Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/29/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Next Big Thing': Business Leaders Push New Industry for West Stark
Mar 28, 2018 | Massillon Independent
By Samantha Ickes
Vice President of Marketing at Tesla NanoCoatings spoke of the benefits of drawing business related to the oil and gas industry to western Stark County during the annual Massillon Development Foundation Building Business breakfast. -
Nominee Pledges to Sell off Chemicals Stocks
Mar 29, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA nominee Peter Wright has promised to sell off his stocks in his current employer, Dow Chemical Co. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Worry Steep New EPA Fees Could Stifle Innovation
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Chemical manufacturers are concerned that hefty new EPA fees to support premarket reviews could stifle innovation and pose a barrier to bringing new chemicals to market. -
EDF Signals New Chemical-Specific Path To Target EPA SNURs Under TSCA
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is warning that a draft EPA rule allowing a new use of an existing chemical is “legally vulnerable,” suggesting a new chemical-specific path for environmentalists to challenge EPA's approval of new chemical uses under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
US EPA to Unveil 'Secret Science' Details in Coming Weeks
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is preparing to make a formal announcement and solicit public feedback on its forthcoming 'secret science' policy changes within the next month. -
Walmart Aligns Disclosure Policy with Californian Law
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
An update to US retailer Walmart’s ingredient disclosure policy means that product suppliers can now comply with it by adhering to California’s list of chemicals of concern. -
Automotive Groups Defend Lead-Acid Batteries in California
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The automotive industry is pushing back on California’s interest in evaluating lead-acid batteries under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
Global Ban on Animal Testing Hard to Achieve, Industry Says
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The EU's proposal to establish a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics will prove challenging, say cosmetics industry groups. -
US NGOs Pressurise Discount Retailers over PFAS in Popcorn Bags
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Two US NGOs are increasing pressure on discount retailers to take action on substances of concern in the products they sell. -
Survey on REACH restriction for PFASs extended
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A survey launched to help develop a restriction proposal under REACH on PFASs (C4-C7) and other fluorinated substances, has been extended by a month. -
European Commission Comes Under Fire for 'Patronising' Approach to EDCs
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, faced fresh criticism from the European Parliament's environment committee (Envi) and NGOs at a public hearing about its handling of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
Sweden Advocates Developing Microplastic Restrictions at EU Level
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A Swedish investigation into whether further national restrictions on microplastics in cosmetics and other chemical products are needed concluded that such action would be better carried out at EU level in the first instance. -
Swedish Nano-Platform Launches New Website
| Chemical Watch
The Swedish National Platform for Nanosafety – SweNanoSafe – has published a website aimed at improving communication and the exchange of knowledge on the safety of nanomaterials. -
EU Committee 'Surprised' by Lack of Knowledge of Oil and Gas Health Risks
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Scientific assessment of possible public health risks posed by the EU's onshore oil and gas exploration and extraction activities is "very poor", according to the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (Scheer). -
UK Starts Work on Post-Brexit Chemicals Registration System
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The UK government has started work on the delivery of new IT capability, to enable the registration and regulation of chemical substances placed on the national market. -
White House Reshuffle Fills Vacuum on Climate, Energy Posts
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
An energy policy adviser with the State Department is set to join President Donald Trump's National Security Council next week, the latest move to shore up expertise on international energy and climate issues after a top adviser departed in February. -
It’s the No. 1 Power Source, but Natural Gas Faces Headwinds
Mar 28, 2018 | The New York Times
By Ivan Penn
As environmental concerns drive power companies away from using coal, natural gas has emerged as the nation’s No. 1 power source. -
$9.5 Billion Purchase by Concho Is Latest Sign of West Texas Oil Boom
Mar 28, 2018 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
Two Texas oil companies joined forces on Wednesday in the biggest deal yet in the Southwestern oil patch, one that should add momentum to the rush to produce more oil as prices rise. -
Shale Oil Producer Concho Buys RSP Permian for $8 Billion
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas and Jim Polson
Concho Resources Inc. will buy rival shale oil producer RSP Permian Inc. in an $8 billion all-share deal, creating one of the largest producers in the region at the center of America's energy boom. -
Rampant NGL Production Growth To Continue As Ethane Takes Center Stage
Mar 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
U.S. natural gas liquids (NGL) production is expected to grow by around 15% year/year -- to average just under 4.3 million b/d -- in 2018 and shows no signs of slowing as the market seeks to rebalance itself and refill inventories following “impressive declines” in recent months, Raymond James & Associates Inc. analysts said. -
Abbott to India: Expand LNG Shipments from Texas
Mar 28, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Mike Ward
In a continuing push to increase trade with India, Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday lobbied top Indian petroleum and energy officials to expand shipments of liquefied natural gas shipments from Texas ports and to establish direct flights with the Lone Star state. -
Outcome of EPA Rule Delay Case Could Upset Trump Deregulatory Plan
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A win for the plaintiffs in a case challenging the delay of an EPA chemical safety rule could have big implications for the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda and the law governing how regulations are made, an attorney at a union legal conference said. -
Advocates Urge EPA to Go Big in Court-Ordered Chemical Spill Rule
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Preventing all hazardous chemical spills ought to be the goal of an upcoming EPA rule rather than just focusing on a 2014 Freedom Industries Inc. spill that tainted West Virginia's water supplies, environmental groups say. -
Officials Plot Infrastructure Strategy Ahead of Trump Trip
Mar 28, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Nick Sobczyk
White House officials said today that President Trump's infrastructure plan is likely to move in bits and pieces, not the broad package that the president has been pressing Congress to pass. -
EPA Staffers Get Talking Points Playing down Human Role in Climate Change
Mar 28, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Environmental Protection Agency staffers received a list of “talking points” this week instructing them to underscore the uncertainties about how human activity contributes to climate change. -
EPA Floats New Climate Talking Points Downplaying GHG Science
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA officials are circulating a new set of talking points that pledge to continue climate adaptation planning but minimize the science that links greenhouse gas emissions to climate change, instead saying that “clear gaps remain” in research on how much climate change is human-caused and how to avert its effects. -
News Court Faults BLM NEPA Review For Failing To Assess Downstream GHGs
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A federal district court has found the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) resource management plan (RMP) for the fossil fuel-rich Powder River Basin to be in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failing to consider the downstream greenhouse gas impacts of the vast oil, gas and coal resources that could eventually be extracted under the plan. -
California Adopts Federal HFC Rules After Court Gutted EPA SNAP Program
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted strong controls on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) -- the potent climate warming chemicals -- in refrigerants and air-conditioning systems that echo requirements under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program that were gutted by a court ruling last year. -
How Environmental Innovation Will Transform Business as Usual
Mar 28, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Murray
As the Trump administration rolls back environmental protections that could harm human health for decades, it’s increasingly up to businesses to lead the way.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Next Big Thing': Business Leaders Push New Industry for West Stark
Mar 28, 2018 | Massillon Independent
By Samantha Ickes
Vice President of Marketing at Tesla NanoCoatings spoke of the benefits of drawing business related to the oil and gas industry to western Stark County during the annual Massillon Development Foundation Building Business breakfast.
MASSILLON In the 1950s, the city was booming with the productivity of the steel industry.
Steel manufacturing provided the Massillon area’s largest job base. Today, the manufacturing industry is still a major employer in Stark County.
As time moves forward and industries grown and change, it is critical for cities to follow the trends.
Partners with the Massillon Development Foundation gathered for the group’s Building Business breakfast Wednesday morning to discuss the expanding oil and gas industry and the benefits of drawing more companies into western Stark County.
Joseph Barone, vice president of Marketing at Tesla NanoCoatings, spoke of the economic impact of new petrochemicals and plastics manufacturing and the capacity for making the Appalachian region of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky a hub for this type of manufacturing.
“This city is well positioned for what is coming as a result of the oil and gas boom in the country and here in the Appalachian Basin,” Barone said.
Marketing the region
The petrochemical center resides in the Gulf Coast and is negatively impacted by hurricanes each year, Barone said.
He added the weather impact is worsening as the Gulf Coast experiences more severe storms and hurricanes, creating a need for a second petrochemical center in the U.S.
Proximity to Shell Chemicals’ ethane cracker plant in Potter Township, Pa. also makes the region a strong option for growing these industries. The facility employs more than 6,000 people and has discussed expanding in the near future, Barone said.
“Appalachian basin is the cheapest place in the world to manufacture petrochemicals,” he said.
The Stark County area presents opportunity petrochemical and plastics companies for a variety of reasons, Barone said. The next step in developing the area is to market toward companies within the field and showcase opportunities in Stark County. He highlighted intermodal facilities, flat land and the success of Baker Hughes, an oilfield service company with a hub in Massillon.
Ted Herncane, president of the Massillon WestStark Chamber of Commerce, said the MDF has developed a target and now needs to market the region and lean on resources such as Baker Hughes and those knowledgeable about the industry, including Barone and Garret Kloots, vice president of business development at Republic Short Line.
“We have to be very proactive about that,” Herncane said. “The days of sitting by waiting for the phone to ring are gone. It’s a very competitive world. The industries are very competitive, and economic development is competitive. Everybody around the country wants to be the next big thing.”
Bringing jobs to the area
Enticing new business to the quad-state region can create more than 100,000 jobs, according to an analysis by the American Chemistry Council.
“As these companies come into the area along the Ohio River, the demand for workers is great,” Barone said. “It’s great now, and it’s going to get greater.”
Barone said jobs in the petrochemicals and plastics fields are desirable for many workers because of the high entry-level pay and medical benefits. Barone said there’s room for growth in the fields and urged Massillon business development leaders to explore opportunities.
The capital investment in the region could improve the community and schools, Herncane said. He added bringing plastics into the area would have an impact on the economy similar to what the steel industry once had.
Many people who reside in Stark County find jobs outside of the county, Herncane said, a trend he’d like to reverse. Bringing a new industry here could attract new residents to work in those jobs and bring new families to the area, scenarios that would have a positive economic impact on western Stark County.
“Every so often communities have to take a look at what they’re doing and try to latch on to the next big thing,” Herncane said. “Manufacturing is still very prosperous, but there are industries that are within that sector that are really going like plastics and petrochemicals. Those are companies we could reach out to to bring to this area.”
http://www.indeonline.com/news/20180328/next-big-thing-business-leaders-push-new-industry-for-west-stark
-
Nominee Pledges to Sell off Chemicals Stocks
Mar 29, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA nominee Peter Wright has promised to sell off his stocks in his current employer, Dow Chemical Co.
Wright, who is managing counsel at the chemicals giant, was nominated by President Trump to be assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management. If confirmed, Wright would oversee several toxic waste sites under the agency's Superfund program that have been linked to Dow's industrial facilities.
Those cleanup obligations present a serious liability to DowDuPont Inc., the merged company of Dow Chemical and DuPont Co. The company is tied to dozens of Superfund sites and is responsible to pay $219 million to remediate them, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records(Greenwire, March 7).
In his ethics agreement, Wright said that within 90 days of his confirmation, he would divest all of his stocks in DowDuPont. Until he sells off all his financial interests, Wright would not participate in "any particular matter" that could impact Dow Chemical or DowDuPont financially unless he obtains a waiver.
Wright has several assets tied up in Dow Chemical and DowDuPont, including stocks, ranging in value overall from $365,000 to $853,000, according to his financial disclosure report.
Wright said he would still receive his severance and 2017 bonus from Dow Chemical. In 2016, he received a salary of $228,852 and a $72,409 bonus, while in 2017, he received a salary of $235,032 with a bonus of $111,116.
Wright will also continue to participate in Dow Chemical's pension plan. If he leaves the company Friday, he will begin to collect a monthly benefit of $10,798.54 in October 2024, when he turns 65. Its account balance would be almost $1.2 million.
"To my knowledge there is no option to have the total paid out," Wright said on his financial disclosure form.
Also, if confirmed, Wright would resign from his positions with the National Association of Wabash Men and the Lambda Chi Alpha Home Association of Wabash College. He would also seek an ethics briefing in his first week on the job at EPA and understands that he would have to sign Trump's ethics pledge.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/28/stories/1060077675
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Worry Steep New EPA Fees Could Stifle Innovation
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Chemical manufacturers are concerned that hefty new EPA fees to support premarket reviews could stifle innovation and pose a barrier to bringing new chemicals to market.
A proposal would empower EPA to collect increased fees from chemical manufacturers and processors starting Oct. 1. The fees will allow the EPA to offset about $20 million in annual costs for implementing certain sections of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, in a February news release announcing the statement, said the proposed fee changes would ensure that the agency has “sufficient resources to review chemicals for safety with the highest scientific standards.”
But chemical makers worry the fees could discourage innovation, particularly for developing new chemicals.
“Notifications for new chemicals in TSCA usually don't have a market yet, so many companies won't be able to afford the fees EPA is talking about,” said Martha Marrapese, a partner with Wiley Rein, a Washington-based law firm specializing in chemical regulation.
“There will be a significant impact on innovation if they don't keep fees as low as possible,” Marrapese told Bloomberg Environment. “If it costs thousands of dollars in fees, and EPA can't review applications in timely way…companies won't register their chemical here, they'll go somewhere else to do it.”
Sticker Shock
The original TSCA capped fees for premanufacture notices (PMN) at $100 for small businesses and $2,500 for larger companies generating about $1.1 million annually. According to both industry and regulatory experts, there was general acknowledgment that the old levels—set three decades ago and never adjusted for inflation—needed to be substantially increased.
The new numbers on the table propose charging companies $16,000 for each premanufacture notice, new use notice, or microbial commercial activity notice.
“It is a sticker shock—to go from $2,500 to $16,000 for each PMN,” said Rose Passarella, a senior scientific regulatory manager for Intertek, a Washington-based consultancy.
Another area of concern is the $4,700 the EPA is now proposing to evaluate requests for exemptions such as low-volume or test marketing exemptions.
“We have a number of serious concerns regarding the proposal,” said Robert Helminiak, vice president of legal and government relations for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, who's members include companies like Janssen Pharmaceuticals and BASF.
With exemptions, the EPA is applying substantial fees in an activity that has not historically had any assessment at all, and does not account for the market disruption it would cause, Helminiak said.
“EPA should not assess fees for processing these applications,” he told Bloomberg Environment. “EPA should instead include the costs of reviewing exemption applications in the aggregate overhead costs of administering TSCA.”
The Dow Chemical Co., PPG Industries Inc., and other companies contacted by Bloomberg Environment elected to defer comments about the new fees to their primary trade organization, the American Chemistry Council. That organization opted to withhold specific comments on the proposed fee structure until the end of the public comment period on April 27, according to an ACC spokesman.
PRIA Comparisons Not Accurate
The EPA already charges industry fees for pesticide registrations. But Marrapese of Wiley Rein said there are differences between the fees being discussed under TSCA and the ones collected under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2007 (PRIA).
“Pesticides are typically subject to a proprietary license, so companies are willing to invest more to pay for registrations,” Marrapese said.
Marrapese notes that a substantial amount of scientific data and information are required to support the registration of a pesticide. These data can be very costly to create, which is why Congress included provisions in PRIA that provide certain rights to the data submitter. TSCA however, contains no provisions for data compensation.
“Under TSCA, once a new chemical goes onto the inventory, anyone can make it,” she said.
High Enough?
EPA estimates the annual costs of carrying out testing on new and existing chemicals to be $80.2 million.
The agency also plans to collect fees to recover a portion of costs incurred it incurred from conducting chemical risk evaluations that manufacturers requested. The EPA expects the fee amount will range between $1.3 and $2.6 million per chemical.
But some said the proposed fees are not high enough—especially considering the greater scrutiny the new law requires the EPA to give new chemicals.
“Historically, the great majority of PMNs received by EPA never go on to be commercialized,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.
According to EPA statistics, Denison said that of 40,000 PMNs reviewed over several decades, only about 14,000 went on to be commercialized, of which, only 5,300—or 13 percent—were subject to any kind of regulation or withdrawn by the submitter.
“This means that the great majority of PMNs were submitted with no meaningful intent by their manufacturers to commercialize them,” he told Bloomberg Environment.
“This is not about innovation. In most cases, the decision not to commercialize a chemical had nothing to do with EPA's decision about it—meaning, almost two-thirds of the time, EPA had to waste public resources reviewing new chemicals that companies had no intent to commercialize,” Denison said.
Focus on Exemptions
EPA officials have previously agreed with broad concern that higher fees for new chemical reviews “could create an economic barrier to innovation.”
Because of that, the agency proposed a two-tier fee structure under which small businesses would pay about 80 percent less. But the definition of “small business” could change, based on criteria such as annual sales.
“More than ever, I expect you'll start to see a growing premium on TSCA exemptions,” said Tom Berger, a partner with law firm Keller & Heckman LLP.
Companies could attempt to “consolidate exemptions” for things like test market R&D, or exemptions for low production volume chemicals, Berger said. “I think companies are going to start putting a lot more money into R&D, trying to get as much exemption as they possibly can,” before they decide to file with EPA.
Chemical makers could soften some of the sticker shock by filing more consolidated premanufacture notices, Berger said during a March 14 webinar on fees that Keller & Heckman held.
In some cases, companies can consolidate up to six new, similar chemicals on an individual PMN, the EPA's proposed fee rule said, and he urged companies to contact the agency to make sure their chemicals meet the law's criteria for consolidation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130717863&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130717863&jd=130717863
-
EDF Signals New Chemical-Specific Path To Target EPA SNURs Under TSCA
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is warning that a draft EPA rule allowing a new use of an existing chemical is “legally vulnerable,” suggesting a new chemical-specific path for environmentalists to challenge EPA's approval of new chemical uses under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
While the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other environmentalists are already challenging EPA's draft framework for reviewing and approving new chemical uses, industry attorneys have cast doubt on the suit's prospects, arguing the framework is not a final rule.
But in March 12 comments on EPA's proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) approving new uses of Oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis[5- methyl-, EDF signals that if the agency were to approve the SNUR in its current form, it could draw a narrower, chemical-specific challenge.
The comments fault the scope of EPA's analysis, arguing that the agency failed to consider all reasonably available information on the substance's risk or disclose necessary information to support adequate public input and other concerns.
“EDF requests that EPA update its analysis to reflect all reasonably available information, place that information in the docket, and fully and publicly respond in writing to all of the issues identified herein before reaching any final decision on this amendment to the SNUR,” the comments say.
“EPA did not provide EDF with the full time requested and warranted, did not provide anything approaching a complete record in the docket for this rulemaking, and also failed to rectify several of the procedural violations identified in that Request, leaving this SNUR legally vulnerable."
The comments are the second time EDF as faulted EPA's analysis of the agency's plan to allow new uses of Oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis[5- methyl- as an anti-corrosive agent in oil-field operations and hydraulic fluids, and potential suggest a new legal avenue for challenging EPA's chemical reviews under the revised TSCA.
EDF and other environmental groups have long opposed EPA's reviews of new chemicals under the new TSCA as inappropriately narrow. They have charged that the proposed framework is unlawful in large part because it limits the use of section 5(e) enforcement orders that advocates say are needed as an interim step the agency had previously used for regulating and approving the substances.
They say, among other things, that TSCA mandates use of enforceable orders to ensure that premanufacture notices (PMNs) that EPA issues to allow new chemical uses do not pose unreasonable risks or inadvertently allow other uses that may pose risks.
Because PMNs apply to specific uses, agency officials as recently as last summer had planned to write some voluntary consent orders under section 5(e), under which manufacturers agreed to limits on “new” chemical uses or additional environmental safety and health testing until the agency finalized a SNUR, a formal regulation that can require lengthy notice-and-comment rulemakings.
But rather than issuing 5(e) enforcement orders as the agency had previously planned, the proposed framework indicates the agency will instead preclude other uses with a SNUR.
Limited Input
In the case of the pending proposed SNUR, EPA sought comment through March 12 on the Feb. 8 proposed amended SNUR under TSCA section 5 allowing use of Oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis[5- methyl- as an anti-corrosive agent and originally took comment for two weeks.
In a Feb. 12 letter to EPA toxics chief Jeff Morris, EDF faulted EPA's 15-day public comment period as inadequate and said EPA failed to publish sufficient documentation supporting the amended SNUR, echoing past assertions that EPA is failing to limit industry claims of confidential business information as required under section 14 of the new law.
EDF asked that EPA disclose all relevant information on the SNUR not appropriately exempted under section 14 and then allow at least 30 days for public comment on the complete record.
While EPA extended the comment deadline and provided some additional data to the docket, EDF argues that those changes do not go far enough to provide adequate public input on the proposed SNUR.
Specifically, EDF argues that EPA failed to show that it considered all reasonably available data, noting that EPA's docket does not show that the substance is currently pending EPA registration under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), nor reflect health and safety data contained or alluded to in the FIFRA docket.
EDF also says that EPA's proposed SNUR fails to adequately justify exposure assumptions used for protecting workers, does not include relevant requirements, such as for wearing gloves, included in an associated consent order, and fails to consider other sources of formaldehyde exposures to workers who use the chemical, which can release formaldehyde.
“Instead of taking the time needed to conduct a thorough analysis of a company’s request to significantly expand the use of a toxic chemical, EPA appears to have rushed its proposal to permit the use and cut corners on assembling an adequate public record to justify its proposal,” EDF says in a March 13 blog post. “This is no way to run a chemical safety program.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/edf-signals-new-chemical-specific-path-target-epa-snurs-under-tsca
-
US EPA to Unveil 'Secret Science' Details in Coming Weeks
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is preparing to make a formal announcement and solicit public feedback on its forthcoming 'secret science' policy changes within the next month.
Last week, news surfaced that the EPA was planning to unveil a new policy that would block it from using studies that are not publicly available as the basis for its regulatory decisions.
NGOs immediately raised the alarm that this change could "radically limit" the types of science used to develop public health and environmental protective policies.
The EPA press office has not responded to multiple requests for further details on what this change will include. But a source close to the issue told Chemical Watch this week that a more formal rollout will come in the next few weeks.
The initiative will entail a process for gathering ideas and information from interested stakeholders to begin a dialogue around the way the agency assesses science, according to the source. The goal will be to ensure that there is increased transparency in how the EPA evaluates the science underlying its regulatory decisions.
It was not immediately clear if this would take the form of a formal rulemaking or not.
Initial reports had indicated that the EPA's science policy would "mirror" the HONEST Act – a bill passed by the House a year ago, but which has not gained traction in the Senate. That bill calls for the science used by the agency to be "transparent and reproducible".
But Chemical Watch has been told that while the stalled legislation and the EPA's evaluation of how it looks at scientific studies are rooted in similar concerns, the latter may not be exactly in line with the former.
Nevertheless, concern at the new approach continues to swirl. Earlier this week former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy and former acting assistant administrator Janet McCabe wrote in the New York Times that the public should "[not] be fooled by this talk of transparency".
"[Administrator Pruitt, pictured] and some conservative members of Congress are setting up a nonexistent problem in order to prevent the EPA from using the best available science," they said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65532/us-epa-to-unveil-secret-science-details-in-coming-weeks
-
Walmart Aligns Disclosure Policy with Californian Law
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
An update to US retailer Walmart’s ingredient disclosure policy means that product suppliers can now comply with it by adhering to California’s list of chemicals of concern.
In 2013, the company informed its suppliers that it wanted online disclosure of products containing substances on its list of priority chemicals by 2015 and on labels by 2018. Walmart's priority chemicals are compiled from 22 regulatory lists.
However, they can now use California’s list of chemicals, which will be required under the state’s Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, to check which substances need to be included on their product labels. Walmart has made the change to lessen the burden for suppliers, which would otherwise have to comply with two lists when California’s requirements are implemented.
California’s labelling requirements enter into force in 2021, while Walmart’s have been in force since January.
Walmart’s director of sustainability communications, Micah Ragland, told Chemical Watch: "In seeking closer alignment with California’s [Act], our aim is to help enhance efficiencies for our suppliers and increase transparency and ingredient disclosures for our customers."Work with HCPA
According to a three page statement, recently released by Jim Jones, at trade body the Household and Commercial Products Association (HCPA), his organisation worked with Walmart to "better align the company’s ingredient transparency requirements with California’s new law".
Commenting on suppliers having to adhere to both lists from 2021, Mr Jones said that the "differences would make it challenging to comply".
In essence, he added, Walmart will expect suppliers to meet a more ambitious schedule than California, but "the substances of compliance will be the same".
The main difference between California’s and Walmart’s lists is that the retailer includes Minnesota’schemicals of concern that fall under the state’s Toxic Free Kids Act. California’s list contains around 3,200 substances, while Walmart’s exceeds 4,000.
"This may appear to be a small win, but if you are a company that sells in California (almost all our members) and Walmart (almost all our members), even small differences in requirements can lead to extraordinary costs and time-consuming compliance," he said.
Mr Jones told Chemical Watch that the HCPA is reaching out to a large number of retailers, which are putting in place or have chemicals safety policies, including Target.
"The aim is to create greater dialogue so that they understand what suppliers can and can't do and how long it takes for them to do certain things, like the length of time it is possible to make a label change for example."
https://chemicalwatch.com/65561/walmart-aligns-disclosure-policy-with-californian-law
-
Automotive Groups Defend Lead-Acid Batteries in California
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The automotive industry is pushing back on California’s interest in evaluating lead-acid batteries under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
Lead-acid batteries are one of seven product categories named in the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s 2018-2020 draft priority products work plan. These represent the candidates from which the DTSC may select 'priority products'. Once a product-chemical combination is designated, manufacturers must either undertake an alternatives analysis or phase out the substance’s use.
The most frequent form of lead-acid batteries are 12-volt car batteries. The work plan additionally names, among others, ‘small, sealed forms’, including those used in consumer electronics, and batteries used for mobility, such as in scooters, golf carts and forklifts.
And while the products may contain three SCP candidate chemicals – lead, arsenic and sulfuric acid – industry groups are protesting their inclusion in the draft plan.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – a coalition including major manufacturers like Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, General Motors and Volvo – said the product has "minimal potential for exposure" when in use.
And while there have been issues with the recycling of these batteries in the past (see box), it said, the "targeting of the entire automotive battery supply chain for the past mistakes of an individual ‘bad actor’ does not represent a science-based, data-driven approach to remedy any outstanding concerns associated with the product".
If the primary concerns exists with recycling and manufacture, it added, "these can be better addressed via other regulatory mechanisms".
Mema, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 1,000 companies who manufacture motor vehicle systems and component parts, said that lead-acid batteries do not meet the two primary criteria for a priority product listing. Namely, that there is:potential exposure to the chemical in the product; andpotential that exposures contribute to or cause significant or widespread adverse impacts.
A priority product listing, it said "should be reserved for products that have the greatest impact on benefiting human health or the environment, provides the SCP programme the best chance of success, and is a legitimate use of DTC’s resources and the resources of the industry that manufactures the product."
The Green Chemistry Alliance – a broad coalition incorporating more than a dozen major trade groups – cited lead acid batteries as an example where the work plan would conflict with state or federal regulatory programmes. "Every aspect of the product life-cycle is already highly regulated at both the state and federal levels," said the group.
"The department should [not] attempt to conflict with, duplicate the activities of other regulatory agencies or supersede the regulatory authority of other agencies – whether or not they’ve taken action to date on particular aspects of the full life cycle of products and chemicals."Safer alternatives?
But ZincFive – a manufacturer of nickel-zinc based energy storage products – said that lead has been successfully removed from such applications as paint and gasoline, and that "viable, lead-free alternatives are now available in the form of lithium-ion and nickel-zinc batteries".
"California DTSC has the opportunity to make the monumental lead poisoning clean-up in Vernon the last of its kind and to make the lives of all Californians safer through designation of lead-acid batteries as a priority product," said the company.
However, the Battery Council International – a lead battery trade group – countered that these are "new and unproven battery technologies with known significant environmental and public safety risks, and unknown long-term impacts".Exide Technologies
The inclusion of lead-acid batteries in the work plan follows a highly publicised toxic cleanup at Exide Technologies. The facility’s activities – which included recycling scrap from spent lead-acid batteries – resulted in widespread lead contamination impacting as many as 10,000 properties.
In 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown cited Exide when he directed the DTSC to evaluate lead-acid batteries.
The work plan says the department has begun research on exposures and hazards associated with lead-acid batteries, and will continue that work. It held a public workshop on 6 November last year to begin this process.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65557/automotive-groups-defend-lead-acid-batteries-in-california
-
Global Ban on Animal Testing Hard to Achieve, Industry Says
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The EU's proposal to establish a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics will prove challenging, say cosmetics industry groups.
Particular barriers, they say, include the lack of acceptance of alternative test methods internationally and getting countries that do not implement bans to reconsider their current approaches.
Last month, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee (Envi) voted to advocate for a worldwide ban on animal testing for cosmetics by 2023.
It proposed drafting an international convention against the testing of animals for cosmetics within the UN framework, and called for it to be included on the agenda of the next UN General Assembly meeting.
But a Cosmetics Europe spokesperson told Chemical Watch, that despite efforts from the cosmetics industry, alternative replacement test methods have not yet been developed or accepted for all toxicological endpoints.
The EU testing and marketing ban, that entered into force in March 2013, covers all endpoints, irrespective of whether a full set of alternatives methods is available to replace corresponding animal studies.
The trade body said this has "severely limited" industry’s ability to introduce new ingredients, use existing ones for new uses and respond to new questions regarding their safety.
The spokesperson added that amendments to Envi's proposal, calling for resources to be allocated for fast development, validation and introduction of alternative testing methods to replace key toxicological endpoints were "extremely important".
It was equally important that these alternative methods "received international regulatory acceptance for use in safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients and products", they added.
The push for a global ban is being proposed because around 80% of the world’s countries still allow animal testing and the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals. Two countries that do not enforce bans are the US and China - both of which have large cosmetics markets. China challenge
Janet Winter, CEO of the US consultancy, International Cosmetics and Regulatory Specialists, told Chemical Watch that China's mandatory animal testing requirement for imported cosmetics, was likely to be the "biggest challenge" for a global ban.
She said that industry was working with the Chinese government to eliminate their animal testing requirements and hoped that as China is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a resolution put before the UN would create "additional pressure" to rescind them.
"This is another step forward, serving to increase visibility on the issue. Industry will continue to pursue the abolition of animal testing at every opportunity, and the UN message will serve as a part of that," she said.
US-based NGO, the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS), is working with China's National Institute for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC) to improve use of non-animal tests in China.
Erin Hill of IIVS told Chemical Watch, there are "many efforts" needed in order for the Chinese government to come in line with international standards - such as acceptance of data from the OECD test guideline methods.
She said: "It may be a big leap for them to pass a ban on animal testing."Developing alternatives
Unlike China, the US does not have a formal requirement for animal testing of cosmetic products, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does require companies to test across a range of toxicological endpoints in order to prove safety.
According to the FDA's website, animal testing by manufacturers, seeking to market new products, may be used to establish product safety. "In some cases, after considering available alternatives, companies may determine that animal testing is necessary to assure the safety of a product or ingredient," it says.
Francine Lamoriello, executive vice president of global strategies for the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), told Chemical Watch, the cosmetics industry has invested "hundreds of millions of dollars over the past several decades to develop scientifically valid alternative safety testing methods".
She added that the PCPC encouraged FDA approval of alternatives to animal testing "as part of its principles for federal cosmetics regulatory modernisation" and was committed to "the development of additional alternative testing methodologies".
A March plenary session, at which the resolution on the ban was due to be voted on, was delayed. A European Parliament spokesperson said it will now take place in either April or May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65539/global-ban-on-animal-testing-hard-to-achieve-industry-says
-
US NGOs Pressurise Discount Retailers over PFAS in Popcorn Bags
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Two US NGOs are increasing pressure on discount retailers to take action on substances of concern in the products they sell.
The latest campaign – from NGOs Center for Environmental Health and Campaign for Healthier Solutions – focuses on the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in microwavable popcorn bags.
Testing conducted by CEH found the grease-resistant substances in every microwavable popcorn bag it examined.
The groups are calling for budget retailers, including Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar General and 99 Cents Only, to:
adopt "comprehensive, transparent" chemical policies;
encourage microwave popcorn manufacturers to stop the use of PFASs in bags; and
sell popcorn kernels packaged in non-microwavable containers.
The newest campaign continues CHS's pressure on dollar stores. In 2016, it campaigned against Dollar Tree’s lack of progress on phasing out chemicals of concern.
Discount stores were rated among the lowest performers in last year’s retailer 'report card' from the Mind the Store NGO campaign. This evaluated chemical policies from 30 US retailers.
Dollar Tree ranked 16th overall, with a D score. Dollar General received no points and an F rating.
Earlier this month, Washington became the first US state to ban the highly persistent chemical class from food contact materials. Activity on PFASs remains high across the country.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65559/us-ngos-pressurise-discount-retailers-over-pfas-in-popcorn-bags
-
Survey on REACH restriction for PFASs extended
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A survey launched to help develop a restriction proposal under REACH on PFASs (C4-C7) and other fluorinated substances, has been extended by a month.
The survey, carried out by the Ökopol Institute for Ecology and Politics for Germany’s environment agency (UBA), was due to end this month, but following a number of requests the deadline has been pushed back to 15 April.
The UBA is collecting information on the manufacture and use of short-chain PFASs with the aim of identifying risks to the environment and/or human health that should be restricted under REACH.
In a paper published in late February in Environmental Sciences Europe, Stephan Brendel from the UBA and others looked at short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids with a particular eye on environmental concerns and the need for a regulatory strategy under REACH.
They concluded that "due to an increasing use of short‑chain PFASs, an effective regulation is urgently needed. The concerns do not match the ‘classical’ concerns as defined under REACH, but are not of minor concern."
Data collection
Included in the agency's data collection is the availability of alternatives to the use of fluorinated compounds and the socio-economic impacts of any restriction.
The short-chain PFASs under scrutiny are those with chain lengths <7 perfluorinated carbon atoms. They include:
per- and polyfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs);
fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs);
fluorotelomer iodides (FTIs);
fluorotelomer acrylates (FTAs) and fluorotelomer methyl acrylates (FMAs); and
per- and polyfluorinated sulfonic acids (PFSAs).
Polymeric substances that are generated out of these building blocks are also within the UBA’s scope.
Survey
The objective of the Ökopol survey is to increase information on:
manufactured and imported amounts of the respective substance groups;
manufactured and imported amounts of their potential alternatives;
the type of uses the substances are applied to; and
the economic effects that are linked to their use.
Ökopol says it is vital that survey respondents provide information on all the use cases they know of. This will, it says, help "avoid unintended consequences for market actors when a regulatory measure is implemented".
https://chemicalwatch.com/65562/survey-on-reach-restriction-for-pfass-extended
-
European Commission Comes Under Fire for 'Patronising' Approach to EDCs
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, faced fresh criticism from the European Parliament's environment committee (Envi) and NGOs at a public hearing about its handling of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
At one point in the 22 March proceedings, Envi vice-chair Pavel Poc told Commission representatives "I would really appreciate if your approach to this was not so self-righteous and patronising".
The hearing was organised jointly by Envi and the Petitions Committee (Peti). Speakers included experts from EU and national regulatory agencies and representatives of academia and NGOs.
It was organised in response to what the Parliament called "a high number" of petitions from citizens expressing concern over EDCs.Threat of censure
During the hearing Mr Poc referred to an attempted motion of censure MEPs aimed at the Commission as far back as 2016 for its delay in publishing scientific criteria on EDCs. That motion had lapsed after several key MEPs withdrew their support for it but, Mr Poc warned, the outcome of a similar motion now might be different.
He said the next time the issue is debated the Commission should consider whether it has done everything it could and "should have in mind this one simple fact": MEPs could support the motion of censure.
In October last year Parliament vetoed the Commission's criteria proposal and asked it to come up with a new proposal "without delay", after MEPs argued the Commission had exceeded its mandate.
Two months later, in December, the EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) adopted revised EDC criteria in December. The proposal is currently undergoing scrutiny by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.NGO push
During the debate Natacha Cingotti from the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) called for a "coherent EU strategy" on EDCs addressing a diverse range of product groups, such as cosmetics, toys and food contact materials.
Action is "long overdue" and member states such as Denmark, France and Belgium would take individual measures if the Commission fails to act decisively, she added.
ClientEarth’s Alice Bernard said the EU is obliged to control EDCs under the 7th Environment Action Plan. She called for more resources to facilitate effective controls.
However, Peter Korytar, policy officer at the Commission's environment directorate, said EDCs are not "unattended" in EU legislation. They are included in all chemicals regulations, he said, with specific provisions in some.
He said the Commission will publish a report "in a few weeks" in which it will set priorities for future work on the substances.Scientists urge no delay
Scientists at the hearing said decisions should not be deferred on the basis that further research is needed, as enough tools are available to regulators.
Alberto Mantovani, a professor from the Italian Health Institute, suggested as the way forward a "mode-of-action driven approach" to support risk assessment and risk reduction. MoA refers to cellular changes, rather than molecular.
Daniel Dietrich, from the University of Konstanz in Germany, said natural and synthetic EDCs should be considered together – as the former also cause adverse effects. He gave the examples of sugar and yellow mustard. "It is a matter of dose and risk," he added.
Olwenn Martin from Brunel University in London disagreed, saying that while individuals can control their sugar intake, they must depend on policy makers to control chemical substances. She also urged wider free dissemination of more data on EDCs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65546/european-commission-comes-under-fire-for-patronising-approach-to-edcs
-
Sweden Advocates Developing Microplastic Restrictions at EU Level
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A Swedish investigation into whether further national restrictions on microplastics in cosmetics and other chemical products are needed concluded that such action would be better carried out at EU level in the first instance.
Sweden's chemical agency Kemi, which carried out the research, says "the work being done at EU level on restriction proposals could result in reliable decision material and clear and harmonised rules and regulations which would also be cost-effective".
The investigation follows the Swedish government's decision in February to ban microplastics with a cleansing, exfoliating or polishing effect in rinse-off cosmetics products.
With the ban already planned, the government asked Kemi in 2017 to look at the occurrence of microplastics in certain cosmetics products that are not covered by the prohibition.
The agency says its assessment is based on "striking a balance between environmental concerns and the consequences of a national restriction.
"Our assessment has also taken account of the uncertain level of knowledge we have about microplastics."
Defining microplastics as solid plastic particles smaller than 5mm in any dimension and insoluble in water, Kemi identified polymers and waxes that might be microplastics in both cosmetics and chemical products. However, it says it does not have "sufficient material at present to assess with certainty which polymers ought to be designated as microplastics …" It is therefore difficult, it says, to identify existing alternatives or replacements that can be developed.
Kemi estimates that between 0.2 and 4.4 tonnes of microplastics per year are emitted to the water environment from cosmetics products that are sold in Sweden.
Agency intentions
In the report Kemi says it plans to:
participate in the development of restriction proposals on intentionally added microplastics in products at EU-level;
act to encourage the EU Commission to consider the possibilities of introducing requirements on registration and evaluation in REACH for polymers;
act to encourage voluntary measures to be taken in the sectors responsible for detergents and cosmetics;
participate in work on microplastics standardisation;
work to improve knowledge of microplastics in products through its ongoing mapping of hazardous substances; and
act to improve coordination and dissemination of knowledge about plastic nanoparticles through the Swedish National Platform for Nanosafety.
The agency says it is committed to promoting greater knowledge on the part of researchers, public authorities and companies, especially regarding occurrence and properties of the smallest types that are used in products.
It also plans to speak with relevant industries to this end and to encourage the replacement of microplastics on a voluntary basis, such as in the cosmetics sector.
Sweden proposed the broadening of its ban on microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics to all products that release them last year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65507/sweden-advocates-developing-microplastic-restrictions-at-eu-level
-
Swedish Nano-Platform Launches New Website
| Chemical Watch
The Swedish National Platform for Nanosafety – SweNanoSafe – has published a website aimed at improving communication and the exchange of knowledge on the safety of nanomaterials.
It is targeted at regulators, scientists, industry, NGOs, and others interested in the safety of nanomaterials.
In Swedish with some information in English, the SweNanoSafe website offers basic information and research on how nanomaterials are regulated in various areas, such as chemicals, cosmetics and the work environment.
Safety aspects of the substances concern their whole life cycle – synthesis, development, production, use and management of waste.
The site includes:
a knowledge bank;
Q&As;a calendar; and
links to other sources of information mainly in Sweden and Europe.
It is part of the Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Centre (Swetox) commission from the Swedish government to create a national platform for nanosafety.
Sweden has been proactive in setting controls on nanomaterials. A rule requiring companies in the country to notify data on nanomaterials in chemical products to the national chemicals agency's product register entered into force on 1 January this year. Companies have until 28 February 2019 to comply.
On a European level, in June last year Echa launched its EU observatory for nanomaterials (Euon), a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market.
It came after the Commission opted not to create an EU nano register, given delays in the introduction of new REACH information requirements for nanomaterials.
The impact of the website "will be minimal", the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) said in December.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65577/swedish-nano-platform-launches-new-website
-
EU Committee 'Surprised' by Lack of Knowledge of Oil and Gas Health Risks
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Scientific assessment of possible public health risks posed by the EU's onshore oil and gas exploration and extraction activities is "very poor", according to the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (Scheer).
The committee estimates that over 1,300 different chemicals may be emitted to the environment from onshore oil and gas activities. These include biocides, scale and corrosion inhibitors, oxygen scavengers, surfactants and various hydrocarbons.
The Commission asked Scheer to assess the public health risks and to identify the main knowledge gaps. The committee found that most studies are from the US, with evidence pointing towards possible health effects. It expressed its "surprise at the very poor scientific assessment of the possible effects of these activities in the EU".
Although the probability of chemicals being released to the environment is relatively low under normal operation, there is a high risk of accidental spillages. The physico-chemical properties and environmental behaviour of the chemicals involved in oil and gas exploration differ widely. Some are transported in the air while others pollute water systems.
Included in the 1,300 chemicals are reproductive and developmental toxicants and carcinogens. The committee suggests that "the risk of some cancers and of adverse birth outcomes may be increased in populations living around onshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation sites". Yet the evidence is "weak to moderate".
Scheer found "insufficient" quantitative information on exposure pathways and levels. It also identified a need for more data from environmental monitoring and human biomonitoring. "With the existing information on exposure and hazard, it is currently not possible to perform a thorough risk characterisation of human health risk associated with oil and gas exploration and exploitation," it concluded.
The committee says it would like to see an open access, EU database of all chemicals involved in oil and gas activities. To characterise the hazardous properties of individual chemicals, it recommends using a weight-of-evidence approach with in vivo and in vitro data, as well as Qsar and read-across.
Human health risk will result from exposure to a mixture of chemicals, says the committee. The exact mixture composition and exposure concentration will vary over time and from site to site.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65568/eu-committee-surprised-by-lack-of-knowledge-of-oil-and-gas-health-risks
-
UK Starts Work on Post-Brexit Chemicals Registration System
Mar 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The UK government has started work on the delivery of new IT capability, to enable the registration and regulation of chemical substances placed on the national market.
In a written answer to a question posed by an MP in mid-March, Junior environment minister Therese Coffey said that so far, the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has spent £330,000 on the "Alpha development phase" of the IT system for the registration of chemical substances.
She added that "no expenditure has been incurred to date on developing IT capability for the regulation of chemical substances as the initial phases of the project are focused on registration."
At the end of January the UK's Secretary of State for the Environment authorised spending of £5.8m (€6.64m) for the system.
The chemicals IT platform is one of six "planned EU Exit readiness activities" being carried out by Defra, for which it has asked £16m in advance of the EU Withdrawal Bill receiving royal assent – when the Queen formally agrees to make the bill into an Act of Parliament (law).
In related news, a Chemical Watch survey has found that just 12 months to go before Britain is expected to leave the EU, a third of UK-based companies are actively organising or planning to move some of their operations out of the country because of the regulatory uncertainty.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65533/uk-starts-work-on-post-brexit-chemicals-registration-system
-
White House Reshuffle Fills Vacuum on Climate, Energy Posts
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
An energy policy adviser with the State Department is set to join President Donald Trump's National Security Council next week, the latest move to shore up expertise on international energy and climate issues after a top adviser departed in February.
Landon Derentz's appointment is technically a temporary 90-day assignment, though the posting could be extended, a White House aide told Bloomberg Environment March 28.
The appointment, along with the recent elevation of the Energy Department's Wells Griffith to a top White House international climate post, is expected to fill a void created by the February resignation of George David Banks, who had served for less than a year as Trump's special assistant for international energy and environment.
Derentz comes from the State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources. Before that, he was an energy policy adviser in the State Department's Office of Policy and Public Diplomacy, working on liquefied natural gas policy and international energy issues under the G-20, an international forum that brings together the top 20 industrialized and emerging economies.
He previously worked in the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Derentz will assist two White House officials including Griffith, who last week was also detailed for a temporary three-month assignment to the White House and will “straddle” between the National Economic Council and the NSC, according to a White House aide. Griffith most recently served as deputy assistant secretary for DOE's Office of International Affairs.
The NSC advises the president on national security and foreign policy matters, and the NEC advises presidents on domestic and global economic policy.
Some Domestic Energy Role
Banks, who was seen as an experienced internationalist and moderating force on continued U.S. engagement on international climate issues, resigned after learning his formal security clearance to review classified information had been denied due to marijuana use in 2013.
Derentz will also report to a second senior White House adviser, Mike Catanzaro, appointed in February 2017 to work in the NEC as special assistant to the president for domestic energy and environmental policy. Catanzaro, a former Republican aide to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, essentially serves as the top White House domestic energy policy adviser.
A White House aide said it's too early to know whether Griffith will have a role representing the U.S. at the next U.N. climate summit to be held Dec. 3-14 in Katowice, Poland. Banks, his predecessor, was the top White House official on the ground during the most recent summit, held in December in Bonn.
The U.S. continues to participate in the climate talks. Those talks are largely focused on finishing the rulebook for the 2015 Paris climate accord goal, which is to keep temperatures below a 2-degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) rise from pre-industrial levels.
Trump announced in June 2017 that he intends to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement. The U.S. remains at the table on the rulebook because it technically is still in the Paris deal. The earliest it can formally leave the accord is one day after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130717864&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130717864&jd=130717864
-
It’s the No. 1 Power Source, but Natural Gas Faces Headwinds
Mar 28, 2018 | The New York Times
By Ivan Penn
As environmental concerns drive power companies away from using coal, natural gas has emerged as the nation’s No. 1 power source. Plentiful and relatively inexpensive as a result of the nation’s fracking boom, it has been portrayed as a bridge to an era in which alternative energy would take primacy.
But technology and economics have carved a different, shorter pathway that has bypassed the broad need for some fossil-fuel plants. And that has put proponents of natural gas on the defensive.
Some utility companies have scrapped plans for new natural-gas plants in favor of wind and solar sources that have become cheaper and easier to install. Existing gas plants are being shut because their economics are no longer attractive. And regulators are increasingly challenging the plans of companies determined to move forward with new natural-gas plants.
“It’s a very different world that we’re arriving at very quickly,” said Robert McCullough, an energy consultant in Portland, Ore. “That wind farm can literally be put on a train and brought online within a year. It is moving so fast that even critics of the old path like myself have been taken by surprise.”
The shifting dynamics are being seen in the Western states in particular — driven not only by economics, but by regulation and climate as well.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEA Gun-Owning Trump Fan’s New Crusade: Clean Energy FEB. 28, 2018Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat NOV. 7, 2017In Trump Country, Renewable Energy Is Thriving JUNE 6, 2017Wind Power Surpasses Hydroelectric in a Crucial Measure FEB. 9, 2017
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
The Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s investor-owned utilities, recently refused to endorse plans by three power companies that included more natural-gas facilities. Commissioners directed them to make greater use of energy storage and plants that produce zero emissions.
“It’s very erratic what we’re now doing with power,” said Andrew M. Tobin, an Arizona commissioner who led efforts to block new gas plants. “I am so nervous that we will end up building a lot of capital plant that doesn’t stand the test of time.”
Some feel the push to get beyond natural gas may be too much, too soon. Officials at Arizona Public Service, the largest utility in the state, said they needed to include new natural-gas development as part of an overall mix, partly because of the state’s round-the-clock air-conditioning demands.
“Our needs are different than other utilities,” said Greg Bernosky, the utility’s director of state regulation and compliance. “We need resources that can have a long duration when our load is high, well after the sun has set. Natural gas resources provide that flexibility.”
Nationwide, other utility executives, power producers and federal regulators have also argued that a healthy power grid requires consistent power, even when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind ceases to blow. The more solar and wind power that is added to the electric grid, they say, the greater the need for reliable backup sources like natural gas.
“Gas has got to be part of that equation,” Robert F. Powelson, a commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, recently told an energy conference. “The gas system has gotten extremely reliable.”
And he argued that even recent advances in storage did not justify an overreliance on alternative energy, however inexpensive. “Storage is great,” said Mr. Powelson, a nominee of President Trump and a former chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. “But that is not a reliable long-term solution to the energy markets.”
Natural gas isn’t likely to be unseated as the country’s primary source of electricity generation anytime soon. In fact, utility companies plan to add more natural-gas plants than any other source, including all alternative energy sources, like solar, wind and hydropower, combined.
But the calculus is rapidly shifting as the prices of wind and solar power continue to fall. According to the Department of Energy, power generated by natural gas declined 7.7 percent in 2017.
And the latest report by Lazard, the financial advisory and management firm, found that the cost of power from utility-scale solar farms was now on a par with natural-gas generation — and that wind farms were less expensive still.
Lazard calculated the unsubsidized cost of wind power at 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, while natural gas and solar energy were a little more than 4 cents. The typical American household pays 12.5 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. (The cost beyond generation reflects transmission, taxes, and other utility expenses and profits.)
Moreover, the market equation in the West is driven largely by California, the sixth-largest economy in the world, which has mandated that 50 percent of its power be generated from renewable sources by 2030. With a regional energy market run by the state’s electricity grid overseer, the California Independent System Operator, fossil-fuel plants have had increasing difficulty selling their power into a market with low-cost solar and wind power.
At the same time, state legislatures and regulators are increasingly demanding that utilities rethink how they manage their systems to reduce carbon emissions.
Some power producers have bristled at the mandates, even scaling back their operations in certain markets because, they said, it became too difficult to compete without losing money.
NRG Energy, for example, announced this month that it would close three natural-gas plants in California because of the regulatory push for clean energy.
After NRG’s announcement, Calpine, a power company based in Houston, said it would suspend plans to build a natural-gas plant in California.
“We cannot invest a single dollar in California,” Thad Hill, Calpine’s chief executive, said. “I would not call California a true competitive market.”
But a big Oregon utility, Portland General Electric, has embraced clean-energy mandates to ease it off dependence on fossil fuels.
“First off for us, climate change is real and we have to diversify our mix,” Dave Robertson, the company’s vice president for public policy. “We’re driving more and more toward a decarbonized future. We really feel like we’ve got to own that. It’s really where the science is taking us.”
This month, Portland General entered into an agreement to buy surplus hydropower from the Bonneville Power Administration — the surplus arises largely from California’s turn to other renewable sources — helping the utility avoid construction of natural-gas plants to replace a coal facility.
“There are surpluses of energy that are looking for markets,” said Brett Sims, Portland General’s director of strategic planning and resource strategy.
Portland General’s view offered a hopeful message to environmentalists, who pushed for the weaning off coal and now have done much the same with natural gas.
“It feels like déjà vu all over again for the electric sector,” Mike Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said. “Utilities began to find that coal was not just a dirty form of energy but a more expensive form of energy, so they began to replace coal. Now, as they’re looking to replace coal, they’re finding gas in the same situation. There’s a broad trend across the energy sector, mostly in the West, where coal and natural gas can’t compete.”
Mr. McCullough, the Portland energy economist and principal at McCullough Research, said that the rapid change had caught many in the industry by surprise and that it could lead to a shorter future for natural gas.
“I think the fact of the matter is we’re seeing a lot of people realizing that there are different ways to go,” Mr. McCullough said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/business/energy-environment/natural-gas-power.html
-
$9.5 Billion Purchase by Concho Is Latest Sign of West Texas Oil Boom
Mar 28, 2018 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
Two Texas oil companies joined forces on Wednesday in the biggest deal yet in the Southwestern oil patch, one that should add momentum to the rush to produce more oil as prices rise.
The creation of a shale-oil colossus comes at a precarious moment, when production in the region is expanding so fast that pipeline construction is barely keeping up. That may cap the potential of the deal, at least over the next year or two, to get oil to the market profitably.
The move by Concho Resources to purchase RSP Permian for $9.5 billion will make it the biggest shale oil and natural gas producer in the Permian Basin, the oil-rich area. With 27 rigs, the company said it would have the area’s largest drilling and hydraulic fracturing operation and a reach of 640,000 acres.
Much larger companies, like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, are also increasing their investments in the Permian Basin, where output has doubled to roughly three million barrels a day over the last five years, making it the principal driver of the domestic oil production boom.
The response from Wall Street to the deal was mixed. Concho shares were down nearly 9 percent in afternoon trading while RSP Permian shares soared 15 percent.
Oil companies are generally out of favor on Wall Street, and the Permian Basin is not without problems at a time when oil prices remain well below the $100-a-barrel levels of recent years. The current range is $60 to $70 a barrel.
Producers face rising expenses as competition for service companies that do most of the exploration becomes more vigorous. There is also a shortage of field workers and truck drivers, in part because many employees left the oil business for good after they were laid off when oil prices collapsed four years ago.
And the plummeting price of natural gas, which bubbles up with oil, has made it an added financial burden for companies to process and ship.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency has warned that later this year there may be insufficient pipeline capacity to move new production. That would drive down the price of local crude, and force companies to either slow production or transport crude by truck or rail, adding to company expenses.
“We definitely need relief,” said Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. “It’s just a lot easier to drill wells than it is to install the requisite pipeline capacity.”
But Steven Gray, RSP’s chief executive, said the combined company “will have the vision and necessary financial strength to efficiently develop the tremendous resource potential of these assets with large-scale projects.”
The timing of the Concho-RSP deal reflects the sentiment among local oil executives that the potential pipeline shortage will eventually be resolved as new pipelines are completed to take product across Texas to Gulf Coast refineries and export terminals. Executives see China as a growing market for oil exports and Mexico for gas exports.
For years, Concho was a sleepy company that shied away from media attention. But it has taken off over the last five years as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling made shale production possible on a large scale. Concho, along with EOG Resources, has some of the most productive wells in the New Mexico section of the Permian.
“The wells are just monsters and tremendously profitable,” said Sven Del Pozzo, an expert on the Permian Basin at the energy consultancy IHS Markit.
The Concho deal was the largest merger and acquisition in the oil exploration and production sector since 2012, according to the research firm Wood Mackenzie. It follows Exxon Mobil’s $6.6 billion acquisition of 275,000 acres of Permian fields in New Mexico last year. Exxon recently announced that it would triple its oil and gas production in the Permian, spending $50 billion on its operations over the next five years.
The Concho and Exxon moves are part of a broad trend in the industry, which is shifting and concentrating investments in Texas and New Mexico, and from natural gas to oil. For instance, QEP Resources, a major national-gas producer based in Denver, has been shedding holdings in Wyoming, in Louisiana and elsewhere in an effort to become a pure Permian operation.
Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy, recently projected that growing oil production by 20 select oil companies suggests that total growth in Permian oil production in 2018 could reach as much as 850,000 barrels a day, a figure that surpasses recent daily oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
But the production bulge produces a challenge for pipeline transport.
According to a recent International Energy Agency report, production growth reduced available pipeline space in West Texas from 300,000 barrels a day at the start of 2017 to just 160,000 barrels by the end of the year. It said the expected growth in production would outpace pipeline capacity expansions by later this year and 2019.
The problem was compounded last week when Magellan Midstream Partners canceled plans for an oil pipeline across Texas with a capacity of 350,000 barrels a day that was to have gone into operation in late 2019. The project fell through, at least for the time being, because smaller producers were not willing to commit to agreements that guarantee use for a fee.
“Oil has a problem late this year and also in 2020,” said Scott D. Sheffield, chairman of Pioneer Natural Resources, a major Permian producer. “It will teach these producers a lesson that they better sign up.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/business/energy-environment/texas-oil-deal.html
-
Shale Oil Producer Concho Buys RSP Permian for $8 Billion
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas and Jim Polson
Concho Resources Inc. will buy rival shale oil producer RSP Permian Inc. in an $8 billion all-share deal, creating one of the largest producers in the region at the center of America's energy boom.
The deal is the biggest ever in the Permian Basin, topping Exxon Mobil Inc.’s acquisition of assets from the Bass family for as much as $6.5 billion last year and Encana Corp.’s purchase of Athlon Energy Inc. for $7.1 billion in 2014. The Permian—which straddles West Texas and parts of New Mexico—is America's most fertile shale play.
The move comes as oil majors and independents both focus spending in the region. It “has the potential” to boost shares for small-cap drillers operating there, and may trigger a run on them by bigger producers, said Leo Mariani, an Austin-based analyst for NatAlliance Securities.
“We've seen pretty poor performance for U.S. exploration and production stocks over the past six to nine months, despite the fact that oil prices have done extremely well,” Mariani said. “The sector needs a catalyst.”
Concho, with a market value prior to the deal of more than $23 billion, will pay 0.32 shares for each share of RSP. That's equal to $50.24 per RSP share, approximately a 29 percent premium to its March 27 closing price.
“They've come out with with a pretty significant premium,” Mariani said. “That could be the kind of thing that catches people's eyes.”
After the deal closes, Concho's shareholders will own approximately 74.5 percent of the combined company, with RSP shareholders owning the rest. Concho—which will remain headquartered in Midland, Texas—will also take on $1.5 billion of RSP's debt. The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2018.
“This combination allows us to consolidate premier assets that seamlessly fold into our drilling program, enhance our scale advantage and reinforce our leadership position in the Permian Basin,” Concho Chief Executive Officer Tim Leach said.
For the last couple of years, oil executives have talked about the need for mergers in the region, historically dominated by medium-size companies rather than giants like Exxon or Chevron Corp.
Creating super-sized shale producers could reduce operating costs as the techniques used to squeeze oil from shale rock become more capital intensive. For example, companies are drilling long horizontal wells as long as 10,000 feet (3,000 meters), often straddling acreage owned by several operators.
Largest Producer
Concho pumped the equivalent of 193,000 barrels a day last year, while RSP produced 55,000 barrels a day, according to the companies’ annual accounts. Concho said the combination will create the largest crude oil and natural gas producer from unconventional shale in the Permian.
“The deal has the potential to spark an arms race in the region,” said Roy Martin, senior analyst at consultant Wood Mackenzie Ltd. in London. “It's going to send a shiver down the spines of other companies.“
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is acting as exclusive financial adviser to Concho, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP are acting as legal advisers. Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. is acting as exclusive financial adviser to RSP, and Vinson & Elkins LLP as legal adviser.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130717881&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130717881&jd=130717881
-
Rampant NGL Production Growth To Continue As Ethane Takes Center Stage
Mar 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
U.S. natural gas liquids (NGL) production is expected to grow by around 15% year/year -- to average just under 4.3 million b/d -- in 2018 and shows no signs of slowing as the market seeks to rebalance itself and refill inventories following “impressive declines” in recent months, Raymond James & Associates Inc. analysts said.
To achieve this pace of growth, NGLs production first will piggyback off production efficiencies gained in crude oil and natural gas. This will lead to another 8% jump to just under 4.7 million b/d in 2019. U.S. NGL production could reach above 5.0 million b/d by 2020, and easing infrastructure constraints should allow U.S. NGL supply growth to continue relatively unabated. In fact, analysts project that NGLs will represent 25% of the 1 million b/d or more of U.S. total liquids annual supply growth over the upcoming five-year period.
Indeed, several midstream companies are working to ease infrastructure constraints along the U.S. Gulf Coast in particular. Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPP) is set to bring its Midland-to-Sealy crude oil pipeline in West Texas into full service by early second quarter after completing pump stations and storage facilities along the pipeline. The 405,000 b/d Midland-Sealy pipeline is part of EPP’s larger Midland-ECHO crude oil pipeline system in the Permian Basin.
In addition, the company plans to bring online two natural gas processing plants at its Orla complex in the Permian’s Delaware sub-basin during the second and third quarters, with work continuing on a third plant to be in service in 2019.
Also in 2019, Targa Resources Corp. is planning to bring into service two 250 MMcf/d cryogenic natural gas processing plants as well as a 100,000 b/d fractionation train in Mont Belvieu, TX. The first processing plant is expected to begin operations in 1Q2019 and the second in 3Q2019. The fractionation train, which would cost an estimated $350 million, is also expected to begin operations in 1Q2019.
The unprecedented growth in NGLs won’t flood the market and depress pricing, Raymond James analysts said. Instead, the market needs considerable growth to achieve balance. Even as domestic demand for crude oil and refined products is expected to be more tempered in the coming year, a continued export pull (largely from Latin America) is expected to meaningfully tighten the domestic refined product landscape.
As such, analysts project overall global demand to grow by 1.5 million b/d in 2018 and by another 1.5 million b/d in 2019. This would result in a “more or less balanced liquids market in 2018 and a refilling of inventories back to normalized levels.” As of March 28, commercial U.S. crude oil inventories stood at 429.9 MMBbls, or 104 MMBbls below the same time last year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
At the forefront of growing NGL production will be ethane, which is expected to “finally get its time in the limelight” in 2018 and 2019, as both U.S. and international petrochemical companies have spent billions on new world-scale ethylene crackers along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Most ethane (at around 75% on average in 2017) is being produced near the Gulf Coast, and the proximity to Mont Belvieu, home of the largest global NGL fractionation hub, has led to 20% year/year production growth over the last three months to its highest levels of all time, Raymond James analysts said.
With ethane production continuing to soar, some 180,000 b/d of steam cracking capacity was added in 2017, and Raymond James analysts expect another 210,000 b/d to come online in 2018 and another 250,000 b/d in 2019.
One of the projects slated for this year is ExxonMobil Corp.’s 1.5 million ton/year ethane cracker in Baytown, southeast of Houston. The cracker, which was reported to be mechanically completein February, is on target to start up before midyear. It’s part of ExxonMobil’s multi-billion dollar chemical expansion on the Gulf Coast, which would provide ethylene feedstock for performance polyethylene lines at Mont Belvieu.
Meanwhile, Raymond James’ ethane production forecast calls for recovered ethane averaging 1.7 million b/d in 2018, reflecting a 19% year/year growth rate. In 2019, analysts project another 10% year/year growth to 1.9 million b/d and by 2020, recoverable ethane production could near 2.5 million b/d.
Despite most of the ethane being produced on the Gulf Coast, there is also a growing market in the Marcellus and Utica shale plays. After pulling the trigger on the project in 2016, major equipment and structures will be erected throughout the year for Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC’s multi-billion dollar ethane cracker plant in western Pennsylvania. The ethane cracker is just one part of a much larger complex that would also include polyethylene units to help make the pellets Shell plans to sell for plastics conversion, a cooling tower, a control building, offices and transloading facilities, among other things.
Meanwhile, propane-plus production (which includes propane, butane, iso-butane and natural gasoline) are also expected to track higher as it tends to run more closely in line with general oil and gas drilling and completion activity trends, Raymond James said. Just as crude and gas production growth accelerated at the end of the year, December 2017 Energy Information Administration data depicted very strong 13% year/year growth in propane-plus production.
With the crude-to-gas ratio expanding in 2H17 and into 1Q18, “it makes sense that producers directed activity toward liquids-rich acreage (both wet gas plays and crude oil with high associated gas content),” Raymond James analysts said.
As such, they “broadly expect” propane-plus production to mirror crude oil and associated gas production over the next two years. Raymond James forecasts propane-plus production averaging 2.6 million b/d in 2018, reflecting 13% year/year growth. In 2019, it sees another 6% year/year growth to just under 2.8 million b/d, compared to 10% year/year and 4% year/year growth rates in wet gas.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113854-rampant-ngl-production-growth-to-continue-as-ethane-takes-center-stage
-
Abbott to India: Expand LNG Shipments from Texas
Mar 28, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Mike Ward
In a continuing push to increase trade with India, Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday lobbied top Indian petroleum and energy officials to expand shipments of liquefied natural gas shipments from Texas ports and to establish direct flights with the Lone Star state.
Abbott concluded a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi by stressing to reporters that both sides have a mutual desire to strengthen the Texas-India trade relationship — a move that could mean billions in additional business for Texas energy companies in coming decades.
Abbott is on a week-long trade mission to India, whose companies have invested more than $5 billion in hydrocarbon assets in the United States and have contracted to import more than 9 million metric tons of LNG annually. That is a boon for Houston and other Texas port cities.
"India is one of the most prolific economies in the world, and growing economies need access to energy," Abbott told a reporter accompanying him on the trip. "As long as India has a need for oil and natural gas, Texas will be a willing partner to provide it. As this energy trade continues to grow so will the Texas economy, and I look forward to many more years of this tremendous partnership."
Abbott spent more than an hour meeting with Modi — "an historic meeting," he called it — where topics from defense and terrorism to energy, technology and health care were discussed and new trade opportunities were explored.
After a meeting with Dharmendra Pradhan, India's minister of petroleum and natural gas, Abbott said Texas intends to continue expanding its LNG and oil export facilities to ensure the state can meet India's growing energy needs. Two new LNG export facilities are currently under construction, officials said.
After the U.S. last year ended a decades-long ban on exporting U.S. crude, India's state-owned oil refineries bought it on the American spot market, including the October shipment of LNG.
"A new chapter was added in last October when the first consignment of crude from the U.S. reached Indian shores," Pradhan told reporters after meeting with Abbott.
Pradhan, who has been energy minister for nearly four years as part of Modi's coalition government, said India is the world's third-leading consumer of energy, behind the U.S. and China.
In the past, India has bought U.S. natural gas on the spot market. But the state-owned gas company, GAIL, has signed a 20-year contract for U.S. LNG shipments from two American companies.
The first shipment under that contract will arrive Friday in Dabhol, on India's west coast along the Arabian Sea.
In a separate meeting with India's commerce and civil aviation minister, Suresh Prabhu, Abbott discussed establishing a direct air flight from India to Texas "to further enhance the exchange of both cultural and economic development."
No decisions were announced.
Abbott said he has asked Indian officials to help clear the way for the flight from either Houston or Dallas, or both — and is optimistic they will look favorably on a Texas proposal for the new service.
"When I get home, it's going to be one of the issues I focus on," Abbott said. "I'm going to have Houston and Dallas battle it out and let the respective airlines battle it out."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Abbott-to-India-Expand-LNG-shipments-from-Texas-12787475.php
-
Outcome of EPA Rule Delay Case Could Upset Trump Deregulatory Plan
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A win for the plaintiffs in a case challenging the delay of an EPA chemical safety rule could have big implications for the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda and the law governing how regulations are made, an attorney at a union legal conference said.
Joseph Santarella, senior counsel at the law firm Santarella & Eckert LLC in Littleton, Colo., said he is cautiously optimistic the plaintiffs will prevail in federal court challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's delay of an Obama-era regulation.
The rule aims to add new emergency planning and preparedness requirements for high-risk industrial facilities.
“This is going to be a landmark Administrative Procedure Act decision,” Santarella said, referring to the federal law governing how agencies may issue regulations.
Santarella, whose firm represents the petitioners in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the EPA, spoke at the United Steelworkers’ Health, Safety, and Environment conference in Pittsburgh on March 28.
While predicting the outcome of a case is risky, he said, signs appear favorable for the challengers, community and environmental groups and the United Steelworkers union.
More Info Sought
For one thing, he said, the court asked the EPA March 23—a week after the oral arguments—to provide “a comprehensive list” of past actions in which a federal agency had delayed a regulation in a similar manner, a sign it's interested in the issue, Santarella said.
Other issues that could have tripped up the petitioners received little attention at the oral arguments, such as whether the union or community groups had standing to sue the EPA, Santarella said.
Industry organizations have warned that the rule could increase costs and present security risks for the facilities.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit is evaluating if the EPA violated the Clean Air Act in June 2017 when it delayed the chemical facility safety regulation until February 2019. Oral arguments were March 16, and a ruling is expected later this spring.
During the arguments, Jonathan Brightbill, a deputy assistant attorney general representing the EPA, said regulators need discretion to develop new policies when a new administration comes into office. The public would not be harmed by the regulation's delay because many of the provisions would not have taken effect for years anyway, he said.
Sympathetic Court?
The court may be sympathetic to the union's arguments that the EPA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, Santarella said.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one of the three hearing the case, seemed skeptical during oral arguments, saying the agency should be able to amend any part of a prior rule as long as it gives notice and accepts public comments, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The EPA delayed the effective date of the Obama-era regulation in without making findings to counter the administrative record from the 2017 rule.
At oral arguments, Susan Eckert, an attorney at Santarella & Eckert LLC and Santarella's wife, represented the Steelworkers before the court.
She spoke about how the union's members are directly affected by the delay of the regulation by virtue of their work at many of the facilities that would be regulated. The court seemed to recognize the purpose of the regulation, Eckert said, that “it's about people.”
While the judges’ questions allowed the proceedings to stretch from their allotted 40 minutes to more than two hours, the panel didn't ask Eckert any questions.
“What that means is like reading tea leaves,” Santarella said, “but I will tell you, I think it's a good sign.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130717889&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130717889&jd=130717889
-
Advocates Urge EPA to Go Big in Court-Ordered Chemical Spill Rule
Mar 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Preventing all hazardous chemical spills ought to be the goal of an upcoming EPA rule rather than just focusing on a 2014 Freedom Industries Inc. spill that tainted West Virginia's water supplies, environmental groups say.
The best way to address the environmental and public health harms from hazardous chemical spills is to prevent them in the first place, Jared Knicley, staff attorney for Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
“EPA's upcoming rule should focus on planning and prevention while also ensuring that those chemicals never reach bodies of water, and that the public is informed immediately about the spill and potential health risks,” said Knicley, who represented a coalition of environmental groups that sued the EPA to issue a regulation for storing hazardous chemicals in above-ground tanks.
These groups are now waiting to see the content of the rule the Environmental Protection Agency is under a court-ordered settlement to propose by June 16 and finalize by Aug. 29, 2019. The regulation would spell out procedures, methods, and equipment that companies would need to prevent chemical spills from above-ground storage tanks.
The EPA didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment.
Settling Lawsuit
The EPA agreed to rulemaking to settle a lawsuit that a coalition of environmental groups—the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Natural Resources Defense Council, and People Concerned About Chemical Safety—filed in 2015. The coalition alleged the EPA violated the Clean Water Act by not setting spill prevention rules for above-ground storage of hazardous chemicals.
The EPA submitted on March 26 a draft proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget that outlines measures companies must take to avoid hazardous chemical spills for above-ground storage tanks. Review by that office is typically one of the last steps before a proposal is released to the public.
The agency had proposed a rule 40 years ago to regulate chemical releases to nearby bodies of water under its water pollution permitting program, but never completed it.
The rule's absence was noticed following the 2014 rupture of an above-ground storage tank belonging to Freedom Industries, a chemical manufacturing company, that spilled 11,000-gallons of a toxic chemical, 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol, into West Virginia's Elk River, according to the Chemical Safety Board's May 2017 report.
That spill contaminated drinking water supplies for nearly 300,000 residents in eight counties.
Eastman Chemical Co., which sold the chemical to Freedom Industries, didn't respond to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment. West Virginia American Water, which had a drinking water intake pipe near the above ground storage tanks on the Elk River, also declined to comment on what to expect in the upcoming rule, except to say “we support any efforts to protect source water and make drinking water safer.”
Eastman Chemical and West Virginia American Water in August 2017 agreed to a $150 million class action settlement arising from the water crisis following the Elk River spill.
The Permitting Universe
The agency's rule-writing task has been complicated by the fact that it doesn't know the number of facilities nationwide that could potentially be subject to spill-prevention rules for storing hazardous chemicals.
The agency also doesn't receive reports on the specific types and amounts of hazardous chemicals that facilities store and use, but states and tribes do collect this data from companies under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
The EPA asked states and tribes in September to pass along information that companies submit about maximum, and average daily, amounts of chemicals they handle and store so it can be used to set standards.
Apart from the lawsuit, Congress also charged the EPA with evaluating the safety of thousands of substances in the 2016 update to the country's toxic chemicals law. And within that statute, Congress said the agency had to prioritize chemicals stored near “significant sources of drinking water.”
The EPA has yet to decide what constitutes a significant drinking water source in its efforts to respond to Congress.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130717870&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130717870&jd=130717870
-
Officials Plot Infrastructure Strategy Ahead of Trump Trip
Mar 28, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Nick Sobczyk
White House officials said today that President Trump's infrastructure plan is likely to move in bits and pieces, not the broad package that the president has been pressing Congress to pass.
On a call with reporters, a senior White House official acknowledged it would be a "stretch" for Congress to pass a big infrastructure bill this year and instead highlighted smaller infrastructure-related measures.
"We see quite a bit of movement on Capitol Hill right now on different elements of the president's plan, so I think the odds that pieces of this pass this year are very, very high," the official said.
The comments came ahead of Trump's scheduled trip to Richfield, Ohio, tomorrow to promote his $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan alongside members of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 18. Richfield is about halfway between Cleveland and Akron.
Lawmakers have grown increasingly skeptical they'll be able to get infrastructure done this year.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said this month the House would likely move five or six bills, rather than the broad package that Trump and Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) had hoped for.
White House officials said that piecemeal approach could work.
The officials reiterated a desire to limit complex environmental reviews to as little as a year, a move that could send mixed messages in the Buckeye State, where proposed natural gas pipelines have sparked safety and environmental concerns (Greenwire, July 17, 2017).
"A key component of the president's vision is taking permitting from 10 years down to two, and possibly even one," a senior administration official said.
Much of that work could be done through executive action and regulatory changes at the agencies, the official added, allowing Congress to focus on funding and authorizing infrastructure improvements.
At the same time, the administration's top economists take a more moderate approach.
A new report from the Council of Economic Advisers, circulated by the White House this afternoon, highlights rising permitting times for big projects and touts the potential economic benefits of infrastructure investment.
The average time to complete an environmental impact statement rose to more than five years in 2016, the report claims, costing developers money and putting off potential economic benefits. Even knocking a year off permitting times could be economically valuable, the report says.
"Reducing the average time from 5 years to 2, 3, or even 4 years would add value, as benefits are received earlier than under the status quo," the report says.
The White House today insisted curbing reviews that can take up to a decade for some projects would not lead to the construction of "dirtier" projects or harm the environment.
In doing so, they highlighted the permitting of the New York State Thruway Authority's $3.98 billion project to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge across the Hudson River, which they said was permitted in 18 months.
"The question is, why can't we just do that, protect the environment, but do that on a more systemic basis?" a senior administration official asked.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/28/stories/1060077673
-
EPA Staffers Get Talking Points Playing down Human Role in Climate Change
Mar 28, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Environmental Protection Agency staffers received a list of “talking points” this week instructing them to underscore the uncertainties about how human activity contributes to climate change.
A career employee in the department’s Office of Public Affairs distributed the eight talking points to regional staffers. The list offered suggestions on ways to talk with local communities and Native American tribes about how to adapt to extreme weather, rising seas and other environmental challenges.
Employees crafted the email, first disclosed Wednesday by HuffPost, on the basis of controversial — and scientifically unsound — statements that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has made about the current state of climate research.
“Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner,” reads one of the talking points. “The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”
Another states that while there has been “extensive” research and numerous reports on climate change, “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”
The list echoes pronouncements by Pruitt, who along with other Trump administration officials, has repeatedly highlighted uncertainty about the role humans have played in the warming of the planet. Pruitt also has pushed for a government-sponsored exercise to scrutinize climate science and has wondered whether global warming “necessarily is a bad thing.”
Such comments put Pruitt at odds not only with leaders of other countries but also the vast majority of climate scientists internationally. Even the government’s own scientists have found that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
Most experts agree that the burning of fossil fuels is a primary driver of climate change and that unless nations drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the world will increasingly face consequences in the form of sea-level rise, stronger storms and protracted droughts, longer wildfire seasons, and other environmental calamities.
“The EPA administrator should not be in the business of telling scientists what they should say publicly about basic scientific information,” said Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The implication is that EPA wants a political filter on all scientific information emerging from the government, especially if it has to do with climate change.”
An EPA spokeswoman said in an email that “the talking points were developed by the Office of Public Affairs. The agency’s work on climate adaptation continues.”
Aside from the points that raise doubt about climate change, the list instructs regional officials to say the EPA “promotes science that helps inform states, municipalities and tribes on how to plan for and respond to extreme events and environmental emergencies.” It also says the agency “recognizes the challenges that communities face in adapting to a changing climate” and “will continue to advance its climate adaptation efforts.”
At other federal agencies, referring to climate change remains a sensitive topic.
Last week, according to an email obtained by The Washington Post, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued guidance with boldface language instructing staffers that the grant solicitations they send out “must not include any broad, generic phrases or terms that are known to be related to divisive political issues or otherwise have a political association, meaning, or inference.”
The agency did not specify what qualifies as politically divisive. But it provided a single example, substituting what would typically be a reference to climate change with a longer term, in italics: “This program will fund research activities that broaden our understanding of the impacts of changing environmental conditions, such as data collection on the frequency of severe weather events.”
Asked about the directive, Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift said in an email that Fish and Wildlife made the change “to improve the grants process and accountability.”
“The goal of the policy is for applicants to get away from submitting forms with broad topics and instead submit more specific information about what they will use taxpayer funds for,” she said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/28/epa-staffers-get-talking-points-downplaying-human-role-in-climate-change/?utm_term=.353e87cbabd4
-
EPA Floats New Climate Talking Points Downplaying GHG Science
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA officials are circulating a new set of talking points that pledge to continue climate adaptation planning but minimize the science that links greenhouse gas emissions to climate change, instead saying that “clear gaps remain” in research on how much climate change is human-caused and how to avert its effects.
The Huffington Post first posted the text of a leaked email from Joel Scherega, a career EPA official who has worked on climate adaptation efforts in the Obama and Trump administrations and now serves as senior advisor for climate adaptation in the agency's Office of Policy.
Scherega writes that the EPA Office of Public Affairs (OPA) on March 27 distributed new climate change talking points to communications staff at headquarters and regional offices. The memo emphasizes infrastructure resiliency and other efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change such as rising sea levels or frequent extreme weather events, while downplaying scientific findings that GHGs from human activities are the major cause of the phenomenon.
“Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue,” reads one of the points. Another says, “While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”
Those arguments are in line with the Trump EPA's overall goal of walking back Obama-era GHG limits, potentially including the 2009 finding that GHGs endanger human health and the environment -- which forms the basis for all the agency's climate regulations.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has long hedged on whether he will target the endangerment finding, and is said to be instead planning to take a new round of public comments on the document after the White House nixed a planned “red team, blue team” review of climate change science that would have been a venue for climate change skeptics to air criticisms of the mainstream scientific position.
Scheraga's email is addressed to members of the “Cross-EPA Work Group on Climate Adaptation,” which he says the Trump EPA recently revived, and whose discussions appear to have prompted development of OPA's talking points document.
“During the recent meeting of our Cross-EPA Work Group on Climate Adaptation, several individuals suggested it would be helpful to develop consistent messages about EPA’s climate adaptation efforts that could be used across all Program and Regional Offices,” the email says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-floats-new-climate-talking-points-downplaying-ghg-science
-
News Court Faults BLM NEPA Review For Failing To Assess Downstream GHGs
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A federal district court has found the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) resource management plan (RMP) for the fossil fuel-rich Powder River Basin to be in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failing to consider the downstream greenhouse gas impacts of the vast oil, gas and coal resources that could eventually be extracted under the plan.
The ruling, from a federal district court in Montana, marks the second time in the past few months that judges have required agencies to consider a fossil fuel project's downstream GHG impacts, suggesting an expanding precedent that could delay Trump administration efforts to speed approval of fossil fuel leasing.
But in his March 23 decision in Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC), et al. v. BLM, et al., Judge Brian Morris of the federal district court in Montana stopped short of granting environmentalists' request to halt fossil fuel leasing in the resource-rich area at this time.
Instead, he said he will seek guidance on the proper remedy from the parties, and directed lawyers to confer in good faith. If they cannot reach agreement, then he wants additional briefs no later than 60 days from the date of his decision. “The Court declines, at this juncture, to make a final ruling on Plaintiffs' request to enjoin leasing and development of coal, oil and gas,” he wrote.
Nevertheless, environmentalists welcomed the decision, saying it will help slow extraction of significant fossil fuel resources. The judge “told the government 'not so fast,' to making billions of tons of coal available to lease over the next 20 years. . . . That's exactly the right response to [BLM's] unlawful decision that opens up 15 million acres of public lands to the coal industry,” Sharon Buccino of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a March 26 blog post.
She noted that the basin holds enough coal to keep existing domestic power plants running for more than 100 years, and that it supplies about 40 percent of the nation's total coal, while being responsible for about 13 percent of all U.S. GHGs.
In an earlier ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider the GHGs emitted when gas from a pipeline network known as the Southeast Markets Pipeline would be burned for electricity at existing and planned power plants in Florida.
That split panel decision, issued Aug. 22 in Sierra Club, et al. v. FERC, et al., was similarly praised by environmentalists as a key victory in their campaign to force federal agencies to conduct more robust GHG analysis under NEPA. “It's not just the [fuels'] journey, though, it's also the destination,” the ruling said. “We conclude that at a minimum, FERC should have estimated the amount of power plant carbon emissions that the pipelines will make possible.”
'Consequences Of Downstream Combustion'
Morris issued a similar ruling but did not rely on the D.C. Circuit's holding in his decision on the Powder River Basin RMP. In their suit, environmentalists alleged that BLM failed to consider alternatives to reduce the amount of coal, oil and gas available for leasing; failed to consider measures to reduce methane emissions; and failed to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of fossil fuel development under the plan.
The RMP is an overall plan for the Powder River Basin that still requires individual NEPA reviews of individual leases before it would get to the same stage of the approval at issue in the D.C. Circuit ruling, which was an explicit approval to build a pipeline.
“In light of the degree of foreseeability and specificity of information available to the agency while completing the [environmental impact statement] (EIS), NEPA requires BLM to consider in the EIS the environmental consequence of the downstream combustion of the coal, oil and gas resources potentially open to development under these RMPs,” Morris wrote. “Without such analysis, the EIS fails to 'foster informed decisionmaking' as required by NEPA.”
However, Morris also held that BLM was not required to use the social cost of carbon (SCC) -- a metric developed by the Obama administration to determine the long-term damage of emissions that the Trump administration has abandoned.
“The Court must afford the agency's scientific judgments 'the highest level of deference,'” he wrote in rejecting that claim.
Morris' decision cites an earlier ruling by the federal district court in Colorado that found, “despite the benefits of the [SCC] protocol, NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis under these circumstances.” Nonetheless, that 2014 ruling in High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service nonetheless strongly suggested that the government use the SCC or explain why it could not.
Similarly, the D.C. Circuit in the pipeline case also declined to require FERC to use the SCC.
Morris also found that BLM violated NEPA in failing to adequately consider the global warming potential (GWP) of the fossil fuels that could potentially be leased under one of the NEPA reviews.
BLM failed to acknowledge changing climate science in the EIS for one of the areas, known as the Buffalo analysis, but noted it did include alternate GWP figures for a different EIS. Morris concluded the faulty Buffalo EIS “failed to provide a 'full and fair discussion' as required by NEPA.”
NRDC's Buccino also cited other portions of Morris' decision, including BLM's failure to consider the indirect and downstream effects, as well as its failure to consider future needs. “BLM estimated that it would lease over 10 billion tons of coal over the next 20 years” and calculated the emissions associated with those amounts but not the impacts of the emissions. “The judge held that BLM could not wait until it issued leases to specific coal companies. BLM had to analyze and consider the impacts of burning the coal at the time it was deciding how much of the coal to open to leasing,” she writes.
She also highlighted his findings that BLM failed to consider reasonable alternatives because every alternative included leasing all of the available coal, and that it failed to use best science to calculate the impacts of methane emissions including that BLM failed to explain why it did not use an available 20-year time horizon to assess short-term impacts rather than only looking at the long-term, 100 year impacts.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/court-faults-blm-nepa-review-failing-assess-downstream-ghgs
-
California Adopts Federal HFC Rules After Court Gutted EPA SNAP Program
Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted strong controls on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) -- the potent climate warming chemicals -- in refrigerants and air-conditioning systems that echo requirements under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program that were gutted by a court ruling last year.
State regulators and industry leaders who generally support the tightened standards believe California's March 23 action will maintain pressure on manufacturers to continue eliminating HFCs because they likely will opt to build all product lines to comply with the state's rules.
“The board’s action preserves the federal limits on the use of these powerful chemicals and refrigerants, and provides more certainty to industry,” said CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols in a March 23 press release. “We applaud the actions of many industries, which already have made significant investments in developing and using more climate-friendly alternatives to the high-global warming HFCs.”
CARB's regulation copies most of EPA's SNAP program Rules 20 and 21, the bulk of which were vacated by a split panel ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last year in Mexichem Fluor, et al. v. EPA, et al.
The ruling held that EPA lacks authority to require companies to “replace” substances that do not deplete the ozone -- including HFCs -- with other non-ozone-depleting substances that are friendlier to the climate. However, the ruling upheld EPA's decision to list HFCs as “unacceptable” for use in future equipment.
Major chemical companies that support the SNAP rules are seeking Supreme Court review.
The CARB regulation applies mainly to equipment manufacturers, which cannot use prohibited HFCs in new refrigeration equipment or foams, according to the board.
Prohibited HFCs cannot be used in new equipment and materials the following end-uses: supermarkets and remote condensing units, which are small refrigeration systems used by convenience stores; refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment; stand-alone, or small self-contained refrigeration units; refrigerated vending machines; and foams used in buildings and other places.
“CARB was relying substantially on [EPA's SNAP] rules to help meet California’s emission reduction goals for HFCs,” the board says in its release. “HFC emission reductions are important to ensure California ultimately meets its larger climate goals. As a result of the recent court decision, California had to pass its own regulation to ensure it could meet those goals.”
CARB also plans to consider further controls on HFCs through an additional regulation at a later date. These include prohibitions on high-global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants in new equipment; restrictions of sales of very-high GWP refrigerants; and amendments to an existing refrigerant management program.
These plans have drawn considerable push-back from the industry, which fears the state will adopt standards that conflict with the rest of the country.
Additional Time
Representatives of industry trade groups and leading refrigerant and air-condition equipment manufacturers expressed general support for CARB's rulemaking during the March 23 meeting, but some asked for additional time to meet deadlines for the phaseout of certain chemicals in products.
Additionally, in written comments to the board, industry representatives raise a number of lingering concerns that could potentially be addressed during follow-up amendments CARB staff will be working on in the coming weeks known as “15-day” changes.
For example, Honeywell International Inc. “strongly supports the proposed regulation, but urges CARB to extend this proposed action to include the phase out dates set by SNAP Rules 20 and 21 for all applications addressed by those rules,” according to a March 8 letter. “Doing so would provide certainty to California businesses and continue the transition to low-[GWP] substitutes that is already well underway.”
The Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) says in March 9 comments that CARB's regulation is unclear about how the board “will manage and regulate the use of acceptable HFC refrigerants.” Without clear direction, “this could create confusion as manufacturers determine which refrigerants are acceptable alternatives to the list of prohibited substances . . .”
In contrast, EPA “maintains a list of acceptable refrigerants that provides guidance to manufacturers regarding which refrigerants are legal as replacements for prohibited substances at the federal level,” according to AHRI.
Several other industry groups and companies echoed these concerns in written comments.
The trade groups and individual companies also urged CARB to consider phaseouts of individual HFC chemicals rather than all-out bans in certain cases, and to ensure that the California program is consistent with similar programs in Canada and with international agreements to phase out such chemicals.
A California lawmaker recently introduced a bill that would lock in all the Obama EPA SNAP rules, in what is seen as a possible effort to push CARB to strengthen its plans for the future regulation.
Known as the "California Cooling Act," SB 1013, introduced Feb. 7 by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D), would authorize CARB to adopt regulations more stringent than the Obama-era standards and set up new economic incentive programs to accelerate emission reductions of the potent greenhouse gases.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-adopts-federal-hfc-rules-after-court-gutted-epa-snap-program
-
How Environmental Innovation Will Transform Business as Usual
Mar 28, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Murray
As the Trump administration rolls back environmental protections that could harm human health for decades, it’s increasingly up to businesses to lead the way. They can chart the course to a future that includes a thriving economy and healthy planet.
Leading the way requires first setting ambitious, public targets like more than 340 companies did taking science-based climate action – and 90 did approving science-based targets – collaborating with partners across the value chain for maximum scale and impact while supporting smart climate and energy policy.
Walmart’s Project Gigaton, a collaborative effort to reduce 1 billion tons of emissions, is a powerful example of this.
BSR’s new sustainability framework closely echoes these leadership approaches and recommends that companies create resilient business strategies that align with sustainability goals.
GreenBiz’s 2018 State of Green Business report further supports these and other leadership requirements, adding that businesses need to improve reporting on climate risks, impact and progress towards goals.
The We Mean Business coalition adds further calls to action for companies: Join the low-carbon technology partnerships initiative, grow the market for sustainable fuels and electric vehicles, and take proactive steps to end deforestation by 2020.The missing piece: acceleration
Yet currently missing from all of this guidance is a call for companies to accelerate environmental innovation and deployment of next-generation technology. Sensors, artificial intelligence, digital collaboration, and data analytics and visualization can solve our most pressing environmental challenges.
We’re on the verge of a new wave of environmental progress, a revolution in environmental protection and advocacy driven by new technologies. It will give people the power to understand problems and scale solutions like never before.
Leading companies and investors have a critical role to play and will help define the impact of this wave. They can help ensure that 21st-century problems are met with 21st-century solutions.A Fourth Wave of environmental innovation
Environmental progress doesn’t just happen; it’s propelled by successive waves of innovation inspired by leaders and actions.
Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir launched the modern conservation movement. This First Wave of environmental advocacy created our national parks and protected our lands. It was followed by an era defined by Rachel Carson and the birth of environmental law – the Second Wave of environmentalism.
The third and most recent wave of the environmental movement took shape in 1990 when McDonald’s and Environmental Defense Fund joined forces to drive innovation in packaging and waste reduction.
Today, Third Wave problem-solving, market-based approaches and corporate partnerships have become standard practices. Now, in the Fourth Wave of environmental progress, an upcoming report from EDF shows that business leaders overwhelmingly recognize there is more potential than during previous waves to improve the economy as well as the environment.
A survey of executives showed that 86 percent think Fourth Wave technology can help their bottom line as well as improve their impact on the environment. This figure increases to 91 percent among those in the C-suite.
These forward-thinking executives understand that a prosperous tomorrow will come through groundbreaking innovations that help create sustainable solutions.Innovation is upending business as usual
Already, many leading companies such as Walmart and IBM have begun to invest in and implement environmental innovations that are empowering people to take action – for example, by using Blockchain to track and improve food waste across the supply chain. A couple of other examples of Fourth Wave innovation in action:EDF and Google Earth Outreach teamed up to map air pollution threats on a block-by-block scale in West Oakland, California, to give communities actionable, empowering information that not even government could provide.The Mobile Monitoring Challenge, a joint effort between EDF and Stanford University with technical advice from ExxonMobil and others, was launched to inspire new and innovative approaches to reduce methane emissions at oil and natural gas sites.
By making methane data more accessible, environmental solutions can get to scale faster than ever before. Already, Shell, Statoil and PG&E are conducting demonstration projects to test out the next-generation of methane sensors.
These are the pathways to environmental progress
Innovation will also be at the heart of EDF’s work to leverage market forces to accelerate environmental protection and economic growth. Despite the Trump administration’s continued attempts to jeopardize the environmental gains of the last several decades, I’m hopeful about the future of our planet.
Fueling this hope is the Fourth Wave of environmental progress, where the exponential growth in innovation will empower people – business leaders, entrepreneurs, investors, individuals and communities – to take action and fill the gaps in environmental leadership.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/03/28/how-environmental-innovation-will-transform-business-usual
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested