Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - August 30, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Exports to Take Bigger Hit in US-China Trade War
Aug 30, 2018 | ICIS
The second round of US and China tariffs, each comprising 25% on $16bn in imports and going into effect on 23 August, will hit US commodity chemical exports to China far harder, as the impact on comparable China exports to the US should be negligible. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Press for TSCA Implementation Hearing
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Ten Democratic members of the US House of Representatives are renewing their call for a Congressional hearing on the US EPA's implementation of the recently reformed TSCA. -
Trump to Tap Former ECOS Chief for EPA Chemicals Job
Aug 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider and Alex Guillen
President Donald Trump will pick Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, a longtime environmental attorney and current head of EPA’s New England office, to head the agency’s chemicals and pesticides office, the Washington Post reports, citing unnamed sources briefed on her nomination. -
No, EPA Isn’t Putting Asbestos Back into Buildings
Aug 30, 2018 | Lexology
By Andrew D. Knudsen
This summer, EPA sparked public outrage with its proposed “significant new use” rule, or SNUR, addressing certain commercial uses of asbestos. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Passes Flame Retardant Bill Despite Industry Protests
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s legislature has passed a bill banning the use of most flame retardants in children’s products, mattresses and upholstered furniture, over the objection of industry groups. -
Interpretation of Rebrander CLP Notification Obligations a ‘Major Problem’
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission’s position that relabellers and rebranders of chemical mixtures are classified as distributors could be a "major problem", Cefic and the Polish competent authority have said. -
Canada Confirms Safety of Metal Industry Waste Products
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has confirmed its draft conclusion that various waste substances from the metals industry are not harmful to consumers or the environment due to low exposure. -
(ACC Mentioned) Parsons Wins Engineering Role on Underground Liquid Gas Store
Aug 30, 2018 | The Construction Index
Parsons has been appointed for the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) of a proposed underground storage facility for liquid natural gas. -
BLM OKs Jonah Energy’s 3,500 Natural Gas Drilling Plan in Wyoming
Aug 30, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has approved one of the largest drilling projects on public lands in Wyoming, giving the green light to Jonah Energy LLC's 3,500-well project in Sublette County that could create billions of dollars in revenue for state and local governments. -
Calif. Lawmakers Pass Bill Countering Federal Leasing Plans
Aug 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers sent a bill to Gov. Jerry Brown (D) yesterday aimed at blocking the Trump administration's attempts to open the state's offshore waters to oil and gas drilling. -
Manufacturing Group Warns of 'Staggering' Pipeline Risk
Aug 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Blake Sobczak
A manufacturing industry trade group is urging Congress to hold oversight hearings on the security of the nation's natural gas pipeline network, citing the risk of "staggering" economic harm. -
4 Ways Mars Inc. Will Slash Emissions and Still Grow – Plus Other Insights from the Maker of M&Ms
Aug 30, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Graziella Siciliano
Mars Inc. has said it will cut 100 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from its direct operations by 2040, having already met the 25-percent goal it set for 2015. By 2050, the candy and pet food manufacturer plans to cut two-thirds of emissions from its entire supply chain. -
PTC Grants for OmniTRAX Lines in Chicago
Aug 30, 2018 | RailwayAge Magazine
By Stuart Chirls
Short lines Chicago Rail Link and Illinois Railway recently received federal grants to aid in the deployment of Positive Train Control technology. -
Washington's Fall Agenda: EPA to Focus on New Power Plant, Water Rules
Aug 30, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
Federal officials will be hard at work throughout the fall, moving forward with high-profile actions to implement President Trump’s agenda to dismantle major environmental regulations, boost fossil fuel production and streamline protections for endangered species. -
Ewire: As EPA Weighs MATS Finding, Coal Closures Continue
Aug 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
Several news outlets are now reporting that EPA is poised to reconsider a key Obama-era determination that is was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the utility sector's air toxics, continuing a deregulatory push to aid coal plants even as utilities announce more coal closures due to relentless competition from cheap natural gas and renewables. -
Replacement Carbon Rule Proposal to Be Published Friday
Aug 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA’s new proposed carbon rule for coal plants will run in Friday’s Federal Register, kicking off a 60-day comment period. -
Brett Kavanaugh: Enemy of Innovation
Aug 30, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Ken Kimmell
The confirmation fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh begins next week with a hearing on Tuesday. Supporters and opponents are drawing battle lines over crucial issues such as abortion, health care, immigration, and whether the President is subject to criminal processes. -
Judge Orders Exxon to Release Documents for Investigation
Aug 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Benjamin Hulac
Fossil energy giant Exxon Mobil Corp. must turn over documents the New York attorney general is seeking in its investigation of the company, a judge ruled at a hearing yesterday. -
Local Climate Efforts Won't Counteract Trump — Report
Aug 30, 2018 | London Guardian (In E&E Greenwire)
Local efforts to combat climate change won't be enough to compensate for the lack of action taken under the Trump administration, according to new research.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Exports to Take Bigger Hit in US-China Trade War
Aug 30, 2018 | ICIS
The second round of US and China tariffs, each comprising 25% on $16bn in imports and going into effect on 23 August, will hit US commodity chemical exports to China far harder, as the impact on comparable China exports to the US should be negligible.
However, the overall impact on high-volume commodity chemical markets could be less than many anticipate, at least from this latest round. The first round of US and China tariffs of 25% on $34bn in imports excluded chemicals.
US commodity chemical products most impacted based on exports to China as a percentage of total production in 2017 are monoethylene glycol (MEG), styrene, EVA copolymers, linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), high density PE (HDPE), and ethylenedichloride (EDC), based on an analysis of select chemicals trade flows in the I.
PE EXPORTS DIVERTED
For LLDPE, US exports of around 222,000 tonnes to China in 2017 accounted for 10.0% of its total LLDPE exports, and 4.4% of total production. In the first half of 2018, the US exported 155,000 tonnes of LLDPE to China, or 9.9% of total exports.
The US is also bringing on massive amounts of LLDPE capacity in 2018 and 2019, primarily targeted for export, so planned exports to China in the future would most assuredly have been higher.
Already PE trade flows are shifting as material is being diverted by traders to southeast Asia – Vietnam in particular – as well as Europe. And Latin American PE buyers expect to get access to cheaper material in the short term.
In the long run, the loss of China as an export market for LLDPE and HDPE would be a big one, unless US producers can shift exports in a meaningful way elsewhere.
CEOs of US producers have argued that trade flows will simply shift but not impact the global supply/demand dynamics in the long run, with China importing more PE from elsewhere, and the US exporting more to other regions such as Europe.
However, John Richardson, senior Asia consultant at ICIS, offers a different view. “We estimate that China will account for 51% of global net HDPE and LLDPE net imports (imports minus exports) across the major deficit regions and countries in 2018-2025,” said Richardson in the .
“This means that over the shorter term – this year and 2019 – China will have a similarly dominant role as the world’s biggest importer. It also means that it is mathematically impossible for the US to… comfortably place its big increases in production without exporting to China,” he added.
EXPORTS IN CONTEXT
To understand the potential impact on markets, it is important to keep the export volumes in context with total production, as even if US exports of a particular product to China are a large proportion of total exports, they could represent a very small percentage of overall production.
A good example is butadiene (BD). Even as US BD exports to China comprised a whopping 63% of total US exports in 2017, the volume of about 21,000 tonnes was minimal, representing just 1.1% of total US production.
On a less extreme scale, US EDC exports to China were around 28% of total EDC exports, while the volume of about 371,000 tonnes was 2.4% of total US production.
Players in the US EDC market said the impact will likely be minimal. “It’s not ‘no problem’, but it’s not much of a problem,” said a US producer active in global EDC markets.
US EDC players actually expect that US EDC imported to China will be exempt from the tariffs if it is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is then exported. That re-export exemption should allow for a significant volume of sales to the region, though less than the market has taken in the past.
Earlier in August, China revised its second-round list to exclude EDC’s main downstream product PVC but kept EDC on the list.
One scenario is that buyers in China pay higher prices for EDC as they seek supply from southeast Asia and the Middle East, where prices are likely to move up to match the level of the US price plus tariffs. Meanwhile, US producers will focus on gaining sales in Europe, southeast Asia, India, Egypt, Brazil and markets in the Mediterranean.
MEG IMPACTED
MEG is one of the US markets to be most impacted. In the ICIS analysis, the US exported 144,000 tonnes/year of MEG to China in 2017, which accounted for 21.9% of total US exports, and 7.0% of total production.
In the short term, US-based MEG producers will face challenges to divert cargoes to other locations, while in the mid-to-long term, changes in trade flows will be inevitable to cater to new capacity in the US. Potential alternative destinations would be Europe, southeast Asia and India. US exports to China should decline significantly in 2018 instead of growing alongside further strong downstream polyester growth.
In China, tariffs on US MEG imports will have a limited impact, as imports from the US are just 2.1% of total imports.
No doubt there will be disruptions in global markets stemming from the second round of US-China tariffs but in the case of commodity chemicals, likely far less than many expect.
IMPACT ON CHINA EXPORTS
For China’s commodity chemical exports, the impact of US tariffs will be negligible. For the 11 select commodity products China exports to the US analysed by ICIS that come under tariff, none represent even 1% of total China production and most are closer to zero.
China’s expandable polystyrene (EPS) and polystyrene (PS) exports to the US in 2017 comprised just 0.3% and 0.2% of total production, respectively. As a percentage of total exports, EPS exports to the US represented 3.6% while PS exports were 7.3% of the total.
Yet we are talking about less than 10,000 tonnes of EPS and just over 5,000 tonnes of PS – small volumes. For the 11 China commodity chemical exports to the US analysed, not one surpassed 10,000 tonnes in volume in 2017. And aside from EPS, PS and styrene acrylonitrile (SAN), the others did not even amount to 0.1% of total China production.
ACC SOUNDS ALARM
In the above analysis we have covered certain commodity chemicals and polymers, but the overall impact is much more widespread. In the specialty chemicals arena where suppliers are more limited, the impact could be greater. And then there is the impact from many other manufacturing goods coming under tariff, which would indirectly impact demand for chemicals and polymers.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is the sounding alarm at the second round of tariffs, as well as the looming third round, which involves the US planning to impose 25% tariffs on an additional $200bn of Chinese imports, and China imposing up to 25% tariffs on an another $60bn in US imports.
The second round of US tariffs impact $2.2bn of chemicals and plastics from China, while China’s second-round list includes $2bn in chemicals and plastics from the US, according to the ACC.
“Companies that rely on imported inputs from China to manufacture goods in the United States will be faced with higher costs. Multinationals will be hit especially hard,” the ACC said. “Higher priced inputs make it more expensive for companies – both foreign and domestic – to do business in the United States, thus deterring investment and economic growth in this country.”
The result will be supply chain disruptions and reduced US manufacturing competitiveness, the trade group noted.
THIRD ROUND OF TARIFFS
And then there is the third round of US-China tariffs, which are on the table for late September.
In this next round of planned US tariffs on $200bn in Chinese imports, around $16.3bn in chemicals and plastics from China will be impacted (based on the ACC’s estimate of a total $18.5bn impacted from all three rounds), while China’s retaliatory tariffs of 5-25% on another $60bn in US imports will hit an estimated $8.8bn in US exports of chemicals and plastics to China, according to the ACC. “Many chemical manufacturers will be impacted negatively by the tariffs from both sides (China and the US) and will see a reduction in their competitiveness,” said the ACC.
However, for the overall economies, China stands to lose far more than the US, according to ICIS senior consultant James Ray.
“Global investors believe the steps the US is taking make the US a better investment and China a worse investment as evidenced by the stock markets especially after each new round of tariff announcements,” said Ray.
“There is no doubt that a serious and sustained trade war could disrupt global trade, but a small skirmish that represents a fraction of a percentage of the global GDP, would barely shift the global trade flow. The financial impact of tariffs announced so far will have a very small impact on the consumers of both countries – low single digits of the annual household income,” he added.
The consultant is optimistic on an eventual resolution of the US-China trade dispute as well as the prospects for the US chemical industry even in the face of China tariffs.
“The bottom line is that the sky is not falling. The US and China are just entering the first round of negotiations to level a playing field which has steeply favoured China in the past in hopes of strengthening the relationship between the two great countries. Disrupting the status quo is necessary to bring your largest supplier to the negotiating table, and the US has done exactly that,” said Ray.
“With abundant, low-cost natural gas and shale oil, the US is a low-cost producer and will easily be able to sell its products and still make a profit,” he added.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/08/30/10255589/us-chemical-exports-to-take-bigger-hit-in-us-china-trade-war/
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Press for TSCA Implementation Hearing
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Ten Democratic members of the US House of Representatives are renewing their call for a Congressional hearing on the US EPA's implementation of the recently reformed TSCA.
The request came in a letter to leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, cosigned by all of the minority party members who serve on the environment subcommittee. The committee was central to the negotiation and passage of the Lautenberg Act, which amended TSCA in 2016.
In the letter, the lawmakers said they "remain concerned that EPA’s implementation of the reformed TSCA programme contradicts the new law’s language and intent and undermines public confidence". They said it was "unacceptable" that the committee has yet to hold a hearing on implementation of the new law.
Among cited concerns are that the EPA has "abandoned its statutory mandate" to review all new and existing chemicals’ known or foreseeable uses and exposures, and instead has narrowed its analyses to consider risks posed only by current uses.
The "EPA’s own scientific evidence and recommendations of experienced career staff regarding TSCA implementation are being ignored at the expense of public health," the representatives said.
They also raised issue with the new chemicals review programme, and that the agency’s "increasingly limited review of chemical risk amounts to little more than a rubber-stamping process". This, they said, does not reflect the increased level of scrutiny these substances require under the reformed law.
The Democrats also raised concern regarding:the role of political appointees – including former-American Chemistry Council staffer Nancy Beck – in implementing TSCA, and that these individuals "continue … to prioritise manufacturers’ economic interests over the health of the American public";reports that the proposed significant new use rule (Snur) for asbestos contains a "loophole that allows legacy asbestos uses to be revived without requiring agency review of approval"; anddelays to the proposed bans on methylene chloride and trichloroethylene (TCE).
The lawmakers said that the House E&C Committee must ensure the "effective and impartial implementation" of the reformed law, but it is "clear EPA is not meeting this responsibility".
"The committee must schedule a hearing on this important public health matter as soon as possible," it added.
The request follows three others. The first came in June 2017, in the wake of the EPA finalising ‘framework rules’ that Democrats and NGOs called "significantly weakened" compared to their proposed versions. Others followed last August and November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69995/house-democrats-press-for-tsca-implementation-hearing
-
Trump to Tap Former ECOS Chief for EPA Chemicals Job
Aug 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider and Alex Guillen
President Donald Trump will pick Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, a longtime environmental attorney and current head of EPA’s New England office, to head the agency’s chemicals and pesticides office, the Washington Post reports, citing unnamed sources briefed on her nomination.
The White House did not immediately return request for comment.
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has been in the spotlight following some controversial moves, including overturning the Obama administration’s move to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos. That action was reversed this month by a federal court that said EPA had ignored the science showing the pesticide posed a health risk.
The chemicals office is also responsible for implementing Congress’ overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, though Democrats and environmentalists have argued EPA is is taking industry-friendly positions on asbestos and other harmful chemicals.
Trump’s first nominee for the job, toxicologist Michael Dourson, drew fire for his close industry ties and eventually pulled his nomination after several Senate Republicans indicated they would not vote for him.
Dunn is seen as a more moderate pick. She was named last year to run EPA's Region 1, where she has gained the trust of community advocates working on contamination from perfluorinated compounds, or PFAS. Dunn hosted EPA’s first community meeting on PFAS in June.
She served as executive director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of States for nearly four years. Prior to that she held similar roles at the Association of Clean Water Administrators and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
No, EPA Isn’t Putting Asbestos Back into Buildings
Aug 30, 2018 | Lexology
By Andrew D. Knudsen
This summer, EPA sparked public outrage with its proposed “significant new use” rule, or SNUR, addressing certain commercial uses of asbestos. Publications like Rolling Stone, Newsweek and The Daily Beast criticized EPA for loosening its regulations to pave the way for asbestos to be reintroduced to the market, allowing asbestos-containing construction materials to be used in homes and other buildings again for the first time in decades. National figures like Senator Brian Schatz and Chelsea Clinton drew attention to the proposal while condemning the Agency for increasing public exposure to this well-known carcinogen.
There’s just one issue: EPA’s proposed action does the opposite of what these critics claim. The SNUR would impose substantial new prohibitions on the listed uses of asbestos—which currently are not regulated by EPA at all—while giving EPA the necessary legal “hook” to restrict or even ban these uses outright in the unlikely event that a company actually tries to resume them.
How can news reports have gotten it so backward?
The confusion probably stems from the collision of a poorly understood statute and a high-profile chemical. The public generally isn’t familiar with the nuances of the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) or the processes EPA must go through to regulate chemical substances under that statute. But people are aware of the health risks of asbestos, which are well documented and have led to discontinuation of its commercial use in all but a few niche applications, even absent any effective federal restrictions to date. At the same time, the President’s stated views on asbestos are… unorthodox. He suggested at one point that reports of asbestos’s cancer-causing effects are a hoax perpetrated by “the mob,” and one Russian asbestos producer reportedly considers him to be so supportive of their industry that they printed his face on their packaging. In this context, perhaps it’s unsurprising that a proposal with the words “asbestos” and “new use” might be greeted with reflexive skepticism.
To see why the proposed SNUR is a step toward stricter regulation of asbestos, one first has to understand how TSCA works. The law establishes separate regulatory tracks for “existing” chemicals (i.e., those listed on EPA’s inventory, which includes asbestos) and “new” chemicals—including new uses of existingchemicals. For existing chemicals, regulation proceeds in two phases under section 6 of TSCA. First, EPA must perform a risk evaluation to assess whether the chemical’s “manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal” presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without regard for cost or other non-risk factors, under the chemical’s conditions of use. If EPA determines use under the conditions examined does not present unreasonable risks, no regulation is warranted. But if EPA finds use under any of those conditions does present an unreasonable risk, it must impose sufficient regulations to eliminate that risk. Under TSCA’s deadlines, this entire process from commencement of the risk evaluation to adoption of final restrictions may take from 5 to 7 years.
For “new” chemicals, TSCA proceeds differently. Under section 5 of TSCA, no person may manufacture, import or process a new chemical (or an existing chemical for a new use) without first giving notice to EPA. After receiving the notice, EPA reviews it to decide whether the new chemical or use presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. If there is such a risk, EPA must adopt regulations as necessary to prevent it—up to and including a ban on specific uses. Manufacture cannot proceed until EPA has completed its review, issued a risk determination and promulgated any restrictions necessary to address unreasonable risks. TSCA generally requires EPA to complete its review within 90 to 180 days.
So where does the asbestos SNUR fit in this process? Asbestos is considered an “existing” chemical, and the specific conditions of use addressed by the SNUR—as a component of various adhesives, sealants, coatings, floor tiles and other building materials—were fairly widespread in the past, although they have long since been discontinued in the United States. Accordingly, any restrictions on these uses would currently have to come through TSCA’s section 6 process for existing chemicals. But in the SNUR, EPA is proposing to find that these uses have been discontinued for so long that any effort to revive them would constitute a “new” use that must be reviewed under TSCA section 5 before it may resume. Effectively, then, the SNUR would establish a blanket prohibition on the listed uses of asbestos that applies until EPA receives a pre-manufacture notice and has an opportunity to take more definitive long-term action.
To see why this is meaningful, consider the alternative. Without the SNUR, the listed uses of asbestos would fall under the section 6 process for existing chemicals. Although EPA’s risk evaluation for asbestos is already underway, under TSCA’s deadlines, the Agency is not required to issue final regulations addressing any unreasonable risks it finds until the end of 2021 at the earliest. In the interim, manufacturers could resume these uses without facing any federal restrictions under TSCA. More importantly, EPA interprets section 6 to not require evaluation of risks from “legacy uses” of a chemical (that is, activities that are not ongoing) or disposal of chemicals from those uses. Because the uses of asbestos discussed in the SNUR have been discontinued for years, EPA’s recent “problem formulation” document for asbestos classifies them as “legacy uses” that will be excluded from the scope of its risk evaluation.
By contrast, the SNUR immediately would make it unlawful to manufacture, import or process asbestos for the listed uses, at least until EPA has an opportunity to review their risks after receiving a pre-manufacture notice. Critics may argue that this still leaves a window open for manufacturers to reintroduce asbestos-containing building materials to the market after they give the required notice, but, realistically, that is implausible. To avoid restrictions or an outright ban, the manufacturer would have to show that its proposed use is unlikely to present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment—yet it was the well-known and substantial health effects of these asbestos-containing materials that drove them out of the market in the first place. If nothing else, the SNUR provides greater protection than continuing to classify these as “existing” uses, which allows manufacturers to resume them at any time without giving notice and receiving clearance from EPA.
In short, EPA is not proposing to place asbestos construction materials back on the market or into your home, school or hospital as some media outlets have claimed. To the contrary, EPA is taking the necessary first steps to freeze these uses and set the stage for future restrictions if a manufacturer does attempt to reintroduce them.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e57b67a9-7237-4f5d-9866-67ff49058131
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Passes Flame Retardant Bill Despite Industry Protests
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s legislature has passed a bill banning the use of most flame retardants in children’s products, mattresses and upholstered furniture, over the objection of industry groups.
The Assembly voted 52-12 on 29 August to concur in Senate amendments to the measure (AB 2998). Their vote sends the bill to the governor’s desk, where it is expected to be signed into law.
According to the bill’s supporters, flame retardants have been "needlessly used" in products despite their links to cancer, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and endocrine disruption.
But even in the final hours of the state legislative session, an industry coalition – including the American Chemistry Council, children’s product groups JPMA and the Toy Association, retailers association Rila, as well as California industry bodies – wrote to Assembly members urging them to oppose the bill.The industry groups argued that flame retardants are an effective tool to combat fire risk, and that the bill’s broad definition of the substances "limits effective product design by not only restricting the vast majority of today’s flame retardant chemicals, but also those that may be developed in the future, regardless of their safety profile".
Determining the toxicity of products or chemicals "should be grounded in sound science, not determined by political expediency", the coalition wrote.
"This is exactly why the legislature created the [state’s] Safer Consumer Products programme … to identify, prioritise, and, as necessary, evaluate chemicals in consumer products and decide if any regulation is necessary", it said.
The ACC's North American Flame Retardant Alliance (Nafra) told Chemical Watch the bill is "based on outdated or inaccurate claims", and that bans relying on them "arguably increase fire risk and bypass ongoing safer consumer product regulation already being undertaken by the state."
The broader coalition also noted that the conflict between AB 2998 and a recently passed flame retardant ordinance in San Francisco creates "a patchwork of laws that unnecessarily increase compliance costs". The city’s ordinance covers electronic components of furniture and children’s products, a controversial requirement that some in industry had hoped the state’s bill would supersede.
The International Sleep Products Association (ISPA) also had "aggressively opposed" the bill, which – unlike flame retardant bans in other states – extends to mattresses.
But according to a public statement from the group, during the Senate’s consideration of the bill, ISPA "persuaded the bill’s author to significantly amend the ban to limit its scope for mattresses to prohibit only [flame retardant] chemicals used in foam, in effect excluding from the ban all FR barriers used in mattresses."
In exchange, it said, ISPA has agreed to survey mattress manufacturers every three years regarding the types of chemicals used in mattress barriers to meet federal flammability standards.
These amendments led the group to drop its opposition, though it did not sign on in support.‘Model for the nation to follow’
Despite industry’s concerns, the bill’s backers are hailing the passage of AB 2998 as a "landmark public health victory".
California’s law "will serve as a model for the nation to follow", said Alvaro Casanova, California policy manager for the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) – one of the bill’s co-sponsors.
"Flame-retardant chemicals offer little added fire safety benefit, but exposure to smoke that carries these toxins increases the already substantial risk our firefighters face from job-related cancer," said Brian Rice, president of California Professional Firefighters (CPF), which also backed the bill.
Avinash Kar, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council said the bill "ends unnecessary exposure to toxic flame retardant chemicals in many household products" .
"The chemicals do not make these products any safer – and it is time to get rid of them," he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69994/california-passes-flame-retardant-bill-despite-industry-protests
-
Interpretation of Rebrander CLP Notification Obligations a ‘Major Problem’
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission’s position that relabellers and rebranders of chemical mixtures are classified as distributors could be a "major problem", Cefic and the Polish competent authority have said.
Their comments come in separate papers following the discussion on the subject at the June meeting of the competent authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal). The Commission confirmed its position on distributors at Caracal’s March meeting.
Rebranders or relabellers are companies that may change the name or label of a product when, for instance, placing it in a different member state.
Article 45 of CLP stipulates legal obligations regarding notifications imposed on importers and downstream users of chemical mixtures. And, under Annex VIII of the Regulation, they are also required to notify nationally appointed bodies – poison centres – if they are placing hazardous substances on the market by set deadlines, the first of which is 1 January 2020.
However, distributors are exempted from any such legal obligations.
This has caused the Polish competent authority to warn that if rebranders and relabellers are deemed distributors for certain mixtures "no information would therefore be available [in a member state] in case of an emergency".
Actors placing a chemical mixture on the market under a different trade name or manufacturer name "should be treated as [duty] holders" who fall under the definition of downstream users under CLP provisions, Poland said.
In its comments, Cefic said the Commission "needs to acknowledge the disadvantage" this will bring to importers and downstream users which have legal obligations. It asked the EU executive to consider how this "major problem" can be addressed.
And the Poisons Information Centre of Ireland said it agrees with some member states that rebranders are downstream users and duty holders. Consumers, it said, use product and brand names to identify chemical mixtures when they contact a poison centre or medical professional for emergency health advice.
Therefore it is "essential", the centre added, that information on product composition can be found by searching for a brand or product name. "Otherwise appointed bodies will not be able to formulate preventative and curative measures in the event of an emergency."Legal uncertainty
However, the European Association of Chemical Distributors, Fecc, said it understands the concerns but added it "cannot agree" to any suggested changes to the Commission’s interpretation, as they may cause legal uncertainty.
Regardless of whether it is a duty holder or not, Fecc said, as a supplier of a mixture the rebrander or relabeller has the obligation to provide the relevant information to the next actor or distributor in the supply chain. This is laid down in REACH Article IV.
In other words, it said, not being the duty holder submitting a notification according to Article 45 for the purpose of emergency health response events "does not exempt any supplier – rebranders and relabellers included – from their responsibilities as economic operators placing a mixture/product on the market".
A rebrander or a relabeller "will never be the information owner", Fecc said. When submitting the Article 45 notification it will rely on the information provided by the supplier (downstream user of importer) in the safety data sheet "no matter whether he is a duty holder or is submitting ‘on behalf of’ the duty holder. There will not be a difference in the information provided".Contractual agreements
At the June meeting stakeholders discussed a solution whereby contractual agreements would be set up between distributors and their upstream duty holders on how to submit necessary information in the notifications.
Fecc said it plans to publish specific guidance for economic operators carrying out rebranding and relabelling activities and build a template of a contractual agreement for those cases.
A European Commission official told Chemical Watch that Commission services are currently discussing the matter internally while "taking into account" the comments received following the March and June Caracal meetings. The result of those internal discussions should be presented at the Caracal meeting provisionally scheduled for 21-22 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69992/interpretation-of-rebrander-clp-notification-obligations-a-major-problem
-
Canada Confirms Safety of Metal Industry Waste Products
Aug 30, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government has confirmed its draft conclusion that various waste substances from the metals industry are not harmful to consumers or the environment due to low exposure.
The confirmation comes in the final screening assessment of 57 substances used in metal smelting and refining, as well as the manufacture of automotive parts, iron and steel, pulp and paper, and cement. The substances contain a wide range of metals and each qualifies as a ‘substance of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products and biological materials’ (UVCB).
The final screening assessment is unusual in so far as it foregoes any analysis of hazard on the basis that the potential exposures are either ‘negligible’ or ‘not expected’. The same approach was taken in the draft.
It concludes that the substances do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa). The conclusion means that the government will not take further action against the substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69990/canada-confirms-safety-of-metal-industry-waste-products
-
(ACC Mentioned) Parsons Wins Engineering Role on Underground Liquid Gas Store
Aug 30, 2018 | The Construction Index
Parsons has been appointed for the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) of a proposed underground storage facility for liquid natural gas.
Parson’s work on the Appalachia Storage & Trading Hub (ASTH) in West Virginia, USA. Parsons will initially focus on preparatory work and front-end engineering and design, including project management and planning of the execution. Subsequent phases include the construction of the US$3.4bn (£2.6bn) project and its long-term operation.
According to the American Chemistry Council, the development of the ASTH would serve as a catalyst for the creation of an estimated $36 billion in follow-on petrochemical investments and more than 100,000 new long-term jobs.
The project is for Appalachia Development Group (ADG). “After a rigorous review process of some of the most widely known and respected EPC companies in the country, we are pleased to announce the selection of Parsons as our EPC partner,” said ADG president and CEO Steven Hedrick. “Parsons has proven and successful experience with complex infrastructure projects. I have confidence in Parsons’s ability to support the development and completion of the Hub safely, effectively and efficiently.”
“Parsons is honoured to have been selected by ADG as a partner on this critically important project that will ultimately support the economic and energy security needs of so many communities and citizens, including economic revitalization of the Ohio River Valley states,” said Carey Smith, president of Parsons federal business unit.
https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/parsons-wins-engineering-role-on-underground-liquid-gas-store
-
BLM OKs Jonah Energy’s 3,500 Natural Gas Drilling Plan in Wyoming
Aug 30, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has approved one of the largest drilling projects on public lands in Wyoming, giving the green light to Jonah Energy LLC's 3,500-well project in Sublette County that could create billions of dollars in revenue for state and local governments.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115610-blm-oks-jonah-energys-3500-natural-gas-drilling-plan-in-wyoming
-
Calif. Lawmakers Pass Bill Countering Federal Leasing Plans
Aug 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers sent a bill to Gov. Jerry Brown (D) yesterday aimed at blocking the Trump administration's attempts to open the state's offshore waters to oil and gas drilling.
The bill, S.B. 834, pushes back against the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's draft five-year offshore exploration plan, released in January, that envisions opening up the continental shelf on both coasts.
The bill would prevent oil from federal leases from being transmitted through California by banning the State Lands Commission from approving any leases of submerged state lands that would result in an increase of oil or natural gas production from federal waters. The intended effect would be to prevent fossil fuel infrastructure from passing through the state's jurisdiction, which extends 3 miles offshore.
"With this historic bill, we are making it clear that we will not let Trump exploit our coast for economic gain," state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D), who sponsored the legislation, tweeted yesterday. The bill passed the state Assembly, 45-25, on Monday and passed through concurrence votes yesterday along with its Assembly counterpart, A.B. 1775. Brown is expected to sign both measures.
California is following the lead of New Jersey, where Gov. Phil Murphy (D) in April signed a ban on oil and gas exploration in state waters (Energywire, April 23). New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has also come out in favor of a ban.
"It's ridiculous, and at the same time we don't know what's going to happen, so everywhere from California to New York, New Jersey and other states are saying no to Trump," said Marcie Keever, director of the oceans and vessels program at Friends of the Earth.
California is the third-largest oil-producing state in the country, but most of it comes from onshore wells. Offshore production accounts for about 6 percent of California's output. The state has had a moratorium on new offshore drilling in state waters since 1969 and hasn't had any new federal leases since 1984, but it maintains roughly 30 existing drilling platforms in both state and federal waters.
State legislative analysts pointed out that the bill may not prevent federal drilling from going forward, because any new leases would likely be located near existing infrastructure. "The state has few options to inhibit new OCS [outer continental shelf] leasing and, it is important to note, that existing leases remain in effect that may have excess capacity available," state Senate staff wrote in an analysis of the bill. An earlier version would have gone further by prohibiting any expansion of existing leases, but it was scaled back to preserve the State Lands Commission's authority.
Major oil producers opposed the bill, which comes as environmental groups are also pressuring Brown to curtail oil production as part of the state's push to reduce greenhouse gases 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Climatewire, July 16).
"Bans are not the answer if California truly wants a sustainable energy future," Cathy Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement. "Demand for fuel is not decreasing. Every barrel of oil not produced in California will be replaced by a barrel produced and shipped in from a region that doesn't have our state's stringent environmental laws."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/30/stories/1060095489
-
Manufacturing Group Warns of 'Staggering' Pipeline Risk
Aug 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Blake Sobczak
A manufacturing industry trade group is urging Congress to hold oversight hearings on the security of the nation's natural gas pipeline network, citing the risk of "staggering" economic harm.
The Industrial Energy Consumers of America, which represents large steel, refining and chemical companies, among others, said gas pipelines "are the weak link in U.S. national energy infrastructure" in a pair of letters to key lawmakers in the House and Senate yesterday.
IECA President Paul Cicio said the group favors an enforceable natural gas pipeline security standard, perhaps modeled on binding grid security standards managed by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. He noted that the current voluntary standards set through the Transportation Security Administration, coupled with the agency's six-person staff assigned to the issue, "do not give us confidence that there is adequate security."
Cicio addressed the group's latest letters to Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the chairwoman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
TSA officials and gas industry representatives have defended the current system of voluntary oversight. American Gas Association CEO Dave McCurdy said recently that the physical and cyber threat to gas pipeline systems "evolves too quickly for a regulation or mandate to be the most effective method of maintaining the highest level of safety" (Energywire, Aug. 23).
Trump administration officials have put gas pipeline security under the microscope in recent months. In a draft policy memo leaked in June, Department of Energy analysts proposed bailing out coal and nuclear power plants on security grounds, contending that pipeline vulnerabilities could put gas-fired power plants at risk.
At the time, the IECA railed against the draft proposal to use DOE emergency grid authorities in a letter to the agency but also said that "too great a dependency upon natural gas electric generation increases concerns about reliability and potential price impacts long-term."
In the group's latest letters, Cicio pointed to other potential impacts from a disruption in the flow of natural gas. He said IECA members, "as very large consumers of natural gas," understand that tighter security standards would come with some cost, but he warned that a catastrophic attack could be far costlier.
"One successful attack could shut down tens of thousands of manufacturing facilities at a cost of tens of millions of dollars per day or more, for each facility," he wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/30/stories/1060095505
-
4 Ways Mars Inc. Will Slash Emissions and Still Grow – Plus Other Insights from the Maker of M&Ms
Aug 30, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Graziella Siciliano
Mars Inc. has said it will cut 100 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from its direct operations by 2040, having already met the 25-percent goal it set for 2015. By 2050, the candy and pet food manufacturer plans to cut two-thirds of emissions from its entire supply chain.
These are bold initiatives that require a well-thought-out strategy. So I sat down with Winston Chen, Mars’ renewable energy manager, to find out how the company will pull it off. I was also curious what other businesses can learn from Mars as they, too, look for smart ways to decarbonize their operations.
To manage the company’s growth year after year while also meeting its sustainability goals, Winston told me, Mars has to invest significantly in both energy efficiency and renewable energy. It uses a four-pronged strategy to accomplish that.
1. Invest in technology upgrades
Mars looks for ways to reduce energy demand through adoption of more energy-efficient technologies. This includes low-hanging fruit such as lighting upgrades, but also more capital-intensive improvements to manufacturing equipment.
2. Make operations more efficient
Ultimately, energy demand not only depends on the efficiency of the technology, but also how it’s used on the factory floor. Mars works with its employees to optimize the operation of equipment to minimize waste while improving productivity.
3. Rethink manufacturing processes
Reinventing how things are made can reduce energy demand. Mars invests in innovation improve its manufacturing processes – for example, in its baking and drying of pet food – to minimize energy use.
4. Procure renewable energy
Mars also looks for solutions to decarbonize its energy supply, working with developers and utilities to procure renewable energy through Power Purchase Agreements, or PPAs.
Companies today have a number of options for procuring renewable power, including investing capital to install onsite clean energy projects. I asked Winston why Mars prefers to use PPAs, which account for almost all of its renewable energy investments.
“Mars is good at making chocolate and pet food,” he responded with a smile. “We’re not an expert at producing power.”
Here’s the thing: Leaving energy production to the pros, Mars is able to scale the renewable portion of its energy supply quickly by partnering with other investors in large projects. That includes a 60-megawatt wind project in Scotland that will produce enough power to cover all of Mars’ annual electricity demand in the United Kingdom.
Over the past five years, Mars has focused its PPAs on its biggest markets first, starting by supporting projects in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, Mexico, Australia, France, Poland, Spain and Belgium.
“It’s improved our company’s standing in the world”
As far as Mars is concerned, all these efforts are beneficial to the company’s bottom line.
The sixth largest privately held company in the U.S., Mars has more than 50 factories just in the U.S. and is constantly expanding with manufacturing facilities, offices and retail locations in almost every country in the world. Strong growth, however, didn’t stop Mars from setting ambitious targets to cut emissions.
Focusing only on revenue while ignoring environmental impacts is a mistake – and a risk to a company’s reputation, Winston told me.
“I truly believe our renewable energy investments have actually improved our company’s standing in the world in terms of being a sustainable and responsible company,” he said. “That’s very important to us, not just from a customer standpoint, but also because our associates care about what we can do as a company to minimize our impact.”
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/08/30/4-ways-mars-inc-will-slash-emissions-and-still-grow-plus-other-insights-maker-mms
-
PTC Grants for OmniTRAX Lines in Chicago
Aug 30, 2018 | RailwayAge Magazine
By Stuart Chirls
Short lines Chicago Rail Link and Illinois Railway recently received federal grants to aid in the deployment of Positive Train Control technology.
The carriers are subsidiaries of short line operator OmniTRAX.
Under the Federal Railroad Administration’s Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant Program, the CRL and IR will receive funds representing 70% of PTC implementation costs, OmniTRAX said.
A total of five CRL and IR locomotives will be PTC–equipped, to run on Metra commuter corridors in Chicago.
The CRL provides freight service for customers between Mokena and Gresham; the IR works between Aurora and Eola.
“OmniTRAX is passionate about safety and putting PTC technology on the CRL and IR will make two of the safest short line railroads in the country even safer,” said Kevin Shuba, chief executive of OmniTRAX, based in Denver. “The grant will allow scarce capital to be spent on targeted track upgrades and other safety and efficiency enhancements.”
Shuba credited the support of Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, and state transportation officials, for helping obtain the grant.
“Our focus on safety and customer service is enhanced by the partnerships we have with strong and effective transportation policy leaders in Springfield and Washington,” he said.
“Implementing PTC is vitally important to ensuring that our railroads have the highest level of safety for millions of riders and workers in Illinois and around the country,” Durbin said. “Implementing PTC saves lives. With Chicago being the largest hub in the railroad industry, Sen. Duckworth and I will continue working to ensure that our rail agencies have the federal resources needed to ensure safe and reliable transportation.”
https://www.railwayage.com/freight/ptc-grants-for-omnitrax-lines-in-chicago/
-
Washington's Fall Agenda: EPA to Focus on New Power Plant, Water Rules
Aug 30, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
Federal officials will be hard at work throughout the fall, moving forward with high-profile actions to implement President Trump’s agenda to dismantle major environmental regulations, boost fossil fuel production and streamline protections for endangered species.
Rather than follow the pattern of a typically slow August bookended by congressional recesses, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spent the month rolling out two highly anticipated proposals to undo major pieces of former President Obama’s environmental legacy.
The new rules aim to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which sought to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and vehicle emissions standards that determined future fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.
The CPP replacement, called the Affordable Clean Energy rule, would give states guidelines for how to reduce their coal plants’ carbon dioxide emissions, mainly by making them more efficient. States would be given wide latitude in formulating plans as they see fit.
With no minimum or maximum standards set for carbon emissions under the new rule, critics fear the plan will do little to thwart air pollution and climate change. Republicans, on the other hand, have largely cheered the proposal as ending the Obama-era “war on coal.”
Both the power plant and car proposals were opened for public comment in August, and comments are due in October, barring a decision to extend the time period. Officials would then have to read through the comments and make necessary changes before making the rollbacks final.
Despite new leadership at EPA following controversial former chief Scott Pruitt’s departure in July, the agency is expected to continue to carry out a Republican agenda that favors deregulation and the fossil fuel industry — namely coal.
Looking forward, the agency under EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is likely to soon formally propose a new “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule, which would redefine which small waterways, like ponds and streams, are under the federal government’s jurisdiction. The 2015 rule asserted federal power over many small waterways whose protections previously weren’t clear. But the agriculture industry and others argued the rule gives regulators too much power.
Trump promised changes to the rule dating back to his presidential campaign and in January the administration formally suspended the rule in anticipation of a new proposal. In June, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers sent their new water rule proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, but no formal rule has since surfaced. In August, however, a federal court disputed the government’s ability to suspend a rule without a replacement, reinstating WOTUS in 26 states until a new rule can be implemented.
The Interior Department has similarly been busy over the summer months, with the Fish and Wildlife Service rolling out a proposed rule that would change the way the federal government implements the Endangered Species Act. The controversial rule, announced in July, has largely been panned by animal rights and conservation groups who fear the administration is wrongly focusing on the price tag of species conservation efforts rather than the consequences of extinction.
However, logging, fossil fuel and private landowner representatives are in support of the proposed changes that aim to make it easier to remove species from the endangered list and weaken protections on species listed as threatened. Comments are due Sept. 24.
All of the action this fall won’t be at the administration. On Capitol Hill, GOP lawmakers are carrying out their own efforts to reform the Endangered Species Act.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced draft legislation in July to overhaul how species recovery is overseen. Barrasso told The Hill the final bill will be formally introduced in the fall.
The House’s Western Caucus also rolled out a package of bills in July that covers a wide range of issues including easier removal of endangered species protections and curtailing lawsuits from conservationists. The House could take up the bills this fall.
Additionally, Interior is hard at work to increase oil and natural gas drilling on a number of fronts.
The agency is endeavoring to hold its first auction for drilling rights in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge next year and is currently pushing through the environmental review process. The controversial sale is mandated under a GOP tax bill that passed last year; it requires two drilling rights lease sales over the next 10 years.
The department is also working to implement its plan to expand offshore drilling in federal waters. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke proposed in January to allow drilling along the entire Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and around Alaska. The plan has faced significant pushback from Atlantic and Pacific states, though the oil industry wants the ability to at least explore those places for potential resources and has been lobbying for the right to probe the regions. Many environmentalists oppose even basic oil probes, fearing they could disturb habitat.
The next step in the process is for officials to refine Zinke’s January proposal and remove any areas that Interior determines would not be appropriate for drilling.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/404273-washingtons-fall-agenda-epa-to-focus-on-new-power-plant-water-rules
-
Ewire: As EPA Weighs MATS Finding, Coal Closures Continue
Aug 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
Several news outlets are now reporting that EPA is poised to reconsider a key Obama-era determination that is was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the utility sector's air toxics, continuing a deregulatory push to aid coal plants even as utilities announce more coal closures due to relentless competition from cheap natural gas and renewables.
Loyal Inside EPA readers, of course, have known about EPA's plans since Friday, when our own Stuart Parker broke the news that the agency was expected to formally reconsider the requisite Clean Air Act determination for the 2011 mercury and air toxics standards (MATS).
“We are hearing directly from stakeholders that the EPA is going to move on this” by reconsidering the finding, a Senate source told Stuart.
EPA also essentially confirmed the move at the time, saying that officials are “looking at certain issues related to” the rule, even as the agency “fully recognizes that key investments have been made under MATS and substantial emissions reductions achieved.”
The agency cited the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Michigan v. EPA that faulted it for not considering costs in its initial determination to regulate the sector. The Obama EPA subsequently crafted a supplemental cost-benefit analysis for the rule that still resulted in a determination that its air toxics limits for power plants were appropriate and necessary.
However, a Trump EPA review of that analysis might result in data that EPA can use to justify weakening the rule, or even scrapping it entirely.
Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) recently urged the agency not to reconsider the finding, due to massive investments that sector has made to comply with the rule.
And many in the power sector, including investor-owned and rural co-operatives, as well as related labor unions, have also urged EPA to retain the rule and soften its requirements instead of scrapping it.
Echoing those calls, former Bush-era EPA air chief Jeff Holmstead told the New York Times Aug. 29 that he did not expect the Trump administration to try to eliminate the rule entirely. “It would serve no purpose because the power sector has already spent billions of dollars to bring all their plants into compliance.”
But even as EPA announces its latest power sector deregulatory initiative, power companies are continuing to move away from coal.
In a bombshell announcement Aug. 29, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Solutions said it plans to close two massive coal plants -- the 2.5 gigawatt (GW) Bruce Mansfield plant in western Pennsylvania and the 1.5 GW W.H. Stammis plant in eastern Ohio.
The plants will close in 2021 and 2022, respectively, pending a reliability analysis by the region's grid operator.
Notably absent from the utility's announcement is any mention of EPA rules. Instead, it heavily stressed the claim that the market “fails to adequately compensate generators for the resiliency and fuel-security attributes that the plants provide.”
That is a reference to a controversial plan the Energy Department (DOE) is weighing to prop up uneconomic coal and nuclear plants by requiring grid operators to provide them higher revenues to value for such “resilience.” FirstEnergy has been one of the biggest proponents of the DOE plan, though it has yet to be released amid widespread opposition from a wide variety of power sector groups.
The utility alludes to the DOE plan in its release announcing the coal plant retirements, saying that, “Depending on the timing of any federal policy action, deactivation decisions could be reversed or postponed.”
Meanwhile, newspapers in Oklahoma and Kentucky also reported on possible closures of two relatively small coal plants in those states.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-epa-weighs-mats-finding-coal-closures-continue
-
Replacement Carbon Rule Proposal to Be Published Friday
Aug 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA’s new proposed carbon rule for coal plants will run in Friday’s Federal Register, kicking off a 60-day comment period.
The proposal, known as the Affordable Clean Energy or ACE rule, requires states to choose from a list of heat-rate improvement technologies to potentially implement at coal plants within their borders, a much more narrow regulation than the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The Trump rule also would make a significant change to the New Source Review permitting program that could allow more coal plants to avoid that process when installing efficiency upgrades.
EPA said it plans to hold a public hearing at a date and location to be announced later.
WHAT’S NEXT: Comments will be due by Oct. 30, although EPA is likely to face calls to extend the comment period.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Brett Kavanaugh: Enemy of Innovation
Aug 30, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Ken Kimmell
The confirmation fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh begins next week with a hearing on Tuesday. Supporters and opponents are drawing battle lines over crucial issues such as abortion, health care, immigration, and whether the President is subject to criminal processes. But, as I wrote in an earlier blog, the nominee’s views on the role of federal agencies in protecting public health, safety and the environment deserve our attention as well.
Unlike others before him, Brett Kavanaugh is no “stealth nominee.” As a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh authored many opinions on the role of federal agencies, and these opinions provide an unusually expansive window into his thinking.
Unfortunately, a careful review of his opinions reveals a disturbing pattern:
Judge Kavanaugh is hostile to innovation by executive branch agencies. He has such rigid and antiquated views of the respective roles of congress and executive agencies that he leaves little room for federal agencies to try new approaches to existing problems or to take on new challenges. This should alarm not just those on the left who would like to see more robust federal response to threats to public health, the environment, worker safety and the like, but conservatives as well, who should also want government to be nimble and able to adjust to new circumstances.
To see this pattern, follow me on a guided tour of his thinking in three key cases.Interstate air pollution and the “Good Neighbor Rule.”
Air pollution crosses state boundaries, and many states are in the unenviable position of having dirty air even though they are effectively controlling pollution sources within their state. For example, even if Maryland were to shut down every business in its state that emits ozone-causing pollutants, portions of the state would still be in violation of federal ozone standards due to pollution from neighboring upwind states. There is a provision in the federal Clean Air Act, colloquially called “the Good Neighbor” rule, that prevents one state from causing or significantly contributing to another state’s violation of federal air quality standards.
The problem is that it is fiendishly complex to implement the good neighbor rule. Many “upwind” states emit multiple pollutants to many downwind states, many downwind states receive multiple pollutants from multiple upwind states, and some states are both upwind and downwind states. Thus, it is exceedingly difficult to point a finger at any one particular upwind state and say that it is “responsible” for any downwind’s state air quality, and even more difficult to devise a formula to fairly and effectively apportion responsibility.
In 2011, after many false starts, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) crafted an ingenious “Transport Rule” to address the problem. The EPA conducted extensive analysis of the costs of pollution control to determine how expensive it would be, per ton of pollutant reduction, to ensure that upwind states in the aggregate do not cause downwind states’ air quality in the aggregate to exceed federal standards. The EPA then gave each upwind state a pollution “budget” for the state to use to reduce the pollutants that were wafting beyond their borders, based on this “cost per ton” reduction benchmark. In this way, just enough pollution would be reduced so that upwind states would not tip a downwind state into non-compliance, and the amount of each state’s pollution reduction would be based on a common yardstick of cost-effectiveness.
But Judge Kavanaugh struck this plan down. In his view, Congress had not expressly embraced this particular approach, and therefore the EPA was not allowed to implement it. His decision instead required EPA to determine each upwind state’s “proportionate responsibility” for pollution in downwind states and base the required reductions on that (even though the statute does not explicitly require that approach). Judge Kavanaugh’s decision largely ignored the compelling practical difficulty of assigning proportionate responsibility, or the many economic benefits of the EPA’s proposed approach.
As a result, his ruling would have consigned downwind states to many more years of air pollution while the EPA grappled with how to implement it.
Had Judge Kavanaugh’s “proportionate” responsibility approach been required by the law, that would be one thing. But it wasn’t. The Supreme Court, on a 6-2 vote that included Justices Kennedy and Roberts, found that that the statute did not require a proportionate responsibility approach (even assuming one could be fashioned). Instead, they ruled that Congress had vested the EPA with broad discretion to devise an appropriate remedy, and the Transport Rule was both fair and cost effective.The Clean Power Plan oral argument
This same apparent hostility to agency innovation was on display in Judge Kavanaugh’s comments on the Clean Power Plan during a court hearing. That case involved a challenge to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, the nation’s first-ever rules to limit carbon pollution from coal and gas fired power plants, one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases in the United States. The Clean Power plan, a measure that received extensive input from UCS and many others, relied on an infrequently used provision of the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA to require polluters to use the “best system of emissions reduction” to address pollutants such as greenhouse gases.
After years of review and receipt of over 4 million comments, the EPA issued a final rule in October 2015. The EPA determined that the “best system of emissions reduction” for carbon pollution from power plants included three strategies that are in widespread use today—improving the efficiency of coal plants, switching from coal to gas, and substituting low or no carbon generation, such as wind, solar and nuclear. The EPA quantified the emissions reduction that would be possible using these strategies, and devised a national standard based on this quantification. The rule was intended to cut carbon emissions from power plants by approximately 30 percent by 2030, and formed a key component of the United States’ pledge to reduce its overall emissions as part of the Paris Climate agreement.
Industry and states filed suit to challenge the Clean Power Plan, and the case was heard by the DC Circuit court of appeals. No decision was ever issued on the case, but the court held an all-day oral argument in which Judge Kavanaugh participated. His questions and comments were revealing.
A major point of debate focused on the unusual nature of the regulation. When regulating conventional air pollutants, EPA often sets pollution control standards by focusing on what each plant can do with pollution controls at the source to cut pollution, e.g. a scrubber to lower sulfur dioxide emissions, or a baghouse to collect soot. In the Clean Power Plan, in contrast, EPA established CO2 limits by focusing not on what each individual plant could do to cut CO2, but rather what the system as a whole could do by shifting away from coal-based generation towards gas and renewables.
The opponents contended that this “beyond the fenceline” approach rendered it illegal, because Congress had not specifically authorized it.
Judge Kavanaugh’s questioning at the hearing demonstrated that he bought into this line of thinking. Judge Kavanaugh stressed repeatedly that the rule would have significant economic consequences, that the EPA was using a previously unused provision of the Clean Air Act to implement this approach, and that Congress had not specifically embraced the policy of shifting to low or no carbon generation. Judge Kavanaugh seemed unmoved by the strong counterarguments that: 1) EPA had a mandatory duty under the act to lower carbon pollution from power plants; 2) this was the most cost-effective and tested method of doing so; and 3) it fit the statutory command to deploy “the best system of emissions reduction.”
While the court never issued a ruling, it seemed clear that Judge Kavanaugh was prepared to strike down the rule on this basis, leaving behind no remedy for carbon pollution from power plants.The Case of the Killer Whale
In 2010, an employee of Sea World was lying on a platform above a pool during a whale training show when a killer whale dragged her into the water, maiming and drowning her. This marked the third death by killer whales in a roughly 30-year period.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) responded by requiring the company to ensure minimum distances and physical barriers between a trainer and a whale.
Sea World challenged this order, claiming that OSHA impermissibly extended its authority to regulate the risks of sporting events. Two of the three judges, including Merrick Garland, President Obama’s ill-fated Supreme Court nominee, dispensed with the challenge, ruling that OSHA had the authority to require these commonsense safeguards for workers.
Not so Judge Kavanaugh. His dissenting opinion begins as an elaborate paean to the thrill of sporting events in which physical risks are present. He never actually critiques the solution that OSHA devised on the merits, but rather deploys the familiar lawyer’s trick of a “parade of horribles,” claiming, e.g. that if OSHA can regulate killer whale shows, it can prohibit tackling in football or set speed limits on NASCAR racing (things that OSHA has never done). All of this, according to Kavanaugh, would go well beyond the authority that Congress intended OSHA to have.
As for the physical safety of employees who work with whales—according to Kavanaugh’s logic, that would be up to Congress to legislate.Common threads
What unites these opinions—and others like them—is that, in each of these cases, Judge Kavanaugh struck down solutions (or appeared poised to do so), when a federal agency responded to an existing problem with a novel approach or sought to address a new problem in a manner we should all value—with creativity, scientific evidence, consideration of costs and benefits, and an eye towards feasibility and practicality. In none of these cases did the agency violate any specific provision of its authorizing statute. But, in all of these cases, Judge Kavanaugh opposed these solutions under the theory that Congress had not specifically blessed the choice the agency had made.
Judge Kavanaugh and his defenders claim that curbing the power of agencies is essential to ensuring that elected leaders in Congress, rather than unelected bureaucrats, make the fundamental policy choices. This seemingly benign principal is either naïve, malevolent, or both.
The fact of the matter is that Congress is largely paralyzed and incapable of passing legislation on virtually any important issue—witness the stalemates on immigration, gun control, climate, health care, and many others. And even when Congress manages to overcome gridlock, as a necessity it legislates in broad generalities, not specifics. This is because Congress does not have a crystal ball to foresee all the possible variations of a problem or all the best solutions to it. That is why Congress wisely delegates implementation to agencies staffed with experts, and why we use a process of notice and comment to ensure that all views are heard before a regulation becomes final.
There is an important role for the courts in this rulemaking process judges must make sure that agencies do not violate the law or disregard sound reasoning and evidence. But Judge Kavanaugh takes the judicial role too far. His insistence that Congress specifically endorse an agency plan that is otherwise scientifically sound and legally within its discretion is a formula for paralysis, and the maintenance of the status quo (which helps explain his appeal to groups such as the Koch Brothersand the US Chamber of Commerce).
All of us will regret it if Judge Kavanagh’s reactionary view becomes the guiding principle of a new Supreme Court majority. With Congress already deadlocked and demonstrating almost daily basis its inability to respond to pressing challenges, we cannot thrive if executive branch agencies are paralyzed as well.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/ken-kimmell/brett-kavanaugh-enemy-of-innovation
-
Judge Orders Exxon to Release Documents for Investigation
Aug 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Benjamin Hulac
Fossil energy giant Exxon Mobil Corp. must turn over documents the New York attorney general is seeking in its investigation of the company, a judge ruled at a hearing yesterday.
Meanwhile, investigators claim to have found "smoking guns" to prove that Exxon deceived investors.
The New York and Massachusetts attorneys general have for years been investigating whether Exxon deceived investors and the public about its corporate grasp of climate change and of its financial exposure to climate risks.
Barry Ostrager, a New York state judge, ordered Exxon to promptly provide some company records but granted the company approval to seal and redact others, including a cluster of financial records.
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D) had pressed Ostrager to order Exxon to release records it had shared with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had opened a probe of its own into the company about climate change policies and accounting practices.
The SEC dropped its probe in early August, marking a significant victory for the company (E&E News PM, Aug. 3).
But Exxon is not out of the woods yet, and an official working on the case said the investigation is close to wrapping up.
The judge also warned prosecutors to either press charges or drop the case.
"This cannot go on interminably," Ostrager said of the current document-gathering phase of the investigation, adding that Exxon has turned over millions of pages' worth of information. "It's not my place to tell you when an investigation ends, but it is my place to put an end date on the requests for information and the filing of a complaint."
In response, Manisha Sheth, a deputy attorney general for Underwood's office, said that though investigators have found "smoking guns," her office needs access to financial spreadsheets.
Ostrager ordered the oil giant to supply some of the spreadsheets within 30 days.
The company has turned over some of those documents in questionable form, according to New York officials.
In July, Exxon gave prosecutors an Excel document that was marked as if it had been created in 1901 and was wiped of critical digital information showing who created it and when (Climatewire, July 30).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/30/stories/1060095507
-
Local Climate Efforts Won't Counteract Trump — Report
Aug 30, 2018 | London Guardian (In E&E Greenwire)
Local efforts to combat climate change won't be enough to compensate for the lack of action taken under the Trump administration, according to new research.
Cities, regions and businesses around the world have come together to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to confront climate change. Their efforts cover only a small fraction of the problem, the report found.
Nations need to create more ambitious goals, despite the United States' exit from the Paris climate agreement, it said.
Actions from cities and states to shift to cleaner energy and promote energy efficiency in the United States will be significant. But globally, the emissions won't make much of a difference when it comes to increased heat waves, stronger storms, sea-level rise and displacement.
"When we look at the individual pledges [by cities, regions and businesses], the impact isn't that large, so we absolutely need national governments to pull through and do a lot of the heavy lifting," said Angel Hsu, director of Data-Driven Yale, which led the study.
Even if every nation under the Paris Agreement meets its goals, the world is set to still be about 3.3 degrees Celsius warmer by the century's end.
"Cities getting involved is good and important, but we haven't really acknowledged how big and serious the challenge is. We are whistling in the dark," said Klaus Lackner, director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State University (Oliver Milman, London Guardian, Aug. 30). — CS
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested