Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/2/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Defending Our Health from the Scott Pruitt Chemical Industry
May 2, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
So corporations are people, but it seems that people can also be corporations. -
Ewire: Pruitt Launches Legal Defense Fund as Ethics Scandals Mount
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
If Scott Pruitt was hoping that the bad headlines surrounding his ethics and spending allegations were finally starting to die down, today might not be his day. -
Lobbyist Recommended Science Advisers
May 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Sean Reilly
The lobbyist whose wife's Capitol Hill condo was home to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for part of last year recommended candidates for the agency's Science Advisory Board. -
Pruitt: EPA May Act on Methylene Chloride Ban 'This Year'
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
During two Capitol Hill appearances, US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency may yet act to regulate methylene chloride paint strippers this year, and defended the neutrality of his proposal that the EPA use only "fully transparent" science. -
US Cosmetic Ingredient Review Counters Bias Accusation
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The director of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review has vehemently denied NGO claims that its safety assessments are "inadequate". -
Hawaii Lawmakers Approve Ban on Sunscreens with Chemicals Harmful to Coral Reefs
May 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Hawaii lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that prohibits the sale of sunscreens believed to be harmful to ocean ecosystems, including coral reefs. -
Echa to Prioritise Acceleration of Substance Identification, Data Generation
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa aims to speed up identification of substances of concern and data generation as a top priority in the next five years, according to the draft of its second strategic plan. This outlines the agency’s three priorities from 2019-2023. -
Member States Approve EU Chromate Authorisation Applications
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have voted in favour of two applications for uses of chromium trioxide. -
(ACC Mentioned) Carl Mortished: Big Oil Will Be in Big Trouble If Plastic Becomes a Dirty Word
May 2, 2018 | Evening Standard
By Carl Mortished
In the old days, there was a very large enterprise called Imperial Chemical Industries, later streamlined to ICI. The company did what it said on the tin, manufacturing chemicals and some consumer products, notably Dulux paint. -
US Energy and Security Hinge on NAFTA Safeguards
May 2, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Mark Green
U.S., Canadian, and Mexican representatives are in the middle of negotiations to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement — an agreement that over the years has been very good for American energy. -
DOE Eyes Superfund Reforms as Path to Improving Regulator Relations
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The Energy Department's environmental management (EM) office is seeking to revamp its relationships with cleanup regulators, eying Superfund reforms EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is implementing, such as revisions to the dispute resolution process, as well as the Trump administration's broader regulatory review push. -
Watchdog: DOE Wrongly Spent $16M
May 2, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
The Energy Department's inspector general concluded in a report released today that the agency spent $16 million in funds from its Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability more than permitted by Congress before fixing and correcting the mistake. -
EPA Plans Two New ELG Studies
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's final 2016 effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) plan calls for a new study examining onshore oil and gas extraction wastewater holistically, rather than examining different effluent types within the sector as the Obama administration did, and also calls for a new study of the electronics component manufacturing sector. -
Clean Air Regulations Protect Health and Benefit the Economy
May 2, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
The Trump administration is waging war on the laws meant to protect Americans from air pollution, arguing that rolling back regulations on coal-fired power plants, cars and trucks, and other sources of fossil fuel emissions is necessary to ensure a healthy economy. -
Climate Change May Deeply Wound Long-Term U.S. Growth, Richmond Fed Paper Finds
May 2, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Michael S. Derby
Rising temperatures resulting from global warming are likely to slow U.S. economic growth significantly in the decades ahead, according to a paper published recently by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. -
Trump Foils Pick Climate Fight They Won't Likely Finish
May 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California officials are launching broadsides against the Trump administration's climate policies, but the state's main climate commanders probably won't be around for the marquee battles. -
EPA Keeping Standards for Makers of Brake Materials
May 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
After a court-ordered assessment, EPA plans to stay with existing air toxics standards for the nation's two major manufacturers of "friction materials" used in vehicle brakes and clutches. -
Key Obama Climate Orders Still on the Books
May 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
President Trump appears to relish signing documents that unravel his predecessor's work. -
N.Y. Grid Operator Floats Carbon Price
May 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New York grid authorities released a framework this week for pricing carbon in the Empire State without putting the state's own generators at a disadvantage to neighboring regions.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Defending Our Health from the Scott Pruitt Chemical Industry
May 2, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
So corporations are people, but it seems that people can also be corporations. Take Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. Here are two of Pruitt’s defining features: (1) he is unembarrassed about breaking rules and cutting corners to get what he wants, and (2) he is an unapologetic agent for the chemical industry, rewriting agency rules (or making up new ones) and ignoring the law to put corporate interests ahead of protecting people from chemicals that cause cancer, developmental delays and reproductive harm.
But NRDC is standing up for the health of children and families. We are taking Pruitt to Court, as often as we need to. Yesterday, we filed our opening brief in a case challenging Pruitt’s attempt to circumvent the law and allow new toxic chemicals onto the market without the appropriate review.
As the head of the EPA, Pruitt sets the tone and direction for the Agency. Nowhere in the Agency better reflects its current “leadership” than EPA’s woebegone Toxics office.
The Toxics office is formally (and somewhat idealistically) known as the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. It’s in charge of reviewing and regulating the safety of pesticides and industrial chemicals, which are used in many commercial and consumer products. Pruitt revamped the Toxics office almost immediately after he took charge, rejecting the finding of EPA’s own scientists and abandoning a proposed plan to ban food-related uses of chlorpyrifos, a toxic pesticide linked to learning disabilities and behavioral problems. The Agency had already concluded people are being exposed to unsafe levels of the chemical through food residues, drinking water and spray drift. Chlorpyrifos is manufactured by Dow. Pruitt appeared to be happy to do Dow’s bidding and prolong Americans’ routine exposure to chlorpyrifos for years. Those actions are illegal, and NRDC is suing the agency, along with our colleagues at Pesticide Action Network (PANNA) and Earthjustice.
The Toxics office is also responsible for implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). That’s the law governing toxic chemicals, which was revised and strengthened in key respects by Congress in 2016. Shortly after Pruitt arrived at EPA, he hired Toxic Chemical Enthusiast Nancy Beck –a lobbyist for the chemical manufacturer’s trade association—to run the office including implementing TSCA. In about a year’s time, Pruitt and Beck have imposed the chemical industry’s dream agenda. It’s illegal, and it’s terrible for public health and the environment.
Shortly after Beck solidified the industry takeover of EPA, she re-wrote the agency’s proposed rules for prioritizing and evaluating the thousands of toxic chemicals that are used in everyday products. Her re-write—which would allow EPA to ignore significant sources of exposure to toxic chemicals when evaluating their safety—is contrary to what the law requires. A photo of Pruitt signing the final rules—which NRDC and many of our colleague organizations have challenged in federal court—was enlarged and posted throughout the Agency as one of his early successes.
Pruitt and Beck also rewrote the rules for how the Agency reviews new chemicals before they enter the marketplace. Congress strengthened the law governing that process, to ensure that the Agency considers all foreseeable uses of a new chemical—not just what the manufacturer says it will be used for. Congress required EPA to issue orders to protect the public from new chemicals unless it concluded that they were unlikely to pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. But Pruitt and Beck, again fulfilling the desires of Dow, DuPont, Exxon and other major chemical manufacturers, adopted a rule that fails to consider all foreseeable uses of a chemical, and avoids doing what Congress explicitly required: issuing orders to protect the public. And here’s the kicker, EPA changed the rules without following the required process for public engagement. Congress required the agency to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment. Apparently, EPA’s mission to rollback protections from toxic chemicals was just too urgent for the agency to actually follow the process the law requires.
NRDC sued the Pruitt EPA in January to overturn its illegal rule. Our colleagues at Safer Chemicals Healthy Families intervened to support our side of the case. Meanwhile, the chemical manufacturers trade association, the American Chemistry Council (Nancy Beck’s previous employer) has intervened to defend Scott Pruitt and Beck’s illegal rule.
There is currently no daylight between what the chemical industry wants, and what Scott Pruitt and Nancy Beck are willing to do, even if that means poisoning people and breaking the law to do it.
Scott Pruitt and the Chemical Industry are one and the same.
We’re fighting the Scott Pruitt Chemical Industry to defend the health and well-being of our children, our families and our communities.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/defending-our-health-scott-pruitt-chemical-industry
-
Ewire: Pruitt Launches Legal Defense Fund as Ethics Scandals Mount
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
If Scott Pruitt was hoping that the bad headlines surrounding his ethics and spending allegations were finally starting to die down, today might not be his day.
The New York Times reports that Pruitt is seeking to create a legal defense fund, according to four sources who spoke with the outlet, though the details of the fund remained hazy and it appeared it would not be affiliated with EPA.
Robert Rizzi, a tax attorney with the law firm Steptoe, told the Times that while officials going back to the Nixon administration have used such funds to help defray legal expenses, there has been an increase in the Trump administration.
He also warned that the creation of such a fund could cause further problems for Pruitt should EPA-regulated entities contribute. “These funds raise a lot of uncertainties in the tax area and the ethical area,” he said.
While there may be problems with any fund Pruitt creates, he may need it given mounting federal investigations -- 11 so far -- into his spending and ethics practices.
Adding to the list, the Times also reported that lobbyist Steven Hart -- who was linked to Pruitt's rental of a below-market rent Capitol Hill condo -- urged Pruitt to hire three people on EPA's Science Advisory Board who were recommended by a client of Hart's firm, Smithfield Foods. That directly contradicts statements by both Hart and Pruitt that Hart did not have business before EPA.
And the Washington Post offers this deeply reported piece about the EPA administrator's controversial trip to Morocco in December, reporting that another lobbyist who is close with Pruitt helped arrange the visit and subsequently inked a contract to lobby on behalf of the North African kingdom.
Pruitt's trip to Morocco has long been shrouded in mystery because the agency has not released details of many of his stops and initially said he was there to tout American liquefied natural gas (LNG) resources -- a pitch that does not fall squarely in EPA's mission to protect the environment and appears more suited for the Energy Department.
EPA now says Pruitt was there to negotiate the environmental chapter of a free-trade agreement, and that he only spoke about LNG resources when prompted.
The Post article is full of new details, including that the trip cost more than $100,000, more than twice what was repeatedly reported. The key detail is the reporting that lobbyist Richard Smotkin helped arrange Pruitt's visit, however, with many ethics experts saying that raises many questions about whether Pruitt used his government position to financially help a friend.
“It shows, at the very least, a tremendous amount of sloppiness, and it raises ethical issues about the relationship between Smotkin and Pruitt,” said Larry Noble, senior director and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
The Morocco revelations have spurred Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to renew calls for the Senate environment committee to hold a hearing on the issue and Pruitt's other controversies.
“We thought boosting an industry he is not even charged with regulating -- a mission well outside the scope of his job -- was troubling enough. Now, after our repeated questions have gone ignored, we learn this trip was also the work of a lobbyist and personal friend of Pruitt’s now representing the Moroccan government, and that the price tag for American taxpayers is double what has been reported,” the senators say in a May 1 statement.
Wait, there's more. CNN and others are reporting on a letter from House Democrats that Pruitt early in his tenure sought to open an office in his home town of Tulsa -- complete with secure parking, a conference room, accommodations for 24-hour security and a sensitive compartmented information facility for secure phone calls.
While the agency has a small remote office for two staffers in Tulsa, it has a much larger office in Dallas, where Region 6 is headquartered. That is a four-hour drive from Pruitt's hometown.
One interesting detail in the House Democrats' letter is that the request came from Ryan Jackson -- now Pruitt's chief of staff -- before he joined the agency and while he was still working as a Senate staffer.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-pruitt-launches-legal-defense-fund-ethics-scandals-mount
-
Lobbyist Recommended Science Advisers
May 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Sean Reilly
The lobbyist whose wife's Capitol Hill condo was home to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for part of last year recommended candidates for the agency's Science Advisory Board.
In an email shared with E&E News by congressional aides, Steven Hart, formerly chairman of Williams & Jensen PLLC, suggested to EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson potential additions to the advisory committee.
"I wanted to highlight three candidates for the Science Advisory Board, who were nominated by our client, Dennis Treacy, the President of the Smithfield Foundation," Hart said in the August 2017 email, which was first reported on by The New York Times.
"Each of the nominees would bring a unique perspective to the Board and its work, with all three engaged in key issues facing the EPA."
Hart also noted that each nominee for EPA's science board is a Virginia resident, which would "facilitate their active engagement and participation with the SAB." Their names are redacted in the email.
The prior month, Hart had helped broker a meeting between Treacy and Pruitt, which he also attended (E&E Daily, April 23). The newly released email shows Hart's contact with EPA was not just limited to issues dealing with the agency's Chesapeake Bay program but included its prestigious science board, as well.
Hart has previously said he didn't lobby EPA. In a Fox News interview last month, Pruitt said Hart had no clients with business before the agency. Hart has also disputed in the past that he lobbied EPA on behalf of Smithfield Foods Inc., instead saying he was helping a friend.
Pruitt signed a lease with Hart's wife, Vicki Hart, to live in the $50-per-night condo for part of 2017. The EPA chief has come under increased scrutiny for any actions he or the agency has taken that could have benefited Williams & Jensen clients since news of the rental arrangement broke in March.
A spokesman for Steven Hart declined to comment when contacted by E&E News for this story.
In a statement shared with E&E News, Jackson, who received the email from Hart, said the individuals recommended by the lobbyist did not end up being selected to serve on the science board.
"EPA and the chief of staff in particular regularly receive solicited and unsolicited suggestions for individuals to serve in the Trump Administration and on various EPA volunteer boards. The Science Advisory Board alone received applications and recommendations for a few hundred people," Jackson said.
"Smithfield Foods was not advocating for anyone to be on the Science Advisory Board, and Steve Hart was passing along suggestions of individuals who may be interested in serving. In this case, the individuals involved were not selected for the SAB, and EPA have redacted their names to respect their privacy."
Democrats, who have pushed for Pruitt to resign from EPA or be fired, pounced on the email from Hart recommending science advisers.
"This email is further proof that Administrator Pruitt has consistently misled Congress and the public about the extent to which the special interests providing him with gifts have sought specific favors from EPA in return," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a statement.
"This culture of corruption has diverted public funds to special interests and could undermine all of the important work the EPA does."
It was unclear whether the three people were on a listof nominees for the Science Advisory Board that EPA put out for public comment last September (E&E News PM, Sept. 8, 2017). While a number of those candidates were from Virginia, none had readily discernible connections to the Smithfield Foundation. None of the SAB's 44 current members comes from Virginia, according to a roster posted on EPA's website.
Last October, however, Pruitt unveiled a new membership policy for EPA advisory panels that barred current recipients of agency grants from serving (E&E News PM, Oct. 31, 2017). He also has effectively term-limited incumbents to one three-year stint on the SAB, ending an informal tradition that allowed members to serve for two consecutive terms for a total of six years.
Those new policies, coupled with normal turnover on the board, led to the exodus of more than 20 members last year, according to an EPA spreadsheet. Pruitt filled many of those open slots with appointees who have ties to the oil and gas industry or other business sectors.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/02/stories/1060080671
-
Pruitt: EPA May Act on Methylene Chloride Ban 'This Year'
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
During two Capitol Hill appearances, US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency may yet act to regulate methylene chloride paint strippers this year, and defended the neutrality of his proposal that the EPA use only "fully transparent" science.
The 26 February hearings, which together lasted over six hours, were intended to focus on the EPA’s budget. But Democrats zeroed in on the Administrator’s alleged ethics violations, with some calling him "unfit for public office" and demanding his resignation.
Amidst the often caustic interrogation, the lawmakers also hammered Mr Pruitt for "abandoning" the proposal to restrict the use of methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) for paint removal.
A December 2017 regulatory agenda suggested that the agency was shelving the proposed TSCA section 6 rule, along with two proposed rules to regulate trichloroethylene (TCE).
But Mr Pruitt said several times that the proposal has not been dropped, but rather is under review.
"We have actually submitted that for comment and are reviewing those comments," he said. "No decision has been made to deny that ban."
"There will be a decision," he added. "I would imagine that is something we can do this year."‘Secret science’ proposal
Democrats also criticised the proposed regulation to require that EPA base its regulatory decisions on science that is "fully transparent".
The lawmakers echoed NGOs and scientists who have said its implementation would make it impossible for the EPA to use all relevant research – including health data subject to privacy mandates – in making a regulatory decision.
But Mr Pruitt countered that the policy is intended to allow increased validation of science. "We are saying that research we use can’t just provide us conclusions, they must provide the methodology and data" so stakeholders can evaluate them, he said.
He said that both confidential business information (CBI) and personal information "can be redacted and still serve the purposes of the proposed rule".
Several Republicans agreed that this is a common-sense idea. But opponents said the proposal would allow the EPA to determine what disclosure is adequate. And a provision giving the Administrator the power to exempt certain research from the requirements is open to abuse, they said.
"You could selectively block public health studies that do not suit your political priorities, but allow ones that favour your friends in industry," said Representative Paul Tonko (D–New York). "You could also pick winners and losers among industry types."
Mr. Pruitt, however, characterised the proposal as an impartial rule that "applies to all studies, regardless of source".
https://chemicalwatch.com/66608/pruitt-epa-may-act-on-methylene-chloride-ban-this-year
-
US Cosmetic Ingredient Review Counters Bias Accusation
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The director of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review has vehemently denied NGO claims that its safety assessments are "inadequate".
The CIR is an independent, industry-funded panel of medical and scientific experts that meets quarterly to assess the safety of cosmetic ingredients used in the US. Its reviews are based on data in published studies and some voluntarily provided by industry.
But a recent report from Women Voices for the Earth claims the CIR expert panel has approved chemicals linked to adverse health effects, including allergies, hormone disruption and cancer.
And the US NGO’s report, Cosmetic Ingredient Review: Failing the Public, Failing Manufacturers, accuses the body of suffering a conflict of interest, because it is funded by the Personal Care Products Council – the trade association which represents the majority of US cosmetic manufacturers.
"These companies have an inherent interest in establishing the safety of the ingredients they use, and a significant financial disinterest in public pronouncements that the ingredients they use are unsafe," the WVE report says.
The CIR has no regulatory power, but PCPC member companies are strongly encouraged to comply with its determinations regarding the safety of the ingredients.‘Baseless claims’
Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the PCPC, issued a statement dismissing the report’s claims as "baseless".
"The report, either negligently or intentionally, misrepresents the relationship between CIR and PCPC in an effort to undermine the independence of CIR and CIR’s ability to operate free of bias," she said.
And CIR director, Bart Heldreth, also defended the expert panel’s independence. "Anonymous peer-review evaluation of all CIR final reports is a key safeguard of scientific integrity," he said.
WVE has participated in public CIR meetings, he added, and have had their comments "fully addressed".
"A failure of the panel experts or other international expert bodies to agree with [WVE] is not evidence that the process is fundamentally flawed, or the conclusions are wrong."Scope, data concerns
Beyond the CIR’s industry influence, the WVE report also criticises the scope of evaluations and for making determinations without sufficient data.
According to WVE, the "very specific and limited scope" of the evaluations excludes concerns for workers and the environment. A conclusion of safety from the CIR is therefore "highly misleading for consumers, workers, manufacturers, and regulators alike who are equally interested in these broader impacts of cosmetic chemicals."
WVE also accuses the CIR of having a history of "erroneously assuming that data gaps are equivalent to a lack of health effects".
It gives examples of the preservatives quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea and diazolidinyl urea as chemicals which it says were deemed safe for use without sufficient data to prove they were not carcinogenic.
But Dr Heldreth said that the CIR’s focus on chemical safety, rather than on environmental or workplace concerns, is "not a rationale for discrediting its safety assessments".
And regarding data gaps, he said that if the scientific literature and information submitted is insufficient to make a safety determination, the CIR calls on industry and other interested parties "to undertake specific studies to address these insufficiencies, or to provide previously unpublished data."
Ms Kowcz added that PCPC members not only consider CIR findings when assessing ingredient safety, but also use "the same science-based approaches" as regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66392/us-cosmetic-ingredient-review-counters-bias-accusation
-
Hawaii Lawmakers Approve Ban on Sunscreens with Chemicals Harmful to Coral Reefs
May 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Hawaii lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that prohibits the sale of sunscreens believed to be harmful to ocean ecosystems, including coral reefs.
The bill, if signed into law by the state’s governor, David Ige, will make Hawaii the first U.S. state to enact such a ban starting Jan. 1, 2021.
"These chemicals have also been shown to degrade corals' resiliency and ability to adjust to climate change factors and inhibit recruitment of new corals," the text of the bill explains.
The measure, introduced by state Sen. Mike Gabbard (D), bans the sale and distribution of any sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate; however, prescription sunscreens containing those chemicals will not be affected by the ban.
“Amazingly, this is a first-in-the-world law,” Gabbard told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “So, Hawaii is definitely on the cutting edge by banning these dangerous chemicals in sunscreens.”
“When you think about it, our island paradise, surrounded by coral reefs, is the perfect place to set the gold standard for the world to follow,” Gabbard added. “This will make a huge difference in protecting our coral reefs, marine life, and human health.”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/385823-hawaii-lawmakers-pass-bill-banning-sunscreens-with-chemicals-harmful-to
-
Echa to Prioritise Acceleration of Substance Identification, Data Generation
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa aims to speed up identification of substances of concern and data generation as a top priority in the next five years, according to the draft of its second strategic plan. This outlines the agency’s three priorities from 2019-2023.
As part of its top priority Echa will speed up regulatory action on such substances, focusing on REACH, CLP and the BPR, it said.
The agency will reduce data gaps, speed up work to identify the risks posed by hazardous chemicals, induce faster responses from industry, and initiate concerted regulatory actions with national authorities and the European Commission, Echa added.
Industry is racing to submit registrations by the last REACH deadline of 31 May, and Echa said it will have information on "all of the main chemicals on the EU market" by that time.
However, many companies "do not provide enough of the required information", it noted. In cases where important safety information is missing, the agency will ask those registrants to provide more data.
It will ensure safer use of chemicals "by disseminating this data, checking it and taking regulatory actions when needed".
It has set a measure of success, whereby from 2025 all substances of concern should be identified and regulatory action initiated.
By then, Echa anticipates concrete conclusions on whether registered substances are of concern; are currently not of concern; or need more data for a judgement to be made and the missing data defined.Other priorities
The draft plan sets out two other strategic priorities for Echa in the next five years. They are:priority two: safe and sustainable use of chemicals by industry; andpriority three: sustainable management of chemicals by applying EU legislation.
Under priority two, the agency will ensure that effective communication along the supply chain "becomes mainstream" and industry increasingly uses the "recognised tools and formats" to fully communicate safety information.
Many in industry see ineffective supply chain communication as one of the key failings of REACH.
Companies should provide better information on a product’s service life, waste disposal, recycling and exposure assessments, Echa said. It added it will increase support to industry and EU countries to encourage replacing chemicals of concern with less hazardous ones.
As part of the third priority, Echa will work to enhance its "knowledge and competences" to support the implementation of EU legislation.
Additionally, it will build on its capabilities and digital tools to manage submitted data and its interpretation in order to improve safe use of chemicals and evidence-based regulatory decisions, it added.
It will also increase activity "to create synergies" with data sources from international programmes and countries outside the EU.
The strategy will also steer the agency in its work programmes containing specific actions and outputs planned for each year.
While drafting the plan, Echa said it anticipated some of the conclusions of the second REACH Review and hence the plan addresses some of the issues identified by the European Commission. The agency said it will analyse "in close cooperation" with the Commission Services the outcome of the Review and "make the necessary changes" to the strategic plan.
A consultation on the draft strategic plans ends on 4 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66597/echa-to-prioritise-acceleration-of-substance-identification-data-generation
-
Member States Approve EU Chromate Authorisation Applications
May 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have voted in favour of two applications for uses of chromium trioxide.
Applicants were granted conditional use of the substance, which is listed as an SVHC under REACH Annex XIV, at the REACH Committee meeting on 25-26 April.
Germany-based Clariant Produkte applied for the use of chromium trioxide in a catalyst for the dehydrogenation of propane to propene. The recommended review period will expire on 21 September 2029.
And member states granted Topocrom, also from Germany, use of the chemical in Topocrom functional chrome plating in closed reactor systems for the establishment of adjustable hemispherical surface structures. The recommended review period will also expire on 21 September 2029.
Chromium trioxide is listed on Annex XIV because it has carcinogenic and mutagenic properties. The sunset date – when the placing on the market and use of a substance is no longer permitted – was 21 September last year.Trichloroethylene
Additionally, REACH Committee members approved an application for five uses of trichloroethylene.
Applicant Blue Cube from Germany is permitted use of the substance:
in industrial parts cleaning by vapour degreasing in closed systems where specific requirements (system of use-parameters) exist. The recommended review period ends on 21 October 2020;
for industrial use as process chemical (enclosed systems) in Alcantara Material production. The review period expires on 21 April 2023;
in packaging. The recommended review period ends on 21 April 2028;
in formulation. The review period expires 21 April 2028; and
as extraction solvent for bitumen in asphalt analysis. The review period ends on 21 April 2023.
Trichloroethylene is listed on Annex XIV because it has carcinogenic properties. The sunset date was 21 April 2016.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66600/member-states-approve-eu-chromate-authorisation-applications
-
(ACC Mentioned) Carl Mortished: Big Oil Will Be in Big Trouble If Plastic Becomes a Dirty Word
May 2, 2018 | Evening Standard
By Carl Mortished
In the old days, there was a very large enterprise called Imperial Chemical Industries, later streamlined to ICI. The company did what it said on the tin, manufacturing chemicals and some consumer products, notably Dulux paint.
It was so big that newspaper scribblers dubbed it “the bell-wether of British industry”; stockbrokers and fund managers hung their investment decisions on its every utterance. The assumption was that if ICI sneezed, the nation’s makers and movers of stuff might be due for a bout of flu.
ICI is no more; outgunned and outclassed by smarter, more efficient German, US and Far Eastern rivals. Today, the fortunes of a company that publishes an online scrapbook command a lot more international attention than the likes of BASF, Dow Chemical and Britain’s Ineos, but the chemical industry still tells us very important things about the state of the global economy.
Chemical manufacturers make stuff we all need and use, such as the plastics used to package our food, pipe water and waste, make wiring safe in our homes and fit together cars and consumer gadgets. Chemical companies make polyethylene — commonly known as polythene — the material in plastic bags and bottles that has recently become public enemy number one for ambitious politicians (almost eclipsing the great evil of climate change), but more on that later.
This industry is on a roll; enormous investments are being made in industrial plant to produce ethylene, a volatile gas that is the building block for plastics, such as polythene. In America, nine new facilities are under construction to crack ethane, a by-product of drilling for shale oil and gas, into ethylene. Each plant costs billions of dollars and the money will produce an extra 10.7 million tonnes per year of ethylene, a huge amount to add to a global market of 140 million tonnes.
The big bulk chemical companies are betting the farm on plastics. Royal Dutch Shell said recently that it would increase the capital employed in its chemicals business by 50%. India and South Africa are also investing. America, flush with its shale oil and gas bounty is seizing the baton from the Arabian Gulf which has run out of easy supplies of feedstock for ethylene crackers. Ineos is shipping ethane, pumped out of American shale wells and chilled and compressed into liquid to its cracker at Grangemouth in Scotland.
The chemical expansion is ultimately all about the developing economies, notably China, where people are consuming more food, building more houses and buying more stuff. Global demand for ethylene is expanding at a rate of 4.2% per year, says ICIS, the chemical price assessment agency.
But there are warnings; the ethylene price in the US has collapsed to levels not seen for almost two decades. Overproduction because of the shale ethane bonanza is blamed and figures from the American Chemistry Council point to a sudden dip in output in the first quarter of this year. The chemical industry has a tendency to over-invest in the upturn of the cycle, only to suffer long periods of over-supply and price slump. The question is whether the upturn in investment will kill the goose.
For the big oil companies, growth in demand for plastics is a blessing in a world which is rapidly falling out of love with petroleum products. Demand for petrol is falling in Europe. If demand for transport fuels were to peak over the next 10 to 15 years, you might wonder what big oil is going to do with all that stuff bubbling from the ground.
Making plastics is one way of keeping the hydrocarbon molecules flowing from well-head to consumer. The sunk capital in the infrastructure of the global oil industry is colossal and it needs product to sell — plastics is one way of keeping the sun rising for big oil over the next three decades.
Unless governments spoil the view. According to Nigel Davis, of ICIS, recycling will in the long run have a big effect on the plastics market. If the present hue and cry over plastic pollution in the oceans is to be tackled, it will require a vast amount of investment in recycling. You might think that would be good for the petrochemical giants. Not necessarily, says Mr Davis, recycling is more likely to be a local business. “You break the raw material supply chain that has been around for 80 years.”
The fragmentation of 100-year-old businesses that span the globe would be complex chemistry, at the very least.
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/carl-mortished-big-oil-will-be-in-big-trouble-if-plastic-becomes-a-dirty-word-a3829311.html
-
US Energy and Security Hinge on NAFTA Safeguards
May 2, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Mark Green
U.S., Canadian, and Mexican representatives are in the middle of negotiations to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement — an agreement that over the years has been very good for American energy. Yet, there’s uncertainty over whether a key NAFTA provision that safeguards U.S. investments in those countries will survive. Such an outcome would be a significant blow to U.S. energy and national security.
The uncertainty stems from the administration’s signals that NAFTA’s investor-state dispute settlement provision should not be included in a new agreement. ISDS protects American interests and property from unfair treatment by host nation governments. But in remarks last fall, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was dismissive of this idea:
It’s always odd to me when the business people come around and say, “Oh, we just want our investments protected.” I mean, don’t we all? I would love to have my investments guaranteed. But unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way in the market.
The USTR continued:
I’ve had people come in and say, literally, to me: “Oh, but you can’t do this: you can’t change ISDS. … You can’t do that because we wouldn’t have made the investment otherwise.” I’m thinking, “Well, then why is it a good policy of the United States government to encourage investment in Mexico?” … The bottom line is, business says: “We want to make decisions and have markets decide. But! We would like to have political risk insurance paid for by the United States’ government.” And to me that’s absurd. You either are in the market, or you’re not in the market.
There are a couple of problems with this analysis. First, the natural gas and oil industry isn’t seeking investment “guarantees,” nor is that what ISDS does. What ISDS does is ensure that if an American company has a dispute with a host government, its claim will be heard in neutral, international arbitration setting. In that way, ISDS strengthens respect for contracts, which is fundamental to markets. Second, advancing U.S. energy security through smart, strategic development of natural gas and oil around the world is very good policy for the United States. Even more than that: Secure energy is a critical U.S. national interest.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Antonio Ortiz-Mena of the Albright Stonebridge Group consultancy said the administration shouldn’t look at energy as it does other sectors. “When the USTR thinks about this, it’s thinking about the auto industry, and `why should the auto industry get special protection to invest in Mexico when they should invest in the U.S.?’” Ortiz-Mena said. “But in the case of energy, you invest where the oil is. If there’s oil in the Gulf of Mexico and you want to invest in deep sea drilling, it’s not as if you could do that in Detroit.”
Writing in Forbes, Phil Levy, senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, sees the administration caught between two purposes. “Lighthizer seems to be saying: If you want to invest in Mexico, pay the risk insurance!” Levy continues:
Logically, he might follow up: If you want to export to Mexico, pay their tariffs! Of course, he doesn’t say the latter because the administration views investment in Mexico as bad but exports to Mexico as good and tariffs impede those exports. There is a reason that trade and investment go together.
Indeed, NAFTA’s zero tariffs on exchanged goods, market access, and trade liberalization has helped created an integrated North American energy zone, with U.S. energy trade with Canada and Mexico flourishing. Canada was the number one export market for U.S. crude oil and kerosene-type jet fuel in 2016; Mexico was our number one export market for total refined products, finished motor gasoline, and other products. According to the Wall Street Journal, foreign investment has surged since Mexico announced reforms opening new access to its energy sector. U.S. access to heavy Mexican crudes — used by a significant portion of our refinery sector — is key to growing our exports of refined products.
NAFTA has been good for U.S. energy — very good — making our nation economically stronger and more energy secure. ISDS ensures that American energy companies have recourse if and when they are subject to unfair treatment, which is critically important to investment decisions. This provision must be retained in any revision of NAFTA.
Mark Green is the Editor of Energy Tomorrow, a project of the American Petroleum Institute.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/05/02/us_energy_security_hinge_on_nafta_safeguards_110289.html
-
DOE Eyes Superfund Reforms as Path to Improving Regulator Relations
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The Energy Department's environmental management (EM) office is seeking to revamp its relationships with cleanup regulators, eying Superfund reforms EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is implementing, such as revisions to the dispute resolution process, as well as the Trump administration's broader regulatory review push.
"We're trying to leverage [President Donald Trump's] regulatory reform executive order to see how we can work better with EPA as we move into the future as a federal facility," Mark Gilbertson, associate principal deputy assistant secretary for regulatory and policy affairs in the Department of Energy's (DOE) EM office, told the 2018 Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) annual conference in Washington, D.C, April 12.
He also said that the EM program is considering how to leverage Superfund reforms Pruitt has advocated to try to rework its relationship with the agency.
Under the Superfund reforms announced last July, EPA says it plans to streamline the dispute resolution process at federal facility cleanup sites.
In particular, the reforms recommend developing a policy for EPA regional offices, to be shared with federal agencies and states, that reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific time frames for formal and informal disputes under federal facility agreements (FFAs) governing cleanups.
Reinforcing these timelines to ensure compliance with the prescribed time frames "will ensure that cleanup work is not unreasonably slowed when a disagreement between the FFA parties arises," the reform recommendations say.
The Superfund reform recommendations also call for revising federal facility enforcement guidance, which would allow FFA provisions to be placed "on hold in instances where a third party wants to perform the cleanup work."
Third, the reforms recommend EPA develop a plan to regularly solicit the views of other federal agencies at federal facility sites on ways in which EPA can improve its engagement with these agencies.
In his remarks, Gilbertson alluded to these revisions. "We said alright, the stars are lining up for our program" because those are areas that EM field staff know need to be improved.
EM is "trying to figure out how we navigate in this current climate to take advantage of that overall," he said.
While he provided no specifics in his public remarks, he told Inside EPA after his presentation that he hopes to adopt new dispute resolution approaches that EPA had indicated it will take up as part of its Superfund reform effort.
"We have a lot of agreements with EPA and individual states, and as we move forward to enter into next-generation agreements, we hope to work with EPA and states to improve that," he said.
Gilbertson also suggested the program may seek greater use of rolling cleanup milestones that take into account annual funding changes, though a federal judge has in one case blocked the use of such an approach.
"Our agreements were created a long time ago. I think some of the newer agreements incorporate things like rolling milestones," he said. Those "are not just projections out into the future, but change on an annual basis depending on funding."
The Energy Department has clashed with regulators, particularly the state of Washington, over missed cleanup milestones and attempts to reset timelines for cleanup work at DOE's massive Hanford, WA, site.
For instance, in 2016, a federal district court judge rejected DOE's plan to adopt sliding cleanup milestones for the site's tank waste.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson established a revamped enforceable schedule for DOE to accomplish the milestones for cleanup of the tank waste, adding new, more stringent reporting requirements for DOE.
But Gilbertson suggested that EM is hoping to avoid such disputes. The EM program holds the third largest liability in the federal government, with more than $250 billion worth of work yet to go, Gilbertson said. He noted that regulators seem to lose sight of the fact that DOE has the largest cleanup program in the world.
He said EM is "trying to re-do the relationships" with its regulators. He noted that newly-confirmed DOE EM Assistant Secretary Anne White recently met with Idaho regulators and is willing to engage with regulators at individual sites.
He cited Trump's February 2017 executive order aimed at streamlining regulations, as well as Superfund reforms EPA announced last July that in part recommended changes to interactions between EPA and federal agencies on federal facility cleanups.
Other DOE officials are downplaying prospects that EM will miss near-term cleanup milestones due to record high funding requests from the administration -- though observers have suggested that the funding requests may not be enough to meet the department's cleanup obligations.
Paul Dabbar, DOE's under secretary for science, said at the ECA forum that EM's budget proposal for the past two years has been at the highest levels of the past decade. Congress also in the fiscal year 2018 budget added a significant increase on top of the administration's request. "That is, I think, an amazingly positive outcome," he said.
And a DOE spokesperson says in response to questions from Inside EPA that the department does not have any "FY18 compliance milestones at risk due to insufficient funding."
During a congressional panel at the ECA conference, Christopher Hanson, a professional staff member with the Senate appropriations energy and water development subcommittee, said that the $7.1 billion spending level for FY18 ideally sets up DOE for FY19, warning though that one of the risks that could derail that plan is if Trump follows through with a rescission package for the FY18 spending deal.
"I think that would throw a wrench in the entire process for FY19," he said. He argued against revisiting the FY18 spending deal unilaterally.
Gilbertson also signaled that EM is continuing to assess a 2017 proposal from ECA to downgrade classifications of certain defense nuclear waste, which could save the program billions of dollars.
While the waste is currently defined by its origin as high-level waste (HLW), ECA has called for Congress to reclassify wastes from reprocessing as "other than HLW," and for DOE to revise its radioactive waste management policy to clarify that waste will be managed according to characteristics rather than origin. Savings from such a change, which could prompt the removal of waste from host communities faster and eliminate years of operations, could range from $20 billion to $125 billion, according to the group.
Under report language included in the FY18 defense authorization bill passed late last year, DOE was required to submit to Congress by Feb. 1 a report evaluating the feasibility, costs and cost savings of reclassifying the waste as something other than HLW, "without decreasing environmental, health, or public safety requirements."
But the department missed the Feb. 1 deadline, and a DOE spokesperson says "the report currently is in review."
Gilbertson said EM staff is informing political appointees on the 2017 ECA analysis.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/doe-eyes-superfund-reforms-path-improving-regulator-relations
-
Watchdog: DOE Wrongly Spent $16M
May 2, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
The Energy Department's inspector general concluded in a report released today that the agency spent $16 million in funds from its Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability more than permitted by Congress before fixing and correcting the mistake.
However, the watchdog was "unable to substantiate" allegations DOE's Office of the Chief Financial Officer "willfully attempted" to cover up the violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act to prevent it from coming to the attention of oversight and ethics officials.
"We substantiated the allegation that the Department obligated more funds than were apportioned for the specific account reviewed," the report concludes.
Chief Financial Officer John Vonglis expressed deep concerns with how the inspector general conducted the investigation, noting the involvement of a criminal investigator early in the process and significant disruption to other financial reporting activities within the agency.
"We also are concerned with erroneous IG characterizations, assumptions and conclusions throughout the report," Vonglis wrote. The IG stood by how it conducted the probe.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's final 2016 effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) plan calls for a new study examining onshore oil and gas extraction wastewater holistically, rather than examining different effluent types within the sector as the Obama administration did, and also calls for a new study of the electronics component manufacturing sector.
Such studies can provide a basis for new EPA rules though the agency is not mandated to issue such rules for sectors it has studied.
In a notice scheduled to appear in the May 2 Federal Register, EPA says the focus of the study of oil and gas extraction wastewater “is not to look specifically at any one existing effluent guideline. Rather, the EPA intends to engage with stakeholders to evaluate approaches to manage both conventional and unconventional oil and gas extraction wastewater from onshore facilities including, but not limited to, an assessment of technologies for facilities that treat and discharge oil and gas extraction wastewater.”
Under the Obama administration, which developed the draft version of the 2016 plan, EPA sought comment on several aspects of oil and and gas wastewater, including data on centralized waste treatment (CWT) facilities that accept oil and gas extraction wastewaters; whether wastewater from conventional oil and gas extraction facilities is going to publicly owned treatment works (POTW); and information on the quantity, composition, and purpose of well treatment and workover fluids in produced water discharges that can be used for agricultural uses.
POTW operators, in comments on the draft plan, urged EPA to broaden its planned review of CWT plants, saying some POTWs have experienced problems related to waste from CWTs due to inadequate characterization and treatment of the wastes received at the CWT. “Additional federal standards for this category could help prevent pass-through and interference for POTWs,” the National Association of Clean Water Agencies said.
Environmentalists called on EPA to expedite review of CWTs and quickly revise the standards for oil and gas wastewater, saying a 2016 rule barring POTWs from treating the sector’s wastewater means more effluent could soon be sent to CWTs.
But the American Petroleum Institute (API) questioned EPA's plan to study CWTs that accept oil and gas wastewater and effluent from petroleum refineries. The study is “disconcerting because EPA’s decision to study the CWT point source category was based on public comments from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) rather than on the more objective (and more frequently used) analysis of toxics-weighted pollutant loadings,” API said.
The draft plan said EPA was reviewing two categories of discharges given changes in the industries since the original ELGs were developed in the 1980s: battery manufacturing, and electrical and electronic components manufacturing.
The final plan says the agency is initiating a new study of the electrical and electronic components point source category, which includes four subcategories of manufacturing. These are semiconductors, such as integrated circuits and light emitting diodes; electronic crystals made from quartz, ceramics and other materials; cathode ray tubes; and luminescent materials used as coatings in fluorescent lamps.
“The focus of this study will be on changes within the industry since the 1983 rulemaking, particularly as these changes pertain to wastewater characteristics and wastewater treatment technologies,” the Federal Register notice says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-plans-two-new-elg-studies
-
Clean Air Regulations Protect Health and Benefit the Economy
May 2, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
The Trump administration is waging war on the laws meant to protect Americans from air pollution, arguing that rolling back regulations on coal-fired power plants, cars and trucks, and other sources of fossil fuel emissions is necessary to ensure a healthy economy.
But the evidence is clear that environmental and public health protections actually strengthen the economy, by encouraging entrepreneurship, stimulating new industries and improving worker health, which leads to greater productivity.
A recent American Lung Association report found that 40 percent of Americans breathe unhealthy air. The primary culprits are electricity plants, which emit microscopic particles of soot that penetrate deep into our lungs, and automobiles, whose emissions produce ozone. This pollutant can cause or worsen asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
The health impacts are alarming. A new study in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society estimates that asthma costs the nation almost $82 billion per year in medical costs and missed school and work days. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 million Americans have asthma, including more than 8 percent of children and more than 7 percent of adults. The numbers have steadily increased since the 1980s and will get worse. The American Lung Association says warmer weather caused by climate change will drive more ozone formation, resulting in poorer respiratory health.
In the midst of this epidemic of lung disease, the Trump administration has proposed one rollback of clean air rules after another. A major Trump initiative is to rescind Obama-era fuel efficiency standards. Under the Obama standards, by 2025, cars and light trucks are supposed to average nearly 55 miles per gallon. The Obama administration estimated that by that date, consumers would save $1.7 trillion on fuel. Every dollar spent to comply with the standards would return $13 in health benefits. The additional cost to the price of a car would be just $72.
Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has worked systematically to derail air and water regulations for coal-fired power plants. These include making it easier for plants to increase their air emissions through upgrades and eliminating carbon dioxide emission standards.
The benefits of environmental regulations far outweigh the costs. YaleEnvironment360reported that a Harvard University study found the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 delivered $30 in health benefits for every dollar of investment. A 2010 study by the Office of Management and Budget found the EPA was consistently the top federal agency in terms of costs of regulations versus benefits.
What’s more, technological advances allow us to systematically replace polluting coal and natural gas plants, and the internal combustion engine. Bloomberg reports that 80 percent of the global auto market is moving toward electric vehicles and it expects electric vehicle sales to exceed those of cars with internal combustion engines within 20 years. From 2010 to 2017, 60,000 megawatts of coal-fired units were closed – enough to power 40 million homes. Wind, solar, natural gas and air regulations have been the driving forces. Renewables and energy storage are now rivaling natural gas plants on cost.
Rather than controlling pollution with retrofits such as scrubbers on coal plants or catalytic converters on cars, we can invest in technology that doesn’t pollute, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in health costs.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/clean-air-regulations-protect-health-and-benefit-economy#.Wunfn_lubX4
-
Climate Change May Deeply Wound Long-Term U.S. Growth, Richmond Fed Paper Finds
May 2, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Michael S. Derby
Rising temperatures resulting from global warming are likely to slow U.S. economic growth significantly in the decades ahead, according to a paper published recently by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
Projected increases in average U.S. temperatures “could reduce U.S. economic growth by up to one-third over the next century,” wrote the authors, Riccardo Colacito of the University of North Carolina, Bridget Hoffmann of the Inter-American Development Bank and Toan Phan of the Richmond Fed.
The researchers looked at how rising temperatures, especially those that are above normal for a given time of the year, have affected economic activity for clues about how projected future warming will influence growth.
They noted the shifts regional economies experience when the seasons change. Growth slows during hotter-than-normal summer weather and picks up once cooler autumn temperatures arrive. Hotter summers hit harder than warm autumns, they note. A one degree Fahrenheit increase in average summer temperatures reduces growth at the state level by 0.15 to 0.25 percentage points, for example.
The authors say rising temperatures reduce growth in many different ways. But generally, an increasingly hotter environment makes many activities, not just outdoor work, harder to do. The more temperatures rise—and most scientists expect that to happen if no action is taken to stop global warming–the bigger the impact will be, they write.
Factory output falls during temperature surges, the paper notes. Construction and agricultural activity slow down, and retail sales can be hit by delayed or scuttled shopping trips.
Worker productivity ebbs and even air conditioning’s power to mitigate the effects can be outstripped by rising heat. The paper says climbing temperatures weigh on worker health levels.
Rising temperatures lead to more extreme weather damage that boosts reconstruction and insurance-related costs.
Adapting to climate change–such as constructing buildings that can withstand rising waters–diverts investment from more productive uses.
The paper notes one of the few industries that benefit from a rise in average temperatures is energy utilities, which represent a relatively small part of overall economic output.
The paper doesn’t address the benefits some areas could see from rising temperatures, like the possibility of increased economic activity in places where it is now curbed by cold weather.
The authors relied on climate data provided by the Nature Conservancy’s online Climate Wizard data tool, which offers historic and projected climate information.
The authors acknowledge uncertainty about the likely path of temperatures, and say bigger or smaller rises in average temperatures can lead to notably different economic outcomes.
Their economic estimates rest on an assumption that average temperatures rise and there’s no active effort to reverse or mitigate the factors leading to an overall hotter environment.
Their projections partly reflect the emergence of the southern U.S. as a major contributor to national economic growth. As overall temperatures rise, they’ll hit that already warm zone hard.
In an interview, Mr. Colacito noted changes in temperature trends are “very persistent,” which increases the odds that sustained rises in temperatures will have dramatic effects on the economy.
Mr. Colacito said one aim of the paper was to see if climate shifts will affect the U.S. economy, since most research has focused on the likely impacts on developing nations.
He said he started his work “agnostic” about what he’d find.
Most scientists attribute global warming to the world’s reliance on fossil fuels, which pump carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere, causing it to trap more heat.
Many global leaders have sought to put in place agreements such as the 2015 Paris climate accord to slow the pace of temperature increases. President Donald Trump has said he would withdraw the U.S. from the agreement in an effort to boost the nation’s industry and independence.
https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/05/02/climate-change-may-deeply-wound-long-term-u-s-growth-richmond-fed-paper-finds/?ns=prod/accounts-wsj
-
Trump Foils Pick Climate Fight They Won't Likely Finish
May 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California officials are launching broadsides against the Trump administration's climate policies, but the state's main climate commanders probably won't be around for the marquee battles.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) held a press conference in Sacramento yesterday to announce a lawsuit over EPA's plans to ditch Obama-era fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles. It's the state's 10th lawsuit against the Trump administration's EPA and its 32nd against the administration overall.
"The state of California is not looking to pick a fight with the Trump administration, but we are ready for one," Becerra said.
He was flanked by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, each of whom has decades of experience in environmental policy and politics — and each of whom probably won't be in state government past the end of this year. California's leadership changes come as the state lurches closer to battles that could substantively affect its authority to reduce greenhouse gases.
Brown, 80, is stepping down due to term limits. Nichols, who also served as head of the state's main air agency under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and during Brown's second term as governor, from 1979 to 1983, is expected to step down, as well.
"Mary Nichols has indicated she plans to retire, and things could change for us depending on who comes on as the next board chair," Veronica Eady, CARB's executive officer for environmental justice, said in an interview last month. "I hope that our next chair is also strong and decisive."
Agency staff declined to discuss Nichols' plans yesterday, but other Sacramento observers also expect her to retire. "I've heard her say that she would essentially go out with Gov. Brown," said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air.
While 16 other states and Washington, D.C., are joining California in its latest suit, the Golden State has a natural bully pulpit due to its size and economic clout, as well as the exceptionality granted to it by the Clean Air Act. Because of California's severe air pollution, with EPA's permission it can set limits stricter than the federal standards for mobile sources, and other states can follow it, as 13 plus the District of Columbia have done. Under President Obama, EPA worked with CARB to set the joint state-federal fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles through 2025 that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is now undoing.
"This is a science-based attack that we make on these characters in Washington that, in the name of making America great, are making us weak," Brown said at yesterday's conference. He also dubbed the EPA leader "Outlaw Pruitt."
"This is about health, it's about life and death, and this character in Washington, with his expensive travel tastes and funny little redecorating plans that cost the American people all sorts of money, is riding roughshod over the laws of this country and the health of our people," Brown said.
Pruitt has said as recently as last week that he isn't planning to try to revoke California's authority for its existing standards, and yesterday's suit doesn't address the state's Clean Air Act authority. Rather, it alleges that EPA violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act by "arbitrarily and capriciously" deciding that the Obama-era targets for tailpipe exhaust were too ambitious.
A federal draft proposal leaked last week, though, would freeze fuel economy standards at 2020 levels through 2026 and takes aim at California's authority via the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which gives the power to regulate fuel economy solely to the Transportation Department (E&E News PM, April 27).
Who's 'David Pruitt'?
More battles likely await Brown's and Nichols' successors.
"I do think that we're going to have new leadership next year on our air and climate issues, and it's going to be very consequential who those leaders are," Magavern said. "It really matters a lot who we choose as governor and who that governor chooses to run the Air Resources Board."
Observers say they aren't worried that the incoming Democratic candidates will lack zeal. The leading Democratic candidates to replace Brown, including front-runner Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, are all pledging to continue or even advance Brown's climate policies (E&E Daily, Feb. 27). And while no candidate can claim to match Brown's four terms of gubernatorial experience, his clout may be falling on deaf ears at the federal level, Magavern pointed out.
"I don't know if Trump even has enough knowledge of history to understand Jerry Brown's historical role," Magavern said. "With most people you would think they did, but with him, there's so little consciousness there."
Becerra, as well, is running for election to his current post. Brown appointed him attorney general in 2017 to fill the spot vacated by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) when she won election to the Senate. His Democratic opponent, state Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, is running to his left, with a particular focus on climate issues. The two have sparred over taking contributions from oil companies, and Jones has vowed to investigate Exxon Mobil Corp.'s knowledge of climate change risks (E&E Daily, March 23).
Becerra stumbled early in yesterday's press conference, calling the EPA administrator "David Pruitt." Another California official said the flub was understandable.
"Well, he never calls Mary or returns phone calls, so I don't blame California officials for not knowing his name," CARB board member and former state Sen. Dean Florez (D) said of Pruitt. "He just talks at California, not with California, which is why this lawsuit is being filed. Maybe he will show up to court?"
Florez said he wasn't concerned about a change in tack under the next administration.
"The new governor or next CARB chair might plow and seed further initiatives, but the ground they chose will not change, and in that sense, I don't worry about them both leaving for better pastures," Florez said. "Whoever takes over needs simply to mind the field they have planted — it's a pretty simple job."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/02/stories/1060080621
-
EPA Keeping Standards for Makers of Brake Materials
May 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
After a court-ordered assessment, EPA plans to stay with existing air toxics standards for the nation's two major manufacturers of "friction materials" used in vehicle brakes and clutches.
Since the health risks posed by hazardous air pollutants from the plants are already low, "any risk reductions from further available control options would result in minimal health benefits," the agency said in a proposed rule set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register.
While the assessment found two additional pollution control technologies, EPA reviewers decided it would not be "cost-effective" to require them.
If the actual emissions standards would remain unchanged, EPA is seeking to tweak record-keeping and reporting requirements; the proposal would also eliminate an exemption for plant startups, shutdowns and malfunctions that a federal court has ruled illegal. The proposed rule will carry a 45-day public comment period.
The plants covered by the review are in North Carolina and upstate New York. Their hazardous air emissions include formaldehyde, which has the potential to cause cancer, as well as methanol, hexane and phenol. The revised reporting and record-keeping requirements would save the industry almost $7,400 annually, according to an EPA estimate.
The proposed revisions would be the first for the friction materials industry since EPA originally put the standards in place in 2002. Under the Clean Air Act, the assessment — dubbed a "risk and technology review" — was supposed to have been completed in 2010. But EPA is chronically behind; following a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, a federal judge ordered the agency last year to complete reviews for the friction materials business and a dozen other industrial source categories on a staggered schedule ending in mid-2020 (E&E News PM, March 23, 2017).
The risk and technology reviews, which are supposed to be conducted eight years after the original standards are set, are intended to take into account both technical advances in pollution controls and fresh research into individual pollutants' health effects that would indicate whether any residual risk remains.
On Monday, EPA sent a proposed rule covering reviews for several of those other source categories — including surface coating of large appliances; surface coating of metal furniture; and printing, coating and dyeing of textiles — to the White House Office of Management and Budget for a routine interagency review, according the Reginfo.gov website.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/02/stories/1060080673
-
Key Obama Climate Orders Still on the Books
May 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
President Trump appears to relish signing documents that unravel his predecessor's work.
But Trump, who has signed heaps of executive orders with much fanfare, still hasn't used his pen to jettison some parts of President Obama's climate change legacy.
At least 10 executive orders with strong implications for climate change are still on the books, and they carry the force of law until they're rescinded by a president through another executive order. The untouched documents promote policies like boosting energy efficiency, responding to ocean acidification and studying how climate change affects the Chesapeake Bay.
It's unclear whether Trump plans to leave them on the books or just hasn't gotten around to axing them yet.
But the fact that climate orders from the Obama presidency are still active has rankled some, like Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Perhaps they haven't been as systematic as some of us would like them to be," Ebell said of the Trump White House.
Ebell suggested two possible reasons Trump hasn't rescinded some of the orders: time and chaos. "It does take a while to work through your list of things to do," he said, adding, "The White House is not terribly well-organized." He added, "A lot of government is paying attention to the details, and the White House isn't really organized to do that well."
Obama's supporters, meanwhile, are happy to see some of his efforts still in place.
Ali Zaidi, who worked as a top budget official in the White House during the Obama administration, said executive orders should be based on using taxpayer money prudently and on empirical data. "It's hard for me to get the math to add up on how rescinding some of the executive orders is consistent with that norm and set of values," Zaidi said.
Trump did unravel some of Obama's orders that had significant climate policy impacts. Those included one to promote climate resilience in the Bering Sea, another to prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change and one aimed at bracing for increased flooding.
On climate and other issues, executive orders can clarify the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies, said Adele Morris, an economist and climate change expert at the Brookings Institution.
"They can also help guide federal agencies in reducing those risks, for example, by lowering energy use and adopting other cost-effective climate-friendly practices," Morris said in an email, adding that the orders "help the White House ensure that these activities, which federal agencies ought to be doing anyway, are coordinated and efficient."
Kristine Simmons, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks presidential transitions, said incoming administrations typically include a "policy review team" that pours over past presidents' executive orders.
Still, detailed scrutiny doesn't always seep into the broader bureaucracy. "There are many agencies that are not even aware of the executive orders that apply to their work," she said. "There is really very little that is done across government to help staffers keep track of EOs, at [the Office of Management and Budget] and at government agencies."
Of the 276 executive orders Obama signed — dozens of which relate to climate, energy and environmental issues and risks — many survive, including these 10:
Climate-focused development
Trump has targeted orders that include the word "climate" in their titles.
But this one — requiring that U.S. dollars spent on development projects abroad be spent with the effects of climate change in mind — has survived.
"The adverse impacts of climate change," Obama wrote, citing rising ocean levels, drought, wildfires, ocean acidification and others, "threaten to roll back decades of progress in reducing poverty and improving economic growth in vulnerable countries."
Under the provision, heads of the Treasury Department and Agency for International Development, or officials they choose, must oversee a government research group that examines how climate change threatens American efforts to combat poverty.
Encroaching critters
Toward the end of his tenure, Obama signed a measure that requires agencies to consider climate change impacts in their efforts to eradicate and control unwanted and out-of-place plants and animals.
He also called for a report by 2020 pinpointing the challenges for the government in tackling invasive species threats.
Extinguishing fire risks
By nearly every metric, 2017 was one of the most damaging years in U.S. history for wildfires.
It topped $10 billion worth of damage, according to NOAA figures, even before Southern California experienced a spate of fires in December.
An Obama order signed the year before requires U.S. agencies to assess the risks fires pose to buildings they own and manage, as well as buildings where they lease space.
Federal agencies nationwide have to submit reports about their progress this year.
Energy efficiency
Midway through his presidency, Obama signed an order to make "combined heat and power," or CHP, a more common way for heavy manufacturers to get their energy.
The technique lets a building be warmed and powered with electricity at the same time.
"Instead of burning fuel in an on-site boiler to produce thermal energy and also purchasing electricity from the grid, a manufacturing facility can use a CHP system to provide both types of energy in one energy-efficient step," it says.
Oceans
A provision on environmental stewardship of oceans, U.S. coasts and the Great Lakes has also survived Trump's pen stroke.
The order established a national policy to improve the health of aquatic ecosystems. It also presses government agencies to "enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change and ocean acidification."
The House Freedom Caucus, a hard-right conservative group of lawmakers, placed the order on a 2016 list of policies for the Trump administration to eliminate.
Chesapeake Bay
Signed the first year of the Obama presidency, this order requires the Commerce and Interior departments to study how climate change affects the Chesapeake Bay, including its fish and wildlife.
Under that order, the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA are still set to study and respond to climate change through 2025.
Agency sustainability
The Trump administration is in violation of at least one executive order — a document that requires federal agencies to generate sustainability reports.
Dozens of U.S. agencies have failed to publish these reports online, as required by law. The White House budget office has received at least seven reports but has not released those documents (Climatewire, April 23).
Government workers in charge of writing the reports have not received clear instructions from the Office of Management and Budget or the Council on Environmental Quality, which oversee the reports, about what to do.
"We haven't received directions yet," said one official at a small government agency.
Warming Arctic
Some of the Obama-era orders about climate change are subtle. Not so with an order about coordinating national efforts in the Arctic.
"Over the past 60 years, climate change has caused the Alaskan Arctic to warm twice as rapidly as the rest of the United States, and will continue to transform the Arctic as its consequences grow more severe," the order begins.
Among other directives, it sets out steps so Native tribes in Alaska and federal and state officials can better address climate issues.
Government spending
The blandly named "Promoting Efficient Spending" order reads like a standard effort to cut government waste.
But buried inside are rules to limit government travel, in turn lowering workers' carbon footprints, and separate measures to limit the printing of hard-copy documents and to make government vehicles more efficient.
Lighting up Africa
Also untouched is an Obama order about Power Africa, a U.S. project to spread electricity throughout sub-Saharan Africa, in particular through low- and zero-emitting energy sources.
In late 2016, Obama signed the directive pushing agencies to accelerate "the participation of local and regional companies in power, renewable energy, and climate change projects in low-income countries in Africa."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/02/stories/1060080615
-
N.Y. Grid Operator Floats Carbon Price
May 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New York grid authorities released a framework this week for pricing carbon in the Empire State without putting the state's own generators at a disadvantage to neighboring regions.
The "straw proposal" released by the New York Independent System Operator would apply a per-ton carbon charge to generators in the state, then allow them to compete on power prices as they already do. Other mechanisms would aim to blunt the impact on power bills and keep in-state generators on a level playing field with neighboring grids.
The document is meant to get power-sector stakeholders down to brass tacks on how, in practical terms, New York can put a price on carbon if the U.S. government won't.
Parties are digesting the proposal as they prepare for a May 14 meeting. The minute details will be heavily debated, but so far, many just seem glad the process is underway.
"NYISO's draft proposal for a carbon adder would send an important and overdue price signal to the market necessary for New York to achieve its ambitious carbon reduction policies in place to meet long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets," said Deborah Donovan, Massachusetts director for the Acadia Center, an advocacy organization focused on clean-energy issues in the Northeast.
New York has seen some of the most advanced work by any grid operator to integrate a carbon price into everyday wholesale power markets. While New York is part of the multistate Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the state's policy aims may require a stiffer carbon charge than RGGI delivers.
NYISO is looking for practical ways to link the wholesale power market it manages with policy goals set by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). New York's official target is 40 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions, relative to 2005, by 2030. Regulators are also implementing a plan to get half of the state's electricity from renewable energy by 2030.
Under the straw proposal, authored by NYISO and state staff, power generators in the state would have to factor in the carbon price for every ton of CO2 they create. The price, the "social cost of carbon," would be set by the New York Public Service Commission through its standard rulemaking processes.
Once the PSC came up with that charge, power generators would have to add it to their bids in power auctions. Solar, wind and hydro generators would face no charge. Fossil, biomass and cogeneration resources would be among those having to calculate their emissions signature and multiply it by the carbon price.
Generators that are subject to RGGI could deduct the carbon price they're supposed to pay in that system. Generators that aren't under RGGI would face the full price as set by the New York PSC.
The idea is to recruit the market's invisible hand to reward low-carbon generation — ideally without stiffing ratepayers or causing other regions to burn more fossil fuel.
"Low-emitting New York resources, including efficient fossil units, renewables, hydropower, and nuclear generators, would benefit from higher net revenues," the straw proposal said.
While the specifics will need to be hammered out in the NYISO-led process, some in the power industry are broadly supportive so far. They include Gavin Donohue, president and CEO of the Independent Power Producers of New York Inc., whose board includes representatives from Calpine Corp. and NRG Energy Inc.
"IPPNY believes pricing carbon in the marketplace is paramount to addressing the price-suppressive impacts of public policies while achieving cost-effective emissions reductions," he said in a statement. "It is encouraging to see the release of the Straw Proposal and to see the state remains supportive of the process."
The proposal also includes measures to keep the state from simply buying more carbon-intensive power from other grids.
For the purposes of electricity trade with other grids, the document said, NYISO would add a carbon charge for power that it imports from other regions, but subtract the carbon charge if the power is being exported to other regions. The goal would be to maintain the basic competitive dynamics between in-state and out-of-state generators that exist today.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/02/stories/1060080611
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested