Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 10/5/2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 5 Chemical Stocks That Are Poised for Solid Upside in Q4
Oct 5, 2018 | Zacks
By Anindya Barman

The chemical industry continues its good run this year on sustained demand strength across major end-use markets such as construction and automotive.
Senate GOP Eyes 'Secret Science' Bill to Adopt Policy in EPA's Proposal
Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

Senate environment committee Republicans are suggesting they will try in the next Congress to move legislation that largely adopts a controversial EPA proposal to bar the agency in rulemaking from relying on scientific data that is not publicly available,
FERC Pick Faces Bruising Confirmation Fight
Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Nick Sobczyk

Environmentalists are going on offense against President Trump's latest pick to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, signaling that another bruising confirmation fight looms in the weeks ahead.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Bisphenol A Safety Study Could Tip Balance on Chemical’s Fate (1)
Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson

Advancing research that bisphenol A, a chemical found in plastic bottles and food packaging, has minimal adverse health effects could play an important role in U.S. and European regulators’ decisions on the chemical’s use in the future.

Chemical Management News

Study to Look into Health Effects of PFAS
Oct 4, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Courtney Columbus

A federally funded study announced today will look at the effects of harmful chemicals known as PFAS.
New Drinking Water Crisis Dwarfs Flint Tragedy
Oct 4, 2018 | Real Clear Politics
By Steve Gruber

Michigan once promoted itself as the Water Wonderland. Why not? The state borders four of the five Great lakes, boasts 3,200 miles of coastline, more than 11,000 inland lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams. For those who love water...

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Op-Ed: Natural Gas Driving Force Behind Pa. Manufacturing Growth
Oct 4, 2018 | Observer-Reporter
By David Spigelmyer, David Taylor and Gene Barr

Pennsylvania is steeped with a rich manufacturing history – boosted by a blue collar, hardworking spirit upon which Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the surrounding communities was built and is hardwired into our DNA.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Plastics Are Predicted to Rise
Oct 4, 2018 | New York Times
By Kendra Pierre-Louis

A sharp increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the petrochemical industry — which includes plastic, fertilizer and pharmaceutical companies — threatens to erode climate benefits from reductions in other sectors, according to a report being issued Friday.
House Democrats Urge Trump to 'Cancel' Methane Rule Rollbacks
Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA

House Democrats are urging President Donald Trump to “cancel” two rollbacks of methane standards developed during the Obama administration by EPA and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), arguing the measures are part of a “larger war on pollution standards of any kind.”
Atlantic Sunrise Gets Green Light to Open the Taps
Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel

The Atlantic Sunrise project, an expansion of pipeline company Williams Cos. Inc.'s massive Transco natural gas pipeline system, will begin operations tomorrow following a federal go-ahead issued yesterday.

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

To Topple Climate Rules, Officials Erase Air Pollutants
Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman

The Trump administration might be weakening the case for future climate change policy by removing an important metric that lowers the cost of reducing carbon: simultaneous cuts to conventional air pollution.
Clock Starts for Suits over EPA's Ozone Petition Denials
Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is slated to publish in the Oct. 5 Federal Register its final decision denying Clean Air Act section 126 petitions from Delaware and Maryland asking the agency to limit ozone-forming emissions in multiple upwind states, starting a 60-day clock for the states
Senate Carbon Capture Push Faces Unclear Path as Election Nears (1)
Oct 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

Lawmakers are trying to fast-track a bipartisan bill to boost carbon capture projects, but it isn’t clear if the legislation will make it to the president’s desk this year.
Wheeler Launches New Staff Reporting Tool for Environmental Risks
Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA

In an all-hands Oct. 4 email, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced he is launching a new web-based tool for agency staff to use to notify senior management when concerns they raise to supervisors about significant environmental risks go unaddressed.
Oil Companies Say They’re Going Green. Here’s What that Would Mean for the Fight Against Climate Change
Oct 4, 2018 | TIME
By Justin Worland

President Trump has repeatedly repudiated the Paris Agreement on climate change and panned the science that underpins it.
Cementing Kavanaugh’s Legacy: How a Supreme Court Nominee Lied About a Cement Pollution Case
Oct 4, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber

When Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he testified that he had ruled for the environment in “many” and a “large number” of cases. (You can watch his testimony here.)
Kids' Case Tests 'Hail Mary' Climate Argument
Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac and Ellen M. Gilmer

Twenty-one young Americans will go to trial later this month to argue that the government has infringed on their constitutional right to a safe climate.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 5 Chemical Stocks That Are Poised for Solid Upside in Q4

Oct 5, 2018 | Zacks

By Anindya Barman

The chemical industry continues its good run this year on sustained demand strength across major end-use markets such as construction and automotive. A rebound in crude oil prices has also led to a recovery in demand for chemicals in the energy market and a favorable pricing environment for chemical products as their prices essentially move in tandem with oil prices.
However, investors’ confidence on the industry’s prospects has taken a beating of late due to heightened trade tensions between the United States and China. The good fortunes of the chemical industry have been clouded by the escalating trade tussle between the world’s two biggest economies.
Notwithstanding the trade-related worries, the industry’s upturn is expected to continue in the final quarter of 2018 as the fundamental driving factors remain in place. The momentum is expected to continue on strength across automotive and construction end-markets, improving fundamentals in the energy space, strength in export markets and strategic growth initiatives by chemical companies.
Capital Investments, Strong Export Market Drive U.S. Chemical
The U.S. Chemical Industry has bounced back from the havoc wreaked by last year’s hurricanes, and is poised for healthy growth this year. The American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), a leading industry trade group, envisions U.S. chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to rise 3.4% in 2018.
The growth is expected to be spurred by higher demand across light vehicles and housing markets, an upswing in U.S. manufacturing, favorable shale gas economics, capital investments and strengthening export markets. While the automotive sector is expected to remain at high levels, steady recovery in housing is expected to continue in 2018.
The American chemical industry continues to enjoy the advantage of access to abundant and cheap ethane feedstock extracted from shale gas. The shale bounty has provided U.S. producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts, which use oil-based feedstock such as naptha. This is driving investment in chemical production projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast to beef up capacity.
According to the ACC, 333 chemical projects (both on new plants and capacity expansions) have been already announced by chemical makers since 2010 worth $202.4 billion, 68% of which is foreign direct investment or involves an overseas partner. New capacity is expected to provide a boost to chemical production as these investments come on stream.
The trade group also expects U.S. chemicals exports to expand 7.2% in 2018 to $139.2 billion on the back of the basic chemicals sector. It sees two-way trade between the United States and its foreign partners to expand 6.2% year over year and reach $241 billion this year, aided by strong demand from overseas markets and domestic manufacturers downstream.
Strategic Actions to Offset Input Cost Inflation
Companies in the chemical space face headwinds from a spike in costs of raw materials as a result of short supply partly due to production outages and plant shutdowns. China’s environmental crackdown has led to the tightening in the supply of certain key raw materials as a result of plant closures. The disruption in the supply chain has pushed up the prices of these inputs in a high demand environment.
Nevertheless, chemical companies should gain from strategic measures, including cost-cutting and productivity improvement, earnings-accretive acquisitions and aggressive price increase actions in the wake of raw material cost inflation. These actions should spur industry-wide margin improvement in the fourth quarter. Continued shift of focus on high-growth markets should also allow them lower their exposure on businesses that are grappling with weak demand and input costs pressure.
Trade Tensions Remain a Worry
Rising trade tensions between the United States and China pose as headwinds to the chemical industry. The Trump administration, in July, imposed tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese goods that led to China retaliating with tariffs on American products of equal value. The United States and China, in August, also levied a 25% tariff on $16 billion worth of each other’s products. China’s list of U.S. goods hit with tariffs includes a wide range of chemicals and plastics.
Moreover, the Trump administration recently slapped a 10% tariff (rising to 25% starting 2019) on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. In response, China hit back with tariffs on an additional $60 billion in American products. The U.S. administration has also threatened to impose tariffs on around $267 billion of additional Chinese imports.
China is one of the biggest export markets for U.S. chemicals and thus, leaves the American chemical industry heavily exposed to Beijing’s retaliatory trade actions. The tariffs have created an uncertain demand environment for U.S. chemical products in this major market. Chemical industry trade groups are worried that the tariffs would hurt U.S. chemical exports and the competitiveness of the domestic chemical industry.
5 Chemical Stocks Set to Run Higher
Companies in the chemical space are hamstrung by a few challenges including input cost pressure and concerns over trade tariffs. However, strategic actions including expansion of scale through acquisitions, operational efficiency improvement, capacity expansion and continued focus on cost and productivity should keep them afloat through the remainder of 2018.
The U.S. chemical industry, in particular, is poised for solid upside on continued demand strength across major end-markets, gains in exports and significant capital investment on capacity additions. Moreover, U.S. chemical makers should continue to reap the benefits of abundant and affordable shale gas feedstock. Amid such a backdrop, it would be prudent to invest in chemical stocks that have compelling prospects and are well poised for solid upside in the fourth quarter.
We highlight the following five stocks with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or 2 (Buy) that are good options for investment right now. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR - Free Report)
Pennsylvania-based Quaker Chemical sports a Zacks Rank #1 and has an expected earnings growth of 20.6% for 2018. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 7.5% upward over the last 60 days. The company delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 5.2%. The stock has also rallied roughly 34% over the past six months.
Trinseo S.A. (TSE - Free Report)
Our next pick in the space is Pennsylvania-based Trinseo carrying a Zacks Rank #1. The company has expected earnings growth of 14.5% for 2018. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 1.1% upward over the last 60 days. The stock has also gained roughly 12% over the past six months.
Albemarle Corporation (ALB - Free Report)
North Carolina-based Albemarle is another attractive choice armed with a Zacks Rank #2. The company has an expected earnings growth of 17.4% for 2018. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.7% upward over the last 60 days. Moreover, the company delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 6.6%. The stock has also gained roughly 14% over the past six months.
Celanese Corporation (CE - Free Report)
Irving, TX-based Celanese sports a Zacks Rank #2 and also has expected earnings growth of 43% for 2018. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 1.6% upward over the last 60 days. Moreover, Celanese delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 11.5%. The stock has also gained around 14% over the past six months.
KMG Chemicals, Inc. (KMG - Free Report)
Based in Texas, KMG flaunts a Zacks Rank #2 and has expected earnings growth of 7.2% for the current fiscal year. Earnings estimates for the current fiscal have been revised 2.2% upward over the last 60 days. The company delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 30.1%. The stock has also rallied around 26% over the past six months.
Today's Stocks from Zacks' Hottest Strategies
It's hard to believe, even for us at Zacks. But while the market gained +21.9% in 2017, our top stock-picking screens have returned +115.0%, +109.3%, +104.9%, +98.6%, and +67.1%.
And this outperformance has not just been a recent phenomenon. Over the years it has been remarkably consistent. From 2000 - 2017, the composite yearly average gain for these strategies has beaten the market more than 19X over. Maybe even more remarkable is the fact that we're willing to share their latest stocks with you without cost or obligation.
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/326366/5-chemical-stocks-that-are-poised-for-solid-upside-in-q4

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate GOP Eyes 'Secret Science' Bill to Adopt Policy in EPA's Proposal

Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

Senate environment committee Republicans are suggesting they will try in the next Congress to move legislation that largely adopts a controversial EPA proposal to bar the agency in rulemaking from relying on scientific data that is not publicly available, with a GOP staffer saying lawmakers' preference is to enact such policies through statute.
EPA under former Administrator Scott Pruitt floated the proposal in April, in a move he said aimed to increase transparency in the data and models the agency uses in rules -- but which environmentalists and others said could deter use of scientific findings that could suggest a need for stricter air, water, and other regulations.
The agency took comment on the proposal through Aug. 16, and one science policy observer says that GOP supporters of the plan fear that the rule has “lost momentum,” under Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who took over in July after Pruitt resigned following a series of ethics scandals.
As a result, GOP senators are now weighing a fresh push for their legislation that was the basis for Pruitt's policy. However, any legislative push is unlikely until next year's session of Congress. The Senate Environment & Public Works' (EPW) Superfund panel held an Oct. 3 hearing on EPA's use of science in regulation that the observer says appears to be “an-end-of-Senate hearing to bridge to the next Congress.”
At the hearing, subcommittee Chairman Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) thanked EPA for “taking this important step” with its proposal. Rounds also noted that he introduced S. 1794 that would largely achieve the policy's goals, which he introduced a few months after House science panel Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced the lower chamber version, H.R. 1430. That bill cleared the House on March 29 and was referred to EPW.
A Senate staffer tells Inside EPA that the status of EPA's action as a proposed rule and uncertainty over a final rule means “we can’t comment on the sufficiency of a final rulemaking. We would prefer science transparency policies be enacted in statute, but we do support the administrative action this EPA has taken so far.”
The science policy observer says concern about the agency's proposal losing momentum is mounting with the departures of Pruitt, and former deputy research office chief Richard Yamada, and Smith's pending retirement. “My guess is that when Pruitt left, even though Wheeler said he would carry on” with Pruitt's agenda, secret science supporters “want to place a flag” to keep the idea going until the next Congress, the observer says. Yamada, a former staffer on the House science committee under Smith, “was the one who started this whole thing,” the source says of EPA's proposed rule.
An informed source tells Inside EPA that Yamada's newly-announced replacement, David Dunlap, “is also engaged in [the proposed rule] as he settles in at” EPA's research office. Dunlap arrived at EPA Oct. 1 from Koch Industries, but does not appear to have made any public comments on the proposal.
Waiver Provision
Rounds' bill has two cosponsors, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the full EPW, and former Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).
Barrasso attended the subcommittee hearing briefly, and one of his questions may indicate a GOP concern with part of EPA's proposal -- language allowing the administrator to waive studies, on a case-by-case basis, from the policy. He questioned one of the majority witnesses, Robert Hahn, formerly president of the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies about the waiver language in EPA's proposed rule.
“[D]o you believe the proposal's waiver is an appropriate method to provide flexibility while maintaining the strong transparency standards that we are looking for?” Barrasso asked Hahn.
“The short answer is yes, but I haven't thought carefully about other ways of doing that that could potentially be better,” Hahn replied.
Hahn, in his opening remarks, also called on Congress to act on the issue of increasing transparency in science among agencies in general, calling for such policies to be applied across the federal government, not just EPA.
“Greater transparency and accountability for decision making are critical not just for the EPA, but for virtually all government agencies that use models and data to design programs and regulations,” Hahn states in his prepared testimony. “Thus, I believe something like the HONEST Act should be considered for most other government agencies -- especially those involved with designing and evaluating programs, policies and regulations.”
Both Rounds' and Smith's bills, however, are directed entirely at EPA.
Still, the concept has spread to at least one other federal agency. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ryan Zinke recently released Order 3369, titled “Promoting Open Science,” which “is intended to ensure that the [DOI] bases its decisions on the best available science and provide the American people with enough information to thoughtfully and substantively evaluate the data, methodology, and analysis used by the Department to inform its decisions.”
As with EPA's proposed rule, the DOI memo allows for flexibility in its implementation, though through a different mechanism than EPA's proposed waiver by administrator process.
DOI's memo explains that its “Bureaus and Offices should utilize and prioritize publicly available, reproducible, peer-reviewed science to the extent possible. . . . Any decisions based on scientific conclusions that are not supported by publicly available raw data, analysis, or methodology, have not been peer-reviewed, or are not readily reproducible should include an explanation of why such science is the best available information.”
Democrats' Concerns
Democrats at the EPW hearing, however, continued to question the need for such a policy in statute or rule, arguing that it attempted to fix a non-existing problem.
They also warned that the proposal would deprive EPA of access to the best available science by making many studies ineligible for use.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) argued in his opening remarks that Republicans' claim the policy will enhance transparency is hypocritical when viewed in the light of other recent EPA actions. Booker is the ranking member of the environment committee subpanel overseeing the Oct. 3 hearing.
“If EPA is actually concerned about transparency, there are actually meaningful actions that could be immediately taken. First the EPA could release to the public the report that EPA completed more than one year ago, regarding the cancer risks of formaldehyde,” Booker said. “Where is the transparency there?”
Second, he suggested that EPA “could convene a science advisory panel to recommend best practices for ensuring transparency in environmental health regulations.”
Finally, Booker argued that EPA “could immediately withdraw its May 2018 proposed rule to modify the Risk Management Plan amendments, where EPA is now proposing to restrict the public's access to information about chemicals that are being stored in their communities and neighborhoods. The public has a right to know information about dangerous chemicals, why is the EPA withholding information from them?”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-gop-eyes-secret-science-bill-adopt-policy-epas-proposal

Return to headline | Return to top
FERC Pick Faces Bruising Confirmation Fight

Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss and Nick Sobczyk

Environmentalists are going on offense against President Trump's latest pick to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, signaling that another bruising confirmation fight looms in the weeks ahead.
Greens are highlighting Bernard McNamee's role in the Department of Energy's controversial efforts to compensate struggling coal and nuclear plants for the "resilience" they provide to the electric grid (Energywire, Oct. 4).
Earthjustice called McNamee "a Republican political operative with a history of unrelenting support for dirty energy interests."
The group noted his current position as executive director of DOE's Office of Policy, where Earthjustice said he "played a central role in an attempt to undermine wholesale energy markets for the benefit of the coal industry — an attempt FERC has blocked to date."
"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — long an uncontroversial, nonpartisan, and little-known administrative body — is already becoming dangerously politicized, and the appointment of Bernard McNamee, a diehard ally of the fossil fuel industry and right-wing operative, would make things far worse," said Earthjustice attorney Kim Smaczniak in a statement.
Union of Concerned Scientists Director of Climate and Energy Government Affairs Rob Cowin said McNamee's nomination shows the Trump White House "is trying to stack FERC with loyalists who are eager to put their politics on electricity ahead of what's best for consumers and the climate."
The Sierra Club vowed an all-out fight.
"From just a quick look at his resume, the speeches he's made and his past associations, it's clear McNamee is nothing more than a political plant for Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Donald Trump," said Mary Anne Hitt, the senior director of the group's Beyond Coal campaign.
"Collectively, they are trying to use FERC to manipulate America's electricity markets to bail out dirty and expensive coal plants that are heading toward retirement, while locking in a fossil fuel future for communities across the country."
McNamee won praise from Mike McKenna, a lobbyist who served on Trump's DOE transition team.
"Bernie is what the commission needs — a solid lawyer with a sturdy background in energy, grounded in the law, balanced, focused on the facts," he said, noting McNamee's experience in traditional and renewable energy projects.
"He's going to be in favor of more infrastructure, more [liquefied natural gas] export terminals, necessary pipelines," McKenna said.
But the Republican conceded that much of the focus will be on McNamee's work on DOE's efforts to help coal and nuclear plants.
"The real question people should be asking is, where does he stand on these issues going forward?" McKenna said.
'He doesn't give up'
Several senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over FERC, were unfamiliar with McNamee or knew his name only in passing.
Ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) signaled concern over his possible connection to coal and nuclear bailouts, which she strongly opposes.
"So he doesn't give up, does he?" she said. "He wants to make everybody's electricity more expensive."
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a senior member of Energy and Natural Resources, said he was aware McNamee had been nominated but didn't know enough of his background to comment further.
"We need to get the majority" back at FERC, he said of the current 2-2 split on the five-member commission.
Meanwhile, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said the highly partisan confirmation fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, as well as ongoing negotiations on the farm bill, has given her little time to think about FERC.
"We've got this little thing called the Supreme Court, so I really have not focused on that," Stabenow said.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) also said he hadn't heard of McNamee, which he said underscores how the Kavanaugh nomination has consumed the Capitol.
"This thing has taken all the energy out of the room," Manchin said.
But the coal-friendly senator suggested he'd still like to see an effort to prop up struggling coal and nuclear plants.
"You brought up something that's going to be so important to our country — having a FERC that works, understands the energy system, understands the grid system — and it's not even being talked about," Manchin said. "Nothing is."
Reporter Hannah Northey contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/10/05/stories/1060100597

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Bisphenol A Safety Study Could Tip Balance on Chemical’s Fate (1)

Oct 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sam Pearson

Advancing research that bisphenol A, a chemical found in plastic bottles and food packaging, has minimal adverse health effects could play an important role in U.S. and European regulators’ decisions on the chemical’s use in the future.
The years-long study—called BPA CLARITY—aims to reconcile Food and Drug Administration findings that BPA is safe to use with studies from academic researchers that question whether BPA interferes with the production and function of hormones or contributes to infertility, breast cancer, or behavioral changes in children.
The premise of the research initiative is that by conducting studies of BPA under the same laboratory conditions, FDA scientists and academic researchers will develop better data that will lead to greater agreement on how the chemical can be safely used. But concerns about the chemical’s effects may persist among academics and the public nonetheless, consultants and researchers told Bloomberg Environment.
The FDA’s work in what’s known as the initiative’s core study found data in the review of chronic toxicity show “few significant effects of BPA treatment.” The findings were released Sept. 28 and first shared earlier this year before being peer reviewed. Findings from academic researchers are expected in late 2019.
“It’s quite powerful and compelling in what it tells us about the safety of BPA,” Steven Hentges, director of the American Chemistry Council’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, told Bloomberg Environment.
The final product to be developed by next year “will be influential to regulators worldwide,” Hentges said.
The findings to date that BPA has few adverse health effects in rats echoes previous FDA findings. But this study could be different because of its unprecedented scope.
Regulators enforcing food safety and chemical regulations in the U.S. and Europe are watching the findings, Kathleen Roberts, senior regulatory consultant at B&C Consortia Management LLC in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment.
“It’s too big a study to ignore,” Roberts said.
Agencies Look On
In Europe, the European Food Safety Authority expects to complete an evaluation of BPA science by 2020, Edward Bray, a spokesman for the Parma, Italy-based agency, told Bloomberg Environment, and the U.S. research will be one component.
The scientific evaluation will be used by lawmakers on the European Commission and member states to inform future regulation of BPA, Bray said.
BPA is one of dozens of chemicals the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed on a list of substances known as work plan chemicals. The EPA can evaluate the risk of chemicals and take action to restrict their use under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, the federal law that regulates chemicals used in the U.S.
In recent years, the EPA has prioritized different chemicals under the 2016 law. The EPA said Sept. 27 it will collect information on BPA and more than 70 other chemicals through late 2019 to inform future prioritization and risk evaluation. About 20 of the chemicals will eventually be selected for risk reviews.
“The results of this assessment work will factor significantly in any future EPA decisions to address potential risks to human health resulting from uses within EPA’s jurisdiction,” Michael Abboud, a spokesman for the agency, said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
States such as California, Vermont, and New York have also passed bans on BPA in certain food and baby products in recent years.
The study’s conclusions may not put all issues over BPA to rest, John Bucher, a senior scientist with the National Toxicology Program in Durham, N.C., told Bloomberg Environment
“Science never really works that way,” Bucher said, “but I think there will be hopefully a much better understanding of not just BPA but the sort of ubiquitous environmental exposures that we have to endocrine-active substances.”
(Updates with EPA comment in the 14th paragraph.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bisphenol-a-safety-study-could-tip-balance-on-chemicals-fate-1

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Study to Look into Health Effects of PFAS

Oct 4, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Courtney Columbus

A federally funded study announced today will look at the effects of harmful chemicals known as PFAS.
The study will be the first to delve into how per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, affect the immune systems of children who have been exposed to contaminated drinking water, a news release said.
PFAS have been widely used for decades in consumer and industrial products from firefighting foam to nonstick cookware.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences awarded a $2.6 million, five-year grant for the project to the Silent Spring Institute, a public interest science organization.
"Many communities across the U.S. are dealing with drinking water contaminated by PFAS ... often from military bases or airports," said Laurel Schaider, research scientist at the Silent Spring Institute.
Schaider will lead the project, titled PFAS-REACH (Research, Education and Action for Community Health). The team hypothesizes that vaccines are less effective in kids with high PFAS exposures.
"Previous work has suggested childrens' immune systems may be especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of PFAS," Schaider said.
The researchers will measure antibody and PFAS levels in blood samples from kids ages 4 to 6 in Hyannis, Mass., and at the Pease International Tradeport in Portsmouth, N.H., after they receive their final diphtheria and tetanus vaccines.
As part of the project, researchers will also interview people in PFAS-affected communities and create an online resource center.
Pease has been proposed as the initial site for a nationwide study on the health effects of PFAS by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
EPA has held PFAS community engagement events in five states and is planning to hold a public roundtable on the chemicals tomorrow in Michigan (Greenwire, Oct. 3).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/10/04/stories/1060100561

Return to headline | Return to top
New Drinking Water Crisis Dwarfs Flint Tragedy

Oct 4, 2018 | Real Clear Politics

By Steve Gruber

Michigan once promoted itself as the Water Wonderland. Why not? The state borders four of the five Great lakes, boasts 3,200 miles of coastline, more than 11,000 inland lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams. For those who love water, Michigan is about as good as it gets.
But even with “water, water everywhere” we are likely to learn very soon there’s not a drop to drink. Not safely anyway. Not in Michigan and not in far too many places in the United States and around the world. If not solved, the catastrophe brewing across the state and in waterways throughout the country will make the tragedy that took place in Flint seem minor.
Michigan’s experience with emerging contaminants is a clarion call to a nation that has forgotten some critical lessons from the past. In all corners of the state, experts see a family of chemicals, once ubiquitous around the globe for decades, now linked to a series of deadly cancers, thyroid, autoimmune, metabolic and neurologic diseases, along with decreased fecundity and endocrine disruption.
Some scientists are also investigating if there may be a link between the explosion of autism cases diagnosed in America and these highly toxic chemicals, but so far, the connection has not been established.
The chemical culprits are commonly referred to as PFAS, PFOA and PFCs; the scientific names are long and nearly impossible to pronounce, but their threat to people and animals cannot be overstated, according to research conducted by The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and others.
Bob Delaney has worked in the Michigan DEQ for more than three decades. In 2011 he set out, along with Richard DeGrandchamp, a University of Michigan-educated toxicologist from the University of Colorado-Denver, to evaluate the health problems associated with PFCs and its many industrial cousins on the grounds of the defunct Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Mich. What they discovered was evidence of an environmental catastrophe that will dwarf just about any other.
The final report, “Michigan’s Contaminant Induced Human Health Crisis,” was completed in 2012. Relying on peer-reviewed studies, including the C8 Project with 70,000 test subjects, the report concluded, in part, that PFCs and related manmade chemicals found at the former base and its surroundings resulted in liver damage, increased rates of ADHD, delayed sexual maturity, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system deficiencies and autoimmune diseases. The list of linked or possibly linked diseases reads like a list of modern plagues our nation faces.
The report was delivered to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in 2012 but nothing changed and, worse, nothing was done to warn people about the dangers of the water they drink, bathe in or eat fish from. The report was dropped into a drawer, kept hidden from the public and forgotten.
Despite having his report buried, Delaney kept up his efforts to warn others of the dire health concerns but was largely ignored until he was interviewed on The Michigan Talk Network in October 2017. Delaney knew he was taking a gamble by speaking out and could even lose his job for telling the truth for all to hear. He did it anyway because he said something had to be done to warn the public.
The Michigan Talk Network obtained a copy of the report before the interview with Delaney. The report wasn’t made public until a FOIA request in January of 2018.
In light of the fallout from the lead contamination issue in Flint, Delaney first tried to get immunity from the Michigan Attorney General’s Office before going public, but after his requests were ignored, he proceeded with the interview and blew the whistle.
The PFCs Delaney described during his two hours on air are “highly mobile, indestructible and it spreads everywhere. So, once you drop it into the environment, it’s going to move everywhere.” Delaney said his curiosity stemmed from his son’s diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome and his career as a geologist and environmental quality specialist focused on Department of Defense contamination sites. So, he started to dig.
His research was unsettling. The more he looked, the worse the evidence became, not only for people but for animals in the path of PFCs. He learned PFCs would go through natural barriers that would stop other contaminants. He also found the contaminants in very high levels in fish caught in the Au Sable River, designated a Blue Ribbon trout stream: “I wouldn’t eat the fish. … I would not let my kids eat the fish.”
This could be the most pervasive and destructive human health crisis in American history. What’s worse, the United States government and huge multinational corporations such as 3M and DuPont knew of these dangers long ago, as the New York Times reported.
One of the main compounds that contains perfluorinated carboxylic acids is Aqueous Fire Fighting Foam or AFFF. A-triple-F is incredibly effective at extinguishing intense fires fed with aviation fuel. The United States government began using AFFF in the early 1970s, and it has been used at military bases both at home and abroad ever since. Nobody realized the health hazards, and even firefighters let their children play in the foam. Although they did not know the health risks, they did know if a plane exploded in flames and seconds counted, AFFF was the only chance to stop it fast. It saved lives.
It also made its way into the environment in a way that Delaney says he had never seen any other chemical spread (except mercury, which is naturally occurring). At places like Wurtsmith Air Force Base, AFFF was used sometimes daily, in large amounts during training exercises. The PFCs soaked into the ground and made their way to nearby wells and the Au Sable.
By the time Wurtsmith was decommissioned in 1993 the damage was already done, according to Delaney and DeGrandchamp, the report's co-author. The PFCs had been consumed by the servicemen and -women and their families who lived on the base and those living in Oscoda.
While people still argue about lead levels in Flint, which is a legitimate concern, a much bigger and much more dangerous storm has gathered at our door. The prevalence of PFCs will dwarf what happened there.
Unlike the lead problems in Flint, politicians, at least for now, say this is not a political issue but a matter of human health. Dan Kildee, a Democratic congressman from Flint, and Bill Huizenga, a Republican congressman from Grand Rapids, both agree that this transcends politics and should be a priority. “This is an epic problem,” acknowledged Kildee. “Our main focus has to be on cleaning this stuff up and keeping it out of the groundwater.” Kildee, however, expressed frustration in his dealings with the Air Force, which that has been slow to respond to his questions about how cleanup will be handled.
It might be a bit more tolerable if PFCs were limited to military bases, but the chemicals can be traced to refineries, plating facilities, tanneries, carpet manufacturers, Teflon-coating and waterproofing products. The simple truth is, PFCs are everywhere, and they can kill you. (Delaney noted that “polar bears have the highest levels of PFCs of any manmade materials.”)
The New York Times foreshadowed the expanding crisis in a 2016 article. The report chronicled the poisoning of a West Virginia farm owned by Wilbur Tennant. The farm, outside Parkersburg, started to experience dramatic and devastating changes not long after a nearby dump was opened.
When Tennant’s animals started dying, the town’s largest employer, DuPont, in effect deployed the silent treatment and so did its employees, according to reports. Tennant became persona non grata and was accused of poor animal husbandry even though his farm and cattle had thrived for years. By the late 1990s they were dying all around him, and their organs were turning green. County health inspectors and local veterinarians blamed him and ignored the dump. They didn’t want to go after the biggest employer in the county. They didn’t want to cry wolf even when it was obvious the wolf was loose.
Bob Delaney asserted during his radio interview that neither the government nor corporations want to accept responsibility because the problem is just too big to fix and too expensive to solve.
Remediation will take billions and possibly trillions of dollars. DuPont has found itself on the hook for billions of dollars to settle thousands of claims from West Virginia, but most companies that manufactured or distributed PFCs are looking the other way and hoping they can avoid a similar financial catastrophe.
The United States military takes the position in Michigan that anything that happens beyond its fence isn’t its problem.
There is a ray of hope, however.
According to senior members of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration, the government went into crisis mode the day following Delaney’s radio appearance last October. Snyder had previously been stung politically by the Flint water crisis and was not willing to allow a similar situation to unfold. He worked quickly, freed up resources and let it be known that his administration was ready to help with whatever was needed to begin addressing the contamination crisis. The state is also moving forward on building new labs to expedite the testing of water samples from Michigan without having to ship them elsewhere for evaluation.
So far Michigan has identified at least 200 sites around the state where PFCs have impacted either groundwater or surface water. The monumental task of cleaning up is just getting started.
The question, however, is: Will it come too late for the Water Wonderland? The picturesque Huron River, once touted as a premier fly-fishing destination, has recently been determined to be contaminated with PFCs too and the fish there are unsafe to eat. The entire Huron Watershed, encompassing five counties, now has signs warning anglers about their catch and the health dangers fish from those waters could pose.
In the meantime, both Delaney and DeGrandchamp strongly suggest residents have their water tested -- or skip the middleman and go straight to buying a high-quality water purification system that eliminates PFCs. They both admit that even if one’s water is shown to be safe today, that is no guarantee it will be safe tomorrow.
Bottoms up.
Steve Gruber is an award-winning syndicated conservative radio talk show host with 25 affiliates in Michigan.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/04/new_drinking_water_crisis_dwarfs_flint_tragedy_138249.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Op-Ed: Natural Gas Driving Force Behind Pa. Manufacturing Growth

Oct 4, 2018 | Observer-Reporter

By David Spigelmyer, David Taylor and Gene Barr

Pennsylvania is steeped with a rich manufacturing history – boosted by a blue collar, hardworking spirit upon which Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the surrounding communities was built and is hardwired into our DNA.
While manufacturing has ebbed and flowed for generations, Pennsylvania is making things again, and that is a story worth celebrating on National Manufacturing Day.
In no less than a decade, Pennsylvania manufacturing has transformed as we are seeing new job opportunities, growth and investment in a sector that is the backbone of our economy. Consider our manufacturing output. After bottoming out in 2010, output has increased by $12 billion with Pennsylvania’s chemical products industry leading the way, according to National Association of Manufacturers’ data.
Today, in fact, 95 percent of American manufacturers are optimistic about the future, according to a National Association of Manufacturers’ member survey released earlier this year. Across Pennsylvania we are seeing that optimism play out in the form of expansion and job creation from projects like the multibillion-dollar Shell petrochemical facility in Beaver County, Hershey’s expansion in Luzerne County and a titanium producer’s investment in Washington County.
What is the key driver behind our manufacturing growth in Pennsylvania? Affordable natural gas produced from shale.
Thanks to the technological innovation that combines horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, energy companies have unlocked an abundance of clean, American-made natural gas. Pennsylvania has seen a 400 percent increase in natural gas production since 2011 and is now the nation’s second largest natural gas producing state.
Record-setting production is giving domestic manufacturers a competitive edge as the tri-state region is the most attractive location for petrochemical manufacturing investment, according to a recent HIS Markit analysis.
Natural gas and its associated liquids like ethane, butane and propane, are key feedstocks used in many advanced manufacturing processes. Petrochemical manufacturers, for example, require reliable, affordable access to ethane to create the plastic for producing everything from food packaging to diapers.
Nationwide, domestic chemical manufacturing investment linked to shale gas now tops $200 billion, with 333 chemical industry projects announced, under construction or recently completed, according to an American Chemistry Council analysis. Nearly two-thirds of those projects have foreign investors, demonstrating the global interest in investing and growing American manufacturing.
Looking to take full advantage of Pennsylvania’s resource abundance, some manufacturers, like Proctor & Gamble in Wyoming County and Kimberly & Clark in Delaware County, have invested in on-site natural gas power generators to produce their own electricity.
Alongside rising manufacturing confidence, we are seeing the good-paying jobs that are essential for a strong middle class. More than 500,000 Pennsylvanians work in manufacturing earn 47 percent higher compensation than the state’s average.
American manufacturing job growth has been on a tear, adding the most jobs for any 12-month period since 1995, according to federal data.
And, if we get the policy equation right, Pennsylvania’s outlook is even more promising. A recent study by McKinsey & Co., called Forge the Future, predicts that Pennsylvania could see a $60 billion increase in GDP over 10 years _ if we fully leverage our abundant energy resources to grow manufacturing and other key consumer natural gas uses.
Pennsylvania has much to celebrate on Manufacturing Day. Greater collaboration and commonsense policies can encourage natural gas production and use, moving us closer to realizing shale’s truly generational opportunity.
David Spigelmyer is president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition; David Taylor is president of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, and Gene Barr is president & CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.
https://observer-reporter.com/opinion/op-eds/op-ed-natural-gas-driving-force-behind-pa-manufacturing-growth/article_5e2ae448-c7f7-11e8-bc79-7be74a8a4c41.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Plastics Are Predicted to Rise

Oct 4, 2018 | New York Times

By Kendra Pierre-Louis

A sharp increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the petrochemical industry — which includes plastic, fertilizer and pharmaceutical companies — threatens to erode climate benefits from reductions in other sectors, according to a report being issued Friday.
“When we look at the years to come, the petrochemical sector is by far the largest driver of global oil demand growth, much higher than cars, much higher than trucks, aviation, and shipping,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, which issued the report.
Petrochemicals are currently the largest industrial energy consumer and the third-largest industrial emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. The report found that direct greenhouse gas emissions from petrochemicals would increase 20 percent by 2030 and 30 percent by 2050.
The main driver of the petrochemical industry’s growing climate footprint, according to the report, will be plastics. Worldwide, roughly 300 million metric tons of plastic are produced each year.
Plastic has become an inextricable part of modern life over the past fifty to sixty years, and some environmental groups — particularly those concerned with pollution in the oceans — have started campaigns to reduce the use of products like plastic straws, shopping bags and water bottles.
While it may be easy to switch from bottled water to a refillable container, other plastics are not so easy to replace. In hospitals, for example, IV drips that were once made of glass are now made of plastic because it is cheaper and plastics are less likely to shatter.
Petrochemicals are also a fundamental part of the pharmaceutical industry.
The predicted increase in petrochemicals will also be driven by an increase in fertilizer use, the result of population growth along with a growing global economy. As developing countries, especially those with larger populations, increase their wealth, they will quite likely increase the use of fertilizer, much of which is produced from natural gas.
The report estimates that by 2030, roughly seven percent of increased demand in natural gas will come from petrochemical companies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/climate/climate-change-plastics.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate

Return to headline | Return to top
House Democrats Urge Trump to 'Cancel' Methane Rule Rollbacks

Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA

An Oct. 3 letter from more than 70 House Democrats charges that the Trump administration for nearly two years has ignored public health threats, abused taxpayer resources and undermined efforts to combat climate change. The letter was organized by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking member on the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
EPA's proposal to weaken its oil and gas methane standards and BLM's final rule to largely scrap venting and flaring requirements for drilling equipment on federal lands “will accomplish all three of these [goals] in one fell swoop,” the Democrats claim.
The lawmakers add that EPA's plan to revise its new source performance standards (NSPS) acknowledges that the changes will “degrade air quality and adversely affect health and welfare” by increasing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 100,000 tons and hazardous air pollutants by 3,800 tons.
EPA is expected to follow up with another proposal that would entirely scrap direct methane standards for new oil and gas equipment, and instead rely on VOC standards that achieve methane cuts as a co-benefit. That would likely remove the legal requirement that EPA address methane from existing sources in the sector.
The BLM rollback rule acknowledges that the measure could “permit the waste of nearly $1 billion worth of publicly owned natural gas,” the lawmakers say.
Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, the letter adds, emissions “demand a forceful response by the federal government.”
If Democrats, as expected, re-take control of the House after the November midterms, Grijalva and Pallone would be poised to become chairmen of the natural resources and energy committees, which have primary jurisdiction over EPA and Interior Department agencies such as BLM.
As such, the letter could foreshadow oversight that the Democrats are planning for next year, with the aim of undermining public support for the Trump administration's environmental rollbacks or slowing their progress.
Other notable Democrats joining the letter include Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO), who is the front-runner to be the state's next governor; Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), ranking member on the natural resources committee's energy panel; and Diana DeGette (D-CO), ranking member on the energy committee's oversight panel.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/house-democrats-urge-trump-cancel-methane-rule-rollbacks

Return to headline | Return to top
Atlantic Sunrise Gets Green Light to Open the Taps

Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Jenny Mandel

The Atlantic Sunrise project, an expansion of pipeline company Williams Cos. Inc.'s massive Transco natural gas pipeline system, will begin operations tomorrow following a federal go-ahead issued yesterday.
Transco is the largest-volume natural gas pipeline system in the country, running from South Texas through the Southeast and along the Atlantic Seaboard to New York City.
With the Atlantic Sunrise project, the company added about 200 miles of new pipeline in Pennsylvania and upgraded other portions of the system to increase overall capacity by 12 percent to 15.8 billion cubic feet per day. The addition gives Transco new access to shale gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale plays.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday granted Williams permission to begin service on portions of the system encompassed by the Atlantic Sunrise project, saying the remaining environmental restoration work was on track following construction.
"The project is significant for Pennsylvania and natural gas-consuming markets all along the East Coast, alleviating infrastructure bottlenecks and providing millions of consumers direct access to one of the most abundant, cost-effective natural gas supply sources in the country," said Alan Armstrong, Williams president and CEO, in a statement.
The project has survived several legal challenges, including one by a group of Catholic nuns called the Adorers of the Blood of Christ, who argued the pipeline's passage across their land violated their religious freedom, and another challenging Pennsylvania's award of Clean Water Act permits (Energywire, Sept. 5).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/10/05/stories/1060100569

Return to headline | Return to top

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

To Topple Climate Rules, Officials Erase Air Pollutants

Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

By Scott Waldman

The Trump administration might be weakening the case for future climate change policy by removing an important metric that lowers the cost of reducing carbon: simultaneous cuts to conventional air pollution.
EPA is considering whether it will count the co-benefits that come along with cutting greenhouse gases, like the health gains from reducing particulate matter. Narrowing the scope of health benefits achieved in climate-focused regulations would sharply curb the public health estimates used to justify their existence, according to experts.
It may also complicate future efforts to craft climate policy.
"It is just a way to make these rules look less cost-effective," said Janet McCabe, acting EPA air chief under former President Obama.
While there is no requirement that a rule be cost-effective, that is a significant part of the public discussion over its usefulness, she said.
"If you quit smoking because you don't want to get lung cancer, well, you're also getting all the other benefits you get when you quit smoking," McCabe said. "You can exercise more, your breath doesn't smell as bad, it affects your weight in positive ways, whatever all those things are, those are real benefits that make a difference in people's lives. Why would it not be appropriate to consider them?"
EPA under President Trump has argued that the Obama administration overestimated the value of its carbon dioxide regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan and its rules to reduce vehicle emissions. It has provided its own accounting that has reduced the economic impact of Obama's climate legacies. The agency is now reconsidering how it accounts for the co-benefits of reducing mercury pollution. The mercury rule would also reduce conventional air pollutants.
In June, EPA released a notice of proposed rulemaking for "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process." It signaled a potential move to re-evaluate the way multiple pollutants are addressed under one regulation.
"The monetized benefits from one of the pollutants being directly regulated (i.e., mercury) were significantly lower than the estimated costs of the rule, and the quantified benefits in the regulatory impact analysis outweighed the costs because of the benefits from reductions in ambient fine particulate matter," officials wrote. "Similar criticisms have been made regarding the extent to which EPA has considered key uncertainties, baseline assumptions, and other analytical factors in quantifying both benefits and costs relevant to decision making."
On Monday, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said he did not trust the health accounting of the previous administration's rulemaking.
"We believe the math the Obama administration used is a little suspect," he told reporters at an event touting children's health protections.
Using co-benefits to craft regulations has been an important part of EPA's job of protecting public health for decades, said William Reilly, the EPA administrator under former President George H.W. Bush. Considering co-benefits can dramatically expand the scope of public health protections included in a regulation, he said.
These co-benefits often have nothing to do with reducing carbon dioxide, but they are impossible to ignore. For example, regulations that cut chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone, also yield a substantial reduction in greenhouse gases, Reilly said.
"We're always aware of those, they matter. Every decisionmaker takes them into account, and oftentimes they tip the balance of things you might not do if you didn't know you were going to get several bangs for the buck," he said. "There are some places where the co-benefits are more important than the stated purpose of the law."
There is some disagreement as to whether reducing co-benefits could restrain future climate policy.
McCabe said that considering ancillary benefits was largely an accounting activity for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Not all regulations are required to have a balance of cost. But she said cutting the value of a rule would make it easier for industry and opponents to attack it, and that could be included in future litigation.
"You can imagine where the costs would be quite significant and where the benefits maybe don't overwhelm the cost, but it's still the right and lawful and good policy to do," McCabe said. "Some things are easier to quantify than others, so climate benefits are just not as easy to quantify. Also, certain types of air quality benefits are harder to quantify and always have been."
The changes under Trump don't necessarily make it harder to craft climate regulations, said John Graham, a former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President George W. Bush and a current member of EPA's Science Advisory Board, to which he was appointed by former Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Yet reducing co-benefits could weaken some climate rules if they are dependent on economic balance, he said.
"If a climate regulation is based on cost-benefit balancing, then removal or reduction of co-benefits will ultimately result in a less stringent climate regulation than would occur if the co-benefits are counted fully," he wrote in response to emailed questions.
"On the other hand, if the climate regulation is based on a climate-stabilization goal (i.e., achieving a specific level of CO2 in the atmosphere) or on a technological-feasibility standard, then the revised treatment of the co-benefits would not affect the stringency of the climate regulation. There are many climate scientists/engineers who are pushing for regulations based on climate science/engineering, not cost-benefit."
Others see it as a major transformation of the way EPA develops climate policy, and one that could have a lasting effect. The discounting of co-benefits could be part of the agency's overall strategy to reduce pollution controls on industry, said Joe Goffman, executive director of the Harvard Environmental Law Program and a former Obama EPA official and architect of the Clean Power Plan. He said it could become part of the agency's legal strategy to defend its replacement of the Clean Power Plan.
"It makes it easier to defend doing nothing if you take away the co-benefits," he said. "There is almost a monomaniacal pursuit of every opportunity they have to suppress the valuation of the public health benefits of reducing pollution."
It's part of a longtime strategy by coal companies, conservative think tanks and lobbyists to weaken EPA's ability to do its work, he said. And while a number of Pruitt's efforts at EPA were defeated in the courts, eliminating co-benefits could be more legally durable, he said.
Discounting co-benefits from climate rules could land the agency in court, perhaps even the Supreme Court, Goffman said. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and nominee Brett Kavanaugh have issued legal decisions in which they express doubt about the necessity of considering co-benefits in regulations.
"Pruitt may have taken actions that were not well-designed for long-term success, but Pruitt was the point of the spear with a very long shaft," Goffman said. "There has been a coalition of ideologues and interests that have been pushing for all of what we've seen this year in this area for a very long time, including through legislation. ... What we're seeing is the staying power that this coalition of ideologues and interests seems to have."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/10/05/stories/1060100579

Return to headline | Return to top
Clock Starts for Suits over EPA's Ozone Petition Denials

Oct 5, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is slated to publish in the Oct. 5 Federal Register its final decision denying Clean Air Act section 126 petitions from Delaware and Maryland asking the agency to limit ozone-forming emissions in multiple upwind states, starting a 60-day clock for the states to file likely lawsuits over the rejection.
In a Federal Register notice, EPA issues its final denial of petitions filed under Clean Air Act section 126 for the agency to directly regulate nitrogen oxides from power plants that Delaware and Maryland say are damaging their air quality. Section 126 allows states to petition the agency to regulate out-of-state sources that compromise their attainment of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
EPA first released its decisions Sept. 17, drawing a threat of litigation from Maryland officials, but they cannot sue until publication of the EPA decision in the Register starts the 60-day clock for filing lawsuits.
Delaware in four separate petitions asked EPA to curb emissions from individual power plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, citing the plants' contribution to ozone levels exceeding EPA's 2008 and tougher 2015 NAAQS, set at 75 parts per billion (ppb) and 70 ppb, respectively.
Maryland sought regulation of 36 electric generating units at power plants in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, blaming the plants for its problems meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA rejected the requests as unnecessary to ensure that areas in the two states attain NAAQS for ozone, because the Obama-era Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading rule will ensure NAAQS compliance. EPA in the section 126 petition denial finds that the sources in the affected upwind states do not violate the air law's “good neighbor” obligation to mitigate interstate emissions.
The agency’s “independent analysis indicates that the identified sources in Delaware’s and Maryland’s petitions do not currently emit and are not expected to emit pollution in violation of the good neighbor provision for either the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS."
EPA is projecting that all Eastern states, including the CSAPR states, will attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2023. But some East Coast states dispute this view, and are also projecting problems meeting the tougher 2015 standard.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/clock-starts-suits-over-epas-ozone-petition-denials

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Carbon Capture Push Faces Unclear Path as Election Nears (1)

Oct 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

Lawmakers are trying to fast-track a bipartisan bill to boost carbon capture projects, but it isn’t clear if the legislation will make it to the president’s desk this year.
Timing is crucial for the bill, S. 2602, which builds on a bipartisan extension and revision of tax credits for carbon capture and storage projects included in March’s congressional spending deal.
The carbon-capture push has garnered significant bipartisan support in the Senate, but if the Democratic Party takes either—or both—congressional chambers in November, quick passage of the bill could be delayed as lawmakers pursue broader climate legislation.
Carbon capture separates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from emissions of power plants and other facilities so it can be permanently stored or used, rather than released into the atmosphere, where it accumulates and drives global warming. The process has struggled to commercialize in the power sector because it is costly.
Backers of the technology say the bill, known as the USE IT (Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies) Act, offers provisions on research and pipeline permitting that are critical for companies to take full advantage of the new tax credits offered for projects in the next few years. Several major fossil fuel companies have lobbied lawmakers on the bill this year, including Arch Coal Inc., Peabody Energy Corp., Cloud Peak Energy Resources LLC, and ExxonMobil Corp.
A handful of Republican lawmakers are holding up the legislation. The House also hasn’t introduced a companion bill, which could delay the process.
“At this point, I don’t think anybody’s holding it in bad faith, and I don’t think anybody is at this point holding it in a determined ‘it shall never pass’ mode,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), one of the bill’s co-sponsors, told reporters Oct. 2.
Whitehouse wouldn’t name which Republicans were holding up the effort, but suggested they were trying to better understand the issue.
Senate Democrats, though, don’t have any objections to the bill at this point, Whitehouse said.
Boosting Projects
The legislation—introduced in March by Sens. Whitehouse, John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)—includes several provisions to help speed permitting and reviews for carbon capture projects and pipelines to transport carbon dioxide.
It would also narrowly amend the Clean Air Act to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to boost research and development on certain carbon-capture technologies.
Building out a pipeline infrastructure will allow more projects, Kurt Waltzer, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration coordinator with the Clean Air Task Force, told reporters Oct. 2.
The wind and solar tax credits that Congress approved provided economic incentives, but didn’t build the transmission lines needed to transport wind power, Waltzer said.
“Congress did some boosting to help with that, and that’s a good analog for what we’re trying to do here,” he added.
The USE IT Act’s research piece is also critical to boost research for direct air capture and projects that utilize carbon through means other than enhanced oil recovery, Erin Burns, senior clean energy policy adviser at the clean-energy advocacy group Third Way, told Bloomberg Environment Oct. 4. The revised tax credits now allow such projects to qualify.
Goal of This Year
Barrasso, who chairs the Senate environment committee, told Bloomberg Environment Oct. 4 the goal is to pass the bill this year. He pointed to the committee’s unanimous vote to clear the legislation in May as evidence of significant support.
He said ongoing debate over President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh has delayed the bill’s progress.
“But we’re not adjourning. We’re going to be here through the next couple of weeks, I think,” Barrasso said, suggesting work on the USE IT Act would continue then.
He also said senators are working with House members, but didn’t say whether the chamber was close to offering a companion bill.
If the bill doesn’t clear this year, its chances of quick approval could hinge on the outcome of the midterm elections.
The legislation could be refiled and clear early next Congress if it gets close to passing this year, even if Democrats take either chamber, Whitehouse said.
Larger Ambitions
But he also acknowledged the USE IT Act might get delayed or wrapped up in Democrats’ larger ambitions on climate.
"[I]f Democrats control the House or the Senate, there will be a much, much, much more responsible approach to climate change and fossil fuel emissions and all of that,” Whitehouse said. “So we certainly wouldn’t be satisfied with simply the USE IT Act as our response to this global problem.”
But Third Way’s Burns said the election results don’t necessarily affect the chances the bill will pass, though it might change the path forward.
“It’s important to remember that the folks who have been most historically supportive of carbon capture are Democrats,” said Burns, who previously managed energy and environment policy for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Carbon capture “has always been part of the climate and clean energy solution set that Democrats have worked on,” Burns said.
(Updates with lobbying information in fifth paragraph.)https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/senate-carbon-capture-push-faces-unclear-path-as-election-nears-1

Return to headline | Return to top
Wheeler Launches New Staff Reporting Tool for Environmental Risks

Oct 4, 2018 | Inside EPA

In an all-hands Oct. 4 email, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced he is launching a new web-based tool for agency staff to use to notify senior management when concerns they raise to supervisors about significant environmental risks go unaddressed.
The effort builds on a January 2016 elevation policy that EPA issued in response to the Flint, MI, drinking water crisis.
In the email, Wheeler says he is “affirming, as past Administrators have, the importance of elevating human health and environmental risks so that we can properly assess and respond at appropriate policy and government levels in a timely and effective manner."
He says, “In addition to the usual and vital avenues of communication with teammates, co-workers and managers, we are launching a new agency web-based tool that allows an EPA employee to provide agency senior management with notice of a perceived unaddressed significant risk to public health or the environment that is within the scope of EPA authorities.”
In a footnote, he says such risks could include where there “appears to be a substantial threat to the environment or human health,” or the agency can reasonably be expected to be the focus for needed action. Or, he says, such cases may include where other authorities have a role in responding to the threat but may need federal assistance; where recourse through typical enforcement is inappropriate or unlikely to succeed; or where “high and sustained public attention and concern is possible."
He notes in the email that “The notification will be shared with the Office of the Administrator and with a senior-level team that includes representatives of regional and national offices. The role of the team is to promptly assess and recommend any next steps for the reported concern,” he adds.
The email says the tool is accessed through a “Report an Issue” icon on the One EPA Workplace intranet home page.
Wheeler says the site is now available, and the agency plans to collect user feedback to improve the tool.
The administrator cautions though that elevating concerns to senior management is meant to supplement, not replace, standard office protocols. “Our first obligation is to notify our supervisors. An issue elevated at the regional level must be communicated to headquarters and vice versa so that we ensure the agency's response is proactive and coordinated,” he says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wheeler-launches-new-staff-reporting-tool-environmental-risks

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Companies Say They’re Going Green. Here’s What that Would Mean for the Fight Against Climate Change

Oct 4, 2018 | TIME

By Justin Worland

President Trump has repeatedly repudiated the Paris Agreement on climate change and panned the science that underpins it. But oil companies have moved in the other direction, saying they want to address the issue. The evidence of this development can be found in the oil fields of the Permian Basin, which is the home of the U.S. oil boom and where Occidental Petroleum has major operations.
The oil there will soon be used as one might expect: to help power your car, fly a jetliner or form the feedstock of myriad consumer products, thus releasing carbon dioxide, which is the primary driver of global warming. But if Occidental — better known as Oxy — succeeds in carrying out its long-term vision, the site will also keep man-made carbon from driving climate change.
For Oxy, the math is simple. The oil field here, just five miles from the Texas border, is in a region that was recently considered tapped out and unprofitable. By injecting carbon dioxide into the field, the company both frees up oil, helping its bottom line, and stores CO2 underground, keeping it from contributing to climate change. In total, the company annually stores the amount of CO2 equivalent to the emissions of a small state like Hawaii or Maine. Occidental has used this process for years, mostly using carbon dioxide from natural rather than man-made sources, but the company wants to expand the program and increase the amount of man-made carbon it stores. Carbon-capture technology — like this and others — is a leading climate-change solution, the company says.
“Carbon capture has to happen and it has to happen in a big way,” Oxy CEO Vicki Holub told TIME from the company’s Houston headquarters. “There’s no way we can cap global warming by the 2° that was discussed in the Paris Accord without carbon capture.”
Oxy is not alone. The initiative comes as policymakers, scientists and activists increasingly grapple with how to treat oil companies. While science shows that the world must wean itself from the fossil fuel, much of the global economy depends on it, making an overnight transition impossible. The International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental agency, shows oil demand growing through 2023 as the metric continues to align with economic growth. At the same time, a group of leading scientists suggest that greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by 2020.
That reckoning has driven oil and gas companies to position themselves as part of the solution to addressing climate change. On Sept. 24, Oxy, ExxonMobil and Chevron formally joined a coalition of some of the world’s biggest energy companies in the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI). The group, which has committed $1 billion to funding promising energy ventures to reduce emissions, announced a goal to cut their release of methane, the second most prevalent greenhouse gas, by one-third by 2025. The move on methane contrasts sharply with those of the Trump Administration, which has sought to reverse a slew of regulations aimed at tackling methane emissions.
Other climate initiatives from oil and gas companies include a push for a carbon tax from companies like ExxonMobil, endorsement of the Paris Agreement from initiatives like OGCI and support for federal incentives to advance carbon capture from companies like Oxy.
Many climate-change activists and policymakers remain wary. The oil industry has a long history of working to slow efforts to combat climate change, with tactics including the spreading of false information about the science. Even today, as companies acknowledge the reality of global warming, their SEC filings list climate regulation as a potential threat.
“The best way to address climate change is to aggressively decline our burning of fossil fuels,” says Jesse Bragg, an activist at Corporate Accountability. “We need to force them.”
But there’s reason to believe that these same companies now want to be part of the solution. They see regulation coming — and say it’s better to get a solution that allows their businesses to persist.
Despite Trump’s regulatory rollbacks, companies with global operations already face stringent climate rules in places like the E.U. And most key players believe it won’t be long before a Democrat or moderate Republican acts in the U.S. Even as Trump denies the science of climate change, talk of carbon pricing legislation like a carbon tax or cap and trade legislation has entered some Republican circles on Capitol Hill. And those policies could to fruition even without the federal government. Washington State, for instance, will vote on a carbon tax this November.
“Ultimately, there will be a carbon price,” says Holub, referring to the policy tool economists commonly recommend to reduce emissions. She says that once that’s the case, Oxy’s strategy “would be an advantage.”
The most pragmatic members of the climate community say they will work with oil where they can. Groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, which has sought to help oil companies monitor methane emissions across their operations, have embraced that spirit. “We need to engage with all the actors,” Patricia Espinosa, head of the U.N. climate-change body, told TIME at an oil and gas conference this year.
But others focus on the big changes the industry will need to undergo. According to them, major oil companies need to further efforts to track and report emissions, something the OGCI consortium says it is working to improve. Then the companies need to align their climate programs with the science of climate change. That means grappling with the biggest challenge yet: admitting that oil consumption needs to peak and then decline — and do so sooner rather than later. A report released last year by the Energy Transitions Commission — a group of leading climate advocates focused on market-based solutions — suggests that oil demand needs to fall around 30% by 2040 to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
For oil companies, that reality is the “elephant in the room,” says Nigel Topping, CEO of We Mean Business, a group dedicated to helping the private sector act on climate change. “We know the end state. It’s a question of how we manage the transition.”
http://time.com/5415263/president-trump-oil-companies-carbon-capture-climate-change/

Return to headline | Return to top
Cementing Kavanaugh’s Legacy: How a Supreme Court Nominee Lied About a Cement Pollution Case

Oct 4, 2018 | Environmental Working Group

By Scott Faber

When Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he testified that he had ruled for the environment in “many” and a “large number” of cases. (You can watch his testimony here.)
The truth is that as a judge on the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has consistently ruled for polluters and against public health. In 16 out of 18 cases, he ruled for more air and water pollution. In 17 out of 18 cases, he ruled for less protection for endangered species.
All but one of the six “big” cases Kavanaugh cited during his testimony were actually decided on procedural, not substantive grounds. But Kavanaugh mentioned one particular case at length – and he lied about it.
Cement plants are a big source of air pollution linked to serious respiratory problems. But, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, Kavanaugh upheld a weaker air standard for cement plants and gave industry more time to comply, as The Intercept reported today. Making matters worse, his ruling for the first time declared that the Clean Air Act does not include an “anti-backsliding” provision, to ensure that the air pollution in areas that don’t meet the act’s standards doesn't get worse.
Kavanaugh’s ruling did reject industry’s argument that cement plants should not be held liable for accidental releases. But he relied on precedent established by other judges to reach that ruling.
To claim that this cement case is evidence that he ruled for the environment in “many” or a “large number” of cases – as Kavanaugh did during his testimony to the Judiciary Committee – is misleading at best.
What’s more, Kavanaugh did not tell senators about all the other “big” cases where he ruled against the environment, including cases where ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency lacked the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or cross-state air pollution. He’s also ruled for dumping coal waste, dumping hazardous waste and allowing factory farm air pollution.
What’s almost as troubling as Kavanaugh’s tendency to prevaricate is how he twists the law to get the result he’s seeking. For example, he ruled that the EPA can’t consider the costs when tightening pollution standards but must consider costs when doing so might result in weakening pollution standards.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/10/cementing-kavanaugh-s-legacy-how-supreme-court-nominee-lied-about-cement#.W7b87WgzZ3g

Return to headline | Return to top
Kids' Case Tests 'Hail Mary' Climate Argument

Oct 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

By Benjamin Hulac and Ellen M. Gilmer

Twenty-one young Americans will go to trial later this month to argue that the government has infringed on their constitutional right to a safe climate.
If they're successful — and the idea has gained momentum in recent years — the trial in Juliana v. United States slated to begin Oct. 29 in federal court in Oregon could be a milestone in climate law.
The plaintiffs' case draws in part from the idea of public trust, a centuries-old principle dating to ancient Rome and British common law.
As spelled out in a seminal 1971 paper by University of Michigan law professor Joseph Sax, the public trust doctrine states that natural resources are meant for citizens' benefit, and that the government is responsible for protecting and maintaining them.
But where Sax and prior scholars focused on land and water resources, Juliana is a relatively new application of the doctrine: that air falls in the public trust under the government's purview.
The plaintiffs make their case in a two-pronged attack, arguing that the government's reaction to and fueling of climate change has eroded both rights of theirs protected under the Constitution and the safeguards of the public trust doctrine. The climate, they argue, must be protected for current and future generations.
"The laws that we really turn to in this effort are foundational laws; they're laws that explain why we have government in the first place and what our basic human rights are," Julia Olson, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, said in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club of California in February of 2017.
"And one of those is the public trust doctrine," Olson said. It holds that the government must guard common supplies, like air and water, in perpetuity, she said.
"Those resources need to be protected for everyone's benefit and us," she added.
The plaintiffs — aged 11 to 22 — sued the U.S. government in 2015, accusing it of violations of the public trust and of their inherent rights embedded in the Constitution to live in a safe and stable ecosystem.
They demand a court order saying the government has undermined their rights to a safe climate, as well as a court-mandated national plan to phase out fossil fuels across the United States.
Much of their case boils down to a deluge of climate science. At the upcoming trial, which could last more than 50 days, researchers specializing in climate analysis, environmental law and biology are slated to be witnesses. Many, such as Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and economist, submitted court papers this summer. He warned that the United States is on the brink of irretrievable ecological collapse.
"Based on the best available science, our country is close to approaching that point," he wrote (Climatewire, July 9).
The strategy of using public trust to combat climate change traces back to the mid-2000s.
Mary Wood, a University of Oregon law professor, took up the issue in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, wondering whether the public trust doctrine would be useful in addressing man-made climate change. She was familiar with public trust issues, but not in relation to climate law.
"When I actually read the science that emerged around the time of Katrina, especially the science of Dr. James Hansen, I found it mind-blowing," she said. "I thought, 'There's so little time left before irreversible tipping points, statutory law is never going to work in time.'"
Wood refocused her own studies. She set out to draft a legal plan that would force the government to act swiftly to curb heat-trapping emissions, directly because of its obligation to protect the atmosphere as a shared public resource.
Under the concept of "atmospheric trust," the United States and other governments would be required to act as trustees of the atmosphere, with members of the public as beneficiaries. Bound to prevent major harm to the resource, government officials would use the best available science to define those limits and then work to meet the obligation.
"It was the first time that I think anyone's really brought a litigation approach that would be called macro in scale," she said of climate lawsuits broadly. "All of the litigation approaches up to that time were very, very micro, even the regulation under the Clean Air Act."
Wood published and spoke about her research. Then, in 2010, she met Olson at an environmental law conference in Eugene, Ore.
"She came up and she said, 'I want to take this to the courts,'" Wood said. "Really, the whole litigation strategy on the practical level is really all attributable to her."
A year later, Olson had set to work filing lawsuits and state-level petitions.
'Nothing else remains'
The approach had a bumpy start and drew doubt from judges and some lawyers.
Courts tossed some early lawsuits, in which Olson argued her points at the state level, and some environmentalists dismissed the approach as "Hail Mary pass litigation" (Greenwire, Dec. 19, 2012).
"On one level, it's understandable because environmental law was dominated by statutes for four decades," said Wood, who isn't involved in the litigation but has signed on to amicus briefs with other law professors.
But many of those critics have since become more open-minded.
Wood attributed the lessened skepticism to two factors — that the Juliana case has cleared so many legal hurdles and that the White House no longer has a president purporting to take ambitious action to fight climate change.
"I think the skepticism held a lot more power when there was a president who claimed to do something about climate," she said. "It was much harder to convey the importance of this case during the Obama administration. Now, all pretense of the executive branch pulling us out of our climate crisis has flown out the window."
One former skeptic of the public trust strategy summed up his change of heart in an email to Wood: "Nothing else remains."
Traditional public trust claims have cropped up most often in cases dealing with navigable water and wildlife. But the concept has recently gained traction in other contexts.
In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court relied in part on public trust in 2013 when it found a shale drilling rule trod on a state constitutional requirement that natural resources be protected for the people. The court affirmed the approach last year in another oil and gas case (Energywire, June 2, 2017).
And just two months ago, a state court ruled that California's public trust doctrine applies to groundwater withdrawals that affect larger waterways in the state.
The approach has drawn copycats from overseas, too.
A 9-year-old girl, Ridhima Pandey, sued the Indian government in 2017, accusing it of breaking its obligations to protect the environment for her generation and those to come. Another young girl, Rabab Ali of Pakistan, sued her government, saying it is falling short, too. And nearly 900 Dutch citizens successfully sued the Netherlands in 2015 for more robust goals to cut emissions, though the case is pending appeal (Climatewire, March 22).
In the United States, the Justice Department has fought hard to defeat the public trust argument. First under President Obama, and then even harder under President Trump, DOJ tried several times — unsuccessfully — to get the Juliana lawsuit thrown out of court.
Eric Grant, a DOJ lawyer, described the case to a federal appellate court in December as a nuisance. Appealing to the judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Grant said it was "litigation that is distracting the executive branch from the discharge of its constitutional duties."
But Michael Blumm, a law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, said the arguments in the case should be taken seriously.
"The people who complain that this is an outlandish expansion of the public trust really haven't looked closely at the expansion of the public trust in years," said Blumm, who has written extensively on the concept, including with Wood.
He said the youth plaintiffs can easily argue that climate change has harmed them and that the government must step in to protect land and water resources by protecting atmospheric resources.
"The easiest thing to do is to say that the atmosphere is adversely affecting the water," he said, noting that rising carbon emission levels are tied to extreme flooding and ocean acidification. "There is an undeniable link between carbon in the atmosphere and adverse water resources.
"'Absolutely wacky'?
Legal scholars see parallels between Juliana and previous landmark decisions on constitutional rights, such as Brown v. Board of Education.
In its unanimous 1954 ruling in the case, the Supreme Court found that the segregation of schools based on race violated constitutional protections. Yet desegregation took years to take hold and is still an issue in some U.S. cities.
Juliana, with its ambitious constitutional arguments, could be similarly crucial for the education of the American public to climate change, Blumm said.
"I think that Juliana ought to be thought of in sort of the same way," he said. "It's teaching people," he added. "It might start an educative process."
Blumm continued, "If they win, it's not going to change things overnight; it's just going to induce the government to do stuff."
Brown, he said, is the "predecessor that I hope we'd have in mind."
Richard Frank, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Davis, also drew comparisons to a more recent landmark decision: Obergefell v. Hodges.
Before the Supreme Court justices ruled 5-4 in 2015 that bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, the case had plenty of skeptics. And the same can be said of lawsuits against the tobacco and lead paint industries, before they succeeded, Frank said.
"All of those were thought to be creative or out there or absolutely wacky" by many, Frank said.
In a way, Sax, the public trust scholar, foresaw the climate lawsuit.
"Public concern about environmental quality is beginning to be felt in the courtroom," he wrote in 1971. "Private citizens, no longer willing to accede to the efforts of administrative agencies to protect the public interest, have begun to take the initiative themselves."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/10/05/stories/1060100605

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested