governance and methodology have delivered fully on its obligations to cut and abate ozone-depleting substances, he said. Those institutional structures and binding characteristics could be applied to climate change on a sector-by-sector basis, Connaughton added.
President Trump has said he intends to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the 2015 deal to lower greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.
"And yet, it is fascinating to me, that while most of the diplomats go to both meetings, we have two entirely different structures for what are essentially similar international abatement issues," Connaughton said.
Connaughton also advocated for conservative approaches to reduce global warming.
"Market-based solutions that are performance-based and technology-neutral, that are still mandates. So they still come in the form of mandatory policy but are much more effective for innovations and investors to deliver bigger outcomes at lower costs," he said.
When it comes to protecting the environment, Connaughton said he believes Trump's "single biggest" accomplishment will be tax reform combined with the infrastructure package.
"Because the numbers are so big. We're sitting on a lot of old, outdated infrastructure: power plants, highways, building infrastructure, manufacturing facilities that have been awaiting an infusion of new capitol," he said.
He added, "If you take the new money that's sitting on corporate balance sheets that now has to get redeployed — now some of it will go for dividends, and that will go back to people who invested in their own efficiency, some of that will be share buybacks that will increase the value of these companies and allow them to borrow more money at cheaper rates — however you do that math, we're talking about ultimately trillions of dollars more money than what was available before the policy that will allow us to replace old, inefficient stuff with newer, cleaner, much more efficient stuff."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/02/21/stories/1060074429
-
Hundreds Of Mayors Unite Against Trump Reversal Of Obama-Era Climate Plan
Feb 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Hundreds of mayors representing cities in 47 states and territories have signed a letter opposing the Trump administration's move to roll back the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP).
In a letter addressed to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt, 236 U.S. mayors wrote that the Trump administration's attempt to roll back the environmental restrictions would have "devastating health and economic impacts on their communities."
"We strongly oppose the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would put our citizens at risk and harm our efforts to address the urgent threat of climate change," the letter to Pruitt reads.
"The legal authority of cities and other municipalities generally extends only as far as their state governments and federal law allow, and as a result, our local efforts to address climate change are highly sensitive to national policies like the Clean Power Plan, which shape markets, steer state action, and have large direct impacts on nationwide emissions," it continues.
The EPA has been considering a plan to repeal the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of former President Obama's environmental agenda, since at least October.
“The Obama administration pushed the bounds of their authority so far with the CPP that the Supreme Court issued a historic stay of the rule, preventing its devastating effects to be imposed on the American people while the rule is being challenged in court,” Pruitt said in a statement last year.
“We are committed to righting the wrongs of the Obama administration by cleaning the regulatory slate. Any replacement rule will be done carefully, properly, and with humility, by listening to all those affected by the rule.”
The final version of the CPP was unveiled in 2015, and aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation by 32 percent by 2030. President Trump signed an executive order last March ordering the EPA to review the rule for a possible repeal.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/374824-hundreds-of-mayors-come-together-to-oppose-trump-reversal-of-obama
-
U.S., Canadian Provinces Launch First Cap-And-Trade Auction To Battle Climate Change
Feb 22, 2018 | Reuters
By Sebastien Malo
NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The U.S. state of California and two Canadian provinces kicked off a cross-border auction of greenhouse gas emission credits on Wednesday, their first joint effort to buy and sell in the “cap and trade” market to fight global warming, experts said.
The auction comes less than two months after the U.S. local and Canadian regional governments merged their trading markets for cap and trade, a system designed to limit carbon emissions by putting a price tag on pollutants produced.
In a cap and trade market, those who produce low levels of greenhouse gases earn credits which they can sell to those who produce high emissions and exceed government-mandated limits.
Carbon dioxide emissions are one of the major drivers of human-caused climate change.
The auction by California, Quebec and Ontario represented a “big test” for the new cross-border market, said Erick Lachapelle, associate professor of political science at the University of Montreal and a specialist in energy and environmental politics.
“It shows that this is workable. We can expand. We can link carbon markets across borders,” Lachapelle told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by phone.
The merging of Ontario’s cap and trade program with the previously linked California and Quebec markets created the world’s second largest carbon emissions market, officials have said.
More than 110 million emission permits were being sold at the joint auction, authorities in Quebec said.
North America’s joint cap-and-trade systems, set up over the last six years, have face some questions over how much carbon emissions they actually hold back, Lachapelle said.
For now, the European Union is considered the world’s largest carbon emission market, but China’s market is rapidly growing, experts say.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-climatechange-carbonmarket/u-s-canadian-provinces-launch-first-cap-and-trade-auction-to-battle-climate-change-idUSKCN1G52T7
-
New Candidates Emerge for Trump’s Top Environmental Adviser
Feb 21, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Trump administration is considering a North Carolina regulator who questions mainstream climate science to be the next White House environmental adviser, just weeks after withdrawing a previous nominee who held similar views.
Donald van der Vaart, the former secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, said in a telephone interview that he had been in discussions with the White House for several positions in recent months, most recently to possibly lead the Council on Environmental Quality, which is responsible for coordinating federal environmental policy.
In the interview, Mr. van der Vaart expressed skepticism about the extent to which humans have contributed to climate change, a view that puts him at odds with scientific findings and echoes the views of other senior administration officials. He also expressed a willingness to challenge the legal foundation of federal climate-change policy, the 2009 Environmental Protection Agency decision known as the “endangerment finding,” which declares that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and must be regulated.
“I’m not going to say ‘no,’” Mr. van der Vaart said when asked if he would support repealing the endangerment finding.
Some activists who deny established climate-change science, like Myron Ebell at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, support Mr. van der Vaart’s potential nomination, saying he combines more than 25 years of regulatory experience with a unique background as both a lawyer and chemical engineer. In addition, Mr. Ebell said, Mr. van der Vaart’s climate views are closely aligned with those of the previous nominee, Kathleen Hartnett White, who was withdrawn from consideration this month.
“Having lost Kathleen, which saddens me, I think Donald van der Vaart is a good alternative. He brings many of the same strengths,” Mr. Ebell said. And, he noted, “He doesn’t have a long and open trail of speeches and comments,” like Ms. White does, in which opponents can look for ammunition.
Ms. White, a former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, came under fire from both parties for her environmental views. Democrats attacked her for suggesting that smog is not harmful and for calling carbon dioxide the “gas of life.” (Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to climate change.) She also said that an E.P.A. standard that requires increasing the amount of ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply should be repealed, angering Midwestern Republicans.
Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he found Ms. White’s views so unsettling that he mounted a campaign to block her confirmation. Mr. Carper said he visited the offices of 16 Republican senators to voice his concerns, bringing with him an iPad in order to play a three-minute video that his staff had compiled of Ms. White struggling to respond to questions posed by both Republicans and Democrats at her hearing.
In an interview last week, Mr. Carper said he believed his effort had played a part in ending Ms. White’s nomination. Several lawmakers, including Susan Collins of Maine and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, acknowledged through their press officers meeting with Mr. Carper but declined to comment on whether the effort swayed them.
John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming and the chairman of the Senate environment panel, said in a statement that withdrawing Ms. White’s nomination from consideration “was her decision.”
Ms. White declined to discuss either her appearance before the committee or Mr. Carper’s video compilation. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, where Ms. White works as a senior fellow, also declined to comment, as did the White House.
The administration did not respond to a separate request to discuss the candidates now under consideration to lead the Council on Environmental Quality. The short list also includes Mary Neumayr, who as the agency’s chief of staff since March has been doing the job in an acting capacity for nearly a year, said Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at the firm Bracewell and a former E.P.A. air chief.
“She’s been a steady hand at C.E.Q. since she got there and everyone thinks she’s been doing a great job,” Mr. Holmstead said. But, he added, “I’m not sure that she wants the attention that comes with being the chair and having to run the gantlet of the confirmation process.”
Calls to the Council on Environmental Quality were not returned.
Ms. Neumayr’s views on topics like climate change are far less well known than Mr. van der Vaart’s.
Mr. van der Vaart said last week that while he believes human emissions contribute to climate change, “the accuracy of the modeling is such that on the one hand I’m not sure we know what the fraction of man-made climate change is.”
“It’s so important to know what that fraction is for us to develop a solution,” he said. “It’s no good spending a lot of money when it turns out that’s not going to help you. All I’m saying is, yes, we contribute. But I’m not prepared to say it’s the only factor.”
Late last year, 13 federal agencies found with high confidence that more than 92 percent of the observed rise in global average temperatures since 1950 is the direct result of human activity.
Mr. van der Vaart also offered support for another area that has invited criticism: the “red team-blue team” debates to critique climate science that Scott Pruitt, administrator of the E.P.A., told Congress recently he still intends to hold.
“It’s always a great idea to debate issues,” Mr. van der Vaart said. “The question is, how do you actually do it? Do you have one debate? Do you have 10 debates? It’s a very attractive notion, but I’d like to think and talk to a lot of people about how to best implement that.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/climate/trump-environment-adviser-candidates.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested