Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/13/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dooley Extends ACC Tenure to Fight Plastic Trash
Jun 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Cal Dooley, long-time leader of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), is delaying his retirement by a year to advance the group's new global effort to address plastic waste. -
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council's CEO Staying On
Jun 12, 2018 | EP Magazine
The American Chemistry Council announced that President and CEO Cal Dooley has agreed to delay his retirement and extend his tenure in those positions through 2019. -
(ACC Mentioned) G7 Leaders Sign Plastics Pledge
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Leaders at the G7 summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, turned up the heat on the ocean plastics issue by signing an agreement meant to boost recycling and reduce single-use plastics. -
(ACC Mentioned) PODCAST: ACC Stresses Commitment to Plastic Recycling in Wake of G7 Meeting
Jun 12, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
News Reporter David Haydon speaks with Steve Russell, vice president of the plastic division for the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) North American PVC Production Up Nearly 4% From April: ACC
Jun 12, 2018 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
North American PVC production rose nearly 4% in May compared to April, according to preliminary data released Tuesday by the American Chemistry Council, reflecting stronger demand and the April ramp-up from a March turnaround at Shintech's operations in Freeport, Texas. -
Senate Panel Votes to Leave EPA Funding at About Today’s Levels
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The EPA would be flat-funded at just over $8 billion under a fiscal year 2019 spending bill that a Senate Appropriations subcommittee approved June 12. -
Pruitt Aide Wanted to Fast-Track Hire of Obama Official
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
Scott Pruitt's top aide wanted to use special authority to hire a former Obama administration official to scrutinize climate science. -
With Robots in Control, Chemical Makers Fight for Their Formulas
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Noel
Four decades ago as a young engineer working for Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Patrick Thomas helped install one of the sector’s first digital computer systems: a mahogany-encased machine now on display in a science museum. -
(ACC Mentioned) Choosing for Safety
Jun 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Strong support among retailers and manufacturers has made the US EPA’s Safer Choice ecolabel programme hard to kill, but the programme’s supporters say it is still not reaching its potential. -
3M, DuPont Fail in Case Over Fouled Water
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
3M, DuPont and other companies must face personal injury claims brought by a woman who says they knew for decades that a manufacturing plant polluted drinking water in Hoosick Falls, N.Y., a federal court in New York ruled June 11. -
Echa Adds New Databases to EU Nanomaterials Observatory
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has upgraded its EU observatory for nanomaterials (EUON) by adding two searchable databases. -
Sweden Proposes MCCP Restriction in Electrical, Electronic Goods
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Sweden has submitted a proposal to the European Commission to restrict medium-chained chlorinated paraffins (MCCP) under the EU's Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment. -
Senate Dems Take FERC to Task for Climate Policy Shift
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Democratic senators grilled the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday on how it analyzes the climate impacts of natural gas pipelines. -
Exxon Plans Giant Pipeline to Help Ease Permian Bottleneck
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley and Vasheela Tobben
Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to build one of the biggest pipelines in the Permian Basin, a move that would help ease bottlenecks in the nation’s fastest-growing shale region. -
ExxonMobil, Plains Eyeing Permian-to-Gulf Coast Pipeline
Jun 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A plethora of Permian Basin crude oil and condensate pipeline projects can welcome another to the mix as ExxonMobil Corp. and Plains All American Pipeline LP are pondering a joint venture to transport more than 1 million b/d to the Texas coast. -
With 25 LNG Export Projects in Queue, DOE Looking for More Input on Impact to Markets, Economy
Jun 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
How much natural gas can and should be exported from the United States is the focus of a new study by the Department of Energy (DOE), which examines a range of scenarios to determine what different export levels may have on natural gas markets and the U.S. economy. -
LNG Study Suggests Pivot from Industry Limits
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Energy Department is soliciting comments on a new study suggesting that domestic gas prices are unlikely to dramatically spike as U.S. liquefied natural gas exports grow over the next two decades. -
3 Key Impacts of Trump’s Gas Policies in Asia
Jun 13, 2018 | Platts
By Eric Yep
The geopolitics of gas, and especially LNG, in the Asia Pacific reached a crescendo early this month when US negotiators got Beijing to agree to buy more American LNG in exchange for easing trade tariffs. -
(ACC Mentioned) Heed Industry in Revamping Chemical Anti-Terrorism Plan: Senator
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Congress should reduce compliance burdens on companies when it reauthorizes a federal chemical security program this year, a Senate committee chairman says. -
Cyber, Regulatory Concerns Emerge in Reauthorization Talks
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hia
The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as well as many federal officials and industry representatives affected by Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, are in favor of continuing a soon-to-expire decade-old chemical plant safety program. -
FERC Members Throw Cold Water on Trump's Grid Plan
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The federal government's grid overseers today undercut the Trump administration's assertion that a grid emergency is brewing and that ailing coal and nuclear plants need a direct lifeline. -
Trump Picks Agency Veteran for Key Cyber Role
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump plans to nominate Karen Evans to lead an influential cybersecurity office at the Department of Energy, the White House announced yesterday. -
Board That Investigates Chemical Accidents Gets New Leader
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Chemical Safety Board Member Kristen Kulinowski will lead the agency on an interim basis following the departure of Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland later this month, the board said June 12. -
Federal Agency Pushes Back on Lithium Battery Industry Proposal
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Easing restrictions on shipping lithium batteries must include more safety considerations to earn support from U.S. hazardous materials regulators. -
Another Climate Fight Against Big Oil Opens Today
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
The debate over making oil companies pay for climate damages comes to a New York City courtroom today. -
Trump, Oil of Less Concern Than Climate Change for Top Companies
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Morison
The world’s biggest companies are increasingly worried about climate change. -
Senate Panel Backs NOAA, Climate and Science Programs
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen and Nick Sobczyk
A Senate Appropriations subcommittee yesterday signed off on a $63 billion spending bill that would reject many of President Trump's proposed cuts for NOAA and climate research while steering new funds to scientific programs, space exploration and weather satellites.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dooley Extends ACC Tenure to Fight Plastic Trash
Jun 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
Cal Dooley, long-time leader of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), is delaying his retirement by a year to advance the group's new global effort to address plastic waste.
Dooley had been slated to retire in December, at the end of a 10-year contract as president and chief executive officer of the trade group. But after ACC's annual meeting last week, ACC's board announced that Dooley had agreed to delay his retirement until December 2019 to launch the new plastic waste project.
“Cal’s leadership at ACC has been essential to the industry’s success in recent years,” Bob Patel, ACC Chairman and LyondellBasell CEO said in a June 11 statement. “As ACC members embark on an effort to reduce and eliminate plastic waste in the years to come, the ACC officers felt strongly that Cal’s experience and leadership were essential to aligning the global industry around a coordinated strategy.”
Patel added that “[w]ith a little arm twisting and agreement from his gracious wife Linda, we were able to convince Cal to stay on to lead the development of this critical effort.”
In the statement, Dooley calls “ending plastic waste . . . an issue of personal as well as professional interest.”
“The global chemicals and plastics industry has an imperative to fight the spread of mismanaged plastic waste that is increasingly littering our rivers, oceans and landscapes,” Dooley said. “While plastic products provide countless health, safety, lifestyle and sustainability benefits, those benefits cannot be fully realized unless we take swift and aggressive actions to make the most of all resources and leverage technology to dramatically increase rates of reuse, recycling and recovery of all plastic products.”
Dooley has led ACC since 2008. During his tenure, the domestic industry has grown significantly due in large part to significant increases in natural gas production which provides key feedstocks. Dooley, a former seven-term Democratic congressman from California, led the group during Congress' debate over reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The industry hopes the policy priority will help avoid a patchwork of state standards, provide federal approvals to many chemicals and limit consumer de-selection.
But the TSCA legislation may not have gone far enough for the industry in preempting state and local requirements. ACC and other industry groups have launched a coalition to push back on what they see as a groundswell of state and local labeling mandates for products containing certain chemicals. Dooley, however, indicated at the industry's annual conference last spring that he did not expect to see legislation advance this year.
ACC adds that it retained the firm Korn Ferry International to search for its next CEO when Dooley's retirement was first announced last spring. With the change in timing, the search has been suspended, but will be resumed in mid-2019, the statement adds.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dooley-extends-acc-tenure-fight-plastic-trash
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council's CEO Staying On
Jun 12, 2018 | EP Magazine
The American Chemistry Council announced that President and CEO Cal Dooley has agreed to delay his retirement and extend his tenure in those positions through 2019. In April, Dooley announced his intention to retire at the end of 2018; his decision to delay retirement comes after ACC's board of directors agreed that the chemicals and plastics industry must take a global leadership role to reduce and ultimately eliminate plastic waste. That move came during the organization's 2018 annual meeting, which took place June 4-6 in Colorado Springs, Colo.
"Cal's leadership at ACC has been essential to the industry's success in recent years. As ACC members embark on an effort to reduce and eliminate plastic waste in the years to come, the ACC officers felt strongly that Cal's experience and leadership were essential to aligning the global industry around a coordinated strategy," said Bob Patel, ACC chairman and the CEO of LyondellBasell. "With a little arm twisting and agreement from his gracious wife, Linda, we were able to convince Cal to stay on to lead the development of this critical effort."
"The global chemicals and plastics industry has an imperative to fight the spread of mismanaged plastic waste that is increasingly littering our rivers, oceans, and landscapes. While plastic products provide countless health, safety, lifestyle, and sustainability benefits, those benefits cannot be fully realized unless we take swift and aggressive actions to make the most of all resources and leverage technology to dramatically increase rates of reuse, recycling, and recovery of all plastic products," said Dooley. "Ending plastic waste is an issue of personal, as well as professional interest, and I am excited to help lay the foundation for a sustained, global industry effort to address it."
Korn Ferry International was retained to conduct the search for Dooley's replacement when his retirement was announced in April 2018. With Dooley's announcement, Korn Ferry's efforts have been suspended, but they will resume their search in mid-2019.
https://eponline.com/articles/2018/06/12/american-chemistry-councils-ceo-staying-on.aspx
-
(ACC Mentioned) G7 Leaders Sign Plastics Pledge
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Leaders at the G7 summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, turned up the heat on the ocean plastics issue by signing an agreement meant to boost recycling and reduce single-use plastics. The move was met with skepticism from some environmentalists, who are hungry for specific policies to tackle the problem, and by accelerated efforts from the plastics industry, which increasingly finds itself on the defensive.
Five countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K.—as well as the European Union—signed the Ocean Plastics Charter. The U.S. and Japan abstained.
The document calls for working with industry to make all plastics reusable, recyclable, or recoverable by 2030. Additionally, the leaders want to recycle or reuse 55% of plastic packaging by 2030 and recover all plastics by 2040. They also want to significantly reduce single-use plastics.
The agreement seeks to address marine litter in “global hot spots” by helping such places develop waste management infrastructure. A lack of infrastructure makes some developing countries—namely China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam—the source of a majority of the plastics that wind up in the sea.
Additionally, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged $100 million towards marine litter and plastic pollution.
“Plastics are one of the most revolutionary inventions of the past century and play an important role in our economy and daily lives,” the charter says. “However, the current approach to producing, using, managing, and disposing of plastics poses a significant threat to the environment, to livelihoods, and potentially to human health.”
The Ocean Conservancy, an environmental group known for collaborating with industry, says the G7 leaders demonstrated a “new level of leadership” by signing the charter.
Greenpeace, another environmental group, says the charter doesn’t go far enough. “While the leadership to outline a common blueprint is good news, voluntary charters focused on recycling and repurposing will not solve the problem at the source,” says Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan. “Governments must move beyond voluntary agreements to legislate binding reduction targets and bans on single-use plastics.”
While the U.S. didn’t sign the document, the American Chemistry Council, a leading trade group, is reacting to the mounting pressure on plastics. ACC CEO Cal Dooley has delayed his retirement by one year to the end of 2019 to lead the industry response to the plastics waste issue.
“While plastic products provide countless health, safety, lifestyle, and sustainability benefits, those benefits cannot be fully realized unless we take swift and aggressive actions to ... dramatically increase rates of reuse, recycling, and recovery,” Dooley says.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which advocates for a circular economy, says it will form a coalition of governments and businesses aimed at eliminating plastic waste. It says the effort will build on its New Plastics Economy initiative, which involves consumer product companies like Coca-Cola, Danone, and Pepsi, as well as chemical makers such as BASF, DuPont, and Novamont.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/G7-leaders-sign-plastics-pledge/96/web/2018/06
-
(ACC Mentioned) PODCAST: ACC Stresses Commitment to Plastic Recycling in Wake of G7 Meeting
Jun 12, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
News Reporter David Haydon speaks with Steve Russell, vice president of the plastic division for the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Following the G7 meeting, where the US opted out of signing an annex for an ocean plastics reduction charter, the ACC stressed several of its sustainability and environmental goals. Russell also discusses the delayed retirement of ACC CEO Cal Dooley, who will aid in increasing the ACC's role in recycling and plastic waste elimination.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/06/12/10231107/podcast-acc-stresses-commitment-to-plastic-recycling-in-wake-of-g7-meeting/
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American PVC Production Up Nearly 4% From April: ACC
Jun 12, 2018 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
North American PVC production rose nearly 4% in May compared to April, according to preliminary data released Tuesday by the American Chemistry Council, reflecting stronger demand and the April ramp-up from a March turnaround at Shintech's operations in Freeport, Texas.
Production reached nearly 1.45 billion lb for the month, up from nearly 1.4 billion lb in April. May production was 9% higher than the year-ago month's output of more than 1.35 billion lb, reflecting strong operating rates.
Total May sales reached nearly 1.44 billion lb, with more than 903 million lb sold into the North American domestic market and more than 507 million lb designated for export. The domestic total was 4% higher than in April, and nearly 4% lower than the year-ago month. Exports were more than 2% higher than April levels and a sharp 45% higher than in May 2017.
The increase in both domestic sales and exports reflects strong demand on both fronts. Domestic demand, driven by seasonal construction in warmer months, has been ramping up after being hindered by winter storms in the US Northeast and Midwest that lasted into spring. Export demand picked up in early May, boosting prices that had fallen more than 10% through March and April.
US PVC producers have had limited export volume availability so far in June and have had little pressure to ship out cargoes given robust domestic demand. Formosa Plastics launched maintenance work this month at its Point Comfort, Texas, complex, and Westlake Chemical has been working to wrap up May maintenance that stretched into early June at its Plaquemine, Louisiana, operations as well.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/houston/north-american-pvc-production-up-nearly-4-from-21080010
-
Senate Panel Votes to Leave EPA Funding at About Today’s Levels
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The EPA would be flat-funded at just over $8 billion under a fiscal year 2019 spending bill that a Senate Appropriations subcommittee approved June 12.
The spending bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies now moves to the full committee, which is scheduled to consider the measure June 14. The Senate version of the EPA-Interior spending bill would fund the EPA at $8.06 billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
While Republicans and Democrats alike agree the Senate bill provides flat funding for EPA, they differed on the total amount the agency would be provided in fiscal 2019.
The Republicans’ $8.06 billion total applies to what they term “base” EPA funding, essentially what is authorized in committee. Democrats said infrastructure funding not included in the EPA-Interior bill would bring total EPA fiscal 2019 funding to $8.824 billion.
The Senate bill provides a modest increase—under $1 million total in added funding—to state clean water and drinking water revolving funds over enacted fiscal 2018 levels: a $113,000 increase to clean water funds for a total of $1.69 billion, and a $767,000 increase to drinking water funds for a total of $1.164 billion.
The outlook for passage of the EPA-Interior spending bill is unclear. In recent years, appropriators have failed to move such individual spending measures to passage in both the House and Senate, in the end resorting to government-wide spending measures, either short-term extensions or longer-term omnibus bills.
Both the House and Senate versions largely ignore President Donald Trump’s request for a 23 percent cut in EPA funding.
No New Policy RidersSen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations panel, said the subcommittee dropped language to roll back the EPA Waters of the U.S. rule, which defines the scope of the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction, that had been included in the House version.
The bill does maintain more limited language blocking the Clean Water Act rule from being applied to certain agricultural operations, which was included in previous EPA-Interior appropriations measures, Murkowski told reporters after the markup.
“But the broader WOTUS provision is not,” Murkowski said.
The EPA has proposed withdrawing the water jurisdiction rule.
The Senate-EPA Interior subcommittee released only a summary June 12 of its fiscal 2019 spending bill, with actual bill text to be released June 14 when the full Appropriations Committee takes up the measure. But Democratic aides told Bloomberg Environment the Senate version doesn’t include any new policy limitations, or riders, targeting EPA authority.
It does, however, maintain several other policy limitations from previous EPA-Interior bills, including one barring regulation of lead ammunition and another directing the EPA to consider biomass as carbon neutral.
The version approved by the full House Appropriations Committee June 6 would provide a slightly more modest $7.96 billion total for the EPA, down from the agency’s $8.06 billion fiscal 2018 budget. The agency’s funding is part of the $35.3 billion House fiscal 2019 spending package for the Interior Department, EPA, and other agencies; the Senate subcommittee provided $35.85 billion total.
(Updated with more details on bill provisions and spending amounts.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/senate-panel-votes-to-leave-epa-funding-at-about-todays-levels-1
-
Pruitt Aide Wanted to Fast-Track Hire of Obama Official
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
Scott Pruitt's top aide wanted to use special authority to hire a former Obama administration official to scrutinize climate science.
The EPA administrator's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, suggested last year that Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist and an Obama Energy Department appointee, could quickly get on EPA's payroll. Pruitt and his staff have drawn criticism for using special authority to expedite the hires of political appointees, and EPA's internal watchdog has launched a probe into the matter.
Pruitt's team was planning to hire Koonin to convene a military-style "red-team" climate exercise aimed at questioning prevailing climate science.
"Steve, the Administrator remains very excited about conducting this exercise," Jackson told Koonin in a May 2017 email. "He had bounced this and other ideas off others he has worked with for some time and others in the Administration. We would like to proceed further with the red-blue exercise."
Jackson added, "We have determined that the best way to process your paperwork is to compensate you as an 'administratively determined' position which is unique in the federal hiring process to EPA. There is no vetting other than OPM paperwork which allows us to have you on the payroll in short order."
The emails were recently released to the Sierra Club under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
It appears as though Jackson was referring to EPA's special hiring provision offered by the Safe Drinking Water Act. That allows the EPA administrator to bring in up to 30 employees, known as "administratively determined" hires who can circumvent some of the bureaucracy involved in getting government jobs. Past administrations have used the authority, too.
Pruitt's use of the authority attracted widespread attention after The Atlantic reported in April that two aides close to Pruitt got substantial raises using the Safe Drinking Water Act provision, against the White House's wishes.
Pruitt told Fox News that he didn't know about the raises — which were later revoked. Jackson took responsibility for signing off on the salary bumps (Greenwire, April 10).
Under Pruitt, EPA has brought on at least 20 officials — including top political aides — as "administratively determined" hires, according to EPA documents (Greenwire, April 4). EPA's inspector general is expected to release an audit of Pruitt's special hires this summer, and congressional Democrats have introduced legislation that would force EPA bosses to notify lawmakers when they use the hiring authority (Greenwire, May 18).
Jackson and EPA's press office did not respond to requests for comment for this story.'Not going to poke at the science'
Koonin never took the job, he told E&E News yesterday in an interview, and he doesn't expect the Trump team to launch a red team.
"I decided not to do that at all," said Koonin, who is now director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
After meeting with Koonin last year to discuss Koonin's Wall Street Journal op-ed about a climate red team, Pruitt called Koonin's ideas "very exciting" in an interview with Reuters. Koonin later sent Jackson a "prospectus for a Climate Science Red-Blue Exercise," according to an email dated May 3, 2017. Koonin declined to share a copy of the draft with E&E News, but he said he wanted to look at problems with the U.S. government's Climate Science Special Report.
Many conservatives see a red-team exercise as a vehicle for attacking EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the scientific determination that underpins the agency's climate change regulations.
But Koonin said yesterday that he only wanted to sign on to such an initiative if it were a governmentwide effort. "If one is going to do a good red-team exercise, it needs to involve those agencies that have strong equities in climate science, and EPA is not that," he said.
The initiative seems to have lost steam more broadly in the administration. Koonin said that he hasn't talked to EPA officials about the effort in about six months, and he never talked to White House officials about it.
"My general sense is that the executive branch at this point has just decided that they're not going to poke at the science," he said.
Since Pruitt started speaking publicly about a red-team debate last year, top White House officials have pushed back against the red team. Pruitt — who said last year that it might start in January — hasn't offered further updates about timing.
Environmentalists, climate scientists and others have slammed the idea of a public debate or another Pruitt-led forum to critique mainstream climate science. Many say the scientific peer-review process provides a rigorous evaluation of the science and that launching a debate would unnecessarily emphasize uncertainty.
"Instead of taking briefings from and respecting the knowledge of EPA scientists or NASA's and NOAA's scientists who are among the world's experts on climate change, Pruitt wants to bring in a bunch of right-wing nuts to run an alternate facts process," said David Doniger, senior strategic director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean energy program.
Koonin said, "I don't think I'm being crazy." He added, "Why wouldn't you want to make sure that the government is properly representing the science?"
And although he said he's not concentrating his energy on the executive branch or the government at this point, he's still pursuing the red-team idea.
"It's something I'm thinking about a lot. Stay tuned."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/13/stories/1060084277
-
With Robots in Control, Chemical Makers Fight for Their Formulas
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Noel
Four decades ago as a young engineer working for Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Patrick Thomas helped install one of the sector’s first digital computer systems: a mahogany-encased machine now on display in a science museum.
Computing has since transformed the industry into a $4 trillion business supplying ingredients for all types of manufactured goods, ranging from shampoo to paint to mattresses. Yet for Thomas, it’s also emerging as a battleground over ownership of valuable formulations.
“There’s no sort of regulatory framework and there’s no shortage of lawyers trying to get involved,” said the executive, who headed German chemicals maker Covestro AG for more than a decade before becoming chairman of Johnson Matthey Plc on June 1. “Who owns the data in the chain?”
The warning from the top industry veteran serves to highlight a debate raging across the corporate world over data, privacy and ownership rights, which has particular relevance to chemical makers because of their growing reliance on factory automation. Industrial robots are stepping into the shoes of trusted employees, absorbing huge quantities of sensitive data from both manufacturers and customers, while learning and modifying key formulations along the way.
Capture ValueSuppliers have captured all the value created by artificial intelligence, according to Vijay Sarathy, head of chemicals for North America at consultancy firm Accenture. Customers contributing data to the manufacturing chain now feel they are owed something for their input.
“One thing that won’t work is someone thinking that they can keep all the value created to themselves,” he said. The ownership lines are especially blurred for the chemicals sector because of its highly interactive relationship with customers, reliance on broad supply chains and input from software companies helping to develop automation tools and products.
The first automated machine controls for chemicals began in the 1950s, followed by development of software from companies including SAP SE and Oracle Corp. to run whole plants. The latest offerings— part of a broader move to digitalization known as Industry 4.0—embodies self-learning robots designed for the autonomous plants of the future.
Tighten RulesAlthough Europe this month tightened the rules on data protection for individuals, chemical manufacturing is still an unregulated wild west, Thomas said in the interview. It’s getting more difficult to protect a company’s know-how, while the lack of rules on data ownership is slowing advances and spawning defensive moves by companies seeking to protect their innovations.
Companies are experimenting “to see what works,” he said.
In the case of Covestro, the German maker of plastics and coatings spun out of Bayer AG, customers are offered a kind of digital dashboard to adjust formulations to alter glossiness, color-fastness and product durability, but the precise data recipe is kept in a detached cloud owned by the company.
The arrival of artificial intelligence onto factory floors is timely as experienced workers reach retirement age, executives said. Self-learning software can go some way in filling the gap left by long-standing workers who could often adjust machines or formulas almost instinctively.
“I’ve worked at a pharmaceutical site like that, where your packaging operators would come in and listen to a filling line and know it’s not running right,” said Richard Henderson, automation manager at paintmaker Akzo Nobel NV’s new state-of-the-art plant in Ashington, England. “We want that built into the process and basic controls of the system, so it’s not down to the individuals to make those judgments.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/with-robots-in-control-chemical-makers-fight-for-their-formulas
-
(ACC Mentioned) Choosing for Safety
Jun 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Strong support among retailers and manufacturers has made the US EPA’s Safer Choice ecolabel programme hard to kill, but the programme’s supporters say it is still not reaching its potential. Stakeholders at the Safer Choice Partner and Stakeholder Summit, held on 14 May in Maryland, expressed frustration that Safer Choice is unable to expand faster, is not more widely known and may be threatened if it becomes too closely linked to chemical prioritisation under TSCA.
The programme, created in the 1990s as ‘Design for the Environment’ and rebranded in 2015, recognises products that use ‘safer’ chemical ingredients and meet standards for performance, sustainable packaging and ingredient disclosure. Its green and blue label appears on more than 2,000 products used in homes and businesses across the USA, especially cleaning products.
The programme appeared to be in real jeopardy when President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress came into office. "There was a lot of anxiety coming into the administration," said Jim Jones, an executive vice president at the Household and Commercial Products Association (HCPA) at the summit, which brought together representatives from NGOs, retailers, and manufacturers of consumer products and chemical ingredients.
Safer Choice had been an occasional target for conservatives in Congress and the head of Mr Trump’s EPA transition team came from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which listed it among programmes the new Republican majority should axe.
CEI senior fellow Angela Logomasini had said that the programme was "forcing product reformulations without justification" and eliminating products from the market in favour of replacements that might not work as well.
The Trump administration originally proposed eliminating Safer Choice in its fiscal 2018 budget, which proposed slashing EPA funding by a third. And, while the American Chemistry Council did not call directly for this, ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley criticised Safer Choice for taking a hazard-based approach by barring products containing any amount of prohibited substances.
In February, the EPA shifted a third of the staff in the office that runs Safer Choice to chemical regulation activities. However, when its protracted budget negotiations finally ended in March, Congress explicitly continued funding for the programme and other pollution-prevention initiatives.
Mobilising support
While President Trump again proposed eliminating the whole pollution prevention division in his 2019 budget proposal, Mr Jones says that "the EPA has gotten a fair amount of attention" from congressional supporters and "is beginning to think of [Safer Choice] in a more positive light". Moving staff "is not ideal from our point of view", he added, but "understandable" given the pressure the EPA is under to implement the new TSCA. "I feel we are past the crisis," he said.
The key to Safer Choice’s survival is its business support. Mr Jones, himself a former assistant administrator for chemical safety at the EPA, says that HCPA and "big companies up and down the supply chain" had contacted EPA officials and members of Congress. A letter of support from over 180 organisations and companies was part of that campaign.
Encouraging sustainability
Safer Choice participants include companies that focus entirely on eco-friendly products. The programme helps small companies to compete and also gives businesses an advantage in bidding for government contracts. Several federal agencies have eco-friendly purchasing guidelines and at least ten states have recommendations or requirements for contracting from environmentally friendly sources.
Many retailers, such as Walmart, make similar demands of suppliers. For Walmart, enrolling house-branded cleaning products in Safer Choice is part of a broader sustainability initiative, according to Zach Freeze, senior director for sustainability.
"It is a robust way to evaluate products not only from a sustainability perspective but also from a performance point of view," he says. "It’s not just something to commercially certify, but also to encourage sustainability in products, primarily household chemicals, where we thought advancements needed to be made."
The programme’s roster includes large consumer product manufacturers, such as the Clorox Company, and some large retailers, which see an opportunity to gain favour with health- and environment-conscious consumers. They see enough advantage to take a certain amount of risk.
Dan Eisenberg, a partner at Beveridge & Diamond, says that companies can be targeted by class action lawsuits or by retailers if a product is later found to contain disallowed ingredients.
"You are then in a situation where you have marketed the product to the federal government, to Walmart, saying it had a Safer Choice label," he adds. "There’s a lot of opportunity here for business, but they should go into it with their eyes wide open."
Many of these companies believe that the credibility of a government-run programme is key to their participation. That also means its processes are "generally transparent and participatory", Mr Jones commented, and companies can have input when criteria are changed.
Waiting on consumers
Allison Gutterman, president and CEO of cleaning products manufacturer Jelmar, told delegates that she fought with her father to move the family company towards green marketing, with a chemist suggesting reformulating its CLR cleaning product in 2005. Her own preferences and her business instincts told her that this would appeal to a growing number of consumers.
"It’s the right thing to do from an environmental perspective and the right thing to do from a business perspective," Ms Gutterman said. "As consumers see more Safer Choice labels and pause in the supermarket aisle to ask their smart phones what it means, that is when the tide is going to change."
Participants at the summit also expressed frustration that this change had not yet happened. The programme needs stronger public awareness efforts, "an educational message as to why they should buy this product," said Keith Schneringer, director of channel marketing and sustainability at Waxie Sanitary Supply. "As purveyors of products, we need customers to buy those products."
"We need to create awareness of what the label means, of how conservative the Safer Choice standards are," agreed Julie Froelicher, senior manager for regulatory and technical relations at Procter & Gamble. Many participants asked Safer Choice to expand beyond cleaning products to put its label on everything from office products to apparel.
Several specifically asked about the progress of an initiative testing the possibility of including antimicrobial products. According to Mr Jones, the HCPA would like to see that succeed, and is also focusing on finding a way for Safer Choice to allow some aerosol products to gain approval. "People are voting for more," said Ms Froelicher. "More product sectors, more chemicals, more awareness. It’s going to be challenging in a time of less resources."
Taken over by TSCA?
Conference participants also expressed concern that the EPA’s plans to tie Safer Choice to its chemical prioritisation efforts under TSCA could be dangerous for the programme and manufacturers which participate in it.
TSCA’s 2016 amendments require the EPA to designate ‘high priority’ chemicals for risk evaluation and also identify ‘low priority’ chemicals where assessment is not immediately warranted. Since November last year, the agency has been saying that it may pull some potential low priority substances from the safer chemicals ingredients list (Scil), the inventory of ‘safer’ chemicals cleared for use in products seeking Safer Choice accreditation.
Industry representatives said that they fear consideration of a Scil ingredient could prove dangerous and costly if it resulted in the ingredient being entered into the formal TSCA prioritisation process. Under the recently amended law, if a substance enters prioritisation and does not meet low priority criteria – which can occur if it lacks sufficient data, for example – then it becomes a high priority chemical. Such a designation launches mandatory risk evaluation timelines and imposes fees on manufacturers.
Lauren Sweet, who works on Safer Choice in the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention, said that the agency will work with manufacturers to ensure that chemicals viewed as relatively safe do not enter the formal prioritisation process unless sufficient data is available. "We want to be sure a low priority chemical is designated a low priority chemical," she said.
Such an identification "can create certainty and additional market value". Stakeholders also expressed fears that Safer Choice’s mission could be threatened if the programme’s focus turns to TSCA. "I wouldn’t want to see the programme become just a place where low priority chemicals are designated," said Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney for the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
Roger McFadden, vice president for sustainability at Canberra Corporation, said that linking the programmes could discourage Safer Choice participation if companies feared nominating substances for Scil could enter them into TSCA prioritisation. Even if the EPA could ensure this does not happen, failure to meet Scil criteria could create a perception that a substance should be considered for a ‘high priority’ designation, he added.
However, Clive Davis, Safer Choice director, told attendees that the EPA has "no intention of stopping our review of chemicals for the Safer Choice programme". "It’s not going to be a zero sum game," he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67636/choosing-for-safety
-
3M, DuPont Fail in Case Over Fouled Water
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
3M, DuPont and other companies must face personal injury claims brought by a woman who says they knew for decades that a manufacturing plant polluted drinking water in Hoosick Falls, N.Y., a federal court in New York ruled June 11.
The ruling is the latest in ongoing litigation against 3M Co., E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co., Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., and other companies over discharges of perfluorooctanoic acid, a toxic chemical formerly used to produce Teflon cookware and other products.
Hoosick Falls resident Mary Lucey claims her ulcerative colitis was caused by years of exposure to municipal water tainted by PFOA from the fabric treatment factory currently owned by Saint-Gobain.
Lucey was diagnosed in 1998, and waited until 2017 to sue, but her case was still filed within New York’s statute of limitations, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York said.
That’s because she sued less than two years after the Hoosick Falls site was designated as Superfund Site, the court said.
New York law permits plaintiffs to sue for injuries within three years of such a designation.
The ruling also turned aside arguments by 3M and DuPont that their duty to warn about PFOA’s dangers was limited to purchasers and users of the chemical.
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn wrote the opinion.
Chaffin Luhana LLP, The Berezofsky Law Group LLC, Williams Cuker Berezofsky LLC, and the Faraci, Lang Law Firm represented Lucey. Mayer Brown LLP and Brewwer, Attorneys & Counselors represented 3M. Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP represented DuPont.
The case is Lucey v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 2018 BL 205723, N.D.N.Y., No. 17-cv-1054, 6/11/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/3m-dupont-fail-in-case-over-fouled-water
-
Echa Adds New Databases to EU Nanomaterials Observatory
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has upgraded its EU observatory for nanomaterials (EUON) by adding two searchable databases.
Launched a year ago, the observatory is a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market.
Users can search NanoData for knowledge on nano science and technology. Meanwhile, the eNanoMapper helps them find safety information about nanomaterials, the agency says.
NanoData contains data on different products, research projects, publications, patents and companies and helps users view statistics through built-in charts and graphs. Data can also be filtered by different sectors and geographic location. The agency says that, for example, it can be used by consumers interested in finding out about products that use nanotechnology.
The eNanoMapper provides access to "one of the largest data sources currently available on the toxicological properties of nanomaterials", Echa says. The data is from several research initiatives, including the results of the EU-funded NanoREG project.
It adds that the databases give access to new information on nanomaterials within the EU regulatory framework; how they are used in different sectors, such as food, medicine and environmental research; and safe use in the workplace.
The content is available in 23 EU languages.
The EUON is funded by the European Commission, and hosted and maintained by Echa.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67635/echa-adds-new-databases-to-eu-nanomaterials-observatory
-
Sweden Proposes MCCP Restriction in Electrical, Electronic Goods
Jun 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Sweden has submitted a proposal to the European Commission to restrict medium-chained chlorinated paraffins (MCCP) under the EU's Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment.
According to the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi), this means Sweden is the first member state to propose the restriction of a substance under RoHS. The measure, if passed by the European Commission, would mean the chemical is banned in concentrations above 0.1% in the equipment.
The agency first consulted on the plans in June last year.
MCCPs are used as plasticisers and flame retardants, mainly in PVC cables. They can be found in network cables and those for television sets and household appliances.
Kemi says it wants to include MCCP in Annex II to the RoHS Directive because it is concerned about the environmental impact of this group of substances. They are classified as very toxic to aquatic life, for both acute and chronic exposure. Furthermore, some "appear" to meet the criteria for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances, it says.
Additonal reasons for Kemi's restriction include:MCCPs are classified as "may cause harm to breast-fed children", which indicates that the group of substances may affect human health;workers are at risk when shredding PVC cable waste and converting PVC recyclate; andsecondary poisoning, formulation and conversion of PVC leads to a possible risk for poisoning of predators via the earthworm food chain.
The agency says other substances with "a better environmental and health profile" are available as substitutes for MCCPs, but switching to these may result in higher costs. It names long-chain chlorinated paraffins (LCCPs), phthalates (for example DINP) and phosphate esters as possibilities.
Its socio-economic assessment shows that the extra costs from restricting MCCPs are "relatively low, for both manufacturers and consumers", it says.Industry reaction
PlasticsEurope and other industry associations say they would like to "stress the importance" of finalising the RoHS substance methodology, before assessing substances and their potential for restriction under RoHS.
In comments to Chemical Watch, PlasticsEurope’s Arjen Sevenster said industry is concerned that the assessment of candidates for restriction started before the consultation on the RoHS substance methodology was launched.
"With respect to the better regulation principle, it is critical to first define the criteria for selecting and prioritising substances; doing the contrary is illogical. This is key, especially in the context of the RoHS Directive."
There are also questions about the feasibility of alternatives. MCCPs have a "dual purpose", Mr Sevenster said, as a flame retardant additive, as well as a plasticiser, essentially in electric cables.
"There are other plasticisers but they do not act as flame retardants. Any risks associated with a reduction in the fire performance of cables as a result of eliminating MCCPs from cable formulations needs to be carefully considered. It is essential that fire performance and fire safety is not compromised," he said.
Kemi’s proposal is part of a Commission review of, among other things, a list of seven priority substances for a possible future restriction under RoHS. This is slated for completion by mid-2019.
According to the agency, if the Commission decides to adopt the MCCP restriction, entry into force is expected to be "no earlier than 2023".
https://chemicalwatch.com/67604/sweden-proposes-mccp-restriction-in-electrical-electronic-goods
-
Senate Dems Take FERC to Task for Climate Policy Shift
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Democratic senators grilled the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday on how it analyzes the climate impacts of natural gas pipelines.
"The commission may be creating more uncertainty for the public and industry by not performing the hard look at projects [under] the National Environmental Policy Act," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The panel held an oversight hearing yesterday with all five FERC commissioners (see related story). While debate over the Trump administration's latest bid to boost struggling coal and nuclear plants dominated the conversation, a few lawmakers also zeroed in on FERC's approach to climate analysis for gas projects. The agency's position has evolved over the years — most recently moving in a direction opposed by environmentalists and many Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Cantwell first raised the issue during her opening remarks, noting that she was concerned by the commission's May 18 decision to limit analysis in some cases.
"I'm struggling to understand how this squares with the D.C. Circuit court decision to conduct more climate analysis," she said, referring to a 2017 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that ordered added climate review for a pipeline system in the Southeast.
FERC complied with the court order and calculated the downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the Sabal Trail project. But more recently, the Republican commissioners have clarified that FERC won't crunch those numbers for every natural gas pipeline.
Instead, the commission will analyze upstream and downstream climate impacts — those associated with gas production and consumption — only when specific details are known about the source and end use of gas (Energywire, June 5).
"I think that actually violates both the Natural Gas Act and NEPA, in large part because we're required to take a look at all reasonably foreseeable impacts on the environment, and clearly climate change is a significant impact on the environment," said Democratic Commissioner Richard Glick, responding to a question from Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.). "And secondly, we're required to ... examine whether a pipeline is in the public interest.
"I find it difficult to look at the public interest if you're not going to ask the question about what the emissions are going to be associated with that pipeline," he said.
Glick, who voted against the recent policy shift, said the agency should be asking developers for more details about the source and destination of the natural gas that runs through their pipelines so FERC can make an informed decision about need and impacts, rather than just skipping that added level of review for a lack of information.'Watershed moment'
Democratic Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, who also voted against the change, said the issue was a key question for FERC's ongoing review of its pipeline policy statement, which hasn't been updated since 1999.
"We're currently taking a broad look at how we do our pipeline work, and I think this is one of the most important points to look at — how much information we get in the docket as to what's really driving the need for the pipeline, who's going to use it," she said. "That will help us figure out, first of all, if we need the pipeline, if it's in the public interest and do a much better assessment of all of the environmental impacts, including the landowner impacts, as well as climate."
LaFleur has been criticized by some environmentalists for only now taking a strong position on expanded climate review for pipelines. She previously maintained that there are simply too many moving pieces to get a reliable, nonspeculative measurement of a pipeline's indirect climate impacts (Greenwire, Nov. 17, 2014).
She said yesterday that the 2017 D.C. Circuit decision was a turning point in the discussion.
"This is something that we've been thinking about for a long time, but the D.C. Circuit case was really a watershed moment in saying that we hadn't properly considered the indirect impacts of the pipeline," she said.
But LaFleur and Glick are in the minority. The commission's other three members, all Republicans, supported the decision to set limits on when upstream and downstream analysis is appropriate. And FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre made clear to committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) yesterday that he doesn't intend to make any changes to FERC's pipeline policy that would lengthen the agency's review of project applications.
"My interest is in streamlining and making more efficient processes than we have, so I agree with the suggestion of your statement that we need to be efficient in this area, and I, for my own part again, endeavor to do exactly that," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/13/stories/1060084241
-
Exxon Plans Giant Pipeline to Help Ease Permian Bottleneck
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley and Vasheela Tobben
Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to build one of the biggest pipelines in the Permian Basin, a move that would help ease bottlenecks in the nation’s fastest-growing shale region.
The oil major signed a letter of intent with Plains All American Pipeline LP for a conduit designed to carry more than 1 million barrels of crude oil and condensate a day, the companies said in a June 12 statement.
Growth in the Permian, located in West Texas and New Mexico, has been so rapid that output is already surpassing takeaway capacity. That’s forcing some producers to sell locally at a discount to prices at the coast, or to move barrels by truck or rail at extra cost. Crude sold at Midland, in the heart of the Permian, for $58.45 a barrel at 11:10 a.m. June 11, or $8 less than West Texas Intermediate in Cushing, Okla., the U.S. benchmark.
“There could be a excess of pipeline capacity in 2020 with this new announcement,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC in Houston, by phone. “But Exxon has a strategic view of increasing its Permian production and this would go hand in hand with plans to increase its Beaumont refinery expansion.“
The pipeline would link Wink and Midland, towns in the oil-rich Permian Basin in West Texas with Webster, Baytown and Beaumont, where Exxon and other companies operate refineries along the state’s Gulf Coast.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/exxon-plans-giant-pipeline-to-help-ease-permian-bottleneck
-
ExxonMobil, Plains Eyeing Permian-to-Gulf Coast Pipeline
Jun 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A plethora of Permian Basin crude oil and condensate pipeline projects can welcome another to the mix as ExxonMobil Corp. and Plains All American Pipeline LP are pondering a joint venture to transport more than 1 million b/d to the Texas coast.
The potential partners on Tuesday said they have a letter of intent to create a joint project, but no details were provided as to when the partnership could be in place.
“The proposed common carrier pipeline would be designed to ship more than 1 million b/d of crude oil and condensate, providing a safe, efficient and cost-effective option to transport ExxonMobil and other third-party production to market destinations in Texas,” Houston-based Plains said.
The West Texas pipeline as envisioned would originate in Wink and Midland, with delivery points east of Houston in Webster, Baytown and Beaumont, which are near the Houston Ship Channel.“A priority would be placed on using existing pipeline corridors to help limit potential community and environmental disruptions,” Plains said.
ExxonMobil is one of the largest producers in the Permian, where it had 27 operated rigsrunning at the end of March. Since early 2014, it has snapped up an array of Permian-related deals to build an enviable position estimated at more than one million acres. The Permian resource total last year was estimated at around 6 billion boe.
Last fall, ExxonMobil snapped up its first crude oil terminal in West Texas to anchor its growing position in the Delaware sub-basin. The deal with Genesis Energy LP gave it a facility able to handle crude oil and condensate for transport to Gulf Coast refineries and marine export terminals.
Coincidentally, the Genesis terminal interconnects to Plains’ Alpha Crude Connector and is permitted for 100,000 b/d of throughput, with the ability to expand.
Plains also has another big West Texas-to-Gulf Coast connection in the works, Cactus II Pipeline, to transport crude to the Corpus Christi area in South Texas. Enough interest was shown in its first open season that it held another earlier this year to add 585,000 b/d of takeaway capacity.
Cactus II is comprised of existing pipelines and two new pipelines. Plains last year began expanding capacity to 390,000 b/d from McCamey to Gardendale, TX. The first new pipeline is to extend from Wink South to McCamey in Upton County, while the second new pipeline would extend to the southeast from McCamey to the Corpus Christi and Ingleside area on the Gulf Coast.
In addition, BridgeTex Pipeline Co. LLC, which is owned 50/50 by Plains and Magellan Midstream Partners LP, is expanding capacity from the Permian to 400,000 b/d from 300,000 b/d. The 20-inch diameter system carries crude from Colorado City in West Texas to the Houston area. Beginning early in the second quarter, a new origin point at Bryan, TX, which is 100 miles northwest of Houston, was to begin operations to accept shipments from the Eaglebine region for delivery also to Houston.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114686-exxonmobil-plains-eyeing-permian-to-gulf-coast-pipeline
-
With 25 LNG Export Projects in Queue, DOE Looking for More Input on Impact to Markets, Economy
Jun 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
How much natural gas can and should be exported from the United States is the focus of a new study by the Department of Energy (DOE), which examines a range of scenarios to determine what different export levels may have on natural gas markets and the U.S. economy.
The DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE) is taking comments through July 27 on its fifth liquefied natural gas (LNG) economic study, “Macroeconomic Outcomes of Market Determined Levels of U.S. LNG Exports.”
The 144-page analysis, completed by NERA Economic Consulting for DOE, is to be used to inform decisions on applications seeking authorization to export LNG to worldwide destinations, i.e. to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA).
DOE currently lists 25 pending non-FTA export projects in the works.
The 25 identified LNG export projects have cumulative volumes equivalent to 21.35 Bcf/d, according to DOE. Because of the volume of LNG requested to export in the pending applications, “DOE/FE determined that a new macroeconomic study was warranted…
“Like the four prior studies, the 2018 LNG export study examines the impacts of varying levels of LNG exports on domestic energy markets. The 2018 LNG Export Study also assesses the likelihood of different levels of ‘unconstrained’ LNG exports (defined as market determined levels of exports), and analyzes the outcomes of different LNG export levels on the U.S. natural gas markets and the U.S. economy as a whole, over the 2020 to 2050 time period.”
The latest study differs from DOE’s four previous macroeconomic studies in that it:Includes a larger number of scenarios (54) to capture a wider range of uncertainty in four natural gas market conditions than examined in the previous studies;Includes LNG exports in all 54 scenarios that are market-determined levels, including the three alternative baseline scenarios that are based on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2017 projections;Examines unconstrained LNG export volumes beyond the levels examined in the previous studies;Examines the likelihood of those market-determined LNG export volumes; andProvides macroeconomic projections associated with several of the scenarios lying within the more likely range.
NERA used its Global Natural Gas Model to estimate market-determined levels of U.S. LNG exports under different domestic and international natural gas market conditions. Using its NewERA macroeconomic model of the U.S. economy, NERA also provided macroeconomic projections from 2020-2040 based on those different market conditions and levels of LNG exports.
“Possible future export levels in the scenarios evaluated include very unlikely extremes,” said researchers, “from zero in cases in which the U.S. ‘shale revolution’ ends abruptly, and global demand is limited to levels that exceed the total export capacity for which LNG export authorization applications have currently been filed at DOE/FE.”
In the entire range of scenarios studied, researchers found that overall, “U.S. economic output is higher whenever global markets call for higher levels of LNG exports, assuming that exports are allowed to be determined by market demand.”
Using the 54 different scenarios constructed for the study, NERA determined that the most likely range of LNG exports in 2040 would be 8.7-30.7 Bcf/d, which translates into 3.2-11.2 Tcf/year.
Four major sources of “uncertainty” could affect U.S. LNG exports, according to researchers: domestic gas supply and gas demand conditions, and global gas supply and demand conditions. All scenarios impose no constraints on LNG export volumes.
Three different cases for U.S. gas supply were based on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2017. The AEO also was used as a basis for the central U.S. demand case.
For the high U.S. demand case, gross domestic product (GDP) growth was assumed to achieve a compound annual rate of 3.7% between 2020 and 2040, and for the low demand case, an aggressive national renewables mandate in line with California’s stringent renewable portfolio standard target was assumed.
On the international side, the study defined three gas demand cases, including EIA’s International Energy Outlook for 2017 and two based on the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook.
“In EIA’s projections, the principal determinant of natural gas prices in the United States is the U.S. natural gas resource and by extension, the technology that enables it to be developed,” NERA noted.
The low supply scenarios “only support significant exports when international gas needs are high. Therefore, the combined probability of prices in the resulting range of $10 to $13/MMBtu in 2040 is only 3%.”
Under the reference case supply assumptions, “prices are much lower and in a more narrow range when international LNG demand varies...These central cases have a combined probability of 47% and prices range from $5 to about $6.50/MMBtu in 2040,” NERA researchers said.
“The very low prices are achieved when U.S. supply is high, and these cases have a combined probability of 22%. Depending on the level of LNG exports, these prices range from $3 to $4/MMBtu in 2040.”
Under the Natural Gas Act, applications seeking to export gas to non-FTA countries have to be in the public’s interest. DOE reviews, among other things, economic impacts, international impacts, security of natural gas supply and environmental impacts. Before granting a non-FTA export application, DOE also considers the cumulative impacts of the total volume of all final non-FTA export authorizations.
To date, DOE has issued 29 final long-term authorizations to export LNG and compressed natural gas to non-FTA countries with cumulative volumes totaling 21.35 Bcf/d, or around 7.79 Tcf/year.
The department has commissioned four previous studies to examine the effects of LNG exports on the domestic economy and energy markets.
The first study, “Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets,” was done by EIA and published in January 2012. “Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States” by NERA was published in December 2012. The third study, “Effect of Increased Levels of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports on U.S. Energy Markets,” was completed by EIA and published in October 2014. And the fourth study, “The Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing U.S. LNG Exports,” published in October 2015, was done jointly by the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute and Oxford Economics.
Comments on the latest study by NERA may be submitted using the online form. Comments also may be delivered via mail (one original and three copies) to the U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114689-with-25-lng-export-projects-in-queue-doe-looking-for-more-input-on-impact-to-markets-economy
-
LNG Study Suggests Pivot from Industry Limits
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Energy Department is soliciting comments on a new study suggesting that domestic gas prices are unlikely to dramatically spike as U.S. liquefied natural gas exports grow over the next two decades.
The new study published yesterday by the Department of Energy is the latest in a series of five analyses commissioned since 2012 to steer federal policy around LNG exports. The study, based on modeling by Washington, D.C.-based NERA Economic Consulting Inc., considers high and low supply-and-demand scenarios in the U.S. and globally, and argues that LNG exports are a net positive at any volume level.
"Throughout the entire range of scenarios, we find that overall U.S. economic output is higher whenever global markets call for higher levels of LNG exports, assuming that exports are allowed to be determined by market demand," the study says.
The analysis gauged that LNG exports in 2040 are most likely to fall in the range of 8.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) to 30.7 Bcfd.
In price terms, it found a 47 percent probability that prices will be in the range of $5 to $6.50 per million British thermal units in 2040. There is a 3 percent chance that prices could hit the high end of the spectrum between $10 and $13 per MMBtu, and a 22 percent chance that a particularly strong U.S. supply outcome could keep domestic prices in the range of $3 to $4 per MMBtu, the study said.
The study appears to lay the groundwork for a more hands-off approach by DOE on LNG exports. Under the Natural Gas Act, DOE must approve requests to export LNG to U.S. free-trade partners "without modification or delay," but must weigh whether proposals to send the commodity to a broader list of export destinations are in the national interest.
Former President Obama's DOE consistently approved LNG export applications, and so far DOE has done so under President Trump, as well. But the industry has complained that DOE's process is a "black box" with limited transparency or predictability, and it has sought greater certainty in the form of legislation or policy that applications will be approved quickly and without hiccups.
The study's exclusive focus on scenarios in which DOE sets no limits on LNG exports is a contrast to past assessments, which have contemplated DOE capping the total levels of approved export capacity at various volumes. DOE uses those studies to explain its decisions on LNG export permits, so having results that eliminate the use of export caps could signal that the agency is interested in pivoting away from that approach.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is in charge of permitting for LNG export terminal siting and safety, conducts a review that can take a year or more and is costly for applicants to comply with, but the industry has not typically challenged it, and some applicants describe it as a more predicable process.
DOE announced the new study's availability yesterday in the Federal Register in a notice that set a public comment deadline of July 27.A climate wipeout
Reached yesterday, several industry groups said they were still reviewing the study. Charlie Riedl, head of the Center for LNG, and Fred Hutchison, who leads the lobbying group LNG Allies, both praised the use of a large number of scenarios — the study considered 54 cases — as a helpful approach to the forecasting exercise.
Hutchison said the low-end natural gas price estimates reflect the LNG industry's expectation of future market conditions. "The industry feels that Henry Hub prices are going to be in the $3-to-$4 [per MMBtu] range indefinitely," he said, noting that the Energy Information Administration data on which NERA's study is based has been "consistently conservative" as the natural gas industry has reduced costs and expanded production at rates that outstripped expectations.
Paul Cicio, who leads the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, a lobbying group for energy-intensive industries like chemicals and metal manufacturing, declined to address the new study but said DOE's previous assessments have shown that "almost all of the economic benefit went to the natural-gas-producing and -exporting companies," while heavy energy consumers and the general public saw higher price forecasts.
NERA's study barely touches on climate change, the contribution of LNG exports to global greenhouse gas emissions or the costs associated with responding to climate change. But where the subject comes up, the study's analysis is grim.
"NERA experts have followed the development of international agreements on climate change for many years, and we do not expect that future progress will be very much greater than in the past," the authors wrote.
The analysis assigned a 5 percent probability to the scenario in which world governments get on track to limit greenhouse gas concentrations to meet a target of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, which would require eliminating fossil fuel use over the next century. They judged the results of the "current policy case," which includes no new climate measures after 2016, as 65 percent likely to come about.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/13/stories/1060084237
-
3 Key Impacts of Trump’s Gas Policies in Asia
Jun 13, 2018 | Platts
By Eric Yep
The geopolitics of gas, and especially LNG, in the Asia Pacific reached a crescendo early this month when US negotiators got Beijing to agree to buy more American LNG in exchange for easing trade tariffs.
The natural gas industry has come a long way since the days of Unocal and Nexen.
When state-run China National Offshore Oil Corp or CNOOC’s $18.5 billion takeover bid for California-based energy company Unocal was shot down in 2005 and its $15.1 billion takeover of Calgary-based Nexen in 2012-13 faced political backlash, Chinese state corporations were left traumatized.
As recently as 2016, American companies were wary of selling stakes in LNG projects to Chinese buyers amid political sensitivities, even though Washington steered clear of making any ban official.
Then in mid-2017, US President Donald Trump signed a 10-point plan to boost trade between US and China, openly inviting Beijing to import US LNG, saying “the United States treats China no less favorably than other non-FTA trade partners with regard to LNG export authorizations.”
With US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ latest push in Beijing over the weekend, Trump has firmly anchored US LNG in China’s import mix.
Trump’s gas politics have three major consequences for Asian markets:1. Trump has forced US LNG to become more competitive in Asia
Let’s face it; Asia is not exactly the natural home for US LNG exports.
US LNG is inherently freight disadvantaged and takes up more shipping capacity than nearly every other LNG exporter, resulting in higher transportation costs. LNG carriers carrying US cargoes are typically on the water for an average of 125 days, compared with just 50 days for LNG produced in Malaysia and Brunei, according to Platts Analytics.
Moreover, US LNG is largely destination-free and opportunistic.
Around 66% of US LNG is currently contracted to Asian utilities and national oil companies, while 28% is held by portfolio buyers like Shell and 6% is still uncontracted, according to Jeff Moore, Asia manager for LNG at Platts Analytics.
That’s nearly a third of US volumes that are floating, not counting the contracted volumes that are being resold by Asian utilities which have easier access to Qatari and Australian volumes.
Most importantly, Trump has helped US LNG break into markets dominated by Qatar and Australia, in a battle for market share.
In the first quarter of 2018, Australia accounted for a whopping 37% of China’s LNG imports, followed by Qatar at 23%.
Queensland state was China’s largest LNG supplier in the first quarter, bigger than Qatar at 2.9 million mt, with nearly 26% of China’s LNG imports supplied by Gladstone projects alone, according to Perth-based consultancy EnergyQuest.
Trump has now helped US LNG dislodge its competitors.2. US LNG now faces off with Russian gas on a new front – Asia
So far, Chinese demand has been strong enough to soak up LNG from all regions.
But that could change when Russian gas starts flowing. Chinese buyers have been holding out on signing long-term offtake agreements on expectations that Russia’s “Power of Siberia” pipeline will start up by the end of this decade.
Then, it could be a fight for market share again – and Trump has put US LNG in the heart of a market that the Russians have tried to crack for decades using both pipelines and ships.
Power of Siberia will carry 38 Bcm of gas on its eastern route and 30 Bcm on its western route to China at full capacity.
Together with Yamal LNG in the Russian Arctic, Russia’s gas exports to Asia could cross 100 Bcm within a few years, nearly half of Russia’s record 194 Bcm of gas exports to Europe in 2017.
Trump threatens Moscow’s long-term strategy to diversify energy exports to Asian markets, and cut reliance on Europe where geopolitics has already seen some of its supplies compete with US LNG in some countries.
After Europe, Trump has taken the fight to Russia’s gas markets in Asia, and his Beijing maneuver will be the thin end of the wedge for US LNG to penetrate Asian demand.3. Iranian gas is forced to stay under the ground
The US trade delegation to Beijing was preceded by Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
Iran holds the world’s largest gas reserves, at 18% of total global gas reserves estimated at 6,589 Tcf, followed by Russia at 17.3% and Qatar at around 13%; the US has just 4.7%, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017.
“We are all talking about the competition to get in line for projects, and the Iranians were aware of this the first time around [when US sanctions were lifted] – the longer they are under the sanctions, the more years they get back to the end of the line on LNG,” Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a recent interview.
She said if Iran loses another two to three years in the LNG supply race, then it will miss the 2025 demand window, and then the next tranche of demand as well.
“And at some point when you start losing each tranche of demand you have to ask yourself, does renewable energy and nuclear in China create so little market opportunity that there never is a market opportunity for Iran?” Jaffe said.
She said after a certain point, Iranian LNG “loses the market forever and they never export, ever.”
Perhaps that’s exactly what Trump wants.
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/06/13/geopolitics-trump-gas-policies-impact-asia/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Heed Industry in Revamping Chemical Anti-Terrorism Plan: Senator
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Congress should reduce compliance burdens on companies when it reauthorizes a federal chemical security program this year, a Senate committee chairman says.
Chemical, explosives, and fertilizer companies are pushing for changes to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program to simplify compliance. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis. said at a June 12 roundtable held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee—which he chairs— that he’s sympathetic to their concerns.
The program aims to ensure that at-risk facilities operate with appropriate security measures to prevent chemical releases, theft, diversion, or sabotage, including in acts of terrorism.
“What I’m trying to do in this reauthorization is simplify this,” said Johnson, who operated a plastics manufacturing company before being elected to the Senate in 2010.The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, launched in 2007, requires facilities holding certain chemicals above specified quantities to submit information to the Department of Homeland Security. Sites are then placed in four categories, or tiers, based on their risk and required to submit security plans addressing the risk.
In 2014, Congress reauthorized the program for four years, and the authorization is scheduled to expire in January 2019.
Long-term reauthorization of a decade or more would give the department the stability it needs to implement the program, David Wulf, Homeland Security’s acting deputy assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, said at the roundtable.
Paying AttentionBut Johnson said a limited reauthorization is appropriate to require Congress to pay attention when the program expires.
Although companies and industry organizations at the roundtable supported extending the program for at least four years, they are seeking some changes.
The explosives industry wants to be exempted from the requirements, citing regulations by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives it said already provide appropriate protections. Several other industries are exempted from the chemical security program, such as nuclear power plants and water treatment facilities.Additional regulations under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program cost explosives companies money without providing any new benefits, Linda Menendez, director of operations at Austin Powder Co., an explosives manufacturer in Cleveland, said at the roundtable.
Industry organizations are targeting compliance burdens on facilities with the lowest risk.
Companies are concerned about the department’s plan to require facilities in the two lowest risk levels to submit their employees’ information for vetting in a federal database of terrorist ties, William Erny, senior director at the American Chemistry Council in Washington, which represents more than 150 major chemical companies, said at the roundtable.
They also want the government to provide regulatory benefits, such as fewer inspections, for companies that have voluntarily exceeded the security requirements, and more information from the Department of Homeland Security about why a facility is categorized a certain way.
Johnson said he’s skeptical of government regulations, but understands security risks require federal action.
“We face threats,” he said. “It’s a very unpleasant reality, but it’s one we have to face.https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/heed-industry-in-revamping-chemical-anti-terrorism-plan-senator
-
Cyber, Regulatory Concerns Emerge in Reauthorization Talks
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hia
The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as well as many federal officials and industry representatives affected by Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, are in favor of continuing a soon-to-expire decade-old chemical plant safety program.
But the committee's hearing yesterday revealed several questions about cybersecurity, regulatory burdens and effectiveness that lawmakers will have to resolve before reauthorizing CFATS for some period of years.
The Department of Homeland Security would indefinitely extend the program, which requires certain chemical facilities to file security plans with the agency and take steps to address the risks they pose to the public. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), however, respectfully declined that request.
"We wouldn't be having this roundtable if it were not for the reauthorization," he told David Wulf, the acting deputy assistant secretary of infrastructure protection at DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate. "Permanency is, from my standpoint, off the table."
Ranking member Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) also expressed support for extending the program for an indeterminate length of time. She asked witnesses from fertilizer, explosives, chemicals and labor groups how long they'd like to see a reauthorization last and got responses that ranged from four to seven years. The program was created in 2007 and in 2014 was extended through the end of 2018.
Some Democratic lawmakers and witnesses said they think CFATS should also be expanded to cover cybersecurity threats facing chemical facilities. But Johnson, the lone Republican committee member to speak at the roundtable, made clear that he opposes that approach.
"What we really need to be concerned about is mission creep," the chairman said. "Cyber is incredibly complex and is changing all the time. I think it is unrealistic to think that CFATS inspectors can be cyber trained and really able to do a deep dive. I think it's just kind of outside the scope of what CFATS ought to do."
Johnson repeatedly said his main focus in the reauthorization process was to "streamline" the program.
At various points in the freewheeling, two-hour-long event — in which a ring of tables placed the nine witnesses on the same level as the senators — the chairman and DHS expressed support for allowing some chemical facilities to self-certify their compliance with CFATS. They also backed exempting some explosives facilities from the program's requirements.
Completed explosives are already regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), but their unassembled component parts are not.
Yet some facilities only contain completed explosives and therefore should be exempted from duplicative CFATS compliance, industry representatives argued.
"To me it makes perfect sense," Johnson said. "It seems like the ATF, from what I've read, has done a really good job of keeping explosives out of the hands of malign actors."
He went on to ask DHS's Wulf why Congress shouldn't "just carve them off and say, 'You're not going to serve two masters.'"
Wulf responded, "We are sympathetic to the duplicative regulation situation and there are, by our count, about 31 facilities that are regulated under CFATS only for explosives. If I am counting things that I would not lose much sleep about exiting the program, that would be pretty far up there."
The Government Accountability Office's representative, however, suggested that lawmakers should take stock of how well the program is working before rolling back some of its requirements.
"The purpose of security regulation is to increase security," said Christopher Currie, GAO's director of emergency management, national preparedness and critical infrastructure protection. "It is critical that the program be able to measure how risks are being reduced and not just focus on outputs like inspection numbers."
GAO plans to release a report later this summer that will elaborate on other potential problems with the program, he added.
Yesterday's hearing was part of a broader review of CFATS that got underway earlier this year in the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection (E&E Daily, Feb. 16).
Next up to discuss the future of the program is the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment (E&E Daily, June 11).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/13/stories/1060084265
-
FERC Members Throw Cold Water on Trump's Grid Plan
Jun 12, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The federal government's grid overseers today undercut the Trump administration's assertion that a grid emergency is brewing and that ailing coal and nuclear plants need a direct lifeline.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this morning peppered the five-member Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for more than two hours with questions about the need for federal intervention to secure the grid as reactors and coal plants close.
"Do any of you believe that in the wholesale power markets we're facing an actual national security emergency?" asked Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.
FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, a Democrat, said, "I do not, senator," prompting Heinrich to ask other commissioners if they would answer that question with a "yes."
After a moment of silence, Heinrich replied, "Let's move on, then."
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre, a Republican and Trump appointee, separately told the Energy panel chairwoman, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, that there is "no immediate calamity or threat" to the bulk power system when asked if retirements have affected the quality of electricity services.
The hearing — marking the first appearance of all five current FERC commissioners before senators — focused largely on President Trump's directive for Energy Secretary Rick Perry to halt the closure of nuclear and coal plants.
The National Security Council is reportedly considering a DOE proposal that hinges on the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act to direct grid operators to buy power from a list of struggling or closing facilities in the name of national security.
The leaked DOE proposal cites the heightened threat of cyberattacks to natural gas infrastructure and natural disasters (Greenwire, June 1).
The administration has said the closure of coal and nuclear plants could leave the grid vulnerable and overreliant on a rush of natural gas as intermittent renewables proliferate.
FERC last year rejected DOE's proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants for their on-site fuel.
Republicans senators today openly fretted about whether regulatory action could be taken before coal and nuclear plants across the United States closed, while Democrats said the leaked DOE proposal is unnecessary and could cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Commissioners, who said they had not seen the DOE proposal, said grid reliability has been continually protected, while calling for vigilance.
Commissioner Robert Powelson, a Republican and former commissioner from gas-rich Pennsylvania, said the nation will indeed need a variety of resources, but FERC shouldn't be put in the position of creating "moral hazards" in markets that are working "hyper-efficiently."
Powelson, noting that the commission is tackling resilience questions the administration has raised, said a hard and fast federal rule could "evaporate all the goodwill consumers have seen" and possibly leave some assets stranded.
Commissioners also pointed out that grid operators like PJM Interconnection and companies like Exelon Corp. have said there's no grid emergency and pushed back on the DOE proposal.
Commissioner Richard Glick, a Democrat, said he sympathizes with those affected by the closure of nuclear and coal plants, but the government cannot stop the natural evolution of the renewable industry by claiming there's an emergency unless evidence exists.
"We need to keep on being vigilant and monitoring the situation, but we also need to be wary of people using the situation or the potential situation as an excuse to achieve market changes they have been able to achieve otherwise," said Glick.
Murkowski said she would favor a market solution, and that she hoped FERC would consider any tariff adjustments to address "legitimate" reliability concerns that Perry claims are continuing to mount.
Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, the panel's top Democrat, was more blunt, calling the Trump administration's efforts a "head-scratcher," given that the markets have been efficient.
She also said she's aware of where cyberattacks on the energy sector originate, and that all power sources — not just natural gas pipelines — are vulnerable to attacks.
"I just find this whole thing almost mind-boggling," Cantwell said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/12/stories/1060084211
-
Trump Picks Agency Veteran for Key Cyber Role
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump plans to nominate Karen Evans to lead an influential cybersecurity office at the Department of Energy, the White House announced yesterday.
Evans would bring decades of cybersecurity and federal IT experience to DOE's Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response, a new office tasked with tackling a range of threats to the bulk power grid.
The West Virginia resident is no stranger to the agency, having served as DOE's chief information officer before going on to manage billions of dollars of IT spending under the George W. Bush administration, according to her official bio.
"Evans has professional experience in cybersecurity policy and strategy, as well as critical infrastructure," the White House said in a press release last night.
Evans currently directs the nonprofit U.S. Cyber Challenge security training program and works as a partner at the KE&T Partners LLC consultancy. She served on the Trump transition team in 2016 under the Office of Management and Budget, according to federal disclosures, and made no secret of her desire to work for the administration.
If confirmed by the Senate, Evans would take the reins from DOE Assistant Secretary Bruce Walker, who has been leading the new cybersecurity office in an acting capacity. Her formal title would be assistant secretary of energy for cybersecurity, energy security and emergency response — an all-encompassing position meant to lead the federal response to any grid disaster, be it a coordinated cyberattack or a major storm (Energywire, Feb. 27).
A leaked DOE memo recently warned of cybersecurity dangers posed by the U.S. grid's growing reliance on natural gas as a fuel source for power generation. Lawmakers will likely press Evans on her views toward the relative security of coal, nuclear, natural gas and renewable sources of electricity on her road to confirmation.
She would likely be more of a tactician than a policymaker at CESER, however. Though the office is brand new, early comments from DOE officials and outside experts suggest its leader will be expected advise Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and possibly President Trump, on their response to a major grid disruption. The enactment of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 gave DOE broad new authorities to act during a presidentially declared grid emergency, a move that could end up putting Evans in an influential post.
Evans would also have some say in grid security research and development efforts at DOE and affiliated national labs, where she would likely build on existing programs, based on past comments.
Following the release of Trump's May 11, 2017, executive order on cybersecurity — one of the president's clearest signals of cybersecurity policy priorities to date — Evans told Federal News Radio that the administration "recognizes that this is not a green field — that a lot of work has already been done."
Evans credited the Obama administration's "real diligence" on cybersecurity, citing a 30-day "cyber sprint" that encouraged military and civilian agencies to patch vulnerabilities and add a second layer of authentication to their most important networks.
"This [Trump] executive order is building upon that success and then saying, 'OK, what's the next level?'" Evans said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/13/stories/1060084285
-
Board That Investigates Chemical Accidents Gets New Leader
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Chemical Safety Board Member Kristen Kulinowski will lead the agency on an interim basis following the departure of Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland later this month, the board said June 12.
Kulinowski has served on the board since 2015, where she has performed outreach efforts to promote laboratory safety and safe hot work practices, both matters of concern to the board.
“I look forward to working with my fellow board members in continuing our shared commitment to the board’s important mission,” Kulinowski said in a June 12 statement. “I am committed to ensuring that the CSB’s current investigations are completed in a timely and efficient manner and that the lessons learned are available to industry, workers and members of the public.”
The 40-person independent agency investigates major chemical incidents around the U.S. and has faced calls for its closure from the Trump administration in the fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2019 budget proposals. Congress rebuked the president, however, and voted to continue funding for the board.
Sutherland announced May 21 she would be resigning from the board. Under CSB procedures, the three remaining board members—Kulinowski, Rick Engler, and Manuel Ehrlich—are supposed to select among themselves to serve as interim executive authority.
With her selection, Kulinowski can serve in the role until the Trump administration nominates and the Senate confirms a new board chairperson, or until her term expires in August 2020.
Kulinowski previously worked as a research staff member at the Institute for Defense Analyses Science & Technology Policy Institute, a federal research organization that provides support to government agencies including the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Science Board, and as a senior faculty fellow in chemistry at Rice University, among other positions.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/board-that-investigates-chemical-accidents-gets-new-leader
-
Federal Agency Pushes Back on Lithium Battery Industry Proposal
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Easing restrictions on shipping lithium batteries must include more safety considerations to earn support from U.S. hazardous materials regulators.
Battery industry associations want the United Nations to update its guidelines for shipping damaged or defective lithium batteries. Under their proposal, batteries that don’t pose a hazard during transportation, such as those that have already exploded and released their energy, would no longer be regulated as hazardous materials.
But the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said at a meeting June 12 that it wouldn’t support the industry proposal before a U.N. committee without adding a provision to first diagnose or assess the batteries’ remaining risks.
Battery industry representatives said the circumstances, shapes, and sizes of lithium batteries that could be shipped vary widely.
“To write it specifically into the regulations is a very challenging endeavor,” Bob Richard, executive director of the Medical Device Battery Transport Council, said at the June 12 meeting in Washington.
Lithium batteries can be found in cell phones, laptops, power drills, and other portable devices as well as in electric cars.
Confusing RegulationsThe agency is welcoming further discussion on the proposal, Kevin Leary, transportation regulations specialist in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, said at the meeting.
The industry proposal would update the U.N. Model Regulations’ special provision 376, which defines specific handling procedures for lithium batteries that are damaged or defective, including those that have leaked or cannot be diagnosed before they’re transported. The regulations are not legally binding, but member countries are expected to use them to guide their own laws.
Current confusing regulations for handling lithium batteries put undue pressure on companies, George Kerchner, executive director of PRBA—The Rechargeable Battery Association in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment June 11. Those companies may have to ship them to a lab to determine whether they pose a safety risk. If the company can’t ship a battery because of unclear guidance or regulations, it may have to have an engineer analyze the battery.
Richard and Kerchner were open to working with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to create a proposal they could all support. Kerchner said having examples of diagnostic tests could be helpful.
“If we can’t ship a battery for forensic purposes to determine if we have a large-scale problem, that’s a concern,” Richard said at the meeting. “We need to do it in a way that’s practical, so we can get [the batteries] out of commerce if need be.”
Testing RequirementsThe associations also are proposing that the U.N. remove a guideline that asks companies to test nonrechargeable lithium cells or batteries for the likelihood that they could unexpectedly react or explode.
“It’s a waste of resources and money for the industry to continue to do this,” Kerchner said.
But testing the cells or batteries after they’ve been discharged could help determine whether there are safety hazards present, Leary said.
The association is proposing that a U.N. committee make that change to the U.N. Manual of Tests and Criteria, which complements the international body’s hazardous material transportation guidance.
The agency is open to discussing changes with the associations, according to Leary.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/federal-agency-pushes-back-on-lithium-battery-industry-proposal
-
Another Climate Fight Against Big Oil Opens Today
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
The debate over making oil companies pay for climate damages comes to a New York City courtroom today.
The city is suing the five largest oil conglomerates for allegedly creating a public nuisance by worsening global warming.
Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will consider the oil companies' motions to dismiss the case. The companies will argue that the courts aren't the place to decide climate policy. They claim it's a political and regulatory question.
The case before Keenan is the latest in a series of lawsuits by municipalities against oil companies. The bulk of them are in California; there are also three in Colorado and one in Washington state. New York is suing BP PLC, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
Jennifer Wentz, staff attorney at Columbia University, said it will be interesting to see how the cases progress in different venues.
"There's sort of that opportunity for innovation and developing different arguments in different fora, but also the likelihood that judges will be picking up cues from one another," she said. Wentz added that with so many cases, there's the opportunity for rulings that are "outside the box."
New York City's lawsuit, like the cases in California, claims that the companies knew about climate change impacts for decades and hid that information. The case differs from those in California in that it claims damages beyond sea-level rise, which is the center point of arguments by San Francisco and Oakland.
"The City already has suffered damage from climate change, including inundation, erosion, and regular tidal flooding of its property," the New York City suit says. "The City now faces further imminent threats to its property, its infrastructure, and the health and safety of its residents."
"The City seeks to shift the costs of protecting the City from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat," it adds.
Chevron spokesman Sean Comey said in an email that it will argue that "public nuisance litigation is fundamentally ill-suited to address global warming."
"The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts around the country have repeatedly rejected essentially the same claims brought by the same group of plaintiffs' attorneys," he added.
Comey pointed to American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, in which states sought to cap greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions because EPA regulates those through the Clean Air Act.
"As the Supreme Court explained in AEP, 'the appropriate amount of regulation in any particular greenhouse gas-producing sector cannot be prescribed in a vacuum: as with other questions of national or international policy, informed assessment of competing interests is required,'" Comey said. "And that is a task for the political branches, not the courts."
The city's claims, if accepted, "would create an unprecedented global warming tort that could be asserted against any company, government, or individual whose activity has contributed to global warming — essentially anyone on Earth," he added. "That is contrary to federal and state law, as well as common sense."
The Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank that advocates taxing carbon, filed a brief supporting New York City.
The group also filed briefs on behalf of Colorado's Boulder County, San Miguel County and city of Boulder in lawsuits against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy Inc.
"Climate change imposes significant damage on both public and private property without the consent of the property owners, and Niskanen believes that the common law — specifically state common law — provides a remedy for such injuries," it said in the New York amicus brief.
"No matter how useful fossil fuels may be, it is unfair to impose their hidden costs on property owners," the Niskanen brief added. "Foisting these costs onto property owners not only forces them to subsidize the Defendants, it further distorts markets by eliminating the competitive advantage of forms of energy that do not impose such costs."
Meanwhile, 15 states filed a brief backing the oil companies. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The same group filed a brief in the California cases initiated by San Francisco and Oakland.
The states argue that allowing the cases to advance "would disrupt carefully calibrated state regulatory schemes devised by politically accountable officials." The courts shouldn't allow the suits to confound state and federal oversight "by establishing emissions policy (or, as is more likely, multiple conflicting emissions policies) on a piecemeal, ad hoc, case-by-case basis," the states say.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/13/stories/1060084281
-
Trump, Oil of Less Concern Than Climate Change for Top Companies
Jun 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Morison
The world’s biggest companies are increasingly worried about climate change.
The terms “climate” and “weather” combined were among the most frequently discussed topics among executives of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies, beating “Trump,” “the dollar,” “oil,” and “recession,” according to analysis of 10 years of earnings call transcripts by S&P Global Ratings.
“The effect of climate risk and severe weather events on corporate earnings is meaningful,” S&P said in the joint report with Hamilton, Bermuda-based Resilience Economics Ltd. “If left unmitigated, the financial impact could increase over time as climate change makes disruptive weather events more frequent and severe.”
The analysis shows that 15 percent of S&P 500 companies publicly disclosed an effect on earnings from weather events, with only 4 percent quantifying the effect. The average impact on earnings was 6 percent in financial year 2017.
More companies are expected to increase reporting on climate issues as management teams become more accountable for understanding the financial impact of weather events, S&P said.
“We may begin to see institutional investors build climate risk factors into their portfolio selection processes, thereby placing greater emphasis on climate when directing investments,” the ratings agency said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-oil-of-less-concern-than-climate-change-for-top-companies
-
Senate Panel Backs NOAA, Climate and Science Programs
Jun 13, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen and Nick Sobczyk
A Senate Appropriations subcommittee yesterday signed off on a $63 billion spending bill that would reject many of President Trump's proposed cuts for NOAA and climate research while steering new funds to scientific programs, space exploration and weather satellites.
After clearing the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee on a voice vote, the bill heads to the full Appropriations Committee for its consideration tomorrow.
The bill would give NOAA $5.48 billion in fiscal 2019, a $426 million decrease below the 2018 level, paying for ocean monitoring, fisheries management, aquaculture research and severe weather forecasting, among other things.
Democrats were happy the bill ignored the Trump administration's proposal to cut funding for climate, weather and ocean research by roughly 40 percent, instead providing $508 million for those programs.
NOAA fared better than it did under a bill approved by House appropriators last month. The House bill would give NOAA $5.2 billion next year.
But both the House and Senate texts are far more generous than Trump, who in February proposed a cut of more than $1 billion in the agency's budget next year.
The biggest winners in the Senate bill included NOAA's popular grant programs, such as the sea grant and marine aquaculture programs and coastal zone management and resilience grants.
Subcommittee members rallied around the grant programs after the administration proposed eliminating them as a way to save nearly $500 million in fiscal 2019.
"The bill rejects the elimination of grants that help coastal communities and their economies and keeps key weather satellites on track, while providing an increase for job-supporting coastal programs like Sea Grant and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the subcommittee's ranking member.
The bill also would give NOAA $75 million to complete a second survey vessel. NOAA currently has 16 ships in its aging fleet, but that number will fall to eight by 2028. The vessels are used to map the ocean floor, support forecasts, and aid in research and fisheries management.
Republican Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, the subcommittee's chairman, said the panel had "achieved a careful balance" in competing spending priorities.
"Our bill ensures the National Weather Service has adequate funding to provide timely warnings for severe weather and supports the department's ongoing satellite efforts," he said.
Senators noted that the bill won approval with no riders attached.
"We've been asked to refrain from partisan poison pill riders in committee," Shaheen said. "I think that's an important policy, and as a result this bill does not address these and other matters that both sides would like to confront, albeit in different ways."
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she thinks that "things are trending the right way."NASA and science
The bill also includes $10 million for climate change research under NASA's Carbon Monitoring System, rejecting the Trump administration's moves to cancel the program.
In fiscal 2018, Congress spurned Trump's proposed cuts to NASA's earth science programs but remained silent on the CMS.
Then, NASA reportedly decided to stop soliciting proposals under the program, a move that drew a rebuke from Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation ranking member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) (E&E News PM, May 11).
"Every part of the United States benefits from the data and analysis created by these missions, which provides a foundation for our ability to understand and predict high-impact, climate-related events like hurricanes," Nelson wrote in a letter last month to top Senate appropriators.
The House version of the bill, which passed committee last month, also includes $10 million for the CMS (E&E Daily, May 18).
Overall, the Senate bill would give NASA $21.3 billion, a nearly $600 million boost over fiscal 2018 levels.
The bill would also dole out $928 million for NOAA to continue building three new polar weather satellites, a modest $50 million over the administration's request.
The Democratic summary of the bill suggests lawmakers had climate in mind.
"Last year, the United States experienced 16 separate weather and climate disasters that cost more than $1 billion dollars each, tying the single year record," the summary says. "These storms would have cost far more and posed even greater threats to human safety without sufficient warning."
The bill would provide $8.1 billion for the National Science Foundation, $301 million above the agency's 2018 funding level.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/13/stories/1060084261
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested