Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - September 19, 2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs on China Spare Some Chemical Imports Amid Trade War Fears
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington

More than 140 chemicals used for manufacturing, textiles, and agriculture have been removed from $200 billion in tariffs that the U.S. is imposing on China.
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Readies Tariffs on $200 Billion Worth of Chinese Imports
Sep 19, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jean-Francois Tremblay

Following public hearings last month, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump says it is moving ahead with tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.
(ACC Mentioned) US Launches Third Round in China Tariff War but Blunts Initial Impact
Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang

With the third round of US tariffs on $200bn in Chinese imports, the US is launching another phase in the US-China trade war. However, it is mitigating some of the impact by excluding a number of chemicals in the final list and setting a lower initial tariff rate.
(ACC Mentioned) Revised US Tariff List Removes 142 Chemical, Plastic Products – ACC
Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood

The US removed 142 chemical and plastic products from the latest round of tariffs that it will impose on Chinese imports next week, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Tuesday.
(ACC Mentioned) As China Trade Fight Escalates, Industry Sees Concerns, Gains
Sep 18, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken

U.S. plastics and chemical associations reacted with growing concern to President Donald Trump's Sept. 17 announcement of major new tariffs on Chinese imports. But for some plastics companies in the packaging and vinyl flooring sectors, the news could be a victory.
(ACC Mentioned) China's New Retaliatory Tariffs on Liquefied Natural Gas, Chemicals Hit Home for Louisiana
Sep 19, 2018 | The Advocate
By Sam Karlin

China said Tuesday it will impose 10 percent duties on a host of U.S. products, including liquefied natural gas, threatening a booming Louisiana industry, and chemicals, Louisiana’s third-largest export to China and a major industry statewide.
(ACC Mentioned) The Business Case for Green Packaging: 6 Points on Sustainability, the Circular Economy & Plastic Waste
Sep 19, 2018 | Packaging Europe
By Elisabeth Skoda

Dr Thomas Reiner, chair of the Deutsches Verpackungsinstitut, CEO of design agency Berndt+ Partner and a member of the judging panel for the 2018 Sustainability Awards, speaks to Elisabeth Skoda about the environmental challenges facing packaging today.
Watchdog to Exit as Pruitt Probes Continue
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus

EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins announced his retirement today, leaving after a high-profile year in which his office opened up review after review into former Administrator Scott Pruitt's scandal-plagued tenure.
EPA Watchdog to Step Down as Scott Pruitt Probes Continue
Sep 18, 2018 | Roll Call
By Elvina Nawaguna

The EPA’s inspector general, who led multiple investigations into former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s spending and management practices at the agency, will leave in October, his office announced Tuesday.
Senate Passes CR, Signaling Impasse on EPA Budget
Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA

The Senate has passed a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that will avert a government shutdown until at least Dec. 7, signaling that lawmakers have been unable to agree on an EPA funding bill for fiscal year 2019 following Democrats' comments at a hearing last week that environmental riders had “plagued” negotiations up to that point.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Industry Attorneys Expect More Lawsuits Against EPA's TSCA Measures
Sep 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Chemical industry attorneys are outlining aspects of the Trump administration's implementation of the revised toxics law that they expect to face future legal challenges from environmental groups and industry, ranging from the agency's section 6 bans of certain chemical uses to a proposed approach for gathering and evaluating data for reviews.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Environment, Health Advocates Back Scrutiny of EPA Chemical Reviews
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

Public health and environmental advocates support the EPA’s request to take another look at a regulation that would penalize anyone, from manufacturers to the advocates themselves, for omitting information about chemical risks.
(ACC Mentioned) Two Maine Mayors Urge Congress to Reject Effort to Undo Local Pesticide Restrictions
Sep 19, 2018 | Press Herald
By Randy Billings

The mayors of Portland and South Portland are urging Congress to reject a provision in a wide-ranging farm bill that would nullify local anti-pesticide ordinances adopted in recent years.
Annual Retailer Report Card Will Rank a Dozen New Companies This Fall
Sep 18, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade

As the federal government continues to roll back and undermine critical environmental and public health protections, we are amplifying our efforts in the marketplace to drive hazardous chemicals out of our homes and communities through our Mind the Store campaign.
US NGO Adds 12 Companies to Retailer Ranking Campaign
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer

An NGO-led campaign in the US that evaluates the efforts of retailers to eliminate chemicals of concern has added 12 more companies to its rankings.
Monsanto Fights to Get $289m Verdict Tossed or a New Trial
Sep 18, 2018 | Law 360
By Bonnie Eslinger

Bayer AG-acquired Monsanto asked a California court Tuesday to set aside a $289 million jury verdict for a man who said its Roundup weed killer caused his cancer, arguing there wasn’t enough evidence to support his claims and asking the court for a ruling in its favor or a new trial.
Rotterdam Convention Committee Recommends Measures for Four Chemicals
Sep 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch

A committee of the UN's Rotterdam Convention has recommended the listing of two industrial chemicals and two pesticides.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Latest Us Producer to Announce Additional October PE Price Hike: Letter
Sep 18, 2018 | Platts
By Chris Ferrell

ExxonMobil Chemical on Tuesday became the latest producer to announce additional North American polyethylene price increases for October, according to a letter to customers obtained by S&P Global Platts.
Trump’s Trade War Escalation Puts U.S. Energy in Crosshairs
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Stapczynski

U.S. gas is under threat as a trade war with China escalates.
U.S. LNG Industry Groans Under Weight of New Tariffs
Sep 18, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre

The escalating trade war with China is threatening to make the U.S. liquefied natural gas industry one of the biggest victims of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
China Tariff Threatens U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Boom
Sep 18, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Georgi Kantchev and Christopher M. Matthews

China’s move to impose tariffs on U.S. liquefied natural gas imperils the ability of a burgeoning industry to export the bounty of American shale.
Trump Administration Formally Rolls Back Rule Aimed at Limiting Methane Pollution
Sep 18, 2018 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman

The Trump administration on Tuesday effectively reversed a regulation designed to prevent methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, from escaping into the atmosphere during oil and gas operations.
BLM's Final Methane Rule Reveal Draws Swift Legal Action
Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King

The states of California and New Mexico yesterday opened a new courtroom battle over Obama-era methane standards, hours after the Interior Department closed the book on its long effort to scale back the rule.
BLM Methane Rule Faces New Legal Fight In Wake Of Similar EPA Measure
Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

The Trump administration has finalized its plan to largely scrap several Obama-era provisions limiting releases of methane, the potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas development on public lands, setting up a new round of litigation with environmentalists who are already threatening to sue over similar EPA rollbacks.

Chemical Security News

As Florence Threatens Chemical Plants, Trump Administration Moves to Weaken Protections
Sep 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Brendan Doyle

Since it made landfall, Florence continues to wreak havoc: the storm was expected to drop 18 trillion gallons of rain over the course of a week — enough to fill the Chesapeake Bay.
DOE's Cyber Czar to Cast Wide Net for Grid Risks
Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

A new senior official at the Department of Energy is pushing to capture the full range of potential threats to the grid, from hurricanes to hackers.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Preemption Lines Blurred In 9th Circ. Hazmat Fee Ruling
Sep 19, 2018 | Law 360
By Linda Chiem

The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision knocking down California's new fee on rail cars transporting hazardous materials but leaving the door open to such a levy if it were "fair" raises new questions on the breadth of federal preemption concerning railroad rates and services, experts say.

Environment News

Trump's Environmental Policies Rule Only Part of America
Sep 19, 2018 | Politico
By Alex Guillen, Beatrice Jin, and Eric Wolff

The stark political divide between conservative and liberal states mirrors a growing chasm on environmental policy and pollution across the country as the Trump administration dials down federal regulations and blue states step in to pursue their own rules.
Countries Should Use Pricing to Cut Carbon Emissions: OECD
Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell

The world’s wealthy, big-polluting countries aren’t moving fast enough on using pricing mechanisms to reduce their emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported Sept. 18.
Dems See Tax Panel as a Venue for Energy, Climate Policy
Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk

The House Ways and Means Committee is a coveted seat, a place where politicians can make their name working on issues that affect virtually every sector of the American economy.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs on China Spare Some Chemical Imports Amid Trade War Fears

Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adam Allington

More than 140 chemicals used for manufacturing, textiles, and agriculture have been removed from $200 billion in tariffs that the U.S. is imposing on China.
Some of the chemicals include phosphorus, vinyl chloride—which is used to make plastic pipes—and a variety of herbicides.
But the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s main trade body, said Sept. 17 that any temporary benefits from chemical imports being spared would likely be overshadowed by a rapidly escalating trade war.
In response to the U.S. tariffs, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced retaliatory tariffs Sept. 18 of $60 billion of new U.S. goods. A list released in August included liquefied natural gas, coffee, and industrial chemicals.
“There is no acceptable tariff rate for global chemicals trade with China or any U.S. trading partner,” said Cal Dooley, the council’s president and chief executive officer.
Total chemicals trade between the U.S. and China has grown steadily over the years, amounting to billions of U.S. dollars and thousands of workers, Dooley told Bloomberg Environment.
There are still 1,363 chemicals and plastics products on the new tariff list, with a total value of $12.9 billion, according to the council’s estimates.
“Achieving robust intellectual property protections should also be a priority, but ACC believes those concerns are better addressed with multilateral support and swift resolve on the part of the World Trade Organization,” Dooley said.
‘Self-Inflicted Wounds’
As the number of retaliatory tariffs from China continues to stack up, analysts warn about the increased likelihood of “self-inflicted wounds” that would hurt U.S. manufacturing interests in the form of increasing costs.
“Based on the tariffs that have been proposed thus far, we view the 25 percent tariff on steel as far more onerous to chemical companies,” wrote Kevin McCarthy, a chemicals industry analyst for Vertical Research Partners in Stamford, Conn.
McCarthy points out that steel is an important material in reactors, tanks, process machinery, and pipe necessary to build a modern chemical refinery.
Likewise, many of the new polyethylene—plastic—plants now being built in the U.S. were conceived with the intent of exporting much of their output to fast-growing emerging economies such as China.
“We view the application of tariffs against these products as negative, but these are typically global markets, so trade flows will equilibrate over time,” said McCarthy.
“For example, DowDuPont should be able to supply China with petrochemicals from the Middle East or western Canada more effectively than U.S.-centric peers. Likewise, if China buys fewer soybeans from the U.S., it is likely to buy more from Brazil, where DowDuPont has a large presence,” wrote McCarthy.
Unfair Trading Alleged
In a conference call with reporters Sept. 17, the office of the United States Trade Representative accused China of engaging in unfair trading practices, including theft of intellectual property.
“It’s right that we’re finally standing up to China,” said a senior trade administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
USTR said it inherited an unfair trading relationship that has been going on for years.
“Instead of addressing our concerns, China has chosen to retaliate, instead of negotiate,” a senior trade administration official said.
The new duties will start at 10 percent on Sept. 24 and then reach 25 percent in January 2019.
China’s Ministry of Commerce said in a Sept. 18 statement that “countermeasures” were necessary “in order to safeguard our legitimate rights and interests and the global free trade order.”
The prospect of that action had alarmed the Trump administration.
“If China takes retaliatory action against our farmers or other industries, we will immediately pursue phase three, which is tariffs on approximately $267 billion of additional imports,” President Donald Trump said in a Sept. 17 statement.
In addition to chemicals imports, Apple Inc. dodged a bullet when USTR removed several of its products from the new tariffs, including smartwatches and Bluetooth earbuds. .
Also removed from the list were rare earth elements necessary to manufacture consumer electronics, magnets, and radar.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/tariffs-on-china-spare-some-chemical-imports-amid-trade-war-fears

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Readies Tariffs on $200 Billion Worth of Chinese Imports

Sep 19, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Jean-Francois Tremblay

Following public hearings last month, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump says it is moving ahead with tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. A 10% tariff on a finalized list of goods will go into effect on Sept. 24; should China and the U.S. fail to reach a trade deal this fall, the rate will rise to 25% on Jan. 1, 2019.
Initial prospects for such a deal look dim. On Tuesday, Sept. 18, a day after the U.S. decision, China announced its own import tariffs of 5% and 10% on $60 billion worth of U.S.-made goods, also to go into effect on Sept. 24.
The dueling tariffs are an escalation of a trade conflict that President Trump started in the spring to pressure China to change business and trade policies, such as forced technology transfers to Chinese companies. In the summer, the U.S. Trade Representative, which manages U.S. international trade policy, began collecting a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports.
“These practices plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the United States economy,” President Trump said at the time.
The products on the $200 billion list include a large number of chemicals that China exports widely such as sodium cyanide, used in gold mining, and the polyurethane component methylene diphenyl diisocyanate.
The U.S. Trade Representative decided to exclude from its final schedule some materials, including ones like rare earths that are available almost exclusively from China. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. chemical industry’s main trade group, 142 chemicals and plastics were removed from the final list, but it still includes 1,363 chemicals.
“There is no acceptable tariff rate for global chemicals trade with China or any U.S. trading partner,” ACC CEO Cal Dooley said in a statement issued after the finalized list of custom duties was announced. “Tariffs and quotas unnecessarily raise costs, deter innovation and economic growth, and could ultimately weaken our country’s competitive advantage.”
https://cen.acs.org/policy/trade/US-readies-tariffs-200-billion/96/web/2018/09

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) US Launches Third Round in China Tariff War but Blunts Initial Impact

Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS

By Joseph Chang

With the third round of US tariffs on $200bn in Chinese imports, the US is launching another phase in the US-China trade war. However, it is mitigating some of the impact by excluding a number of chemicals in the final list and setting a lower initial tariff rate.
The revised final list will initially have a tariff rate of 10% versus the 25%, which had been considered. In it, 142 chemicals and finished plastics products (just two finished plastics) were removed compared with the preliminary list, according to an analysis by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The two finished plastics categories removed are all plastic gloves – seamless and otherwise.
This third round of US tariffs will be implementedon 24 September, and the duties are set to rise to 25% by 1 January 2019 if there is no agreement on trade with China.
The final US round three list includes a total of 1,363 chemicals and plastics products, of which the US imported $12.9bn worth from China in 2017, noted the ACC in its analysis of US International Trade Commission (ITC) data.
At a tariff rate of 10%, this equates to $1.3bn in tariffs that would be collected by the US government, based on 2017 levels of imports. At 25%, this rises to $3.2bn. However, future imports of these products could fall significantly, reducing the actual amounts collected.
The ACC analysis includes HTS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule) code chapters 27 (only select chemicals from this list), 28 (inorganic chemicals), 29 (organic chemicals) and 31-39 (fertilizers, dyes, extracts, surfactants, finished plastics, etc). It excludes chapters 30 (pharmaceuticals) and 40 (rubber products).
As the original list included 1,505 chemicals and plastics products valued at $16.4bn, the value of the imports from China of the removed products in 2017 was $3.5bn.
For the most part, the chemicals removed from the final list do not include bulk chemicals and plastics resins covered by ICIS, with the exceptions of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) and paraffin wax.
The US imported just 829 tonnes of VCM from China in 2017 (all US VCM imports were from China), while it imported 98,876 tonnes of paraffin wax from China, or 59% of total paraffin wax imports of 168,781 tonnes from all countries, according to ITC data.
In dollar amounts, the US imported $126.5m in paraffin wax from China in 2017, or 55% of total imports of $231.3m. The dollar amount for imported Chinese VCM came to just $0.96m.
Also removed are five groups of rare earth elements used in fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units, which produce gasoline and refinery-grade propylene as a byproduct.
In terms of bulk chemicals and polymers, US exports to China are far more impacted than China in both the second and third rounds.
The first round of US tariffs on $34bn Chinese imports implemented on 6 July were at 25% but included no chemicals or finished plastics. The second round of 25% tariffs on $16bn of Chinese imports set on 23 August included $2.2bn of chemicals and finished plastics.
Across all three rounds, the US tariffs cover 1,516 chemicals and finished plastics, representing $15.1bn in imports from China in 2017.
China’s final list of third round retaliatory tariffs on $60bn of US imports did not change from the original, but the rates were significantly reduced to 5-10% versus 5-25%.
But that is not likely to be the end of it. US President Trump reiterated his threat to impose additional tariffs on $267bn of Chinese imports. This would encompass almost all US imports from China.
This fourth round, what we dub the “nuclear option”, could exclude the products already removed in the third round as those were deemed too important for US commerce. Yet anything is possible in this unprecedented trade war between the world’s number one and two economies.
MTB IMPLICATIONS FOR ROUNDS 1-3
Importantly, the US Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018 (MTB) does not void any of the 25% tariffs on a combined $50bn of Chinese imports in rounds 1 and 2, or the 10% tariffs on $200bn of Chinese imports in round 3.
Rather it simply reduces existing “normal” tariff rates on certain imports to zero or reduces them significantly for a period of three years.
The MTB has been in the works since 2016, before the US-China trade war kicked off.
Of the over 1,600 products listed in the MTB - which became law on 13 September - chemicals comprise over 50% of the list, and this amount is around 60% including finished plastics products, according to the ACC.
However, these include imports from all countries – not just China. And the MTB only reduces or eliminates the base or “normal” duties on all these imports, noted the ACC.
The special or “additional” tariffs in the US-China trade war still apply.
The MTB also does not prevent the additional US tariffs on Chinese imports from taking effect.
However, the MTB could reduce the impact of US tariffs on Chinese chemical imports appearing on that MTB list on a net basis.
For example, a chemical with a 5% “normal” import duty that is on the MTB list and on the US list of 10% tariffs on Chinese imports in the third round would be exempt from the 5% duty but would still come under 10% tariff if it came from China.
Another chemical with a 5% “normal” duty that is not on the MTB list, would still retain that 5% duty, plus another 10% tariff (if on the list for round 3) if that product was imported from China.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/09/18/10260476/us-launches-third-round-in-china-tariff-war-but-blunts-initial-impact/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Revised US Tariff List Removes 142 Chemical, Plastic Products – ACC

Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS

By Al Greenwood

The US removed 142 chemical and plastic products from the latest round of tariffs that it will impose on Chinese imports next week, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Tuesday.
Critically, the revised list no longer includes five groups of rare-earth elements. China is the main source of these materials, and they are are critical raw-materials that are used to make catalysts for fluid-catalytic-cracking (FCC) units.
These units are used in refineries to produce gasoline and refinery-grade propylene (RGP).
The US had announced the initial list of tariffs earlier in the year, which would be imposed on $200bn worth of imports from China.
The country since revised the list, which includes fewer chemical and plastic products.
The tariffs will go into effect on 24 September, and they will start at 10%. On 1 January, the tariffs will rise to 25%.
The pared-down list still covers 1,363 chemical and plastic products, according to the ACC. Their value was $12.9bn in 2017.
A 10% tariff on those imports would amount to $1.3bn. A 25% tariff comes to $3.2bn, the ACC said.
Other products that were removed from the list include paraffin wax, which is under 27122000 in the harmonised tariff schedule (HTS). Vinyl chloride (29032100) was also removed from the initial list, but the US imports relatively minor amounts of the material.
Most of the products removed from the list are organic chemicals. An analysis conducted by ICIS shows that 98 organic chemicals were removed from the earlier tariff list.
Following the US announcement of the tariffs, China announced its own round of tariffs, worth 5% and 10% on $60bn worth of imports.
China will also impose its tariffs on 24 September.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/09/18/10260424/revised-us-tariff-list-removes-142-chemical-plastic-products-acc/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) As China Trade Fight Escalates, Industry Sees Concerns, Gains

Sep 18, 2018 | Plastics News

By Steve Toloken

U.S. plastics and chemical associations reacted with growing concern to President Donald Trump's Sept. 17 announcement of major new tariffs on Chinese imports. But for some plastics companies in the packaging and vinyl flooring sectors, the news could be a victory.
The Trump administration said tariffs on 5,700 products would start Sept. 24, initially at 10 percent but rising to 25 percent Jan. 1, a two-step delay seen as giving supply chains some time to adjust.
The tariffs cover about $200 billion in Chinese imports, on top of duties covering $50 billion of Chinese imports in two earlier rounds in July and August.
The Washington-based Plastics Industry Association criticized the current path of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs, which now cover about half of China's exports to the United States. It said a trade conflict puts the overall industry growth at risk.
"The administration should end its trade war and find a different approach to addressing China's trade offenses," the association said in a Sept. 18 statement. "Continuing along this path and imposing new tariffs puts our industry's future growth in jeopardy."
The U.S. announcement was met by Chinese plans to put tariffs on $60 billion in American exports, on top of $50 billion that Beijing put in place in July and August.
China has targeted the sizable U.S. plastic resin exports, including polyethylene, in previous rounds in response to U.S. tariffs.
The latest U.S. announcement keeps most of the 6,031 products on a proposed list Washington released in July, including vinyl flooring and some categories of plastic packaging.
Large U.S. vinyl flooring makers Mohawk Industries Inc. and Congoleum Corp. had testified at a hearing in August urging tariffs on Chinese imports, saying it would allow them to invest and add jobs, although opponents of the flooring tariffs said they would raise costs in U.S. home building.
Large plastics packaging firm Pactiv LLC also won tariffs on some closures and plastic packaging from China, although it appears it did not convince U.S. trade officials to add plastic tableware.
Pactiv CEO John McGrath had testified at the Washington hearing in August urging the U.S. Trade Representative's office to include plastic tableware on its final tariffs, but the USTR's Sept. 17 list does not include them. He said Chinese imports had caused the company to close 10 factories since 2011.
More tariffs could be on the horizon.
In a statement, Trump said that if Beijing retaliated, the U.S. would "immediately pursue" tariffs on $267 billion more in Chinese imports, covering essentially all of China's exports to the U.S.
U.S. officials say the tariffs are needed as negotiating leverage to force changes in Chinese trade practices to protect U.S. intellectual property and technology.
"These practices plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the United States economy," Trump said. "For months, we have urged China to change these unfair practices, and give fair and reciprocal treatment to American companies."
But the American Chemistry Council urged the Trump administration to find a different path, saying that while it supported Washington's efforts to address China's trade practices, the U.S. government needed to work within the World Trade Organization and other institutions.
It said that the U.S. recently surpassed $202 billion in announced chemical and plastics investment across 333 projects and suggested that cutting off U.S. access to China's huge market could risk some of that investment.
It estimated that China's $11 billion in retaliatory tariffs on chemicals and plastics will put 55,000 U.S. jobs and $18 billion in domestic activity in question, as Chinese demand falls.
"Tariffs and quotas unnecessarily raise costs, deter innovation and economic growth, and could ultimately weaken our country's competitive advantage," said ACC CEO Cal Dooley.
As well, the Washington-based Window & Door Manufacturers Association said the tariffs "will do more harm to the U.S. economy than good."
"WDMA is very disappointed with the Trump Administration's decision to impose a tariff on the list of products from China," said WDMA President and CEO Michael O'Brien. "These additional tariffs will likely lead to price increases for the residential and commercial construction markets and continue the threat of a trade war with China."
The Sept. 17 U.S. tariff list did remove tariffs on some chemical and plastics products. It removed two plastic product categories, both gloves, and 140 chemical products, leaving 1,360 still on the list. ACC estimated the Sept. 17 list covers $12.9 billion in Chinese chemical and plastics imports, compared with $16.4 billion in the initial list in July.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180918/NEWS/180919892/as-china-trade-fight-escalates-industry-sees-concerns-gains

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) China's New Retaliatory Tariffs on Liquefied Natural Gas, Chemicals Hit Home for Louisiana

Sep 19, 2018 | The Advocate

By Sam Karlin

China said Tuesday it will impose 10 percent duties on a host of U.S. products, including liquefied natural gas, threatening a booming Louisiana industry, and chemicals, Louisiana’s third-largest export to China and a major industry statewide.
The tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. exports to China go into effect later this month. The move came in response to the Trump administration imposing tariffs late Monday on $200 billion worth of Chinese-made goods starting next week.
Louisiana, a uniquely trade-sensitive state, already has seen 25 percent tariffs imposed on major exports like soybeans, and companies building big industrial facilities have complained about rising costs from U.S. tariffs on steel from China and other countries.
Soybeans are grown on 1 million acres in Louisiana and soybeans from other areas of the country pass through Louisiana ports and commercial facilities. Ranked No. 3 among U.S. ports for imported steel, a tariff-related dip in New Orleans imports could mean a loss of as much as $1 million for the first half of the year, officials have said.
China’s latest list of product tariffs included coffee, rice, honey and industrial chemicals, among others. The American Chemistry Council said China's retaliatory tariffs apply to $11 billion worth of U.S. chemicals and plastics exports, putting nearly 55,000 American jobs and $18 billion in domestic activity in question.
The tariffs from China ratchets up pressure on developers trying to build multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas export facilities, particularly in southwest Louisiana. More than $90 billion in potential investments are planned for Louisiana alone from about a dozen companies. Those firms are competing for long-term contracts from overseas buyers, including from China.
“It’s going to continue to stall the development of LNG facilities in Louisiana until there’s more clarity on the issue,” said David Dismukes, head of LSU’s Center for Energy Studies.
China is an important growing market for imported natural gas. In 2017, when LNG exports ramped up at Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass terminal, China was the third-largest destination, behind Mexico and South Korea, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
But European markets and other Asian countries also have emerged as big buyers of LNG, and some of the companies developing export facilities in Louisiana have signed deals with companies outside of China.
George Swift, head of the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, said none of the projects eyeing the region have dropped out yet, and rising global demand from places other than China will continue to fuel the industry here.
“While China customers may be affected by the tariffs, we think there’s enough demand around the world,” Swift said.
LNG companies have scrambled to ink long-term contracts in order to get financing for the multibillion-dollar projects. The companies are aiming to put the facilities in service in the early 2020s to meet an expected peak global demand.
The construction of Cheniere Energy’s LNG facility at Sabine Pass, and Cameron LNG’s $10 billion project in Hackberry, have helped lift southwest Louisiana’s economy in recent years as part of a major industrial construction boom. Several more are in various stages of development.
Cheniere, the first company to begin exporting LNG from the U.S., has a long-term LNG contract in place with China. The company told S&P Global the tariffs would not impact its agreement.
S&P Global Platts reported from the Gastech conference in Barcelona that final investment decisions for some of the many planned Gulf Coast export projects could be threatened or delayed from the tariffs.
Economist Loren Scott said if the tariffs are a short-term measure, the effects will likely be limited. But if the Trump administration uses the tariffs as a protectionist measure in the long term, the national economy could be roiled.
“None of this stuff is good,” Scott said.
China's Finance Ministry said its tariff increases are aimed at curbing "trade friction" and the "unilateralism and protectionism of the United States."
There was no word on whether China would back out of trade talks it said it was invited to by the U.S., but a Chinese Commerce Ministry statement said the U.S. increase "brings new uncertainty to the consultations."
The two countries have already imposed import taxes on $50 billion worth of each other's goods. President Donald Trump has threatened to add an additional $267 billion in Chinese imports to the target list if China retaliated for the latest U.S. taxes. That would raise the total affected by U.S. penalties to $517 billion, covering nearly everything China sells to the United States.
The American Chamber of Commerce in China warned Tuesday that Washington is underestimating Beijing's determination to fight back.
"The downward spiral that we have previously warned about now seems certain to materialize," said William Zarit, the chamber's chairman.
At the root of the trade war are U.S. complaints about China's plans to try to overtake U.S. technological supremacy. Those plans include "Made in China 2025," which calls for creating powerful Chinese entities to compete in robotics and other fields. The U.S. says the plans are based on stolen U.S. technology, violate China's market-opening commitments and might erode American industrial leadership.
American companies and trading partners including the European Union and Japan have longstanding complaints about Chinese market barriers and industrial policy. But they object to Trump's tactics and warn the dispute could chill global economic growth and undermine international trade regulation.
Trump has strained relations with potential allies, including the European Union, Canada and Mexico, by raising tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. He demanded Canada and Mexico renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement to make it more favorable to the United States.
Trump also has complained about America's gaping trade deficit — $336 billion last year — with China, its biggest trading partner.
"China has had many opportunities to fully address our concerns," Trump said in a statement. "I urge China's leaders to take swift action to end their country's unfair trade practices."
The trade gap means China will run out of U.S. imports to tax while the U.S. still has plenty of Chinese imports to target. But Beijing has other ways to retaliate. American companies say regulators are already starting to disrupt their operations.
Last week, the American Chambers of Commerce in China and in Shanghai reported 52 percent of more than 430 companies that responded to a survey said they have faced slower customs clearance and increased inspections and bureaucratic procedures.
The U.S. taxes are targeting Chinese goods that Washington says have benefited from improper industrial policies. Beijing's tariffs have hit soybeans and other farm goods from states that voted for Trump in 2016.
"Contrary to views in Washington, China can — and will — dig its heels in and we are not optimistic about the prospect for a resolution in the short term," said Zarit of the American Chamber of Commerce. "No one will emerge victorious from this counter-productive cycle."
In the first two rounds of tariffs, the Trump administration took care to try to spare American consumers from the direct impact of the import taxes. The tariffs focused on industrial products, not on things Americans buy at the mall or via Amazon.
By expanding the list to $200 billion of Chinese products, Trump may spread the pain to ordinary households. The administration is targeting a variety of goods — from sockeye salmon to baseball gloves to bamboo mats — forcing U.S. companies to scramble for suppliers outside China, absorb the import taxes or pass along the cost to their customers.
The U.S. government did withdraw some items from its preliminary list of imports to be taxed, including child-safety products such as bicycle helmets. And in a victory for Apple Inc., the administration removed smart watches and some other consumer electronics products.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_a0c79c10-bb8b-11e8-8f83-5f709c0d7990.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) The Business Case for Green Packaging: 6 Points on Sustainability, the Circular Economy & Plastic Waste

Sep 19, 2018 | Packaging Europe

By Elisabeth Skoda

Dr Thomas Reiner, chair of the Deutsches Verpackungsinstitut, CEO of design agency Berndt+ Partner and a member of the judging panel for the 2018 Sustainability Awards, speaks to Elisabeth Skoda about the environmental challenges facing packaging today.
1. Plastic waste: A global solution to a global problem
Figures by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation show that in 2013, around 78 million tons of plastics were used for packaging, 68 per cent of which were collected after use. Fourteen per cent respectively were recycled or incinerated, 40 per cent ended up in landfill. The remaining 32 per cent, however, ended up in nature – an equivalent of almost 25 million tons a year.
A big share of this ends up in the world’s oceans, where it joins other plastic waste, for example from fishery. In total, this amounts to 150 million tons of plastic in the oceans. Even Arctic seawater can contain over 12,000 micro plastic parts, according to research recently published by the Alfred-Wegner-Institut (AWI) in Bremerhaven in Germany.
Looking at the sources of used plastic packaging in the environment, 98 per cent of plastic waste in the oceans worldwide comes from countries outside Europe and the US. Between 88 and 95 per cent reach sea via only ten rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The top three are Yangtze, Indus and the Yellow River.
Regardless of regional hotspots for uncontrolled plastic waste, the problem must be solved on a global level. Our commodity flows cover the entire planet just as oceans do. Whoever launches a product on the market should also take responsibility. This is not just a question of ethics, but of economy, offering obligations and opportunities.
A central factor for the solution of this problem are technological solutions and the creation of a suitable infrastructure in the countries concerned, with systems for collection and recycling. Right now, three billion people don’t have any access to such systems. There are projects in place working towards fixing this, but they don’t go far enough. At the same time, it is key to consistently optimise plastic packaging for later recycling.
2. Sustainability does not come for free
The solution of ecological problems requires a lot of effort and costs money. In order to achieve the desired results, we cannot rely on industry and consumers across the world acting responsibly. Past experience shows that existing product alternatives cannot compete on the market without incentives. The business risk associated with the development of alternative solutions poses a real hurdle, as does the buying behaviour of customers, which, contrary to what opinion polls may suggest, hasn’t shown a surge in demand for environmentally friendly products.
Research has shown that sustainable consumerism can only prevail if it is promoted by the state, for example with energy saving home appliances or light bulbs. Let’s accept reality: where it is left to the market whether green products prevail or not, sustainable products never make it beyond niche status.
State regulation can take different forms. Bans are one option, like the ones the EU has introduced for single use cutlery or plastic straws. Another option is taxes, as is being currently discussed for all plastic packaging. A third option uses parameters and quotas for recycling. The German Packaging Act, coming into force on 1 January 2019, stipulates pre-defined quota to reach an increase in recycling from the previously required 36 per cent to 63 per cent in the year 2022. The new EU plastics strategy stipulates that all plastics packaging must be recyclable by 2030. Similar measures are planned for the US, where the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division recently published its plans.
Recycling within the framework of a circular economy is the only long term, sustainable solution in order to reduce plastics waste in nature. The EU has recognised this with its new plastics strategy. The necessary collection and recycling systems go together with a value rating system which is bureaucratic and costly but will be a valuable guidance tool. Currently, recycling systems such as ‘Der grüne Punkt’ in Germany only consider the disposal costs of a pack. In the future, recycling properties also have to be considered. Packaging that can easily be recycled receives a bonus, poorly recyclable packaging receives a malus. The European Union has announced a suggestion to such a system for the coming year.
The EU’s plastic strategy has recognised that solving this problem can be a lucrative business model. Investing in innovative, new technologies protects citizens and environment, keeps industry competitive and creates new growth opportunities. The EU plastics strategy was not devised by the EU’s Environmental Bureau alone, but also included business departments. This happened for a reason. According to recent reports, the Chinese share of patents granted worldwide for circular economy technology grew on average by 13 per cent per year between 2010 and 2014.
Due to the fact mentioned above that three billion people don’t have access to controlled waste disposal, we have to export and share our own, innovative systems. Regulation and aid have to go hand in hand, especially in regions where public money is scarce.
3. The supply chain must accept responsibility
Whether or not we will manage to get to grips with the global problem of uncontrolled plastic waste depends on companies within the supply chain who must provide solutions with innovations and by involving consumers. This includes product and packaging manufacturers as well as retail.
Innovations in technology, material and processes are the foundation of the circular economy, creating the necessary possibilities and recycling convenience for consumers. Only solutions that are easy to carry out and that fit seamlessly into peoples’ lives will be successful.
According to a current survey in Germany, almost 60 per cent feel that they’re not sufficiently informed about packaging. Therefore, it is comes as no surprise that packaging in general has a bad image and is wrongly judged with regards to its eco balance. At the same time, over 30 per cent of people surveyed failed to correctly dispose of used packaging, a figure that rose to over 45 per cent in the age group of under 24s.
Retail, product- and packaging manufacturers should provide more and better information. Brands should routinely consider packaging as part of their product and make information about materials, functionality and recyclability more accessible for everybody. Retail should use its strong, direct contact with consumers and push forward innovative collection and recycling solutions.
First and foremost, thinking and acting in closed loops has to be implemented and established as standard. Sustainability is more than disposal, it is key to look at the big picture.
4. Circular economy and closed loops
The currently common distinction of single use and reusable packaging does not go far enough. Each pack should be collected and recycled after consumption.
A good example for how innovative, sustainable solutions can be pushed by the supply chain is the PET bottle. The immediate collection through retail in the shape of deposit return schemes resulted in a particular purity of collected materials, which makes recycling simple and efficient. Even though this is not feasible for all types of packaging, there are plenty of opportunities that are currently not being taken advantage of, for example in the areas of plastic trays and cups.
This also solves the problem mentioned above that solutions should be convenient for the consumer. In times of communicative overload, educating consumers requires a lot of effort. Transparent, closed loops focusing on recyclable materials and automated separation technologies appear to be the most productive solution.
The basis for a successful circular economy remains the practical, efficient recyclability of products.
5. Design for recycling: post-consumption is pre-consumption
In the past, packs were developed according to different criteria. Cost (for purchase and disposal, the total cost of ownership), performance (machinability, barrier, resealability) and environment.
Up until recently, environmental consideration played a small part. Following a short (and very expensive) phase of environmental performance evaluations, some retail brands focus on CO2 and carbon footprint. Experience shows that it is difficult and almost impossible to grasp environmental impact in its totality and use as development criteria for packaging.
In recent years, the discussion focus has shifted from climate change to the waste problem. The ‘Design for Recycling’ principle seizes this point by not focusing on diverse environmental or disposal costs, but recyclability. This gives the topic of packaging sustainability an entirely new drive.
Design for Recycling puts the recyclability of a pack in focus from the very start. Engineers and designers now start development with the end in mind.
Design agency Berndt+Partner has focused on sustainable solutions for ten years, and founder Professor Dieter Berndt was involved in the first packaging directive at the beginning of the 1990s. For us, design for recycling in the context of convenient technological solutions is a key tool for avoiding future problems. Marketers need clear guidelines and evaluation criteria, which is being worked out with the bonus-malus system mentioned above.
Furthermore, recyclates for high value applications have to actually be used. Berndt+Partner is running several pilot projects. In a multi-client study, we examined the use of recyclates for high value packaging applications. The result showed that the issue wasn’t demand from brand owners, but the supply. The recyclate should become a business model for disposal firms, and it absolutely has the potential to do so. Design for Recycling can create or optimise requirements, by securing recyclate quality and quantity.
6. Beyond the circular economy
A recent survey of European brand manufacturers showed that sustainability has become a number one trend topic in 2018. It would not go far enough to reduce this mega trend to environmental protection or the circular economy. It involves a lot more, including second or third generation bio plastics and renewable resources in general. Last but not least, we also have to focus on consumer protection.
Berndt + Partner therefore adds a fourth R to the classic three (reduce, recycle, renewables): risk reduction. We introduced a traffic light system which reduces material risks and avoid critical substances, even if they aren’t regulated or banned yet. At the same time, we use a sustainability business tool, which means optimising packaging sustainability in all steps of development.
https://packagingeurope.com/business-case-for-sustainability-6-points/

Return to headline | Return to top
Watchdog to Exit as Pruitt Probes Continue

Sep 18, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Kevin Bogardus

EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins announced his retirement today, leaving after a high-profile year in which his office opened up review after review into former Administrator Scott Pruitt's scandal-plagued tenure.
"It has been my great honor and privilege to serve the American people in this role for more than eight years," Elkins said in a statement. "I am grateful for the outstanding team of auditors, investigators and other professionals who comprise the Office of Inspector General, and for the opportunity to have earned the trust of a wide array of stakeholders relying on the integrity of the OIG's independence."
His last day will be Oct. 12.
Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler thanked Elkins "for his service to the Environmental Protection Agency and commitment to public service and accountability."
"Art has honorably and professionally carried out the duties of Inspector General of EPA to ensure proper oversight of the agency as well as his prior duties in the Office of General Counsel," Wheeler said. "We wish him well."
The IG office said Elkins had taken a job outside government, although it did not say where.
With Elkins leaving the IG job, President Trump will have to nominate his successor who will have to be confirmed by the Senate. In the meantime, Elkins' deputy, Charles Sheehan, will serve as acting IG.
Nominated by President Obama, Elkins was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote to run the EPA watchdog office. He started as inspector general for EPA and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board on June 25, 2010.
Before becoming IG, Elkins was an associate general counsel in the EPA Office of General Counsel.
He also held other federal legal positions, including chief legal officer and general counsel for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, counsel to the National Science Foundation's inspector general, and counsel in the Defense Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals. Before joining the federal government, he worked as an assistant prosecuting attorney and assistant public defender in Ohio's Cuyahoga County.
Elkins' exit is another prominent departure for the IG office in recent months. Patrick Sullivan, who led investigations for the watchdog office, retired this summer (Greenwire, Aug. 3).
The inspector general still has several pending reviews related to Pruitt, who himself resigned in July after facing allegations of exorbitant spending and mismanagement.
EPA IG spokesman Jeff Lagda told E&E News those ongoing reviews tied to Pruitt "will not be impacted by" Elkins' retirement.
As inspector general, Elkins and his staff sought to uncover wasteful spending and wrongdoing at EPA. His office worked on investigations that grabbed national attention, like the case of John Beale, a former EPA official who impersonated a CIA spy and ended up serving jail time.
In a 2014 interview with E&E News, Elkins compared his team to a newspaper trying to dig up facts and share them with the public (Greenwire, Feb. 20, 2014).
"Our product is our reports that go out," Elkins said. "Our audience is the world and anybody who's interested in it, the primary customers being the agency, Congress, the American taxpayer, but anybody that has an interest in what the EPA does, which is probably every U.S. citizen."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/09/18/stories/1060098269

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Watchdog to Step Down as Scott Pruitt Probes Continue

Sep 18, 2018 | Roll Call

By Elvina Nawaguna

The EPA’s inspector general, who led multiple investigations into former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s spending and management practices at the agency, will leave in October, his office announced Tuesday.
Arthur A. Elkins Jr., who has been EPA inspector general since 2010, said in a news release that he will retire on Oct. 12, but did not indicate whether his departure is related to issues at the agency. Before becoming inspector general, Elkins worked as associate general counsel in the EPA’s Office of General Counsel.
Elkins has overseen nearly a dozen investigations into several allegations surrounding Pruitt’s ethical and spending habits at the agency, at times contradicting the then administrator. Some of the probes remain underway.
“The IG is retiring because he has accepted a position outside the federal government,” Jeffrey Lagda, a spokesman for the EPA OIG, said in an email. “His departure on Oct 12 will absolutely not have an impact on any of the OIG’s ongoing reviews related to former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.” He did not identify Elkins’ new employer.
In May, while Pruitt was battling questions about his alleged exorbitant spending of taxpayer dollars on round-the-clock security, Elkins wrote to lawmakers saying his office had not signed off on the security detail used by the administrator.
While appearing just days earlier before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Appropriations Interior-Environment subcommittee, Pruitt had cited a report from Elkins’ office to explain and justify his use of the 24-hour security detail that also followed him on personal travel to the Rose Bowl and Disneyland.
Pruitt’s office had said the level of security was necessary after a determination that the administrator faced an increased level of threats from the public, including at airports and on social media.
But Elkins wrote that the round-the-clock security for Pruitt had been requested on Pruitt’s first day at the agency and his office had had no hand in that decision.
More recently, on Sept. 4, the OIG found that the EPA spent $3.5 million on Pruitt’s security in the first 11 months at the agency compared to $1.6 for his predecessor for the same period. Pruitt resigned from the agency in July as the OIG and congressional probes of his activities continued.
Democratic lawmakers can be expected to insist that the probes be followed to their conclusion.
“It is crucial that whoever fills this role continues the critical investigations surrounding former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s brazen abuse of his official position and taxpayer-funded resources at the agency for personal gain and enrichment,” Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in an email. “The person holding the title of Inspector General may change, but the need to get the American people the answers they deserve is the same.”
A spokesman for Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso said the Wyoming Republican believes that the inspector general plays a critically important role at the agency.
“Once the president has nominated a candidate, the Chairman would like to see the Senate consider the nomination quickly,” the aide said in an email.
Deputy Inspector General Charles Sheehan will replace Elkins in an acting role until a replacement is confirmed by the Senate.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/epa-watchdog-scott-pruitt-probes-continue

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Passes CR, Signaling Impasse on EPA Budget

Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA

The Senate has passed a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that will avert a government shutdown until at least Dec. 7, signaling that lawmakers have been unable to agree on an EPA funding bill for fiscal year 2019 following Democrats' comments at a hearing last week that environmental riders had “plagued” negotiations up to that point.
Senators approved the CR by a vote of 93-7 together with H.R. 6175, which is a “minibus” spending measure that sets FY19 spending levels for the defense, education, labor and health and human services departments.
That vote leaves the EPA minibus, which will also cover general government spending, as well as financial services and the departments of agriculture, housing, interior and transportation, as the only FY19 spending bill left for legislators to resolve -- but also signals that they do not expect to reach a deal by the end of FY18 on Sept. 30, and thus will need a CR to avoid a shutdown when current funds expire.
“This is necessary to ensure that we do not face a government shutdown in the event that we do not finish our work on the remaining bills,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told the Washington Post.
During a Sept. 13 meeting of the conference committee negotiating the EPA minibus, House and Senate Democrats warned that Republicans' insistence on including environmental policy riders limiting or outright revoking Obama-era rules the party opposes risked creating a stalemate on the bill.
“If we are to have any hope of avoiding a continuing resolution on these bills, House Republicans must drop their insistence on poison-pill riders that threaten our air and water, and weaken protections for American consumers. Until that happens, we will be forced to keep the important domestic priorities in these bills in a holding pattern,” Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, said in her opening statement.
Riders in the House version of the minibus include repealing the 2015 Obama EPA rule defining Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction; barring enforcement of EPA's oil and gas methane rule; and preventing the agency from using the use of the social cost of carbon in policy decisions, among others.
Past years' EPA bills have consistently failed in the Senate because of Democratic opposition to such riders leaving them without the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.
The House is currently out of session, but will return Sept. 24 and appears likely to pass both the minibus and the CR -- though it is uncertain whether President Donald Trump, who has threatened to shut down the government if Congress does not fund his signature border wall, would be willing to sign the measure.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-passes-cr-signaling-impasse-epa-budget

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Industry Attorneys Expect More Lawsuits Against EPA's TSCA Measures

Sep 19, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Chemical industry attorneys are outlining aspects of the Trump administration's implementation of the revised toxics law that they expect to face future legal challenges from environmental groups and industry, ranging from the agency's section 6 bans of certain chemical uses to a proposed approach for gathering and evaluating data for reviews.
During Keller and Heckman LLP's Annual Chemical Control and Regulation Seminar in Washington, DC, the attorneys argued that EPA will likely face new lawsuits over its rules implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), noting that Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) has said that every aspect of the law is likely to face challenges.
The Trump administration's implementation of the June 2016 revised TSCA has been mired in controversy as environmentalists have charged that political officials in EPA's toxics office neutered proposed Obama-era approaches. EPA is currently defending its rules from environmentalists' lawsuits challenging several framework measures for determining what existing chemicals are on the market, and for prioritizing and reviewing those substances, but attorneys said additional lawsuits will likely target other aspects of the law for conducting chemical reviews.
Environmentalists last month dropped one lawsuit -- challenging a draft EPA plan for reviewing new chemicals -- after EPA made clear that it was not implementing the proposed review framework at issue. But they are still pursuing lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and in the District of Columbia Circuit, faulting the agency plans for evaluating existing chemicals and handling of confidential business information in resetting the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals.
Herb Estreicher, an attorney at the firm, said he expects EPA to eventually prevail in the 9th Circuit case, which he described as the most significant of the pending litigation.
But he added that he also expects environmentalists will re-up their opposition to EPA's new chemical review process, and are likely eyeing TSCA's seldom-used section 20 citizen suit provisions for litigation targeting both EPA and industry.
He said environmentalists could use the provision to seek to compel industry to file health and safety studies under TSCA section 8(e) substantial risk information reporting provision and to press EPA to use its section 6 authority to restrict certain uses of existing chemicals.
Environmental groups recently withdrew a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that challenged an EPA draft framework for reviewing new chemicals after the agency declined to implement the plan.
But Estreicher said environmentalists' recent criticism of certain new chemical approvals suggests that advocates are likely planning more challenges to EPA's still-evolving process for new chemical reviews.
“Environmental groups are remarkably active when it comes to section 5,” which governs new chemical reviews, Estreicher said, adding that advocates' attention to new approvals suggests they are picking their spot for a future lawsuit. “Environmental groups are parsing through all this stuff, so I think we'll see some litigation in the right circumstance.”
Systematic Review
The firm's James Votaw added that EPA's implementation of its plan for systematic gathering and review of scientific data to support chemical risk assessments is another area likely ripe for lawsuits, suggesting they could come from either industry or environmentalists.
He noted that “systematic review,” which seeks to provide a structured and documented process for transparent literature review and evaluation of the totality of information, is a complex process, which will inform the quality of agency risk assessments, and therefore potential industry acceptance or disagreement with required mitigation measures.
Environmentalists have already signaled strong opposition to EPA's systematic review guide, arguing in August comments that it mirrors the Trump administration's controversial science transparency plan, which they say seeks to block studies that could drive stricter rules.
And the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) warned in Aug. 16 comments to the agency that the systematic review framework could be vulnerable to legal challenges, noting that the agency's scoring approach to assessing study quality, “will lead to violations of EPA’s science obligations under TSCA [sections] 26(h), (i), and (k)."
The chemical sector has also argued that the guide does not go far enough. The American Chemistry Council welcomed the agency's effort, but noted that “critical concepts and methodologies that remain to be discussed or fully developed," and suggested the agency re-issue the guide with updates and allow for additional stakeholder feedback.
The guidance generally lays out a multi-part process for gathering and assessing relevant data, and eventually integrating the data into any risk evaluation -- the basis for possible future regulatory actions.
During the meeting, Estreicher backed EPA's defense of the lawsuit in the 9th Circuit challenging its approach to prioritizing and reviewing existing chemicals. He argued that courts will likely find EPA has discretion to limit the scope of uses in reviews of existing chemicals by limiting review of legacy risks it often lacks authority to mitigate.
Estreicher argued that the Chevron doctrine, under which courts defer to agencies' reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes, will likely “play a huge role” in the 9th circuit case, adding that EPA's position it is not required to consider legacy uses should be given deference, because TSCA is not clear.
Estreicher described advocates' push for EPA to consider legacy uses of existing chemicals as an effort to require the agency to conduct an aggregate assessment of a chemical's risk, which he says the law does not require.
“EPA has a good argument that that is not what Congress contemplated because the law provides EPA authority to look at aggregate exposures if it considers it appropriate,” he said, arguing that the language suggests discretion rather than a mandate to consider aggregate risk. “The argument that EPA has to look at a chemical as a whole in order to decide unreasonable risk doesn't really hold up."
Additionally, Estreicher argued that appellate judges are unlikely to require EPA to assess risks of legacy uses given that it would dramatically increase the workload the agency faces in conducting initial reviews under the new law and would mean assessing risks of exposures, such as of flame retardants in furniture, even though the agency lacks authority to issue a recall to address the risk.
“Many judges are really practical-minded,” Estreicher said. “I think the argument that 'we don't have authority to deal with those uses, so requiring us to evaluate leads nowhere' is a very strong and powerful argument,” he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-attorneys-expect-more-lawsuits-against-epas-tsca-measures

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Environment, Health Advocates Back Scrutiny of EPA Chemical Reviews

Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

Public health and environmental advocates support the EPA’s request to take another look at a regulation that would penalize anyone, from manufacturers to the advocates themselves, for omitting information about chemical risks.
The groups—including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; the Natural Resources Defense Council; Cape Fear River Watch; and Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments—filed a response Sept. 18 to an Environmental Protection Agency motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to have provisions of an agency regulation sent back to the agency for review.
The regulation at stake determines how companies can comply with the agency’s process for determining whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk of injuring people or the environment.
At the same time, the advocates want a court—not the Environmental Protection Agency—to determine whether the agency was right to give chemical companies discretion over the information that they share about potentially dangerous substances.
Court Review Concerns
Advocacy groups are worried they will lose their chance to have a court review parts of the EPA’s regulation (RIN:2070-AK20) on determining the risks of certain chemicals if the court sends them back to the agency for reconsideration.
Without the court’s intervention, the EPA could leave the rule as is, make changes that don’t resolve the groups’ concerns, or interpret the rule without revising it, according to the groups’ court filings.
The agency’s omission of three words, “by a manufacturer,” in the final rule means anyone—not just manufacturers—could be penalized for leaving out information about the chemical’s risks. The EPA asked the court to remove that provision of the rule while the agency reconsiders multiple other provisions.
Many industry associations intervened on behalf of the EPA, including the National Mining Association, American Petroleum Institute, and American Chemistry Council.
The EPA doesn’t comment on pending litigation, a spokesperson for the agency said.
The case is Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 17-72260, 9/18/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/environment-health-advocates-back-scrutiny-of-epa-chemical-reviews-1

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Two Maine Mayors Urge Congress to Reject Effort to Undo Local Pesticide Restrictions

Sep 19, 2018 | Press Herald

By Randy Billings

The mayors of Portland and South Portland are urging Congress to reject a provision in a wide-ranging farm bill that would nullify local anti-pesticide ordinances adopted in recent years.
In a joint opinion piece published Wednesday by The Hill, a news website focusing on national politics, Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling and South Portland Mayor Linda Cohen urged federal lawmakers to kill a provision of the farm bill passed by the House of Representatives that would make regulating pesticides the purview of the federal government.
“As elected officials, we strongly oppose congressional interference in our mandate to protect our communities’ health and environment,” the mayors wrote. “Here on the rocky coast of Maine, we live in a complex and fragile ecosystem that we strive to protect. We do not want the federal government to roll back our high standards and replace them with laws favorable to chemical corporations.”
The House and the Senate have passed different versions of the bill, which is now being reconciled by the Congressional Conference Committee. National environmental advocacy groups have said the pesticide industry spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and won significant concessions in the House bill, which passed by only a two-vote margin in June.
CropLife America, a group that represents the pesticide industry, listed the pesticide provision as one of its priorities in the legislation and applauded the House bill when it passed.
Chris Novak, CropLife America’s president and CEO, told Environmental Health News this month that the federal government conducts rigorous reviews of pesticide safety and shouldn’t be overruled by local governments. “Localities lack the staff resources and scientific expertise to conduct these reviews,” he said.
In their opinion piece, the local mayors said each community reviewed scientific information and heard from experts that pesticides have been linked to cancer and learning disabilities, among other health problems.
“While states have the right to restrict their local political subdivisions, the federal government does not and should not have the ability to tell our communities that we cannot offer our citizens greater public health protection,” the mayors wrote.
Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, D-1st District, spoke out on the House floor this summer against the pesticide provision as well as other parts of the House bill, saying it weakens environmental protections, among other things. Pingree has continued to urge passage of the Senate version, which would not undo local pesticide rules.
To date, at least 155 communities across the country, including 30 municipalities in Maine, have enacted local pesticide restrictions, according to the advocacy group Beyond Pesticides.
Anti-pesticide advocates have described the rules adopted by Portland and South Portland as two of the most restrictive, far-reaching and environmentally progressive anti-pesticide ordinances in the country.
In the fall of 2016, South Portland passed an ordinance that focused primarily on education over enforcement. Portland followed suit in January, but its ordinance allows fines of between $100 and $500 for scofflaws.
With few exceptions, both ordinances prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides and place a strong emphasis on public education and organic lawn care techniques. Only pesticides allowed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and classified as “minimum risk” by the Environmental Protection Agency are allowed, although waivers may be granted for public health, safety and environmental threats.
Both communities are phasing in their ordinances. South Portland’s ordinance already applies to public and private properties, but won’t apply to the South Portland Municipal Golf Course and the privately owned Sable Oaks Golf Club until May 1.
Portland’s ordinance currently covers city properties, excluding high-use athletic fields and golf courses. It will extend to private properties on Jan. 1 and cover high-use athletic fields in 2021.
On Monday night, Portland city councilors voted unanimously to approve a resolution opposing the federal pre-emption of local pesticide ordinances.
The resolution authorizes Strimling and Councilor Spencer Thibodeau to send a letter outlining the city’s position to Maine’s congressional delegation and ranking members of the Congressional Conference Committee, which is reconciling the House and Senate bills. Thibodeau leads the council committee that drafted the city’s pesticide ordinance.
So far, 60 local officials in 39 communities from 15 states have signed a letter opposing the change drafted by Beyond Pesticides, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit.
The federal threat to local restrictions on pesticide use comes after Gov. Paul LePage failed in a state-level attempt to pre-empt local authority regarding pesticides.
LePage floated a bill in 2017 that also was advanced in state houses across the country by a business-backed organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. The bill was drafted by one of ALEC’s task forces with pesticide industry members such as CropLife America, Dow AgroSciences and the American Chemistry Council. LePage tried again in March, but it was shot down by the Legislature’s State and Local Government Committee.
In their opinion column, the mayors of Portland and South Portland noted that a similar proposal by the pesticide industry was rejected by Congress in the 1980s, and that the pesticide industry also tried to strike down local regulations in court but lost a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/09/19/mayors-push-for-congress-to-reject-effort-to-void-local-pesticide-restrictions/

Return to headline | Return to top
Annual Retailer Report Card Will Rank a Dozen New Companies This Fall

Sep 18, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

By Mike Schade

As the federal government continues to roll back and undermine critical environmental and public health protections, we are amplifying our efforts in the marketplace to drive hazardous chemicals out of our homes and communities through our Mind the Store campaign.
One way we continue to do that is through our annual Who’s Minding the Store? retailer report card, which benchmarks the progress of the nation’s biggest retailers toward requiring products they sell utilize safer chemicals for consumers and workers. Last year, we expanded the report card from eleven to thirty retailers.
This year, we are expanding the campaign and report card once again, challenging an even larger universe of retailers to use their market power and influence to eliminate toxic chemicals, substitute them with safer alternatives, and develop comprehensive safer chemicals policies. By publicly ranking the nation’s biggest retailers, our aim is to spur a race to the top to drive the development of safer and healthier products free of hazardous chemicals.
There’s no question that our strategy is working. In 2017, seven out of eleven companies we scored in 2016 announced significant improvements to chemicals management, with a number of companies announcing new chemical policies for the first time ever. That is happening once again in 2018. Over the last few months, we have seen retailers like Trader Joe’s, Target, Lowe’s, The Home Depot, and Walmartexpand their efforts to tackle toxic chemicals. Case in point: just last week Rite Aid announced a new safer chemicals policy and an expanded restricted substance list for the first time ever. We expect other retailers like Amazon and Walgreens to announce chemicals policies in the months ahead.The dozen new retailers being ranked this November
This year’s report card will evaluate 12 new retailers or 40 companies in total.1 These businesses are leaders in their respective sectors and have the power and responsibility to get tough on toxic chemicals. The campaign is expanding the report to rank an apparel chain, a dollar store chain, an array of grocery stores (including a couple based in Canada), and, for the first time, six of the nation’s largest restaurant and fast food chains. Here are the new companies we are evaluating:
Apparel storeNordstromDollar Store chain99 Cents OnlyGrocery storesAldi (Aldi Sud)LoblawsPublixSobeysRestaurant / fast food chainsMcDonald’sPanera BreadRestaurant Brands International (Burger King, Popeyes, Tim Hortons)StarbucksSubwayYum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell)
Cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals can be found in many types of products commonly sold by all of these retailers. We are including restaurant and fast food chains for the first time given the prevalence of chemicals like PFAS, phthalates, and bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging and the food supply. This follows letters we recently sent to over 75 of the nation’s top grocery and restaurant chains. These chains can play an important role in getting these hazardous chemicals out of food. This year we are also including two chains based in Canada to expand the geographic scope of the report card.
This year’s report card will once again come out just in time for the holiday shopping season to help consumers understand which companies are retail leaders and who are laggards.
With the federal government failing to protect consumers, communities, and workers from toxic hazards, in the months and year ahead we will continue amplifying our campaign to challenge retailers to meet the rising consumer demand for safe and healthy products.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/09/18/annual-retailer-report-card-will-rank-a-dozen-new-companies-this-fall/

Return to headline | Return to top
US NGO Adds 12 Companies to Retailer Ranking Campaign

Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Leigh Stringer

An NGO-led campaign in the US that evaluates the efforts of retailers to eliminate chemicals of concern has added 12 more companies to its rankings.
The Mind the Store coalition of NGOs has produced a 'retailer report card' for the past two years, rating companies on criteria such as chemical policy, transparency and continuous improvement. Its 2018 report card will be published in November.
Speaking at Chemical Watch's Safer Chemicals in Products conference in Boston, campaign director Mike Schade revealed that the scheme now assesses 40 companies (see box). However, 41 individual evaluations will be carried out because Amazon and Whole Foods will be assessed separately, despite the former buying the latter last year. Following its bankruptcy, Toys R Us has been removed from the rankings.
Companies with the largest market shares in their sectors are included. Another factor is when a growing number of studies reveal health and environmental concerns over certain chemicals in products. The additional companies are:apparel store – Nordstrom;dollar store chain – 99 Cents Only;grocery stores – Aldi (Aldi Sud), Loblaws, Publix, Sobeys; andrestaurant/fast food chains – McDonalds, Panera Bread, Restaurant Brands International (Burger King, Popeyes, Tim Hortons), Starbucks, Subway, Yum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell).Packaging
For the first time, the report card is evaluating companies in the fast food and restaurant sector. This, says Mr Schade, is because of the growing concern over certain chemicals in food packaging, food contact materials and the wider food supply chain.
He says the companies' evaluation will focus on their policies to address three chemical groups in their food contact materials. These are:PFAS;phthalates; andbisphenols.
"Scientific evidence around these chemical groups has been growing significantly and a major route of exposure is through food and food contact materials," Mr Schade says.
"McDonalds and Starbucks can play an important role in driving chemicals of concern out of the food chain," Mind the Store's Mike Schade
"The restaurant and fast food industry has for far too long turned a blind eye to these particular issues and we think companies such as McDonalds and Starbucks can play an important role in driving chemicals of concern out of the food chain," he adds.Expansion
The team behind the campaign is looking at the possibility of expanding the scheme to cover sectors outside the US market. In this round of additions, two Canadian companies have been included for the first time – Loblaws and Sobeys.
However, Mr Schade says for now it is "laser focused" on evaluating the current 40 companies and his team has not yet scoped out future plans.
"In the near future, we will likely add more companies and sectors to the report card to drive chemicals of concern out of global supply chains," he says. Ranked companies
Apple; Walmart; CVS Health; Ikea; Target; Best Buy; The Home Depot; Costco Wholesale; Albertsons; Rite Aid; Buy Buy Baby; Staples; Amazon (and Whole Foods); Sephora; Dollar Tree; Kroger; Walgreens; Lowe's; Ultra Beauty; Macy's; Ace Hardware; Ahold Delhaize; Dollar General; Kohl's; Office Depot; Sally Beauty; TJX Companies; Trader Joe's.
Newly added: Nordstrom; 99 Cents Only; Aldi (Aldi Sud); Loblaws; Publix; Sobeys; McDonalds; Panera Bread; Restaurant Brands International (Burger King, Popeyes, Tim Hortons); Starbucks; Subway; Yum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell).
https://chemicalwatch.com/70358/us-ngo-adds-12-companies-to-retailer-ranking-campaign

Return to headline | Return to top
Monsanto Fights to Get $289m Verdict Tossed or a New Trial

Sep 18, 2018 | Law 360

By Bonnie Eslinger

Bayer AG-acquired Monsanto asked a California court Tuesday to set aside a $289 million jury verdict for a man who said its Roundup weed killer caused his cancer, arguing there wasn’t enough evidence to support his claims and asking the court for a ruling in its favor or a new trial.

Late Tuesday, Monsanto made two filings to the court, including one for “judgment notwithstanding the verdict,” asking the court to vacate the jury’s decision and replace it with a ruling from the bench.

“The scientific evidence in this case falls far short of the sufficient and substantial evidence required to sustain this verdict,” Monsanto states in its motion.

Monsanto has produced the glyphosate-based herbicides at issue in the case for more than 40 years, the company told the court.

“These herbicides have a safety record supported by a body of studies more extensive than almost any other chemical in regular use anywhere,” the company states, adding that the safety studies include those required by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European regulators, along with studies by independent scientists.

“Under these circumstances, a jury verdict proclaiming that the formulation caused plaintiff’s cancer and that Monsanto’s behavior in relying on the science and the regulators was so egregious as to warrant a $250 million punitive damages award requires exceptional scrutiny,” the company states in its motion.

The evidence didn’t show that the herbicides cause cancer, nor did it show that Monsanto’s executives or managing agents acted with “malice or oppression” in marketing the product, which has been certified by regulatory authorities as not carcinogenic, Monsanto argues.

In its accompanying motion for a new trial, Monsanto says that the $250 million punitive damages award is nearly five times the largest punitive award ever upheld on appeal in California, according to Monsanto. The company notes that during the trial, the judge called the plaintiff’s evidence supporting punitive damages “thin” and said, “I’ll have to reconsider, depending on what the jury does with that.” It’s time to do that, Monsanto tells the court.

The compensatory award is also excessive, the company contends.

“Awarding $1 million per year for future non-economic losses for 33 years, as plaintiff’s counsel requested and the jury awarded, is irreconcilable with plaintiff’s own evidence that his life expectancy is between six months and two years,” Monsanto states.

If the verdict is not thrown out in its entirety, the damage awards should be substantially reduced, the company says.

Monsanto also argues in its motion for a new trial that there was prejudicial misconduct by the plaintiff’s attorney that ”improperly inflamed the jury," including a closing statement by counsel that if the damages awarded were “not significant enough, champagne corks will pop" as Monsanto executives celebrate.

Instead, the jury held in its Aug. 10 decision that Roundup and Ranger Pro herbicides contributed to school groundskeeper DeWayne "Lee" Johnson's lymphoma.

After three days of deliberations, the jury said it found that Monsanto's herbicides were unsafe and a substantial factor in causing harm to Johnson. The jury also found that Monsanto didn’t adequately warn customers of the risks associated with its Roundup and stronger Ranger Pro products, and determined that the company acted with malice or oppression.

They awarded Johnson $250 million in punitive damages and $39.25 million in compensatory damages.

The verdict capped a months-long trial, the first of its kind Monsanto has defended. Johnson sued Monsanto in 2016, claiming the company has known of the health risks associated with its herbicides since at least the 1990s — when studies began showing a correlation between the products and lymphoma — but did not put a warning label on its products. As a result, Johnson said he thought they were safe to use in his job as a groundskeeper at a San Francisco Bay Area school district. During trial, Johnson testified that as a groundskeeper he sprayed 150 gallons of Ranger Pro per day on five school campuses, including football and baseball fields, 20 to 30 days a year.

Experts hired by Johnson's attorneys — including an oncologist, a toxicologist and National Institutes of Health scientist — took the stand, detailing links between the herbicides’ active ingredient, glyphosate, and lymphoma, which were laid out in a 2015 study conducted by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

An agricultural economist also testified that since 2001, glyphosate has become one of the top used herbicides worldwide, tripling from about 90 million pounds in 2001 to over 290 million pounds in 2012.

Monsanto’s experts disputed the IARC's findings, including an epidemiologist who testified that multiple epidemiological studies over the past two decades show no causal link between glyphosate and cancer.

Monsanto has faced a slew of lawsuits following the World Health Organization’s 2015 determination. Two weeks after the jury’s verdict in the Johnson case, the head of Bayer AG said that there are now 8,000 lawsuits in the U.S. against Monsanto over its glyphosate-based weed-killers. The company had previously disclosed that there were 5,200 lawsuits against Monsanto, which it acquired in a $62 billion deal earlier this summer.

Attorneys for Johnson were not reachable late Tuesday for comment on Monsanto’s filings.

Bayer released a news statement saying it stands behind the Monsanto products and will “vigorously” defend them.

“While we are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family, glyphosate is not responsible for his illness, and the verdict in this case should be reversed or set aside,” Bayer said.

Johnson is represented by Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC and David Dickens of The Miller Firm LLC.

Monsanto is represented by George C. Lombardi and James M. Hilmert of Winston & Strawn LLP, Sandra Edwards and Joshua W. Malone of Farella Braun & Martel LLP and Joe G. Hollingsworth, Eric G. Lasker and Kirby T. Griffis of Hollingsworth LLP, and K. Lee Marshall of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

The state case is Johnson v. Monsanto Co. et al., case number CGC16550128, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The MDL is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02741, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
https://www.law360.com/lifesciences/articles/1084111/monsanto-fights-to-get-289m-verdict-tossed-or-a-new-trial

Return to headline | Return to top
Rotterdam Convention Committee Recommends Measures for Four Chemicals

Sep 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch

A committee of the UN's Rotterdam Convention has recommended the listing of two industrial chemicals and two pesticides.
The Rotterdam Convention governs the prior informed consent (Pic) of the importation and exportation of hazardous chemicals.
The 14th meeting of its Chemical Review Committee concluded on 13 September in Rome. It recommended listing in Annex III of the convention the industrial chemicals:hexabromocyclododecane, used in flame retardants and polystyrene foam insulation; andperfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related compounds, widely used in domestic non-stick cooking ware and food-processing appliances, surface treatment agents in textiles, paper and paints, and firefighting foams.
The two pesticides were phorate and acetochlor.
Annex III listing makes a chemical subject to the Pic procedure. This obtains and disseminates importers' decisions on whether they want to receive future shipments of chemicals in the annex and ensures exporters comply with those decisions.
A decision on whether to list the chemicals will be taken at the next Meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COPs) in Geneva from 29 April to 10 May 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70349/rotterdam-convention-committee-recommends-measures-for-four-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Latest Us Producer to Announce Additional October PE Price Hike: Letter

Sep 18, 2018 | Platts

By Chris Ferrell

ExxonMobil Chemical on Tuesday became the latest producer to announce additional North American polyethylene price increases for October, according to a letter to customers obtained by S&P Global Platts.
ExxonMobil plans to raise its October prices by 3 cents/lb for all grades of polyethylene, in addition to a 3-cent increase being sought for September, the letter said.
The move is similar to an increase announced Monday by Equistar Chemicals. Ineos Olefins & Polymers USA last week told customers it would raise its October prices for high density polyethylene by 2 cents/lb in October, on top of a previously announced 3-cent increase for September.
US producers announced the 3-cent increase, which was rolled to September, after multiple unsuccessful attempts to implement hikes.
Dow Chemical currently has a 5-cent increase on the table, combining the 3-cent increase with a previously announced 2-cent increase for September.
The attempts to raise prices comes on the heels of decreases in August, and as total polyethylene stocks were slightly higher in August even as total sales grew by 6% compared with July, preliminary American Chemistry Council data showed last week.
Sources have attributed the latest attempt to increase prices to shrinking margins as upstream ethane and ethylene prices firm.
US domestic high density polyethylene contract prices were assessed unchanged week on week September 12 at 63.5-64.5 cents/lb ($1,400-$1,422/mt) delivered rail-car basis for blowmolding, 63.5-64.5 cents/lb ($1,400-$1,422/mt) for injection, and 66.5-67.5 cents/lb ($1466-$1,488/mt) for film.
Domestic linear low-density butene contracts were also assessed unchanged week on week at 61.5-62.5 ($1,345-$1,377/mt) delivered rail-car basis, while low density contracts were unchanged week on week at 75.5-76.5 cents/lb ($1,665-$1,87/mt) delivered rail car basis.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/091818-exxonmobil-latest-us-producer-to-announce-additional-october-pe-price-hike-letter

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump’s Trade War Escalation Puts U.S. Energy in Crosshairs

Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Stapczynski

U.S. gas is under threat as a trade war with China escalates.
China may target American liquefied natural gas in retaliation for a fresh round of duties announced Sept. 17 by the U.S. While the Asian nation last month said it was considering a 25 percent tariff on the fuel, it hadn’t yet provided any details when it vowed Sept. 18 to take new action.
The move would be a setback for a burgeoning energy relationship that was on track to be a boon for both economies. The move would also add new pressure on the U.S. LNG industry, which is competing with Russia, Australia and Qatar for market share in China, the world’s biggest gas buyer. Just last year, U.S. officials were courting Chinese companies to invest in new export projects.
The tariffs would signal how much pain Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump are willing to endure not to back down from a trade fight. Trump risks stifling the U.S. gas export industry, which is seeking an estimated $139 billion to fund more than a dozen projects, while Xi threatens to raise the cost of his drive to eliminate smog by burning less coal.
“Chinese companies will have an aversion to investing in U.S. LNG projects in the short term” if tariffs are imposed, said Saul Kavonic, Credit Suisse Group AG’s director of Asia energy research. “Australia and Qatar’s LNG sectors will benefit from being seen as a lower risk source of supply by customers in the world’s fastest growing LNG market, at least over the near term.”
Booming Demand
China’s push to use more natural gas is driving global demand growth, with LNG imports jumping 47 percent in the first seven months of the year. Though it’s the third-largest buyer of U.S. cargoes, American supply made up a little less than 6 percent of purchases over that period, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. If U.S. companies can seize 20 percent of the market by 2030, it could lower the trade deficit with China by $50 billion, Bernstein estimates.
Higher oil prices and a surge in LNG demand have reignited interest in export ventures, with about 15 U.S. projects targeting final investment decision this year and next, the most of any nation, according to Bloomberg NEF. Projects have been seeking investments or off-take agreements from China, which earlier this year topped Japan as the world’s biggest gas importer.
“It is hard to see any of these hopeful projects getting another Chinese buyer signed up for long-term volumes” if China slaps tariffs on U.S. gas, Trevor Sikorski, an analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd., said by email. “Given China is a huge part of global LNG demand growth, that is a big headwind for these new projects.”
Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., which is yet to make a final investment decision of the $4.35 billion Magnolia LNG project in Louisiana, expects Chinese buyers will wait for uncertainty on tariffs to be removed before signing contracts, Chief Executive Officer Greg Vesey said Sept. 17 at an industry conference in Barcelona.
Exporting nations such as Australia and Qatar could benefit from the trade tensions, according to Xizhou Zhou, an analyst at IHS Markit.
“You have two important parties in the LNG market—one is a very important large buyer, one is an important large supplier—less likely to negotiate with each other,” he said by phone. “So Qataris, Australians will have less competition when it comes to the Chinese market for long-term contracts. ”
The GasLog Greece, which left Cheniere Energy Inc.’s liquefied natural gas export terminal in Louisiana on Aug. 15 en route to China, changed its destination mid-journey to South Korea. It was one of at least two U.S. LNG shipments heading for China during the past month. The other ship, Rioja Knutsen, arrived Sept. 3 at Tianjin.
More than a month ago, state-owned PetroChina Co. contemplated temporarily halting purchases of U.S. gas and increasing buying from other nations, while ENN Group, a private gas distributor and burgeoning LNG importer, decided not to buy any supplies from the U.S. this winter, Bloomberg reported last month.
Most LNG cargoes are sold at a price linked oil, whereas U.S. supplies are often priced off domestic gas prices, which have declined about 4 percent this year. China’s decision comes as U.S. gas has become cheaper than oil-linked cargoes and amid the prospect of crude continuing to rise over the next few years. LNG spot prices in Northeast Asia this year have averaged the highest since 2014, at around $9.70 per million British thermal units. Prices last year surged on the back of China’s soaring consumption.
That’s why the tariffs are an especially cruel blow for companies backing prospective U.S. liquefied natural gas export terminals, including Tellurian Inc., Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. and Pembina Pipeline Corp. A 25 percent levy would lift U.S. LNG back above oil-linked costs.
On the other hand, that’s good news for energy giants that have LNG prospects outside the U.S. That includes Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp., which has ties to projects in Qatar, Papua New Guinea and Mozambique, and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, which is aiming to build a plant in western Canada, operates a project in Australia and has one of the world’s biggest LNG trading portfolios.
Exxon also signed a preliminary deal earlier this month to participate in a potential LNG import terminal in southern China, as well as supply it with gas. Separately, PetroChina inked a deal with Qatar to purchase 3.4 million tons of LNG annually, the Chinese company’s biggest supply deal yet. The agreement, which will start this month, could help China forgo some U.S. supplies during peak winter demand.
Merchant trading houses like Vitol SA, Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd. and Gunvor Group Ltd., may also be able to benefit by, for example, routing U.S. LNG to buyers including Japan and South Korea while selling Malaysian or Australian fuel meant for those markets to China instead, all with a little added mark-up for themselves.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trumps-trade-war-escalation-puts-us-energy-in-crosshairs

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. LNG Industry Groans Under Weight of New Tariffs

Sep 18, 2018 | PoliticoPro

By Ben Lefebvre

The escalating trade war with China is threatening to make the U.S. liquefied natural gas industry one of the biggest victims of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
China said today it would retaliate against the Trump administration’s $200 billion in new tariffs by imposing a 10 percent tariff on U.S. LNG shipments — a move U.S. energy companies say will make it more difficult to sign supply contracts with the fastest growing LNG consumer in the world.
“Any sort of tariff, given how tight the margins are and how competitive the market is, that cost is going to come back and make projects difficult to compete,” Charlie Riedl, head of trade association Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, said by phone from Barcelona, Spain, where he was attending an international LNG conference.
Even though China's initial tariff rate of 10 percent is lower than expected, the rising tensions between the U.S. and China could prompt Beijing to boost it to the 25 percent level it had threatened last month, Riedl said.
“We could get to that 25 percent number that would be terrible, that would make a lot of projects delayed or not even happen,” he said.
The new tariffs are the latest item on a list of Trump trade actions that have hurt the industry, according to Riedl and other industry sources.
Riedl said other gas exporting countries were poised to take advantage of the trade tensions between China and the U.S., with conference attendants from Qatar and Russia touting their supply increases that are aimed at the Chinese market.
“You have other LNG suppliers on record — the Qataris and others — saying they’ll increase production by 30 percent, and the Russians talking about investing enormous amounts of dollars to capture supply going into China,” Riedl said. “These things could have long term impact on U.S. LNG.”
Dan Eberhart, chief executive officer at oil and gas services company Canary LLC, said the escalating tensions threatened the LNG trade as well as U.S. oil exports, which China has also threatened with tariffs.
“If Beijing follows through with 25 percent tariffs on crude oil and products, it effectively shuts our producers out of the world’s fastest-growing energy market,” Eberhart told POLITICO. “China will find cheaper alternative supplies elsewhere.”
The industry last month warned that new tariffs would hurt its business plans.
Companies that have not completed export plants or pipelines were already dealing with rising prices for raw materials under Trump’s steel tariffs.
FERC, the agency responsible for approving export sites, hasn’t given the green light to a new export facility since the start of the Trump presidency.
“So far, no LNG projects have been approved since January 2017,” FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen said. “None of the 15 pending applications were ready for a final Commission decision as FERC staff continue their environmental and engineering reviews.”
FERC announced timelines at the end of August for 12 of the projects awaiting approval. But that likely won’t lead to approvals for at least another year, according to Kristy Kramer, director of consultancy Wood Mackenzie's gas research.
Nick Loris, energy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the pain in the LNG industry showed the unintended consequences of trade wars.
“The longer this plays out and the longer these fears exist, there’s lost opportunity for U.S. producers to export their product,” Loris said. “It speaks to the fact that even when you aim to accomplish something, that being aiding exports, you end up hurting the ones you aimed to help.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/09/us-lng-industry-groans-under-weight-of-new-tariffs-795254

Return to headline | Return to top
China Tariff Threatens U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Boom

Sep 18, 2018 | Wall Street Journal

By Georgi Kantchev and Christopher M. Matthews

China’s move to impose tariffs on U.S. liquefied natural gas imperils the ability of a burgeoning industry to export the bounty of American shale.
Retaliating against new Trump administration tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods, China on Tuesday issued levies on $60 billion of U.S. products, including a 10% tariff on liquefied natural gas, known as LNG.
Shares of...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.

Story can be found here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-tariff-threatens-u-s-liquefied-natural-gas-boom-1537302659?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Administration Formally Rolls Back Rule Aimed at Limiting Methane Pollution

Sep 18, 2018 | New York Times

By Lisa Friedman

The Trump administration on Tuesday effectively reversed a regulation designed to prevent methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, from escaping into the atmosphere during oil and gas operations.
In the long-expected move, the Interior Department finalized its new rule, replacing one proposed by former President Barack Obama in the final days of his administration, that would have reduced leaking, venting and flaring of methane from drilling activity on federal and tribal land. The new regulation essentially reinstates the approximately 30-year-old guidelines that were in place when President Trump won the 2016 election.
It’s the Trump administration’s fourth major environmental rollback effort this year, coming after a plan to weaken greenhouse gas rules for power plants, an end to a rule requiring cars to be cleaner and more efficient, and a separate measure making it easier for companies to avoid monitoring and repairing methane leaks. Together the rules effectively put an end to the United States’ most significant regulatory efforts to address global warming.
“This is really about fulfilling our commitments to the policy vision that the president has established,” David Bernhardt, deputy secretary of the Interior Department, said Tuesday. He noted that Mr. Trump, in an executive order in March, had directed the Interior Department to reconsider the Obama-era rule and others that “unduly burden” the development of domestic energy resources.
Mr. Bernhardt and Kate MacGregor, deputy chief of staff for policy at the Interior Department, said the new measures would help the industry avoid costly and duplicative red tape. Ms. McGregor described the plan, to be overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, an arm of the agency, as “smart regulations that harness domestic energy production but do so responsibly.”
Environmental activists called the new rule a gift to the oil and gas industry. “This is a complete dismantling of federal methane regulation in the United States,” said Matt Watson, associate vice president of the energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit environmental group.
Both methane rules are expected to face legal challenges, setting the stage for a battle over the coming months over how the federal government should monitor the oil and gas industry.
Methane is a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas that, along with carbon dioxide, is considered a primary driver of global warming. For the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere, it is about 86 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat. That effect weakens over the decades.
It is emitted into the atmosphere mostly from the burning of excess gas, known as flaring, as well as through leaks in gas wells, pumps and pipelines. Methane accounts for 9 percent of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions, and about a third of that is estimated to come from oil and gas operations.
The old rule, which never went into effect, would have required oil and gas companies to capture leaked methane, repair outdated leak-detection equipment and come up with new plans to reduce waste. Had it been finalized, it would have cut methane from the oil and gas sector by as much as 35 percent and helped the United States to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions goal under the global Paris Agreement on climate change.
The Trump administration has so far revised, rewritten or moved to repeal 76 environmental regulations, the vast majority of which would have helped curb climate change.
The Obama administration had argued the methane rule would have saved the United States about $188 million annually by allowing more natural gas to be sold and preventing the escape of methane and other pollutants. The oil and gas industry said it could cost as much as $279 million to implement and would hinder production.
Erik Milito, director of exploration and production with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobby group that opposed the rule, said if left in place the regulations would have discouraged new energy development. “The B.L.M. rule could have taken a lot of wells out of service, which is counter to what we’re trying to achieve here by making our country more self-reliant and less dependent on foreign sources,” he said.
Mr. Milito called the new rule “a positive step” though he said his organization was still reviewing the details.
The Obama-era regulation had already been the subject of several lawsuits. This year, the Interior Department lost a bid to suspend that rule while it worked to rescind it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/climate/trump-methane-rollback.html

Return to headline | Return to top
BLM's Final Methane Rule Reveal Draws Swift Legal Action

Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Pamela King

The states of California and New Mexico yesterday opened a new courtroom battle over Obama-era methane standards, hours after the Interior Department closed the book on its long effort to scale back the rule.
Bureau of Land Management officials yesterday revealed the language of its revisions to the 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule.
"Sadly, the flawed 2016 rule was a radical assertion of legal authority that stood in stark contrast to the long-standing understanding of Interior's own lawyers," said Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt. "The Trump administration is committed to innovative regulatory improvement and environmental stewardship, while appropriately respecting the clear and distinct authorities of the states, tribes, as well as the direction we receive from Congress."
The New Mexico and California attorneys general promptly sued Interior.
"With this attempt to axe the Waste Prevention Rule, the Trump administration risks the air our children breathe and at taxpayers' expense," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. "We've sued the administration before over the illegal delay and suspension of this rule and will continue doing everything in our power to hold them accountable to our people and planet."
In their lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the states contend that BLM under President Trump has violated multiple statutes in its unrelenting efforts to wipe the rule from the books.
The revised rule is a "shocking abdication" of the department's responsibilities, said David Hayes, former Interior deputy secretary in the Clinton and Obama administrations.
BLM's methane rule in the courts
"The final rule fails to forthrightly address the environmental and fiscal significance of the issue to federal and state authorities, the relatively minor costs of compliance, and the major climate- and health-related environmental benefits associated with commonsense restrictions on venting and flaring activities," said Hayes, who now serves as executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law.
BLM yesterday found that its revision would result in maximum total net benefits of roughly $1.08 billion over a decade. That benefit is rooted in reduced compliance costs for oil and gas operators.
"As environmental stewards and businessmen and women who live in the communities where they work, IPAA member companies strive to explore for and produce as much American oil and natural gas as possible, while always being mindful of the need to protect public lands and the environment," said Barry Russell, president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "The Trump administration's rule recognizes this fact and acknowledges the cost burden placed on companies that work and explore on federal lands."
The cost-benefit analysis for the revision rule applies a sharp discount on the social cost of emitting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
"The administration is turning its back on commonsense methane reduction standards that reduce wasteful energy flaring and protect the public from harmful smog-forming pollution," said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. "The current standards call for the use of known technologies and good industry practices to reduce wasteful methane leaks. The new rule would allow more flaring of methane gas — a valuable natural resource."
Allowing companies to release more natural gas into the atmosphere instead of capturing it for sale will result in at least $28.3 million in forgone royalty payments to taxpayers, BLM estimated.
"Today's final methane rule makes it painfully obvious that this administration is placing industry interests ahead of federal taxpayers," Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said in a statement yesterday. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke "has chosen to dismiss the problem of leaked, vented or flared gas from drilling operations on federal lands, costing taxpayers millions in lost revenue."
Industry groups applauded the changes.
"We are relieved that BLM's final rule has been released and that it actually addresses waste prevention," said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance. "The late 2016 Obama administration rule was all about regulating air quality, which is the job of EPA and the states under the Clean Air Act, not BLM, which has no air quality expertise or authority. The new regulation restores the rule of law while reducing waste of natural gas, which was supposed to be the intent of the original rule in the first place."
BLM's rule follows EPA's efforts last week to relax its New Source Performance Standards for new and modified oil and gas sources (see related story).
Royal Dutch Shell PLC followed EPA's announcement with a move to reduce methane leaks from its oil and gas operations (Energywire, Sept. 18).
Instead of viewing industry's efforts as a reason to cut back regulations, government officials should see those actions as indicators of industry's appetite to address their climate contributions, environmental groups said. Consistent federal regulations would require smaller operators to follow larger firms' lead, they said.
"When even the world's largest oil companies recognize the need for methane safeguards, reasonable people cannot pretend that the Trump administration is rolling them back in the public's interest they purport to serve," said Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel.Capitol Hill
BLM's announcement yesterday drew mixed reaction from Capitol Hill lawmakers.
Republicans in Congress last year pushed to unwind the Obama regulation under the Congressional Review Act, which requires a simple majority in the House and the Senate to support a resolution to disapprove a rule.
Although the House and Senate were under GOP control, the proposal fell short of the support it needed in the upper chamber (Greenwire, May 10, 2017).
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) called on Interior to follow Congress' lead.
"Even though Congress has already rejected an attack on the Obama-era methane rule, Secretary Zinke has ignored congressional intent and moved forward with this ill-advised scheme anyway," she said. "If this new rule is implemented, companies will be able to waste millions of dollars in taxpayer resources by releasing 180,000 tons of methane pollution per year into our air."
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said he was glad to see Interior find its own way to scrap the rule.
"Today's announcement fulfills the promise made by the Trump administration to remove regulatory hurdles on domestic energy production," he said in a statement yesterday. "The previous rule was founded on questionable legal theory and resulted in unnecessary costs."
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said the revision rule ignores the years of public input that went into the creation of the original rule.
"The methane rule was established with wide support after years of open dialogue and stakeholder involvement. And the evidence is clear: This rule has had no negative effect on job creation or on the booming U.S. oil and gas production on federal lands," he said. "That's why the methane rule was upheld by a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate — despite heavy lobbying from some in the oil and gas industry."
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) this year led a request that Interior officials hold public meetings on the BLM rule changes, as they did in the lead-up to the Obama regulation (Energywire, April 18, 2017).
"I'm disappointed to learn that BLM did not listen to the people of our state and went ahead with this rollback even after the Senate rejected it," Bennet said yesterday. "Today's decision only has downsides for the people of Colorado. It will lead to more pollution, waste more natural gas and decrease revenue for taxpayers.
"Worst of all, it will put the health of our communities at risk."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/19/stories/1060098313

Return to headline | Return to top
BLM Methane Rule Faces New Legal Fight In Wake Of Similar EPA Measure

Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

The Trump administration has finalized its plan to largely scrap several Obama-era provisions limiting releases of methane, the potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas development on public lands, setting up a new round of litigation with environmentalists who are already threatening to sue over similar EPA rollbacks.
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Sept. 18 final rule is the second of what many observers expect to be three broad steps by Trump officials to undo oil and gas methane rules, after EPA earlier released a proposal to scale back its new source performance standards (NSPS) imposing first-time methane limits on the sector.
In the wake of the BLM rule, many expect EPA to follow up with a more aggressive proposal replacing direct control of methane from new facilities with an approach focused on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that would likely preclude methane limits for existing sources.
“The BLM is rescinding the [2016 Obama rule's] novel requirements pertaining to to waste minimization plans, gas-capture percentages, well drilling, well completion and related operations, pneumatic controllers, pneumatic diaphragm pumps, storage vessels, and leak detection and repair (LDAR),” the bureau notes in the final version of its rule.
In addition, BLM “is revising the remaining provisions of the 2016 rule in a manner that largely reflects the BLM’s longstanding policies for venting and flaring that preceded the 2016 rule.”
Further, with respect to flaring of methane from oil wells, “the BLM will defer to appropriate State or tribal regulations in determining when such flaring will be royalty free.”
BLM officials on a Sept. 18 press call said the final BLM rule is consistent with the Trump administration's effort to remove burdens on domestic energy production, including on marginal wells that according to BLM analysis represent over two thirds of all wells on federal land. The bureau claims that the 2016 rule imposed “disproportionate” costs on marginal wells.
The officials also reiterated claims that the new rule would avoid duplicative requirements with EPA and other regulators, with Interior Department (DOI) policy official Kate MacGregor saying the measure recognizes “the role that states and EPA and especially the tribes” play in regulating air emissions.
MacGregor cited as as a major change in the final rule, compared to the proposal, the “building out the recognition of tribal sovereignty and their ability to work in partnership” under their authorities and under the Clean Air Act, a reference that appeared to cast the prior BLM requirements as overlapping with such authority.
In addition, DOI officials on the call justified the rule as avoiding what they argued was needless overlap with 10 state programs they claimed also address venting and flaring of methane, citing rules in New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, California, Montana, Texas Alaska and Oklahoma.
An early look at the regulatory text underscores that BLM is continuing to cite EPA's NSPS -- which is in the process of being scaled back -- as one reason why BLM should avoid duplicative requirements.
The 2016 rule “had many requirements that overlapped with the EPA’s regulations issued under the Clean Air Act,” the new regulation says.
It said the requirements in the prior rule were “informed by and were largely similar to EPA’s requirements,” and that the “practical effect” of that rule was to improperly translate requirements for new sources to existing sources on federal lands.
'Weak Federal Framework'
But BLM's explanations for its rollback have little chance of satisfying environmentalist and other critics, who see it as the latest regulatory giveaway to the fossil fuel sector that ignores the mounting risks of global warming as well as the impact of oil and gas emissions on local air quality.
That means the rule is certain to be added to a roster of Trump administration policies that will be fought out in lawsuits.
“At the same time the Trump administration is rolling back the BLM rule, it is attempting to eliminate the EPA methane rule,” Environmental Defense Fund said in a Sept. 18 statement. “If these proposals were to be successful, the result would be a weak federal framework that would reduce oil and gas methane emissions by no more than about 3 percent by 2025, according to EDF’s initial analysis.”
In Sept. 18 comments to Inside EPA, Natural Resources Defense Council's David Doniger similarly scoffs at the notion that the 2016 BLM rules duplicated EPA requirements, noting that they addressed both existing and new sources -- not just new sources.
“Existing sources, of course, are responsible for nearly all emissions now and will dominate for the foreseeable future,” Doniger says. “So there is no fallback for the rolled back requirements on existing sources.”
Doinger further notes that EPA's recent NSPS rollback proposal “cuts the frequency of leak detection in half and doubles repair times for leaks that are eventually discovered.” And he cites “rumors” that EPA will soon propose to drop regulation of methane entirely and revert to its 2012 standard for VOCs, which would not require existing source limits under section 111(d) of the air act.
“So this is a ploy to leave existing sources uncontrolled nationwide,” he says.
The final BLM rule comes after a narrowly unsuccessful effort in early 2017 to repeal the regulations under the Congressional Review Act.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), ranking member of the Appropriations spending panel with control over BLM's budget, called the final rule “another egregious giveaway to irresponsible polluters” that could lead to “more than $1 billion in wasted natural gas and pollution.”
Udall also urged states, including his own state of New Mexico, as well as “responsible natural gas producers” to “step up and act to stop methane emissions on their own, or natural gas risks losing out in the future clean energy economy.”
'Another Costly' Rule
However, BLM's new rule garnered praise from some industry groups, including the American Energy Alliance (AEA). “We are pleased to see the Trump administration taking an opportunity to reduce the burden of another costly and unnecessary regulation that threatens to derail efforts to achieve U.S. energy dominance,” AEA President Thomas Pyle said in a statement.
In line with prior industry criticisms of the Obama BLM rule, he characterized it not as a plan to minimize waste -- the Obama administration's rationale for the original requirements -- but as improper air emissions regulation. “The BLM has no authority over regulation of air emissions, which is more properly a function of the state governments as specified by the Clean Air Act.”
The newly final BLM rule could shore up the bureau's efforts to persuade a federal appellate court to dismiss litigation over the merits of the Obama-era rule, with the bureau in recent days citing its then-forthcoming regulatory rollback.
BLM argued in a Sept. 12 filing in the case, State of Wyoming, et al. v. DOI, et al., being heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, “Soon this case will be constitutionally moot.”
States and industry groups are opposing that request.
But in the longer term, litigation over the measure appears inevitable, with environmental groups, states and others likely to argue that BLM's rule ignores DOI's independent statutory responsibility to prevent waste of natural resources -- a key argument the Obama administration used to justify the original requirements.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/blm-methane-rule-faces-new-legal-fight-wake-similar-epa-measure

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

As Florence Threatens Chemical Plants, Trump Administration Moves to Weaken Protections

Sep 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Brendan Doyle

Since it made landfall, Florence continues to wreak havoc: the storm was expected to drop 18 trillion gallons of rain over the course of a week — enough to fill the Chesapeake Bay. That could mean flooding at more than 1,000 sites in the storm’s path where toxic chemicals are used or stored. If those facilities are damaged, they could release chemicals that threaten public health and the environment. Why, then, is the Trump administration’s EPA seeking to weaken a regulation aimed at preventing exactly this kind of disaster?
The danger is not just hypothetical. Last year, flooding from Hurricane Harvey caused a power outage that triggered fires at an Arkema chemical manufacturing plant in Crosby, Texas. Twenty-one emergency responders required medical attention and 200 people were evacuated from their homes for a week. This disaster and others like it could have been prevented by stronger safety rules that protect emergency responders, plant workers and residents who live in the shadow of industrial facilities across the country.
The Arkema fires offer a cautionary tale for the people impacted by Florence. While the plant’s management had a hurricane preparedness plan, it was not ready for the amount of rain that fell during Harvey — and accompanied Florence. The plant took on six feet of flooding, knocking out the refrigeration needed to keep the chemicals cool and stable. As temperatures increased in the trailers that housed flammable organic peroxides, three spontaneously ignited. More than 23,000 pounds of contaminants were carried by floodwaters into nearby homes.
It’s not just hurricane-prone coastal areas at risk: Across the country, more than 2,500 toxic chemical sites are located in areas at high risk of flooding. As the changing climate makes floods more likely, those risks will only grow. That’s why the U.S. Chemical Safety Board — an independent federal investigator — has urged companies, emergency planners, and regulators to reassess the chemical industry’s preparedness for hurricanes and floods.
Despite these risks, Trump’s EPA is currently working to gut the Risk Management Program Rule, which requires chemical companies and wastewater treatment plants to be ready for such disasters.
The rule, adopted in January 2017, is based on sound science, audits of existing risk-management plans and investigations of previous accidents by numerous government agencies. It contains provisions to improve emergency response preparedness and coordination, and to ensure that local responders and residents have access to information about hazardous substances at nearby facilities. And — because companies like Arkema have a poor record of addressing safety issues —the rule requires inspections by objective third parties rather than by the companies themselves.
The rule has already had a positive impact: A majority of the 12,500 chemical, oil and gas and wastewater treatment facilities covered by this regulation are already on a path to complying with final rule requirements. If Trump’s EPA succeeds in eviscerating the rule, that forward momentum will be lost.
In the days to come, the survivors of Hurricane Florence will have plenty to worry about as they survey the damage and begin to rebuild. Let’s take chemical disasters off their list of concerns. The Risk Management Program Rule should be left in place for the protection of us all.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/407258-as-florence-threatens-chemical-plants-trump-administration-moves

Return to headline | Return to top
DOE's Cyber Czar to Cast Wide Net for Grid Risks

Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

A new senior official at the Department of Energy is pushing to capture the full range of potential threats to the grid, from hurricanes to hackers.
Karen Evans, who was confirmed by the Senate last month as DOE's inaugural assistant secretary for cybersecurity, energy security and emergency response (CESER), laid out her vision for the new office in a conference call with reporters yesterday.
"The way that I view this office is really taking a look at: What are the threats across multiple areas as it affects the grid?" she said. "What are the interconnections? What are those dependencies? And then working with our private industry partners so that they can then address them."
Evans said she would seek to grasp "how much risk [utilities] are willing to accept," and then feed that information through the Department of Homeland Security, the lead civilian agency for defending U.S. critical infrastructure.
"If there were some of our industry partners that are willing to live with a bigger risk, and not maybe necessarily make any investment at this time ... then that acceptance of risk needs to be made available to all the partners and DHS going up, so that we can see where these different risk points would be," Evans explained.
That risk-based approach aligns Evans' priorities with those of DHS, whose secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, recently unveiled a "National Risk Management Center" for thwarting threats to the energy, telecommunications and financial sectors.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry announced plans to spin off CESER into a stand-alone office earlier this year as he warned of rising cyberthreats to the grid. President Trump announced Evans' nomination in June, crediting her "professional experience in cybersecurity policy and strategy, as well as critical infrastructure."
While energy-sector observers largely lauded Evans' cybersecurity qualifications, questions circulated about the role of the new office and possible overlap with DHS's cybersecurity responsibilities.
Lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity hashed out some of those distinctions in a closed-door hearing with senior DHS, DOE and Department of Defense officials yesterday in the Capitol.
For her part, Evans said she thinks the roles are "pretty clear."
She pointed out that the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act authorized her agency to take charge during a grid emergency, while DHS has designated DOE as the "sector-specific agency" for the energy sector, from electric power utilities to oil and gas pipelines.
"I'm really excited about setting the example of what a sector-specific agency would be doing," Evans said.'Learning curve'
Evans has a background in cybersecurity and most recently served as the director of the U.S. Cyber Challenge, an organization dedicated to building out the cybersecurity workforce.
She helmed DOE's information technology department as chief information officer during the George W. Bush administration and is a familiar face at the agency.
"She understands that IT ecosystem really, really well," said Sean Griffin, a partner with the risk management and preparedness consulting firm ecubed us and a veteran of CESER's predecessor office at DOE. "She's a great leader and has the support of [Perry], so there's trust there."
As chief of CESER, Evans will also be responsible for the U.S. government's response to hurricanes, natural disasters and any other hazards to the energy sector.
"I'm curious what her background and skill set is in emergency response — the non-cyber realm," Griffin said. "I think that's going to be a learning curve."
Evans, a self-styled "overachiever," suggested to reporters that she was up to the challenge of charting a course for her new office.
"I want to make sure," she said, "that we make this really work."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/19/stories/1060098307

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Preemption Lines Blurred In 9th Circ. Hazmat Fee Ruling

Sep 19, 2018 | Law 360

By Linda Chiem

The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision knocking down California's new fee on rail cars transporting hazardous materials but leaving the door open to such a levy if it were "fair" raises new questions on the breadth of federal preemption concerning railroad rates and services, experts say.

The federal appeals court ruled Sept. 13 that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 barred California from implementing a 2015 state law that sought to impose a $45 fee on each rail car carrying certain hazardous materials — like diesel fuel, ethanol, gasoline, chlorine and crude oil — traveling through the Golden State.

But the court also said that another federal statute, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, might have saved California’s law from preemption because it has a provision allowing state and local entities to impose fees “related to transporting hazardous material” but only if the fee is “fair” and used toward emergency response purposes.

While the ruling marked a major win for BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad Co. in their suit alleging California’s fee is anti-competitive and interferes with federally protected interstate commerce, experts say it raises intriguing new questions about the federal government’s authority — long thought to be exclusive and impenetrable — to regulate railroad rates and services.

That’s because the Ninth Circuit panel was somewhat divided. While all three judges agreed that the ICCTA bars states from regulating railroad rates, they split on determining how California’s law, known as S.B. 84, was preempted.

The panel’s majority, made up of U.S. Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher and Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal of Wyoming, who was sitting by designation, reasoned that even though the ICCTA broadly governs railroad rates and services, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act had a specific provision allowing states to assess a fee on transporting hazardous materials provided the fee was fair or equitable.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta said in a partial dissent that the ICCTA unequivocally placed the regulation of railroad rates in the federal domain, and the HMTA creates no such power for states to impose fees on railroads.

The disagreement between the majority and the dissent boiled down to how to reconcile two federal statutes, said Paul Hitchcock, senior policy adviser with Holland & Knight LLP. But Judge Ikuta’s partial dissent has the stronger argument by far, he said.

“Regulation of interstate railroad rates has been the exclusive province of the federal government for almost a century,” he said. “You’d expect far clearer statutory language if Congress had intended to give the states new powers in that field.”

Ultimately, the goal is a sensible approach to regulation in the space, Hitchcock said. For example, California’s S.B. 84 established a fee of $45 per loaded rail car, but what’s to stop that fee from eventually being raised?

“We’ve seen local politicians repeatedly seek ways to stop movement of hazmat through their communities. Depending on the route, a coast-to-coast movement can easily transit 10 to 12 states,” Hitchcock said. “If states were free to impose exorbitant fees — or taxes — on carriers to try to keep hazmat out of their states, it could have a devastating impact on transportation of materials that are essential to a modern industrial economy.”

The panel’s judges sparred over the legislative intent behind the federal statutes.

According to Judge Ikuta’s partial dissent, the majority unnecessarily blurred the lines on preemption by entertaining the argument that the HMTA might somehow supersede the ICCTA to give states like California the go-ahead to impose hazardous materials transport fees on railroads provided they prove they’re fair. The majority essentially suggested states were “authorized” to set those fees, when in fact, Congress’ subsequent revisions to the HMTA placed a “limit” on states powers by saying they “may not levy any fee … that is not equitable,” Judge Ikuta explained.

Hanson Bridgett LLP partner Michael N. Conneran, who represents public agencies in real estate, transportation and environmental law matters, told Law360 that he agreed with the reasoning in the partial dissent.

“The preemptive argument of ICCTA is pretty strong and I think the majority may have tried to look for a way to save [S.B. 84] by saying the HMTA was really meant to create an exception to ICCTA, though it seems to just not want to preempt other fees,” he said. “But the intent behind the ICCTA was so strong, I don’t think [Congress] was really expecting other things to leak around it.”

Significantly, the panel viewed this dispute as a rate-setting issue that would fall within the ICCTA’s grasp, Conneran said.

The ICCTA is the sweeping federal law that deregulated the railroad industry and included a broad preemption provision giving the federal Surface Transportation Board exclusive jurisdiction over “rates, classifications, rules, practices, routes, services and facilities” of railroad carriers.

“In a larger sense with S.B. 84, the state was trying to find a way around preemption by having railroads collect the fee, but obviously for these courts, that didn’t fly,” Conneran said.

The dispute highlights the challenges that state and local governments face in tackling risks associated with hazardous materials transportation. The Golden State had passed S.B. 84 in 2015 after California’s Interagency Rail Safety Working Group released a June 2014 report, “Oil by Rail Safety in California,” that noted an increase, both nationally and in California, in spills of oil transported by rail. The report concluded that California was ill-prepared to handle these spills.

While the report raised valid concerns, it also brought to light the tension between environmental interests that may have other goals and safety interests, Conneran said.

S.B. 84 proposed that the fees collected would pay for training and equipment needed to respond to hazardous material incidents associated with rail. The state sought to collect the fee from railroads and deposit the money into a newly created fund called the Regional Railroad Accident Preparedness and Immediate Response Fund.

But because the measure didn't propose a fee on trucks that also transport hazardous materials, it wasn't considered "fair" to withstand a challenge in court. BNSF had said that the fee put railroads operating in California at a “competitive disadvantage with other surface transportation providers and created a state-sponsored incentive for trucks to carry hazardous materials, even though rail is more than 15 times safer than trucks.”

"The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is consistent with what I understand to be the law in this area," said Richard A. Allen, senior counsel with Zuckert Scoutt & Rasenberger LLP.

The panel also suggested that even if the state were to impose a fee directly on customers or shippers, rather than the railroads, that might still get challenged.

“We are skeptical that the ICCTA would allow the state to do directly what it cannot do indirectly,” the majority said in the ruling. “To allow a state to charge a shipper a fee directly but to forbid it to charge the same fee indirectly would be to choose form over substance. Whether a shipper pays a fee directly to the state or pays the fee to a railroad for remittance to the state, the economic consequence is the same.”
https://www.law360.com/transportation/articles/1083545/preemption-lines-blurred-in-9th-circ-hazmat-fee-ruling

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Trump's Environmental Policies Rule Only Part of America

Sep 19, 2018 | Politico

By Alex Guillen, Beatrice Jin, and Eric Wolff

The stark political divide between conservative and liberal states mirrors a growing chasm on environmental policy and pollution across the country as the Trump administration dials down federal regulations and blue states step in to pursue their own rules.
The split has been decades in the making, with states that voted for President Donald Trump growing increasingly angry about the expanding role of the federal government and blue states pressing for tighter regulations to deal with greenhouse gases and other pollutants that threaten air and water. But Trump’s dramatic deregulatory agenda has prompted many states to accelerate their own efforts to curb pollution.
The result: In an increasing number of practical ways, industries such as electric power, automaking, farming and refrigeration must simultaneously operate both in Trump’s America and in a much more liberal country. Besides worsening an already-ugly division between Republican- and Democratic-led states, the trend also threatens to burden many of the same businesses that Trump says he’s trying to help.
“I’m not surprised about this trend,” said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future. “The way the red-blue divide is occurring increasingly seems like the policies at the state level are aligning with the politics.”
POLITICO compared how states have split on key environmental issues — climate change, vehicle efficiency, pollution from coolants and clean water — with the 2016 presidential election results, and the correlation is striking.
The red-blue divide is not always perfectly neat — Republican-dominated states like Texas and Iowa are national leaders in wind power — but the partisan fights in Washington over environmental issues are filtering down to the states, which are often responding with their own action.
“People still want clean air and clean water, and if they believe the federal government isn’t doing its part to deliver and to enforce environmental requirements, then they’ll look to their states,” said Carol Browner, the Clinton-era Environmental Protection Agency administrator and climate adviser to President Barack Obama.
'Carbon intensity' predicted the 2016 vote
On a key metric of climate change, the divide between red states and blue states is noteworthy: Of the 28 most-carbon-intensive states, all but one went for Trump in 2016. At the other end of the spectrum, the 14 least-carbon-intensive states voted for Hillary Clinton. A state’s carbon intensity — the amount of CO2 emissions divided by gross domestic product — depends on factors such as how it produces its electricity, vehicle miles driven, prevalence of energy-intensive activities such as manufacturing, and the ratio of rural to urban populations.
States can influence their emissions by adopting policies such as clean energy standards or incentives for public transit or electric vehicles. But the divide is likely to widen after the Trump administration rolled back many climate change policies, including walking away from the U.S. promises under the Paris climate agreement. After that announcement, 16 states — mostly those won by Clinton — created the U.S. Climate Alliance to try to meet the targets under the Paris pact.
Clinton states fight weak Trump auto rule
The Trump administration is hitting the brakes on auto emissions rules created under Obama, but more than a dozen states plan to align with California’s stricter standards instead. Federal law gives California unique power to enact rules more stringent than the federal government’s, and other states can choose to follow Sacramento’s lead instead of the federal standards. Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., are set to follow California’s rules, and together they represent more than a third of the nation’s auto market.
The Trump administration says it will revoke California’s authority to set its own rules, a move that would set off a court fight that many experts say might favor the Golden State. Should California prevail in the legal battle, the U.S. auto market could face two separate sets of emissions rules that vary depending on the state.
Most experts agree that that would be a disaster for automakers, who are pressing the Trump administration to pull back on its proposal and maintain one national standard. But until one side swerves, California and the Trump administration are speeding toward a head-on collision.
Clinton states go it alone on potent greenhouse gas
The Trump EPA suspended an Obama rule that would have phased out hydrofluorocarbons used in refrigerators and air conditioners even though there is little opposition to eliminating the powerful greenhouse gas.
U.S. manufacturers support a shift away from HFCs, and they had hoped a phase-out would open up markets to newer replacement chemicals they have developed that don’t contribute to climate change. Now they hope that blue states can agree on a single regulation that would create momentum for a new national rule, and also ratification of an international treaty that would cut down HFC use worldwide.
The 16-state U.S. Climate Alliance said in June that all its member states would seek ways to cut HFCs and other short-term greenhouse gases. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation last week that would mimic EPA’s suspended rule in the Golden State, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo promised to do the same by regulation.
Trump states want more water control
Judging exactly what rivers, streams and wetlands fall under federal jurisdiction has been a decadeslong struggle. In 2015, the Obama administration issued a regulation known as the Waters of the United States rule, or WOTUS, to define when a water body would be regulated by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers or by local or state governments.
But the Obama rule sharply expanded federal jurisdiction, and several red states fought back, arguing in court that WOTUS was a major overreach and that more waters should be under state control.
After years of legal fighting, the rule now applies in some states but not others. As of Sept. 18, judges have blocked the Obama-era WOTUS rule in 27 states, mostly ones won by Trump, leaving it in effect in 23 others, mostly those Clinton won. With multiple ongoing lawsuits across the U.S., the field of play might change again. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is furiously writing a replacement rule that is also expected to draw years of litigation — another rulemaking that may well one day make its way to the Supreme Court.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/trump-environmental-policies-rollbacks/

Return to headline | Return to top
Countries Should Use Pricing to Cut Carbon Emissions: OECD

Sep 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rick Mitchell

The world’s wealthy, big-polluting countries aren’t moving fast enough on using pricing mechanisms to reduce their emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported Sept. 18.
Carbon prices—which include taxes on carbon and fossil fuels and on tradeable emissions permits—are effective tools for cutting global-warming emissions.
The OECD’s report assesses progress since 2012 toward reducing the gap—the extent to which polluters don’t pay for the damage from carbon emissions—across 42 countries that account for the majority of the world’s economic output and greenhouse gases.
Based on a the low-end estimated benchmark cost of 30 euros ($35) per ton of carbon emitted, the pricing gap fell from about 83 percent in 2012 to 76.5 percent today, or about 1 percentage point per year.
Switzerland, which has the report’s lowest carbon gap, at 27 percent, was one of only four countries, along with Luxembourg, Norway, and the U.K., that priced nearly half or more of their emissions above the 30 euro per ton benchmark. At the bottom end of the scale, Russia had a 100 percent gap, meaning its effective carbon rate is essentially zero.
China’s gap was among the biggest in the report, at 90 percent. If the country follows through on its intention to extend coverage of its countrywide emissions trading system to industry, and if its carbon prices rise to above 30 euros per ton, the global carbon pricing gap could decline from 76.5 percent to 63 percent in the early 2020s, according to OECD.
The report calls for action to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change by implementing an effective pricing mechanism across all sectors.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/countries-should-use-pricing-to-cut-carbon-emissions-oecd

Return to headline | Return to top
Dems See Tax Panel as a Venue for Energy, Climate Policy

Sep 19, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Nick Sobczyk

The House Ways and Means Committee is a coveted seat, a place where politicians can make their name working on issues that affect virtually every sector of the American economy.
As Democrats pin their hopes on retaking the House in November, they're eyeing the powerful committee as a venue for their biggest promises on the campaign trail, from propping up the Affordable Care Act to re-examining the Republican tax reform passed into law last year.
And after years of GOP control and what Democrats have called an inadequate committee process, the panel could also be poised to make energy and climate change issues a bigger part of its portfolio.
"We'll go back and do our job," Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a longtime member of the committee, told E&E News. "We'll be dealing realistically with areas of the [tax] code that impact carbon."
Democrats are increasingly optimistic about their chances in November. Even the Senate, once seen as all but sure to remain in Republican hands, now appears to be in play.
That has them thinking about how to refocus committees, in addition to more robust oversight of agencies such as EPA and the Interior Department (E&E Daily, Sept. 6).
"I think we will make up the majority on the committee in the House, hopefully in the Senate," said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a senior member of Ways and Means. "I think will be much more sensitive to the issues affecting our climate and try to do what we can to help save this planet, keep it a little greener, a little cleaner and a little more peaceful."
What, exactly, that means is a matter of debate.
Blumenauer and some other Democrats are eager to push a carbon tax as a solution for climate change, and they see Ways and Means as an important part of that discussion, since it has jurisdiction over the tax code.
Blumenauer drew a contrast between how Democrats on the committee will handle climate change and the anti-carbon-tax resolution that passed the House with nearly unanimous Republican support in July (Greenwire, July 19).
"Instead of having meaningless resolutions about imaginary legislation, we might actually have a hearing," he said. "A balanced hearing — hear from people in the business community, hear from people that are state and local, hear from environmentalists, hear from scientists, for heaven's sakes."
Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), a senior member and former chairman of the committee who is retiring at the end of this Congress, added that the way the panel operates would be "dramatically different" with Democrats in control.
In the next Congress, that would mean a bigger focus on issues such as renewable energy tax incentives, retirement and health care, he said.
And though it would be unlikely to pass a narrowly divided Senate, or be signed into law by President Trump, Levin said he expects the panel would consider a carbon tax.
"I think for the first time in years, once the Democrats take over the House, there will be serious consideration of that — at long last," he said.Tempering expectations
Still, health care and the Republican tax cut bill would likely take priority.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Ways and Means Democrats would take aim at the tax law, particularly its limits on state and local tax deductions, which have drawn the ire of lawmakers from high-tax states.
But if ranking member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) becomes chairman, energy and the environment will almost certainly get more airtime on the committee, said Liam Donovan, a principal at Bracewell LLP who works on energy and tax issues.
That could mean extending tax incentives for renewable energy and efficiency that were left out of the tax reform bill, though that issue may also be addressed in the lame-duck session.
Lawmakers retroactively extended those credits through the end of 2017 as a part of a budget accord earlier this year, but the temporary breaks won't be in effect for this year. Current Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) has opposed an extenders package, but it's an issue that has bipartisan support (E&E Daily, March 15).
As for carbon pricing and renewable energy issues generally, "it won't just be a Ways and Means issue," Donovan said. "It'll be something that the party is talking about, with the understanding that it's not going anywhere in a Republican-controlled Senate or a closely divided Senate."
But Pascrell said doesn't think carbon pricing would be on the agenda for Ways and Means at all, primarily because it falls below other big-ticket issues on the list of priorities.
"Of course the environment is always top on our list," Pascrell said. "The record is the record. Check our votes."
But, he added, "when everything's a priority, nothing's a priority."
Even Blumenauer acknowledged that Democrats on the committee could have a "target-rich environment," especially early in the next Congress.
He said his top priority would be figuring out how to pay for an infrastructure package that was once a popular topic on Capitol Hill coming off the 2016 elections.
"The Republicans have been in charge for 401 subcommittee and committee hearings over 7 ½ years. Four hundred one," Blumenauer said. "And in that time, there was exactly one witness who testified for five minutes on how we might finance dealing with infrastructure, and ours is the committee that has jurisdiction over that."
There are also options on the table that would marry carbon pricing and infrastructure investment.
Blumenauer introduced a bill last year with fellow Ways and Means member Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) that would put an initial price of carbon emissions at $49 per ton and aim to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure over 10 years (E&E Daily, Nov. 8, 2017).
And a Republican member of the panel — Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo — has his own carbon tax plan. That measure would put a $24-per-ton tax on carbon, with 70 percent of the revenue put into the Highway Trust Fund and other chunks of cash doled out to low-income households and mitigation projects.
Curbelo said he'd like to see a bigger focus on energy issues no matter which party has control come January, adding that he has asked the committee's tax council to review his bill.
He acknowledged that his proposal would be more likely to get a hearing with Democrats in control.
Still, Curbelo said, "it's already drawing a lot of interest from Republicans — people asking questions, wanting to learn more — so I also think it's ripening on our side of the aisle, even though it has a longer way to go."'This is nine years later'
Complicating the agenda for House lawmakers is that any large-scale climate change or renewable energy legislation would likely struggle to garner enough votes in the Senate, much less get a signature from President Trump.
As a model of what Democrats might look to on the issues, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) pointed to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, as well as renewable energy subsidies and tax credits included in the 2009 stimulus package.
But, he added, "this is not '09. This is nine years later, so the hearings will be different, and the policies may well be different."
Hoyer said much of the climate agenda and energy for Democrats would involve intervening in the Trump administration's regulatory rollbacks.
Lewis similarly suggested that while some Democrats are eager to advance carbon pricing legislation, leadership doesn't want to get ahead of itself on the issue.
"I think there may be something coming out of both Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce. There hasn't been that much discussion about it," he said.
"We don't want to count our chickens before the eggs hatch."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/19/stories/1060098299

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested