Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/30/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former Chemical Industry Attorney Takes over EPA’s Superfund Task Force
May 29, 2018 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has named a former chemical industry attorney to lead its Superfund Task Force in charge of improving and expediting cleanup of some of the country’s most polluted sites. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lyondellbasell HDPE Plant Set for 2019 Opening
May 29, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
LyondellBasell Industries is on track to open a major new plant making high density polyethylene resin. -
EPA: Rep. Kildee 'Mischaracterized' Barring of Staffer from Chemical Summit
May 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is defending a decision to restrict attendance to the second day of a summit on hazardous chemicals, calling a congressman's criticism that his staff was barred from coming a "mischaracterization." -
Trade Secrets Safe Under EPA Science Proposal, Attorneys Say
May 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers’ intellectual property wouldn’t be released to the public even if the EPA completes a proposal to increase access to the science it uses to decide whether chemicals could hurt people or the environment, industry representatives said. -
Campaigners Push US EPA to Finalise TCE Ban
May 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Campaigners are urging the US EPA to finalise its proposed bans on certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE). -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Group Petitions Court for Emissions Review
May 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The American Chemistry Council filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s revision of air toxics standards for the chemical manufacturing industry (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPAmotion filed). -
Lowe’s Is First Retailer to Pull Methylene Chloride Paint Stripper
May 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Lowe’s will stop selling methylene chloride, and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)-based paint strippers by the end of 2018, the company announced May 29. -
Lowe's to Phase out Methylene Chloride, NMP Paint Removers
May 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Home improvement retail giant Lowe’s says it will stop selling paint removal products containing methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) by the end of the year. -
Rural Water Utilities Urge EPA to Resist PFAS MCL
May 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
Rural drinking water suppliers are pushing back against urgent calls by lawmakers, local communities and states for EPA to develop a federal drinking water standard to address perfluorinated chemicals frequently showing up in drinking water systems across the country. -
EE Plastics Pollution Proposal ‘Fails to Address’ Hazardous Substances
May 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission’s recently announced draft laws to tackle plastics pollution fail to address the presence of hazardous substances used in single-use plastic products, an NGO has said. -
Can Liquefied Natural Gas Solve the Trade Deficit?
May 30, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Thomas J. Duesterberg & Alex Entz
Both sides of the longstanding trade dispute between the United States and China suggested recently that sales of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) could be a large part of an eventual resolution. -
Shale’s Surge Crashes into Bottlenecks from Pipelines to Ports
May 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
The U.S. shale surge is crashing headlong into a barrage of bottlenecks. -
Chevron Faces Methane Shareholder Vote as Exxon Gets a Pass
May 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley
Climate change activist investors have turned their attention toward Chevron Corp. in this year’s round of annual general meetings, with the oil major facing a vote on May 30 proposing that it disclose more information on efforts to minimize methane leaks. -
DOE Grants NatGas Import, Export Authorizations to Canada and Mexico
May 29, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy granted nine authorizations last month for companies to both import and export natural gas to Canada and Mexico via pipeline for up to two years, while also vacating three similar authorizations. -
Countries Should Think Hard Before Fracking, Says U.N. Report
May 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
The United Nations' trade wing is warning nations against fracking as a means of powering their economies, citing "major concerns" around groundwater contamination, increased seismic activity and methane leakage. -
There's One Climate Policy Trump Might Not Hate
May 30, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac,
Former President Obama took drafty windows to the woodshed in December 2009. He wanted to make a point about wasting energy, so he visited a Virginia Home Depot to try to make pink rolls of fiberglass a racy house dressing. -
EPA Proposes Retaining SOx NAAQS But Weighs Implementation Changes
May 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to retain its existing primary health-based sulfur oxides (SOx) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) but is weighing potential changes to its implementation, including potentially easing compliance by altering the formula for how the agency determines whether an area is attaining or violating the NAAQS.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
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
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former Chemical Industry Attorney Takes over EPA’s Superfund Task Force
May 29, 2018 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has named a former chemical industry attorney to lead its Superfund Task Force in charge of improving and expediting cleanup of some of the country’s most polluted sites.
Steven Cook has worked for the EPA for three months as deputy assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management, the office in charge of the agency’s emergency response and waste programs. Before coming to the EPA, Cook worked for more than two decades as senior corporate counsel at LyondellBasell, which describes itself as “one of the largest plastics, chemicals and refining companies in the world.”Advertisement
In his new job as head of the Superfund program, Cook will be responsible for overseeing the cleanup of sites polluted by his former employer.
Cook replaces Albert Kelly as chair of the Superfund task force. Kelly, a longtime friend of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, resigned in early May after lawmakers repeatedly pressed for answers about his history in banking and amid growing scandals surrounding Pruitt. Kelly was banned for life from the banking industry by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
The EPA’s Superfund Task Force is charged with streamlining and re-prioritizing the agency’s protocol for remediation of polluted sites; currently, there are more than 1,300 Superfund sites across the country. Pruitt has repeatedly calledSuperfund cleanup a priority for his tenure as administrator.
Lyondell Chemical Co. — a subsidiary of LyondellBasell — is responsible for at least six Superfund sites throughout the country. In 2010, the company agreed to pay $250 million as part of a settlement with the United States government — as well as several state governments — to help remediate 15 polluted sites across the country, including six Superfund sites.
According to E&E News, the EPA has downplayed any potential ethical issues that could arise with Lyondell and Cook, whose new position would put him in charge of overseeing cleanup of some of Lyondell’s polluted sites.
“All EPA employees receive ethics briefings when they start and continually work with our ethics office regarding any potential conflicts they may encounter while employed here,” an agency spokesman said. “Steven Cook is no different.”
Cook is not the only former chemical industry employee to now have landed a top position with the EPA. EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck — who now oversees the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution — came to the agency from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the leading lobbying group for the chemical industry. Since coming to the EPA in 2017, Beck has helped streamlinethe agency’s approach to evaluating new chemicals, which public health groups caution is merely a “handout to the ACC.”
https://thinkprogress.org/former-chemical-industry-attorney-new-chair-epa-superfund-task-force-9d8550eb28ac/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lyondellbasell HDPE Plant Set for 2019 Opening
May 29, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
LyondellBasell Industries is on track to open a major new plant making high density polyethylene resin.
Houston-based LBI will open the new plant sometime in 2019 in LaPorte, Texas, executive Paul Augustowski said in a May 3 interview with Plastics News.Augustowski serves as senior vice president of Americas olefins and polyoelfins for the firm.
The new HDPE plant will have 1.1 billion pounds of annual production capacity and will be the first world-scale plant to use the firm's proprietary Hyperzone-brand technology.
Hyperzone has been used at a pilot plant in Europe. The technology "allows a broad spectrum of HDPE to be made in one plant," said Augustowski, who began his career in 1990 with LBI predecessor Himont USA.
The new line's main extruder and pelletizer were delivered and installed in April. Both sections of its multizone reactor will be installed this month. Its gas-phase reactor will be delivered and installed in June.
HDPE made via Hyperzone has "a good balance of properties," including toughness and chemical resistance, which can benefit large-part and small-part blow molding, film extrusion, injection molding and pipe production, Augustowski added.
"We play in all markets, and we're trying to hit all markets," he said.
Massive amounts of new PE capacity being added in North America — by LBI and other producers who are making use of shale-based feedstocks — which means that some of the new capacity "will find its way overseas."
"The current wave is outpacing domestic sales growth," Augustowski said. "We're building for the global market and have sales channels in all regions."
He added, however, that a good deal of the PE expansions have been focused on low density and linear low density PE, while HDPE projects "actually at this moment are underannounced."
The $725 million LaPorte project is one of several projects on tap for LBI. The firm is also working on a major propylene oxide project and is adding ethylene capacity. Potential projects in the 2022-2025 time frame include more PE production in North America and additional polypropylene capacity in both North America and Europe.
"We'd like to get into a regular cadence of major capital projects," Augustowski said. "We want to be competitive long-term on a global basis and keep all options open." He added that there's "growing confidence" in shale gas and oil as a feedstock.
In addition to his role at LBI, Augustowski is a board member at Indelpro, LBI's PP joint venture in Mexico. He also serves as a board member for the Plastics Industry Association and as vice chairman of the plastics operating committee for the American Chemistry Council.
Outside of expansions from LBI and other materials makers, many of LBI's U.S. customers "are expanding here because of raw material availability." On the resin production side, although there are "pockets of surpluses," capacity utilization "is holding up well," he added.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180529/NEWS/180529909/lyondellbasell-hdpe-plant-set-for-2019-opening
-
EPA: Rep. Kildee 'Mischaracterized' Barring of Staffer from Chemical Summit
May 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/389723-epa-rep-kildee-mischaracterized-barring-of-staffer-from-chemical
-
Trade Secrets Safe Under EPA Science Proposal, Attorneys Say
May 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers’ intellectual property wouldn’t be released to the public even if the EPA completes a proposal to increase access to the science it uses to decide whether chemicals could hurt people or the environment, industry representatives said.
The proposal (RIN 2080-AA14) would require scientific data be sufficiently available to the public so that interested parties could understand how the Environmental Protection Agency reached its conclusions. That would include information the agency uses in models that predict how chemicals affect people and the environment.
Chemical toxicity and exposure data that companies spend time and money generating and submit to the agency couldn’t be disclosed, however, because it has commercial value, Christina Franz, an attorney and senior director at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
Trade secrets, Franz said, along with commercial and financial information already are protected under a separate law that would remain in effect: the Freedom of Information Act.
The EPA has invited supporters and critics of the proposed rule to a July 17 public hearing about it, and the agency extended the comment period through Aug. 17.
Public vs. Private InterestsCritics of the proposed rule say company-generated information would be protected and used, while academic and public health data might have to be fully public.
The rule could put regulated industries’ interests above public health considerations, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), top Democrat of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, wrote in comments she submitted May 24.
“Prioritizing the confidentiality of private entities could lead to the publication or release of data that is supported by industry and could bias the usable body of evidence for the EPA towards a particular industry position,” she said.
“The promulgation of this proposed rule would set a dangerous and potentially life-threatening precedent regarding the use of health-based data, modeling, and research in regulatory decision-making,” John Linc Stine, commissioner of Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency, and Jan Malcolm, commissioner of the state’s health department, wrote in a May 15 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
But Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the chemistry council, is among the supporters of the rule who said it protects both companies and people.
“We think this policy protects key business and personal privacy interests, and help ensure that there’s a sound scientific basis for the decisions the agency makes,” Walls said.
The chemistry council represents companies including the 3M Co., Albemarle Corp., Momentive Performance Materials Inc., and Procter & Gamble’s Chemicals.
Impact on ChemicalsThe rule would apply to data and models that play pivotal roles in significant regulatory actions, typically ones with a $100 million or more annual economic impact.
Some rules restricting chemicals in commerce could easily meet the proposal’s criteria, Walls said.
But decisions the EPA makes about whether to allow new chemicals into commerce would largely be unaffected, Richard Engler, a senior chemist with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.'s Washington office, told Bloomberg Environment.
The proposed rule would help achieve two central goals of the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016, Walls said. Those goals are TSCA’s requirement that the EPA use the best available science and weigh criteria such as the quality of evidence it uses to review chemicals, he said.
It would direct the EPA to base decisions on scientific principles already found in guidance that the agency issued under previous Democratic and Republican administrations, in government-wide guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget, and in the TSCA amendments, Walls said.
Articulating the guidance in a rule, however, puts teeth into into it, said James G. Votaw, a chemicals and pesticide attorney with Keller and Heckman LLP’s Washington office, during a recent webinar that law firm hosted.
That rule’s transparency requirement would mean people could understand the models the agency uses to predict chemical hazards, said David Fischer, a senior director at the chemistry council.
“In the past we’ve only gotten bits and pieces of these models, and so we don’t have full confidence in them,” he said. Yet, models “are very powerful tools.”
Unfounded PresumptionsThe rule’s objective that scientific information be available is good, Dale Hattis, a risk assessment and biology professor at Clark University, told Bloomberg Environment.
But the rule presumes science often will buttress the position that low doses of chemicals would not be harmful, he said. That presumption is not supported by research on how chemicals move through and interact with the body.
Sometimes there’s no safe dose due to the biological changes a chemical has, particularly molecules that can cause cancer by damaging DNA, he added.
Other times people’s exposure to a chemical from one particular source—perhaps its use in certain consumer products—adds to the larger total exposure to that same chemical, Hattis said.
That total exposure would exceed any alleged safe dose, he said.
There’s no empirical basis to support the rule’s presumption that chemicals have a safe dose or “threshold,” Tracey Woodruff, an environmental health professor at the University of California San Francisco and former senior scientist in the EPA’s policy office, told Bloomberg Environment.
Fischer, from the chemistry council, said the rule doesn’t support any specific theory on whether a chemical has a safe dose. It just requires the agency to base its conclusions on scientific data, he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trade-secrets-safe-under-epa-science-proposal-attorneys-say
-
Campaigners Push US EPA to Finalise TCE Ban
May 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Campaigners are urging the US EPA to finalise its proposed bans on certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE).
The agency issued proposed rules under section 6 of TSCA that would prohibit the use of TCE in vapour degreasing and as an aerosol degreaser and spot cleaner in dry cleaning, in late 2016 and early 2017.
But last December, they were moved onto the agency's "long-term action" agenda, indicating there are no immediate plans to finalise them. More than 200 people have signed a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt demanding the agency end the "unacceptable" delay on any action.
"Every year, 172m pounds of TCE is produced in, or imported into, this country," wrote the campaigners. "It is highly toxic, and exposure to the chemical has a wide range of health impacts."
In comments on the proposals, industry groups had requested that the EPA delay regulatory action on TCE until it completes its updated assessment of the substance – one of the first ten selected for risk evaluation under the revised TSCA law.
But NGOs Environmental Working Group and Environmental Defense Fund – which are backing the call to action – say there are "strong indications" that the upcoming review of TCE will fail to account for all known exposures and thus will not result in sufficiently protective outcomes.
And deferring the proposals "postpones any meaningful action to address [TCE’s] known risk for many years", they added.
The push for action closely follows recent signals from the EPA that it will finalise its proposal to ban methylene chloride paint strippers – a separate section 6 rulemaking which had appeared to have been similarly shelved.
The agency’s announcement to move that proposal forward has come just two days after Mr Pruitt met with NGO campaigners and families of those who died using the products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67260/campaigners-push-us-epa-to-finalise-tce-ban
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Group Petitions Court for Emissions Review
May 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The American Chemistry Council filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s revision of air toxics standards for the chemical manufacturing industry (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPAmotion filed). The industry groups May 27 filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of a final rule published in March that altered emissions limits for polyethylene terephthalate resins manufacturers, which are in the group IV polymers and resins category. That final rule limited emissions from equipment leaks and revised the ethylene glycol concentration limit in process contact cooling towers ( 79 Fed. Reg. 17,340 ; 24 DEN A-18, 2/5/14 38 CRR 185, 2/10/14 . The final rule retained existing emissions standards for other group IV polymers and resins as well as standards for the pesticide active ingredient production and polyether polyols production source categories. The American Chemistry Council declined to offer additional details on the reasoning behind the lawsuit when asked by Bloomberg BNA. The petition for review is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/American_Chemistry_Council_v_EPA_Docket_No_1401083_DC_Cir_May_27_.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-group-petitions-court-for-emissions-review
-
Lowe’s Is First Retailer to Pull Methylene Chloride Paint Stripper
May 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Lowe’s will stop selling methylene chloride, and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)-based paint strippers by the end of 2018, the company announced May 29.
Methylene chloride is a toxic chemical known to cause cancer and has been linked to three deaths since last October. All three involved men who died after being overcome by fumes while working with methylene-chloride-based paint strippers in enclosed spaces.
“We care deeply about the health and safety of our customers, and great progress is being made in the development of safer and more effective alternatives,” said Mike McDermott, Lowe’s chief customer officer.
In a company statement, McDermott said Lowe’s recognizes the need for viable paint removal products and remains committed to working with suppliers to innovate new products.
The news was hailed by environmental advocates as an important step forward in protecting consumer safety.
According to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, methylene chloride paint strippers have accounted for at least 56 accidental exposure deaths since 1980. The hazards prompted the European Union to pull methylene chloride paint strippers from general use in 2011.
Will Others Follow Suit?Pressure now ratchets up on other retailers such as Home Depot, Amazon, and Walmart to follow Lowe’s lead.
“We continue to follow EPA regulations,” Yang Yang, a spokesperson for Home Depot, said. “The primary demand for these products is from our professional contractors, but we urge anyone to closely follow safety precautions, as with any product.”
“We have been pressing retailers to take this deadly product off their shelves for the past year,” said Liz Hitchcock, acting director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a Washington-based advocacy group.
Hitchcock said her group send a letter to both Lowe’s and Home Depot when the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the ban in 2017, urging the retailers to get out in front of the EPA the same way they did with the decision to stop selling vinyl PVC flooring made with toxic phthalates.
“We’re very happy that Lowe’s came to this decision on their own—we think it is a good sign that retailers can take action even if EPA is moving so slowly,” she said.
Alternatives Not as Effective, Industry SaysMethylene chloride is a highly efficient chemical product. It softens old paint in minutes, allowing the coating to be scraped off. But fumes can also build up in enclosed spaces, where they becomes deadly.
Chemical and solvent industry manufactures maintain that the chemical’s hazards can be addressed without an outright ban.
“We can successfully reformulate the products with lower weight percentages of methylene chloride,” said Mark Monique, President of Savogran, which makes the SuperStrip and Strypeeze brands.
“The challenge is reformulating products with higher weight percentages, because methylene chloride is so effective, nonflammable and VOC exempt,” he said. referring to volatile organic compounds.
Monique told Bloomberg Environment he supports the development of an online training course as a short-term solution to train users of methylene chloride-based paint strippers in their safe and effective use.
“After completing the on-line training course, and successfully passing an examination to prove competence, a certificate would be issued and the person buying the product would present it at the point of sale to authorize its purchase.”
Others claim that a partial ban for certain uses might be appropriate.
“We’re very much in support of a ban for bathtub stripping, methylene chloride was never intended to be used for that,” said Faye Graul, executive director of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, a lobbying organization for makers of those chemicals.
According to Graul’s estimates, around 90,000 jobs would be affected if a full ban on methylene chloride was passed into law.
EPA Considering BanThe EPA proposed the ban on methylene chloride in the final days of the Obama administration, in Jan. 2017. By the end of the year, the agency had relegated the rule to its list of “long-term actions,” giving no indication about when the rule would be finalized.
But after meeting with the families of several men whose deaths were linked to methylene chloride, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced May 10 the agency would finalize the ban.
Environmental advocacy groups have largely applauded EPA’s announcement, although some organizations caution that any kind of watering down of the original proposal’s language won’t fly with them.
“First and foremost, it has to be a full ban on the distribution and use of the chemical, not some kind of better labeling or requirements to use a $100 respirator,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.
The ban must also apply to consumer and commercial users, Denison said.
The EPA would not offer a timetable for sending proposed language over to the Office of Management and Budget, the next step in the regulatory process.
A spokesman told Bloomberg Environment the agency “is moving quickly to immediately address immediate risks from methylene chloride” and plans to complete the rulemaking shortly.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/lowes-is-first-retailer-to-pull-methylene-chloride-paint-stripper
-
Lowe's to Phase out Methylene Chloride, NMP Paint Removers
May 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Home improvement retail giant Lowe’s says it will stop selling paint removal products containing methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) by the end of the year.
The company says the move is part of its "ongoing commitment to bring safer, affordable options to customers". It also follows a months-long campaign spearheaded by NGOs the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, as well as family members of those who have died using the products.
The commitment marks the first of its kind for the industry. And it comes as the US EPA signals its intent to finalise a proposal that would see the products banned or restricted.
The agency first proposed this action in January last year, after finding the products present an unreasonable risk to human health. But the EPA had appeared – until a recent meeting with campaigners and its subsequent announcement – to be shelving the rule.
Lowe’s says it will work with the EPA "on a consistent regulatory standard across the industry". And it intends to engage the agency, as well as NGOs and suppliers, to "quickly market new alternatives and lead change in the industry".
According to the retailer, it will work with the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council (GC3) – a business collaborative that drives the adoption of safer alternatives, of which Lowe’s is a member – to scale up "more suitable options".
Lowe’s already offers several paint remover alternatives without methylene chloride and NMP. It intends to expand these offerings by the year’s end.
GC3 director Joel Tickner said that the action "provides an important stimulus for green chemistry solutions" in the sector. He added that the company recognises these "must offer comparable performance at a reasonable price for the end users".NGOs applaud news
Mike Schade, director of SCHF’s Mind the Store campaign, praised Lowe’s "outstanding leadership" in phasing out the paint stripppers.
"Lowe’s action begins to fill a vacuum left by EPA’s failure under Administrator Scott Pruitt to finalise a ban on the use of these chemicals," said Mr Schade.
"It remains unclear what, if anything, the EPA will do, and whether it will weaken the proposed ban’s provisions," added Sujatha Jahagirdar, policy specialist with the NRDC.
"When facing federal inaction … retailers have a responsibility and an opportunity to do right by their customers," added Mr Schade.
He called on other retailers to follow Lowe’s lead.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67257/lowes-to-phase-out-methylene-chloride-nmp-paint-removers
-
Rural Water Utilities Urge EPA to Resist PFAS MCL
May 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
Rural drinking water suppliers are pushing back against urgent calls by lawmakers, local communities and states for EPA to develop a federal drinking water standard to address perfluorinated chemicals frequently showing up in drinking water systems across the country.
The National Rural Water Association's (NRWA) regulatory committee May 25 unanimously adopted a policy recommendation for NRWA to urge Congress and EPA against adopting an enforceable federal Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), fearing local governments will be burdened by fines for non-compliance.
Instead, the regulatory committee's recommendation calls for “alternative federal initiatives” that would assist communities with PFAS contamination, the group says in a May 29 press release. It cites funding that local communities need for treating and monitoring their drinking water supplies.
NRWA represents more than 30,000 water and sewer utilities. NRWA's executive committee on June 30 plans to consider the regulatory committee's recommendation. If the executive committee adopts the advice, it will become the association's policy, and the group will likely send formal comment to EPA and Congress, a spokesman for the group says.
NRWA's emerging position comes as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced May 22 at a much-anticipated national summit on PFAS that the agency will “take the next step” to evaluate the need for an MCL for the two most common PFAS -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- although agency officials have said that any MCL is likely years away.
The pushback from rural water utilities also comes amid a split among states over whether EPA should quickly develop an MCL for PFOA and PFOS. While some states have urged quick issuance, others are concerned that such regulations “could divert resources from other drinking water issues and impose unwarranted costs on water systems,” the Environmental Council of States said in a May 21 letter to EPA on the eve of the summit.
But lawmakers, community groups, and some environmental groups and states have for months pressured the agency to quickly develop an MCL for PFOA and PFOS. Without a national standard, states have adopted a patchwork of drinking water and cleanup levels for PFAS.
NRWA in its release urges another path, in part fearing enforcement repercussions on local governments.
It notes in findings on the issue that MCLs are regulatory enforceable levels that may result in fines on local governments, the release says. Instead, it says, affected communities need “funding for treatment, monitoring assistance, on-site technical assistance for emergency operations, credible public health information, emergency access to safe drinking water and locally supported solutions.”
Levying fines on local consumers for MCL violations “is not a helpful solution for small and rural communities” harmed by PFAS contamination, the findings say.
NRWA says EPA should identify what level of PFAS in drinking water is unsafe or acknowledge if such a finding is not possible, it says.
Further, the group notes that local governments lack responsibility for PFAS contamination, but rather “responsible parties should be held accountable for remediation, treatment and providing alternative sources of safe drinking water."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/rural-water-utilities-urge-epa-resist-pfas-mcl
-
EE Plastics Pollution Proposal ‘Fails to Address’ Hazardous Substances
May 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission’s recently announced draft laws to tackle plastics pollution fail to address the presence of hazardous substances used in single-use plastic products, an NGO has said.
The EU executive says it is targeting the ten such products most often found on Europe's beaches and seas, as well as lost and abandoned fishing gear. The new rules will introduce provisions including:plastic ban on certain products: this will apply to plastic cotton buds, cutlery, plates, straws, drink stirrers and sticks for balloons which will have to be made exclusively from more sustainable materials;consumption reduction targets: member states will have to reduce the use of plastic food containers and drinks cups;obligations for producers: they will help cover the costs of waste management and clean-up, as well as awareness-raising measures for packaging and food contact materials. Industry will also be given incentives to develop less polluting alternatives for these products; andawareness-raising measures: member states will be required to raise consumer awareness on the negative impact of littering from single-use plastics.
But the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said that hazardous substances in the products must be addressed because they can "easily leak" into the environment and food chain.
"Our daily exposure to toxic chemicals used in food packaging and bottles can lead to chronic diseases," Elise Vitali, a chemicals expert at the EEB, said. "A comprehensive strategy must tackle the effects of these single-use plastics on people’s health."
However, the issue of hazardous chemicals in food contact materials and packaging is rising up the agenda. A group of NGOs, including CHEM Trust and ChemSec, has recently collaborated on a project to investigate their presence in plastic packaging.
And in February, the Commission published its amending Regulation on the use of bisphenol A in varnishes and coatings intended to come into contact with food that sets a migration limit of 0.05mg of BPA per kg of food.
MEPs had voted to reject a motion that had called for a total ban on BPA in FCMs at the beginning of the year.
There will now be a three-month scrutiny period by the European Parliament and Council before adoption.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67278/eu-plastics-pollution-proposal-fails-to-address-hazardous-substances
-
Can Liquefied Natural Gas Solve the Trade Deficit?
May 30, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Thomas J. Duesterberg & Alex Entz
Both sides of the longstanding trade dispute between the United States and China suggested recently that sales of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) could be a large part of an eventual resolution. News out of Europe and Japan also features a prominent role for LNG exports to reduce trade deficits with these two allies, and potentially spurring the Trump administration to back down on the steel and aluminum tariffs that have roiled relations. The question left unasked is whether the American LNG industry can shoulder such a heavy burden. A closer look at the trajectory of this sector suggests a mixed answer, at best.
Growth in LNG exports would help the U.S. economy and the environment by reducing greenhouse gases. Germany and, to a lesser extent, Japan, have been importing more U.S. coal as they phase out nuclear generating capacity. China remains the world’s largest user of CO2 rich coal. Substituting natural gas for coal would cut CO2 emissions relative to coal by at least one-half. Producing more natural gas would also be a boon for the U.S. economy, especially its industrial sector. Developing more natural gas fields and building infrastructure to get it to end users would boost not only the energy sector, but also the steel, construction machinery, and other heavy equipment industries.
The problem is that the United States does not presently have sufficient capacity to meet anything near the potential demands from the world’s next three biggest economies. Existing U.S. capacity for exporting LNG is about 3.8 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/day). Japan alone imports an average of around 12.7 Bcf/day; global imports are around 45 Bcf/day. As Germany, Japan, and perhaps Korea decrease their reliance on nuclear power, and China, India, the United States, and others continue to shift from coal to natural gas, demand is expected to grow steadily. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects global LNG demandto triple by 2040.
The U.S. does not have nearly enough liquefaction capacity to make a dent in this growing demand.
The U.S. competes with the Gulf States, Russia, and Australian as an LNG mega-producer. But if China, Japan, and the E.U. are anxious to settle trade disputes by favoring U.S. suppliers, pressure will mount to ramp up U.S. production. The United States is the world’s largest producer of natural gas and has ample reserve capacity. But as of early 2018, American firms have limited LNG facilities. In addition to the existing 3.8 Bcf/day plant capacity, new facilities now under construction would add about 8.1 Bcf/day by the end of 2019, according to the Federal Energy Resource Commission (FERC). Another 6.8 Bcf/day in capacity has gained regulatory approval but construction has not started. Existing plus under-construction capacity is thus around 11.9 Bcf/day, although EIA has a lower projection of 9.6 Bcf/day. LNG capacity in the U.S. was limited until 2015 due to a ban on exports and low prices.
Assuming average existing export prices of $5.62 per million British Thermal Units, exports would be worth about $24.4 billion if the 11.9 Bcf/day capacity is achieved. Current capacity utilization is closer to 80 percent, so the real export figure would be closer to $19.3 billion. The combined trade deficit in goods with China, Japan, and the E.U. was $595 billion in 2017. Based on our calculations, even if all prospective LNG facilities — including some permitted but not yet under construction — were to be completed, the total capacity of around 18.7 Bcf/day would only generate $38.4 billion in exports and reduce the trade deficit in goods up to 6.5 percent. And this is presuming, probably erroneously, that coal exports would not be displaced.
Despite the reality that LNG exports can make only a relatively small dent in the cumulative trade deficit, the effort to increase production is well worth the price. It would require a determined and sustained initiative by the Trump administration to overcome traditional obstacles, including regulatory delays and resistance to new production and pipelines. To take but one example, the North Slope of Alaska has enormous reserves of natural gas, but development has been stymied by decades of opposition. A small LNG facility in Southern Alaska was mothballed in 2015. In recent years, the Alaskan state government has cobbled together an ambitious gas extraction, pipeline, and LNG project, with a projected cost of $40–45 billion, to bring North Slope gas largely to the Asian market. A 2.6 Bcf/day liquefaction and export facility is the final stage of the project. Chinese money and construction resources may be part of the project and a possible deliverable of ongoing U.S.-China trade negotiations. Japanese expertise and financing could also be a potential part of a project of this scope. The initial application for the project submitted to the Federal government was 55,000 pages in length, leaving plenty of room for assistance.
But a new and more flexible approach to regulation and resource development would be required if this project and others like it are to have any chance of success. Some elements of a shift would include streamlining the permitting process for LNG facilities; eliminating the federal permit requirement to export natural gas; placing time limits on federal authorities to review applications for energy infrastructure projects; and expanded permitting for exploration and development of resources on Alaska’s North Slope. A new direction in development policy would support the U.S. economy, help lower the trade deficit, and contribute to lowering CO2 emissions.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/05/30/liquefied_natural_gas_and_the_us_trade_deficit_110295.html
-
Shale’s Surge Crashes into Bottlenecks from Pipelines to Ports
May 30, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum
The U.S. shale surge is crashing headlong into a barrage of bottlenecks.
From West Texas pipelines to Oklahoma storage centers and Gulf Coast export terminals, the delivery system for American crude is straining to keep up with soaring production. That’s limiting the industry’s ability to take full advantage of growing worldwide demand, with U.S. barrels forced to take an almost $9-a-barrel price discount to international crude.
Barclays Plc analysts on May 29 predicted “a new shock” for energy markets as a dearth of pipeline capacity near a key Oklahoma storage hub threatens the flow of oil. Pipeline shortages in Texas’ Permian basin, meanwhile, may not clear until late 2019. The problems undercut hopes American output will stabilize global prices as crude from Venezuela and Iran is increasingly at risk.
“When you’re forced to truck barrels about 500 miles to the Gulf Coast—yes, that’s as inefficient as it sounds—the price differential ‘blows out’ to levels seen recently,” Raymond James & Associates analysts wrote in a May 29 note.
To account for higher shipping costs, crude sold from Midland—the Permian’s unofficial capital—now sells for almost $18 a barrel below Gulf Coast prices, according to data tracked by Bloomberg.
Permian production is set to be “materially above” local refining and transportation capacity for the next 12 to 18 months, the Raymond James analysts, led by Darren Horowitz, said in their note.
Port SizePipelines aren’t the only problem. The U.S. currently has only one export terminal that can accommodate the 2 million-barrel supertankers preferred by Asian and European customers, and expansions at other ports aren’t expected to be complete before 2020, according to Sandy Fielden, director of oil research at Chicago-based Morningstar Inc.
Exports have only been a major concern for the U.S. oil industry since late 2015, when the government ended a 40-year ban on overseas shipments, and they’ve only been economically viable for the last 18 months or so, Fielden said in a May 29 note to clients. “It wasn’t even on the map in 2015,” he added. “It’s been a scramble to get organized.“
The rising cost of transporting oil from Permian wells in West Texas and New Mexico could slow the breakneck pace of growth until early 2019, analysts at Houston investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. wrote in another May 29 note. Natural gas shipments also face constraints, they said. The “wall likely hits at a similar time to crude and could prove an equal barrier to growth,” the analysts wrote.
Enticed by a rebound in global oil prices, U.S. producers set a record this month, pumping 10.7 million barrels of oil a day. American crude exports climbed to a record 2.57 million barrels a day in the second week of May, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
Limitations Laid BareBut the surge in output has suddenly laid bare the limitations of a system that evolved over the last few decades to move foreign oil into the U.S., not the other way around.
In the Permian, the problem’s been magnified by a tight labor market for drivers and competition for trucks that are also needed to deliver sand and chemicals for hydraulic fracturing operations, according to the Raymond James analysts.
Further down the supply chain, the “next bottleneck” looks likely to develop around the crude supply and distribution hub in Cushing, Barclays said. Inventories continue to grow there due to “insufficient takeaway capacity,” analyst Paul Cheng said in a note to clients. Rising output from the Bakken shale play in North Dakota will add to the pressure in coming months, Cheng said.
New RealityMeanwhile, exporters along the Gulf Coast are scrambling to cope with the new reality. The region’s key shipping hubs—Corpus Christi, Houston and Beaumont in Texas, and St. James in Louisiana—plan to add at least 54 million barrels of storage capacity starting next year, a 25 percent increase, Fielden said in his report. Nine projects will expand docks at 40 separate marine terminals.
For now, only the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, or LOOP, can accommodate a fully laden Very Large Crude Carriers, the 2 million-barrel tankers that offer the most efficient shipping to customers. Corpus Christi has announced plans for its first onshore VLCC dock, with another planned near Brownsville, Texas, but neither is scheduled to be finished until 2020 at the earliest, Fielden said.
Until then, the ports must use smaller tankers or take the time-consuming process of filling VLCCs offshore.
Fielden estimates the Gulf Coast can currently export about 3.8 million barrels a day. That’s well above current levels, but partly because bottlenecks back in the Permian and Cushing are limiting supplies, he said in a telephone interview.
“In a year’s time, we’re going to have a bunch of new pipelines and all of that capacity is heading straight for the export docks,” Fielden said.
“Next year’s when we’ll see the real potential constraints if we don’t build those out.“
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/shales-surge-crashes-into-bottlenecks-from-pipelines-to-ports
-
Chevron Faces Methane Shareholder Vote as Exxon Gets a Pass
May 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley
Climate change activist investors have turned their attention toward Chevron Corp. in this year’s round of annual general meetings, with the oil major facing a vote on May 30 proposing that it disclose more information on efforts to minimize methane leaks.
Exxon Mobil Corp., meanwhile, won’t have a climate-related vote at its annual meeting for the first time in at least a decade.
Chevron investors will be asked whether the company should provide a detailed analysis of its actions around methane emissions, particularly from its U.S. shale operations, according to its proxy statement. It follows a similar vote at pipeline company Kinder Morgan Inc. this month, where 38 percent of investors were in favor of the proposal and at Range Resources Corp. where 48 percent backed the report.
Natural gas is seen as a cleaner alternative fuel to coal “but so much of the benefits seem to be lost through these fugitive emissions,” said Brian Rice, a fund manager at California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which manages $225 billion including Chevron shares. “You should be managing those emissions and that risk.”
While much of the focus of stopping global warming has been on carbon emissions, methane is much more potent in trapping heat, meaning that pound for pound, its impact is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s why gas’s reputation as a clean fuel, or as a bridge from coal to renewables, is undermined if companies leak too much of it into the atmosphere.
“You’re going to lose that emission reduction quickly if you’re losing a lot of methane,” said Fred Isleib, environmental, social and corporate governance director at Manulife Asset Management, which manages $394 billion including Chevron shares. “Like carbon we want to make sure these companies are thinking about methane as well.”
Some $34 billion of the world’s gas supply is lost each year to leaks, enough to power Africa twice over, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit organization.
Rice and Isleib declined to reveal their voting intentions at Chevron’s meeting. The proposal said that Chevron’s reporting of methane issues “substantially lags that of its peers.”
Chevron Opposes ProposalChevron has advised shareholders to vote against the proposal, saying in its proxy statement that the company is making ongoing efforts to reduce emissions, has improved disclosure, and is working with scientists to improve leak detection programs. It made a subsequent statement on May 14 saying it has signed a list of pledges, drawn up by industry, academics, and non-governmental organizations to improve emissions performance.
Exxon may have managed to sidestep a vote this year after announcing a plan to cut methane emissions in September and enhancing it this month, when it pledged to reduce outflows by 15 percent from 2016 levels. Sara Ortwein, president of Exxon’s XTO division, said it was “good corporate citizenship” to do so.
It’s also good business, according to Isleib.
“Methane is a product,” he said. “If I’m losing my product, I’m losing revenue, which translates into profit dollars.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chevron-faces-methane-shareholder-vote-as-exxon-gets-a-pass
-
DOE Grants NatGas Import, Export Authorizations to Canada and Mexico
May 29, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy granted nine authorizations last month for companies to both import and export natural gas to Canada and Mexico via pipeline for up to two years, while also vacating three similar authorizations.
According to Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register, the DOE issued 12 orders in total under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. Of those, four are blanket authorizations for companies to import and export natural gas to Canada via pipeline.
Binghamton, NY-based New York State Electric & Gas Co. was given authorization to import and export up to a combined total of 100 Bcf (Order No. 4175), while Boise, ID-based IGI Resources Inc. was granted a 600 Bcf limit (No. 4176). Meanwhile, Canada's Energy Source Natural Gas Inc., which is based in Guelph, Ontario, was given permission to import and export up to a combined total of 1 Bcf (No. 4177) and Greene, NY-based Empire Natural Gas Corp. was given a 4 Bcf limit (No. 4179).
Vancouver, Canada-based Powerex Corp. and Stamford, CT-based Engelhart CTP (US) LLC each were given blanket authorizations to both import and export natural gas from and to Canada and Mexico. The DOE set a combined total limit of 130 Bcf for Powerex (No. 4173) and 1,460 Bcf for Engelhart (No. 4180).
Under the three remaining orders, Houston-based Santa Fe Gas LLC was granted a blanket authorization to import and export up to a combined total of 365 Bcf from and to Mexico (No. 4171). Midland, TX-based West Texas Gas Inc. was given permission to export up to 50 Bcf via pipeline to Mexico (No. 4172), and Houston-based Spark Energy Gas LLC was granted permission to import up to 2 Bcf from Canada (No. 4174).
Three authorizations were vacated. In November 2016, Powerex had been granted authorization to import and export up to combined total of 60 Bcf from and to Canada and Mexico. The company requested that the DOE vacate its existing authorization last March.
Spark Energy was given permission to import up to 1.22 Bcf from Canada in October 2016, but the company asked the DOE to vacate the order last April. The department had also granted, in April 2017, permission for Noble Americas Gas & Power Corp. to import and export up to a combined total of 400 Bcf from and to Canada and Mexico. The company last month notified the DOE that it no longer needed the authorization.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114534-doe-grants-natgas-import-export-authorizations-to-canada-and-mexico
-
Countries Should Think Hard Before Fracking, Says U.N. Report
May 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
The United Nations' trade wing is warning nations against fracking as a means of powering their economies, citing "major concerns" around groundwater contamination, increased seismic activity and methane leakage.
It comes at a time when global energy markets have been deeply reshaped by a combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling operations in the United States, while countries across hemispheres undergo a shift from oil and coal power to natural gas.
The report by the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development abides by that strategy for emissions reductions. It calls natural gas a "bridge fuel" that emits less carbon than fossil fuels and could provide a temporary energy source until renewables are more fully adopted.
It also acknowledges that wastewater disposal in deep wells, which has been linked to stronger and more frequent earthquakes, isn't unique to fracking. But while the environmental risks associated with fracking may be slim, said the report, the consequences could be dire.
Melinda Taylor, senior lecturer in energy law and business at the University of Texas, Austin, said that while scientists' understanding of fracking had evolved past the panic surrounding the technology's first years, fugitive methane could offset the bridge-fuel benefits of natural gas if not kept under control.
"It's potentially the Achilles' heel in the climate calculus," she said (Arren Kimbel-Sannit, Dallas Morning News, May 29). — DI
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/30/stories/1060082921
-
There's One Climate Policy Trump Might Not Hate
May 30, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac,
Former President Obama took drafty windows to the woodshed in December 2009. He wanted to make a point about wasting energy, so he visited a Virginia Home Depot to try to make pink rolls of fiberglass a racy house dressing.
"Insulation is sexy stuff," Obama said. "If you saw $20 bills just sort of floating through the window up into the atmosphere, you'd try to figure out how to keep them."
The White House is no longer hawking fiberglass or sealant, and it's hard to tell whether energy efficiency has a pulse in the Trump administration. The president, who knows something about buildings, hasn't raised the issue since taking office — or much before then.
Yet efficiency is one of the few methods of addressing climate change that the Trump administration hasn't obliterated. That makes it an outlier in a White House that scrubbed mentions of climate change from its website within minutes of President Trump's taking the oath of office (E&E News PM, Jan. 20, 2017).
"Since the inauguration, I think I would describe it not so much as lukewarm but as a slow walk," said Emma Stewart, a climate and cities expert at the World Resources Institute.
The White House declined to comment for this story. But it's true that Trump hasn't used his executive branch powers to order the repeal of various energy efficiency mandates established by the Obama administration.
An executive order that promotes efficiency as a tool to fight climate change remains on the books. So does an order called "Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency," published in 2012 to prod manufacturers to invest in less energy-intensive options. And an order for reduced driving by federal workers, less paper printing and other efficiencies is still alive.
Still, Trump has led other attacks on energy savings, through attempts to slash government funding and delay efficiency standards in the courts.
The latest budget proposal from the White House, submitted for fiscal 2019, calls for deep cuts at the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Funding for the office would be roughly halved to about $300 million. And the weatherization office, which works on the sort of programs Obama touted a decade ago in Virginia, would be zeroed out.
"The budget is first and foremost where they've taken a hacksaw," said Elizabeth Noll of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The administration is also waylaying the implementation of energy efficiency standards on consumer goods, such as home appliances, HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) equipment and electronics, by fighting in the courts.
In December 2016, DOE adopted four standards to save energy. They applied to air conditioners, compressors, boilers and power units. But the Trump administration still has not published the standards.
In a court ruling that month, Vince Chhabria, a federal judge, ordered DOE to release the standards — a decision the administration appealed.
"There is a clear decision by the administration not to pursue appliance standards as a form of energy efficiency," said Sue Coakley, executive director of Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.
If companies don't meet energy standards, they can be blocked from selling their products. And corporate rivals often make the best regulators, Coakley said.
"The other manufacturers are pretty quick to point that out to DOE," Coakley said when asked what happens to companies selling out-of-standard products. "There's a fair amount of self-enforcement that goes on."
The administration has held up at least 28 efficiency standards, according to Stewart.
Separately, the White House tried to muscle through deep cuts to Energy Star — the popular savings program — only to see Congress swoop in to protect it.
"Unfortunately, the administration has proposed deep cuts to high-return federal efficiency investments, putting our R&D innovation engine in jeopardy and making it harder for new efficiency technologies to be fully commercialized and deployed and start to deliver real savings," Jason Hartke, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, said by email.
By 2014, the energy efficiency industry was responsible for more than 100,000 jobs in the American Midwest alone, according to figures from the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA).
The tallies are far higher nationally: about 2 million at the end of 2016, according to one nonpartisan group.
Stacey Paradis, who directs MEEA, said it's "shocking" that the administration — or anyone — would oppose efficiency.
"It's just counterintuitive," she said, adding that she can't understand why the White House isn't backing efficiency policies for manufacturers. "It's a very logical step."
An industry official who has interacted with the White House on efficiency agreed. It's puzzling that the administration doesn't talk more about its benefits, because it employs so many Americans and saves money, the source said.
"It's all about wasting less," this person said.
Energy efficiency is a hard message to push within an administration focused on near-term results, not long-term strategy, observers said. Some projects might require capital investment initially before saving money over a period of 15 years or more.
"This should be something that this administration and the Republicans in Congress could embrace," the industry source said. "It's unfortunate that cleaner has become a bad thing."
Still, the administration does not appear dead set against efficiency.
Trump rescinded an executive order on environmental sustainability at government agencies last week, watering down language about climate change (Climatewire, May 18). But he kept portions on energy efficiency, and his order calls on agencies to curb their power consumption.
Also this spring, the White House proposed a $500 million increase for a DOE office that focused on efficiency. "Agencies have identified energy efficiency projects which if implemented could save the Federal Government millions of dollars annually in energy and maintenance costs," the White House said in a memo with that request.
A former Trump energy adviser, Mike Catanzaro, backed efficiency policies during his White House stint because they save the government money, according to sources familiar with his work.
And Vice President Mike Pence is at least a tepid supporter of performance contracting, a technique that lets local, state and federal agencies retrofit their buildings without putting up any money.
At a meeting with Energy Systems Group, headquartered in Newburgh, Ind., Pence signaled his support for performance contracting, according to a person familiar with the matter.
"He wasn't hindering efficiency, but we haven't seen him embrace," the industry source said of Pence's record as Indiana governor and vice president.
Some Cabinet secretaries have gone to great lengths to cut back even the smallest efficiency measures.
Last year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reversed an Obama-era policy governing home loans and Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, programs. (Through PACE, homeowners can get a line of credit to upgrade their home's energy efficiency.)
In a little-noticed letter published in December, HUD said it would no longer insure mortgages on homes with PACE liens.
Overall, massive financial and energy savings are at stake, said Lowell Ungar, an analyst at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, an advocacy group.
Efficiency programs created by the Obama administration set the United States up to save more than $2 trillion through 2040, Ungar wrote in a blog post.
Unlike Obama, who made site visits and used the bully pulpit to talk about efficiency, Trump has made no such roadshows. Also under Obama, the White House supported industry-led projects about saving energy, such as the Green Button initiative and the Better Buildings Challenge, now housed at DOE.
The White House has not taken down the websites for those programs, but they're not priorities anymore.
"I've literally not heard anything about that in the last year and a half," Ungar said of the Green Button, an effort to provide utility customers easy-to-understand energy data.
Energy efficiency only comes up once on the White House website: It's related to Trump's recent executive order.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/30/stories/1060082935
-
EPA Proposes Retaining SOx NAAQS But Weighs Implementation Changes
May 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to retain its existing primary health-based sulfur oxides (SOx) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) but is weighing potential changes to its implementation, including potentially easing compliance by altering the formula for how the agency determines whether an area is attaining or violating the NAAQS.
In a notice signed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt May 25 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, the agency proposes to keep the existing standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) of sulfur dioxide (SO2), averaged over one hour -- a standard first issued in 2010. SOx refers to a group of gases of which SO2 is the most prevalent in the atmosphere and for which EPA has the largest amount of scientific evidence on the pollutant's adverse health effects.
Primary NAAQS are intended to protect public health “with an adequate margin of safety,” while secondary standards are designed to protect the environment -- and EPA is still reviewing the secondary SOx NAAQS.
EPA will take public comment on the primary NAAQS proposal for 45 days following publication in the Register, a decision that rejects calls from industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute to consider weakening the limit and from environmentalists urging EPA to set a stricter standard.
The decision comports with the agency staff's preference expressed in preparatory documents for the current review of the standard, and the recommendation of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), to retain the existing limit.
And it comes shortly after Pruitt's issuance a memo outlining steps to overhaul and shorten NAAQS reviews, to include consideration by CASAC of implementation issues such as costs and technical feasibility. Separately, Pruitt has proposed a new science policy that would exclude certain scientific studies from consideration if they rely on confidential medical data, which critics say will make it harder to use some data as part of NAAQS reviews.
However, the SOx NAAQS proposal does not appear influenced by either Pruitt's NAAQS reform memo or his proposal on using science in agency decisions. And it reaffirms longstanding NAAQS legal precedent, which holds that EPA may not consider cost or technical feasibility in setting NAAQS.
EPA issued the proposal under a court-ordered deadline of May 25, and must issue a final rule by Jan. 28 under a court order after environmentalists sued the agency for violating a Clean Air Act mandate to make a decision on revising the NAAQS five years after it was last updated. Under the original air law timeline, the agency should have finalized a decision on whether to revise the SOx NAAQS by June 22, 2015.
NAAQS Changes
In the proposal EPA invites comment on alternative ways in which the current primary standard could be expressed, without giving reasons for doing so -- although some steps could potentially ease implementation.
While the level of the standard is set at 75 ppb over one hour, attainment is determined by “form” - the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations, averaged over three years. Altering this formula could make it easier for states to comply with the NAAQS, and avoid “nonattainment” designations for areas. It could also make it easier for industry applicants for air permits to avoid problems demonstrating their compliance with NAAQS.
“EPA solicits comment on the four basic elements of the current NAAQS (indicator, averaging time, level, and form), including whether there are appropriate alternative approaches for the averaging time or statistical form that provide comparable public health protection, and the rationale upon which such views are based,” the notice says.
The proposal considers new science published since the prior SOx NAAQS review, but arrives at largely the same conclusions regarding the health effects of SO2. EPA again finds SO2 to be most harmful to the respiratory health of sensitive individuals, such as children and asthmatics, even over short periods of exposure.
Meanwhile, EPA continues with a separate review of the secondary NAAQS, which the agency in 2012 left at 50 ppb averaged over three hours, the level in place since 1971. EPA is reviewing this standard as part of an ongoing combined review of SOx, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter ecological effects. The agency should have finalized its review by 2017 but is not on a court-ordered timeline for completing the review.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposes-retaining-sox-naaqs-weighs-implementation-changes
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
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
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested