Preview Newsletter
pm ACC 10/4/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs and the Price of Inks
Oct 4, 2018 | Ink World Magazine
By David Savastano
There has been a lot of concerns over the increasing tariffs that are being levied against more and more products. These include key chemicals, including raw materials that are used for inks. -
(ACC Mentioned) PE, Solid PS, PET Bottle Resin Prices Rise While PP Prices Slide
Oct 4, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Supply and feedstock issues sent North American prices for polyethylene, solid polystyrene and PET bottle resins up in September, while regional prices for polypropylene saw a slight decline. -
Dems Pressure EPA, White House on Cost-Benefit Reviews
Oct 4, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
House lawmakers are urging the Trump administration to continue weighing public health and environmental benefits when crafting new rules. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Wants California to Reconsider SPF Priority Product Listing
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The American Chemistry Council is calling for California’s Department of Toxic Substances to reconsider its decision to list spray polyurethane foam as a priority product under the state’s Safer Consumer Products programme. -
(ACC Mentioned) Risk-Based Chemicals Management Approach Promoted in New NAFTA
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Frank Zaworski
After more than a year of intense negotiations, the US, Canada and Mexico have reached an agreement on an updated North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) that promotes a risk-based approach to chemical regulations for the region. -
(ACC Mentioned) CLARITY -BPA Report Steers Clear of 'Minimal Effects' Wording
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has removed the controversial statement that BPA caused "minimal effects" in its final report on the CLARITY-BPA project's core study. -
(ACC Mentioned) Nickel Industry Raises Solubility Issue Ahead of California Meeting
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The nickel industry has described solubility as key to any discussion of the developmental or reproductive toxicity (DART) of nickel and its compounds. -
EU Commission Begins Evaluation of FCM Regulation
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) has officially started the evaluation process for the EU’s food contact materials legislation. -
Commission Notifies WTO of TDFA Restriction Proposal
Oct 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has notified the WTO of a restriction proposal on sprays used by the general public containing tridecafluorooctyl silanetriol and derivatives (TDFA). -
Echa Round-Up
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published guidelines to help businesses improve the quality of their Pic export notifications and smooth the path to approval. -
Can Anyone Catch America In Plastics?
Oct 1, 2018 | Forbes
By Simon Lack
Ethane prices recently hit a four year high. Demand is finally catching up to supply, which is ample. Although this garnered far less attention than the crude oil rally, increasing supplies of ethane are an unappreciated element of the Shale Revolution. -
Trump Likely to Make Pipeline Push Next Year, Aide Says
Oct 4, 2018 | The Hill -E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is likely to make a renewed push to permit and build oil and natural gas pipelines next year, his top economic adviser said Thursday. -
Texas to Mexico Natural Gas Pipeline Delayed
Oct 4, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
The completion of a large natural gas pipeline from Texas to Mexico has been delayed until April 2019 due to weather conditions and delays in the completion of the Mexican portion of the project. -
Houston Oil Companies Fight Anti-Fracking Measure in Colorado
Oct 4, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Houston oil and gas companies are at the center of a fight for their industry’s future in Colorado, where residents wary of deadly gas explosions, encroaching oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing are pushing a ballot measure expected to cripple energy companies. -
Ga. Plant Manager Accused of Violating Clean Water Act
Oct 4, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Federal prosecutors say a Georgia chemical plant manager told workers to wash toxic chemicals into a river. -
Csx Brings Emergency Training to NJ Firefighters as Crude Oil Shipments Rise
Oct 4, 2018 | Nj.com
By Curtis Tate
CSX, the railroad that operates trains carrying millions of gallons of crude oil and ethanol through New Jersey every week, rolled out its Safety Train on Wednesday to help first responders prepare for an incident. -
Backers See New Carbon Tax Opening but GOP Groups Eye Incentives
Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
A right-leaning group is floating the notion of tying a carbon tax to another round of tax cuts -- including extending recent tax breaks that would eventually expire -- highlighting efforts by carbon tax supporters to continue pressing for a political opening for the idea... -
D.C. Circuit Agrees to Reschedule Argument in Air Monitoring Policy Suit
Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is agreeing to the Sierra Club's unopposed request to reschedule oral argument that had been slated for Nov. 7 in the group's suit over EPA rules on state plans for air quality monitoring... -
How to Show Trump You Care About Climate Change
Oct 4, 2018 | CNN (In Real Clear Energy)
By Jay Inslee
While Donald Trump is blowing smoke on climate change, we here in the West have been choking on it this summer. And if we don't start electing people -- from city council to governor -- who are willing to confront climate change, we're all going to pay dearly.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs and the Price of Inks
Oct 4, 2018 | Ink World Magazine
By David Savastano
There has been a lot of concerns over the increasing tariffs that are being levied against more and more products. These include key chemicals, including raw materials that are used for inks. The higher raw material costs are already drawing resulting price increases from ink manufacturers. The recently imposed tariffs are 10% effective immediately and will increase to 25% in January.
Trade wars hurt pretty much everyone in the affected supply chain, from manufacturers to retailers and ultimately consumers. With decreased buying power, consumers will either have to cut purchasing or take on more debt. Costs will increase for many goods.
These tariffs have drawn the concern of the chemical industry. On Sept. 24, 2018, Ed Brzytwa, American Chemistry Council (ACC) director of international trade, discussed the implementation of U.S. List 3 tariffs and subsequent retaliation by China against U.S. exports:
“With the U.S. and China imposing another round of tariffs on an increasing number of products, the cost of doing business in the United States is rising,” Brzytwa said. “U.S. manufacturers today face a steep climb to retain our position as one of the world’s leading, low-cost producers of chemicals. A total of 1,517 chemicals and plastics imports from China, valued at $15.4 billion, have now been targeted across all three U.S. lists. The tariffs will cut off U.S. manufacturers from international supply chains and from importing inputs that help keep them competitive in the global marketplace. At the same time, retaliatory tariffs by China have hit more than 1,000 U.S. chemicals and plastics exports, worth an estimated $10.8 billion, erecting a huge barrier to China’s growing markets.
“The tariffs – in effect a tax – put U.S. chemical manufacturers at a disadvantage, but we aren’t the only ones that will suffer the impact. Since chemistry touches 96 percent of all manufactured goods, taxes on our industry will ultimately raise the prices of popular consumer products – everything from cars and trucks to electronics.”
Brzytwa said that the chemical industry recently surpassed $200 billion in announced new chemical investment projects in the United States. “Around half of that investment is still in the planning or development stages and therefore vulnerable to delay or abandonment as a result of the new tariffs imposed on our industry,” he said. “Nearly all of that investment is focused on serving the global market. American businesses, which may have to consider shifting their production overseas to avoid the tariffs, or face the possibility of having to close up shop entirely, deserve the opportunity to be heard.” Brzytwa added that the ACC is calling on “the U.S. and China to resume negotiations toward an agreement that will eliminate the need for these costly tariffs.”
Industries that rely on chemicals are feeling the impact, and the ink industry is no exception. Flint Group announced price increases on offset inks and coatings in late September 2018. Michael Podd, chief procurement officer of Flint Group’s CPS Inks division, cited tariffs as one of the reasons for the increase.
“These tariffs affect a number of key materials used in printing inks,” said Podd. “Any increase of U.S. tariffs against China would significantly impact the costs of raw materials purchased by U.S. companies. This could have severe consequences for the U.S. printing industry that, in some segments, is already fragile. We are optimistic, however, about the government’s decision to end the increased tariffs on Canadian uncoated groundwood paper. It’s a move in the right direction.”
“Increasing tariffs have the potential to cause issues,” Ken Klug, Wikoff Color’s director of purchasing, pointed out. “The third list of proposed tariffs released will have the most impact on the raw materials used for our industry.”
“A 25% tariff from China may reduce the imports of products that are produced in other parts of the world,” added Jyoti Gidvani, Toyo Ink America’s purchasing manager.
“The recent Trump administration tariff initiatives will significantly impact the chemical industry and the raw materials that support printing inks if implemented at the reported levels,” said Jeffrey Shaw, chief supply chain, quality and business improvement officer forSun Chemical. “Not only will the direct tariff impact be significant, but they will impact the secondary and tertiary levels throughout almost every category’s value chain.”
On Sept. 4, Sun Chemical announced its own price increases for all of its inks, coatings and consumables, citing raw material supply disruptions, higher transportation costs, as well as governmental initiatives, including tariffs and environmental regulations.
“The increasing raw material costs are unprecedented and as a result we must continue to review our ink, coating and consumable prices,” said Chris Parrilli, president of North American Inks, Sun Chemical, in announcing the higher prices.
It is uncertain yet how the tariffs will play out, but ink industry executives will be keeping a close eye on any developments.https://www.inkworldmagazine.com/contents/view_online-exclusives/2018-10-04/tariffs-and-the-price-of-inks/
-
(ACC Mentioned) PE, Solid PS, PET Bottle Resin Prices Rise While PP Prices Slide
Oct 4, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Supply and feedstock issues sent North American prices for polyethylene, solid polystyrene and PET bottle resins up in September, while regional prices for polypropylene saw a slight decline.
All grades of PE moved up by an average of 3 cents per pound, according to market sources contacted by Plastics News. Market analyst David Barry with PetroChem Wire in Houston said that ethane feedstock "was the big driver" in the September PE price hike.
Ethane-based ethylene cash costs averaged over 21 cents per pound in September, which Barry said was the highest level since January 2012. Those costs were running 10-11 cents for the first five months of the year.
Barry added that he believes that PE makers were able to export more in September to keep the market balanced.
"The reports I'm getting are that the Gulf Coast and East Coast warehouses are busy," he said.
The September PE hike followed a chaotic pricing month in August, which ended with 3-cent-per-pound reductions for most grades of low and linear low density PE and for film and other flexible grades of high density PE.
Prior to the August declines, regional HDPE and LDPE prices had been flat for four consecutive months. LLDPE prices had been flat for two straight months after sliding 3 cents in May.
Backed by new production capacity, export sales of PE had fueled U.S. and Canadian PE growth in the first eight months of 2018, according to the American Chemistry Council. Exports of LLDPE in particular had exploded, growing almost 90 percent vs. the same period in 2017.
LLDPE exports, combined with domestic demand growth of almost 5 percent, lifted total regional LLDPE market growth to almost 23 percent for the period.
HDPE exports from the region were up an impressive 30 percent for the seven months. Those levels and domestic growth of almost 8 percent created eight-month HDPE growth of almost 12 percent. Growth in LDPE exports was more modest at 9 percent. That combined with domestic sales growth of almost 2 percent produced seven month LDPE growth of almost 4 percent.
North American PET bottle resin prices surged up an average of 6 cents per pound in September after a 2 cent hike in August. Market watchers cited tight supplies of purified terephthalic acid and other raw materials as reasons for the increase. The 2 cent August hike had canceled out a 2 cent drop that hit the market in July.
Regional solid PS prices bumped up an average of 2 cents per pound in September after being flat in August. The September hike was sparked by a price increase for benzene feedstock, which was up 10 cents to $2.98 per gallon.
North American solid PS sales have struggled so far in 2018, dropping more than 4 percent through August. Exports have provided a bright spot, growing more than 16 percent and somewhat reducing the impact of a 5 percent drop in domestic sales.
PP was the only major commodity resin to see lower prices in September. Average selling prices for the material were down 1 cent per pound, giving back half of a 2 cent hike that the market had seen in August.
Resin prices for PP in September again followed the path of propylene monomer feedstock. Prices had been flat in July after surging a combined 15 cents in May-June.
North American PP sales were down almost 1 percent through August. Flat domestic sales were made worse by a decline of almost 35 percent in export sales.
Some domestic PP end markets have fared well in spite of the overall decline. Sales of PP into oriented film were up almost 14 percent for the eight month period. Sales of the materials into injection molded caps and closures grew more than 7 percent.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20181004/NEWS/181009940/pe-solid-ps-pet-bottle-resin-prices-rise-while-pp-prices-slide
-
Dems Pressure EPA, White House on Cost-Benefit Reviews
Oct 4, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
House lawmakers are urging the Trump administration to continue weighing public health and environmental benefits when crafting new rules.
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) and 32 other House members sent a letter yesterday to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Neomi Rao, calling on the administration to not make "damaging changes" to the way it conducts cost-benefit analyses.
"In order to make rules strong enough to protect the public, EPA needs to carefully consider the many benefits these rules will have for our health, environment, and the economy," the lawmakers wrote. "We are concerned that EPA is seeking to unfairly emphasize costs to industry and ignore benefits in its rulemakings."
The letter comes in response to EPA's June advance notice of proposed rulemaking on potential changes to the agency's cost-benefit process.
The missive also comes as EPA has recently proposed making changes to its cost-benefit analysis to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
According to EPA, the "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process" rule would create a more unified standard across offices in how to consider costs of rulemaking. The agency maintains the change will make rulemaking more transparent.
Among the questions EPA asked the public was how to incorporate the effects of pollution where "frequently scientific understanding is not adequate either to quantify or to monetize the effects."
The agency also sought comment on how EPA could require systemic retrospective review in new regulations to ensure the rules change over time as new information becomes available.
The comment period on the proposal closed in August. Critics warned changing cost-benefit analysis would undercut health benefits of rules.
In the letter to the two agency heads, lawmakers noted the rule change would make it easier for EPA to dismantle standards on mercury emissions, control of chemicals like PFAS and particle pollutants like petroleum coke. They warned the move would also set a "dangerous precedent" for other agencies.
They stated EPA was legally required to consider indirect or co-benefits of reducing pollutants, citing Office of Management and Budget guidance that agencies should "look beyond" direct benefits and costs in rulemaking.
"This Administration's EPA has already manipulated cost-benefit analyses and ignored benefits in order to repeal key climate regulations and now wants to make its approach permanent," the lawmakers wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/04/stories/1060100533
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Wants California to Reconsider SPF Priority Product Listing
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The American Chemistry Council is calling for California’s Department of Toxic Substances to reconsider its decision to list spray polyurethane foam as a priority product under the state’s Safer Consumer Products programme.
California’s DTSC decided that from 1 July, SPF containing unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (MDI) would be listed as a priority product. This requires manufacturers to notify the agency.
While the notification deadline was 1 September, the ACC submitted a letter to initiate an informal dispute against the decision, which put notification requirements on hold until a resolution is agreed.
The trade group says the listing is "unlawful on multiple grounds".
The ACC first claims that SPF systems do not meet the criteria for inclusion as a priority product, and the DTSC’s designation is "arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law".
This, it says, is because the agency has not shown that SPF causes significant or widespread health effects.
In a document proposing the listing of the product, the DTSC says exposure to MDI can cause respiratory sensitisation and, in the workplace, immuno-, respiratory, and dermato-toxicities. It also says fatalities have been documented for workers using spray polyurethane paints and resins containing MDI.
Different products 'share potential for exposure'
In another claim, the ACC says that the agency unlawfully combines multiple unique products into one "oversimplified" category.
The Safer Consumer Product Regulations require the DTSC to consider how a product is used; the occurrence, frequency, extent and duration of the exposure; and engineering and administrative controls.
"DTSC has failed to consider individually the frequency, extent, level, and duration of potential exposure associated with different SPF products," the letter says.
In responses to consultation comments on the product listing, the DTSC says it recognises that many SPF products exist but they all "share the potential for exposure to workers or consumers".
'Unjustified determination'
The council, acting on behalf of the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) and Spray Foam Coalition (SFC), says that the DTSC has not "justified its determination" that the products present:
· public and/or aquatic, avian, or terrestrial animal or plant organism exposure; and
· exposure to SPF would contribute or cause significant or widespread adverse impacts.
"DTSC points to general population statistics on asthma in the United States generally and in California specifically; however, these statistics do not provide any context for how many of these cases relate to isocyanates or to MDI in SPF systems," the letter continues.
The agency’s proposal says 47 cases of work-related asthma associated with isocyanate exposure, with eight cases specifically attributed to MDI, were recorded between 1993-2008 under the California Work-Related Asthma Prevention Program.
Industry practices?
The ACC says the agency did not adequately consider product stewardship, safety proposals and industry practices that "curtail potential exposure to MDI during the use of SPF systems".
Furthermore, because there is no technically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of unreacted MDI in SPF available on the market, the trade group proposed an "alternative pathway to DTSC".
This, it says, would have enlisted the SPF industry to undertake a multi-year, California-focused product stewardship and safety campaign focusing on workplace safety regulations, product stewardship materials, training programmes, and general health and safety information.
However, in responding to consultation comments, the DTSC says it is concerned with exposure that could occur among those who "do not employ safety measures and those for whom the measures fail".
In its proposal the California agency stresses that eliminating the chemical hazard entirely, or substituting a less hazardous chemical, is the most effective means of minimising potential occupational exposure.
It cites the Occupational Safety and Health administration (Osha), which estimates that only about 64% of construction workers wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE) on a regular basis.
"Worker exposure that can lead to injuries or illness is often a consequence of failing to use PPE, using it improperly or failing to follow administrative controls," the DTSC proposal says.
An agency spokesperson told Chemical Watch: "Given our active engagement in the dispute process, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the specifics of the ACC-CPI letter at this time."
https://chemicalwatch.com/70679/acc-wants-california-to-reconsider-spf-priority-product-listing
-
(ACC Mentioned) Risk-Based Chemicals Management Approach Promoted in New NAFTA
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Frank Zaworski
After more than a year of intense negotiations, the US, Canada and Mexico have reached an agreement on an updated North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) that promotes a risk-based approach to chemical regulations for the region.
The revised trade pact, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), includes a sectoral annex for chemical substances that emphasises the importance of developing and implementing chemical regulations in a manner that achieves protection of human health and the environment without creating unnecessary economic barriers or impediments to technological innovation.
The agreement calls on each country to endeavour to use a risk-based approach to regulating chemical substances and mixtures, and to encourage such a model in international forums. It further directs the countries to align their respective risk assessment methodologies and risk management measures to the extent possible within their respective legal frameworks.
Additional areas of potential cooperation between the pact members include:
· implementation of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemical (GHS);
· coordination of safety data sheets and how confidential business information (CBI) is relayed on them; and
· compatibility of chemical inventories;
· coordination on chemical risk assessment and risk management methodologies, tools, and models, and on the development of specific chemical assessments; and
· scientific criteria and data sharing.
Cosmetics alignment
As it does for chemicals, USMCA calls for alignment on regulations governing cosmetic products. It also calls for the use of relevant international standards as a basis for regulatory guidelines.
USMCA directs each country to apply a risk-based approach to regulating the safety of cosmetic products for human health.
Further, it states that the countries shall take into account that cosmetic products generally present a lower potential risk to human health or safety than medical devices or pharmaceutical products. As such, it blocks their adoption of a marketing authorisation requirement for a cosmetic product, among other provisions.
Stakeholders diverge
Industry groups across the region welcomed news of a new agreement over the tightly interwoven economies.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) commended the negotiators, in particular, for agreeing to a pact that "appears to include several enhancements long sought-after by the US chemical sector".
The group highlighted that the sectoral annex for chemical substances "embraces the principles the North American chemical industry jointly recommended to enhance regulatory cooperation" in a 2017 document.
The Cosmetics Alliance of Canada similarly applauded the annex on cosmetics.
Spokesperson Susan Nieuwhof said the group is "very optimistic about the high standard [annex], which commits all three countries to good regulatory practices for our sector".
"We believe the agreement will provide our industry with further opportunities to grow regionally and will contribute to greater competitiveness around the world," she added.
But several NGOs immediately voiced their displeasure.
Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, called the agreement a "pro-polluter proposal that would perpetuate NAFTA’s damage to our communities".
"If this proposal – hastily sealed to score political points – remains as is, the Sierra Club will vigorously oppose it, while continuing to fight for a genuine replacement of Nafta that puts people and the planet first," he added.
Doug Norlen, Friends of the Earth director of economic policy, said USMCA is a corporate giveaway intended to sharply limit the powers of government to protect people and the planet.
"The agreement continues to give polluting transnational companies greater rights than governments and citizens," Mr Norlen said.
To come into effect, USMCA must be signed by the elected leaders of the three countries, then be ratified by each country’s legislature.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70773/risk-based-chemicals-management-approach-promoted-in-new-nafta
-
(ACC Mentioned) CLARITY -BPA Report Steers Clear of 'Minimal Effects' Wording
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has removed the controversial statement that BPA caused "minimal effects" in its final report on the CLARITY-BPA project's core study.
The statement sparked criticism from academics and NGOs in February when the NTP published the draft.
The report, which has undergone peer review, now concludes that differences between BPA treatment groups and control groups detected by "low-stringency statistical tests … were not dose responsive, sometimes occurring in only one low- or intermediate-dose group".
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted the core study at its National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), according to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). A report integrating findings from the core and academic grantee studies is not expected until next autumn.
"Overall, I think the report signifies that the FDA does not believe that BPA produced effects it finds concerning or relevant," said CLARITY-BPA grantee Heather Patisaul, from North Carolina State University. "That they classify their statistical approach as 'low-stringency' is a concern because it effectively insinuates that they do not have confidence in the biological significance of their own results," she added.
"The scope and magnitude of this study are unprecedented for BPA, and the results clearly show that BPA has very little potential to cause health effects, even when people are exposed to it throughout their lives," said Steven Hentges from the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.Stop-dose effects
After the draft was published, some NGOs and BPA CLARITY academic grantees raised concerns over results suggesting higher incidence of mammary cancers in female rats exposed to a low dose of BPA (2.5 micrograms/kg body weight/day). These rats, in a "stop-dose group", were only exposed to BPA until they were three weeks' old and then held without further "treatment".
The final report suggests that the carcinomas are "unlikely" to be "plausible BPA treatment-related".
It points to a lack of consistent results between stop-dose and continuous-dose rat groups. But effects should not be expected to be the same in both the stop- and continuous-dose arms because they are effectively very different experiments, said Professor Patisaul. "It is unreasonable to presume that a developmental-only exposure will produce the same outcomes as a lifelong exposure. Yet those types of comparisons are present throughout the report."
The report also fails to answer questions as to why low doses of BPA may cause adverse health effects not seen at higher doses – known as non-monotonic dose-responses.
"The lack of linear dose-response remains a hang-up for the FDA, and yet non-monotonic dose-response is a typical pattern for BPA. Hopefully integration of the data will provide some resolution and insight as to what the mechanism for that might be," said Professor Patisaul.
"CLARITY-BPA will only be useful if a proper integration of the data takes place," concluded Ninja Reineke from NGO ChemTrust. "Significant effects in low-dose ranges were found in many of the academic CLARITY papers which have already been published so far and there are more to come."
The Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity was established six years ago by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the FDA. The NTP has published some of the raw grantee data on its website, which also provides links to journal publications.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70798/clarity-bpa-report-steers-clear-of-minimal-effects-wording
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nickel Industry Raises Solubility Issue Ahead of California Meeting
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The nickel industry has described solubility as key to any discussion of the developmental or reproductive toxicity (DART) of nickel and its compounds.
The Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association (stylised NiPERA) outlined the solubility issue in comments submitted to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) during a public consultation that ended in September.
Oehha has directed its Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (Dartic) to consider whether nickel and its compounds should be listed under Proposition 65 for DART. The committee is scheduled to meet on 11 October.
Nickel and several nickel compounds are already listed under Proposition 65 for carcinogenicity; just one compound, nickel carbonyl, is also listed for DART. Adding DART to an existing carcinogenicity listing could result in have labelling implications for companies using the substance, both in terms of the additional hazard endpoint and any linked exposure routes.
NiPERA said in its comments that the evidence for soluble and insoluble nickel compounds and need to be considered separately when evaluating systemic effects. This is because insoluble nickel compounds generally have very low bioavailability, meaning they generally do not enter the bloodstream and therefore cannot move around the body.
The organisation said that listing soluble nickel compounds on Proposition 65 for reproductive toxicity was warranted, based on rat studies. The same did not apply for insoluble nickel compounds, such as nickel alloys found in coils and rods.
Additionally, nickel, as an unreacted, metallic element, needs to be considered separately for any evaluation because of the evidence about the metal that has become available since 1990, the organisation said.
"We urge DARTIC to vote on the listings for soluble nickel compounds, insoluble nickel compounds, and metallic nickel, separately."
The NiPERA comments were based on a systematic review of the evidence conducted for the organisation by US consultancy Gradient. They were supported by a group of nine other industry organisations, including trade associations the American Chemistry Council and the Nickel Institute.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70800/nickel-industry-raises-solubility-issue-ahead-of-california-meeting
-
EU Commission Begins Evaluation of FCM Regulation
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG Sante) has officially started the evaluation process for the EU’s food contact materials legislation.
Member states, trade associations, NGOs, consultants and other specialists shared views at an inaugural workshop, hosted by DG Sante on 24 September in Brussels.
Since basic provisions set out 42 years ago, the EU legislation has never been evaluated. The FCM Regulation of 2004 describes the general principles of chemical safety and provides further powers to enact specific EU measures for specified materials and articles.
Certain rules are in place for plastic FCMs but there is a lack of harmonised laws for others. And while member states have adopted particular rules at the national level, a study by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre in 2016 found they can vary widely and may differ both in coherence and substance.
It is a "complex and diverse area", Sabine Juelicher, director of DG Sante’s food and feed safety and innovation, told delegates at the workshop. "Absence of EU harmonised rules for many food contact materials creates difficulties in demonstrating safety together with a lack of legal certainty."
Information is still missing, she said, and stakeholders "do not have a complete and well-documented picture of how the current legislation is performing".
Reform needed
In their workshop presentation, a group of NGOs said the FCM Regulation is "in dire need" of reform because it is "full of holes". CHEM Trust, Client Earth, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Beuc said the EU does not have regulations that "properly cover" materials including paper, ink, coatings and adhesives.
It is an unreviewed system, they said, and pointed out that REACH is reviewed every five years and, generally speaking, the same goes for most EU environmental legislation. "It is amazing that’s not true in the food area," CHEM Trust’s Michael Warhurst said.
Another issue, raised by industry associations, concerns Article 3 of the 2004 Regulation, which sets out general requirements. According to John Dixon, from Cross Sector Group and Flexible Packaging Europe, this is the cornerstone for ensuring compliance and "the best way of" protecting public health.
However, he said no harmonised official guidelines exist to help industry demonstrate that it is doing "all that is required" to comply with the article. It is "complex and lacks legal certainty", he added. Yet this absence of harmonised measures "does not mean use of food contact materials and articles is unsafe".
Stakeholders at the workshop also discussed the issue of how to ensure existing rules are monitored and controlled.
Gregor McCombie of the Official Food Control of the Canton of Zurich in Switzerland said enforcement on FCMs in Europe "does not" work.
This is because of the large number of substances, he said. Approximately 100,000 different chemicals are expected to be present in all types of FCMs. Of these:
only around 10,000 are intentionally added;
about 1,000 are specifically regulated; and
less than 100 are effectively controlled by enforcement.
Timeline
Following the workshop, the evaluation project contractor Ecorys said it will contact stakeholders and ask them to join focus groups, give expert interviews and respond to surveys from November.
It will also set up a SME panel and start an open public consultation early next year. A draft final report is expected in the summer, with a second stakeholder workshop planned for next September.
The final report is slated to be ready in October 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70791/eu-commission-begins-evaluation-of-fcm-regulation
-
Commission Notifies WTO of TDFA Restriction Proposal
Oct 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has notified the WTO of a restriction proposal on sprays used by the general public containing tridecafluorooctyl silanetriol and derivatives (TDFA).
TDFA is used alongside organic solvents for:
· automotive glass, float glass coating, glass doors of shower cabins;
· ceramics, such as kitchen tiles, sanitary ware, wash basins, bath tubs; and
· enamel.
The measure requires that sprays should not be placed on the market if they contain TDFAs in a concentration equal to or greater than two parts per billion by weight in a mixture with organic solvents.
Concentrations equal to or above this limit, individually or in any combination, pose a risk to human health, in particular severe lung injury, the WTO notification said.
The proposed restriction will apply 18 months after the amendment of Annex XVII comes into force. The expected date of adoption is the second quarter of 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70801/commission-notifies-wto-of-tdfa-restriction-proposal
-
Oct 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
New guidelines on export notifications
Echa has published guidelines to help businesses improve the quality of their Pic export notifications and smooth the path to approval.
They focus specifically on prohibited and permitted uses of exported substances in the EU, which must be included in section 6.2 of the notification in ePIC.
Tool to check SDSs
The Dutch Labour Inspectorate has created an online tool, also available in English, that can check SDS information and send feedback to suppliers.
Weekend IT closure
All of the agency's IT systems will be unavailable from 20:00 on Friday 5 October until 8:00 on Monday 8 October (Helsinki time), for system maintenance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70790/echa-round-up
-
Can Anyone Catch America In Plastics?
Oct 1, 2018 | Forbes
By Simon Lack
Ethane prices recently hit a four year high. Demand is finally catching up to supply, which is ample. Although this garnered far less attention than the crude oil rally, increasing supplies of ethane are an unappreciated element of the Shale Revolution.
“Dry” natural gas consists of methane, most commonly supplied to residential gas stoves but also increasingly used by power plans to produce electricity. “Wet” gas includes other natural gas liquids (NGLs), such as ethane (more below), propane (used in your outdoor BBQ), butane (cigarette lighters) and other more obscure NGLs such as isobutene. Typically, the NGLs and other impurities are separated out from the wet gas, leaving methane as the natural gas that flows to customers. Because NGLs have marketable value, wet gas is more desirable.
Ethane, once converted to ethylene through “cracking” is the principal input into production of polyethylene. Simply put, ethane is turned into plastic. Polyethylene is manufactured in greater quantities than any other compound.
The process is fascinating, and naturally the internet provides ample information. Ethane molecules are broken through heating (“cracked” in industry parlance), and the ethylene produced undergoes further processing into polyethylene pellets. These plastic pellets come with different properties such as strength, flexibility, melting point, which determines their ultimate use. They are heated and molded into many thousands of consumer and specialty products. For an absorbing description that follows ethane molecules from extraction to ultimate use, the Houston Chronicle’s three-part series Texas petrochemical plants turn ethane into building blocks of plastic is highly readable.
Among many fascinating steps, we learn that molten polyethylene pellets are blown into a very thin cylindrical balloon, several hundred feet long. This is then turned into sheets by passing through rollers, and multiple sheets are combined depending on the desired thickness. In the article, these ethane molecules ultimately traveled as plastic pellets to Vietnam where they were processed into packaging for frozen shrimp that was shipped back to the U.S. The petrochemical industry makes this happen.
U.S. ethane production has more than doubled in the past decade, to 1.5 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D). Ethane is a gas and isn’t shipped in barrels. The MMB/D unit of measure converts the energy content of the ethane to that in a barrel of crude oil. Barrels of Oil Equivalent (BOE), allows volumes of most hydrocarbons to be measured using a common metric. What further sets the U.S. apart is that the shale’s light crude comes with relatively high concentrations of NGLs, including ethane. It simply needs to be separated out. The alternative source of ethane is as a by-product from refining crude oil, a more costly approach.
The U.S. is producing so much ethane that some of it is being mixed in with the methane natural gas stream as it can’t be profitably used elsewhere (known as “ethane rejection”). Low ethane prices with the promise of ongoing ample supply have led to a flurry of new petrochemical investments. Cheap natural gas lowers processing costs, since the conversion of ethane to plastic pellets requires heat. For example, Exxon Mobil (XOM) operates one of the world’s largest polyethylene plants in Mont Belvieu, TX, with ethylene provided by a new facility at their nearby Baytown complex.
But the big increase in natural gas output is in Appalachia, where the Marcellus and Utica shale formations are providing most of this new supply. Royal Dutch Shell is building a new ethane cracker in western Pennsylvania, close to its supply. In total, $202BN of investments in 333 projects have been announced since 2010. U.S. ethane exports have been rising, but as these new facilities become operational they will increase domestic demand. Two thirds of the investments involve foreign companies. The recent jump in the ethane price is partly attributable to new domestic buyers.
The result is that ethane trade flows are shifting, and the U.S. is becoming a more important supplier of plastics.
The Shale Revolution draws attention for the growth in fossil fuels -- crude oil and natural gas, where the U.S. leads the world. But we’re even more dominant in NGLs, contributing one-third of global production. The impact of NGLs and consequent growth in America’s petrochemical industry receives far less coverage, although it’s another huge success story.
Enterprise Products Partners (EPD), Energy Transfer Equity (ETE), Oneok Inc. (OKE) and Targa Resources Corp (TRGP) are well positioned to benefit from America’s growing NGL production. Our funds are invested in all of them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonlack/2018/10/01/can-anyone-catch-america-in-plastics/#221de0da3cc7
-
Trump Likely to Make Pipeline Push Next Year, Aide Says
Oct 4, 2018 | The Hill -E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is likely to make a renewed push to permit and build oil and natural gas pipelines next year, his top economic adviser said Thursday.
Larry Kudlow said a new pipeline push would be both a continuation of Trump’s aggressive energy deregulation streak and his ongoing infrastructure agenda.
“We need infrastructure, including pipelines,” Kudlow said at an Economic Club of Washington event. “We need east to west, we need west to east.”
Kudlow said the need for pipeline is especially strong in the natural gas industry, where drillers, thanks to the boom in fracking and horizontal drilling, are producing more gas than there is pipeline capacity to carry.
He said an executive from an unnamed energy company that drills in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico came to the White House Wednesday and spoke with both him and Trump.
“He’s got more than he knows what to do with. They’re burning it off, flaring,” Kudlow said of the unnamed executive.
Kudlow indicated that Trump’s push is likely to include federal actions to override states that have blocked pipelines.
David Rubenstein, president of the Economic Club, asked Kudlow what the hurdles have been to pipeline development.
“The states have some problems. But we also have some leverage at the federal government,” Kudlow replied.
New York and other northeastern states have been some of the most active in working to block pipeline infrastructure, arguing that construction and the lines themselves would be environmentally disastrous.
President Trump is likely to make a renewed push to permit and build oil and natural gas pipelines next year, his top economic adviser said Thursday.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/409901-trump-likely-to-make-pipeline-push-next-year-aide-says
-
Texas to Mexico Natural Gas Pipeline Delayed
Oct 4, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
The completion of a large natural gas pipeline from Texas to Mexico has been delayed until April 2019 due to weather conditions and delays in the completion of the Mexican portion of the project.
The 2.6 billion cubic feet a day Valley Crossing Pipeline is being built by Canada's Enbridge, a major petroleum pipeline and storage company, which asked for a six month extension for putting the Valley Crossing Pipeline into operation. It was originally planned to start operations this month, but now has until April 23, 2019, to commence operations.
Enbridge noted that the delay was due to an inability to test the pipeline due to delays in the completion of the Mexican portion of the pipeline, which connects with the Enbridge section offshore from Brownsville in the Gulf of Mexico. The Mexican portion is being built by Infraestructura Marina de Golfo, a joint venture between the Canadian pipeline and storage company TransCanada and Sempra Energy of San Diego. Both companies have major stakes in oil and gas pipeline and storage projects in Mexico.
When completed the pipeline would be the largest natural gas pipeline flowing from the U.S. to Mexico.
Natural gas exports by pipeline from the U.S. to Mexico have more than doubled since 2014, when exports for the year were more than 728 billion cubic feet. In 2017 natural gas exports by pipeline to Mexico were more than 1.5 trillion cubic feet, according to data from the Department of Energy.
https://www.chron.com/g00/business/energy/article/Texas-to-Mexico-natural-gas-pipeline-delayed-13281332.php?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2hyb24uY29tL2cwMC9idXNpbmVzcy9lbmVyZ3kvP2kxMGMuZW5jUmVmZXJyZXI9JmkxMGMudWE9MSZpMTBjLmR2PTE0&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14
-
Houston Oil Companies Fight Anti-Fracking Measure in Colorado
Oct 4, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Houston oil and gas companies are at the center of a fight for their industry’s future in Colorado, where residents wary of deadly gas explosions, encroaching oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing are pushing a ballot measure expected to cripple energy companies.
As Colorado’s top oil producers, Anadarko Petroleum of The Woodlands and Noble Energy of Houston could be forced to halt new production, abandon existing wells and cut jobs if the ballot measure passes. Both have poured millions of dollars into campaigns against the measure; oil and gas interests contributed at least $20 million to defeat the measure, according to campaign finance records.
The ballot measure, known as Proposition 112, would enforce a 2,500 foot drilling setback — up from the current 500 feet — around all occupied buildings and so-called vulnerable areas, such as parks. If approved by voters in November, the measure would effectively block new production in 94 percent of the state’s top oil and gas producing counties, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator.
Economists estimate that more than 33,000 energy jobs - about 1 percent of Colorado’s payroll employment --and up to $1 billion in tax revenue would be lost by 2030.
For John Cavitt, CEO of Houston well-testing firm Covenant Testing Technologies, the effects of Proposition 112 would be immediate and devastating. The company is among the top employers in the oil and gas industry in Colorado, with 400 employees testing wells as part of 24-hour monitoring systems to that assess production and emissions, among other things.
If the ballot measure passes, Cavitt said his company would cut half of those 400 jobs within six months and eliminate nearly all of them within a period of a years. Cavitt estimates that his company, which employs a total of about 1,000, would lose one-t hird of its revenues - a shock that would mean layoffs in the Houston office.
“It’s catastrophic,” he said.
Anadarko and Noble both declined to comment on the potential effects of Proposition 112. But state records show that they stand to lose heavily if the proposition passes into law.
Noble operates more than 7,100 wells and Anadarko, through its subsidiary Kerr McGee Oil and Gas, operated more than 6,700 - more than any other companies in the state.
Big spenders
Both companies have large operations in Weld County, a northeastern county that is home to the Denver-Julesburg basin and the heart of the Colorado’s shale boom, and together they have contributed about $12 million — $5.8 million each — this year to Protect Colorado, the committee campaigning to block the measure, according to state campaign finance records.
The oil and gas industry has operated in Colorado for more than a century, beginning with the discovery of oil in the south central town of Florence in the 1860’s. The well was the first drilled west of the Mississppi, but it wasn’t until a century later that oil and gas development began to grow rapidly in Colorado. Colorado ranks seventh in oil production among states and fifth in natural gas production, according to the Energy Department.
s the state has grown, it has attracted residents from around the country, with most settling in Front Range, the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains and the state’s most populous corridor. Colorado already has some of the toughest regulations governing oil and gas production, but in recent years Front Range communities, including Denver and its suburbs, have launched several efforts to push fracking as far away as possible.
The courts and other voters have struck down previous attempts to limit the industry’s spread, but Proposition 112 has advanced further in the process than any other effort.
Economists expect that Proposition 112 would have a ripple effect on government budgets, leading to spending cuts for schools,law enforcement and firefighting in rural counties that rely on taxes from the oil and gas industry. Weld County, the locus of the state’s drilling, stands to lose the most.
Nearly half of the county’s property tax revenue comes from oil and gas, said Chris Brown, the director of policy and research for the Common Sense Policy Roundtable, a Colorado think tank funded by real estate firms, banks and other businesses.
“Fort Lupton Fire District in Weld County got $3.6 million dollars from oil and gas in 2017, which is about 50 percent of their revenue,” said Brown. “It’s huge.”
Proponents of Proposition 112 say it is not meant as a drilling ban, but rather as a safety measure. Oil companies have clashed with citizens as the shale boom has brought drilling closer to homes on the Front Range. In Northeastern Colorado, fracking towers loom over subdivisions, farm fields and Interstate 25, the state’s main north-south highway, stretching from Fort Collins through Denver to Colorado Springs.
In April 2017, a cut flowline from a gas well 170 feet from a home in the northeastern town of Firestone caused a massive explosion that killed two people and injured two others. Anadarko, which owned the well, settled a lawsuit brought by the family of the victims against the company in May.
Threat at the doors
A second lawsuit was filed in 2017 by a handful of former employees who blamed the explosion on the company’s decision to cut safety budgets. The lawsuit was dismissed in June, but refiled in August. In court record, Anadarko dismissed the allegations as “a series of leaps in logic that cannot withstand scrutiny.”
Proponents of the Proposition 112 say Coloradans have more to fear from oil and gas than explosions. Anne Foster, a spokeswoman for Colorado Rising, an advocacy group pushing the anti-fracking measure, said that people who live near wells remain concerned about water contamination, methane emissions and other environmental hazards.
“Proposition 112 is really the response of mothers and grandmothers and teachers to a threat that has arrived on their doorstep,” said Foster. “At every turn, we’ve been told that nothing can be done, and the industry will develop where it would like.”
The debate has riven the state politically, separating conservative communities on the eastern plains and on the Western Slope of the Rockies from the more liberal metropolitan areas Denver, Boulder and Fort Collins.
The state’s politicians have been left to straddle the divide as they try to court liberal anti-fracking communities and appease rural residents dependent on oil and gas. Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat and former oil and gas engineer, famously boasted during a U.S. Senate committee hearing in 2013 that he once drank fracking fluid with Halliburton executives as part an effort to prove that the chemical mix is not dangerous.
Jared Polis, a Democratic congressman from Boulder who is running to succeed Hickenlooper, has refused to back Proposition 112, even though he supported a similar, but unsuccessful measure in 2016.
Economic argument
Oil and gas companies, meanwhile, are left to hope that their warnings of dire economic consequences will reach Coloradans whose only contact with petroleum products is the local gas station, said Dan Haley, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. Energy industry projections estimate that the approval of the initiative would cost the state nearly 150,000 jobs by 2030, including both those in the oil and gas sector and others that depend on the economic activity generated by the industry.
“Once Coloradans understand the broad impacts on our economy,” Haley said, “they will reject it.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Houston-oil-companies-fight-anti-fracking-measure-13279937.php
-
Ga. Plant Manager Accused of Violating Clean Water Act
Oct 4, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Federal prosecutors say a Georgia chemical plant manager told workers to wash toxic chemicals into a river.
Prosecutors in Atlanta say 37-year-old Carlos Conde of Smyrna, Ga., was indicted last week on charges of violating the Clean Water Act and making false statements to a federal agent. He was arraigned Tuesday. It wasn't clear whether Conde had an attorney who could comment.
Prosecutors say workers at the Apollo Industries chemical mixing plant in Smyrna notified Conde in August 2016 that a toxic and hazardous chemical was leaking. Prosecutors say Conde told the workers to spray it away with hoses, and it washed into a tributary of Nickajack Creek and the Chattahoochee River.
Prosecutors say Conde lied about his role in the
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/04/stories/1060100497
-
Csx Brings Emergency Training to NJ Firefighters as Crude Oil Shipments Rise
Oct 4, 2018 | Nj.com
By Curtis Tate
CSX, the railroad that operates trains carrying millions of gallons of crude oil and ethanol through New Jersey every week, rolled out its Safety Train on Wednesday to help first responders prepare for an incident.
The train includes the most common types of tank cars firefighters are likely to encounter, including one that carries flammable liquids and others that typically carry propane or chlorine.
The Safety Train also includes a classroom inside a converted boxcar and a flatcar used to demonstrate how to close leaking valves.
More than 99.9 percent of hazardous materials shipments by rail arrive at their destination without incident, according to industry data.
But the Safety Train provides a teaching tool to local officials in the event that something does go wrong.
"Our goal is to be as best prepared as we can," said Bergen County Executive Jim Tedesco, who attended Wednesday's demonstration and has received training for rail incidents in the past.
According to CSX, the railroad has trained 1,300 personnel from 11 municipalities in New Jersey on responding to a rail incident. That includes a three-day class in Atlanta. The railroad pays for the firefighters' travel and lodging expenses.
CSX also plans to resume sponsoring an intensive three-day course at the U.S. Department of Transportation's rail testing facility in Pueblo, Colorado. That training includes a derailment and fire simulated with real railcars. The Federal Emergency Management Agency also pays for firefighters to attend the Pueblo course.
For those who can't take the time off to travel, though, the Safety Train brings the classroom to communities. CSX has two such trains, and they travel throughout the 23 states in the railroad's network.
The railroad offers an evening class for firefighters who can't attend during the day.
Mike Austin, CSX's director of hazardous materials, said the company has built a relationship with departments across the country. It helps make it easier to coordinate when there is an incident.
"We get to meet the folks today, not at 2 a.m." when something happens, he said.
A series of derailments involving crude oil and ethanol across North America have awakened state, local and federal officials to the risks communities face, and the need to help first responders know what they might encounter.
"They can gear up and know what they're dealing with," Austin said.
A fiery oil train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in July 2013 killed 47 people. Others, while resulting in no fatalities, released millions of gallons of crude oil and ethanol into the environment, ignited enormous fires and caused evacuations.
Though the volume of crude oil transported by rail has declined from its peak in 2014 and 2015, recent federal data show it's on the rise again.
LEFT BEHIND: Canada moves to improve oil train safety, while U.S. on slower track
BE PREPARED: Are NJ communities prepared for the worst when a train derails?
REVOLVING DOOR: CSX official who urged Christie oil train veto to lead oil train regulator
HIDDEN RISK: Ethanol has replaced oil trains as hidden safety risk in N.J.
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2018/10/04/csx-brings-training-nj-firefighters-crude-oil-shipments-rise/1492902002/
-
Backers See New Carbon Tax Opening but GOP Groups Eye Incentives
Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
A right-leaning group is floating the notion of tying a carbon tax to another round of tax cuts -- including extending recent tax breaks that would eventually expire -- highlighting efforts by carbon tax supporters to continue pressing for a political opening for the idea even as it competes with non-binding incentives as a conservative-friendly climate policy.
The Alliance for Market Solutions (AMS) -- a group launched in 2017 to offer a “conservative” and “pro-growth” solution to climate change, namely substituting greenhouse gas rules with a revenue-neutral carbon tax -- commissioned a recent analysis that assumes the political viability of a second round of tax cuts, after Republicans' 2017 tax overhaul disappointed carbon tax backers by proceeding without a carbon tax to offset lost revenues from the cuts.
“This is essentially in a lot of ways a part two . . . or a sequel” to the 2017 tax overhaul, FTI Consulting's Scott Nystrom told a Sept. 27 luncheon in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Regional Economic Modeling Institute (REMI) to discuss a July report commissioned by AMS. Nystrom noted that the American Enterprise Institute also advised AMS in crafting the study.
But ongoing efforts to promote a carbon tax -- which are being pushed by a handful of various groups, as well as legislation introduced this summer from three House Republicans -- are competing with other ideas such as clean tax credits or other incentives as preferred policies for conservatives interested in doing something to address climate change.
For instance, 14 different groups recently launched the “Clean Capitalist Coalition,” an effort that would push “innovative policy ideas that reduce barriers to clean free enterprise,” but not, at least for the moment, a carbon tax, according to remarks from Rod Richardson of the Grace Richardson Fund at a Sept. 26 forum as part of National Clean Energy Week.
Even carbon tax supporters acknowledge that any deal on their preferred policy could be years away, but that has not stopped them from preparing for future political openings.
FTI's report models the economic, fiscal and emissions impacts over the next decade of a carbon tax that would be used to pay for additional tax cuts. Nystrom said discussion of the analysis dates to the middle of 2017 -- before enactment of the $1.5 trillion tax law. But then “tax reform happened” -- and much of the cuts were not offset with a carbon tax or any other new revenue.
Accordingly, the study incorporates a “tax cut 2.0” approach based on reviving proposals omitted from the initial tax bill, specifically by broadening some of the cuts enacted in 2017 and postponing or even repealing several taxes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that have not yet fully taken effect.
The tax cuts that would be financed by the modeled carbon tax include a “permanent” extension of all expiring individual tax provisions enacted in the 2017 law, as well as postponing the ACA's “Cadillac” health insurance tax, medical devices tax, annual fee on health insurers and a net investment income tax.
Supporters of a carbon tax for months have held out the possibility of a second round of tax legislation that could be a vehicle for a carbon tax, even before the initial deal was enacted in December 2017.
During a November 2017 event, for instance, Brookings Institution fellow Adam Looney said the then-pending GOP tax package was “politically unstable” and would need to be revisited soon. “This is not going to be the last word on tax reform,” he said, adding that a carbon tax will “always be right there on the shelf” waiting for the right moment.
Even if Democrats were to take control over the House in the upcoming midterms, one source tracking the issue believes a deal is not out of the question at some point, given continued GOP desires for tax reform and mounting Democratic hopes to address GHG emissions.
Tax Revenues
The FTI analysis' assumption of tax cuts matters significantly because they blunt any broad economic damage of the newly imposed carbon tax. Nystrom and others at the forum also indicated the analysis is significant in part for its effort to model impacts of the carbon tax at the state level.
The report evaluates a carbon tax imposed on fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions, starting at $20 per ton in 2019 and escalating 5 percent annually to reach an inflation-adjusted $29.62 per ton in 2028.
The initial tax rate is similar to a $24-per-ton tax floated in July by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and two other House Republicans, though it is much lower than several competing plans because AMS decided to model a tax that would generate the roughly $1 trillion, Nystrom indicated.
Roughly $900 million of the revenues would pay for the tax cuts, the analysis says, with the remainder funding a tax credit to shield energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries from the burdens of the tax.
The report states that the proposed carbon tax would achieve a 23 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2028, with a 43 percent decline in the power sector -- a level that far exceeds EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility GHG rule that Trump officials are proposing to replace with a narrower policy -- though Nystrom also indicated that the CPP is not included in the baseline for the analysis.
Coupling the carbon tax with the tax cuts results in little overall change to the country's cumulative gross domestic product -- trimming the equivalent of just two days of economic output between 2019 and 2028. The analysis also shows either negligible or positive economic impact in 44 states by 2028.
But the report also predicts more of a drag in the economy in the short term because the full impact of the proposed tax cut provisions would not come into play until around 2026. And the analysis predicts the largest percentage impacts in coal-heavy states Wyoming and West Virginia, in both the short and long term.
Caveats to the analysis include that it does not include a mechanism to assume that the carbon tax spurs technological innovation that lowers costs over time. Nystrom characterized this limitation as reasonable over the 10-year period of the analysis, while also acknowledging it could overstate negative economic effects of a carbon tax.
Carrots and Sticks
The analysis highlights the continuing advocacy for a carbon tax -- whether by those who back the policy on environmental grounds or more as an enabler of additional tax cuts -- as an alternative to EPA regulations.
But there is widespread skepticism that a carbon tax is viable on Capitol Hill, at least for now, particularly among a critical mass of Republican lawmakers.
“I would rather have the incentives . . . rather than the punishment of a tax,” Senate environment committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) said during a June event where he touted his legislation to encourage research into carbon capture technology and ease permitting for CO2 pipelines.
Similarly, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) told Axios in June, “I think there are some other ideas we can do, other than a carbon tax, that reduce emissions and create greater efficiencies.”
Many are also pessimistic that any politically palatable tax would be large enough to justify for scaling back GHG regulations.
At the state level, the Houston Chronicle in an Oct. 1 article reports that Texas oil companies are spending more than $17 million to defeat a carbon tax ballot initiative in Washington state, underscoring continued industry opposition to specific carbon tax proposals even though major oil companies profess to support the general concept.
At the recent Clean Energy Week event, Richardson said that while a carbon tax might make economic sense, supporters “are looking at it from the point of view of a rider, not the horse,” referring to the interplay between policy experts and consumers.
“The rider thinks that using sticks works really well, but the horses all prefer carrots, and horses vote.”
In a follow up interview, Richardson noted that the newly formed Clean Capitalist group is not a “Kumbaya” club but rather a coalition of different policy groups interested in “removing barriers to clean enterprise and conservation.”
The group's ideas are still evolving, but its website discuses four policy areas with varying specificity -- establishment of tax-exempt “green bonds” to encourage deployment of clean assets, such as zero emissions power; “technology neutral” tax incentives for innovative technologies that scale down as production goes up; a voluntary framework for carbon emissions reporting and offset exchange; and a “zero regrets” energy policy.
With respect to the voluntary reporting framework, a spokesman for the group says a more detailed proposal is being published this month in the Environmental Law Institute's Environmental Forum.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/backers-see-new-carbon-tax-opening-gop-groups-eye-incentives
-
D.C. Circuit Agrees to Reschedule Argument in Air Monitoring Policy Suit
Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is agreeing to the Sierra Club's unopposed request to reschedule oral argument that had been slated for Nov. 7 in the group's suit over EPA rules on state plans for air quality monitoring, which Sierra Club claims do not allow for adequate public scrutiny of monitoring networks.
In an Oct. 3 order, the court agrees to environmentalists' request to reschedule argument in Sierra Club v. EPA until a later date yet to be determined. “The Clerk is directed to reschedule this case for oral argument as soon as the business of the court permits,” the court says.
Sierra Club has asked for a delay until at least Nov. 26, and asked to reschedule argument citing conflicting commitments for the group's attorney that will argue the case.
In the suit, the group challenges the Obama EPA's March 2016 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 network programs themselves. SIPs are subject to formal public notice-and-comment, and must be approved by EPA.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-agrees-reschedule-argument-air-monitoring-policy-suit
-
How to Show Trump You Care About Climate Change
Oct 4, 2018 | CNN (In Real Clear Energy)
By Jay Inslee
While Donald Trump is blowing smoke on climate change, we here in the West have been choking on it this summer. And if we don't start electing people -- from city council to governor -- who are willing to confront climate change, we're all going to pay dearly.
In Washington state we know this from our own gasping experience. For two weeks in August, the skies were shrouded in the darkest smoke in recent memory, as record-breaking fires tore through the Western states -- destroying communities and forcing widespread evacuations. A thick, acrid and dangerous pall from hundreds of fires filled the lungs of citizens trying to go about their lives.
And this month climate change has brought more tragedy and destruction to our country. Hurricane Florence hit North and South Carolina with a combination of wind strength, rainfall and storm surge that is unprecedented — but increasingly expected -- for the region.
For millions of Americans, climate change is no longer just a chart or a graph. It's wildfires. It's floodwater invading our homes and drought destroying our crops. It's hurricanes and record-breaking heat waves. It's an emerging new normal, one that we don't need to accept as inevitable.
Americans, we must start voting on climate change. We can in just a few weeks, in voter initiatives and in elections for governors and state legislatures throughout the country. That is because states can lead the fight against the serious dangers posed by global warming, building a safer future full of new and greater economic opportunities, powered by fast-growing clean energy solutions like wind and solar energy, and electric vehicles. It's happening everywhere already.
So, why is the Trump administration doing everything it can to dismantle climate progress?
In August Trump's EPA announced plans to repeal the Clean Power Plan and allow power plants to dump unlimited carbon pollution into our atmosphere, even though their own analysis shows this could lead to as many as 1,400 more premature deaths each year.
This follows the administration's plan to repeal the Clean Car Standards, which would essentially force Americans to use more oil, increase pollution from cars and trucks, and deliver a damaging blow to our nation's auto industry in the global marketplace. And now Trump's EPA wants to unravel rules that limit methane and even mercury and toxic air pollution. Taken together these actions would undo the most important steps America has ever taken to confront climate change.
Columnist Thomas Friedman recently argued that climate change should be on the ballot in 2020 -- that our Democratic presidential nominee should make fighting climate change and creating the jobs that flow from investing in a clean energy economy front and center in our national dialogue. He's right. But we cannot wait until 2020. Make no mistake: Climate change is on the ballot in 2018.
This year Americans can elect governors and state legislatures who will push back, who will work to transform our nation's energy and transportation systems and reduce the carbon pollution that is harming our communities. They can vote for initiatives like I-1631 in my state that will finally hold polluters accountable.
Editor’s Note: Jay Inslee is a Democrat and the governor of Washington. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Americans don't have to wait for Washington, D.C. Donald Trump cannot stop us in the states.
Wealthy special interests have predictably argued that Washington state's climate leadership would hurt our economy, but they've been proven fantastically wrong; our state economy has been No. 1 in the nation for the last two years, according to CNBC and Business Insider.
Clean energy is part of our growth story, as it is in other states. Jobs in renewable energy are among the fastest growing in America.
We in Washington state are not alone. Many constituencies are joining forces across America to fight for climate action. The Peoples Climate Movement is bringing together environmentalists, labor unions, frontline communities, faith groups and others to mobilize voters who will demand climate action rooted in racial and economic justice. Governors across the country have joined to commit their states to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. are moving forward, despite Donald Trump. Soon more will join us.
This November, I hope you will get out and vote for an American clean energy future. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to act -- now.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/02/opinions/how-to-show-trump-you-care-about-climate-change-inslee/index.html
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