Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/15/18
-
Ewire: Pruitt's Deregulatory Efforts Intensify as Ethical Troubles Mount
Jun 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
With his tenure ever more precarious, the New York Times reports on more evidence that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt used agency staff for personal favors, including helping his daughter obtain a coveted White House internship and helping arrange meetings with major donors who could help him in future political campaigns. -
Trump 'Not Happy' with Pruitt Controversies
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump told reporters today that he's not pleased with a string of controversies surrounding his EPA chief, but signaled Scott Pruitt's performance remains solid. -
Eying TSCA Backlog, EPA Seeks Expedited ICR Review
Jun 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is urging White House officials to expedite review of an agency information collection request (ICR) to ensure that manufacturers of new chemicals have access to agency guidance on submitting data to support chemical reviews under the revised toxics law, part of an ongoing effort to speed the agency's process for reviewing new chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Will No Longer Evaluate the Health Risks of Asbestos
Jun 15, 2018 | Legal Scoops
By Jacob Maslow
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will no longer evaluate the health impacts and risks of asbestos already in the environment, the agency announced. -
Dianne Feinstein's Unscientific Chemical Scare Bill
Jun 15, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Henry I. Miller and Josh Bloom
Chemicals surround us and make up everything in nature — everything we use, eat, and breathe. Yet the mere mention of the presence of chemicals is enough to scare some people. -
Health Advocates Urge Sherwin-Williams to Give Their Customers a Ban on Deadly Paint Strippers This Father’s Day
Jun 15, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
Environmental health advocates from Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are calling on Sherwin-Williams, the nation’s largest dedicated paint and paint supplies retailer, to take action to remove deadly paint strippers from its store shelves this Father’s Day weekend. -
Echa and Cefic Sign Cooperation Agreement to Improve REACH Implementation
Jun 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) have signed a joint statement agreeing to work together on the effective implementation of REACH. -
Cefic Calls for Post-Brexit Bilateral Chemicals Regulations Agreement
Jun 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) has urged Brexit negotiators to secure a bilateral agreement between the EU and UK that allows continued British participation in the implementation of regulations administered by Echa. -
Energy Sector on Edge as Trump, China Impose Tariffs
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall and Hannah Northey
President Trump slapped tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports this morning, including nuclear reactors, batteries, vehicles and agricultural equipment. -
Trump Taps Critic of Pro-Renewables Policies to Lead Renewables Office
Jun 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is nominating a Department of Energy (DOE) official who previously fought against policies meant to promote renewable energy to lead the agency’s renewable energy office. -
Phillips 66 Planning $1.5B Expansion of Sweeny Hub to Serve West Texas
Jun 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Phillips 66 plans to spend up to $1.5 billion on infrastructure upgrades near its Houston Ship Channel facilities to serve the Permian Basin, hundreds of miles away, including natural gas liquids (NGL) fractionators, additional storage capacity and associated pipelines. -
OPEC Cuts Lifted U.S. Shale. Are They About to End?
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Analysts are betting that OPEC's oil production curbs will be coming to an end starting next week. -
26 Senators Push Zinke to Stop ANWR Drilling
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Twenty-six senators are sending a letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke calling for him to drop plans to allow oil and gas development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. -
Infrastructure Execs Offer Warning on Grid's Growing Gas Reliance
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. electric sector's growing reliance on natural gas "could severely delay restoration from a sustained outage," a presidential advisory group warned yesterday. -
Environmentalists Spar with EPA on Boiler MACT Rehearing
Jun 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are renewing their calls for a federal appeals court to rehear previously unsuccessful portions of their case challenging EPA's air toxics rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for industrial boilers, firing back at EPA's arguments against rehearing after the court granted only a partial remand of the rule. -
Lawmakers Advance Climate Programs, Even Republicans
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
Congress is assembling must-pass legislation that rejects — and sometimes reverses — the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle federal climate change programs. -
Carbon-Pricing Bill Clears State Senate
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed a carbon pricing bill yesterday evening, handing climate hawks a major victory after a series of national setbacks. -
Court Nixes Oil and Gas Leases for Deficient Climate Review
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court rebuked the Bureau of Land Management yesterday for failing to consider certain climate impacts of oil and gas development on public lands in New Mexico.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Ewire: Pruitt's Deregulatory Efforts Intensify as Ethical Troubles Mount
Jun 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
With his tenure ever more precarious, the New York Times reports on more evidence that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt used agency staff for personal favors, including helping his daughter obtain a coveted White House internship and helping arrange meetings with major donors who could help him in future political campaigns.
The news comes just as many prominent Republicans and conservatives, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), one of Pruitt's strongest backers are urging President Donald Trump to fire Pruitt -- or at least raising the possibility.
In the latest indication of GOP unease, Senate appropriators formally rebuked Pruitt in EPA's fiscal year 2019 budget, writing that the Appropriations Committee “feels strongly that it is essential that agencies provided funding in this Act comply with all applicable ethics regulations.”
The continued reports about Pruitt's ethics and spending missteps “upset me as much as they upset you, and I think something needs to happen to change that,” Inhofe, a long-time political patron of Pruitt, said during a June 13 appearance on conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's radio show.
“One of those alternatives would be for him to leave that job,” Inhofe said.
But the thing that keeps Republicans on board is Pruitt's aggressive deregulatory agenda -- which appears to be close to hitting some high points.
Earlier today, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers announced they will be submitting their proposed replacement for the Obama administration's Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule -- known as the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule -- to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
“Today, we are taking an important step toward issuing a new WOTUS definition and answering President Trump’s call to ensure that our waters are kept free from pollution, while promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the federal government and the states under the statutory framework of the Clean Water Act,” Pruitt said.
The agency may also be close to releasing its long-awaited plan for easing vehicle greenhouse gas standards, the New York Times reported June 14. “It perhaps helps Pruitt show the White House that he’s still very effective, even while he’s under fire,” Myron Ebell, who led the Trump transition team at EPA and works for the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute told the paper. “The water rule was front and center in the president’s campaign promises.”
But Pruitt's continued ethical and other scandals appear to under cut that.
Early in 2017, for example, Pruitt told several EPA aides to “see what you can do” about getting his daughter the highly competitive White House internship. She was ultimately picked for the internship last summer.
“We were constantly fielding requests like this, even though this had nothing to do with running the EPA,” Kevin Chmielewski, a former Trump campaign staffer and EPA political appointee who has since left the agency after having a falling out with Pruitt, told the Times.
The paper also reports that staffers helped arrange interviews with major political donors -- citing a meeting in Colorado with Denver-based billionaire Philip Anschutz -- even though the meetings were clearly not about agency business.
The current and former staff said such meetings were based on “expectations that he might want to run for the United States Senate or some other office.”
The Times also shed more light on Pruitt's trip to the Rose Bowl football game to see the Oklahoma Sooners. It reports that he paid $175 per ticket, face value, for his family to sit at the 50-yard line -- prime seats that were selling for more than $1,000 on the secondary market.
How did Pruitt get such great seats for face value? Renzi Stone, a member of OU's Board of Regents who runs a marketing firm with several top energy sector clients, helped him “navigate the purchase of tickets.”
The article reports that Pruitt was given access to a “special allotment” of tickets held by the school, and that he similarly secured seats at three OU home games through the school's reserve.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-pruitts-deregulatory-efforts-intensify-ethical-troubles-mount
-
Trump 'Not Happy' with Pruitt Controversies
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump told reporters today that he's not pleased with a string of controversies surrounding his EPA chief, but signaled Scott Pruitt's performance remains solid.
"I'm not happy about certain things, but he's done a fantastic job running the EPA, which is very overriding," Trump said from the White House driveway.
When asked whether Pruitt was using his office for personal gain, Trump replied, "I hope not."
While Pruitt has faced a barrage of negative stories and findings about questionable use of staff and overspending for months — as well as a string of ongoing investigations — it's not clear when or whether the EPA boss will step down.
A growing number of conservatives in recent days, including radio host Laura Ingraham, whom Trump follows on Twitter, have said Pruitt's "gotta go" (E&E Daily, June 14).
But Republicans and Democrats on the Hill yesterday questioned the effectiveness of publicly speaking out against the EPA administrator.
Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio during an interview yesterday said Republicans won't speak up against Pruitt without taking a cue from Trump.
"Republicans aren't going to speak out much because they never speak out against the president unless they are leaving," he said. "I don't know that we have any impact [on Pruitt], we have a lot of other things to fight. I strongly believe Pruitt should resign, but I don't put a lot of time into it, there are more important things to do."
Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said at his weekly Capitol news conference that he wasn't even watching what's become a steady stream of stories surrounding the agency and Pruitt's management.
"Frankly, I haven't paid that close attention to it. I would refer you to the authorizing committee that oversees the EPA," Ryan said in response to a question from E&E News. "I'm glad, with kind of a regulatory position they've taken, but I can't — I don't know enough about what Pruitt has or has not done to give you a good comment."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084707
-
Eying TSCA Backlog, EPA Seeks Expedited ICR Review
Jun 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is urging White House officials to expedite review of an agency information collection request (ICR) to ensure that manufacturers of new chemicals have access to agency guidance on submitting data to support chemical reviews under the revised toxics law, part of an ongoing effort to speed the agency's process for reviewing new chemicals.
In a notice published in the Federal Register June 14, EPA seeks emergency White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) processing of an amendment to an existing ICR due to expire Nov. 30.
EPA says the review is necessary to ensure that chemical manufacturers have access to its “Points to Consider” guidance on submitting new chemical notices for review, which the agency issued in draft form on its website last year.
“To the extent that respondents are able to take information presented in the Points to Consider document into account prior to preparing and submitting a [pre-manufacture notice], [significant new use notice], or exemption notice, EPA also anticipates that more robust submissions will improve the factual bases for determinations on new chemical notices, speed review, and reduce the frequency of interactions with submitters in cases where EPA has questions about the submission,” EPA says in the notice.
“The Points to Consider document is urgently needed for a more timely and efficient new chemical review process.”
EPA asks OMB to approve its request for emergency processing on or before June 11, several days prior to the scheduled publication of the notice in the Register.
The request for expedited processing of the ICR is part of EPA toxic officials' ongoing efforts to speed reviews of new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Chemical industry officials have said that EPA has made significant progress in eliminating the backlog of new chemical reviews that accrued in the early stages of EPA's implementation of the revised law but that a backlog still exists and reviews are taking too long.
The primary challenges to the new chemicals review process stem from the June 2016 TSCA's requirements that EPA make a definitive finding regarding the safety of each new chemical, and also consider "reasonably foreseeable" uses of a chemical that are not included in a PMN but could occur once a chemical is added to the TSCA inventory.
But environmentalists are suing to block the Trump administration's framework for reviewing new chemicals, a policy that was crafted to help speed reviews in part by dropping the use of enforcement orders as an interim step in regulating the substances.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/eying-tsca-backlog-epa-seeks-expedited-icr-review
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Will No Longer Evaluate the Health Risks of Asbestos
Jun 15, 2018 | Legal Scoops
By Jacob Maslow
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will no longer evaluate the health impacts and risks of asbestos already in the environment, the agency announced. The agency’s move means that asbestos in piping, tiles and adhesives in businesses and homes throughout the United States will remain unaccounted for.
Approximately 15,000 people die in the United States each year due to asbestos-related illnesses.
The EPA’s decision comes after an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 2016, which mandate that the agency must perform safety reviews of certain chemicals, require testing of those chemicals, and provide the public with safety information for the chemicals. The amendment also gave the EPA the ability to ban certain uses of asbestos. Previously, the agency did not have this authority.
The EPA’s decision is facing backlash from awareness organizations, such as the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
“The end result will be a seriously inadequate risk evaluation that fails to address major contributors to the heavy and growing toll of asbestos mortality and disease in the United States,” said Linda Reinstein, President of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
Reinstein met with the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention deputy assistant administrator, Nancy Beck, to discuss the agency’s decision. Reinstein, along with other advocates of asbestos awareness, provided more than 100 studies that showed the hazards of asbestos even in low doses.
Beck refused to back down, and the decision still stands. Beck previously served as an executive at the American Chemistry Council, a major lobbying group for the chemical industry.
“If you don’t evaluate the dangerous legacy of asbestos you don’t know how much contamination still exists in the United States,” said Reinstein. “We know it’s in our homes, schools, workplace and environment but the average American can’t identify and evaluate the risk. We have taken risk evaluation off the table.”
https://www.legalscoops.com/epa-will-no-longer-evaluate-the-health-risks-of-asbestos/
-
Dianne Feinstein's Unscientific Chemical Scare Bill
Jun 15, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Henry I. Miller and Josh Bloom
Chemicals surround us and make up everything in nature — everything we use, eat, and breathe. Yet the mere mention of the presence of chemicals is enough to scare some people.
The anti-vaccine movement was fueled by spurious concerns about a patently false relationship between a mercury preservative in vaccines and autism. Sadly, chemical additives are increasingly being cited as the reason for parental resistance to vaccination, which has led to the re-emergence of serious preventable infections, such as measles. Measles infections increased by more than six-fold between 2010 and 2014.
Another example is the continuing sporadic controversy over the fluoridation of public drinking water — a hugely successful intervention for dental health. And while DDT was being vilified as highly toxic (it is not), millions of Africans died from malaria because the chemical was banned.
It seems that these lessons have gone unheeded. An example is the recently-introduced, updated Personal Care Safety Actintroduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. In some ways what is contained in the bill isn’t terribly different from vaccine and fluoride scares. Nonetheless, in spite of the absence of scientific evidence to justify the vast scope and huge expense of her pending legislation, Sen. Feinstein persists.
Her pitch begins with an anecdote about an unsafe hair product which left a young girl bald, and then attempts to link this unfortunate incident to the trace amounts of chemicals we are exposed to every day.
The bill would establish a “review process for ingredients used in personal care products ...The FDA would be authorized to look at all available information on particular chemicals to determine whether they are safe and, if so, what the appropriate levels in products should be.” In addition, “the FDA would be required to review at least five chemicals or categories of chemicals per year, chosen based on input from consumers, medical professionals, scientists, and companies” and “would also look at cumulative and aggregate exposures to ingredients as part of their safety analyses whenever such data are available.”
Those new responsibilities would be a herculean task, and one based on overly risk-averse assumptions. Extrapolation of the effects of one harmful chemical to supposed risks from thousands of safe ones is the hallmark of the anti-chemical movement. At its most benign, "chemophobia" has manipulated consumers to spend more for products in which one harmless chemical has been replaced by another. But the real victim is the erosion of the public’s already-shaky understanding of toxicity and pharmacology.
Perhaps no chemical illustrates the consequences of public misinformation more than formaldehyde, which is used in minuscule quantities to prevent bacterial growth in many vaccines. Sen. Feinstein wrote in a commentary, “Formaldehyde has been suspected to cause cancer since 1981, and has been listed as a known human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program since 2011. Nonetheless, formaldehyde is still found in hair-straightening salon products.”
This statement is highly misleading for a number of reasons. Chemicals are neither inherently good nor bad. They can be either or both depending on their inherent toxicity, level of exposure, and method of use. Botulinum toxin can be a deadly contaminant of food, a drug, or a commonly used cosmetic called Botox.
The science of toxicology tells us what quantity (dose) of a substance will be beneficial or harmful. This principle applies to the medicines used by Americans hundreds of millions of times a day to help relieve symptoms or to treat illnesses; for example, the right dose of aspirin or an over-the-counter cold remedy can be a therapeutic godsend, but consuming too much can be lethal. The same principle also applies to foods: Large amounts specific chemicals in nutmeg and licorice are notoriously toxic, yet we are perfectly safe consuming them because the normal amount of these chemicals in food is very low.
The same holds true when comparing the toxicity of industrial exposure to formaldehyde to the small amounts found in hair products. The two are not even remotely comparable. Undue concern over small amounts of formaldehyde implies that it is a foreign substance that our bodies are not prepared to handle. This isn't so. Not only are we routinely exposed to minute quantities of the chemical every time we eat fruit or drink fruit juice, but formaldehyde is an essential component for humans’ metabolism. It is biosynthesized in our bodies as a building block for amino acids and DNA. We are not only constantly exposed to formaldehyde, but we actually need it.
Some of the other chemicals that Sen. Feinstein cites — for example parabens and phthalates — have been in common use for decades. “Concerns” about these chemicals are typically based on long-term, high-dose animal feeding experiments, which have not been shown to be relevant to human exposure.
Another misconception cited in the bill is that “parabens were found in the breast tissue of patients with breast cancer.” But that tells us nothing about the levels present, and of course it in no way implicates the chemicals in causing the cancers. Given the power of modern analytical techniques, vanishingly small quantities of thousands of chemicals can be detected almost anywhere. They have been around all along, but only now are we able to “see” them.
Our water and air are cleaner, and our consumer products are of higher quality than ever before. Regulation has its place, to be sure, but it is intended to protect us from unreasonable risks, not to scare us all with speculative risks hyped-up by activists and pandering politicians.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the U.S. FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Josh Bloom, who holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry, is the senior director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the American Council on Science and Health.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/dianne-feinsteins-unscientific-chemical-scare-bill?utm_campaign=wex_widget&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_mediu
-
Jun 15, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
Environmental health advocates from Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are calling on Sherwin-Williams, the nation’s largest dedicated paint and paint supplies retailer, to take action to remove deadly paint strippers from its store shelves this Father’s Day weekend. This call for action comes in the wake of Lowe’s recent decision to announce a ban on these products by the end of the year.
Today Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and NRDC sent a letter to Sherwin-Williams CEO John Morikis requesting that the company cease the sale of all paint strippers containing methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) by the end of 2018 globally, citing the health risks these chemicals pose to Sherwin-Williams’ customers at its more than 4,000 stores. Advocates plan to send similar letters to other major paint, home improvement, big box, and automotive retailers in the weeks ahead calling on them to join Lowe’s in banning paint strippers containing methylene chloride and NMP.
“Dozens of families across the country are observing Father’s Day this weekend without beloved sons, fathers, mothers, and daughters because these loved ones died using deadly paint strippers containing methylene chloride,” said Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “The best gift Sherwin-Williams can give to fathers this year is to leverage its position as a market leader to take these paint strippers off its store shelves across the globe. With great market power comes great responsibility.”
In 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first proposed a ban on paint-removers that contain methylene and NMP. Methylene chloride has been linked to more than 60 deaths nationwide since the 1980 and is also linked to lung and liver cancer, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity. In turn, N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), which can be substituted for methylene chloride in paint removers, impacts fetal development and can cause miscarriage and stillbirth. According to the EPA, more than 60,000 U.S. workers and 2 million consumers are exposed to methylene chloride and NMP annually.
“Sherwin-Williams should ban methylene chloride and NMP paint removers from its store shelves to help protect workers and consumers, ” said Sujatha Bergen, a policy specialist with NRDC. “The burden is on retailers to take action to prioritize customer health and safety, now that the EPA is taking orders from the chemical industry.”
Advocates are calling on Sherwin-Williams to phase out the sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride and NMP given its market stature. With more than 4,000 stores nationwide, Sherwin-Williams is the largest operator of specialty paint supply stores in the United States. The company reported in its 2017 annual report that: “company-operated stores in the United States grew architectural paint sales volumes at a rate of approximately two times the rate of U.S. market growth,” and that its store profits grew by 10%.
Last month, Lowe’s became the first major U.S. retailer to commit to banning methylene chloride and NMP globally after more than 200,000 consumers nationwide signed petitions urging the company to act. In early May, advocates held a week of action in more than a dozen states demanding that Lowe’s act on methylene chloride and NMP. Last year, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families sent Lowe’s a letter warning the company about the dangers of these chemicals, much like the letter sent to Sherwin-Williams today, and requested that the store stop selling paint strippers containing toxic chemicals, including the product that killed one of Lowe’s’ customers. NRDC also sent Lowe’s a letter, generated more than 40,000 public comments to the company, and produced an Instagram video that was viewed more than three million times.
In January 2017, the EPA proposed banning paint strippers containing these chemicals under the newly strengthened Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), citing the products’ unreasonable risks to human health. Under pressure from the chemical industry, the agency has yet to finalize the ban. Two days after EPA Administrator Pruitt met with families who have lost loved ones due to methylene chloride exposure, the EPA announced that it would finalize a methylene chloride rule. However, the agency has revealed few details on the regulatory action it plans and has taken no action on NMP.
https://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/health-advocates-urge-sherwin-williams-to-give-their-customers-a-ban-on-deadly-paint-strippers-this-fathers-day/
-
Echa and Cefic Sign Cooperation Agreement to Improve REACH Implementation
Jun 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) have signed a joint statement agreeing to work together on the effective implementation of REACH.
The agreement, signed on 15 June in Helsinki, sees both sides committing to improving chemical safety information and how it is communicated up and down the supply chain.
The move follows the recent third REACH registration deadline and the release earlier this year of the European Commission’s Review of the Regulation.
The joint statement acknowledges the assessment of some substances or groups of substances has been "scientifically challenging", and says that both organisations believe "early stage cooperation" between industry and Echa experts will lead to improvements.
For its part Echa has committed itself to:
let industry know when a substance, or group of substances, is expected to be scientifically or technically challenging and would benefit from discussion among substance experts;
help convene industry experts, arranged by both organisations, to discuss critical issues in advance of a regulatory decision or Opinion making; and
give industry feedback on how to further improve the quality of dossiers, whilst recognising when they are of high quality.
And Cefic commits to:
increasing its endeavours to promote a gradual and planned improvement in the compliance, quality and understanding of registration dossiers;
indicating to Echa when a substance or group of substances is expected to create scientific or technical challenges which would benefit from discussion among substance experts; and
organising scientific and technical experts from industry to discuss any critical issues.
The two organisations have agreed to work together to improve the "means of communication of safety information in the supply chain"; and agree on the identification of specific substances or groups of substances with critical issues that require discussion.
Echa’s executive director Bjorn Hansen said in a joint communique that it showed European industry’s commitment to REACH and the agency’s commitment to work with industry.
"The Commission has asked us in their recent report to work with industry to increase efficiencies in implementing REACH and this is a step in doing so," he said. "As Echa is committed to openness and transparency, this work will be done in close collaboration with member states and our other accredited stakeholder organisations, representing NGOs, trade unions, consumers and academia."
And Marco Mensink, director-general of Cefic, also welcomed the agreement. It shows, he said, a willingness to make REACH work to the benefit of industry, Echa, and the wider stakeholder base. "Industry will help Echa to improve the quality of dossiers to help monitoring and enforcement and to improve the scientific quality of the process," he said.
Yesterday, addressing delegates at this year's Helsinki Chemicals Forum, Marco Mensink, director general of the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), said it is time to develop a "smart REACH foreign policy" in which REACH® compliant becomes a global brand.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67706/echa-and-cefic-sign-cooperation-agreement-to-improve-reach-implementation
-
Cefic Calls for Post-Brexit Bilateral Chemicals Regulations Agreement
Jun 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) has urged Brexit negotiators to secure a bilateral agreement between the EU and UK that allows continued British participation in the implementation of regulations administered by Echa.
In a recently published position paper, Cefic says such a scenario would represent "the most effective way" to ensure companies can continue to efficiently trade across borders and their operations are not disrupted by Brexit.
Considering the EU’s efforts to promote REACH as the preferred chemicals management system, Cefic says the argument that other third countries are not involved in REACH either "does not fly". Whereas Canada, South Korea and Japan can comply with the Regulation as third countries, the UK is "fully in" the REACH system, it adds.
Establishing a separate UK agency would take years to achieve, it says, "and at significant cost, jeopardising a decade’s worth of investment into safe chemicals management by government and industry".
A continued partnership between the UK and Echa would avoid duplicate testing and related costs under REACH, and ensure "a continuity of supply to key customer industries such as aerospace, automotive and pharmaceuticals, all of whom rely upon access to chemicals from both sides of the channel".
And, addressing a social function at the Helsinki Chemicals Forum, Hariolf Kottmann, president of Cefic and the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) reiterated the industry association’s position.
Mr Kottmann, who is CEO of Clariant, said he is "deeply convinced" that a continued partnership between the UK and Echa is a "win-win situation" for all involved parties.
Brexit, he added, is a "massive challenge" which might affect the "solid and efficient mechanism" the chemicals industry has in place. Beyond this, he said, disruptions of trade flows are likely to have an impact on the entire industrial value chain. As a consequence, they might "severely damage" the competitiveness of EU industry as a whole.
"Unfortunately, there is no simple solution for that. The exit of a member state from the EU is an unchartered territory and no one has a crystal ball to see how exactly it will enfold."EU Brexit taskforce
Meanwhile, in a Q&A session with Cefic, the EU Brexit negotiating taskforce said businesses in all economic sectors "must get prepared" for both scenarios – a ratified withdrawal agreement, including a transition period until the end of 2020, and a 'no deal' scenario, with the UK leaving the EU on 30 March 2019.
Given the British government’s red lines, Michel Barnier’s team said, the situation of the UK will become that of a third country – regardless of whether or not a ratified Withdrawal Agreement is reached and that means no more 'business as usual'.Avoiding compliance gaps – Cefic and the no-deal scenario
In case of a no-deal scenario, Cefic says the chemical industry and their customers have to ask Echa for support in order to avoid compliance gaps and resulting disruption in the value chains of the affected chemicals. This may include:adaptation of measures proposed by the REACH Directors’ Contact Group like acceptance of preliminary registrations if a lead registrant for a substance is based in the UK;information of substance information exchange fora (Siefs) if their lead registrant is located in the EU.
Additionally, Cefic says it supports the continued grandfathering of existing and approved registrations and authorisations. Grandfathering is the act of exempting something from new legislation or requirements. This will lead to "minimising the regulatory barrier" for the sector in moving chemicals to key downstream customer industries across Europe.
The free trade of these products "should be guaranteed under the same current conditions and this should apply until the authorisation has to be renewed or the registration updated", it says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67705/cefic-calls-for-post-brexit-bilateral-chemicals-regulations-agreement
-
Energy Sector on Edge as Trump, China Impose Tariffs
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall and Hannah Northey
President Trump slapped tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports this morning, including nuclear reactors, batteries, vehicles and agricultural equipment.
The action prompted angry retaliatory threats from China, with the country's commerce ministry vowing to "immediately introduce taxation measures of the same scale and the same strength."
In a statement, the White House said "trade between our nations, however, has been very unfair for a very long time. This situation is no longer sustainable."
The 25 percent tariffs are set to hit two sets of "industrially significant" technologies cited by the U.S. trade representative, including 818 products originally floated in April. Those include nuclear reactors, components of aircraft engines and various types of batteries, including lithium-based products. A second list includes various types of vehicles, motorcycles and transportation equipment. It will undergo further review and a public comment period.
The list resulted from a multi-month investigation and the earlier release of a report from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative documenting China's support for its industries (E&E News PM, March 22).
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said China's government is aggressively working to undermine America's high-tech industries and through unfair practices and policies such as "Made in China 2025," a program aiming to increase the country's competitiveness in manufacturing and technology via subsidies and other policies.
China said it regrets that the United States is "fickle" and wanting to provoke a trade war after several rounds of consultations.
"This move is not only damaging bilateral interests but also undermining the world trade order," the commerce ministry said. It called on all countries to take joint actions to "put an end to this outdated and regressive behavior."
President Trump later made a surprise appearance on the North Lawn today, where he appeared on "Fox & Friends" and pushed back on concerns that he was starting a trade war.
The president said Chinese President Xi Jinping is a "great man, a wonderful guy," but the United States lost $500 billion in trade deficits last year.
"The trade war was started many years ago by them, and the United States lost ... there is no trade war," Trump said. "We have the great brain power in Silicon Valley, and China and others steal those secrets."
House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said in a statement that he was concerned the new tariffs would hurt American manufacturers, farmers, workers and consumers more than China.
"These tariffs make it more difficult to sell more ‘Made in America’ products globally and expose many of our industries — particularly agriculture and chemicals — to devastating retaliation," Brady said.
It may take some time to sort out the full impact on the energy sector, although some analysts have said that higher prices in general could have a ripple effect.
Ravi Manghani, an analyst at GTM Research, said many of the battery-related tariffs are on primary cells, such as those that go into electronics, not the rechargeable ones on stationary storage and electric vehicles.
Broader tariffs on "all-storage" parts include lithium-ion components but may do little damage to U.S. industry, since China provides a small percentage of U.S. imports.
"U.S. manufacturers have multiple alternatives from Japan and South Korea," Manghani said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084701
-
Trump Taps Critic of Pro-Renewables Policies to Lead Renewables Office
Jun 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is nominating a Department of Energy (DOE) official who previously fought against policies meant to promote renewable energy to lead the agency’s renewable energy office.
Dan Simmons has been serving since May 2017 has the acting head of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The White House announced late Thursday that Simmons would be nominated to be the office’s assistant secretary, requiring Senate confirmation.
Simmons has been at DOE since Trump took office.
He previously served in leading roles at the Institute for Energy Research (IER) and the American Legislative Exchange Council, both conservative groups that generally oppose policies like tax credits and grants aimed at boosting solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy.
Simmons said in a 2013 Heartland Institute podcast that boosting renewable energy would hurt consumers.
“No matter what the renewable guys say, what they will admit is that their type of power — the wind and solar — is more expensive and will increase the price of electricity,” he said.
In a 2013 post on IER’s website, Simmons said renewable tax credits are a bad investment for the government.
“As the astronomical taxpayer exposure from the DOE's loan guarantee program indicates, subsidizing renewable energy is not a good deal for taxpayers.”
At a Politico event in 2016, Simmons said he and IER fight subsidies for all energy sources, not just renewables.
“I think that everything should be treated equally across the board,” he said.
But in an internal DOE blog post shortly after taking his post in May, Simmons sought to assure employees that he doesn’t oppose his office’s mission.
“I like renewables & efficiency,” Simmons said in the post first reported by E&E News. “I know that's contrary to some of the things that have been written about me, but it's true.”
Simmons said the house he grew up in had a wood-burning stove and passive solar heating.
“In addition to the sun, we had a wood-burning stove, and because the house was efficient (i.e., well insulated), we only needed to burn about a quarter of a cord of wood a year," he said. "For me, both renewable energy and efficiency were part of my childhood home and those experiences have shaped my perspective."
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s mission is to support the development and deployment of renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal, along with energy efficiency technologies and some sustainable transportation technologies.
Its activities include grants, research within DOE’s national laboratories and public campaigns.
The office’s current budget it about $1.9 billion; Trump proposed earlier this year to cut it to $816 million.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/392458-trump-taps-critic-of-pro-renewables-policies-to-lead-renewables
-
Phillips 66 Planning $1.5B Expansion of Sweeny Hub to Serve West Texas
Jun 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Phillips 66 plans to spend up to $1.5 billion on infrastructure upgrades near its Houston Ship Channel facilities to serve the Permian Basin, hundreds of miles away, including natural gas liquids (NGL) fractionators, additional storage capacity and associated pipelines.
The Houston-based operator Wednesday said it is proceeding with an expansion of its Sweeny Hub by building two 150,000 b/d fractionators in Old Ocean in Brazoria County. The project is expected to begin commercial operations in late 2020.
Sweeny now has 100,000 b/d of fractionation capacity, 200,000 b/d of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) export capability and access to 9 million bbl gross of NGL storage capacity at the Phillips 66 Partners LP (PSXP) Clemens Caverns. NGL storage capacity is expected to grow to 15 million bbl following the expansion.
CEO Greg Harland called the expansion "a key part of our midstream growth strategy that further optimizes our integrated NGL value chain. The Sweeny Hub is strategically positioned to provide fractionation capacity for rapidly growing Permian Basin NGL production and access to U.S. Gulf Coast petrochemical, fuels and liquefied petroleum gas export markets."
Last April, PSXP announced it would begin construction of the Gray Oak pipeline, which would transport Permian crude from Crane, Loving, Reeves and Winkler counties in West Texas to the Sweeny Hub and a new terminal in Corpus Christi, TX. At the time, PSXP had held an initial open season and had plans for a second one in late April. Depending on the results of the second open season, Gray Oak would initially transport up to 700,000 b/d-plus to downstream markets.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114732-phillips-66-planning-15b-expansion-of-sweeny-hub-to-serve-west-texas
-
OPEC Cuts Lifted U.S. Shale. Are They About to End?
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Analysts are betting that OPEC's oil production curbs will be coming to an end starting next week.
At issue is an agreement OPEC made in 2016 with Russia and other nonmembers to curb their collective oil production by 1.8 million barrels per day. The agreement has been in effect since the beginning of 2017, and an OPEC committee and outside observers say the partnership has achieved 90 percent or greater compliance toward that goal.
The production cuts are credited with reviving global oil prices and the U.S. shale oil boom. But high oil prices, collapsing oil output from Venezuela and the possibility of new sanctions on Iranian oil exports are seen as changing the mood at OPEC and among its allies. Market watchers now expect OPEC to at least partially reverse itself when the cartel meets next week in Vienna.
"While some members appear to be against the idea, we believe that we will see a gradual lifting of cuts," said Warren Patterson, commodities strategist at ING, in a note to clients.
As evidence, Patterson points to U.S. media reports that the Trump administration has asked OPEC to add 1 million barrels per day to global crude output to ease oil prices. International Brent crude oil prices are trading at around $76 per barrel.
Market researchers say Russia is willing to end the production cut agreement completely, putting some 1.8 million barrels per day back on the global oil market within a matter of weeks.
Patterson thinks OPEC members will agree to meet somewhere in the middle when they gather for their next regular meeting a week from today. "We would not rule out a scenario where Russia decides to exit the deal altogether," he said.
"Saudi Arabia is the other main proponent of increasing output," he said. "It seems that concerns over possible demand destruction and calls from importing countries have distracted the Saudis from pursuing higher oil prices in the run-up to the Saudi Aramco IPO [initial public offering]."
"Demand destruction" is the idea that the longer oil prices stay high, the more economies learn how to function with less of it, harming future demand growth for crude oil.
Cantor Fitzgerald Ireland Ltd. analysts point out that Saudi Arabia and Russia seem to be already reneging on the production cut agreement. They see this as further proof that the block's deal is set to come to an end, at least partially.
New sanctions on Iran planned by the U.S. add to the odds of an increase to OPEC production quotas, Cantor analysts note. "Russia and Saudi Arabia have been slowly increasing production ever since the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on Iran," they wrote. "We expect to see Russia and Saudi Arabia's commitment to production cuts weaken further and continue to gradually increase supply. Increased production should provide downward pressures for price and we expect oil to hold at current levels."
Michael Cohen of Barclays commodities research sees at least a partial end to the production cuts, forecasting a lifting of quotas to a combined 700,000 or 800,000 barrels a day. "On Friday, 22 June, we expect OPEC will agree to raise output," he said. "The DC [declaration of cooperation] would remain in place, but in different form."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084539
-
26 Senators Push Zinke to Stop ANWR Drilling
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Twenty-six senators are sending a letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke calling for him to drop plans to allow oil and gas development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall announced the action today in a teleconference in advance of the Bureau of Land Management's last public scoping hearing on leasing in the 1.6-million-acre coastal plain. That session is scheduled this evening in Washington.
"Let's show the special interests that they won't get away with this land grab," Udall said. "We can't stand by and let them carve up the Arctic refuge, and we don't have to."
Also during the briefing, indigenous speakers from Alaska and Canada accused the Trump administration of violating their communities' human rights by proposing to allow drilling on the coastal plain.
The Native representatives argued that the administration's resource development plans will seriously harm the Porcupine caribou herds that migrate between Alaska and Canada. They say the caribou are critical to their communities' subsistence lifestyle.
Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, said the U.S. government is ignoring the Native peoples' concerns and requests for more time and additional meetings in advance of a federal decision on the lease sale. "This has been a food security issue, and we have been disrespected by this government for long enough," Demientieff said.
Former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said that historically, the federal government has "looked at resources for their extractive value. Not ... for their cultural values, for their subsistence values. And certainly not for their overall environmental values."
"We learned over time that those perspectives are misguided," said Jewell, who blocked oil exploration in the Arctic refuge's coastal plain during the Obama administration.
In advance of this evening's hearing, the Native and environmental activists also are holding a rally featuring speakers from the Hip Hop Caucus, GreenLatinos and the Vet Voice Foundation.
The meeting comes as Congress is considering an appropriations bill provision that would give Alaska's 12 Native corporations a chunk of the royalty revenues that the state is due to receive if oil and gas extraction begins in ANWR's coastal plain.
Under the terms of a tax law that opened the coastal plain to oil and gas development, Alaska was due to receive 50 percent of the royalty money oil companies paid for drilling in the coastal plain.
But an amendment to the House appropriations bill for fiscal 2019 would shift 3 percent of the state's take to the Native groups. The Alaska Native corporations are for-profit groups created under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084709
-
Infrastructure Execs Offer Warning on Grid's Growing Gas Reliance
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. electric sector's growing reliance on natural gas "could severely delay restoration from a sustained outage," a presidential advisory group warned yesterday.
The National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which consists of 20 executives from various industries, including energy, telecommunications and transportation, agreed to review the grid's fuel supply chain as part of a wider study of catastrophic power outages due by the end of the year.
The council's preliminary findings, based on interviews with 21 energy and emergency planning experts, feed into an ongoing debate over whether more U.S. power plants should be able to store fuel on-site, rather than counting on "just-in-time" deliveries from natural gas pipelines. The Trump administration has argued that the risk of an attack on gas infrastructure justifies bailing out coal and nuclear power plants on the verge of shutting down, according to a Department of Energy memo leaked earlier this month.
"The just-in-time delivery models that we've all gone to create a potential vulnerability for us during catastrophic power outages," said Jan Allman, president and CEO of the Marinette Marine Corp. and co-chair of the NIAC group that led the scoping study for this year's in-depth review. "Loss of fuel can make a disaster considerably worse."
Ben Fowke, chairman and CEO of utility giant Xcel Energy Inc. and the scoping group's other co-chair, cited new "interdependencies" among power producers, natural gas companies, telecommunications and financial services firms at an NIAC business meeting yesterday in Washington, D.C.
"The grid itself is transforming pretty rapidly," he said. "As we optimize the grid through the use of digital technologies, through the use of natural gas and renewables over transmission lines ... if you don't have redundancy, it's a vulnerable system. So I do think we have to be sensitive to that."'Society-changing'
The NIAC study will also explore the federal, state and local response to a long-term "catastrophic" power outage, defined as lasting weeks or months. "These are society-changing events," Allman said.
The group discussed lessons from the worst power outage in U.S. history — Hurricane Maria, which flattened Puerto Rico's power grid. To this day, roughly 10,000 citizens on the island remain without electricity. In the weeks and months following the storm, many residents remained in the dark or relied on small power generators barged in from the mainland. The latter stopgap measure might not translate to the northeastern U.S., where the grid operator PJM Interconnection manages the flow of electricity for a population nearly 20 times the size of Puerto Rico's.
"Sixty-three million people versus 3 million people is a big difference," Fowke said. "And that's why we believe that the most important thing is getting the grid back up. It's going to be very difficult to run PJM with generators."
To that end, the NIAC pledged to "examine where traditional response plans, resources, and mutual aid are exhausted," with an emphasis on "black start" resources needed to ramp the grid back up to normal operations.
The infrastructure advisory group will also look at the potential for planning "community enclaves" that centralize crucial backup resources in one area, heading off mass migrations that could make a long-term power outage more dangerous.
Several officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the White House National Security Council joined the NIAC meeting yesterday, including Chris Krebs, the newly confirmed undersecretary of DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate. The NPPD is the lead civilian office for defending federal and critical infrastructure networks from hacking threats.
Krebs urged the NIAC to examine the most important functions to protect from disruption.
"Is it transmission, is it distribution, is it generation? ... What are we really worried about?" he asked. "And then a second question, which is summed up nicely in the scoping study: What are we going to do about it?"
Another DHS office, the Transportation Security Administration, is responsible for overseeing the cybersecurity of the nation's oil and gas pipeline network.
Several lawmakers and energy officials have questioned whether TSA — and its limited staff of cyber specialists — is best-equipped to oversee gas companies that are increasingly essential to keeping the lights on in the U.S.
Krebs said on the sidelines of the NIAC meeting that he is "confident" in the way TSA is handling the threat with pipeline companies, while acknowledging that there is "room to improve."
"As the landscape stands now, we can, in my view, address risk within pipelines with natural gas or any other product that moves through that modality," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084563
-
Environmentalists Spar with EPA on Boiler MACT Rehearing
Jun 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are renewing their calls for a federal appeals court to rehear previously unsuccessful portions of their case challenging EPA's air toxics rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for industrial boilers, firing back at EPA's arguments against rehearing after the court granted only a partial remand of the rule.
In a June 12 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., environmental groups rebut EPA's argument against the groups' petition seeking panel rehearing of the case following the court's March 16 ruling.
In her unanimous opinion for the court, Judge Nina Pillard agreed with environmentalists that EPA had failed to justify its use of a carbon monoxide (CO) limit instead of separate limits for individual hazardous air pollutants, remanding the rule to the agency to better explain the use of the “surrogate” CO limit.
But Pillard sided with EPA in rejecting environmentalists' criticisms that boiler operators cannot use “work practice standards” approved by EPA instead of tougher numeric emissions limits during periods of boiler startup and shutdown.
Sierra Club and it allies now seek rehearing of the ruling with respect to the work practice standards, which they claim are unlawfully weak.
EPA in the litigation has rejected environmentalists' claims that the agency should have subcategorized boilers into those that can apply pollution controls within a four-hour startup period and those that need the full four hours allowed during startup by the MACT rule.
“Contrary to EPA’s claim, petitioners did not 'concede[]' that EPA determined it is impracticable 'for all boilers' to measure emissions during the extended startup period,” environmentalists write. “That is not what petitioners said in the document EPA cites, and EPA never made any such determination.”
“Moreover,” they say, “any claim that the entire boilers category is a particular class of sources for which emissions measurement is impracticable would be refuted by EPA’s admissions elsewhere in the record that some boilers can exit startup mode, commence normal operations, and start meeting numeric emission standards as soon as they supply useful energy.”
Environmentalists then rebut EPA's assertion that environmentalist groups in effect argue that the agency must make boiler-specific findings for which boilers can comply with emissions limits sooner than others. Such individual findings would preclude setting a standard for a particular “class” of boilers as the Clean Air Act requires, EPA claims. “EPA claimed only that it currently lacks information to determine which boilers can meet numeric emission standards during the extended startup period (as some undisputedly can), and which can meet only work practice requirements,” environmentalists say.
Finally, environmentalists say both the court and EPA wrongly assert that environmental petitioners could not identify alternative control methods to engaging emissions controls “as expeditiously as possible.”
“In fact, petitioners identified clean fuel use as an additional measure by which boilers can reduce their hazardous emissions during startup,” the environmentalists say. “Clean fuels,” such as natural gas, are used in place of the boiler's regular, more-polluting fuel, such as coal.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-spar-epa-boiler-mact-rehearing
-
Lawmakers Advance Climate Programs, Even Republicans
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
Congress is assembling must-pass legislation that rejects — and sometimes reverses — the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle federal climate change programs.
Buried in the farm bill and the appropriations bills are programs that aim to reduce emissions and prepare society for a warmer world. Climate research, carbon sequestration and forest conservation programs are on track to get new infusions of federal cash.
Often, Republican lawmakers are some of the biggest boosters of these environmental measures. Most of the line items help more than the climate, allowing conservatives to claim financial victories for their constituents. In some cases, Republicans express concern about climbing temperatures.
"A healthy forest is a carbon sink. A wildfire is an incredible emitter of carbon," Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said during this week's farm bill markup. The coal-friendly lawmaker opposed the Paris climate agreement but has seen his state ravaged by drought, fires and wildlife deaths.
Daines and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) crafted a provision in the farm bill that aims to smooth the process of large-scale forest management across property lines. Other measures would establish a new forest restoration grant and tweak another program, the Healthy Forest Reserve Program, to prioritize carbon storage in government conservation plans.
Those proactive forest policies come as separate spending legislation would swell firefighting money to $4.3 billion — $900 million above the 10-year average normally set aside for fires. Historical spending has proven "inadequate ... as climate change results in a never-ending fire season," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.
Forecasters say drought and dry landscapes across the West threaten to make this a bad year for fires. More than 10 million acres burned last year, and about 5.4 million acres burned in 2016.
Congress is moving policy that would cut down on fires and lower emissions — but overlooked is the role the government plays in helping a forest recover from fire and begin sequestering carbon again, said Jad Daley, vice president of the conservation nonprofit American Forests.
"We have to be more involved in our forests, because natural processes aren't working right now," Daley said, pointing to the 130 million trees that have died in the Sierra Nevada since 2010.
A new program included in the farm bill by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would start a five-year Department of Agriculture pilot program to encourage farming practices that trap more carbon in soil and keep it there, like no-till farming and cover crops.
Steady funding is also slated for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, a science-based network that some conservatives have targeted as a Trojan horse for funneling more climate science into land management rules (Climatewire, June 6).
The appropriations bills also carry good news for climate research programs under the Interior Department and USDA: Lawmakers rejected the administration's plans to eliminate them. And the government's marquee climate programs at NOAA and NASA would retain funding under both chambers' bills (E&E Daily, June 13).
Climate change also pops up in the National Defense Authorization Act. A provision of the bill would require the military to account for the National Climate Assessment and other projections when planning construction projects (E&E Daily, June 13).
The Republican-controlled Congress isn't totally rolling over on climate — especially in the House, where the State Department's funding bill stripped money from climate programs and the farm bill offers less money for forests (Greenwire, June 13).
Likewise, the climate impacts from these bills could disappear under the shadow of energy deregulation and looser transportation emissions standards.
Democrats concede they would have preferred more funding for climate programs, but they say that shouldn't overshadow the larger procedural victory.
"We've come together for the first time since 2010 to actually produce [an appropriations] bill," Udall said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084553
-
Carbon-Pricing Bill Clears State Senate
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed a carbon pricing bill yesterday evening, handing climate hawks a major victory after a series of national setbacks.
The bill, which won support of the chamber's Democratic and Republican members alike, puts the Bay State on course to become the second state after California to impose an economywide cap on carbon emissions.
It contains few details on how a carbon price would be structured, instead leaving the matter to be decided by the governor.
The legislation, part of a wider energy package, also calls for increasing Massachusetts' purchase of offshore wind from the currently mandated 1.6 gigawatts to 5 GW, increasing the the state's renewable portfolio standard and providing greater incentives to provide solar energy to low-income communities.
"What it says is we here in Massachusetts understand the urgency on global climate change," said state Sen. Marc Pacheco, a Democrat who championed the legislation.
Senators considered 68 amendments in a debate that spanned more than nine hours. Carbon pricing was mentioned on few occasions in that time.
But in agreeing to impose a market mechanism for pricing carbon in the transportation sector by 2020, the commercial and industrial sectors by 2021 and the residential sectors by 2022, Massachusetts lawmakers broke through where climate-conscious legislators in other states have fallen short in recent years.
Efforts to price carbon in Washington and Oregon both sputtered this year, though advocates there have pledged to resurrect the idea.
"What's different is we did not lead with a price on carbon," Pacheco said, noting that advocates instead focused on the cost of heath care and extreme weather events related to climate.
"The cost of inaction is always greater than the cost of acting and getting something done that will improve and limit the effects of global climate change," he said.
The vote means the focus will now turn to the state House of Representatives, where the bill's prospects are far less certain. The amendments approved ranged from a 10-year moratorium on fracking to a provision divesting state pensions from coal.
Senators also approved amendments requiring that 50 percent of state-owned cars and trucks be zero-emission vehicles by 2025, creating time-of-use rates for solar users and establishing incentives for low-income solar credits.
Massachusetts political observers said the House is unlikely to take up a wider energy bill, as the Senate chose to do, instead addressing many of the provisions in the Senate bill individually.
Carbon pricing figures to face a particularly steep climb.
"The House sees that as a tax, and sees that as one of their significant powers that the Senate doesn't have," said Benjamin Downing, a former chairman of the Senate Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee who now works for the solar developer Nexamp Inc. "That is more an internal power fight than a policy fight there."
Downing, who authored Massachusetts' offshore wind procurement in 2016, praised the bill, saying, "It's absolutely what Massachusetts should be doing."
But while the vote gives climate action supporters an injection of momentum, it is also likely to stir opposition.
The Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state's most powerful trade group, has said it supports a carbon tax to address transportation emissions.
But the group opposes the Senate's approach, said AIM Senior Vice President Robert Rio.
"If the Legislature wants a gas tax, we should do a gas tax," Rio said. "The debate should be where should this money go, and what's the best use of the money."
The vote represented a victory for state Sen. Michael Barrett (D) in particular. Barrett first filed a carbon pricing bill in 2013 and has pushed the idea ever since.
Barrett had previously proposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax where money raised would be returned to taxpayers in the form of a rebate. Barrett ultimately dropped the idea for the approach outlined in the Senate bill.
"Program flexibility on a no-excuses schedule was a winning combination for us," he said in a statement. "For some time, I've pushed for a 'revenue-neutral' carbon fee. It's drawn a good deal of support, but with this new approach, we're bridging differences and building consensus among climate change activists."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084649
-
Court Nixes Oil and Gas Leases for Deficient Climate Review
Jun 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court rebuked the Bureau of Land Management yesterday for failing to consider certain climate impacts of oil and gas development on public lands in New Mexico.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico ruled that BLM violated federal law when it approved leasing in the Santa Fe National Forest without considering the greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning the oil and gas that would be produced there.
The ruling is the latest in a string of decisions that have ordered the government to conduct additional climate review for fossil fuel development on public lands. The legal developments are in tension with many Trump administration efforts to limit climate analysis and streamline environmental reviews.
At issue in this case is BLM's 2015 approval of 13 leases covering some 20,000 acres in northwestern New Mexico. A coalition of environmental groups including the San Juan Citizens Alliance, WildEarth Guardians and the Sierra Club filed suit the following year, alleging that the government fell short in its review of climate issues and potential impacts from hydraulic fracturing (Energywire, May 5, 2016).
Senior Judge M. Christina Armijo, a George W. Bush appointee, sided with the groups on several claims yesterday, ruling that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued the leases.
Though BLM's analysis included discussion of the general impacts of climate change, it did not measure the downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with eventually burning the oil and gas produced on the federal leases.
Armijo said she agreed with the reasoning of several other courts, including the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that have found that fossil fuel combustion is a clear result of production and therefore must be analyzed under NEPA.
"As such, the Court concludes that BLM's failure to estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions which will result from consumption of the oil and gas produced as a result of development of wells on the leased areas was arbitrary," yesterday's opinion says. "This error also requires that BLM reanalyze the potential impact of such greenhouse gases on climate change in light of the recalculated amount of emissions in order to comply with NEPA."
Armijo set aside the leases and BLM's previous "finding of no significant impact" and ordered the agency to take a closer look at the impacts.
She also wrote that she expects BLM to study the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development in its new analysis.'Hold the agency's feet to the fire'
Environmental groups were thrilled by the court's decision.
"The judge's decision affirms that BLM has ignored significant adverse impacts known to occur from oil and gas development in their quest to approve new oil and gas projects," Mike Eisenfeld, who works on energy issues for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said in a statement.
Western Environmental Law Center attorney Kyle Tisdel, who represented the environmental coalition, said it was an important recognition of the government's obligation to consider broad climate impacts at the oil and gas leasing stage.
It adds to a growing body of case law, he said, and might help spur additional wins in other lawsuits, including pending litigation at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that targets oil and gas development on public lands in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado.
As for spurring BLM to routinely conduct the additional climate analysis on its own, Tisdel said he remained skeptical.
"Who knows with BLM," he told E&E News. "There's certainly a pattern of them ignoring precedent when it comes to rubber-stamping fossil fuel development, and in light of this administration, I wouldn't put anything past the agency.
"But we certainly intend to hold the agency's feet to the fire with respect to the court's decision," he said.
A spokeswoman for BLM said the agency is reviewing the decision and considering its next steps.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/15/stories/1060084559
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested