Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 21/09/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Siah Hwee Ang Looks at Gains and Losses From the China-US Trade War, US Wine Hanging by a Thread in China, India Steps Up To the Plate, the End of 'Made in China' & More
Sep 21, 2018 | Interest.co.nz
By Siah Hwee Ang
Today's Top 10 is a guest post from Professor Siah Hwee Ang, the BNZ chair in business in Asia who also chairs the enabling our Asia-Pacific trading nation distinctiveness theme at Victoria University. -
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: US Launches 3rd Round of Tariffs on China Imports But Blunts Impact on Chemicals
Sep 20, 2018 | ICIS
With the third round of US tariffs on $200bn in Chinese imports, the US is launching another phase in the US-China trade war. -
Chemours Co. Wins Provisional Duties on Resin Imports
Sep 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
The Chemours Co. scored a regulatory win with the Commerce Department announcing provisional duties on imports of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from China and India. -
Rauner EPA Withholds Sterigenics Records from Attorney General Until Local Republicans Intervene
Sep 21, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration is at odds with the state’s chief lawyer again, this time about the public health investigation of a suburban Chicago sterilization plant connected to the governor. -
NGO Rates US Lawmakers on Chemicals Policy
Sep 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The advocacy arm of the US NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has published a ‘scorecard’ for members of the House of Representatives based on votes cast in favour of bills that "weaken our nation’s safeguards from toxic chemicals". -
Kids, Soldiers Should Be Focus of Fluorochemicals Study, Advocates Say
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A group of New Hampshire moms wants to make sure that a future federal study of fluorochemicals covers children’s and soldiers’ exposures that could result in cancer, infertility, or other health problems. -
Supreme Court Puts Off Weighing of Lead Paint Petitions
Sep 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The U.S. Supreme Court postponed Sept. 20 its weighing of petitions to review a California decision holding ConAgra Grocery Products Co. and The Sherwin-Williams Co. liable for creating a lead paint nuisance in older homes in that state. -
Legal Challenge of US Food Additives Rule Will Move Forward
Sep 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A federal district court has ruled that a lawsuit will move forward that challenges a key US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) food contact materials regulation. -
REACH and CLP Enforcement Slightly Improved, EU Report Finds
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Enforcement of the REACH and CLP Regulations improved in the years 2007-2014, but only slightly, according to a recently published survey of member state competent authorities and their counterparts in three European Economic Area nations. -
Why Trump’s Moves to Unchain Methane Terrify Climate Scientists
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
For as long as people have been drilling for oil, they have been releasing methane into the atmosphere. -
China Tariffs Could Impede U.S. LNG Exports
Sep 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
China plans to impose a 10 percent tariff on U.S. liquefied natural gas as part of an escalating trade battle between the two countries, hindering export opportunities for a emerging industry that is growing rapidly along the Gulf Coast. -
Exxon, Chevron Climate U-Turn Includes $300 Million for Research (1)
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kelly Gilblom, Javier Blas, and Alex Nussbaum
Three of the biggest U.S. oil companies pledged $300 million toward research into lowering climate-change pollution as they joined an industry group led by European rivals. -
West Texas' Permian Losing Luster as Companies Look Elsewhere
Sep 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
A new government report says that a lack of pipeline capacity in West Texas's Permian Basin oil field is forcing companies to look elsewhere to invest in drilling and production. -
FERC Dems Express Doubts on PHMSA Streamlining Agreement
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Rod Kuckro
Democratic members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday sought assurances that transparency and public participation will not be lost to a new interagency agreement geared to speed up the permitting process for liquefied natural gas export terminals. -
The US Natural Gas Pipeline System Needs Expanded and Upgraded
Sep 21, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Jude Clemente
The recent natural gas pipeline explosion in Massachusetts showed that many of our oil and gas pipelines are aged. -
Cyber Defenses are 'For the Most Part Sound,' Utilities Say
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Private power utilities offered a mix of caution and confidence in response to cybersecurity questions from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) last month, reflecting the murky nature of new hacking threats to the electric grid. -
Trump Cyber Strategy Takes Aim at 'Large-Scale' Threats
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump pledged to boost efforts to head off "large-scale or long-duration" cyberattacks on critical infrastructure like the power grid or U.S. financial system, according to a new National Cyber Strategy unveiled yesterday. -
Houston Leads Opposition To EPA's RMP Rollback Amid Florence Floods
Sep 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
As floodwaters from Hurricane Florence threaten industrial facilities in the Carolinas, the City of Houston, House Democrats, and former EPA staff are strongly opposing the Trump administration's rollback of an Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program, arguing it would make facilities more vulnerable to flooding. -
Calif. Rest Break Rules Don’t Cover Hazmat Truckers, DOT Says (1)
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jon Steingart
Truck drivers who transport hazardous materials aren’t eligible for meal and rest breaks required by California law, according to the U.S. Transportation Department. -
New California Law to Limit Plastic Straws in Restaurants
Sep 21, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
People who want straws with their drinks at California restaurants will have to request them under a new law. -
Brown Signs California Law Intended to Curb Plastic Straws in Restaurants
Sep 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan Keller
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill Thursday forbidding dine-in restaurants from giving patrons plastic straws unless one is requested. -
Four States Back EPA’s Quest to Ease Monitoring for Smog-Forming Pollution
Sep 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Four states are supportive of EPA’s proposal to relax monitoring requirements for smog-forming pollution released by manufacturers and other industrial facilities. -
EPA, Sierra Club Spar Over Legality Of State Air Monitoring Plan Mandates
Sep 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and the Sierra Club are sparring over the legality of an agency rule outlining air monitoring mandates for states, at odds over whether states must supply the agency with detailed air quality monitoring plans, subject to public notice and comment, as part of their formal Clean Air Act programs for attaining federal air quality standards. -
Wheeler Didn't Commit to Fixing Climate or Sea Trash
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler spent Wednesday in a room in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with environment ministers from other rich nations, hearing them extol the virtues of a low-carbon economy and the Paris Agreement. -
LEED Competitor is Moving to U.S. from Down Under
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
An Australia-based green building and energy efficiency certification system is planning a big launch in the United States this fall.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Sep 21, 2018 | Interest.co.nz
By Siah Hwee Ang
Today's Top 10 is a guest post from Professor Siah Hwee Ang, the BNZ chair in business in Asia who also chairs the enabling our Asia-Pacific trading nation distinctiveness theme at Victoria University.
As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz.
And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 10 yourself, contact gareth.vaughan@interest.co.nz.
See all previous Top 10s here.
1. US tightens the screws.
The China-US trade battle has raged on for almost two years. Some threats have materialised, others may be on the horizon.
On top of the US$50 billion in goods that has already attracted increased tariffs, this week we will witness new tariffs on US imports from China worth US$200 billion. These tariffs affect close to half of all US imports from China.
It does not look like the trade battle will end soon, despite occasional talks between the two powerhouses.
2. Expect collateral damage from steel and aluminium tariffs.
Steel and aluminium are raw materials for many industries, such as construction, engineering, and transport.
Less obvious is that steel and aluminium are used in other industries for packaging. A less obvious one would be the food and beverages industry.
We can expect the rise in tariff costs to be transferred to food and beverage producers and ultimately on to consumers.
If this persists, many such manufacturers will have to look for alternative sources of supply or even for alternative raw materials sources for package.
3. US wine hanging by a thread in China.
China has announced a proposed 25 per cent tariff on US wine, among other products.
This will take the combined total tariff and taxes per bottle to in excess of 90 per cent. This is likely to cause US wine to double in price, making it a less attractive option for Chinese consumers.
Wine imports into China have risen by 17.96 per cent year-on-year in 2017.
The China-US trade battles will benefit wine producers from other countries seeking to capitalise on this growth market.
4. India to replace US for China.
India has identified more than 40 products, including fresh grapes, cotton linters, flue-cured tobacco and alloy steel seamless boilers which it can export to China should China continue to impose tariffs on US goods.
India runs a trade deficit with China (US$63 billion) so such an opportunity would narrow this trade gap.
5. “Made in China” to be gradually replaced.
China is actively moving along the value chain – towards “Made in China 2025” (associated with innovation and high quality) and leaving behind “Made in China” (associated with mass market and low quality).
The China-US trade battles do affect the extent to which “Made in China” will be used, in particular by US manufacturers.
There will be minimal impact if China is indeed ready for its own transition.
In the meantime, other countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia are likely to pick up a significant share of the gap that China leaves behind.
Related TopicsOpinionVictoria UniversityG7Top 10 at 10TradeFree Tradetrade warChinaUSIndiaManufacturingVietnamCambodiasoybeansBrazilCurrenciesRMBTariffsprotectionismsteelAluminiumwineDonald Trump
6. Soybeans are a big battle ground.
Soybeans were the first shot in the trade battle between China and the US.
In 2017, the US, the world’s second largest soybean exporter sold around US$12 billion worth of soy beans to China.
At US$20 billion, Brazil was the number one exporter.
Following the 25 per cent tariff slapped on US soybeans in July, US soybeans have literally lost ground in this market.
And Brazil is keen to pick up the slack.
While the South American country is primed to do so, its capacity may not be able to fill this major gap. The difference in harvest seasons makes it more challenging.
Nonetheless, as the country works towards this, it is also looking to secure future contracts to hedge growing risks around price differences between Brazilian and US soybeans.
7. Chinese Yuan internationalises further.
In July, the Chinese yuan’s share of global payments rose from 1.81 per cent to 2.04 per cent, making it the fifth most active currency used for global payments.
As China becomes more internationalised through its initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and “Made in China 2025”, naturally we will see an increase in the use of the Chinese Yuan in the international arena.
As investors balance risks against the US dollar, we will see other, more stable, currencies used more often.
8. US companies are calling for the administration to back away from further trade battles with China.
Some US companies are feeling the pinch as a result of the trade battles.
The American Chemistry Council most recently called for the Trump administration to back away from imposing more tariffs on Chinese products.
It said the tariffs are harming chemical manufacturing in both countries.
We can expect more evidence to surface showing that neither economy will benefit from the trade battles.
9. American presence in China complains too.
A joint survey by the US Chamber of Commerce in China and the US Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai shows that two-thirds of US companies operating in China are affected by US tariffs imposed on US$50 billion worth of goods.
More than 70 per cent of those surveyed agreed that imposing additional US tariffs would have a negative effect.
Given the rise of foreign-owned companies in China and the increase in both import and export trades of China, US companies have a legitimate concern. Sooner or later their competitiveness will erode in the second largest economy in the world.
10. Asian economies are likely to be winners.
Before the China-US trade battles, Asia was expected to pick up most of the world’s economic growth in the next two decades.
Has the picture changed since the trade battles? Probably not so much.
Given the growth rates of most Asian economies, they have a small buffer to work with despite the uncertainty coming out of the China-US trade battles.
Asian economies will start to have more intra-trade, and will pick up more benefits from the gaps created by the China-US disputes. This makes it likely that those Asian economies that are on the moderate-to-high growth curve will keep up their contribution to the world economy.
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/95897/siah-hwee-ang-looks-gains-and-losses-china-us-trade-battle-including-collateral-damage
-
Sep 20, 2018 | ICIS
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% previously considered. In it, 142 chemicals and finished plastics (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 plastic gloves – seamless and otherwise.
This third round will be implemented on 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. 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.
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).
The greatest impact of the US round 3 tariffs will be on finished plastics (chapter 39) imports from China – about $5.6bn worth from 2017 trade figures, according to the ACC. Organic chemicals come in second at $2.8bn.
PARAFFIN WAX REMOVED
For the most part, the products 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.
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 was 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%.
NUCLEAR OPTION
But that is not likely to be the end of it. US President Donald 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.
Additional reporting by Will Beacham
Click here to view related stories and content on the US-China trade war landing page
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/09/20/10261048/commentary-us-launches-3rd-round-of-tariffs-on-china-imports-but-blunts-impact-on-chemicals/
-
Chemours Co. Wins Provisional Duties on Resin Imports
Sep 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
The Chemours Co. scored a regulatory win with the Commerce Department announcing provisional duties on imports of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from China and India.
Imports of PTFE resin from China and India were valued at an estimated $27.5 million and $24.9 million, respectively, in 2017, Commerce said Sept. 20. Exporters from China and India sold PTFE resin at dumping margins ranging from 54.41 percent to 218.88 percent and 22.78 percent, respectively, the department added.
Chemours, which asked for the duties, is a $6 billion global chemical company. Teflon by Chemours is the best known brand name of PTFE-based formulas.
PTFE is used as a non-stick coating cookware. Other uses include pipework and containers for chemicals that are corrosive or reactive. It can also be used in surgical interventions as a grafting material.
As a result of Commerce’s decision, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will collect cash deposits from importers of PTFE resin from China and India based on the rates of dumping. But the duties will not be locked in unless and until the International Trade Commission finds that the unfairly traded imports are materially injuring the U.S. industry or threatening it with material injury. The ITC decision is expected around Nov. 5, Commerce said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemours-co-wins-provisional-duties-on-resin-imports
-
Rauner EPA Withholds Sterigenics Records from Attorney General Until Local Republicans Intervene
Sep 21, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration is at odds with the state’s chief lawyer again, this time about the public health investigation of a suburban Chicago sterilization plant connected to the governor.
Urged by fellow Republicans to cooperate with Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat who isn’t running for re-election, the Rauner-led Illinois Environmental Protection Agency instead refused in late August to provide Madigan’s office with key documents about highly toxic ethylene oxide gas emitted in Willowbrook by Sterigenics, a global sterilization company bought in 2011 by a private equity fund co-founded by Rauner. The governor still has a financial interest in Sterigenics, according to a report he filed in May with a state ethics commission.
After Madigan’s office filed another request for Sterigenics records under the Freedom of Information Act, the EPA took more than two weeks to respond, then withheld detailed reports about pollution from Sterigenics during the past two decades, records show.
The reason: Sterigenics had declared the documents are confidential business information.
READ MORE: Trump, Rauner have the power to shut down a toxic Willowbrook plant. Will they use it? »
One of Madigan’s top aides said it is unprecedented for the Illinois EPA to refuse to share information with the office constitutionally obligated to represent state government in legal matters.
“In sum, IEPA has left the decision on whether to provide emissions reports to the attorney general’s office to the company that has been and continues to release toxic chemicals into a populated community in DuPage County,” Ann Spillane, Madigan’s chief of staff, wrote in a letter to three local Republican officials dated Wednesday.
At issue are annual emissions reports filed with the EPA that break down the amount of pollution released into the air hourly by each source within a facility. Lawyers who specialize in environmental cases say the records are key evidence if the state decides to file a lawsuit against Sterigenics.
Rauner’s EPA director, Alec Messina, described the dispute as a procedural issue. The agency wanted to handle the information request through the public records law for tracking purposes, he said. He also said the agency’s chief lawyer had reached out to Sterigenics seeking the company’s approval to waive any privacy concerns.
“This is a non-issue,” Messina said in an interview. “We work well together with the attorney general’s office. Ninety-nine percent of the time it’s wonderful.”
READ MORE: High cancer risk in southeast DuPage County linked to company co-owned by Rauner's former firm »
The Tribune first reported in February that enforcement of environmental laws has declined sharply under Rauner, largely because the Illinois EPA cut back sharply on using its most powerful tool: referring cases to the attorney general’s office for civil or criminal prosecution.
During Rauner’s first year as governor, the EPA referred 73 cases to the attorney general — by far the lowest number since 1991. The annual average during the first three years of his tenure is 80.
By contrast, the EPA sent 198 referrals a year on average during former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s first three years in office and 144 during the same time period under former Gov. Pat Quinn, the Tribune analysis found. Rauner’s enforcement record also pales in comparison to the same period under the state’s last Republican governor, George Ryan, when the Illinois EPA on average referred 201 environmental cases annually to the attorney general.
Messina acknowledged he had received calls Thursday about the Sterigenics dispute from state Rep. Jim Durkin of Darien, the House Republican leader, and state Sen. John Curran, a Downers Grove Republican. Curran and Dan Cronin, chairman of the DuPage County Board, have urged Rauner and Madigan to work together to overhaul the state permit that allows Sterigenics to release ethylene oxide into the air.
By the end of the day Thursday, Messina had ordered the emissions reports sent to Madigan’s office. The investigation continues.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-sterigenics-bruce-rauner-lisa-madigan-20180920-story.html
-
NGO Rates US Lawmakers on Chemicals Policy
Sep 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The advocacy arm of the US NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has published a ‘scorecard’ for members of the House of Representatives based on votes cast in favour of bills that "weaken our nation’s safeguards from toxic chemicals".
The EWG Action Fund report, which comes in the midst of campaigning for the high-stakes mid-tern US election in November, scores lawmakers on 17 bills and amendments voted on during the current and most recent sessions of Congress. Included in these are several regulatory reform measures, legislation addressing pollution, ozone standards and pesticides, as well as bills addressing the EPA’s science policy, including the HONEST Act.
The group found that 140 members of the House consistently voted against chemical safeguards.
"These members voted to repeal existing laws that shield the public from toxic chemicals, voted to ignore sound science, and voted to place obstacles before new chemical safety protections," EWG Action Fund says.
And the report singles out several legislators who "championed legislation to weaken our chemical safety safeguards".
The report comes ahead of the 6 November midterms and with advocacy groups pressing to shift the chamber back to a Democratic majority.
"While the administration is not on the ballot this November, members of Congress who stood by or actively aided and abetted Trump’s corrupt chemical agenda will be," EWG Action Fund says.
"The only way to block this assault is by electing candidates who pledge to help," it adds.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70467/ngo-rates-us-lawmakers-on-chemicals-policy
-
Kids, Soldiers Should Be Focus of Fluorochemicals Study, Advocates Say
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A group of New Hampshire moms wants to make sure that a future federal study of fluorochemicals covers children’s and soldiers’ exposures that could result in cancer, infertility, or other health problems.
“My son was exposed prenatally and until he was more than 5 years old,” said Alayna Davis, who lives near the Pease International Tradeport in Portsmouth, N.H., where a pilot study paving the way for a national survey will be undertaken next year.
“Will this impact his ability to have children? I don’t know,” Davis told Bloomberg Environment Sept. 18.
She and two other mothers advocating for more health research and medical guidance had children in day care centers for years at the Tradeport—a former Air Force base that now houses 250,000 square feet of office and industrial space for banks and financial advisers, and two day care centers.
Plans for the pilot study will be discussed during a Sept. 20 meeting with federal health officials.
The group of chemicals, called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS chemicals have been detected in drinking water sources serving more than 6 million Americans. Their presence results from decades of use in products ranging from firefighting foams used on military bases to medical, electronics, and oil and gas drilling equipment.Companies in the Crosshairs
Some studies suggest that fluorochemicals can make it harder to have children. Exposure to fluorochemicals at sufficient concentrations has consistently been linked with high cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease. Some studies also have found exposure may increase risk of Type 1 diabetes, reduced immune function, thyroid disease, and testicular and kidney cancer.
Fears about such diseases have fueled multimillion-dollar lawsuits against companies that have made or used the chemicals, including 3M Co., the Chemours Co., Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, and footwear manufacturer Wolverine World Wide Inc.
The Testing for Pease advocacy group that Davis helped found, has pushed for a first-time national study of the health effects resulting from fluorochemicals exposure, with a focus on children, firefighters, and military personnel.Residents Speak Out
The Sept. 20 meeting will allow officials from the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to hear from local residents that work on, or live near, the Tradeport.
Topics on the agenda include ATSDR’s plants to test exposure surveys, strategies to recruit study participants, and other details that could be adopted for a broader national survey.
Higher rates of cancer found in occupants of the nearby Pease Air National Guard facility also will be discussed at the request of local residents, Andrea Amico, a co-founder of Testing for Pease told Bloomberg Environment.
Both Davis and Amico worked with third co-founder Michelle Dalton on years of advocacy that finally resulted in ATSDR receiving $10 million this year to proceed with the study.
The U.S. Senate provided an additional $10 million in a fiscal year 2019 funding bill it approved Sept. 18. Amico also will testify as a witness at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental affairs hearing Sept. 26.
The proposed Pease study would take a “snapshot” of the community’s exposure to PFAS chemicals to see if it flags health concerns. Beginning, Not End
That one-time snapshot marks a beginning, but it shouldn’t be the government’s sole commitment, Davis and Amico said.
Since 2014, when the community first learned it had been drinking water containing fluorochemicals, residents have worked with scientists to learn about the chemicals.
They pushed for tests that showed resident’s blood levels of three chemicals perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) were higher than the national average. In addition, they worked with Boston’s Northeastern University to hold a 2017 national PFAS conference that Davis said attracted participants from around the country.Medical Care Questions
The knowledge developed over the last four years means local residents want to know, for example, what specific medical tests their doctors can order to monitor their families’ health for potential illnesses that could result from PFAS exposure, Amico said. Amico said such knowledge should be “the bare minimum” federal researchers provide.
If ATSDR’s initial snapshot of the community’s health raises concerns, local residents want that agency or perhaps another to consider further research and medical monitoring, Amico said.
She also wants to know whether there are plans to address the health concerns retired military, current National Guard personnel, and local firefighters who could have been exposed to PFAS on the job.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry proposed excluding occupationally exposed individuals from the Pease study.
There could be a good scientific reason for that, according to Amico. But, the servicemen and -women who drank PFAS-contaminated water for years and dealt with the chemicals as they worked “are a population that needs its own study,” she said.
“We need to do a better job taking care of our military people,” Amico said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/kids-soldiers-should-be-focus-of-fluorochemicals-study-advocates-say
-
Supreme Court Puts Off Weighing of Lead Paint Petitions
Sep 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The U.S. Supreme Court postponed Sept. 20 its weighing of petitions to review a California decision holding ConAgra Grocery Products Co. and The Sherwin-Williams Co. liable for creating a lead paint nuisance in older homes in that state.
The high court rescheduled the petitions without explanation though attorneys watching the litigation said Brett Kavanaugh’s still pending nomination proceedings were expected to result in a delay.
The court was slated to weigh the petitions at their Sept. 24 conference. The soonest date on which the court may next consider the petitions is Oct. 5.The cases are The Sherwin-Williams Co. v. California, U.S., 18-86, rescheduled 9/20/18; ConAgra Grocery Products Co. v. California, U.S., 18-84, rescheduled 9/20/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/supreme-court-puts-off-weighing-of-lead-paint-petitions
-
Legal Challenge of US Food Additives Rule Will Move Forward
Sep 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A federal district court has ruled that a lawsuit will move forward that challenges a key US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) food contact materials regulation.
The suit, brought last year by several NGOs, focuses on the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (Gras) rule.
Updated in 2016, the Gras rule allows manufacturers to use a food additive without pre-market approval, provided it meets the same safety standards as approved substances. Notification to the FDA of a manufacturer’s determination that a substance is Gras is voluntary.
Co-litigant the Environmental Defense Fund alleges that the rule "allows food manufacturers to make secret Gras safety determinations for chemicals added to food, without notifying FDA or the public, and to use the chemical in food without anyone else’s knowledge".
The NGOs have asked the court to find that the Gras rule is not in accordance with law, and that it exceeds FDA’s statutory authority.
Last September, the FDA moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the case.
But Judge Vernon Broderick dismissed the motion on 12 September, finding that two of the plaintiffs – the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) – "plausibly allege harm to their members".
"Members of CFS and EDF have been and will be exposed to potentially dangerous substances that were introduced into the food supply without FDA oversight, public participation, or the opportunity for judicial review," the court’s opinion says.
This satisfies the ‘injury-in-fact’ requirement of standing that is required for the groups to take the case forward.
The court, however, found that co-plaintiffs the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) did not sufficiently support their claim of standing in the suit. They have been dismissed from the case.
The suit is being heard in the US District Court for the southern district of New York.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70466/legal-challenge-of-us-food-additives-rule-will-move-forward
-
REACH and CLP Enforcement Slightly Improved, EU Report Finds
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Enforcement of the REACH and CLP Regulations improved in the years 2007-2014, but only slightly, according to a recently published survey of member state competent authorities and their counterparts in three European Economic Area nations.
The Commission used a methodology recommended by 2013’s REACH Review, that involved 12 indicators for REACH and CLP covering different elements of enforcement, Andrew Warmington reports in this month’s Global Business Briefing.
The study, carried out in 2015 and released at the 27th Meeting of Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) in Brussels over the summer, also broadly concluded that:REACH and CLP enforcement are deeply integratedmember states appreciate and use the Enforcement Forum;most have implemented national enforcement strategies;prioritisation is important in setting enforcement activities; andpriorities developed at EU level are considered at national level.
Among specific conclusions, compliance with REACH and CLP duties by EU- and EEA-based companies, imported goods, REACH registration dossiers and follow-up of evaluation conclusions were all high. However, there were wide fluctuations in compliance with different aspects of the Regulations, from 87% in the follow-up of evaluations to 32% in dossier information on hazard.
It was also notable that very few REACH decisions were overturned by the enforcement authorities, while four of the nine appealed on CLP were overturned. In addition, penalties for non-compliance with REACH registration and evaluation requirements respectively averaged €25,000 (36.7% of mean compliance costs) and €46,000 (21.4%).
https://chemicalwatch.com/70468/reach-and-clp-enforcement-slightly-improved-eu-report-finds
-
Why Trump’s Moves to Unchain Methane Terrify Climate Scientists
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
For as long as people have been drilling for oil, they have been releasing methane into the atmosphere.
Methane is often found in the same place as oil and, as a chief component of natural gas, is a valuable source of energy in its own right. But when methane sneaks out of oil wells, escapes from pipelines, or is vented as a nuisance it is a superpollutant blamed for up to a quarter of the planet’s warming.
That makes methane the center of a protracted policy debate revived by the Trump administration as it weakens regulations on the greenhouse gas—and considers erasing them from the rule books altogether.
“Methane is a critically important greenhouse gas that is more than 100 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in its ability to trap heat,” said Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University. “Now is not the time to relax controls on methane emissions from industry.”
The Trump administration is doing just that.Agency Rollbacks
The Environmental Protection Agency last week proposed eliminating some requirements imposed by the Obama administration that force energy companies to frequently seek and plug methane leaks from new and newly modified wells. The Interior Department followed up Sept. 18 by finalizing a separate measure easing Obama administration mandates that companies stop venting and flaring natural gas at wells on federal and tribal land.
Environmentalists fear those moves are a precursor to a much bigger shift already telegraphed by the Trump administration: eliminating direct EPA regulation of methane altogether. That change could prevent courts from forcing the agency to impose methane regulations on more than a million existing wells on private land—not just the new wells the EPA has already targeted.
The oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source of methane emissions.
“Methane is responsible for a large percentage of the climate disruption and the damage to people and property and landscapes that we’re seeing today,” said Matt Watson, associate vice president of climate and energy at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Reducing methane emissions is an exceptionally cost effective way to slow climate change.”
Because of methane’s potency, curbing rogue releases of the gas can deliver big, immediate impacts in a global quest to arrest climate change.
“Methane is the low-hanging fruit in the climate equation,” said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force. “If we’re trying to address climate change, on a dollars-per-ton basis, these are the cheapest tons you can get.”
Energy companies say federal methane rules are costly and unnecessary because they already have an incentive to keep a tight lid on emissions: The gas is a valuable commodity that can be sold.
“America’s oil and natural gas producers understand the importance of fair, commonsense regulations,” said Barry Russell, head of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “But for too long the federal bureaucracy has buried our industry in unnecessary and often duplicative red tape.”
More than 40 oil and gas companies have signed agreements committing to phase out some leak-prone devices and take other steps to keep a lid on methane, as part of an initiative known as the “Environmental Partnership” administered by the American Petroleum Institute. Separately, eight oil and gas giants, including BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp., last year pledgedto continually reduce methane emissions in a pact with the Environmental Defense Fund and other advocacy groups.
And Exxon Mobil took pains to emphasize its commitment to slashing emissions in a Sept. 4 blog post, arguing that the company’s voluntary efforts won’t change even if federal regulations do.
Oil industry leaders generally prefer the voluntary approach, which allows companies to move on their own timetables to upgrade equipment and inspect sites. By contrast, the federal mandates targeted by the Trump administration compel all companies to swiftly spend money capturing methane emissions—even when those investments won’t quickly pay off. And the federal requirements raise the specter of fines and other penalties if companies don’t comply.
The EPA says its proposed changes would save an estimated $484 million in regulatory costs from 2019 to 2025—or $75 million annually. And the Interior Department estimates that by relaxing the requirements on federal land, it is sparing companies another $1 billion in compliance costs, while acknowledging an additional 1.78 million metric tons of methane emissions over the next decade.
Industry leaders argue they are making progress even without the federal government’s prodding—just by extracting and selling more natural gas, which releases about half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned to generate electricity.
“Clean natural gas produced through advanced technologies like hydraulic fracturing has helped reduce carbon emissions to 25-year lows,” said Howard Feldman, senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute.
Still, companies increasingly are flaring and venting natural gas from oil wells in the Permian Basin, a drilling hotspot that spans Texas and New Mexico, notes energy consulting firm BTU Analytics. The practices are rising as energy companies run out of space on pipelines to send that natural gas to market.
Voluntary programs can only do so much to curb oil industry emissions, environmentalists say.
“It is impossible for the oil and gas industry to sustain the marketing claim that gas is a clean, low-carbon resource when the Trump administration is weakening regulations that assure the public that venting and leaks of pollution will be quickly found and fixed,” said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of of energy at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Methane leaks provide fodder to activists who already fought coal and who are now battling new natural gas pipelines, export facilities and power plants. They argue that methane leaks from those systems destroy any of the fossil fuel’s cleaner-burning benefits.
“Methane is this industry’s Achilles heel,” Watson said. “To compete in today’s energy landscape you have to be both cheap and clean. If this administration caters to the worst performers, the companies that are trying to do the right thing are going to get dragged down right with them.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/why-trumps-moves-to-unchain-methane-terrify-climate-scientists
-
China Tariffs Could Impede U.S. LNG Exports
Sep 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
China plans to impose a 10 percent tariff on U.S. liquefied natural gas as part of an escalating trade battle between the two countries, hindering export opportunities for a emerging industry that is growing rapidly along the Gulf Coast.
The move, made in retaliation against the Trump administration's latest tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports, affects $60 billion in U.S. exports to China. The 10 percent tariff on LNG is less than the 25 percent proposed early last month, but it's still expected to undercut the competitiveness of U.S. exporters vying for a share of one of the world's largest LNG markets.
"The consequences are likely to be felt on new supply developments," said Giles Farrer, research director for Wood Mackenzie. "It restricts the target market for developers of new U.S. LNG projects trying to sign new long-term contracts."
RELATED: Billions at risk for Gulf Coast as China threatens LNG tariffs
A number of U.S. developers, including Houston companies Cheniere Energy and Tellurian Inc., are investing billions of dollars to build massive export terminals along the Gulf Coast, which has ready access to cheap and plentiful natural gas from West Texas and elsewhere.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is pushing to expedite its reviews of new U.S. projects, most of which are planned for the Gulf Coast. The agency earlier this month issued regulatory schedules for its environmental review of 12 LNG export facilities, including six in Texas.
The proposed projects put the U.S. on track to supply nearly a quarter of global LNG by 2030, according to Wood Mackenzie.
China, which is working to shift its power generation from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, has emerged as a major source of demand. In the year prior to June, the country was the second largest buyer of U.S. LNG.
Farrer expect the tariffs to change that dynamic. Already, he said, Chinese buyers have gradually reduced purchases of U.S. LNG amid the trade dispute.
However, he expects growing demand outside of China to support the next wave of U.S. LNG projects. Other countries in Asia and Europe also need more natural gas as they reduce their use of coal.
"There is still plenty of appetite for second wave U.S. LNG projects from other buyers," Farrer said.
Cheniere was the first U.S. company to export LNG, operating from its Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana. The company, which now ships to nearly 30 foreign markets, is expanding that terminal and building a second one in Corpus Christi.
The company earlier this year struck a deal to sell LNG to China National Petroleum Corp. as part of two sales contracts that extend through 2043.
Virginia's Dominion Energy also began exporting LNG from a terminal in Maryland earlier this year.
Other U.S. companies are expected to begin exports next year, including two based in Houston. Freeport LNG is working to open its Gulf Coast terminal at Quintana Island, and Kinder Morgan is completing an export terminal in Georgia.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/China-tariffs-could-impede-U-S-LNG-exports-13241150.php
-
Exxon, Chevron Climate U-Turn Includes $300 Million for Research (1)
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kelly Gilblom, Javier Blas, and Alex Nussbaum
Three of the biggest U.S. oil companies pledged $300 million toward research into lowering climate-change pollution as they joined an industry group led by European rivals.
Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. will join the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative and expand an existing $1 billion fund for carbon-reduction ventures, the group said in a statement Sept. 20. The move brings Big Oil’s biggest names into a united front as climate activists and investors ratchet up the pressure on fossil-fuel providers.
The OGCI was founded in 2014 by the heads of BP Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Saudi Aramco and seven others based in Europe and Asia, but major U.S. producers had refused to join. The U-turn puts them at odds with U.S. President Donald Trump, who is trying to relax rules governing greenhouse-gas emissions and last year vowed to pull the country out of the landmark Paris climate agreement.
“It will take the collective efforts of many in the energy industry and society to develop scalable, affordable solutions that will be needed to address the risks of climate change,” Exxon Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said in the statement. “This dual challenge is one of the most important issues facing society and our company.”
While the contributions won’t be a heavy lift—Exxon alone expects to spend about $24 billion on capital expenditures this year—they will help bankroll a growing series of investments into low-emission efforts. The list includes Solidia Technologies, which aims to reduce pollution from concrete production; Inventys, a Canadian firm working on carbon-capture technology; and Achates Power, which is focused on fuel economy.
In 2015, the heads of the largest oil companies in Europe broke ranks with their American counterparts, calling on governments to agree on carbon pricing at a climate summit in Paris. Exxon and Chevron are now under new leadership, and have come closer to the views of their European competitors.
The OGCI has been trying to bring in the large U.S. companies for at least a year, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Lately, they’ve participated in calls with the group and also attended a meeting of CEO members in Geneva as observers, the people said.
Their involvement comes as investors and environmentalists ramp up pressure on oil companies to act on climate change. A group called 350.org is leading a worldwide movement to divest fossil-fuel stocks and bonds, and has received pledges from funds managing more than $6 trillion, according to its website.
With the three U.S. companies, the OGCI will have 13 members. Together, they represent about 30 percent of global oil and gas production.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/exxon-chevron-climate-u-turn-includes-300-million-for-research-1
-
West Texas' Permian Losing Luster as Companies Look Elsewhere
Sep 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
A new government report says that a lack of pipeline capacity in West Texas's Permian Basin oil field is forcing companies to look elsewhere to invest in drilling and production.
The Department of Energy report released Wednesday said companies operating in other oil and gas basins are redirecting their spending outside of the Permian, which stretches from Texas to New Mexico and is the top producing oil region in the U.S.
RELATED: More than $90 billion in deals made in Permian since 2013
The Energy Department's report studied the second quarter 2018 financial results for 45 U.S. oil and gas companies.
The report says a lack of pipeline capacity and growing price differences between crude sold in Midland and the Gulf Coast are leading to companies spending money elsewhere. Oil in Midland, where oil supplies are high because they can't easily be shipped to Gulf Coast markets, was selling for $20 a barrel less than along the Gulf Coast in August and September.
The report singled out Houston exploration and production company Noble Energy, whose CEO Dave Stover said in the second quarter 2018 earnings call that Noble would "moderate" its activity in the Delaware Basin, a sub-basin of the Permian, and reallocate activity to the company's assets in the Denver-Julesberg Basin of Colorado.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/West-Texas-Permian-losing-luster-as-companies-13244072.php
-
FERC Dems Express Doubts on PHMSA Streamlining Agreement
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Rod Kuckro
Democratic members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday sought assurances that transparency and public participation will not be lost to a new interagency agreement geared to speed up the permitting process for liquefied natural gas export terminals.
FERC and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration have long cooperated to conduct permitting reviews for LNG terminals, and the two agencies last month signed an agreement to shift some elements of the process more clearly to PHMSA in what was described as a move to boost efficiency (Energywire, Sept. 5).
"LNG export terminals, when compared to LNG import terminals, are far more complex and can raise significantly different issues. As a result, FERC's review of applications for LNG export terminals has become far more time consuming than it was for LNG import terminals," FERC general counsel James Danly explained in a presentation.
"FERC staff found it necessary to confer with PHMSA staff more often, resulting in multiple requests to the applicant from both FERC and PHMSA for more information. The MOU [memorandum of understanding] will put an end to this," he added.
Under the new MOU, PHMSA will be responsible for assessing a project's adherence to standards governing the location and safety of LNG facilities. It will issue its findings through a letter of determination, which, PHMSA said when the agreement was announced, "FERC will accept as the authoritative determination of a proposed facility's ability to comply with safety regulations."
Yesterday, FERC's two Democratic commissioners, Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick, expressed concern that the new arrangement must not be used to "cut corners" in the commission's legally mandated public process.
"It is important, as always, that we not prejudge any of the specific LNG applications coming before us," LaFleur commented following Danly's presentation. "We always have to be sure we don't compromise our responsibilities ... or shortcut the stakeholder process."
Glick questioned Danly on the public's ability to participate in PHMSA's safety review.
Asked by Glick whether there will be an opportunity for public comment on PHMSA's safety determination, Danly said it would become part of a document that is subject to public comment.
"The final determination that is made by PHMSA is a certification that if the facility is built as contemplated, it will be able to meet the requirements of PHMSA's enforcement regime," he said. "All of that safety review is in the environmental document, and that is subject to comment," he added.
But PHMSA's process, he acknowledged, is not open to public input. "Its process is one that, as contemplated by the MOU, simply certifies to the commission that the engineering review that they do demonstrates sufficiency to meet the requirements down the road."
"Their process of certification to you is basically a recommendation that you can be assured as the commission making the public interest determination that in fact you're not authorizing a facility that would never have any hope of operating," Danly said. "One doesn't normally cast a vote like that."
The MOU comes as FERC simultaneously fends off criticism from Capitol Hill that its reviews of LNG export facilities are taking too long, and increasingly sophisticated pressure from environmental and property rights groups challenging the sufficiency of the process.
Several recent pipeline decisions by the commission have resulted in split votes to approve a project moving forward, which is unusual for a body that has traditionally valued working toward consensus.McIntyre too ill to attend monthly meeting
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre was not in attendance yesterday, saying in a note read at the meeting by Commissioner Neil Chatterjee, "While my health situation has impacted my mobility, it has not impacted my ability to get the commission's work done. And I'm proud to report that the commission continues to move full steam ahead on all fronts."
FERC officials declined to say specifically what health issue kept McIntyre from the meeting. The agency also declined to answer when McIntyre was last in the office.
McIntyre disclosed in July that he had suffered compression fractures in two of his vertebrae and had fallen on July 4, injuring his arm enough that it required a sling.
E&E News reported that McIntyre's delay in being sworn in at FERC was because of his recovery from surgery last year to treat brain cancer (Energywire, March 12).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/21/stories/1060099203
-
The US Natural Gas Pipeline System Needs Expanded and Upgraded
Sep 21, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Jude Clemente
The recent natural gas pipeline explosion in Massachusetts showed that many of our oil and gas pipelines are aged. In fact, much of the country’s natural gas pipeline system was constructed in the 1930s and 1940s, susceptible to rust and corrosion, which can lead to leaks and explosions. There is a national necessity not only to build more pipelines but also to replace the old ones.
Given that oil and gas are modeled by the U.S. Department of Energy to still supply 55 percent of our energy in 2050, is there any more obvious energy reality for us than the requirement to upgrade the expansive system that transports these irreplaceable fuels?
Natural gas, in particular, is increasingly the go-to, low-carbon energy source as well as the flexible backup for intermittent wind and solar. In fact, “gas could overtake oil as the largest U.S. energy source this year,” according to experts at DNV GL. Those of us wanting to fight climate change must keep in mind: “Thanks to Natural Gas, U.S. CO2 Emissions Lowest Since 1985.”
But in certain areas of the country, there is an urgent need to replace aged pipes. This is especially true in the New England area, where anti-pipeline activists are not just causing much higher energy prices but also dangerously blocking the need to upgrade the system. This can’t be tolerated in a region where natural gas is increasingly the main source of electricity. For as far as the U.S. Department of Energy models, gas will supply 36 percent of New England’s energy in 2050. The region has a “known need for more natural gas pipelines.” Fortunately, upgrading the system is an effort that is supported by U.S. Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey.
More and newer pipelines aren’t optional but mandatory: “Pipelines are safer, cheaper, and greener.” It’s completely unrealistic to think that “more wind and solar” means less pipelines are needed. If anything, more renewables mandate that more pipelines are needed because gas is the essential backup for their intermittency, which is an obligation in a consumer society like ours.
It will be a challenging endeavor. But it is an absolutely essential one. For example, our gas pipeline grid is an integrated system of interstate and intrastate transportation links that ship gas to nearly any location in the U.S. The American Gas Association reports that our network, is composed of more than 210 pipeline systems, includes over 300,000 miles of transmission pipelines, more than 1,400 compressor stations, and more than 11,000 delivery points to as many as 5,000 receipt points and 1,400 interconnection points.
That’s enough U.S. gas pipelines to circle the Earth 12 times.
Unfortunately, however, the push to build more and newer pipelines, which are made from steel, is hampered by President Trump’s steel tariffs. A 500-mile pipeline, for instance, requires 64,375 tons of steel. Since a lot of the specialty steel required isn’t made in the U.S., tariffs are increasing energy costs for American families and businesses. This goes against the president’s “U.S. Energy Dominance” plan.
Policymakers take note. As important as building new bridges and roads, the need for bigger and better pipelines is an essential part of the $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan that has bi-partisan support.
Jude Clemente is Editor of RealClearEnergy.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/09/21/the_us_natural_gas_pipeline_system_needs_expanded_and_upgraded_110342.html
-
Cyber Defenses are 'For the Most Part Sound,' Utilities Say
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Private power utilities offered a mix of caution and confidence in response to cybersecurity questions from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) last month, reflecting the murky nature of new hacking threats to the electric grid.
"To date, the American utility industry's cyber defenses have been for the most part sound," utility giant Xcel Energy Inc. noted in a Sept. 4 letter to Markey. The Minneapolis-based company went on to outline, in broad strokes, its "defense in depth" approach to countering a "growing and asymmetrical" cyberthreat.
Markey last month sent letters to 10 private utilities, alongside several other federal agencies and power marketing organizations, demanding answers about their cybersecurity defenses and their handling of reported hacking attempts by Russian spies.
He cited Department of Homeland Security warnings that Russian hackers had penetrated U.S. critical infrastructure networks, including the operational controls behind one power generator.
"According to the Department of Homeland Security, the most recent Russian cyberattacks affected hundreds of companies. Was your company a victim of this most recent attack?" Markey asked. "If so, please describe how your system was infiltrated and identify the steps you are taking to prevent a future incursion of the same nature."
The majority of the utilities have since responded to that Aug. 13 request from the senator, according to statements and correspondence obtained by E&E News. Several companies declined to comment on their exchanges with the lawmaker, citing security concerns.
But a few energy firms offered a rare window into how the industry is dealing with fast-moving online threats to increasingly digitized grid networks.
"Your letter notes that hackers made hundreds of attempts over the last two years to penetrate the industry's industrial control systems, but these attacks have been largely unsuccessful; they primarily affected utilities' business networks rather than their critical energy management systems," Xcel said in the letter, signed by Frank Prager, the company's vice president for policy and federal affairs.
In his own letter to Markey dated Sept. 7, Duke Energy Corp. Chief Security Officer Benjamin Waldrep pointed out that he has implemented "much stricter cybersecurity standards for vendors" whose products end up installed in the bulk power grid, among other measures.
"As a company that manages critical infrastructure, Duke Energy is a target for the growing number of cyber and physical attacks," he wrote. "We take these threats very seriously."
Waldrep also referred Markey to a response earlier this month penned by the CEOs of three industry groups: Sue Kelly of the American Public Power Association, Tom Kuhn of the Edison Electric Institute and Jim Matheson of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
"The threat from nation states, such as Russia, and from many other adversaries that may wish to harm the energy grid, is real and growing," the trade group leaders noted. "Industry is keenly aware of these threats thanks to close coordination and information sharing with government partners and to a shared responsibility across the sector to protect some of the nation's most critical infrastructure."
Markey's staff met with regulators at the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) late last month to discuss emerging cyber risks to the power grid (Energywire, Sept. 12).
Experts from Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the San Francisco-based energy provider, also reported meeting in person with the lawmaker's staff "to discuss the specific actions that the company has put in place to protect against cyberattacks."
"We employ a dedicated team to manage cyber-risk," PG&E spokesman Jason King said in an email. "They are continuously monitoring for threats and responding appropriately in real time."Gaps persist
Gaps in the power sector's cyber defenses occasionally trickle into the public domain. NERC, which sets and enforces binding cybersecurity standards under the oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, posts monthly anonymous snapshots of security audits.
In its most recent "critical infrastructure protection" penalty notice, dated Aug. 30, NERC described how an anonymous utility on the West Coast left critical control systems exposed to hackers for at least 6 ½ years.
While there's no evidence grid networks were ever harmed, NERC auditors reported that the existence of untrusted access points "could have potentially resulted in an unauthorized user gaining access" to critical systems and "hopping" into other computers used to control parts of the bulk power grid.
NERC did not fine the anonymous utility for the slip-up, crediting the company's cooperation throughout the enforcement process and its otherwise favorable track record for security.
A cyberattack is not known to have ever disrupted the flow of electricity anywhere in the U.S., although two hacks of Ukraine's power grid in 2015 and 2016 underscored the real risk to reliability.
In their letter to Markey, the U.S. power industry group CEOs pointed out that NERC has never issued its most urgent "Level 3" alert to utilities over a cyberthreat. Still, they said that NERC has issued 11 cybersecurity-related alerts since 2013, including three "Level 2" recommendations.
"Our members now are recognized national security targets; they face nation-state attackers with resources beyond any individual entity's ability to repel," Kuhn, Kelly and Matheson said. "As such, we respectfully ask Congress to consider how the electric sector and the federal government can more effectively share the responsibility of protecting the nation's energy grid."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/21/stories/1060099201
-
Trump Cyber Strategy Takes Aim at 'Large-Scale' Threats
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump pledged to boost efforts to head off "large-scale or long-duration" cyberattacks on critical infrastructure like the power grid or U.S. financial system, according to a new National Cyber Strategy unveiled yesterday.
"Cyberspace is an integral component of all facets of American life, including our economy and defense," Trump said in a written statement accompanying the document, billed as the first comprehensive update to the White House cyber strategy in 15 years. "Yet, our private and public entities still struggle to secure their systems, and adversaries have increased the frequency and sophistication of their malicious cyber activities."
The strategy paper said that the U.S. remains "vulnerable to peacetime cyber attacks against critical infrastructure," citing a "growing" risk that adversarial countries decide to strike the U.S. in crises that stop short of all-out war.
The document is centered on four pillars first laid out in Trump's national security strategy last year: protecting the homeland, promoting prosperity, advancing American influence and preserving "peace through strength."
To that end, the Trump administration has signaled a willingness to use offensive cyber tools to disrupt hackers before they carry out potentially crippling online attacks.
In a conference call with reporters, national security adviser John Bolton confirmed that Trump has rescinded an Obama-era classified directive governing the use of U.S. cyber weapons, saying the White House "reversed those restraints" as part of "powerful deterrent structures that persuade the adversary not to attack in the first place."
"It's also the case that not every response to a cyberattack would be in the cyber world," he pointed out. Offensive cyber capability "is part of the range of instruments of national power that we have."
Bolton added that a classified annex to the National Cyber Strategy explores Trump's replacement of President Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 20 in greater detail.
The new strategy comes on the heels of new Department of Defense cyber guidance, which spoke of a "defense forward" approach to "confronting threats before they reach U.S. networks."
Cybersecurity experts have warned that such an aggressive tack to defending U.S. infrastructure could lead to a military escalation if unchecked (Energywire, Sept. 20).
The latest White House cyber strategy largely hews to concepts and techniques honed during the Obama administration, from a policy of naming and shaming malicious actors in cyberspace, to playing up the "shared" government and private-sector responsibility for protecting critical infrastructure.
Jason Healey, a senior researcher at Columbia University and former White House director for cyber infrastructure protection, said the strategy "seems to be well in line" with Trump's 2017 executive order on cybersecurity "and pretty continuous with [the] last two or three administrations."
The cyber strategy preserves a "huge role" for the Department of Homeland Security, Bolton said. DHS is the lead federal agency both for defending federal civilian networks and for helping protect critical infrastructure systems, like those running dams and chemical plants.
DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement yesterday that the new strategy "will guide the Department's cybersecurity activities in a number of areas, including securing federal networks and information systems, managing risk to the nation's critical infrastructure, and combatting cybercrime."
"The critical infrastructure that Americans rely on is threatened every day by nation-states, cyber criminals and hackers seeking to wreak havoc, disrupt commerce, and even undermine our democratic institutions," she added.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/21/stories/1060099215
-
Houston Leads Opposition To EPA's RMP Rollback Amid Florence Floods
Sep 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
As floodwaters from Hurricane Florence threaten industrial facilities in the Carolinas, the City of Houston, House Democrats, and former EPA staff are strongly opposing the Trump administration's rollback of an Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program, arguing it would make facilities more vulnerable to flooding.
In public remarks and comments to EPA, they are arguing that a pending rule seeking to weaken an Obama-era update that tightened the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program would increase risk of disasters, including releases triggered by flooding from hurricanes.
Torrential rains from Hurricane Florence “could mean flooding at more than 1,000 sites in the storm’s path where toxic chemicals are used or stored,” Brendan Doyle, a long-time EPA official now with the Environmental Protection Network, says in a Sept. 18 op-ed in The Hill.
“If those facilities are damaged, they could release chemicals that threaten public health and the environment,” Doyle adds. “Why, then, is the Trump administration’s EPA seeking to weaken a regulation aimed at preventing exactly this kind of disaster?”
The City of Houston raises similar concerns in comments submitted to EPA's docket for its May 17 proposed rule to revise the Obama administration's January 2017 final rule, arguing that flooding from last summer's Hurricane Harvey led to releases from chemical facilities that endangered first responders.
“Houston alone would have benefited from these rules multiple times in the recent past,” Stephen Williams, director of the Houston Health Department says. “The mitigation of potential adverse health effects resulting from exposure to these chemicals and the costs associated with citations, response and remediation far out-weigh any burden to industry.”
More than 60 House Democrats, including lawmakers that would lead key oversight committees should the party retake the House in the midterm elections, are arguing that the revision rule increases risk of future disasters, and is contrary to Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler's pledge to improve public communication of environmental dangers.
In recent comments, the lawmakers cite a July 16 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that quotes Wheeler as saying, “If you live near an oil refinery, near a steel or chemical plant, we need to be able to tell people who surround those areas what is the risk that they face, what are the risks their families and their children face."
“We could not agree more,” the lawmakers respond in the letter. They urge Wheeler to suspend the effort to largely scrap the Obama-era RMP rule, an effort started under his predecessor Administrator Scott Pruitt, who resigned in July following a series of ethics scandals. “If your goal is to improve EPA's engagement with communities about the environmental risks they face, finalizing this rule would undermine such a commitment to the American public.”
But 15 Republican state attorneys general, many of whom petitioned EPA to reconsider the Obama-era rule, are arguing that the proposed revision does not go far enough. They say new coordination requirements, that EPA has proposed to retain, duplicate existing communication channels and could cause confusion in responding to disasters.
“When an incident occurs, state and local emergency responders operate through an established incident command structure,” the AGs say in recent comments, arguing that coordination already occurs under existing mechanisms, including the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, which EPA administers.
“The RMP Amendments Rule fails to adequately consider these other provisions, resulting in the potential to create confusion among responders, thereby reducing the effectiveness of their response efforts in the event of a chemical facility accident,” the Republican AGs argue.
RMP Revisions
Environmental and community groups, as well as Democratic-led states, have been opposing the Trump administration's plan to revise the RMP rule.
Opponents of undoing the Obama-era strengthening of the program have argued in comments to the agency and federal courts that the delay and revision would increase the risk of disasters, including those caused by hurricanes, spurred by climate change.
Shortly before the end of the Obama administration, EPA issued the rule requiring facilities to conduct third-party audits, analyze safer alternatives, and streamline data disclosure to first responders and the public, among other requirements.
But in response to petitions from GOP-led states and industry, the Trump administration began a two-step reconsideration process. The agency issued a final rule delaying the Obama-era RMP update for nearly two years, until February 2019, and then proposed the May 17 rule seeking to rescind most requirements of the 2017 Obama update rule.
While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently-vacated the delay, ruling it violated the Clean Air Act, the agency is currently weighing comments received on the proposed revision rule, including threats of further lawsuits from environmentalists and Democratic-led states.
The push to preserve the Obama-era RMP update comes as EPA is assisting state officials in responding to rising floodwaters that have breached hog farms and coal ash disposal sites, spreading animal waste and toxic chemicals.
In a Sept. 18 statement, EPA says that its Region 4 is coordinating with officials in North and South Carolina, and Georgia on the status of RMP facilities, Superfund sites and drinking water facilities to ensure adequate response plans. Region 4 covers the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
According to Earthjustice, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia house more than 800 chemical facilities, including petrochemical manufacturers, oil refineries, and pulp-paper mills. The group cites releases of toxic chemicals, triggered by Hurricane Harvey flood waters last summer as an example of risks from flooding.
“Too many communities in the path of Florence are also facing the risk of disasters from chemical plants and refineries that often release huge amounts of hazardous substances during major storms,” Earthjustice says in a Sept. 14 statement on its website.
Doyle, the former EPA official, says in his op-ed that more than 2,500 toxic chemical sites nationwide are in areas at high-risk for flooding. And he notes that the U.S. Chemical Safety Board has recommended that regulators, including EPA, assess the chemical sector's preparedness for hurricanes and flooding.
In undated comments to EPA, the City of Houston specifically backs provisions of the January 2017 RMP rule
that the Trump administration is seeking to revise -- requirements for certain facilities to conduct third-party audits and analyze safer alternatives, and disclose chemical hazard data to the public -- as protecting health and safety.
“Communities near chemical facilities have a 'right to know,' about nearby hazards and first responders need the information to make operations decisions about what risks fires, floods, and explosions in these plants pose,” the city says. “The proposed rollbacks to the 2017 rule: removes critical updates to protect health and safety, puts the people of the city of Houston in harm's way.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/houston-leads-opposition-epas-rmp-rollback-amid-florence-floods
-
Calif. Rest Break Rules Don’t Cover Hazmat Truckers, DOT Says (1)
Sep 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jon Steingart
Truck drivers who transport hazardous materials aren’t eligible for meal and rest breaks required by California law, according to the U.S. Transportation Department.
The state requirements create an “unnecessary delay” in transporting explosives, such as TNT and dynamite, the Transportation Department says in a notice that’s scheduled to publish in the Federal Register Sept. 21. As a result, California’s meal and rest break rules don’t apply to drivers transporting hazardous materials, DOT says.
California requires a 10-minute rest break after four hours of work and a 30-minute meal break after 10 hours. Federal law requires a 30-minute break in an eight-hour period and is flexible with when a driver may take it. It also limits the number of consecutive hours a driver may work.
Pre-empting California’s requirements means trucking companies and drivers don’t have to choose between following federal rules “to avoid the threat of hazmat releases in densely populated environments or complying with California’s meal and rest break requirements,” the National Tank Truck Carriers, a trade group, said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg Law Sept. 20.
The DOT determination comes in response to a July 2016 application by the NTTC that asked the department to evaluate whether federal hazardous material transportation law pre-empts California’s meal and rest break requirements. Forcing trucks with explosive cargo to stop for driver breaks can be dangerous because “freight at rest is freight at risk,” the NTTC said in the application.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/calif-rest-break-rules-dont-cover-hazmat-truckers-dot-says-1
-
New California Law to Limit Plastic Straws in Restaurants
Sep 21, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
People who want straws with their drinks at California restaurants will have to request them under a new law.
The law signed Thursday by Gov. Jerry Brown makes California the first state to bar full-service restaurants from automatically giving out single-use plastic straws. It takes effect next year.
The law doesn't ban plastic straws outright like some cities have. San Francisco and Seattle passed bans earlier this year.
California restaurants that don't comply will get two warnings before being fined up to $300 per year. It will apply only to full-service restaurants, not fast food establishments.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democratic lawmakers who support the policy call it a small step toward reducing ocean pollution.
Brown, who has made environmental issues a signature priority, pointed to the large amount of plastic dumped in oceans every year that can kill whales and fish and contaminate people's food and water supply.
"Plastic has helped advance innovation in our society, but our infatuation with single-use convenience has led to disastrous consequences," Brown wrote in a statement. "Plastics, in all forms — straws, bottles, packaging, bags, etc. — are choking the planet."
Critics argue California's new law is government overreach that won't significantly improve the environment. Some say restricting straws hurts disabled people who rely on them.
Some Republican lawmakers who voted against the measure said it would unfairly punish restaurants, although the restaurant industry didn't oppose the proposal.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/20/us/ap-us-california-plastic-straws.html
-
Brown Signs California Law Intended to Curb Plastic Straws in Restaurants
Sep 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan Keller
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill Thursday forbidding dine-in restaurants from giving patrons plastic straws unless one is requested.
"Ocean plastic is estimated to kill millions of marine animals every year," Brown wrote in his signing statement. "Plastics, in all forms-straws, bottles, packaging, bags, etc.-are choking our planet."
He added that a verbal request is "a very small step" for a customer to make if they actually want to make use of a straw.
"And it might make them pause and think again about an alternative," Brown wrote.
"But one thing is clear, we must find ways to reduce and eventually eliminate single-use plastic products," he concluded.
The law will take effect January 1 and will penalize any full-service restaurant with a written warning for its first two violations and then a $25 fine for each subsequent day of infractions.
The regulation comes amid a wave of environmental activism focused around lowering American's uses of plastic straws.
Some cities, such as Seattle, have sought to ban single-use plastic straws entirely.
However, the efforts have met with pushback from disabilities rights activists, who argue that some disabled people need ready access straws.
"For a disabled person, straws are an accessibility tool," Alice Wong, founder and director of the Disability Visibility Project, told The Guardian last month.
Even with a regulation like California's rather than a full ban, advocates have expressed concerns that people who need straws because of disabilities will be judged or shamed for using them.
"Some people who need straws may have an invisible disability or illness, and they should be able to receive a straw without being judged or asked if they 'really' need it," Karin Willison, the disability editor at the health website The Mighty, who has cerebral palsy herself, told The Los Angeles Times.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/407686-jerry-brown-signs-california-law-limiting-plastic-straws-in
-
Four States Back EPA’s Quest to Ease Monitoring for Smog-Forming Pollution
Sep 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Four states are supportive of EPA’s proposal to relax monitoring requirements for smog-forming pollution released by manufacturers and other industrial facilities.
Officials from Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio told Bloomberg Environment they are on board with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Sept. 13 proposal (RIN:2060-AU08) to let states write air pollution cleanup plans that give about 310 large industrial plants the option to choose lower-cost monitoring for nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides contribute to ground-level ozone, a lung irritant that can exacerbate breathing conditions like asthma.
Alabama and Ohio officials queried by Bloomberg Environment said the current monitoring requirements are cumbersome, costly, and of little value. Indiana officials said they had been seeking similar flexibility through their own regulations.
Those states are among the 20 states and the District of Columbia that are part of a regional air pollution trading program known as NOx SIP Call. The trading program lets power plants buy allowances to emit nitrogen oxides in lieu of installing costly controls to meet federal pollution limits.
Right now, all participating major coal-fired power plants and large manufacturing plants must monitor their emissions continuously. Operating and maintaining those monitors and auditing the data they collect cost around $100,000 each year, according to Ron Gore, air quality division director for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.
Power plants would be required to keep the continuous monitoring systems, but the EPA’s proposal would give other industries less costly options.
“When the program started we had 10 manufacturing plants,” Gore told Bloomberg Environment. “Now we only have five and they all are emitting below the limits so there is no need to require them to monitor continuously.”
States Still DigestingEighteen states responded to questions by Bloomberg Environment about the proposal.
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and District of Columbia said they had no intention of modifying their plans to allow relaxed monitoring requirements. Rhode Island and Missouri said they aren’t affected. Tennessee said its rules already allow industrial facilities to request alternative forms of monitoring in some instances.
Kentucky and Indiana said they would amend their pollution control plans to track with federal requirements, such as alternative monitoring. Indiana officials said the EPA’s position is consistent with what manufacturing plants asked the state to do when it was seeking similar flexibility.
Ohio floated a proposal in January that tracks with the federal proposal. Michigan wants to know how the proposal would affect its rulemaking to align its regulations with federal programs, while Virginia, Connecticut, and Illinois remain on the fence about how they will respond.
Manufacturing plants and electricity-generating plants under this federal program released just shy of 200,000 tons of nitrogen oxides of emissions in 2017, which is below the 528,453 tons allowed under their state budgets, according to EPA Clean Air Markets data. Of the total emissions, about 7.5 percent were released by plants that would be covered by the EPA proposal.
Less Monitoring Means Weak Enforcement: CriticsCritics of the proposal, notably the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it will mean less monitoring data collected and weaker enforcement as a result.
“It means that you are less certain you are complying continuously with pollution limits for nitrogen oxide that forms smog in the atmosphere. It also makes pollution limits less certain, less enforceable, and less likely to produce continuous compliance with clean air health standards,” John Walke, NRDC’s senior attorney and clean air programs director, said.
Paul Billings, the lung association’s senior vice president for advocacy, is concerned about what alternative forms of monitoring would be allowed. The EPA said it would leave it up to the states to decide what alternative forms of monitoring they could allow, Billings said.
Billings worries that lack of monitoring will allow these sources to increase their emissions.
Monitoring IntermittentlyThe sources could monitor intermittently, “that’s a possibility,” said Gale Hoffnagle, senior vice president and technical director at TRC Environmental Corp. in Windsor, Conn., an engineering and consulting firm.
But Hoffnagle said the Clean Air Act requires states to indicate in their implementation plans how many tons of emissions they reduce, and they can achieve that through less-costly forms of monitoring.
This proposal would allow states to give manufacturing plants the flexibility to choose a cost-effective monitoring method to demonstrate compliance. This could range from a paper exercise where plants merely calculate nitrogen oxides reductions based on how much fuel they use to grabbing air samples from smokestacks intermittently.
Hoffnagle doesn’t believe emissions will increase under the proposal.
“Nobody turns off their control devices,” he said. “If they do so, they do at their own peril.”
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/four-states-back-epas-quest-to-ease-monitoring-for-smog-forming-pollution
-
EPA, Sierra Club Spar Over Legality Of State Air Monitoring Plan Mandates
Sep 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and the Sierra Club are sparring over the legality of an agency rule outlining air monitoring mandates for states, at odds over whether states must supply the agency with detailed air quality monitoring plans, subject to public notice and comment, as part of their formal Clean Air Act programs for attaining federal air quality standards.
Both sides in Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on Sept. 17 filed their final reply briefs ahead of currently unscheduled oral argument.
The case centers on the environmental group's challenge to a March 2016 Obama EPA rule revising states' emissions monitoring requirements. Sierra Club in its final opening brief urges the court to force EPA to make submission of air quality monitoring plans a necessary component of state implementation plans (SIPs), which are blueprints outlining how states intend to meet national ambient air quality standards.
The rule “unlawfully and arbitrarily waived two key statutory requirements governing public participation in revising state ambient air quality monitoring plans,” the group claims.
The Clean Air Act mandates that when states revise their SIPs, they must provide reasonable notice and a public hearing before adopting the revised SIP, and EPA must go through notice and comment before approving the SIP, Sierra Club says. But EPA's rule “robs” the public of the chance to offer comment, the group claims.
Sierra Club says EPA “waived these procedural protections, only requiring states to make proposed monitoring network plan revisions 'available' for public inspection.” This, the group claims, is insufficient guarantee of public input into the air monitoring plans.
“EPA’s justification for this substitute procedure -- asserting that a SIP need only contain a list of a state’s legal authorities to conduct monitoring -- is foreclosed by the plain, unambiguous text” of the Clean Air Act. The air law “requires that a SIP contain provisions that bring the monitoring network into existence and prescribe how it will operate. Just listing a state’s legal authorities, to show that it could conduct monitoring if it chooses, is insufficient and unlawful,” Sierra Club says.
EPA's Defense
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf in the case is defending EPA's rule.
DOJ in its final opening brief asserts that, “For decades, EPA has reviewed and approved State monitoring plans apart from its review and approval of SIP submissions. As such, EPA has not required States’ monitoring plans -- and changes to those monitoring plans -- to go through the same public notice and comment requirements as SIP submissions at both the state and federal level.”
DOJ attacks Sierra Club's standing to sue, claiming that the group has failed to assert “actual or imminent” injury from application of the monitoring rule. Further, some of the group's arguments are “not properly before this court,” as they relate to statements by EPA in the rule preamble, which is not legally binding “final agency action."
Should the court accept that Sierra Club has standing, it should still reject the group's challenge because EPA's position that monitoring plans are not part of SIPs “has been consistent for years, is supported by the text of the Clean Air Act, and is reasonable,” DOJ says.
DOJ further fends off allegations by Sierra Club that EPA in its rule unlawfully weakened substantive provisions for monitoring of fine particulate matter emissions (PM2.5) by reducing sampling frequency required. “EPA concluded that the case-by-case approval process that EPA proposed for sampling reductions is sufficient to mitigate the potential risks presented by the new approach,” DOJ says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-sierra-club-spar-over-legality-state-air-monitoring-plan-mandates
-
Wheeler Didn't Commit to Fixing Climate or Sea Trash
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler spent Wednesday in a room in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with environment ministers from other rich nations, hearing them extol the virtues of a low-carbon economy and the Paris Agreement.
By all accounts, the former energy lobbyist was a quiet presence at the closed-door Group of Seven environment ministers meeting, where chairwoman Catherine McKenna, Canada's environment and climate change minister, dedicated Wednesday, the first of three days, primarily to climate change. But his own statement yesterday omitted the issue.
"The United States is pleased with the progress being made by global leaders to advance practical solutions that will reduce marine litter, minimize food waste, and improve air quality. We look forward to continuing constructive dialogue," Wheeler said.
Yesterday's session focused on the health of the oceans and, in particular, efforts to combat the dumping of plastic into them. It's an issue that the Canadian team likely chose to highlight for its lack of controversy. But the United States and Japan nonetheless declined to join the group's other five members — the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France and Italy — in pledging to end it.
Wheeler has now left Halifax. Today's meeting centers on clean energy and will be attended by U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette.
In addition to Wheeler and Brouillette, the U.S. delegation to Halifax includes acting NOAA Administrator Tim Gallaudet and is officially led by the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for oceans and fisheries, William Gibbons-Fly.
The meeting follows last June's contentious leader-level summit in Quebec, which produced an effective "G-6 plus 1" result that highlighted divisions between the United States and its partners on a host of issues. President Trump initially joined the statement after intense negotiations but stepped away when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced plans to retaliate against U.S. trade tariffs.
"I think Canadians looked at that and said, 'What's the point of spending a lot of time to try to negotiate language on a joint statement?'" said Alden Meyer, strategic director of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Instead, the Canadians are apt to say, "'We'll just do chair's summary where we have the pen, and we'll just say what happened and we don't have to work out the wording with the U.S.,'" Meyer said.
McKenna's chair summary after the Wednesday meeting touched on the G-7's usual roster of climate issues — the Paris Agreement; this December's U.N. summit in Katowice, Poland; the G-7's task force on climate-related financial risk disclosure; sustainable finance; and short-lived climate pollutants.
Economist Nicholas Stern and Mark Carney, the Canadian governor of the Bank of England, were on hand to speak to the need for policy and pricing signals to shift private investment away from high-emitting sources. U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa and Michal Kurtyka, who will preside over the Polish summit, made a plea for help to finalize a Paris Agreement rulebook by year's end.
Although McKenna's summary touched on the usual topics, it didn't show full agreement on all of them. Some issues showed consensus, like a need to shift to a "low emissions economy." Others appeared to make a distinction between topics that "many" agreed on versus those that "some" agreed on — Paris was an example of "many," while steps to grant easier access to concessional financing for small island states were championed by "some."
But it's not clear whether one or more countries broke with consensus to join the United States in dissent. Meyers said he'd been assured that the United States stood alone in opposing issues of importance.
McKenna downplayed divisions yesterday, telling reporters that "hard issues are hard."
"We're not necessarily going to agree on every single subject, but still it's important for us to work together," she said after Wednesday's session.
Catherine Abreu, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, called McKenna's end product "solid."
"I think it's really the chair's attempt to accurately capture the conversations that were had and not to overly emphasize dissent," she said.
But although the chair summary records that "several" ministers reaffirmed the pledge by wealthy nations to raise $100 billion a year for climate aid by 2020, no mention was made of ramping up support from there. That's an issue that poor countries are clamoring for in the context of this year's Paris negotiations.
Today's clean energy meeting will show whether McKenna resurrects the G-7 pledge to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels.
The U.S. Energy Department said yesterday that Brouillette will use the meeting in Halifax to "emphasize energy security as a top priority for both the G-7 and the Trump Administration, and underscore the Administration's desire for a balanced approach to energy that protects the environment while promoting infrastructure investment and economic growth."
Wheeler and Brouillette met bilaterally with counterparts on the sidelines of the conference. Brouillette spoke yesterday with Canadian Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi on maintaining the two countries' "extensive energy cooperation." Issues discussed included nuclear energy and "the importance of energy supply diversity."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/21/stories/1060099209
-
LEED Competitor is Moving to U.S. from Down Under
Sep 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
An Australia-based green building and energy efficiency certification system is planning a big launch in the United States this fall.
Global GreenTag International is popular in its home market and has an expanding presence in Southeast Asia. The green building certifier launched in China about six months ago. Like the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program by the U.S. Green Building Council, Global GreenTag rates a structure's environmental friendliness based on a broad set of indicators, from the quality of materials used in construction to the energy savings technologies incorporated into buildings.
Global GreenTag certifies a variety of products that go into building a structure, whereas LEED certifies the structure itself.
The company is now seeking U.S. and Canadian representation as it gears up to introduce itself to North America at the annual Greenbuild International Conference and Expo in Chicago, scheduled for mid-November. The move will have it compete alongside the LEED-complaint systems in the expanding market of eco-certification.
The Australian green building certification system says it is already LEED-compliant and is seeking formal recognition by the U.S. Green Building Council, but Global GreenTag CEO David Baggs says the company offers more. The certification system looks at energy efficiency, carbon footprint, the potential health impacts of construction materials and products, and other eco-friendly metrics.
"HealthRATE is used for consumers or end users where no rating tool is in use," said Baggs. Whereas some project managers have to hire dedicated teams and spend tens of thousands of dollars to ensure the environmental friendliness of a building, "we've done all that," he added, by focusing on the products and materials that go into construction.
LEED ratings focus heavily on energy savings and energy efficiency components incorporated in a construction project. Higher LEED certification is awarded to the greatest use of renewable energy systems and other advanced energy efficiency-maximizing technologies, like air conditioning systems that generate ice at night to help cool a building in the daytime.
Global GreenTag says it delves into even greater detail.
"Energy efficiency is something we consider as an essential aspect of any energy-consuming product," said Baggs. "Of course we don't only look at energy efficiency. We quantify at all embodied impacts, including carbon, using detailed life cycle analysis, whole of life, and then in 'beyond LCA' analysis across the full spectrum of sustainability: health, environment and social, under six sustainability assessment criteria, each of which is scored, where the LCA score is but one."
The eco-certification tab is awarded to building materials and products under four categories: bronze, silver, gold and the highest rating, platinum.
Some building green certification programs pay particular attention to a building's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Baggs said his company's certification program doesn't favor HVAC in its assessment per se, but better technology will win a building a higher level of certification. "HVAC is treated as any other product in the above process," he explained. "Low-carbon energy sources or materials definitely mean products get better scores."
Baggs notes that Global GreenTag already has U.S. clients and handles U.S. brands like Herman Miller and Armstrong, but works through those companies' Asia-Pacific offices. The November conference in Chicago will mark its formal launch in North America.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/21/stories/1060099171
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested