Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - September 25, 2018
-
Next Year 'Even Larger' for Rollbacks — Rao
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
The head of the White House regulatory office says to expect another big deregulatory push in the coming fiscal year. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Group Challenges Science Behind EPA Risk Assessment
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A chemical industry trade group is contesting EPA's assessment of the danger posed by a widely used industrial chemical. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawsuit Seeks Release of Stalled EPA Formaldehyde Health Study
Sep 25, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
A watchdog group is suing EPA in a bid to force the release of a stalled health assessment of the carcinogenic chemical formaldehyde. -
Washington State Reports on Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
Sep 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A Washington state analysis of occupational exposures to hazardous substances found that between 2008 and 2016 more than a quarter of the substances sampled registered twice the recommended level – with some well above it. -
EPA Urges Court to Reconsider Pesticide Ban
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
EPA is pressing a federal court to rethink its recent decision ordering the agency to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos. -
Disinfectant Cleaners Linked to Weight Gain in Infants and Toddlers
Sep 25, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alexis Temkin and Samara Geller
The use of disinfectant cleaners in the home could increase a baby’s risk of becoming overweight or obese later in life, according to a new study. -
Chemical Sector Voices Concerns at UK’s No-Deal Brexit Guidance
Sep 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caroline Byrne
British chemical manufacturers and industry experts have expressed fears that the UK government's approach to a no-deal Brexit could diminish competitiveness, duplicate registration duties and weaken the country's environmental credentials. -
Retaliatory Tariffs Could Set Back America's Energy Future
Sep 25, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Pınar Çebi Wilber
In politics, as in economics, one of the real dangers of making radical changes is unintended consequences. Add in the complications of international relations, such as our dealings with economic rival China, and the unknowns, as former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have put it, become even more unknown. -
Total, Partners Authorize Bayport Plastics Expansion
Sep 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The French energy major Total and its partners said they will soon start construction on a new plastics plant at Total's Bayport campus near Pasadena, a project estimated to create more than 1,700 construction-related jobs. -
Total Finalises Plans to Expand Texas Bayport Polymers in Petrochems Push
Sep 25, 2018 | Reuters
By Bate Felix
French oil and gas major Total has made a final investment decision to expand its Texas Bayport Polymers joint venture to double polyethylene production capacity to around 1.1 million tonnes a year, the company said. -
Shell CEO Considers New Natural-Gas Bet
Sep 24, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Dezember and Inyoung Hwang
Shortly after Ben van Beurden took over as chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, he bet the company on natural gas, with a roughly $50 billion takeover of a rival focused on shipping the fuel around the globe. Now he is preparing to double down. -
Barnett Natural Gas Production Not Linked to Methane in Water Wells, Say Scientists
Sep 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
No link has been found after four years of study between natural gas production activities in the Barnett Shale of North Texas and methane in water wells outside of Fort Worth, academic researchers said Tuesday. -
Plains Working to Open Pipeline Expansion out of Permian by October
Sep 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Plains All American is planning to open a 90,000 barrel a day crude oil pipeline expansion by the end of October. -
NEPA Decisions Move to Policy Office
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA has finalized plans to shift environmental reviews from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to the Office of Policy. -
Trump Will Address World Leaders, but His Audience Is Voters
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump's address to skeptical world leaders today could celebrate his isolating decisions on the global stage related to climate change and trade issues in a message tailored for conservative voters six weeks before crucial midterm elections. -
Ozone Standard Gets a Court Date — Finally
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A hefty pile of litigation over EPA's 2015 ozone standard will finally get its turn before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit more than three years after the first lawsuit was filed. -
D.C. Circuit Schedules Oral Argument in Air Monitoring Suit
Sep 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled Nov. 7 oral argument to hear environmentalists' suit seeking to force greater opportunity for public scrutiny of states' air quality monitoring plans. -
U.S. Could Be 'One of the Biggest Losers' — Study
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The United States has a lot to lose from climate change, according to new research.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Next Year 'Even Larger' for Rollbacks — Rao
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
The head of the White House regulatory office says to expect another big deregulatory push in the coming fiscal year.
Neomi Rao, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the administration was on track with its reform objectives and could expect even more rollbacks in fiscal 2019.
"Frankly, I think fiscal year '19 is going to be even much larger because some of the major deregulatory actions have just taken this much time to finalize. I think the pace of reform is just continuing to accelerate," she said, and noted OIRA would be announcing results of its deregulatory actions this year in the next few weeks.
Rao made the remarks at a Bloomberg Government event this morning. She also participated in a panel discussion on OIRA's oversight authority at George Washington University yesterday.
Rao pointed to OIRA's efforts to deregulate and help keep agencies on target. She also said the White House was working on clarifying agency use of guidance documents and was considering whether it should begin reviewing significant regulatory actions from independent agencies currently exempt from OIRA scrutiny.
Rao praised the Trump administration for "turning around the regulatory ship." She pointed to the president's Executive Order 13771, which calls for eliminating the costs associated with two existing regulations for each new one put in place.
The objective was initially to have a regulatory budget of zero for fiscal 2017. Then in fiscal 2018, OIRA issued guidance suggesting agencies aim for a negative regulatory budget. Rao noted many agencies did move in that direction.
"It's not possible for all agencies to have a negative regulatory budget — some have positive budgets, some are still aiming for zero — but we are working closely with agencies to try to encourage as much deregulation as possible," she said.
Rao described the executive order as an important tool for encouraging agencies to do retrospective analyses on existing regulations to assess whether they were effective.Controversy
The order has faced sharp criticism that the federal government is focusing too much on cost savings at the expense of public health and the environment.
In the panel discussion yesterday, Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Public Integrity at New York University, slammed its impact on cost-benefit analysis.
"13771 requires a cap on costs, suggesting the goal of the regulatory system is to minimize overall regulatory costs, not to maximize the net benefits of regulation, which is the hallmark of cost-benefit analysis," he said.
"It would be absurd for economic analysis of policy to ignore the deaths averted, reduced number of hospitalizations, the morbidity reductions and other significant reductions in the well-being of Americans."
He pointed to EPA's own analysis of its replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The agency said it was using its discretion to interpret its authority more narrowly.
Revesz said proposed changes would lead to "net harms" to the American public. "The agency doesn't even attempt to explain why it should be exercising its discretion to cause such harm," Revesz said.
Rao declined to speak to specific deregulatory actions at the agency. "We are not getting rid of regulations that are working; we are getting rid of regulations that are not working," she said.
Rao described her approach as putting greater emphasis on agencies "respecting the boundaries of their authority. This included readings that might not result in them getting deference in the courts, but would more closely reflect Congress' primary role in legislative power."'Important step'
In addition to the administration's deregulatory push, Rao pointed to changes at OIRA itself. The agency has worked to improve and give more prominence to its unified agenda, for example. This document lists pending agency actions and is made public in the fall and spring.
The changes are meant to more accurately reflect the work agencies are doing, and have also been a tool in the deregulatory process, said Rao. As part of those changes, OIRA now makes public a list of inactive actions.
When it comes to independent regulators, Rao sees a bigger role for OIRA. "I think for the same reason OIRA review has bipartisan consensus, it promotes good analysis and transparency ... there is not really a reason to keep them out of that process," she said.
The expansion of OIRA review has garnered more interest since the spring, when OIRA and the Department of the Treasury reached a memorandum of agreement allowing the White House to review the department's regulations. Rao described the change as "an important step."
OIRA is also working to push back on what Rao described as the "improper use" of guidance documents. These documents, while not legally binding, direct federal agencies on how to implement policy.
Rao said OIRA has been working to put in place procedures and requirements for how to minimize the use of guidance. In some cases, agencies have centralized their guidance review process.
"There have been a number of occasions where an agency have said we propose to do this by guidance, and we have said, 'No, you need to do that by rulemaking,'" she said. "I think we have seen a lot of improvements."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/25/stories/1060099687
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Group Challenges Science Behind EPA Risk Assessment
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A chemical industry trade group is contesting EPA's assessment of the danger posed by a widely used industrial chemical.
In a petition publicly released this morning, the American Chemistry Council asked EPA for a "correction" of the information included for ethylene oxide in its latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) made public last month.
In the petition, brought under the Information Quality Act, the chemistry group said that EPA's evaluation of the chemical's inhalation carcinogenicity — drawn from the agency's Integrated Risk Information System — was not "the best available science."
In an accompanying news release, the group said the risk value of ethylene oxide "is far below levels found in nature" and 19,000 times lower than those found in the human body. Besides outlining "numerous problems" with the EPA assessment, the council said that it is offering an alternative range of risk values "that is both scientifically sound and protective of public health for use in the NATA and any EPA regulatory actions."
Ethylene oxide is used as an "intermediate" in the production of ethylene glycol and other chemicals, according to an overview by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which adds that it presents several health and physical hazards. Short-term exposure may lead to respiratory irritation, nausea and diarrhea; chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, neurotoxicity and reproductive effects, the overview says.
The chemistry council represents both producers and users of ethylene oxide.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/25/stories/1060099675
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawsuit Seeks Release of Stalled EPA Formaldehyde Health Study
Sep 25, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
A watchdog group is suing EPA in a bid to force the release of a stalled health assessment of the carcinogenic chemical formaldehyde.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility alleges that EPA has violated the Freedom of Information Act by not releasing the draft formaldehyde assessment, as well as communications between Trump administration political employees and industry representatives that the group requested.
POLITICO reported in July that EPA political officials were "stonewalling" the release of the draft assessment, which found that the widely used chemical is linked to leukemia, according to a current and a former EPA official. Industry has argued that the link to leukemia is not scientifically supported and has staunchly opposed the release of the study. Last year, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appointed Kimberly White, who leads the American Chemistry Council's Formaldehyde Panel, to EPA's influential Science Advisory Board.
PEER submitted a FOIA request to EPA on July 9 for a series of records related to the draft formaldehyde assessment, and received a response from EPA on August 22 with questions about the request. The group replied two days later with clarifications, but says it has yet to receive a response from EPA.
"EPA is frustrating Plaintiff’s efforts to educate the public about how and to what extent the chemical industry and EPA political appointees are influencing consideration of impartial scientific evidence about the safety of formaldehyde," PEER says in its suit.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Washington State Reports on Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
Sep 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A Washington state analysis of occupational exposures to hazardous substances found that between 2008 and 2016 more than a quarter of the substances sampled registered twice the recommended level – with some well above it.
The sampling involved calculating the 'exposure severity level', which the report defines as the ratio of the measured concentration of a substance to its established permissible exposure limit (Pel).
Researchers looked at 9,941 assessments made by industrial hygiene compliance safety and health officers at the department of labour and industries. These included 4,394 exposure samples covering 133 substances.
Findings showed that 35 of the 133 substances measured severity levels greater than 1.0 on at least one occasion.
According to the report, many professional industrial hygienists consider a severity level equal to or greater than 0.5 – or half of the substance Pel – the level at which safety controls are needed to lower workers’ exposures.
In some instances, respirable silica, dust, nitrous oxide and hexavalent chromium each were measured at more than 50 times their respective Pels, the report says. Maximum severity ranged from 51.3 for a hexavalent chromium sample for painting and wall covering contractors to 130 for a respirable silica sample for construction, mining, and forestry machinery and equipment rental.
The report further notes:lead, dust and noise were the most common sampled problems;automotive body, paint and interior repair and maintenance, boat building and sheet metalwork manufacturing were the most frequently sampled industries;nitrous oxide had the highest median severity among substances (2.5).
Among the researchers’ recommendations are that the state's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) "closely monitor the amount and type of worker exposure sampling being conducted and consider developing a multi-approach exposure sampling plan," as well as address outdated Pels and substances lacking them.
They also recommend that training teams work to provide updated training on new and modified sampling tools and techniques.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70516/washington-state-reports-on-occupational-exposure-to-hazardous-chemicals
-
EPA Urges Court to Reconsider Pesticide Ban
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
EPA is pressing a federal court to rethink its recent decision ordering the agency to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos.
In a legal filing last night, government lawyers argued that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong when it issued a 2-1 decision last month ordering EPA to block use of the farm chemical.
EPA says the 9th Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the agency's 2017 refusal to ban chlorpyrifos and overstepped when it ordered EPA to ban the chemical.
At the very least, EPA lawyers say, the 9th Circuit should narrow its order to apply only to pesticide authorizations under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The August decision also applies to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act tolerances — which include non-food uses like mosquito control.
The agency is asking for a rehearing by either the three-judge panel or the entire roster of active judges on the court.
Environmentalists panned EPA's move as a favor to the chemical industry.
"The Trump administration is shameless in its refusal to ban this dangerous chemical that is poisoning our children's brains," Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer Erik Olson said in a statement.
"Science, the law and EPA's own staff have all made it clear this toxic stuff does not belong on our food or in our fields, yet this administration is still going to bat for the billion-dollar chemical industry," he added. "We will not stop fighting to put children's health before powerful polluters."
NRDC was part of a coalition of environmentalists, states and labor groups that pushed litigation over EPA's refusal to ban the chemical. The agency had been leaning toward a ban under President Obama, but Trump administration officials reversed course. The case stems from a decadelong effort to ban the pesticide, which is sprayed on many U.S. food crops. It has been banned for indoor use since 2000 (Greenwire, Aug. 9).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/25/stories/1060099659
-
Disinfectant Cleaners Linked to Weight Gain in Infants and Toddlers
Sep 25, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alexis Temkin and Samara Geller
The use of disinfectant cleaners in the home could increase a baby’s risk of becoming overweight or obese later in life, according to a new study. The risk appears to rise depending on how heavily disinfectants are used, but even once-weekly use was linked to an infant’s likelihood of being overweight or obese as a toddler.
A team of 15 researchers collected data from 757 mother and infant pairs enrolled in the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development, or CHILD, study. Their findings were published this month in CMAJ, a journal of the Canadian Medical Association.
When the children were 3-4 months old, researchers used questionnaires and in-home visits to assess the type and frequency of cleaning products used in the infants’ homes. They compared these findings to the species and amount of microbes colonizing the gastrointestinal tract of the infants. The researchers also measured the body mass index, or BMI, of the children when they were one year old and again at age 3.
Higher exposure to disinfectants was associated with a greater body mass index in children and changes to the microbes in their stomachs and intestines. These bacterial changes correlated to the frequency of disinfectant use. As disinfectant use increased, so did the abundance of Lachnospiraceae, a bacteria linked to higher body fat and insulin resistance in lab animals and humans.
Infants in the study with higher levels of this bacteria were also more likely to be overweight or obese as toddlers. A species of bacteria associated with immune function, Clostridium, also decreased in the gut microbiome of children exposed to increased disinfectant use.
“These results suggest that gut microbiota were the culprit in the association between disinfectant use and the overweight,” senior author Anita Kozyrskj told CNN. While more research needs to be conducted, some studies indicate that metabolites produced by gut microbiota can influence proper metabolism and appetite control.
Toddlers in households reporting more frequent use of “eco-friendly” products were less likely to be overweight or obese. But the researchers said this outcome did not appear to be linked to changes to gut bacteria.
The disinfectant products most reported in the study were multi-surface cleaners and toilet bowl cleaners. But the specific ingredients in each of the products were not noted or measured. The researchers also did not adequately control for dietary differences among households.
More studies are needed. But this study adds obesity to a growing list of adverse health effects associated with exposure to disinfectants.
Disinfectants such as glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite and quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, have been linked to respiratory illnesses, like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Quats have also been associated with reduced fertilityand birth defects in rodents.
Disinfectants are not the only worrisome chemicals in cleaning products. Use EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning to find healthier cleaning products that fully disclose their ingredients and are manufactured without harmful chemicals.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/09/disinfectant-cleaners-linked-weight-gain-infants-and-toddlers#.W6pfKM4zbX4
-
Chemical Sector Voices Concerns at UK’s No-Deal Brexit Guidance
Sep 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caroline Byrne
British chemical manufacturers and industry experts have expressed fears that the UK government's approach to a no-deal Brexit could diminish competitiveness, duplicate registration duties and weaken the country's environmental credentials.
Their concern follows the release of government guidance for the sector in the event that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 without a trade deal. The 24 September paper – Regulating chemicals (REACH) if there's no Brexit deal – spells out how businesses producing, registering, importing or exporting chemicals would be affected.
The risks of a disorderly Brexit include disruptions to pan-European supply chains because chemicals registered by British businesses with Echa could no longer cross the border without increased administrative steps.While the Chemical Industries Association says it appreciates that the UK government does not have an easy task, it points out that "businesses have already spent in excess of £550m investing in registrations under EU-REACH, sharing information and communicating safe use in exchange for a licence to market chemicals in European countries, including the UK."
"Requiring companies to duplicate pre-existing registration duties for a UK-REACH will not only weaken our international competitiveness, but, more importantly, offers nothing more to strengthen health and safety," the CIA says in a statement.
"As a consequence, we urge that a more efficient and less costly option to both businesses and the regulator is considered over re-registrations whereby all existing REACH registrations are recognised in the UK."
Peter Newport, chief executive officer of the Chemical Business Association (CBA), told Chemical Watch that the UK technical paper was consistent with what the association had been told by Defra and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis) and held no surprises, but he expressed concerned over data agreements.
"Many of the data agreements already signed for REACH are explicitly limited for use on registrations for European Union REACH, and the ability of UK companies to use the data for UK REACH is questionable."
"CBA is aware one or two agreements have been amended to enable use for UK REACH should that become necessary, which is a promising sign but by no means a guaranteed solution," Mr Newport said. WTO rules
The chemical sector is one of the UK's main manufacturing industries, with exports to the EU totalling £17bn in 2017, the National Audit Office said in a report released earlier in September.
As a result, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond warned in August that the sector is likely to be among the hardest hit, should a no-deal breakaway from the EU mean an adoption of WTO rules.
Chemicals trading between the UK and the EU may even come to a "complete standstill" without a Brexit deal, the head of the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) warned in August.
Responding to the 24 September technical guidance, Susanne Baker, head of environment and compliance for techUK, said the introduction of a new border will generate new regulatory duties for a range of businesses. The trade body represents more than 950 companies and 700,000 people, about half of all tech sector jobs in the UK.
"Grandfathering existing registrations and authorisations, combined with a light touch transitionary process, is pragmatic and should provide sufficient time for companies to prepare for a UK regime. However, 180 days may not be long enough for those facing new registration duties for the first time."
"UK companies have worked hard and invested significant time and money into compliance with EU REACH, so the prime minister's pledge to seek to negotiate an associate partnership with Echa must continue to be our ultimate goal," she added.Divergence from EU
There was some concern too about the UK government's plan to work with a simplified copy of the EU's decision-making process in REACH from the end of next March. Under this the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) would act as the lead UK regulatory authority.
"This won't keep the UK chemical regulation in line with the EU," Michael Warhurst, executive director of the UK-registered charity CHEM Trust, said. "We are very concerned that the UK may not ban future chemicals of concern in parallel with the EU."
Mr Warhurst, speaking to Chemical Watch at the CW Enforcement Summit Europe 2018 conference in Brussels, said there will not be any text to commit the government to implementing future EU decisions on restricting or otherwise controlling chemical use, "instead, everything will be dependent on the decisions made in the new UK 'agency' and how they interact with the secretary of state for the environment."
If the UK were to leave the EU in a no-deal scenario, it would also no longer have a seat or a vote at Echa, which manages the technical and administrative aspects of REACH.
Without Echa's management committee and stakeholder engagement, "we are concerned that the new agency may become a secretive quango which operates mainly with its main clients, Defra and the chemical industry," Mr Warhurst added.
And Jean-Pierre Feyaerts, former head of the Belgian REACH helpdesk and a Brexit commentator, called the government's 24 September notice "rather vague".
While the advice covers registrations, it does not address CLP, the biocidal products Regulation, or substances subject to product and process-orientated research and development (Ppord). A second notice will be needed covering other aspects of UK-REACH including authorisations, restrictions and open dossiers post-29 March, Mr Feyaerts said.
"This notice could have been written in March 2017," Mr Feyaerts told Chemical Watch, adding that more detailed information is required before 29 March 2019 and not later than 22 January 2019.
If no deal has been reached with the EU by 21 January 2019, the UK will have to present its new plan of action to Parliament.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70522/chemical-sector-voices-concerns-at-uks-no-deal-brexit-guidance
-
Retaliatory Tariffs Could Set Back America's Energy Future
Sep 25, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Pınar Çebi Wilber
In politics, as in economics, one of the real dangers of making radical changes is unintended consequences. Add in the complications of international relations, such as our dealings with economic rival China, and the unknowns, as former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have put it, become even more unknown.
Such is the case with President Trump’s enthusiastic pursuit of tariffs. The U.S. has slapped a 25 percent tariff on steel, a 10 percent tariff on aluminum, and new tarriffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese products — on top of tariffs already imposed on $50 billion worth of products. China has responded with its own tariff list on $60 billion of U.S. goods. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, with these latest round of tariffs:
Trump will have imposed new trade restrictions on 12 percent of US imports during 2018 alone. The combined trading partner retaliation stemming from Trump’s 2018 tariff collection will cover over $125 billion, or 8 percent, of US exports.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to the escalating trade war between U.S. and its partners.
If unknown consequences are a staple of President Trump’s politics, so too is irony. That’s because one of China’s new tariffs is on liquefied natural gas (LNG), a bustling export market for U.S. energy firms. The president himself singled out LNG during a June 2017 event heralding the advent of American “energy dominance.” As he should — U.S. did export more than 1.9 billion cubic feet per day of LNG in 2017, putting it on pace to become the third largest LNG exporter in the world by 2020, behind Australia and Qatar. We could even become the world’s largest LNG seller within five years.
China, in particular, is hungry for LNG imports and is expected to constitute the world’s biggest market for that product. That’s mostly due to a long-term energy plan that favors using more natural gas to lower an overreliance on coal. The problem, at least for the U.S., is that China has a number of choices about who supplies its LNG. Neighboring Russia has significant gas supplies, and so does global LNG leader Qatar.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with tariffs. One nation fires a shot at its competitors in the name of protecting home-grown industries. Another nation fires back, usually hitting where it hurts most. In the end, some other sector usually pays the price. In this case, it’s the booming LNG market. The lasting effect of an escalating trade war with LNG caught in the crossfire could be very damaging as exports and long-term contracts are imperiled. U.S. LNG pioneer Cheniere Energy, in particular, has two long-term sales agreements with state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and is now slated to ship LNG from its new liquefaction facility in Corpus Christi by the end of the year.
The health of the LNG sector, however, isn’t the only potential casualty of Trump’s tariff approach. Imported steel and aluminum, two commodities that are front and center in the escalating trade war, play critical roles in supporting our nation’s energy sector.
Pipeline construction, for example, relies heavily on imported steel, especially for specialty products that are no longer produced in this country. We are already seeing the impacts of steel tariffs on pipeline construction costs, an important part of U.S. energy infrastructure, which is privately financed. Recently, the Commerce Department rejected a request from Plains All American Pipeline LP to be exempted from paying the new steel tariffs for its $1.1 billion project to build 550 miles pipelines. This could mean an increase of as much as $40 million in the cost of one project, which means less money available for future privately financed projects at a time when increased pipeline infrastructure is needed to prevent distribution bottlenecks in natural gas rich locations.
Tariffs could pose real danger to the American energy renaissance that the president has worked hard to help nurture. If we really want “energy dominance” and if we really want to build the kind of energy security that will make America great for generations, we can’t afford setbacks to our energy future from a dangerous game of trade brinksmanship. Now is the time to reevaluate our approach to trade to ensure that retaliatory tariffs don’t undermine much needed economic momentum.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/09/25/retaliatory_tariffs_could_set_back_americas_energy_future_110343.html
-
Total, Partners Authorize Bayport Plastics Expansion
Sep 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The French energy major Total and its partners said they will soon start construction on a new plastics plant at Total's Bayport campus near Pasadena, a project estimated to create more than 1,700 construction-related jobs.
The project involves building a new plant to annually produce 625,000 metric tons - more than 1.3 billion pounds - of polyethylene, which is the world's most common plastic.
Total owns 50 percent of its new Bayport Polymers joint venture with its partners Nova Chemicals of Calgary, Alberta and Borealis of Vienna.
The expansion, which is expected to be completed in 2021, would more than double the Bayport campus' existing polyethylene production of about 400,000 metric tons a year.
The companies already are building a new ethane cracker plant in Port Arthur, which processes ethane, a natural gas liquid, into ethylene, which is the primary building block of most plastics. The ethylene would then be piped to Bayport to be manufactured into plastics.
The Bayport campus is nearly adjacent to the Port of Houston's Bayport Container Terminal, which is exporting much of the plastic to developing markets in Asia and elsewhere.
The ethane cracker project costs nearly $2 billion, but Total is not yet revealing the cost of the plastics plant.
Houston-based McDermott International will lead the engineering and construction, employing about 1,750 people during the construction process.
Bernard Pinatel, president of Total refining and chemicals, said the project is designed to take advantage of the cheap and abundant ethane feedstock in Texas shale and integrating the entire manufacturing process.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Total-partners-authorize-Bayport-plastics-13256304.php
-
Total Finalises Plans to Expand Texas Bayport Polymers in Petrochems Push
Sep 25, 2018 | Reuters
By Bate Felix
French oil and gas major Total has made a final investment decision to expand its Texas Bayport Polymers joint venture to double polyethylene production capacity to around 1.1 million tonnes a year, the company said.
Total said it aimed to become a major player in the U.S. polyethylene market when it announced the joint venture in March 2017 with Borealis and Canada’s Nova Chemical .
The Bayport project is in line with the company’s $3 billion programme that began a year ago with a $1.7 billion investment to build an ethane steam cracker at its Port Arthur refining complex in Texas.
The cracker will process ethane, which is abundantly available from U.S shale gas at competitive prices, and will supply Bayport polyethylene units. Production is expected to start in 2021.
The new unit is expected to have a capacity of a 625,000 tonnes a year, that will added to the existing 400,000 tonnes per year unit.
The Bayport unit engineering, procurement and construction has been awarded to the company McDermott, Total said.
Polyethylene is used in packaging, pipes, bottles, plastics and other composite materials. It is also seen as a growing market, that Total is targeting with a global expansion of its petrochemicals refining units.
“The project is in line with our strategy to develop petrochemicals at our major integrated (refining) complexes and leverage competitively priced feedstocks,” said Bernard Pinatel, Total’s President for Refining and Chemicals.
Pinatel said light materials are increasingly used as substitutes for metals in various industrial sectors such as transport and energy, all of which is lifting demand for plastics and polymers.
“It is a market that is growing by 3 to 4 percent per year,” Pinatel said.
As part of this expansion into the polyethylene market, Total and Saudi Aramco had said in April they would invest around $5 billion to build a petrochemical complex at their Jubail Satorp refinery.
In May, Total also signed a $1.5 billion deal with Algeria’s Sonatrach to build a polypropylene plant in western Algeria that will supply plastic to the Algerian and wider Mediterranean market.
Last December, its South Korean joint venture with Hanwha Group had also said it would invest $331 million in the group’s refining and petrochemicals platform to increase polyethylene output by 400,000 tonnes per year by 2019.
That increased investment was planned to deal with growing demand, particularly from China.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/total-petrochemicals-bayport/total-finalises-plans-to-expand-texas-bayport-polymers-in-petrochems-push-idUKP6N1UN01O
-
Shell CEO Considers New Natural-Gas Bet
Sep 24, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Dezember and Inyoung Hwang
Shortly after Ben van Beurden took over as chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, he bet the company on natural gas, with a roughly $50 billion takeover of a rival focused on shipping the fuel around the globe. Now he is preparing to double down.
Mr. van Beurden said Tuesday that a consortium led by the Anglo-Dutch energy giant will decide before year-end whether to move forward with a $30 billion, liquefied-natural-gas export terminal in western Canada.
“We postponed the decision previously when the project wasn’t ready in terms of economic fortunes,” he told The Wall Street Journal on the sidelines of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s meeting in New York. “But there are only so many times you can postpone and recycle and revisit. The moment of truth will come in the next few months.”
The export terminal is intended to gather cheap natural gas extracted from remote parts of western Canada, chill it to liquid form known as LNG and load the fuel into special tankers to transport it to Asia where it fetches much higher prices. Shell holds the largest stake in the project alongside partners PetroChina , Mitsubishi Corp. of Japan, Korea Gas Corp. and Malaysia’s Petroliam Nasional Bhd.
The Canadian LNG project could take five years to construct should the consortium move forward with its final investment decision, Mr. van Beurden said.
Since taking the helm at Shell at the start of 2014, Mr. van Beurden has pushed the company toward natural gas in a shift from its traditional oil business. One of Mr. van Beurden’s early moves as CEO was to acquire rival BG Group PLC and its global LNG business. The acquisition, made at the depths of an energy price crash in early 2016, made Shell the world’s dominant competitor in LNG, and gave it a big position in the nascent business of delivering U.S. shale gas overseas.
Shell took the initial LNG cargo in March from Dominion Energy Inc.’s Cove Point LNG export terminal on Chesapeake Bay, and it has also been a shipper of shale gas fromCheniere Energy Inc.’s Louisiana facility.
“Gas has more running room, particularly if you take into account what the world needs in terms of additional LNG demand as well as the decarbonization of the energy system,” said Mr. van Beurden, who spent roughly 10 years working in Shell’s LNG business as well as in its chemicals and refining businesses before becoming CEO.
China’s retaliatory 10% tariff on U.S. LNG, part of the country’s trade dispute with the Trump administration, doesn’t necessarily improve the decadeslong financial outlook for Canada LNG, but the move could help build favor for the project among its investors, Mr. van Beurden said.
“These tariffs are not going to stay forever and you make an investment decision and the market will take a view of this project over multiple decades,” he said. “In terms of sentiment, it may nudge it a little bit in a certain direction.”
President Trump’s trade wars are having unintended consequences on another of Shell’s gas plays, however. Steel bound for a multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant that Shell is building outside of Pittsburgh was held by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at a California port in June after quotas for Brazilian steel were filled. Shell only received the steel recently after getting Mr. Trump to sign a presidential proclamation ordering the shipment released.
The Pennsylvania chemical complex, which converts ethane extracted from the nearby Marcellus and Utica shales into polyethylene, a component of plastics, is ahead of schedule and within budget, Mr. van Beurden said. But there could be lengthy delays and added costs if steel parts ordered years ago are unable to be delivered.
“It’s not fatal but it is something that can really disrupt the flow of construction and the continuity of employment and it can bring significant costs in the project itself if it is not managed properly,” he said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/shell-ceo-considers-new-natural-gas-bet-1537823310
-
Barnett Natural Gas Production Not Linked to Methane in Water Wells, Say Scientists
Sep 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
No link has been found after four years of study between natural gas production activities in the Barnett Shale of North Texas and methane in water wells outside of Fort Worth, academic researchers said Tuesday.
“The methane appears to have migrated naturally to the wells from the shallower Strawn formations and not from the Barnett Shale, where natural gas production and hydraulic fracturing are occurring,” according to research conducted by the University of Texas at Austin (UT) and the University of Michigan.
The findings, part of the fifth and final in a series, were published in the August issue of Water Resources Research, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Geophysical Union.
The data compiled in the granddaddy of all unconventional plays could be applied in similar situations to determine where methane, a primary component of natural gas, originates in an environment.
“Protecting groundwater quality is a fundamental requirement for sustainable energy development, and it is important to develop tools that can be used to monitor ongoing gas exploration and production activities,” said UT’s Toti Larson, lead author and research associate at the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), a research unit of the Jackson School of Geosciences.
While most of the water wells studied had “little or no methane,” a cluster of 11 wells near the border of Parker and Hood counties had methane levels above 10 milligrams/liter of water, a level that could require well water systems to be vented to ensure flammable gas doesn’t accumulate to hazardous levels.
The Barnett was the first onshore play to successfully combine horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing with methods developed by George P. Mitchell’s Mitchell Energy & Development Corp. The “unconventional” drilling method has since revolutionized energy resource development.
While many oil and gas operators have moved on to more productive North American basins, the Barnett remains one of the largest and most prolific gas fields in the United States, with about 20,000 production wells to date. Because of its longevity, studying methane deposits may have implications for other onshore plays.
Unconventional drilling artificially produces fractures in wells thousands of feet deep to reach gas and oil deposits in shale and tight resources.
However, methane in the North Texas study area was found in “much shallower and smaller deposits hundreds of feet below the ground,” said researchers. “These shallower deposits formed as a result of methane migrating from deeper sources toward the surface over millions of years.” The shallow reservoirs studied are in the Strawn Group’s geologic unit, which overlies the Barnett.
The determination that methane migrated from the Strawn and not the Barnett mirrors findings in 2014 by the Railroad Commission of Texas. Methane migration from Texas and Pennsylvania gas wells also has been determined to result from faulty well casings, not fracturing.
Researchers in the UT/Michigan studies relied on the chemistry of dissolved gases in groundwater to identify likely sources of methane, noble gases and nitrogen. Nitrogen gas was targeted in the final study.
Scientists are interested in measuring concentrations of the other gases found with methane in the groundwater “because they can give clues about the methane’s starting place.”
To determine the source and extent of methane in water wells, samples were analyzed from more than 450 wells across 12 counties in the western part of the Barnett.
“The vast majority of samples -- 85% -- showed very low methane levels in the groundwater of less than 0.1 milligrams of methane/liter of water,” scientists said. Findings and conclusions “remained consistent through the studies,” showing the importance of using “a wide range of tools to identify the source of methane in shallow groundwater aquifers.”
The methods have involved matching gas compositions from samples to the gas compositions from their sources, comparing carbon isotope values between the sources, and looking at noble gases and gases that are atmospheric in origin to help determine the methane source.
In this final study, the levels of nitrogen were analyzed, which, in addition to being found in gas deposits, is in the atmosphere and added to groundwater when it is recharged by rainfall.
Scientists found that the stray methane gas in the water wells had higher levels of nitrogen than found in the Barnett, “with levels being more typical of the levels measured in the Strawn Group,” consistent with the other four studies.
“Nitrogen is another line of investigation,” said BEG research scientist J.P. Nicot. “This team has developed a method that can be used to monitor fugitive natural gas in groundwater.”
The study was funded by Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, a program authorized by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Because some studies have been questioned when scientists have received funds from the oil and gas industry, UT noted that all investigators involved in the research filed required financial disclosure forms with the university.
“Members of the UT team are involved in broadly related geological research funded by energy companies, nonprofit organizations and environmental and other government agencies. None of their sponsored research covers the specific area of this study, the presence of methane in groundwater.” UT under state law does derive income from oil and gas royalties in the Barnett.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115896-barnett-natural-gas-production-not-linked-to-methane-in-water-wells-say-scientists
-
Plains Working to Open Pipeline Expansion out of Permian by October
Sep 25, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Plains All American is planning to open a 90,000 barrel a day crude oil pipeline expansion by the end of October.
In an Aug. 31 filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the Houston-based pipeline and storage company said it wanted to open the expansion of its Sunrise Pipeline, which runs 573 miles from Loving County in the Permian Basin to Cushing, Oklahoma, a major crude oil hub.
RELATED: Report says Permian surge on oil hedging shows fear of pipeline shortages
The pipeline expansion will add 90,000 barrels to the Sunrise Pipeline, according to a May filing by Plains All American. The pipeline is being brought online nearly 6 months ahead of schedule. Plains All American originally expected it to be online by the first quarter of 2019.
Crude oil pipelines out of West Texas' Permian Basin have been full as production has increased past capacity. The pipeline constraints has left any oil stranded in Midland without a pipeline to go into selling at a discount of more than $15 a barrel compared to the Gulf Coast. Some shippers are turning to oil trains or tanker trucks to ship their oil out of the Permian.
At least 2.1 million barrels of crude oil pipeline capacity is currently being constructed to meet current and future demand, with the majority flowing from the Permian to the Corpus Christi region along the Gulf Coast.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Plains-working-to-open-pipeline-expansion-out-of-13256090.php
-
NEPA Decisions Move to Policy Office
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA has finalized plans to shift environmental reviews from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to the Office of Policy.
A final rule moving the agency's National Environmental Policy Act compliance operations to the Office of Policy will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, making the move official.
The Office of Policy is led by Brittany Bolen, who was the Republican counsel for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee before joining EPA.
EPA initiated the move in a March memo, in which then-Administrator Scott Pruitt wrote that the shift was intended "to ensure consistency and conformance with statutory authority and agency priorities, and to flag policy provisions that contribute to unnecessary processing time delays" (Greenwire, March 14).
When rumors of the move first surfaced last year, critics said it would politicize NEPA decisions.
Cynthia Giles, who led EPA's enforcement office under President Obama, said last fall that she found reports of the moves "very concerning."
"The only reason I can think of to move the NEPA function" from where it was to the policy office "is to inject politics," she said (Climatewire, Sept. 6, 2017).
Moving the NEPA office is just one way in which the Trump administration has sought to centralize decisions around permitting.
EPA has also put the Office of the Administrator in charge of decisions regarding whether wetlands and small waterways get regulatory protection — affecting the highest-profile, hot-button Clean Water Act decisions (Greenwire, April 5).
The agency has similarly given the administrator sole authority over when to issue a veto of an Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act permit and is currently in the process of changing internal regulations to limit how and when such vetoes can be issued (Greenwire, Aug. 17).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/25/stories/1060099667
-
Trump Will Address World Leaders, but His Audience Is Voters
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump's address to skeptical world leaders today could celebrate his isolating decisions on the global stage related to climate change and trade issues in a message tailored for conservative voters six weeks before crucial midterm elections.
His speech at the United Nations comes amid an escalating trade war with China and conflicts with traditional U.S. allies, ranging from Canada to the European Union, on issues like Iranian denuclearization and Trump's decision to quit the Paris Agreement.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley told reporters yesterday in a preview of Trump's visit to the annual U.N. General Assembly gathering that he considers the deals he has shunned to be among his most important foreign policy achievements.
"And all of that is to say that the United States is determined to obviously be involved in multilateral organizations where we see it, but not in the way that they're mandated on what the United States does or that infringes on the American people," said Haley, echoing Trump's assertion that the Paris Agreement co-opted America's right to use energy.
Trump will also take his turn at leading the U.N. Security Council later this week. The agenda for Trump's turn as chairman of the council has raised the hackles of European allies. Haley said Trump will focus on Iran and nuclear nonproliferation. Trump himself Tweeted on Friday, "I will chair the United Nations Security Council meeting on Iran next week!"
Those issues play well among conservative American voters.
But France, the United Kingdom and other allies have pressed for a broader focus that does less to highlight the divisions among traditional allies. They also fear being browbeaten about their continued adherence to the Iranian nuclear deal and resulting economic ties related to energy investment.
The Security Council meeting could even turn into a standoff between Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who might be allowed to speak.
Trump has also declined to hold a one-on-one meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, even though the United States and Canada are locked in high-stakes negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement. A conclusion to the trade deal must occur by Friday if it's to include Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who is on the way out.
U.S. national security adviser John Bolton dismissed questions yesterday about Trump's omission of Trudeau in a schedule that includes Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. There have been "a lot of requests" for bilateral talks, Bolton said.
"He speaks with Prime Minister Trudeau by phone all the time," he added.
Stewart Patrick, director of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Trump and his team are playing to a domestic base reassured by his tough words, and not to the 120 or so foreign leaders assembled in front of him in U.N. headquarters.
Patrick predicted a defiant tone laced with rhetoric about how America will no longer be taken advantage of by free-riding allies and trading partners.
"From an international perspective, I think that global observers have heard the 'America first' shtick for a while now, and it's not making much progress up in New York or around the world," Patrick said.
Trump is unlikely to appeal to the United Nations' founding principles of international peace and stability, which in 2015 were extended to include the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. Neither is likely to come up, except as something to be rejected.
"There's a lot of despondency among countries that are concerned about climate change, who see it as one of the great existential threats facing humanity," said Patrick.
In some ways, that despondency has deepened even since last year's General Assembly meeting, which happened just months after Trump derided the Paris Agreement as a bad deal that was intentionally constructed to put the United States at a competitive disadvantage.
A year ago, there was still talk of reworking the climate agreement to allow for a U.S. return. That idea has receded. George David Banks, a White House adviser at the time, held a meeting with top negotiators to Paris in a hotel during U.N. Week, and there was speculation that he would lay out conditions for re-entry.
Now, Banks no longer works for the Trump administration, and his successor, Wells Griffith, isn't believed to be attending the U.N. meetings this week.
Paris is expected to figure prominently in speeches by other heads of state, ranging from U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May to Palau President Thomas Remengesau. The Marshall Islands used this year's General Assembly and the Climate Week events that occur on its sidelines to unveil plans to become carbon neutral by 2050. Meanwhile, government officials from Fiji and Poland are working behind the scenes to resolve differences over Paris Agreement implementation guidelines ahead of a December deadline.
Small islands and some European countries say the Security Council should tackle instability and dislocation linked to climate change even though negotiations over emissions reside elsewhere. The United States is seen as an impediment under Trump.
"The Security Council is no substitute for the Paris accord and climate diplomacy, but it does need to start thinking seriously about how climate change affects the issues where it does have lead responsibility: peacekeeping, human security, refugees," said Ken Conca, a professor of international relations at American University. "There are countries on the council that understand this. But the politics is tricky, and it requires careful, coalition-building diplomacy, which we are not seeing from the U.S."
After Trump announced a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, supporters of the pact found cold comfort in U.S. isolation. No other nation followed Trump's cue and quit. But a year later, some cracks are showing.
Australia has abandoned its Paris targets, and Canada, which greens have always said could be doing more to sideline fossil fuels, is at risk of following suit if Conservatives replace the Trudeau government next year. Some Brazilian leaders have floated the idea of leaving the Paris accord.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is often touted as a climate champion against the backdrop of Trump's decision. He not only kept his nation in the Paris Agreement but also brought online a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions.
It's a reputation China burnished by hosting a high-profile pavilion at a recent climate summit in San Francisco. China's chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, co-chaired the summit.
But some say Xi, who will skip this year's U.N. gathering, has received climate accolades that he doesn't deserve. There's evidence that China's formidable coal fleet is expanding faster than previously believed.
Paul Bledsoe, a lecturer at American University and former Clinton White House climate adviser, said China is benefiting from the absence of a powerful climate advocate in the White House.
"Without an aggressive global leader like President Obama, everybody's backsliding, including China," Bledsoe said. "Other issues, like immigration, trade policy, are getting international attention that had been expended on climate. And I think that China's one of those that is trying to take advantage of it."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/25/stories/1060099621
-
Ozone Standard Gets a Court Date — Finally
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A hefty pile of litigation over EPA's 2015 ozone standard will finally get its turn before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit more than three years after the first lawsuit was filed.
In an order released late yesterday, the court scheduled Dec. 18 oral arguments in the consolidated suits, which involve numerous states and business and environmental groups, as well as the lead plaintiff, Murray Energy Corp., the Ohio-based coal giant headed by an ally of President Trump.
The suits challenge the 70 parts per billion standard, saying it is so strict that it is unachievable in some parts of the country or is unlawfully weak based on the scientific evidence of ozone's dangers.
Murray had filed the initial suit the day the Obama-era standard was published in the Federal Register in October 2015 (Greenwire, Oct. 26, 2015).
While arguments in the case were originally set to take place in April of last year, they were called off after the Trump administration said it needed to time to review its position. After a 16-month lull, the administration signaled last month that it plans to stick with the 70 ppb threshold for now, leaving open the option of raising it in the course of a recently launched fast-track review set to end in late 2020 (Greenwire, Aug. 2).
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children and worsened breathing problems in people with emphysema, cystic fibrosis and other chronic respiratory ailments. The Obama EPA cut the standard from the previous level of 75 ppb, citing the need to protect the public based on continuing research into ozone's health and ecological effects.
In a separate case, the D.C. Circuit has also scheduled Nov. 7 oral arguments in a 2016 legal challenge brought by the Sierra Club following EPA changes to monitoring requirements for ozone, lead and four other "criteria" pollutants (Greenwire, June 2, 2016). A tentative settlement reached in the final days of the Obama administration fell apart late last year after the Trump EPA declined to go along, court filings indicate.
The arguments over the ozone standard litigation will be heard by Judges Thomas Griffith, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins, according to yesterday’s order. The makeup of the panel handling the Sierra Club suit will be announced later.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/25/stories/1060099665
-
D.C. Circuit Schedules Oral Argument in Air Monitoring Suit
Sep 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled Nov. 7 oral argument to hear environmentalists' suit seeking to force greater opportunity for public scrutiny of states' air quality monitoring plans.
In Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., environmentalists are suing the agency over its March 2016 Obama-era rule revising states' emissions monitoring requirements. The group claims the rule robs the public of the opportunity for full notice-and-comment on states' monitoring programs by unlawfully excluding those plans from the scope of formal state implementation plans (SIPs) that detail states' measures to meet federal air quality standards.
Sierra Club says that EPA has unlawfully required only that SIPs contain reference to states' legal authorities to establish monitoring networks, rather than the detailed monitoring networks themselves. SIPs are subject to formal public notice-and-comment, and must be approved by EPA.
But EPA in briefing in the case rejects the premise that monitoring plans require SIP revisions under the Clean Air Act.
The Department of Justice in its final brief on behalf of EPA said, “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 says that Sierra Club lacks standing to sue because 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.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-schedules-oral-argument-air-monitoring-suit
-
U.S. Could Be 'One of the Biggest Losers' — Study
Sep 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The United States has a lot to lose from climate change, according to new research.
In a study published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change, researchers calculated the social cost of carbon, the metric widely used to measure the economic impacts of carbon emissions, for nearly 200 countries across the world.
The results provide a country-by-country model of economic climate impacts, and they suggest the world's three largest emitters — China, the United States and India — all rank in the top five highest social costs of carbon.
India takes the top spot at $86 per metric ton of CO2, while the United States comes in second at $48 per metric ton.
The study belies the narrative that the benefits of reducing emissions will be felt more elsewhere than in the United States, said lead author Kate Ricke, an assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego.
"Our analysis demonstrates that the argument that the primary beneficiaries of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would be other countries is a total myth," Ricke said in a statement. "We consistently find, through hundreds of uncertainty scenarios, that the U.S. always has one of the highest country-level SCCs."
In a sense, the results are obvious. The United States has the world's largest economy, so it follows that carbon emissions could cause lots of economic damage.
At the same time, Ricke said, "it's surprising just how consistently the U.S. is one of the biggest losers, even when compared to other large economies."
And the results are particularly pertinent as President Trump moves to roll back the Clean Power Plan and other climate regulations that rely on the social cost of carbon. U.S. regulators have underestimated the metric, even under the Obama administration, researchers said.
The study has limitations. The country-level social cost of carbon captures only marginal damage of additional carbon emissions, which "do not capture all the information relevant to climate decision-making," the authors wrote.
Still, researchers said it demonstrates that plenty of countries don't yet have a clear understanding of how much risk they face from climate change, particularly large economies like the United States.
As Ricke put it in a Twitter thread yesterday, "those that have the most power to do something to reduce climate damages also have the most incentive to do so."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/25/stories/1060099669
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested